Two MScs? I wouldn't be worried about the ex-Poly label to be honest. As long as you submit a strong application and if invited, interview well, you stand as good a chance as any.

The one thing that would concern me (speaking as someone who did their PhD after two Masters - though I had a five year real world working gap) is the two similar MScs may give you a perceived perpetual student label. You will need to explain why this is not the case.

A good first degree will probably be as good a selling point as any here, to give you a variety of knowledge and skills to take into a potential PhD.

Best of luck.

Ian

To go just for an MPhil without PhD will probably not add anything to your CV.

An MPhil is seen by many as a poor relation to a PhD. It's what's awarded when a PhD candidate has failed to make an original contribution or new data to their field.

A taught Masters is a different matter, in that clear skills are being added to your repertoire. This makes a taught Masters an easier sell and better justification of your time in education and out of the jobs market.

I personally would give just an MPhil a miss, the one exception being if it was as part of a teaching company scheme with a placement in industry. With a teaching company scene, you're at least picking up real saleable work place skills.

Ian

The post-PhD year varies depending upon the person. With me, it was to try to have a quiet post-doc period whilst I got my head sorted out. The truth is I wasn't sure where to go to begin with, so I needed time to think. Unfortunately, changes in my friends' lives and other factors meant it didn;t quite work out that way.

I went from hyper to nothing in about 10 days. Minor corrections, sorted within a week, then I suddenly realised I had my life back when out for a walk one lunchtime.

After a few big holidays (I'd not had a decent holiday for a few years due to the PhD and family problems) I decided in a change in direction and applied for post-doc at another University. For reasons I'll not go into (already discussed on here a number of times), it didn't work out as the decision was rushed at the behest of some well meaning relatives and it was not a position that was right for me - I wish I'd looked around a little longer. But that's a long time ago.

I feel you need healing time once a PhD is over as you go from a bruising, high stress situation to virtually nothing at all. It's just a case of using that time to decide on direction and purpose once you have the chance, as during the latter stages of PhD there is nothing but the PhD. It dominates your every waking and sometimes sleeping moment.

One further thing I've picked up on is that women seem to recover more quickly than men. Men seem to need that quiet two years after, whilst women seem to be up and running far more quickly (they might talk of a quiet six month to a year if at all).

Ian

You seem pretty determined on starting the Masters before finishing the PhD and you being a father, I understand you want to be in a position for both to be over as quickly as possible so you can start earning money for your family.

I'll start by saying my Masters and PhD were done at very different times. However, during both the Masters and PhD, my time commitments were heavy with a 12 to 16 hour day commitment in both (during the write-up phase at least of the PhD) a regular feature.

Your Masters will overlap with the last six to eight months of your PhD, at a time you completing write-up. This for me is a critical period and as many PhD candidates know, the dreaded red pen of the supervisor will see three, four, even five drafts of your thesis script returned to you for alteration and revision. There's also the hazards of the supervisor back tracking to ask you to revise a section you thought was complete, new literature appearing before submission forcing further changes and other unforseen delays.

In a best case scenario, you can surely see that 12 hours (Masters) plus 12 hours (PhD) wipes out your time. So when exactly do you intend to sleep? You will find very little time to work on your PhD.

I was doing an evening a week lamguage course before and during the early stages of my PhD. As the PhD ramped up, I had to give up that course. Taking on a Masters at the same time is something I would not contemplate.

If you're determined to do this Masters as you seem, I would advise looking at your options on PhD suspension whilst you work on your Masters. The number of posts I've seen on health issues due to the stress of PhD alone on this forum is quite staggering.

Ian

What seems like years ago, I did a blog on what to expect during a PhD and what a PhD actually is.

It was done originally for other students who were asking me about PhDs at my former University so I wouldn't have to answer the same questions over and over again, however, it's proved to be of use to others so here it is.

Have a read and perhaps it will be of help to you too.

Ian

(Part 2)

The variation of outcomes basically covers the varying amounts of work the examiners think is needed to bring the thesis up to PhD standard (and format). What can be faced by the candidate can vary, though typical outcomes may include the following:

a. a straight forward pass (the thesis and exam were error free) - this almost never happens;

b. minor corrections, where the thesis has a few typing mistakes - this is the most common outcome for passing candidates and the candidate is asked to resubmit with errors corrected without any further examination (that's what happened to me) - the request for corrections is a token gesture by the examiners, to show they've had a good look at your work;

c. major corrections (also known as 'revise and resubmit') - this can involve a significant degree of rewriting with resubmission six months to a year later;

d. major corrections with a requirement for a second viva (re-examination) probably six months or a year later after resubmission;

e. downgrade to M.Phil. - the work was not original enough to justify a Ph.D. and an M.Phil. (Master of Philosophy - with possible corrections) is awarded instead - a Master of Philosophy is a lesser research degree not requiring the same degree of original or new work (though people originally doing an M.Phil. can also be upgraded to a Ph.D. if the level of new findings warrants this); or

f. the candidate fails because they've completely messed up - this is very rare as most supervisors would not allow examination to go ahead without being sure their candidate would pass (as said before, with no more than minor corrections) - also, clearly failing candidates generally either withdraw or downgrade to MPhil.

--------

Hope that explains things for you!!!

Ian

There's nothing in either of those articles I didn't know already, though I enjoyed the pisstaking in the first one. If anything, the Guardian one isn't that good. I pick on the part saying that there are plenty of alternative career paths for Science PhDs. But do those posts actually require a PhD? He misses the point that PhDs actually deter some real world employers.

Just supposing you do land a post-doc, you've an existence of short term contracts ahead of you until you achieve tenure. You cannot make long term plans and the financial situation does not help as regards mortgages and other long term expenses.

I note salaries seem to vary amongst posters. My first post-doc although the better position was poorly paid, however, at that stage it was enough whilst I sorted out my head post-PhD. My second post-doc was well paid, however, a one year contract and it being clear there was no future (personality issues - discussed to oblivion now) still meant forward planning financially was impossible.

Some academics have the attitude that PhDs are a way of having someone running a project with little financial risk (i.e. funding bodies or student self-funding) and post-docs can be offloaded at contract end if their face doesn't fit as there's plenty PhDs coming through to replace them. High supply for a small number of positions means the situaion isn't about to change anytime soon.

The way research "groups" are structured means the senior academic has alot of sway with little recourse if things go wrong and little censorship from the University hierachy. Whilst this may be okay if you have a good man manager, our personality academics can thus virtually do what they like.

There should be balance between PhD positions and what follows, however, the oversupply situation and lack of academic accountability mean the balance of power lies with the University and PhD candidate, or post-doc, is little more than a disposable publication machine.

Ian