Will Being On The 2:1/2:2 Borderline At a Great Physics Uni Prevent Me Doing a PhD?

.

Put everything into getting a 2.1 and you'll be in reasonable stead. In my experience good departments usually only take candidates with a 2.2 because they've already made an offer/kind of convinced it would be met and have honoured it when they've actually just dropped below. A solid MPhys project mark is (or more specifically, being able to demonstrate a solid understanding, work ethic etc. during an interview) is a key factor. I wouldn't worry so much about the A-levels... the degree is their concern and that's also your most recent education, with the most relevant to further study in academia.

In terms of area: not necessarily. I don't think my housemates were ever there directly to declare specific module grades or whatever. It's all down to your contact with the professor and what interest/enthusiasm you can convey in a covering letter. After that, an interview. A presentation may not be out of the question (things like your MPhys project for instance), or just general discussion about the area. Lots of people also start PhDs in areas they haven't done a lot about so it's not quite so clear cut usually.

Most candidates are probably coming from a "prestigious" department. You have no worries on the opposite end (i.e. concern about perhaps the quality of your undergraduate/you as a candidate as a result) but all it does is leave you on a level playing field.

Teaching is unlikely to be a benefit imo. So, there are candidates that have come back to do a PhD after years (I met a woman who had been out of education for 10 years who started last year!) but many of them have usually worked in industry or some sort of... more closely related to theoretical stuff still, if that makes sense. The main concern is after being out of an area you may have forgotten the fundamentals which may cause you issues early on. I mean, the reason I knew this PhD student was because she was sat in some of my lecture courses trying to rebuild some knowledge that she needed. It's hard work to adjust back into it. As a teacher, you're kind of out of it. It's definitely not impossible to come back from, and sometimes being a bit older and having a clearer path set out leads to more determination and a better work ethic. I think you can spin it, but you also need to show you've been keeping up to date with research and so on.

What I would say is something like a CDT may work out better than a jump into a pure PhD position if you were returning. It gives that year of grounding which I would've thought would ease the concerns over being out of research for a while.

Most of this is just based off observations during my experiences, and to be honest my supervisor was not the most accepting or kindest of chaps. At the end of the day, a lot of this just rests on the decision of another human being, and they don't all have the same priorities or worries!

The best people you can ask about this are the academics in your department. I would speak to a few of them about the potential routes (what happens if I get a 2.2, what happens if I go into teaching for X years, so on). You might get the same answer from them all, but you may also get a bit of a mixture on some fronts.

At the end of the day i'd attempt to apply for any CDT/PhD programmes and places you would like to take up this year (alongside applying for whatever route into teaching you're aiming for). If you get the PhD then go with it if it's what you want although weigh this with what you want (delaying it) and what the academics say about whether teaching is a good thing or not. Things like 'Researchers in Schools' becomes an option after that point, and largely, you're a very attractive candidate for teaching with a PhD because they're pushing for better academic candidates into the area (so talking things like bursaries here). Even better you're in a priority subject.

So I'm going into my Masters year at Durham University studying Physics with Astronomy (top 5 UK/ top 50 world for Astrophysics) with my primary interest being in Astrophysics.

I always assumed PhD's were reserved for the brightest and highest achieving students. My grades haven't always been the best, I did pretty poorly on my second year averaging 53%, but first and third year have been around 60%. I'm really looking forward to my masters year and definitely think I'll do much better. As of now Im sitting on an average of 56%, Masters year averages are ~64% and I am so motivated to beat that this year. So far modules would put me on the 60% 2:1 borderline. I've also had pretty bad home problems since being at Durham which have probably not helped.

My A-levels weren't great either (CCC) but I did a foundation year and averaged 90% (best in year) transferring to Durham University. Would this go against me? Exams definitely are not my strong point but I seem to flourish in independent study, research and practical work being my strong points.

Tight now I know im not in the position to study a PhD as I am looking at teaching physics in schools for a while but in the future I will possibly want to do study a PhD when the times right.
I dont want to lose the ability to do a PhD so I had a few questions

1) Would it still be possible to do a PhD in the future after years of teaching on a 2:1/2:2 the borderline?

2) Naturally I'd do a PhD if possible in something astro related. In third year sadly I completely bottled my astro exam which was supposed to be my strongest, I was really comfortable with the exam practice and was aiming for 65%+ but I panicked and my weaker stuff came up which resulted in me getting 42% surely this ruins my chances?

3) Does studying Physics with Astronomy limit me to only astro PhDs? My thesis is in astro.

4) Would studying at a prestigious physics department be taken into account or having years experience in schools teaching benefit my application in any way?

1) If you push and get that 2:1 then you'll be in good standing. While it is possible to get on a PhD with a 2:2 in MPhys it would be much more difficult as you are essentially competing against people with higher grades.

2) I'd say that individual taught modules are not as relevant as demonstration of research ability.

3) You are not necessarily destined to only do astronomy PhDs however trying to get a PhD in an area which you have not previously specialised is not going to be easy. You will be competing against people who either have first class degrees or have done their masters projects in that other field or both. In which case you have to show that you are really something special.

That being said I aim to get a 2:1 and a good mark in my thesis (65%+).

That being said, I aim to get a 2:1 overall and a good mark (65%+) in my thesis.
4) Not especially but it's not going to hurt (although a glowing reference for a project at another university in an area that your UG university excels in can be suspicious, I'm told). Simply having a degree from a university like Durham isn't sufficient to walk into a PhD - you get their on your own merit!

My overall impression is that you're not totally committed to doing a PhD though, and that is a big red flag. You'd need to be prepared to answer a question along the lines of "why did you go into teaching for a few years and then do this?" because it could look like you are doing it as a second choice rather than something you are really passionate about. Funding councils don't want to give money away to people who aren't 100% committed and might drop out without finishing the project so from their perspective you might be a risky inestment.

x

x

Put everything into getting a 2.1 and you'll be in reasonable stead. In my experience good departments usually only take candidates with a 2.2 because they've already made an offer/kind of convinced it would be met and have honoured it when they've actually just dropped below. A solid MPhys project mark is (or more specifically, being able to demonstrate a solid understanding, work ethic etc. during an interview) is a key factor. I wouldn't worry so much about the A-levels... the degree is their concern and that's also your most recent education, with the most relevant to further study in academia.

In terms of area: not necessarily. I don't think my housemates were ever there directly to declare specific module grades or whatever. It's all down to your contact with the professor and what interest/enthusiasm you can convey in a covering letter. After that, an interview. A presentation may not be out of the question (things like your MPhys project for instance), or just general discussion about the area. Lots of people also start PhDs in areas they haven't done a lot about so it's not quite so clear cut usually.

Most candidates are probably coming from a "prestigious" department. You have no worries on the opposite end (i.e. concern about perhaps the quality of your undergraduate/you as a candidate as a result) but all it does is leave you on a level playing field.

Teaching is unlikely to be a benefit imo. So, there are candidates that have come back to do a PhD after years (I met a woman who had been out of education for 10 years who started last year!) but many of them have usually worked in industry or some sort of... more closely related to theoretical stuff still, if that makes sense. The main concern is after being out of an area you may have forgotten the fundamentals which may cause you issues early on. I mean, the reason I knew this PhD student was because she was sat in some of my lecture courses trying to rebuild some knowledge that she needed. It's hard work to adjust back into it. As a teacher, you're kind of out of it. It's definitely not impossible to come back from, and sometimes being a bit older and having a clearer path set out leads to more determination and a better work ethic. I think you can spin it, but you also need to show you've been keeping up to date with research and so on.

What I would say is something like a CDT may work out better than a jump into a pure PhD position if you were returning. It gives that year of grounding which I would've thought would ease the concerns over being out of research for a while.

Most of this is just based off observations during my experiences, and to be honest my supervisor was not the most accepting or kindest of chaps. At the end of the day, a lot of this just rests on the decision of another human being, and they don't all have the same priorities or worries!

The best people you can ask about this are the academics in your department. I would speak to a few of them about the potential routes (what happens if I get a 2.2, what happens if I go into teaching for X years, so on). You might get the same answer from them all, but you may also get a bit of a mixture on some fronts.

At the end of the day i'd attempt to apply for any CDT/PhD programmes and places you would like to take up this year (alongside applying for whatever route into teaching you're aiming for). If you get the PhD then go with it if it's what you want although weigh this with what you want (delaying it) and what the academics say about whether teaching is a good thing or not. Things like 'Researchers in Schools' becomes an option after that point, and largely, you're a very attractive candidate for teaching with a PhD because they're pushing for better academic candidates into the area (so talking things like bursaries here). Even better you're in a priority subject.

.