My opinion is that statistics aid an argument but cant compensate for bad experimental design. Understanding the theory first is better than trying to use statistics to determine a conclusion especially with equivalence in what I assume is chemistry/biology.

Do you have 4 sets of experiments measuring the same reaction or different reactions? If you are using four different methods you need to understand how the methods would affect the result (ie are you actually keeping everything the same). If it is different reactions they are different reactions and looking at theory is better than using statistics. It could coincidence that they are the same or they have a similar rate limiting step(or mechanism) but you need the theory first.

More details would be helpful but I would really recommend looking at the underlying theory to see if equivalence is possible or is it just coincidence.

Is this the right place to advertise possible Ph.D. topics without having a host university or funding?

I would also say that a Ph.D. student conducting a clinical trial without expert organization (cough pharma companies) would not be approved by the ethics board of most universities. They gave me a hard time and I am not even working with patients, apparently endangering your own life is an ethics issue even if you have an approved risk assessment.

I honestly don't know of any grants database. It would be nice if there was one though.

If you are trying to find grants asking around in the faculty is a good idea. I know in my department there are regular emails about grant opportunities coming up from various bodies. You can also ask researchers directly as a lot of them may be in sperate fields/institutes/email lists that have open funding. Like I got a training grant from an obscure research network that my supervisor was told about by a friend. A lot of the smaller grant bodies don't advertise that much so asking around to find them can help.

Hi Yandex,

Offers can take a while to go through the bureaucracy, I would give it at least two weeks.

I had about 3 weeks between being confirmed verbally and actually getting an official offer via email. They will have to do a lot of bureaucratic stuff like check eligible for the bursary, check references (if they are), check if you actually achieved the actual grades, put all of the above onto the IT system before having someone review over it all. Each step could also be done by different people also dragging it out, so don't be worried.

If the supervisor wanst you, there is a very good chance you will get it an official offer but some things can't be rushed. Though I don't know University is Salford procedures so there could be more to it.

Hope that helps and congrats on passing that interview!

I think it is always better to give too many citations than leave some out. I would check how many citations this book already has. As if it has quite a few citations just cite is as other people have already reviewed it and thought it noteworthy. If it barely has any citations I would be more skeptical.

Just because you haven't read it doesn't mean that you dont have to acknowledge it. The book still exists and your reviewers might be able to read it and you dont want them asking why haven't you cited it. If your supervisor thinks it is relevant, take that as your verification of it being relevant enough to cite. The worst case scenario is that you get accused of plagiarism of their work and citing it generally stops all that nonsense (I know it is far fetched but that is why cite other people).

Hi Bloop,

Are you married or something? As when you say "divorce" in the title it suggests there is a relationship or do you mean that you want to quit your PhD?

It sounds like your supervisor is inexperienced but that happens. Mine finished her PhD in 2015 and I am first Ph.D. student so I am in a similar position. You got to remember she is just as inexperienced as you but she is actively working at it and learning from mistakes. She will make mistakes but she will also probably put far more effort into getting you across the finish line than other supervisors as you are her first one. She may be super busy but it sounds like she is making time for you, which is a very good plus as a lot of supervisors barely respond. She may lack an eye for detail but maybe ask other PhD students to proofread and vice versa?

About dr Freeloader, we all know those freeloaders/second supervisors that are annoying but what harm are they doing? A third name on a paper isn't that much in the grand scheme of things but I know that it is annoying but you may be able to return the favor one day. Also did you not want a second supervisor or want to chose your own? Because having a second supervisor is always bloody useful and if you chose your own you could always have the dreaded supervisors not agreeing situation. Remember you are a still student.

You complain about the research focus, not 100% aligned with your interests but that is a sad sad part of academia. Unis get money from universities to research particular things and if you want their money stick with it, there is less and less unallocated money these days. If you really want a career in academia you better get used to following the money.

How far into the PhD are you? As it is always easier to quit the earlier through it you are but the grass is not always greener.

I got a mid-low 2:1 (including on dissertation) but got a fully funded PhD. From all accounts, they were impressed with my written application and I nailed the interview. So you can definitely do it with a 2:1.

I think they will read applications from anyone with a 2:1 or above but you need to make yourself stand out to compensate for the low grades or have a very good excuse. Grades are good indication of how much you know/ work ethic so you need to be better than the other applicants in other areas. If you think you can do that go for it or even go for a self-funded one.

Though I was that guy that drank 4-5 nights a week and never turned up, so maybe I am just lucky.

Similar to Tudor_Queen, I have zero relevant experience

Why do you really want to do a PhD? You mention passion and that you want work in areas you are interested in, why do you need a PhD to do that? Couldn't you get a new job or start a few Github projects in your spare time to challenge yourself or do you want the structure/environment of a PhD? I am asking because a PhD project can be fun and challenging but at the end of the day, it is still a huge pile of work with commitments. If you get that challenge or interest going without a PhD, I would do that over the PhD.

A part-time PhD can be easy to drop out of but if you are truly passionate, I have seen a few people do it. Just set clear boundaries and goals, then stick to them, a part-time PhD is a lot of self-discipline but if you think you can do it, go for it. One of the things with a PhD is that you have a lot less direct instruction from your boss (normally) so you have got to have that self-management skills, especially with a kid.

An idea, would it be possible to go part-time at your job, so you have 1-2 days a week to work on the PhD? It might be easier financially than full-time and you will have dedicated time for the PhD

Though if you do go full time, I bet you would finish it on time or even early as you will probably have a better work ethic than most PhD students (and maybe most lecturers).

Just my thoughts, hope it helps.

My thoughts as the student with sub40% attendance during his degree is that if they think they can pass it without turning up, they won't turn up. Most people are at uni to get the piece of paper at the end so the only thing motivating them is the results. As I thought that the module was easy I didn't attend. Didn't matter about teaching style or engagement, if I thought that I could pass with minimal work I stayed at home. If I knew the course was hard or that the lecturer who based exams only on what he said in class, I attended whatever the lecturer's ability to teach.

So literally fail a lot of people one year and the next year you will have good attendance. In my undergrad a lecturer did that because her attendance was allegedly 10% (wouldn't know as I wasn't there), so she made an exam that was barely based on any of the lecture slides. The result was a pre-standardised average of sub 30% and she held her ground so that during standardization most of barely passed. Word spread and the next year she had high attendance because she suddenly had a hard module (it was a core module).

My opinion is that with this drive for "e-learning", recorded lectures and online notes makes lectures far less appealing when you can do it all in the comfort of your bed. So don't take it personally and if you want an easier time without failing people, listen to what they are asking and add it to your distributed powerpoint/notes for next year or make an FAQ site.

Also, is your lecture at an odd time, end of the day or is the only lecture they have on the day? Timetabling may just make your lecture awkward to get to.

Maddy I would take the job.

You can always do a PhD later with a few years of civil service experience to help you as the others have said. I think you should always take follow option that you think that you would regret the most if you didn't take it. Ie you can always take a career break and do a PhD but it is far harder to get a second chance at the civil service fast track.

I am in the UK doing a full time engineering degree and I turn up every day 9-5 because I have trouble focusing at home. But I barely see my supervisor once a week and she doesn't mind where or when I work or even how much I work. As long as there are some results and progress, no one cares how much I turn up. Hope that helps.

Hi traductrice,

First, it is Easter holidays so things will be going slowly in Universities until next week. The delay could be good it could be bad you dont know as long as there is Easter. I would wait until next week and then politely ask if they have come to a decision as you are considering other options. Academics as you probably know are notoriously slow as responding sometimes.

So you have applied for an already funded position and to funding body as well with the same project at the same uni? I am assuming that is right for the next bit.

My opinion on the consortium is that if that it is at the same uni with the same supervisor, go for it. The supervisor(s) already has already considered the possibilities as they suggested you to do it in the first place. The supervisor is probably hoping to get two PhD students out of this as if you get the consortium funding he saves his own money to fund another person. Also if he rejects you and consortium accepts you, he still gets two PhD students. Really you have two chances at the same project with different adjudicators.

So go for the second interview as you effectively have already effectively done it before and can only get better. The external funding will look on your CV plus you will have another student working alongside you (that will help a lot). Two people working on similar projects can be very good if there is some coordination as you can help each other but avoid too much duplication.

If you are still worried send an email asking for help for the consortium interview. Ask for some feedback to help you develop your presentation (if there was one) and if they thought you had gaps in your knowledge. It would look good for you anyway.

Just remember they invited you into this process so they must think you are good enough.