Are you in a position to do this? Could you go to a different lab and start a new PhD? And could you be sure you would get on well with the supervisor? If that REALLY is an option, then I would certainly be considering it. The lab doesn't sound great if it is taking people that long to complete and they aren't publishing...

Another suggestion... could you continue collaborating on separate projects with the co - guide and build up your publication record that way, meanwhile going through the motions with your PhD? That way you would have some papers and it could lead to a postdoc with them? No one really cares about how good the thesis was or wasn't once you've got the PhD, so you could treat it more like a (rather big) box ticking exercise and have your real passion and focus on the other work you are doing...

I understand how bad this can make you feel and how much it impacts on your work. I also had compatibility issues with my supervisor. I also started working with another researcher with whom I was more compatible. I then went on to postdoc with that person. No matter what anyone says, having a degree of compatibility with your supervisor is vital. By the sounds of it, you and this supervisor are just not compatible.

I agree with pm133's advice about maybe just trying to be more independent as a solution to this. But, just to share in case it's helpful, I also tried this with my supervisor, and it was nightmarish. Basically, in the same way that YOU have a way of working and being productive, the supervisor also has a way of supervising. So he may not like you taking your own path and it may turn out being a real headache. For example, he could refuse to give you any feedback at all, or you could get a bad reputation for being a "trouble" student. And more importantly, at the end of the day, the PhD is supposed to be an apprenticeship in research...you are not yet a fully independent researcher... you are supposed to be being mentored as you complete your research. So going solo at this stage (which is pretty much what I did half way through my PhD) isn't ideal if it can be avoided.

Ideally, I think you'd want to switch supervisors to the one you work well with... But with them being friends, you would need to tread very carefully, as there is always politics at play and you don't want to blow it with both of them. One solution might be to come up with some reason why you need to have the co-guide as your main supervisor... could you change the focus of your project to be more in line with their specialism, so that you end up getting your main input from the other one, either formally or informally?

I logged on this morning especially to add that I definitely wouldn't hold off because of the current crisis (and then I saw pm133's reply). You might not get anything, but you might, so why wait and see.

Also, all of this depends on your field. I am seeing so many epidemiology related roles lately, medical statistics, etc.

One way could be through your supervisors. Also I think meeting and getting chatting at conferences can be a good way to get to know people, and then that way it wouldn't be out of the blue if you were interested in their work and wanted to do a postdoc with them. There are also mailing lists that sometimes advertise postdocs less formally. I'd be interested to hear what others suggest too.

Hi! First of all, it sounds like your interview went well (by the lack of negative comments about how you feel about it!). I think that what they said to you in the interview would be standard, about how students are ranked etc. And the part about being contacted by a current PhD student too, I would guess... because if they are only interviewing say 6 candidates, then even one at the bottom of the list could theoretically end up being offered the position, if for whatever reason the other let's say 5 didn't accept... Probably all who had an interview are the cream of the crop kind of thing. So, I don't think anything can be read into at this stage, other than you have done excellently to get there, and it sounds like your interview went well, so you are probably in with a good chance! You should hear something within the next few weeks. You could hypothesise that the longer it takes to hear from them, the less likely you are to get it, since they would contact the first choice first, etc... but it isn't really certain... they may be busy and have other commitments which slows them down. As you can tell, I am well seasoned in reasoning about these things! Just sit tight and fingers crossed! :)

Wayhay, congrats!!!

Hello...

It sounds like you have it all there you just need to get it down on paper. Think of it as an abstract, as it is pretty short.

In terms of what they want...
- details of the aims and objectives of the PhD - I interpret this narrowly as in the research aims/questions - what you aim to find out (as opposed to your personal aims of doing a PhD/what you'll get out of it)
- details of why the research is appropriate - again - what will finding this out actually add - does it have some theoretical or practical implications or both - and what are they? Actually I find the word appropriate a little odd. I'm used to seeing words like what is the "impact" and what are the "implications" of the research, as opposed to why it is appropriate.
-a timetable for the programme of work. - this is easy... you can make a table, write a list on a few lines or with each item on a separate line... something like this: Year 1: review literature and finalise research questions (months 1-3); obtain ethics approval for study 1 (month 4); develop materials for the intervention and recruit participants (month 5-6)........ Year 2...... Year 3..... etc

In terms of structure, after summarising the aims and objectives of the PhD, I would then have a section on method (i.e., how I will carry it out and test x, y hypotheses), then a section on impact/implications of the findings, and then a timetable.

This is just how I would approach it and it probably depends on your field. I was assuming science of some sort.

Good luck!

You're welcome. Wishing you a smooth submission process and swift turnaround :)

It depends. It could be helpful to have them review the manuscript before you submit it. Or indeed if might be common in your field to invite the supervisor to coauthor. If neither of those things are relevant then you could go ahead and do it yourself. It is definitely sufficient to say it was your PhD work in the bio. You might want to acknowledge supervisors by name if they gave helpful feedback on the work.

But if it is the norm in your field/area/old department to coauthor with the supervisor, or if you feel they did contribute to producing that piece of work, then I think it would be good etiquette to contact them and let them know you are planning to submit it for publication.

Even if it's normal in your area to be the sole author on PhD work (I know it can be), it might still be beneficial to contact them and ask if they would comment on a draft or have suggestions (e.g., you are at an earlier stage and wondering which findings might make a good paper and could do with support). But that would be if you felt it was helpful.

Ringing the departments and enquiring is probably the best thing to do.

I could be wrong but I would have thought that having lived and studied in an English-speaking country for a significant amount of time and thus showing evidence of functional (and academic) English language skills would be as good or better than an assessment.

I think it sounds like a confidence thing. You might need to decide if you are willing to keep trying in the face of obstacles and setbacks, if it means that you will eventually reach your goal. It might help for you to talk to a few people in your field and get their opinion about the attainability of your goal. You say yourself that your confidence is being undermined. So it could be that you're just feeling discouraged and need to plod on and get round this corner so as to speak. Academia definitely has normal people in it :)) Have you heard of imposter syndrome? It sounds like you could have some of this creeping in!

Hi there,

A friend of mine is giving interactive stats classes to his students using Google classroom and Google hangouts. He finds it works. Hope this helps.

I don't think the congratulations at this stage are weird. Being ranked highly and put on the waiting list is an achievement in itself - it means you are in the bracket with the top candidates basically. I wouldn't read into it any more than that. Fingers are crossed for you!

Ps. You *could* go as far as to ask what number you are in the list... If you are high up in the list then your chances are greater! Based on the acceptance stats and the fact that you are on the waiting list, I'd say you have a good chance but it isn't certain of course, so plan B-ing is warranted. You can get a better idea if you know where you are on the list, but it's probably best to just be patient!

Hi Simm

You're welcome! My background isn't in finance, so I'm not sure how a finance PhD works. Maybe it is commonplace to use an existing dataset to address new questions? I know that in some fields it wouldn't be - for example my friend who is a statistics lecturer and publishes research papers on statistics always works on data that already exist and never collects data himself. If that is the case in your field too, then it might be that your supervisors are wanting you to gain a good understanding on the theory and existing work. And then based on what you've learnt from your reading of the literature, come up with some relevant questions that you could address using their data. Could this be the case? Maybe you could check this with your supervisors so that you are all on the same page, so as to speak. And also don't be shy of asking for direction on what you should be reading if you aren't sure (they should definitely be giving guidance for this). Please let us know how things progress :)

Best
Tudor