I'm wondering to this day, how could it be? All that 3 years? How do examiners determine which one to pass and which one to fail?

I heard its all about your supervisor, who gives the examiners an idea about your work, or in another word he or she comments to them about if you did well or bad, your work worth a PhD degree or not, they will depend heavily on the supervisor feedback to have an initial idea about your work then they confirm it during the viva so you have to do your best in both the 3 years and the 2 hrs of viva....

This is what i think....

You might find this article helpful...

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=410208

To the THES article, I can add having a viable research topic, having supervisors that whilst they don't do the project for you at least keep you on course, actually doing the necessary work to ensure a there is a viable, original contribution made, keeping a focus on the hypothesis or hypotheses you are trying to prove or disprove, not letting personal issues get in the way (difficult, I know), having the support you need (either professionally or personally) when the inevitable bout of depression comes, remembering to label and store your samples and data properly (that lesson is normally learnt early), etc.

I'm sure we can all add our own take on this. I note that article is from a Humanities-type angle and I'm sure Science and Engineering candidates can add their own thoughts to it.


Ian (Mackem_Beefy)