Last week, I asked a PhD candidate in our lab whether she'd got a date for her thesis defence. 'My what?' she asked. We looked at each other in mutual incomprehension before light dawned.
It turns out that there is no viva voce requirement for an Australian PhD.
I was shocked and stunned, and not to say a little amazed. No thesis defence? And no auditing of examiners. Well, well. Just how much do you think that little book is worth, then?
Today I read that there are calls to reinstate the viva voce, which raised a little cheer from me. But the whinging has started already:
Nigel Palmer, president of the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations, said: "Students are always going to be cautious about anything that looks like a viva."Particularly towards the end of their candidature, PhDs are close to exhaustion. It's a very daunting proposition to come out and give a stunning presentation. Also, (a viva) disadvantages international students."
Poor wee grad students! Heaven forbid that an Australian PhD candidate should be daunted by anything. Won't somebody please think of the children?
In civilized countries it is not enough to be able to write something; you are called upon to answer criticism of your work and defend your conclusions, to be able to prove that you can contextualize and think independently, and — importantly — recognize when you've got something wrong and be able to reassess, to think on your feet. It's a public exam — and in some countries the defence really is public, the people who paid for your studentship can verify that you were worth it. International students are no more disadvantaged by a viva than they are when it comes to reading the literature (and writing the damned thesis in the first place). Someone who can not give a talk in the language of the country they do the lab work (I'm ignoring humanities/arts. Sticking to what I know) has a more fundamental problem than being able to defend a thesis. The argument about external examiners does not even get off the ground. Additionally, if someone can not complete a (non-coursework) PhD in three to four years, then serious questions about their ability, and that of their supervisor, need to be asked.
Look, a PhD is not about doing great science. It is about teaching you how to think like a scientist. That's why it is possible to fit it into three years. No one seriously expects a PhD to be your "life's work", or a new PhD to have a great publication record. We know the pressures of a PhD and we're looking to see if you have the nouse and the gumption and the sheer bloodymindedness to cope with real research. You do not actually start to be a scientist until you begin your first post-doc, when you will be expected to think for yourself and not have your hand held all the time, and cope with serious deadlines. In the real world, people are not going to wait for you not to be exhausted and daunted before doing something. And guess what boys and girls? Part of the training is to be able to give a full seminar, not just answer questions about your work.
And yes, a PhD is bloody hard work; exhausting and daunting. That is precisely why they are so valued.
In my own exhausted and daunted state my internal examiner read back to me a paragraph of my thesis, and I realized then and there that I'd made an absolute howler. So I said so, and told him what I should have written, and that I'd correct it. "No, no," he said, "you don't have to". But he was satisfied that I really did know what I was talking about. That's an examination.
Comments
I completely agree with you. I went to UC Berkeley for a couple of years, and then to Paris for the rest of the Ph.D. (it's optimally 5 years after a bachelor's, in the US and France) and had to defend viva voce in France, but not at UCB for the equivalence. Made my life easier, but I was almost glad to undergo the defense; I felt a little more like I deserved the title. Most universities in the US *do* require an oral defense. Anyhow, as a non-native French speaker, I held my own.
By the way, right on with: "Look, a PhD is not about doing great science. It is about teaching you how to think like a scientist."
Posted by: Alethea | August 29, 2007 09:29 PM
Vivas were one reason why I took a look at the idea of a doctorate and backed very far away very fast.
Vivas discriminate very effectively against those who (like me) stutter so badly as to be entirely incomprehensible when nervous. (Yes, this causes problems elsewhere as well. Guess why my next job *will* be work-from-home dammit. Email is so much better.)
Posted by: Nix | August 30, 2007 08:46 AM
Yeah that *could* be a downer. Thing is, Nix, that *presenting* is as much part of the job as doing the research (and writing).
However, an examiner would not fail you because of a stutter. They'd probably be able to recommend a course, to be honest.
Posted by: BK | August 30, 2007 08:55 AM
bk, although I see the merit in earning your title, the thought of defending my work scares me witless. To be honest when I started my PhD, I expected to have some sort of oral examination at the end of thesis writing. So it came as a pleasant surprise to find out that I don't have to.
Knowing my luck, the viva voce will be reinstated by my thesis year... hey, whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger right.
I agree completely with the international student side of the matter- If you are going to do your research in another language, you need to be able to communicate effectively, as science (in my opinion) is underpinned by the sharing of ideas- in journals, at conferences, in lab meetings, and even during tea time. Being able to present their work, and respond to criticism is a skill that many research scientists require. I seem to have talked myself into welcoming back the viva voce!
Posted by: beta gal | August 30, 2007 11:39 AM
I remember being completely scared senseless before my defense (oral one after the thesis was printed and complete with no possibilities of changing anything but rather getting used to the idea of stating "we now know that the statement on page 23 is somewhat altered into this...") which personally I might think is a good thing to remember that all of the science is subject to the age thing and that we need to redefine things after a while due to new findings.
Anyhow, I must admit that I enjoyed it emmensly (can't spell!) since I had the opportunity to present to my family and friends the stuff I had spent the last four and a half years doing and on top of that have a 'argumentation/discussion/Q&A' with my opponent (as called in Sweden).
I like the idea of actaully having to explain all of what you have published and to get that feeling of accomplishment.
Then again, I spent way to much space in this comment. sorry BK.
Posted by: chall | September 1, 2007 12:36 AM
Always to good to hear from you, Chall; no need to apologize.
Posted by: BK | September 1, 2007 11:19 AM
No defence? I'm sorry, that's lame. If you can't get up and describe your work coherently, and defend your findings, what kind of future in science do you think you'll have? Students should be trained to present frequently and expect criticism of their work (and be prepared to deal with it).
Besides, you should know your thesis material inside out and backwards. So a defence shouldn't be any kind of a big deal. A bit stressful, sure, but nothing comes for free.
*degenerates into old-man mumbling about "kids these days"...
Oh, and the statement "Look, a PhD is... about teaching you how to think like a scientist." echoes something one of my committee memebers said to me right at the beginning of mine. Words to live by.
Posted by: Whiffling disbelievingly | September 4, 2007 01:04 AM
hm, thanks BK.
I couldn't agree more with whiffeling... I mean, that was one of the major points my supervisor stressed out to me before the defense and presentation. "Noone knows you work as well as you" (at least I think it should be like that!). And I felt a little better.
Furthermore, I know some people think it is cruel to force presentations but truth to be told - if you can't present as a scientist after your PhD I fail to see what kind of scientist's jobs you will get. Maybe that is me being callus and cynical but isn't it better to know this stuff before you embark on the preil future as a scientist?
(God knows I would have wished for thinking about a little more alternative carreers before sitting in this position as a post doc with smaller chances of getting those nicer grants...)
Posted by: chall | September 5, 2007 07:27 AM
I found this blog because I was looking to find out what you call a viva in Australia, and there it is: you don’t have to call it anything because you don’t have to do it. That’s a shame. I can understand that it can be a bit intimidating standing up in public to present your work and be questioned over it, but it’s part of proving that you deserve to be taken seriously as a researcher.
International students? Yeah, that’s me. I’m an Australian, I moved to Brazil and started learning Portuguese in my mid-30s, did my masters in Literary Theory, defended my work in front of colleagues, family and friends, and am now doing my doctorate in Brazilian Literature, supervised by one of the external examiners from my masters viva. So like Alethea said, “as a non-native speaker, I held my own”. And it was exhilarating.
I appreciate Nix’s comment about stuttering, and I don’t really have anything to say to it, except that one of my friends from the masters also gets hard to follow when he’s nervous, and I was on the edge of my seat while he was giving his presentation, but he got through it unscarred. I don’t think the point of the viva is to give a great presentation, but to prove that the work really is yours and that you can deal intellectually with contesting viewpoints.
Posted by: Ian | July 21, 2008 10:57 PM