next »

[lodore66]

I'm putting up this new post because recent experiences have convinced me that the refereeing system for new academics is a shambles, and I'd be interested to know if other people agree.  In my own case, my problem was/is with the external examiner for my PhD thesis, which I completed over a year ago. 

During the viva, the examiner was helpful and interested, and volunteered to act as a referee should I need one.  Buoyed by the support of a senior, internationally respected academic, I embarked on the usual grinding round of postdoc applications, all the while citing the person in question as referee.  Initially, I emailed him asking for confirmation that he'd sent the references, but when he didn't bother to reply I assumed that he was just too busy to acknowledge everything he sent out. 

Some time passed, and predictably, none of the applications succeeded.  In itself, this was no big surprise; but when I contacted the various universities enquiring why, I was dismayed to learn that my ace-in-the-hole referee hadn't bothered to send out anything at all in support of my applications.  Indeed, I received a letter from the head of an Oxford (UK) college stating that it was precisely the lack of the missing reference that militated against my otherwise high chances of obtaining a fellowship.

As might be imagined, this situation left me extremely frustrated, in that it not alone wasted my time, but also that my other referees, who were exemplary in their provision of references.  Moreover, when confronted by the evidence of his negligence, the referee peremptorily dismissed it, saying that I had no realistic chances of obtaining any of the applied-for fellowships anyway. 

My point with all of this is that I think there's a good case to be made for a formal, rules-of-best-practice code to established for the provision of references.  In particular, I think that universities should make a contractual agreement with external examiners for PhDs that thay will provide honest, timely references for doctoral candidates.  After all, the thesis external examiner is the one independent figure capable of giving you a reference after the PhD, and failure to do so can seriously compromise the early stages of a career (it certainly compromised mine).  I recognise that this is motivated entirely by my own personal experience, but the current adherance to an ethos of gentlemanly good form is in no-one's interest -- what's needed are regulations with some teeth.

I'd be interested in what people have to say about this, and failing that, a few more horror stories about referees will certainly resonate with me . . .

[case_insensitive]

During the viva, the examiner was helpful and interested, and volunteered to act as a referee should I need one.  Buoyed by the support of a senior, internationally respected academic, I embarked on the usual grinding round of postdoc applications, all the while citing the person in question as referee.  Initially, I emailed him asking for confirmation that he'd sent the references, but when he didn't bother to reply I assumed that he was just too busy to acknowledge everything he sent out. 

1) I'm confused, which could just be a language problem. DId the examiner offer to "act as a referee" (which means someone who'll read your manuscript for you) or as a reference (someone who knows you well enough to vouch for you when applying for jobs/fellowships, etc.).

2) When he didn't reply, you should have assumed something completely different, clearly.

[infopri]

I think the OP means "reference," case.

Lodore66, I agree with case.  If my reference couldn't be bothered to answer my simple query, I'd be quite concerned that the reference letter(s) hadn't gone out, either.

Chalk it up to a lesson learned and use a different reference in the future.  This person clearly can't be trusted, for several reasons.

[angel]

In particular, I think that universities should make a contractual agreement with external examiners for PhDs that thay will provide honest, timely references for doctoral candidates.   

I'm sorry that this happened to you, lodore, but I'm not at all convinced that the above is a practical solution.

Unfortunately, your external examiner declined to provide a reference for you. I agree that when contacted about it, he should have let you know he was not willing to provide one. But you also bear responsibility here: even after you received no confirmation that he would be willing to act as a referee, you listed him as a reference anyway. You also did not follow up until your candidacy was rejected, at which point you found out his letters did not arrive (but as noted above, he hadn't said he would send them to begin with).

It is the responsibility of applicants to make sure those they list as referees have, in fact, agreed to act as referees. You *assumed* he sent the references when he had not agreed to send them.

I also submit it is not necessarily in the applicant's best interest to have someone contractually bound to act as an "honest" reference. It is possible your external examiner thought he could not provide a good reference and so did not agree to serve as a referee. In that case, presumably you wouldn't want him to have been contractually obliged to provide a reference.

The bottom line is, we cannot force others to provide good references for us.

[infopri]

Angel, I think you may have misread the post.  OP's slacker did agree (in fact, volunteered) to be a reference--but then did not sound out the promised letters.

OP's error was in not following up when this person did not answer the "Did you send out the materials?" query.

[case_insensitive]

In particular, I think that universities should make a contractual agreement with external examiners for PhDs that thay will provide honest, timely references for doctoral candidates.  After all, the thesis external examiner is the one independent figure capable of giving you a reference after the PhD, and failure to do so can seriously compromise the early stages of a career (it certainly compromised mine).  I recognise that this is motivated entirely by my own personal experience, but the current adherance to an ethos of gentlemanly good form is in no-one's interest -- what's needed are regulations with some teeth.

Sorry. I blazed right by this ... ridiculousness the first time.

The external examiner is only required to examine. He or she is not required to do anything else, and shouldn't be. Otherwise, he or she is no longer independent.  I have been an external examiner twice (this is rare in the USA where I currently live) and never have I been asked to provide a reference letter for the dissertator.  In both cases, I was offered complete anonymity (which I declined).  If examiners have anonymity, hardly can they provide reference letters.

Reference letters should come from folks who know you well, which your external examiner, by definition, should not, or he/she isn't independent, which is the purpose of an external examiner.

[angel]

Angel, I think you may have misread the post.  OP's slacker did agree (in fact, volunteered) to be a reference--but then did not sound out the promised letters.

Actually, I did see that. Perhaps I'm mistaken, Infopri, but as I read it the OP didn't seek confirmation before sending out the application materials.

I mean, I've had about half a dozen people volunteer to serve as references, but before I'd send out applications listing them as such I'd get back in touch and confirm.

[infopri]

Angel, I think you may have misread the post.  OP's slacker did agree (in fact, volunteered) to be a reference--but then did not sound out the promised letters.

Actually, I did see that. Perhaps I'm mistaken, Infopri, but as I read it the OP didn't seek confirmation before sending out the application materials.

I mean, I've had about half a dozen people volunteer to serve as references, but before I'd send out applications listing them as such I'd get back in touch and confirm.

Damn.  I meant "send" out, obviously.

Angel, I reread the post, and you may be right.  I assumed OP had notified the reference of each application (if for no other reason, then so that the reference would know where to send the letters), but perhaps I'm mistaken.  I apologize.

Still, lodore66, I don't see your suggestion as workable.  For one thing, what would be the penalty of breaking the "contract"?  And what would be the consideration given for the promise of the letter(s)?  (Contract talk for quid pro quo.) 

I'm sorry you had the experience you had, but this kind of thing happens--and not just in academia.  Sometimes people just don't do what they say they will do.  It sucks, but there it is.

[lodore66]

Just to clarify one or two things, it seems that there are geographically different conceptions of what the thesis examiner is supposed to do for the dissertator.  In my system (on the right hand side of the Atlantic) it's taken as a given that the external examiner is a centrally important person both at and after the viva.  While the supervisor is obviously important too, the idea is that that the external is likely to offer a more balanced assessment of your work, in that there's less of a chance of them being a friend, drinking buddy or current live-in lover.  Moreover, they're one of the few people who'll ever actually read all of your thesis.  Correspondingly, they are a vital aspect of the reference process where I am. 

With regard to the details included in the post, the referee eventually did send me over multiple copies of an excellent reference, but far too late for them to be of any use in that academic year, and of dubious value for the next, due to their being dated on a specific month. 

I agree with the different people who suggested that the strong hint that there'd be a problem was him not replying to my mails, but in the absence of a statement that he wouldn't send on references (having clearly stated that he would send them as I asked for them) I assumed he'd come good for me. This, I readily concede, was foolish.

From the perspective of the overall argument, I feel that if an external examiner can't testify (on paper or otherwise) to the work of a candidate, there's little point in having them there at all.  I do agree with infopri that there are practical difficulties with the notion of a legally binding contract, but one could envision a scenario where, within a reasonable time frame, the referee is obliged to write a reference (whether good or bad is up to them) and it is lodged with, say, the university that awarded the PhD, which then issues the references as required.  Not ideal, certainly, but at least it saves you having to impose on someone's good will, time or patience everytime you apply for something. This, I guess, is my main point. 

[case_insensitive]

I do agree with infopri that there are practical difficulties with the notion of a legally binding contract, but one could envision a scenario where, within a reasonable time frame, the referee is obliged to write a reference (whether good or bad is up to them) and it is lodged with, say, the university that awarded the PhD, which then issues the references as required.  Not ideal, certainly, but at least it saves you having to impose on someone's good will, time or patience everytime you apply for something. This, I guess, is my main point. 

Useless bureaucracy.  References are supposed to be personal...  Requiring them defeats the purpose.  Examining is a different animal from providing references. They shouldn't be forcibly intertwined via bureaucracy.

[infopri]

I don't know whether it's universal, lodore66, but we have that notion of an external person on this side of the pond, too, and for the same reason.  We call them external readers.  They are completely uninvolved in the production of the diss and never see a single page until they read the version being defended, just before the defense.  But their role in the recommendation process may be different where you are.  It never even occurred to me to ask my external reader for a letter--but it would seem very odd to American employers not to have a letter from the diss advisor.

[lux__]

I do agree with infopri that there are practical difficulties with the notion of a legally binding contract, but one could envision a scenario where, within a reasonable time frame, the referee is obliged to write a reference (whether good or bad is up to them) and it is lodged with, say, the university that awarded the PhD, which then issues the references as required.  Not ideal, certainly, but at least it saves you having to impose on someone's good will, time or patience everytime you apply for something. This, I guess, is my main point. 

Useless bureaucracy.  References are supposed to be personal...  Requiring them defeats the purpose.  Examining is a different animal from providing references. They shouldn't be forcibly intertwined via bureaucracy.

They really should just write the references. It's part of their job description.

[sav137]

Ironic how so many of the posters misread the article and the referee failed to follow-up.

The underlying problem is we're all too busy to do anything anymore.  It definitely sounds unprofessional to volunteer to referee then not bother to send in.  At least, the person should send a 2-word "no thanks" reply so that the student need not wait in terror for months for an answer.   I write so many reference letters it is a real pain, but as one poster said, it is part of the job. 

We see this with faculty applicants a lot.  It is considered a bad sign if we have to beg for reference letters, but then again, faculty hiring is seldom done with any real diligence or uniformity.  Depending on whether people like the applicant or not, we see missing references either as tacit negatives or as forgivable offenses.  Same story the rest of your career.

[seniorscholar]

I don't know whether it's universal, lodore66, but we have that notion of an external person on this side of the pond, too, and for the same reason.  We call them external readers.  They are completely uninvolved in the production of the diss and never see a single page until they read the version being defended, just before the defense.  But their role in the recommendation process may be different where you are.  It never even occurred to me to ask my external reader for a letter--but it would seem very odd to American employers not to have a letter from the diss advisor.

Same system here: US university; outside referee who is not familiar with the doctoral candidate and not involved in the work is required, in all fields, by graduate-school rule (and the graduate school must see the referee's c.v. and approve it before the defense is announced). Outside referee is involved in the oral defense, either in person (if within an easy day's journey; we pay expenses plus honorarium), by conference call or, nowadays, videoconference hookup or, in rare instances, by sending a detailed written report and sometimes submitting a list of questions which are asked by another faculty member not on the dissertation committee.

It's the dissertation supervisor's job to line up the external referee. When I do this for my candidates, sometimes I pick someone in an allied area who has special knowledge that the dissertation's author needs to tap into (perhaps a philosophy or history or art history person for a certain dissertation in literature). If at all possible, though, and especially when it's such a good dissertation I am happy to ask Reasonably Big Name to read it, I choose someone who I know will *willingly* write a letter for the candidate's Interfolio dossier -- I figure this is one of the things I can do to help place candidates.