If I am not mistaken, the criteria you list below are from some international agreement on quality control for graduate study but the only source I could readily find is this report from Pakistan that outlines a process similar to what you state (see Figure 1); see: http://www.icaqhe2010.org/Papers%20published%20in%202nd%20ICAQHE%202008/02-Prof%20S%20M%20Owais.pdf
In the U.S., as far as I can tell, there is no single set of criteria for what is required for the Ph.D. or how to handle the types of disputes you suggest. I believe no U.S. university requires an external examiner to review a Ph.D. dissertation. Disputes between an advisor and other committee members are, I believe, to be resolved within the context of the committee. If there were any issues about the dissertation, they should have been made before the oral defense since members of the committee are supposed to have read the dissertation before giving approval for the oral defense (Hah!). If someone felt that the research or the dissertation was inadequate, then someone, probably the dissertation advisor, should have been notified about the problems and had them resolved before the oral defense takes place. However, I understand that this might be the theory of how it is supposed to operate and I am aware of some spectacular deviations (e.g., an advisor failed his advisee for both the oral defense and the dissertation -- I believe it was because of excessive hubris on the advisee's part -- but after a few years, the advisee got the Ph.D.). I also know that the social and power status of an advisor might play a role in whether a dissertation is passed or not and I know of some faculty who will never be on a dissertation committee with a particular faculty again, after a dissertation get "pushed through". There may be other ways to deal with situation like this but, unfortunately, dueling is outlawed in most of the U.S. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --------------- Original Message ----------- On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 09:42:52 -0700, Dap Louw wrote: In South Africa and various other countries this the way a Master's dissertation ("thesis" in the US?) or a PHD thesis ("dissertation" in the US) is supervised and appraised: 1. A supervisor is appointed by the Department. A co-supervisor is appointed in about 50% of the cases. 2. At least two external examiners from other universities/countries are appointed. The supervisor(s) and student are not allowed to have any contact with these external examiners. 3. After the thesis/dissertation is approved by the supervisor(s) it is sent to the external examiners. 4) The reports of the external examiners are final and the student and supervisor(s) are not allowed to respond to the reports. However, in certain extraordinary cases an arbitrator could be appointed. There are several aspects in this system that I am not happy with (long story!) I would therefore appreciate it if I could hear from colleagues in other countries and especially the US about the systems that they are using. I am especially interested in the US system where there are apparently no external examiners. A supervisor(s) and a committee, consisting of colleagues in the Department, are appointed whose decision on whether the thesis/dissertation should be accepted is final. Is this correct? I would appreciate more detail in this regard, e.g., how many members in the committee, what happens if there is a conflict in opinion between the supervisor and committee, or among the committee members? Regards from this side of the ocean. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=18600 or send a blank email to leave-18600-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
