'how to do' a Ph.D

Depends on the Ph.D: You'll need a professor as opposed to a regular Ph.D lecturer(A lecturer with a ph.d, not a lecturer who normalises in teaching Ph.Ds), which are in extreme demand, and then you have to spend 7 years in a class of around 40 siphoning his knowledge at the cost of thousands in student loans. Giving you stats about 1 in 900 go on to have a Ph.D

Edit: Just realised you were trying to be a major or Ph.D in theoretical physics: You will need to be asoloute top because physics lecturers are in VERY high demand.

Depends on the Ph.D: You'll need a professor as opposed to a regular Ph.D lecturer(A lecturer with a ph.d, not a lecturer who normalises in teaching Ph.Ds), which are in extreme demand, and then you have to spend 7 years in a class of around 40 siphoning his knowledge at the cost of thousands in student loans. Giving you stats about 1 in 900 go on to have a Ph.D

Edit: Just realised you were trying to be a major or Ph.D in theoretical physics: You will need to be asoloute top because physics lecturers are in VERY high demand.

I thankyou all for your time and for your very insightful advice...keep it coming

So what about funding.

Also to the point I (and other) raised earlier in the thread regarding an MSc giving you a more mature experience, in terms of studying the field in more depth and an experience of postgraduate study, what do you guys think about that.

Also, and perhaps more importantly, if I wanted to apply to a top uni for a Ph.D after an MSc, would they view the fact that I'd done postgraduate study already as a 'bonus', or would it literally make no difference either way?

first off, regarding funding: I'm not sure but I would imagine getting funding for an MSc would be extremely tough, if such things even exist. Certainly it would be much easier paying for the last year of an undergrad masters

Like I said, the last year of my undergrad masters was pretty much the same as the MSc that other people were starting at the uni. The two years are pretty much the same, a few taught modules and a short research project that either comes at the end in one large chunk or you're given at the start and have a year to finish it.

A PhD and taught MSc are really nothing like each other at all. So long as you took the right specialist modules in an undergrad MSci there would be pretty much no difference between the two at all. Like someone said earlier, MSc courses are mainly money spinners for universities and for people who either underperformed at undergrad, or who want a change of direction (both in my case!). I don't think it would make a difference at all, the whole reason these MSci exist is to make it easier for science students to get into research!

Referring to your last paragraph, I didn't think that phd's are in any way similar to masters.
I have looked at some masters courses at various universities and it is, frankly, clear that some have been thrown togeather to make money for the university, having said that there are a few that look reasonably decent.

I went straight from BSc to PhD, I did however, need a first class BSc to do it.

What was your PhD in though?

BSc Analytical Chemistry
PhD Chemical Engineering (synthetic)

It makes me a little sad how many people considering applying for a Ph.D. can't even spell it.

As other people have said, an undergrad masters is (though rises in tuition fees may alter this, you don't say what year you are in at the moment, school/uni?) much better financially as you get a student loan and it'll be cheaper. Funding can be quite hard to get for theorectical physics masters. So I would definitely recommend that you do a 4 year undergrad masters, then in your final year apply for PhDs and then if you aren't having much luck also apply for masters if you want to give PhD apps another go the year after with the extra experience (or rather just knowing your final degree results, how your dissertation went etc.). Note that a lot of theorectical physics (high energy physics anyway) PhDs will have lectures at the start anyway (often the relevant masters courses) so you're not misssing out on these.

If you're smart you don't need a Masters to do a PhD. What the heck do you mean "much better financially as you get a student loan"....it's a LOAN, it's DEBT. Why do a Masters (assuming you want onto a PhD) if you can get onto a PhD straight away?

EDIT: IMHO, Masters are a scam (£££).

As for research experience, well you get that on a regular BSc pathway, and some of us get research experience (quite a lot in chemistry and engineering in fact) in an industrial setting as part of a year or summer placement.

I meant it was much better financially than doing a BSc + MSc (assuming you didn't get funding for the MSc).
Yes, it certainly is true that you can get onto a PhD (even in theorectical physics) without a masters (from at least one example I can think of, though the PhD did include lecture courses to get everyone up to speed), but my gut feeling is that you would be at a disadvantage, though I can in no way prove this.
Good point about research experience - try and get as much as you can e.g. look up Nuffield scholarships for summer research experience.

. Taking that fact into account, the MSc can quite often be cheaper in terms of the money/time ratio (tutition fees).