Mine took 2 weeks to reply via email and say I had an interview.

I expect the fact that you are looking to do something very specific is part of the reason you are finding it difficult to get a PhD. I didn't really care what the topic of my PhD was as long as it was something I was vaguely interested in so I just applied for local unis that had advertised positions. I think if you keep trying you will eventually get there... at least that's what I will be telling myself when I start applying for postdoc positions!

I was told I didn't get the other PhD that I applied for due to lack of lab experience... maybe that supervisor thought it would be a problem, or maybe they gave to the only other candidate because they had just done their MSc in the same lab... I'd go with the latter. The point is that sometimes the reasons they give as feedback aren't true, sometimes because they can't tell you the truth and sometimes because they are afraid to be honest.

In my next PhD interview I was very experienced at interviews by then so did pretty well and guess what, they didn't care about my lack of lab experience.

I think your IP manager is probably correct.

It's certainly expected for someone to acknowledge someone else's work in an external presentation (and could be classed as plagiarism if they don't), but I find often in smaller, department presentations this isn't always done. This may be due to time constraints, nervousness, forgetting or maybe they just didn't think they had to in that environment.

As for your supervisor passing around your work without your knowledge, it's partly their work too so I think this is allowed. It probably also happens quite frequently. It would be nice of them to let you know of course. I'm guessing if they asked first you would be fine with it, right? As long as the recipient acknowledged it.

My supervisor has recently asked if they could give something I've created to another student at another university. Personally I was flattered that someone was interested in my work and can find a use for it. If they ever publish their work off the back of it though, I expect my university or my supervisors will be acknowledged rather than me and I'm ok with that. It's enough for me to know it's mine.

Maybe try speaking to your supervisor or the image recipient if you have a problem with it and see what their thoughts are.

I should add my uni is a pretty decent one too.

My field is molecular biology. In my lab there's only 2 of us with a 1st, everyone else has 2.1. Of those of us with an MSc, noone has a distinction. I've spoken to other friends of mine in similar fields and it's pretty much the same there.

Obviously if you do have a 1st / distinction it helps, but if you don't have other transferable skills and another candidate does, they are likely to get offered the PhD. After all, there's often only a few percent between a 2.1 and 1st and most supervisors are well aware of this.

Are you sure you need an MSc to apply for a PhD in Canada or NZ?

I think all PhD interviews are different and I can only comment on the two that I have had. Both times they were panel interviews. In these, knowledge of the area and research output of the interviewers, department and university were important. I found many papers available on the research pages of the academics so I didn't need a subscription to access them.

For the PhD I got, I was told that the interviewers were impressed with my background knowledge of the topic and techniques used (even though I couldn't answer some specific questions they said it didn't matter as I had a general idea of the area and was honest about what I knew and what I didn't). I picked up "all" this background knowledge in about 2 days by reading basic internet pages and a few specific papers. It doesn't take that long. They also liked my enthusiasm and determination apparently, so it didn't matter that I had very little practical experience.

They asked me a lot of normal interview questions too: strengths and weaknesses, describe myself in 3 words, what would I do if I was feeling demotivated, what would I do if I felt like I couldn't finish my PhD, if I was having problems, if I was stressed etc. Also questions about difficult times/colleagues/issues I have experienced and how I've overcome them etc.

You basically need to prepare for a normal job interview with criteria-based questions but also with a good knowledge of your own research area and the research area you hope to go into.

I'm positive. Most of the UK PhD students I know don't even have a MSc, They mainly just have a 2.1. I guess it depends on your area and the institution to which you are applying though, as always. It's also the people you know of course - and by extension, the people your referees know. If the interviewers respect the opinion of your referees you're in with a much better chance of getting the PhD/job.

In my experience of interviews, making the interviewer like you is most important. You don't have to be the most qualified or experienced candidate to get the job or PhD if you can get them to like you as so much of the process is subjective.

Asking your uni for help is good. See what advice they can give you about CVs and the interview process.

I worked 20 hours a week during my MSc. I went to uni from 9 - 4 and then worked 5 - 9 in the evenings. It meant I had my weekend free to socialise or do more uni work if I needed to. I worked in a call centre so it was easy, stress free and I earned a pretty decent wage. I could also take my notes/papers with me and read between calls.

It also helps if your place of work is nearby your uni/house. Mine was only 15 mins from uni on the bus so it was very convenient.

If I were you I'd keep trying for a PhD. Make sure your CV is up to scratch and you are tailoring any covering letter appropriately.

You're more than qualified to apply.

I think it's much easier to write 'Postgraduate researcher' on a CV when applying for jobs outside of academia or research since they are unlikely to ask any direct questions about what this means as they will just assume it's a research post. When applying for a job within academia however, the opposite is true: they know this isn't a real job title and are likely to probe further. Like Bewildered said, all you can do is be honest about it and try to show it in a positive light.

I would recommend doing a PhD fulltime as it's really difficult to do one parttime and work fulltime. You will also probably feel more like a part of the department this way. It probably won't make any difference in terms of career in academia afterwards

Hi, I've never had to search for a postdoc yet so I'm probably not the best person to answer. I've only looked on this website and in New Scientist.

I'd say do it. You never know if you are going to get another opportunity. Although you say you want to do an MA and PhD, life sometimes gets in the way and things occur that mean this may not happen. It may not be much else, but it definitely won't be a waste of year. It sounds cliched but you will be surprised by the things you learn about the world and about yourself by immersing yourself in a different culture. Also, why jump into a career straight away if you don't have to?! Take time to enjoy life before reality sets in :)