First off, a big thank you to all that sent comments and emails.
It is now becoming clear that there is nothing that Imperial can do internally to resolve this issue, and this is after communication with some of the top people in the Imperial academic and administrative hierarchy. In order to continue this case academically, I will have to take it up with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA). I have a 3-month deadline to do that.
In the meantime I'm looking at alternative routes as well.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Monday, December 10, 2007
how bad can a PhD viva actually go?
This blog has been created in order to make known the course of events that has led my dream of doing research at Imperial College turn into a nightmare. Before I start with the specifics, let me give you some background.
It all started in 2002, when I commenced my PhD degree in Artificial Intelligence. I was very happy to be part of a research group as well as getting my fair share of PhD student life, and that sensation continued for more or less 2 years, culminating in my first publication. An MPhil to PhD "transfer" examination followed soon after, in 2004. In the meantime, I got involved in Imperial postgraduate affairs, by being elected president of the college's Postgraduate Society.
Long story short, many ups and downs and 3 more publications followed. All under close supervision. These, among other things, provided opportunities to get immersed into the research culture on an international level through collaborations. 2006 was the year I finally started writting up my thesis, an important turning point in any PhD student's life. That was a long and very psychologically taxing process of writting and revising, according to my supervisor's corrections, all parts of the text, chapter by chapter. I finally submitted the thesis in March 2007.
The viva was scheduled for the 30th of May 2007. The examiners were carefully chosen by my supervisor to be relevant to my research field. When the day arrived, I was naturally nervous as it happens when 4 years of work is about to be judged. Prepared for the worst, I obviously didn't know what the worst could possibly mean. The viva was 3.30 or maybe 4 hours of plain torture. It was evident right from the start that the examiners had a very negative opinion on the thesis, were very aggressive in their questioning. At the end of the exam, during which my supervisor was present, I was asked to leave the room - as is usually done - before they announce the result. A very nervous supervisor came back 15 minutes later asking me to step inside. I walked in and the examiner told me "you're not going to like this, but that's ok". He told me that not only was my work not worthy of a PhD, but that I would have to be given a 12 month correction periodto obtain an MPhil. What is more, they told me that they could not tell me what corrections would have to be made. After making some casual jokes, he told me and my supervisor that he had to leave because he was late for dinner.
When the examiners left, a devastated supervisor told me that he had failed me as a supervisor. I could not believe what had happened, and obviously, neither could he. Naturally, I became depressed over the period of the coming months. My supervisor was not able to support me through this stage at all. He actually told me "are you going to appeal? they seem to have a very strong argument".
After the official letter arrived, I decided that I should definitely appeal. Not only was the procedure of the viva not appropriate, but I also discovered that - from the examiners' joint report - that issues regarding their suitability to examine my thesis were rising. My PhD thesis was, right from the start, in Artificial Intelligence, more particularly vision and perception. However, both of my examiners' expertise was computer vision, a neighbouring and sometimes overlapping discipline.
I spent 2 months writting an appeal letter. My appeal addressed all the points made by the examiners, and was based on the university's regulations regarding appeals. Namely that the examiners were not suitable, and that the viva was not conducted appropriately, as I was not given the chance to present my work fully. During this process, my only source of help was the college tutor, who had served in appellate committees in the past. As soon as he saw my first draft, he pointed out that if I searched through the list of publications of both my examiners, I would not find any publications related to AI.
Appeal letter prepared, I got a support letter from my supervisor and a professor of Artificial Intelligence, former Head of School of Computing in the States. A month passes (September 2007) and I am informed the the appeal passed the initial screening and that there was going to be a hearing on the 30th of October.
The appellate commitee board consisted of academics mostly, as well as a lawyer. My supervisor, me, and the two examiners were invited and attended the hearing. During the hearing, the examiners stood their ground, while my supervisor attempted to compromise by admitting that they were right in many points, but that I should be given the chance. Effectively, this was making my appeal ineffective, since I - and he - wrote that the choice of examiners was a wrong one. What is more, during the course of the hearing, it became evident that the dispute over my PhD effectively was a dispute between research disciplines that was way beyond me. Naturally, I was informed 10 days later that the appeal was rejected.
I hope this sets the scene for all subsequent posts, in which I will be describing what will be going on during the fight to pursue a positive outcome. I hope this helps people in similar situations, or will help others avoid getting into such situations.
It all started in 2002, when I commenced my PhD degree in Artificial Intelligence. I was very happy to be part of a research group as well as getting my fair share of PhD student life, and that sensation continued for more or less 2 years, culminating in my first publication. An MPhil to PhD "transfer" examination followed soon after, in 2004. In the meantime, I got involved in Imperial postgraduate affairs, by being elected president of the college's Postgraduate Society.
Long story short, many ups and downs and 3 more publications followed. All under close supervision. These, among other things, provided opportunities to get immersed into the research culture on an international level through collaborations. 2006 was the year I finally started writting up my thesis, an important turning point in any PhD student's life. That was a long and very psychologically taxing process of writting and revising, according to my supervisor's corrections, all parts of the text, chapter by chapter. I finally submitted the thesis in March 2007.
The viva was scheduled for the 30th of May 2007. The examiners were carefully chosen by my supervisor to be relevant to my research field. When the day arrived, I was naturally nervous as it happens when 4 years of work is about to be judged. Prepared for the worst, I obviously didn't know what the worst could possibly mean. The viva was 3.30 or maybe 4 hours of plain torture. It was evident right from the start that the examiners had a very negative opinion on the thesis, were very aggressive in their questioning. At the end of the exam, during which my supervisor was present, I was asked to leave the room - as is usually done - before they announce the result. A very nervous supervisor came back 15 minutes later asking me to step inside. I walked in and the examiner told me "you're not going to like this, but that's ok". He told me that not only was my work not worthy of a PhD, but that I would have to be given a 12 month correction periodto obtain an MPhil. What is more, they told me that they could not tell me what corrections would have to be made. After making some casual jokes, he told me and my supervisor that he had to leave because he was late for dinner.
When the examiners left, a devastated supervisor told me that he had failed me as a supervisor. I could not believe what had happened, and obviously, neither could he. Naturally, I became depressed over the period of the coming months. My supervisor was not able to support me through this stage at all. He actually told me "are you going to appeal? they seem to have a very strong argument".
After the official letter arrived, I decided that I should definitely appeal. Not only was the procedure of the viva not appropriate, but I also discovered that - from the examiners' joint report - that issues regarding their suitability to examine my thesis were rising. My PhD thesis was, right from the start, in Artificial Intelligence, more particularly vision and perception. However, both of my examiners' expertise was computer vision, a neighbouring and sometimes overlapping discipline.
I spent 2 months writting an appeal letter. My appeal addressed all the points made by the examiners, and was based on the university's regulations regarding appeals. Namely that the examiners were not suitable, and that the viva was not conducted appropriately, as I was not given the chance to present my work fully. During this process, my only source of help was the college tutor, who had served in appellate committees in the past. As soon as he saw my first draft, he pointed out that if I searched through the list of publications of both my examiners, I would not find any publications related to AI.
Appeal letter prepared, I got a support letter from my supervisor and a professor of Artificial Intelligence, former Head of School of Computing in the States. A month passes (September 2007) and I am informed the the appeal passed the initial screening and that there was going to be a hearing on the 30th of October.
The appellate commitee board consisted of academics mostly, as well as a lawyer. My supervisor, me, and the two examiners were invited and attended the hearing. During the hearing, the examiners stood their ground, while my supervisor attempted to compromise by admitting that they were right in many points, but that I should be given the chance. Effectively, this was making my appeal ineffective, since I - and he - wrote that the choice of examiners was a wrong one. What is more, during the course of the hearing, it became evident that the dispute over my PhD effectively was a dispute between research disciplines that was way beyond me. Naturally, I was informed 10 days later that the appeal was rejected.
I hope this sets the scene for all subsequent posts, in which I will be describing what will be going on during the fight to pursue a positive outcome. I hope this helps people in similar situations, or will help others avoid getting into such situations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
