I didn't tell the masters course leader that I had an extension or the reasons why.

The academic reference for the PhD was from my masters course, however to the best of m knowledge, they only received a ref from my undergrad course and my previous job (as masters referee was on holiday).

The referee for the MSc I applied for was from my undergrad degree and my previous job.

Hi Everyone,

I am doing an MA. I have applied for an MSc because I couldn't get on the PhD I applied for this year. This MSc would normally lead to the PhD I applied for (but got rejected for)as it is a conversion masters.

I got a rejection letter for the MSc today and am absolutely devastated. I phoned up the course leader to ask why I had not been accepted.

They said the following: limited places, need to safeguard standards. We needed a reference from you from someone who recently has known you in an academic capacity. Your first degree wasn't without difficulties (I had a chronic illness). You haven't successfully completed your masters.

Could someone translate this for me please? I am still in shock and my head is swimming.

To give you some background information...my course officially finished on 15th September. However, I have had an extension on my dissertation to to financial crisis. if my dissertation was marked I would have the results back in January.

Hi!
I am struggling to keep the motivation going to finish my masters dissertation. It feels like a very lonely experience. Is there any one on here who is also on here who is in the same boat?

I was wondering if anyone on here would like to swap daily words counts, exchange progress on how they are doing etc.

Hattie

Hi!
I am struggling to keep the motivation going to finish my masters dissertation. It feels like a very lonely experience. Is there any one on here who is also on here who is in the same boat?

I was wondering if anyone on here would like to swap daily words counts, exchange progress on how they are doing etc.

Hattie

It depends what you are applying for but checking out your future lecturers, whether they have PhDs, what their research interests are and how many papers they have written is a good measure. Also visiting the university to see what is is like is very important.

At the end of the day wherever you go and whatever you do you will always be judged by your grades not the university you went to (unless it was Oxford or Cambridge, then your grade doesn't really matter). Your grades are much more important than the university you attend. Also they influence which universities you can go to for further study.

The most important thing is finding the right university for you and your research interests. Which universities have lecturers who could inspire you? Is the university in a nice location with goods sports facilities? Forget elitism and focus on finding a university that will meet your needs.

Probably the department for you subject is more important. I know of one university nearby in my hometown. It is an ex poly. It is low in the league table for many subjects. It doesn't attract the best students. However, it is a hidden treasure with top marks for QCA and research ratings for biology and chemistry. However many people would overlook it from the league table which is a real shame.

University League tables matter in some ways but not in others. Firstly it depends which league table you are using. Different league tables use and weight different criteria. So it is more useful to look at a universities scores for each criteria in that rating and consider what that really means and how importnnt they are to you. For example library spend might not be as important to you as research reputation. And library spend might just mean a university repaints and recarpets the library every years to boost it's position rather than buy books or computers, because it can't build another building. Some figures are artifically inflated through various means. And some figures are misleading.

I think checkmyfile did a study and found that about one in four might have inaccurate information on their credit file. (You will have to check their site for verification). So even if you think you have a good or OK credit history it is always worth checking your score because mis recorded information can bring your score down without you knowing. Often if you query information with the credit reference agencies, they will kindly remove it for you as a gesture of good will. But it depends on what you are querying.

FICO (Fair Isaac) scores are like this:

* 35% — punctuality of payment in the past (only includes payments later than 30 days past due)
* 30% — the amount of debt, expressed as the ratio of current revolving debt (credit card balances, etc.) to total available revolving credit (credit limits)
* 15% — length of credit history
* 10% — types of credit used (installment, revolving, consumer finance)
* 10% — recent search for credit and/or amount of credit obtained recently

If you do not have any defaults (i.e. your account hasn't been referred to a Debt Collection Agency) then that should be fine.

The good news is that everyone can improve their score.

All creditors can see your payment record for every credit agreement (including mobile phone) you have currently open. They look at how many payments you have made late in the last three years. The less the better. The longer the time away in history they were the better. The last twelve months is the most important. Three or more late payments in the last twelve months is bad. One or two is OK. But it also depends on how many accounts you have open. For example if you have five good accounts in the last twelve months and with one account you have been scatty that will be OK. But if you have missed three payments or more on multiple acounts in the last twelve months this will bring down your score.

I believe that the best thing would be to pay back your debts and update your file with checkmyfile before applying for any more credit.

P.S. In case you haven't noticed there has been a 'debt crisis' in the UK, the number of homes possessed in the first quarter of 2007, was even higher than the previous two quarters. Bankruptcies and insolvencies are up. The bank have had to write off thousands of pounds in bad bebt. ALL banks have tightened their lending criteria. They are now very wary.

Now if you have an authorised overdraft of £2000 and a credit card of £500 and you maxed out. Your credit rating would say that you were utilising 100% of all available credit. It is unlikely but still possible that that you could get credit. (It depends on how much you had borrowed and your ability to pay back e.g.earnings).

The further into your available credit ratio you are the less likely you are to get credit.

Many lender like to see that the person they are lending to is only using 25% of their available credit. This is a common credit scoring rule.

Many 'loan sharks' will lend to people with defaults and CCJ's but the interest is based on risk. For someone young and inb a part time job you might be looking at an APR of 28%! Also they will only lend a small amount say £2,000 and see if you pay that back before lending any more.

If someone has money on a credit card that is normal debt. If things have got so bad that you have defaulted and your debts have been passed onto debt collection agencies this debt is classed as 'bad debt. This is because the bank have formally demanded it back through legal channels and you have not paid it. If say you have a credit card for £500 which you have maxed out on and a bad debt of £2,000. Your credit rating with checkmyfile will say that you are utilising 500% of all available credit! A company will think to itself that you are 'overindebted' and can't afford to take on any more debt. They will be think that if you can't even afford to pay back that that 'bad' debt how can they guarantee you will pay them?

If social sciences, they will want to know about research skills. What skills did you learn on your course, did you use them in an item of university work or in industry.

They will ask you about the topic. They will question the assumptions of the topic, they will ask you if you think they are 'true' or 'good' etc....to see if you can reason critically. They will want to know your views on the topic. Make sure you have read plenty of relevant papers beforehand. Also this will give you confidence.

Try and get a copy of the proposal, don't just go on the job advert as they can be really vague. Find out if you can what 'type' of person they are looking (if not totally clear from the advert) before the interview. This will help you to have a good think beforehand about how to demonstrate in interview that you are the person they want.

Also find out totally how they/you invisage the project being carried out, how tests will be done etc on whom, how many, how.