Hi all,

This is regarding a friend who also happens like me to be starting a PhD this year. Now for my University it seems they follow the average route of a 9 to 12 month review before upgrade onto a PhD based upon your current lit review etc.

However my friend who happens to be at a differant university is having it quite differant. It seems they have forced him on to do a full MSc course bar the diss at the end, totalling 7 or so modules over the first 9 or so months.

Now he already has a MSc in his project subject and area, (by Research) and from a better University in my regards (Bristol). Now i have my views which i have expressed to him :), i.e what a waste of time, why are you faffing about doing modules you have generally done or are in areas unconcerned with your project.

Now the University in question (Reading) has the "Our MSc courses are better then your Uni MSc courses" view that i have come across on some interviews where they feel that their MSc students who are now doing PhDs there don't have to do these modules while students from other Uni's do.

His supervisors take the typical lazy view of which i warned him lol of "Just muddle through" this first 9 months then you can begin on the PhD project.

The main problems i have with it are. That one he is going to be assessed i.e exams/coursework on something which bares little to his PhD bar background knowledge of which I have pointed out he isn't an undergrad and can handle his own decisions on what he needs to learn by now. Also some of the modules are math / physics heavy which he will admit isn't his forte and is now stressed and worried he will fail because of it.

Secondly he has been given a studentship for a typical 3 years from the EPSRC for the project, which means that as i'am sure the Uni would love to have another MSc student on the books, he loses out on 9 months of money due to the fact he is having to put his PhD on hold because of it.

Unless they somehow expect him to finish his Lit review in under 3 months.

Has anyone else here had any similar problems? Doing one or two modules over the course of the year is fine, so long as it doesn't take over and your not being assessed. However a full blown MSc of which he won't actually be awarded anything for it goes a bit far in my opinion.

Any suggestions, he is admitably nervous that if he somehow dissents and puts up a fuss they will suddenly and arbitrarily kick him of his PhD project, which i have told him is nonsense.

Regards Wolfe

No one has a view?

Not even one which tells him to get on with it and muddle through :) I'am dissapointed ;)

It's really very strange and surprised! I am also in the first year. Though I have not done Master's in the same subject, I have not been forced to do Masters modules. Rather, I requested my supervisor to link me with some taught master's modules so that I have clarity in the subject matter. He was kind enough to write to the department. I am taking the classes but he had clearly wrote to the department that I should not be put into test. I think something is going wrong there...how can anyone do PhD with full taught modules n tests! O God!

Many universities do this, it often depends on what policies they have but most require students to do research training. This training usually has to be on research council approved masters degrees. I took a masters at my uni, but had to do 4 modules from the 'research council approved' masters to keep them happy, its just one of the rules. I argued myself out of several of the modules because I proved I had enough experience but still had to do an exam and piece of coursework.

If you friend is on an EPSRC grant then he should have applied for a 1+3 PhD rather than just a +3 and he would therefore be paid for the extra training.

I can't imagine the EPSRC would pay for him to do a 3 year course and the University would make your friend do masters modules, so I'm guessing he is on a 1+3. I know NERC have changed now to 'Doctoral Training Grants'. Are they all 1+3? I haven't paid much attention to how they work because it doesn't affect me.

Personally, I think that it would be very useful. It is amazing how quickly your writing style and critical thinking skills develop and mature. I don't know how relevant his previous and current masters are to the PhD, but it can only help. But yes it takes time, and I must admit I did a PhD because I couldn't stand any more exams! But I wish I'd done a masters now.

Remember, that 2 years of masters courses is standard for a lot of international PhD programmes.

And just think how many letters your friend will have after his name...

No it is a University studentship for three years supplied by the EPSRC i believe, not a 1+3 course. I understand and agree how it would be useful for a undergraduate given the jump in level they are expected to go into to, and the reassurance it may give the university to see the student is up to the task. however when you already have a MSc by research on your PhD subject it seems to be just a giant waste of time and money.

Regards Wolfe