no worries - here goes... I am UK based and unlike some european countries where they are conducted in public, vivas here are very much "closed shops". IE, you, the internal, external (and supervisor if you want him/her to be there - it's ENTIRELY YOUR CHOICE)

Mine was about 2 hours, the internal examiner started it all off, introducing the external and generally explaining the "formalities". Then the external started asking questions, starting form very general (summarise what your thesis is about) then progressing to very specific (can you say how you applied this theory in this instance). The external asked more questions, about 4 to every one from the internal (who effectively acts as a chairperson really)

I honestly can't remember altogether how many questions there were - I just talked and talked!

The holiday was booked and paid for, supervisor has no right to expect you to cancel it, end of. He is most likely feeling guilty and transfering that to you as he himself is unable to go.
But that is his problem, not yours.

I think it's unlilkely it will be held against you - he'll be miffed but hey, it's only a conference, he'll get over it. If the situation was reversed and he was the one who'd booked the holiday it would be a different story altogether, I am sure.

If he presses the issue, I think an email aloing the lines of "Thank you for your commentsm I am encouraged that you want me to go and represent the work. However my holiday is booked, I will lose money. If I attend, could you re-imburse the cost of my holiday from your research budget beforehand?"

That should put a stop to his demands pretty sharpish

* as with minor amendments, examiners are required to provide a detailed report of exactly what the candidate needs to do.

The truth is, the differences between major and minor amendments is not always cut and dried. OF my 2 friends, one was given 6 months to resubmit. I was passed with minor corrections and allowed 3months. Not a huge time difference given the hugely different perceptions of the two outcomes. As for my other friend, she was given 9months, waited 4 weeks for her report* and then blasted thru them in 6weeks! She was part of the graduating cohort consisting of friends who were passed with minor changes.

It's worth remembering, that although the extended time given to sort major rewrites may seem interminable, chances are the work won't actually take that long. Examiners realise that when students are at viva stage, they may be working full time or have other committments, and they have to allow a realistic amount to time for them to complete.

[and back on topic!] reading the boards I sense that some anxiety has been stirred since Silentray courageously disclosed his/her outcome of major corrections. This is understandable as it reminds us that not all PhD vivas are passed with either minor corrections or none at all. Thre is a huge expectation that you will go in and emerge as Dr, culminating in an enormous pressure which prompts candidates to sometimes keep their viva dates secret.

In my department, I knew of 2 people who received major corrections and a resubmission. It was strange as major corrections became an outcome that was more feared than being offered an M Phil, or a flat fail. The reason? It is not a straightforward outcome and involves more work. Unlike a fail which is final and definite, major rewites are an unknown quanitity. It's a result that prolongs the journey for already fatigued students.

[note on this thread] I think it's a really good idea to have a thread that demystifies the whole viva experience somewhat - the more experiences shared the better. However I don't think the thread should just be about relating scare stories/disaster scenarios and leaving it at that. Such tales really are not constructive to thesis writing and viva preparation (believe me, I know! I was twisted in knots before my own viva and wasted alot of energy thinking about those whose outcomes were not straighforward).

If anyone posts a negative/disappointing viva outcome - especially if you're telling someone else's story, not your own - try and also include what steps (if any) were taken to move things forward positively.

Can I just say - WELL DONE for your viva performance! You don't have to present yourself again for another viva, so the examiners felt that you were personally a confident and able candidate for a PHD - well done!

I totally agree with what others have said - major corrections is an outcome that is not discussed as much, but more common than people think. And it is not a disastrous outcome - it is disappointing for you, but you WILL get your PhD. It is an outcome that says "your work is original enough for a PhD, it just needs X Y and Z to finish it off properly".

Treat yourself this weekend, you deserve it - a viva is a bloody nerve wracking experience and you got through it!

well, just so you all know, I didn't go to Belford!!!

I think the work they were doing as RAs was stuff that could be used as PhD material - so effectively they weren't doing 2 separate research jobs, if you see what I mean...

Even so, it was pretty bizarre (and frankly annoying!) to see then get all the student perks while on a full time salary. OK they paid income tax, but because they were able to produce certification as full time students and had SU cards, they got the applicable discounts. One of my single friends rented a brand new apartment on the basis that she could afford it as exempt from council tax because of her "student status" - and she was taking home about £500-600 a month more that those of us on a stipend!

Your situation does sound inconsistent with what I've been used to...

Where I studied, I knew people who were employed as research assistants/associates, who were simultaneously registered for FULL TIME PhDs! (I think this was a bit of "smoke and mirrors" so the uni could maximse its research profile TBH.) However these people were earning between 20-25K (with pension, NI etc), PLUS had all the benefits of being a student (Fees paid, council tax exemtption, etc)

Now, I don't know if that's the norm, maybe it was just my department that did this. However, while I can see it may be difficult to get conference funding for you (it's difficult to as a full time student), I don't see why they can't foot your fees?

Universities do not place upper age restrictions on their students (there are very few exceptions, but the only one I've heard of is graduate medicine where some courses like you to be under a certain age so you can serve the NHS for long enough!). Therefore there is no valid reason why a society should do this when assigning student memberships.

You can demonstrate your student status formally, and it is unfair of the society to discrimate against age. I don't know for sure, but I would be very VERY surprised if, in this day and age, you wouldn't have a case.

2. I'm sure I read somewhere (another of your threads maybe?) that she was making reference to your condition in front of others? As a supervisor she has no business disclosing aspects of your mental health hisory, or indeed any aspect of you medical history to others in your institution. It is basic confidentiality and data protection, and she is not abiding by it.

I am confident you can pursue lines of discriminatory practice against her. Your uni should have an equal opportunities office or something to that effect. I am sure they woudl be most interested to hear about her discriminatory and quite franly apalling behaviour.

Check out the mental health foundation ot MIND (www.mind.org.uk) for advice on this. She could (and should) be hauled over the coals for this.

I'm really sorry to hear about you nightmare supervisor... she sounds like she should be in a f*****g zoo! One point I wanted to pick up on was her constant reference to your mental health. You say she has mentioned it in front of colleague also?

This is discriminatory behaviour.
1. She has no right to openly assume any of your so-called deficiencies are a result of your medical history (while she may think this, she should be keeping it to herself and not directly ascribing it as a "weakness")If she cannot prove that you are not performing well, she should not be making ANY direct reference to it at all - to you or anyone else.

Whe-hey! Great news Fluffy - it's great when you get that final letter through, isn't it?

When's your graduation? Mine's July 20th so not for a while

OK, here is my interpretation (make what you will - I am merely a bemused 30something!)

I thought Nu Rave was a seemingly indie band that attracted a rave following and had echoes of rave behaviour in their audience (glo sticks, etc). A band called The Klaxons have been touted as Nu rave
(but they sure as hell don't sound like the rave tracks that I used to listen to!)