Mphil/Phd transfer Viva.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Mphil/Phd transfer Viva.
Just before departing to a Mrs Genghis enforced 2 weeks bored on a beach, I submitted my transfer thesis (the PhD is a hobby, not my full time occupation - keeps me out of mischief on quiet evenings).
I come back to a very short Email from my supervisor saying that they'd like to do my Viva in about a fortnight. Not being in touch with full time academics all that much I'm not really sure what to expect or the degree of preparation (other than making sure that I understand my own thesis at-least).
Has anybody else gone through the process at a UK university and could perhaps offer any advice on this.
Thanks,
G
N.B. The subject, which won't surprise anybody who knows me, is airworthiness and flight test techniques.
I come back to a very short Email from my supervisor saying that they'd like to do my Viva in about a fortnight. Not being in touch with full time academics all that much I'm not really sure what to expect or the degree of preparation (other than making sure that I understand my own thesis at-least).
Has anybody else gone through the process at a UK university and could perhaps offer any advice on this.
Thanks,
G
N.B. The subject, which won't surprise anybody who knows me, is airworthiness and flight test techniques.
High Flying Bird
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Old Sarum ish
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More like current experience... 
Genghis, the first step is to find out who your examiners will be. Then, make sure you have spelled their names correctly in your thesis! Also, know their areas of expertise, and do some extra homework on them.
The most MOST important thing to do is ensure you understand all the references you errr referenced. You should know all the ins and outs of any protocols used, how they were developed, who by, when etc etc.
The general format will be for them to ask you a fairly shallow question about something you have written. Then they'll ask you a question about your answer. Apparently, the average level of questions candidates can answer is 3. Any more and you're laughing.
Expect the viva to last anything from 3 to 8 hours.
I'm very surprised they have only given you 2 weeks warning. We get a couple of months at least.
Good luck!
Genghis, the first step is to find out who your examiners will be. Then, make sure you have spelled their names correctly in your thesis! Also, know their areas of expertise, and do some extra homework on them.
The most MOST important thing to do is ensure you understand all the references you errr referenced. You should know all the ins and outs of any protocols used, how they were developed, who by, when etc etc.
The general format will be for them to ask you a fairly shallow question about something you have written. Then they'll ask you a question about your answer. Apparently, the average level of questions candidates can answer is 3. Any more and you're laughing.
Expect the viva to last anything from 3 to 8 hours.
I'm very surprised they have only given you 2 weeks warning. We get a couple of months at least.
Good luck!
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AerBabe has covered some key points. They'll be looking for evidence that you have made a contribution to knowledge; PhD requires original contribution and MPhil requires significant contribution. Since the expert in the room is yourself, you'll be expected to answer with the evidence supporting your contribution. Since you're on airworthiness and flight test techniques, lets try a typical question and what they are looking for (forgive me if I know nothing about your topic - that doesn't stop me being an examiner).
"in your thesis, you discussed how changes to the present flight test techniques would give a more structured approach to the flight testing of the aircraft structural engineering - surely flight testing has developed over the years to cover that fairly well - didn't the Americans develop this at Pasadena in the 70s?"
This question is loaded with multiple openings and questions - in your answer, you MUST BE ABLE TO state what your contribution is [I actually showed that ........] ; REFERENCE that to the latest developments in the field [flight testing of the aircraft structural engineering was based on ABC until recently and this is still the method used at Cranfield] ; DISPLAY knowledge of the background to the field [actually at Pasadena they did XYZ, but since then . . . .].
The next question will ask you to discuss your methods, your data collection process, and/or the way you analysed it. They are not trying to teach you how to suck eggs, but rather to see that you have mastered the issues. So a calm restatement of your method is adequate when they start to probe. When they say for example "do you think you should have analysed that using ANOVA to eliminate the bias . . . . ." then simply restate why you did what you did 'the regression was adequate to show the relationships, and I tested the statistics to make sure that they were significant'.
I would get a colleague to ask you some questions about your thesis - that will get you into the technique of rapidly collating your thoughts to give an answer which may draw on several chapters of work. And relax - the examiners aren't trying to fail you - they are trying to pass you and make sure that it was really you that did the work. If your professor has allowed your work to go forward, then it has already passed as meeting the grade
"in your thesis, you discussed how changes to the present flight test techniques would give a more structured approach to the flight testing of the aircraft structural engineering - surely flight testing has developed over the years to cover that fairly well - didn't the Americans develop this at Pasadena in the 70s?"
This question is loaded with multiple openings and questions - in your answer, you MUST BE ABLE TO state what your contribution is [I actually showed that ........] ; REFERENCE that to the latest developments in the field [flight testing of the aircraft structural engineering was based on ABC until recently and this is still the method used at Cranfield] ; DISPLAY knowledge of the background to the field [actually at Pasadena they did XYZ, but since then . . . .].
The next question will ask you to discuss your methods, your data collection process, and/or the way you analysed it. They are not trying to teach you how to suck eggs, but rather to see that you have mastered the issues. So a calm restatement of your method is adequate when they start to probe. When they say for example "do you think you should have analysed that using ANOVA to eliminate the bias . . . . ." then simply restate why you did what you did 'the regression was adequate to show the relationships, and I tested the statistics to make sure that they were significant'.
I would get a colleague to ask you some questions about your thesis - that will get you into the technique of rapidly collating your thoughts to give an answer which may draw on several chapters of work. And relax - the examiners aren't trying to fail you - they are trying to pass you and make sure that it was really you that did the work. If your professor has allowed your work to go forward, then it has already passed as meeting the grade
High Flying Bird
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Old Sarum ish
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis - Try and beg/borrow/steal a copy of "How to Get a PhD". There is a chapter in there on vivas. I'd lend you mine, but it's in Wiltshire and I'm not.
Before I start giving advice that might not turn out to be helpful.
Genghis...you're not asking about the final PhD thesis viva are you? You're currently in the process of transfering from being registered as an MPhil student to being a PhD student?
Genghis...you're not asking about the final PhD thesis viva are you? You're currently in the process of transfering from being registered as an MPhil student to being a PhD student?
Moderator
Thread Starter
Thanks for those hints folks, I shall look for a copy of that book Aerbabe recommends - although with a 1st September date that may be optimistic.
Yes - it's a transfer viva. The university in question (and my supervisor) have a slightly odd approach of submitting a transfer thesis which is about 80% of the total work, then submit the final thesis about 6 months later.
I probably have a slight advantage in that a fair chunk of the in-use published material in the field has my name on it anyway. One thing that troubles me slightly, and I don't know if anybody else has been there, is that whilst most of the work is experimental and virtually all of my analysis is nondimensionalised longhand calculation - virtually all of the published work by my assessors is CFD related. I confess to a mild paranoia about the risk of spending several hours defending the fact that I didn't do the whole lot by computer modelling.
G
Yes - it's a transfer viva. The university in question (and my supervisor) have a slightly odd approach of submitting a transfer thesis which is about 80% of the total work, then submit the final thesis about 6 months later.
I probably have a slight advantage in that a fair chunk of the in-use published material in the field has my name on it anyway. One thing that troubles me slightly, and I don't know if anybody else has been there, is that whilst most of the work is experimental and virtually all of my analysis is nondimensionalised longhand calculation - virtually all of the published work by my assessors is CFD related. I confess to a mild paranoia about the risk of spending several hours defending the fact that I didn't do the whole lot by computer modelling.
G
Moderator
Thread Starter
Okay, okay - it's just that I'd rather spend my time talking about safety issues behind interesting modes of departure from controlled flight than convincing CFD boffins that there's any point in flight testing.
G
G
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I probably have a slight advantage in that a fair chunk of the in-use published material in the field has my name on it anyway.
IŽd be looking for your understanding on the works that you hadnŽt written, to make sure that you were heading down a useful path and not speared off into the corner
One thing that troubles me slightly, and I don't know if anybody else has been there, is that whilst most of the work is experimental and virtually all of my analysis is nondimensionalised longhand calculation - virtually all of the published work by my assessors is CFD related.
IŽd be looking for check calculations and cross-checking methods to make sure you hadnŽt made a mistake
I confess to a mild paranoia about the risk of spending several hours defending the fact that I didn't do the whole lot by computer modelling.
computer modelling doesnŽt necessarily add much at this level since youŽre being paid to think and not push buttons. There are no negative marks for missing computer analysis per se. IŽd be looking that you hadnŽt sold your concept short by inadequate analysis due to laziness. And IŽd suggest an answer ready as to why your approach was adequate and to demonstrate some understanding of the computer options that could have been used if you had so wanted to (without being derogatory about the computer)
IŽd be looking for your understanding on the works that you hadnŽt written, to make sure that you were heading down a useful path and not speared off into the corner
One thing that troubles me slightly, and I don't know if anybody else has been there, is that whilst most of the work is experimental and virtually all of my analysis is nondimensionalised longhand calculation - virtually all of the published work by my assessors is CFD related.
IŽd be looking for check calculations and cross-checking methods to make sure you hadnŽt made a mistake
I confess to a mild paranoia about the risk of spending several hours defending the fact that I didn't do the whole lot by computer modelling.
computer modelling doesnŽt necessarily add much at this level since youŽre being paid to think and not push buttons. There are no negative marks for missing computer analysis per se. IŽd be looking that you hadnŽt sold your concept short by inadequate analysis due to laziness. And IŽd suggest an answer ready as to why your approach was adequate and to demonstrate some understanding of the computer options that could have been used if you had so wanted to (without being derogatory about the computer)
Moderator
Thread Starter
Thanks everybody
Well, it happened this morning and I survived - thanks at-least partly due to the good advice of Ppruners.
Interestingly it was shorter than I'd expected - lasting about 90 minutes. The chairman started by asking me to summarise the research, which took me 20 minutes or so, then a little over an hour was spent on variously searching questions or in fact mainly requests to explain my methodologies and the design of the main aircraft I'd worked on. I was surprised that apart from my supervisor, the panel was almost totally unfamiliar with a lot of my published work - mind you that did give me a fair bit of moral high ground
Finally they gave me a stack of comments - mostly about the fact that my thesis read too like a technical report and not an academic thesis (given the day job, unsurprising and correctable) and asking for my final thesis for a stack of additional work to be included - much of which I've written elsewhere thankfully. Then they threw me out for half an hour, and finally my supervisor debriefed me over lunch.
Good news is that I've been recommended for transfer to the final PhD, the additional material needed all seems well within my capabilities, so once the summer flying season dies down a bit I'm setting myself the objective of getting my final thesis in the system by about christmas (I've had enough now and want to finish the job!).
It could be related to the fact that I hopefully know my subject well after working on it for 6 years or so - but I must admit I found that compared to my previous two benchmark nasty interviews - CEng and ETPS - it was surprisingly painless.
Right, onto the next bit...
G
Interestingly it was shorter than I'd expected - lasting about 90 minutes. The chairman started by asking me to summarise the research, which took me 20 minutes or so, then a little over an hour was spent on variously searching questions or in fact mainly requests to explain my methodologies and the design of the main aircraft I'd worked on. I was surprised that apart from my supervisor, the panel was almost totally unfamiliar with a lot of my published work - mind you that did give me a fair bit of moral high ground
Finally they gave me a stack of comments - mostly about the fact that my thesis read too like a technical report and not an academic thesis (given the day job, unsurprising and correctable) and asking for my final thesis for a stack of additional work to be included - much of which I've written elsewhere thankfully. Then they threw me out for half an hour, and finally my supervisor debriefed me over lunch.
Good news is that I've been recommended for transfer to the final PhD, the additional material needed all seems well within my capabilities, so once the summer flying season dies down a bit I'm setting myself the objective of getting my final thesis in the system by about christmas (I've had enough now and want to finish the job!).
It could be related to the fact that I hopefully know my subject well after working on it for 6 years or so - but I must admit I found that compared to my previous two benchmark nasty interviews - CEng and ETPS - it was surprisingly painless.
Right, onto the next bit...
G
