what is thesis jury

Reference management. Clean and simple.

How to prepare an excellent thesis defense

What is a thesis defense?

How long is a thesis defense, what happens at a thesis defense, your presentation, questions from the committee, 6 tips to help you prepare for your thesis defense, 1. anticipate questions and prepare for them, 2. dress for success, 3. ask for help, as needed, 4. have a backup plan, 5. prepare for the possibility that you might not know an answer, 6. de-stress before, during, and after, frequently asked questions about preparing an excellent thesis defense, related articles.

If you're about to complete, or have ever completed a graduate degree, you have most likely come across the term "thesis defense." In many countries, to finish a graduate degree, you have to write a thesis .

A thesis is a large paper, or multi-chapter work, based on a topic relating to your field of study.

Once you hand in your thesis, you will be assigned a date to defend your work. Your thesis defense meeting usually consists of you and a committee of two or more professors working in your program. It may also include other people, like professionals from other colleges or those who are working in your field.

During your thesis defense, you will be asked questions about your work. The main purpose of your thesis defense is for the committee to make sure that you actually understand your field and focus area.

The questions are usually open-ended and require the student to think critically about their work. By the time of your thesis defense, your paper has already been evaluated. The questions asked are not designed so that you actually have to aggressively "defend" your work; often, your thesis defense is more of a formality required so that you can get your degree.

• Check with your department about requirements and timing.
• Re-read your thesis.
• Anticipate questions and prepare for them.
• Create a back-up plan to deal with technology hiccups.
• Plan de-stressing activities both before, and after, your defense.

How long your oral thesis defense is depends largely on the institution and requirements of your degree. It is best to consult your department or institution about this. In general, a thesis defense may take only 20 minutes, but it may also take two hours or more. The length also depends on how much time is allocated to the presentation and questioning part.

Tip: Check with your department or institution as soon as possible to determine the approved length for a thesis defense.

First of all, be aware that a thesis defense varies from country to country. This is just a general overview, but a thesis defense can take many different formats. Some are closed, others are public defenses. Some take place with two committee members, some with more examiners.

The same goes for the length of your thesis defense, as mentioned above. The most important first step for you is to clarify with your department what the structure of your thesis defense will look like. In general, your thesis defense will include:

• your presentation of around 20-30 minutes
• questions from the committee
• questions from the audience (if the defense is public and the department allows it)

You might have to give a presentation, often with Powerpoint, Google slides, or Keynote slides. Make sure to prepare an appropriate amount of slides. A general rule is to use about 10 slides for a 20-minute presentation.

But that also depends on your specific topic and the way you present. The good news is that there will be plenty of time ahead of your thesis defense to prepare your slides and practice your presentation alone and in front of friends or family.

Tip: Practice delivering your thesis presentation in front of family, friends, or colleagues.

You can prepare your slides by using information from your thesis' first chapter (the overview of your thesis) as a framework or outline. Substantive information in your thesis should correspond with your slides.

Make sure your slides are of good quality— both in terms of the integrity of the information and the appearance. If you need more help with how to prepare your presentation slides, both the ASQ Higher Education Brief and James Hayton have good guidelines on the topic.

The committee will ask questions about your work after you finish your presentation. The questions will most likely be about the core content of your thesis, such as what you learned from the study you conducted. They may also ask you to summarize certain findings and to discuss how your work will contribute to the existing body of knowledge.

Tip: Read your entire thesis in preparation of the questions, so you have a refreshed perspective on your work.

While you are preparing, you can create a list of possible questions and try to answer them. You can foresee many of the questions you will get by simply spending some time rereading your thesis.

Here are a few tips on how to prepare for your thesis defense:

You can absolutely prepare for most of the questions you will be asked. Read through your thesis and while you're reading it, create a list of possible questions. In addition, since you will know who will be on the committee, look at the academic expertise of the committee members. In what areas would they most likely be focused?

If possible, sit at other thesis defenses with these committee members to get a feel for how they ask and what they ask. As a graduate student, you should generally be adept at anticipating test questions, so use this advantage to gather as much information as possible before your thesis defense meeting.

Your thesis defense is a formal event, often the entire department or university is invited to participate. It signals a critical rite of passage for graduate students and faculty who have supported them throughout a long and challenging process.

While most universities don't have specific rules on how to dress for that event, do regard it with dignity and respect. This one might be a no-brainer, but know that you should dress as if you were on a job interview or delivering a paper at a conference.

It might help you deal with your stress before your thesis defense to entrust someone with the smaller but important responsibilities of your defense well ahead of schedule. This trusted person could be responsible for:

• preparing the room of the day of defense
• setting up equipment for the presentation
• preparing and distributing handouts

Technology is unpredictable. Life is too. There are no guarantees that your Powerpoint presentation will work at all or look the way it is supposed to on the big screen. We've all been there. Make sure to have a plan B for these situations. Handouts can help when technology fails, and an additional clean shirt can save the day if you have a spill.

One of the scariest aspects of the defense is the possibility of being asked a question you can't answer. While you can prepare for some questions, you can never know exactly what the committee will ask.

There will always be gaps in your knowledge. But your thesis defense is not about being perfect and knowing everything, it's about how you deal with challenging situations. You are not expected to know everything.

James Hayton writes on his blog that examiners will sometimes even ask questions they don't know the answer to, out of curiosity, or because they want to see how you think. While it is ok sometimes to just say "I don't know", he advises to try something like "I don't know, but I would think [...] because of x and y, but you would need to do [...] in order to find out.” This shows that you have the ability to think as an academic.

You will be nervous. But your examiners will expect you to be nervous. Being well prepared can help minimize your stress, but do know that your examiners have seen this many times before and are willing to help, by repeating questions, for example. Dora Farkas at finishyourthesis.com notes that it’s a myth that thesis committees are out to get you.

Two common symptoms of being nervous are talking really fast and nervous laughs. Try to slow yourself down and take a deep breath. Remember what feels like hours to you are just a few seconds in real life.

• Try meditational breathing right before your defense.
• Get plenty of exercise and sleep in the weeks prior to your defense.
• Have your clothes or other items you need ready to go the night before.
• During your defense, allow yourself to process each question before answering.
• Go to dinner with friends and family, or to a fun activity like mini-golf, after your defense.

Allow yourself to process each question, respond to it, and stop talking once you have responded. While a smile can often help dissolve a difficult situation, remember that nervous laughs can be irritating for your audience.

We all make mistakes and your thesis defense will not be perfect. However, careful preparation, mindfulness, and confidence can help you feel less stressful both before, and during, your defense.

Finally, consider planning something fun that you can look forward to after your defense.

It is completely normal to be nervous. Being well prepared can help minimize your stress, but do know that your examiners have seen this many times before and are willing to help, by repeating questions for example if needed. Slow yourself down, and take a deep breath.

Your thesis defense is not about being perfect and knowing everything, it's about how you deal with challenging situations. James Hayton writes on his blog that it is ok sometimes to just say "I don't know", but he advises to try something like "I don't know, but I would think [...] because of x and y, you would need to do [...] in order to find out".

Your Powerpoint presentation can get stuck or not look the way it is supposed to do on the big screen. It can happen and your supervisors know it. In general, handouts can always save the day when technology fails.

• Dress for success.
• Ask for help setting up.
• Have a backup plan (in case technology fails you).
• Deal with your nerves.

• Université Grenoble Alpes
• CSV Doctoral School
• EEATS Doctoral School
• I-MEP² Doctoral School
• ISCE Doctoral School
• LLSH Doctoral School
• MSTII Doctoral School
• PHILO Doctoral School
• PHYS Doctoral School
• SE Doctoral School
• SHPT Doctoral School
• SG Doctoral School
• SJ Doctoral School
• STEP Doctoral School

Learning by Research

• Doctoral College Organization
• Doctoral Schools
• The doctorate
• Doctorate Enrolment
• Subjects & Funding
• Research at UGA
• Grenoble Alpes, an Innovation Ecosystem
• Re-enrolment
• PhD Student Space (ADUM)
• PhD Students Rights & Representatives
• Social and combating inappropriate behavior
• PhD Student Training
• Thesis Monitoring Committee (CSI)
• Thesis Defense
• PhD Alumni Network
• International Partnerships
• International PhD Students Welcome
• Joint PhD (cotutelle)
• Call for International Projects
• PhD Students Associations
• Exceptional Campus
• Pratical Life
• Doctoral College
• Preparing a PhD
• International
• Campus Life

The Thesis Defense

Thesis Defense Authorization

• You must declare your willingness to organize your thesis on ADUM at least 10 weeks before the Thesis defense.
• At least 8 weeks before the Thesis defense, the complete file must be sent to the Doctoral School .

The Thesis Jury

• The composition of the jury is examined by the Director of the Doctoral School who verifies its conformity.
• The manuscript is then sent to the rapporteurs. The 2 pre-reports must be submitted on ADUM 4 weeks at the latest before the Thesis defense.

Organisation

The next thesis defenses, regulatory texts.

• Legal notices
• Personal details
• Website accessibility: not compliant

What are you looking for ?

Preparing For Your Dissertation Defense

13 Key Questions To Expect In The Viva Voce

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) & David Phair (PhD) . Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2021

Preparing for your dissertation or thesis defense (also called a “viva voce”) is a formidable task . All your hard work over the years leads you to this one point, and you’ll need to defend yourself against some of the most experienced researchers you’ve encountered so far.

It’s natural to feel a little nervous.

In this post, we’ll cover some of the most important questions you should be able to answer in your viva voce, whether it’s for a Masters or PhD degree. Naturally, they might not arise in exactly the same form (some may not come up at all), but if you can answer these questions well, it means you’re in a good position to tackle your oral defense.

Viva Voce Prep: 13 Essential Questions

• What is your study about and why did you choose to research this in particular?
• How did your research questions evolve during the research process?
• How did you decide on which sources to include in your literature review?
• How did you design your study and why did you take this approach?
• How generalisable and valid are the findings?
• What were the main shortcomings and limitations created by your research design?
• How did your findings relate to the existing literature?
• What were your key findings in relation to the research questions?
• Were there any findings that surprised you?
• What biases may exist in your research?
• How can your findings be put into practice?
• How has your research contributed to current thinking in the field?
• If you could redo your research, how would you alter your approach?

#1: What is your study about and why did you choose to research this in particular?

This question, a classic party starter, is pretty straightforward.

What the dissertation or thesis committee is assessing here is your ability to clearly articulate your research aims, objectives and research questions in a concise manner. Concise is the keyword here – you need to clearly explain your research topic without rambling on for a half-hour. Don’t feel the need to go into the weeds here – you’ll have many opportunities to unpack the details later on.

In the second half of the question, they’re looking for a brief explanation of the justification of your research. In other words, why was this particular set of research aims, objectives and questions worth addressing? To address this question well in your oral defense, you need to make it clear what gap existed within the research and why that gap was worth filling.

#2: How did your research questions evolve during the research process?

Good research generally follows a long and winding path . It’s seldom a straight line (unless you got really lucky). What they’re assessing here is your ability to follow that path and let the research process unfold.

Specifically, they’ll want to hear about the impact that the literature review process had on you in terms of shaping the research aims, objectives and research questions . For example, you may have started with a certain set of aims, but then as you immersed yourself in the literature, you may have changed direction. Similarly, your initial fieldwork findings may have turned out some unexpected data that drove you to adjust or expand on your initial research questions.

Long story short – a good defense involves clearly describing your research journey , including all the twists and turns. Adjusting your direction based on findings in the literature or the fieldwork shows that you’re responsive , which is essential for high-quality research.

#3: How did you decide on which sources to include in your literature review?

A comprehensive literature review is the foundation of any high-quality piece of research. With this question, your dissertation or thesis committee are trying to assess which quality criteria and approach you used to select the sources for your literature review.

Typically, good research draws on both the seminal work in the respective field and more recent sources . In other words, a combination of the older landmark studies and pivotal work, along with up-to-date sources that build on to those older studies. This combination ensures that the study has a rock-solid foundation but is not out of date.

So, make sure that your study draws on a mix of both the “classics” and new kids on the block, and take note of any major evolutions in the literature that you can use as an example when asked this question in your viva voce.

#4: How did you design your study and why did you take this approach?

This is a classic methodological question that you can almost certainly expect in some or other shape.

What they’re looking for here is a clear articulation of the research design and methodology, as well as a strong justification of each choice . So, you need to be able to walk through each methodological choice and clearly explain both what you did and why you did it. The why is particularly important – you need to be able to justify each choice you made by clearly linking your design back to your research aims, objectives and research questions, while also taking into account practical constraints.

To ensure you cover every base, check out our research methodology vlog post , as well as our post covering the Research Onion .

#5: How generalizable and valid are the findings?

This question is aimed at specifically digging into your understanding of the sample and how that relates to the population, as well as potential validity issues in your methodology.

To answer question this well, you’ll need to critically assess your sample and findings and consider if they truly apply to the entire population, as well as whether they assessed what they set out to. Note that there are two components here – generalizability and validity . Generalizability is about how well the sample represents the population. Validity is about how accurately you’ve measured what you intended to measure .

To ace this part of your dissertation defense, make sure that you’re very familiar with the concepts of generalizability , validity and reliability , and how these apply to your research. Remember, you don’t need to achieve perfection – you just need to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of your research (and how the weaknesses could be improved upon).

Need a helping hand?

#6: What were the main shortcomings and limitations created by your research design?

This question picks up where the last one left off.

As I mentioned, it’s perfectly natural that your research will have shortcomings and limitations as a result of your chosen design and methodology. No piece of research is flawless. Therefore, a good dissertation defense is not about arguing that your work is perfect, but rather it’s about clearly articulating the strengths and weaknesses of your approach.

To address this question well, you need to think critically about all of the potential weaknesses your design may have, as well as potential responses to these (which could be adopted in future research) to ensure you’re well prepared for this question. For a list of common methodological limitations, check out our video about research limitations here .

#7: How did your findings relate to the existing literature?

This common dissertation defense question links directly to your discussion chapter , where you would have presented and discussed the findings in relation to your literature review.

What your dissertation or thesis committee is assessing here is your ability to compare your study’s findings to the findings of existing research . Specifically, you need to discuss which findings aligned with existing research and which findings did not. For those findings that contrasted against existing research, you should also explain what you believe to be the reasons for this.

As with many questions in a viva voce, it’s both the what and the why that matter here. So, you need to think deeply about what the underlying reasons may be for both the similarities and differences between your findings and those of similar studies.

#8: What were your key findings in relation to the research questions?

This question is similar to the last one in that it too focuses on your research findings. However, here the focus is specifically on the findings that directly relate to your research questions (as opposed to findings in general).

So, a good way to prepare for this question is to step back and revisit your research questions . Ask yourself the following:

• What exactly were you asking in those questions, and what did your research uncover concerning them?
• Which questions were well answered by your study and which ones were lacking?
• Why were they lacking and what more could be done to address this in future research?

Conquering this part dissertation defense requires that you focus squarely on the research questions. Your study will have provided many findings (hopefully!), and not all of these will link directly to the research questions. Therefore, you need to clear your mind of all of the fascinating side paths your study may have lead you down and regain a clear focus on the research questions .

#9: Were there any findings that surprised you?

This question is two-pronged.

First, you should discuss the surprising findings that were directly related to the original research questions . Going into your research, you likely had some expectations in terms of what you would find, so this is your opportunity to discuss the outcomes that emerged as contrary to what you initially expected. You’ll also want to think about what the reasons for these contrasts may be.

Second, you should discuss the findings that weren’t directly related to the research questions, but that emerged from the data set . You may have a few or you may have none – although generally there are a handful of interesting musings that you can glean from the data set. Again, make sure you can articulate why you find these interesting and what it means for future research in the area.

What the committee is looking for in this type of question is your ability to interpret the findings holistically and comprehensively , and to respond to unexpected data. So, take the time to zoom out and reflect on your findings thoroughly.

#10: What biases may exist in your research?

Biases… we all have them.

For this question, you’ll need to think about potential biases in your research , in the data itself but also in your interpretation of the data. With this question, your committee is assessing whether you have considered your own potential biases and the biases inherent in your analysis approach (i.e. your methodology). So, think carefully about these research biases and be ready to explain how these may exist in your study.

In an oral defense, this question is often followed up with a question on how the biases were mitigated or could be mitigated in future research. So, give some thought not just to what biases may exist, but also the mitigation measures (in your own study and for future research).

#11: How can your findings be put into practice?

Another classic question in the typical viva voce.

With this question, your committee is assessing your ability to bring your findings back down to earth and demonstrate their practical value and application. Importantly, this question is not about the contribution to academia or the overall field of research (we’ll get to that next) – it is specifically asking about how this newly created knowledge can be used in the real world.

Naturally, the actionability of your findings will vary depending on the nature of your research topic. Some studies will produce many action points and some won’t. If you’re researching marketing strategies within an industry, for example, you should be able to make some very specific recommendations for marketing practitioners in that industry.

To help you flesh out points for this question, look back at your original justification for the research (i.e. in your introduction and literature review chapters). What were the driving forces that led you to research your specific topic? That justification should help you identify ways in which your findings can be put into practice.

#12: How has your research contributed to current thinking in the field?

While the previous question was aimed at practical contribution, this question is aimed at theoretical contribution . In other words, what is the significance of your study within the current body of research? How does it fit into the existing research and what does it add to it?

This question is often asked by a field specialist and is used to assess whether you’re able to place your findings into the research field to critically convey what your research contributed. This argument needs to be well justified – in other words, you can’t just discuss what your research contributed, you need to also back each proposition up with a strong why .

To answer this question well, you need to humbly consider the quality and impact of your work and to be realistic in your response. You don’t want to come across as arrogant (“my work is groundbreaking”), nor do you want to undersell the impact of your work. So, it’s important to strike the right balance between realistic and pessimistic .

This question also opens the door to questions about potential future research . So, think about what future research opportunities your study has created and which of these you feel are of the highest priority.

#13: If you could redo your research, how would you alter your approach?

This question is often used to wrap up a viva voce as it brings the discussion full circle.

Here, your committee is again assessing your ability to clearly identify and articulate the limitations and shortcomings of your research, both in terms of research design and topic focus . Perhaps, in hindsight, it would have been better to use a different analysis method or data set. Perhaps the research questions should have leaned in a slightly different direction. And so on.

This question intends to assess whether you’re able to look at your work critically , assess where the weaknesses are and make recommendations for the future . This question often sets apart those who did the research purely because it was required, from those that genuinely engaged with their research. So, don’t hold back here – reflect on your entire research journey ask yourself how you’d do things differently if you were starting with a  blank canvas today.

Recap: The 13 Key Dissertation Defense Questions

To recap, here are the 13 questions you need to be ready for to ace your dissertation or thesis oral defense:

As I mentioned, this list of dissertation defense questions is certainly not exhaustive – don’t assume that we’ve covered every possible question here. However, these questions are quite likely to come up in some shape or form in a typical dissertation or thesis defense, whether it’s for a Master’s degree, PhD or any other research degree. So, you should take the time to make sure you can answer them well.

If you need assistance preparing for your dissertation defense or viva voce, get in touch with us to discuss 1-on-1 coaching. We can critically review your research and identify potential issues and responses, as well as undertake a mock oral defense to prepare you for the pressures and stresses on the day.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

14 Comments

Very interesting

Interesting. I appreciate!

Really appreciating

My field is International Trade

Interesting

This is a full course on defence. I was fabulously enlightened and I gained enough confidence for my upcoming Masters Defence.

There are many lessons to learn and the simplicity in presentationmakes thee reader say “YesI can”

This is so helping… it has Enlightened me on how to answer specific questions. I pray to make it through for my upcoming defense

Lovely to hear that 🙂

Really educative and beneficial

Interesting. On-point and elaborate. And comforting too! Thanks.

Thank you very much for the enlightening me, be blessed

Thankyou so much. I am planning to defend my thesis soon and I found this very useful

Very interesting and useful to all masters and PhD students

Wow! this is enlightening. Thanks for the great work.

Thank you very much ,it will help me My Master Degree. and am comfortable to my defense.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

/images/cornell/logo35pt_cornell_white.svg" alt="what is thesis jury"> Cornell University --> Graduate School

Defending your thesis or dissertation.

Certain special exams are required to earn an advanced degree in the research-based programs at Cornell. Often, these exams need to be taken with consideration of anticipated completion dates.  Enrollment in future semesters after the date a student passes their M or B exam is not permitted. See Taking Exams for more information.

All exam forms are available on our Forms  page.

Exams Required for M.A. and M.S. Degree Defense

If you are enrolled in an M.A. or M.S. degree program, you must pass the final examination for the master’s degree. You can take this after all degree requirements have been fulfilled, but no earlier than one month before completing the minimum number of enrolled semesters.

To pass the exam unconditionally and receive a degree, all regular, proxy, and field-appointed members of the examining committee must assent that the exam was passed unconditionally. If you are enrolled in an M.S./Ph.D. degree program where the M.A. or M.S. degree is a prerequisite for your Ph.D., you may petition your special committee to approve combining the final examination for the master’s degree with the examination for the admission to candidacy.

Exam forms required for the master’s degree include “Schedule Master’s Examination” and “Master’s Exam Results Form and Instructions.”

Exams Required for Ph.D. Degree Defense

The B exam is an oral defense of your thesis or dissertation. This exam can be taken after completing all degree requirements, but not earlier than one month before completing the minimum number of enrolled semesters. At least two semesters of successful registration must be completed between the passing of the A exam and the scheduling of the B exam.

Exam forms required for the Ph.D. degree include “Schedule A Examination and Research Compliance Form,” “Schedule B Examination,” “A Exam Results Form,” and “B Exam Results Form.”

The qualifying exam, or Q exam, is required in some fields for Ph.D. applicants. This exam helps the special committee determine your ability to pursue doctoral studies, continue in a program, and tailor an appropriate program of study.

• Skip to main navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to search
• Arts and Humanities
• Health sciences
• Science and Engineering
• Future international student
• International student
• Doctoral Candidate

Find out all about the conditions and formalities of the thesis defence depending on the research team or laboratory you have joined. 

Published on 7/01/2020 - Updated on 29/05/2024

You are assigned to a laboratory affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine or the Faculty of Science

The manuscript.

Language of the manuscript

As the thesis leads to the award of a French national degree, it should generally be written and defended in French. However, it may be the case that, for scientific reasons, the subject matter requires the use of a language other than French. By decision of the Scientific Council of 4 March 2013, this is now decided by the directors of doctoral schools, who are competent to judge matters of scientific priority. As recommended by the Ministry, a lengthy written summary of the thesis in French will be required.

Writing the manuscript

To help you write your manuscript, Sorbonne University provides you with a guide for writing and presenting theses, as well as two style sheets, one of which concerns international co-supervision theses.

• Guide to writing and presenting theses
• Classic style sheet
• Style sheets: theses in international co-supervision

Communication courses are organised for the preparation of your manuscript but also for the defence. Find these courses in the training catalogue for doctoral candidates at Sorbonne University. 

Appointment of rapporteurs and the thesis jury

The President of Sorbonne University delegates the appointment of rapporteurs, the composition of the jury and the authorisation of the defence to the director of the doctoral school.

Appointment of rapporteurs

The President appoints two rapporteurs, authorised to direct research or belonging to one of the categories referred to in Article 17 of the Order of 25 May 2016 at the proposal of the director of the doctoral school and after consulting the thesis director.

• Rapporteurs must come from outside the doctoral school and the doctoral candidate's institution of enrolment.
• They have no involvement in the work of the doctoral candidate.
• They may come from foreign higher education or research institutions or other foreign bodies.
• The rapporteurs shall make their opinion known by means of written reports on the basis of which the President shall authorise the defence. These reports shall be made known to the jury and the candidate before the defence.
•  In the event of disagreement between the two rapporteurs, the President shall appoint a third rapporteur.

Appointment of the thesis jury

The thesis jury is appointed by the president after consulting the director of the doctoral school and the thesis director. There are between 4 and 8 jury members.

At least half of its members are French or foreign people, from outside the doctoral school and the candidate's enrolment establishment, chosen for their scientific competence, subject to provisions relating to the international co-supervision of the thesis. At least half of the jury must be made up of professors or similar personnel, or teachers of equivalent rank who do not report to the Ministry in charge of higher education. Its composition must allow a balanced representation of women and men. The thesis director is a member of the jury, but does not take part in the decision. The thesis jury must include, apart from the thesis director, a lecturer or researcher from Sorbonne University - i.e. attached to a research structure associated with Sorbonne University - holding accreditation to direct research or similar.

Request for defence

Two steps are necessary with two different structures: one with the doctoral school, the other with the reception office. 

At the doctoral school at least 8 weeks before the defence Candidates must contact the director of the doctoral school they belong to, following the procedures indicated on the doctoral school's website, and must submit the "Application for authorisation to present a defence" and "Authorisation to defend" forms, duly completed and signed by the thesis director.   When the jury is accepted by the doctoral school Candidates send the documents called "Letters accompanying the manuscript" and "Thesis reports" to their referees, with their manuscript specifying the name, e-mail address and physical address of the head of the doctoral school to which they should be returned. The reports and the defence authorisation form must be sent by the doctoral school to the reception office at least three weeks before the date scheduled for the defence. It is the candidate’s responsibility to find out whether the reception office has received their documents.

At the doctoral candidate s' reception office at least 4 weeks before the defence  Candidates must submit their defence file including their manuscript on CD-Rom and the documents necessary for the dissemination of their thesis.

For better follow-up We provide you with a small tool: the defence calendar (excel). Enter your defence date and you will be given the deadlines to be met!

Defence file

The defence file includes

The documents

It must be submitted to the doctoral candidates' reception office at least 4 weeks before the defence: make an appointment with the doctoral candidates' reception office. The thesis subject must have the same wording on all documents and copies.

The CD-ROM Several documents are to be saved on the CD-ROM! It may seem tedious to you but it will be very useful for the library and the archiving of your thesis. Your work will thus be valued. 

The CD-ROM, on which your NAME, FIRST NAME and FILE NUMBER appear, contains the 7 files (9 in the case of expurgated texts). It is recommended to use the style sheets proposed by Sorbonne University (standard (215 KB) or for co-supervision theses (254 KB). 

• 1 .txt or .doc file with the title of the thesis, named: subject_Folder_No.
• 1 .txt or .doc file with the translated title of the thesis (in English for example), named: subject_translated_Folder_No.
• 1 file (or folder) containing the full text of the thesis in source format (word, latex, open office) named: thesis_archiving_Folder_No.
• 1 file including the full text of the thesis in PDF format named: thesis_archiving_Folder_No.pdf
• 1 .txt or .doc file containing the French summary of the thesis (1700 characters including spaces maximum) named: summary_fr_Folder_No.doc
• 1 .txt or .doc file containing the English summary of the thesis (1700 characters including spaces maximum) named: summary_en_Folder_No.doc
• 1 .txt or .doc file containing the 6 keywords in French, in lower case, separated by semicolons named: key words_Folder_No.doc

and as applicable :

• 1 file (or folder) including the redacted text of the thesis (without the documents subject to copyright not acquired in the source format named thesis_dissemination_Folder_No.)
• 1 file in pdf format named these_ dissemination _Folder_No.pdf

Optional •    The font files if special characters are used (Greek, Hebrew, phonetic...)

• The "FACILE" application report indicating that the analysis is valid (just print the browser page). The validity of the .pdf files burned on the CD must be confirmed on the FACILE application. The requested pdf files must be valid. If not, they will be rejected by the Doctoral Candidates' Office. You will then be asked to provide another CDRom with a new validated version.  Your manuscript must be digitally archived for the future on a national platform. For this, pdf format has been chosen by the National Computer Center for Higher Education, CINES.  The Facile application allows you to check that the file is ready to be archived on the CINES platform. The report that you must provide in printed version informs us of its status.
• the distribution charter for the electronic thesis to be downloaded and printed
• the thesis form to be completed and printed

and, as applicable :

• The declaration of a modification to the manuscript after the defence

For any technical question about FACILE, contact the Sorbonne University library (BSU)

Authorisation form for an off-site defence If necessary, complete and print the authorisation form for an off-site defence. 

Submission and dissemination of the thesis

Submission of the thesis Final manuscripts must be submitted in digital format (CD-Rom) to the doctoral candidates' reception office 4 weeks before the date of the defence without waiting for the corrections requested by the rapporteurs.  This CD-Rom is accompanied by the Defence File.  The defence is subject to the submission to the president of the selection board of certification of the submission of the thesis and the completed electronic form. If the jury or the rapporteurs have requested corrections, the new doctor has three months after the defence to submit his corrected thesis in electronic format, accompanied by a certificate from the jury member stating that the corrections have been made.

Dissemination of the thesis Sorbonne University files the validated version of the thesis in its dissemination and archiving formats, as well as the electronic docket, in the national STAR application managed by the Agence bibliographique de l'enseignement supérieur - ABES. The college of doctoral schools offers you a course cycle called "Biblio@doctorate".  You can sign up for it.

Confidentiality or embargo? You have submitted the final version of your manuscript. It will be forwarded to the university library for flagging and distribution. However, the manuscript’s dissemination may be delayed either by the doctor (embargo) or by the university (confidentiality).

When you submit your manuscript, you can ask to delay its release, for example when results are pending publication. This is known as an embargo request. You will be asked to specify an embargo end date, i.e. the date on which you want your thesis to be disseminated. To request an embargo, just indicate it on the thesis form.

• Non-disclosure

This is a matter of prohibiting the disclosure, reproduction and dissemination of the thesis over a given period of time. This request is generally linked to the existence of a research contract or agreement signed between the partners of the doctoral research project to define the objectives of the research, the contributions of each party and the rules of intellectual property of the results. The request comes from you but from your thesis director, laboratory director or partner institution. Only the President of Sorbonne University can grant it. The thesis is then only reported but cannot be disclosed, reproduced or disseminated before the end of the non-disclosure period granted.

How do I make a non-disclosure request?  No later than three months before the defence For PhD candidates hosted in a research unit whose promotional activities are managed by Sorbonne University*, the thesis director completes the non-disclosure request form specific to Sorbonne University For doctoral candidates hosted in a research unit whose promotional activities are not managed by Sorbonne University but by another supervising institution, the thesis director completes the non-disclosure request form specific to the other institutions, has it signed by the promotional structure they belong and returns it to the Doctoral Candidates Reception Office.

* : for any question relating to the establishment which manages the promotion of your unit please contact: Lise Tourneux-Ravel at the Directorate of Research and Innovation (DR&I) This document is filed before the defence with the doctoral candidates' reception office.

• For research units whose promotional activities are managed by Sorbonne University :

All "readers" of the manuscript must agree to keep the data confidential and complete the Non-disclosure Form (including the thesis supervisor. It must also be sent to the rapporteurs at the same time as the manuscript. The members of the jury may complete it by the time of the oral presentation at the latest. If confidential results are presented at the hearing, the non-disclosure undertaking will be signed by each of the persons present. A list will be drawn up by the president of the jury from the list prepared for this purpose.  If they have not been submitted, the doctor, the thesis director and the chair of the selection board will complete this non-disclosure certificate. 

Request for in camera proceedings The physical organisation of a closed session is the responsibility of the president of the jury who will complete the list of those present.

At the end of the defence Once the defence has been completed, all documents must be handed over to the doctoral candidates' reception office. The degree certificate will only be handed over in light of the complete non-disclosure file.

• For research units whose promotional activities are not contracts managed by Sorbonne University 

The equivalent of this procedure may be organised by the institution in charge of the promotional activity.

The stages of a defence

The thesis is defended in two stages: a presentation by the doctoral candidate of their research work followed by a question-and-answer session with the members of the jury. At the end of the defence, the jury meets to deliberate and then announces its decision to award the thesis to the doctoral candidate.  The defence is public, unless the headmaster exceptionally grants an exemption if the subject of the thesis is proven to be confidential (cf Thesis filing and dissemination/Non-disclosure) The defence is traditionally followed by a "thesis party" organised at the discretion of the doctoral candidate.

Appointment of the President of the Jury

During the defence, the members of the jury shall appoint a chairman and, if necessary, a rapporteur for the defence from among themselves. The chairman must be a professor or equivalent or a teacher of equivalent rank. The thesis director cannot be appointed either as rapporteur for the defence or as president of the jury. The thesis director does not take part in the decision.

Awarding the title of doctor

Admission or adjournment will be decided after deliberation by the selection board. The chairman signs the defence report, which is countersigned by all the members of the selection board. The report is sent to the candidate in the month after the defence. In accordance with regulations in force, the doctorate is awarded without any special mention. 

Corrections of theses

Final manuscripts must be submitted in digital format (CD-Rom) to the doctoral candidates' reception office 3 weeks before the date of the defence without waiting for any corrections requested by the rapporteurs.  At the end of the defence, they will be sent by the doctoral candidates' reception office at the Sorbonne University library according to the instructions given by the president of the jury in the defence report.

The thesis can be reproduced as is without any correction. The CD-Rom that is filed before the defence is considered to be final and sent to the library for distribution, archiving... 

However, if the doctor wishes to make minor corrections: You have a period of one month to make minor corrections (typos, formatting, etc.) and submit the corrected version (labelled corrected version) and on CD-ROM to the doctoral candidates' reception office accompanied by a signed declaration from you indicating that the corrections have been made (manuscript modification declaration form) and the report from the Facile application. At the end of this period, even if the corrections have not been made, the thesis will be sent to the library to be reported, reproduced and disseminated.

The thesis cannot be reproduced as-is... The jury wanted major corrections under the responsibility of a designated jury member. You then have 3 months to make these corrections and submit the corrected version of your thesis on CD-Rom accompanied by the form for declaring modifications to the manuscript) and the report from the Facile application to the doctoral candidates' reception office. The CD must be accompanied by a letter from the member of the jury designated during the defence, certifying that the requested corrections have been made. The delivery of the graduation certificate, the reporting, reproduction, distribution and consultation of the manuscript are subject to the delivery of the corrected versions and the certificate.    Emmanuel DESCUBESBSU Electronic Theses Service Snake Library Email

Collection of degrees

Once the defence is over, don't forget to bring the original of your report to the Doctoral Candidates' Office. Then, you will be able to collect your degree by appointment within a fortnight. Previous degrees are published within a maximum period of 6 months.      Collection at the reception office You can pick it up at the Doctoral Candidate Reception Office. Please bring an identity document (national or European identity card, passport, residence permit).  If you can't make it, another person can come in your place. They will need to bring a handwritten power of attorney, a copy of your ID and their own ID.

Doctoral candidates reception office - - 15 rue de l’école de médecine - Escalier G – 2e étage 75006 PARIS (métro Odéon) Opening hours: 9:30 am - 4:30 pm (closed on Wednesdays)

Collection by mail You can also have your diploma sent to you. If you wish to receive your degree by post, please send us:

For a delivery to France

• €6.82 in postage stamps
• A registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt filled in at the permanent address at which you wish to receive your diploma in the addressee box and "Sorbonne Université - Bureau d'accueil des doctorants - 15 rue de l'école de médecine - 75006 Paris" in the sender box.

For a delivery abroad

• €12.10 in postage stamps or the equivalent in international coupons
• An international registered mail shipping slip (CN07)
• A deposit form (517/517 bis) filled in with the permanent address at which you wish to receive your diploma in the recipient box and "Sorbonne Université - Bureau d'accueil des doctorants - 15 rue de l'école de médecine - 75006 Paris" in the sender box.
• You can frank your mail from your home in France or abroad on the website of the Post Office.

Do you need your degree authenticated?

• Find out about legalisations
• Legalisation or apostille: for which country

Cérémonie des docteurs

Need a personalized reception .

The appointment scheduling system enables the doctoral candidates and HDR reception office to ensure you receive an individual, personalised and smooth welcome. This system allows you to make an appointment from the available schedules. Only times that are not already booked will be displayed. No appointment booked on a profile other than the one you applied for will be honoured. Appointments are individual and bear on a single case.

Information required when making a booking

• Your email address must be correct so we can send you your email confirmation. If the address has been used several times on other Sorbonne University forms and an email tells you that your address has already been used, log in with another address.
• Present the confirmation on your mobile phone or on a printout at the doctoral candidates' reception office.
• To avoid delaying other appointments, please arrive at the reception office on time.
• If you are unable to attend or delayed, cancel the appointment and schedule a new one on the platform according to availability.
• In some exceptional cases, the reception office will be unable to honour the precise appointment schedule. You will of course be dealt with within a reasonable time.
• In very exceptional cases (computer failures ...), you will be notified through the email address given when you made your appointment by the doctoral candidates' reception office and HDR, on the same day.
• No appointments other than those given here can be made (either by email or by phone).  

Scheduling appointments  The organization of the reception office has changed. Appointments are now made according to your doctoral school.

You are part of the doctoral school

• Complexity of life
• Physiology, physiopathology and therapeutics
• Physics in Ile-de-France
• Physics and chemistry of materials
• Earth and Environmental Sciences and Physics of the Universe
• Brain, cognition and behavior
• Molecular Chemistry of Paris-Centre
• Computer science, telecommunications and electronics
• Natural and human sciences: evolution and ecology
• Astronomy and astrophysics of IdF
• Physical chemistry and analytical chemistry
• Geosciences, natural resources and environment
• Pierre Louis Public Health
• Environmental Sciences of IdF
• Mathematical Sciences

Schedule an appointment

Defence FAQ

• A CD-ROM and why not a more up-to-date medium? The CD-rom is the cheapest medium (€2 to 3). This is a constraint for the library in terms of archiving. Look out for some news on this soon, we are working on it! By the way, not all burners work with all brands of CDs, check that the data is present and readable.
• The files "thesis title", "summaries", "keywords"..., are they really useful? This is your personal metadata. They allow you to be listed on the dedicated internet platforms, in French, in English... others are imported from your student file or copied from the defence forms to the library and thesis forms. Copy/paste but a better readability of your work.
• Redacted version, full version, what are the differences? The complete version is the final version of the manuscript. The expurgated version is the one that will be put on line according to any confidentiality issues, or the use of resources subject to copyright which you must comply with. It is not necessary if you have nothing to conceal!
• Why provide the text in source format? Because a computer application can fail! Having the source version allows the Sorbonne University library, which is in charge of archiving and distributing the manuscripts, to recreate a pdf if necessary. It may need your fonts to reprocess the file.
• I wrote my thesis on LaTeX, how can I make a single file in source format? You can make as many as you need, as long as they are numbered. The pdf file will still be unique and will group all the files together.
• Paperwork to be returned to the reception office... why? In the event of an appeal, the conditions for the presentation of original documents ensure the greatest evidentiary force, both for you and for the university.  
• What is the purpose of the dissemination charter? You are the author of the manuscript, but you have rights and responsibilities.  
• What's the point of sending the jury members' email addresses by mail? Jury members must receive the rapporteurs' reports prior to your defence. Regulatory but especially useful for your presentation.  They must be sent out to all jury members; don't forget your thesis director if he is present! Make sure you enter the addresses separated by semicolons to avoid getting "user unknown".
• What do I do in co-supervision? You will get your degree from Sorbonne University, so you must act like any doctoral candidate preparing his defence, same files, same conditions and defence schedule.
• Are the guests on the jury? No, they must not appear in the report or any other administrative document.

Bureau d'accueil des doctorants - 15 rue de l'école de médecine 75006 Paris

You are assigned to an affiliated laboratory by the Faculty of Arts

Organizing your defence

While Sandel argues that pursuing perfection through genetic engineering would decrease our sense of humility, he claims that the sense of solidarity we would lose is also important.

This thesis summarizes several points in Sandel’s argument, but it does not make a claim about how we should understand his argument. A reader who read Sandel’s argument would not also need to read an essay based on this descriptive thesis.  

Broad thesis (arguable, but difficult to support with evidence) 

Michael Sandel’s arguments about genetic engineering do not take into consideration all the relevant issues.

This is an arguable claim because it would be possible to argue against it by saying that Michael Sandel’s arguments do take all of the relevant issues into consideration. But the claim is too broad. Because the thesis does not specify which “issues” it is focused on—or why it matters if they are considered—readers won’t know what the rest of the essay will argue, and the writer won’t know what to focus on. If there is a particular issue that Sandel does not address, then a more specific version of the thesis would include that issue—hand an explanation of why it is important.  

Arguable thesis with analytical claim 

While Sandel argues persuasively that our instinct to “remake” (54) ourselves into something ever more perfect is a problem, his belief that we can always draw a line between what is medically necessary and what makes us simply “better than well” (51) is less convincing.

This is an arguable analytical claim. To argue for this claim, the essay writer will need to show how evidence from the article itself points to this interpretation. It’s also a reasonable scope for a thesis because it can be supported with evidence available in the text and is neither too broad nor too narrow.  

Arguable thesis with normative claim 

Given Sandel’s argument against genetic enhancement, we should not allow parents to decide on using Human Growth Hormone for their children.

This thesis tells us what we should do about a particular issue discussed in Sandel’s article, but it does not tell us how we should understand Sandel’s argument.  

Questions to ask about your thesis 

• Is the thesis truly arguable? Does it speak to a genuine dilemma in the source, or would most readers automatically agree with it?  
• Is the thesis too obvious? Again, would most or all readers agree with it without needing to see your argument?  
• Is the thesis complex enough to require a whole essay's worth of argument?  
• Is the thesis supportable with evidence from the text rather than with generalizations or outside research?  
• Would anyone want to read a paper in which this thesis was developed? That is, can you explain what this paper is adding to our understanding of a problem, question, or topic?
• picture_as_pdf Thesis

What to keep in mind to ace your final jury?

Every Architectural student has to face the final Jury in their semester while doing their thesis. The end semester Jury is similar to an examination where the students have to present their works of a selected theme to an external faculty member who analyses their skills: design, knowledge, communication, presentation, etc., and gives the necessary feedback and grades.

Architectural juries are so essential that they stand as a foundation for future professional practice to present their design concepts to the client.

Here are a few tips to ace in the final jury:

1. Punctuality and Honesty

Arrive on time, and if time permits, arrive at least one hour before the jury starts so that you don’t have any fear of missing the jury. The jury is the final presentation of the thesis after completing many days of hard work in preparing drawings, sketches, and renders. One has to get ready from the day before itself. Eating and sleeping well the previous night, planning the traveling from your living place to the jury location helps you reach on time.

Be honest with your answers and answer them in a procedure you have worked out the design. And if a juror questions you related to a topic that you do not know, then be honest and let him be clear that you don’t have an idea about that. If you bluff something, then the juror can undoubtedly identify the tricks and can lead to a negative impression on you.

2. Convey Concept and Present with Confidence

One of the most important aspects of architectural juries is the presentation of concepts. A concept of a design acts as a base or fundamental part of the design. Many of the architects have increased their reputation because of their distinct ideas. Architectural students have to present their concepts in a well-defined manner. The design representations can be sketching/drawings/ bubble diagrams explaining the approach of the concept not only with confidence but also in an understanding way.

One can gain confidence if he has knowledge, understanding, and grip of the subject while studying. Even if it is a small part of the design, if one can go a little deeper, including its history, evolution, theme, form and function, formation, he will have a piece of in-depth knowledge and attain confidence.

3. Visual Communication

A proper visual presentation is a must to ace in the final jury of the thesis. It is a crucial part of design development. A visual display is far more descriptive than words. The demonstration that you are ready to communicate has to be clear and precise with all the sets of drawings. The presentation has to be illustrative and explanatory.

It includes drawings, sketches, plans, sections, elevations, renders, orthographic projections, photographs, and models . Ranges from conceptual sketches symbols to different scale drawings. The visuals have to be precisely clear with headings, sub-headings, symbols, text, and scale wherever required.

4. Give Relevant Explanation

In the thesis jury, the students need to explain divergent aspects like concepts, theme, design brief, function, materials, façade, technology, etc. Because of nervousness, most of the students confuse themselves between the theme/ function/ concept and mix up points one has to explain in their thesis. They have to be clear about every aspect and explain it briefly so that the juror understands effortlessly.

Preparing well, distinguishing each aspect – concept, design, function, etc., in a step-by-step manner, and ordered presentation, using architectural terminology wherever required are some of the tips which help in successfully presenting before the juror. One may work hard, but it is of no use if your idea cannot reach the viewer.

5. List out a Questionnaire and Prepare your Answers

Most of the questions that the juror will ask are common that are related to almost all the designs, such as project location, site analysis, functional aspects, environmental concerns, etc. List them out and form a questionnaire briefly and prepare the answers well before themselves so that you will gain self-confidence.

You can request your seniors about their jury experiences and let them guide a little bit, browse through magazines. It is not only preparing the answers but how to communicate your deliberate answers effectively in which your speaking skills play an essential role. Practicing speaking and presenting before your friends as a rehearsal will have the courage and determination to convey before the final jury. 

6. Grasp the Feedback in a Positive way

At the end of the jury, most jury members give their feedback based on their presentation. It may also be criticism or a word of praise. Even if your work is not of good quality, and the juror gives a subjective criticism, take it positively. The feedback or evaluation given during the thesis will be effective in your future architectural practice.

Sahithi is an Indian-based Architect and Interior designer. While Architecture is her profession, writing is her passion and makes her feel compelling. She believes writing about Architecture can bring a positive change and develop a sensitivity towards culture and Heritage.Despite these,she loves traveling.

Buganvílias By Ventura + Partners

House in Todoroki By noiz architects

Related posts.

The Influence of Migration on Urban Culture and Identity

Impact of Structural Forms on Building Functionality

Ethical Considerations in AI-Driven Design

The Psychological Impact of Sacred Spaces on Individuals

The Role of Media in Exposing Greenwashing

The Role of Criticism in Architectural Development

• Architectural Community
• Architectural Facts
• RTF Architectural Reviews
• Architectural styles
• City and Architecture
• Fun & Architecture
• History of Architecture
• Design Studio Portfolios
• Designing for typologies
• RTF Design Inspiration
• Architecture News
• Career Advice
• Case Studies
• Construction & Materials
• Covid and Architecture
• Interior Design
• Know Your Architects
• Landscape Architecture
• Materials & Construction
• Product Design
• RTF Fresh Perspectives
• Sustainable Architecture
• Top Architects
• Travel and Architecture
• Rethinking The Future Awards 2022
• RTF Awards 2021 | Results
• GADA 2021 | Results
• RTF Awards 2020 | Results
• ACD Awards 2020 | Results
• GADA 2019 | Results
• ACD Awards 2018 | Results
• GADA 2018 | Results
• RTF Awards 2017 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2017 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2016 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2015 | Results
• RTF Awards 2014 | Results
• RTF Architectural Visualization Competition 2020 – Results
• Architectural Photography Competition 2020 – Results
• Designer’s Days of Quarantine Contest – Results
• Urban Sketching Competition May 2020 – Results
• RTF Essay Writing Competition April 2020 – Results
• Architectural Photography Competition 2019 – Finalists
• The Ultimate Thesis Guide
• Introduction to Landscape Architecture
• Perfect Guide to Architecting Your Career
• How to Design Architecture Portfolio
• How to Design Streets
• Introduction to Urban Design
• Introduction to Product Design
• Complete Guide to Dissertation Writing
• Introduction to Skyscraper Design
• Educational
• Hospitality
• Institutional
• Office Buildings
• Public Building
• Residential
• Sports & Recreation
• Temporary Structure
• Commercial Interior Design
• Corporate Interior Design
• Healthcare Interior Design
• Hospitality Interior Design
• Residential Interior Design
• Sustainability
• Transportation
• Urban Design
• Host your Course with RTF
• Architectural Writing Training Programme | WFH
• Editorial Internship | In-office
• Graphic Design Internship
• Research Internship | WFH
• Research Internship | New Delhi
• RTF | About RTF
• Submit Your Story

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Who is a "Vowel" (from Portuguese: "Vogal") in a panel of Jury for a Master's Defense?

I have to give my Master's defense soon. I am provided with the name of a "Jury", a professor. And two professors in my 'vowel', one of whom is my advisor. (total 3 on Jury)

What is the definition of this 'vowel' and what does it mean? What is their role in relation to the 'jury'?

My university is Portuguese and the Portuguese word is Vogal (singular).

• thesis-committee

• "Vogal" has more than one translation. The phrasing of this question is misguided. –  Rodrigo de Azevedo Commented Jul 21, 2021 at 10:49
• It is, but fixing it would invalidate some of the existing answers, which responded to an earlier version of the question (i.e., before the untranslated word was provided). Moreover, preserving the misconception may have value in case others make the same mistranslation in the future. –  cag51 ♦ Commented Jul 29, 2021 at 1:12

2 Answers 2

"Vowel" is likely a translation error from Portuguese, Spanish or another Romance language - probably caused by Google Translate.

In a committee or a board, a "vogal" or "vocal" is a member without a specific role. For example, in a committee I was recently to grade end-of-degree dissertations, the three members were the president (tasked with chairing the committee), the secretary (tasked with writing grades down) and one "vocal", with no specific task besides deciding grades with the other two members.

Another meaning of "vogal" or "vocal" is vowel. Both meanings come from the Latin word for voice or speak, because a "vocal" is a person who just speaks in a committee and vowels are sounds or letters that can be pronounced alone.

I tried to find a translation into English but no dictionary gave me a suitable one. Then, I would translate "vocal" to "board/committee/jury member". Maybe boards are organized in a different way in English speaking countries.

Just for reference, definition of vogal in Portuguese (see meanings 3 and 4), and vocal in Spanish (meaning 5) and Catalan (meaning 2).

• 1 The Oxford Spanish-English dictionary gives " vocal ... B masculine and feminine (de un consejo, tribunal) member ". –  Peter Taylor Commented Jul 14, 2019 at 6:00

On several occasions, I have been a member of an academic jury at a Portuguese university. In Portuguese, the structure is usually the following:

Presidente do júri , the "president of the jury" who presides to the dissertation. His participation varies between symbolic to active — he can make 1 or 2 questions or comments, if he so desires, or just present the thesis and sleep until the end, when he officially concludes the event.

Arguente principal , the main examiner, who will be relentlessly and exhaustively putting the student under scrutiny with questions and remarks of all sorts concerning the thesis and the oral presentation.

Vogal . The "vogal" are, well, "vocal", i.e., members of the jury that will have a limit of 2-3 questions, usually targetting the impact of the study in the global context, but can also target very specific things of the dissertation that where not covered by the main examiner, which often happens when the dissertation covers multiple scientific subjects or is interdisciplinary. The number of "vogais" in MSc degrees is actually 1 only, currently, and for PhD degrees it is usually 2.

Orientador , the supervisor, his task here can be summarized as follows: to defend the candidate against unreasonable questions, praise the work developed and the efforts of the candidate, and finally, ask the candidate for future perspectives concerning his work and professional future projects.

• Awesome answer, thanks for adding. It is difficult to read long blocks of text, so I suggested an edit that makes it much more readable. –  cag51 ♦ Commented Jul 17, 2021 at 17:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged thesis thesis-committee portugal ..

• Featured on Meta
• User activation: Learnings and opportunities
• Join Stack Overflow’s CEO and me for the first Stack IRL Community Event in...

Hot Network Questions

• Smallest prime q such that concatenation (p+q)"q is a prime
• Are there any texts which talk about "moral hallucinations" in a good amount of detail?
• Is `std::map<std::string, int>` faster than `std::map<std::string_view, int>`?
• Annoying query "specify CRS for layer World Map" in latest QGIS versions
• How to use js in carousel code into a functional Next.js component for scrolling support in headless sitecore
• How to plausibly delay the creation of the telescope
• Determining Entropy in PHP
• Can All Truths Be Scientifically Verified?
• '05 Scion tC, bought used. 145k miles , unknown if spark plugs were ever changed. Should I change 'em?
• What's the strongest material known to humanity that we could use to make Powered Armor Plates?
• Use the lower of two voltages when one is active
• Copyright on song first performed in public
• How can I use an op-amp in differential configuration to measure voltage across a MOSFET?
• Fantasy novel where a brother and sister go to a fantasy and travel with a one-armed warrior
• Fill this Sudoku variant so that the sums of numbers in the outlined regions are all different
• Craig interpolants for Linear Temporal Logic: finding one when they exist
• My math professor is Chinese. Is it okay for me to speak Chinese to her in office hours?
• Which cartoon episode has Green Lantern hitting Superman with a tennis racket and sending him flying?
• On Concordant Readings in Titrations
• Is it possible/recommended to paint the side of piano's keys?
• Does the city of Springfield have a possible claim against the Trump/Vance campaign?
• Can noun phrase have only one word?
• Are these colored sets closed under multiplication?
• Coloring a function based on its monotonicity

Peter Raisbeck: surviving the design studio

architecture, technology, research and design activism

Surviving a design jury presentation: The essential guide. 

Design juries can be terrifying. It doesn’t really matter if you are an architect or a student the experience can be soul destroying. Get it wrong and you can lose the job or fail. Get it right and you live in order to fight another day. Standing in front of a group of critics can determine if you get the job; or the prize; or if you are at architecture school, a pass in  design studio. It’s much harder to present if you haven’t done enough work or you don’t really believe in the project. But speaking well in public and knowing the essential lessons of presenting a design can be the difference between passing or failing.

I have sat in on numerous design and award juries. The awards or the commissions don’t normally go to the architects who talk too long, speak in jargon, or bore the jury with an explanation of the stair and or toilet details. So here are a few essentials that will help calm the nerves and get you through if you are not used to public s peaking or always find presenting to a jury harrowing.

When you are presenting to a jury. Get the timing right. Don’t run over time or drone on. Architects are notoriously bad at timing there talks. As a student I went to the old AIA International Lecture series. All I  remember is Hans Hollein talking for around 3 hours straight. Aldo Van Eyck was the same. Will Alsop did it to us as well. Each time it happens to me it is excruciating. It doesn’t really matter how good the work was an overly long talk will kill any audience interest or curiosity. But, at least Will Alsop was kinda interesting because he was long winded as well as being drunk. But I still would have given him an E for going over time.

A picture says a thousand words

If you are smart, or English is your second language you don’t have to say a lot. The more diagrams, images or other representations you have to present the less you have to say. The less visual material you have on the wall the more you have to explain what is not there. There is nothing worse for a jury than seeing an under designed scheme that is then talked up, explained and elaborated in words.

In presenting to a jury architects need to remember to right balance between about talking and what is on the wall or on the digital files. Architects are visual and jury members like to look at images. I tend to think it is better to have more visual material than text on your drawings or images. There is nothing worse than having a few thousand words of detailed and so called explanatory text on architectural presentation pdfs. A short summary of the concect is good. Like an abstarct it should be no more than 300 words or so. The rest should be diagrams including, charts, graphs, flow charts and conceptual diagrams explaining the concept. Minimal text is good. As well as two and three dimensional views that explain the design.

In short there should be enough visual material on the wall to make your life easy explaining it. You wont always be there to explain you work. This is particularly the case for competitions and when a jury member or critic reviews the project later. So the layout and the visual argument of the design with any supporting diagrams is very important. This is why clear and communicative graphic skills are important.

Just cutting and pasting the renders out of the virtual world into photoshop and then sending them straight to the printer doesn’t really work. Slapping together a layout doesn’t really work. Keeping it in the computer up until the last minute doesn’t really work. Over-talking or over-texting the project doesn’t work.Filling your drawings with slabs of text doesn’t really work.

As a presenter of a design the aim is to lead the juror’s and critic’s eyes to the drawings. The aim of what you say is to get them to understand the visual argument and, in the minds, to inhabit the space. What you say to a jury in words must be linked to the images.

Don’t avoid talking about the concept 

Some architects find it difficult to talk in conceptual or theoretical terms. This may be in apart training and it is usually because for some architects it is easier not to talk about history, aesthetics, compositional processes, form, critical theory or the politics of urbanism. But this is exactly the sort of thing a jury wants to hear.

Bad presenters or architects, or students, who have not got a great content on the wall talk a lot about the other stuff. Like, what they had for breakfast. How their semester shaped up in terms of blow by blow and sequential description of how the design happened. Usually the easiest way to do this is to talk about everything that doesn’t matter. There is nothing worse than hearing a long winded talk about the pragmatics of  project. Siting, briefing, sustainable technologies, construction and materiality, client and user preferences can all too easily dominate any presentation. A great design is not simply a response to these factors; nor should it sound like it.

Most jury members and critics are architects who know a lot about that kind of stuff. Good architects have mostly spent there life trying to escape from the contingencies of pragmatic design. Mostly they are there because they have an interest in the strategic issues, problems and broader views not the details. Jurors and critics want to hear and talk about the big ideas. For a jury member going to an awards presentation is a bit like going to one of those TED talk thingys. As a jury member you want and expect to hear about life the universe and everything in relation in a very focused way.  Design Jurors and critics like to debate ideas in relation to the design. Give them what they want and don’t avoid talking about the conceptual apparatus and how it has shaped the building.

Of course, if you just talk about life the universe and everything and not the project design then you should be doing philosophy.

Guide the jurors eyes to the design. The way you structure the presentation should reflect this. Avoid the “this is what I had for dinner” or the “passage through life” syndromes. Get to the point. The first thing a jury wants to here is about are ideas. This will give them the context from which their eyes will begin to apprehend and understand the design and inhabit the building in their imaginations.

Do it as an elevator pitch. In three or four sentences you should be able to say what the project is about. What is it’s over riding concern or concept? The sooner the jury is familiar with this the more they will feel comfortable with looking at the design. Don’t leave the concept to the last minute. The best way to present to a jury is as follows. The improtant thing is to guide the jury to the design and the images which describe it.

You also need to lead the jurors thought the building. You can do this by describing how they enter the building, how they circulate thought it and what qualities of light or spatial qualities it has once they are inside or moving through it. The point is that you need to guide, not unlike a tour guide, the jury members or critics through your design.

• Introduce your self and the concept
• Quickly describe 3 or 4 ways that the concept has shaped the design of the building.
• Lead the jurors through the design quickly discuss: Siting, main entrances, circulation and spatial qualities of different spaces.
• Summarise what the design contributes to design knowledge and what you would do to evolve the design further.

And then you can be ready questions. Of course you in the above scenario there are whole lot of things you have not spoken about. Like materials or what or how its constructed or where the toilets or parking are. Some jurors like to ask these questions and by not mentioning them and yet being prepared for them. You will end up sounding knowledgable and thoughtful. Nevertheless, the main aim in the question period is to get a discussion going about the design, its associated concepts and what it says about the designers attitudes towards the particular type of architectural or urban problem the design encapsulates.

Public Speaking 

Don’t speak as if you are channeling a bad power point slide. A badly formatted template with crap images and too much detail on each slide. Keeping it simple is best.

I once saw the director of an architectural firm destroy his firm’s chances of getting  a $150M project by the ineptitude of his presentation. After 10 minutes everyone in the audience felt the same. After 10 more minutes I wanted to stab myself in the eye with a biro. The problem was that the presentation went on for another hour. It was scheduled to be only 35 minutes. The firm did not get the job and the primary topic of conversation in my email inbox, by other attendees, the next day was how bad it was. I just hope someone told him.

All the rules of public speaking apply. Don’t forget to wear your bow tie or best shoes. Get a good nights sleep before hand and rehearse, rehearse and rehearse. Practice in front of your grandmother or your non-architectural friend’s. See if they get it. After all it could mean the difference between getting the architectural commission or doing the Uber thing: Who wants to be an Uber driver after seven years of study?

Share this:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

Sociology for Social Justice by Zuleyka Zevallos

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

Yes, I am THAT architecture student

A global intellectual commons

Just like the horse whisperer - but with more pages

The business of architecture

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Welcome to the world of a French-loving, American couple

How to Write a Stellar Mémoire (French Master’s Thesis)

Pursuing graduate studies in France entails mastering all sorts of assignments, but perhaps none as daunting as the notorious mémoire , or master’s thesis. Writing and defending a master’s thesis is the cornerstone of many, though not all, French graduate degrees, making it a rite of passage for degree-seeking students in France. As part of my French master’s degree in Droit Public parcours Intégration Européenne et Gouvernance Globale , I was required to take on the infamous mémoire alongside my regular coursework during the final year of my studies.

Since I’m an international student at the Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne , I had to contend not only with the base-level difficulties of putting together a master’s thesis, but also with the reality of writing fully in my second language and following the unforgiving methodology and writing norms of French law school to a tee. Needless to say, my year-long research project entailed late nights spent reading, countless trips to the library, typing until my fingers were sore, and shedding a few more tears than I’d like to admit!

My master’s thesis experience wasn’t all bad, of course. I genuinely enjoyed learning everything I could about my topic, discussing my progress with my classmates, refining my French-language skills , and presenting a piece of work that reflected my academic rigor. To my delight, at the end of my defense, the jury awarded me an 18/20 for my mémoire , entitled Associer les inégalités sociales et le changement climatique : Une étude comparative des contextes et approches aux États-Unis et dans l’Union européenne . The jury highlighted the following assets of my work:

• Qualité de recherche (Research quality)
• Qualité rédactionnelle (Writing quality)
• Qualité de français (French-language quality)
• Problématique innovante (Innovative research question)
• Posture épistémologique intéressant (Interesting epistemological posture)
• Bon cadrage théorique (Good theoretical framework)
• Limitations justifiées (Justified limitations)
• Structure impeccable (Impeccable structure)

Managing to receive the highest honors on my mémoire as an American studying law in France was no easy feat. Throughout the lengthy process of crafting my master’s thesis and defense, I discovered what worked well for me and what held me back – that’s why, in this post, I’m sharing my expert tips to help you write an outstanding French master’s thesis.

Honor Your Interests

Completing a mémoire takes months of daily research, reading, and writing, so you can imagine how painful the whole operation can become if your topic doesn’t inspire you! For a certain amount of time, your master’s thesis content will likely be all you can think about as you attempt to find and consume every piece of relevant literature ever written about it. To avoid misery and increase your motivation, you need to reflect upon the subjects within your degree field that excite you, the themes you’d be delighted to learn more about, and the concepts you truly want to call yourself an expert in come the day of your defense.

• My research topic combined my enthusiasm for the themes of public policy and governance, social justice issues, environmental protection, the United States, and the European Union.

Favor Innovation

The goal of producing a master’s thesis is not to reiterate the conclusions that other researchers have already drawn, but to pull from existing knowledge in order to demonstrate something new. To elevate your mémoire and impress your jury, innovation is indispensable. Creating a research question that hasn’t already been exhaustively answered will also prevent you from simply regurgitating what you read and will allow you to write a master’s thesis that relies on the important work of those before you, but is, ultimately, entirely your own.

• In my case, the concept of linking social inequality and climate change is relatively new on the whole. Moreover, my comparison of the United States’ and the European Union’s approaches for dealing with this phenomenon is something that hadn’t been done before.

Survey Your Sources

Because a finished mémoire is the culmination of in-depth research and analysis, you’ll need to choose a topic that you can thoroughly explore. For example, if your desired subject is too cutting-edge, you may struggle to find sufficient existing material upon which to build your master’s thesis. If essential documents that you need to read are confidential, located far away, or otherwise inaccessible, you won’t be able to use them for your work. It is therefore essential to consider whether adequate sources are available before you set your heart on a specific theme.

• When finalizing my topic, I ensured that the sources I would need to study were either located online, at my university , or in libraries near me.

Create a Timeline

You know that you should start working on your master’s thesis at the beginning of the school year , and that you need to have it finished by the end, but what happens between those two events is much less clear! With the help of a trusted professor or independently, you should make a realistic schedule with self-imposed deadlines to help you conceptualize the amount of work that needs to be done by each date. Your timeline should include targets for things like finalizing your research question, gathering sources for your bibliography, writing the various sections of the manuscript, submitting your mémoire for review, and preparing for your defense.

• Using a holistic timeline helped me to know when I was on track, when I could take breaks, and when I needed to speed things along. It also enabled me to beat procrastination, as delaying tasks for too long would have thrown me completely off schedule.

Chat About Your Research

While a master’s thesis is definitely an individual project, you shouldn’t keep your thoughts and questions to yourself! Your professors, classmates, friends, and family are all valuable resources as you go through the mémoire process. Speaking with your professors (who have already successfully completed challenging research projects) and with your classmates (who are currently working on their own mémoires ) about things like methodological difficulties and research hardships can lead to helpful problem solving and sincere moral support. Moreover, explaining your research to friends and family (who are likely unfamiliar with your subject) will help you gauge how well you understand it yourself and how clearly you’re able to express your ideas.

• I personally checked in regularly with my classmates who always offered useful words of advice and encouragement. I also talked with my significant other, Jalen , frequently to get his feedback on my work.

Choose the Right Advisor

Selecting a directeur·rice de mémoire , or master’s thesis advisor, isn’t a decision to make lightly. To find the perfect fit, you need to be familiar with your potential advisors and know your own preferences very well. For example, asking a professor whose specialty has nothing to do with your research question is likely to be as uninteresting for them as it is unhelpful to you. Furthermore, if you’re a student who likes frequent and detailed feedback, choosing a professor with a tightly-packed schedule might not be the best idea. Take the time to weigh your options carefully before asking a professor to become your advisor.

• I made sure to pick an advisor who was familiar with the broad strokes of my topic and had a hands-off attitude so that I could work autonomously and at my own pace.

Write Meticulously

The quality of the content of your master’s thesis is crucial, but so is the quality of your writing. The most brilliant of ideas will still fall flat if your text is riddled with grammatical errors and spelling mistakes. Attempting to avoid all language blunders is especially vital when you’re writing in your second language – and even more so in a country like France where such mistakes are not looked upon kindly. If your manuscript is hard to understand, readers won’t be able to appreciate your analysis. Additionally, it’s tough for readers to take a piece of work seriously if they’re constantly distracted by careless errors. Try to compose every sentence with care in order to avoid these pitfalls.

• When writing my mémoire , I never hesitated to look up a word, phrase, or grammar rule when I was even the tiniest bit uncertain. I also double-checked for errors that I commonly make, like accidentally including a serial comma when I’m writing in French.

Perfect Your Formatting

You shouldn’t organize your master’s thesis like you would a novel, an essay, or a report. Depending on your field of study and your degree program’s requirements, you’ll likely have specific norms to apply and rules to follow for structuring your mémoire . Your acknowledgements, dedication, abstract, abbreviations, table of contents, references, and appendices can’t be placed just anywhere! You should also ensure that your work is pleasing to the eye, with an appropriate cover page, sensible headings, proper font sizes and line spacing, logical page breaks, and accurate citations. These details are what make the difference between a good master’s thesis and a great one.

• In French law school, for example, writing to a detailed, hierarchical outline, known as a plan , is often an absolute must. As such, the final version of my master’s thesis manuscript consists of an introduction, two chapters with three sections and eight sub-sections each, and a conclusion.

Prepare Your Defense

When you’re finally done writing your master’s thesis, it can be tempting to put it completely out of your mind. But once you conquer this first step, you still have one more challenge to tackle: your soutenance , or master’s thesis defense. To pass your defense, you need to do more than just prepare to present your research and findings to the jury. A quality presentation will also include explaining the reason you chose your topic, the sources you used, the problems you faced , the limitations of your work, any updates on your subject since you finished writing, and future research possibilities. Don’t forget to reread your mémoire with a critical eye to anticipate the jury’s critiques in advance. Going the extra mile to prepare your defense to the best of your ability is a recipe for triumph.

• I prepared for my defense one week in advance, and it consisted of a 20-minute presentation, a 25-minute question and answer session, and a 10-minute jury deliberation.

Take Your Work Seriously

It’s no secret that some degree programs are more rigorous than others, just as it’s true that some students take their studies more seriously than others. However, if you decide that writing a solid master’s thesis demonstrating your academic talents and integrity isn’t worth your time because you know that your program will accept work of lower calibre, you’ve effectively proven your degree to be a second-rate credential and yourself to be a substandard student. Would you rather throw together a mediocre mémoire that you’ll stuff away the moment it’s over, or compose a meaningful piece of work representing the best of your capacities that you’ll be excited to share with others for years to come? Taking your work seriously won’t steer you wrong, especially when it comes to an assignment as noteworthy as a master’s thesis.

• I know that my decision to do my absolute best played a large role in the jury’s attribution of my final grade, and I’m proud of myself for having done so.

Everyone’s master’s thesis journey is unique, but implementing these tips will put you on a path to success. Is writing a French mémoire in your future? Have you ever carried out a significant research project? Do you want to know more about my experience? Let me know in a comment!

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

You Aren't Doomed to Become an English Teacher in France

How to Run a Successful Blog: Our Techniques for Consistently Posting Content Every Week

You may also like.

How To Register and Choose Classes as an American Master’s Student in France

Studying in France as Americans: Exciting Developments and Difficult Grief

Studying in France as Americans: Kicking Off an Awesome Summer

One comment.

Jator Berline

Thank you for sharing your experience and the meaningful tips. I hope to put them to use as I write my master’s thesis and prepare for defense.

Congratulations on your final grades 👏👏

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• Thesis & Dissertation Acknowledgements | Tips & Examples

Thesis & Dissertation Acknowledgements | Tips & Examples

Published on May 3, 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on July 18, 2023.

The acknowledgements section is your opportunity to thank those who have helped and supported you personally and professionally during your thesis or dissertation process.

Thesis or dissertation acknowledgements appear between your title page and abstract  and should be no longer than one page.

In your acknowledgements, it’s okay to use a more informal style than is usually permitted in academic writing , as well as first-person pronouns . Acknowledgements are not considered part of the academic work itself, but rather your chance to write something more personal.

To get started, download our step-by-step template in the format of your choice below. We’ve also included sample sentence starters to help you construct your acknowledgments section from scratch.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Who to thank in your acknowledgements, how to write acknowledgements, acknowledgements section example, acknowledgements dos and don’ts, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about the acknowledgements section.

Generally, there are two main categories of acknowledgements: professional and personal .

A good first step is to check your university’s guidelines, as they may have rules or preferences about the order, phrasing, or layout of acknowledgements. Some institutions prefer that you keep your acknowledgements strictly professional.

Regardless, it’s usually a good idea to place professional acknowledgements first, followed by any personal ones. You can then proceed by ranking who you’d like to thank from most formal to least.

• Chairs, supervisors, or defense committees
• Funding bodies
• Other academics (e.g., colleagues or cohort members)
• Editors or proofreaders
• Librarians, research/laboratory assistants, or study participants
• Family, friends, or pets

Typically, it’s only necessary to mention people who directly supported you during your thesis or dissertation. However, if you feel that someone like a high school physics teacher was a great inspiration on the path to your current research, feel free to include them as well.

Professional acknowledgements

It is crucial to avoid overlooking anyone who helped you professionally as you completed your thesis or dissertation. As a rule of thumb, anyone who directly contributed to your research process, from figuring out your dissertation topic to your final proofread, should be mentioned.

A few things to keep in mind include:

• Even if you feel your chair didn’t help you very much, you should still thank them first to avoid looking like you’re snubbing them.
• Be sure to follow academic conventions, using full names with titles where appropriate.
• If several members of a group or organization assisted you, mention the collective name only.
• Remember the ethical considerations around anonymized data. If you wish to protect someone’s privacy, use only their first name or a generic identifier (such as “the interviewees”)/

Personal acknowledgements

There is no need to mention every member of your family or friend group. However, if someone was particularly inspiring or supportive, you may wish to mention them specifically. Many people choose to thank parents, partners, children, friends, and even pets, but you can mention anyone who offered moral support or encouragement, or helped you in a tangible or intangible way.

Some students may wish to dedicate their dissertation to a deceased influential person in their personal life. In this case, it’s okay to mention them first, before any professional acknowledgements.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

After you’ve compiled a list of who you’d like to thank, you can then sort your list into rank order. Separate everyone you listed into “major thanks,” “big thanks,” and “minor thanks” categories.

• “Major thanks” are given to people who your project would be impossible without. These are often predominantly professional acknowledgements, such as your advisor, chair, and committee, as well as any funders.
• “Big thanks” are an in-between, for those who helped you along the way or helped you grow intellectually, such as classmates, peers, or librarians.
• “Minor thanks” can be a catch-all for everyone else, especially those who offered moral support or encouragement. This can include personal acknowledgements, such as parents, partners, children, friends, or even pets.

How to phrase your acknowledgements

To avoid acknowledgements that sound repetitive or dull, consider changing up your phrasing. Here are some examples of common sentence starters you can use for each category.

Note that you do not need to write any sort of conclusion or summary at the end. You can simply end the acknowledgements with your last thank you.

Here’s an example of how you can combine the different sentences to write your acknowledgements.

A simple construction consists of a sentence starter (in purple highlight ), followed by the person or entity mentioned (in green highlight ), followed by what you’re thanking them for (in yellow highlight .)

Acknowledgements

Words cannot express my gratitude to my professor and chair of my committee for her invaluable patience and feedback. I also could not have undertaken this journey without my defense committee, who generously provided knowledge and expertise. Additionally, this endeavor would not have been possible without the generous support from the MacArthur Foundation, who financed my research .

I am also grateful to my classmates and cohort members, especially my office mates, for their editing help, late-night feedback sessions, and moral support. Thanks should also go to the librarians, research assistants, and study participants from the university, who impacted and inspired me.

Lastly, I would be remiss in not mentioning my family, especially my parents, spouse, and children. Their belief in me has kept my spirits and motivation high during this process. I would also like to thank my cat for all the entertainment and emotional support.

• Write in first-person, professional language
• Thank your professional contacts first
• Include full names, titles, and roles of professional acknowledgements
• Include personal or intangible supporters, like friends, family, or even pets
• Mention funding bodies and what they funded
• Appropriately anonymize or group research participants or non-individual acknowledgments

Don’t:

• Use informal language or slang
• Go over one page in length
• Mention people who had only a peripheral or minor impact on your work

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or research bias, make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Research bias

• Anchoring bias
• Halo effect
• The Baader–Meinhof phenomenon
• The placebo effect
• Nonresponse bias
• Deep learning
• Generative AI
• Machine learning
• Reinforcement learning
• Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

In the acknowledgements of your thesis or dissertation, you should first thank those who helped you academically or professionally, such as your supervisor, funders, and other academics.

Then you can include personal thanks to friends, family members, or anyone else who supported you during the process.

Yes, it’s important to thank your supervisor(s) in the acknowledgements section of your thesis or dissertation .

Even if you feel your supervisor did not contribute greatly to the final product, you must acknowledge them, if only for a very brief thank you. If you do not include your supervisor, it may be seen as a snub.

The acknowledgements are generally included at the very beginning of your thesis , directly after the title page and before the abstract .

In a thesis or dissertation, the acknowledgements should usually be no longer than one page. There is no minimum length.

You may acknowledge God in your dissertation acknowledgements , but be sure to follow academic convention by also thanking the members of academia, as well as family, colleagues, and friends who helped you.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

George, T. (2023, July 18). Thesis & Dissertation Acknowledgements | Tips & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 16, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/acknowledgements/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, dissertation layout and formatting, thesis & dissertation title page | free templates & examples, how to write an abstract | steps & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

How to Face a Jury in Architecture School

A while back, we talked about how our ability to communicate as creative people can sometimes make or break our success. Effective communication is one factor of life as an architecture student, but another one is in how we face up to a jury of people ready to critique our work . It is something sure to cause most new students to melt in anxiety. The moments leading up to a review can be filled with uncertainty and worry. Standing in front of a group of people and presenting something we’ve created can be daunting, and we brood over the stamp of approval we yearn for. Our primary preoccupation tends to be a fear of looking bad, of not appearing smart, capable, and competent enough. And the need to be seen in this favorable light is what often encourages the uneasiness that swells within us. 

To fight this, we must modify our view of the jury and the part they have to play in our development.

Charlie Parker’s Dismissal

Late one evening in 1936, a 16-year-old Charlie Parker walked into Kansas City’s Reno Club, ready to show its patrons what he was made of. Parker had been rigorously building his chops on the saxophone, teaching himself complicated forms of improvisation and dreaming of revolutionizing jazz music. This was his chance to finally shine. On this particular night, Jo Jones , the powerful drummer for Count Basie’s Orchestra, was playing at the club, and Parker would have a chance to jam with him. Ten years his elder and naturally more seasoned, Jones would be a formidable force for the young musician to keep up with. 

Waiting in a line of other eager musicians, Parker finally got his turn and ambitiously joined the rest of the band. Jones carried the pulse, driving the group forward, and Parker nailed the initial changes of the tune, introducing some nuanced passing chords and embellishments of his own. But then, the inexperienced unschooled saxophonist lost his place in the song, was playing over the wrong chord changes, and began to drift off tempo, throwing off the rest of the band. “Everybody was looking, and people were starting to say, ‘Get this cat off of here,’” said Gene Ramey , a bassist who was there that night.

Jones stopped playing, took his cymbal off his kit and banged it on the floor by Parker’s feet, signalling to the oblivious musician that it was time for him to stop playing, it wasn’t working out, he wasn’t cutting it. Parker jumped from the cymbal crash and got startled, and the whole club burst into laughter, humiliating the young boy. This night was not the night he would show the world what he was made of. He left the club, and with the dismissal of everyone there, contemplated what his next steps would be.

The Purpose of the Jury 

Typically, the biggest fear before facing a jury is the fear of looking like a fool in front of all of your colleagues and the jurors. In such a highly intellectual setting, we dread the thought of being seen as unintellectual, or incompetent, or even unworthy. We give the jurors the power to bestow this approval upon us. If they are happy with what we present, then we had a “good” critique, we tell ourselves, and if they do not like what we’ve shown, we’ve had a “bad” one. Because isn’t that the measure of success in these things? To have everyone approve of what we’ve done? 

The purpose of the review is to learn and develop...

The purpose of the review is to learn and develop. And the purpose of the jury is to help facilitate that development by providing an outside perspective, challenge your ideas, and engage in a fruitful discourse with you about your work. Facing a group like this teaches us how to face different personalities, something that will be invaluable in professional work. Some people on a panel can be intense, direct, and intimidating. Some are even mean-spirited, egocentric, and seem to purposely seek to tear students down. But, there are also those who are kind, encouraging, and uplifting. You will likely face all types during your time in school. 

How to Deal With the “Mean” Juror

Jo Jones didn’t have to throw his cymbal down on the floor and humiliate Charlie Parker that night. Parker experienced our worst fear, he thought he was going to impress everyone, but instead got laughed off the stage. What did he do in response? Go cry in a corner? No, he joined a band, studied harder, and got better. A year later he showed up at another jam session, and displaying the fruits of his labor, played a historic breathtaking solo. “Before the thing was over, all the guys that had rejected him were sitting down with their mouths wide open. I had seen a miracle. I really had. It was something that made tears come down my face,” said trumpeter Oliver Todd about the session.

Sure, Jones was “mean,” but Parker took it as motivation to get better, he focused on his personal development. Sometimes, architecture can promote this culture of idolatry, where the more successful or accomplished individual has some kind of power over us. It’s the same in jazz. Jones was highly respected and revered by other musicians, it was the ultimate blow for him to disapprove of Parker’s playing. Imagine, Rem Koolhaas “throwing his cymbal” at your feet because your work was so off base. But, like Parker, we should see such a reaction as a sign that we need to improve, buckle down, and get to work.

We want to do our best to judge the accuracy of what someone says instead of basing our reception on whether or not we like them as a person. 

While Jones’ gesture is said to have been more playful than malicious by those who were there that night, he still provides a good example of the fact that a juror is a flawed human being just like we all are. They aren’t special, or more important, or more valuable in some way. Chances are, they have accomplished more than you have at this point in time, have put in more work than you, and can in some way help you become better. This is what we should focus on. Even though their style might be off-putting, what can we learn from them? We want to do our best to judge the accuracy of what someone says instead of basing our reception on whether or not we like them as a person. 

Be a Sponge

School is not the time to prove ourselves, but rather a time to absorb and learn. Yes, we need to perform well, but often, humility is the best way to combat a fear of judgment. We want recognition for the hard work we’ve done all semester, but we should be seeking feedback on what we need to get better at, what we need to work on or refine. As we suppress our desire for recognition and embrace our need to be critiqued, harsh judgments become a point of intrigue rather than offense. It was the Greek philosopher Epictetus who said that it is impossible for us to learn that which we think we already know. He’s right, there are too many students in school who think they are Bjarke Ingels or Zaha Hadid. When you start your first job and meet that man or woman who has been an architect longer than you’ve been on the planet, things get put into perspective. 

When we adopt a learning mindset during these reviews, all of a sudden, a “bad” review ends up being a good one, an insightful one, because we’ve learned what we need to improve on moving forward. Become a sponge and absorb everything around you, as you grow, you can discard what doesn’t work for you.

The Psychology of the Juror

We often forget that the people on a jury are exactly that, people. They all have their own hopes, fears, and dreams, just like you do. For the most part, they are there to help you, but each person has their own idea of what that looks like. Some feel that giving you a hard time will help “thicken your skin” or “toughen you up.” Others feel that guiding you to a more abundant way of thinking is more helpful. It all varies depending on the personality.

We must realize that the juror also has pressures of their own. Often, they are thinking about how they are perceived by you, your class, and the other jurors. They don’t want to look like fools in front of their peers either. There is an obligation to provide some kind of profound insight or wisdom to you and each one of your studio mates, and that can be daunting and burdensome. Most of them will forget about you and your project in a week’s time and reenter their own complex and multifaceted lives. “He has a right to criticize, who has a heart to help,” Abraham Lincoln said. Gender aside, let’s remember that these people are here to help us, that’s not such a scary thought, and the best way for them to help in this setting is to critique.

Similar articles on Archinect that may interest you...

About the Author

Sean Joyner

Sean Joyner is a writer and essayist based in Los Angeles. His work explores themes spanning architecture, culture, and everyday life. Sean's essays and articles have been featured in The Architect's Newspaper, ARCHITECT Magazine, Dwell Magazine, and Archinect. He also works as an  ...

Awesome read Sean! Each moment you face a jury, a boss, or a client is a moment to learn from and practice. The important thing to remember is to be true to yourself, and don’t always try to please everybody. 

adrianaciotau

Thanks for the note and your insight Michael!

I completely agree with your call for humility.  The problem is schools and the media tend to promote the starchitect over good humble work.  They see people all around them faking it until they make it. 

"there are too many students in school who think they are Bjarke Ingels or Zaha Hadid."

Where would they get the idea that these people are the ones to emulate, high school?  If you see people being "torn down" and publicly humiliated, who will walk out there without a shell that keeps out the learning you advocate for?  I don't know how or if this can change this but your posts certainly help.  

Thanks Thayer! It’s a tough phenomenon for sure. I feel in our culture today we focus so much on outliers (tech billionaire entrepreneurs, starchitects, etc.) that our measure of success is a bit skewed. But, I have hope that smart individuals who think for themselves can overlook this tendency. As always, I appreciate your thoughtful remarks, they really contribute to the conversation and focus of each piece.

Another great feature, Sean! I appreciate the Charlie Parker story, not having heard that one before. Now, I'd like to suggest a challenge: can you take an episode from Miles Davis's life and use that as a springboard? One of my favorite stories has him driving an open top Ferrari in Manhattan one fall afternoon. Davis glances over to his passenger seat and sees what appears to be cocaine on the seat. He jams on the brakes and abandons his car in the middle of traffic. He leaves the car running, key still in the ignition. He then runs into the nearest building and rides the elevator for a long time, thinking that the cops are going to bust him. Turns out that the cocaine was actually snow.

Thanks! I’ve never heard this Davis story! If a time ever comes that this fits into something I’m exploring I will definitely use it. Thank again for reading and contributing!

I think the Davis story is about not losing perspective, even though Davis had plenty of reason to fear persecution from the police.

In my second year, a classmate and roommate who I shall call Dude, lost his perspective working on a deadline. Both of us, along with several other classmates put in an all-nighter at school in advance of crits the next morning. I packed it in around 5am, hoping to get a few hours of sleep. Before I left for home, I checked in on Dude; he was cutting a large grid out of thick card stock (this was the mid-eighties and he was riffing on Peter Eisenman). Around 9am, my home phone started ringing off the hook. Several professors were calling me, asking: "Where's Dude?". He wasn't at home and he certainly wasn't at school. The profs assumed the worst, remembering another classmate who had thrown herself in front of a subway train a year earlier. Dude was missing. He eventually reappeared several days later. Distraught by the state of his presentation, he went to the train station and boarded the first train he could find. The train took him north to Montreal where he drowned his sorrows in drink. Meanwhile, the rest of us in studio looked at Dude's project. It looked great (as was typically the case with him). When Dude finally returned, he revealed what had caused him to flip out. Turns out that he constructed his grid at 1:100 instead of 1:50. To the rest of us, the project still looked fabulous. He needed only to have asked another person to keep things in perspective.

My advice? Don't overthink this, there's no magic here, but I'll give one tip; outlines, create an outline of how you want to present, hit your points, and don't take anyone's shit. Ok, two.

I always liked to shape the presentation to focus on where I wanted feedback and asked the jury a few questions to start the conversation.  It's more effective earlier in the jury and can help shape all the other critiques (which is great if you want to see the questions addressed in your peers work too, not so great for others if you hijack the entire day).

Block this user

Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.

• Back to Features List... Back to Top  ↑
• » Architectural Issues
• » Culture
• » Architects
• » Design
• » Academia
• ↓ More
• » Buildings
• » Business
• » Employment
• » Technology
• » Film/Video/Photography
• » Urban Planning
• » Sustainability
• » Events
• » Landscape
• » Web
• » Competition
• » Furniture
• » View All
• × Search in:
• All of Archinect

Graduate students can now register for annual Three Minute Thesis Competition

Registration open for all degree-seeking graduate students at penn state's campuses, and also potential community judges, through oct. 25.

Graduate students looking to highlight their scholarly achievements, compete for monetary awards and recognition, and hone their research communication skills are now able to register for the second annual University-wide Three Minute Thesis competition. The deadline for competitor and community judge registration is Oct. 25, 2024.   Credit: Penn State . Creative Commons

September 16, 2024

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — Graduate students looking to highlight their scholarly achievements, compete for monetary awards and recognition, and hone their research communication skills are now able to register for second annual Penn State Three Minute Thesis competition , hosted by the J. Jeffrey and Ann Marie Fox Graduate School 

Registration to compete is open through Friday, Oct. 25, to all degree-seeking graduate students at any Penn State campus.  

Penn State community members, including graduate students, post-doctoral scholars, faculty and staff, are also invited to register as a judge by the Oct. 25 deadline for the event's first round.   

The Three Minute Thesis (3MT) is an academic research communication competition developed by the University of Queensland (UQ), Australia. Each competitor has three minutes to speak and can use only one presentation slide to effectively explain their research to a general audience.  

The competition will take place over two rounds. Judging for the opening round, which is a video format, will take place Nov. 4-8. The Fox Graduate School will be hosting the final round in partnership with the Graduate and Professional Student Association (GPSA) and the Fox Graduate School Alumni Society on Saturday, March 29, 2025, livestreamed from the Nittany Lion Inn on the University Park campus.

A small group of invited judges will evaluate the final round presentations and award first and second place. One competitor will also receive a People’s Choice award, sponsored by the GPSA, which will be decided based on in-person and online audience voting. 

The Fox Graduate School will also be hosting an upcoming two-part online workshop series in collaboration with two faculty members, Marcy Milhomme , associate teaching professor for continuing education in communication arts and sciences, and Andy Gustafson , associate clinical professor of accounting, that is designed to prepare students for the 3MT competition and set graduate students up for success with future presentations. Sessions will take place Sept. 25 and Oct. 2 , followed by Oct. 8 and 15 . 

Liam Jackson

• [email protected]
• Cell Phone: 814-863-4356
• Career Development
• Visitors and Neighbors
• Faculty and Staff
• Fox Graduate School

Get the news by email