Please explain all aspects of a PHD to me in very simple terms....

[suwoo]

I am running ahead of myself somewhat as I am only in semester 2 of my degree . But if I decided to stay in Academia instead of becoming an English teacher, how would it all work? Is it very expensive? Can you get any help from Student Finance . Is the workload as horrific as I am lead to believe? I have 3 kids and work evenings.

I need to know everything, including what one actually does. The people studying for their PHDs have been taking our tutorial groups, is this normal?

Thank you wise and educated mumsnetters.

Bump please.

A PhD is basically a qualification in research you are expected to thoroughly research an area and significantly increase the sum of knowledge in that area. You will become an independent researcher and be considered an expert on your topic.

It is hard and you need to love your topic on day 1 because if you don't it will be really hard to get through it.

You can do a PhD part time although it obviously takes a lot longer.

My PhD is in science and most people in my area receive funding and work as part of teams on a defined project. In arts and humanities there is much more self funding and many students work from home so it can be isolating.

You need to think about why you would do it. In my experience with new students they almost all want to work in academia

Sorry phone gave up! Mist students want to work in academia but most will not end up doing that. So will doing a PhD help your career plans?

It is also very competitive you really need a 2:1 before you will be an attractive prospect.

In terms of work you do research. You can also make extra money tutoring or demonstrating.

Ok if I think of anything else I will add it!

Doing a PhD is expensive and pretty much a waste of time unless you get funding. To do this you will need a First. I don't think Student Finance will give you any money - you either have to pay for it yourself or get funding from a university. This is easier (less competitive) in sciences than arts, as science budgets are bigger.

A PhD is an original contribution to its field, so you have to have an original argument otherwise it isn't a PhD.

The workload isn't horrific exactly - it's all determined by you but you have to organise your time and get it finished by the time your funding runs out - usually three or four years. You can supplement your funding with teaching - it's normal for second or third year PhDs to teach first year undergrads.

What subject is this? Because if it's arts you will need a masters before you can do a PhD and funding is very hard to get for them.

Basically money is the main problem. You don't need to be phenomenally intelligent to do a PhD but you do need to be utterly obsessed with your subject, because there really aren't many benefits to it apart from getting to do your subject all day.

Also there are barely any jobs in academia, especially arts. Just read back, assume you're doing a degree in English?

Thats very useful thank you. I had no intention (originally) of staying in academia and was just mooting it as my tutor suggested it might be something to think about. I know it is very early days, but I fully intend to get a first and am already expected to get one.

My degree subject is English literature and I was inspired the other day by Professor Amanda Vickery and her 'At home with the Georgians' programme. She mnetioned welcoming PHD students on her website and I just got swept away with the romance of it all .

I don't think it sounds right for me though and am sticking to my english teacher career path for now. What do uni lecturers (in English) need, a PHD? Is that what makes you a Dr? Sorry I am so clueless.

Yes most universities now require their academic staff to have a PhD and that is what gives you the title Dr.

I would wait and focus on your studies. When you are in your final year you should contact people you would like to do a PhD with, look for funding etc. But it is harder in the arts so be prepared.

All academics say they 'welcome PhD students' on their website. This is true, but they can't get you funding - it's decided by a board.

Tbh, I don't think there's much point doing a PhD. It means existing on student money for another 3-4 years and will only make you more attractive as an English teacher in a very small way. It can also be quite isolating, especially if you aren't at Oxbridge (where they have colleges and common rooms which promote socialising) or if you are a mature student because then you can't spend much time hanging out with other PhDs.

Yes, I am a very mature student . I'm not that old but would be at the end of a pHD. I think I will stick to Plan A for now unless anything changes. Ive got so long to go, but never want it to end. I'm such a saddo. Thank you all so much for educating me.

IIWY I would see how you are getting in your last year or even after you get your results. If you are still keen and get a very good first (which you will need for funding in your area I'm afraid) then you could always apply for a grant (probably a 3 + 1 for a masters as well) and see what happens and maybe do teacher training while waiting to hear. Then you are not losing anything - just keeping your options open.

This is similar to what I did. I waited for my results first, then applied for a grant and taught for that year while waiting.

As pp said, I don't personally think it's worth doing without funding unless you have money to burn.

It is absolutely not true you need a first to do a PhD, or that you need a first for funding.

You will almost certainly need to do a Masters degree - virtually no-one now gets funded without a Masters and virtually no university would take you on without it either. This would be a one-year course, but funding is available.

Imo, the workload is not particularly unmanageable, certainly not compared with a full-time job.

Btw, if you are doing English, I would say it is also not true that Oxbridge is the only place that not isolating. I've known far more lonely English PhDs at Oxbridge (Oxford especially) than anywhere else. Many other universities are very careful to run social events and actively to help their students get together with each other and with faculty members.

If you do decide against it, decide for the right reasons - sorry to put it so bluntly, but there is some poor information in this thread.

I don't personally know anyone who got AHRB funding or similar in the Arts/humanities without a first. Funding in those subjects is very competitive. That has been my observation and the experience of people I know. You don't need a first for funding in some other subjects (although it might help).

Also, funding for masters courses is a rare as hen's teeth.

I think I know about 15 people doing PhDs now who have funding and don't have firsts, it's quite normal in English (which is what the OP wants to do). Quite a lot of us didn't get full funding for the MA but did for the PhD. I funded my own MA but got full funding for the PhD; I know several others who got the 2:1, and the funding for the MA and PhD.

It seems quite common - do you mind me asking if you do English atm? I'm just surprised our experiences are so different.

That is very interesting and doesn't jive with my experience at all. I know a lot of people in arts/humanities but only a couple of people specifically doing English. Every last funded one of them has a first, compared to sciences, where a lot of people don't.

Where is that funding coming from and is it coming via a supervisor who got the funding or by students applying to research councils individually - because the latter is particularly tough as it's all done by paperwork (no contact) with little else to screen by.

The other route is to get a first/distinction at masters - that can it swing if you can fund the masters.

How odd - I wonder what's going on?

All but two of my lot are funded by the research council - but supervisors helped, of course. As I understand it, the university is given a certain block of funding and choose which applications to support? But my understanding is hazy as I had a lot of help filling in the forms (I'm dyslexic). So I might be wrong.

I did get a distinction at the MA, but I'm the only one of us who got a 2:1 and a distinction, and funding thereafter. I know one guy who got a 2:1, distinction, and no funding. I know a lot more who got a 2:1, passed the MA, and got MA and PhD funding.

I was told by my own supervisors that they don't really care what you got at undergradute, when you apply for your PhD, as it is such a different kind of work.

It occurs to me I did get a first in one of my coursework papers at undergraduate - maybe others did too and this is what made the difference?

But I certainly wouldn't advise the OP that a 2:1 rules her out of postgraduate study - I'm so glad I carried on, so I get a bit evangelical!

The big difference is that when supervisors pick students directly, via dept block funding, they get to choose who they want and don't have to make grades a priority. Most people I happen to know in arts/humanities didn't get funding that way but went independently for funding directly to a research council - and they routinely screen out by grade (although I have heard of exceptions through the grapevine).

I am very surprised that someone got funding with only a pass at MA. Not that I think that's wrong - I've just never seen it.

Incidentally, I also went 2.1-distinction route for funding. Sometimes I feel like the only person on the planet with 'only' a 2.1 .

Ah - as far as I knew it wasn't possible to apply for funding without university support. But I may well have been told that because it was such a bad idea?

A pass at MA is still hard to get - 69 is only 1 mark off a distinction after all. I've never asked how high the passes were, but they might be quite high.

Don't feel like your 2:1 is 'only' - there's lots of us!

You have to have University support to apply for funding independently - your proposed supervisor has to give a reference as part of the process. But the funding is attached directly to the student and not the supervisor or dept and it's the funding body that decides whether the student can have it or not - without ever meeting the student and probably with a relatively superficial understanding of the project proposal.

This is how I got my funding but my impression was that I was absolutely on the knife edge of the possible by not having a first and that if I had been any further in the arts/humanities direction I wouldn't have got it.

Maybe that's bollocks and it's just something all those people with firsts like to tell me .

Ah, I see. I think. Good thing I'm not doing a PhD in admin!

I am slightly suspicious it may be that people with firsts are being snobby - people have tried that with me a few times (as in, 'oh, everyone needs a first, you must struggle so much'). It is rubbish imo - an undergraduate degree is so different from a PhD, isn't it?

I don't have an especially wonderful 2:1, either - 67.5, and my mate who got funding for the MA as well has a 65.

I do think that sometimes people who've been consistently at the top of their game academically can be very silly about it, and very snobby about not wanting to admit that actually, other people might do ok too.

I reckon it's always much better to apply for something that to decide you couldn't possibly get it so it's not worth bothering.

I think most people understand that it's just a supply and demand issue. It's not that you actually need a first (or a distinction) in terms of ability - it's just a way of cutting through the mountain of applications.

I remember being told by one of the other lecturers that none of us could get funding (which had to be independent as the dept gets no blocks) without a first. I don't have a great 2.1. either. This is why I didn't apply until I actually had my masters results.

I am a pessimist by nature - I will try not to spread my pessimism via advice in future .

Well, your pessimism is more likely to be right than my optimism much of the time. But it's nice to know people are in with a chance!