a rough guide to the UK PhD examination processes (based on a sample of 100, so probably missing some variants)

 

rule 1: there are no rules for the UK viva/defense

rule 0: it is nice the calm the student down at the start

and one way to help is to ask them to do a brief (max 20 mins, preferably 10 mins) outline of the contributions of the research - if they insist on slides, ok.

typically should list 3 main new ideas, methodology(s) and results (and possibly consequences for future research(ers).

rule 2: take a break if the viva looks like taking more than 90mins.

rule 3. unless there's something weird going on, a viva rarely takes less than 60 mins

rule 4: if you hit 5 hours, you are doing something even weirder.

unless (happened to me) the work has led you (the examiners) to come up with a new idea and you are writing a paper about it.

rule 5: make sure reports a(especially written feedback including _detailed_ specification of corrections) are made available the _day_ of the viva, or even right at the end of the defence if you bought them with you.

rule 6: there are usually two examiners, one of whom is from same institute as candidate (though not necessarily same department) and should not be a conflict i.e. wasn't supervisory in any way nor co-authored any papers on the work doing the research. Sometimes the local examiner is there "just" to make sure rules/process is followed fairly, and may not know a lot about the topic. That said, they should still have read the dissertation and written a report and have questions to ask. Sometimes (rare), the local examiner can be a bit bossy, and the external should say that they are there to maintain comparison/quality control so the internal isn't meant to override that aspect of things.

rule 7: there are sometimes extra people (e.g. from faculty, or from some due diligence bit of the institute. If the student is super nervous, they can sometimes request for an advisor or friend to attend, though normally, those people are not allowed to say anything in the viva.

rule 8: as an examiner you should have read the thesis. three times. and written notes on it. and checked everything in maths, analysis, graphs, equations, algorithms, and results. and bibliography. and any legends/tables. and related work.

and written a report and (if there are minor) list corrections - and suggestions for improvement (e.g. to structure) or additional experiments needed (with a justification as to how they will support the argument) if you think its needed.

rule 9: the viva may change your opinion as to the outcome. usually this may be to convince you that corrections could be minor rather than major. very occasionally (rare0 that there's a major problem you had not perceived - sometimes the other examiner might raise this.

rule 10. you should have exchanged reports and recommendations with the other examiner ahead of the viva (worst case, delay starting the defence for 10-15 mins to discuss how to run it given your questions)

rule 11. questions? yes, you should have a list of questions to ask the candidate. not just corrections. question 1 leads to rule 0.  other questions are about background, and then about methodology or clarification of results.

rule 12. if the work is inter-disciplinary, take care to respect that you may not know much about the "other" discipline, and the other examiner might do, and that a grade should not be the average of your two views, but the sum.

rule 13. there are no rules.

Rule 14. If in doubt, ask for faculty input/advice.

Rule 15. Outcomes are (usually):

Pass, minor corrections, major corrections, resubmission, fail (sometimes with option for masters)...

Minor corrections are things that take some number of days max and are usually "cosmetic"

Major corrections may involve modest amounts of new work

Resubmission involves perhaps significant additional work, but on the order of max a year

Fail is very very rare. And should involve serious conversation with the

faculty as something went wrong if a student was allowed to(or insisted)

to submit something like that.  Indeed, If it is the first examination of

the thesis then the student can’t usually fail - the worst case is a resubmission.

In my experience, pass is about 5% of the time. Minor corrections something like 75% of the time, major corrections 10%, resubmission 5% (in supervising 60 students, I had 1 fail with just a masters) but these stats probably vary by discipline.

Rule 16. In the first 3 (or even 4) outcomes, the student should be congratulated and possibly there will be a post viva celebration, though nothing as fancy as the Scandinavian Karronka (no sword and hat either, sadly).

Rule 17. Before ending, give the student the opportunity to volunteer things they'd like to have been asked about!

Rule 18. Some institutions don't let you tell the student the "result", although obviously if there are corrections, you have to communicate them with the student, and if there are no corrections, then they can infer the result (if they can't, then they don't deserve the phd:-)

Rule 19. It is fairly standard to ask the student to wait somewhere at the end of the actual viva so that you and the internal examiner can discuss the outcome, and possibly finish any point report/ feedback, before inviting the student back in to the defence to tell them the (hopefully good) news...

Rule 20. There is no rule 20, nor are there any other rules.

its the law - but we can change that

new scientist ran a xmas competition to change laws of physics for benefit of humanity -

one year the winner was reduce to speed of light by 1% so the sun still works but you can't build nukes (on earth).

my proposal: change planck's constant so that biochemistry is still ok, but computers aren't feasible.

with gods on our side....

 If I was more philosophically inclined, I'd observe that the last time we had such a shift in the notion of what constituted "power" was the Enlightenment (and its various related changes outside of Europe), when the power base shifted from religious to secular (or if you like, from superstition to science).

At the current state of development of AI, this seems like a retrograde step :-) But being prepared for it is probably a good idea...

...a friend of mine has seriously discussed using GenAI to create new religions (for profit, somwhat as  L.Ron Hubbard did with Scientology). There's an interesting section in the fictional work SNow Crash by Neal Stephenson, where he discusses the organisation of religion in ancient mesopotamia 

where the use of something akin to neurolinguistic programming (think of this as viral social media) was used to control society (for good - e.g. to inform the population (who had then only relatively recently moved from hunter gatherer to the worlds earliest city builder/deweller supported by a large settled agricultural working class) when to carry out various important tasks (plant/pick crops, avoid floods,  deal with locusts/plagues etc)

you can easily (I think) imagine a modern society organised around the cathedrals (aka data centes) hyperscale companies and their open AI priests...

I'm not sure this is what the various AI Safety Institutes are thinking about, sadly...

the Biometric Panopticon Digital Internal Exile- where Bad People go to DIE or a Very Modern Approach to Ostracism

if you are very bad (think billionaire oligarch owner of a hyperscaler polluting the planet), maybe we can publish your biometrics (easily got) and then everyone could collectively refuse to serve you 

the world would see you (as per panopticon) and not ostracise the wrong person (because biometrics unique) and you would become an exile in your own home, the only planet we all have to share, but you refused to.

The Banality of Evil #2.0

 I wonder what Hannah Arendt would make of Israel today - her famous (at the time, controversial) essay on Eichmann outlined the famous idea that supreme evil did not depend on extraordinary people, but could flourish and spread in whole populations of people from very boringly everyday backgrounds. They did not have to be victims of abuse, or products of genetic abberations spawning psychopaths.

At the time, apparently, this was upsetting to the survivors of the  Holocaust, because (at least from my reading) it implied that there could have been more succesful resistance to the Genocide. From today's perspective, this sounds a bit like victim blaming, and I don't believe that that is what Arendt meant. Her concern was more about how the perpetrator network grew, and did not for me have implications for particular target of the new evil, rather about how society could notice, and perhaps think about defending against the successful emergence of said evil. At least, reading a lot of her other work, it does seem Arendy was concerned with a wide variety of political organisations, and how and why they worked (or didn't). She was, of course, intensely invested in ethics as well. 

Looking at Israel today, and their behaviour in Gaza, I have to say that it really is banal. And Evil.

And the response has to be from the rest of the world, since the victims (principally women, children, standers by in Gaza) are not to blame, neither for causing this behaviour, nor for failing to resist more effectively. If you blame Gaza and Palestinians, you are complicit in genocide. If you blame them, you are the new anti-semite. And if you do blame Israel, you are not anti-semitic. And if you do not blame Israel (the government, the IDF, not the individual people) you are anti-semitic.

[Just to note that the origin of the word semitic is consistent with this wider sense]

Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote, Reviewed by R Daneel Olivaw

 Generation AI were full of adulation when their favourite LLM was finally coaxed into producing a word-for-word perfect article entitled "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote[*]". The fanbots went wild, as the level of sophistication was beyond anything previously achived, especially since the LLM had certainly never had sight of any of the works of Jorge Luis Borges, but was trained on a mix of classics, magic realism and science fiction in just the way. that the great Argentinian writer had immersed himself in the latent, lambent, and the laconic, the sardonic, speculative, and sadistic, the terrible, the edritch, and the embarrasingly obvious.

" Borges than Borges" declared Anais Nim in her podcast. "Le Super-Borges est arrivee" announced Houllebeck in Le Pen et Le Deep. Le Mash headlined with the obscure "Ghoti considered harmful".

Borges said nothing. The irony was lost on them all.

*

The readers and the writers

 In the old days, the world was divided into two classes of people: 

The readers, who could  visit the many  Libraries in towns and cities, and the  writers who worked in the Foundries with their many forms of creative tools, chisels and stone tablets, papyrii and stylii, paper, pens, and typewriters.

Most people were unaware, or would not mention the unspoken third class -  the editors, who it was rumoured were able to read and write, and were responsible for taking work from the writers  in their foundries, and secretly placing it in the libraries when the readers were not looking.

When people were small adults, which are known as children, they would determine whether to become reader or writer. Or their peer group would decide for them. Or their parents. Or teachers.

As the world grew more connected, some people wondered about the editors - should they not be afforded a place in society on the same footing as readers and writers? Why was the world making this arbitrary decision anyhow that people should be one or the other, but not able to move fluidly from this role to that? Or to some new, as yet, undefined class?

Many more traditional people argued that there needed to be a safe spaces for writers, because they needed the right to make mistakes, or write things that could be dangerous for some readers, using their sharp quills and dark inks. Equally, older readers felt that they needed to be able to choose what to read without possible opprobrium poured on them by writers. 

No-one asked the editors.