Hi Everyone,

I'm a first-year PhD History student and I'm coming up to my change of status upgrade interview.

I'm pathetically nervous.

The whole year has gone terribly really. I have nobody else to blame but myself, and I certainly can't make an excuses, but due to various problems I only really got going properly with my study from February (I started in October). Over the year the shape of my study has changed many times, and I've only really 'settled' on the subject focus in the past few months. Since then I have poured my heart and soul into it, but I have barely had any contact with my supervisor and trying to look at my study objectively I am not confident that I have enough of a grasp on my subject to pass the upgrade.

I am still very determined to do my very best, and the material I have produced for it is of a decent standard, but I'm just so worried about facing the questioning of superiors that I really am tying myself in knots about it all.

Can anybody give me some idea of what an upgrade interview is actually like? The best I've gleaned so far is that it's between 90 minutes and an hour, but are the questions likely to be tightly focused on my subject knowledge, or on my future planning, or on the details of the materials I have so far produced?
How... 'aggressive' does it tend to be?

Beyond that, has anybody any advice at all about getting through? meditation? breathing exercises? bribery? running away? quitting?!

thanks in advance!

HI Frew!
I guess it varies from university to university, and at mine, even between departments. I am researching cultural history within a musicology framework, and I can tell you about my experience a month or so ago. My university does it towards the end of your second year, with a straightforward annual review at the end of your first, so I guess that is a little different to yours. Anyway, I had had to hand in two chapters (technically limited to a certain number of words but every one in the department suggests you do two chapters not one). Also a detailed thesis plan, and some other paperwork required by the department. Ours last an hour, and part of it is also a 20 minute presentation, which for some of us was a formal paper reading (me, although the 'paper' was on how I started my topic, how it developed etc, at their request) some just spoke off the cuff.

In my case, there was a group of 3 - my sup, an advisor and the D of Grad Studies, and the aim was to make it like a practice viva. They were kind and interested but probing - their questioning revealed gaps in what I had done, but I was glad to have those uncovered now, not later. They told me readily I had passed, but I know others who had to leave the room and wait for them to deliberate.

The key thing is - don't panic! Read your departmental post grad handbook where it should be clearly set out what you need to hand in in advance, and that should make you feel calmer. They will be keen for you to get through, and even if they don't feel at this stage that they can pass you, they will give you another go, and advise you what to do.

It sounds to me like you have used your time well since Feb, and keenness on the topic is a great help. Everyone's plans and ideas change drastically within the first year, within the humanities anyway. ... You can also talk to your sup and ask him/her what to expect, they are supposed to be there for you, even though you haven't seen much of yours.

Good luck with it, and remember, the aim is to prepare you for later stages as well as assess your work now, and your own enthusiasm for your subject will be a great asset.

As to techniques or suggestions on getting through, don't run away or quit! Breathing is always a good idea - several deep breaths before you go in. And this may sound flaky, but I also try imagining myself in a warm column of light, as if from the sun, when in need of calm!

Best wishes
Jane

Hey Frew! Mine was actually very informal, and not even remotely scary. I gather it is more formal at a lot of other universities, but for me it was just a case of seeing where I was up to, what written work I'd done (basically my lit review), and whether I knew what direction the study was going in. I don't think many people fail these things unless there is something seriously wrong, so I wouldn't worry too much about it- they are not trying to catch you out and they certainly don't want you to fail. Most people don't know where they're headed for the first few months- I spent ages reading literature that turned out to be completely irrelevant, and so did most other people I know. As long as they can see that you've been doing something for the last year, and that you are closer now to knowing where you're headed with your PhD, you should be fine. Good luck with it- let us know how you get on! Best, KB