I have two possible options for a PhD (funding dependent of course, although it looks likely both will have funding one way or another). The problem is, one project would be really interesting and suited to my background, but with a really awful supervisor. Awful in the sense that even now before I start I have communication issues, e.g. he doesn't actually listen to anything I say, so that I can tell him something and a week later he'll ask me the same question again. I think the best way I could describe him would be "space cadet". The other project isn't in an area that I have much experience in (but I could easily adapt to), but isn't particularly interesting to me. But the supervisor is absolutely spot on, no nonsense, really clued in, and a lovely bloke.

I will be leaving a secure (albeit rubbish!!) job to do this PhD. I don't want to get 4 years down the line and fail, obviously, but it's even more pressing given that I've two kids and a mortgage and it would be a 4 year fruitless foray into research if it doesn't work out. On the plus side, my low pay means that with a stipend I'd be marginally better off. (up)

I am really at a bit of a loss as to what to do and what is going to be more important at the end of the day. I was hoping those of you in and doing it might be able to offer some advice!

Hmmm, not really sure what to advise as I think that you can sometimes feel left out on a limb if supervisors don't respond to emails/get in touch etc, but from my point of view I would choose the subject I felt most motivated, confident and enthusiastic about as it is ultimately you that will spend 3 or 4 years studying and writing it up. Is there any way you could perhaps get a second supervisor to help balance out the lacks in your main supervisor's approach? I have two and this works well as one is a lot more down to earth and the other is very good at giving academic and research advice - so if I need a bit of mollycoddling I go to one, but if I need some perceptive and 'blunt' feedback I go to the other.

Heh, this is part of my problem, because I was thinking exactly along those lines - if there's other supervisors at least I'd have an option. However, trying to extract this information has proved impossible, so at the moment I don't know. I *assume* that there will be (it's a big project) but if there are, they will not be based at the University - in fact they'll be hundreds of miles away. Which is ok for email, but I'll be stuck with the other guy for face to face contact.

How much flexibility do you have in terms of the direction of the project? i.e. if you choose the second one, would you be able to push it more towards areas that interest you? If not, then 3-4 years is a long, long time to spend on something you're not really interested in, I imagine I would find it pretty hard to stay motivated.

I guess it depends a bit on how you expect to work, if you're going to be very independent anyway, then the supervisor relationship is less important, but if you're going to have to work very closely with him or the project will require a lot of his input, then I can see it could be a problem...

I agree with Ephiny - find out how much you could steer it into your own direction if you come across something particularly interesting. The original topic of my PhD and what I ended up with deviated quite a bit as I found a direction I was really, really interested in and my supervisors agreed it would be intellectually interesting. But I was very lucky indeed that I was able to do so, I know some PhDs aren't quite as flexible. Do you feel able to approach the nice supervisor to discuss it?

Hey! I don't envy you having to make that sort of decision, but one thing I would say is absolutely don't take on a subject that doesn't interest you! It's a long, hard 3-4 years, and the one thing you will need to keep you going is enthusiasm and passion for your subject. Not only that, but there is the risk that you will then be limited to that sort of topic for your career, depending on how specific it is and what sort of skills you have learnt (and whether they are transferable to a different topic that you like more). I absolutely love my topic and that keeps me going when things get tough, as they inevitably do now and again. Obviously, it isn't ideal to have a rubbish supervisor either. My supervisor is generally really good (although we have had the odd disagreement and she can be extremely demanding!) and I often realise how good she is when I read other people's horror stories on here. So a good supervisor is really important too. I suppose it might not be wise to judge them just off your experiences so far- sometimes with academics it seems to be out of sight out of mind, but when you are there working under their nose, they can treat you quite differently. One of my pals struggled to get on with my supervisor through the application process and felt as though she wasn't treated terribly well, yet now she's on the team there are no issues at all and they get on really well. Is there any way you could get to know the dodgy one a little better before you make your decision? Best, KB