Not to be brutal but it is your job as the author to present your arguments in a clear concise manner that is easily understood. It may make sense to you and be perfectly clear but your examiners disagree. If they think the research aims and content don't match, they don't match. It is not the examiners fault for not understanding but yours for not explaining it well.

I would just do the corrections as they say and get my PhD. I would take all their comments on board and rephrase entire sections. If the content is good you just have to explain it in a different way.

Have you explained to him that you have spent three years on it and that you need to publish or perish? He might be more susceptible to emotional arguments in this break down state.

Completely agree. Thankyou for rephrasing that! I seriously believe the key to a successful PhD is having a project you enjoy and can spend three years working on.

Wow that is shocking! I don't think I have heard as bad of case as this. The fact no-one checked is scary but it isn't surprisng in academia. This is a wide-known problem and I have significant problems repeating other people's work. This is not your fault and you have done admirably to get this far.

Though you do have year of funding left. You have some time to get results on a new project and get a masters's. You will probably get an extension if you ask due to this issue, so you have several months of some financial reassurance. I would take a break and re-focus on want you want in life.

Keep at it. It must be depressing but you are only 1 month in and this is the perfect time to discuss projects. Thinking of potential problems now saves so much time later . You don't want to get a year in to find the research is a dead end. It is not that he is unsure of your knowledge but he is trying to guide you towards a project that will work. I have seen people change projects 2 years in because the supervisor just agreed with the student. I would be more worried if it was 6 months.

Though have you decided a general area of law you want to do? That is a good first step to whittle down your options and you just keep making the area smaller and smaller until you have a research question.

This council worker is not your supervisor but you funder. You can say no once, but don't expect them to give you or your university money/support in the near future. But it probably won't affect your PhD in the longterm, so don't lose any sleep over it.

Can I also say, I think you underestimate the importance of conferences. I don't read every paper in my field so just publishing is not enough. Conferences are great at disseminating your research to be people in related areas or non-academic jobs. You can highlight you work and disseminate it to an completely different audience.

What interests you? What topics do you want research?

I would recommend to look at those questions and find a few areas you are interested in. Then decide what field to study in. You can absolutely do a PhD in either of those fields, I would just choose the area before department.

You are completely right, better universities tend to have better PhD students. But that is not the biggest priority in choosing a PhD, it should be quite low. I would consider the PhD project, the supervisor, the research group and available facilities far more important than the wider university ranking.

You are going to be working for there years on a project. So you want to make sure that you can motivate yourself through that time without wanting to kill your supervisor. If you stay on this forum you will notice that the top reasons for PhD dropouts are supervisor related, and not that your colleagues are idiots.

At my university there is a limit of 16 hours a week on external/teaching hours. I think that is part of the EPRSC rules on teaching which is designed so that you are a full-time student.

This is a hard one but I would go with the first supervisor. They may not be in the best university but is an expert in their field which will help if you want a PhD in another uni. The lab may not be as good but the people there may be more knowledgeable/useful in your field than the higher ranked uni.

Hi,

My second supervisor has just announced she is leaving for a promotion and move closer to her long-term partner. Don't blame her at all but it leaves me in the lurch.

She is taking all her other PhD students, post-docs and equipment with her but she isn't my director of Studies (DoS), so I get to stay. The problem is that I am a cross-disciplinary project and I used her equipment/lab space. She was my link to that department and helped with all politics in that department, as there is a massive shortage of lab space. I have this feeling that the department will just drop me as my project doesn't fit with their new research goals, but I need access. From talking with my DoS, she doesn't really know anyone else in that department with the same research area. I have also been informed that my second supervisor's departure was less than acrimonious and

I only found out out today and I really should wait to talk with her properly. Yet has anyone been in a similar position?

I am massively emotionally invested and wish I wasn't. I find that the PhD work is far more interesting than a lot of other activities, so just become overly dependent on my work for gratification. I think that is the mentality of a lot of researchers, were we are paid to become obsessed over a specific area. Why worry about reality TV or large friendship groups when we can try and solve an interesting problem. It usually turns into me having an existential crisis while making a conference poster at 11pm but again it is far more interesting than playing FIFA (which I used to love). I think a major difference is that I enjoy thinking, I don't want to sit down and turn off, while academia/research is a huge source of thought provoking research

What I am trying to say is academia attracts a certain type of person that likes being mentally stimulated, in my opinion. And therefore we treat our PhDs like a drug and are addicted, in my opinion. If the rest of the world was just as interesting we would be fine.

Would a radar chart work?

Hi Monkia, I am sorry to hear about you not getting it. Though you don't know if it was the reference or one of the other 3 was more suited for the role. Can you be cheeky and ask that potential supervisor what your reference was like? Mention how your old PI contacted you afterwards and had made threats in the past. You may find out that this PhD was just not suited for you and not your previous history.

This is a personal decision that I think you need to make with your spouse. It looks like there is no easy option and some compromises need to be made. I wish you the best of luck!