If I already hold a PhD, can I apply to embark on another? I've just seen an amazing studentship for a project that is right up my street. It's giving me goosebumps!!

You probably won't be eligible for funding for a second PhD if you received funding for your first one. Is there a chance that you would be able to contact the PI to see if there is a post doc opportunity in the same department?

I've seen this question pop up on here on a number of occasions. If you've had your shot at a PhD, aren't you potentially denying a place to someone attempting a PhD for the first time by doing this especially if it's a funded position?

As well as being unlikely to obtain funding, many potential supervisors will turn down someone already holding a PhD. Also, one PhD is a killer, no matter how rewarding it may have been. Not too many would want to put themselves through that level of stress and pressure again.

I remember a post somewhere about people going back for another go years later and not in the same subject area as their original PhD. Doing something similar to what you've already done would add no value to your original PhD and would cause problems for potential employers as a person with two PhDs would definitely be seen as 'overqualified' especially in the real world.

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

Thanks for the input guys. The studentship is actually in the same department that I studied for my original PhD, but with different supervisors. I have now submitted my thesis and have my viva in April. The deadline for the new PhD application is in March.

The thing is that my data for the first study is lacking in areas, so it could be the case that I am offered an MPhil instead, which would then make me eligible as an applicant. Apologies for not making this clear before. I like Pixie's suggestion of enquiring for a postdoc though if I am successful at viva. Maybe I should wait and see what the outcome is before making a decision.

I am close to the end of my second PhD and loving it. It is in an entirey different subject than the first one, and I am passionate about it. It is not costing me a fortune. There are people with mild to moderate drug habits (cigarettes, amphetamines, alcohol) who spend much more in year on harming and entertaining themselves. Funded or not, study what you think is important to the highest level you possibly can! This is worth saying again. If you really think something is important, study it to the highest level you possibly can! If you only think somthing is halfway important you should have ditched it as an undergrad.

The formulation 'overqualified, especially in the real world' is a very odd thing. Is there an unreal world? In which the underqualified count for more? Where disqualifications like not being able to write properly somehow make one epmpolyable? Sadly, these are not entirely rhetorical questions. There are indeed many jobs for which the capacity for independent thinking makes one a ruinous bad example.....

Forget the job end of the deal. If you want to do a second big romance, and can get away with it , go for it !

PIKDUCK, you are brilliant. I will write to the research team for the new project explaining my circumstances and see what they say. Thanks!

Ultimately the aim of a PhD is to turn you into an independent researcher, capable of developing your own questions and driving your own research. While there may be a case for a second PhD if one was to move into a different subject area, applying for a second one in the same department would probably not lead to success.

If your first PhD is successful then you should be capable of carrying out postdoc level research, or else something has gone wrong in the process. If your first PhD is awarded an MPhil then I would think new supervisors might be unlikely to take you on unless there was a very good reason the first one didn't work out, that was completely out of your hands (e.g. bad supervision).

Either way, far better to talk directly to the supervisors of the new PhD and signal your interest in this area, than go straight down the application route which may lead to a misunderstanding of your position. Other than the topic area, it's not really clear why you would want to undertake this work as another PhD, rather than driving forwards a postdoc collaboration and maybe applying for fellowships/grants to enable this.

I would strongly disagree with TEHEPIKDUCK321's position that you should forget about a job at the end of the day. Unless you happen to come from a wealthy background and/or have no concerns about having to submit lots of applications to employers who may reject you on the grounds of your career path choices, then you should probably have a strong reason for pursuing this as a second PhD.

The reason I could be awarded a lesser degree than the PhD is because I did not receive sufficient tissue samples from the hospital that were promised; something that was obviously out of my control. This means the data is less than convincing in areas, but the examiner will have the final say on this. Everything that I was in control of (experimental design, assay execution, data collection and processing, etc) I am more than happy with, and am certain of its PhD-ness.

The new project is not dependent on sample frequency and could give me a fresh start in a familiar discipline with a more robust research design and revered supervisors. Just saying.

Hi Ginga, sorry about the slight change of topic but I was just wondering if Tehepikduc did his/her second PhD full-time as well as first and were these separate degrees fairly shortly after each other or was there a bit of a gap between finishing one and starting the other.

I know, first hand of one person who was on their third when they interviewed me for some case data in my day job, a semi retired history lecturer who embarked on a second, after retiring from her faculty and another teacher who completed one full-time on a scholarship, went back to teaching for a few years and then retired to complete another in another area.

They were all successful people who were basically using the PhD to follow a dream or support a later life project of interest. I think they applied for scholarships on merit and because the university wanted to fund their projects, they received some funding (wouldn't know how much though). Might have been just for the actual research and not a living stipend as I believe all would have had a separate retirement income.

There are also other people on this forum with a PhD, who are now applying for professional doctorates, which are quite similar in many cases (even though the universities say they are a different beast). So I think you need to think of all of the different aspects before making a decision Ginga.

But it could be that in doing the second one, you are missing out on some vital work related experiences. If you want professional work, not necessarily in academia, a second PhD is not necessarily going to be seen in a positive light-unless it is a psych professional doctorate or something.

Thanks for your post Pjlu. As I said previously, I really need to wait for the outcome of my viva before going forward with any decisions regarding a career in research. I have actually trained and qualified as a Therapy Radiographer whilst waiting for hospital samples during my PhD studies, and have been practicing full time for 2 years (even promoted to an NHS band 6 post!). I used to go into the lab in the evening and at weekends to process the donated tissue when samples became available, which were very intermittent as I said already. My current PhD has been a chopped together as a full time (first 2 years) and part time (4 years including write-up year) affair since early 2007. Fact is, I love the research so much and would love to carry it on post PhD. Like I say, I don't think I can do anything until the external examiner has her say.

Okay, that's a little clearer and I understand your reasons slightly better Ginga. If there are fundamental problems with your first PhD, then I understand your reasons for looking at this second PhD especially if it's in an area you're interested in.

I was in a not too dissimilar situation many moons ago at Masters, where I thought I'd failed a first Masters (ill health in my case - it was a computing conversion course) and thus decided to go straight into a second Masters closer in subject to my undergrad degree. About a month into my second Masters, I learnt that I'd managed to pass my first Masters after all though I believe to this day I shouldn't have.

However, I'd already decided not to pursue a career in my first Masters and as the second Masters had a very significant opportunity at building up real works experience via industrial placement, it was strongly in my interest to continue with it.

If you do manage to obtain the PhD you have submitted for, then look at post-doc opportunities instead and perhaps approach the potential supervisors as handling the project as a post-doc instead of a new PhD subject. Only if you do not gain your first PhD should you look at taking on this new project as a PhD. Funding may still be an issue, however, but if you take on the new project part-time whilst still working as a radiographer then such an approach may allow you to self-fund (though that's still alot of money to find).

That said, you may find yourself pleasently surprised and you gain your PhD from the first project after all. Fingers crossed for you. But even one PhD can put off potential employers, never mind two.

CHANGING SUBJECT SLIGHTLY, Tehepikduc, were your PhDs back-to-back or done separately some time apart (same question as Pjlu)? If the former, I'd find that unusual from a funding point of view.

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

Good luck Ginga, hope you do pass your PhD. Just as a side note-noting how much you would love to continue to research even though you are also working as a professional in the system- today I observed the following:

The theory (from the doctoral study) really gallops past the practice doesn't it? With respect to knowledge and the application of theoretical knowledge. It is a bit frustrating because as a professional, you follow all these protocols based on current best practice yet you might know (really know) that these protocols are ineffective and there is only so much you can do from within the system. You can do some things-but it isn't a lot and you can't just spend your time arguing with people and being antagonistic (sort of like a 'House' or someone).

The knowledge often impacts on your individual practice but it is a lot harder for systemic change...requires a bit of patience. Sometimes, at least with research, you feel like you are being honest and seeking something that goes beyond this...