I would keep applying for PhDs. You've got a first in your Bachelors right? So it's probably not the end of the world about your Master's grade.

PhDs are becoming more competitive. What subject area are you?

Yes there's plenty of unemployed with degrees and plenty employed not within science - in fact, the majority.

I've no idea whether they would do pay per piece tasks. I expect most people want a stable job.

You need to go back to your university department and ask, if you mean you started but didn't finish.

Well 1, I don't think there's a requirement for this, or at least not yet. At my uni, we do some other sort of teaching qualification, that gives us FHEA status, which is basically an equivalent of the PGC I think. Whilst it's mandatory for me to do this in my teaching role, it's not mandatory for academics that have been around forever. They can just write up some sort of teaching evidence statement and get the same qualification. But, lots of them don't even do this. They can't get promoted without it, but once they are at professor level, that doesn't matter. Most of the academics in my department are professors or struggling to get promoted for other reasons ie lack of grant income so this is not at the forefront of their mind.

And 2, the qualification we take is a bit of a joke. You just have to sit through a few hours of training and write a few examples of teaching evidence. It doesn't really qualify you for anything. There's hardly background theory (we are supposed to research this for ourselves, but who has time for that? Plus, I'm not trained in social sciences so the literature is a bit of a minefield), no actual training and proper observation/feedback and you can just write any old rubbish and pass. At least that's my take on it. This is not the opinion I express at work of course.

I say this as someone who has worked as a manager prior to starting a PhD, and having undergone what I consider to be proper management training. This is what I draw on when I supervise my undergrad students.

Yes I have had to explain to many international students that they have to read between the lines when our supervisors tell them something. They do not get this indirect approach. It is not something they are used to.

I have also told my supervisors that they need to be more explicit, but obviously they find this difficult. Academics are not trained in management and supervision, so if it doesn't come naturally to them, they struggle with difficult conversations.

What then happens is they bury their heads in the sand hoping that issues work themselves out, which they generally do, at great expense to the mental health of the students.

Supervisors do have a responsibility to check students' work. It's in our postgrad handbook. They are there to guide the research, provide ideas and feedback.

Yeah I agree with pm133.

What, they said they didn't need specifics! :P

They're gonna ask you some questions and you're gonna attempt to answer them.

Yep, I think so. There's some people on here that did their Masters there.

You need to contact the universities involved and ask.

You just need to ask them whether to include them as a referee,. You should always ask your referees first anyway, unless you get their permission to put them down as a reference for whatever you are applying for.

Ok, maybe this varies by institution. Where I work, PhD applications go directly to the supervisor. I know for sure that supervisors will not sit there and write a reference out for the sake of it. So, either no reference is required because the supervisor just goes on his/her opinion, or another independent reference is required. I imagine its the latter because there is still some sort of process to follow when taking on students, even if just to satisfy faculty requirements, so it would be hard to justify taking on a student if there's no reference at all.

If it was the case that students apply to the department for a PhD, then I can see that a supervisor could write a reference for their own student/employee, because it's not them reviewing the initial applications.

I see this as the same thing as if I was applying to a postdoc my PhD supervisor advertised - I wouldn't ask them for a reference, I'd go to someone else. They already know me and know what they think about me, so why would they be the one to write a reference? What would be the point?