I know several lab-based PhD students who have had kids during their PhD. Honestly? I don't think they knew what they were letting themselves in for. Their kids suffered from their absence and their PhD suffered (according to them).

But, at the end of the day, you're 33 so can't afford to wait too long, so I guess your options are more restricted. It's possible, so if I were you I would give both a go, maybe wait a year or two to start trying so you will have done most of the work by the time baby arrives.

My experience of English unis is that pretty much everyone graduates with honours because all it means is you passed every module and got the required credits.

No idea. I would guess developing countries.

Yep, you can back out any time.

Hi, these are becoming increasingly common in the UK due to the increases in student numbers recently and things like the TEF. They are relatively new to my biology department, hence I've been able to get one. I have a feeling they will be more competitive as time goes on. They are less secure than going the traditional lectureship route though, since many of the roles are fixed-term contracts only, although there's a few people in my team on open-ended contracts now. Basically, you are easier to cut loose than someone on a lectureship as you cost money, but don't bring in money. If student numbers fall, or there's no money for you, then it's goodbye. Also bear in mind chances of progression in the future. My role is currently non-progressable, so it's great now but may not be so great in 5 years time. I'm hoping this will change though so there's a clearer progression route like lecturer to senior lecturer etc.

Look out for jobs advertised like "teaching assistant", "teaching associate", "senior teaching associate", "teaching fellow" etc on jobs.ac.uk. Get as much teaching experience as you can now (demonstrating, lecturing, tutorials etc) because you will probably be chucked in the deep end and told to create new lecture units or field course from scratch, like I have been.

In the US I think these positions are common in the more teaching focused liberal arts places but I don't think they pay that well compared to lectureships at research intensive unis.

Yes a good 4th year mark will of course be of benefit for those reasons, but there's the issue of consistency. Any perspective supervisor will wonder why you didn't do as well in other years. More consistent candidates might have the edge over you.

Getting your MSci supervisor to like you will be a massive benefit. Supervisors won't sell you in a reference or to their colleagues if they didn't think you were a good student for them.

And a low 2.1 really isn't a problem anyway to be honest, like I said, most PhD students I know got a 2.1. But this is Biology at a Russell Group uni, might be different elsewhere.

I agree, having looked at trends in student grades year on year at my uni, most students get the same sort of percentage throughout their years ie if they are getting 65% in year 2, they will get 65% in year 3. It's not common to see large grade increases.

It's pretty easy to get on to a PhD. Depending on field, there can be very few applicants so competition isn't always high. I know many people doing PhDs without 1st or masters as well. Also, grades aren't the be all and end all. Life skills are all important for doing a PhD successfully: resilience, perseverance, a thick skin, managing your project and your supervisor, time management, getting good data to publish etc etc

There's no usual time for PhD applications. That's just crap people say. They can start time of year, but most start in Sept/Oct. Many are advertised March/April time as well. You can apply before you get your result or after. You may as well try and see what happens. It will give you time to hone your application and interview skills if nothing else.

I think it's your predicted grades they will be looking at - not your third year grade. And bear in mind how your referee is going to calculate your predicted grade - they will look at your past grades.

It's your overall grade that will count in the end - people won't care much if you get a first in your MSci year but still a 2.1 overall. That's still a 2.1 overall.

Yeah... you will probably end up rewriting it for your thesis.

I wrote a literature review in my first year, which was basically my thesis introduction, but I ended up rewriting it from scratch in my 4th year. I think this is quite normal, or at least it is if you do it properly. What I knew in my 4th year was vastly superior to my knowledge in my second year. I know people that used their first year one as their thesis intro and in my opinion it wasn't thorough enough, They still passed their PhD though. It doesn't really make any difference to be honest. I just rewrote it because I knew I could do better and I wanted to make sure it was 100% up to date. I added some papers in post viva as well because they were new out and I wanted to acknowledge them. I did this purely for me though.

I would leave yours now and work on something else. You can update it later.

Supervisors or tutors are either paid an hourly rate or on a salary. It won't make any difference to them whether you are paying fees or not - they will get paid the same either way.

I don't really know about those specific countries or social sciences, but I think most people want to stick in their own city/country if given the chance, at least when they get to a certain stage in life. People need stability. It is often very difficult to find positions close by or even in the same country though and I think that's one of the key reasons people leave academia. Basically, I'm saying it's the same as in the US. If you want a permanent lecturer job by 5-10 years post PhD, you better be prepared to have moved to get it, or be prepared to accept something that isn't your ideal.

Personally, I'm not inclined to leave the UK. Actually, I'm not inclined to leave my home city. Luckily I have an academic job for now.