Hi PhD researchers,

I had my viva recently and it was a horrible experience. I was calm and I answered all the questions raised. However, the external had already made up his mind that he did not like my thesis and it was not worthy of being passed. He had decided that I would need to do major revisions and another viva. Luckily I defended my thesis well so he said I passed my viva. However he hated my thesis and was just against the theory I used and he wants me to follow his style of work. He wants me to change the research questions, theory and he wants to guide me now. He has retired and I think he misses academia and this is his way of still being in control. I worked very hard and my supervisors were strict and allowed me submit once they considered my work was good. They were surprised with the manner and tone taken by the external but they could do nothing to help me.

So now am stuck with massive revisions and an external who wants to be my supervisor. My advice to all of you out there is that if possible ensure that your external is not retired (too much free time) and is not a cranky old man. As for me I can see a few hellish months coming up.:-( The poor internal was allowed bullied by the external.

This seems highly irregular and I've never heard of this before. If your external now wants to act as your supervisor, isn't that a conflict of interests?

Your external will need to review the final revised thesis and therefore can't take part in the revisions he is wanting. The revisions should be your work and not his. All the external can do is place in the exam report what revisions he is expecting.

What are the possibilities of appealing against the process and being reexamined by different examiners? Remember you can't overturn the decision and at best can only be reexamined.

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

Hi there,

It is not ethical for the external to review the changes until they are over. However in my case he wants me to follow his framework, change my entire argument and in short just chuck all my ideas and work till date. I don't know if I can appeal against the process. There was a bit of an issue during the viva because it was felt that he was being harsh and so they asked me to leave in the end and they spoke to the external. God knows what came out of it but the external definitely has given me one year of correction and based on the fact that he does like the theory I chose though he said I defended it well. He said that he had already made up his mind and come what may I would have to delete it and re-write based on a new framework.

Hi. I had a similar expereince in my viva in March. My examiner had clearly made up his mind and I felt I was not able to defend my thesis, but rather just got lectured about what was wrong with it and given no chance to speak. He also wanted me to change my research questions and 2 chapters of analyses. When I went to see my statistician he was shocked at what the examiner was requiring me to. My best advice for you is to wait until you get the examiners report, sit down and carefully go through each point, and plan how to address each point. It will seem a lot worse then it is right now. Once I did this, I realised the examiner was right on a lot of things, and it was easy enough to add in what he required. Yes, it feels I have lost some ownership of my PhD but I just wanted to get it done and re-submitted. I re-submitted in July and I can honestly say my thesis does look much better this time around. I have to admit that everytime I started working on my revisions I got so angry and it took a lot of effort to get going. My advice is start working on it as soon as you get your report- it will start to feel much better once you get something checked off the list and it will feel less daunting. I know it feels like the worst thing in the world right now but you will get there in th end. Keep your chin up.:-)

Good advice Frazzled. Generally the criticisms made by academics will have some substance, and one needs to look at them dispassionately - not taking them personally but rather as an opportunity for improvement. That's a failing of mine which I have to be aware of and combat. Sometimes it IS appropriate to say I did it this way for this reason and stick to it, but just be very careful.

I too didn't have a great viva and ended up with r&r. what you describe doesn't sound fair but I agree with Frazzled that you should wait for the report. It should give you a detailed list of all the amendments required. If you're unsure about any of the revisions, you can ask for clarification (this may need to be done through someone else though) but as far as I understand, the examiners will not be involved in the process itself. They may wish one thing or another added but you don't need to agree with them, just add them if that makes sense. For example, I've been advised to 'consider changing' a fairly important aspect on my thesis. I have considered, discussed with my sups and I still feel that my way is best. So I shall be adding a long explanation of alternatives considered and why my choice is found to be the best option. See what I mean?

Zimzimi,

Sorry to hear about your viva experience. A similar thing happened to me. I think one of the big issues here is the choice of external examiner -- this is mentioned at the end of your post, and I'd like to emphasise that everyone should be choosy about who examines them.

I didn't play much of a role in the selection of my external (for various reasons -- mostly I trusted the supervisory panel, and (like them) I was sure that the outcome of my viva would be independent of the choice of examiner). This was a huge blunder on my part, and I paid the price for it.

On hindsight, by choosing a "better" external I could have easily saved myself a lot of time going through unnecessary corrections (or, at the very least, reduced the likelihood I'd have to make such major ones). Some things that I think should be considered when thinking about choosing a particular person as your external are:

1. Do they have a track record of failing/handing out lots of corrections? [Probably justified in some cases, but if it happens a lot alarm bells should be ringing; were all of these past students really that bad? And what of their supervisors, sending them in to be slaughtered like that?] To answer this, make some gentle enquiries to the players and PhDs in your field (you probably know lots of them by now). After my viva I found out my external had given majors to two people in as many years, and outright failed someone just a year before (if only I'd known earlier... though I apparently got off lightly!).

2. Do you know them to be (or have they been described as) a bully? [A bully academic may still examine your thesis in a fair manner, but their aggressiveness could put you on edge and damage your performance. My external told my internal to shut up a couple of times, and tutted at a few of my responses, and even said I should stay up at the board while being questioned (I went to sit down, we were entering the third hour at this stage). Definitely made things difficult for me.] It's hard to know with this one; maybe the potential examiner is just assertive, but again ask around, people talk.

3. Do they hold themselves in higher regard than their publications suggest they ought to? [An academic's worth is often measured by his or her journal articles, and while most academics (at least the majority of the ones I know) have their feet planted on the ground, some do not.] Read a few of your external's papers (you should do this anyway), and if you find them to be "nothing special" (the name of the journal can be a good indicator here!), ask around to find out if they're overly pompous. If so, carefully consider if you really want this person examining you. Someone with a heightened self-opinion often boosts his or her ego by cutting others down, and a viva is a perfect opportunity for them to do this.

Point 3 may seem a bit strange (maybe even controversial). I mention it because my own external (I believe) fell into this category.

As for your revisions, perhaps they will be hellish (only you yourself can make this kind of prediction), but remember that you will be awarded a PhD after you've sorted them -- just do them, you deserve your PhD. My own revision phase was very unpleasant, mostly because it angered me to know I was being treated unfairly (it angered me even more that my supervisory team felt the same, but decided it was best to just appease the external) -- but time fixed all that (I'll never forget, but I'm no longer angry or upset). I've been (and maybe you've been) accused by a few people of responding badly to criticism, but the only other person to fully understand how much of an injustice my viva outcome was is my supervisor, and no one has ever criticised me like he has!

Personally, my own private copy of my thesis does not contain the extensive revisions handed to me by my external. I'm all for improving my work, but when it's clearly for the

(Rest of post)

I'm not so silly to think that if a student were to be examined several times, each time by a new examiner (all experts in the field, all well-read on the candidate's dissertation), the outcome would be identical each time. However there should be *some* level of consistency, and I'd be worried for example if one examiner gave only minors while another handed out majors. Obviously such an experiment is unlikely to take place, however I have heard of two instances of the following closely related situation: two PhD candidates (working independently) arrived at pretty much the same result (not that uncommon really, especially in scientific subjects, where several people work independently on the same project all the time), and upon examinations (which happened in the same month), one receives majors and must completely revise the result and associated analyses, while the other passes with nothing more than some typos and reference insertions. This I heard through another PhD (who knew the two in question through attending conferences). Most would be a bit sceptical of it (I know I was), however the other instance of this happening was with me. And the other person in question was examined only a few days after me! (I'm not so sceptical of these things now, though I still believe they're quite isolated.) Clearly there's a problem with examiners rather than candidates (and their work) here.

Hopefully if enough PhD candidates are aware of the steps they should take in choosing with their supervisor a good external, the problem of students being lumped with unsuitable examiners will be be a thing of the past. It's already quite a rare occurrence anyway, but when it happens it really puts a damper on things.

Best of luck with your corrections.

PS Have you thought about making an appeal? I was advised against doing this. I can see why; it would have gone nowhere. Particularly as my supervisor was a bit of a nobody, my internal felt intimidated, and no one else wanted to go anywhere near the situation due to how messy it got. However, if you feel you've got a case, and you know someone influential enough who will support you, bring it to light. Even if nothing comes of it, it could cause the whole process to be regulated a bit better, and future candidated needn't need to experience what you've had to.

PPS Your external taking on a supervisory role over you sounds very odd (at least I've never heard of it). How does your official advisor feel about it?

I absolutely agree with the comments re external examiners- caution to anyone reading this thread who has not chosen an external. My external was an awful choice. The situation arose because my supervisor was from another country (where a viva is not required) and I was their first UK student. They wrongly assumed I was not allowed to know who my examiner was and went ahead along with my internal (who suggested the extenal) and appointed my external. I eventually got through to my supervisor that I was allowed to know but at this stage I had full draft done and was ready to submit (so had not referenced my external in thesis). Throughout my whole viva he referred to work he had done/books he had written (clearly annoyed I had not referenced him even though he was not a major researcher in my topic but rather more general concepts related to my topic). Needless to say in my revised version I have found a few places to squeeze his name in!!

Frazzld,

A small point depending on where in the world you go through the PhD process. Obviously, you've decided to do your PhD outside the UK.

In some countries, the PhD candidate does not have the option to choose their external or internal examiners. In the UK, this is normally organised by the University.

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

In the UK depending on your supervisor you still have a chance to choose your external.

Yes, whilst the examiners are appointed by your university, students are often given the opportunity to advise on potential examiners, or are kept in the loop as to who may be a potential examiner. For example, you may attend a conference and meet someone who is in your area of work and who would know the topic well.

That's fair comment and perhaps I should have worded it better. However, whilst you say you would like it if person X was your external examiner to your supervisor it's not the candidate's decision.

I couldn't have got a better external examiner, though she wasn't who I'd have opted for beforehand. I had another name in mind, however, my supervisor went with said lady and it turned out she was the better option.


Ian (Mackem_Beefy)