How to Survive the Ph.D. Transfer Process

An unofficial guide for students (and supervisors) in the School of Computing

 

There is an official document floating around which formally describes the transfer process, but nevertheless some aspects of the process will probably come as a surprise to the unprepared student (and his/her supervisor). In fact the process can appear frighteningly arbitrary to the unprepared. Some facts that you may not know:-

 

·       Your supervisor does not have the right to introduce any information, written or oral, into the process. So even if your supervisor shows every indication of being happy with your progress, and thinks that you are the best thing since sliced bread, this is largely irrelevant to the transfer process.

·       You will write a 20-page internal report that will be read by an internal examiner, who will respond with a one page report of his/her own. You will also have the opportunity to meet and discuss your report with the internal examiner, who will have some knowledge of your research area. However the internal examiner is just one member of the judging panel, so even a glowing response from an internal examiner is absolutely no guarantee of success (I have seen it happen).

·       The rest of the panel that will attend your presentation will not have read your internal report. They will not have seen the internal examiners report. In fact they will probably have, prior to the presentation, no information written or oral about you or your project whatsoever. However it is this group which has the major say in your success or otherwise.

 

Now there are certain things you cannot control about the process. Are the panel members at all knowledgeable about your area of research? Have they themselves ever supervised a Ph.D. student? Are they well disposed towards your area of research? The panel is picked basically at random from a pool of those available on the day, so luck plays a big part here. Worst case scenario – you are into Natural Language Processing and your panel consists of four sullen looking Cryptographers who keep looking at their watches. Tough break, but there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. However you can assume that the panel is predisposed to treating you fairly, and giving you a fair hearing. And since these things cannot be controlled, best not to worry about them.

 

It is a truth universally recognised that all academics imagine that they can understand any material no matter how complex after just half-an-hours exposure to it, if it is properly presented. So if they don’t understand your presentation its 100% your problem, and 0% theirs. Worst case for you is that they didn’t understand any of it and end up feeling frustrated. For your presentation I recommend

 

·       The first slide should be understandable by your grandmother/father.

·       The next two slides should be understandable by your mother/father.

·       The following three slides should be understandable to friends of a similar age

·       The next five slides should be understandable by your postgraduate colleagues, not necessarily working in exactly the same discipline.

·       You can let rip a little towards the end, trying to tread a careful line between impressing the assessors and frustrating them. Try to maintain eye-contact with them to get a sense of this.

·       Never introduce a mnemonic or notation without spelling out in simple English exactly what it means, no matter how obvious it is to you. So the first time you mention it, don’t have “NLP” have “Natural Language Processing (NLP)”. A panel member from a different discipline might assume its Non-Linear Programming.

 

Since the examination process is largely an oral one, you will have a particular problem if

 

1.    English is not your native tongue, and/or you speak with a heavy accent. Ask colleagues for some honest feedback about this.

2.    Your material is heavily mathematical or involves some obscure algebraic notation.

 

In these cases you will be disadvantaged (sorry), but hopefully with very careful preparation, rehearsal and practice you will be able to overcome these disadvantages.

 

Note that the transfer presentation is not a place for modesty. The panel do not have the time to distinguish modesty from lack of achievement.

 

After your 30 minute (maximum!) presentation there will be about 10 minutes of Questions and Answers and your fate will be decided 20 minutes later. Some questions may be specific to your presentation, but most will be generic and unspecific (because the panel will probably not have understood in any depth large parts of your presentation). You might be asked “How much did you contribute to that published paper?” Again, even though the question might make you feel uncomfortable, don’t be at all modest.

 

You will certainly be questioned closely about your research plan. The panel wants to come away with the impression that you know exactly what you are doing, you know exactly what your deliverables are going to be, and that you have the determination and ability to get there.

 

So, big tip, at the end of your presentation do NOT have a slide with the lame single word “Questions?” on it. Beginners mistake!  Instead finish your presentation with a slide entitled “My research plan”, and leave it up there during question time. Have about 5 simple and easily understood bullet points on it. This slide will in fact answer one of the main questions that you will be asked, and if your English is a little dodgy this prepared answer will hopefully be sufficient. Consider printing it out and handing a copy to the members of the panel before you leave.

 

Finally, try and anticipate what questions might be asked and have some back-up slides ready to answer them. Again this particularly applies to the non-native English speaker. If you don’t understand a question, ask to have it repeated or rephrased.

 

Anyway – Good Luck!

 

Mike Scott 3/5/2009

(who is in no sense defending the present process – it could and should be improved. Luck plays far too big a part in the outcome, and the non-native English speaker is disadvantaged. However it’s better than our previous system which was even worse!)