(Rest of post)

I'm not so silly to think that if a student were to be examined several times, each time by a new examiner (all experts in the field, all well-read on the candidate's dissertation), the outcome would be identical each time. However there should be *some* level of consistency, and I'd be worried for example if one examiner gave only minors while another handed out majors. Obviously such an experiment is unlikely to take place, however I have heard of two instances of the following closely related situation: two PhD candidates (working independently) arrived at pretty much the same result (not that uncommon really, especially in scientific subjects, where several people work independently on the same project all the time), and upon examinations (which happened in the same month), one receives majors and must completely revise the result and associated analyses, while the other passes with nothing more than some typos and reference insertions. This I heard through another PhD (who knew the two in question through attending conferences). Most would be a bit sceptical of it (I know I was), however the other instance of this happening was with me. And the other person in question was examined only a few days after me! (I'm not so sceptical of these things now, though I still believe they're quite isolated.) Clearly there's a problem with examiners rather than candidates (and their work) here.

Hopefully if enough PhD candidates are aware of the steps they should take in choosing with their supervisor a good external, the problem of students being lumped with unsuitable examiners will be be a thing of the past. It's already quite a rare occurrence anyway, but when it happens it really puts a damper on things.

Best of luck with your corrections.

PS Have you thought about making an appeal? I was advised against doing this. I can see why; it would have gone nowhere. Particularly as my supervisor was a bit of a nobody, my internal felt intimidated, and no one else wanted to go anywhere near the situation due to how messy it got. However, if you feel you've got a case, and you know someone influential enough who will support you, bring it to light. Even if nothing comes of it, it could cause the whole process to be regulated a bit better, and future candidated needn't need to experience what you've had to.

PPS Your external taking on a supervisory role over you sounds very odd (at least I've never heard of it). How does your official advisor feel about it?

Zimzimi,

Sorry to hear about your viva experience. A similar thing happened to me. I think one of the big issues here is the choice of external examiner -- this is mentioned at the end of your post, and I'd like to emphasise that everyone should be choosy about who examines them.

I didn't play much of a role in the selection of my external (for various reasons -- mostly I trusted the supervisory panel, and (like them) I was sure that the outcome of my viva would be independent of the choice of examiner). This was a huge blunder on my part, and I paid the price for it.

On hindsight, by choosing a "better" external I could have easily saved myself a lot of time going through unnecessary corrections (or, at the very least, reduced the likelihood I'd have to make such major ones). Some things that I think should be considered when thinking about choosing a particular person as your external are:

1. Do they have a track record of failing/handing out lots of corrections? [Probably justified in some cases, but if it happens a lot alarm bells should be ringing; were all of these past students really that bad? And what of their supervisors, sending them in to be slaughtered like that?] To answer this, make some gentle enquiries to the players and PhDs in your field (you probably know lots of them by now). After my viva I found out my external had given majors to two people in as many years, and outright failed someone just a year before (if only I'd known earlier... though I apparently got off lightly!).

2. Do you know them to be (or have they been described as) a bully? [A bully academic may still examine your thesis in a fair manner, but their aggressiveness could put you on edge and damage your performance. My external told my internal to shut up a couple of times, and tutted at a few of my responses, and even said I should stay up at the board while being questioned (I went to sit down, we were entering the third hour at this stage). Definitely made things difficult for me.] It's hard to know with this one; maybe the potential examiner is just assertive, but again ask around, people talk.

3. Do they hold themselves in higher regard than their publications suggest they ought to? [An academic's worth is often measured by his or her journal articles, and while most academics (at least the majority of the ones I know) have their feet planted on the ground, some do not.] Read a few of your external's papers (you should do this anyway), and if you find them to be "nothing special" (the name of the journal can be a good indicator here!), ask around to find out if they're overly pompous. If so, carefully consider if you really want this person examining you. Someone with a heightened self-opinion often boosts his or her ego by cutting others down, and a viva is a perfect opportunity for them to do this.

Point 3 may seem a bit strange (maybe even controversial). I mention it because my own external (I believe) fell into this category.

As for your revisions, perhaps they will be hellish (only you yourself can make this kind of prediction), but remember that you will be awarded a PhD after you've sorted them -- just do them, you deserve your PhD. My own revision phase was very unpleasant, mostly because it angered me to know I was being treated unfairly (it angered me even more that my supervisory team felt the same, but decided it was best to just appease the external) -- but time fixed all that (I'll never forget, but I'm no longer angry or upset). I've been (and maybe you've been) accused by a few people of responding badly to criticism, but the only other person to fully understand how much of an injustice my viva outcome was is my supervisor, and no one has ever criticised me like he has!

Personally, my own private copy of my thesis does not contain the extensive revisions handed to me by my external. I'm all for improving my work, but when it's clearly for the