I would have thought that the form would be anonymous to allow you to be honest in your comments.

As a course leader, I'd prefer honest feedback to help me improve my course. I appreciate not everyone might see it that way, but its better to be honest about the problems (particularly for research modules which are always a bone of contention).

If could be that the person receiving/dealing with your feedback isn't the same person giving you a reference. if it is, they should be able to separate out your feedback from your suitability for further study.

I got onto my PhD with a 2:2 degree and a masters. Everyone is different, and like others say above, not everyone has gone a direct route though education, some have studied p/t, have taken breaks, worked elsewhere and so on.

I went to University straight from school because it was expected of me, I wasn't particularly interested, hence the degree classification. I got a research job in the third sector and during that time, self-funded a p/t masters degree in which I did well, but didn't get a distinction. I worked in research for another few years before applying for my PhD. My supervisors liked that I had practical experience and contacts, as well as my previous qualifications - they saw the experience and motivation as more important.

I was one of the best PhD students in my department, I won awards for progression, and had a great experience. It would have been really harsh if I had not been able to have that experience because of people blindly following protocol or unable to see past my earlier grades. Some of my peers with better Honours classifications dropped out because they couldn't take working independently.

Now that I recruit PhDs, I always look at he balance of qualifications, skills and motivation. I'd rather have a student who had motivation and a real interest in their work over one with perfect grades.

OP: I'd give it a go. They like your proposal so what do you have to lose?

There’s a site called ethos that catalogues PhDs and you can often download them.

I used one on my poster for the poster event but it linked to a survey rather than a copy of my poster. It didn't lead to anything but some people thought it was quite innovative on the day as it wasn't that common.

I used it for my PhD, for a survey that was supplementary to my in depth interviews. It's basic but it does the job. I would say credibility was more about the questions and the researcher than the tools used.

Does your institution have access to any paid software, e.g. Snap or Qualtrics?

I always tried to send things ahead so they knew what I was working on and how things were going. I think having an agenda (even a few bullets) to keep things on track can really help you to get what you need and means nobody is surprised at things coming up.

To be honest you need to rise above it. There will always be people who make things competitive and the best thing you can do is be polite and not let it get under your skin. You'll be amazed at how many people get stuck after a while and find they have nothing to be competitive about. Don't let them out you off your work. Head down, do your own thing. Always easier said than done!

Just speak to your supervisor and explain that you would prefer to work elsewhere. Should be fine as long as you are contactable. You could go into your office to establish a presence but then take yourself and your books to the library for the day. One other way to get around this is to go in early and get work done before everyone else comes in. My office was always dead first thing but busy later!

I wrote a letter to accompany my corrections which responded in detail to what had been asked of me.

If you were provided with a written list of corrections, you should use this as a basis to respond, detailing how you have been able to do x and y but for reasons have not been able to do a and b. Has your supervisor given any guidance on this?

I'd also go back over key theories from your PhD studies as I got a left field question at my last interview and couldn't remember a key author!

Thank you for the link.

I'd keep it under my hat personally. It's not the most honest approach but may leave you looking indecisive or unreliable if you tell them. Apply and deal with the outcomes from there. Good luck!

Does your institution not have guidance on this? Mine had really strict guidelines about every full stop and margin!

I think at first year upgrade point they would expect to hear about tweaks based on early learning. At mine I talked about my pilot studies and how they had helped me amend my method and focus. My eventual research questions were not the ones I started with but they were similar. In my thesis there was a section on learning and what I could have done differently but you don't see that in journals!

Absolutely. As long as your data still answers them and it is still on topic.