======= Date Modified 05 18 2010 11:18:45 =======
I am applying for PhDs in environmental-related sciences. There are no end of topics that interest me, and when I dig into such topics I get concerned that I don't know enough to even be considered a viable candidate.

How much is a prospective student expected to know about the field of research before one begins the programme? For example, will I need to know about computer modelling, or complex energy equations, and all of that before I begin, or are students expected to pick that up along the way?

This boils down to my not being sure of the expectations schools have of prospective candidates. I think that I am smart enough (scored a distinction on my MSc while working full time), so how do I impress upon prospective grad schools that I have the brains, the intellectual curiosity and tenacity to go the course when I don't know the level of detail many of the studentship programmes appear to require.

Any thoughts?

Thanks

Hmm, afraid that's a bit of a "how long is a piece of string" question, wolfbane.
With a decent undergrad and a distinction in your MSc you've already gone a good way to proving your bright and competent. When applying for a specific studentship you'll need to have read up a little on the general field, the team your applying to, and have some specific ideas about why you're interested and how you'd approach the topic. But you won't be expected to have in depth knowledge because, after all, you undertake a phd in order to get that.

Hmm nobody seems to have replied yet and I'm definitely not the best person to ask but I'll give you my 2 cents.

I'm, in a related field to you and began my PhD about 10 months ago straight after my undergrad. I applied for an advertised position on a topic on which little work has yet been done. In my case, I stayed in the same school where I undertook my undergrad so it was a relatively painless procedure as the graduate school were already satisfied with the quality of my degree. The only thing my supervisors quizzed me on was my motivation for undertaking a PhD and my enthusiasm. Now, I always knew that I wanted to go into "something environmental" and that I wanted to be a scientist (I'm talking as a kid here) so the enthusiasm for the area in general was there but definitely not the specifics. I looked into the area briefly for a week or so before the interview as it happened on very short notice and I had a couple of ideas to just throw out there at the interview but I definitely didn't go into detail as I hadn't had the opportunity to study the field closely and that was understood.

Are you applying for advertised positions Wolfbane? Or are you intending to put together your own proposal? I think it might be prudent to take some time to figure out what area you are most interested in/ will be most useful after completion / you can get funded in? I mean figure out your motivation and start to narrow down your topic a little. By all means apply for positions you are interested in - the practice will help. You obviously have the intellectual ability to be considered for a PhD so I think your potential supervisor may be interested in your drive and motivation so pick a topic you think you can stick with for 3-4 years. It's not easy to know that at the beginning but at least consider it.

i'm sure somebody more experienced will be along in a while to give you a better response. Best of luck (up)

Sorry Teek - it took me forever to write that so nobody had posted when I started but you had by the time I posted :$

Hey there! It depends which way you go about it- if you write your own proposal and then look for funding then you will have to do quite a bit of research in order to write the proposal. If your proposal is going to attract funding then it will need to be well-thought out and planned, and of course based on previous research, so would have to do a fairly thorough review of the literature. If you apply for advertised PhDs then less so. I would think that they will expect you to have read around the topic, have a few ideas about how you might proceed with the topic (although some advertised PhDs already have a detailed protocol anyway), and have some of the basic relevant skills in place, but also the potential to learn any necessary new skills. They won't expect you to be an expert already, but will look for enthusiasm and potential to undertake the project to a high standard. Good luck with it! KB

Thanks all for your responses - they are quite encouraging, which is also very helpful in itself.

I have come up with two proposals that I drew from research priorities in the sub-field of interest (hydrology) and which I will be submitting once I have finished proof-reading, etc. and so far have applied for one advertised studentship which really interests me. I keep going through the studentships that are advertised and it is partly because of that that I was beginning to feel rather apprehensive about how much a student was already expected to know about the field. For example, many environmental and energy related programmes stipulate computer modelling and advanced statistics. So I am now trying to teach myself the basics of environmental modelling using computing (NetLogo and a language), but unless there are some courses at the Uni I can take to enhance my beginner skills, it would seem foolish for me to apply for programmes which require modelling because I don't have those skills yet. But, the "yet" is important here, I guess, because as teek noted - this is why one does a PhD in the first place: to advance skills & knowledge, to address questions, etc.

I suppose that when it comes right down to it, I was just wondering what the expectations are from the perspective of the Uni for prospective PhD candidates when they apply. I can handle having background knowledge, being familiar with the research trends, and all of that ... it was just really the computer simulation-related skills I was most concerned about.

I really want to go back to complete my studies, I really enjoy studying and learning new things, am keenly interested in environmental sustainability, complexity theory and all of that exciting stuff, so will keep plugging away. I suppose my only other concern is my age - I presume that at 46 I am not yet over the hill?

Anyway, thanks again for all of the reassurances.

All the best

Well done on the distinction. I take it that you were doing a part time MSc over 2 years?
If you can become a MSc then you can do a PhD as some MSc courses are a lot more intense than a PhD (full time MSc courses that is)

Can't comment on the specifics of environmental stuff as I am a social scientist but just to reassure you I've just started my PhD at 44 so you definately aren't over the hill (and if you are doing it full time you'll be finished before me!) I did my MA part time while working full time (with no study leave as it was totally unrelated), my MSc full time but with two very young (one a toddler) children. Am doing PhD part-time (part funded by employer) so had to come up with research proposal which took 8 months (but only working occassionally) to get from initial ideal to approval from research commiittee - initial feedback from supervisors was insufficient engagement with the literature so I would echo what has been already said about that.

Good Luck