Genuinely curious as to how many hours per day people spent in their first year working on a full or part time phd and whether that has increased dramatically or stayed the same going into the second year or beyond (also, what was it you mostly spent those hours doing - reading or writing or collecting data so on)?
Do you feel you achieved what you thought you would after your first whole year?

Mokey, if it's any consolation, apparently most people waste shed loads of time in their first year, and don't get nearly as much accomplished as they set out to. In the second year, everything starts to kick into gear, as you may start teaching, or presenting at conferences, etc. I think the panic starts to kick in a bit. Most will describe the 2nd year of the PhD as the hardest, because many will have gone through upgrade, and then just feel as though they're drifting, not knowing what they're doing. Alot of people tend to completely lose motivation in their second year with a lack of deadlines. With the build-up to upgrade submission, you have a target, a set assignment. Well, after upgrade, it is likely that your only milestone left is final submission of your thesis.

I honestly don't think it's a matter of hours worked if that's what's concerning you mokey. I've known people to put in 10hrs/day and be clueless, whilst others have messed about, slacked off, done very little research and have been okay. I think that, to a large extent, academia is about casting illusions. If you can convince other people through charisma confidence, and the ability to blag, you have the elixir it takes to get by. I have known academics who were complete frauds, but had the ability to spin a fine-looking web

I read and I started doing my lit. review right away. My supervising prof said to just start to write. So I did. Did I have anything to say? Well...in hindsight.... no, but I had to start somewhere. So I did. There was nowhere to go but up. I think it challenges your brain in a more active way to have to write about things than to just take notes on them. It forces you to interact with the material and struggle with it. How many times have I thought I "got" something from passive reading, and then found out I had not gotten it well enough to write?

I find I have to read an article about four times to really "get" it at the level I need, if that is any consolation. So I do, I read each article and my notes again and again, over a few days, until it feels locked in my brain, and I will then try to type out some paragraphs on it, even if I never use those for anything, it really does help your understanding to have to express the concepts.

I did sweet FA in my first year.. got in at 10:00 .. left at 3:00.. spent most of the time down the pub...

.. second year didn't change much either.. pub, pub, pub...

Probably why I overran by a year and a half!

I actually found first year pretty busy... I started as an MSc and my supervisor at the time was very involved in making sure that I made progress every week. I actually felt I got loads done that year...

Then in my second year I transferred to PhD - so the first half of the year was super busy! But once I had transferred everything went terribly downhill. Maybe it is because, as Xeno said, I haven't been given a deadline since then - apart from the final submission which still seems a long way off.

Also I had to change my main supervisor (as my original sup didn't have a PhD)... The new sup is much more 'distant' and is often too busy to meet - and the original sup has backed off completely (even though she is still officially involved!)

So halfway into my third year I don't have a clue what I'm doing and no-one to tell me what to do either

Anyway to answer your question I probably am working less hours in my third year simply because I have no motivation and no external pressure anymore!!!

I found the first year quite tough!
* I started off working on an additional larger project. My role was to work and develop the larger project and create my PhD project within the larger project
* I tended to work in my student accomodation and the library rather than the office-but was majorily criticised for doing that! My supervisor wanted me to work more in the department
*My supervisors were on my tail on a nearly daily basis!
*My role was to get to create literature reviews for the larger project (and once my PhD project was sorted out) a literature review for my PhD)
* I attended relevant MSc classes
* I visited public organisations to network and develop links and spread the word about the larger project (and my PhD project)
* I drafted all of the ethics proposals, project summaries etc
* Ended up taking minutes of each of the meetings which were relevant to the two projects
*Loads of reading to get to grips with the subject material

In my first year, I really didn't put as much effort as I could of done to be honest. I remember working 3-4 hrs a day in my first year. I managed to get a few literature reviews sorted which contributed to some of the department intrium reports. Now, although I'm working on just my PhD rather than the other project as well, I'm working 8/9 hr days 5/6 times a week just on my PhD and seminar teaching committments and am in the office at least 3/4 times a week between 8am-5.30pm ahhhhhhhhhhhh

I'm just hoping I pass my upgrade (fingers crossed! :)

on msn

Hi mokey. From reading your posts, it sounds like you and I are in the same panic! I share your same concerns about the first year. I was talking to a couple of second years yesterday, and asked their advice about this. I told them that I felt I hadn't read nearly enough as I should have done by this point, and they told me not to worry. They both slacked off in a major way in their first years. One of them told me they did absolutely no work for about three months, and everything still managed to work out for their upgrade! I guess if you think about it, how is anyone going to be able to gauge how much we've actually done? In the beginning, I thought it was all a case of crammin in as much reading as possible, but now I'm starting to realise that my best work has been time off from reading and just sitting around thinking, not necessarily about the PhD.

I've been finding that, no matter how much reading I do, it just doesn't sink in! This is probably something to do with the amount that we're trying to take on. I try to cram read, but then if I was asked to give a summary of what I'd read, I would just glaze over. I'm still not sure how much of the success of the PhD is dependent upon how much material has been consulted. Sometimes I wonder if it's actually more of a case of finding the material that is most relevant, which may mean doing less reading, but reading the right stuff. What's your experience been like with the reading mokey?

Rosy, was the fact your supervisor didn't have a PhD the only reason you had to change them. Was this something your institution decided or your funding body or just you.
Does anybody else know whether supervisors need to have a PhD. My first year supervisor hasn'y even got a masters but was an expert in her subject. I felt she wasn't very good at supervising academically and didn't even know I had to have a literature review. I basically found out all the stuff I needed to do myself and told her.
At my first year panel my lit review was criticised and I was annoyed as she had seen a number of drafts and said it was fine.
Luckily she was a replacement as my main supervisor was on leave and is now back thank goodness. However I have just seen the AHRC report from the project I am part of and they say there are concerns that I am getting the correct supervision and training considering the supervisor was a replacement.

I remember my first year as a PhD student as a golden age.

I spent most of the time in the canteen having really "deep" conversations with cute PhD students of the opposite gender (unfortunately was attatched at the time but never mind) and reading whatever took my fancy.

My supervisor at the time was quite happy to leave me to my own devices for the first year, and as it was mainly preliminary reading/proposal stuff it wasnt too taxing. I remember thinking at first "Surely I have to do something else", but it was all cool.

Think of it as a sort of deal where you get "12 months intrest free credit!" before they sting you with the 50% interest rate therafter (when all the stuff really kicks off).

Hi Bellaz - let's just say the reading is err.. going straight over my head! I have started a literature review but I feel like there is very little criticism of literature in it because basically I didn't understand what I was reading, so really I have just regurgitated the work. My topic is quite unrefined so I have a very broad area of reading which is probably making it harder, although I'm finding it tough finding articles actually.
I would say at the moment my interests are going in an entirely different direction to what I initially submitted as my proposal and therefore I feel like I am increasingly becoming alienated from my superviser and there isn't anyone else in the department who has similar interests.