Just FYI my experience is Canadian...
ChrisVer said:
PhD students report to a supervisory committee. Usually the supervisor is the chair of the committee, but there will be about three or four other professors in the department or at arm's length from it. Once every six months or so, the student will formally report to the committee with an update on his or her progress and intended goals. This keeps the supervisor from having too much power, and allows for a diversity of feedback on the project. It also helps to keep the student focussed. Though there is no pass or fail component to them, they can range in feeling anywhere from a semi-formal chat to a formal oral exam.
Hmmm I didn't know of such a procedure. How does it work? Do you have to take exams per period to renew your contract?
Most departments will have a comprehensive examination. This is typically written over the first year or so of the program and essentially covers core topics in physics at the senior undergraduate or graduate level. The point is usually that it covers multiple topics. Often you only get two attempts to pass it and it must be passed for you to carry on in the program. I've seen cases where students do nothing else for the six months leading up to it, but study for it.
After that there is a candidacy examination. (In some places this is combined with or in place of the comprehensive examination.) Usually this is done after the majority of graduate coursework is complete and the student has initiated some work on their PhD project. It can take various forms, but typically it will involve submission of a research proposal and an oral examination of the student's background in their area of study. This can be very stressful because it's also a pass or fail exam.
Finally there is the thesis defence at the conclusion of the project. In some cases this ends up being something of a formality because if the PhD has gone well, most of the research has been published or accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, which is clear evidence that the student has produced acceptable results. But this is not always the case. In some cases students will defend their work without having published it for a number of reasons - not all of which are under their control. In some fields, for example, the research is part of a major collaboration and publication takes a long time.
I guess I understand that one, but (luckily) I have been with this group for 1.5 year already (half year for an internship, in which I had to learn how things work, and one year for my master thesis analysis and development)... Being rejected by the group I've worked so long with can be very bad for multiple reasons, but it's a possibility as long as fundings are concerned.
I don't know, is there any case where groups have "clashes" due to incompatible characters or slackers?
Unfortunately this happens more frequently than people would generally want to believe. It sounds like you're in a good situation. Often, a student will choose a project and supervisor based exclusively on interest in the work itself. And while this *should* be all that a student needs to worry about, in practice people can have conflicting personalities and styles that strain the experience. For example, some supervisors are micro-managers and don't give their students much opportunity to explore their own ideas. Other supervisor are rarely available and the students need to work independently on their project. Both extremes can turn out just fine with the right combination of student and supervisor, but if they don't fit the result can be a disaster.
what do you mean by uncertain? Is it possible to work on something for let's say 1 year and be denied a publication?
Unfortunately, yes. In most cases if the system is working properly, this won't happen. Your supervisor and committee should have a good idea of what projects are worth pursuing and guiding you on how to proceed through obstacles, But there can always be cases where you overlook something or make a wrong decision in the beginning that can invalidate your data. Or in the years that it takes you to do the work, five other groups could publish on the same issue, making it difficult to claim any original result. Or you could run into a referee that does't understand the work. And despite living in a world where most data should be backed up into a "cloud" you don't have to look far for stories of people that lose everything through a series of unfortunate hard drive crashes.
