Hi,

So the title is pretty self explanatory I suppose - basically I am a year and a bit into my PhD and whilst my research is generally going quite well, I have begun to notice that my supervisor seems to be losing interest in the project. In particular he seems to be holding our meetings to shorter times, taking significantly longer to read through reports or results that I give him, often forgets points from our previous discussions and also seems to be less forthcoming with new ideas or thoughts.

Now, don't get me wrong; he's a busy man and as my research progresses it seems reasonable that I'd be expected to require less intensive supervision. However, I share my PhD office with other students from the research group, a couple of whom also have him as a supervisor or co-supervisor and are further on in their projects, and I've noticed he is much more enthusiastic about their work. As examples: I've sent work to him before others and he'll reply to them first, he'll sometimes come into the office ad-hoc and chat to them about an idea he's had (which hasn't happened with my work in a while) and generally he seems to be far more active in directing their research.

Is this normal? Given that my work is going fairly well for now is this something I should be worried about? I think the problem stems from the fact that my research has ended up going down a path he is less familiar with than the other projects... But I guess I would expect him to give my work the same attention...

Hi Elmo. I have much the same suspicion as you regarding the number and quality of applicants to studentships this year being high due to the situation in the job market (although maybe that's just me attempting to justify my mixed success). In one of my interviews I had the chance to meet and chat with some current PhD students in the department aswell as some of the other applicants I was competing against - without being too harsh, the applicants this year came from top institutions, had publications under their belt and various other relevent experience which many of the already attending students did not.

Wow, thanks cobweb - that's very kind advice. After the initial disappointment I am now feeling much better (it was the cake that done it). I think your advice of making a pro-con list is pretty sound and something I am going to try and sit down and do this evening.

Man, I didn't get it. Rubbish. Thing is I now don't even know if I want the other ones. I feel deflated.

======= Date Modified 19 Jan 2011 12:13:17 =======
So I've just had my 3rd PhD interview of the past few months, I have offers from the other two, but this is the one I really want, the flipside is that it is also the most competitive *sigh*. Sufficed to say the interview was pretty brutal - it started off with the usual fare of 'why do you want to do a PhD?', 'why here?' and some standard academic questions around my MSc project and how it might be extended, followed by a series of brutal not-in-my-primary-discipline academic questions that included leading and trick questions that I feel for hook, line and sinker in about 50% of cases. The other candidates were also intimidiatingly well placed from what I could glean of their backgrounds.

Therefore I am now in post interview purgatory, awaiting the conclusion with bated breath and pointlessly beating myself up about some of my poorer answers. I just wanted to start this thread of shared suffering to see if anyone else was in the same position?

I realise I'm coming to this thread a bit late, but I'm imagining that the job roles variable cannot be continuous or even assumed to have a latent continuous trait. It sounds nominal, infact both sets do. Therefore you can/should test for the existence of association using a chi-squared test and the strength of association should be given by something like Goodman-Kruskal lambda (which is probably the easiest to interpret nominal association measure for non- 2x2 contingency tables).

Hi, I have recently completed a taught MSc in applied mathematics and am looking to go on to do a PhD in the field of mathematical biology. There seem to be a number of opportunities in this field including the many 1+3 systems biology DTCs around the country, overall though I would rather stay within a mathematics department with a more maths-centric project. That being the case I am not sure what I should be aiming for - for instance I have seen some incredibly interesting, promising and well funded projects (often with links to industry) within relatively small mathematics departments that aren't highly placed in the RAE rankings and seem to have newer maths bio groups. On the other hand there are some very well established mathematical biology groups out there in larger departments that have much more competitive and lower funding, with often more modest seeming project proposals. Which approach will give me the better prospects?

Additionally, in terms of post-PhD prospects what makes the most difference - the publications you've produced, the research quality/RAE of your group, the reputation of your supervisor or is something else the most important factor?

Thanks for that, Janey . Also, thanks for the kind words about the good academic base - I do feel pretty positive about what I have to offer a PhD position; it's just that, as you say, imperial funding will be tough. I kind of feel that compared to the standard they must see all the time I'd be a mediocre applicant, where as elsewhere I might be seen as a good applicant who is deserving of a good supervisor and good funding... hopefully.

I've got time to think about all this anyway, and seeing as I now know it's not too rude or unheard of to spread your eggs when it comes to PhD applications I guess I can just try a few places, including IC, and see what I get back.

Hi,

So I am a fair way off of actually applying for a PhD (I'll probably be in some 2009 admission at the earliest), but regardless I am intrigued as to how difficult I am going to find it to get funding. The PhD I choose will almost certainly be within the realms of applied mathematics and possibly, more specifically, within the field of fluid dynamics. By the time of my admission I will have a high 2:1 in mathematics (and an awesome looking first on an extremely relevent dissertation), a year of employment as a research assistant in a relevant industry (with good references), and an MSc in applied mathematics from imperial college, finally I am also a UK/home student. In an ideal world imperial will offer me a funded PhD, but, from the vague feelings I am getting from this funding milarky, competition will be stiff. How difficult is it really? Am I being scared unnecessarily or should a set my targets at a department/university where I am likely to have slighty less extreme competition? Is it typical or even reasonable for a PhD applicant to have an 'insurance' application elsewhere?

Cheers for any help you can provide!

Hey VeryPoor, I have previously looked into CDLs, but as I stated above my concern with them is that if I do choose to do a PhD then it would be impossible with the repayments hanging over me.

-The full time study - part time work option, if even feasible, has all the benefits of the part time study option but without the weird taking 2 years stigma thing, but perhaps with the addition of clinical exhaustion.
- Deferral is the last option; the main benefits are getting to do the course in 1 year, being financially independent and maybe even getting some reasonable work experience to put on my CV. The major drawback is that I expect I would probably fritter away most of the money I earned and not save anywhere near enough to complete the MSc.

So, basically I am appealing for your opinions, anecdotes and experiential wisdom to guide me to some kind of decision as to which route to take. My only other concern is that I have already signed up to and accepted (though not registered on) the full time course that starts this September; do you reckon there is likely to be many problems if I do decide I want to defer or switch to the part time course?

(Fin. )

-In the case of loans, its strength is that (at least temporarily) I can forget my money worries, but in the long term I think I would quite like to do a PhD. Having loan repayments hanging over head from my MSc would cripple my attempts to do a PhD, right?
-As for part time course – part time work, I have no idea what my course contact hours would be (something I need to talk to the department about, perhaps), or how easy it would be to work enough hours to cover a life in London, also I’d much rather finish the course in 1 year and move on to the next stage of education. I don’t know why this is; I think bizarrely I associate taking twice as long as normal to being a remedial student (a strange, irrational and entirely redundant prejudice, but nevertheless it is there). On the plus side I would be financial independent and not feel like I am owned by some alien financier.

(see hopefully the last post)

Hello everyone, I’m starting an MSc in applied mathematics at Imperial College this September. I was also offered a place at UCL and a place on a funded Statistics course. However, Imperial’s course is the one I want to do for a number of reasons; primarily because it is focused like a laser beam on the subject material I love, and the course seems extremely challenging which will hopefully force me to improve considerably as a mathematician.

However, after doing my sums (no irony intended) I don’t think I can afford to go through with the full time course in my current financial situation. So my options seem to be (unless anyone else knows of a better option) loans, going part time and taking up a job with enough hours to subsidise my existence, doing enough part time work whilst on the full time course and thereby working myself to death, or deferring for a year and trying to earn enough cash to do the course in one sitting in a years time. Each option has something to redeem it and a flaw:

(see next post)