I mean, you certainly should have asked to go back and clarify what they meant. If they say something in your viva you disagree with, you're supposed to discuss it and defend your work - that's the point of the viva.

I don't think it's being too polite. Perhaps a lack of confidence in your own work? This is just very strange to me, because surely you knew you weren't following a standard thesis format and therefore have some reason for doing so. I'm not sure why you weren't prepared for them to comment, or with a response in place.

I guess, basically, what I'm saying is ... yes, it sucks that you disagree with your examiners. But, you've missed the opportunity to discuss your issue with that particular concern of theirs.

Just do the corrections how they want them, and move on.

Frankly, it seems a little arrogant to me that you think your way of presenting your work is better than the standard - it's a typical layout for a reason, and that reason is to make it easier for your work to be dissipated to and consumed by others.

Whenever I read papers/articles/theses that don't use a typical Background, Method, Results, Discussion, Conclusions format I get really annoyed as it makes it harder for me as a researcher to find the information I'm looking for. If I'm looking at your thesis because it might be able to inform my research, I want to be able to find the background material without having to read the whole book.

The PhD Defence/Viva is your opportunity to defend your work. That's when you can justify presenting your work in the manner that you have done. Anything that goes against the norm requires justification - that's the academic way. And, frankly, I think you missed your opportunity to defend the way you've presented your thesis.

If you'd had this conversation within the viva you'd have given the examiners the chance to reflect on why you have produced your thesis in this manner, and given them the opportunity to agree with you or disagree with you. As it is, you have been examined, the corrections have been decided and you just need to do them, or risk not getting the PhD.

If that's a gamble you want to take, then fine. For me, it would not be worth it.

The structures will vary across departments, and universities. But, Quality Assurance is a HUGE deal for universities so typically they will have some sort of structure to ensure they are doing a good job. And if they aren't (in the view of the student, or whoever) then there will be procedures in place to address any issues.

For example, in my department everyone has a line manager. In the case of a supervisor this will typically either be the head of their research group, or if they are the head of their research group it will be the head of department. If the Head of Department is the PhD supervisor, then the student will have another co-supervisor because the HoD job is insane.

The supervisors line manager, on a yearly basis, and more frequently if required or if they are new staff, will review their performance - this includes their supervision of research students as well as other aspects of their job.

On top of this, we have a Research Studies Committee who meet regularly (I think at least 3 times per term) to deal with any issues in relation to research students. If a student is having problems with their supervisor, they can approach either their Internal Assessor (who is an academic member of staff from the same research group, who is outside of the supervisory group) or the Research Studies Committee Chair to discuss the problem and steps will be taken to alleviate it.

The students are ALL made aware of how they can get help with their supervision issues. There is a student handbook, inductions, regular progression points with Thesis Advisory Panel meetings soon afterwards with the supervisors and the internal assessor where any issues can be identified and sorted out.

In terms of training, all new academics have to do a postgraduate certificate of academic practice. And no academic is allowed to supervise a PHD student alone until they have had 1 student graduate from their PhD.

Obviously, my department and university may be somewhat atypical. But, my experience is, that we are not.

Can you pin down exactly what it was about your method which made it hard to collect safe data? Methodological contributions are contributions.

Science is not just the results. Doing good science, especially for a PhD, is about starting a thread of investigation and developing a thread of questions based on the results presented. This can definitely involve refining a methodology, and doesn't just have to be about the outcome.

Frankly, yes the data should be destroyed. It would be incredibly unethical to use data collected without explicit consent from the participants.

Verbal consent is definitely insufficient, and I would question whether it was even given. The only caveat here, would be if there is a recording of verbal consent being given. But even then, that shouldn't be viewed or looked at without the signed document.

My approach now is to give a few statements to each individual student, to act as some of the justification of their mark. Like, you didn't do X, Y or Z. And then general feedback which is detailed and explains where students went wrong to the whole class. So in the general feedback I'll explain why X, Y and Z were important for getting the marks.

Yes, it requires the student to synthesis which parts of the feedback relate to their particular assessment - but I think this is good, because it's teaching reflection skills and improving their knowledge in other ways. But, most importantly it's easier for me, and saves some of the arguments.

Unfortunately, the students still complain. I think they are always going to complain though. I know I didn't realise how hard marking was until I had to do it myself.

Part of the issue, is there's often no clear definition of what "effective feedback" actually is. Also, it's really, really hard to give feedback that all students will appreciate.

Some students want feedback to be a justification of their mark - if you don't provide it in that framework, they get angry and think they can argue the mark received. "Why did I only get this mark? There's only 2 negative comments in the feedback?" and then you explain that actually, there was plenty more wrong with the work, you were just picking up 2 of the crucial aspects.

Others, want to use the feedback to improve their work, but what if they're never going to do a similar assessment ever again?

Giving feedback and marking is absolutely, hands down, the hardest part of my job as a Teaching Fellow. I'm trying to get better, I've been to training, I've read lots of literature but it's really difficult to get right, especially when there is no agreed departmental definition of what feedback should resemble.

I am a project supervisor of undergrads, and this is not an unusual situation to be in. It is manageable, but he needs to take ownership and just write.

I think it's very unlikely he would fail his degree outright for this, unless of course he didn't submit anything. Transferring to a BSc is highly unlikely to be an option, I'm afraid.

He might be able to get an extension if there are mitigating circumstances that have caused issues during the thesis period. He might even be able to take leave of absence for the rest of the year and be allowed to retake the whole year with a different project. But for that to happen there would need to be serious mitigating circumstances. Not just - "I didn't work on it til the last minute" it would need to be a serious illness or similar.

Basically, calm down, don't panic, he's got time. It may not seem like it, but he does. It might not end up with the 1st class degree he wants, but I'm willing to bet he's done more than he thinks. He just needs to put it together into a thesis.

Now, if he really has done nothing then there are bigger issues which might imply mitigating circumstances is the way to proceed. But, for me, this can still be done.

Trust me, I've been there a) as a student and b) as a supervisor.

Two weeks is enough time to pull something out the bag, but it's not going to be easy.

He needs to remember that it is the thesis that is marked, not the "thing" that is created. I guess this is easiest with an example, which I will take from my own field of Computer Science. In a development project, we mark the write up of the development activities, we do not mark the code itself or the software artefact that is created. That is very likely to be similar in a MMath setting.

The write up is crucial, he still has time to do a reasonable write up. It is perfectly possible (and often typical) that an undergrad thesis will include a write up of unfinished work and still get a good mark. To do this he will need to discuss the limitations of his work carefully - what caused the problems? Is it that the problem being addressed was more complicated than it seemed? If so, that is a contribution worth writing about in itself.

Yes, the thesis is an important part of his degree, but it's not pass/fail. If he hasn't started writing yet, he needs to stop whatever else he is doing and write, write, write.

He needs to take a look at the mark scheme and write whatever he can about the sections that receive marks. For example, there will be marks for reviewing relevant literature and probably for analysing the problem. He needs to talk about what strategies/methods he used to analyse the problem description and set the direction for the work he planned to do.

In practical terms, if he hasn't started writing the first step should be to write an outline plan of the report. What chapters and subheadings will there be? Add bullet points to describe what is going to go in each section, this can be sent to the supervisor for a quick review and they can identify any areas where extra material is needed.

Thanks glowworm :-) I've been very lucky on the job front, I'm currently working for my department as a Teaching Fellow part time, but my contract ends soon so I was put on redeployment list (as I was being made redundant) and I've got a really awesome full time Teaching Fellow post in a completely different department lined up for 2 years from September. I'm super excited, and uber lucky :-)

Unfortunately, yesterday actually ended up as a massive fail. Developed a migraine after I posted and spent most of the day in bed and achieved very little. Although, the plumber did come and fix my boiler so I have hot water again. Whoop :-)

I've got a teaching-focused day today so not going to make any PhD progress either. With 4 hours of teaching and a student supervision meeting there's not much time left, and I really need to get on with marking my assessments. I hate marking. Hands down the worst bit of an academic job. Ugh. So, basically, I'm not going to get anything done today either.

Balancing a job and writing up is actually really hard, who knew?

How did everyone else get on yesterday?

Oooh, can I join the thread please?

I have finally officially been told my absolute deadline is 5th January (I applied for a 6 month extension based on severe illness during the PhD but it was only granted last week). So I'd love to join this "finishing up" thread :-) A couple of my good friends are getting married abroad at the end of December so I want to have submitted before Uni shuts down so my personal submit deadline is Christmas Eve.

I want my first draft and all experiments (bar 1 which I can't do until October) written up by September because that's when I start my new full time job. Agh.

Anyways, for today I plan to completely write up the results for my descriptive and inferential stats for one of my experiments. And then, if there's time, go back and rework the analysis procedures description section.

Have a great day one and all :-)

In terms of asking questions, it took me a while to realise that my brain works best and is smartest when I have had time to process and think about a topic. I don't think fast enough during talks, so unless the topic is something I have spent time thinking about before I am not likely to come up with an interesting question during the talk. I find it hard to listen to the talk and process my own criticisms/comments at the same time. So I choose to listen and focus and do the thinking bit later.

It took me a while to realise that this is completely okay. It doesn't mean I am less smart than the rest of the audience, or that I didn't understand the material. It just means that I need to take that extra reflection time, to organise my thoughts in a way that I am confident to ask the question. My brain just prefers to work slightly differently to some others. And because I suffer from depression/anxiety I am absolutely not going to ask a question until I have had a chance to think it through properly.

It's annoying. But something I just have to deal with. My usual course of action is to approach the speaker after the talk and say something like "I really enjoyed your talk, and want to talk to you about it more in the future when I've had a chance to reflect on what you've said. Would you mind if I emailed you?" I haven't yet had anyone say no to that request. And in fact, have had some very productive email conversations about interesting topics and have followed up with potential future collaborations as a result.

I agree. When I first read this question I had been trying to figure out how to reply with "I think the first thing would be to improve the quality of your own written English" without sounding like a horrid bitch.

But, they're already providing this service? Crikey. That's... Not good.

Edit: From their "about us" page.. "Businessmen have to be multitasking to cope up with their busy schedules."... yeh, I wouldn't pay these people to proof read my work.

I'm a Teaching Fellow/PhD student in Computer Science and have been through recruitment training here. I'd be happy to take a quick look for you.

Caveat - I know nothing about research in the field of zoology or the funding situation.. I'm a Computer Scientist.

That said, for science-based subjects there tends to be 2 different routes for PhD funding - First, applying for a position to work on a project that has received funding (from your post this seems to be what you are doing). Second, some departments in some subjects receive bulk funding (e.g. Doctoral Training Account studentships) which they can choose to give to a student who they want to fund.

With this latter option, the student will put together a proposal with a supervisor, and then the department decides which project/student receives the funding. Have you looked to see if any of the departments you are interested in offer this type of funding? It's extremely competitive, but rather than applying for a job you are working closely with a supervisor in that department so it can be easier to get as that supervisor will be invested in you and will help with the application.

If you got a distinction in your MSc I'm assuming you did an outstanding thesis. Have you published from it? If not, that's pretty much the only thing I can think of that would improve your chances assuming there is nothing "wrong" with your CV/applications otherwise.