ORAL EXAMS preparing for and passing candidacy, qualifying, and graduate defenses

ORAL EXAMS


ORAL EXAMS
Preparing For and Passing
Candidacy, Qualifying, and
Graduate Defenses
A. LEE FOOTE
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON
NEW YORK • OXFORD • PARIS • SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO
Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier


Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier
125, London Wall, EC2Y 5AS
525 B Street, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, USA
225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451, USA
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, UK
Copyright r 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek
permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our
arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright
Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright
by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

The cover illustration was originally hand drawn by Christine Hornung and converted to a
digital image by Matthew Limbert. The cover is meant to convey the graduate student resting
on their carefully prepared information, receiving the string of questions from committee
members, and creatively rebutting from multiple sources of knowledge and ways of knowing.
Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research
and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional
practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in
evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein.
In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the
safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors,
assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of
products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods,
products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.
ISBN: 978-0-12-802578-9
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
For Information on all Academic Press publications
visit our website at />Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India
www.adi-mps.com
Printed and bound in the United States of America


Acknowledgments
There are many people to thank in a work like this. First and foremost, I thank the graduate students, both my own and those who gave
me the honor of sitting on their evaluation committees, for making me

think hard about how to evaluate their research. I learned more from
them than vice versa so this is my attempt to return the favor to the
generations of students who follow.
As an elected judge for 30 years, my father, George M. Foote, demonstrated how to ask probing questions and keep an open mind for assessing answers. I hope some of his insight rubbed off on me. For the love
of words and story-telling, my mom, Antonia Voelker Foote, reinforced
the joy of language—she could really tear up a scrabble board in her
day! Over thousands of breakfast tables, kilometers of discussion, and
late night glasses of wine, my wife, Dr. Naomi Krogman, an accomplished scholar of sociology and exceptional student-mentor in her own
right, has hugely influenced my views on the pivotal role of epistemology in exam questions (and she helps keep us all fed and happy too!).
My daughters are my light, air, and water and they have endured my
holing up in my study for writing more than any of us wanted but they
still entreated and lured me out with music, coffee, and perfectly timed
interruptions.
My own PhD supervisor Dr. John Kadlec and PhD mentors Drs. Dave
Balph, Wayne Wurtsbaugh, Phil Zwank and Barry Gilbert and Jim Grace
all demonstrated academic rigor with a humane streak and a little wry
humor on the side. My colleagues in the field, at the coffee shop, and
around the backyard fire pit have debated and enlivened my thoughts
about how we assess student completeness, comprehensiveness, and communication. Many of the questions in Appendix I are their handiwork. For
this, I thank B. Shotyk, V. Adamowicz, M. Luckert, K. Tierny, E. Foote,
J. Bisanz, H. Keshani, C. Wilkinson, N. Krogman, C. Maclean, L. Siegler,
N. Nations, M. Kostelsky, N. Lemphers, L. Siegler, N. Kav, and
S. Zwicker.
Finally, I thank David Foote for his editorial eye and Ms. Mary
Preap, editorial professional at Elsevier who read my prospectus and
saw sufficient promise in this topic to urge me to keep writing.
If you have comments, corrections or suggestions for future editions
of this book, please send them to

ix

C H A P T E R

1

Introduction
Success is a science. If you have the conditions, you get the results. Oscar
Wilde
Why do grooms sometimes faint at the church altar? Polite women
in labor make exorcist sounds and curse like a sailor? Tough football
players sob like a child after championships? Or highly trained graduate students blush and bluster under questioning? It is partly because
each of these situations is rare, unpracticed and because the individuals
care so deeply about the outcome. The immersion into the experience
places the participant into a new zone of emotional and psychological
investment and expectation. Thinking through these exams carefully
and systematically preparing can help channel the energy, emotion,
focus and responses constructively.
Oral exams leading to the MSc or PhD degree are mysterious and
unique exam types to many students and a source of anxiety for most.
Virtually all graduate students experience tensions and concerns while
preparing for their graduate oral exams and, of all the milestones of
one’s career, these may represent the most intense intellectual crucible.
To many, walking into an oral exam can feel like marching into a firing
squad where students will face five austere professors armed with
papers and computers ready to fire questions for 3 h before dismissing
the exhausted student from the room so the committee can pass judgment on the performance. The pressure and implications can rattle even
the most secure students because these are evaluative exams with a
pure focus on the student’s knowledge and communication; there is
truly no place to hide, and faking it is not an option. Consequently,

most students enter oral exams on pins and needles.
Indeed, there are the very real opportunities for a tremendous career
step up toward holding an advanced degree as well as finding doors to
employment and social approval opened to the student for life. It is

Oral Exams.

1

© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.


2

1. INTRODUCTION

helpful to focus on this positive outcome and how to achieve it. Still,
understanding the downside, what can lead to less than stellar performance and how to avoid problems is the glass-half-empty portion of
this book. There are also repercussions following the occasional failure
leading to embarrassment, economic hardship, a great deal more work
and sometimes abandonment of a body of work and years of one’s life
endeavors. Thus, the stakes are quite high. Then there is the perception
of what it means to fail. Because the oral exams come sometimes a year
or years into the program of study, the sunk costs in concert with the
ungrounded worries about failure can lead students to conflate their
own sense of self-worth with the outcome of the exam. This linkage
needs to be spelled out as two clearly different components.
Unfortunately, many graduate students (and professors!) have their
identities wrapped up in their degree-holding academic credentials.
Consequently, the elevated prospects of success or failure are seen as a

knife edge between being a success or enduring banishment, rejection,
and personal failure at the hands of the very peers one seeks to join.
Simply knowing that it is possible to fail an oral exam for many different reasons is terrifying. An outright fail, although rare, can influence
one’s entire career trajectory. Given the high stakes, it is essential that
you learn what is expected, strategies on how to prepare and how to
exercise your options at each stage of the process. This book can be
very helpful in that process. Holding knowledge of the examination
process, personalities, and your own strengths can convert the oral
exam from a chilling ordeal into one of flow, validation, and completion. Oral exams can become, if not a pleasant, at least a rewarding,
stepping stone into an elite circle of academia. Ultimately, I hope this
book is part of changing the culture of fear and mystery that has needlessly surrounded these exams for the last 3001 years.
My personal experiences in my own three oral exams in graduate
school helped motivate this book and added to my empathy and an
awareness of needs faced by many graduate students we see facing a
paucity of information on oral exams. Further experience accumulated
from serving as an examiner, chair, external or committee member in
over 100 oral exams in the last 15 years as a professor at a large research
university. Shared experiences with my own 25 successful graduate students (no failures yet!) and the advice and suggestions of over 30 professional colleagues, scholars, and reviewers confirm the scarcity of
guidance and training for oral exams. These same experts produced
many of the several hundred excellent (and a few lame) oral exam questions recorded over the last decade (listed by discipline in Appendix I).
The text is written in a casual, readable style replete with anecdotes
and characters to keep the reading conversational and accessible instead
of dense and slogging—you will have plenty of that in your topical

ORAL EXAMS


INTRODUCTION

3

preparation! Please read this book and keep in perspective that neither
these exams, your ego, nor even your degree is the most important
thing at stake here. These are just progress markers on a life journey,
not the traveler themselves. Your dignity, value as a human being, your
loved ones, and your life’s contributions in all forms come first. In
stressful oral exams, it helps to remember there really are more important things in life even if it doesn’t seem the case as you walk into that
examination room. If you can’t see this prior to the exam, I assure you,
it will become obvious in the fullness of time.
Patterns of successful and unsuccessful candidates emerge from large
numbers of test-takers and these patterns are generalized to help readers recognize syndromes or personality types that often lead to
predictable outcomes. One of my graduate students liked to say
“Hind-end sight is always 20:20”. In virtually every problematic exam,
hindsight reveals ways that could have converted the outcome into a
successful and gratifying test had the student or their supervisor
prepared differently or been more strategic. Please know that brilliance
is not essential to earn a PhD, though discipline and hard work
certainly are. Advanced degrees are more of a grunt than a flash. A
recent study (Burmeister et al., 2014) found grade point averages at
admission were poor predictors of graduate student success in medical
physics for example. They found that analytical and communication
skills were better predictors of success.
This book will help you capitalize on strengths and skip many traps.
Students preparing for their oral exams should be able to benefit from
the mistakes that have occurred in the past, burnish winning strategies
of preparation and communication, and frame the oral exam in a positive light. Unfortunately, until now, there have been no good compiled
sources of this kind of guidance. We will examine some heartwarming
stories of success and some exam train wrecks, then outline how each
came to be.
Few students reach the oral exam stage in graduate school without

adequate intellect, aptitude, and knowledge and it is heartbreaking and
utterly unnecessary for any of these highly qualified students to fumble
oral exams for simple, preventable reasons.
There is one important caveat I will repeat throughout this book
however; oral exams vary greatly by country, institution, and even committee membership so students must research the examination criteria
specific to their institution, faculty, and department. There is guidance
in this book that will be helpful to all, for example, managing nerves,
nutrition, composure, practice, question types, etc., but understand that
microbiology MSc defenses differ from Sociology PhD qualifying
exams, which differ from European arts vivas in their structure, content, committee membership, duration, question order, and expectation.

ORAL EXAMS


4

1. INTRODUCTION

Still, despite my drawing heavily on North American examples and
questions, the guidance in this book will assist all oral exam takers.
I have added a trio of chapters toward the end to bring some useful
oral exam concepts to bear on job interviews, medical board oral exams,
judicial cross-examination, and oral testimony before governing bodies.
The three objectives of this book are to (i) provide abundant guidance and material for student use in a thorough preparation for oral
exams, (ii) help gain control and comfort with setting, emotions, interpersonal dynamics, and other exam-crushing distractions by demystifying the process, and (iii) assist professors to become better examiners
and mentors in preparing graduate students (and themselves!) for oral
exams.
The content, dynamics, and psychology of oral exams make them dramatically different from conventional written exams. Although the most
caring professors offer much great advice and preparation by actively
mentoring their students, far too many cannot, or do not. Equally as

troubling is that for students who feel lost, under-advised or needing
more perspective, there is a paucity of written information; however, one
excellent UK-focused book by Murray (2003) focuses on the viva, a
specialized European style of oral exam. Although they may disappear
into the digital vacuum at any moment, there are also websites and
blog sites about preparing for oral exams listed in Appendix II. A word
of caution however, some bloggers have posted cynical or even
fear-inspiring personal stories that I don’t recommend.
This book is designed to fill a pressing need of providing a comprehensive and systematic treatment of oral exams. Professors are also
valuable teachers of this process and most will eventually learn success
strategies through trial and error, but what about the fates of great
students who bear the brunt of helping the inexperienced assistant
professor make those learning mistakes? Therefore, this book is also for
professors who care about their graduate student’s welfare and would
like additional perspectives on how to help them. There are many paths
to the mountaintop but having a choice of routes up is very nice.
By the end of this book, you will better know options at each step of
the exam process which is hugely valuable for erasing the irrational
fears and uncertainties about this process. You will also have a wellprompted list of questions to ask and assumptions to explore with those
who will decide upon your performance. We will go step by step
through everything from managing your nerves, influencing the
committee makeup, understanding your committee’s expectations, preparing and arranging your content, mental preparation, question
framing, structuring answers, practice, and the major types of questions
you can expect. There are many sample questions in Appendix I sorted
by representative disciplines that you will be encouraged to use.

ORAL EXAMS


EXAM TYPES

5

This exam preparation and presentation advice will also benefit those
preparing for other types of intensive oral delivery of qualifying or
certification exams, job interviews and heck, maybe even that allimportant oral exam upon first meeting your future in-laws!
Throughout the book, I will try to provide true stories, metaphors, and
examples from my own students. I have changed names to provide
anonymity and in some cases have combined components from different situations to illustrate helpful points. Although I recommend students read all of the chapters because they build on each other, each
chapter is also a free-standing treatment of the topic for readers with
specific information needs.

EXAM TYPES
There are distinctions between the various types of oral exams. In
the United Kingdom, Scotland, Germany, and a few other European
countries, the more common term for the PhD oral exam is viva voce,
literally translated as “living voice” or “word of mouth”, while
undergraduate oral exams are just called oral exams. These European
exams, sometimes shortened to vivas (pronunciation almost rhymes
with “fiver” said with a Brooklyn accent), are the precursors and
models for the more recently created oral exams, though they differ in
some important ways outlined later.
In most of North America, the family of oral exams includes the MSc
thesis defense exam, preliminary exams or qualifying exams,
Candidacy exam, and the PhD defense. Oral exams are also used in
some undergraduate honors theses. Various institutions may convert
some of these to written exams and may combine or substitute the qualifying and candidacy exams. Be sure to examine the graduate handbook
or guidelines of your specific institution for the format details and
expectations. If you don’t check your university’s specific arrangement
you may end up being surprised at what you will face. Still, all oral

exams share certain needs such as content preparation, composure
management, awareness of committee dynamics, synthetic thinking,
well-structured answers, and responsive interaction under questioning.
Although some graduate programs incorporate written exams, those
are not treated here beyond saying sometimes oral questions are drawn
from the student’s answers on writtens so be warned.
Professors are encouraged to keep a copy of this book kicking
around their labs or to provide copies to incoming graduate students.
Conversely, it may be wise for graduate students to make sure their
professors have read this as well so everyone is on the same page!
I take a few pokes at my colleagues in text and encourage us all to not

ORAL EXAMS


6

1. INTRODUCTION

be “That guy!” on committees. Lab groups might find the sample questions in Appendix I a good starting point for practicing collegiality and
helping quiz their lab mates so all can grow and succeed. Some discussion of the Web site content listed in Appendix II would make a good
beer and pizza night too. I am confident that every student following
this book’s recommendations can move their oral exams further from a
traumatic episode and closer to a gratifying experience of Socratic
discussion of their project!
Let’s get on with it.

CHAPTER NOTES

ORAL EXAMS

CHAPTER NOTES

ORAL EXAMS

7


8

1. INTRODUCTION

ORAL EXAMS


C H A P T E R

2
Why an Oral Exam?
First learn the meaning of what you say, and then speak. Epictetus

INTENT AND HISTORY OF ORAL EXAMS
Why can’t oral exams be replaced by written exams? The requirement for oral exams is challenged regularly, for example, see Patton
(2013) who interviewed participants in Arkansas, USA and found both
graduate students and professors viewed the oral as arbitrary and not
reflective of the learning that had occurred. So why this time-sucking,
arcane, and stressful requirement? Partly because universities, businesses, and governments that hire graduate students are looking for
many of the exact skills needed to succeed under oral questioning.
These skills are clearly ecognized by graduate students themselves

too. As a corollary, some exceptional test-takers are really weak
in face-to-face problem identification, discussion, and real-time
communication.
In an unpublished 2014 survey of 5000 students at the University of
Alberta, students self-evaluated and isolated six critical competencies
for graduate students; they were: ethical responsibility, scholarship, critical thinking, communication, creativity, and confidence. Few enter
graduate school with all of these skills but they can be developed.
Lindquist et al. (2011) showed comprehensive exams to be an innovative approach to widen the abilities of young professionals to reach out
to the general public. These competencies along with a demonstration
of one’s ability to synthesize topical knowledge and translate complex
graduate work into a coherent narrative are a large part of what oral
exams test. Oral exams also help students train toward this skill, thus,
oral exams are a teaching tool too. This ability to communicate the
fruits of one’s research also brings credibility, relevance, and status to
the academic institution that will confer the degree. The universities

Oral Exams.

9

© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.


10

2. WHY AN ORAL EXAM?

have a vested interest in your ability to present credibly. Of course, the
exam also ensures that the thesis work belongs to the student; one can’t
easily plagiarize an oral exam. You either have the knowledge accessible or you don’t.

The oral exam is a specialized type of test that differs in several
important ways from the more static written exams. Because exam
questions are presented out loud, they can assume a conversational air
that requires immediate comprehension, interpretation, and synthesis.
The response is delivered directly to the questioner, often with the distraction of others looking on, or even adding into the discussion, so
there is a strong sense of an interpersonal accountability as well as a
reflective sense. Mishandled, self-reflection can morph into the kind of
self-consciousness that makes one blush and end up distracted, suggesting a lack of confidence—which may really only be poor preparation,
lack of circumspection, or paucity of practice in the verbal arena.
Because the questions and answers are dynamic free-flowing and
interactive, each can be followed up, expanded upon, restated, modified
or sometimes immediately corrected, thus, they tend to form themes.
Written answers simply stare dumbly off the page only to be evaluated
against a rubric some time later. The interactive level of questioning
shows the depth and degree of familiarity with your topic and the ability to adapt in real time to convey it to various individuals. You are
allowed to show yourself to be conversant and to express mastery of
the subject area. You have the great opportunity to show off not just
what knowledge is held but how readily it can be accessed, associated
with other complimentary or contradictory evidence and where your
grasp stands in relation to the state-of-knowledge on a topic. It is quite
common to share one’s level of confidence in an answer by interjecting
a qualifier such as “Part of the answer is. . .” or “I am not sure about
this part of my answer . . . .” This is something rarely done on written
exams.
Here is a hoary old Southern story related to how students get evaluated: A traveling salesman passed a rural farmstead with a crude sign
out front that said “See the talking dog—$5.00.” Being bored, the salesman stopped and the old farmer on the front porch took his $5.00
before directing him around the back of the barn. About 10 min later,
the salesman returned flustered and demanded his money back. The
farmer said “Well, what’s yer beef? That thar dog done some good talkin’ ain’t he?” and the salesman said “Yes he did but his grammar was
TERRIBLE”!. Don’t forget that, HOW you communicate something

compliments WHAT you are saying.
At another level, orally delivered questions that follow each other
can compound, contradict, or contrast the original answer, thereby producing a meta-level of content. In modern computer parlance, oral

ORAL EXAMS


TYPES OF ORAL EXAMS IN ACADEMIA

11

exams involve not just questions and answers but topical threads.
These threads, in aggregate, are what weave your tapestry of knowledge upon which the committee must pass judgment.
There is also an element of personality in questions delivered by a
living human. The cocked eyebrow, the subtle nod at a response or the
interruption and redirection are elements missing from written exams.
Success in oral exams is a much better reflection of preparation for life
in a workplace, laboratory, or a team collaboration. There is likely no
better exam to mimic a job interview, a cross-examination in a court of
law, or testimony before Parliament and many holders of advanced
degrees can expect to need these exact skills in their job. There are short
sections on each of these venues in the last chapters of this book.
Markulis and Stang (2008) speaking of oral exams in business
degrees wrote:
Clearly, the oral exam format is one in which students are not only called upon
to express their “internal constructions,” but to engage in a dialogue which pits
their understanding against that of the professor’s. Perhaps the main point here is
that one’s internal and external understanding are in a continual state of growth
and development due to the dynamics of the oral exam dialogue.

There is a personal growth aspect to oral exams. Students emerge
from these exams slightly changed. In the construction of fine knives,
the hardness of the steel—called tempering—is added to the blade
through intensive heating and cooling. Possibly an oral exam is an elemental learning and growth experience for the student carried out in
the same way. Completing a successful oral exam where your future
peers and colleagues pronounce you qualified is a strong emotional and
psychological boost to one’s confidence that is unobtainable in any
other way. The best exams are the ones in which both personal growth
is enhanced and collegial affirmation is conferred.
In short, oral exams integrate knowledge and communication in an
interactive format. It can be invigorating and an opportunity to actively
engage in discourse as a junior peer—but let’s be honest—most graduate students are in nervous survival mode and they just want to pass!
The realizations of personal change may follow however, so remain
open to the possibility.

TYPES OF ORAL EXAMS IN ACADEMIA
There are five common types of oral exam that may be encountered
in graduate schools worldwide; MSc Oral Defense, PhD Candidacy (or
Comprehensive) Exam, PhD Defense, and the Viva mentioned earlier.
Qualifying or preliminary exams are scheduled earlier in some degree

ORAL EXAMS


12

2. WHY AN ORAL EXAM?

programs. Be sure to check your specific school’s requirements because
one size does not fit all here. Vivas are required of the PhD candidates

in some places and while vivas are indeed a type of PhD oral exam,
they differ slightly, typically being conducted by two or three external
examiners, not including the graduate supervisor, sometimes having a
debate flavor, being more centered on the body of the thesis work and
typically limited to 2 h. In some less rigorous institutions vivas are more
celebratory or confirmatory rather than a true test. Indeed, based on
the quality of the thesis alone, examiners sometimes even declare the
student has passed before beginning the viva questioning. This
pre-passing assurance is controversial and discouraged by many.
Oral exams are not limited to graduate school and may be encountered in the undergraduate curriculum for higher-level courses, which I
think is a wonderful idea and form of practice. Although we won’t
spend time on these, the same general rules apply to undergraduate
and graduate exams except the undergraduate focus is less often on the
student’s original research and more on course content, or a special
topic that may not require originality.
Oral exams are also used in post graduate situations, especially in
medical training where they are called “boards” and are an essential
step to be passed before doctors, dentists, psychologists, and others are
given their license to practice. These exams are highly specific to the
fields, institutions, and settings, however, they integrate the same synthetic thinking-on-one’s-feet, interaction with independent evaluators,
and sometimes a patient (real, an actor, or even a video clip). The educational knowledge, diagnostics, communication, bedside manner, and
professionalism are all on display here in a highly realistic oral-based
exam/demonstration. My actress daughter Eva occasionally earns extra
money by acting out a mock patient’s symptoms for examining boards
to observe medical students’ diagnostician skills. Even though boards
come at the peak of the med student’s training (or sometimes recertifying experienced international doctors), they can still induce a
case of nervousness. It seems shocking that an 18-year-old-blonde
actress would make senior medical professionals stutter and shake, simply by feigning a peptic ulcer, Lyme disease, or Crohn’s disease. Like
other graduate students, they care deeply about proper demonstration
of their diagnostic skills. Usually, Boards may be re-taken in the event

of a failure, albeit, at some substantial expense and a delay of
certification.
Finally, a form of oral examination may be encountered in the working world of professional scientists, lawyers, doctors, or other experts
when they are called to testify before a court of law, or policy- and lawmaking bodies such as Parliament, Senates, or Councils. The statement,
testimony, and cross-examination process is a serious and professional

ORAL EXAMS


TYPES OF ORAL EXAMS IN ACADEMIA

13

*May include written component

MSc
exam

Defense*

Pre-candidacy

Oral
exams

PhD
exams

Candidacy/qualifying*

Defense

Transfer viva*
Viva
Final viva

FIGURE 2.1 The family of oral exams in relation to each other and their target
outcomes.

version of the oral exam and you will be much more successful in testimony before an adversarial questioner for having previously prepared
for oral delivery and defense of your understanding of evidence
(Figure 2.1).

MSc Defense
For many, this is the first oral exam ever taken and it can be the
most un-nerving, although not all universities require it. It is scheduled
after classes and the thesis are complete. Often, a short public seminar
on the thesis project precedes it, then the graduate committee meets privately with the student to ask some questions on the thesis. A solid thesis with which you are very familiar, some background knowledge on
the state of knowledge and decent communication skills are usually sufficient to pass this exam handily, however, nerve management is paramount and the better job one does here, the fewer required changes are
likely in the thesis for explication and description.

Comprehensive Oral Exams
These are sometimes called qualifying exams or prelims, and are probably the most daunting and content-demanding of the entire family of

ORAL EXAMS


14

2. WHY AN ORAL EXAM?

graduate school oral exams. They are usually the highest-stakes tests
because it is the last point faculty members are readily willing to fail
students out of the program on the basis of lacking potential or insufficient progress. Comprehensives are typically taken before the midpoint of the PhD course of study. Passing the comprehensive allows
students to move into the realm of being a “Candidate for the PhD.”
The candidacy committee of three to six examiners may question on
a broad range of topics from basic knowledge to specifics of the dissertation proposal. The comprehensive tests the student’s competencies
and potential to complete the PhD, their ability to place their thesis
topic into a larger realm of knowledge, their communication ability,
and their proposal-writing skills. Presuming the student shows adequate promise, the committee also seeks to discover whether additional
classes are needed to fill expertise gaps, allowing the thesis topic to be
navigated successfully.
One general, if unspoken, guideline is that the breadth of candidacy
questioning usually approximates the level of university seniors’ coursework. Substantially, greater depth of expertise is expected however
on the current state of knowledge in the student’s specific discipline.
Finally, committees expect an intimate to world-leading grasp of the
student’s research project. Indeed, upper-level textbooks are a good
place to mend one’s weaknesses for this exam. Many examiners will be
satisfied with comprehensive answers of fact at this level but deeper
synthetic, multidisciplinary, philosophical, theoretical, or speculative
answers may be sought, especially in the topic and field of the student.
Furthermore, questions often lead students to combine sources to
demonstrate the all-important quality of “synthetic thinking.”
Formats vary widely, each questioner is commonly allotted a questioning period but institutions may have questioners take turns in rotation or have different time allowances. Sometimes the student is
expected to stand for the exam, sometimes they are asked to go to the
whiteboard or blackboard to illustrate a point or graph.
In institutions where there is a requirement for a written component
to comprehensive exams, the format may be time-constrained, such as
one 3-h test each day for 5 days with the oral exam following
immediately on the last day of writtens. Writtens, in combination with

orals, create a testing element of endurance, energy management,
consistency, and pacing to do well in these test sequences. Most
students are well-practiced, hence, adequately prepared to do writtens
and there is an abundance of test-taking guidance available elsewhere
so they will not be covered here. Some of the exam questions in
Appendix I would make suitable written exam questions too.
The focus here, however, is on oral components because of the
paucity of information on formulation and delivery of oral answers.

ORAL EXAMS


TYPES OF ORAL EXAMS IN ACADEMIA

15

In some sequences of exams however, the committee may draw on previous (MSc or comprehensive) exams to ask more detailed follow-up
questions. This is a way to see whether the student actually learned
from earlier exams. I once heard a professor ask a fair but potentially
devastating question at a student defense. She asked: “In your comprehensive exam you struggled to explain time series analyses; in your
written exams you showed substantial weaknesses in the temporal
analysis components; now in your defense, I need you to explain the
questionable rationale for using repeated measures analyses with
uncertainty about the correct degrees of freedom in the denominator.”
The legacy of a difficult topic caught up with the student, who had
been fairly warned by the earlier calls for accountability in their analysis. Fortunately, he had read the signs and handled the question well.
Had he blown it, both the thesis’ premise and his diligence in taking
instruction would be called into question and the exam may not have
ended well.
The comprehensive exam is typically the most rigorous formal exam

a scientist will encounter during their entire career, thus, a great stigma
has arisen over this test. Indeed, some academic institutions claim to
fail up to half of their test-takers, but in most, failures are relatively
rare, likely under 5%. Other PhD programs do not even require oral
exams. Markulis and Stang (2008) report that in a survey of 60 midwestern US universities offering business PhDs, only 20% required an
oral exam for the defense of the thesis. The ratio is much higher in the
sciences and liberal arts.

PhD Dissertation Defense
Like the MSc defense, this oral exam occurs after all coursework,
research, and thesis writing have been completed. A public seminar
(15 min to 1 h depending on institution) to explain the research is usually followed by an opportunity for public questioning, then the supervisory committee takes over and asks questions. In some institutions,
the committee-question period is open to public viewing, in others it is
carried out in private. The focus of the defense is a little different as it
aims to: (i) confirm that the research is original, (ii) ensure the student
is intimately familiar with all of the steps and details of their thesis
work, (iii) determine whether the student and their body of work meet
the standards expected to represent the University granting the degree,
(iv) ensure a contribution to knowledge has been made, and (v) discover the degree to which the student can behave professionally and
collegially as a PhD-holder.
The dissertation defense’s format is similar to the candidacy though
the range of questioning is much narrower. The defense also focuses

ORAL EXAMS


16

2. WHY AN ORAL EXAM?

primarily on the thesis work, its implications, strengths, weaknesses,
and its contribution to the pre-existing body of scholarly work. Along
with the expectation that the student is at the top of their game, the
questioning can be intense and sometimes even adversarial. The starting
presumption is that the student likely knows more about their specialized
topic than anyone else in the room, or possibly the world. This is a chance
for the student to show their mastery of their subject by standing as a
qualified scholar through debate, marshaling of evidence, and the use of
logic to defend their theory, methods, and conclusions. Most PhD
students also have the advantage of having completed one or two oral
exams previously and having matured somewhat while in their degree
program. Few fail these exams. Many shine and earn strong letters of recommendation and a large confidence boost as they enter the job market.

Viva Voce
This exam, common in England, Germany, Holland, Italy, and a
host of other European countries, may well be the precursor of the
modern PhD oral exam. Its history is from Latin and the viva was
ushered into being through Catholicism’s Latin exams of exposition. UK’s
Oxford University has held this tradition continuously for centuries
and served as the model for many others. The University of Nottingham,
UK, 2014, web site ( />qualitymanual/researchdegreeprogrammes/viva-voce-examinations.aspx)
gives the following thorough description of criteria for a generalized viva:
The viva will normally include questions designed to ascertain that the thesis
embodies the candidate’s own research. It will test the candidate’s general comprehension of the field of study within which the subject of the thesis falls. It will test
the candidate’s acquaintance with the general literature of the subject, knowledge
of the relation of the work to the wider field of which it is a part, and the respects
in which the work advances, modifies, or otherwise affects this wider field of
scholarship.

While this generic description sounds very similar to the PhD

defense, there are several differences in the form of the exam. Firstly,
the role of the student’s supervisor is downplayed and the supervisor
may not even be allowed to be present in some cases. The committee
size is often just two or three topical experts, sometimes selected particularly for the exam, having not been on the student’s supervisory committee previously. There is often a debate-like tone to vivas as thesis
points are raised and debated with parry-and-thrust-like challenges and
refutation and a premium is placed on the intellectual defense of the
original findings. The viva is typically not as long as a PhD exam, generally lasting one to two hours. Other vivas are structured as a series of

ORAL EXAMS


TYPES OF ORAL EXAMS IN ACADEMIA

17

short exams. Failure of either a viva or a PhD oral is quite rare but
pass/fail appears even less emphasized in the viva. Graduate Paul
Trafford’s 2009 personal observations on the viva process at Oxford can
provide some nuanced insights ( />10/viva-voce-20-minuteexamination-of.html).
Some departments, such as those at Oxford University, also institute a
“Transfer viva” to be taken around the 18th month of a 3-year PhD
program. It is similar to a comprehensive exam and is designed to
examine (i) that the research has sufficient substance and innovation and
(ii) that the student is progressing suitably in their first 18 months of
work. Again, individual schools are all over the map with their specific
requirements so it is imperative that you check your institution’s
particular requirements. Rowena Murray’s (2003) oft-reprinted book
“How to survive your viva” delves deeply into this particular exam type.

Symbolism and Tradition in Oral Exams

Symbolism and tradition play large roles in oral exams. Examiners
may wear robes, dark symbolic clothing called subfusc, replete with
string ties, odd vestments, capes, mortar boards, tassels, Puss-in-Bootstype plumed hats, and sometimes ornate sashes that require a
groomsman to get properly bound up (that sentence doesn’t mean the
groomsman must be bound up). Such dress would look slightly ridiculous anywhere except in academia, courts of law, or Harry Potter
movies. As the icing on the cake, carnation flowers are sometimes used
symbolically (optional) with students beginning their exams wearing
a white carnation, after passing their qualifying exams they graduate
to a pink carnation, and representing their increased depth of
knowledge, a red carnation is worn upon successful completion of the
viva or PhD defense to show their scholarly achievement. What is next?
A secret handshake? I modify Day’s (1998) quote about editors to read
“If you see a student completely happy with their oral exam, they will
be horizontal and surrounded by flowers.” I hesitate to make too much
fun of the process because society seems lacking in rites of passage and
physical manifestation of intellectual accomplishment. Because higherlevel tests are rare and meaningful markers in one’s life, consider
embracing and giving honor to this notable advancement. Your mom,
spouse, or children will want that for you even if you don’t.
The concern remains that the mystery, history, and eccentric rituals
could play a role in unfairly magnifying the perceived rigor of the
exam, distracting students or unnecessarily inflating students’ fears. At
their core, they are reminders that respect must be extended to the academics as a class, whether the individuals deserve it or not and that
this business of accumulating reliable knowledge is serious stuff. If they

ORAL EXAMS


18

2. WHY AN ORAL EXAM?

distract you, it may be helpful to see these bizarre rituals as humorous,
folkloric relics that have accumulated over time and not directly related
to the core content of your thesis. Some of the primary subtexts of this
book are to help demystify oral exams and to provide straightforward
explanations of what happens behind closed doors, what expectations
are at play, what options are available, and what the various outcomes
mean.
The robes, hats, solitary chambers, student whispers, and scarcity of
advanced information do create an aura that can be daunting, however,
as explained in Chapter 4, with increased understanding, these irrational fears melt away and your performance improves. The accoutrement
and formalities are just that and few if any of your committee will
know their meaning and symbolism beyond the fact that there is a difference in their status and yours. This is why I recommend you refer to
them as “Dr. X” or “Prof. Y” unless specifically told not to. Far better to
err on the side of respect-giving formality than ruffle positional feathers. It should be a form of reassurance though to remember that your
committee would rather you pass, that they too had to pass oral exams,
and most will have some empathy for your discomfort even while they
appreciate that you should struggle some.
There are typically four outcomes to the PhD Defense:
• Pass, which means satisfactory performance;
• Pass with conditions À where committee members may add a required
course, some additional work or a paper to be written and graded to
compensate for deficiencies. This is a common outcome and is
constructive, not punitive;
• Adjournment is an option when the student is unable to complete the
exam, an examiner was absent or it is quickly clear that the student
was not ready. The exam will be stopped prematurely and
rescheduled for a later date without penalty, though some
universities only allow a single adjournment per student;
• Fail, which most often means the student is removed from the

program, though in some institutions, a second exam may be offered
or the option offered to downsize the PhD to a MSc degree.
Don’t forget that things other than the exam influence how the committee scores your oral exam. Later you will learn about managing the
relationship with your examiners. Committee members typically arrive
at the oral exam with a great deal of pre-information on you and
though unfair in my opinion, they hold preconceptions on whether or
not you are destined to pass. They may have met with you or taught
you classes and found you informed conversant and bright.
Alternatively, they may know you as uncertain, undisciplined, argumentative, and ill-prepared. It is up to you. They should have read

ORAL EXAMS


19

TYPES OF ORAL EXAMS IN ACADEMIA

Cumulative nature of earning a “Pass” on your oral exam.
Bucket position indicates leverage (bucket filling is student’s
responsibility!)
Pass

Com
exp mittee
ecta
tion
s
Scholarships

Thesis

quality

Pass with
conditions

Oral exam
rating

Fail

FIGURE 2.2 Conceptual weight balance showing some components that accumulate to
convince the committee that you deserve a passing evaluation on your graduate work.

your proposal (candidacy) or your thesis (MSc, PhD, and viva) which
will impress and reassure them or possibly create serious concerns and
enflame substantive questioning. However, given that preconceptions
appear unavoidable, use them to your advantage. Meet with them.
Develop your pre-defense seminar to cultivate committee attitudes, opinions of you and to steer the direction of their questioning (Figure 2.2).

The Pre-exam Seminar
Many oral exams, such as MSc defense, PhD defense, and some candidacy exams where there is a proposal involved, are preceded by a
seminar of 10 min to 1 h. This is a powerful opportunity to “soften up”
your audience and committee with clarifying images, examples, applications, and the novelty of your results. Your presentation skills will go
far in convincing them of your mastery of the subject. The use of
visuals, even short video clips, to forcefully make points can strongly
support your research. It is an opportunity to make topics that are
inherently boring to non-specialists really pop with excitement.
One graduate student studying the temperature and carbon dioxide
releases of compost piles (YAWN. . .) quickly had everyone on the edge
of their seats by showing a 30-s video clip of bulldozers turning giant

piles of cow dung in subzero weather replete with billows of steam

ORAL EXAMS


20

2. WHY AN ORAL EXAM?

issuing forth. When he very animatedly said, “Watch this one!” to
direct attention to the near-overturn of a bulldozer as it climbed the
giant manure pile, it accented the main memorable point so thoroughly
that someone yelled out, “Play it again!”. I am convinced now, over
8 years later, everyone in that room can recall the immense heat generation potential of green manure during decomposition. Had he only
shown a temperature graph plot, or a list of microorganisms, his main
thesis would have been forgotten by the following day. His seminar
effectively steered the questioning into heat harvesting and the caloric
content of manure—topics on which he was deeply informed.
For your seminar, you have the floor and can pose your own questions . . . then answer them with flourish. This is about structuring a
question by describing the knowledge gap and then stepping up to
solve this sticky analysis, provide a novel historical framing, refute a
mistaken chemical synthesis, or present a mathematical proof. Like
pulling a rabbit out of a top hat, your results sweep in to fill that knowledge gap. Ah ha! A piece of original research that advanced human
understanding. Isn’t this what it is all about? You have provided an
unbroken chain of
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

6.

State of knowledge
Problem identification and framing
Novel approach to solution
Results/proofs/analyses
Conclusions, contextualization, relevance
Future research opportunities.

Remember the bulldozer example above. If possible, try to make the
results lift off the page and get the committee excited about questioning. Highly visual displays have some value here. Be unique and incorporate sensory effects such as the student who showed large reactors in
full boil with the addition of his miracle chemical, laser light shows that
deterred birds from landing on toxic waste ponds, or live piano demonstrations to show tonal contrasts of different piano tunings. You will
have plenty of time in the exam for graph-drawing and verbal answers.
Going the other way into antiquity, one history student brought in a
40-ft long and 6-ft tall scroll mounted on a goal-post-like frame. Instead
of using a projector, he unrolled it in time with his presentation. We
were all eating out of his hand and willing the crank to be turned to get
to the next scene.
Don’t go overboard on this however. Too much gimmicky shtick
or flashy salesmanship of your results could cast you as a noncritical
advocate for one particular finding and could bring about challenges
from your committee. When done properly and tastefully however,
the committees are metaphorically oohing and ahhing over the

ORAL EXAMS


CHAPTER NOTES

21

presentations and it starts the oral exam out on a great footing. By
doing this you steer them into your “intellectual lair” where the ball is
always in your court. The sooner you can get into an academic conversation with them over some exciting topic, the sooner they see you as
an equal.
Sometimes very complex topics, questions, and results can be clarified in a seminar, thereby erasing many of the left-field questions an
examiner may jot down in the wee hours through a fuzzy head. Killer
questions may just be a product of poor examiner preparation. Profs
procrastinate too you know.

CHAPTER NOTES

ORAL EXAMS