As far as I can see, publications are very important at every stage of a career in academic science and definitely figure very heavily in getting shortlisted for interviews or funding. Everyone understands the business of multi-authored papers and that some labs are more inclusive than others - and people generally factor this into their decisions.

I have been told as MissSpacey but I have observed that if there are problems with the thesis the exact outcome really heavily depends on the viva, i.e. how well you can talk your way out of the hole!

My understanding is as Laney says. I am applying for research assistant/associate positions on the understanding that I will be upgraded after my viva (hopefully :p)

Edinburgh is indeed a fantastic city and you would have all of Scotland on your doorstep. I would be tempted to consider staying there for a PhD if you like the supervisor there - it's a very good university. But then I am prone to travel - getting that experience on top of the studies would be an added bonus and I'm sure you could sell that angle on your resume back in the US (if you ever go back.....).

I tend to agree with dancing - you need to mesh well with the research interests of your supervisor and that will largely dictate where you apply for a PhD. But leaving that aside for a moment, have you applied for a masters program at one of these universities? Because getting onto their masters programs is a lot easier than getting onto their PhD program and is a very good stepping stone if you can then get a distinction at masters. I know they usually require a good 2-1 or equivalent but if they like your application then any kind of 2-1 could be OK. I take it you are self-funding both degrees - that will help as funding for music is mind-bogglingly scarce and competitive.

I am on the old and crazy side too!

These are Likert scales - I'm using a few. If you google on 'Likert' you'll find a ton of stuff. It doesn't matter which way you score as long as you follow that through conceptually - and usually you will find that one direction is more intuitive than the other. I'm using previously validated scales - if you are devising your own be sure to go through the necessary validation stages. Validating a new scale is a whole project in itself which is why most PhD students use scales that have already been validated.

Although odd numbers are common - many prefer even numbers as Joyce suggests - that's called 'forced choice' so that you cannot be neutral. All the Likert scales I use are forced choice.

I agree with Bewildered and think the reply was a bit off. OP - if your fabulous first and distinction didn't get you ESRC funding this year then it surely follows that it is unilkely to change next year unless something else changes radically - your project perhaps? I do know people who were in a similar position and they either didn't proceed further, self-funded, went part-time and worked (is that an option) or VERY rarely secured funding elsewhere but usually incomplete.

I gave my supervisor a list of dates I would be out of the country before I submitted which he then passed to my internal (but my impression was that he could not guarentee they would be taken into account!). I gather it is not usual for us to contact our examiners - but if you have to - I would contact your internal, not your external examiner, as they are usually the ones who coordinate and arrange the viva date with you.

I went part-time after my daughter was born. Officially there is no part-time option here, so, officially, I intermitted for one year then came back full time. But actually I went 2 days/week the first year then 3 days/week the second year continuing unfunded into April of my 'fourth year'. So I had no funding for one year and full funding for the next.

Different funding bodies have different policies regarding going part-time and whether you can change - you'll have to check with yours.

One thing that has struck me about academia versus industry is the lack of accountablity - the buck stops at the bottom rather than the top. But in many other ways, the abuses are similar.

If your job can feed your PhD then that is a better situation. 10-15 hours/week even for pert-time sounds a minimum to me. I went unofficially part-time which meant doing 15-20 hours/week for one year then 25-35/hours/week for another 18 months. But some projects just taker longer than others -and perhaps you can plan for that and not risk a project that might easily need more time.

It also depends how good your are at working nights. I am just too old and decrepid for too much of that so i could not work FT and do a PhD even PT. I guess you have to know your own limits and I know my stamina can be limited if I stat burning the candle at both ends. After all - little kids don't lie in in the morning....

I've had no supervision and I ahve got angry and bitter about it - sometimes more than others. But it's also true that I have to be captain of my own ship - I can't be apart of someone ese's plan. I'm not really a team player - unless I'm head of the team ;-)

So although I have cursed my supervisor soundly and roundly - I just could not stand to be micro-managed. What I have really felt is the lack of involvement, interest and support - espeically when things went wrong. I agree about coping and thankfully I learned that from my pevious work experience and it came in very handy when at several points it looked my project was disintegrating. If things had turned out badly I would be very bitter I'm sure but things came round in the end so I'm prepared to be philosophical and forgiving.

So now I'm in the process of hopefully setting up a postdoc project - and I've got back some of my enthusiasm. The most important thing for me is having my own project - my own piece of soemthing that I own. I've done publishing and teaching - I'd be happy to do more teaching but I don't want to keep facilitating other people - enabling other people to do things. I want to do something myself. I enjoy the detective, puzzle-solving angle.

Sometimes it is very tedious, and not knowing if things will work out can be very depressing. When it's good - it's very, very good and very exciting. And when it's bad - it's pretty bad! I guess I'll keep going as long as I keep getting my fix from it and move on if that stops.

Another thing. There is a real conflict at the moment between raising money through subscriptions which are often very high and widening access to papers - because without access the papers won't be read and the impact factor plumets. Some of you may be aware of the movement toward open access journals such as the PLoS (Public Library of Science) journals which are peer reviewed and totally open access online. But to make that possible, authors must pay to publish with PLoS. The money has to come from somewhere. I think open access is the future - but there is no such thing as a free lunch.

it is difficult to even break even on many journals and academic books. It doesn't matter whether it's a big publihing house or not - individual titles should support themselves. Just because a bigger publishing house makes money from more popular it doesn't necessarily make financial sense to bail out academic titles at a loss - although this is infact what many publishers have to do and just write off some titels as loss makers every year.

There may some journals which actually sell enough to make some money - but not most of them. Even with books, many writers get a one off fee - because they would probably get nothing if they relied on royalties, sales of academic texts being so small. It makes the unit cost to the publisher very high. Academic publishing is no gravy train - which is why so much is done by university presses whose busnesses are often set up as charitable trusts.

I agree Gawel - it seems to vary a lot, but there is no way I could have worked while doing my PhD (apart from a littel dept teaching) - there just aren't enough hours in the day.