Hi,

Thank you all for your advice.

I sent my friend this link and he was grateful for each message you posted here.

He is bit worried/ashamed as he sent loads of cv to apply for a job and now has to correct the bit in it by sending the right info re:degree title.

We have to wait to see what they say.

One of my friends is doing a PhD.

His uni changed the departmental structure. Now it turns out that his pending degree promised on the offer letter is no longer available, but it changes to the different degree title as a result.

He's told about this change in the post submission period.

What should he do?

Many thanks for your reply.

I'll look into how to address the issues!

I understand what you suggested, pm133. Thank you for the input.

My supervisor is in the area identified and discussed 'erroneously' by the report and not quite keen on the changes made by the report. (Hence I was seeking some views other than discussing with own supervisor/s.) I would LOVE to avoid being of a conflicting view with my academic boss.

However, as a candidate, when it comes to things like this, I am uncertain which way is the right/calm/peaceful/(&safe) way (for me to get the PhD in question). So posted here.

Any further views/opinions are appreciated. (Anyone experienced the same situation?)

I see. Thank you for your post.

I now try to look at my research in the way as rewt suggested (changing the original aim/research arguments to what the examiners described in the report) and see if it still makes any sense.

Due to the nature of the research, we had a long difficult period to find the examiners. Those kindly agreed thus can/are not experts in all the areas covered by the research. This fact mesmerised myself that the examiners might not grasp the whole picture of the thesis.

I found the views from other people who are academic and do not know the details of the research extremely helpful. If anyone who reads this post has any ideas/views, please share them with me here.

Hi,

Post viva, I need to do corrections based on the report.

The report highlighted the examiners' misunderstanding of the thesis aim/arguments.

Yes, they misunderstood or misread the very first bit written in the abstract in a (most, clearest) manner to make the readers understand what the thesis is about.

Throughout the report, such similar errors were presented.

What should I do with this report? (apart from discussing those errors with my supervisor, please)

You would not say "just correct your research aim in accordance with the report", would you?