There are many different formats for establishing an evaluation committee for PhD students. Some include the presence of the mentor, while others explicitly exclude the mentors presence. What is considered best practice and why? Does the presence or absence of the mentor play any meaningful role?
In my opinion, the mentor should always be there during the defense of PhD thesis of a student for any required clarification and moral encouragement of the candidate.
With best regards
I think it does to show support for the PhD candidate and for the mentor to be privy to the actual defense in witnessing the fruit of years of hard work as well as to learn from the experience for preparing future candidates.
Best regards,
Debra
In my opinion, the mentor should always be there during the defense of PhD thesis of a student for any required clarification and moral encouragement of the candidate.
With best regards
I think when a PhD students is defending his/her PhD research, the presence of the mentor boosts his/her confidence in front of the evaluation committee.
I will answer you with a very simple answer-question. Is a football team playing a very important final match without a coach?
I think it is an obligation that is present, he is the one who trains the student and has to be present to receive comments and support his student, a thesis defense is a work in group
Mentor need to be present during defense. It adds to confidence and motivate researcher during presentation. Further, sometime mentor may add to discussion during Q & A if required. The researcher and mentor knows research work in details.
I concur. The supervisor should be present to not only for moral support and encouragement, but also for clarification of any guidance or direction provided during the progression of research.
The supervisor should be part of the panel for the defense. The thing is that they may prohibit him from talking. At least he will be able to know why his student either failed or passed.
Throughout Europe, it is common practice for a candidate's dissertation to be evaluated by the supervisor of the work as the first reviewer. The reviewer must be a university teacher. In addition, there is the report of another member of the faculty. All members of the faculty have the opportunity to read the expert opinions and the dissertation 2-3 weeks before the oral examination of the doctoral candidate. If a faculty member has a completely different opinion on the quality of the disssertation, he can prepare a special report, which is submitted to the doctoral committee. It is therefore an open and democratic process.
The question posed here, when it refers to the doctorate, is somewhat foreign to European conditions. After all, it goes without saying that the professor who presents the topic of the dissertation and advises the candidate plays a leading role in the entire doctoral process.
I forgot to mention in my comment above that the counselling of a doctoral candidate is naturally also carried out by an assistant to the professor. Promotion is not a mass business in Europe. And the doctoral examination is usually also open to the public within a department and its members. Every member of the derpartment (or faculty or university) can take part in the examination and defence of the doctorate as a listener. These are often interested professors from other neighbored disciplines. Sometimes, they will also be given the opportunity to ask a question at a given time during the examination. That stimulates the discussion. That's the way it is at my university. However, there are also doctoral regulations that provide for a non-public examination, and further conditions. Then only the doctoral committee is present.
Most research institutes adopt the presence of the mentor in the defense of the thesis , whatever it is a preparatory defense or a final defense, he/she is officially named " The Moderator" in the committee.
A PhD student pleading for encouragement through the presence of his Mentor during defense should be re-evaluated for lack of self-confidence!
Apart from being a part of the panel, there is less role for the Mentor to play because he may not even be allowed to interfere. My Mentor was away at my M.Sc. thesis defense and all was good. All the encouragement that is needed should have been racked up during the mentoring (supervision) process, as long as the candidate is not a dullard who needs to be reminded what's to be done or said. In defense of a PhD thesis, all that is required is self-confidence for the candidate, unless the work is not entirely his personal effort.
Yes, certainly. They need not take part but should be present there. We, too have this at our Technical University, I agree with Hein. It is a good opportunity for the candidate.
Mentors ( supervisor, guide, or the major adviser) must be present during the defense of a PhD student. Their presence is necessary to clarify certain points, which the student may not be able to explain well. We also encourage the entire advisory committee to be present during the defense seminar. There is another motive too for insisting the presence of the adviser and the members. They can see and assess how the student defend his/her works and correct the weak points !
The presence of the mentor during the defense of a PhD student is the general rule rather than the exception in most universities.
When the supervisors are great, amiable, kind, and scientific , their presence in this historical event (for the student and his/her family & friends) is superb even if they do not speak one word during the grill "as we used to call it in the U.K." !
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry