The oral exam

robyn.owens — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:47:00 GMT

Some examiners assume that there will be a viva.

Overall, the experimental methodologies and statistical analyses applied are appropriate for the research undertaken, and the thesis is easy to read and understand. However, the candidate has used different symbols to denote the same variables in different parts of the thesis. The candidate needs to explain the differences between these symbols during the oral examination.

During the oral exam the candidate should report on the status of the papers submitted to journals.

Oral Exams: should we have them?

robyn.owens — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 01:35:00 GMT

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?

theEzone : Oral exams

The oral exam

Oral Exams: should we have them?