Hello,

This is my first message. Unfortunately not a very positive message. I just had my viva last week. One of the examiner's was not known to either me or my supervisor, hence a bit of a wild card. True to Murphy's law, he acted like a complete idiot and was very agrressive from the otuset, so much so that the independent chair had to stop him at one point. Anyway, I answered almost all his questions even quoting pages and references in the thesis, he could not refute any of my answers. The second examiner probably spoke 5 sentences in the whole viva (one was a strong disagreement with the fist).

The whole issue boiled down to this guy's complete ignorance about the research method I had followed. My supervisor had forbidden me to even mention other methods. Now, the whole thesis is structured following a particular method. This meant that he had problems with almost all aspects of design, evaluation and contribution to knowledge. The outcome of the viva was a resubmission.

Neither me or my supervisor agree with this outcome. I have received 12 points from the examiners, out of which I agree with possibly 1.5 - that I could respond to. The changes are completely against my research principles and both myself and my supervisor strongly disagree with them.

What are my options? I have spoken with the director of PG studies. They told us that this examiner was a known problem. But I've been told it is hard to challenge academic judgement. It seems that the academic judgement can not even be challenged in a court! So is my only option to bite the bullet, go against my principles and make (or pretend to make) those changes. This will mean I can't graduate in the summer and attend the ceremony, which I was really looking forward to.

Also, want to strongly send a message to all fellow students who will appearing for viva, that choosing an unknown examiner is a risk not worth taking.

Thanks and regards.

Your thesis supersedes the examiner's research work?
Perhaps you should read the examiner's papers?

Sometimes examiner becomes an "idiot" because his papers were not cited.

Anyway, it depends on your supervisor now.
Hopefully, he is a full professor or at least a firm associate professor.

Thanks for your reply. My supervisor is a full professor. Actually, he is one of the most cited internationally in our area of work. The examiner was not much from our area so I couldn't cite him, nor could I have challenged/supercede his work. Also, he has really low citations. In fact one of his 15 year old paper (most cited) has about 55 citations. My own 3 year old paper has 45 citations.

In a nutshell, he was absolutely the wrong choice, which my supervisor agrees to now. I was so so so nervous as neither of knew him and told my supervisor several times about my reservation but he thought it wouldn't be a problem. Now, other people (including our director of PG studies) in my Uni has told us that this examiner should not have been selected as he is known for harassing students. Any guidance on this issue?

You should have a strong case to appeal against examination decision (one or more of the Examiners was unreasonably prejudiced or biased).

1. You have published paper in peer reviewed journal. Better still, it is based on the research method mentioned in your thesis?

2. Your 3 year old paper has 45 citations. Better still, if you have more papers. Try to publish more papers?

3. Your supervisor is a full professor. (To modify your thesis may suggest your supervisor did not guide you properly. Or it implies the examiner is smarter than your professor.) Your supervisor should be defending you now…

You should find out more about the appeal process and discuss with your supervisor…
However, it may still delay your graduation.

hi brit27
thanks for sharing your experience! I'm so sorry to hear that you've had a horrible examiner. I'm sure you'll get through eventually. My supervisor once told me, that when she hears of a so-and-so being a "problem" during viva, she makes very sure that that "so-and-so" is not invited again. She even remembers who is nice and who isn't. She was telling me this when I confided that I was afraid of failing my viva.

For example--if somebody asks me some statistic question, I am done for.

Sorry to ask you at this point, but what will you do now if the changes are against your research principles? Is there a simple way to get round it?

Hope you are ok, and thanks again for letting us know.
love satchi

Come on, grow up. Get the correction done and get ur Phd and Dr title first. Then go ahead talk about ur so call principle and all sort of other things. It’s not worth the crying merely cos of ego. Certainly it was not your fault and solely your supervisor or whoever selected that moron to be your examiner is at fault. Now it is too late to cry and make big fuss, kindly get the correction done as required and get on with your life. Welcome to academic world and all d best, mate.

I won't put it as bluntly as the previous poster but as far as I can see it, you have two options.
1) Look up the appeals process and follow it to the letter. I'd imagine you'd have to claim bias / unfair examination. Based on your account, your supervisor has been monumentally incompetent in choosing an entirely irrelevant external examiner. You will have to make this clear in your appeal, so you probably will burn some bridges, but if the viva was as unfair from the outset as you say, then this is the only way to get a new set of examiners and the viva rerun. Your big problems will be a) your internal examiner has agreed that these changes need making for you to pass, so you will have to find a way of deeming them as biased as well, and b) your supervisor might be moved to defend his choice of examiner. Before you do this, really try to look at things dispassionately - how much of this is really unfair and how much injured pride talking? Only you can really tell.If you are going to appeal there's probably a time limit in which you need to do it. Seek advice from your students' union - they tend to be clued up on appeals.
2) Swallow your principles and make the changes required, walk away with the PhD and chalk it up to experience. If you want an academic career, you will have to learn to live with unfair reviewers, people who fail to see how brilliant your grant application is, and those pesky students who complain about everything, so it's unlikely to be the last time you have to do this.
Actually you do have a third option, which is to walk away with your principles intact but minus a PhD, however, I rather doubt that this is really what you want to do.

Thank you for posting this and warning us all how important choice of examiner is.

I can only second what others have said here. It's hard to fathom why you had the examiner you did. It seems to have been a random choice, a very foolhardy approach. But you need your supervisor's support now, at the start of your career spit looks to me as if biting the bullet and making those changes is your most diplomatic and productive option.

Once again, thank you for the warning. We can't always rely on the judgement of supervisors and for really important things we have to do our own research and protect our own interest.

Thanks folks for your messages. I don't mind blunt messages, I agree, no need to be sentimental and dwell on things too much. The pragmatist in me also tells me to move on, accept what has happened and get the phd finished.

I have full support of my supervisor. He has been apologising ever since the viva (was close to tears at the end of the day himself). He is willing to do all he can, and we are exploring all the options. I have not only his but also the PG director's support but of course academic judgement can't be challenged. I have almost decided that if a solution can't be reached through an internal process, I will just have to bite the bullet and make the changes. The reason behind this is that if I appeal the examiner is also involved. And he's the final authority. I only get one more chance, if he rejects the resubmission - all finished.

Here is something worth reading - http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/are-phd-vivas-still-fit-for-purpose/2003341.article

I can't reiterate enough the importance of carefully choosing examiners. Not because your research is weak, but because it is not worth the gamble.

Even bizarre thing is that my research is recognised internationally. We just won funding worth $2m for a 3 year project in Europe, with 12 industrial partners, and are bidding for more. Two of the three papers I published in peer reviewed journals (1.5 or more impact factor) were both top downloaded in the years they were published, one won an award, and together have given me more than 80 citations in last two years. Have just led development of a national guide on the research topic. Not bragging but just saying it was not just run off the mill research.

Again, thanks for your messages, and sorry for the rant. Also, I can't post any more today as there is a 5 message limit.

Hi Brit,

Hmmm, sounds like this has, possibly, been a case of over confidence/complacency on the part of your supervisor colliding with raging jealousy on the part of your examiner.

Given that you are already conquering your discipline, would it do that much damage to do the write up? It must smart, but you have so much ahead of you, don't let the examiner distract you from your path. Just do the work, you're clearly capable of it. Don't let that examiner steal your ruby slippers!

Hi brit 27,

It also seems to me like a case of academic jealousy. My advice is that no one is going to read this PhD anyway so just do what you have to do and move on. Your papers are out there, and this is what it matters. Really.

I'd echo the advice of others to make the changes required, get the submission, pass, and move on.

What has happened has happened. You are not going to graduate in time for this summer. Although to be honest graduation ceremonies are just a formality for a PhD. What really matters is when you get the letter from Senate saying you have passed. And that can happen at any time of year.

Work out with your supervisor how best to tackle the required changes. Do them. And put it down as a lesson for both you and your supervisor to learn.

I'm appalled that your supervisor picked such an unknown examiner. But to be honest you should have had a say in this too, and should have been concerned about it as well. But what has happened has happened. Make the best of a bad situation, move on, and get your PhD.

Hi Brit27,
My situation is remarkably similar to yours, except I was lucky in that I passed with minor corrections. My examiner was also harsh to my argument but in the end he simply could not refute it!! both he and external had to pass me. I submitted my corrections a few months ago, and the internal came back to me 5 months later saying he doesn't approve of some of the changes requested!! So I had to do it again and submitted the revised version about 2 weeks ago. I haven't heard from him, but I do know that this idea that academic judgements can't be challenged in court is nonsense frankly. The PG studies guys at my uni have an appeals procedure and you can easily explain your situation and submit an appeal- the risk, however, is that in my case should I do this if he comes back again, that I'll have to do another viva, which is pointless considering I passed this one.
1. Do you have to do a revise and resubmit or just corrections? If former, consider appealing; if latter, it's not worth it and do the changes.
2. As far as principles are concerned, I sympathise but I agree with most ppl here: just get the Dr and then defend your principles as much as you want and reflect them in your publications.
3. NEVER FEEL WORTHLESS!!! You finished a PhD for heaven's sake!! Not many ppl can claim that; many drop out before submission. Chin up and fingers crossed we'll both be Drs!!!