phd minor corrections

How to deal with post-viva PhD thesis corrections

Jun 1, 2019

We like to think that the viva is the end of the doctoral process; the final step in the long journey to a PhD. However, for most, it isn’t the final hurdle. The outcome of the viva in most cases is another three to sixth months work to deal with corrections (which may range from correcting typos, to rewriting or adding entire chapters). This means you need to preserve some energy and be prepared to exert some considerable post-viva brainpower. 

Wait for the committee’s report

You’ll leave your viva with a good understanding of what revisions you’re going to be required, and, no doubt, many, many notes summarising the main discussion points and areas for improvement. However, as tempting as it may be to start picking apart particular sections or chapters, wait until your examination committee send over their report, which will be the formal record of the revisions that they recommend. 

Read through it carefully several times. I left mine for a day or so and then came back to it to reread it. I found this an effective way to pick up on some of the more nuanced aspects of their suggestions.

When you first receive it, you may be alarmed at its length and the detail that the examiner has gone into. Try not to be disheartened; in some ways, having detailed feedback on each suggested revision can help you, as it is providing you with clear (hopefully) instructions on how to proceed. 

Try not to be disheartened

Either way, you may feel disheartened. It’s   hard to have someone critique our work , especially when we’ve put so much energy into it in the first place. However, critique is part of the academic process. It is not intended to shame you for any real or perceived shortcomings, but instead to make your work as effective and academically rigorous as it can be.

There are two things to bear in mind. First, through engaging with such critique and making the necessary changes (or refuting them, where appropriate) you are developing not just the quality of your study, but also your critical thinking skills. The process of receiving, digesting and responding to reviewer critique in this way is a valuable skill and, in some ways, a necessary part of the doctoral journey. 

The challenge you will have is in understanding which of the reviewer’s comments are practical, appropriate and based in an accurate reading of the thesis and the wider discipline, and which are refutable or that you don’t agree with. When you submit your revised thesis, you are within your rights to exclude a particular revision, but you need to very carefully and convincingly justify your decision to do so. Perhaps your examiner has misunderstood something or has failed to take something into consideration that renders their suggestion mute. Point this out diplomatically, drawing on your own text and the wider literature to back up your response.

How to deal with unhelpful feedback

Sometimes though you may have more serious grievances with the nature of the examiner’s comments and you may feel unfairly treated. In these instances, it is vital that you talk to your supervisory committee and department leads. They will be able to offer you advice tailored to your context and institution.

The fantastic ’Thesis Whisperer’ blog has written a useful post on how to deal with unhelpful or conflicting feedback. You can find it   here .

Only do what the examiners ask for

When you sit down to work on your revisions, it is easy to spot additional problems and flaws with your thesis. As you approach completion, your critical thinking skills are very well developed, so it is only natural that you will be critiquing your own work. It is tempting to change things that aren’t listed in the examiner’s report in our ongoing quest for perfection. Do not do this. Only do what the examiner asked for.

Why? Two reasons. First, you may be limited for time. Two, you may be created additional problems.

You’ll have plenty of time to iron out any additional changes in a post-doc.

Your PhD thesis. All on one page. 

Use our free PhD structure template to quickly visualise every element of your thesis. 

Don’t freak out

Just because you get major corrections, isn’t the end of the world. Examiners have subjective views on what classes as each type of correction. Some may think that problems with page numbering or typos constitute minor corrections, some may turn a blind eye. While most universities have guidelines on what should be classed as, say, a major or minor correction, often the lines can be blurred. I have known students be told they have minor corrections to make to then be presented with twenty pages of suggested revision. Conversely, I have seen students successfully address major corrections in less than one week.

I’ve also seen outstanding PhDs be awarded major corrections just because the examiner wanted to push the student to turn a brilliant piece of research into something world-class.

I’ve also seen weaker PhDs awarded minor or even no corrections.

Every examiner is different, and some will be expecting more of students than others. This is particularly the case if your examiner has particular expertise in a particular approach your thesis is taking (of course, examiners will be subject-experts, but in some cases, they may be leading experts on, say, a particular theoretical approach too, or your methodology). In these cases, they might be more liable to call you out on things that the other examiner may have missed or not realised the significance of.

One upside of this is that a strict examiner can push your research to a higher level. This is useful if you plan on turning it into a book, or carry on research in a post-doc.

Create a matrix

You should list all of the suggested revisions in a spreadsheet, together with your notes. This will allow you to create an audit trail as you work through them.

To start, create a spreadsheet with three columns. In column one, you list each revision listed in the report on a separate row. In column two, you can write your notes or, where relevant, the final text that will make it into your revised thesis. In the third column, note the priority that that particular revision has (more on this below).

This serves four purposes. First, you can easily see every single step required and track your progress, making sure you don’t miss anything out. Second, it lets you break down longer, more detailed comments into manageable chunks. Third, you can create an order of priority, so you know what to focus on first. Fourth, you can use the table to write up your response to the examiners (more on this below).

When you have finished your revisions, you can use the matrix to double check that you have dealt with everything listed in the report.

Get started quickly

Decide which amendments you have to do, and which you won’t. You may not agree with a particular suggestion, or you may be able to explain any misunderstanding. In these cases, you shouldn’t just change things to satisfy your examiners. Instead, you need to stand your ground when you think it necessary but, importantly, you need to argue your case. Like a Doctor. Tell the examiner exactly why you have chosen not to make a suggested revision, in as much detail as possible and with reference to both the existing thesis and, if necessary, the wider literature.

However, there may be comments that you don’t understand. If that’s the case, you should talk to your advisory committee or department administrators to see what the protocol is for contacting the examiners to seek further clarification.

Check the paperwork

There may be a lot of final paperwork that you need to submit alongside your corrected draft. Check what your institution requires well in advance of resubmission. 

Read through the entire thesis

Once you have finished your revisions, read through the entire thesis one final time. When you do, try not to focus on the revisions you have just made, but instead on how the document reads.

This serves two purposes: first, you can make sure the flow has been maintained after your changes, and that you have avoided repetition. Second, it’s a chance to deal with any stray typos. If you struggle to proofread your work, reading it out loud may help.

Create a cover letter

It is likely that your institution will require you to prepare a cover letter to submit alongside the revised thesis. This document summarises your response to every comment, detailing what changes you made and, importantly, which of the suggestions you haven’t taken on board, and why.

Make sure to maintain a polite tone, even if you disagree with some of their suggestions. You should thank them for their hard work, and respond thoroughly to each suggestion that they made. It isn’t enough to simply say, ‘I made change number 1 on page 50’. Instead, you should spend some time talking about the nature of the change, and offer any other comments or thoughts you have.

If you can, summarise the changes you made in a table, complete with page numbers. This will make the examiners’ life easier by allowing you to quickly show how you responded to each comment and where exactly the changes are in the thesis. They may not have time to read through the entire thesis again, so providing them with an easy-reference guide to where each change can be found can speed the whole review process up considerably.

When creating this cover letter, use the matrix we discussed above to keep track of your revisions.

The corrections your examiner suggests are not a personal attack; they are instead a reflection of the process of peer review that characterises modern academia. Yet, academia is also characterised by ongoing debate. That means you are within your rights to contest particular suggestions, but in a rigorous, logical and, where appropriate, evidence-based way. You have pushed the frontiers of knowledge in your PhD and now have authority to speak as an expert.

Prepare for your viva. One question at a time.

Prepare answers to the most common PhD viva questions with this interactive template. It’s free to download and it’s yours to keep forever.

Hello, Doctor…

Sounds good, doesn’t it?  Be able to call yourself Doctor sooner with our five-star rated How to Write A PhD email-course. Learn everything your supervisor should have taught you about planning and completing a PhD.

Now half price. Join hundreds of other students and become a better thesis writer, or your money back. 

Share this:

15 comments.

Hello everyone, I really enjoy your work and your site is quite interesting. I must appreciate your work and efforts . It is extraordinary.

King regards, Thompson Duke

Hello all, Very amazing reading through. All aspects helpful to do excellent corrections for my dessertation I am really grateful..

Thanks Dzidzor Atsakpo

You’re welcome. Thanks for reading.

Thank you ever so much.

Very helpful indeed.

Thanks Charles.

This is an incredibly helpful post. It has helped me to stop stressing about my corrections and see them in a properly academic sense rather than as a personal failure. After the hard work of writing a PhD, followed by the anxieties of the viva, it can be hard to maintain a sensible perspective! Thank you.

Thanks for your lovely words Colette. I’m glad you found it useful. Means a lot.

This is probably the best PhD thesis advise I have come across in my very long doctoral journey. It just gives me a lot of hope!

An insightful piece of work. Very much appreciated.

Thank you so much Max. It is hard to keep going with corrections. This helped me keep perspective.

Thank you so much for this post. I have recently received major amendments and was so disheartened. What you’ve written about major amendments is incredibly reassuring, not to mention very helpful. Thank you!

Succinct and very helpful advice: puts the work required into perspective – a preparation for responding to reviewers’ feedback with regards to future publications. Thanks.

Thanks for the kind words. Glad you found it useful.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

Search The PhD Knowledge Base

Most popular articles from the phd knowlege base.

The PhD Knowledge Base Categories

• Your PhD and Covid
• Mastering your theory and literature review chapters
• How to structure and write every chapter of the PhD
• How to stay motivated and productive
• Techniques to improve your writing and fluency
• Advice on maintaining good mental health
• Resources designed for non-native English speakers
• PhD Writing Template
• Explore our back-catalogue of motivational advice

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Postgraduate events
• Fees and funding
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• Current Students

Degree Committee for the Faculty of Earth Sciences & Geography

• Coronavirus Guidance
• About the DC overview

Meeting dates

• Department contacts
• Prospective Students overview
• Continuing students
• Current Students overview
• Change in student status overview
• Changing course, dept or mode
• Extending submission deadline
• Intermission
• Withdrawal and reinstatement
• Working Away from Cambridge
• Supervision reports
• First year review
• Exams MRes & MPhil (taught) overview
• Rules and Regulations
• After the examination
• Exams MPhil by thesis overview
• Before you submit
• Thesis submission
• The oral (viva)
• Results overview
• Corrections
• Revising a thesis
• Exams PhD overview
• Submitting a hardbound copy
• PhD not awarded
• LWA Research Fund
• Complaints and appeals
• Supervisors overview
• Supervisor appointment
• Roles and responsibilities overview
• Supervisor role: postgraduate admissions
• Supervisor role: current students
• Supervisor role: examinations
• Guidance for supervisors
• Supervision reporting
• Examiners overview
• PhD or MPhil by thesis exam overview
• Examiner appointment
• Pre-viva actions
• Post-viva actions
• Submitting reports
• Fees and expenses
• Examining a revised thesis
• MRes or MPhil (taught) exam overview
• Senior/Chair of Examiners
• External Examiner for taught courses
• Examiners and Assessors
• Plagiarism or poor scholarship
• Appeals procedures
• Higher Degrees overview
• PhD under Special Regulations
• ScD and LittD

Corrections PhD

• Degree Committee for the Faculty of Earth Sciences & Geography

Types of correction

Most PhD candidates have some corrections to make after the oral. They tend to fall into three categories:

• very minor (typos) - these can be completed and approved by the Examiners within a few hours, and the Examiners can then recommend a pass when they submit their reports. You will need to submit your hardbound and electronic final version before the degree can be conferred.
• minor, straightforward corrections - you usually have up to 3 months to complete these; they are usually checked by the Internal Examiner. The Examiners send in their reports before the corrected thesis has been approved so you will be given  conditional approval for the degree. You will only be formally approved for the degree once the corrections have been checked and found to be satisfactory and your hardbound and electronic final version submitted . 
• substantial, less straightforward corrections - you usually have up to 6 months to complete these; they are usually checked by both Examiners. You will be given  conditional approval for the degree. You will only be formally approved for the degree once the corrections have been checked and found to be satisfactory and your hardbound and electronic final version submitted . 

Making corrections

Once you have received the Examiners' reports and know what corrections you need to make, you can start work on them. Do discuss with your supervisor if you need additional guidance. If necessary (s)he can discuss your questions with the Examiners.

The time you have to complete your corrections starts from the date your official result email is sent to you by Student Registry, not the date of your oral. If you do not complete the corrections within the permitted timeframe you will be withdrawn from study. You can still hand in the corrected work for approval when you're ready - you will normally be reinstated for the purpose of degree approval when your Examiner(s) inform the Degree Committee that they approve your corrections.

We know it is often the case that Examiners provide a list of corrections directly to the candidate so they can be worked on immediately after the viva. They are not required to do so.

Submitting corrections

You are expected to make all the corrections required by your Examiners. If a change has been suggested, rather than required, you should indicate, as part of the list of corrections made, the extent to which you have taken account of such suggestions.

When you have made all the corrections the Examiners requested you should prepare a corrected version of the thesis and a separate a list of the corrections made, including the original and new page numbers. For the convenience of the Examiner, the list of corrections should describe precisely how the earlier text has been amended - with page, paragraph and line references. The list should be in page order.

The joint Examiners report (PhD2) will tell you if corrections need to be approved by the Internal, External or both Examiners. Submit the corrected work and the list of corrections directly to the relevant Examiner(s). Student Registry ask that you copy them in if you are submitting your corrections to your examiners by email, so they can update your record.

Correction approval

Your Examiner(s) will check that the corrections have been made to their satisfaction. Corrections are usually approved first time but if the Examiner(s) are not content they can ask you to have another attempt (they will never require additional corrections they had not previously identified). The degree will not be awarded until the Examiner(s) are satisfied.

When the Examiner(s) are satisfied they will inform the Degree Committee of their decision. If your examination reports have already been considered at meetings of the Degree Committee your corrections can normally be accepted as approved without further consideration at a Degree Committee meeting. 

We will let you know when your corrections have been approved. If your Examiner(s) have indicated to you that they are happy with the corrections but you have not heard from the Degree Committee within 10 days please get in contact with us.

You should wait to make the hardbound copy until after the corrections have been approved.

Student Status while making corrections

University working restrictions do not apply to you while you make corrections, although students on a student visa are still expected to comply with the working conditions laid down by UK Visas and Immigration at all stages (see Working on a student visa ). You will need to apply for leave to work away if you are planning to complete the corrections outside Cambridge.

If you can't find the page you are looking for or find a broken link do let us know (please use the email link in the 'Contact us' section below).

Ukraine - University resources

Coronavirus advice from the University

Office closures

The Degree Committee for the Faculty of Earth Sciences and Geography will be closed from 5pm on Thursday 28 March 2024 and will reopen again on Tuesday 2 April 2024. Research degree theses should still be submitted by your submission deadline even if that falls over the holiday period.

Meetings of the Degree Committee and Degree Ceremonies

Essential Links

Cambridge Students portal

Code of Practice for Postgraduate Students

International Students Office

Student Registry (for staff)

Degree Committee for Earth Sciences & Geography, School of Physical Sciences, 17 Mill Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1RX. Tel: 01223 746764 / 746766

[email protected]

Site privacy & cookie policies.

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Personal tools

• Log in/Register Register

https://www.vitae.ac.uk/doing-research/doing-a-doctorate/completing-your-doctorate/your-viva/thesis-outcomes

This page has been reproduced from the Vitae website (www.vitae.ac.uk). Vitae is dedicated to realising the potential of researchers through transforming their professional and career development.

• Vitae members' area

Thesis outcomes and corrections

There will usually be a bit more work to do after the viva. Each institution will have its own regulations about viva outcomes and how to inform the candidate of them. Find out before you go into your viva so that you know what to expect. In the UK they typically they fall into one of the following categories:

• Outright pass. Your work needs no corrections
• Minor corrections. Your examiners have a few minor suggestions that they would like you to incorporate
• Major corrections or resubmission. The thesis needs further work to be of doctoral standard. This might include more research, rewriting sections or including new literature
• Suggestion that you resubmit for, or are awarded, a lower degree (MPhil or MSc). Research is of good quality but too narrow for a doctorate
• Outright fail. Usually used only in cases of plagiarism or where the examiners judge that the candidate will never be able to complete a doctorate.

Most candidates fall within the minor or major corrections categories. This means that you will have some corrections to complete. However, regardless of the number of corrections that you have to do most people who reach the viva stage do  go on to get their doctorate relatively quickly.

Thesis corrections

After your viva you are likely to have some corrections to complete before you are awarded your doctorate. The extent can range from a few spelling mistakes to rewriting or adding complete chapters. You may be given a deadline by your examiners or your institution but regardless of this, it is best to aim to complete your corrections as soon as possible to use the momentum acquired during thesis writing.

In order to be sure that your corrections make the right changes:

• take notes during the viva and write them up immediately after
• meet with your main supervisor to discuss the changes that you need to make
• analyse the examiners' report carefully to make sure that you have dealt with all of the issues that they raise
• proofread your work again.

Thesis resubmission

Your examiners, or often just the internal examiner, will check that all corrections have been incorporated, and then you can resubmit your thesis. Your institution will have regulations on the format of the final submitted thesis copy of your thesis, which will usually be deposited in the institutional library. It has become more common for institutions to request the submission of an electronic copy for ease of cataloguing and searching.

Bookmark & Share

• PhD Viva Voces – A Complete Guide
• Doing a PhD
• A PhD viva involves defending your thesis in an oral examination with at least two examiners.
• The aim of a PhD viva is to confirm that the work is your own , that you have a deep understanding of your project and, overall, that you are a competent researcher .
• There are no standard durations, but they usually range from one to three hours, with most lasting approximately two hours .
• There are six outcomes of a PhD viva: (1) pass without corrections (2) pass subject to minor corrections, (3) pass subject to major corrections, (4) downgrade to MPhil with no amendments, (5) downgrade to MPhil subject to amendments, (6) immediate fail.
• Almost all students who sit their viva pass it, with the most common outcome being ‘(2) – pass subject to minor corrections’.

What Is a PhD Viva?

A viva voce , more commonly referred to as ‘viva’, is an oral examination conducted at the end of your PhD and is essentially the final hurdle on the path to a doctorate. It is the period in which a student’s knowledge and work are evaluated by independent examiners.

In order to assess the student and their work around their research question, a viva sets out to determine:

• you understand the ideas and theories that you have put forward,
• you can answer questions about elements of your work that the examiners have questions about,
• you understand the broader research in your field and how your work contributes to this,
• you are aware of the limitations of your work and understand how it can be developed further,
• your work makes an original contribution, is your own and has not been plagiarised.

Note: A viva is a compulsory procedure for all PhD students, with the only exception being when a PhD is obtained through publication as opposed to the conventional route of study.

Who Will Attend a Viva?

In the UK, at least two examiners must take part in all vivas. Although you could have more than two examiners, most will not in an attempt to facilitate a smoother questioning process.

One of the two examiners will be internal, i.e. from your university, and the other will be external, i.e. from another university. Regardless, both will be knowledgeable in your research field and have read your thesis beforehand.

In addition to your two examiners, two other people may be present. The first is a chairperson. This is an individual who will be responsible for monitoring the interview and for ensuring proper conduct is followed at all times. The need for an external chairperson will vary between universities, as one of the examiners can also take on this role. The second is your supervisor, whose attendance is decided upon by you in agreement with your examiners. If your supervisor attends, they are prohibited from asking questions or from influencing the outcome of the viva.

To avoid any misunderstandings, we have summarised the above in a table:

Note: In some countries, such as in the United States, a viva is known as a ‘PhD defense’ and is performed publicly in front of a panel or board of examiners and an open audience. In these situations, the student presents their work in the form of a lecture and then faces questions from the examiners and audience which almost acts as a critical appraisal.

How Long Does a Viva Last?

Since all universities have different guidelines , and since all PhDs are unique, there are no standard durations. Typically, however, the duration ranges from one to three hours, with most lasting approximately two hours.

Your examiners will also influence the duration of your viva as some will favour a lengthy discussion, while others may not. Usually, your university will consult your examiners in advance and notify you of the likely duration closer to the day of your viva.

What Happens During a Viva?

Regardless of the subject area, all PhD vivas follow the same examination process format as below.

Introductions

You will introduce yourselves to each other, with the internal examiner normally introducing the external examiner. If an external chairperson is present, they too are introduced; otherwise, this role will be assumed by one of the examiners.

Procedure Explained

After the introductions, the appointed chair will explain the viva process. Although it should already be known to everyone, it will be repeated to ensure the viva remains on track during the forthcoming discussion.

Warm-Up Questions

The examiners will then begin the questioning process. This usually starts with a few simple opening questions, such as asking you to summarise your PhD thesis and what motivated you to carry out the research project.

In-Depth Questions

The viva questions will then naturally increase in difficulty as the examiners go further into the details of your thesis. These may include questions such as “What was the most critical decision you made when determining your research methodology ?”, “Do your findings agree with the current published work?” and “How do your findings impact existing theories or literature? ”. In addition to asking open-ended questions, they will also ask specific questions about the methodology, results and analysis on which your thesis is based.

Closing the Viva

Once the examiners are satisfied that they have thoroughly evaluated your knowledge and thesis, they will invite you to ask any questions you may have, and then bring the oral examination to a close.

What Happens After the Viva?

Once your viva has officially ended, your examiners will ask you to leave the room so that they can discuss your performance. Once a mutual agreement has been reached, which can take anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour, you will be invited back inside and informed of your outcome.

PhD Viva Outcomes

There are six possible outcomes to a viva:

• Immediate award of degree: A rare recommendation – congratulations, you are one of the few people who completely satisfied your examiners the first time around. You do not have to do anything further at this point.
• Minor amendments required: The most common recommendation – you obtain a pass on the condition that you make a number of minor amendments to your thesis, such as clarifying certain points and correcting grammatical errors. The time you have to make these changes depends on the number of them, but is usually one to six months.
• Major amendments required: A somewhat uncommon recommendation – you are requested to make major amendments to your thesis, ranging from further research to collecting more data or rewriting entire sections. Again, the time you have to complete this will depend on the number of changes required, but will usually be six months to one year. You will be awarded your degree once your amended thesis has been reviewed and accepted.
• Immediate award of MPhil: An uncommon recommendation – your examiners believe your thesis does not meet the standard for a doctoral degree but meets the standard for an MPhil (Master of Philosophy), a lower Master’s degree.
• Amendments required for MPhil: A rare recommendation – your examiners believe your thesis does not meet the standard for a doctoral degree, but with several amendments will meet the standard for an MPhil.
• Immediate fail: A very rare recommendation – you are given an immediate fail without the ability to resubmit and without entitlement to an MPhil.

Finding a PhD has never been this easy – search for a PhD by keyword, location or academic area of interest.

What Is the Pass Rate for Vivas?

Based on an  analysis of 26,076 PhD students  who took their viva exam between 2006 and 2017, the PhD viva pass rate in the UK is 96%; of those who passed, about 80% were required to make minor amendments to their thesis. The reason for this high pass rate is that supervisors will only put their students forward for a viva once they confidently believe they are ready for it. As a result, most candidates who sit a viva are already well-versed in their PhD topic before they even start preparing for the exam.

How Do I Arrange a Viva?

Your viva will be arranged either by the examiners or by the chairperson. The viva will be arranged at least one to two months after you have submitted your thesis and will arrange a viva date and venue that is suitable for all participants.

Can I Choose My Examiners?

At most universities, you and your supervisor will choose the internal and external examiners yourselves. This is because the examiners must have extensive knowledge of the thesis topic in order to be able to examine you and, as the author of the thesis in question, who else could better determine who they might be than you and your supervisor. The internal examiner is usually quite easy to find given they will be from your institution, but the external examiner may end up being your second or third preference depending on availability.

Can I Take Notes Into a Viva?

A viva is about testing your competence, not your memory. As such, you are allowed to take notes and other supporting material in with you. However, keep in mind that your examiners will not be overly impressed if you constantly have to refer to your notes to answer each question. Because of this, many students prefer to take an annotated copy of their thesis, with important points already highlighted and key chapters marked with post-it notes.

In addition to an annotated copy of a thesis, some students also take:

• a list of questions they would like to ask the examiners,
• notes that were created during their preparation,
• a list of minor corrections they have already identified from their viva prep work.

How Do I Prepare for a PhD Viva?

There are several ways to prepare for a PhD viva, one of the most effective being a mock viva voce examination . This allows you to familiarise yourself with the type of viva questions you will be asked and identify any weak areas you need to improve. They also give you the opportunity to practise without the pressure, giving you more time to think about your answers which will help to make sure that you know your thesis inside out. However, a mock viva exam is just one of many methods available to you – some of the other viva preparation methods can be found on our “ How to Prepare for a PhD Viva ” page.

Browse PhDs Now

Join thousands of students.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

What nobody tells you about ‘minor corrections’

Have you ever wondered what happens after the examiners give you feedback on your dissertation? In the UK and many other countries, this feedback is given in an oral presentation called the Viva. The viva is becoming more common in Australia, but most people will still get a written report from the examiners. It is your job to make changes based on this feedback, in consultation with your supervisors. It sounds simple, but in reality, making changes to a complete piece of work can be tricky.

This post is by Dr Mary Frank, who holds a PhD in Translation Studies from the University of Bristol, England. Her practice-based research investigated the interplay of translation theory and translation practice and led to three different translations of collection of satirical stories written in the German Democratic Republic in the 1960s. Her research interests are literary translation, the translation of literature from the GDR and prismatic translation (multiple translations of one text).  https://www.linkedin.com/in/mary-frank-0b27619/

In the UK system, the majority of PhD students pass their viva ‘with minor corrections’. Your examiners present you with a list of corrections, you go away and implement them. Easy, yes? Well, no, not necessarily.

If you’re lucky, corrections are simply typos, formatting issues etc. So far, so good. Any thesis will inevitably contain some of those, and you’d definitely want to correct them before submitting the final version. Corrections of that nature can legitimately be considered ‘minor’. But corrections of that kind are only a small part of the story. Much more problematic, in my experience, are corrections that, although still considered ‘minor’, involve re-thinking and re-writing. Nobody warns you that you’ll need to re-gather your energy and brainpower to tackle them. That, for me, turned into a struggle for which I was completely unprepared.

Let’s be clear: getting through your viva ‘with minor corrections’ is a great achievement. Your work is definitely of the required standard, but there are still tweaks to be made, perhaps to make connections clearer or to fine-tune an explanation. After all, you and your supervisors have become so close to your work that you may not realise that a particular point is not entirely clear to somebody reading it for the first time. This means that ‘minor’ corrections are entirely legitimate, and indeed should be welcomed as contributing to the quality of your final thesis. So why, when my examiners reeled off their list, did making those corrections seem like another huge mountain to climb? After all, it was the most likely outcome of the viva, so it wasn’t a surprise.

The problem, I think, was that after six years of researching and writing, and (for reasons beyond my control) a long and anxious wait for the viva, I had simply burned out. I had nothing left to give. While my supervisors cracked open a bottle of bubbly after the viva and people started gathering to congratulate me, I found it hard to celebrate. My brain felt completely drained, yet I knew that I somehow had to address those corrections before I could pass the finishing post. To my examiners and supervisors, those corrections were indeed ‘minor’, but to me they seemed bewildering and daunting.

“Do the minimum necessary,” my supervisors advised. For the first few days, all I could do was stare at my thesis. It was if it was carved in stone. It was only painfully slowly that my energy and brainpower returned and I felt able to tackle the typos, the easiest of the corrections. Once that barrier had been broken, the corrections that involved re-thinking and re-writing followed. In the end, I wrote three additional paragraphs at various points in the thesis and expanded my illustrations of an argument at another. Not, after all, a big deal.

Given that there is so little advice around on how to deal with ‘minor’ corrections, perhaps I’m unusual in having experienced this response. Or perhaps people like supervisors, having come out the other side, quickly forget what it’s like to have to re-visit your thesis at the very point when you may have nothing left to give. In case it helps others to avoid a crisis, here’s my advice:

• Although the viva is the key milestone in your PhD journey, try to bear in mind that it may not be the final one. In the UK and similar systems, you may well need to make corrections, so be sure to preserve some energy.
• When tackling corrections, it’s helpful to distance yourself from your thesis. Imagine yourself as an editor looking critically at somebody else’s work. That way, you’ll find it easier to break through that barrier of being unable to see how anything could be changed.

Thanks Mary! Are you tackling corrections now, or have you completed the ones asked of you? So you have any advice to offer?

Related posts

The wildcard of examination

Doing your ammendments without losing heart (or your mind)

Love the Thesis whisperer and want it to continue? Consider becoming a $1 a month Patreon and get special, Patreon only, extra Thesiswhisperer content every two weeks!

Share this:

The Thesis Whisperer is written by Professor Inger Mewburn, director of researcher development at The Australian National University . New posts on the first Wednesday of the month. Subscribe by email below. Visit the About page to find out more about me, my podcasts and books. I'm on most social media platforms as @thesiswhisperer. The best places to talk to me are LinkedIn , Mastodon and Threads.

• Post (606)
• Page (16)
• Product (5)
• Getting things done (257)
• Miscellany (137)
• On Writing (137)
• Your Career (113)
• You and your supervisor (67)
• Writing (48)
• productivity (23)
• consulting (13)
• TWC (13)
• supervision (12)
• 2024 (3)
• 2023 (12)
• 2022 (11)
• 2021 (15)
• 2020 (22)

Whisper to me....

Enter your email address to get posts by email.

Email Address

Sign me up!

• On the reg: a podcast with @jasondowns
• Thesis Whisperer on Facebook
• Thesis Whisperer on Instagram
• Thesis Whisperer on Soundcloud
• Thesis Whisperer on Youtube
• Thesiswhisperer on Mastodon
• Thesiswhisperer page on LinkedIn
• Thesiswhisperer Podcast
• 12,087,930 hits

Discover more from The Thesis Whisperer

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

Frances Ryan, PhD

Human Information Behaviour • Online Information • Social Media Use • Personal Reputation & Identity • Social Informatics

Passed, with minor corrections

I am very pleased and extremely relieved to be able to (finally!) announce that I have passed my PhD viva – and with only minor corrections! This good news comes after more than five years of hard work and emotional turmoil, and I am just so thankful that my PhD Dreams are almost a reality.

The preamble:

I submitted my PhD thesis at the end of October. At the time, I had hoped that my viva (oral examination/defence) would be just before Christmas. However, there was a slight glitch that meant everything was delayed. But the outcome is such that I will still make the July graduation ceremony , so it all worked out in the end!

Because of the delay, I mostly ignored my thesis for nearly three months after submission. (Part of that was due to a post-submission illness .) It wasn’t really until the start of February that I started to really prepare for The Big Day, as blogged about here .

On the day of my viva, I woke up at 5am (after a slightly disrupted sleep). I showered, put on a suitable dress for the occasion, and painted my nails. I arrived at my office just before 8am and unpacked my bag, then I headed down to the canteen for a full breakfast (with extra bacon!). Then, I waited nervously for my 10.30am start time.

My thesis was examined by Sheila Webber , Senior Lecturer at the University of Sheffield iSchool (external examiner) and Dr Laura Muir , Associate Professor at the Edinburgh Napier University School of Computing (internal examiner). My Panel Chair ( viva moderator) was Professor Ben Paechter , Director of Research in the School of Computing.

My Director of Studies, Professor Hazel Hall , also joined me at the viva to take notes. She sat behind me so that I would not be tempted to look towards her for input, but also so that any facial expressions she might have made didn’t throw me off.

I went into the room prepared with my trusty water bottle ( my medication makes this a necessity! ), two pens, several sheets of blank paper for notes, a handkerchief (in case of tears), and my thesis. I also brought with me a tummy full of butterflies and a mixture of fear, excitement, worry, and hope.

The gritty details:

At the start of the viva, the plan for the examination was explained. The plan was to go through my thesis chapter-by-chapter, with questions alternating between the examiners (for the most part). As the questions were lobbed at me, I found myself examining the motivations behind them. Is this a question about clarifying a confusing sentence? Is it because they were trying to tease out the finer details about my methods? Is the question meant to challenge something that the examiners held different views about? Or is it because they want to see how (clearly) I can defend my position?

Some questions were easy for me to understand (assume) these motivations. Especially when in the process of answering it was clear that my response was “the right” response. But the motivation of others was a little harder to pin down, especially when it because clear(ish) that the examiners were coming at the thesis from a different perspective to my own.

Throughout the process, I found myself gauging how well the viva was going. I felt that I was heading towards a “pass, with corrections” but I couldn’t quite pin down if that would be minor corrections or major corrections.

It all felt quite positive and I felt (mostly) confident when answering questions and defending my work. I even felt that I stayed (mostly) on point and didn’t go off into a rambling tangent, something that I sometimes do when I am nervous.

And then I was blindsided by a bus! One of the examiners started down a path of inquiry that I was absolutely unprepared for. There was a back-and-forth that lasted what felt like about 5 minutes at the end of the viva that made my heart sink into the pit of my stomach. From that point on, I was no longer able to control my fragile emotional state and the tears started to fall (good thing I had that hankie, right?). I was certain that this was the thing that was going to take me from a pass with corrections to a resubmit (with or without a new viva). It was a horrible feeling and was, by far, the worst moment of my viva.

[Note: This isn’t to say that I think the questions were unfair or unwarranted. The examiners were fair, kind, and encouraging throughout the entire experience.]

At the end of that line of questioning, there was a very short (1-2 minutes) wrap-up chat where I was asked if there was anything I would like to add about my thesis as a whole. This was my opportunity to give my work a final sales pitch. But by that time, I was too emotional and felt too defeated to say anything more.

With that, I was asked to leave (along with my Director of Studies) so that the examiners could chat with the moderator to confirm the outcome. During that time, I sat in Hazel’s office, unable to stop the tears because I was certain I would be resubmitting my work based on the “bus” questions. Hazel, however, felt that I was still in the passing lane. She walked me through some of the (many, and high quality!) notes that she took during the viva and shared her own interpretation of the outcome. That helped to dry my tears a bit, although I wasn’t as convinced as she was.

The wait in Hazel’s office felt quite short. It might have been about 10 minutes – 15 at the very most. We were then invited back to the examination room by the chair. I was feeling a little more positive by that time (thanks, Hazel!) but I was still quite sure it wouldn’t be the result I was hoping for.

However, when I walked in the room I was greeted with smiles, a “congratulations”, and the words “passed, with minor corrections”. I was extremely surprised at that outcome, given the bus that had knocked me over just a few minutes earlier. But a short conversation followed about the “bus” incident and it was made clearer to me what the examiner was hoping for from that specific line of questioning.

The conversation to follow was about the general next steps in the process. The first of these steps is that the examiners will write a formal letter outlining the corrections that need to be made. That letter will be sent to the research office at my university before a copy is sent to me. It is at that time that my official corrections time will begin.

With minor corrections, I will have two months to complete the changes before sending an electronic version of the amended thesis for my examiners to sign off on. After that, I will have my final thesis bound for submission before graduation – which should be in July, barring any hiccups along the way. My Panel Chair reassured me that we could revisit my current non-PhD workload to ensure that I have time to make my corrections. (Although I don’t think that there should be an issue, I felt very supported to have been told this help is available.)

Once the viva was officially over, I was invited out to lunch with my examiners and Hazel. We enjoyed a wee toast with some lovely prosecco followed by a nice conversation about a wide range of topics not related to my PhD . (Which was nice!) After lunch, I made my way home as I was completely exhausted.

The personal reflection:

In a nutshell, my viva was not a fun experience. I know that isn’t what people want to hear, but for me, that is the truth. Although, I do acknowledge that my reflections might have been more positive without the aforementioned “bus” incident! (Also, it wasn’t a completely horrible experience.)

In the lead-up to the Big Day, I knew that my viva might be an emotional and exhausting experience. Like many of life’s big moments, I had invested my heart and soul into this. Thankfully, I know myself well enough that I knew I would be shattered from the experience. And that means that I didn’t make any plans to celebrate the day.

And I was right! The experience was so draining that I couldn’t truly be happy on the day. In fact, when I got home, I donned my pyjamas and cried a bit. I then had another glass of prosecco and called my parents to share the good news with them. Then I shared the news on Facebook ( Twitter was saved until the following morning). That was the limit to my celebrations. (But not the limit to my tears!)

The following day I returned to the office and politely thanked everyone who congratulated me. But I still couldn’t celebrate because I was still too dazed by the experience. And now, three days later, I am still a bit “meh” about it all.

Maybe these feelings of apathy are because I know that there is still much work to be done before I graduate. Or maybe they’re because I am too busy worrying about what my next steps will be after graduation (there are so many questions about jobs, post-docs, and locations!). Of course, maybe these feelings are simply a bit of exhaustion.

But, ultimately, I have passed my PhD (subject to minor corrections) and that does make me happy – even if I can’t quite celebrate that happiness just yet.

Thank you, again, to all of my lovely cheerleaders who’ve encouraged me along the way. My PhD Dreams aren’t over quite realised yet, but they are almost a reality!

Be social and share!

Related posts:, 3 thoughts on “ passed, with minor corrections ”.

Congratulations Frances, and I look forward to reading your older blog posts as I start my own PhD journey. Thanks for sharing.

Congrats. I’ve passed mine with similar outcome yesterday. So…so happy.

Totally relate to your feeling Frances. Thanks for sharing

Join the conversation! Cancel reply

World leading higher education information and services Home News Blogs Courses Jobs

What nobody tells you about ‘minor corrections’.

| March 5, 2019 | 0 responses

In the UK system, the majority of PhD students pass their viva ‘with minor corrections’. Your examiners present you with a list of corrections, you go away and implement them. Easy, yes? Well, no, not necessarily.

If you’re lucky, corrections are simply typos, formatting issues etc. So far, so good. Any thesis will inevitably contain some of those, and you’d definitely want to correct them before submitting the final version. Corrections of that nature can legitimately be considered ‘minor’. But corrections of that kind are only a small part of the story. Much more problematic, in my experience, are corrections that, although still considered ‘minor’, involve re-thinking and re-writing. Nobody warns you that you’ll need to re-gather your energy and brainpower to tackle them. That, for me, turned into a struggle for which I was completely unprepared.

Let’s be clear: getting through your viva ‘with minor corrections’ is a great achievement. Your work is definitely of the required standard, but there are still tweaks to be made, perhaps to make connections clearer or to fine-tune an explanation. After all, you and your supervisors have become so close to your work that you may not realise that a particular point is not entirely clear to somebody reading it for the first time. This means that ‘minor’ corrections are entirely legitimate, and indeed should be welcomed as contributing to the quality of your final thesis. So why, when my examiners reeled off their list, did making those corrections seem like another huge mountain to climb? After all, it was the most likely outcome of the viva, so it wasn’t a surprise.

The problem, I think, was that after six years of researching and writing, and (for reasons beyond my control) a long and anxious wait for the viva, I had simply burned out. I had nothing left to give. While my supervisors cracked open a bottle of bubbly after the viva and people started gathering to congratulate me, I found it hard to celebrate. My brain felt completely drained, yet I knew that I somehow had to address those corrections before I could pass the finishing post. To my examiners and supervisors, those corrections were indeed ‘minor’, but to me they seemed bewildering and daunting.

“Do the minimum necessary,” my supervisors advised. For the first few days, all I could do was stare at my thesis. It was if it was carved in stone. It was only painfully slowly that my energy and brainpower returned and I felt able to tackle the typos, the easiest of the corrections. Once that barrier had been broken, the corrections that involved re-thinking and re-writing followed. In the end, I wrote three additional paragraphs at various points in the thesis and expanded my illustrations of an argument at another. Not, after all, a big deal.

Given that there is so little advice around on how to deal with ‘minor’ corrections, perhaps I’m unusual in having experienced this response. Or perhaps people like supervisors, having come out the other side, quickly forget what it’s like to have to re-visit your thesis at the very point when you may have nothing left to give. In case it helps others to avoid a crisis, here’s my advice:

• Although the viva is the key milestone in your PhD journey, try to bear in mind that it may not be the final one. In the UK and similar systems, you may well need to make corrections, so be sure to preserve some energy.
• When tackling corrections, it’s helpful to distance yourself from your thesis. Imagine yourself as an editor looking critically at somebody else’s work. That way, you’ll find it easier to break through that barrier of being unable to see how anything could be changed.

Author Bio: Dr Mary Frank , holds a PhD in Translation Studies from the University of Bristol, England.

Tags: minor corrections

• CDCR Facebook (opens new window)
• CDCR Twitter (opens new window)
• YouTube (opens new window)
• Instagram (opens new window)

About the Council on Criminal Justice and Behavioral Health (CCJBH)

Overview of ccjbh.

Established by California Penal Code Section 6044(a) , the Council on Criminal Justice and Behavioral Health (CCJBH) is a 12-member council chaired by the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and is comprised of the Department of State Hospitals (DSH), the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), and appointed expert representatives from the criminal justice and behavioral health fields such as probation, court officers, and mental health care professionals. CCJBH serves as a resource to assist and advise the administration and legislature on best practices to reduce the incarceration of youth and adults with mental illness and substance use disorders (SUDs) with a focus on prevention, diversion, and reentry strategies. Additional information can be found in CCJBH’s 2024 Framework .

A true shift in the paradigm between criminal justice and behavioral health will embody an effective jail diversion system that fosters an ongoing and successful exchange of information among courts, criminal justice agencies, behavioral health professionals, government and non-government organizations to achieve a substantial positive change in the way individuals with mental illness are treated in our communities.

The leaders in criminal justice and behavioral health participating in this effort strive to end the criminalization of individuals with mental illness by supporting proven strategies that promote early intervention, access to effective treatments, a planned re-entry and the preservation of public safety.

Chairperson: Jeff Macomber, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)

Jeff Macomber was appointed CDCR Secretary by Governor Gavin Newsom on December 12, 2022. His career at CDCR has spanned nearly three decades, beginning as a Correctional Officer at Ironwood State Prison in 1993. Most recently, he served as Undersecretary of Operations from 2020 to 2022. He has diverse experience at CDCR, including leadership roles in custody, administration, and health care.

Secretary Macomber is committed to employee wellness and professional development. He understands the importance of providing meaningful and diverse rehabilitative opportunities to the people in our care and to fostering a correctional system built on opportunities and personal growth to build a safer California.

Secretary Macomber served in various roles at CDCR Headquarters from 1994 to 2004, then as Correctional Business Manager at Richard A. McGee Correctional Training Center from 2000 to 2004. He was Chief of the Program Support Unit and Transportation Unit from 2004 to 2007, and then started at California State Prison-Sacramento (SAC) as a Correctional Administrator in 2008. While at SAC, Macomber served as Chief Deputy Warden in 2009, then again from 2010–2013, and as Warden from 2013–2016. Following his tenure at SAC, he became Deputy Director of Facility Support in the Division of Adult Institutions from 2016 to 2018. In 2019, Mr. Macomber served as the Director of Corrections Services for California Correctional Health Care Services before becoming the Undersecretary of Administration. In late 2020, he transitioned to Undersecretary of Operations.

Michelle Baass, Director, Department of Health Care Services (DHCS)

Michelle Baass was appointed Director of the California Department of Health Care Services on September 10, 2021. Ms. Baass has been Undersecretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency since 2018. She was Deputy Secretary of the Office of Program and Fiscal Affairs at the California Health and Human Services Agency from 2017 to 2018 and Deputy Director and Principal Consultant at the California State Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review from 2012 to 2017. She was Deputy Director and Principal Consultant at the California State Senate Office of Research from 2008 to 2012. Ms. Baass was a Senior Fiscal and Policy Analyst at the California Legislative Analyst’s Office from 2004 to 2008 and a Manager and Consultant for Accenture from 1996 to 2004. Ms. Baass earned a Master of Public Policy and Administration degree from California State University, Sacramento.

Stephanie Clendenin, Director, California Department of State Hospitals

Stephanie Clendenin is the Director of the California Department of State Hospitals (DSH) which is the largest forensic inpatient mental health hospital system in the nation, serving over 11,000 patients annually across five state hospitals, jail-based competency treatments programs, community-based restoration programs, and conditional release programs.  Previously, Ms. Clendenin was appointed as Chief Deputy Director of the California Department of State Hospitals (DSH) by Governor Brown in December 2014.  As Chief Deputy Director, she oversaw the operation of the five state hospitals responsible for providing inpatient mental health treatment for over 6000 patients daily.  Additionally, she oversaw DSH’s operating divisions including, clinical operations, forensic services, legal services, strategic planning, administrative services, and information technology. Previously, Ms. Clendenin, also served as the Chief Deputy Director for the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD).  She was appointed to this position by Governor Brown in June 2011.  She managed OSHPD’s operating divisions responsible for the building and financing of health facility infrastructure, the collection and analyses of healthcare data, and the development and expansion of healthcare professionals to serve and improve the delivery of healthcare, particularly in medically underserved communities in California.  Ms. Clendenin has over 28 years of experience with the State of California.

Diana Becton, J.D. Contra Costa County District Attorney

Appointed by Senate Rules Committee, 2023

District Attorney Diana Becton has dedicated most of her professional career to the legal field, serving as a judge, lawyer, and manager. In 2017, she assumed the role of the 25th District Attorney for Contra Costa County. Initially appointed by the Board of Supervisors, she was subsequently elected to the position in June 2018 and re-elected in June 2022. With a remarkable 22-year tenure as a judge in Contra Costa County, she was elected as the Presiding Judge and has held prestigious positions such as the Past President of the National Association of Women Judges, a prominent advocate for women in the judiciary, and the Past Chair of the State Bar Council on Access and Fairness. Hailing from California, she attended Oakland Public schools and obtained her law degree from Golden Gate University School of Law. Additionally, she recently earned a Masters of Theological Studies at the Pacific School of Religion. District Attorney Becton was appointed to CCJBH by the Senate Rules Committee in April 2023.

Enrico Castillo, MD MS, Psychiatrist and Associate Vice Chair for Justice, Equity, Diversion and Inclusion, University of California, Los Angeles

Dr. Enrico Castillo is an academic community psychiatrist and health services researcher at the UCLA Center for Social Medicine and is the Associate Vice Chair for Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in the UCLA Department of Psychiatry. Dr. Castillo’s clinical and research focus is on services for people who are unhoused, with prior clinical experiences as a medical director on a North Bronx Assertive Community Treatment team, as a staff psychiatrist for a Housing First outreach team in lower Manhattan with the organization Project for Psychiatric Outreach to the Homeless, and as an Assisted Outpatient Treatment psychiatrist with the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health. He currently leads a NIMH-funded research study on the jail-to-homelessness pipeline experienced by individuals with serious mental illness. He has also developed nationally recognized medical curricula on the topics of health equity, homelessness, incarceration, community partnerships, and physician advocacy.

Dr. Castillo is a member of the New Voices initiative (2021-23) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Dr. Castillo holds national leadership roles related to health equity in research policy and medical education in the American Psychiatric Association, Association of American Medical Colleges, Career Development Institute for Psychiatry, American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training, and National Anti-racism in Medicine Curriculum Coalition. Dr. Castillo’s research has been conducted in close partnership with local, state, and national agencies and community organizations including the US Office of the Surgeon General, the NY State Office of Mental Health, Los Angeles County Departments of Mental Health and Health Services, the RAND Corporation, and Healthy African American Families II. He has also developed over 20 educational partnerships with Los Angeles health agencies and community-based organizations.

Anita Fisher, Consumer/Family Member Representative

Appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom, 2021

Anita Fisher has been Chief Executive Officer and Consultant at Fisher Mental Health Consulting since 2018. She was Director of Education at National Alliance on Mental Illness, San Diego from 2007 to 2018. Ms. Fisher held several positions at Union Bank from 1995 to 2007, including Vice President and Business Systems Analyst V and Assistant Vice President and Product Manager. She is a member of the NAACP Mental Health and Policing Sub Committee, the Psychiatric Emergency Response Team Advisory Board and the San Diego County Probation Chief’s Advisory Board. Ms. Fisher is an Ambassador for A New PATH (Parents for Addiction Treatment and Healing).

Tony Hobson, PhD, Behavioral Health Director, Colusa County

Appointed by Governor Edumund G. Brown, Jr., 201 8

Tony Hobson is the Behavioral Health Director at Colusa County with the responsibility of overseeing mental health, psychiatric, marriage and family counseling, and addictions treatment on behalf of Colusa County residents. Previously, he was the director of behavioral health, Plumas County Department of Behavioral Health since 2018 and contributing faculty at Walden University since 2006. Prior, he was the behavioral health director of the Sutter-Yuba Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Services Department from 2014 to 2018. Hobson held several positions at the Butte County Department of Behavioral Health from 2010 to 2014 and from 2007 to 2008, including senior program manager, program manager and psychologist. He was a psychologist at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from 2008 to 2010 and served in the U.S. Navy from 1989 to 1993. Hobson earned a Doctor of Philosophy degree in clinical psychology from Walden University and a Master of Arts degree in multicultural counseling from San Diego State University. Mr. Hobson was appointed to CCJBH by Governor Edumund G. Brown, Jr. in 2018.

Mack Jenkins, Retired, Chief Probation Officer, San Diego County Probation Department

Appointed by Governor Edumund G. Brown, Jr., 2015

Mack Jenkins, former Chief Probation Officer of San Diego County Probation Department, held the post since 2007. Prior, he served in several positions at the Orange County Probation Department from 1977 to 2007, including division director, assistant director, supervisor and deputy probation counselor. Jenkins was an adjunct instructor of criminal justice at the Rancho Santiago Community College District from 1992 to 2007. He is a member of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals Board of Directors and the Judicial Council’s Task Force for Criminal Justice Collaboration on Mental Health Issues. Jenkins earned a Master of Science degree in criminal justice from California State University, Long Beach. Mr. Jenkins was appointed to CCJBH formerly known as COMIO by Governor Edumund G. Brown, Jr. 2015.

The Honorable Stephen V. Manley, Santa Clara Superior Court Judge

Appointed by Chief Justice Ronald M. George of the California Supreme Court, 2010

Stephen V. Manley is a Superior Court judge in Santa Clara County. He has served on the bench for over 25 years. He was a founder of the Drug Treatment Court in Santa Clara County as well as the Santa Clara County Mental Health Treatment Court. Judge Manley was appointed to the Council on Criminal Justice and Behavioral Health, formerly known as COMIO by Chief Justice Ronald M. George of the California Supreme Court in 2010.

Danitza Pantoja, PsyD, Coordinator of Psychological Services, Antelope Valley Union High School District

Appointed by Speaker Anthony Rendo n , 2019

Danitza Pantoja, currently is the Coordinator of Psychological Services for the Antelope Valley Union High School District, brings a unique and critical perspective to the Council which includes working with youth in a school setting, working as field staff for an Assemblywoman, and civic involvement as a local commissioner and board member. Danitza received her bachelor’s in Psychology and master’s in School Counseling degrees from Loyola Marymount University.

While working on education issues as a field representative for former Assemblywoman Cindy Montanez from the 39th district, she returned back to school to earn a second master’s degree in School Psychology from Phillips Graduate Institute.  Soon after she received her Doctorate in Educational Psychology from Alliant International University.  She has worked in the educational field for over 10 years in numerous roles such as Program Specialist and Bilingual and Lead School Psychologist in both traditional public school and charter school settings. Danitza also has a certificate from Cal State Northridge in Assistive Technology Applications and has served as a commissioner for the Parks, Wellness, and Community Service Commission and the Education Commission in the City of San Fernando. She also serves as a board member for Loyola Marymount University School of Education Alumni Board and El Centro De Amistad.  Ms. Pantoja was appointed to CCJBH in 2019 by Speaker Anthony Rendon.

Vice Chair: The Honorable Scott J. Svonkin (Ret.), Director of Intergovernmental Relations, L.A. County Probation

Appointed by Speaker Anthony Rendon , 2022

Scott Svonkin is currently serving as Director of Intergovernmental Relations for Los Angeles County Probation and is co-chair of the political action committee for the Beverly Hills-Hollywood branch of the NAACP. Prior to that, Scott has filled a plethora of roles including community liaison on the staff of Los Angeles Mayor Tom, Senior Advisor to the Los Angeles County Sheriff, State Assemblyman Paul Koretz’ Chief of Staff, West Hollywood Deputy Councilman, and Chief of Public Affairs and Government Relations for Los Angeles County Assessor Jeffrey Prang. He thrice served as president of the Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees, twice served as President of the Los Angeles County School Trustees Association and has served on the Los Angeles Valley College Foundation Board, the California State University Northridge Legislative Advisory Council, the LA PROSPER Board of the Los Angeles Community College District, and the Center for Southern California Studies Advisory Board. He is also a former Chairman of the Los Angeles Unified School District Advisory Council for District Four. For nearly seven years Scott was a healthcare executive at Prudential Insurance where he arranged for his company to donate almost one thousand computers to public schools. Following his time at Prudential Scott served on the board of the Children’s Hospital L.A. Huckleberry Fund as well as the California Respiratory Care Board where his fellow members elected him President shortly after his appointment. Mr. Svonkin earned a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the California State University Northridge.

Tracey Whitney, Deputy District Attorney, Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office

Appointed by Attorney General Xavier Becerra, 2017

Tracey Whitney is currently a Deputy District Attorney in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. She is a founding member of the DA’s Mental Health Advisory Board and the County’s Permanent Steering Committee. Prior to her nearly two decades in the DA’s office, Ms. Whitney served as a Deputy District Attorney in Orange County. Ms. Whitney also clerked for federal court judge Honorable Kim McLane Wardlaw. She began her career in private practice. Ms. Whitney received her Juris Doctor from USC Gould School of Law and her undergraduate degree from Duke University.  Tracey Whitney was appointed to the Council on Criminal Justice and Behavioral Health (CCJBH) in 2017 by Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

Brenda Grealish, Executive Officer, Council on Criminal Justice and Behavioral Health

Brenda Grealish is currently the Executive Officer of the Council on Criminal Justice and Behavioral Health (CCJBH), which is part of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Prior to joining CCJBH, she worked at the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), where she served in several positions, including Chief of the former Mental Health Services Division, Assistant Deputy and Acting Deputy Director for Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Services, and Chief of the Medi-Cal Behavioral Health Division. Prior to working at DHCS, she held several positions at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Office of Research, including Deputy Director, Research Manager III and Research Manager II. In her early career, she held several positions at the former California Department of Mental Health, including Research Program Specialist I and Research Analyst I/II. She earned a Master of Arts degree in Psychology from California State University, Sacramento.

Monica Campos Staff Services Manager III Email: [email protected]

Liz Castillon Vice, MS Staff Services Manager II Email: [email protected]

Catherine Hickinbotham Health Program Specialist I Email: [email protected]

Cameron Byrd Associate Governmental Program Analyst Email: [email protected]

Kamilah Holloway Research Scientist III Email: [email protected]

Jessica Camacho Duran, MPH Health Program Specialist II Email: [email protected]

Emily Mantsch Associate Governmental Program Analyst Email: [email protected]

Belicia Smith Staff Services Analyst Email: [email protected]

Our vision imagines a region and world in which everyone has access to an inspiring education and the psychological tools and support to propel them toward flourishing lives of meaning, purpose and connection.  Our education is characterized by Strong Values, Social Justice, Transformative, Diverse Community.

The Master of Arts in Counseling Psychology provides an intensive 90-unit Master's program. Receive outstanding preparation to be become licensed as a Marriage and Family Therapist (MFT) or a Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor (LPCC).

Our faculty prepares you to be an agent of change in your clients' lives. Students may also choose to include any of the following four optional emphasis areas in their degree: Correctional Psychology, Health Psychology, Latino Counseling, or LGBTQ Counseling.

MA in Counseling Psychology Highlights

• Classes held both in-person and online
• Full and part-time pathways available
• Emphases  available (Latino, LGBTQ, Health & Correctional)
• We offer four tracks (MFT, LPCC, MFT/LPCC, no track)
• $726/unit tuition, with over $2 million in Scholarships  available.

Emphases & Concentrations

We offer five specialized interest areas. Our four emphases function like a minor. Students who don't choose an emphasis may choose from a variety of electives. The Child and Adolescent Mental Health Concentration is similar to the emphases, but requires additional elective coursework.

A focus on culturally and linguistically appropriate counseling experiences centered on a deep understanding of Latino culture, ethnicity, acculturation, and immigration.

Apply psychology to issues of well-being, stress and stress management, the modification of health behaviors, health promotion, wellness, and disease prevention.

Offering training in the application of counseling to issues of gender, diversity in sexual identity and expression, oppression, discrimination, and acculturation, among other topics.

Graduates work in community and law enforcement agencies, private practice, schools, correctional institutions, mental health and rehabilitation facilities, and group homes.

Students will be trained to develop greater proficiency in supporting children, teens, and young adults. Coursework will focus on: issues in early intervention and infancy; issues in school-based settings; developmentally-appropriate interventions; working with disabled children and youth; trauma- informed care; evidence-based approaches to working with children and youth, including short term therapies, cognitive behavioral therapy, play therapy, expressive arts therapy, family therapy, and much more.

The Master of Arts in Counseling Psychology has four tracks:

The California Board of Behavioral Sciences bases the LPCC Track on California State regulations, guidelines from the California Coalition for Counselor Licensure, and curriculum approval. Students choosing this track are qualified to sit for a LPCC license exam after completing course work, practicum, and clinical hours. The LPCC is a portable degree, meaning that coursework and clinical training in California will allow a student to sit for licensure in any other state, based on any residency requirements of that state. LPCC licensing requirements include a national rather than state-centric exam.

The LPCC program is primarily focused on individual adult clients. Students pursuing this program who wish to work with couples, families, and children will need to take classes in these specialties to work legally and ethically with these populations.

A major difference between the MFT and the LPCC is that a significant number of the required 3,000 training hours can be completed prior to receiving the Masters degree for the MFT license. The required 3,000 hours for the LPCC must all be accrued after graduation with a Masters degree.

CPSY Tracking Sheet 90 Unit LPCC (fillable)

The joint MFT/LPCC track is available for students who wish to apply for both licenses. This combined program can be completed within the 90 units. Students can also opt for one of the four emphases; however, students completing this track with an emphasis in Correctional Psychology, Health Psychology, Latinx Counseling, or LGBT Counseling will need to complete 91.5 units and students completing this track with an emphasis in Latino counseling will need to complete 93 units to obtain all the necessary courses. Students who wish to explore this joint track option are encouraged to meet with a faculty advisor.

CPSY Tracking Sheet 90 Unit MFTLPCC (fillable)

The California Board of Behavioral Sciences bases the MFT Track on California State regulations, guidelines suggested by the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, and the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, and curriculum approval. Students choosing this track are qualified to sit for a MFT license exam after completing course work, practicum, and clinical hours in the State of California.

CPSY Tracking Sheet 90 Unit MFT (fillable)

Students may also opt for neither the MFT nor the LPCC track. This track is for individuals who desire more extensive training and experience than the 52.5-unit M.A. of Counseling or 45-unit M.A. in Applied Psychology affords. This track does not lead to licensure.

"After having just graduated from UC Berkeley, I was seeking a program that would provide me both a community and a solid academic foundation. And today I am so grateful to say that SCU’s Counseling and Psychology program gave me exactly that. It’s because of the relationships, the knowledge, and the practice I received from this program did I then have the opportunity to become the type of therapist I had sought out to be."

 - Kimberly Panelo, ’10, Counseling Psychology