I've recently started my PhD so it's probably far to early to worry about this...

I'm continuously reading into my research area. I've found a lot of information and (again probably too early to worry) but I'm not finding any massive gaps in the literature; the openings simply seem to be simple techniques not yet applied. This is my first worry.

However, this worry has meant I've scared myself by finding horror stories of poor people who've received an MPhil for clear contributions to their fields. Therefore my main question is, what qualifies one for an MPhil and not for a PhD? How does one avoid an MPhil and ensure that a PhD is in grasp throughout their studies?

Sorry for my splurge of emotion and thanks in advance for any advance!

Hi, I'm in the first year of my PhD and I'm no expert on this.I'm not sure I can answers your questions directly around the difference between PhD/MPhil as I always thought it came down to a contribution of knowledge, whereas your horror stories appear to suggest otherwise.

However, I have come across a few of people who have either been unable to complete their PhD, got an MPhil or major revisions. It seems to me one thing common to all these cases is that the students did not follow the advice of their supervisors, even when it was strong advice. So that would be my tip.

In addition, to raising the issue on this forum, maybe you could discuss your current concerns with your supervisors. They may be able to reassure you or give you some useful advice.

Hi,

There's no surefire way to avoid an MPhil. Although 'contribution to knowledge' is supposed to be the deciding factor, this is an ultimately subjective decision. What you, your supervisor or other advisors consider PhD standard may be viewed very differently by one or more of your examiners. The system is deeply flawed and students all too often pay the (financial, personal, career) costs of these entrenched shortcomings. I accept that this perhaps isn't what you need/want to hear at an early point in your PhD, but would also say not to worry unduly, and to talk to your supervisor. Do you have an upgrade/mini viva after the first year? This would usually be the time when any problems are flagged.

As Scrabbler has said, this is usually by making a 'contribution to knowledge'. Yes it is subjective and often politics are at play, but you do get a say in who your examiners are. I have recently been deciding on my examiners and I have been very careful to avoid the troublemakers. A 'contribution to knowledge' can be fairly small- as the saying goes, it's a PhD not a noble prize! The only student I know who was offered a choice between R&R and MPhil was done so because their thesis was very short and much key literature was left out. They opted for R&R and passed in the end.

I also know of a candidate who chose to terminate her PhD with an MPhil after two years, as after much thought, she believed she did not want to continue, but did not want her work to go to waste either. This decision was not made lightly, nor did she need to do this. It was a life choice rather than one of necessity. Her supervisors were surprised I think, but ultimately supportive of her reasons. She is very proud of her MPhil and has chosen to travel and then look for professional work in administration where her research skills are considered a significant advantage.