Einreichungsreif (Doktorvater) od durchgefallen (Gutachter)?

[vladimir]

Does anybody know the case, when the prof as a Betreuer at first confirm a PhD thesis of his student as "einreichungsreif" in the Antrag to PromA, and then as a Gutachter mark it with "failure"?

Sorry for English. The answers in German are welcome.

[Laplace]

As far as I understood: Your 'Doktorvater' declared your thesis 'einreichungsreif' first. The same person, your 'Doktorvater', rated your thesis as 'durchgefallen' when writing the 'Gutachten'. Correct so far?

I do not know a case like this. It sounds like a very exceptional case. But as a reader of this forum, it seems that exceptional cases happen from time to time.... What is the result of the second 'Gutachten'? Have you discussed your thesis with your 'Doktorvater' before submission? Have you discussed the present problem with your 'Doktorvater' after you got the result?

Sorry, it is hard to imagine that there was no early warning by your 'Doktorvater'. If not, it sounds highly unfair. Could you tell us more?

Maybe there is a chance for 'Ãœberarbeitung'? Nevertheless, I wish you the very best for your situation...

[vladimir]

Laplace, thank you a lot for your answer.

As far as I understood: Your 'Doktorvater' declared your thesis 'einreichungsreif' first. The same person, your 'Doktorvater', rated your thesis as 'durchgefallen' when writing the 'Gutachten'. Correct so far?

Yes. He declared me he is going to do it and proposed to withdraw the thesis to submit elsewhere.

What is the result of the second 'Gutachten'? Have you discussed your thesis with your 'Doktorvater' before submission? Have you discussed the present problem with your 'Doktorvater' after you got the result?

The second Gutachter seems to be a friend of my DV. I think, they communicate. They both put me 1,7 for my diploma thesis (I wrote it again to get into the PhD program), which is about 25 per cent of the Dissertation, and I was glad to have them as Gutachters.

Sorry, it is hard to imagine that there was no early warning by your 'Doktorvater'. If not, it sounds highly unfair. Could you tell us more?

We had a very good cooperation for 3 years. It was not easy for me to get into the PhD program of the uni. I did my best with the thesis, and even moved to Latex to make better outlook (it was a wish of DV). We came through the whole thesis for 3-4 times making many changes and corrections (form and contents both). Then he told me it is enough and I can submit. I received a letter from PromA that my Antrag ist stattgegeben. But then I receive a strange letter from DV, that more experiments are needed and he as a Gutachter, according to his "scientific conscience" will mark my thesis with "failure". He suggested to re-work and submit elsewhere. I asked if it is possible to re-work there. He answered, he wouldn't encourage me to do this. In two next e-mails he again suggested to withdraw my thesis "before the reports have been written" (even with some violation of the formal procedure of the withdrawal). I answered him that for many reasons I can not do it (it is really so). No replies more...

I am just shocked with the situation. He writes, he also "feels bad, and is very sorry". It looks like he has some pressure from somewhere, but I have no idea what kind of pressure could it be and he seems to be not willing to tell me this...

I present a new approach to the problem in my thesis, which is in some contradiction with the existing one. It looks like someone powerful didn't like the approach ideologically and DV doesn't want to defend me (it is easier for him to get rid of me). The area of the research is Human-Computer Interaction and it is very strange for the area to have such kind of problems...

[algol]

[Laplace]

He suggested to re-work and submit elsewhere. I asked if it is possible to re-work there. He answered, he wouldn't encourage me to do this. In two next e-mails he again suggested to withdraw my thesis "before the reports have been written" (even with some violation of the formal procedure of the withdrawal). I answered him that for many reasons I can not do it (it is really so). No replies more...

I am just shocked with the situation. He writes, he also "feels bad, and is very sorry". It looks like he has some pressure from somewhere, but I have no idea what kind of pressure could it be and he seems to be not willing to tell me this...

I present a new approach to the problem in my thesis, which is in some contradiction with the existing one. It looks like someone powerful didn't like the approach ideologically and DV doesn't want to defend me (it is easier for him to get rid of me). The area of the research is Human-Computer Interaction and it is very strange for the area to have such kind of problems...

If this is the case, it looks really bad. I can understand that it feels not right that he suggests to withdraw the thesis, but I see only two choices:
Withdraw or "fight" against your supervisor. As your supervisor is in the far more powerful position, your chances do not look good. Withdrawing your thesis means, that you (formally) did not fail your PhD examination. If you don't fail, you can start another try somewhere else with the same topic, or with a different topic at your old university. If you fail your examination, it will become very difficult to start a new try within Germany. The situation feels not fair, but (with the informations I have) I see no other choices.

Nevertheless, you should talk to people within your university (other PhD students, other professors....), who know your situation better. Maybe they have better ideas... Good luck!

[vladimir]

The withdrawal is impossible for me (for many reasons). Yes, I understand that DV is more powerful, and I will not "fight" against him. I will just defend the justice as much as possible. And I would be very thankful for any advice how could I do it better in my case.

I feel myself sure to defend my thesis. I just didn't expected I will need to defend it against DV, whom I trusted, who helped me to write it, and who confirmed it as "einreichungsreif".

By the way, does anybody know, where could I find the exact meaning of the notion "einreichungsreif" in respect of the PhD thesis? I guess, it is in contradiction with the severe defects in the thesis...

[MastaofDissasta]

I fear there is no legal definition of "einreichungsreif". It seems to be the rather informal "okay" of your supervisor and refers maybe only to formal aspects. With the "einreichungsreif" he might have said "Well, you have now compiled an adequate amount of material that might be sufficient for a thesis (and the LaTeX-Layout sure looks fine ) - but I will judge the content and the scientific value only after the official submission".

It is an awful situation. You might be a victim of the Guttenberg-upheaval that was definitely upping the ante. But the proposition that you can submit it elsewhere after you retracted it from the original process is at least pretty unworldly. Depending on the progress of the process, you have already submitted officially and usually a thesis rendered already at another university won't be accepted for a second submission. After all that's what your guaranteeing in your declaration: "Diese Arbeit hat noch keiner anderen Hochschule vorgelegen". And you will meet problems when you are going to try to explain the new supervisor why you are appearing with a nearly finished thesis but without a degree after a couple of years in a Ph.D.-program.

Maybe you can insist on doing the revisions while staying at your university. He said he wouldn't encourage you to do so, but if you can tackle the problems he is referring to precisely, he will be forced to follow his "scientific conscience" once again and let it pass. With "tackling the problems precisely" I mean two occasions: When you're talking with him about re-doing the work and when you're working on the revisions. In either case: Good luck!

Uff. And since English isn't exactly my strong point, I will be grateful for remarks on faults or idiomatically weird phrasing like "I jump into the shower"

[vladimir]

MastaofDissasta, thank you for the answer. Your English is OK.

I fear there is no legal definition of "einreichungsreif". It seems to be the rather informal "okay" of your supervisor and refers maybe only to formal aspects. With the "einreichungsreif" he might have said "Well, you have now compiled an adequate amount of material that might be sufficient for a thesis (and the LaTeX-Layout sure looks fine ) - but I will judge the content and the scientific value only after the official submission".

If so, I can not understand the meaning of the work of DV, who is paid by the state. Such judgment may be made by the secretary of the PromA, for example, who can check the formalities in a half of hour.
Yes, he seems to insist upon such approach, but it sounds rather illogical. If you say (as a gardener) "the apple is "reif" - does it mean it only looks beautiful and you didn't taste it?
If so, the Promotion looks like a game, which I wouldn't participate, if I know it from the very beginning.

It is an awful situation. You might be a victim of the Guttenberg-upheaval that was definitely upping the ante. But the proposition that you can submit it elsewhere after you retracted it from the original process is at least pretty unworldly.

The prof wrote me a special e-mail and stressed the importance of correct references and citations. I followed all his advices.

Depending on the progress of the process, you have already submitted officially and usually a thesis rendered already at another university won't be accepted for a second submission. After all that's what your guaranteeing in your declaration: "Diese Arbeit hat noch keiner anderen Hochschule vorgelegen". And you will meet problems when you are going to try to explain the new supervisor why you are appearing with a nearly finished thesis but without a degree after a couple of years in a Ph.D.-program.

I completely agree. It was not a honest suggestion.

Maybe you can insist on doing the revisions while staying at your university. He said he wouldn't encourage you to do so, but if you can tackle the problems he is referring to precisely, he will be forced to follow his "scientific conscience" once again and let it pass. With "tackling the problems precisely" I mean two occasions: When you're talking with him about re-doing the work and when you're working on the revisions. In either case: Good luck!

The problem is, that his rejections are mostly based upon his strange sudden wish to get rid of me. Actually, they are not crucial, and I can prove it, if necessary. But he seems to be not willing to continue, so it is hard to imagine any discussion...

Uff. And since English isn't exactly my strong point, I will be grateful for remarks on faults or idiomatically weird phrasing like "I jump into the shower"

You are welcome to answer in German. I understand it good, but have some minor problems with the grammar.

[MastaofDissasta]

You are welcome to answer in German. I understand it good, but have some minor problems with the grammar.

I grab every opportunity to improve my English, so if it's not distorting the meaning, I will go on. (When I'm speaking, my accent seems to be so terrible, that native speaker beg me to stop after a few seconds because they can't bear what I'm doing to their mother tongue ... ).

You should check the relevant "Promotionsordnung". Maybe it contains one of following:
- Separation of advisor and reviewer, so you can switch to another reviewer
- A third review if the first and the second disagree considerably, so the "fail" of your advisor is not the last word
- A retraction or interruption of the process to do revisions after you had the possibilty to read the reviews.

We had already comparable cases in this forum and as far as I know, there are no legal measures that can be taken (no formal objections). I would always recommend a strategy of "in die Offensive gehen". Talk to your advisor, the reviewer and maybe to instances at the university ("Promotionszentrum"? Do you have something like that? Someone in your program? Maybe the dean?) about the events.

[vladimir]

MastaofDissasta, thank you for the answer.

It looks like I need to defend my work really (in difference with the symbolic usual defense) and I am ready for it. I am sure my work deserves at least a "satisfactory" mark.

The second reviewer seems to be a friend of DV and I think they communicate. But at the same time if the second reviewer will report "failure" my DV will officially become a double failure (together with me). I don't know if he really needs it...

If they both will mark me with a failure, I think I will appeal to the commission. An open letter to the President of the Uni or to the Hochschulverband could also be an option.
The case is very strange, and I will try to do my best to defend the justice and the rights of the PhD students (a trust to DV and so on).

But before it I need to wait until the formal letter from the commission... Right?

P. S. Could you please provide me the links to the similar cases on this forum? I failed to find them...