My university's PhD process involves a probationary assessment after one year, consisting of a short (chapter-length) report and a probationary viva. I had mine recently, and it was an absolute disaster. The examiners (of whom only one was in my department and had any familiarity with my subject) were unremittingly blunt and patronising from the outset. My supervisor's first comment when we left the room was how graciously I'd behaved in light of their manner, which was very intimidating during a process that the university continually emphasises is meant to be friendly and supportive. I have now been given written feedback that is overwhelmingly negative, and includes comments that are irrelevant from the examiners not in my area (suggesting that I incorporate methods that are not used in my subject area). The only praise is by omission, stating that certain areas have no issues. The issues they raised have never been flagged as a problem by either of my supervisors in fortnightly meetings in the last year, they were both surprised by the level of negativity. This panel now wishes a resubmission, and have the power to deregister me completely or change me to an MPhil.

Although some of the advice is helpful, and I believe that some of the changes that have been suggested will ultimately be beneficial, I have been left feeling completely drained of any confidence. I have been registered as a PhD student for 2 years, but in my first year a severe illness meant that I had to take most of the year off, my university required that I still pay full-time fees during this, with the extra time to be added at the end. When I was physically able to return full-time I found it very difficult to regain the confidence I had at the start, by the time of my probationary viva, discussions with visiting lecturers, at conferences and with my (very supportive) supervisors and colleagues had left me feeling more able to communicate my ideas. I felt extremely stressed during the assessment process because of the amount I've spent and the debt I am now in, thinking that if I didn't do well I would have wasted a huge amount of money, no doubt this contributed to my lacklustre performance.

Despite my supervisor's reassurance that this is just a temporary setback, I have found myself fighting overwhelming feelings of shame (for doing so badly) and stupidity (ditto). I'm also a tad skeptical of any assurance anybody gives me that I won't be deregistered or that I can do this, considering they didn't anticipate the concerns of the viva examiners. Until now, I haven't particularly minded living on an extremely limited budget as I thought I would get a worthwhile qualification at the end of it. I can't shake the feeling now that I've wasted both my own and my partner's time and money to chase something that I'm just not capable of doing. Does anybody have any similar experience? If you do, how did you get through this barrier?

======= Date Modified 18 Jul 2012 09:49:52 =======
============= Edited by a Moderator =============
*Removed by Postgrad Forum team - spam*

Hi SadieT, I'm left wondering why there seems to be a big gap between what your supervisors want you to do, and what the examiners are telling you. Have you discussed this with your supervisors?

You wrote that one of the examiners is in your department. Perhaps you could make an appointment to meet with that person, and explain that you're confused by seemingly conflicting advice. You just want clarification so that you can move forward.

I think one of the mistakes PhD students make (including myself) is trying to incorporate ALL of the advice they are given. You have to make judgement calls about what you believe will be beneficial to your project. There's an old saying: "To many cooks spoil the soup!" You're the top chef in the kitchen right now. As long as you can defend the choices you're making, you'll be fine. This is just my opinion, based on my own experience. Others may have a different perspective.