Recently post graduate seems more business than a philosophy of thinker that is to gain the name as Dr, in stead of Sir. Those who are week in the basic should not climb the ladder and use others leverage to achieve academic prestige or goal. 

The verdict of a PhD student should be fair since there is no room for bias with or against. If a PhD student deserves minor amendment or even fail, s/he should get it.

If the verdict makes it clear that the candidate is incapable of making the PhD dissertation, the chair of the jury will append a report detailing the reasons for the verdict to the Report of the Jury.

Some times you get more enemy more than friends and you will be abducted from future committee.

Once there is an oral defence, I never have seen a PhD degree refused.

And even the most famous confirmed researchers have articles refused for publication..... So where is the problem?

The problem is in the granted degree or publication due to routine or politics.

Dear friend Marcel,

A PhD dissertation can be refused for many reasons, such as plagiarism. In fact, I have heard about some cases that the PhD dissertation was refused. May be these cases rarely happen.

Agree with Mahfouz but usually it is very rare. There is a saying reflects what is going (Entered into the house of Abu Sufyan is safe)

Dear Mahfuz,

I never encountered such a situation about a PhD manuscript refused for plagiarism.

But about publications that are judged by jury members of a PhD manuscript (not anonymous, chosen by the thesis director and/or the PhD student) versus journal referees (most often anonymous) judging the same manuscripts. For instance, concerning the confirmed researchers, what fraction of the manuscripts sent to scientific journals are accepted without any modifications suggested? Would jury members make the same comments than journal referees, and if not, why?

PhD Should be awarded only for if he deserve it. No other choice.

I am a little uncomfortable with the question itself. A PhD candidate passes several hurdles and tests before permitted to work on dissertation in collaboration with a doctoral guidance or adviser and close cooperation. There is a regular meeting and follow up by the adviser for years and shape the  thesis until it is ready for presentation, with the consent and approval of the adviser. If during the presentation faults have discovered, then that has to be a verdict not only on the candidate but on the adviser as well. Besides a dissertation is a partial fulfillment a candidate presents to the university in order to be granted the doctoral degree, other graduate works and requirements passed should be considered as well and be given a representation  of the dissertation with proper amendment, although the case is very rare to me. 

If an excellent university student has an average exam score of 15/20, does this imply that the student makes errors when confronted to 25 out of 100 cases, or when confronted with 25 out of 100 difficult cases accepting levels of formation express spatial variation? Some would claim that formations of medical doctors treating people or engineers building bridges require more time because human lives are at stake. What does it tell us about the efficiency of short-term formations in other disciplines? Does experience after university formations or more focused research reduce the probability to make decision errors or not?

1. The Ph.D students must be asked to get their papers published in reputed journals. At least, two research papers based on the work must get published before accepting the thesis for final viva.

2. Awarding stringent grades for Ph.D work taking into consideration the reports of each member of the committee can help to improve quality. 

3. Ph.D degree is the ultimate! Compromise in any form downgrades the prestige of the university. 

I totally agree with our friends and colleagues Kamal and Mahfuz (if they will permit me the informality of first names).  Doctoral degrees are our highest level of achievement; there is no other hurdle or pinnacle that recognizes accomplishment beyond doctor.  To not require the highest standards in course work, research, dissertation, defense is to diminish the significance of the degree for all of us, not just the student who "had it easy."  Once the standards are lowered for one student they will be lowered for more to follow and there will be a domino effect.  The doctorate could eventually end up similar to a bachelor's degree--no big deal, everyone has one. 

Hashem, try to convince the committee that it would not be the end of the world for the student to perfect the dissertation.  Upholding their own standards, honor, and reputations for the rest of their lives is more important than the student spending an extra semester or two improving the dissertation.  My daughter spent ten years writing her dissertation through no fault of her own.  Her director and committee members changed every two or three years and each time they wanted her to rewrite a perfectly good dissertation (I read it, unbiased opinion)  so that it would reflect their favorite literary themes and authors. 

My point in mentioning my daughter is that if she can spend ten years writing and rewriting her work to satisfy the egos of those prima donnas, your student can spend one or two semesters to get it right.

Stand up for what you know is right over less than honorable friends and service on committees.

If there is a problem it is not with the candidate but with committee. I think an PhD examination committee should be chosen so that unbiased decision is secured. The only way for that is to choose from a list of specialists (mostly not form the same university) randomly.   

Dear John,

No one here in this forum denies the highest level of expectations and academic works required in order to get the highest degree in the academic world. The question proposed is not to compromise the highest standard required but a problem that occurred somewhere which in a way also implicates the advisers and as Dear Costas indicated, the graduate committee of the department assigned for the candidate as well, which therefore is more of to solve a problem than to follow a regular program and act on it.

In order departments of universities to run such a highest degree offering programs, they have to have professors that are well qualified and expertise in their fields that are capable to lead and advise doctoral candidates. If that is put in place then a candidate chooses an adviser and an adviser accepts the candidate to be his dissertation advise and a committee of advisers will be assigned. This is a huge army of intellectuals to guide a candidate who passed all the preliminary requirements in order to complete a dissertation for degree. 

But the condition in this case looks the candidate was just left abandoned intentionally or otherwise with out being informed and the nominal adviser and the committee were waiting for the time to indicate to the candidate a mistake on the work and say good bye. That is completely unethical, unprofessional and the department in particular and the university in general  should loose the accreditation of offering PhD degrees.

How could PhD student reached to that level (defense) when his/her dissertation has flaws?

I understand the sentiments of Hashem. And I share Pahlaj's question.

In our university, this situation where "flawed" manuscripts are indorsed  by the adviser and the examinees for defense is avoided because of a pre-oral defense prior to the final oral defense. In the pre-orals flaws in the substance are pointed out if any such that in the finals, it is mostly student defense, less on manuscript format and substance.

Dear Prof Hashem,

I feel that PhD being the highest academic research, must not be made a mandatory qualification. Instead, it must be awarded only to exceptional exemplary works of research. Conducting routine lab trials, collecting the resulting sets of data, analyzing them and preparing a lab class report is what is done in every UG / PG Lab class. PhD Supervisors / Doctoral Scrutiny Committee members/Thesis Reviewers must be critical enough to ensure the standards

of research and must not hesitate to decline a submission if not upto the mark. One of the main reasons for the leniency of the experts is that PhD has been made an essential qualification for promotions or some times even for the entry at the lowest academic level. I would have better shown my feelings about the issue through some of my reviewer comments on PhD theses/ some award entries/ articles submitted to Journals for publication etc. but that (being confidential) perhaps should not be done.

Dear All,

I adore your comments and inquiries of such incidence. I perhaps missed to say as in any institution the regulation of the process is available. Dejenie A. Lakew raise this issue and I had to say this was astonishing me too. Most of your answers are talking about idealism but I am talking about reality. My explanation can be seen in this example. A paper submitted to an x journal and is being accepted with minor revision, the same paper has been accepted by another journal with extensive revision and has been rejected by another journal in the same field. All journals have written a strict regulation and requirements but in reality they have different decision on the quality of paper.

Normally it  SHOULD not happen; however if it percolates; there is some serious lacunae in adherence to the following system

An Award of PhD goes through stringent process before the candidate defends in a viva-voce of a PhD Dissertation:

• Within two years of attaining PhD candidacy, the student must have the PhD dissertation proposal approved by the student's faculty board and submitted to the dean for approval by the faculty of the School and the university.
• The candidate must present a dissertation which gives evidence of power of research, of ability to do independent scientific work, of mastery of the candidate's part of the chosen field, and is sufficient merit to warrant publication.
• When the dissertation is completed and tentatively approved by the director and readers, a public oral examination will be conducted by an oral examination board. The board will consist of a chair and a secretary who will be appointed from university faculty outside the School, plus the director and the two readers of the dissertation.
• The completed Ph.D. dissertation must be defended no later than five years after attaining candidacy.
• The defense of the Ph.D. dissertation is realized after the defense, when all conditions on the part of the board have been met and any objections satisfied.

Candidates must pass the following examinations:

• Regular examinations in all courses.
• Written examinations in two of the three parts of the Graduate Reading program.

A public oral examination on the Ph.D. dissertation.

• The Ph.D. degree is granted when all the above requirements have been fulfilled by the candidate and approved by the faculty of the School and the Academic Senate of the university.

http://philosophy.cua.edu/academic/grad/PhilosophyDoctoral.cfm

Hashem,

I see a Ph.D. as an experience in reseach.  Some will do exceptional research and some will do less than standard research.  I do not see why someone after completing the courses and the research work should be denied the recognition that he or she be denied the benefit to have a degree that is the testimony of the work done.  It the quality of the work was mediocre then it is unlikely that this Ph.D. will be able to continue a carreer in research.  Not allowing the graduation would simply add one more level of shame which I do not think is necessary.  

But if PhD manuscripts should always be of high standards to be acceptable, what is the role of the collaborators (e.g. research director, staff members, fellow students..) in reaching these standards? How much time do jury members spent together with PhD students to judge this aspect? Much less than 1% of the time?

By the way, collaboration skills are highly valued in scientific team work or not?

Dear Hashem, I fully agree with you on this issue. It is a fact that  many Ph.D theses get accepted even as their quality is quite low. This happens in those organizations where there is no strong research culture,; no respect for research rigour;  and no peer pressure on those guiding Ph.D. All concerned must try to enhance the research standards by revamping the whole system towards this end. Examiners and academics must take a stand for quality, and put their foot down for this cause.

1. Ph.D work is becoming more of human relations than impersonal. The guide, the director and the student are comfortable with known assessors. This creates problem. 

2. University work is pampered from number of Ph.Ds rather than the quality and its impact in the national and international arena.

3. The external examiners list must include at least one foreign referee chosen at random from a panel.

4. A revolutionary idea: Let it be uploaded in RG and vetted by frank comments from the related experts before accepting it for final viva! 

Dear Krishnan Umachandran, I agree with your points. There are similar but not the same procedures in most of the graduate schools but implementation varies.

Dear  Louis Brassard, I got your point and human are not alike.

Dear  Marcel M. Lambrechts, you are absolutely right, it should reflect the team work and collaboration between advisors.

Dear Debi S. Saini ,

You are perfect we should establish research culture within the system.

Dear Sadagopan Parthasarathy,

Relations are important but not on the expense of quality. in some culture relationship interfere with judgment.

Dear Dr Hashem,

This is so good question. Although I am not competitive to talk about this topic since I am still a PhD candidate I would like to pass information that I have based on the system at the University of Edinburgh and the UK in general. A candidate has to justify his statistics package which means to clarify the reasons for choosing a certain package (method) and for excluding the others. Such justifications should reflect his/her statistical knowledge (and this applies to all methodological domains, literature review, and statement of problem). However, if basic mistakes in the analysis occur the candidate cannot pass. On the other hand not every mistake in the analysis means that the candidate does not understand whats going on. Critical discussion would hopefully discover his/her understanding. Hope this helps somehow!

What kind of errors did the candidate present? The so called 'fatal errors' or just mistyped equations and interpretations? We need further infos in order to 'judge' him/her with fair.

A little explanation on the nature of what you termed ''error'' could help your reading public to meaningfully contribute to this debate. However, in my speculation, If a PHD work is original and it has contributed to knowledge, but there are some typing errors,for instance, I think the work should be passed so that the candidate does the said corrections. Rejecting the work on the grounds of these spelling mistakes may be an unfair treatment to the candidate.

Dear Dennis,

I also think there is a significant difference in value between true science (e.g. contributing to new knowledge or new ideas) and science communication (e.g. publishing new knowledge or new ideas often in a foreign language).

I am for the highest standards.  Who can be against this noble objective.  But I do not see that giving to a committee absolute power is the best way to achieve this.  This power is often abused given that it is arbitrary.  If someone do not like a student because two years back he said something!!!  So in the name of being the defenders of quality the most dirty little human politic is done quietly among faculty members.  A better approach than arbitrary in the name of perfection is to make the defence as a competition for the entrance in the Ph.D. program.  Then you can held the highest standard but once a candidat is held of the highest level than the committee's job would be to sustain the candidat so that he can best benefit the research experience.  There is no need to suspend a knife above his neck.  It is really not the best method to promote critical thinking, it only promote a pleasing to the committee.

Feeling bad. Absolute power was being exercised by the judgment commission. Although if you prefer the highest levels of excellence, the committee decided to approve a flawed work. Lose the scientific community and science.

Dear Louis,

To avoid previous personal conflicts there always should be at least one external examiner. However, people may judge probably on religious, color or what ever perceptions. Getting higher standards for the entrance in the PhD is necessary but not sufficient condition simply because you are not the same person before and after. Furthermore, how would you know if you become ready to work as an independent researcher or lecturer. There is a need for the final exam which includes internal and external examiners. University stuff are also good arbiters because they want a potential candidate to pass in order to get better reputation for the university. Finally, everything is about personal culture regarding the education systems that should be very high.

And there is the prestige of the research director at stake as discussed elsewhere. Who is blamed when a thesis manuscript is of lower quality?

Samir,

I agree that evaluating a young inexperienced entrance candidat is not as effective as evaluating a Ph.D. research. It may even reject the best candidates in some cases.  I also admit that the external examinor, as long that this examanor is really independent, is a good practice that will remove a certain level of complacency. Holdng the highest standards should be an objective that cannot be compromised but I still think that the current system of defense is not the best way to achieve it.  I think that a kind of proposal thesis should be required and defended as an admission.  The number of Ph.D. candidat should be reduced.  Some univeristy have a finantial insentive to admit many candidate and trying to maintain quality by failing people at the end when they paid all the cost.  That practice should end.  So I see a better system where a Ph.D would not be like a bachelor or a thesis but would be a junior research job of four years.  The junior Ph.D. candidat would not have supervisors but collegues.  At the end of this four year research job he would be invited to present what he/she accomplished not to an internal committee of the university but to an national or international academy of science where his Ph.D. degree would be scored, assessed, qualified and commented.  So what would be more important would not be the degree but the content of this assessment made at the highest level of science.

Dear Louis,

The PhD manuscript is already judged by anonymous specialists when chapters are sent out for review to be published in international journals. One solution might be to add the anonymous referee reports rejecting or accepting the chapters as an appendix to the thesis manuscript. 

I have already stressed upon a similar transparency in case of review of papers and I fully agree with Marcel about adding the anonymous referee reports rejecting or accepting the chapters as an appendix to the thesis manuscript..

Despite faulty dissertation, giving verdict in favour of the concerned PhD student is not fair. However, such unfortunate incidents are seen to occur in academia due to internal politics and/or other factors. Someone gets a PhD for demonstrating one's ability to do research and add something new to the repository of knowledge. On the other hand, great difference in standard of PhD research works is seen with respect to university/guide. I think there should be set standards for a PhD research and dissertation. PhD should be awarded to good and well deserving work and maintain the respect and dignity of the highest academic degree.

I think some students are favoured from the beginning whereas others are not, independent from the instrinsic qualities of the students. This can be reflected in the availability of background data or data to be exploited in the framework of the thesis, the model system (very well studied or not studied at all before the PhD topic starts), logistic support (e.g. study site or laboratory facilities), human support (support to gather data or to think), etc....  This variation is expressed at all scales, also within laboratories.

My sincere appreciation to all the participants for  their opinions and suggestions of the case

As an example, I proposed a case, I can not talk more in detail here for the sake of  confidentiality and privacy to others who may  involved in the subject matter.

So to conclude that the reality is different from the theoretical, even if we all strive to apply the theories.

I have a feeling that the root cause of this and a number of other similar questions regarding the quality standards (relating to academics/research/guidance/selection / evaluation/awards etc.) raised under RG is the lack of transparency in evaluation mechanism which is confined to committees comprising a few (3/4/5) members whose credibility (in terms of competence/integrity/honesty/sincerity/impartiality etc) is often not  beyond doubt. A broad based transparent mechanism namely,  “All researchers publication” (ARP) system proposed by Prof Ahmad Hassanat seems to be a feasible solution for tackling many of these issues.

Utility of such discussions will only be realized if a practicable solution can be worked out and implemented globally.

The verdict of a PhD students has to be fair to the utmost extent because s/he is awarded with the honour of contributing something genuine and hitertho unknown (in a specific manner or context, at least) to the world. Thus, this is knowledge creation at its highest and there is no room for politics here.

Humans are political animals.  Politic is the control of other humans; it is power.  Is there a domain where politic is not ruling?  And where there should not be politic, very often is where you will find politic.  The only way to control this human tendency to arbitrarily control other for their benefit is , as Shanker Lal was sayin, to make the evaluation process as transparent as possible and to externalize it, to remove it from internal control.

They let him pass most probably because they sympathized with the student having been treated similarly by other professors who let them pass...that's how things start to die - you need just one wrong person at the right place.

Now that you know who these professors and students are, try to stay away from them as much as you can. People with lower or very different criteria than yours will lower your own criteria and distort your views. Don't let them drown you in a sea of mediocrity. 

Dear Hristina,

I love your last sentence!  I'll probably steal it and use it in my writing at some point!

Regards,

John

Dear John,

What an open admission of a courageous desire! You have a better option to stealing Hristina's sentence. You may reproduce the statement duly acknowledging the source.

Best wishes.

Dear Shanker,

Of course, you are right.  Another way of expressing admiration for Hristina's literary and creative statement is:  "Wow, I wish I had written that!"

Regards, John

Quoted form Pp34., Chad Perry

"You are warned that examiners are careful that conclusions are based on findings alone, and will dispute conclusions not clearly based on the research results. That is, there is a difference between the conclusions of the research findings in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 and implications drawn from them later in Sections 5.4 and 5.5"

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=53&ved=0CCYQFjACODI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscu.edu.au%2Ftourism-hospitality-management%2Fdownload.php%3Fdoc_id%3D2664&ei=GB5LVLuIK4S7mAXFgIGQBA&usg=AFQjCNFG3sACxoi1d3UdIwXt3mraGZmI7A&sig2=ZyQfm5h90GJKudrSkB2WTQ&bvm=bv.77880786,d.dGY&cad=rja

I agree with most of the comments above, This is why there is a THESIS COMMITTEE. Politics can go both ways in favor or against.

Very correctly said by dear Jumana Saleh " Politics can go both ways either in favour or against". However, any kind of prejudice or politics should not influence the evaluation of a  Ph.D. thesis for award of the highest degree. 

John, you may steal it ) I believe that you can see that phrase or some similar ones repeatedly in literature, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it in comments on academia precisely because there are so many people disappointed, most of whom at the end of the day walk out of a profession that could have been their passion and dream.

It is really sad but we have to admit it - (most of) the best teachers/professors are not in academia any longer. There might be some good researchers but it is so rare to find and know the ones whose job is to transfer knowledge and teach through their own methodologies.

In this case and in many others, free riders will most probably accumulate titles faster than the ones who disagreed with the committee decision, they will author textbooks and publications copied and pasted, they will become your boss, they will launch ''innovative'' study programs and attract students like themselves and mock the ones who are naive enough to strive to get value for their money and time.

The only hope for those who decide to play be the rules irrespective of the ''madness of the masses'' is to firmly voice their opinion no matter what - this is also the only way to attract students who want to learn something, survival should not be an option. The saddest thing, however, is that academia astuces apply everywhere, academia is a microcosm of the simplistic "business as usual" law of life where people rather than businesses can spoil any good cause.  

Hristina:  Brilliant words by a brilliant person!  I want to comment but my hands are shaking too much at the momment (Parkinson's disease).  Hopefully later.

With admiratlion and kind r3eg[ards,,

John