Be prepared to swing from one position to another on this as the months go by. You might well feel better about it when you start putting the story together. At that point you really start to nail down the bigger picture. Also, dont underplay the learning experience of successfully dealing with a terrible situation and difficult people. That is one very common interview question should should now be able to deal with.

I was surprised by that too - but I think ToL was just referring to imposter syndrome.

I agree - what is the point if a certain level of academic attainment wasn't achieved? That is exactly why I am spinning around in this dilemma :-/

Thanks so much. The good thing is - I have a some time to make my decision. And absolutely - I listed in a Word doc the other day the things I HAVE learnt from my PhD as I see it...!

By the way, I'm really proud to have started a 4-page thread! :-D And really grateful for all contributions. I hope people in the future will be able to see this thread when searching for "MPhil" on this forum or on Google. I am beginning to think that MPhils might be a little unfairly stigmatized. Hopefully, what I've shared here ( a) about me considering one at a late stage of my PhD, b) about my PGR tutor understanding my perspective and sharing with me about how he has been on PhD panels where people with MPhils were awarded PhD funding, and c) an example of a person who self downgraded to MPhil and then went on to start a new PhD successfully...) will open up the general debate / consensus a little on that front. That is, there may be something to an MPhil as a way forward - not just as a red flag for PhD-quitter. I'm getting a sense that it's just not spoken about favourably (or at all) as it isn't encouraged / desirable. But it isn't NECESSARILY the worst choice one could make in a given situation or the be all and end all. More on that front as I learn more about it and come to my own decision.

Have a great weekend everyone.

I am completely with you on that. It's the reason why I argue so strongly about who should be allowed to undertake one in the first place and also about who writes up papers, whether people should graduate without papers, who contributes to ideas etc.
It is my opinion that nobody should be "faking it" on any level but I am aware that many people are awarded PhD who should really not be getting one at all and this, again in my opinion, completely undermines the award. With dumbing down of exams at school and in university itself, the PhD is the last bastion of academic integrity. If we are now starting to allow pretty much anyone to undertake one (and we are allowing those with 2:2's to take them) and we are handing them to people with either no papers or those who have not even written their own papers (and I have seen a ton of evidence of both) then there is a serious problem of eroding credibility. Those of us who value the system should be deeply concerned.

Maybe there needs to be an honest conversation regarding what people believe a PhD should be for.

I completely agree with this, but I think the focus shouldn't just be on grades/degree classification. I had a very mediocre academic background prior to starting my PhD, but I had plenty of experience in the world that I am looking at and I have a strong passion for learning more about it. That, for me, is the whole point of my PhD, and it feels like I am doing something that is meaningful. I share your need for the journey more than the end result - I have spent most of my twenties looking for a job that provides me with a meaningful way to live, and I found it really hard to work when I didn't feel that meaning. I feel like I am in the right place, and I don't see that passion in all of my colleagues. For some their days just seem to be like a 'day job' and I keep thinking 'why are you even doing this?'.

Yes I agree that a PhD is an academic pinnacle and should be regarded as such, and there does need to be stringent admission procedures in place. I would just argue that this shouldn't be entirely based on prior academic achievement, as if someone fully immerses him or herself in a PhD it is a lot more than that - it's about communication, generating new ideas and looking at whether the ideas we do have are really as valid as we think they are.

Anyway, just another two cents. I've been following this thread with interest :)

Just for clarification, I think I did my PhD the right way. I threw myself into it and gave it everything I had. I didn't just write up my thesis as quickly as I could, I read widely and deeply, like a proper scholar should, and that's why it took me a whole year to write up working 60-70 hour weeks.. I could have done it a lot quicker if I was just churning out results with a superficial intro and discussion (like many people do). I published 3 papers from my PhD, plus a popular science article (all written completely myself, just reviewed by my supervisors). And one of those papers just won paper of the year from the journal it was published in.

I'm interested in learning for learning's sake. I wanted the Dr title, but it would be meaningless to me if I didn't feel like I had earned it.

My point about faking it, is about impostor syndrome, but also about being realistic. Do I think I'm as knowledge as my former PhD supervisors? No. Do my students think I am? Yes. So I have to fake it to some extent. Also, many senior academics are so arrogant (and many technicians are very condescending), so I often feel like people are trying to catch me out, show up my gaps in knowledge if you like. Academia is a dog eat dog world and showing weakness is not advantageous.

This sounds awesome. Exactly the kind of experience I wanted. Maybe imagine if you had the opposite experience because of external factors (let's admit - things can go wrong in supervision/project - a mismatch in either of those things can be disastrous). But you're still the same person... you still have all that in you and are longing to keep developing in your potential... but your PhD has not afforded it for you. Even though that was your purpose for embarking on it. You know it isn't imposter sydrome. You know it isn't your effort or abilities. You know it was a bad PhD experience.

Would you still recommend just submit the thesis anyway since it should pass (on the basis of its content - not on the basis of that person's learning and development through the whole process)? Or would you consider recommending the MPhil is a viable option here... if that person can manage to secure funding elsewhere for another PhD?

I think the penny may be dropping (for me)... maybe despite all I've shared on here about not having developed blah blah... maybe my thesis shows that I can conduct a research project over the course of 3 years and write it up successfully (not the most exciting results but still)... and maybe that warrants the PhD. And maybe although I haven't developed as much as I'd liked, that is just unfortunate. And my best course of action is to just see the thing through anyway and aim for the development I crave in a future role.

Is that what everyone has been trying to tell me??? :o

I see these two points as addressing different things. I definitely agree that the focus should not be on grades etc - although it does become difficult - as that is one way of narrowing down applicants in competitive situations such as trying to get PhD funding. I think it is great that people are able to go to university through non-traditional routes and then show what they are made of. That is progress.

Regarding honest conversations about what people believe a PhD should be for... although I feel strongly about what I want from my PhD, I am not sure that there needs to be any consensus on this. Some people do PhDs for a personal intellectual achievement, others to get a specific job, some to become a researcher, others because they are bored and think it will keep them occupied for a few more years... I think all of those reasons are fine - it's up to the individual.

Where I do think an honest conversation could come very in handy is with potential supervisors when applying to do a PhD. Because then it should (I stress the word should...) come out in the conversation whether they think that particular PhD (and frankly their own experience in supervision and academic know-how) is going to be able to offer what that individual wants from it.


Me too! :-) That is why I am so determined to continue in my research area - through whatever means and at whatever level.

This is absolutely what most of us tell you.

TQ, when I say a conversation is needed about the purpose of a PhD, I was talking more generally from society's point of view rather than the student's perspective (which as you say will differ from person to person).

As a society, with limited funding available to hand out to people, what do we want a PhD to be for? Why bother with them at all? Should it be about creating an intellectual elite to solve the most pressing problems facing society? Or is it something else? It is obvious what we get from it as students. What should society expect in return for that investment?

Your sentence about the entire thing feeling meaningless unless you felt you had earned it is exactly where I am coming from as well. My understanding is that this is the precise dilemma TQ is facing.

Secondly, your second paragraph sounds horrendous. I could never work amongst such people. By the way, as regards you talking about a gap between how knowledgable you are compared to how knowledgable your students THINK you are, I would say the following. When I started delivering tutorials I felt a huge pressure to hide that gap as well until I realised that I was not there to prove myself to the students. I had my first class degree and I was well on the way to a PhD. My gaps came from not scoring 100% but everyone is in that boat. I stopped worrying about trying to hide any gaps and it became much less stressful. Students dont lose respect for a tutor with gaps in their knowledge. They lose respect for a tutor trying to bullshit their way through it using time honoured nonsense like asking the students to research it for the following week. Being afraid to be found out as less than 100% perfect is a great way to end up hating your job and burning out. Not a great way to build a career.

Yes, you have done the work, get the reward. A PhD is only part of your life, go live the rest of it.

Ah OK, that makes sense. Hadn't thought of that!

You're right, it's not nice to work in that environment, but thankfully it's not all people and it's not all the time as I learn to avoid those that do it.

You're right about the bullshitting thing too. I don't do that. Gaps in knowledge are fine, but at the same time, there's a certain level of knowledge students expect, so if I say 'I don't know' right off the bat, then obviously they are going to get the impression that I don't know anything, rather than I don't know that particular thing. I get this feedback from them about PhD students a lot. "We don't want our work marked by PhD students because they don't have a clue what they are talking about when we ask them questions in practicals". I overcome this myself by trying to appear knowledgeable in lectures, and setting work in tutorials that I am very familiar with.