Thanks for the support. The more I think about it I need to be a bit more assertive as I am too polite. I think it the polite way to put is that my supervisors are very "European" and I am very "English" in how we approach conversations. So I need to be a bit more clear about my need for feedback.

The publishing problem is a whole different kettle of fish and I sort of agree with them at the minute. So you probably see another thread in a few months about that :wink:

Trying to answer the possible questions beforehand is a good idea but you don't need to memorize them. This isn't a test but you just need to seem confident and have an idea what you want to say. You don't want them to ask a question that you had never thought about before. Your answers don't need to be perfect

The anxiety will always be there but the interviewers will be nice and try and calm you. If you get lost for words just ask if you can have a moment and drink some water. It is an easy trick to calm your nerves and regain composure.

That is frankly the oddest survey I ever done. Shows me some random videos involving a horse and the next question is about my salary. Well done indeed!

It is not in the interest of the university to fail you, just remember that.

I am in a similar position were I have to submit a 6000 word summary of my work so far and then do a mini viva/interview. Haven't don't the interview yet but from what I hear is that they want to know;

a) have you done some work or have a plan to do some work
b) actually understand what you have done/written -
c) give you some experience in this situation as you will have to defend your work one day.

They aren't looking to fail you but just give you a friendly challenge so that you can improve. I know in my uni it is like a 90%+ pass rate. So just relax and be confident!

Thankyou for the reassurance, Tudor. It is nice to have a place were you can post things without judgement while getting useful help.

I think my supervisors are a mixture of the first two points with the field not being natural to them plus assuming that I know what I am doing. I kinda surprised them when I started my PhD with a clear plan of what I wanted to do. So since day one I have been mostly independent and they just left me to my own thing, though they helped me a lot with methodologies, lab space/equipment and paperwork. This is the first time I really needed significant guidance/advice and I need to be a bit more clear on that. I do know that I am bad a bottling feelings and being too polite when asking for things. Also, I don't want to change supervisors because they are v.good in other regards.

I would love to submit a paper but I have issues with my primary supervisor wanting to produce a perfect paper before submitting. As my project is more of proving a concept that can be very easily replicated, so there is a high chance of being gazumped if I try to publish preliminary results (also a v.good chance of getting into a top-tier journal). So I feel limited on publishing. It also doesn't help that their opinion is to do lots of work then only publish the best bits without her actually knowing all that needs done. She literally has the approach "I feel we need more data" but doesn't know what of!!!! Arghhh!!!!!

So yeah, I need to somehow to sit my supervisors down and clearly say "I need help with this". Hopefully it might work.

Hi Guys,

This is an odd one but my supervisors are awful at giving feedback. Literally every time I meet them and tell them what I am doing or show them results, I get a response no more than "that sounds good" or "looks good". Send them a draft and I get some comments about the structure or typos, never any comments about the data or arguments. To be honest they I don't think they have ever given me any negative or constructive feedback about my work. I know it can do better but it is frustrating to try and improve when you have no one giving critical advice.

Is this me just being needy or is it a genuine gripe? As I don't even know if you can tell someone "please give better feedback".

Go for it!

In the interview/application, make sure it is the topic that interests you and say how this MA differs from your previous masters. Second degrees in unrelated fields are okay, so you just got to sell them on how they are unrelated. It is problem but not a massive one.

I have seen a few people like you, who are effectively doing a second degree in the UK because no-one recognizes the degree from their home country. And universities take you because you are paying fees.

Agree with Thesisfun.

I bet the reviews are currently in the editor's inbox and the editor is on holiday like half the university is.

Who reads conference abstracts from conferences from other conferences? They will likely make a book of abstracts that isn't easily indexable and will be quite hard to find. The risk that someone reads your abstract that correctly used a statistical method (be it the wrong model) and comes to the wrong conclusion, is frankly minimal. If you worried, just focus on getting the results with the right model published as quickly as possible.

There are people who turn up to conferences with worse abstracts.

I agree with most of the author's points. But trying to publish negative results is hard and can hurt your career as they don't get many citations. What he is proposing will make us better researchers but will kill our careers to the point we aren't researchers, defeating the point.

To prevent the circular reasoning, we need journals to enforce some rules or have higher standards. And I don't know how why they would do that. Which is rather unfortunate and make you wonder what has academia become :(

Email the admissions department and ask for some guidance about the critical writing. I bet they will give you some advice on what they are looking for.

Never seen critical writing before but would agree with Tree, pick a topic (preferably close to what you want to do) and critically analyse it. Take the undergrad gloves off and be honest about your thoughts like gaps in knowledge, future issues or propose changes in methodology. Don't be too harsh but just show you can make well reasoned arguments.

Unless they as for different, I usually attach my cover letter to the front of my CV.

Yes, you have done the work, get the reward. A PhD is only part of your life, go live the rest of it.

For my university, I can apply for a suspension of studies effective immediately, for up to a year. But i need supervisor and grad school approval. I think that for most leave's of absence you will need approval, so you might want to at least hint at it.

Can you get a teaching support contract or tutor some GCSE/A-Level students? It is a bit of money on the side that doesn't require you to leave the PhD.

Your age won't affect you. There are plently of older PhD students, as long as you gort some real world experience and din't life under a rock you will be fine.

Is that 3 seperate batchelor degrees and 2 masters? If so that is a lot of university.

A Pharmacist is a person who diustributes drugs to pattienets and requires a specialised undergraduate degree, not a PhD. Making the pharmacetucials would be some form of chemist/bioscientist/engineer, were a PhD grealty helps. I don't think you can be both a pharmacist and be in R&D. But if you want R&D, getting a PhD is very good on a CV.

It is about doing original research that adds to humanity's knowledge. You can do that without learning a single new skill and be following exactly what your supervisor says. A PhD is effectively a glorified apprenticeship, it is about being able to prove you can do the work. If you can't do/handle the work, you don't deserve a PhD.

I think a PhD is not just about development but is also a stamp of approval that says you can produce a certain quality of work. Don't do good work, don't get a PhD. Don't learn anything but still do good work, you get a PhD. I admit that the academic development is wonderful when/if it happens but you don't get assessed on that. People hire PhD holders because they have a certificate that says they can do good work. They get given "academic freedom" because they could produce "good work" allegedly independently. You are assessed by results not by growing as a person.

Seriously, if you don't value a PhD and value the personal development/ good working environment. Quit. We are the makers of our own happiness. But you will need to be utterly phenomenal to get a second chance in academia again.