@ TreeofLife - couldn't have put it better myself!

@ deepb - you need to stop digging and put your shovel away. You have no idea how hard a PhD is. The Dr title reflects the achievement, and wasn't the reason I did one. I can allow for and respect cultural differences though in my experience, there is generally greater respect for "teachers and doctors" in cultures outside of the established "Western World". Therefore I'm not sure the Eastern European slant explains your view. Mindful of the fact that you have a job (which a lot of people on here with or close to hard-earned PhDs would kill for right now) I think you need to go and ask yourself what you really want out of life. Do you even aspire? If it is just about taking the easy route all the time, then some day you are going to wake up with a tremendous sense of regret and loss.

Hi INTJ,

You've done the admirable thing of writing lists for comparison to help you decide, but unless I'm misunderstanding what you've come up with, some of what you've written seems contradictory or not necessarily relevant. Most notably, you've listed "No experience with empirical research" as a con for candidate A (which is probably fair as a point), but "Has mostly done empirical/applied research" as a con for candidate B. As opposed to...? In addition, you've said "Might be stepping on A’s toes by choosing this guy" as a con for B. However, the converse could be true as a con for choosing A, especially as you said of B: "Displays a lot of interest in both me and the proposed project". Respectfully, some of your listing reads as if you'd already prefer A over B (despite what you say at the end) and you are using the list to rationalise it.

I think both HazyJane and DrJekyll's advice of going for B as your primary is sound, and with A as your second. Then you'd have A as a kind of second opinion who might (in a sense) be able to "overrule" B with authority, if it comes to it, and fill the role of second supervisor better than B. Same rationale as the co-pilot flying the aircraft, so the captain can overrule him/her if he f***s up. The reverse is more difficult.

I'd also consider that with his seniority and other commitments, you probably won't have too much access to A. And whilst experience of supervising PhDs is an advantage, every supervisor has to start somewhere... and the fact that you're only his 4th or 5th (?) charge would give him/her a greater interest in your success.

One final thought: have you actually spoken to other students who've been supervised by these candidates? That could be enormously helpful...

Good luck!

Hi donfrico,

I started my PhD in 2009, just before my 40th birthday, funded. I was actually offered the studentship there and then, both over candidates already interviewed and some yet to be seen. My age and experience stood me in good stead. Therefore being older can be seen as an advantage.

Good luck with it!

Hi LoobieLoo,

Well, your answers certainly convince me that you've been through the process and done the PhD yourself, which is the main point of the viva. I relate to all your answers, especially questions 4 and 6!

Anyway, good luck with your viva. :)

Hi Daniel,

I didn't take it personally. I would suggest you cogitate the following, though:-
1. Why do you want to do a PhD?
2. Do you have any idea how difficult a PhD is full-time, let alone trying to fit study for one in around work? Doing it part-time will take you 5 to 7 years. Or more, depending on where you are.
3. If you're into "natural sciences", with your background, I'd have thought theoretical physics would be better suited to your talents. And then you wouldn't even have to do experiments or consider the interfering complexities of the "real world". Or if you're hell bent on something biological, HazyJane's suggestion....

...is a good one.

I should also add that looking for a programme, institution or supervisor with "looser standards" is surely a no-no. If they have loose standards, there would be reasons for that, i.e. poor supervisor or they're no bloody good! Look at the number of posts on here regarding dissatisfaction or problems with supervisors. Mine was a c***... and that's a Russell Group (UK) institution with high standards.

I guess you could try an on-line programme. And if you're self-funding, it might be easier to get in.

I wish you luck!

Hi ginga,

I agree that "nastiness" on the part of employers is often how job applicants generally (and not just with PhDs) perceive lack of response from employers to whom they've applied. Personally, I would stop short of describing it as "nasty", but agree that it's rude. How many times have we read "if you don't hear anything within two weeks, please assume..." yadah-yadah? Unfortunately, we live in the disposable era. Yes, the internet has empowered, but it has also degraded our treatment of others. Look at on-line social networking sites, where having 1000+ friends is seen as a badge of honour and friendship itself is degraded. So with on-line recruitment, i.e. employers vs applicants.

To be fair, with the job market being particularly rancid at the moment and with PhDs way outstripping the number of post-doc jobs available, employers are getting hundreds of CVs for every post. Whilst it still doesn't cost them anything (well, much) to notify applicants of outcomes, I do know that things like wrong font and spelling mistakes on CVs and applications are used to ruthlessly weed out applicants before their applications are even read.

I think HazyJane has hit the nail on the head in her responses...

Self-marketing is the key. As PhD graduates, we have emphatically demonstrated a raft of very relevant skills, e.g. self-motivation, tenacity, problem solving, learning agility, patience, etc. Have them on your CV. SPEAK to people. In addition, a lot of positions in industry DO value PhDs - many say "PhD preferred...". Having undergone a period of introspection and studied the positions available, that is where my search for a PERMANENT position is now concentrated.

As someone who has recently gained a PhD in a demanding biological research field, I find myself a little insulted by this. I would offer the following wisdom:-

1. There is no such thing as an easy PhD. There ARE students who get a lot more help than they should and end up with PhDs, bringing the qualification into disrepute.
2. The field of biology is no less demanding than any other discipline/branch of science. My supervisor was a physicist who presumably had the same misconception. Consequently, he was a very poor supervisor doing fifth rate research, and always asked me loads of questions every time he was examining a PhD thesis.
3. The project you describe does not sound like enough for a PhD, as you described it. For that, you'd need to go into at least aspects of the absorption, metabolism and the nature of the toxicology of the substance.

Why don't you do a PhD in your own field? More to the point, in your field - where you could presumably earn s***loads of money with your existing qualifications - why do you want to?

Hi Fitzy,

I don't know what your field is, but there's nothing wrong wrong with citing old references in your thesis: I submitted last year, and the oldest reference I cited was from 1912! It may be that not much research has been done in you field, so a lot of what you've cited IS quite old.

However, PhDs are - by their nature - current, as you're doing novel research. Therefore notwithstanding the personal reasons for taking a break from it, doing so increases the risk that your work will become irrelevant before it's finished. Yes, it's always important to keep an eye on what's published in your field, even when you're in the advanced stages of writing. Trust me! Having to add references or rewrite bits is part and parcel, unfortunately, though in my case, I always saw it as adding weight of evidence one way of the other. As for when your data was collected, is that actually in your thesis? Depends on your field, I guess...

In fact your worst nightmares would be that someone's published something lately that torpedoes the justification for your work or even duplicates a significant part of it thereby beating you to it.

Hi OneGirlFarAway,

Academia is replete with self-serving bastards with their own agenda. Your principal supervisor sounds like one of them. It's not up to him which jobs you apply for. You have options:-

1. Use your other supervisor and other contacts as references.
2. Ask you supervisor if, seeing as he is being selective on your behalf as to which jobs you go for, he will work with you to help you get jobs he thinks you ARE suited to. That includes him being proactive in tipping you off about any suitable positions he hears about.
3. I'm in the UK, and my understanding is that by giving a negative reference, a referee is treading on very thin legal ice. That's why these days, written references are generally only about confirming the story on your application. Of course the content of over-the-phone references are difficult to prove. Nonetheless threaten to sue him if he torpedoes any more job applications/offers.

You've spent years studying for PhD and deserve a fair crack of the whip regarding finding work, WITH your supervisor's support (or at the very least, his lack of negative input)..

Hi Noctu,

Thanks for your insight. I personally have no particular interest in this, and was merely trying to offer encouragement to someone who I felt - on the basis of information provided in their initial posting - was doing him/herself a disservice in the face of what is a fantastic achievement, and not do him/herself out of appropriate reward... I guess one sometimes has to strike a balance between ultra-caution and pragmatic optimism.

Hi Tulip,

I'm quite appalled by the way your supervisor is treating you over this and would mostly agree with what socpol said. Information pertaining to your health is confidential and it is not appropriate for your supervisor to include it in a reference. You've not had a huge amount of sick leave, and you've made the time up, in any case!

Regarding disabilities, employers normally ask about these on sections of application forms that are NOT used in the interview short-listing and it would be illegal (in the UK, at least) for them to use the information in any way other than making any necessary adjustments for a disabled candidate to facilitate them attending for the interview process. I filled in a job application only today, and in that section, they defined a disability as a condition which impairs your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. I wouldn't consider diabetes a disability, though would appreciate that it could be construed to be an intermittent one where the patient is trying to establish an appropriate control regimen (i.e. insulin dose for type I). Therefore if you "consider" yourself to be in that category, you could cover yourself under "Other" and specify. That way, you can declare it in confidence in advance of interview selection, and you'd be covered.

As for references, usual practise is for employers to take up references AFTER interview. Though it is normally a direct process, i.e. not via HR. The only problem you might have in a closed-rank establishment like academia, is if your prospective employer knows your supervisor and phones them to ask about you prior to selection.

I'd say you need to nip this in the bud. You could tell your supervisor that he's behaving illegally and if he torpedoes a job offer, you'll sue him! Alternatively, try your postgraduate tutor or student advice service. It might be that the university careers service might have information about this, too.

I wish you luck!

Sometimes, I actually wonder why I post in this forum. I think there's an element of having been through the process of doing a PhD, knowing how hard it is and feeling somehow obligated to share my experiences with people going through it... from trying to pick a project through to the viva and corrections. And encourage where necessary.

Mackem_Beefy:-
1. I added the proviso "Errrrr..." in my previous response as I am well aware that there is a vagueness regarding the nature of justapostgrad's corrections.
2. I am also well aware that institutions differ in time scales. That's why I said "normally". The norm seems to be three months for minor corrections. Curiously, mine sometimes offers eight weeks as opposed to twelve. Nobody seems to understand the differential. It's probably dependent on which way out the examiners are on the day.
3. Well of course, with post-viva corrections you're not over the line until you've done them and the examiner(s) approve(s) them. However, with achievable corrections - and justapostgrad SHOULD have a clear idea of the requirements after the viva - and no requirement for a re-examination (?), it's an "all but....".

Even minor corrections are not necessarily the breeze that some might have you believe. But with minor corrections, you've essentially achieved the standard,j-a-p, and nobody should take that away from you. Unless you're mad enough to do another PhD, you'll only have one "viva-pass day" in your life (and a Friday to boot :) - mine was on a Monday :-E ). So let everyone buy you a drink.

Hi justapostgrad,

I think everyone else is right: congratulations!

Unpleasant as your viva sounds (doesn't sound a lot like mine but I don't know your speciality, so don't have a frame of reference: I'm guessing maths, physics or engineering), it's over and you've passed with minor corrections. Errrrr... if that's what they said. Were you given a list of corrections and do you have a handle on what is required? Who's checking them to approve them? If you can do them in a month, great. But I wouldn't be pissed that they've given you too long!

In fact, my understanding is that for minor corrections, you normally get three months, not one. I got 12 weeks (essentially, the same) and had them done in 6 weeks, including the enforced break of the despicable season (Christmas).

Now go out and celebrate!!!

Hi Chan,

I've recently finished my PhD (awaiting final admin stuff to deposit thesis in library and get my degree certificate). I can relate to a lot of what Dr Jeckyll said, but would say that every PhD is different. However, I think that many people do get side-tracked by a lot of extraneous things and forget that they're there to produce a thesis.

Yes, it is possible to finish in three years - one of my co-students did it in 2.5 - but it depends on the project, supervisor, how much is in place, motivation of the student, etc. Up until halfway through my second year, I was perpetually being told I was ahead of my game. Then I went out to the US for a year+... and it became clear even before this pre-scheduled jaunt - which was in the original project proposal - that it amounted to little more than a gentleman's agreement. I did all of the organising and once out there, I spent a lot of time allowing myself to be abstracted to run my "guest" supervisor's lab to even convince him to want me there, as well as grappling with ongoing accommodation issues!

In answer to your question, I spent my first year doing a literature review, doing initial experiments and producing a first year report. Though be aware that at the end, when writing the final product, I cringed at much of what was in that and changed a lot of it. As you go along, you simply become better acquainted with your field and develop more. So be wary of coming out of your first (or even second) year thinking "I've written x% of my thesis already". You will want to change and rewrite an awful lot!

In the end, during my final concerted writing, it took between January and September 2013. Fortunately for me, my supervisors loved most of the chapters I sent them so in the event, the changes and editing they suggested were not especially onerous.

You're welcome...

I would say that, having been in a career for years prior to doing my PhD, my experience would tend to suggest that being in a job where you DON'T dislike the way things are being run is the exception rather than the rule. Unfortunately, that seems to be more the case today than it ever was. I left work to do a PhD full-time, and realised that I also had the utmost disdain for the way that my university research group was being run. But the advantage of doing a PhD is that, for the most part, you're your own boss, can decide which direction to take, and have a very great and direct interest in the outcome.

One of the things I'm not clear about still is the nature of your work:PhD:life balance, i.e. are you given time in work to do PhD stuff, or do you work full-time and then have to work on your PhD late into the evening, no time out, etc?

From what you've written, you've certainly swayed me that you've opted for the PhD path for the right reasons. My impression is that you should stick at that if at all possible. Is your supervisor and line manager the same person? If not, I would suggest speaking to him/her about how you feel. Or else there must be a postgraduate tutor in your school or institution, so get their advice. Or the counselling service, if you think it's affecting your health. Your employer does have a duty of care to you, so if it is affecting your health, you have an obligation to yourself to formally notify them with as many specifics as possible. That way, they can't wriggle out of it later.

Anyway, I wish you luck with it!