Hi everyone! Looking for your honest opinions. I am just after finishing up an MSc, I am not looking to do a PhD immediately (I want to take a year or two out, gain some experience and travel a bit- I am only 22), but I do have some worries. Here is my background:

I got an awful undergrad degree result (2H2, 57%- but I did do an excellent thesis), but managed to get into a Masters course I am very passionate about. I finished up the Masters a few months ago and after hard work I came out with a 1H degree. I don't have much lab experience outside my degrees.

1. Does having the 2H2 seriously hinder me despite the 1H in the Masters?

2. Should I focus strictly on jobs which focus in on the area I want to pursue for a PhD (epigenetics/addiction)?

3. When applying for a PhD in the future, should I apply for multiple ones in other colleges too in case I don't get in? The funding for PhD's in the university I was in runs on a points basis in terms of:
Personal Research Statement (max. 50 points)
Academic Qualifications (max. 30 points)
Referees’ reports (max. 10 points)
Prior Research Experience (max. 10 points)

4. Would you consider the supervisor or the university more important?
The university I would be applying to isn't very well known, but the department I was in is known for neuroscience & my potential supervisor is excellent (we got on very well, he was willing to meet up and discuss any issues, encouraged new ideas and gave constructive and polite criticism. He organised journal club for the MSc students he was supervising when other supervisors didn't bother doing this) and genuinely was interested in us- he even offered me contacts for jobs when travelling) Am I better off applying to the uni I know well or go somewhere with a bigger reputation?

Sorry for the length of this & thanks for any replies :)

1. I'm not sure, though it'll be considered. I think considering you did a masters you might have a good chance to get into a PhD program, the averages are more so about whether or not you'll get funding. Funding can be very competitive (it really all depends on the University on how it handles it). Here in Australia when I applied for funding, you needed an H1 average of 90 or above to be really competitive. I graduated my undergrad with a 92% average, but only just got funding despite having heaps of RA experience, a publication and not-for-profit research experience alongside strong recommendation letters. I received a faculty tuition, which meant I had to keep applying for the graduate school one each round as a condition. I was also an international student which it made it more competitive than perhaps at a local level.

2. Doing a PhD to get a better job is not the way to go, and many PhDs on this forum and others really struggled to get work in industry upon completion. If you are going to go the job route, the best PhD would be no PhD (lol) or, going the academia route. It's hard to tailor a PhD to a job as the market always changes, and unless you do a PhD in something like cancer research, there's no guarantee that there will be demand for your subject expertise. A PhD really means you become a subject expert in a particular area, and if you do go into Industry, you'll have to learn how to market your skills effectively.

Do a PhD if you want to do the PhD for the experience, not because it *might* get you a better job in the end. Do something that interests you (others will tell you different) because you'll be researching that for 3+ years. It doesn't matter if it's not applicable in Industry, that isn't the point of a PhD.

3. Apply to multiple schools. While you'll have a first choice, sometimes your second or third actually end up being the best option. I didn't go to my first choice school, but my experience has been really great in terms of supervisor support and getting teaching experience. The best schools with the top-notch scholars are not always the right places to do a PhD, which leads me into number four...

4. Your supervisor(s) (in my experience) will always be 100X more important than the university, and it's probably better to choose a supervisor whose not directly related to your study, is not a superstar but has a decent publication record, and has successfully helped a good number of PhDs. Some universities will list past and current students being supervised, so you could get in touch with past ones (networking!) to get an idea about how their experience went. Linkedin is a good way to do this.

You could go to a top uni with a superstar supervisor, but if you have a bad supervisor, your experience will be hell. There are plenty of students here who have had awful supervisor(s)/horror stories to tell. Superstar scholars are often not able to commit fully to supervision, having so many other things to do and I would try to avoid getting a PhD under them. Rather, collaborate with them on something once completed.

My supervisors are not directly related to my research on masculinity in Australia, one was religion/men's studies, the other in sexuality studies, but both were amazing in critiquing my work and getting me ready to submit.

Hope that helps! :)

My opinion is just do what you want!