xkcd phd defense

1403: Thesis Defense

Explanation [ edit ].

In the comic, Megan is presenting evidence on her thesis , a theory on the evolution of threat displays in mammals, in front of a panel of some people. To conclude her exposition she charges at the audience, shouting a battle cry , and brandishing a sword. The audience flinches. As the audience is composed of mammals and is responding to a displayed threat [1] , we should assume that this response provides some key evidence about the threat displays in mammals.

This comic is a play on a thesis defense and the adage " The best defense is a good offense ". The adage means that a strong offensive action will preoccupy the opposition and ultimately hinder its ability to mount an opposing counterattack, leading to a strategic advantage. A thesis defense generally involves an oral exam on the topic the candidate has chosen, and should involve no physical violence.

For added humorous effect, in the title text Megan extrapolates how she improved the state of the art, i.e. what she has added to her field of study, while screaming the word art.

Transcript [ edit ]

References [ edit ].

↑ Milosevic and McCabe, Phobias: The psychology of irrational fear

Sorry, but if your best defense is frightening counter attack a good offense will destroy you. The best defense is a good offense because a weakened or destroyed opponent can mount no offense. 173.245.48.132 05:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)BluDgeons

The expression is based on a concept that is military and ancient, but I wonder if the expression itself, in English, originated with American football, sometime since the game's birth in the 1860s. It is so specifically applicable to this game, where a team's defense and offense are completely separate units, run separately and spoken of separately and yet an extremely effective way to keep the opponent from scoring is to maintain possession of the ball while the game clock ticks down. Wrybred ( talk ) 13:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)wrybred

May or may not also be inspired by Studio C: Thesis Defense http://youtu.be/Lrlro3YJ15o Teagan N 173.245.48.134 ( talk ) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Can anyone make out what's written on the board? 141.101.105.220 ( talk ) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Thanks! Came here today for this, created account to say thanks :) Mathiastck ( talk ) 18:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"In conclusion" suggests she's almost finished with her presentation. I wonder what the panel thought of her holding a sword many times thicker than her stick-body for the duration of her defense. Alanbbent ( talk ) 00:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

looks to me that this pretty complete -- remove the incomplete tag? Spongebog ( talk ) 22:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It's still missing the presentation text. User:cDave -- CDave ( talk ) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

The best defence is to own an empire. If it is big enough it never sleeps and if it is happy enough it will counteract any threat given enough time and resources. Big enough empires generally have enough time and resources. The problem with empires is the problem with all powerful entities: Power Corrupts. That is a different adage and comparing metaphors about defence and power can mislead or change the argument not resolve the statement "" the best defence.... etc". Weatherlawyer ( talk ) 18:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sad story: in 1996, a grad student actually did murder people during his thesis defense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_State_University_shooting 162.158.56.59 18:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The title text may also refer to Stephen Sondheim's song "Putting it Together," in which the singer lists ad nauseum the minutiae of preparing and marketing a work of art, which is analagous to preparing a thesis and its defense. The final line is "and that is the state of the art", ending with a long, high note. 162.158.255.220 06:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

As an irrelevant aside, in Finland you get awarded a sword for a successful PhD... And a slightly less impressive hat 141.101.107.78 21:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Comics from 2014
Comics from August
Monday comics
Comics featuring Cueball
Comics featuring Megan
Comics featuring Ponytail
Multiple Cueballs

McSWEENEY'S INTERNET TENDENCY'S PATREON

Help support our writers and keep our site ad-free. Become a McSweeney’s Internet Tendency patron today .

FAQ : The “Snake Fight” Portion of Your Thesis Defense

By luke burns.

Q: Do I have to kill the snake? A: University guidelines state that you have to “defeat” the snake. There are many ways to accomplish this. Lots of students choose to wrestle the snake. Some construct decoys and elaborate traps to confuse and then ensnare the snake. One student brought a flute and played a song to lull the snake to sleep. Then he threw the snake out a window.

Q: Does everyone fight the same snake? A: No. You will fight one of the many snakes that are kept on campus by the facilities department.

Q: Are the snakes big? A: We have lots of different snakes. The quality of your work determines which snake you will fight. The better your thesis is, the smaller the snake will be.

Q: Does my thesis adviser pick the snake? A: No. Your adviser just tells the guy who picks the snakes how good your thesis was.

Q: What does it mean if I get a small snake that is also very strong? A: Snake-picking is not an exact science. The size of the snake is the main factor. The snake may be very strong, or it may be very weak. It may be of Asian, African, or South American origin. It may constrict its victims and then swallow them whole, or it may use venom to blind and/or paralyze its prey. You shouldn’t read too much into these other characteristics. Although if you get a poisonous snake, it often means that there was a problem with the formatting of your bibliography.

Q: When and where do I fight the snake? Does the school have some kind of pit or arena for snake fights? A: You fight the snake in the room you have reserved for your defense. The fight generally starts after you have finished answering questions about your thesis. However, the snake will be lurking in the room the whole time and it can strike at any point. If the snake attacks prematurely it’s obviously better to defeat it and get back to the rest of your defense as quickly as possible.

Q: Would someone who wrote a bad thesis and defeated a large snake get the same grade as someone who wrote a good thesis and defeated a small snake? A: Yes.

Q: So then couldn’t you just fight a snake in lieu of actually writing a thesis? A: Technically, yes. But in that case, the snake would be very big. Very big, indeed.

Q: Could the snake kill me? A: That almost never happens. But if you’re worried, just make sure that you write a good thesis.

Q: Why do I have to do this? A: Snake fighting is one of the great traditions of higher education. It may seem somewhat antiquated and silly, like the robes we wear at graduation, but fighting a snake is an important part of the history and culture of every reputable university. Almost everyone with an advanced degree has gone through this process. Notable figures such as John Foster Dulles, Philip Roth, and Doris Kearns Goodwin (to name but a few) have all had to defeat at least one snake in single combat.

Q: This whole snake thing is just a metaphor, right? A: I assure you, the snakes are very real.

Grad School

Hemingway’s Blonde Jokes

Diversity in the news: column 3: white people of color, suggested reads.

June 8, 2007 FAQ for Dogs by Neahmiah Scudder
May 29, 2018 Frequently Asked Questions about Amazon’s Alexa Lick™ by John Warner
January 22, 2001 FAQ : The Inauguration Of George W. Bush by Neal Pollack
January 11, 2024 After a Decade of Working on My Thesis, I Think I Have Finally Nailed My Acknowledgments Page by Jeff King
May 17, 2024 The Handmaid’s Tale or Harrison Butker’s Commencement Speech? by Miriam Jayaratna
May 16, 2024 An Open Letter to Whoever Keeps Making My Wife Laugh on Slack by Dan Herg
May 10, 2024 What Your Favorite ’90s Band Says About the Kind of Bored Suburban Mom You Are Today by Jared Bilski and Talia Argondezzi
April 18, 2024 Good News, Husband: I’ve Become a Tradwife by Wendi Aarons and Johanna Gohmann
May 30, 2024 Every Conversation Between Every Parent and Their Child After One Year of College by Jennifer L a Porte

May 30, 2024 All My Exes Are Dating Each Other by Aaron Sandberg
May 29, 2024 Excerpts from an Epic Fantasy Novel Where the Protagonist Is Over Thirty by Scarlet Meyer

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly.

To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation .

Notifications You must be signed in to change notification settings

Share full article

Supported by

He’s Glad You Asked

By Kenneth Chang

Nov. 3, 2014

While giving a physics talk for high school students five years ago at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Randall Munroe could tell that his audience was, in his words, “not totally with me.”

He was trying to explain potential energy and power — not complex concepts, but abstruse.

So, in the middle of his three-hour presentation, Mr. Munroe, who is best known as the creator of the Web comic xkcd , switched gears to “ Star Wars .”

“I thought about the scene in ‘ The Empire Strikes Back ’ when Yoda lifts the X-wing out of the swamp,” he said in an interview. “It occurred to me as I was lecturing.”

Instead of abstract definitions (an object lifted upward gains potential energy because it will accelerate if dropped; power is the rate of change in energy), Mr. Munroe asked a question: How much Force power can Yoda output?

“And so I did a rough version of the calculation on the fly in the classroom, looking up the craft dimensions and measuring things in the scene on the projector in front of them,” Mr. Munroe said. “They all perked up.”

For most people, physics is not interesting in itself. “The tools are only fun when the thing you’re using them on is interesting,” he said.

The students started asking other questions. “What about the end of ‘The Lord of the Rings’ when Sauron’s eye explodes ?” he recalled. “How much energy is that?”

The experience inspired Mr. Munroe to start soliciting similar questions from his xkcd readers .

Mr. Munroe has now collected that work, including a version of his Yoda calculations and new material, into a book, “What If?” which has been on the nonfiction best-seller list since it was published in September.

As its cover asserts, the book is full of “serious scientific answers to absurd hypothetical questions.”

“It exercises your imagination, and his dry wit is charming,” said William Sanford Nye, better known as “Bill Nye the Science Guy,” who shared the stage with Mr. Munroe last month at New York Comic Con. “He does, for lack of a better term, absurd scenarios, but they’re very instructive.”

Some examples: What would happen if you tried to hit a baseball pitched at 90 percent the speed of light? (“The answer turns out to be ‘a lot of things,' ” Mr. Munroe writes, “and they all happen very quickly, and it doesn’t end well for the batter [or the pitcher].”) If every person on Earth aimed a laser pointer at the moon at the same time, would it change color? (“Not if we used regular laser pointers.”) How long could a nuclear submarine last in orbit? (“The submarine would be fine, but the crew would be in trouble.”)

The explanations are accompanied by the same stick-figure drawings and nerdy wit that made xkcd popular. (What does xkcd mean? It is meaningless. The comic’s website helpfully explains, “It’s just a word with no phonetic pronunciation.”)

What If You Had a Hypothetical Question That Needed Answering?

As a child, Mr. Munroe also asked questions. In the book’s introduction, he recounts wondering if there were more hard things or soft things in the world. The conversation made such an impression on his mother that she wrote it down and saved it.

The young Mr. Munroe, 5 years old, concluded the world contained about three billion soft things and five billion hard things.

“They say there are no stupid questions,” Mr. Munroe, now 30, writes. “That’s obviously wrong; I think my question about hard and soft things, for example, is pretty stupid.

“But it turns out that trying to thoroughly answer a stupid question can take you to some pretty interesting places.”

In the interview, he also remembered asking questions and sharing tidbits of knowledge with his fifth-grade teacher. “And he said, ‘O.K., you have a lot of stuff to tell me, and that’s good, but have you heard of the concept of quality over quantity?' ” Mr. Munroe said.

While a physics major at Christopher Newport University in Virginia, Mr. Munroe started working as an independent contractor on a robotics project at the nearby NASA Langley Research Center , and he continued after graduating. During that time, he started scanning his doodles and posting them on the web.

By mutual decision, the NASA contract ended in 2006. Mr. Munroe became a full-time cartoonist and moved to the Boston area, because, he said, he wanted a bigger city with geekier things to do. In 2012, he added the “What If?” feature to the website.

Now, he said, he receives thousands of questions a week. Many are obviously students looking for help with homework. Others can be answered simply: No.

“One of them was ‘Is there any commercial scuba diving equipment that would allow you to survive under molten lava?' ” Mr. Munroe said. “No, there’s not. There’s nothing complicated about the answer to that. It’s exactly what you think.”

Once he chooses a question worth answering, he spends a day or two immersing himself in research, mostly on the web, and then writing. He rarely consults experts, as he is often working at 4 a.m. and “there’s no point in trying to call someone.”

For the Yoda problem, he later refined the calculations. He watched the scene, timing the 3.5 seconds it took the front landing strut to rise out of the water. In the original “Star Wars,” a crew member squeezes past an X-wing strut. From that, he estimated the height at 1.4 meters.

Mr. Munroe could not find a published figure for the mass of an X-wing, but there is a published length — 12.5 meters . He then took the specifications of an Air Force F-22 fighter — 19 meters and 19,700 kilograms — and scaled them down to estimate the X-wing mass at 5,600 kilograms.

That gave an answer of peak power output of 19.2 kilowatts, which Mr. Munroe noted, can power a block of suburban homes.

(Or in the imperial units still used in American newspapers, that would be 12,300 pounds rising at a rate of 1.3 feet a second out of the swamp, producing a peak power of 14,200 foot-pounds a second.)

As for the exploding eye at the end of “Lord of the Rings,” Mr. Munroe says he does not remember the answer that he and the class arrived at, but he remembers looking up the air-pressure spike that would knock over a person and the explosive energy needed to produce a pressure spike that forceful at various distances. (A federal publication, “ The Effects of Nuclear Weapons ,” helpfully provides the data.) Then they approximated the distance between Sauron’s tower, where the eye hovered, and the Black Gate, knocked over by the blast.

One of his favorite replies, which ends the book, is to a question about earthquakes: “What if a Richter magnitude 15 earthquake were to hit America at, let’s say, New York City? What about a Richter 20? 25?”

The short answer is that a magnitude 15 earthquake would destroy the planet. “That’s not all that interesting,” Mr. Munroe said.

Then he flipped the question around. The scale, which is logarithmic, can also describe smaller rumblings of zero or negative magnitude. Each step downward just means the amount of energy released diminishes a factor by one thirty-second.

A quake of magnitude zero would release one thirty-second the energy of a magnitude 1 quake. Mr. Munroe calculated that it would be like the Dallas Cowboys’ running full tilt into the side of a garage.

And a magnitude of minus 15 would be a mote of dust landing on a table.

After so many questions involving mayhem, death and destruction, Mr. Munroe said, “It’s nice to leave the world alone for once and leave it quiet.”

Thesis Defense

MY RESULTS ARE A SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT ON THE STATE OF THE AAAAAAAAAAAART

Defending Your Dissertation: A Guide

A woman in front of a bookshelf speaking to a laptop

Written by Luke Wink-Moran | Photo by insta_photos

Dissertation defenses are daunting, and no wonder; it’s not a “dissertation discussion,” or a “dissertation dialogue.” The name alone implies that the dissertation you’ve spent the last x number of years working on is subject to attack. And if you don’t feel trepidation for semantic reasons, you might be nervous because you don’t know what to expect. Our imaginations are great at making The Unknown scarier than reality. The good news is that you’ll find in this newsletter article experts who can shed light on what dissertations defenses are really like, and what you can do to prepare for them.

The first thing you should know is that your defense has already begun. It started the minute you began working on your dissertation— maybe even in some of the classes you took beforehand that helped you formulate your ideas. This, according to Dr. Celeste Atkins, is why it’s so important to identify a good mentor early in graduate school.

“To me,” noted Dr. Atkins, who wrote her dissertation on how sociology faculty from traditionally marginalized backgrounds teach about privilege and inequality, “the most important part of the doctoral journey was finding an advisor who understood and supported what I wanted from my education and who was willing to challenge me and push me, while not delaying me. I would encourage future PhDs to really take the time to get to know the faculty before choosing an advisor and to make sure that the members of their committee work well together.”

Your advisor will be the one who helps you refine arguments and strengthen your work so that by the time it reaches your dissertation committee, it’s ready. Next comes the writing process, which many students have said was the hardest part of their PhD. I’ve included this section on the writing process because this is where you’ll create all the material you’ll present during your defense, so it’s important to navigate it successfully. The writing process is intellectually grueling, it eats time and energy, and it’s where many students find themselves paddling frantically to avoid languishing in the “All-But-Dissertation” doldrums. The writing process is also likely to encroach on other parts of your life. For instance, Dr. Cynthia Trejo wrote her dissertation on college preparation for Latin American students while caring for a twelve-year-old, two adult children, and her aging parents—in the middle of a pandemic. When I asked Dr. Trejo how she did this, she replied:

“I don’t take the privilege of education for granted. My son knew I got up at 4:00 a.m. every morning, even on weekends, even on holidays; and it’s a blessing that he’s seen that work ethic and that dedication and the end result.”

Importantly, Dr. Trejo also exercised regularly and joined several online writing groups at UArizona. She mobilized her support network— her partner, parents, and even friends from high school to help care for her son.

The challenges you face during the writing process can vary by discipline. Jessika Iwanski is an MD/PhD student who in 2022 defended her dissertation on genetic mutations in sarcomeric proteins that lead to severe, neonatal dilated cardiomyopathy. She described her writing experience as “an intricate process of balancing many things at once with a deadline (defense day) that seems to be creeping up faster and faster— finishing up experiments, drafting the dissertation, preparing your presentation, filling out all the necessary documents for your defense and also, for MD/PhD students, beginning to reintegrate into the clinical world (reviewing your clinical knowledge and skill sets)!”

But no matter what your unique challenges are, writing a dissertation can take a toll on your mental health. Almost every student I spoke with said they saw a therapist and found their sessions enormously helpful. They also looked to the people in their lives for support. Dr. Betsy Labiner, who wrote her dissertation on Interiority, Truth, and Violence in Early Modern Drama, recommended, “Keep your loved ones close! This is so hard – the dissertation lends itself to isolation, especially in the final stages. Plus, a huge number of your family and friends simply won’t understand what you’re going through. But they love you and want to help and are great for getting you out of your head and into a space where you can enjoy life even when you feel like your dissertation is a flaming heap of trash.”

While you might sometimes feel like your dissertation is a flaming heap of trash, remember: a) no it’s not, you brilliant scholar, and b) the best dissertations aren’t necessarily perfect dissertations. According to Dr. Trejo, “The best dissertation is a done dissertation.” So don’t get hung up on perfecting every detail of your work. Think of your dissertation as a long-form assignment that you need to finish in order to move onto the next stage of your career. Many students continue revising after graduation and submit their work for publication or other professional objectives.

When you do finish writing your dissertation, it’s time to schedule your defense and invite friends and family to the part of the exam that’s open to the public. When that moment comes, how do you prepare to present your work and field questions about it?

“I reread my dissertation in full in one sitting,” said Dr. Labiner. “During all my time writing it, I’d never read more than one complete chapter at a time! It was a huge confidence boost to read my work in full and realize that I had produced a compelling, engaging, original argument.”

There are many other ways to prepare: create presentation slides and practice presenting them to friends or alone; think of questions you might be asked and answer them; think about what you want to wear or where you might want to sit (if you’re presenting on Zoom) that might give you a confidence boost. Iwanksi practiced presenting with her mentor and reviewed current papers to anticipate what questions her committee might ask. If you want to really get in the zone, you can emulate Dr. Labiner and do a full dress rehearsal on Zoom the day before your defense.

But no matter what you do, you’ll still be nervous:

“I had a sense of the logistics, the timing, and so on, but I didn’t really have clear expectations outside of the structure. It was a sort of nebulous three hours in which I expected to be nauseatingly terrified,” recalled Dr. Labiner.

“I expected it to be terrifying, with lots of difficult questions and constructive criticism/comments given,” agreed Iwanski.

“I expected it to be very scary,” said Dr. Trejo.

“I expected it to be like I was on trial, and I’d have to defend myself and prove I deserved a PhD,” said Dr Atkins.

And, eventually, inexorably, it will be time to present.

“It was actually very enjoyable” said Iwanski. “It was more of a celebration of years of work put into this project—not only by me but by my mentor, colleagues, lab members and collaborators! I felt very supported by all my committee members and, rather than it being a rapid fire of questions, it was more of a scientific discussion amongst colleagues who are passionate about heart disease and muscle biology.”

“I was anxious right when I logged on to the Zoom call for it,” said Dr. Labiner, “but I was blown away by the number of family and friends that showed up to support me. I had invited a lot of people who I didn’t at all think would come, but every single person I invited was there! Having about 40 guests – many of them joining from different states and several from different countries! – made me feel so loved and celebrated that my nerves were steadied very quickly. It also helped me go into ‘teaching mode’ about my work, so it felt like getting to lead a seminar on my most favorite literature.”

“In reality, my dissertation defense was similar to presenting at an academic conference,” said Dr. Atkins. “I went over my research in a practiced and organized way, and I fielded questions from the audience.

“It was a celebration and an important benchmark for me,” said Dr. Trejo. “It was a pretty happy day. Like the punctuation at the end of your sentence: this sentence is done; this journey is done. You can start the next sentence.”

If you want to learn more about dissertations in your own discipline, don’t hesitate to reach out to graduates from your program and ask them about their experiences. If you’d like to avail yourself of some of the resources that helped students in this article while they wrote and defended their dissertations, check out these links:

The Graduate Writing Lab

https://thinktank.arizona.edu/writing-center/graduate-writing-lab

The Writing Skills Improvement Program

https://wsip.arizona.edu

Campus Health Counseling and Psych Services

https://caps.arizona.edu

https://www.scribbr.com/

Dissertation & Defense

Each graduate student must write a doctoral dissertation that includes significant original research in Computer Science. The student must successfully defend their thesis in a public forum before an Examination Committee and any other interested parties. The Examination Committee will decide the format for the defense. Typically, the student gives a 45-50 minute talk about their work followed by a public question period and then a private question period. All faculty are invited to stay for the private part of the exam.

Each student must present their work at a public dissertation defense. Please read the rules that apply to all oral examinations .

All dissertations must meet certain formatting standards and be filed with the University dissertation office. For details, look here . For additional information contact the dissertation office .

You can find recently completed dissertations here .

Back to PhD program overview.

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

PhD Defence Process: A Comprehensive Guide

Embarking on the journey toward a PhD is an intellectual odyssey marked by tireless research, countless hours of contemplation, and a fervent commitment to contributing to the body of knowledge in one’s field. As the culmination of this formidable journey, the PhD defence stands as the final frontier, the proverbial bridge between student and scholar.

In this comprehensive guide, we unravel the intricacies of the PhD defence—a momentous occasion that is both a celebration of scholarly achievement and a rigorous evaluation of academic prowess. Join us as we explore the nuances of the defence process, addressing questions about its duration, contemplating the possibility of failure, and delving into the subtle distinctions of language that surround it.

Beyond the formalities, we aim to shed light on the significance of this rite of passage, dispelling misconceptions about its nature. Moreover, we’ll consider the impact of one’s attire on this critical day and share personal experiences and practical tips from those who have successfully navigated the defence journey.

Whether you are on the precipice of your own defence or are simply curious about the process, this guide seeks to demystify the PhD defence, providing a roadmap for success and a nuanced understanding of the pivotal event that marks the transition from student to scholar.

Introduction

A. definition and purpose:, b. overview of the oral examination:, a. general duration of a typical defense, b. factors influencing the duration:, c. preparation and flexibility:, a. preparation and thorough understanding of the research:, b. handling questions effectively:, c. confidence and composure during the presentation:, d. posture of continuous improvement:, a. exploring the possibility of failure:, b. common reasons for failure:, c. steps to mitigate the risk of failure:, d. post-failure resilience:, a. addressing the language variation:, b. conforming to regional preferences:, c. consistency in usage:, d. flexibility and adaptability:, e. navigating language in a globalized academic landscape:, a. debunking myths around the formality of the defense:, b. significance in validating research contributions:, c. post-defense impact:, a. appropriate attire for different settings:, b. professionalism and the impact of appearance:, c. practical tips for dressing success:, b. practical tips for a successful defense:, c. post-defense reflections:, career options after phd.

Embarking on the doctoral journey is a formidable undertaking, where aspiring scholars immerse themselves in the pursuit of knowledge, contributing new insights to their respective fields. At the pinnacle of this academic odyssey lies the PhD defence—a culmination that transcends the boundaries of a mere formality, symbolizing the transformation from a student of a discipline to a recognized contributor to the academic tapestry.

The PhD defence, also known as the viva voce or oral examination, is a pivotal moment in the life of a doctoral candidate.

PhD defence is not merely a ritualistic ceremony; rather, it serves as a platform for scholars to present, defend, and elucidate the findings and implications of their research. The defence is the crucible where ideas are tested, hypotheses scrutinized, and the depth of scholarly understanding is laid bare.

The importance of the PhD defence reverberates throughout the academic landscape. It is not just a capstone event; it is the juncture where academic rigour meets real-world application. The defence is the litmus test of a researcher’s ability to articulate, defend, and contextualize their work—an evaluation that extends beyond the pages of a dissertation.

Beyond its evaluative nature, the defence serves as a rite of passage, validating the years of dedication, perseverance, and intellectual rigour invested in the research endeavour. Success in the defence is a testament to the candidate’s mastery of their subject matter and the originality and impact of their contributions to the academic community.

Furthermore, a successful defence paves the way for future contributions, positioning the scholar as a recognized authority in their field. The defence is not just an endpoint; it is a launchpad, propelling researchers into the next phase of their academic journey as they continue to shape and redefine the boundaries of knowledge.

In essence, the PhD defence is more than a ceremonial checkpoint—it is a transformative experience that validates the intellectual journey, underscores the significance of scholarly contributions, and sets the stage for a continued legacy of academic excellence. As we navigate the intricacies of this process, we invite you to explore the multifaceted dimensions that make the PhD defence an indispensable chapter in the narrative of academic achievement.

What is a PhD Defence?

At its core, a PhD defence is a rigorous and comprehensive examination that marks the culmination of a doctoral candidate’s research journey. It is an essential component of the doctoral process in which the candidate is required to defend their dissertation before a committee of experts in the field. The defence serves multiple purposes, acting as both a showcase of the candidate’s work and an evaluative measure of their understanding, critical thinking, and contributions to the academic domain.

The primary goals of a PhD defence include:

Presentation of Research: The candidate presents the key findings, methodology, and significance of their research.
Demonstration of Mastery: The defence assesses the candidate’s depth of understanding, mastery of the subject matter, and ability to engage in scholarly discourse.
Critical Examination: Committee members rigorously question the candidate, challenging assumptions, testing methodologies, and probing the boundaries of the research.
Validation of Originality: The defence validates the originality and contribution of the candidate’s work to the existing body of knowledge.

The PhD defence often takes the form of an oral examination, commonly referred to as the viva voce. This oral component adds a dynamic and interactive dimension to the evaluation process. Key elements of the oral examination include:

Presentation: The candidate typically begins with a formal presentation, summarizing the dissertation’s main components, methodology, and findings. This presentation is an opportunity to showcase the significance and novelty of the research.
Questioning and Discussion: Following the presentation, the candidate engages in a thorough questioning session with the examination committee. Committee members explore various aspects of the research, challenging the candidates to articulate their rationale, defend their conclusions, and respond to critiques.
Defence of Methodology: The candidate is often required to defend the chosen research methodology, demonstrating its appropriateness, rigour, and contribution to the field.
Evaluation of Contributions: Committee members assess the originality and impact of the candidate’s contributions to the academic discipline, seeking to understand how the research advances existing knowledge.

The oral examination is not a mere formality; it is a dynamic exchange that tests the candidate’s intellectual acumen, research skills, and capacity to contribute meaningfully to the scholarly community.

In essence, the PhD defence is a comprehensive and interactive evaluation that encapsulates the essence of a candidate’s research journey, demanding a synthesis of knowledge, clarity of expression, and the ability to navigate the complexities of academic inquiry. As we delve into the specifics of the defence process, we will unravel the layers of preparation and skill required to navigate this transformative academic milestone.

How Long is a PhD Defence?

The duration of a PhD defence can vary widely, but it typically ranges from two to three hours. This time frame encompasses the candidate’s presentation of their research, questioning and discussions with the examination committee, and any additional deliberations or decisions by the committee. However, it’s essential to note that this is a general guideline, and actual defence durations may vary based on numerous factors.

Sciences and Engineering: Defenses in these fields might lean towards the shorter end of the spectrum, often around two hours. The focus is often on the methodology, results, and technical aspects.
Humanities and Social Sciences: Given the theoretical and interpretive nature of research in these fields, defences might extend closer to three hours or more. Discussions may delve into philosophical underpinnings and nuanced interpretations.
Simple vs. Complex Studies: The complexity of the research itself plays a role. Elaborate experiments, extensive datasets, or intricate theoretical frameworks may necessitate a more extended defence.
Number of Committee Members: A larger committee or one with diverse expertise may lead to more extensive discussions and varied perspectives, potentially elongating the defence.
Committee Engagement: The level of engagement and probing by committee members can influence the overall duration. In-depth discussions or debates may extend the defence time.
Cultural Norms: In some countries, the oral defence might be more ceremonial, with less emphasis on intense questioning. In others, a rigorous and extended defence might be the norm.
Evaluation Practices: Different academic systems have varying evaluation criteria, which can impact the duration of the defence.
Institutional Guidelines: Some institutions may have specific guidelines on defence durations, influencing the overall time allotted for the process.

Candidates should be well-prepared for a defence of any duration. Adequate preparation not only involves a concise presentation of the research but also anticipates potential questions and engages in thoughtful discussions. Additionally, candidates should be flexible and responsive to the dynamics of the defense, adapting to the pace set by the committee.

Success Factors in a PhD Defence

Successful defence begins with a deep and comprehensive understanding of the research. Candidates should be well-versed in every aspect of their study, from the theoretical framework to the methodology and findings.
Thorough preparation involves anticipating potential questions from the examination committee. Candidates should consider the strengths and limitations of their research and be ready to address queries related to methodology, data analysis, and theoretical underpinnings.
Conducting mock defences with peers or mentors can be invaluable. It helps refine the presentation, exposes potential areas of weakness, and provides an opportunity to practice responding to challenging questions.
Actively listen to questions without interruption. Understanding the nuances of each question is crucial for providing precise and relevant responses.
Responses should be clear, concise, and directly address the question. Avoid unnecessary jargon, and strive to convey complex concepts in a manner that is accessible to the entire committee.
It’s acceptable not to have all the answers. If faced with a question that stumps you, acknowledge it honestly. Expressing a willingness to explore the topic further demonstrates intellectual humility.
Use questions as opportunities to reinforce key messages from the research. Skillfully link responses back to the core contributions of the study, emphasizing its significance.
Rehearse the presentation multiple times to build familiarity with the material. This enhances confidence, reduces nervousness, and ensures a smooth and engaging delivery.
Maintain confident and open body language. Stand tall, make eye contact, and use gestures judiciously. A composed demeanour contributes to a positive impression.
Acknowledge and manage nervousness. It’s natural to feel some anxiety, but channelling that energy into enthusiasm for presenting your research can turn nervousness into a positive force.
Engage with the committee through a dynamic and interactive presentation. Invite questions during the presentation to create a more conversational atmosphere.
Utilize visual aids effectively. Slides or other visual elements should complement the spoken presentation, reinforcing key points without overwhelming the audience.
View the defence not only as an evaluation but also as an opportunity for continuous improvement. Feedback received during the defence can inform future research endeavours and scholarly pursuits.

In essence, success in a PhD defence hinges on meticulous preparation, adept handling of questions, and projecting confidence and composure during the presentation. A well-prepared and resilient candidate is better positioned to navigate the challenges of the defence, transforming it from a moment of evaluation into an affirmation of scholarly achievement.

Failure in PhD Defence

While the prospect of failing a PhD defence is relatively rare, it’s essential for candidates to acknowledge that the possibility exists. Understanding this reality can motivate diligent preparation and a proactive approach to mitigate potential risks.
Failure, if it occurs, should be seen as a learning opportunity rather than a definitive endpoint. It may highlight areas for improvement and offer insights into refining the research and presentation.
Lack of thorough preparation, including a weak grasp of the research content, inadequate rehearsal, and failure to anticipate potential questions, can contribute to failure.
Inability to effectively defend the chosen research methodology, including justifying its appropriateness and demonstrating its rigour, can be a critical factor.
Failing to clearly articulate the original contributions of the research and its significance to the field may lead to a negative assessment.
Responding defensively to questions, exhibiting a lack of openness to critique, or being unwilling to acknowledge limitations can impact the overall impression.
Inability to address committee concerns or incorporate constructive feedback received during the defense may contribute to a negative outcome.
Comprehensive preparation is the cornerstone of success. Candidates should dedicate ample time to understanding every facet of their research, conducting mock defences, and seeking feedback.
Identify potential weaknesses in the research and address them proactively. Being aware of limitations and articulating plans for addressing them in future work demonstrates foresight.
Engage with mentors, peers, or advisors before the defence. Solicit constructive feedback on both the content and delivery of the presentation to refine and strengthen the defence.
Develop strategies to manage stress and nervousness. Techniques such as mindfulness, deep breathing, or visualization can be effective in maintaining composure during the defence.
Conduct a pre-defense review of all materials, ensuring that the presentation aligns with the dissertation and that visual aids are clear and supportive.
Approach the defence with an open and reflective attitude. Embrace critique as an opportunity for improvement rather than as a personal affront.
Clarify expectations with the examination committee beforehand. Understanding the committee’s focus areas and preferences can guide preparation efforts.
In the event of failure, candidates should approach the situation with resilience. Seek feedback from the committee, understand the reasons for the outcome, and use the experience as a springboard for improvement.

In summary, while the prospect of failing a PhD defence is uncommon, acknowledging its possibility and taking proactive steps to mitigate risks are crucial elements of a well-rounded defence strategy. By addressing common failure factors through thorough preparation, openness to critique, and a resilient attitude, candidates can increase their chances of a successful defence outcome.

PhD Defense or Defence?

The choice between “defense” and “defence” is primarily a matter of British English versus American English spelling conventions. “Defense” is the preferred spelling in American English, while “defence” is the British English spelling.
In the global academic community, both spellings are generally understood and accepted. However, the choice of spelling may be influenced by the academic institution’s language conventions or the preferences of individual scholars.
Academic institutions may have specific guidelines regarding language conventions, and candidates are often expected to adhere to the institution’s preferred spelling.
Candidates may also consider the preferences of their advisors or committee members. If there is a consistent spelling convention used within the academic department, it is advisable to align with those preferences.
Consideration should be given to the spelling conventions of scholarly journals in the candidate’s field. If intending to publish research stemming from the dissertation, aligning with the conventions of target journals is prudent.
If the defense presentation or dissertation will be shared with an international audience, using a more universally recognized spelling (such as “defense”) may be preferred to ensure clarity and accessibility.
Regardless of the chosen spelling, it’s crucial to maintain consistency throughout the document. Mixing spellings can distract from the content and may be perceived as an oversight.
In oral presentations and written correspondence related to the defence, including emails, it’s advisable to maintain consistency with the chosen spelling to present a professional and polished image.
Recognizing that language conventions can vary, candidates should approach the choice of spelling with flexibility. Being adaptable to the preferences of the academic context and demonstrating an awareness of regional variations reflects a nuanced understanding of language usage.
With the increasing globalization of academia, an awareness of language variations becomes essential. Scholars often collaborate across borders, and an inclusive approach to language conventions contributes to effective communication and collaboration.

In summary, the choice between “PhD defense” and “PhD defence” boils down to regional language conventions and institutional preferences. Maintaining consistency, being mindful of the target audience, and adapting to the expectations of the academic community contribute to a polished and professional presentation, whether in written documents or oral defences.

Is PhD Defense a Formality?

While the PhD defence is a structured and ritualistic event, it is far from being a mere formality. It is a critical and substantive part of the doctoral journey, designed to rigorously evaluate the candidate’s research contributions, understanding of the field, and ability to engage in scholarly discourse.
The defence is not a checkbox to be marked but rather a dynamic process where the candidate’s research is evaluated for its scholarly merit. The committee scrutinizes the originality, significance, and methodology of the research, aiming to ensure it meets the standards of advanced academic work.
Far from a passive or purely ceremonial event, the defence involves active engagement between the candidate and the examination committee. Questions, discussions, and debates are integral components that enrich the scholarly exchange during the defence.
The defence serves as a platform for the candidate to demonstrate the originality of their research. Committee members assess the novelty of the contributions, ensuring that the work adds value to the existing body of knowledge.
Beyond the content, the defence evaluates the methodological rigour of the research. Committee members assess whether the chosen methodology is appropriate, well-executed, and contributes to the validity of the findings.
Successful completion of the defence affirms the candidate’s ability to contribute meaningfully to the academic discourse in their field. It is an endorsement of the candidate’s position as a knowledgeable and respected scholar.
The defence process acts as a quality assurance mechanism in academia. It ensures that individuals awarded a doctoral degree have undergone a thorough and rigorous evaluation, upholding the standards of excellence in research and scholarly inquiry.
Institutions have specific criteria and standards for awarding a PhD. The defence process aligns with these institutional and academic standards, providing a consistent and transparent mechanism for evaluating candidates.
Successful completion of the defence is a pivotal moment that marks the transition from a doctoral candidate to a recognized scholar. It opens doors to further contributions, collaborations, and opportunities within the academic community.
Research presented during the defence often forms the basis for future publications. The validation received in the defence enhances the credibility of the research, facilitating its dissemination and impact within the academic community.
Beyond the academic realm, a successfully defended PhD is a key credential for professional advancement. It enhances one’s standing in the broader professional landscape, opening doors to research positions, teaching opportunities, and leadership roles.

In essence, the PhD defence is a rigorous and meaningful process that goes beyond formalities, playing a crucial role in affirming the academic merit of a candidate’s research and marking the culmination of their journey toward scholarly recognition.

Dressing for Success: PhD Defense Outfit

For Men: A well-fitted suit in neutral colours (black, navy, grey), a collared dress shirt, a tie, and formal dress shoes.
For Women: A tailored suit, a blouse or button-down shirt, and closed-toe dress shoes.
Dress codes can vary based on cultural expectations. It’s advisable to be aware of any cultural nuances within the academic institution and to adapt attire accordingly.
With the rise of virtual defenses, considerations for attire remain relevant. Even in online settings, dressing professionally contributes to a polished and serious demeanor. Virtual attire can mirror what one would wear in-person, focusing on the upper body visible on camera.
The attire chosen for a PhD defense contributes to the first impression that a candidate makes on the examination committee. A professional and polished appearance sets a positive tone for the defense.
Dressing appropriately reflects respect for the gravity of the occasion. It acknowledges the significance of the defense as a formal evaluation of one’s scholarly contributions.
Wearing professional attire can contribute to a boost in confidence. When individuals feel well-dressed and put-together, it can positively impact their mindset and overall presentation.
The PhD defense is a serious academic event, and dressing professionally fosters an atmosphere of seriousness and commitment to the scholarly process. It aligns with the respect one accords to academic traditions.
Institutional norms may influence dress expectations. Some academic institutions may have specific guidelines regarding attire for formal events, and candidates should be aware of and adhere to these norms.
While adhering to the formality expected in academic settings, individuals can also express their personal style within the bounds of professionalism. It’s about finding a balance between institutional expectations and personal comfort.
Select and prepare the outfit well in advance to avoid last-minute stress. Ensure that the attire is clean, well-ironed, and in good condition.
Accessories such as ties, scarves, or jewelry should complement the outfit. However, it’s advisable to keep accessories subtle to maintain a professional appearance.
While dressing professionally, prioritize comfort. PhD defenses can be mentally demanding, and comfortable attire can contribute to a more confident and composed demeanor.
Pay attention to grooming, including personal hygiene and haircare. A well-groomed appearance contributes to an overall polished look.
Start preparation well in advance of the defense date. Know your research inside out, anticipate potential questions, and be ready to discuss the nuances of your methodology, findings, and contributions.
Conduct mock defenses with peers, mentors, or colleagues. Mock defenses provide an opportunity to receive constructive feedback, practice responses to potential questions, and refine your presentation.
Strike a balance between confidence and humility. Confidence in presenting your research is essential, but being open to acknowledging limitations and areas for improvement demonstrates intellectual honesty.
Actively engage with the examination committee during the defense. Listen carefully to questions, respond thoughtfully, and view the defense as a scholarly exchange rather than a mere formality.
Understand the expertise and backgrounds of the committee members. Tailor your presentation and responses to align with the interests and expectations of your specific audience.
Practice time management during your presentation. Ensure that you allocate sufficient time to cover key aspects of your research, leaving ample time for questions and discussions.
It’s normal to feel nervous, but practicing mindfulness and staying calm under pressure is crucial. Take deep breaths, maintain eye contact, and focus on delivering a clear and composed presentation.
Have a plan for post-defense activities. Whether it’s revisions to the dissertation, publications, or future research endeavors, having a roadmap for what comes next demonstrates foresight and commitment to ongoing scholarly contributions.
After successfully defending, individuals often emphasize the importance of taking time to reflect on the entire doctoral journey. Acknowledge personal and academic growth, celebrate achievements, and use the experience to inform future scholarly pursuits.

In summary, learning from the experiences of others who have successfully defended offers a wealth of practical wisdom. These insights, combined with thoughtful preparation and a proactive approach, contribute to a successful and fulfilling defense experience.

You have plenty of career options after completing a PhD. For more details, visit my blog posts:

7 Essential Steps for Building a Robust Research Portfolio

Exciting Career Opportunities for PhD Researchers and Research Scholars

Freelance Writing or Editing Opportunities for Researchers A Comprehensive Guide

Research Consultancy: An Alternate Career for Researchers

The Insider’s Guide to Becoming a Patent Agent: Opportunities, Requirements, and Challenges

The journey from a curious researcher to a recognized scholar culminates in the PhD defence—an intellectual odyssey marked by dedication, resilience, and a relentless pursuit of knowledge. As we navigate the intricacies of this pivotal event, it becomes evident that the PhD defence is far more than a ceremonial rite; it is a substantive evaluation that validates the contributions of a researcher to the academic landscape.