Hi all, first post here and I'm looking for a bit of advice. I'd just like to preface all this by saying I HATE talking about myself and bigging myself up, or twisting words and presenting them in a certain way. I much prefer just letting facts speak for themselves....which is why CV/Interviews pose such intellectual difficulties for me. That said, here's my dilemma:
I'm looking to apply for a doctoral training program/scholarship. It's in the field of law and it relates to online copyright infringement (very topical), so its also looking to bring research students of law, music and technology together. It's full time, very well funded, and any fee's are waived.
It is perfect for me. It involves online technologies (fascination for me, I have extensive experience in programming across many different platforms), music (I am a developer and contributor of a podcast website which boasts a popular forum of musicians from different genres and levels of the industry) and law, of which legal research is my chosen vocation in life.
It's the very issue I've always wanted to research, it's just that it's a good bit sooner than I thought I'd be doing it - I'm still a final year undergraduate. My plan was to go the normal masters route, my thinking being that It'd be near impossible for me to secure a supervisor or funding without one. But as there's a supervisor and funding already on offer for the very thing I want to do, I don't want to let the opportunity slip by.
To my advantage is the fact that I've already been published in a journal relating to law and technology. I've got all firsts this year so far, including a 90 in legal theory which apparently the research supervisor has an interest in. My two referees have marked work of mine recently, both are professors in the exact fields at hand, and have been encouraging and helpful with regards to my application.
To my disadvantage is a complete lack of postgraduate experience. Essentially, 'real' research experience. And also...the time frame, I'm in the middle of my finals right now and ironically my last exam is the very day the application has to be in by. So my problem really is I have absolutely no idea what my actual weakness really are, what does one gain from 'real' master's research experience? And what skills would I need to get across to show that I'm capable of doing it? Also, it's a research project defined by the supervisor...in what way would my role different with regards to planning the methods and timescales of research and all etc. Does a supervisor have a more hands on role in projects than he would if I was supplying my own synopsis?
I really want this. And I think I'm capable of it. If there's someone out there who's more capable than me for it, then that's fair enough. But I don't not want to get it because I'm unaware of certain research techniques that one might use at postgraduate/doctoral level whereas the competition are by virtue of being a few years older/because they have had more time to prepare for the application/interview.
Any insight, particularly from anyone doing legal research or wanting to do it would be really helpful. Especially knowledge of what joining a training project like this involves or what I've missed out on at masters level.
Thanks in advance. Apologies for the essay :P