Original post by tmm6411
I *only* have a 2.1 (in physics) and hopefully get a mid merit (roughly 65%) in my MSc, do I have a chance of getting onto a PhD at a good uni?
Depends what you think is good, and you might get an offer, but you may struggle to get funding. 67% is often considered the minimum at Masters to progress to a PhD. Your chances with those grades might be better at the Uni where you are known.
Original post by threeportdrift
Depends what you think is good, and you might get an offer, but you may struggle to get funding. 67% is often considered the minimum at Masters to progress to a PhD. Your chances with those grades might be better at the Uni where you are known.
What about somewhere like Loughborough? And is the 67% a strict cut off or is there some leeway? I've not seen that percentage anywhere to be honest. Thanks
Original post by gjd800
You have a chance but funding is unlikely with a 2.1
So if I were to go for an unfunded PhD, do you think I have a decent shot?
Original post by tmm6411
I *only* have a 2.1 (in physics) and hopefully get a mid merit (roughly 65%) in my MSc, do I have a chance of getting onto a PhD at a good uni?
I barely got a 2:1 in my Bachelors (in Medical Science) and got 67% in my MRes, I'm now on a funded Neuroscience PhD at Sheffield University (a Russell Group university). So in short, yes. For all the PhD's I applied for, my academic's were barely a factor once I met the minimum requirements, it was all about my suitability for the project (in my case, my experience for it). All the PhD students in my department pretty much are in the same boat-they were all the best suited for the project in terms of experience, so academic performance aside why wouldn't they be chosen.
Basically think beyond the academics. As far as I have seen (from applying to multiple British universities), if you meet the requirements they mention in the application (2:1 at BSc, merit at masters usually but occasionally 1st/distinctions required), they don't really delve into academics any further and its all about your experience and suitability for the project.
Original post by threeportdrift
Depends what you think is good, and you might get an offer, but you may struggle to get funding. 67% is often considered the minimum at Masters to progress to a PhD. Your chances with those grades might be better at the Uni where you are known.
I don't know where people are getting this 67% cutoff for doing a PhD from? I don't think people are going to think someone who gets, say, 66% is clearly not fit for a PhD. I've never heard of this cutoff, generally if you do a Masters its expected you will have got a merit which is obviously above 60%. I know plenty of people from my masters course who just got merits who are now on funded PhD's.
Original post by gjd800
You have a chance but funding is unlikely with a 2.1
I don't know where this information is from, possibly from non-science courses? I and everyone PhD student I know in my department (except 1) are all on funded PhD's having got 2:1's during our Bachelor's degrees-that's at least 20 examples of your information being out of date, and given how competitive our application processes are.
Also worth mentioning for science PhD's, most of them require funding, especially one's involving lab work, so a phd advertised as "self funded" actually won't go ahead unless you can provide the funding (usually by your government funding it or you applying for it with the supervisor), so unfunded PhD's might be even more difficult to get into for many science projects
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by QuentinM
I barely got a 2:1 in my Bachelors (in Medical Science) and got 67% in my MRes, I'm now on a funded Neuroscience PhD at Sheffield University (a Russell Group university). So in short, yes. For all the PhD's I applied for, my academic's were barely a factor once I met the minimum requirements, it was all about my suitability for the project (in my case, my experience for it). All the PhD students in my department pretty much are in the same boat-they were all the best suited for the project in terms of experience, so academic performance aside why wouldn't they be chosen.
Basically think beyond the academics. As far as I have seen (from applying to multiple British universities), if you meet the requirements they mention in the application (2:1 at BSc, merit at masters usually but occasionally 1st/distinctions required), they don't really delve into academics any further and its all about your experience and suitability for the project.
I don't know where people are getting this 67% cutoff for doing a PhD from? I don't think people are going to think someone who gets, say, 66% is clearly not fit for a PhD. I've never heard of this cutoff, generally if you do a Masters its expected you will have got a merit which is obviously above 60%. I know plenty of people from my masters course who just got merits who are now on funded PhD's.
I don't know where this information is from, possibly from non-science courses? I and everyone PhD student I know in my department (except 1) are all on funded PhD's having got 2:1's during our Bachelor's degrees-that's at least 20 examples of your information being out of date, and given how competitive our application processes are.
Also worth mentioning for science PhD's, most of them require funding, especially one's involving lab work, so a phd advertised as "self funded" actually won't go ahead unless you can provide the funding (usually by your government funding it or you applying for it with the supervisor), so unfunded PhD's might be even more difficult to get into for many science projects
Basically think beyond the academics. As far as I have seen (from applying to multiple British universities), if you meet the requirements they mention in the application (2:1 at BSc, merit at masters usually but occasionally 1st/distinctions required), they don't really delve into academics any further and its all about your experience and suitability for the project.
I don't know where people are getting this 67% cutoff for doing a PhD from? I don't think people are going to think someone who gets, say, 66% is clearly not fit for a PhD. I've never heard of this cutoff, generally if you do a Masters its expected you will have got a merit which is obviously above 60%. I know plenty of people from my masters course who just got merits who are now on funded PhD's.
I don't know where this information is from, possibly from non-science courses? I and everyone PhD student I know in my department (except 1) are all on funded PhD's having got 2:1's during our Bachelor's degrees-that's at least 20 examples of your information being out of date, and given how competitive our application processes are.
Also worth mentioning for science PhD's, most of them require funding, especially one's involving lab work, so a phd advertised as "self funded" actually won't go ahead unless you can provide the funding (usually by your government funding it or you applying for it with the supervisor), so unfunded PhD's might be even more difficult to get into for many science projects
Thank you for your answer, that is all quite reassuring!
Original post by QuentinM
I don't know where people are getting this 67% cutoff for doing a PhD from? I don't think people are going to think someone who gets, say, 66% is clearly not fit for a PhD. I've never heard of this cutoff, generally if you do a Masters its expected you will have got a merit which is obviously above 60%. I know plenty of people from my masters course who just got merits who are now on funded PhD's.
I don't know where people are getting this 67% cutoff for doing a PhD from? I don't think people are going to think someone who gets, say, 66% is clearly not fit for a PhD. I've never heard of this cutoff, generally if you do a Masters its expected you will have got a merit which is obviously above 60%. I know plenty of people from my masters course who just got merits who are now on funded PhD's.
I didn't say 'cut off', or indicate it was a hard boundary, or that someone who got 66% wasn't fit to do a PhD. My wording was quite specific "67% is often considered the minimum ...".
60% may have been a Merit on your Uni, it was the Masters pass mark at mine!
Original post by QuentinM
I barely got a 2:1 in my Bachelors (in Medical Science) and got 67% in my MRes, I'm now on a funded Neuroscience PhD at Sheffield University (a Russell Group university). So in short, yes. For all the PhD's I applied for, my academic's were barely a factor once I met the minimum requirements, it was all about my suitability for the project (in my case, my experience for it). All the PhD students in my department pretty much are in the same boat-they were all the best suited for the project in terms of experience, so academic performance aside why wouldn't they be chosen.
Basically think beyond the academics. As far as I have seen (from applying to multiple British universities), if you meet the requirements they mention in the application (2:1 at BSc, merit at masters usually but occasionally 1st/distinctions required), they don't really delve into academics any further and its all about your experience and suitability for the project.
I don't know where people are getting this 67% cutoff for doing a PhD from? I don't think people are going to think someone who gets, say, 66% is clearly not fit for a PhD. I've never heard of this cutoff, generally if you do a Masters its expected you will have got a merit which is obviously above 60%. I know plenty of people from my masters course who just got merits who are now on funded PhD's.
I don't know where this information is from, possibly from non-science courses? I and everyone PhD student I know in my department (except 1) are all on funded PhD's having got 2:1's during our Bachelor's degrees-that's at least 20 examples of your information being out of date, and given how competitive our application processes are.
Also worth mentioning for science PhD's, most of them require funding, especially one's involving lab work, so a phd advertised as "self funded" actually won't go ahead unless you can provide the funding (usually by your government funding it or you applying for it with the supervisor), so unfunded PhD's might be even more difficult to get into for many science projects
Basically think beyond the academics. As far as I have seen (from applying to multiple British universities), if you meet the requirements they mention in the application (2:1 at BSc, merit at masters usually but occasionally 1st/distinctions required), they don't really delve into academics any further and its all about your experience and suitability for the project.
I don't know where people are getting this 67% cutoff for doing a PhD from? I don't think people are going to think someone who gets, say, 66% is clearly not fit for a PhD. I've never heard of this cutoff, generally if you do a Masters its expected you will have got a merit which is obviously above 60%. I know plenty of people from my masters course who just got merits who are now on funded PhD's.
I don't know where this information is from, possibly from non-science courses? I and everyone PhD student I know in my department (except 1) are all on funded PhD's having got 2:1's during our Bachelor's degrees-that's at least 20 examples of your information being out of date, and given how competitive our application processes are.
Also worth mentioning for science PhD's, most of them require funding, especially one's involving lab work, so a phd advertised as "self funded" actually won't go ahead unless you can provide the funding (usually by your government funding it or you applying for it with the supervisor), so unfunded PhD's might be even more difficult to get into for many science projects
How is Sheffield a good uni? LMAO
Especially for medical sciences at a good universities like Imperial, UCL, KCL, Oxbridge a funded PhD is extremely difficult to obtain. Additionally, it's more difficult to get places at these good universities if you're not already known to them.
Original post by tmm6411
What about somewhere like Loughborough? And is the 67% a strict cut off or is there some leeway? I've not seen that percentage anywhere to be honest. Thanks
I guess Loughborough would be a reasonable shot - do you have a close fit with a project that is offered there? That's key if grades are marginal. If you've done well in matching modules, some course projects, maybe some work experience in the relevant PhD project area then that will help a lot.
Original post by QuentinM
I barely got a 2:1 in my Bachelors (in Medical Science) and got 67% in my MRes, I'm now on a funded Neuroscience PhD at Sheffield University (a Russell Group university). So in short, yes. For all the PhD's I applied for, my academic's were barely a factor once I met the minimum requirements, it was all about my suitability for the project (in my case, my experience for it). All the PhD students in my department pretty much are in the same boat-they were all the best suited for the project in terms of experience, so academic performance aside why wouldn't they be chosen.
Basically think beyond the academics. As far as I have seen (from applying to multiple British universities), if you meet the requirements they mention in the application (2:1 at BSc, merit at masters usually but occasionally 1st/distinctions required), they don't really delve into academics any further and its all about your experience and suitability for the project.
I don't know where people are getting this 67% cutoff for doing a PhD from? I don't think people are going to think someone who gets, say, 66% is clearly not fit for a PhD. I've never heard of this cutoff, generally if you do a Masters its expected you will have got a merit which is obviously above 60%. I know plenty of people from my masters course who just got merits who are now on funded PhD's.
I don't know where this information is from, possibly from non-science courses? I and everyone PhD student I know in my department (except 1) are all on funded PhD's having got 2:1's during our Bachelor's degrees-that's at least 20 examples of your information being out of date, and given how competitive our application processes are.
Also worth mentioning for science PhD's, most of them require funding, especially one's involving lab work, so a phd advertised as "self funded" actually won't go ahead unless you can provide the funding (usually by your government funding it or you applying for it with the supervisor), so unfunded PhD's might be even more difficult to get into for many science projects
Basically think beyond the academics. As far as I have seen (from applying to multiple British universities), if you meet the requirements they mention in the application (2:1 at BSc, merit at masters usually but occasionally 1st/distinctions required), they don't really delve into academics any further and its all about your experience and suitability for the project.
I don't know where people are getting this 67% cutoff for doing a PhD from? I don't think people are going to think someone who gets, say, 66% is clearly not fit for a PhD. I've never heard of this cutoff, generally if you do a Masters its expected you will have got a merit which is obviously above 60%. I know plenty of people from my masters course who just got merits who are now on funded PhD's.
I don't know where this information is from, possibly from non-science courses? I and everyone PhD student I know in my department (except 1) are all on funded PhD's having got 2:1's during our Bachelor's degrees-that's at least 20 examples of your information being out of date, and given how competitive our application processes are.
Also worth mentioning for science PhD's, most of them require funding, especially one's involving lab work, so a phd advertised as "self funded" actually won't go ahead unless you can provide the funding (usually by your government funding it or you applying for it with the supervisor), so unfunded PhD's might be even more difficult to get into for many science projects
Yes: I missed the subject area in the OP! If you hold a 2.1 in my area, you simply are not getting funded.
Original post by threeportdrift
I didn't say 'cut off', or indicate it was a hard boundary, or that someone who got 66% wasn't fit to do a PhD. My wording was quite specific "67% is often considered the minimum ...".
60% may have been a Merit on your Uni, it was the Masters pass mark at mine!
60% may have been a Merit on your Uni, it was the Masters pass mark at mine!
Again im not sure where you got this 67% number, I've never seen or heard of this anywhere in the UK
Original post by QuentinM
Again im not sure where you got this 67% number, I've never seen or heard of this anywhere in the UK
Cambridge, Oxford, Bristol, UCL, all universities where I've worked and met the figure is an accepted 'high' marker for progress on a Masters to PhD.
Original post by merchantas
How is Sheffield a good uni? LMAO
Especially for medical sciences at a good universities like Imperial, UCL, KCL, Oxbridge a funded PhD is extremely difficult to obtain. Additionally, it's more difficult to get places at these good universities if you're not already known to them.
Especially for medical sciences at a good universities like Imperial, UCL, KCL, Oxbridge a funded PhD is extremely difficult to obtain. Additionally, it's more difficult to get places at these good universities if you're not already known to them.
Because Sheffield has one of the highest research incomes out of any university in the country, particularly for medicine, biomedical sciences, and engineering. It's also become one of the strongest at producing PhD students at any university as a result of its SURE program which pretty much guarantees its participants a PhD place at any university, because there just aren't any other universities which have such programs on such a large scale or with the same level of support.
I don't think you have any idea how PhD admissions and funding works, it's pretty much the same no matter which university you're talking about, the differences will come in the competitiveness of the topic and things like CDTs and DTPs which attract more attention. In general it happens that students with higher grades tend to apply to those universities, however someone with relatively mediocre grades but the typical amount of research experience you find in PhD admissions at other universities will still get a place. As for it being more difficult to get places at those universities, that absolutely applies to all PhD programs, not just those unis. It's incredibly common for students to stay on at their undergrad/masters uni for their PhD, followed by your PhD supervisor knowing someone at your old uni.
Original post by tmm6411
I *only* have a 2.1 (in physics) and hopefully get a mid merit (roughly 65%) in my MSc, do I have a chance of getting onto a PhD at a good uni?
Original post by tmm6411
What about somewhere like Loughborough? And is the 67% a strict cut off or is there some leeway? I've not seen that percentage anywhere to be honest. Thanks
Hi @tmm6411
My name's Dan and I'm based in the postgraduate team here at Loughborough University.
Firstly, well done on your 2.1 in Physics and best of luck with the rest of your master's!
The entry requirements for our postgraduate research degrees vary across schools, departments and projects. For specific projects, the entry requirements will be listed on the individual advertisement. Alternatively, you may like to browse our research areas if you can't see a project that suits you and would like to develop your own research proposal - the research area pages also contain some generic information on entry requirements.
In terms of funding, you can find out more about the options available on our website.
There's lots more information on my other thread about PhDs which you can find here, and our doctoral experience guide gives a useful insight to postgraduate research at Loughborough.
I hope this helps!
All the best,
- Dan
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Master in Economics at Birkbeck
- Master Economics: LSE vs Cambridge vs UCL vs CEMFI vs BGSE
- MSc Statistics -- LSE with scholarship vs Imperial
- Applying to masters in US from Russell group - theoretical
- PHD funds
- Grades not good enough for a PhD?
- how hard is it to get offers for PhD
- PhD The Early Process, Application and Interview advice
- PhD in Classics/Ancient History help... Where to do it?
- Masters or PhD?
- Course selection
- Pivoting into other subject for masters.
- BEng / MEng / PhD
- Which uni is better for pharmacy
- MPhil vs PHD
- Engineering Phd at queen mary university london
- PhD with a 2.2 and Pass?
- Can you do an economics PhD after doing an international political economy masters?
- Any tips, tricks or recommendations before doing a PhD degree ?
- Studying a PhD degree while living in a different city - the Visa Question
Latest
Trending
Last reply 15 hours ago
MSc Computer Science (conversion course) 2024-2025Last reply 16 hours ago
UCL (University College London) Postgraduate Applicants 2024-25Last reply 1 week ago
University of Edinburgh 2024-25 Postgraduate ApplicantsLast reply 1 week ago
MPhil in Basic and Translational Neuroscience at Uni of CambridgeLast reply 2 weeks ago
Cambridge University MPhil in Management (2024-2025)Trending
Last reply 15 hours ago
MSc Computer Science (conversion course) 2024-2025Last reply 16 hours ago
UCL (University College London) Postgraduate Applicants 2024-25Last reply 1 week ago
University of Edinburgh 2024-25 Postgraduate ApplicantsLast reply 1 week ago
MPhil in Basic and Translational Neuroscience at Uni of CambridgeLast reply 2 weeks ago
Cambridge University MPhil in Management (2024-2025)
