Tell me more ×
Academia Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for academics and those enrolled in higher education. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am attempting to apply for a PhD but made rather a mess of my masters. Advice from anyone involved in the process is appreciated.

I am applying in the UK, and have a good bachelor's, which is all that is necesary for funding. I worked for 2 years before doing a master's. My field is computer science or bioinformatics.

The master's went wrong - I failed about half of my modules, although I passed them on retake. I produced a good project, but did not impress my supervisor. He doesn't dislike me, I just just ended up looking flaky. Regarding what went wrong, on the one hand, my cohort had an exceptionally high failure rate, but on the other I didn't work hard enough, and got quite depressed after failing some of the first set of exams.

There is a reasonable question over whether I would be suited for a PhD, but you could say that about anything hard that I try and do next.

I need a bounce-back plan. What can I do to mitigate the damage? How bad is the damage? Do you accept candidates with less than ideal transcripts and so-so references, given a good work history and supportive references from earlier supervisors?

share|improve this question
The answers here might be relevant: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/973/… – Bravo May 12 '12 at 5:15
Many votes no answers, although Bravo's link is useful. – AmaPseudonym May 12 '12 at 21:27
RE Bravo, I should add that although I lack publications, in my field and country, it is not normal for MSc students to publish. But I have a few idea, and was thinking it would be a way to cancel the transcript... – AmaPseudonym May 13 '12 at 22:09

2 Answers

Delay applying for a year and work on a new project, where you can perform much better (now that you have more experience). Get a publication out of that and work with someone new, who will write you a good recommendation letter.

I know for a fact that many labs are very interested in getting bioinformaticians, so it shouldn't be hard if you are not looking for a great salary (which you shouldn't be: this is a career investment).

share|improve this answer

Personally, I have seen some people very good in Master totally screw up there PhD. And other people not doing very good in Master but doing a great PhD after and get an academic position. PhD is long time, so be sure that you like the subject, be sure that you can publish with the subject. You have to be comfortable with the people you will working with. If you can work with the people that will offer you a PhD before starting the PhD, that a very good point. That maybe out of the question but even after 6 months or one year, if you see that not doing it, that better to leave and try to find another PhD. You can do well on your second PhD and get an academic position, I known somebody who have done this.

If you don't find a PhD that you feel good for you it's definitely better to wait. Going back to work or doing an other Master, but in a related field. That give you more experiment and more time for find a good PhD subject.

When you start your PhD it's kind to be like in a tunnel, sometime you never really see the end. I think most of people get discouraged at one time in there PhD, even the better, you really need to believe in yourself.

The main problem by doing a PhD after a not so good Master is that you will have more difficulty to find a good PhD subject. You can definitely find one but you have to find a good one for you. If nobody want a PhD subject, there is a reason. That's not mean that it's bad subject but you have to figure out why it's less attractive.

Some questions that may help you:

  • Is you mentor get previous PhD candidate and how the PhD candidate end up. Generally when there is not a full transparency from the mentor there is a problem.

  • Are you comfortable with your mentor and the team that you will working with (if there is a team) ? Can you talk freely ? If it's not comfortable when starting I don't think it's will going better with the stress of the PhD.

  • Is the plan of action of the PhD well defined ?

  • When can you expect the first publication ? For example if the mentor said you that there is a publication in progress and they can add your name to it that a good point.

  • Do you feel comfortable with the subject or is look too hard ? Especially if you have to write a program or build an experiment. You have to estimate the time that it will take you and if you can get publication from this. Some mentor don't hesitate to take a PhD candidate just for coding as cheap workforce.

Sorry for my bad English.
Hope it's help, Good luck !

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.