I have never posted here before, but could use some support.

For the past five years I have been writing a PhD thesis in English literature, and put a lot of work into it, as one does. Although I found it difficult, I never really worried about not passing once I had gotten past the 3-year mark, especially since my main supervisor is well-known, has written a lot of books, and everybody assured me he was amazing and the best person in the department. However, when my viva finally came around last October, my examiners were in agreement that my thesis was terrible. They said they had wanted to fail me outright, but my enthusiasm for my subject matter convinced them to give me another chance. They implied that I would get a PhD if I did all of the corrections that they gave me (there were about 50 pages). I was very shocked, and asked my supervisor how this could have happened. He didn't really answer me and instead said I should be grateful that the examiners put so much effort in. So for the past year I have been massively restructuring my thesis and trying to do everything they asked (I would say I did 95% of what they asked, omitting a few things I just could not understand). I had a pretty good feeling about it, but two weeks ago I went for my second viva with one of my examiners (the other didn't bother to show up) and they offered me an MPhil, saying that was final. Although they said it had improved some, it still wasn't good enough.

Needless to say, I am upset and confused. Although I accept that my work might not have been good enough for a PhD, I am wondering how this could have happened. I believe it has happened like this once before at my university. I should mention that at no point was I ever given the impression that my work wasn't good enough, and was instead always reassured that I would 'be fine'. I should also mention that I asked my supervisor frequently if everything was OK, if I was going to pass, and mentioned that I was worried. I never got any real answers (he is very, very good at being evasive). I have been kicking myself for not acting on that bad feeling I had throughout my third year that something was wrong. Unfortunately, I trusted him. I suspect there is very little I can do here, since I can't really complain of poor supervision (we met every two weeks, plus he is retired now so what's the point) but I don't want to let the university get away with this.

Has anyone here had a similar experience? Is there anything I can do?

I'm so sorry this has happened to you. What a terrible shock. If you feel that the supervision you received was inadequate, you can appeal the result under university procedures, on the basis that you didn't have enough guidance on how to do the corrections. That could get you more time, if the appeal succeeds, to make further corrections and try for the PhD. If I were you, I would go see a student union representative and find out what the process is for an appeal. It will burn some bridges if you do appeal - your supervisor may not like it, especially if your main complaint is lack of attention on his part - but I think it is probably the best way forward from here, if you still want the PhD.

Thanks. I have made an appointment with the student union. It will be difficult to argue that I wasn't given enough guidelines to make corrections- I was, they still didn't accept the work once I did them. Seriously!?

Update: spoke to my second supervisor this morning. He admitted that he'd always had 'some reservations' when reading my work, but didn't say anything because he trusted my main supervisor and hoped the examiners would be lenient.

I meant lack of guidance from your primary supervisor. They should have worked with you on interpreting the report and reviewing your corrected thesis - it sounds like that didn't happen.

Also the fact that your supervisor is retired doesn't matter. The point of the complaint is not for him to be reprimanded, it's for you to show you didn't have a fair shot during the viva - the university can give you more time and perhaps another supervisor during the further corrections if you can persuade them that he was absent/negligent.

Is there definitely a requirement for the supervisor to be involved in the post-viva corrections? I mean, it's nice if they are, but I'm wondering whether it's required under university regulations, as technically your PhD is over?

If not, there might be better grounds for appeal, such as if you were given a pass subject to corrections, and you did the corrections but still didn't pass? Although you do say you only did 95% of the corrections, so they could say the corrections haven't been completed. Was there no opportunity for you to ask for clarification on the corrections you didn't understand?

He did guide me, as in, we met every couple of weeks, but he ignored some of the corrections the examiners had requested, and told me they weren't that important, instead suggesting completely new stuff. It was just weird.




I'm not sure if it is a requirement, but all of other students I know had their supervisor involved after the viva, and after my first one the head of department said that he would be involved even more closely now.

You're right that I only did 95%- I messed up in that respect. In the last few months I spent too much time on one chapter and then there was just no time left. As I said, I am partially blaming myself for this result too. I do think I have a chance of appealing though, and everyone I have explained the situation to at the university thinks the same. If it doesn't work it's not the end of the world. I am currently employed writing for a magazine, and don't really want to be a lecturer (which would require the PhD), but it is still very, very aggravating, of course.

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to blame you, just thinking of how the examiners might defend themselves if you appeal their decision.

I just noticed you mentioned a second viva - so this was a revise/resubmit, rather than corrections? In that case there should have been an option for the examiners to give you minor corrections after your second viva, which would seem the obvious choice if the only problem was that 5% of the revisions were missed?

I can understand the frustration - if your work really wasn't sufficient for a PhD you should have been made aware of that much earlier, ideally by your supervisor before you got to the stage of submitting. Sound like a good plan to talk to the student union rep and figure out whether you have a case for appeal (tell them about one of the examiners not attending the second viva, and any other procedural irregularities!), then you can decide what you want to do.

You're right though that it's not the end of the world, however disappointing. An MPhil is better than nothing, and, most importantly, you already have a job (which many people struggle to do even if they pass their PhD!)

I would try to appeal it on the grounds that if you have done the majority of the corrections you have nearly done enough to pass and they should now give you minor corrections, plus you were taking [bad] advice from your supervisor so you thought you were doing everything as you should.

Thank you very much everyone for your comments. The Students Union has agreed to help me appeal. Might as well go for it. I will let you know if anything comes of it.

Good luck Carley. Would have been a such disheartening experience to go through. Hope the appeal goes well.

Hello

Hello
Could you tell me what happened with you please?
I am in same situation.

Thank you