How does someone get teaching experience - i.e. seminars, lectures? It seems like current PhD students have a monopoly on having access to teaching positions at their universities, and that no one else on the outside can get these jobs.

I recently received my MSc result, and it was lower than I expected, in fact lower than most of my work throughout the year. I thought this was strange and contacted my supervisor, who said that the reason why was because I was 'thrown off' by the data which suggested a conclusion different to what would have been the case in a statistical analysis. However, during the supervision process I had asked if a statistical analysis should be done to test this idea, and he said no, my current approach was good enough. I also had justified why my approach did not need to be statistical in the dissertation itself.

Is this a grounds for appeal? Have I been mislead in the supervision, and is this a ground?

Excuse me, but I have detailed and justified everything I've said, demonstrating through examples that it is feasible, and expected supplementary responses, which most have been willing to provide. You, however, have simply written obnoxious one or two sentence responses which appear to be designed to insult me rather than engage with my post. I know which form of behaviour most would consider to be 'grown up' here, and it's certainly not yours.

No, all it does is tell us all we need to know about your prospects of becoming a decent and civilised human being.

I don't see how an intelligent person can make this analogy. In gaining work experience, one is not only directly exposed to the phenomena one studies, but also, in my field, applies the same research techniques to it as would be used in academia. It's more like if one is a jockey, this can then qualify someone to provide analysis on racing.

IntoTheSpiral, I did not mean to irk anyone, I simply want to avoid this financially costly process if possible whilst securing an academic career. I am open to part-time study though, so your experience has been helpful. I wish you the best with it.

Thank you for all the detailed information – academic life does seem harder than I imagined, but no problem at all for someone with a strong work ethic. The target-driven culture was not something I associated with academia, and I pictured it as a highly autonomous world, more where a given department resembles a collection of individual entrepreneurs rather than a metric-driven organisation. I also did not realise that grant income plays such a large role, and I was shocked by the death of Stefan Grimm, and his experience, though I do not know if it is generalisable. Ultimately, all of the activities you mentioned mean engaging with the discipline you love, helping to support the personal, academic and political development of students (which is a big motivation for me), and publicising your work, which seems to me like the most tedious part. All other things aside, 60 hour weeks are fine for me – I want to work hard and contribute as much as possible. Though, I have heard different accounts from my previous lecturers, who told me that they have significant work-life balance, significant autonomy, and that the job would be ideal for someone with small children. With reference to the REF, if I can’t produce that kind of quality on a consistent basis, then I don’t deserve to be an academic, and in that sense this is reassuring about the sector as a whole as it must ensure that low-quality researchers are weeded out at the earliest stages of their careers. I don’t want to spend time marking to improve the university’s survey score, but because I love working with the material, and I want to help students, who sacrifice a lot to be there, to improve their academic skills and understand the level they’re working at. With regard to research techniques, I already have an MSc in which I have conducted quantitative and qualitative research, and have also done this in my career, and will continue to do so. I will specialise in my career.

I think there is a slight misunderstanding here, though I thank you for your help – it has opened my eyes in many ways, and I’m sure others who have been reading this thread. I am not seeking a position now, at my relatively young age and holding only an MSc and 3 years of experience, but I am seeking to formulate a long-term strategy so that I can take actions in my career/personal development activities which would maximize my chances of securing an academic job, without a PhD, over the long-term. I was also open to the idea that this may not be feasible, and would then look into studying for a PhD part-time, which is the only financially viable option for me. I would not disagree with your description of Razzu’s experience as ‘high quality’, but it is certainly not ‘first class’ or ‘stellar’. He has served mostly as an economic adviser and an economist in government departments – thousands of others do this, too, and the economic analysis of policy, whilst important, does not represent the entire discipline and can be limited in scope compared to a pure policy analyst. An example of truly first class policy experience – excluding politicians – would be Geoff Mulgan, former Chief Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister, founder of a think-tank, and Director of a major public social and innovation unit in the Cabinet Office and Downing Street. My feeling is that, given that Razzu’s level of experience is attainable, and he has been offered a full professorship, lecturer or reader positions would be open to those who had attained even less than him. Continued....

Thank you for your help everyone, these were very considered responses. Bewildered, I have provided an example of a case where someone has attained the rank of Professor at a highly reputed university, showing that it is possible in 2015. Also, The Blavatnik School of Government, in an advertisement for one of their lectureships in public policy, also cited 'equivalent experience' as an alternative to a PhD. I don't have my results yet, so I have no idea whether I can get funding - I have a first at undergraduate but I understand a distinction is required at postgraduate level, too. The funding still won't be enough for me, which is a reason why I want to avoid the PhD route.

My idea of what an academic job is involved is as follows - (1) producing high-quality research across a small number of specialist research areas; (2) teaching students; (3) contributing to furthering the discipline in which you work (attending conferences etc) and (4) performing any administrative duties as required. Is there anything that I'm missing.

I really want to get into academia, but due to financial reasons, I cannot do a PhD, even if I were to get funding. I have a BA in Politics and will soon have an MSc in Public Policy, along with some experience in the field of public policy - I would be looking to teach and research in a government, policy or politics department. This is my absolute passion, and I think that I would be suited to academia for many reasons. I have noticed that some lecturers/readers/professors do not have PhDs, and if I could replicate what they have done to get into these jobs, that would be ideal. An example would be Giovanni Razzu at Reading University - (https://www.linkedin.com/in/giovanni-razzu-45746760 https://www.reading.ac.uk/economics/about/staff/g-razzu.aspx) a full Professor of Public Policy, who does not hold a PhD.

Does anyone have any experience of this, and/or tips of how to achieve it? Thank you for any help.