The Student Room Group

Funding for PhD

Hi all,

I've just graduated from Birmingham with a 2:1 in Philosophy and am seriously interested in carrying it on to a PhD. My only problem is in how to get funding for it. I messed up a couple of my third year modules and ended up with a 61 average, but my tutor reckons I've got a good shot at getting into a decent department as he'll give me a good reference and I got a 77 for my dissertation.

The only problem I have now is in paying for it all. I'm unlikely to get AHRC funding for my first year with a 2:1, but apparently I have a decent chance of getting it after my first year. I'd be interested to hear if anyone knows how true this is, what it would be likely to depend on, and how generous the AHRC are likely to be -- how often do they tend to award maintenance grants in addition to fees etc.

Also, anyone who hasn't got funding, I'd like to hear how you managed to fund your PhD. How easy is it to get enough from bank loans, teaching work and so on to cover the cost of doing a PhD.

Thanks!

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
just found this, which should be useful to anyone in a similar situation to me:

http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/files/applicants_files/postgraduate_files/2006/doctoral_scheme_guide_to_applicants.asp?SourcePageID=90024#1

would still be very interested to hear what other people have to say about it though.
Reply 2
ive not looked at the link but the esrc stipulates a minimum 2:1, or a masters + 2.2. no additional marks are given for 1st. i assume its the same for the ahrb (?). the research councils have stats for who gets funding, in what field, what uni etc, and also tells you which unis can apply for research council funding.
Have you considered applying to the US? Most of the private universities offer full tuition and a stipend of $22,000 or so per year to PhD students. You just need to get accepted to get funding.
Reply 4
Wouldn't you need a masters before a doctorate as philosophy is an arts subject?

I know you do for English....:confused:
Reply 5
Standard practice is to enrol for an MPhil and get upgraded to a PhD student after a year if all goes well. People who don't continue after a year write a shorter thesis and are awarded an MPhil instead.

shady lane
Have you considered applying to the US? Most of the private universities offer full tuition and a stipend of $22,000 or so per year to PhD students. You just need to get accepted to get funding.


yeah, I've heard this. Will look into it. I'd have thought that they'd want something better than a low 2:1 off me though. I'm not sure if I'd be up for leaving all my mates either... what with starting uni and leaving uni, I'm getting pretty fed up of saying goodbye to people :frown:...
Reply 6
Yeh, i'm considering an MPhil, which becomes an MLitt, which becomes a PhD.

But I'll most likely do MA then enroll on a new PhD
The Boosh
ive not looked at the link but the esrc stipulates a minimum 2:1, or a masters + 2.2. no additional marks are given for 1st. i assume its the same for the ahrb (?). the research councils have stats for who gets funding, in what field, what uni etc, and also tells you which unis can apply for research council funding.


For AHRC, according to their documentation, you must normally possess a postgraduate master's degree before applying for PhD funding. You have to have signficant relevant experience beyond first degree level to get out of that one.

Remember that these courses (both Master's and PhD) in the arts are incredibly competitive. The documentation may say a good 2:1 but the funding council and unversities are going to pick the people who they feel are most likely to do well at PhD level and that is often considered to be people with firsts.
shady lane
Have you considered applying to the US? Most of the private universities offer full tuition and a stipend of $22,000 or so per year to PhD students. You just need to get accepted to get funding.


As far as I am aware you are actually "employed" by the university and are expected to do a considerable amount of TA work. PhDs in the states are also much longer than here.
ChemistBoy
As far as I am aware you are actually "employed" by the university and are expected to do a considerable amount of TA work. PhDs in the states are also much longer than here.


Well...time or money?
Plus one could argue that more time spent as a TA makes for an academic who is better prepared to teach, as opposed to just doing research.

It depends on the person. If you want a PhD just to do research, then teaching isn't important I guess. But it also means US PhD students have no loans and owe nothing when they're finished.
shady lane
But it also means US PhD students have no loans and owe nothing when they're finished.


Neither do we in the UK. Research council funding includes a very generous stipend. If you choose to pursue a PhD without funding then that is your choice just as it would be in the US. I believe the stipend is around the £12,000 (tax exempt) per year for most research council PhDs outside London. Teaching experience is easily gained after PhD and I believe that most postgrads in the UK get more than enough during their PhD anyway (it must be born in mind that reserach must be your primary motivation in taking on a PhD as that is the only criteria you are judged on). A US PhD could easily take you twice as long as a PhD in the UK and I don't see any real advantage in that.
^^
in response:

avast!

The only problem I have now is in paying for it all. I'm unlikely to get AHRC funding for my first year with a 2:1, but apparently I have a decent chance of getting it after my first year. I'd be interested to hear if anyone knows how true this is, what it would be likely to depend on, and how generous the AHRC are likely to be -- how often do they tend to award maintenance grants in addition to fees etc.


So it doesn't seem like you're all funded!!! Unless I'm confused by this post. If this is not the case then I guess he should stay in the UK. However he clearly said he's not likely to get any funding for his first year.

Also a US PhD takes 4-5 years, less if you come in with a master's degree. Does a UK PhD take 2 years? That would be "half the time."
shady lane
^^
in response:



So it doesn't seem like you're all funded!!! Unless I'm confused by this post. If this is not the case then I guess he should stay in the UK. However he clearly said he's not likely to get any funding for his first year.

Also a US PhD takes 4-5 years, less if you come in with a master's degree. Does a UK PhD take 2 years? That would be "half the time."



PhDs in UK ussually take 3 years, sometimes 4 if the PhD student requires more time to complete the thesis.
ChemistBoy
Teaching experience is easily gained after PhD and I believe that most postgrads in the UK get more than enough during their PhD anyway (it must be born in mind that reserach must be your primary motivation in taking on a PhD as that is the only criteria you are judged on).


It's funny actually, Jo Wolff (head of philosophy, UCL) had an article in the guardian recently on the lack of teacher training during the PhD. His point seemed to be that teaching experience "gained after the PhD" as you put it is pretty haphazard and attrocious

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/comment/story/0,,1811776,00.html
shady lane
a US PhD takes 4-5 years


"In 2003, the median number of years between enrollment in graduate school and completion of the doctoral degree (elapsed time to degree, or ETD) in all fields in the US was 7.5 years."

source: http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=8&article=phds

mussy123
PhDs in UK ussually take 3 years, sometimes 4 if the PhD student requires more time to complete the thesis.


Can't find a UK median easily to hand, but http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/HEFCE/2005/05_02/ suggests that 57% complete within 5 years, but defines complete in an odd way (around a year after submission, which makes little sense*), so it's probably somewhere around the 4 years mark. 3 years is very much a target rather than an actual time :wink:


* possibly because the universities are in no great hurry to report back to HESA as they don't usually have much to do with PhDs, so 'closing their HESA file' takes place long afterwards.
ChemistBoy
For AHRC, according to their documentation, you must normally possess a postgraduate master's degree before applying for PhD funding. You have to have signficant relevant experience beyond first degree level to get out of that one.

Remember that these courses (both Master's and PhD) in the arts are incredibly competitive. The documentation may say a good 2:1 but the funding council and unversities are going to pick the people who they feel are most likely to do well at PhD level and that is often considered to be people with firsts.


What are you basing this last comment on? i know numerous phd students with research council funding and none of them have a 1st - which figures given the documentation. The esrc explicitly state that a 2:1 is the benchmark for the application to be considered and that no additional points are given for a 1st - the strength of the proposal and your references hold the most marks - these are very heavily weighted. Equally, having a masters can gain points, but the grade of masters doesnt matter - set points for each criteria (akin to equal ops marking). It certainly looks good having a first on your application, but its not going to give you a significant edge (if any) over somebody with a 2:1. Equally, it doesnt matter if you are an oxford or an oxford brookes graduate as long as the references and proposal are sound and fit the funding themes for that year (im pre-empting the league table arguments here...).
and you are right - additional experience beyond your grades is vital
Reply 17
The Boosh
What are you basing this last comment on? i know numerous phd students with research council funding and none of them have a 1st - which figures given the documentation. The esrc explicitly state that a 2:1 is the benchmark for the application to be considered and that no additional points are given for a 1st - the strength of the proposal and your references hold the most marks - these are very heavily weighted. Equally, having a masters can gain points, but the grade of masters doesnt matter - set points for each criteria (akin to equal ops marking). It certainly looks good having a first on your application, but its not going to give you a significant edge (if any) over somebody with a 2:1. Equally, it doesnt matter if you are an oxford or an oxford brookes graduate as long as the references and proposal are sound and fit the funding themes for that year (im pre-empting the league table arguments here...).


Approximately 25% of eligible applicants recieves AHRC funding, according to their website. That sounds pretty competitive to me. And the AHRC may be slightly different from the ESRC - while they don't demand a 1st I have been told by several lecturers that in their experience the vast majority of offers made (for Masters funding) are to those holding a 1st. For AHRC having a Masters is a requirement for PhD funding, unless you are going to start an MPhil and upgrade.
have u looked at how the marks are given out? or is this just heresay...
Reply 19
Gwai
Approximately 25% of eligible applicants recieves AHRC funding, according to their website. That sounds pretty competitive to me. And the AHRC may be slightly different from the ESRC - while they don't demand a 1st I have been told by several lecturers that in their experience the vast majority of offers made (for Masters funding) are to those holding a 1st. For AHRC having a Masters is a requirement for PhD funding, unless you are going to start an MPhil and upgrade.


This sits well with what my tutor told me. He said that I'm unlikely to get funding for my MPhil without having a 1st to my name. He said that once I transfer to PhD status, I'm much more likely to get funding. Which is great, but I'd like to know how likely :rolleyes:

thanks for all the suggestions everyone, by the way.