Yes, use the writing to drive the reading. Regarding differences between text books and current trends, I guess I used an undergrad text book to give me an overview of the subject area, but didn't include any of that information really, because I took that to be assumed knowledge when writing my lit review. You definitely need to give context, but you can do this from papers.

Like Chickpea says, it's a good idea to find the key papers in your field as well. These should be relatively easy to find because most papers you read will cite them. Or if you know what you are looking for, then you can use key terms to search for them. In my case, I only knew the name of the species I was going to be working on, I didn't know at the time what areas would be important, so I just started collecting papers and writing as I went along and then added more papers and refined the writing.

So, your lit review needs to be extensive; I take this to mean comprehensive in terms of scope and depth, but with emphasis on your particular research area, which I think is what most lit reviews turn out to be eventually.

Stop reading and start writing. Then read to fill in the gaps. At least, that's how I wrote my PhD thesis. I knew enough to know what I needed to cover in the chapters, then I just found relevant papers on the topic I wanted to write about.

If you have written something, you will feel like you have done something. If all you have is a reading list, it's quite daunting.

I tend not to read daily even now - I collect papers and read them quickly when I have a few hours to spare. I don't try to digest all the content because most isn't directly relevant to what I'm researching currently and I will forget the detail in a few weeks anyway.

What type of jobs are you applying for Wallace? How many have you applied for? Like AOE26 said, it's a numbers game - you just have to keep on applying.

I spent 6 months of this year looking for a job after my PhD - I applied for around 20, got about 5-6 interviews, and got two job offers. That sounds good when I write it like that, but it took me about 3 months to get my first interview, probably because I was getting better at writing the applications as I went along. Getting rejected all the time is really, really hard - but you will get something eventually. Just keep applying. I wish you all the best.

That's all great in an ideal situation and if you're luckily enough to be in a position to choose between different PhD projects initially. Not everyone is.

Plus sometimes it's not the student but the supervisor who insists on seeing things again and again. Sometimes the work is completely fine, but supervisors insist on checking revisions.

And with regard to undergraduate stuff, that's great in an ideal situation, but what if you're approaching a PhD following a break from education or changing subject area? You can't relearn three years worth of work over a summer, plus half of it won't be relevant anyway and I don't think any supervisors expect a student to know their u/g stuff backwards - supervisors don't know it all anyway, particularly when it's not in their subject area.

1. Supervisors have their opinions and the examiners have theirs and they don't always coincidence. It doesn't necessarily mean one is right and one is wrong either - they are just different opinions.

2. Equally, how can he disagree when he is not the subject expert?

3. Technically, it's out of your supervisors' hands now - your corrections are between you and your examiners.

4. I'm not sure unbiased advice exists in universities - it's a small community so there is always some conflict of interest somewhere.

Just do the corrections as asked and you will pass.

Moon1 your English isn't perfect but it's good enough. I don't think anyone expects a non-native speaker to write or speak like a native speaker.

It happens quite frequently that people in the same lab are given the same project - supervisors just want results and they don't care who gets them. And yes, I'm sure you were taken on in part because you came with a lot of funding - this enables British students to then be employed at a lower cost to the lab. It's not right but that's the way it is sometimes.

Hi Nesrine,

I know what you mean by those type of comments! There's lots of people in my department that say things like that to me, or they talk to each other about things that I have no knowledge of, and I just end up feeling inadequate and like I don't belong there...

I just formed a small social circle with other people that I felt I had more in common with, and just socialised with the others occasionally. Enough to be on good terms with them at work, but not so much that I would hang out on weekends. I think people naturally form smaller groups so I think it's fine for you to do that with some of the group and not others. I would chat to some others in the group and see what they think.

I've never heard of anyone doing it, hence my answer.

It's not a good idea to get off on the wrong foot with your supervisors, since they have the power to help make or break your future career, and they may not care if you query the stipend, but on the other hand they might. Why would they pay you more when they could pay someone else less? Why give the PhD to the student who queries the money and risk that they query future lab budgets and conference funding?

Yes, it's possible. I know one student who did it, and a few who submitted within 3.5 years.

You probably could negotiate it but are you sure you would want to risk alienating your supervisors at this early stage?

I've looked for this before too and found similar things to what you said. I've not seen official data on this, but I guess it must be out there somewhere.

I'm not sure about in Europe, but in UK the best website to use for postdocs is jobs.ac.uk

Yep, the grass isn't greener elsewhere. You're lucky to be fully funded and have a supportive supervisor. If you want extra money for conferences or workshops, apply for funding from relevant scientific societies - this will look good on your CV too.