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.
