I was talking to a colleague in another
university recently about a candidate she had just examined as the internal
examiner. Like many internal examiners she didn't know much about the topic -
which was a fairly technical topic which non-specialists feel, perhaps
erroneously, that they can cope with. So she was reassured to meet the external,
and realize that he was a genuine expert - he definitely knew what he was
talking about.
From then on, my colleague's sense of
reassurance started to disappear. First the external asked if there was any
reason why the candidate must pass. He was obviously referring to financial
ties with the sponsoring organization. The university administrator mumbled no,
of course not, in a rather embarrassed way, and the viva got under way.
It was obvious that the candidate knew
little about the topic, and his research seemed to consist of little more than
the application of a computer program to his case study. Strangely some of the
outputs from this program were negative, in a context where negative number
made little sense. It was a bit like estimating the age of some fossils and
getting a negative number indicating that the fossils were laid down in the
future! The candidate was asked for an explanation. He did not know. He was
also asked about the computer program. What models was it based on? Where did
the answers come from? Again the candidate obviously did not know.
At the end of the viva the candidate was
asked if he had any questions or comments. The candidate's supervisor, sitting
listening to the viva, then put his hand up and said, yes, he had something to
say. He explained that the reason for negative numbers was that the program was
comparing two things. So it was a bit like saying that the fossil was a million
years younger than another fossil, which of course made sense. But the
candidate did not understand this well enough to explain it himself during the
viva.
What to do? My colleague's view was that
the candidate should fail, or perhaps be asked to do some extra work and
resubmit for an MPhil. At the very least, as well as explaining the negative
numbers, she thought the candidate should explain and evaluate the model on
which the program was based.
The external, however, disagreed. He
thought the candidate was not capable of doing this and so should not be asked.
He was the expert. My colleague had no real expertise in the area, and was
supporting the home team, so she agreed. The candidate was asked to do a few
simple things, tailored to what he was thought to be capable of. He was awarded
his PhD a few months later, despite the fact that he really did not
know much about the topic.
Does this PhD really mean anything?
