======= Date Modified 11 Jan 2011 19:18:50 =======
Hello all.

I unashamedly eavesdropped on a conversation the other day, yes i lurked even though I know its bad manners but ...

the two characters were academics from a Uni.. and they reckoned that if a PhD has a contribution to knowledge as an advancement in a method that they can't fail the PhD.. even if the main question, the results or others aspects are doubtful.

What do you think ? I mean i can see the sense in it.. be interested to know if my eavesdropping was worthwhile

Regards, Chuff

Thanks for posting this Chuff. As shown from my other posts, despite my attempts in staying positive, I'm desperately worrying about failing my PhD so I would be delighted if this is true across the board. I know my PhD is brand new insight into an under-researched area, partly validates my external examiner work and I've introduced brand new method tools and sampling directories to advance my subject area (that my external examiner is one of the few academics in the UK with some speciality), so all in all, I hope I'll be in a position to argue that I've made some contribution to knowledge in some way.

My supervisors think there's a possibility I could fail my PhD if I'm not clear on my research aims and main questions, so perhaps there is more to it than 'an advance in method'.

Who the heck clicked 'yes'? If a PhD is substandard, I personally don't think that, even if it represents an advance in methods, it will be passed. The PhD, the whole thing, represents a lot more than just showing an advance in methods.

Hi all.

Thinking on W's comment... clearly if the PhD is substandard this should preclude a pass but if, for example, you have proposed three contributions to knowledge one of which is a method, which has been published (conf or journal) as an advance.. could you then fail ?

I suppose put broadly do your examiners have to agree all your proposed contributions ... yes i know one would be nice ;-)

C

======= Date Modified 12 Jan 2011 12:58:25 =======
I don't think that's right. Even the best PhD has a chance of failing, if only due to nasty politics between examiners and supervisors etc. I've heard of people failing because an examiner just didn't like it, no matter how good it was. (depressing eh?)

ETA: I think that if you have anything published from your PhD - especially in good journals, then you have a much better chance of succeeding, mainly because you've had peer review already AND you've got more confidence when you walk into your viva

I agree with Wally and Sneaks. A PhD student in my department was failed outright a few years ago, when she was expected to pass extremely well. It seemed to come down to supervisor politics, but was a bombshell for the department, students and supervisors, who realised just how much of a lottery the process can be, however good a PhD and student are.

Guess eavesdropping is not always a good basis on which to take a view.  Who knows what they'd said beforehand .. it could well have been a demonstration of office politics.. they were desperate to fail it but even the blinking method was a contribution.

Minefield is the word...so many hurdles.

Hope things are all going in the right direction for you all.  Thanks for your views.  Chuff

Goodness, failing outright is certainly the nightmare scenario! eeeeeek suddenly feeling anxious regarding forthcoming viva!