[ska]

This is why PhD's typically have comprehensive exams. It varies (a lot!) by university and even department, but panel led oral exams are pretty common. At some places they are even open to the public (no pressure). These are distinct from a thesis defence, which happens at the end of your degree; they are likely to happen about a year in and are meant to ensure you have a solid background.

Overall I think an oral exam run by a skilled examiner is the best of all worlds, but it isn't practical for a section of 500 undergraduate students. It's quite doable for a seminar or manageable up to say 10-15 students, becomes difficult after that.

[g_p]

As you say, different departments and institutions have different approaches, but I'd definitely emphasise that outside of Europe (where I've seen more ceremonial "exams"), there are still robust and vigorous "final" oral viva exams used.

In some European universities, the outcome is such a foregone conclusion that the candidate's family is laying out the buffet, peeling the cling film off the plates, and unboxing the champagne bottles as the "defense" begins.

In the UK however, I've never seen this. It's generally a small room with candidate, an internal examiner, an external examiner from another university who is an expert in the field, and a convenor to record the minutes of the examination. The outcome is by far from a foregone conclusion.

A good student who is an expert in their field, is well-read and up to date on their work and the surrounding literature will perform well and have little to fear. Someone who hasn't written their own thesis, or didn't really have an understanding of the area, and thus isn't really an expert, will have a very unpleasant time, and will likely be failed, or be sent away with major corrections to be completed to the satisfaction of the examiners, possibly including a full oral re-examination.

[gspr]

> This is why PhD's typically have comprehensive exams.

America is leaking again.

[ska]

> America is leaking again.

Ok, from a terminology point of view that's fair - it isn't the same everywhere by any means.

However, most if not all of the graduate programs I know if internationally have something roughly equivalent, whether they are comps or prelims or qualifying or whatever.

The basic idea is that a department (and university, generally) has an interest in maintaining the quality of their programs, and one way to do that is to make sure that your students never leave with glaring holes in their background. The best way to do this is some sort of comprehensive evaluation, and the time to do it is at or near the beginning of a program - otherwise there is no time to address deficiencies.

[twic]

No UK PhD programme has exams like this, that i have heard of.

[g_p]

Some UK programmes differ in that there isn't the same formal concept of "candidacy" like you see in other places. The end-of-first-year review is often a written report, sometimes with a "mini-viva".

The common factor among all UK PhDs I know of is that there is a rigorous viva at the end, where the outcome for the sudent is not a foregone conclusion. Despite the shorter overall duration of the PhD (~3 to 4 years typically), the oral examination can (rightly) cover material far beyond the scope of your thesis - if you are an expert in your field, you will be able to have a knowledgeable and informed discussion as a peer with your external examiner, who will be a recognised expert in the field. I'm definitely a big believer in the importance of being able to have a well-informed discussion around the area of your work, and actually found the whole viva process very enjoyable and cordial - a nice chat about the wider field, my and the examiners' own previous work, some debate of the merits of different approaches, and then onto a run-through of the thesis, chapter-by-chapter, skipping any pages where there were no points for discussion or contention.

Unlike European vivas though, there's no family or friends, no champagne corks being popped mid-defense, and no foregone conclusion of the outcome. I've been at European vivas with the family of the candidate preparing the celebratory buffet at the back of the auditorium while the questioning continues!

[girvo]

> Unlike European vivas though, there's no family or friends, no champagne corks being popped mid-defense, and no foregone conclusion of the outcome. I've been at European vivas with the family of the candidate preparing the celebratory buffet at the back of the auditorium while the questioning continues!

While the UK model is probably preferable in a lot of ways, this sounds much more enjoyable :)

[ska]

Oh, good point, the UK programs I know of are notably ligher in this regard (and PhD shorter) though they do generally require a 1st class honors (honours, i guess!) degree in subject, which includes "tripos" which is roughly equivalent. So in some ways a higher bar for undergrad matched with a lower bar for grad.

At least that's the theory - I don't know if in practice it holds up; most of the grad students and later I knew from that system came from oxbridge which has a number of quirks.

[g_p]

The difference I tend to see is that the outcome of the UK viva (oral) examination is far less of a foregone conclusion, and can still be quite traditional in that students are expected to be able to have a broad and well-informed discussion about their wider field and the context of their work. The thinking is that they will (if meritous of a PhD) have a certain level of expertise, and thus be able to have a discussion with their external examiner (a distinguished and recognised expert) as a peer.

My experience of it was that if you are genuinely knowledgeable and approaching being an expert in your field, it is an enjoyable experience, and just like having a (longer than usual, but not uncomfortably long) conversation with someone about a topic that you both share a deep interest in. There is nothing to worry about, as you can have a nice discussion about an interesting topic, and share interesting ideas etc.

I'm not sure if it's a lower bar for grad as such - I think it's got fewer "formal" requirements, and far more informal requirements. The most common way to "fail" is to simply not submit the thesis.

[twic]

I don't know anyone who failed their viva entirely, but it's standard to be asked to make corrections to the thesis after it. Getting passed without corrections is a significant achievement. Those corrections can relate to weaknesses in your general knowledge uncovered in the viva: if there is something the examiners think you should know about, and you don't, you can be asked to add it to the thesis.

My impression was that someone failing their viva was seen as a serious failure on the part of their supervisor, who should not have let them submit without being more prepared.

[ska]

> UK viva (oral) examination is far less of a foregone conclusion,

That matches my limited experience with UK, although I've seen north american ones without a foregone conclusion - seems really dependent on institution.

> The most common way to "fail" is to simply not submit the thesis.

I think that's true everywhere, lot's of people just don't complete. I've heard somewhere that the "ABD" (all but dissertation) rate in US is nearly 50% at 10 years, if you go across all disciplines.

[MereInterest]

The US frequently merges the masters and PhD programs into a single 4-7 year program, rather than a 2-year masters followed by 2-5 year PhD program. The comprehensive exams for PhDs are typically at the end of the first two years, and cover material similar to that of a masters.

The two are pretty much equivalent, but with different names.

[snotrockets]

To quote my advisor, who was a faculty member both sides of the Atlantic, while the path is different, by the end of the PhD, you mostly done the same amount of work, regardless of which system you participated in.