Oral Exams: should we have them?
In many countries PhD and Masters theses are examined
through the practice of an oral defence, or viva
voce. In such a setting, a group of examiners is appointed who first read
the thesis and then participate in an oral examination with the candidate, who
defends the thesis. At the conclusion of the viva, the examiners determine the
result of the examination process (e.g., “pass with minor revision”) and the
examination is concluded.
Historically, Australia has not adopted this
position because of the cost of bringing examiners together. Instead, it is the
thesis, rather than the candidate and his or her work, which is
examined. In our system, the examiners independently read the thesis and then
write a report for the university committee that is charged with determining
the result of the examination process.
The benefits of an oral exam are the following:
- There
is a fixed examination time (say 6 weeks after submission), so the thesis
is always examined in a timely fashion.
- There
is a sense of closure to the research.
- Any
confusion between examiners can be sorted out.
- The
candidate’s grasp of the subject matter, as well as the candidate’s
generic skills such as communication and basic discipline knowledge, can
be tested.
- The
examiners control the examination outcome.
- A
successful examination can be celebrated.
In some countries the candidate’s supervisor is part of the
defence panel and the defence itself may be open to a general audience,
including public members.
The difficulties of an oral exam in Australia are
seen to be:
- It
is expensive to fly examiners in from all over the world.
- Video
conferencing could be used but time-zone differences make organisation
difficult.
- The
university committee responsible for the examination result may lose
control (and hence lose control of quality monitoring).
- Some
candidates may not fare so well in an oral setting.
Nevertheless, our examiners often make comments to the Board
about why they wished we had an oral exam. They would like to clarify things
with the candidate, or test the candidate’s knowledge in areas where the
writing gave an impression of superficiality. Or maybe they are just uncertain
about how much work was actually the candidate’s when the project was part of a
team effort.
Here are some examples:
“I do have some questions and comments but they are intended
to be constructive for the future and the author and his researchers should
decide what might need to be addressed for this dissertation and what might be
put towards future research. Most of these comments might be considered as what
I would be asking if I were present at an oral defense.”
“In the European case the candidate can be asked questions
at a viva or other oral defence to
establish that the ideas and their development have come from the candidate,
and thus the candidate is being more than a directed research assistant. While
here the candidate makes the full and proper declarations, because much of this
work is published jointly with supervisors in many places, the reader is
confronted with statements that “we were working”, “we decided” or “we
propose”.
I do not doubt that in this case the work can be properly
attributed to the candidate, but without some form of defence, it is difficult
to confirm the development of independent thought by the candidate.”
So what’s your opinion: an oral defence or keep with the
system we have?