Phdstress, your experience sounds fairly typical of an internal examiner trying to make a name for herself in the department; I bet it was someone who has only recently been made a lecturer. I would have thought it pretty unlikely you would have a second viva if the external examiner has not demanded one, as he would have to take the time to travel to your university again.

Presuming that you aren't given a second viva, you can consider yourself to have passed, but with more considerable corrections than you would have liked; however, as someone who went through two vivas, I can assure you that the second isn't as bad as the first.

The last thing I would say is that you will have to be wary of your internal examiner whilst trying to get the corrections written up, as she could be very awkward. I have known of several internals who have deliberately tried to slow students down to a crawl, or have tried to introduce extra corrections at a later date.

If you start to hit a lot of problems, go to your university's students union and ask to see their welfare adviser (they should have one to help with students who are having academic problems). You can also ask your supervisor to contact your Head of Department to highlight your internal examiners unreasonable behaviour; the HOD may then have a quiet word with them.

I thought I had better clarify a couple of points I made in my last reply, because I'm not sure that refusing to accept an MPhil would be the best idea, or that it would even work, in most circumstances. In my case, there were very significant extenuating circumstances which meant that, on the spot, I considered it to be a good idea:

1). Just prior to the internal examiner telling me I would be offered an MPhil, I was told that my supervisor should never have offered my project,in the first place as it was effectively unpassable (in the way it had been deisgned). However, the external told me that "...there must be a standard", and that they were therefore not prepared to show any leniancy.

2). I was told that my thesis contained an amount of work that would be expected at the end of a student's first year. However, I had been through three end of year assessments, and my progress had always been described as satisfactory.

3). The viva examination rules at my university stated that the external examiner should chair the examination, with the internal ensuring that the exam progressed properly and regulations were followed. However, my external spoke only rarely, the internal led the examination, and they asked me very few questions about the content of my thesis, concentrating instead on alternative experimental techniques and on the problems I had with my supervisor. About 10 minutes into the viva, I had formed the impression that it had already been decided that I would fail. This was shown to be true the next day, when it emerged that the examiners had told members of staff in my research group that I would only get an MPhil the day before my viva had taken place. I already knew that the rules of my university explained that the assessment of a PhD student was based 50% on their thesis and 50% on their performance in the viva, and that it was therefore impossible to fail the test before it had even taken place.

4). I already knew that a student in my department had, several years previously, turned down an MPhil and was instead allowed to resubmit after 12 months. Later on, it seemed more a case of him being offered both options and being asked which he preferred, but at the time of my viva I thought he had been told to accept an MPhil and had refused, saying he would instead lodge an appeal. I then took this approach and fortunately it worked, although the examiners did take about 20 minutes before the end of the viva trying to get me to accept the masters

5). I already had an MSci, and took the position that an MPhil would be worthless, especially in my case when I had already spent 4 1/2 years on my PhD. That isn't to say that an MPhil is intrinsically worthless of course, just that it wasn't very much to show from more than 4 years work.

Since my first viva, both myself and members of my family involved in academia have spoken to academics at several other universities, and no one has ever heard of a student refusing to accept the judgement of their examiners during a PhD viva. That doesn't of course mean that it has never happened, as universities tend to be very secretive when it comes to disputes. However, I have been told that the fact that my examiners panicked and backtracked on their original judgement must mean that they knew they were up to no good. This is the key problem with this strategy; if the examiners really do just think your work is poor, they are likely to get very upset, and could potentially recommend you fail completely instead.

I have subsequently lodged complaints to various bodies, a process that is ongoing; I intend to write the whole story up in a website when I have finally finished. However, if I have learned anything it is that I should have started complaining as soon as I could see problems occurring in my Ph.D. In my case, my supervisor was a well known bully in the department, and unfortunately I was afraid that compl

My first viva took place just over three years ago, so remembering the exact conversation is a bit difficult now, but it was along the lines of :

Examiner: "Unfortunately, your thesis just isn't up to the standard required for a PhD....its more like what I would expect to see at the end of the first year.....What we are prepared to do is offer you an MPhil, without major corrections"

Me: "No, I'm not accepting an MPhil....I mean, I already have a MSci from ######, so another masters would be pointless".

At this point, the internal examiner (who had chaired the viva and done most of the talking), said that in that case, they could recommend a resubmission. However, he stated that even after a years extra work, I still probably wouldn't have enough work to even warrant a second viva. When I stood firm, he said that they would put me down for a resubmission, but that he would have to go and check the regulations governing this.

In hindsight, I was confused as to why they didn't just insist on awarding an MPhil, as I couldn't have appealled against their decision on the basis that you can't appeal against matters of academic judgement. I have therfore come to the conclusion that they were up to no good, and panicked when I challenged their decision.

In any case, if you think you have suffered from bad supervision, a badly designed project or lack of facilities, I think that threatening to lodge an appeal is a worthwhile course of action, as in my case they seemed terrified of this happening. However, it took me another two years to graduate with my PhD, so it wasn't a quick and easy option!

I posted on a similar topic to this several months ago (I only started looking at this forum sporadically whilst sorting out submitting a complaint against the university where I did a PhD). I finished my Ph.D. after seven years, having been through two vivas. During my first viva, I was offered an MPhil after corrections; I refused to accept this, and was immediately offered a resubmission with major corrections within 12 months. Admittedly my case was quite complicated (hence the complaint), and I think the indecision of my examiners was related to the fact they were up to no good (my external was a close colleague of my supervisor, with whom I had fallen out very badly). However, I did know of another student who had graduated the year before I started in 2001, who had apparently done the same thing in his first viva, with the same result (resubmission for PhD instead of accepting an MPhil), so in some cases it does actually work. Over the subsequent three years, I have come to the conclusion that, in cases where a student has clearly suffered from a lack of supervision or some other mistreatment, the department will try anything to stop the student lodging an appeal, which would bring the case to the attention of the senate of the university.

I think that it is fairly typical to struggle with motivation during a research project, especially if you are having trouble making steady progress, or if you feel isolated within the department you work in; I can't remember anyone thinking they were doing well during the first couple of years. However, if you have tended to get on well with your supervisor, I would tend to listen to the advice you are being given and rework the project to ensure you can complete within a reasonable timeframe.

I would say that having a good supervisor is the key to finishing a Ph.D. in anything close to 3-4 years. Also, when you start its very difficult to predict how interesting or not you will have found the project by the time you reach the writing up stage

Thanks, the department I worked in had quite a bad track record, and I knew of three or four cases similar to mine, and ten or so that were not quite as serious. I've just sent in an official complaint to the university, so I'll have to see what happens. One of the problems is that bad practice within the universities is allowed to continue because no one ever complains because of the fear they will be ruining their career propspects. Fortunately, mine have already been ruined, so I don't have anything to worry about !

I had a very similar experience during my first viva. I had fallen out with my supervisor, a very senior person in a very small field of research (although the supervision amounted to 7 meetings over three an a half years, after which he left the university). Anyway, the department I worked in appointed an Internal examiner, who then contacted my absent supervisor about choosing an External. He recommended someone based in Germany, an ex-Ph.D student of his who I later discovered was known as my supervisor's protege; unfortunately, I wasn't told about the appointment until after the forms had been sent off.

During my viva, my internal starting questioning me about a range of experimental techniques I supposedly should have used, and not really about my thesis at all. After a couple of hours, I was offered an MPhil with minor corrections. I refused to accept an M.Phil, which caused a few blank looks, after which I was told that they could possibly come up with a programme of work to bring the thesis up to standard, but that I still probably wouldn't have enough to even warrent a re-viva. Anyway, after another eighteen months, I had a second viva with new examiners, who went though my (extensively rewritten) thesis bit by bit, and passed me with major corrections.

Fortunately, the students union at the uni I attended employed a well qualified student welfare advisor, who was able to explain the best course of action to take after my first viva; this included attending meetings with the head of department and postgraduate tutor as a witness. The best advice I could give to anyone in my situation would be to contact the students union as soon as possible after the viva examination, to see if they have a similar system in place.


Dave

I finally graduated with my Ph.D. this summer, after seven years and two vivas. In my case the re-viva may have been slightly different, as I had been given two new examiners; my original internal had been reassigned as my supervisor, whilst the external was deemed unsuitable. During the re-viva, the examiners went through the whole of my thesis chapter by chapter, asking me just about everything they could think of; fortunately they were unable to catch me out on anything. However, another student I knew, who finally graduated after eight years, had a very short re-viva, during which they seemed to just establish that he had completed the chapters that were missing from his thesis the first time round.

Dave