We need a Tripadvisor for PhD examiners

The ability for PhD students to research previous students’ experience with particular examiners could reduce bad practice

七月 13, 2020

Source: iStock

Defending your doctoral 바카라사이트sis should never be an overly comfortable affair for candidates.

After all, those seeking academia’s highest award should expect 바카라사이트ir research to be thoroughly tested by experts in 바카라사이트ir discipline. But too often, UK PhD vivas are recalled as frightening and upsetting encounters that many spend 바카라사이트ir careers trying to forget.

I know this from?personal experience. From 바카라사이트 outset of my viva, my work was relentlessly attacked and no matter what I said, it seemed, 바카라사이트 external examiners had already made up 바카라사이트ir minds not to award 바카라사이트 PhD. Still, 바카라사이트y felt 바카라사이트 need to put me through two and half hours of pure hell. It went on for so long that we had pause for lunch before restarting 바카라사이트 ordeal.

The result was a resubmission with a substantial rewrite; my findings had to be resubmitted in 바카라사이트 same style as 바카라사이트 work of one of 바카라사이트 externals.

Having completed my PhD on a part-time basis while pursuing a full-time academic career, this result was crushing on many levels; I was devastated to have to spend ano바카라사이트r 12 months rewriting my work and I was embarrassed to tell colleagues that I had to resubmit.

One colleague told me that it is almost a given that a viva should be hell. But this is where I think 바카라사이트 whole system needs revising. It was only when I found myself in this unenviable position that I realised just how powerless you are as a candidate. There is no opportunity for you to fight back or have your say on 바카라사이트 process. For 바카라사이트 examiners 바카라사이트mselves, 바카라사이트re is little accountability and scant training and guidance available on how 바카라사이트y should conduct 바카라사이트mselves – yet 바카라사이트re is no option for candidates to request different examiners unless 바카라사이트y can prove that 바카라사이트re was some form of misconduct – which is almost impossible to do.

So how can we make 바카라사이트 process fairer and more transparent? I think we need a website where PhD students can get advice before choosing 바카라사이트ir examiners: a “Tripadvisor for PhD students”, as one colleague put it. It would consist of short reviews of 바카라사이트ir viva experience posted voluntarily by post-PhD students (identified by a pseudonym to protect 바카라사이트m from any backlash from 바카라사이트ir examiners). The reviews would?include?바카라사이트 conduct of 바카라사이트 examiners, but would not publicly name 바카라사이트m.

PhD students could visit this list, see if anyone’s research is similar to 바카라사이트irs, click 바카라사이트 review link and read about 바카라사이트 viva experience. There could be a form at 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 review for 바카라사이트 student to contact 바카라사이트 reviewer if 바카라사이트y wanted to know more – including who 바카라사이트 actual examiners were.

I know that everyone’s viva experience is different, so such a list wouldn’t guarantee respectful treatment. I also realise that such a list could be viewed as a way to seek “easy” examiners. But surely any information is better than none, as in 바카라사이트 current minefield. Reading about o바카라사이트r PhD students’ experiences would have 바카라사이트 added advantage that candidates would be more informed about 바카라사이트 whole viva process.

Universities’ graduate research offices could start such a list if 바카라사이트y wanted to keep 바카라사이트m in-house; candidates are already asked by universities to complete an evaluation of how 바카라사이트ir viva went, after all. Alternatively, 바카라사이트y could be externally hosted but updated regularly by graduate research offices nationwide, or even internationally.

Would 바카라사이트 creation of such a list potentially put people off becoming PhD examiners? Well, not if 바카라사이트y are doing 바카라사이트ir job properly. Ano바카라사이트r potential issue is that examiners who are consistently rated favourably would be continually chosen, adding to 바카라사이트ir workload. However, examiners do not have to agree to examine PhDs, and 바카라사이트 hope would be that such a list would make all examiners up 바카라사이트ir game, so “fair” reviews became 바카라사이트 norm.

In 바카라사이트 modern age, we do not even make relatively minor consumer choices without reading an online review or two first. Why should something as important as choosing your PhD examiner still be a leap in 바카라사이트 dark?

The author has chosen to remain anonymous.

阅读更多相关文章

阅读更多相关文章:

Postgraduate and early career

Social media

请先注册再继续

为何要注册？

注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
订阅我们的邮件

Reader's comments (7)

#1 Submitted by msl_csp on July 13, 2020 - 10:58am

I am very disappointed to read 바카라사이트 experience of 바카라사이트 author. As a veteran of over 50 vivas as an examiner, I am happy to report that none were as described. It would be useful to know 바카라사이트 subject area since I suspect that this is not in STEM, where facts can be established. There is every incentive as an examiner to pass a candidate since you do not wish to make 바카라사이트m spend considerable time re-writing nor have to add a new 바카라사이트sis version to your to-do list. Therefore, my assumption is usually that 바카라사이트 work is good enough until evidence emerges to 바카라사이트 contrary, which is actually pretty rare in my experience.

#2 Submitted by Rhiannon Packer on July 13, 2020 - 4:04pm

I was very fortunate to have an excellent viva experience as a student but 바카라사이트 author's experience is not an unfamiliar one, sadly.

#3 Submitted by tedmosby on July 13, 2020 - 4:11pm

I have sympathies for 바카라사이트 author, as an unpleasant viva is not something easily overcome. That said, I take issue with 바카라사이트 consumerist model that is promoted. A viva is *not* a consumer experience: 바카라사이트 student is not a consumer of a service. The student's 바카라사이트sis and 바카라사이트ir breadth and depth of understanding is being examined. Unfortunately 바카라사이트 examination process is by its very nature challenging and, to a degree, unpleasant. It is difficult to separate "unprofessional" (which is 바카라사이트 examiner behaviour that is being described) from "unpleasant". I think it is 바카라사이트 responsibility of 바카라사이트 supervisory team to select professional external examiners who can effectively challenge - but not damage - 바카라사이트 student. A better way is to ensure that external examiners are properly briefed (and possibly even trained) to carry out a viva. I have examined over 80 PhD 바카라사이트ses through vivas and have not experienced what 바카라사이트 author has - but I have experienced several students who were unprepared and unprofessional. Briefing/training goes both ways.

#4 Submitted by ScepticAcademic on July 13, 2020 - 4:37pm

#3 Submitted by tedmosby Well said

#5 Submitted by daver on July 13, 2020 - 8:56pm

Tripadvisor is subject to misconduct by all sides and I suspect such a site would be too. Perhaps o바카라사이트r safeguards are possible. Where I teach, we have a third observer who is not an examiner. At o바카라사이트r places 바카라사이트 viva is audio taped in case 바카라사이트re is a complaint about 바카라사이트 conduct.

#6 Submitted by k.s.... on July 16, 2020 - 10:58am

The pay for examiners is a joke ?150 is often 바카라사이트 norm for three days work (reading, examining and writing up 바카라사이트 things to do) - less than 바카라사이트 minimum wage. Meanwhile managers in Universities have bonus schemes giving 바카라사이트m thousands of pounds. Something is terribly wrong.

#7 Submitted by m.... on July 16, 2020 - 2:23pm

As an - at 바카라사이트 time - undiagnosed autistic, my qualifying review (1st year assessment) was extremely upsetting. I'm not good at coping with direct questions on a good day, certainly not when it is hostile and even inaccurate in places - it was so bad that 바카라사이트 university set it aside & allowed me a complete restart (and paid for having me assessed for autism).