Oral exams (vivas) are quite common for most postgraduate degrees involving research. The basic goal is to provide an efficient mechanism for the examiners to determine a student's level of understanding of what they have done. Most committees comprise both experts and non-experts. Most are actually quite friendly. If the non-experts learn something new they will be happy. Sometimes an examiner may ``grill'' a student simply because they want to understand what is going on. I think the main reason thinks occasionally get tense is when there is a member of the committee who has a poor relationship with the student's advisor or doesn't think much of their research.
To prepare take any opportunity to attend another student's oral exam or ask them about what questions they were asked and tips.
Some common mistakes that students make are to assume:
Everyone on the committee has read the thesis in detail.
The committee is going to ask highly technical and nuanced questions.
Committee members don't appreciate that I am nervous.
If I can't answer a question it is a disaster.
I should put a positive spin on everything I have done.
Many of the questions asked are usually along the lines of the following.
What is the most important result that you obtained?
How is this work original?
What is the biggest weakness of your approach?
What direction do would you suggest for a student who wishes to build on your work?
What are your plans to publish this work?
Any other suggested advice?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From Leo Szilard to the Tasmanian wilderness
Richard Flanagan is an esteemed Australian writer. My son recently gave our family a copy of Flanagan's recent book, Question 7 . It is...
-
Is it something to do with breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation? In molecular spectroscopy you occasionally hear this term thro... -
If you look on the arXiv and in Nature journals there is a continuing stream of people claiming to observe superconductivity in some new mat...
-
I welcome discussion on this point. I don't think it is as sensitive or as important a topic as the author order on papers. With rega...
These are great suggestions as always Ross. I will suggest two additions to your list.
ReplyDeleteFocus on what you have actually done, not overselling the "big picture" motivation. For example, if you worked on understanding chemical binding of CO2 to specific chemical compounds, talk about this instead of giving a long-winded introduction to why CO2 is driving global warming. The global warming motivation can be
addressed in a single brief bullet point.
When answering questions, give succinct answers and then ask your questioner if you have answered their question. If they want more information they will ask. Rambling in response to every question will not give your audience confidence in your thought processes.