Hi all, I have seen a Swedish defence as a spectator. Also, I've been involved in a US version as a committee member after going through a Danish version myself. In Denmark the student gives the long talk and then the opponents just ask the questions. They are, again, external opponents (at least 2). Before the defence, opponents read the thesis and decide if the student has apparently done enough to graduate. The final decision hangs on the presentation and the answers to the questions, which better demonstrate the students' grasp of the topic, as opposed to the written text, which is done with the review of the supervisors and co-authors. In Denmark (and I believe also Sweden), the defence is publicly advertised and the whole process is open to the public (except for the deliberations of the opponents). This adds an extra layer - the presentation itself must be accessible to non-scientists, at least in a general way.
The opponents do (I believe) get their expenses covered, and a small honorarium. I cannot speak for the Swedish system on that score. I believe there is much benefit in having a true peer-review of the PhD process over merely another critique by the internal committee. It also reduces the 'risk' to the student associated with any difficulties that may have developed between them and the committee, or even among the committee itself. The outside opponents have the final say. It also has the final benefit that only students with acceptable theses get to the defence stage, meaning that post-defence corrections and re-defences are extremely rare. In fact, although there were several criticisms to my thesis from my opponents, it was judged good enough to move to the final defence, meaning that corrections were not involved at all (at least until unpublished chapters were getting submitted). Many benefits to the students as well as a bit more of a scare! Cheers, Andrew -- Andrew Wright, Ph.D. VaquitaAreBrowncoats: Where Sci-Fi meets Science, the Cosmos meets Conservation and Firefly meets Flipper. Shiny https://www.facebook.com/vaquitaarebrowncoats. "We don't have to save the world. The world is big enough to look after itself. What we have to be concerned about is whether or not the world we live in will be capable of sustaining us in it." Douglas Adams On 10 June 2015 at 06:06, Judith S. Weis <jw...@andromeda.rutgers.edu> wrote: > I was particularly impressed by the amount of work for the outside > "opposition" - much more than for any committee member here. Do they give > a generous honorarium? > > > O> That was a REALLY INTERESTING read. > > > > I think some aspects of the Swedish defense would scare the bajeezes out > > of > > doctoral candidates. The use of an opponent and the committee members all > > from outside your university is very interesting. IT doesn't sound like, > > in the grand scheme of things, that means do much to change the ends. > > However, it mentions that in Finland you have to wear tails if your a guy > > and a long dress if a woman. It always amazes me how differently people > > do > > things in different places. It is a good reminder that when you walk > over > > the tracks, you might have to adjust because the other side isn't going > to > > adjust to you! :) > > > > M > > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:47 AM, David Inouye <ino...@umd.edu> wrote: > > > >> Opportunities for graduate research in Europe are posted not > >> infrequently > >> on ECOLOG-L. If you're considering such an opportunity in Scandinavia, > >> you > >> might be interested in this comparison of the dissertation defense > >> process > >> between Sweden and the US, from a friend who recently participated in > >> defenses in both countries. > >> > https://boggslab.wordpress.com/2015/06/08/a-good-dissertation-defense-is/ > >> > >> David Inouye > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP > > Environmental Studies Program > > Green Mountain College > > Poultney, Vermont > > Link to online CV and portfolio : > > https://www.visualcv.com/malcolm-mc-callum?access=18A9RYkDGxO > > > > “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich > > array > > of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a > > many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature > lovers > > alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as > > Americans.” > > -President Richard Nixon upon signing the Endangered Species Act of 1973 > > into law. > > > > "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - > > Allan > > Nation > > > > 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert > > 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, > > and pollution. > > 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > > MAY help restore populations. > > 2022: Soylent Green is People! > > > > The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) > > Wealth w/o work > > Pleasure w/o conscience > > Knowledge w/o character > > Commerce w/o morality > > Science w/o humanity > > Worship w/o sacrifice > > Politics w/o principle > > > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > > contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not > > the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > > destroy all copies of the original message. > > >
