dissertation defense conditional pass

Evaluation Decisions for Doctoral Defense

Doctoral students are required to review the degree plans for their program, along with information about specific degree requirements and estimated timelines to reach various benchmarks for the different degree plan specializations.

There are three possible evaluation decisions for the doctoral defense.  All decisions—with the exception of “fail”—must be unanimous.

“Pass” requires that both the defense and the document (dissertation or treatise) are acceptable. In some cases, the committee may require revisions, which will be checked by the entire committee or by the supervising professor only. This should be agreed upon at the time of the defense and communicated with the student.

While the supervisor should wait to sign the Report of Dissertation Committee until all revisions have been reviewed, the other committee members may choose to sign at the defense. The committee should agree upon the length of time allowed for submission of the revised dissertation; this must be communicated clearly to the student.

The completed Report of Dissertation Committee should be returned to the Graduate School only after the final revisions to the dissertation have been approved and the GSC designee has signed.

If the dissertation and/or defense are not acceptable to all members of the committee, the decision will change to either "re-defend" or "fail" as discussed below:

“Re-defend” indicates that the committee is not satisfied with the dissertation or with the oral examination, but believes that rewriting may make it acceptable. In this case, the fully signed Report of Dissertation Committee should be returned to the Graduate School by the Supervisor, with each member of the committee indicating their decision. Another scheduled defense will be required and a new report will be generated.

Report on Doctoral Dissertation forms

Committee members should submit their individual Report on Doctoral Dissertation forms indicating their dissatisfaction.

“Fail” indicates that at least one member of the committee has decided that the dissertation is unsatisfactory and may not be rewritten. The fully signed Report of Dissertation Committee should be returned to the Graduate School by the supervisor, with each member of the committee indicating their decision.

Committee members should also submit their individual Report on Doctoral Dissertation forms indicating their dissatisfaction. This decision normally results in the termination of a doctoral student’s program.

Documentation

Document a dissertation defense as follows:

The supervisor should bring the Report of Dissertation Committee to the defense.

The scheduling information on the Report must be correct; if the time or location changes, the Graduate School must be informed.

All committee members sign the Report of Dissertation Committee, even if the member was not present at the defense.

Scanned or electronic signatures will be accepted as long as they are legible and dark enough to be imaged. Typed names as a signature are not allowed. Electronic and digitally authorized signatures may be accepted in any font format so long as they include the insignia or logo of the e-signature software used showing authorization.

Once all members have signed the report the Graduate Studies Committee chair or designee should provide the final signature.

The final signature indicates that all coursework and other departmental requirements have been completed. All signatures should be on a single page.

The Report of Dissertation Committee should be submitted to the Graduate School by the student.

The report should be submitted along with the student's final paperwork.

• Microbiology and Immunology >
• Current Students >

Preparation and Defense of the PhD Dissertation

Procedures for evaluation of graduate student progress, preparation and defense of the PhD dissertation.

On this page:

Passing the preliminary doctoral qualifying examination deems the student qualified to proceed with their thesis research project under the guidance of their Major Professor in conjunction with their Ph.D. Thesis Advisory Committee. This document presents the responsibilities of the student, the Major Professor, and the Advisory Committee in the process leading up to the conclusion of the research project, their responsibilities in preparing and evaluating the dissertation document, as well as evaluating the ensuing oral examination and the public defense.

I. Guidelines to evaluate student progress

A. committee composition.

After the student passes the preliminary doctoral qualifying examination, a Ph.D. Thesis Advisory Committee (henceforth referred to as Advisory Committee) will be proposed. The Advisory Committee consists of the Major Professor, and at least three additional UB Graduate Faculty members (preferentially those who served as committee member for the preliminary doctoral qualifying exam, although this is not a requirement). Two of these individuals must be have primary faculty appointments in the Microbiology and Immunology Department and one may be from another Department at UB. Of the two faculty members with primary appointments in Microbiology and Immunology, one will act as the Chair of the Advisory Committee, and serve to moderate the discussion. The Chair will be determined by seniority and/or Advisory Committee consensus at the first committee meeting. The Advisory Committee members are selected by the Major Professor and student and their names are submitted using the appropriate form available in the Graduate Studies Office to the Graduate Affairs Committee for approval.

B. Progress Evaluation

The student is expected to have Advisory Committee meetings within 6 month intervals beginning in the Fall Semester after successful completion of the preliminary doctoral qualifying examination. It is expected that the first meeting will be held within 6 months of the completion of the doctoral qualifying examination. The student must prepare a Committee Meeting Progress Report that contains an updated Specific Aims page clearly indicating any changes to the Specific Aims of the thesis project from the Doctoral Qualifying Examination Document and any new data acquired since the completion of the Doctoral Qualifying Examination. This document must be distributed to the Advisory Committee at least one week prior to its first meeting for discussion at the meeting. A completed Advisory Committee Meeting Report form must be filed in the Graduate Studies Office within three days of each meeting.

B2. Subsequent meetings

All subsequent meetings of the Advisory Committee should be devoted to a review of the student's progress in research. An updated Committee Meeting Progress Report (as described above) in which it is clearly indicated what progress has been made since the previous meeting must be distributed to the advisory committee at least one week prior to a meeting.

It is incumbent upon the student and the Major Professor to hold these meetings on schedule, report them in writing using the Advisory Committee Meeting Report form, and timely submit the report form to the Department Graduate Studies Office. Students will not be permitted to register for courses or laboratory research when a committee meeting was not held during the previous six months or if documentation of this meeting is not submitted to the Department Graduate Studies Office. If an extension is required, the student should contact the Director of Graduate Studies.

C. Permission to Write the Dissertation

The decision concerning completion of the research project and the material to be included in the dissertation is the responsibility of the entire Advisory Committee. If the Advisory Committee cannot resolve disagreements internally, as indicated by any of its members or the student, the Director of Graduate Studies will appoint an ad hoc committee, which will advise the student and Major Professor in resolving the problem.

Once the Advisory Committee has determined that the student should begin preparation of their dissertation:

• This decision must be documented on the Advisory Committee Meeting Report form, which is submitted to the Department Graduate Studies Office. The student should also notify the Director of Graduate Studies within three days of this decision.
• The student should schedule a meeting with the Graduate Studies Director and Staff Assistant to discuss the current departmental and Graduate School guidelines for preparation of a thesis document and review a timetable for the preparation, review and defense of the dissertation.

II. Guidelines to prepare and approve the Ph.D. dissertation

D. preparation of the dissertation document.

The student should prepare the document based on the decision reached by the Advisory Committee at the committee meeting where permission to write was given. The format of the thesis is described in the document entitled "Possible thesis formats”. Preparation of the document should be performed with the assistance of the Major Professor. It should be stressed that the student and Major Professor have the highest level of responsibility for the quality of the Ph.D. dissertation.

E. Choice of Outside Reader

Before the dissertation is distributed to the Advisory Committee for evaluation, an Outside Reader must be chosen by the student and Major Professor. The Major Professor contacts the Department Graduate Studies Staff Assistant, preferably by email, to provide the name and department. The Staff Assistant polls the Department Graduate Affairs Committee by e-mail for approval/disapproval. Confirmation of the decision is by e-mail to the Major Professor and student.

The Outside Reader must be an expert in the field addressed by the student’s dissertation project and may be a faculty member at UB, or an individual from another institution (if the latter, a CV or faculty webpage should be provided when seeking approval). It is expected that the outside reader will be present for the Oral Examination, and therefore proximity and availability should factor into the choice of outside reader. Electronic presence (via teleconference, Skype, etc.) at the defense may be used in place of physical presence. The Outside Reader cannot hold a primary appointment in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology or be an individual associated in any significant way with the research project.

F. Evaluation of Dissertation Document

The Advisory Committee members and the Outside Reader must have at least three weeks (21 days) to read the dissertation before an oral examination is scheduled. Together with the thesis document the Dissertation Response Form that addresses completeness of the dissertation document and whether it is satisfactory with respect to scientific content, as well as consistency of form, style and language will be distributed. This form should be filled out by each Advisory Committee member and the Outside Reader and brought to the oral examination.

The Outside Reader is expected to attend and participate in the Oral Examination Committee Meeting. In the event that the Outside Reader cannot attend due to distance or other circumstances, the student is responsible to inform the Director of Graduate Studies and the Staff Assistant as soon as possible. In this case the Outside Reader must submit the Dissertation Response Form to the Department Graduate Studies Office before the oral examination date can be confirmed.

G. Oral Examination Committee Meeting and Approval of Dissertation

The student is responsible for arranging a tentative oral examination date with the Advisory Committee members, the Outside Reader, and the Director of Graduate Studies who conducts the defense. The student should notify the Director of Graduate Studies of the tentative oral examination dates to determine a final date, inform the Graduate Studies Staff Assistant of the final date, and ask for help with arrangements of a room and audio-visual equipment.

The oral examination will be performed by the Oral Examination Committee, which will consist of the Advisory Committee, the Outside Reader, and chaired by the Director of Graduate Studies or designee. The outside reader must be present for the Oral Examination. In cases where physical presence is precluded by distance or other extenuating circumstances, an electronic presence via teleconference or a web-assisted conferencing application (e.g., Skype) may be used.

After the oral examination period the student will be excused. The Oral Examination Committee with the exclusion of the Director of Graduate Studies or designee, who has no voting right, will evaluate the students oral examination and thesis document by voting with a show of hands for “Pass”/”Conditional Pass”/”Fail”. All members must vote.

If the final decision is “Pass”, the Dissertation Examination Form is signed by the Major Professor, Advisory Committee, and Outside Reader if present, to indicate approval of the written document and passing the oral examination. The form is submitted to the Graduate Studies Office and the student can proceed to arrange the public dissertation defense.

CONDITIONAL PASS

A “Conditional Pass” will be given if members of the Oral Examination Committee decide the oral examination and/or dissertation document is not complete or entirely satisfactory. The specific remediation required should be documented on the Dissertation Examination Form. 

Should improvements to the document be required, students are responsible to work with the Major Professor to incorporate into the document all comments/suggestions, changes and typographical errors identified by the Oral Examination Committee, and presented on the Dissertation Response Form, within a time frame approved by the Committee, but no longer than one month. The student must provide the Committee members, who have requested to see the document after revision, with a fully corrected version of the thesis document. Should the oral examination be deemed partially unsatisfactory, a reexamination on the whole dissertation or areas associated with the dissertation topic will be scheduled with the Committee members.

Once the Committee members are satisfied with the student’s performance, the Dissertation Examination Form is signed by the Committee members to indicate approval of the written document and passing the examination. The form is submitted to the Department Graduate Studies Office and the student can then proceed to arrange the public dissertation defense.

If the decision is “Fail”, the Oral Examination Committee will clearly outline the reason(s) for the failure to the student. The Director of Graduate Studies or designee will document in writing, using the Dissertation Examination Form, the reason(s) and will make recommendations to the Graduate Affairs Committee for appropriate action.

H. Public Dissertation Defense

Faculty must be given at least one week notice prior to the public dissertation defense date. An electronic copy of the abstract and an unbound hard copy of the dissertation should be provided to the Department Graduate Studies Office. Since the Department supplies cookies and hot beverages, the student should notify the Department Office staff if the student wants to bring in their own refreshments.

A seminar on the research work of approximately 50 minutes duration will be presented to the public. The unbound hard copy of the dissertation submitted to the Graduate Studies Office should be available at the seminar. The seminar will be followed by an open question/answer period, chaired by the Director of Graduate Studies or designee. Upon completion of the public dissertation defense, the Advisory Committee will vote to determine whether the defense was satisfactory. A majority vote will be sufficient for approval. The Graduate School (Multi-purpose) M-Form will be signed by all members of the Advisory Committee and either the Director of Graduate Studies or Department Chair to conclude the approval of the dissertation. If the decision is “unsatisfactory” the committee can decide on any remedial action in consultation with the Director of Graduate Studies and the Department Chair.

I. Requirements for Completion of Degree

The student should see the Graduate School website for a checklist of Graduate School requirements. Those include:

• an approved Application to Candidacy
• the Electronic Thesis and Dissertation (ETD) submission and mandatory cataloging and publishing fee
• Doctoral Degree Recipients (on-line) Survey
• and the Multipurpose “M” form.

PhD Program in Epidemiology

Guidelines for the qualifying examination (dissertation proposal).

THE EPIDEMIOLOGY PH.D. DISSERTATION PROPOSAL

I. Establishing the Dissertation Committee

1) Once a student has passed the comprehensive examination, they will formally select a dissertation advisory committee of not fewer than four members.

• The student may begin to identify likely candidates for the committee in advance of passing the comprehensive exam.
• The dissertation committee is intended to bring specialized expertise and resources to a student’s research and career development process. The dissertation chair is primarily responsible for overall guidance of the student’s research and training.
• The dissertation committee is responsible for administering the qualifying examination (proposal defense) and the final dissertation examination.
• The student should review the list of Graduate Faculty and talk with the Program Manager about the specific individuals under consideration, to make sure they are qualified by the Graduate School to serve on a PhD committee.

2) The committee will be chosen in consultation with the student’s research mentor.

3) The committee must include two members of the Epidemiology faculty other than the mentor and at least one faculty member from Biostatistics, unless a different quantitative person is more appropriate.

4) The committee must be appointed by the Graduate School no less than two weeks before the time of the qualifying examination.

II. Preparing the Dissertation Proposal

1) The dissertation proposal is a comprehensive proposal detailing the motivation, approach, and feasibility of the student’s proposed doctoral dissertation research.

2) The dissertation will comprise, at the minimum:

1. Critical review of the literature, including quantifying results from previous studies

2. Motivation for the study, and how it fulfills certain gaps in the field

3. Statement of specific aims, and hypotheses for each aim

4. Proposed approach and analytic plan, including:

a) Table 1 equivalent descriptors with overview of population (for each aim if population differs)

b) Detailed operational definitions of key exposure and outcome variables in text and potentially figures/tables, including the construction of variables and any decisions that need to be made (spline, percentiles, categorical from continuous)

c) Detailed operational definitions of other variables proposed and their construction (can be in table format)

d) Rationale for candidate confounders for each aim

e) Rationale for consideration of effect modification

f) Detailed analysis plan that includes statistical methods to be used for each aim, and an explanation as to the assumptions and/or caveats associated with such methods

g) Clear defense of superiority of the modeling approach over common alternatives

h) Power calculations for each aim

5. Description of papers to be written from the research

6. Potential limitations of the study

7. Appendices with key source documents.

3) There is no page limit; the length of the proposal will vary.

4) It is highly recommended that students attend each other’s qualifying exams (proposal defenses), in preparation for their own.

III. Working with Your Committee

1) The first, full draft of the dissertation proposal should be presented to the dissertation committee at least 2 months prior to the planned date of the qualifying exam.

• The final, completed draft of the proposal should be given to the committee 3 weeks before the date of the exam.

2) The student is in charge of this process:

• You are responsible for organizing committee meetings and making sure that things progress. At this point in your career, you should be in charge of moving things along, not your committee.
• Provide your materials/rewrites/proposal to your committee members with plenty of time to review (three to four weeks ahead for formal meetings). Do not expect to give material to your committee the night before and get something in the next day or two. Demonstrate that you value the committee members’ input and time by being courteous.
• Make sure you give your committee members quality work, work that you and potentially others have edited, checking for grammar and spelling errors. There is nothing worse than when a student wants quality feedback, but hasn’t bothered to provide quality material. Furthermore, if a committee member suggests changes, don’t give it back to them for review without those changes. If you disagree – discuss it, but just don’t ignore it.
• Provide a schedule for your committee so they know what to anticipate and potentially make time for. An example:

– Aug 1- will provide 1st draft to committee members

– Aug 28- request that committee feedback be given by this date

– Sept 21- makes changes return to committee (repeat cycle as needed until committee is satisfied with your proposal)

– Oct 10- final proposal will be given to committee members

– Oct 31 – Committee meeting/proposal defense

• Prior to scheduling the qualifying exam, you should have agreement from all committee members that your proposal is ready, by their standards and taking into account their concerns, to be defended.
• Practice the oral presentation!

IV. Qualifying Exam (aka oral proposal defense)

1) The qualifying examination is an oral defense of the dissertation proposal.

2) The Graduate School must be notified of the time and place of the qualifying examination at least 2 weeks in advance.

3) To qualify for candidacy, a student must complete all of the required first and second year courses, must be in good academic standing (GPA ≥3.0), must pass the comprehensive examination and must pass an oral qualifying examination.

4) The examining committee is the student’s dissertation committee.

5) The examining committee assesses the written proposal and oral defense by rating the success of the student in the following components:

1. Familiarity with research literature

2. Ability to organize scientific data

3. Critical thinking skills

4. Mastery of principles and methodology proposed

5. Oral presentation of proposal

6. Ability to interpret and answer questions appropriately

6) The three possible outcomes of the examination are: Pass; Conditional Pass; or Fail.

1. A Fail requires a complete Qualifying Exam take-over (if a second Fail occurs, the student is dismissed from the program).

2. A Conditional Pass requires a set of conditions to be set out by the committee, with a due date by which such conditions must be fulfilled. Upon satisfactory completion by the due date, the Conditional Pass will then become a Pass; otherwise it will become a Fail.

Feel free to contact  [email protected]  with any questions.

• About the School
• Quick Facts
• Administration
• Basic Sciences
• A-Z Directory
• Contact Information
• Campus Maps & Parking

• Current Students
• Basic Sciences Faculty Affairs
• Clinical Faculty Affairs
• Eskind Biomedical Library
• People Finder

• Skip to main content
• Skip to main navigation

Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

• Undergraduate
• News & Events

Home / Academics / Graduate Program / Ph.D. Program in Ecology & Evolutionary Biology / Qualifying Exam Process + Defense

• Qualifying Exam Process + Defense

The Qualifying Examination & Dissertation Proposal Defense Committee

As soon as possible after passing the Comprehensive Exam but no later than the end of the spring quarter of the second year, students should form a Qualifying Exam/Dissertation Proposal Committee in consultation with their advisor. The Q.E. Committee Nomination form ( see Grad Div Forms ) must be completed and submitted to the Graduate Program Coordinator along with any/all supporting materials no later than the end of the spring quarter of the second year. The Graduate Program Coordinator will provide departmental approval before submitting the form and supporting materials to the Graduate Division for ultimate approval.

The Q.E. Committee consists of at least four members. At least two members of the committee must be active faculty in the EEB Department, and the Chair of the committee must be a tenured faculty member from within the department other than the student’s advisor. At least one member of the committee must come from outside the department; this outside member may be: (1) a tenured faculty member from a different discipline from the UCSC campus, (2) a tenured member of the same or different discipline from another university campus (CV needed), or (3) a professional biologist from an outside institution (e.g. government agency or NGO) who has specific expertise relevant to the dissertation (CV and justification letter needed). University guidelines require that any outside member from a non-academic institution present credentials that show this person to have experience equivalent to that of a tenured professor. The outside member’s CV will need to be reviewed and approved by the Graduate Dean, and students should allow two months for this process.

After the qualifying exam, this committee becomes the Dissertation Reading Committee (requiring the Dissertation Reading Committee Nomination form – see Grad Div Forms ) ; however, individual members of the committee may change at the discretion of the student and advisor. Committee amendments require Graduate Division approval, and students are requested to inform committee members of changes in the committee.

The Dissertation Proposal and Qualifying Exam Process

The student submits a dissertation research proposal to their Qualifying Exam & Dissertation Proposal Committee and defends it in an oral examination. The dissertation research proposal should be written as a formal proposal, with a maximum of 15 pages, including figures and tables but not references, and with 1” margins and at least 11-point font. Committees may provide more specific guidance on proposal format. One criterion of a satisfactory proposal is that it is of the quality required for submission to a granting agency, and submission of the proposal for funding is encouraged. The proposal must be submitted to the committee at least ten days before the defense.

The committee meets for approximately 10 minutes prior to the start of the examination to review the student's file and discuss any specific issues relevant to the examination.  Students are called in and asked to give a presentation of their proposal, which may either be a short (10-15 minute) summary, or an extended outline used to structure discussion by the committee.  Committee members should be consulted on their preference for the format. The student may be interrupted at any time during this presentation and asked to elaborate on or clarify points.  The exam will usually be confined to scientific areas directly concerned with the research proposal.  The examination typically lasts about 3 hours, after which the student is asked to leave the room. The committee discusses the performance and comes to a consensus. The student is invited back in and informed of the outcome of the examination. Students may pass, fail, or receive a conditional pass.

Students are to bring a copy of the Qualifying Exam Report form to their exam. This form will later be prepared by the Chair and reviewed and signed by all committee members. A copy is provided to the student and the original is submitted to the Graduate Program Coordinator who will provide departmental verification and submit to the Graduate Division for the student’s advancement to candidacy. 

In the case of a conditional pass, the committee will define any deficiencies in the proposal or performance in the exam and provide a timetable during which the student must rectify the problems. If the student fails, they may be given the option of re-taking the examination with the same committee after appropriate preparation and guidance. If a student fails twice, they will be dismissed from the program. All dismissals will be reviewed by EEB-GAC.  If explicitly invited to do so by the examination committee, students who fail the Dissertation Proposal Defense Examination may have one quarter to produce a Master’s thesis on research completed at that time. 

The proposal defense generally takes place in Term 6-7 (fall or winter quarters of the third year) and must be completed by Term 9 (spring of the third year). If the student fails the exam or is asked to rewrite the proposal, the final, modified proposal and exam retake must still be completed no later than Term 9. Any exceptions to the Term 9 deadline require EEB-GAC approval and may be grounds for academic probation.

The Dissertation Proposal / Qualifying Exam Seminar

The final requirement before advancement to candidacy is the 30-minute departmental seminar on the student’s research proposal. Students are to contact the Graduate Program Coordinator to confirm standard block times for graduate student seminar talks for the quarter and then reserve a time on the calendar with the Coordinator once they confirm dates with their committee. Students are encouraged to pair up so that two proposal seminars are scheduled consecutively. The seminar should be scheduled so that at least three of the four members of the student's Qualifying Exam Committee can attend.

• For Prospective Students
• Graduate Program Details
• The Comprehensive Examination
• Advancement to Candidacy
• Dissertation + Defense
• M.A. Program in Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
• Designated Emphasis in Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
• Forms & Print Materials
• Report an accessibility barrier
• Land Acknowledgment
• Accreditation

Last modified: May 19, 2023 81.177.180.204

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

My supervisor is suggesting I will fail my PhD, is this possible?

I am a final-year PhD student in Canada studying cybersecurity. During my PhD, I did not have very good supervision. I told them I wanted to defend soon. However, one of my supervisors keeps on telling me: “Don’t rush, you may fail”.

I got one first-author paper in IEEE Transactions and 3 medium level first-author conferences accepted. How can I fail? Is it possible? Has anyone ever failed the PhD defense?

• Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat . –  Bryan Krause ♦ Commented Jan 13, 2023 at 16:47

8 Answers 8

There are definitely fails in PhD defenses. It may depend on the specific system and I don't know about Canada, but I know of a number of them in the UK, where the candidate was asked to rework and come back in a year or so. Also PhD examiners in the UK don't have to accept a thesis just because there are publications. I do think some published material shouldn't have been accepted, and not everything I have seen published is in my view acceptable at PhD level.

• 4 I'd say that "major revisions" are not a fail necesarily. If you are told to work a bit more on it, yeah you fail as you don't get a PhD, but its not fail as "bye no PhD for you ever". –  Ander Biguri Commented Jan 13, 2023 at 11:29
• 6 @AnderBiguri That's a fair enough objection to my use of terminology, however if you plan to apply/go for a postdoc or anything you need a PhD for directly after your defense, the immediate practical consequences are those of a fail. –  Christian Hennig Commented Jan 13, 2023 at 11:38
• Totally agree with that :) –  Ander Biguri Commented Jan 13, 2023 at 11:42
• 6 yep, I remember an English student at Oxford who had published an entire book with Springer and was failed, which sounded like a real scandal to my ears. A friend of mine at Cambridge, was asked to completely rewrite his thesis, in Finance, spent a year doing it, sent the revision, did not hear from anyone for months, when he finally contacted them they said "Oh you passed last year". Nightmare. –  PatrickT Commented Jan 13, 2023 at 19:16
• 2 @Tom There is some variation, also within the UK. I have seen both cases, where the viva had to be repeated, and where people were just told upon resubmission that they had passed now, even with major corrections. I don't remember exactly anymore but chances are I have even seen a form in which examiners could choose between these options (on top of minor corrections). –  Christian Hennig Commented Jan 14, 2023 at 11:04

Your supervisor is aware of expectations for a PhD program. Their role is to help you understand these expectations and develop your PhD work to this standard.

Having one IEEE Trans publication and a few proceedings is good, but not necessarily indicative that your work meets the criteria of a PhD award. Normally, PhD dissertation is a major piece of academic research, which can be compared to a manuscript (a book). A journal paper is a more scoped contribution compared roughly to one chapter of your PhD thesis. Having one journal paper published does not guarantee you a PhD. I am aware of some candidates with 5+ journal publications, who failed their defence because they rushed and did not write an adequate PhD dissertation. It definitely happens.

Having a postdoc offer before you completed your PhD is a good sign that your work is interesting and promising. However, if your postdoc offer is conditional on you completing the PhD successfully, you still have to complete your PhD. Seeing your advisor as an obstacle is not constructive or helpful. Once again, they are trying to help you, and you should see their expertise as a resource.

• 22 Everything here is correct, but I'll just caution that 'your supervisor is aware of expectations for a PhD program' does not imply that supervisors have a 100% track record of being right when they predict a fail. –  Daniel Hatton Commented Jan 12, 2023 at 20:30
• 2 @DanielHatton True. But they hedged their bets: "you may fail" is always true. –  PatrickT Commented Jan 13, 2023 at 19:17
• This is mostly good but "they are trying to help you" is not always true. –  aquirdturtle Commented Jan 14, 2023 at 22:34

Why PhD Defenses fail rarely

The main reason why PhD defenses fail rarely is that the process is structured so that in general people attempt their defense only when they are almost certain to pass. If there are any issues and objections, there is a strong preference to have them resolved before a defense, not have them be raised during a rejecting vote in the defense process. No one wants to waste all the formal process effort on a failed attempt, so supervisors and committees will know that someone is likely to fail and strongly advise them to not make the attempt and postpone it, so in general a failure should happen only if the student has been warned that they are likely to fail and disregards this advice to make the attempt anyway. This sounds suspiciously similar to what you are describing.

• This answer could be seen as slightly misleading. OP is in a situation where they have been warned by the supervisor that they could fail the PhD if they submit with the current results. In that situation, the chances of actually failing the PhD are much higher than in the average case. –  lighthouse keeper Commented Jan 13, 2023 at 13:46
• 22 @lighthousekeeper that's exactly what the answer is saying‽ –  leftaroundabout Commented Jan 13, 2023 at 14:33
• +1 for speaking to this specific case for the OP. This is probably the most useful answer to pay attention to. Maybe add some whitespace to guide readers? –  Mike M Commented Jan 13, 2023 at 22:07

Yes it is possible to fail a PhD defence and it does happen. Thankfully this is rare.

I’m not in CS so I cannot compare with your peers but you should not make the error of thinking that you need so many publications to get a degree.

If anything, compare a situation where you have x publications as a single author with a situation where you have x publications with many co-authors. Obviously your intellectual contribution to each publication matters; your supervisors and members of your PhD committee can decide you have not done enough even if you have 2x publications because your contribution to each publication has been minimal. I want to emphasize I’m not talking about writing codes or some other such tasks: a PhD is a research degree so your advisor needs to convince your committee and eventually the external examiner that you have made significant and novel contributions to these publications.

I have heard of students failing at the defence stage. This is not pleasant, and it’s a situation everyone wants to avoid. It often (but not always) happens because the candidate is rushed by external events - some visa issue, some family matter, whatever.

In most systems I know, candidates will first go through a sort of “internal defence”, where the student may have to present their work to the committee, or there is some big committee meeting where the final draft of the thesis is evaluated before the thesis is sent to the external examiner. Nobody wants the student to fail so having the committee on board minimizes but does not eliminate the risk of failures. If the thesis is marginal and some committee members still have issue, but the thesis goes out anyways, there could be trouble at the defence with the external examiner.

If you think you have done enough but your advisor does not agree, it’s time to have a frank discussion with your supervisory committee to sort things out, and establish clear milestones for the completion of your degree.

The reason it is rare to fail a Ph.D. defense is that supervisors make sure nobody defends until they are ready. Don't push to be the exception.

Good answers already, but I think this might also be relevant.

Have you found your institution's academic regulations relating to research degrees? If not, you should. They might be a boring read but they should lay out the exact procedure and requirements for a PhD assessment as well as all the possible outcomes. There will be "failed" outcomes in the regulations. Sadly there will also be stories of students who have failed (even with publications). There might be resit opportunities, too. The regulations might also detail the appeals process if you do fail.

There is some debate in the comments here as to whether "major revisions" are considered a fail or not. The short answer is that depends on your institution's academic regulations.

One thing that the academic regulations are very unlikely to say is "1 good journal + 3 medium conferences = pass", so although your chances of passing are good, your chances of failing are unlikely to be zero.

From reading your other question, your supervisor isn't really saying that they think it's likely that you fail.

I need to submit one paper to a journal and write one conference paper, then I am ready to write my thesis.

I got a postdoc position in a great research lab. The tentative start date is the beginning of May. They asked for a letter from my supervisor, stating that I am going to defend before the beginning of May. However, my supervisor keeps on telling me he can only state that I can submit my thesis before that date. He wrote a letter for that.

Your current timeline has you starting, finishing, submitting, and defending your thesis in less than 4 months (really more like 3 months), with your defense being sometime in late April. Even if you and your supervisor do everything perfectly there are still a lot of outside factors that can impact that, the biggest one being when can/will your committee get together to hear your defense. Your timeline is so tight that if you submit your thesis and the committee takes a week to review it and then says we want some minor changes, we'll be able to review those changes in another week... What are you going to do? Or if one person can only meet on Wednesday and another person is unavailable on Wednesday so they have to schedule your defense for a week later? (Or two, or three...)

If you submit your thesis but don't have time to do the changes then it's possible that you could fail. It's even more likely that you don't fail but you don't pass your defense on your timeline . Your supervisor is (wisely) unwilling to commit to other people doing things that are outside of your control.

If your advisor says "it's time to get ready for your defense", your odds of passing are extremely high. If you try to defend against your advisor's will, that's a different story.

I would suggest you talk with your advisor about why they think you are not ready. It could be that they are not happy with your work and need more. It could be that they think you should take as much of the free study time you have in grad school and make the most of it: trust me, you will miss this aspect later in life!

If you believe you are being treated unfairly by your advisor in this situation, I would suggest you discuss with the chair.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged phd thesis defense ..

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• How to securely connect to an SSH server that doesn't have a static IP address?
• Creating Layout of 2D Board game
• Is it safe to install programs other than with a distro's package manager?
• How to resolve this calculation prompt that appears after running the drawing program?A Bug in version 14.1.0
• Is it possible to recover from a graveyard spiral?
• Why do sentences with いわんや often end with をや?
• Light switch that is flush or recessed (next to fridge door)
• If a Palestinian converts to Judaism, can they get Israeli citizenship?
• Can I Use A Server In International Waters To Provide Illegal Content Without Getting Arrested?
• Whats the safest way to store a password in database?
• What should I do if my student has quarrel with my collaborator
• Directory of Vegan Communities in Ecuador (South America)
• Can Christian Saudi Nationals visit Mecca?
• In roulette, is the frequency of getting long sequences of reds lower than that of shorter sequences?
• quantulum abest, quo minus .
• Do all instances of a given string get replaced under a rewrite rule?
• How best to cut (slightly) varying size notches in long piece of trim
• In Lord Rosse's 1845 drawing of M51, was the galaxy depicted in white or black?
• How to solve self-consistent equations numerically?
• Why are poverty definitions not based off a person's access to necessities rather than a fixed number?
• Maximizing the common value of both sides of an equation (part 2)
• Why does this theta function value yield such a good Riemann sum approximation?
• What is the difference between negation-eliminiation ¬E and contradiction-introduction ⊥I?
• Sylvester primes

• Global navigation
• Site navigation

University Graduate School Bulletin 2020-2021

•   IU Bulletins
•   IU
• Policies and Procedures
• Degree Requirements
• Financial Aid
• Special Opportunities
• Programs by Campus
• Master's Degree

Ph.D. Degree

• Graduate Certificates

General Requirements for Advanced Degrees

Dissertation defense.

Submitting the Dissertation to the Research Committee

When the dissertation has been completed, the student should submit an unbound copy to each member of the research com­mittee as the initial step in scheduling the defense of the dis­sertation. All members of the research committee should read the dissertation in its entirety before attending the defense.

At this stage both the student and the faculty members must extend certain courtesies to each other. It is the responsibility of the student to give faculty members sufficient time to read the dissertation without making unreasonable requests of them based upon University Graduate School time limitations, immediate job possibilities, contract renewal, or some other reason. Similarly, a faculty member should not keep a student’s work for inordinate periods of time because of the press of other duties. Once a faculty member assumes membership on a research committee, it becomes another part of his or her teaching assignment, comparable to conducting regularly scheduled classes.

Readiness for Defense

After the committee members have read the dissertation, there should be direct communication (either in writing or orally) between the research committee chairperson and the other committee members about its readiness for defense. Readiness for defense, however, is not tantamount to acceptance of the dissertation; it means that the committee is ready to make a decision. The decision to hold a doctoral defense, moreover, is not entirely up to the research committee. If a student insists upon the right to a defense before the committee believes the dissertation is ready, that student does have the right to due process (i.e., to an oral defense) but exercises it at some risk.

If the decision to proceed with the defense of the disserta­tion is made against the judgment of one or more members of the committee, or if one or more members of the committee disapprove of parts of or all of the dissertation, the commit­tee member(s) should not resign from the committee in order to avoid frustration or collegial confrontation. The University Graduate School urges that such committee members, after ample communication with both the student and the chairper­son, remain on the committee and thus prevent the nomina­tion of a committee that might eventually accept what could be unsatisfactory work. Such a committee member could agree that a dissertation is ready for defense but should not be passed (or should not be passed without substantial modifica­tion). There will, of course, be situations in which the member­ship of research committees should or must be changed (e.g., turnover of faculty), but changes because of modifications in the dissertation topic or some equally plausible reason should be made early in the writing of the dissertation.

Scheduling and Conducting the Defense

Thirty days prior to the scheduled defense of the dissertation, the candidate must submit to the University Graduate School a Ph.D. Defense Announcement via the electronic document (e-doc) system. (Some programs may have requirements which are earlier than those of the University Graduate School; therefore, students should consult with their program office.)  The announcement contains, among other things, a summary of the dissertation (not less than 150 words) which is informa­tive and contains a brief statement of the principal results and conclusions. The announcement must be approved by the research committee chairperson. If the candidate has published any scholarly articles relevant to the topic of the dissertation, bibliographical references should be included in the summary. A copy of such announcements will be sent to any member of the graduate faculty upon request.

Once the final examination has been scheduled, the announced time and place of the defense must not be changed without the approval of the dean. Any member of the graduate faculty who wishes to attend the final examination is encouraged to do so; it is requested, however, that the faculty member notify the chairperson of the research committee in advance so that space can be arranged. With the approval of the research committee and the consent of the candidate, other graduate students may attend the defense of the dissertation; normally such students will act as observers, not as participants.

Defense Outcome

At the end of the oral examination, the research committee must vote on the outcome of the examination. Four options are available to the committee:

• Conditional pass
• Deferred decision

If the decision to pass is unanimous, the dissertation is approved once it is received by the University Graduate School along with an acceptance page signed by the members of the research committee. If the decision is not unanimous, majority and minority reports should be submitted to the dean who, within 10 working days, will investigate and consult with the research committee. Upon completion of the dean’s investigation and consultation, another meeting of the research committee will be held, and if a majority votes to pass, the dissertation is approved when it is received by the University Graduate School with an acceptance page signed by a majority of the members of the research com­mittee.

The student must have received acceptance of his or her dis­sertation and must submit a copy to the University Graduate School within seven years after passing the qualifying examina­tion. Failure to meet this requirement will result in the termina­tion of candidacy and of the student’s enrollment in the degree program. For information about candidacy reinstatement, see "Admission to Candidacy"

Academic Bulletins

• Indiana University
• IU Bloomington

PDF Version

Copyright © 2024 The Trustees of Indiana University , Copyright Complaints

Defending Your Dissertation: A Guide

Written by Luke Wink-Moran | Photo by insta_photos

Dissertation defenses are daunting, and no wonder; it’s not a “dissertation discussion,” or a “dissertation dialogue.” The name alone implies that the dissertation you’ve spent the last x number of years working on is subject to attack. And if you don’t feel trepidation for semantic reasons, you might be nervous because you don’t know what to expect. Our imaginations are great at making The Unknown scarier than reality. The good news is that you’ll find in this newsletter article experts who can shed light on what dissertations defenses are really like, and what you can do to prepare for them.

The first thing you should know is that your defense has already begun. It started the minute you began working on your dissertation— maybe even in some of the classes you took beforehand that helped you formulate your ideas. This, according to Dr. Celeste Atkins, is why it’s so important to identify a good mentor early in graduate school.

“To me,” noted Dr. Atkins, who wrote her dissertation on how sociology faculty from traditionally marginalized backgrounds teach about privilege and inequality, “the most important part of the doctoral journey was finding an advisor who understood and supported what I wanted from my education and who was willing to challenge me and push me, while not delaying me.  I would encourage future PhDs to really take the time to get to know the faculty before choosing an advisor and to make sure that the members of their committee work well together.”

Your advisor will be the one who helps you refine arguments and strengthen your work so that by the time it reaches your dissertation committee, it’s ready. Next comes the writing process, which many students have said was the hardest part of their PhD. I’ve included this section on the writing process because this is where you’ll create all the material you’ll present during your defense, so it’s important to navigate it successfully. The writing process is intellectually grueling, it eats time and energy, and it’s where many students find themselves paddling frantically to avoid languishing in the “All-But-Dissertation” doldrums. The writing process is also likely to encroach on other parts of your life. For instance, Dr. Cynthia Trejo wrote her dissertation on college preparation for Latin American students while caring for a twelve-year-old, two adult children, and her aging parents—in the middle of a pandemic. When I asked Dr. Trejo how she did this, she replied:

“I don’t take the privilege of education for granted. My son knew I got up at 4:00 a.m. every morning, even on weekends, even on holidays; and it’s a blessing that he’s seen that work ethic and that dedication and the end result.”

Importantly, Dr. Trejo also exercised regularly and joined several online writing groups at UArizona. She mobilized her support network— her partner, parents, and even friends from high school to help care for her son.

The challenges you face during the writing process can vary by discipline. Jessika Iwanski is an MD/PhD student who in 2022 defended her dissertation on genetic mutations in sarcomeric proteins that lead to severe, neonatal dilated cardiomyopathy. She described her writing experience as “an intricate process of balancing many things at once with a deadline (defense day) that seems to be creeping up faster and faster— finishing up experiments, drafting the dissertation, preparing your presentation, filling out all the necessary documents for your defense and also, for MD/PhD students, beginning to reintegrate into the clinical world (reviewing your clinical knowledge and skill sets)!”

But no matter what your unique challenges are, writing a dissertation can take a toll on your mental health. Almost every student I spoke with said they saw a therapist and found their sessions enormously helpful. They also looked to the people in their lives for support. Dr. Betsy Labiner, who wrote her dissertation on Interiority, Truth, and Violence in Early Modern Drama, recommended, “Keep your loved ones close! This is so hard – the dissertation lends itself to isolation, especially in the final stages. Plus, a huge number of your family and friends simply won’t understand what you’re going through. But they love you and want to help and are great for getting you out of your head and into a space where you can enjoy life even when you feel like your dissertation is a flaming heap of trash.”

While you might sometimes feel like your dissertation is a flaming heap of trash, remember: a) no it’s not, you brilliant scholar, and b) the best dissertations aren’t necessarily perfect dissertations. According to Dr. Trejo, “The best dissertation is a done dissertation.” So don’t get hung up on perfecting every detail of your work. Think of your dissertation as a long-form assignment that you need to finish in order to move onto the next stage of your career. Many students continue revising after graduation and submit their work for publication or other professional objectives.

When you do finish writing your dissertation, it’s time to schedule your defense and invite friends and family to the part of the exam that’s open to the public. When that moment comes, how do you prepare to present your work and field questions about it?

“I reread my dissertation in full in one sitting,” said Dr. Labiner. “During all my time writing it, I’d never read more than one complete chapter at a time! It was a huge confidence boost to read my work in full and realize that I had produced a compelling, engaging, original argument.”

There are many other ways to prepare: create presentation slides and practice presenting them to friends or alone; think of questions you might be asked and answer them; think about what you want to wear or where you might want to sit (if you’re presenting on Zoom) that might give you a confidence boost. Iwanksi practiced presenting with her mentor and reviewed current papers to anticipate what questions her committee might ask.  If you want to really get in the zone, you can emulate Dr. Labiner and do a full dress rehearsal on Zoom the day before your defense.

But no matter what you do, you’ll still be nervous:

“I had a sense of the logistics, the timing, and so on, but I didn’t really have clear expectations outside of the structure. It was a sort of nebulous three hours in which I expected to be nauseatingly terrified,” recalled Dr. Labiner.

“I expected it to be terrifying, with lots of difficult questions and constructive criticism/comments given,” agreed Iwanski.

“I expected it to be very scary,” said Dr. Trejo.

“I expected it to be like I was on trial, and I’d have to defend myself and prove I deserved a PhD,” said Dr Atkins.

And, eventually, inexorably, it will be time to present.  

“It was actually very enjoyable” said Iwanski. “It was more of a celebration of years of work put into this project—not only by me but by my mentor, colleagues, lab members and collaborators! I felt very supported by all my committee members and, rather than it being a rapid fire of questions, it was more of a scientific discussion amongst colleagues who are passionate about heart disease and muscle biology.”

“I was anxious right when I logged on to the Zoom call for it,” said Dr. Labiner, “but I was blown away by the number of family and friends that showed up to support me. I had invited a lot of people who I didn’t at all think would come, but every single person I invited was there! Having about 40 guests – many of them joining from different states and several from different countries! – made me feel so loved and celebrated that my nerves were steadied very quickly. It also helped me go into ‘teaching mode’ about my work, so it felt like getting to lead a seminar on my most favorite literature.”

“In reality, my dissertation defense was similar to presenting at an academic conference,” said Dr. Atkins. “I went over my research in a practiced and organized way, and I fielded questions from the audience.

“It was a celebration and an important benchmark for me,” said Dr. Trejo. “It was a pretty happy day. Like the punctuation at the end of your sentence: this sentence is done; this journey is done. You can start the next sentence.”

If you want to learn more about dissertations in your own discipline, don’t hesitate to reach out to graduates from your program and ask them about their experiences. If you’d like to avail yourself of some of the resources that helped students in this article while they wrote and defended their dissertations, check out these links:

The Graduate Writing Lab

https://thinktank.arizona.edu/writing-center/graduate-writing-lab

The Writing Skills Improvement Program

https://wsip.arizona.edu

Campus Health Counseling and Psych Services

https://caps.arizona.edu

https://www.scribbr.com/

• Mission & Vision
• Academic Calendar
• Doctoral Exam Schedule
• Graduate Programs
• Financial Support
• Priority Deadlines
• Catalog and Handbook
• New Graduate Student Orientation
• Signature Events
• Degree Planning
• Embedded Counseling
• International Students
• Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETD)
• Graduate Peer Mentoring
• Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)
• Graduate Assistantships Overview
• Graduate Student Support Plan
• Tuition, Fees and Other Resources
• Fellowships and Grants
• Goodnight Doctoral Fellowship
• University Fellowships Office
• Professional Development
• Five Competencies
• Teaching Programs
• Wellness Program
• Career Readiness Program for Non-Academic Careers
• Writing Program
• Leadership Program
• Office of Postdoctoral Affairs (OPA)
• Faculty & Staff
• Forms and Data
• GSC Resources
• ABGS Resources
• Resources for Student Funding
• Curriculum Development
• Program Assessment
• Recruiting Resources
• Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP)
• Give Now 

Oral Examination Information

Master’s oral examinations.

Candidates for master’s degrees, except those in Option B programs, must pass a comprehensive oral examination to demonstrate to the advisory committee that he/she possesses a reasonable mastery of the subject matter of the major and minor fields and that this knowledge can be used with promptness and accuracy. 

This exam takes the form of a traditional defense of the thesis in those programs requiring theses. This examination may not be held until all other requirements, except completion of the course work taken during the final semester, are satisfied. After obtaining DGP approval, a student must file a Request for a Permit to Schedule the Master’s Oral Examination with the Dean of the Graduate School only after the above conditions are met (the request form can be found on the Graduate School Forms webpage). 

Outcomes 

Unconditional Pass. A unanimous vote of approval of the advisory committee is required for passing the final oral examination. An unconditional pass signifies that the student successfully defended and that the thesis/dissertation is complete, except for minor editing. 

Conditional Pass. The student may be passed on condition of the student meeting specific requirements defined by the committee. The conditions may be based on the defense itself, or they may be connected directly to the thesis/dissertation. The examination is not complete until all conditions have been satisfied and that fact has been reported to the Graduate School. 

Failure. Failure of a student to pass the examination terminates his or her work at this institution unless the advisory committee recommends a re-examination. No re-examination may be given until one full semester has elapsed and only one re-examination is permitted. 

Students may appeal all committee actions according to the provisions in Grievance Procedure for Students (REG 11.40.1) . 

Electronic Thesis Dissertation (ETD) Reminders

All theses and dissertations are submitted electronically to the Graduate School via the ETD Submission System for the ETD Review and final acceptance. 

In order to graduate in a thesis program, the student must unconditionally pass the final oral exam, or clear all conditions associated with a conditional pass, AND submit a draft PDF file into the ETD Submission System for the ETD Review prior to the 5:00 p.m. ETD Review deadline for the semester in which s/he intends to graduate. 

We encourage students to submit their ETD for review as soon as possible following the unconditional passing of the defense. This usually happens within 48 hours of receiving an unconditional pass or satisfying the conditions of a conditional pass. 

The ETD submitted for initial review must contain all required components as specified in the ETD Guide (etd.ncsu.edu). 

Once the conditions of a conditional pass of the defense are met, the committee chair must inform the Graduate School of the date the conditions were met. 

Once a student submits their final error free file and it is accepted by the Graduate School, no edits may be made, unless the ETD is denied by a committee member. 

Oral Examinations for Doctoral Candidates

Preliminary.

 The preliminary oral examination is conducted by the student’s advisory committee, with the chair (or co-chairs) in charge, and a Graduate School Representative (if required). The exam is open to all graduate faculty members and is designed to test the student’s ability: 1) to relate factual knowledge to specific circumstances, 2) to use this knowledge with accuracy and promptness, and 3) to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the field of specialization and related areas. 

 As with the preliminary oral examination, the chair (co-chairs) of the student’s advisory committee is (are) in charge of conducting the final oral examination. Though the format of the doctoral examination may vary according to the culture of individual graduate programs, all examinations must include three elements. 

• Presentation. The candidate typically presents the methodology used, the data collected, and the conclusions reached as reported in the dissertation. For the purpose of dissemination of research, it is required that the presentation of the dissertation be open to the university community.
• Questioning. Any member of the university community is allowed to ask questions of the candidate. If the need arises, graduate faculty members not on the advisory committee may meet in a restricted session after the presentation to ask additional questions of the student and express any concerns they have to the committee and student. The questioning phase may continue with a closed session in which the advisory committee questions the candidate. 
• Deliberation and decision. Only the advisory committee and the Graduate School representative, if one has been appointed, are present. 

 The chair (co-chairs) of the candidate’s advisory committee has (have) the obligation to maintain a scholarly atmosphere and to keep academic integrity and the student’s best interest foremost. 

Unconditional Pass. A unanimous vote of approval of the advisory committee is required for passing the final oral examination. An unconditional pass signifies that the student successfully defended and that the thesis/dissertation is complete, except for minor editing.

Failure. Failure of a student to pass the examination terminates his or her work at this institution unless the advisory committee recommends a re-examination. No re-examination may be given until one full semester has elapsed and only one re-examination is permitted.

Once a student submits their final error free file and the Graduate School accepts it, no edits can be made, unless a committee member denies the ETD. 

To fulfill graduation requirements, each doctoral student must submit all the required forms and fee to the ETD Reviewer before the final thesis/dissertation will be accepted. All of the required forms are found under the Doctoral Required Forms link on the Electronic Thesis & Dissertation (ETD) Website, etd.ncsu.edu. 

The Graduate School cannot authorize the release of the diploma or the inclusion of the statement of the awarded degree on the permanent record from which transcripts are made until the forms and fees have been received. 

Exam Form Example

• Student Support
• StudentInfo

Graduate Studies

Defending your thesis.

Each candidate for a Plan I master’s degree must submit a thesis that demonstrates evidence of the ability to do sound research; therefore, the student’s thesis committee and the Dean of Graduate Studies must approve the thesis. The student is responsible for providing each member of the committee with a complete draft of the thesis in ample time for review prior to the defense.

Announcement of Final Exam for Thesis

At least two weeks before the final examination is held, and no later than November 1 for Fall, April 1 for Spring or July 1 for summer, the major graduate unit must notify Graduate Studies of its scheduled date by submitting the  Announcement of Examination form .

Member Attendance at Thesis Defense

All members of a student’s thesis committee must be present at the thesis defense. Although physical presence is strongly encouraged for all members, synchronous participation by telephone/video conference is allowed when necessary.

Proxy Signature

An original signature of each committee member is required for each examination and thesis or dissertation defense form. In the rare cases where an original signature cannot be provided, the committee member may request a proxy signature by submitting the Proxy Request Form at least two weeks prior to the student’s examination.

Conditional Pass

If the Committee feels that, although the student has demonstrated knowledge and understanding of the field, it is not quite sufficient to justify a grade of “pass”, the committee may assign the grade of “Conditional Pass” and require that the student meet additional conditions before a grade of “Pass” is awarded. The student must meet the conditions noted on the Conditional Pass by the end of the subsequent term. However, students who plan to graduate in a specific term must resolve a Conditional Pass by the posted deadline for submission of examination results. The committee notes the conditions that need to be met by the student on the examination form. Once the committee indicates the student has met the conditional pass criteria, they submit a memo to Graduate Studies, and the student has a maximum of 90 days to submit his/her thesis; however, graduating students must meet the term deadline for submission of the thesis.

90-Day Time Limit

Plan I master’s students must submit their theses to the Dean of Graduate Studies within ninety (90) days of passing their final examinations for the thesis. If the thesis is not submitted within that time, the student must schedule and complete a second final examination for the thesis. In all cases the results of the thesis defense must be submitted to Graduate Studies no later than two weeks after the announced date of the thesis defense.

© The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131, (505) 277-0111 New Mexico's Flagship University

• UNM on Facebook
• UNM on Instagram
• UNM on Twitter
• UNM on YouTube

more at social.unm.edu

• Accessibility
• Contact UNM
• Consumer Information
• New Mexico Higher Education Dashboard

Get the Reddit app

A subreddit dedicated to PhDs.

I got a conditional pass on my defense.

Can't tell if I'm happy or not. I need to send a revised copy of my dissertation to my chair within three weeks. Most of the corrections/changes are easy. Some I don't understand. A few are going to be hard. No new data though.

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue

Final Thesis and Dissertation Defense Guidelines

The thesis work of students in the Nelson Institute is probably the most varied of any of the academic units at UW-Madison. Each student’s journey through the program is unique, and this includes the final thesis defense. But despite this variation, there are certain elements that we believe should be present in any thesis defense. We list them here as guidelines, not as hard and fast rules.

View this document as a pdf

General Guidelines

• The thesis defense has a formal purpose and is necessarily a formal proceeding. It is the final step in which the faculty affirms, or not, that the candidate has met the standard of the Nelson Institute and the university. If affirmed, the candidate is credentialed to present themselves as prepared to take on advanced work in their field. For the PhD, it is a certification that the candidate has a proven ability, as a scholar and a researcher, to make original contributions to their field.
• The defense should be focused on the thesis.
• The central element of a defense is that the candidate appears before his/her/their committee to summarize the main findings/outcome/importance of their work, and to answer questions about it – to defend it.
• Because the focus is on the thesis, it follows that the committee must receive the thesis (or other product to be defended) for review well before (typically two weeks before) the defense.
• The Nelson Institute strongly recommends that there be a public presentation as a part of the defense. Typically, this will proceed the “official” elements of the defense. Given that the Nelson Institute stresses interdisciplinarity, it is particularly important that students demonstrate their ability to present the results of their work in a way that will be meaningful to a general audience.
• A unanimous pass, with at most minimal changes required in the thesis before the degree is granted.
• A unanimous pass, but with the stipulation that there be substantive changes to the thesis. Commonly, but only by concurrence of all involved, all members of the committee except the advisor will sign the warrant, and the committee will charge the advisor with ensuring that the required changes have been made.
• A qualified pass or “no decision,” in which the committee judges that the thesis has problems or deficiencies that will require significant rewriting and perhaps reanalysis of data. In this circumstance some or all of the committee members may wish to read the revised thesis before signing the warrant for a pass. They may also require another presentation to the committee.
• “Not passed.” This may be a final decision with no encouragement to try again, or it may allow another defense after the student has addressed the perceived deficiencies.
• Graduate School rules do not require that decisions of the committee to pass or fail a student be unanimous – one dissenting vote is allowed at the PhD level.
• An introduction by the thesis advisor
• A presentation by the student (much preferably to a public audience)
• Allowance for people at the public presentation to ask questions
• The public audience is then excused and the defense proceeds with only the student and their committee present
• Each member of the committee asks the candidate questions focused on the thesis with the objective of allowing the candidate to demonstrate their mastery of the subject of the thesis and their grasp of the intellectual context of their work
• The student is excused and the committee has a confidential discussion to arrive at a pass or no-pass decision, to decide on what revisions, if any, will be required, and in general to decide what further stipulations will be made before the final approval will be given
• At the conclusion of the discussion the student is invited to return and the outcome of the deliberations summarized
• At that point, the conversation typically moves on to related matters such as the future plans of the candidate, and the appropriate journals in which the dissertation materials could be published
• And, if it is a pass, the defense ends with the committee congratulating the candidate
• The degree to which a final defense is a celebratory event or a tension-filled trial depends on how well the student and their advisor have managed the student’s involvement with their committee leading up to the defense. It is important for the student to keep all members of the committee fully apprised of their progress, and to work through any potential areas of disagreement or misunderstanding well before the thesis is completed.
• The Nelson Institute is open to innovation, and the guidelines above may be adapted to suit particular circumstances provided that rigor and fairness are maintained.