When students start at the bottom of the ladder on a PhD, on of the hardest things they find to adjust to is the feeling of isolation. Especially those who have come up straight from an undergraduate degree, and are used to the camaraderie and sharing of deadlines, coursework material, etc. When you begin a research degree you are on your own, carting your subject area with you. And it is hard.

But as you progress in academia it becomes something that, rightly or wrongly, is the norm. The isolation that's experienced at first effectively becomes a “given”. You become used to working on your own; because that’s the way it works. When I started my job in the NHS I pretty much expected to be left alone and was really surprised when I was called to team events. But if you stay in academia you can become an "island" and not a part of the mainland, IYSWIM.

Hello BHC - glad you have got a different job, hopefully something more suitable within your field will turn up soon

It's interesting what you say about becoming solitary. Since getting my job I have really noticed how independent I have become and more importantly, how I *like* it. Team meetings are nice to catch up with people personally, but I feel more like I can't be bothered with what eberyone else is doing, I just want to get in with my stuff. I know that sounds selfish, and at the start of my PhD I was very much a team player and needed to be part of a community. But I feel that's been gradually squeezed out of me.

CorrectedShoe, what an ordeal! I have never known anyone to have to wait overnight for the outcome decision - that kind of thing should be against universities' codes of practice. Was this in the UK? Sounds like your examiners were a pair of to$$ers. You came out on top though, so well done!

You say something really important too ... "if you know your work [...] it will pass". I think this is really true. My current boss gave me some advice before my viva. He said to remember that I was the expert in the thesis area at that time, anywhere in the world. Holding that thought in my head made me think "Yes, I KNOW what I'm talking about, so there!" and I'm sure gave me the feistiness I needed to pass.

Just to re-iterate CCs reponse - published papers can help, but they do not determine the originality and/or outcome of a PhD. Obviously it's good to get some chapters published if you can prior to viva, as it means that part of your thesis has already been peer reviewed. (But it's still open to challenge!)

Originality is a complex issue - the truth is that it can be one small part of your work that's different, not necessarly the whole thing throughout. I used a well know form of qualoitative analysis that's been used in my area, but not the specific illness I was researching.

Re. a flat fail, I don't know of anyone who received this result, and I figure something must have to go really wrong (like you have next to no supervisory contact, don't do any work, or the examiner is not remotely connected to your field of research!) to fail.

No.
Funding scholarships are based on merit, not means tested. Partners' funding doesn't even come into the equation.

It can affect benefits (if you want try and claim them). My husband was about to finish his MA while I was doing my PhD, and he enquired about Job seekers allowance in case he didn't find work straight away. When they heard he was married and that I received a studenthip they said I was expected to support him and he couldn't claim. (Quite how they believed this would happen on a 12k studentship is anyone's guess.) Double standards all round really as (according to another thread) mortgage lenders conveniently exclude stipends from their applications, yet with the Benefits Agency studenships suddenly count it as a legitimate income. Funny, that!

Another point that I think is worth making as some people who receive major corrections so not know this...

Remember that if you decide to take the further research option and pursue the major corrections, you are still entitled to receive student registration status. Just because you've had the viva does not mean that you are no longer a student and cannot access relevant benefits/supervision/training from the university.

Your tutors and examiners will submit a report to the academic registry anyway, detailing the outcome of your viva, so you name would (should!)not be removed from the register (unless you take the MPhil option), but make sure that you are aware that you can continue to receive full departmental access, full use of library and information facilities, and the same level of supervisory support as before.

To clarify, here are the outcomes listed at my uni (taken directly from my viva report page!)

- Pass : no corrections required
- Pass and permit minor errors (the “optional corrections” thing)
_ Pass but insist on minor corrections (specifying time limit) – [This is what I got]

- Refer with permission to resubmit within {specify time period}
(a)with/without further oral examination,
(b)after further research
- Fail but recommend the award of Masters degree with/without corrections
- Fail with no further recommendations

Hi all Compsci - I think (in the UK at least) having to re-present yourself for another viva (even in the case of major amendments)is very unusual. I've only every heard of once case, in which a student wrote a very good thesis that did not need much doing to it, but had somehow gone through the whole PhD process without making presentations and becoming used to talking about his work (don't ask me how!). Therefore he did not verbally defend it well as he hadn't anticipated what to defend (if you get what I mean.) He was asked to come for another viva.

CC - you're not being pedantic! "optional corrections" IS an outcome that can occur! I've known two people get this, it generally pertained to things that were really minor (like punctuation) but meant that the thesis was still OK if it stayed as it was.

Hi Silentray

The element of choice offered to you is simply an acknowledgment that you might not *want* to undertake the major corrections, and can have an alternative. Some people do opt to walk away with the MPhil if their personal circumstances simply do not permit them to extend their PhD registration period.

Of those whom I knew who received the same outcome as yours, I know that they were also offered a similar choice as you have been. (IE - MPhil minor changes or major corrections) They opted for the mafor corrections as their overall feelign was "I've got this far, may as well see it though!". Your work IS good enough to become PhD standard - they would not have offered you the choice otherwise but would have just said MPhil with no opportunity of re-submission and examination.

If you're work's good it's not uncommon for examiners to say afew words of encouragement with the pleasantries at the start - something like "I enjoyed reading your thesis, very well written". Something suitably vague that doesn't tell you the exact outcome but at least lets you know you've not totally f**ked up. Fluffy is right, the outcome should not be disclosed at the start of the examination - someone could submit a brilliantly written and argued thesis but may not have written it themselves!!

Put down to basics, the purpose of the viva is to -
1. establish that YOU'VE written it
2. the you UNDERSTAND what you've written
3. that the work makes an original contribution to knowledge in your field

W went with Halifax, they accepted mine (but I wouldn't recommend them for numerous other reasons, including the fact that they took so long to process our application that my stipend ended and I got a part time job - we had to then re-apply as my circumstances had changes and almost lost our house!)

another point - it's VERY unlikely a uni drag their heels about arranging a viva anyway - it's in their best interests to get students completing as soon as possible so they can include the results on their RAE returns.

At my uni you had to sign an "intention to submit" form, before the thesis was handed in. This had to be at least 3 months before the submission was made (although I can't imagine they'd refuse a thesis if a form was sent in less than 3 months prior). You'd have to state who the external was going to be on the form.

As for time between submission and viva, the uni stipulated that the student shouldn't wait for more than 3 months unless in exceptional circs (someone once waithed about 7 due to her examiner being ill)

The onus should nto be entirely on you to arrange a viva - nor should whatever you're doing work wise affect how the uni/department/supervisor organises it. As UFO says, the main issue is usually getting people in one place at the same time!

Basically, if it's minor corrections, the internal and external agree what needs doing and the internal sends you a report and a date by which you have to do them. Then h/she reviews them once their done, and you go ahead and produce the final one adn the external doesn't need to see it again. If major corrections are needed, the external produce a corrections report verified bu the internal, will want to see the revised thesis .

Morning all - Goods, overall the external will identify most of the areas that need altering, and internal will probably see some too. The key thing is that they MUST BOTH AGREE on what needs changing, whantever the viva outcome is. It's not just one person who makes the call while the other acquiesces.

I know of someone whose external was a sh*t of the highest order (the exception rather then the norm, rest assured!)He was making unreasonable demands for major re-writes. The internal was not happy, thought minor amendments would suffice and thought the guy was being unreasonable (he was). As they couldn't agree on the corrections and outcome, the thesis was sent to a third independent examiner.