I was given major corrections and received a numbered list of the three huge, project-changing corrections they wanted. One of them was completely restructure it and rewrite half of it, but the list was very clear about what exactly the tasks to do were. There were other criticisms that they made during the viva, but those weren't on this numbered list of things to do if I wanted them to pass it.

I was told by a number of people to do exactly those things on the numbered list, and nothing else. I then also wrote a report about how I'd changed it, which was my own numbered list of changes that responded directly to their own numbered list.

I passed!

Just another 'keep going!' message! As I wrote about here at the time, I was told throughout my PhD that it was great and I'd easily pass, and then got completely blindsided by a 'revise and resubmit' verdict. 18 months after my first viva, I got word that I'd passed, along with a hugely complimentary message from the internal examiner who thought that the new version was brilliant.

At the time of the viva, it felt like the worst thing I'd ever gone through. But now it's completely irrelevant. The best advice to give is make sure they send you a detailed and very specific list of exactly what needs to change for them to pass you. And then do this list. And then write a report stating briefly how you have done each thing on the list. It's not the time to argue that you're right and they're wrong - you've already failed to do this, which is why you got major corrections. The job this time is to show them that you can specifically and precisely give them the changes they want to see. You can even disagree with them, while doing them. I did, when I got started, but by the end was actually convinced they were right!

I can't imagine people finding this out hurting your prospects at all, whatsoever! The head of Film Studies at my University is a Professor who got this outcome on his PhD. If anything it shows you have endurance!

Have you tried posting on mumsnet? 'Anyone here working in education?' or something like that!

Thanks to both of you! It literally still feels unreal :) Also, I just got a call from the PGR office saying they can probably rush through my graduation so it can happen next Wednesday!

I hope you both get similarly good news. I really get from this experience that examiners genuinely want you to do the things they say it needs, so they can pass it!

Thanks! I posted a message here right after I resubmitted saying how stressed I was and how I was convinced it would fail, so the email came completely out of the blue! It was an email from the internal examiner, cc'd to the external, my supervisor and to the PGR office, I guess in advance of the final official confirmation from the PGR office itself - so a nice 'we want you to know this as soon as possible', I guess!

It said:

"[The external examiner] and I have now read your revised thesis, conferred, and I am glad to say that we have agreed to recommend to the PGR board that it be awarded a PhD. I'm attaching our comments. We both think you did an excellent job in responding to our comments on the first draft, and that the thesis is now well structured and works very well. You write with great intelligence and subtlety, and it is a fine piece of work. Well done!

[Internal examiner]."

The reports both just recommend it be passed as it is, while lightly criticising a few aspects and highly praising others. No calls for further minor revisions at all - though I bank on one final typo sweep!

My disastrous viva was in December 2012, and since then I have gone through two long periods where I just wasn't going to bother resubmitting. They wanted the order of the chapters completely changing, an entirely new argument about the material going from start to finish, and three of the six chapters, once moved, completely rewritten to accommodate their new position and the new argument, and then an entirely new conclusion. But I did exactly that and they think I did it well! Waking up today was bizarre - it's like I don't remember not having this hanging over me!

I want to stress that anyone given 12 months should have a very clear list of what exact changes they want. Even if they are huge changes, the examiners should leave you in no doubt of what changes need to happen in order for them to pass it.

I got a positive response today, about 2 and 2/3 months after a full resubmission! I've heard of one case where someone was still waiting over 3 months.

I was in this situation - 1 year of corrections - resubmitted 2.5 months ago, and today got an email saying I had passed :) So it can be done!!

Ok thanks, but if that's a good idea that many people do, as you say, then presumably I would then let them know that I had done that at some point?

Thanks again, I won't be going down that route, then!

Does anyone think a good thing to do would be to go through it with a fine tooth-comb and list the problems I have started to see and show that it clearly would take less than 3 months to fix them, to argue my case if they failed it rather than give 3 months? I have seen someone recommend that approach somewhere else.

Okay, thanks for the advice :) I have definitely thought again about taking that route, and what I would say to them is, I guess, what I would say if I have to appeal.

I'm not sure what exact advice I want, so I'll just give my experiences.

Basically, everything was going great until the Viva. My supervisor said I was more likely to pass first time than anyone. The examiners ripped half of it apart and said while 3 of the 6 chapters were comfortably above PhD level, I needed 12 months, in which I would completely restructure the entire thing, with the chapters in a different order and the other 3 completely rewritten, and have a whole new argument from start to end.

I have done this, and resubmitted. And I know that 3 of the chapters are still woolier than the others, 1 of them especially. On the other hand, everything is in the exact order they wanted, while I now have a strong conclusion I'm really pleased with and that demonstrates clearly and vividly exactly what the major research contribution of the thesis is, and which follows on from the evidence provided.

All the stuff is now in the order they want it, and supports my conclusion. So I feel that any further stuff they want done would be editing and tightening the 3 weaker chapters, so they better and more clearly express the same points. Nothing weak about it affects or detracts from my conclusion. I strongly believe that anything that needs changing can now be done in 3 months.

So I'm wondering if it's worth emailing my examiners, saying I felt extremely stressed and unsure about it, and asking them to be as sympathetic as possible. To stress that I believe the conclusion clearly demonstrates what my substantial contribution is and that, if they agree with me, the weak bits in the 3 weaker chapters can readily be sorted in 3 months. I believe also that as they can still fail me if those 3 months of corrections aren't done properly, they don't have anything to lose by being as sympathetic as possible.

Or should I leave them completely alone?