I'm doing a Humanities PhD and submitted after 3 years fulltime, plus 6 months p-t work whilst working. My 2 (very experienced) supervisors both said yes it is good, it will pass. Then my result was major corrections. The internal examiner virtually agreed with my supervisors but the external didn't like the thesis. She told the internal examiner she was never going to be favourable to that genre of work.
I knew I wasn't passing at the start of the viva when she said that a PhD should take not a minute less than 4 years fulltime otherwise it could not reach the required standard. Her comments suggest expectations beyond my institution's criteria, but they are all academic judgements, and I've checked with my institution and the QAA and you can't appeal a PhD result on the grounds of academic judgement. I just can't believe that my choice of examiner has meant that I am now seriously rewriting the thesis whilst working fulltime and teaching part-time (my department were so confident that I was going to pass that they have commissioned a module from me).
Sorry for the long whine but a phd is 3-4 years right?

That's horrible! Friends that have completed their PhDs all seem to taken anything between 3 1/4 years and 3 1/2 years...

First of all - major corrections is a still a pass, so congratulations .

As for the external - if you go to 4 years at one uni I know, you fail automatically. So I wonder where she is getting her (incorrect) information from - she should have been challenged on this.

But you passed, and that's the important thing.

That's surprising to hear! Over at my university, the average is 4.5-5 years with 10 modules of coursework. Maybe it's the discipline I'm in - organizational behavior...

I'm so sorry you've had to endure this - PHDs and vivas are tough enough without you having to go through the disappointment of the outcome.

This bothers me:
"She told the internal examiner she was never going to be favourable to that genre of work."

You said that you're internal agreed with your supervisors who were confident that you'd have no major problems. Did your internal agree with the external's comments? If not, then you DO have the right to have the thesis reviewed by a third independent examiner. Examiners have to agree and if your internal thinks that minor amendments would be appropriate, he/she should voice this. A viva should not be a case of one examiner being coerced by the other - they BOTH have to agree on the outcome.

Unfortunately the internal examiner has signed the joint report on their recommendation. She wanted it to be a pass with minor corrections, the external seems to have wanted to offer me a masters with the option of resubmitting a radically different thesis, so they argued for an hour and compromised on major corrections. The internal put up a big fight but actually she would have been better off saying, we don't agree let's get a 3rd opinion. That means all the paperwork says that they agree on major corrections. My supervisors called everybody in the university but there is now no way to appeal. Unfortunately major corrections is not quite a pass
, it is a deferred result. Thankfully it is not a fail, which it almost could have been. Choose examiners carefully.

PS; Juno is absolutely right, the examiner should not be making assertions about the longevity of a PhD period determining the outcome. That's completely insane. If that's the case why aren't all PhD studentships and registration periods automatically 4 years?

Are you being asked to amend substantial sections of writing, or does she want you to do more practical work/research? If it's the former, it's worth remembering that the actual work will not necessarily be commensurate with the length of time they give you. A year/18 months sounds alot, but they know that people are working, and have other committments by then so it's not in examiners' interests to give a more iminent deadline. If however, she wants more emprical work doing, this has to be properly justified, and not based on subjective whining (IE, "oooh, it took me 10 years to do my PhD, I ate nothing but gruel and everyone else should do the same!")

The external wanted me to take one chapter and re-research the whole thesis based on that chapter but wider evidence. Thankfully the internal battered her down to a compromise of 'paring down my evidence'significantly. Basically I take 25% of my evidence and rewrite the thesis based only on that. I know no-one's thesis makes sense to anyone else but it was on the common trends found in writing in a certain period - i.e. I can't do comparisons anymore if I'm down to 1 author so there will be radical changes. But as that's not what the external originally wanted, just what she was forced to compromise to, I wonder whether she will be happy with version 2...
BTW My viva result is very rare, most externals don't have personality defects so you will all be fine - I need to say that so that I don't cause panic.

I'm sorry to hear about it - your external sounds incredibly prejudiced to me.
I infer from your messages that your supervisors have been supportive and tried to help you? Well, this is already something very positive.
Good luck with everything.

"My viva result is very rare"

FWIW, I think it's actually more common that most people think - it just doesn't get reported that much because Unis focus on the final FINAL outcome (if that makes sense?!) Their RAE stats for successful PhDs are down to the final corrected submission, not the post viva discussion result. Therefore you rarely see stats that detail who has major amendments, minor ones, whatever. And lets face it, when you write it on your CV, you don't put what correction basis you have.

The thing to focus on is that you WILL get your PhD eventually. It's unfortuanate that you've bad a horrid examiner. My suspicion is that she herself was given major corrections. Of everyone I know who received that outcome, their examiner said "oh well, this happened to me". They somehow feel that because they've gone through it, they have to influct it on other people!

This is a good link

http://www.reading.ac.uk/studyskills/study_resources/study_guides/vivacorrections.htm#After_your_viva:_how_to_manage_corrections_and_revisions

and in bold, it states what I've just said above...

**Remember: In years to come no one will ever ask you about your corrections. Many top academics had to make major changes to their theses and this has helped, not harmed, their careers. **

I know when I was on a committee we brought in major corrections in my faculty, and before that we only had minor corrections as on option.
I'm at the end of my 4th year and see that as I'm being very slow and have had problems with my supervisor!

Anyway, I think you deserve cheering up, it sounds horrible. All you can do now is put it down as a bad experience and finish as soon as you can.

Thanks for the replies everybody . I've done some positive things already like setting up a wiki for my corrections so that my supervisors can drop in comments when they are abroad (I've called it 'thesis reborn' in line with positive thinking). I just needed to have a good grumble. The bad result was down to the examiner but the fact that there were weaknesses in my thesis that she could point to is down to me, which is harder to deal with (I think my tip is to think about the marking criteria at every point of write-up).

I'm not sure whether the external got major corrections herself , but she did her PhD in the US so it will have been a longer process. Funnily enough though, I read a review of her monograph based on her phd and the reviewer criticised her for all the same things she criticised me for - the difference being she got through viva and publisher with these 'defects' and that the reviewer thought it was good despite these concerns.

I think "corrections" are underreported. They certainly are not a fail. Almost everyone gets them, but as soon as people are done with them they tend to forget this stage.

In fact, after my viva I was told that I had some minor corrections (mainly updating some of the research in the literature review that had come out while I was writing, so wasn't included). However, under the terms of minor corrections they would give me only 30 days to do it. I felt like crying as I REALLY needed some time off (my nightmare with my supervisor nearly drove me to breakdown, and I didnt want to see him for a while). I explained this and they said they could give me a full rundown on the corrections they wanted and they would tick the major correction box so I could have a little more time (6 months rather than 30 days). I opted for this and after a month off, I came back did my corrections and re-submitted 2.5 months after my viva. It was fine.

As for your case, if your external has agreed your thesis IS PhD quality (not fail/ MPhil level) then they have to abide by the corrections they give you. The corrections are binding to them as well as you, so they cannot turn around and give you any problems, as long as you carry out what they ask.

Its unpleasant, but probably not as unpleasant as my mate who was told "Your PhD research is commendable, and you did well in your viva but your spelling mistakes and typing errors are atrocious, and I am tempted to fail you on that alone". He still gets embarassed about that.