Ahrc?

mitten_2

When i started my PhD i knew i would be self-funding this year but i thought i would get either arts council or uni funding for my second/third year.

As it turns out, when i told my supervisor i may have to leave due to lack of funding he said they may be able to help me. Also I am chasing up potential funding from a well-known magazine so all isn't lost just yet.

Fatal_Swan

Sorry, arrived at this discussion late - but a few points I thought needed making.

One, there have been a few silly comments about what research merits funding and what doesn't. How could anyone possibly judge on the basis of what we know about it (essentially nothing)? All research takes place in context, and in order to be achievable within a short timescale by an individual (as in the case of MAs and PhDs), it must be highly focussed, and specific. Taking arts and humanities research out of its context will in almost all cases lead someone to ask what's the point of it, etc. The implication is that there can be no point, but the author of the research is not around to justify it. Also, the aims of research in different fields will not be familiar to everyone and will differ significantly from subject to subject, but this doesn't make it pointless. On the other hand, the point of any particular drug research etc. is rarely questioned, as if it's worthy by its very nature. It's all too common for people to question the point of arts and humanities research, largely because there's nothing that you can sell at the end of it. For the benefit of society, of course...

Now, all this is largely irrelevant to this thread because the AHRC does not, primarily, fund research projects. It funds researchers. The AHRC wants to know that the research can be carried out successfully by the applicant within the relevant timescale. The outcome the AHRC is looking for is not a piece of work they can put their name to (scientists might find this hard to understand), but a well trained researcher capable of further developing a career in academia. The evidence of this is that the research proposal only takes up 300 words (about three short paragraphs) - or at least it has done the times I've applied. Nowhere does it ask you to justify any benefit beyond the relevant academic discipline. On the other hand, they're desperate to judge the quality of the candidate. For example, you can work like hell to get your first-class degree, only for the AHRC to classify it as either low, middle or high!

Referring to the OP's case, the AHRC of course doesn't have an enormous budget, and it is certainly true that not all of the candidates who deserve funding get it. No-one should expect to get funding out of the AHRC. When applying for PhD funding, I had a I* degree ('starred first' - no, I didn't know they existed either...) and a Masters funded by the AHRC that was going very well (I got a distinction). But, alas, they turned me down first time around. The moral is that you can never know what the AHRC will decide or how strong the other applicants will be. The only thing you can do is make your chances as good as possible and get as much advice as you can on how to do this.

In fact, I wonder if the advice given to the OP at the time of chosing to do a PhD was good enough. I was advised that the only way that the AHRC would ever overlook a candidate not having a first is if they had a Masters which was exceptional. (In any case since Masters results aren't available at the stage of the AHRC application for the 1st year of a PhD, there's no chance of getting it for the 1st year...) I also have a feeling that the AHRC now require a Masters from candidates in order to qualify for PhD funding - if so, the situation could possibly have been avoided (or at least clarified from the start) with better advice.

Sympathies and best of luck to anyone involved in applications this year, it's a real pain.

hostie

I am AHRC funded and I think the thing that helped me to secure it was asking lots of other funded students for tips.
The first tip I received was to respect the knowledge of the staff in the department. Especially regarding things that actually needed researched, gaps in current research etc. Whenever someone mentioned something that needed researched I would make a note of it. In the end I built my proposal not on the topic I liked best, but on the one that my supervisor thought really needed to be researched.
I read ALL of the pages of notes and spent a long time trying to work out exactly what the AHRC required me to include in my statement. (In particular the statement of what research is, hidden somewhere in the 73 pages of boring notes, was crucial to my statement). I mentioned the training I had received to show I was prepared. I attended workshops on how to apply for funding and used the school of advanced studies PORT website, which has examples of research proposals.
I also applied for other bursaries as a back up.
All in all I spent as much time preparing my application as I did writing an essay. My supervisor was extremely supportive and worked through it with me making suggestions on weak areas.
I hope that helps. Luck comes into it too and so I suggest working on applictions to other options. Last summer, when I was giving up hope on receiving the funding I started a thread and people gave me lots of advice on studying abroad etc.

Crispy_Ambulance

If you don't get research council funding, you have to ask yourself how badly you want to do the PhD. And if you want it badly enough, then maybe you have to study and work part time to afford it. Or take out a loan. Or come back in a few years time when you have enough savings.

It is much more difficult to find funding part way through your course and the Access to Learning Fund will expect postgrads to have made provision and will include a notional income in their calculations.

A harsh fact is that there is very little money available for postgrad study, particularly in the arts.

cupid_s

I'm doing a scientific PhD in (I think - most people actually agree) an important field. I get £8000 a year, and everyone assumes that I get about 12-14k as that's how much they're generally getting. It really is difficult to manage on that when everyone else you know has so much extra and you have your share of a mortgage to pay but I accept I'm lucky to be funded as many people aren't.

I know that's not particularly helpful to you, but I would say can you do demonstrating to undergrads etc? At my Uni you get paid a decent amount as as you don't have to worry about finishing to funding deadlines, if it were to take a little longer to get your PhD but you had more money coming in it might be worth it.

If your supervisor has said they'll try to find you some extra money then I imagine they would think quite highly of you (I wouldn't waste my own money on someone I didn't think would do well) so they believe in you. Maybe they could put a word in for you with module managers who need people to take tutorials or do some marking.

Alternatively, if your supervisor could find you some money, could you get a part time job and then do your studies part time also? I know it takes longer but it's an option that's certainly better than dropping out.

Barcode

A 2:1 shouldn't rule you out, not if it's a reasonable 2:1, or perhaps your department has a slightly unusual marking system. I was 0.25% away from a 1:1 (really ...), but there were people with lower averages than me who had a 1:1, as in, if your average was 66, but 50% of your marks were firsts, your degree said a 1:1.

I don't know why anybody, first or not, would think they are equipped to start a phd right after their degree. An MA is an appropriate stepping stone and teaches you the right sort of research skills.

I'm starting a phd next year, and my supervisor e-mailed me to say I "have a very good chance of getting a grant", but obviously, I'll need to do quite well on the MA (no idea at the moment as I've only had one assessment result back). I take it this is because (i) I've an interesting proposal (ii) I shouldn't do badly at the MA and (iii) my undergrad degree did put me in something like the top 5% in my department. So I think the point is not if you have a 2:1, but how that stacks up compared to everybody else. A 60 is obviously very different from a 69.

I don't think people have a right to be funded, and I think it's only right that competition is fierce. If you want to do a PhD, you must make plans on the assumption you won't get funding. The way I see it is, if I do, that's a bonus, but if not, I can fund it as I've been saving like a maniac the past three years.

Oh, my MA ahrc app last year, was graded as being excellent blah blah, I forget the number.

Have a look on jobs.ac.uk , for studentships etc.

mitten_2

Barcode wrote: »

I don't know why anybody, first or not, would think they are equipped to start a phd right after their degree. An MA is an appropriate stepping stone and teaches you the right sort of research skills.

I just asked if i could do my phd straight away and the head of department said they didn't usually allow people to but he asked to see some of my work anyway. I sent some of my work and my application and they accepted me. It saved me a year and i suppose i should be pleased that i saved the money i would have spent on a MA. I would have had more chance of getting funded but the fees i have paid for the first year of my phd are the same as the fees i would've had to pay for an MA.

Voyager2002

Barcode wrote: »

I don't know why anybody, first or not, would think they are equipped to start a phd right after their degree. An MA is an appropriate stepping stone and teaches you the right sort of research skills.

Traditionally, the most able students would commence a PhD immediately after their first degree. The MSc began as a separate and more vocational qualification, but was also used by slightly weaker candidates as a means to qualify for a PhD.

Is an MA or MSc necessary in order to undertake a PhD effectively? There can be no doubt that it provides a useful 'bridge' between the style of work and intellectual demands of undergraduate work, and those expected of a research student. However, I can think of several counter-examples: one of the people who did a PhD with me (five of us shared a large office) came straight from undergraduate work. He was the first to complete: within the three years that were allowed he submitted his thesis, and not only passed his viva but the examiners advised him to turn it into a book! And someone who started in about 1996 also had no MA or MSc, but now he not only has a PhD but is a member of academic staff in the same department!

It all depends!

Barcode

I suppose it's dependent upon a number of things. I wouldn't say an MA is necessary, but in the vast majority of cases, it's surely an advantage. Not to mention for funding prospects. The AHRC report on last years competition quite clearly states they didn't like the large number of people that applied for PhD funding without an Masters. I expect it's a similar story for the other research councils.

Speaking for myself, the MA has given me a clearer idea of what I want to research. I don't think I'd have been ready after my BA, and my department doesn't take anybody with just a BA anyway. Not for good reason.

mitten_2

Most places prefer candidates to have masters degrees, my department told me as much. I think i just proved to them that i was ready to go straight to the PhD and they were therefore happy to let me. If i had not convinced them that i was ready then they would have turned me down.

The research training modules which are core to PhD here have helped bridge the gap between BA and PhD sufficiently for me. I'll be pleased to finish my PhD sooner than i could have should i have done a MA. By the time my PhD comes to an end (if all goes to plan) I'll be 24 and then i will take a long break to relax