Dear all,

So glad I've found this website. I am an arts PhD student who has just submitted for my upgrade. I submitted a full, draft intro, 3 chapters (frameworked), another full, complete chapter along with references and appendices. The thesis was about 50,000 words, the appendices containing all the analysis about 25,000. My supervisor had a few issues with it, but none he thought were too major. Anyway, an internal reader was chosen and the meeting was held last week.

They told me immediately I was going to be upgraded, then the internal reader just ripped into it. It was really harsh and he made a beeline for the most incomplete, weakest area (the chapter 2). I told him it needed more work and some more exploration, but he carried on. What transpired was just, well pretty embarrassing, really. He kept taking issue with points in my thesis, then instead of letting me defend, he'd explain what he meant in great detail, lecture me on the background theory of what he wanted me to include and state his reasons why. He was doing all the talking. Every time I wanted to defend, he just held his hand up and said 'I haven't finished!' etc By the time he'd finished lecturing, I'd forgotten what it was he was actually asking me. He banged on and on, ripping into the main point of the thesis (which got me a 1st class MA, my funding - grant + fees - and pretty much the number 1 supervisor in my subject area!) and I just switched off. He ranted on and on negatively about the main point, then my conclusion, which was only offered as a tentative, preliminary summary.

He then laughed and compared my work to 'undergraduate level' and I asked to leave the room. I couldn't concentrate on what he was saying any more and I felt my eyes watering. I went back in after composing myself, but he just carried on (I've been grilled for about 1hr 20 minutes by this time). I just wasn't getting the chance to defend at all and then couldn't hold back the tears. Eventually, after he stopped talking, I asked the head of department if I could go, as I felt I'd done enough. The internal reader just shook his head and gesticulated towards his sheets of paper as though he'd only said half of what he wanted to!

I was utterly humiliated. The whole thing smacked of him trying to impress my supervisor and the head of department. He was the one doing all the talking and making recommendations that were irrelevant to my thesis. I am a lecturer in another university and currently supervise 3rd year UG's and MA students - I could not believe the unprofessionalism. I was most disappointed in that the complete aspects of my work - the ones I agreed with my supervisor would take the main part of the upgrade consideration - went totally ignored. Not one "question". All the weak, least complete and least significant aspects were annihilated.

I'm ashamed at myself for letting this ego-maniac get to me. And worst of all - I let it show.

What to do now? Feel like quitting.
:-(

That's just so awful Mothlene - probably the worst post I ever read regarding a transfer viva.  Your examiner did indeed act in an unprofessional manner, and you surely have a cause for redress on account of his unacceptable behaviour which may even constitute bullying. I am not surprised you showed your emotions; I mean, who wouldn't?  In our line of research, a transfer report is a short account (~6000 words) of what you have done in your first year, and what you intend to do for the rest of your project. The viva itself is very informal, and lasts for about 1-2 hours.  In my viva, the examiners did do a lot of the talking, but I just let 'em get on with it as I nodded my head enthusiastically. There were no problems, and everyone was happy with it.  The nasty experience you have shared with us sounds more like a personal attack on your research rather than on your progress or abilities to me. Shame on him, not on you!:-s

I think there are two things going on.

The first is that you would expect an examiner/upgrade reviewer to critique the weakest element of your upgrade. I would do that. Otherwise it will not go down too well at your final viva if it hasn't been properly addressed (then the inevitable "Why was this student upgraded from Mphil in the first place?"). If they aren't doing that, they aren't doing their job. The main thing is that you WERE upgraded. Your work was good enough, many others aren't. Remember that.

The second thing is that he seems to have an additional agenda, either brown-nosing a superior or trying to take out a possible future rival (i.e. You). Such mind games are part and parcel of academic life and you cannot let yourself get dragged into this. It happens at higher levels of university and it can get worse (read the bullied blogger in the Times Higher Educational supplement for more).

Objectively, you won. You quit, he wins.

Sure, he clawed a few points back. Big deal. It was a pity that you showed he got to you, but it is only a mistake if you compound the error. Ideally you will grow from this, finish your PhD then start gunning for him. There is no sweeter revenge than decimating another academic who previously trashsed you. 8-)

Hi Badhaircut: Thank you for your reply. It is interesting what you say. If the viva is about your weakest areas, then I got the whole thing wrong and misunderstood in the first instance. With regards to the internal reader's agenda, a few things spring to mind. A few months back was the PhD students research week where we all presented our work. Mine went well and was praised by many of the academics in the department. However, a couple of other students presentations didn't go too well at all and these students are being supervised by the aforementioned internal reader. Their presentations were ripped apart by my supervisor. In one instance, he went as far as to say 'you need to go away and think about how to give a presentation!'. Afterwards, one of the BA course leaders asked me if I could do some lecturing on one of the courses. I was very flattered, but I think what has happened is that the internal reader has taken his "revenge" on my supervisor for being so harsh on his students. It's politics. It's in every department at every university, but it didn't feel good being on the receiving end of it, that's for sure.

Ginga: It certainly felt like bullying and I feel I was used as a pawn in an internal political "one-upmanship" exercise. I want to complete within 3 years as my funding will run out, hence I submitted more than what was probably required at this stage. What gets to me is that my supervisor is a world-class academic in the field (he's been brilliant throughout my PhD) and the internal reader is a bit of a nobody. So yes, perhaps he did see me as a future rival, as Badhair has pointed out.

Hi Mothlene,

I'm so sorry to hear about your horrible experience.

I had a similar experience although they weren't unpleasant to me and I felt all of the criticism was valid (to a point). The issue I took with my upgrade was that I was asked one question in the whole thing. A single question. And when I tried to answer someone else started talking. We left feeling that as the criticism was fairly mild and there was no real problem with the design of my phd I'd get upgraded. I didn't. I am currently in limbo (my original upgrade was March 08) waiting for them to actually read my THIRD revised upgrade report (which incidentally is 3 times the word limit for my department). The whole thing really really winds me up because the amendments they have asked for are so stupid and I've done them anyway. I've really jumped through hoops for them and then they add more to the amendments. All of my amendments are about what will make up my first chapter, the literature. So even though I'm half way through and all my data collection will be complete by July I am still technically registered as an MPhil student.

I'm not sure that my story is particularly helpful but I wanted to share with you that you're not alone. I'm here with you (although still a step behind as I haven't upgraded!) and I know at least one other person in the same situation as me. Once this ridiculous process is complete I will be raising the matter within the department as even the head of research degrees said to me that the guidelines just aren't comprehensive enough to deal with the MPhil. I suggest that you at least raise the issue of not being allowed to answer questions and defend your work.

Take care

A

Sounds like an absolute nightmare. Who are they to treat anybody like that... what a disgrace!

Oh my goodness- that sounds like a horrible situation and definitely not something that you should put up with!

The main thing is you've passed.

Hi all,

Thanks for your responses. I'm going for a meeting tomorrow with my supervisor, so I've got a bit of explaining to do. Badhaircut - I'm going to base my 'debrief' around your 2 points: that what happened generally wasn't what I expected (understatement!) and that I felt there was an additional agenda going on. Ultimately, I want to come out of this looking as professional as I can, which is difficult because I did have a bit of a meltdown. It's damage limitation, I suppose. I've read so much on here about nightmare supervisors/ supervisors from hell that I feel very fortunate now. My supervisor is just fantastic - couldn't have wished for any better, so I need to be thankful for that and move on. Thank you everyone.

Just a word of advice (coming from a supervisor perspective).

I predict you will be tempted to focus on the beatdown around the internal ex behaving unprofessionally, the possible agenda/politics and your future gameplan. You should equally (if not more) hammer out any pre-existing weaknesses in your thesis that he addressed. Or they will be waiting for you at viva.

Just because the speaker is an a-hole, it doesn't mean he isnt right about something (as has been often said about me).;-) At least this way you can get something constructive out of that nasty experience. It will make you look more balanced and reinforce the impression you can rise above the petty backbiting by focussing on "the issues".

Yes, you're right. I was planning on firstly highlighting where I went wrong in terms of what I (wrongly) expected was going to happen/ which documents and areas they would be focussing on/ questions that would be asked. Had I prepared for all eventualities, perhaps none of this would have happened. So I can certainly put that down to experience. In terms of the internal reader being an 'a-hole' - of course it's tempting to go in there and play the victim, bleating on about what an injustice it was, but that won't get me anywhere. The challenge is, to get across that I know how politically motivated his manner was, without without actually saying so and without looking like I can't take criticism. :/

I wouldn't worry too much about how to get your complaints about this guy across. You know what he was playing at, and so does your supervisor. Once you start talking constructively about where you go from here - i.e. how you address whatever valid points he made, and maybe how you demonstrate that his other objections were off-target - I'm sure that will become crystal clear!

Focus on the big picture - you're well thought of by people whose opinions you value and respect, and have your upgrade to prove it. If you don't also have the approval of a second-rate academic who's plainly wrong in his assessment of the fundamentals of your project - so what? My guess is that he probably walked out of that viva looking rather worse in the eyes of his colleagues than you did - not just because he acted like a bully, but because he so ostentatiously displayed his own ignorance.

Hi Magictime -

Thanks for your thoughts. I had the meeting today and it went ok. Tried very hard to say 'y'know that guy was a complete a-hole' without actually coming out and saying it. Something tells me they knew what I really wanted to say. I just want to finish the damn thing now.

Thank you to everyone on this thread - you've all been very supportive. Greatly appreciated, thank you.