Questions about External PhD Examiners
June 8, 2007 7:31 AM Subscribe
PhD students and graduates: If you have/had an external examiner on your committee, can you talk about how you choose them, approached them, interacted with them, what role they played relative to other members of your committee, etc?
I'm getting ahead of myself, but wanted to give it some thought earlier rather than later. I know my advisor will help me with the process when I get to this stage, but I'd like to think ahead a bit and find out what other peoples experiences were.
I'm getting ahead of myself, but wanted to give it some thought earlier rather than later. I know my advisor will help me with the process when I get to this stage, but I'd like to think ahead a bit and find out what other peoples experiences were.
Wow. Guess it is different in the states. Here in the UK the external examiner is effectively the main examiner. The internal examiner is supposed to be equal, but in practice, the external calls the shots. The student might get to suggest candidates for the external, but the choice is very much the supervisor's. My supervisor had a habit of choosing fairly big names - the external will be one of the people who writes your references early in your career and it is good to have someone prestigious.
posted by handee at 8:06 AM on June 8, 2007
posted by handee at 8:06 AM on June 8, 2007
Normally the student is consulted but by no means will the professor be helping the student with the choice. heh. If only. In fact, the person would have to be approved by the entire committee as well as by the appropriate Dean. The external examiner bears the principal responsibility for examining the thesis, (as noted this is true in the UK, certainly also in Canada, and so far as I know, in the US as well). Thus they are the university's last line of defence against granting an unearned or flawed degree. The process is taken very seriously. You are supposed to have minimal or no contact with them ahead of the exam so they can be a detached, objective neutral third party not involved in the creation of the dissertation.
If by chance you are meaning members outside the department but within your university who are on your working committee, then their role can really vary - but they do have to sign off on your thesis at the end of the day.
posted by Rumple at 8:18 AM on June 8, 2007
If by chance you are meaning members outside the department but within your university who are on your working committee, then their role can really vary - but they do have to sign off on your thesis at the end of the day.
posted by Rumple at 8:18 AM on June 8, 2007
So, this varies amongst institutions (and especially among countries). When you say an external examiner, do you mean external to the department or external to the school? Is it a requirement? There are, in my estimation, three kinds of external examiners:
1. Someone from outside the department, who is usually there to ensure that the department is honest/the perspective of the candidate is sufficiently wide. My department requires this sort of external examiner. This is, I think, what gleuschk is talking about. Try to find someone doing something related to what you're doing; your committee should ideally be a useful working group leading up to your defense.
2. Someone from outside the university, usually a collaborator or someone from industry (at least in engineering). They are often there because they know a lot about the work. These are helpful if you have obvious people to choose.
3. Someone from a competing institution who is there to ensure the standards of the department/institution. I would say this is most like the peer-review process. This is, I guess, what handee is talking about. I don't know how common this is in the states, but it seems like it could be interesting. Remember, this person might be less familiar with your work than the rest of your committee, and they could also have an axe to grind.
posted by JMOZ at 8:20 AM on June 8, 2007
1. Someone from outside the department, who is usually there to ensure that the department is honest/the perspective of the candidate is sufficiently wide. My department requires this sort of external examiner. This is, I think, what gleuschk is talking about. Try to find someone doing something related to what you're doing; your committee should ideally be a useful working group leading up to your defense.
2. Someone from outside the university, usually a collaborator or someone from industry (at least in engineering). They are often there because they know a lot about the work. These are helpful if you have obvious people to choose.
3. Someone from a competing institution who is there to ensure the standards of the department/institution. I would say this is most like the peer-review process. This is, I guess, what handee is talking about. I don't know how common this is in the states, but it seems like it could be interesting. Remember, this person might be less familiar with your work than the rest of your committee, and they could also have an axe to grind.
posted by JMOZ at 8:20 AM on June 8, 2007
Response by poster: Hi Everyone - Thanks for the responses so far. To clarify, I'm a student in the US, and by "External" I mean outside the University...
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 8:25 AM on June 8, 2007
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 8:25 AM on June 8, 2007
In the US, the external committee member is usually suggested by the dissertation director, who will make the first contact. My external examiner's interaction with me was absolutely minimal - I think I met him a couple of times and he attended my defense by telephone. This depends, of course, on the person: some external committee members are more hands-on than others. In general, you can expect that they will read your work and possibly comment on it, sit in on examination meetings and the final defense, and suggest further work to consider. Anything else is gravy.
If your dissertation director is doing a good job, she will choose somebody who has respectability in the field, and who will remember your name at conferences.
posted by media_itoku at 8:39 AM on June 8, 2007
If your dissertation director is doing a good job, she will choose somebody who has respectability in the field, and who will remember your name at conferences.
posted by media_itoku at 8:39 AM on June 8, 2007
For USA, JMOZ's #3 is almost certainly accurate, though the person could come from industry or government provided they have a PHD and a research profile - not necessarily from another university (though that is most common). Who the external is often not determined until a couple of months before your defence.
Your advisor would be the best source for definitive word. If you don't want to talk to them this far ahead of time, your department probably has a graduate advisor. Generally, as I noted, the external is meant to be untainted by the process leading to the dissertation and hence your relationship with him/her is designed to be minimal.
A pretty normal sequence of events is:
- say three months before you finish your supervisor runs a couple of names past you
- she clears those names with the rest of your committee
- she approaches the external and says, are you willing, the thesis is about x, the expected date is y
- if yes, then the external sends a CV to the Dean to establish her qualifications
- once your thesis is finished, the external is sent a copy, normally at least a month in advance of the defence date
- the external may be asked for a statement that thesis is able to be defended. This may include a written report to the Dean assessing strengths and weaknesses
- at the defence the external speaks first and for longest.
- after the defence the external may be asked for a final report/assessment
Each institution may have a different take on this basic sequence of events.
posted by Rumple at 8:47 AM on June 8, 2007
Your advisor would be the best source for definitive word. If you don't want to talk to them this far ahead of time, your department probably has a graduate advisor. Generally, as I noted, the external is meant to be untainted by the process leading to the dissertation and hence your relationship with him/her is designed to be minimal.
A pretty normal sequence of events is:
- say three months before you finish your supervisor runs a couple of names past you
- she clears those names with the rest of your committee
- she approaches the external and says, are you willing, the thesis is about x, the expected date is y
- if yes, then the external sends a CV to the Dean to establish her qualifications
- once your thesis is finished, the external is sent a copy, normally at least a month in advance of the defence date
- the external may be asked for a statement that thesis is able to be defended. This may include a written report to the Dean assessing strengths and weaknesses
- at the defence the external speaks first and for longest.
- after the defence the external may be asked for a final report/assessment
Each institution may have a different take on this basic sequence of events.
posted by Rumple at 8:47 AM on June 8, 2007
Rumple's description above is almost identical to what I put down. Are you sure you're not me? :-)
the only material difference between the above assessment and my experience was that
-my supervisor was a "he"
-the selection of the external member started about six months before the anticipated defense date
-the external member hardly spoke at the defense
FWIW, my external committee member came from another university
Good luck!
posted by rasputin98 at 9:13 AM on June 8, 2007
the only material difference between the above assessment and my experience was that
-my supervisor was a "he"
-the selection of the external member started about six months before the anticipated defense date
-the external member hardly spoke at the defense
FWIW, my external committee member came from another university
Good luck!
posted by rasputin98 at 9:13 AM on June 8, 2007
Normally the student is consulted but by no means will the professor be helping the student with the choice.
This is not true in the US. In the US, in every field that I am aware of (that is, poli sci and econ to a limited extent), students assemble their own committees with guidance from their chair. About the only thing the chair can really do about student choices, though, is refuse to continue serving if the student insists on Dr. X.
The external examiner bears the principal responsibility for examining the thesis, (as noted this is true in the UK, certainly also in Canada, and so far as I know, in the US as well).
This is not remotely true in the US in my experience or the experience of anyone I know in the academy.
Some institutions don't require a committee member outside the department. When someone has one anyway, this usually means that the student has gotten a Really Good Person to agree to write a letter for him, and their presence on the committee is a way to make the letter more credible. How much the external member (fnarr) reads is up to them. They might take an active role in the dissertation itself, or they might rely on a few conference papers or publications that they've read.
Other institutions do require an outside member. In these circumstances, it's more likely to be seen as a bureaucratic requirement to satisfy or work around than as a noble calling. How much the outside person reads will depend on his understanding of the role -- am I satisfying someone's requirement as a favor to the committee chair, or am I actually a part of this dissertation. It will also depend on the student's or chair's desire for input -- normally, if you want a letter from someone, they're going to want the opportunity to have a real effect on the dissertation.
I have been an external member in circumstances where it was plain that it was a mere requirement being satisfied and that the student and chair were having problems finding someone willing to serve. My contribution was to read for methodological errors, ask a couple of related questions at the defense, and then say "I saw no gross methods fuckups and am otherwise incapable of evaluating this, so whatever you guys decide is fine with me."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:16 AM on June 8, 2007
This is not true in the US. In the US, in every field that I am aware of (that is, poli sci and econ to a limited extent), students assemble their own committees with guidance from their chair. About the only thing the chair can really do about student choices, though, is refuse to continue serving if the student insists on Dr. X.
The external examiner bears the principal responsibility for examining the thesis, (as noted this is true in the UK, certainly also in Canada, and so far as I know, in the US as well).
This is not remotely true in the US in my experience or the experience of anyone I know in the academy.
Some institutions don't require a committee member outside the department. When someone has one anyway, this usually means that the student has gotten a Really Good Person to agree to write a letter for him, and their presence on the committee is a way to make the letter more credible. How much the external member (fnarr) reads is up to them. They might take an active role in the dissertation itself, or they might rely on a few conference papers or publications that they've read.
Other institutions do require an outside member. In these circumstances, it's more likely to be seen as a bureaucratic requirement to satisfy or work around than as a noble calling. How much the outside person reads will depend on his understanding of the role -- am I satisfying someone's requirement as a favor to the committee chair, or am I actually a part of this dissertation. It will also depend on the student's or chair's desire for input -- normally, if you want a letter from someone, they're going to want the opportunity to have a real effect on the dissertation.
I have been an external member in circumstances where it was plain that it was a mere requirement being satisfied and that the student and chair were having problems finding someone willing to serve. My contribution was to read for methodological errors, ask a couple of related questions at the defense, and then say "I saw no gross methods fuckups and am otherwise incapable of evaluating this, so whatever you guys decide is fine with me."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:16 AM on June 8, 2007
More to the point:
There are lots of answers to your questions. Your chair will know what the expectations are for your field and your university.
You might have an outside person who knows that they're just filling a square and devotes minimal time and effort to it. In this case, you can expect minimal interaction with the outside person and for the outside person to act as a very rough quality control. The odds of the outside person saying anything that your internal committee members don't is low, though they might be willing to act as the bad cop.
Or, you might have a Big Name willing to serve on your committee. In this case, you want the letter. You really, really want that letter. So you'll want to interact more so that BigName has a more credible basis to write you a letter and might be able to introduce you to people at conferences. But even here, the onus will probably be on you to start the interaction and build a relationship so you can ask for a letter.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:25 AM on June 8, 2007
There are lots of answers to your questions. Your chair will know what the expectations are for your field and your university.
You might have an outside person who knows that they're just filling a square and devotes minimal time and effort to it. In this case, you can expect minimal interaction with the outside person and for the outside person to act as a very rough quality control. The odds of the outside person saying anything that your internal committee members don't is low, though they might be willing to act as the bad cop.
Or, you might have a Big Name willing to serve on your committee. In this case, you want the letter. You really, really want that letter. So you'll want to interact more so that BigName has a more credible basis to write you a letter and might be able to introduce you to people at conferences. But even here, the onus will probably be on you to start the interaction and build a relationship so you can ask for a letter.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:25 AM on June 8, 2007
Thanks ROU for the clarification. Superficially the Canadian system seems so close to the USA but there may be a very different philosophy underlying it. Externals at my university are in no sense pro forma, they bear the weight of the examination and I have never seen one do otherwise (including a number who have been brought in from the States to be examiner). There may be a consensus the dissertation or thesis is fine but the exam proceeds with due rigour anyway. This is justified by a clause that the exam is an opportunity for the "student to demonstrate their mastery of the topic", heh. I've been involved in probably 40 or so of these and I've never had the sense the motions were just being gone through. The external takes their instructions directly from the Dean of Graduate Studies. Maybe I am ultra-naive. What you describe re: the USA procedures greatly surprises me.
Anyway, all the more reason for the OP to establish what exactly happens at their institution.
posted by Rumple at 9:33 AM on June 8, 2007
Anyway, all the more reason for the OP to establish what exactly happens at their institution.
posted by Rumple at 9:33 AM on June 8, 2007
Superficially the Canadian system seems so close to the USA but there may be a very different philosophy underlying it.
Well, Canada does sometimes have one foot in the US world and another in the British, in addition to being its own thing, so it's not really surprising to me.
There may be a consensus the dissertation or thesis is fine but the exam proceeds with due rigour anyway.
Oh, the candidate will always be grilled until they start to squirm, even if their passing is a foregone conclusion. Why become an academic if not for the pointless cruelty?
including a number who have been brought in from the States to be examiner
Oooh. If I got a call from someone at the U of T or Western asking me to be somebody's Outside Guy, it would come as a rude shock to me if I were expected to be the linchpin of their committee instead of just reading a pre-screened dissertation for gross errors.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:49 AM on June 8, 2007
Well, Canada does sometimes have one foot in the US world and another in the British, in addition to being its own thing, so it's not really surprising to me.
There may be a consensus the dissertation or thesis is fine but the exam proceeds with due rigour anyway.
Oh, the candidate will always be grilled until they start to squirm, even if their passing is a foregone conclusion. Why become an academic if not for the pointless cruelty?
including a number who have been brought in from the States to be examiner
Oooh. If I got a call from someone at the U of T or Western asking me to be somebody's Outside Guy, it would come as a rude shock to me if I were expected to be the linchpin of their committee instead of just reading a pre-screened dissertation for gross errors.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:49 AM on June 8, 2007
In the US, there's a wide degree of variability in thesis committee requirements. I have been at schools where some departments require outside examiners (and I have been one, once) and at schools where they don't. It is expensive to fly people in and put them up, so it tends to be a requirement or option at the better, richer universities.
If this applies to you, I think you should look at it as an opportunity for some publicity. Find someone that it would be good for you to impress, because they're respected in your field and you'd like them to write you good rec letters for a postdoc position, job and/or fellowship. Run that person by a couple of profs you trust in order to find out whether they're good people or not (there are people who won't pass up the chance to quash new competition or steal ideas), and then approach them yourself first with a generic request (no dates), including reprints or preprints of your best publications. After they agree, then activate the university bureaucracy to get everything approved and set up.
Also, unless you're hated by your thesis adviser, it is unlikely that you'll get to the point of defending with any likelihood that you'll fail. Look at this instead as your chance to impress people with your work. If you stay in academia, you'll be amazed how often you keep running into these same people, often in the form of them reviewing your grant applications. So make your presentation sparkle. (I'm assuming here, of course, that you have done good work. I'm just urging you to show it.)
posted by overhauser at 10:33 AM on June 8, 2007
If this applies to you, I think you should look at it as an opportunity for some publicity. Find someone that it would be good for you to impress, because they're respected in your field and you'd like them to write you good rec letters for a postdoc position, job and/or fellowship. Run that person by a couple of profs you trust in order to find out whether they're good people or not (there are people who won't pass up the chance to quash new competition or steal ideas), and then approach them yourself first with a generic request (no dates), including reprints or preprints of your best publications. After they agree, then activate the university bureaucracy to get everything approved and set up.
Also, unless you're hated by your thesis adviser, it is unlikely that you'll get to the point of defending with any likelihood that you'll fail. Look at this instead as your chance to impress people with your work. If you stay in academia, you'll be amazed how often you keep running into these same people, often in the form of them reviewing your grant applications. So make your presentation sparkle. (I'm assuming here, of course, that you have done good work. I'm just urging you to show it.)
posted by overhauser at 10:33 AM on June 8, 2007
We may be talking about the same thing, really -- I would never let a student go to defence without a really strong conviction that their thesis/dissertation will pass. That would be terrible supervision, in my mind. Equally, if I was sent a piece of shit to examine then I would criticize the supervisors before the student. (it is from this that, I think, so many oral defences appear to be conversations between the committee members, and less about the student - which can be mistaken as egos on parade (which also happens).
So the external should never be the linchpin. But simultaneously, I don't see the external as a pro forma exercise. Rather, the external brings an unbiased point of view, sees the forest not the trees, and hopefully gives the student a nice grilling and some food for thought. And I do think they share the burden of quality control.
posted by Rumple at 10:33 AM on June 8, 2007
So the external should never be the linchpin. But simultaneously, I don't see the external as a pro forma exercise. Rather, the external brings an unbiased point of view, sees the forest not the trees, and hopefully gives the student a nice grilling and some food for thought. And I do think they share the burden of quality control.
posted by Rumple at 10:33 AM on June 8, 2007
it is unlikely that you'll get to the point of defending with any likelihood that you'll fail
This is very, very true, but you should still expect a very thorough grilling. If nothing else, it's by pushing you and your argument until it breaks that helps us determine whether you're the best student this year or the best in 10 years or the best ever.
I would never let a student go to defence without a really strong conviction that their thesis/dissertation will pass
Nor I, though it might be possible at some schools for a candidate to bring the defense forward even after being told not to. I've been in one that was close to this, and was a squeaker as a result.
Equally, if I was sent a piece of shit to examine then I would criticize the supervisors before the student
Yep. If I were an outside person, and received a piece of crap, I'd bitch to the "real" committee and tell them that I can't sign off on it, so they'll need to fix it or find someone else. And, if I were a bigshot doing someone a favor (and I am very far from that), I might tell them not to bother me with it again until it was fixed.
I do think they share the burden of quality control
Me too, but I think that in most US settings the relevant question for an outside person isn't "Is this up to my own high standards, whatever they are?" so much as "Is the committee completely fucking nuts to be passing this?"
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:20 AM on June 8, 2007
This is very, very true, but you should still expect a very thorough grilling. If nothing else, it's by pushing you and your argument until it breaks that helps us determine whether you're the best student this year or the best in 10 years or the best ever.
I would never let a student go to defence without a really strong conviction that their thesis/dissertation will pass
Nor I, though it might be possible at some schools for a candidate to bring the defense forward even after being told not to. I've been in one that was close to this, and was a squeaker as a result.
Equally, if I was sent a piece of shit to examine then I would criticize the supervisors before the student
Yep. If I were an outside person, and received a piece of crap, I'd bitch to the "real" committee and tell them that I can't sign off on it, so they'll need to fix it or find someone else. And, if I were a bigshot doing someone a favor (and I am very far from that), I might tell them not to bother me with it again until it was fixed.
I do think they share the burden of quality control
Me too, but I think that in most US settings the relevant question for an outside person isn't "Is this up to my own high standards, whatever they are?" so much as "Is the committee completely fucking nuts to be passing this?"
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:20 AM on June 8, 2007
I think there are probably disciplinary differences as well as national ones. A few years ago a (Canadian) prof was telling me about her committee for her interdisciplinary PhD. She was doing social science that included some significant biology/medicine. Her external was a big name biologist from the US who played a pretty major role in her studies including setting additional course requirements in biology. My impression was that in this case the external was part of the committee for a large chunk of the process. It seems like a pretty unusual thing, but I think it underscores the variability of requirements for different degrees as well as in different places.
posted by carmen at 12:16 PM on June 8, 2007
posted by carmen at 12:16 PM on June 8, 2007
So to expand on my earlier comment- my department requires an external member in sense #1 (i.e. outside the department.) As it turns out, my work is on the border between two departments, so while I'm getting a degree in Materials, m de facto second advisor is in EE. (Actually, in the fall, I'm starting a faculty job in EE just to give you an idea of just how much I'm on the border.)
I've never heard of a US university requring an external member in sense #3 (which is apparently common in Canada and the UK?). Perhaps the university has more faith in the integrity of its faculty here? I actually have an external-to-the university committee member who is a close collaborator of mine.
One thing I will say about forming a committee- in my experience, it's often exceedingly difficult to schedule 4 (or more) faculty members. Adding in ones who have to travel for the defense certainly isn't going to make it easier. (As a reference point, my defense (a week from today, actually!) is the only day that my whole committee was available between June 1 and the end of July.) Definitely schedule a date as far in advance as possible. Even then, you could get blown off, so try to have a "spare" member.
posted by JMOZ at 1:39 PM on June 8, 2007
I've never heard of a US university requring an external member in sense #3 (which is apparently common in Canada and the UK?). Perhaps the university has more faith in the integrity of its faculty here? I actually have an external-to-the university committee member who is a close collaborator of mine.
One thing I will say about forming a committee- in my experience, it's often exceedingly difficult to schedule 4 (or more) faculty members. Adding in ones who have to travel for the defense certainly isn't going to make it easier. (As a reference point, my defense (a week from today, actually!) is the only day that my whole committee was available between June 1 and the end of July.) Definitely schedule a date as far in advance as possible. Even then, you could get blown off, so try to have a "spare" member.
posted by JMOZ at 1:39 PM on June 8, 2007
Adding in ones who have to travel for the defense
If they're not handily available, they should be able to just do it over a conference call unless local rules forbid it. I actually had my *chair* there by phone, since he'd moved on by the time I defended (I had a local co-chair too).
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:00 PM on June 8, 2007
If they're not handily available, they should be able to just do it over a conference call unless local rules forbid it. I actually had my *chair* there by phone, since he'd moved on by the time I defended (I had a local co-chair too).
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:00 PM on June 8, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
As to their role: minimal. My outside person even came up to me before the defense and said, "I may have to leave early, so is there something I should sign?"
posted by gleuschk at 7:58 AM on June 8, 2007