I know there's the MPhil-upgrade route for PhDs, but looking at the social sciences, they all seem to want a Master's as part of the entry requirements. Indeed, some AHRC and ESRC scholarships are for 4 year (1+3), intended for undergrads to complete a Master's and PhD. Whatever happened to the MPhil route?

Ouch! I don't have any A levels (dropped out half way through), plus my O level result aren't much to write home about either. I enrolled onto my undergrad course as a mature student of 27 after my divorce and felt that I wanted to do something different. I got in based partly on my experience of running my own business (I used my accountant as one of the referees!) and partly on my ability to charm the course leader...:) )

Did very badly in the first year, and just scraped 40% pass mark to progress, lucky that did not count towards the final honours. Second and final years were very much better, and I was told by my dissertation supervisor that I only missed a First due to the marking system (not sure if he was trying to make me feel better, or if it was true), and my dissertation was marked down by the second marker to ensure I get a very high 2:1 rather than a First.

Just trying to say that there can be late developers, who for whatever reason, did not do that well at school/undergrad level, and should be given another chance to shine. I certainly wouldn't have contemplated another two years of A level study, or heaven forbid, some more O level courses, and would just decide that education wasn't for me if I wasn't offered a place. Not being vain in anyway, but I certainly don't think I've devalued the undergrad degree in any way, nor cheapen the Master's that I completed this September, and I wouldn't like to think that I would contribute in any way in devaluing a PhD if my funding application for 2018 is successful...:)

But isn't excellence comparative in a competitive system?

That might be true. I saw an article a couple weeks back, and some top unis give out Firsts to near 30% of students, and apparently, the numbers of Firsts and Two-Ones given out are part of the criteria for rankings. Not sure if my memory is playing tricks on me, but I think when I graduated back in '94, marking and grades were based on a curve. The top 5-10% would be on a First, and the next 10-15% on a Two-One etc. Are there any similar marking schemes for undergraduate/post-grad grades these days?

PM33: I really enjoy reading most of your comments here, and found them very useful. I do wonder, though, why you are so against people with lower grades taking on a PhD. Is it really the case that only people with very good 2:1s and above can hope to complete one? I've been told that a PhD demands not extreme intelligence, but self-discipline and perseverance. If that is the case, then a degree of whatever classification is evidence of some intellectual capability, so maybe people on lower grades, but with the right attributes, can excel in a PhD environment, or at least, be able to complete the degree?

Everyone is different, so I can't say why you let work affected your studies so much. But if your work was getting in the way of assignments, you really ought to have requested for extensions. I find that most lecturers tend to be sympathetic to the problems of working students. Maybe you ought to request one for the dissertation, as a very good dissertation will certainly boost your average marks, and may push your final grade to a merit. And of course, a really good dissertation, especially if you can get it to distinction level, will have potential supervisors looking more favourably towards your PhD application, as it is good evidence that you can excel at independent research, which is more or less what a PhD is all about, or so I've been told.

For those wondering about the workload of a social science taught Master's, just want to say that due to a series of unfortunate events, I found myself doing a full time MA last academic year, whilst working 50-60 hours a week, and found it quite manageable. My wife also managed her MA working the same long hours.

Think you might have to explain why there were so many late submissions, and why you did not ask for extensions if you had problems affecting your ability to submit work on time.

I've always been advised that a PhD is less about intelligence, but more about self-discipline, drive and time management, as there isn't the structure of a taught degree, and the nature of a PhD is that you are left doing everything more or less by yourself. Given that, they would be more inclined to have doubts about your ability to complete the programme if you had constant problems of late submission in your Master's.

I am slightly confused by the terminology used here. You use 'Distinction' for your undergrad degree, and '2:2' for your Masters classifications. Are we talking about a Scottish MA? If not, do you mean a First with distinction in your undergrad (a very high first), and a merit in your Master's? Or do you mean a Distinction in a non-honours degree (they used to be reasonably common before the proliferation of new universities in 1992)?

If its a First (or Distinction in a non-honours degree) at undergrad+ a high Pass/marginal Merit, then I think funding might be a problem. I think it might be better if its the other way round, ie., a low 2:1 plus a distinction, as they tend to look at your latest round of results, and the higher degree, with more importance.

But if you can find a supervisor willing to take you on and support you for funding, then go for it. Nothing venture, nothing gain. Keep on searching for potential supervisors online and good luck with your quest.

a couple of questions. The first is are you also applying for funding? If so, I think it might be difficult with your grades. I think the minimum grades needed are for funding these days are at least a 1st+ high merit, or high 2:1+distinction. If your proposal is very very strong, you might get away with a high 2:1 + a high merit.

The second is what universities have you been applying to? Some of the 'better' ones do ask for 2:1+merit, but if you have an interesting subject that interests your potential supervisors, you might be offered a place with your grades. The best bet is to contact potential supervisors and gauge their reaction. Also, entry requirements are usually on websites of individual institutions, and its probably not worth your effort of applying to institutions requiring distinctions as part of the entry requirements.

Lastly, I think you should be able to gain a place on a PhD course if you go the self-funded route, and you are not snobbish about the position of the institution on the league tables. A lot of posters here have pointed out that the prestige of a PhD depends less on the standing of the university, but more on the reputation of the supervisor and your own work.

Interesting...I thought most post-docs who want to teach must take the PGC in Higher Education?

A bit OT here. I actually find British academics (most of them those that I've encountered, anyway) have a tendency for understatements, which can be damn irritating. Instead of coming straight out and say what they think is wrong with proposals/assignment prior to it being submitted, which can make things far simpler to correct, to they tend to damn it with faint praise, or skirt around the issue. I think I have got use to the style now, so when I heard the phrase 'its an interesting argument, but...' or 'it is fine, but...', I immediately think of major edits/rewrites.

Not sure if its to avoid breaking the glass hearts of the modern young students, or the need to appear encouraging at all times, but most of the time, I just wish they would say exactly what they mean.

I've been trying to find a PhD (or rather the funding) to start in 2018. My experience is that contacting a potential supervisor to discuss your research topic is encouraged, and often a prerequisite prior to an application to the university. The only exception is Oxford, where you are only encouraged to look through the research interest of the academic staff, but not to contact any of them directly, and the university will assign a supervisory team once your application has been accepted.

I think the starting dates for most universities (the ones I've looked at anyway) are Sept/Oct and January. If you are looking for a fully funded place, the deadlines for most RC funded places are in Jan/early Feb for a start in Sept/Oct, so make sure you get your applications in on time if you want to start in 2018. Otherwise you must be prepared to take a year out and wait for the next round of RC funding applications, unless you are lucky enough to come across some funded projects being advertised. They are like gold dust in the social sciences field though.

Your post is hardly the epitome of civilized debate. I have no chip on my shoulder on this matter, as I have no connections whatsoever with the OU, and my Master's is from a Russell group, and so is my intended PhD.

I am just surprised that you could single out the OU and said that their PhD are considered less worthy than others, with one single reference, the other 'information' are merely your opinions unless you cite the evidence. The factors you mentioned, even if valid, can be applied to most UK higher education institutions, so why pick out the OU, and say that their PhDs are considered worth less than others?

Also, far from it for me to criticise a post-doc, but you cited one writer to support your wholesale damning of what is, as far as I know, a fine institution. Surely that is sloppy scholarship, even with the kindest of interpretations?

Given that, I am fully entitle to ask whether you have information that is denied to the rest of us. Certainly no emotion on my part in doing so. But from your post, it seems you might be suffering from some form of inferior complex in your job, as your institution do not have the power to confer degrees, but must reply on other to do so. Maybe you feel you deserve better after gaining your PhD from one of the 'top' unis?

Trilla: I would respectfully disagree that the 'hard' sciences are somehow more difficult, or have greater rigour than the humanities or social sciences. Without wish to enter fully into a epistemological or ontological debate, I would say that if anything, humanities and social science would be, if not harder, than certainly less straight forward, and therefore presents more of a challenge to the student, until we get to the very cutting edge of the hard sciences.

I fail to see how a PhD from say, Wolverhampton, Brooks, Manchester Met, or even one of the Russell group (the usual exception of Oxbridge notwithstanding) would be considered 'better' than an OU PhD. Surely it depends on the subject, the supervisor and the researcher? Or have you some information about the OU PhD that are denied to the rest of us?

For what it is worth, I will be 55 when I start my PhD (fingers crossed that the funding comes through), and not one of the potential supervisors out of the numerous that I approached mentioned that my age might be a problem. Mostly, it was about the lack or fit between my topic and their areas of expertise, or the difficulties in obtaining funding. I was lucky that I found someone who took a shine to my ideas, and helped me to revise my proposal to to ensure I have the best chance of getting the funding application through. It is now (or will soon be) in the hands of the god/s. Let's hope s/he/they smile on me.

I don't know about any concealed age-discrimination (for obvious reasons), but I've had nothing but encouragement so far from all those that I have approached. If anything, the process has somewhat restored my faith in human nature, at least in UK academics.