Acedemic abilities needed to continue?

dr gonzo

Hi all, im actually an undergrad still but have a question that some of you may be able to help me with.

Ive been thinking about postgrads a lot lately and something that has me a little nervous is academic requirements. Most masters courses seem to say a 2.1 is whats required but is that just the bare minimum? Do they actually require you to be capable of much more?

More to the point, in a very silly and very ahead of myself sort of way ive been contemplating phd's a little lately, i feel ridiculous even saying that but were i hypothetically to apply for one down the road would they be expecting candidates to have firsts across the board? i.e am i screwed in terms of continuing to a higher academic level if i amnt getting top marks from the get go?

Thanks all, any info appreciated.

kisaragi

Usually a 2.1 seems to be the minimum for a masters, but obviously the better the result the more chance you have of getting it. It also depends on how competitive the masters is.

As for a PhD, well, I went straight from my undergraduate onto a PhD with a 1st overall, but I didn't have them across the board (I even got a 59 in one of my final year modules :mad:). So I think as long as you have a supervisor who wishes to work with you and relatively good grades overall that's the main thing. If you can find someone who's willing to work with you I assume you can do a PhD regardless but finding funding might be a problem! I'm pretty sure for IRCHSS and IRCSET even though they say the min is a 2.1 it's really a 1st.

djpbarry

dr gonzo wrote: »

More to the point, in a very silly and very ahead of myself sort of way ive been contemplating phd's a little lately, i feel ridiculous even saying that but were i hypothetically to apply for one down the road would they be expecting candidates to have firsts across the board?

First of all, I don’t consider it very silly to be contemplating a PhD during your undergrad – it’s a perfectly reasonable consideration.

To answer your question, no, getting a first is not the be-all and end-all - I’ve encountered post-grads with a 1.1 to their name who were absolutely hopeless in a research environment. However, it certainly won’t do you any harm to get the highest grade you can – I think that’s stating the obvious.

What field are you hoping to conduct research in?

dr gonzo

djpbarry wrote: »

What field are you hoping to conduct research in?

Archaeology hopefully. Im not quite sure what the opportunities for phd studies within it are but i know a few of the research students in UCD and they all seem to have gotten first class degrees and masters which im not getting at the moment. It would be a shame to write off the possibility in my mind at this stage which is why i posted this question.

Ive still third year to go so its not beyond the realms of possibility that i could get a first but hopefully im not automatically out of the running if i dont.

Turbulent Bill

djpbarry wrote: »

To answer your question, no, getting a first is not the be-all and end-all - I’ve encountered post-grads with a 1.1 to their name who were absolutely hopeless in a research environment. However, it certainly won’t do you any harm to get the highest grade you can – I think that’s stating the obvious.

+1, I think it's much more important to have demonstrated good research skills (e.g., problem solving, self-motivation, sheer bloody-mindedness!) than have perfect exam scores. I got a 2.1, enrolled for a research masters and then transferred to a PhD, so it's perfectly possible.

Bear in mind though that postgrad places are much more popular in a recession, so the entry requirements will rise with demand. It's analogous to the CAO points for high-demand (but not necessarily difficult) courses.

dr gonzo

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

+1, I think it's much more important to have demonstrated good research skills (e.g., problem solving, self-motivation, sheer bloody-mindedness!) than have perfect exam scores. I got a 2.1, enrolled for a research masters and then transferred to a PhD, so it's perfectly possible.

Bear in mind though that postgrad places are much more popular in a recession, so the entry requirements will rise with demand. It's analogous to the CAO points for high-demand (but not necessarily difficult) courses.

Thats actually quite a relief to know. I understand that demand may work against me but at least i know that grades arent the only factor and that it is possible to continue with a 2.1.

woodchuck

While most PhD applications require a 2.1 or a 1, that's normally just to get you in the door to the interview stage. Once you get to the interview I don't think the grades matter as much, it's up to you to make your best impression there and that's what they'll probably go by when making their final decision!

PS definitely not silly to be thinking about it, don't be so down on yourself :P

dr gonzo

woodchuck wrote: »

While most PhD applications require a 2.1 or a 1, that's normally just to get you in the door to the interview stage. Once you get to the interview I don't think the grades matter as much, it's up to you to make your best impression there and that's what they'll probably go by when making their final decision!

PS definitely not silly to be thinking about it, don't be so down on yourself :P

Haha, cheers, i got into college a bit late so maybe thats why i think its a bit ridiculous to have such lofty notions at this stage.

So the interview is arguably the more important stage? Thats actually a relief again because leaving aside my grades i actually have managed to get a good bit of useful volunteer and society work under my belt and i still have a year to go so that might stand to me in an interview scenario.

woodchuck

Yeah having your 2.1 or 1st is essentially just a box that needs to be ticked, so while it's important to get a 2.1 minimum, it's not going to be the overall deciding factor! (and like some people have said, you can get highly intelligent people on paper who haven't a clue how to do independent research and visa versa, so don't start thinking that you won't be able for it if you're grades aren't quite up to that standard yet.)

Once they see that you've got the necessary academic requirements they'll be looking to the rest of your application and that's where you can impress them with additional experience, skills etc (Sorry i don't know anything about archeology so can't be more specific :P).

Then once you get to the interview, just be sure to 'wow' them At that stage the marks won't really matter!

The nitty gritty grades for each year/module only matter if you're applying for funding yourself, like with ircset. But even then it's only ONE part of the application (having a supervisor on board is the most important thing!). If you're applying for an advertised PhD position, so long as you have your 2.1 or 1st it's the rest of your application and how you present yourself at the interview that matters!