PhD Applications: 2.1 in 3rd year a setback?

Partition

Hi all,

I have a question about PhD applications that I hope somebody can help me with. I am currently studying for my undergraduate degree in Biotechnology. Since most postgraduate applications are made during a person's 4th year, I gather that a large part of the decision will be made based on your 3rd year result (even if you state you plan to get a 1.1 for the degree overall).

I only have a 2.1 as my 3rd year mark (1.1s in 1st and 2nd year), however I ranked very highly in the class. Will this ranking be taken into account, or will some colleges just see the 2.1 and nothing else? As with many, I would love to apply for the best colleges I can (preferably in the UK), and am worried I'm no longer a good candidate for such places, at least until I finish the degree. As an aside, I also have some additional research project experience that not every applicant would have so perhaps that would help?

I know I could wait and apply after the degree, but that's not really an option for now for various reasons.

Thanks so much in advance!

Squeeonline

Partition wrote: »

Hi all,

I have a question about PhD applications that I hope somebody can help me with. I am currently studying for my undergraduate degree in Biotechnology. Since most postgraduate applications are made during a person's 4th year, I gather that a large part of the decision will be made based on your 3rd year result (even if you state you plan to get a 1.1 for the degree overall).

I only have a 2.1 as my 3rd year mark (1.1s in 1st and 2nd year), however I ranked very highly in the class. Will this ranking be taken into account, or will some colleges just see the 2.1 and nothing else? As with many, I would love to apply for the best colleges I can (preferably in the UK), and am worried I'm no longer a good candidate for such places, at least until I finish the degree. As an aside, I also have some additional research project experience that not every applicant would have so perhaps that would help?

I know I could wait and apply after the degree, but that's not really an option for now for various reasons.

Thanks so much in advance!

You're fine. I just graduated with the same degree. Overall only one guy in the class got a 1.1 everyone else was a 2.1 or 2.2 and plenty still got postgrads.

Do your best to get some experience outside of what you'll get in third year on the PPP. See if Flaus (or whoever is in charge of it for you this year) can get you in touch with someone in industry to get experience there too. It's rarer for students to have that and will help you stand out. I have almost a year of experience in academic labs around the world from various summers, but still unemployed despite applying for industrial positions since January.

Fremen

Your marks get your foot in the door. As long as they're not bad enough to get your application binned immediately, you're probably ok (though it's not like it hurts if you have straight A's). The test of whether you know your stuff and whether you're a good fit for the job usually happens at the interview stage.

After all, lecturers are well aware that some courses are easier than others - I know of cases where interviewees have been called out on picking easy courses to get high marks.

rugbug86

Rugbug86's Report card for Degree in Biotechnology:

Year 1: Pass (failed 2 modules in repeats, repeated year)
Year 2: Pass (failed 2 modules in repeats, compensated year)
Year 3: Pass (failed 1 module 1st time around, compensated year)
Year 4: 2:1 (failed 1 module but they left me off, did well in the rest)

Rugbug86 then began a PhD in Biochemistry and is due to submit her thesis in the next wee while.

Results, while important, are not the be-all and end-all. I got called for interview because I researched the **** out of the proposed project and knew lots about it while writing the cover letter. Since I've started my supervisor said it was my level of interest in the subject that got me the interview, and that I sailed through the interview being able to answer their questions, while posing to them some of their own.

My point? Not everyone is "book smart". I'm in the 3rd year of my PhD. I've presented posters at conferences. I've given talks at conferences. I've led an in vivo human trial. I've submitted a transfer thesis that exceeded all others submitted and passed my transfer viva with flying colours. My supervisor thinks I could submit this year. I've 4 chapters written.

Draw on all of your skills, not just your results. PhD life is not just about knowing your stuff, it's about being able to apply your knowledge to all situations, know when you need help - know your strengths, and in your application, focus on them.

PS - you've got good results - don't let the 2.1 knock you.

Partition

Hi everyone,

Thanks very much for taking the time to give me all the feedback and advice. It's greatly appreciated and has put my mind at rest

Partition

DN1

I would not think it is an obstacle, as universities are always looking for graduates do do PhD's for them, as they are essentially getting free labour for 3-4 years. The real question is why you want to do a PhD ?. There are already far too many PhD's around, especially in the life sciences, which includes biotechnology. Many several years after their PhD's are leaving science altogether and going into different areas or going back to college, to go into medicine or pharmacy. Just look at the back of the New Scientist in the jobs section, and compare the number of actual jobs with the number of PhD studentships, a warning sign that.

DN

djpbarry

DN1 wrote: »

I would not think it is an obstacle, as universities are always looking for graduates do do PhD's for them, as they are essentially getting free labour for 3-4 years.

Really? The PhD student gets nothing in return?

DN1 wrote: »

The real question is why you want to do a PhD ?. There are already far too many PhD's around, especially in the life sciences, which includes biotechnology.

What does that even mean? By what criteria are there "too many PhD's"? How many PhD's is "enough"? Considering that every PhD contributes something, no matter how small, to our understanding of the universe, I fail to see how anyone could conclude that we already have enough.

DN1 wrote: »

Many several years after their PhD's are leaving science altogether and going into different areas or going back to college, to go into medicine or pharmacy.

I'm sure many are, but so what? Not everyone can be a group leader. But then, that applies to pretty much any career path - not everyone can rise to the top. Some people have to adapt and go do something else.

At the end of the day, if someone decides to do a PhD, they should be doing it because they are interested in research and they are interested in the topic they are researching. Even if they don't go on to have a career in research, the skills they develop during the course of their PhD will stand to them, regardless of what they decide to do.

avalon68

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm sure many are, but so what? Not everyone can be a group leader. But then, that applies to pretty much any career path - not everyone can rise to the top. Some people have to adapt and go do something else.

Thats a little harsh - there is an excess of PhD graduates relative to available positions. I dont think you would find many people that would disagree with that. Yes, not everyone can rise to the top, however, maintaining high intake levels of PhD students whilst simultaneously cutting funding for postdoctoral and academic positions prevents any real career progression for young PhD graduates.

djpbarry

avalon68 wrote: »

Thats a little harsh - there is an excess of PhD graduates relative to available positions.

That depends on what you consider to be an available position. There are always going to be more PhD graduates than there are available postdoc positions. There are always going to be more post-potdocs than there are group leader or scientific officer positions. It's impossible for every PhD to follow the conventional research career path. I don't see that changing any time soon.

Turbulent Bill

avalon68 wrote: »

Yes, not everyone can rise to the top, however, maintaining high intake levels of PhD students whilst simultaneously cutting funding for postdoctoral and academic positions prevents any real career progression for young PhD graduates.

This presupposes that academia is the only real career avenue for a PhD graduate. There's still good demand in industry for PhDs, especially in the science/technical end.

DN1

Too many PhD's,
Yes, the student gets something in return, his or her PhD, but considering that most of the positions in industry in this country are for either people with secondary school qualifications, working in production line type of jobs and graduates working in QC type roles, there is not a real demand for science PhD's in this country. True, we need a few, but not many. It is academia with high demand for PhD students that is driving this demand. The demand is an academic one, not an industrial one. The reality is that with a Ph.D. in the sciences one is overqualified for most of the industrial science type positions that are available. That is a fact. Industry also wants to see evidence of industrial experience and doing a PhD does not give you any, again a fact. Yes, you learn how to present scientific results, how to write research papers, how to carry out experiments, but these are all preparations for an academic career, a career that will not exist for the majority of PhD graduates. As for jobs being available for science PhD's here or in the UK for that matter, I have come across a group of PhD's that wanted to try and become med. lab. technicians once they completed their PhD's, does not sound very promising to me. People expect and are promised careers in the sciences at the outset of their degree programmes and their PhD's and there is a big discrepancy between what is promised and what is delivered. All this talk about contributing to our understanding of the universe, that is fine, but not if you are then unemployed or working in a low paid job somewhere. It is fine for academics to go on and on about the value of PhD's, but the value is really for them, they get their research work done, countless hours of laboratory work done by their students and some of them do not even need to own a lab. coat, my PhD supervisor didn't. So, my point is they have a handy number, there is no point hiding behind the joys of science, people expect careers and well paying jobs out of all this study and work, not just to contribute in some way to a scientific problem. #
DN

DN1

Too many PhD's,
Yes, the student gets something in return, his or her PhD, but considering that most of the positions in industry in this country are for either people with secondary school qualifications, working in production line type of jobs and graduates working in QC type roles, there is not a real demand for science PhD's in this country. True, we need a few, but not many. It is academia with high demand for PhD students that is driving this demand. The demand is an academic one, not an industrial one. The reality is that with a Ph.D. in the sciences one is overqualified for most of the industrial science type positions that are available. That is a fact. Industry also wants to see evidence of industrial experience and doing a PhD does not give you any, again a fact. Yes, you learn how to present scientific results, how to write research papers, how to carry out experiments, but these are all preparations for an academic career, a career that will not exist for the majority of PhD graduates. As for jobs being available for science PhD's here or in the UK for that matter, I have come across a group of PhD's that wanted to try and become med. lab. technicians once they completed their PhD's, does not sound very promising to me. People expect and are promised careers in the sciences at the outset of their degree programmes and their PhD's and there is a big discrepancy between what is promised and what is delivered. All this talk about contributing to our understanding of the universe, that is fine, but not if you are then unemployed or working in a low paid job somewhere. It is fine for academics to go on and on about the value of PhD's, but the value is really for them, they get their research work done, countless hours of laboratory work done by their students and some of them do not even need to own a lab. coat, my PhD supervisor didn't. So, my point is they have a handy number, there is no point hiding behind the joys of science, people expect careers and well paying jobs out of all this study and work, not just to contribute in some way to a scientific problem. #
DN

rich1874

Partition wrote: »

Hi all,

I have a question about PhD applications that I hope somebody can help me with. I am currently studying for my undergraduate degree in Biotechnology. Since most postgraduate applications are made during a person's 4th year, I gather that a large part of the decision will be made based on your 3rd year result (even if you state you plan to get a 1.1 for the degree overall).

I only have a 2.1 as my 3rd year mark (1.1s in 1st and 2nd year), however I ranked very highly in the class. Will this ranking be taken into account, or will some colleges just see the 2.1 and nothing else? As with many, I would love to apply for the best colleges I can (preferably in the UK), and am worried I'm no longer a good candidate for such places, at least until I finish the degree. As an aside, I also have some additional research project experience that not every applicant would have so perhaps that would help?

I know I could wait and apply after the degree, but that's not really an option for now for various reasons.

Thanks so much in advance!

Not at all, guy in my class finished with a 2.1, a lot of people got a higher mark than him, but he got into a Phd program straigtht away and is doing really well in it, will probably have his doctorate before any of the guys who got 1.1s. So don't worry about it. You should be more worried about if you really think you'd enjoy doing a Phd, it's not just about being smart but also very dedicated and patient.

rich1874

DN1 wrote: »

Too many PhD's,
Yes, the student gets something in return, his or her PhD, but considering that most of the positions in industry in this country are for either people with secondary school qualifications, working in production line type of jobs and graduates working in QC type roles, there is not a real demand for science PhD's in this country. True, we need a few, but not many. It is academia with high demand for PhD students that is driving this demand. The demand is an academic one, not an industrial one. The reality is that with a Ph.D. in the sciences one is overqualified for most of the industrial science type positions that are available. That is a fact. Industry also wants to see evidence of industrial experience and doing a PhD does not give you any, again a fact. Yes, you learn how to present scientific results, how to write research papers, how to carry out experiments, but these are all preparations for an academic career, a career that will not exist for the majority of PhD graduates. As for jobs being available for science PhD's here or in the UK for that matter, I have come across a group of PhD's that wanted to try and become med. lab. technicians once they completed their PhD's, does not sound very promising to me. People expect and are promised careers in the sciences at the outset of their degree programmes and their PhD's and there is a big discrepancy between what is promised and what is delivered. All this talk about contributing to our understanding of the universe, that is fine, but not if you are then unemployed or working in a low paid job somewhere. It is fine for academics to go on and on about the value of PhD's, but the value is really for them, they get their research work done, countless hours of laboratory work done by their students and some of them do not even need to own a lab. coat, my PhD supervisor didn't. So, my point is they have a handy number, there is no point hiding behind the joys of science, people expect careers and well paying jobs out of all this study and work, not just to contribute in some way to a scientific problem. #
DN

Negative nelly, i know plenty of people who completed Phd's and went on to work in industry, some of them in unrelated fields, you don't have to feel you are confined to one thing based on your qualifications. I don't think you could ever be 'over qualified' for any job, it doesn't make any sense, especially considering that most of the knowledge you need for a job is acquired within the job itself, so stop scare mongering the guy because he wants to do a Phd.

djpbarry

DN1 wrote: »

It is fine for academics to go on and on about the value of PhD's, but the value is really for them, they get their research work done, countless hours of laboratory work done by their students and some of them do not even need to own a lab. coat, my PhD supervisor didn't. So, my point is they have a handy number...

Sounds like all this is based on your experience with a bad supervisor? My PhD supervisor had absolutely no problem with getting his hands dirty in the lab.

DN1 wrote: »

there is no point hiding behind the joys of science, people expect careers and well paying jobs out of all this study and work...

I've said it before and I'll say it again - anyone who does a PhD to make money is wasting their time. Science does not pay well and that's not going to change any time soon.

And not everyone can expect to come across a job to suit their qualifications, especially in a country as small as Ireland. Making the decision to go into research is often not compatible with wanting to remain in Ireland for your entire life.