Revise and resubmit is a very common thing for journal paper writers to get. Don't feel down. Give yourself a bit of distance from the feedback, then take it on the chin, turn it in to a plan, and revise and resubmit. You've got a foot in the door. They've invited you to address their concerns and resubmit. You have every chance of eventual success.

I got a revise and resubmit on my first new journal paper post PhD. But I got on with it, gave it my best shot, and it got accepted. It will be published this autumn, in a very eminent journal.

Since then I've had two other journals give me outright rejections. Now that is bad ;-) But revise and resubmit is a good standard outcome.

Limits vary by university and department, so I think the best people to ask would be your supervisor(s).

However limits are not set in stone. They are always flexible. And examiners will always prefer quality over quantity. And I was told they will always prefer a too-short well-written thesis than a way-too-long-one.

My department wanted 80-100,000 words. I came in at just over 70,000 words. I was told by multiple staff not to worry about it. I passed with minor (typo) corrections. So take that as an encouraging story :-)

======= Date Modified 14 May 2012 18:43:42 =======
Firstly I don't think you can argue that your OU marks are equivalent to 1st elsewhere. The OU has its own percentage grading scheme, which should mean that what it marks as 1st class honours is equivalent to 1st class honours elsewhere, and 2.1 etc. You can't equate percentages at universities with different grading systems. You have come in firmly with sub-1st class honours levels for your BSc(Hons), and that will be recognised by people considering your result, who won't think you got 1st class + level. Please don't argue that it was 1st class honours level when you apply. Doing this won't help your application at all.

I agree that you need to present your application as strongly as possible, and career gaps may be a concern. But your OU degree should not be a problem. I was originally a computer science PhD student, but had to leave that after MS-like illness struck. I started studying with the OU, one course at a time, and soon had a BA(Hons), 2.1. I was accepted for a taught Masters degree, and got that, with distinction, then I applied for AHRC funding. AHRC funding applications at that time had a success rate of about 1 in 5, and only the best applicants ever applied. So it was very hard to get. But despite my dropping out (for medical reasons) from a funded (EPSRC) PhD before, and my OU degree, I got it.

So it can be done! Oh and I was 31 when I won my AHRC funding, so age wasn't a problem there either :p

Definitely get advice from your student careers service, perhaps from Newcastle university where you did your Masters. They should help see if you can improve your applications.

Good luck!

Passports can be updated to show Dr. There's a note to that effect added at the back of the passport. To get this you send in your graduation certificate with a passport application. That's what my husband did.

The Dr title is official as soon as you've got the official letter saying that Senate has conferred the award on you. This should follow soon after any corrections are approved. You don't have to wait for graduation, which can in some cases be nearly a year later. Graduation for PhD people is very much a formality.

I changed my title with the bank, and will change it on my passport when that needs to be renewed in 3 years time. This was purely for identity purposes, so I have something on me with the Dr title. But I do not use the title outside academic needs. Day to day I'm just Mrs. My husband, also has PhD, is same: Mr for most things, but Dr for academia. He travels abroad for his (academic) work, and it's handy to have Dr on his passport at times like that.

Note I never speak to the bank, so never have them calling me Dr. I just wanted a piece of card with it on it, for convenient proof.

There are various charitable bodies and funds which will support people who meet certain criteria. Have a look at

http://www.acf.org.uk/links/?id=142

http://www.turn2us.org.uk/grants_search.aspx

http://www.nus.org.uk/en/advice/money-and-funding/other-sources-of-funding/educational-charities-and-trusts/

http://www.fundingeducation.co.uk/applying-funding-educational-charity.html

Congrats 8-)

I've been crossing fingers for news too. Hope she is ok.

Yes. The way I sort of think of the difference is that originality was the niche research area that you identified at the start and have filled. Contribution to knowledge is what you then discovered during the course of your PhD. So yes they are sort of related, but still somewhat different.

Here's my standard spiel:

My viva preparation involved reading a viva preparation book (Tinkler and Jackson) to demystify the process, rereading and summarising my thesis to familiarise myself with it and spot typos (I took a list into the viva on the day and handed it out - all examiners/convenor were very grateful), and thinking about and memorising my answers to 5 key questions: originality of my thesis, contribution to knowledge, methodology, weaknesses/gaps/mistakes, and what would I do differently if starting again.

Don't worry about Tinkler & Jackson: you get plenty of viva advice here.
And you've already read your thesis.
As I said you can think about the 5 key areas really fast. You've plenty of time.

And just because you've said something in the thesis - like contribution - doesn't mean you shouldn't be prepared to talk about it on the day. The examiners will expect you to.

Yes I've posted about this here a lot. Others have outlined the 5 areas I highlighted, after reading Tinkler & Jackson's book on viva preparation. They're not questions, so much as areas you should think about how your research fits into. Thinking about them prepares you to answer an awfully wide range of viva questions. And, to be perfectly honest, this can be done really quickly. In just an hour or two at most. Jot down your ideas, perhaps in a bullet-point list, or a mind-map. Nothing more stellar than that. It's really fast.

I did very little viva preparation. I had very little time, due to the neurological disease. I thought about those 5 areas, and read my thesis. But that was about it. I didn't have, and didn't want, a mock viva.

I spoke to my husband about this earlier. He did even less preparation. He just read his thesis. And he passed too.

I'm not quite sure how someone could spend months doing viva preparation. Not usefully anyway.

Sorry for upsetting you. I'm quite direct at times, and struggle a lot due to the neurological illness. Trying to help though.

Wishing you well.

You don't "just need to get on with it". The danger of doing that - and this sounds like a very real danger from what you've written here already - is that you will crack soon, and big style. You should seek help sooner rather than later. Speaking candidly to your supervisors sounds like sensible advice. Don't be afraid of upsetting people. The point is to get you help to carry on, as best as possible. And that's not achieved by adopting an head in the sand approach. It sounds as though you've been covering things up a lot, and soldiering on, but that's not the best way to tackle a PhD. Your supervisors are there to help you, but can only help you if you are honest with them. You could, for example, speak to university counsellors, to get some of your worries out in the open, and figure out a way forward. Have you considered that?

I'm also concerned about your rejecting the idea of going part-time so quickly, and also not addressing HazyJane's very practical suggestions about weighing up the pros and cons of full versus part-time. Normally, in my experience, full-timers are 9-5 Mon-Fri. It doesn't sound as though you are remotely anywhere near that, even allowing for variations between different subjects (I've been both a science and a humanities PhD student). And as you get further through the PhD the pressure on you, including time-wise, is likely to build. Going part-time isn't often an option for people, if they are funded externally. But you are self-funding. So you could do that, if it would be more practical, and more sensible. Have your supervisors raised the issue of potentially going part-time? If so you should probably consider it even more seriously. It would reduce the pressure you're facing. Financially it would also work out well, lowering the fees cost drastically each year, while you would still be able to work alongside the PhD to earn money.

I'm not convinced by the social prestige angle myself. I don't think academic Dr carries the prestige that it did in the far distant past, and isn't regarded as well by wider society as we might like.

And the jobs situation depends on the subject. Some subjects have more scope for freedom of jobs than others. In humanities for example I'm struggling to think of more than a handful of jobs that could offer the same amount of intellectual challenge as an academic career where someone has the freedom to pursue fascinating research topics of their own devising. Really struggling here! There's freelance writer for example, but that's a real struggle to get any type of decent income, for all but the very best writers out there.

As for the working outside 9-5 thing I've argued against that a lot on this forum. I never did it, even as a full-timer. My husband never did, not during his PhD, and not now. He sticks to his hours. His time outside those hours is his own. I think that's a very healthy thing to do, and means he has a good life-work balance. Trouble is if people get into the habit of working incredibly long hours during their PhDs it's hard to do anything different as a post-doc.

And re the short-term contracts, well it varies. My husband for a long time was on 12 or 18 month contracts, but he was essentially permanent, and was always renewed. Then after so many years he was automatically shifted to a permanent contract. He can still be sacked at short notice, so permanent isn't necessarily as brilliant as people might think. But he has a job he enjoys, and is staying put.

Approach your examiner. But if needs must I'd just put the correction in. To be honest few people are likely to read your PhD thesis after it's finally submitted in bound form. If you want it to reach a wider audience you should look at publishing papers from it, or publishing it in book form. This can be done even if you are no longer in academia.

Getting the corrections to the satisfaction of the examiner is a formality IMHO, hoops that you have to jump through to get your PhD. Do not agonise over them too much.