Monday, September 18, 2006
I attended a forum to discuss about possible oral defense assessments for PhD student at ANU organised by PARSA (The Postgraduate And Research Students' Association). About 50 PhD students across many colleges and departments attended the forum, including 3 university representatives sitting on the University Education Committee, the body that makes decisions on student education and regulations.
The idea of PhD oral defense stems from surveys made by the university on various colleges about possible ways to improve the PhD experience as well as the competitive edge of ANU postgraduates. So it was one of the ideas that had come up. However, there were polarizing opinions across the committee as to what model the oral defense should follow.
The first has serves a more ceremonial function, attended by the candidate's supervisory panel members. Under this model, the results is normally clear before the oral examinations.
Another model is a form of 'approval/endorsement to submit' the written thesis. The assessment panel consists of the supervisor panel members and perhaps other members either internal or external to the university. The panel would make a written report with a list of recommendations or outlines where additional work is required on the thesis. So it's an extra step before the submission of the thesis.
The final model is where external examiners have assessed the written thesis and have provided a written report on recommendations, questions about parts of the thesis that require further explanations that will be addressed at the oral defense. They will then attend the oral defense and make a recommendation to the university in regards to the outcome.
The idea of an oral defense has had some negative responses from some of the students at the forum. Some of the arguments are that it will create additional workload/pressure/effort for students, extra finance/time is required especially for overseas assessors to attend. There is a general opinion that an oral defense is associated with border line pass/fail results and this would reflect negatively on the PhD candidate. The idea of video conferencing was floated but people say they are generally negative about that idea because you could not see their body languages and it's difficult talking to a camera. There are also problems with time zone differences.
There are also those who are in favour of the idea. I for one am supportive of an oral defense. I think it is actually good for personal and professional development because you have the opportunity to have in-depth discussions with a few leading experts in your field. A PhD candidate should not only demonstrate organised and in-depth knowledge in written form, he/she should be able to present his arguments orally. It's a different experience to conference/departmental seminar presentations. But I believe that an aggresive environment for an oral defense is a bad idea. There should be some sort of university representatives or one/two of your supervisory panel members who can witness/arbituate the defense. But there are also some, especially overseas students, who may have problem in orally communicating his/her research, so they may have a disadvantage. So perhaps some sort of regulations can be identified for them.
The important outcome from the forum is that this issue requires further discussions and dialogs between the university and the students. Well, at least we, the students, have a say in such a crucial decision making that affects our PhD experiences.
The idea of PhD oral defense stems from surveys made by the university on various colleges about possible ways to improve the PhD experience as well as the competitive edge of ANU postgraduates. So it was one of the ideas that had come up. However, there were polarizing opinions across the committee as to what model the oral defense should follow.
The first has serves a more ceremonial function, attended by the candidate's supervisory panel members. Under this model, the results is normally clear before the oral examinations.
Another model is a form of 'approval/endorsement to submit' the written thesis. The assessment panel consists of the supervisor panel members and perhaps other members either internal or external to the university. The panel would make a written report with a list of recommendations or outlines where additional work is required on the thesis. So it's an extra step before the submission of the thesis.
The final model is where external examiners have assessed the written thesis and have provided a written report on recommendations, questions about parts of the thesis that require further explanations that will be addressed at the oral defense. They will then attend the oral defense and make a recommendation to the university in regards to the outcome.
The idea of an oral defense has had some negative responses from some of the students at the forum. Some of the arguments are that it will create additional workload/pressure/effort for students, extra finance/time is required especially for overseas assessors to attend. There is a general opinion that an oral defense is associated with border line pass/fail results and this would reflect negatively on the PhD candidate. The idea of video conferencing was floated but people say they are generally negative about that idea because you could not see their body languages and it's difficult talking to a camera. There are also problems with time zone differences.
There are also those who are in favour of the idea. I for one am supportive of an oral defense. I think it is actually good for personal and professional development because you have the opportunity to have in-depth discussions with a few leading experts in your field. A PhD candidate should not only demonstrate organised and in-depth knowledge in written form, he/she should be able to present his arguments orally. It's a different experience to conference/departmental seminar presentations. But I believe that an aggresive environment for an oral defense is a bad idea. There should be some sort of university representatives or one/two of your supervisory panel members who can witness/arbituate the defense. But there are also some, especially overseas students, who may have problem in orally communicating his/her research, so they may have a disadvantage. So perhaps some sort of regulations can be identified for them.
The important outcome from the forum is that this issue requires further discussions and dialogs between the university and the students. Well, at least we, the students, have a say in such a crucial decision making that affects our PhD experiences.
Comments:
Post a Comment
