The PhD systems are massively different between Ireland and the USA (don't know about Canada). 3 vs 7 years is a big difference and I think that is something you should really consider. Also the scholarships/teaching requirements may differ a lot and you should consider them before choosing.

Though I understand your question about being perceived differently depending on your home department. I am on the boundary of chemistry and mechanical engineering with a bit of bioscience. Depending on the conference, I am the random chemist or pessimistic engineer but people will still listen to me. I feel am in both fields despite being in the Mechanical Engineering department, I just tailor my output for the audience. Academic fields are inherently diverse and multi-skilled and it is possible to change fields in your later career (though can be hard). If you are worried about being shoe-horned into a way of thinking, get a diverse supervisory team. See if you can get three supervisors in the three fields so that you get a bit of everything. Hope that helps.

LOL

When they ask what research you have done before, they aren't asking what the research exactly was. They want to know how you went about the research and what skills you showed. Generally they are looking to see that you
1. Can research an area and can find an interesting problem or question. Check if the question has been answered, that it is possible to answer and that it is relevant to solving some bigger problem. Possibly forming a hypothesis of what you expect to find
2. Form a rigorous method to answer this question. Possibly talking about other methods, what other people have done, possible problems with this method etc.
3. Show that you analysed the results (the results could be awful) and how they match your hypothesis. Defend your ideas and mention the limitations of your work. Basically have an opinion.
4. Make conclusions on your work. How you could have done it better and future work based on this

In my interview, I talked about my disseratation and focused on points 2&4. I had a really awkward methodology that I explained and fully justified. Then explained how my results showed that only 2 of the 12 variables really mattered which meant future people could just focus on them. The results were awful and barely statistically significant but I showed them all skills I used. So talk about anything that can show those show those skills, even how you went about ranking the best pub in the local area.

Have you contacted any potential supervisors who might be interested in your work and would be able to answer these questions better? Talk to them about your idea and if they would give advice, as they will know the reviewers expectations.

1. 6 months sounds right
2. You can usually ask for clarifications and comments but you can't send them any new work
3. Definitely. If your old supervisor is willing to help and it won't offend your current team, do it.
4. Pass, haven't heard about many people get rejected after corrections but maybe they don't want to tell anyone

I think it depends, an MA is more understood by employers and in my opinion is a more rounded course if you ever need a job outside research. An MRes feels a lot more specialised which can help with PhD applications and certain job roles but you can limit your options..

Though, if one courses looks more interesting and you think you will get a better grade, go for it. Choosing the right course and not the brand is far more important.

What is your motivation? What made you do this in the first place? If it was because it sounded interesting, make it interesting. If it was for job prospects, remember how awful your current job is. If it is to prove to yourself you can do it, then focus on how you don't want to fail. Motivation is the key to any PhD.

So I would say, take a break and if you have no motivation after a month or so. Make a clean break. Dragging it on will make you feel worse.

I am in my second year and half my project is a completely different field. I found that you just got to be patient as you can't become an expert in a day. Recognize everytime you do something new and try and learn something everyday. Asking people for help usually work and can result in new friends as well.

Also you will be surprised how many PhD students think they are idiots. Impostor syndrome is well studied in PhD students and is a separate issue that can be overcome with more practice, just don't let it beat you down. Getting a hobby and keeping a clear separation between social life and research can also help.

Investigations should be conducted better. In the case I mentioned earlier they investigators decided the result beforehand (extension and change of supervisor) which really shouldn't happen. A possible method would be to get the student's union more involved or have an external arbitrator during the investigation. Unfortunately in these cases the academics have far more experience defending themselves and can use the knowledge of the system to prevent real investigations. Giving the students access to more support/power during this investigation would probably be the easiest way forward.

The problem is there is that PhD students and supervisors vary so much in ability/expectations/time/ personality that there will also be problems. We could blacklist every bad supervisor and there will still be complaints. Past experience is not always an indication of future issues and we are negating the possibility of people improving. Therefore we should focus on minimizing the issues once they have happened ie, change supervisor or help going to a new university or the supervisor/student getting a massive kick up the ass. It is just these situations drag on until someone breaks and the more civil approach is to recognize it before it gets there. But that is my opinion and I know it will not work in practice.

People on this forum usually recommend waiting a month between emails. After 2 months it should be okay to email another supervisor in the same university.

I have to agree with pm133. Most PhDs go without major problems but the ones that fail get reported far more than the good ones, plus we only hear one side of the story here.

Recently I found out that my undergraduate supervisor is under formal investigation for harassment (not sexually). I knew the guy quite well and he could be a jerk but he was fair (in my opinion). He would help you if you could show you tried it yourself and he would expect you to try to fix your own problems before asking him. However there is a Master's by research student who is accusing him of harassment and not supervising them correctly, despite him repeatedly giving them advice on how to fix their equipment. The supervisor allegedly pressured them to do too much work and was too demanding but also expected the supervisor to help with every one of their problems [source is a PhD student in the supervisors lab who I went to uni with].

I am trying not to victim blame or cast judgement but I want to just say that there are 2 sides to every story. @monkia, if you are to do your idea of naming bad supervisors, please let them either defend themselves or make the accusers use real names. As we don't want to lose genuinely good supervisors over what really is a personality clash.

Emailing is the right way to go about contacting supervisors and they can be slow to reply. Though not all lecturers are looking for PhD students, even if self-funded. I would contact a few lecturers at various universities and see who is interested.

Are there any other PhD students at your university who you can ask? Because the system varies from place to place and they will give you far more relevant advice.

Though, at my university they want to see progress and if you can say you are progressing you are fine. Have a solid literature review, methodology, initial data (if you have it) and a clear plan to finish on time. In the viva they will challenge and try to defend it as best you can but remember it is practise for the real thing.

Hi trys,

Yeah this is the right forum for you. So, you you know the tools and area you want to work in but want advice on what exactly to do? My honest answer is to look for funded PhD's with an open mind and see what interests you. Places like findaphd.com have a lot of PhDs on offer and can give you inspiration as well as putting you in contact with supervisors. I found my PhD scanning through there and I just saw a project that I loved.

You can still write your own PhD proposal but that would require you getting funding from somewhere, which is doable but not fun.

Goodluck!

Take the test.

It probably won't be as bad as you think and you will get an alright mark. You can't be amazing at everything and just accept that this module is not your best. So just focus on passing on this one before worrying about a resit.

If he has been kicked off 2 PhDs for the same thing, there is something wrong with management or they lack damning proof. pm133 is right, talk with other students if there is any evidence or collaborating stories and record them. You could make a long list of incidents that make it an unsafe work environment and that you want PhD students working in an area away from him.

Though if it is bad as you say it is with him getting away after repeated complaints, go through a different reporting structure. Maybe make your complaints directly to head of department or head of research, they will be less likely to know him and should be more fair.