The Oral Defense: Modalities Change, Rigor Remains

Today, Rackham graduate students can hold their oral defenses either in person, remotely via Zoom, or as a hybrid event, depending on the preference of the student, their department, and their faculty committee. Massive technological advancements included, the oral defense process was a lot different in 1876, when the university awarded its first two Ph.D. degrees.

According to records at the Bentley Historical Library, Victor C. Vaughan and William E. Smith presented their work to a faculty advisory committee that was assigned by the university president specifically for the occasion. If faculty agreed that the university should confer a degree, they detailed their rationale in a letter to the president about the candidate’s written and oral defense performance, alongside examinations, where applicable. 

In reports on the candidates’ defenses from June 1876, their faculty committees wholeheartedly recommended both men for a doctoral degree from Michigan.

It only took the first two doctoral degrees conferred, however, for university faculty to rally around a recommendation that a faculty committee should supervise a doctoral student’s course of study at the onset of their program, not just to evaluate work during the final stages of the thesis defense, as documented in an 1876 faculty report: 

“It seems to [the faculty] desirable that, when a candidate for any of the higher degrees begins his course of study at the University, a committee of the Faculty should be appointed, who should have power to decide upon the adequacy of the course of study proposed, and to exercise a general supervision over the student’s work during his residence at the university.” 

This recommendation was in alignment with U-M president Henry P. Tappan’s vision for a postgraduate “university system” that mirrored the German approach, prioritizing student research over rote memorization. In addition to the mentorship and guidance of a faculty advisor, the German approach also emphasizes graduate study as a community of scholars, with the expectation that faculty play a role in active research. The call for a committee falls in line with the spirit of this approach, and continues in graduate study at U-M today.

As enrollment of doctoral students increased at U-M over the next few decades, so did the audiences for oral defenses. At the turn of the 20th century, faculty codified the notion that oral defenses should be public events, noting in the 1900 to 1901 General Register that “the thesis must be read and defended in public.”

This regulation cemented a core practice that remains today: Doctoral research at a public university is a matter of public record and community interest.

Today, oral defense dates are published on the Rackham website, but for decades the Michigan Daily served as the town square for oral defense announcements, publishing scheduled defenses in its “Daily Official Bulletin” or “Doctoral Exams” column so fellow students, faculty, and members of the community could attend.

In May 1939, readers were invited to the oral defense of Clarence H. Danhof (Ph.D. ’39), who defended his economics thesis on mid-19th-century agriculture, and Carleton Raymond Treadwell (Ph.D. ’39), who defended his work on white rat cholesterol metabolism.

The Daily also kept record of some of the more human moments that occurred surrounding the oral defense, including the story of Arffaella Nanetti (Ph.D. ’77), an urban and regional planning graduate student.

Scheduled to defend at 3:00 p.m. on March 18, 1977, Nanetti went into labor just two hours prior. The event was immortalized in a Michigan Daily article titled, “Wait, I’m Having a Baby,” in which dissertation secretary Mary Anne Wilkinson remarked, “We’ve given postponements on defenses for a number of reasons in the past, but never for a reason like this.” 

As technology advanced in the 21st century, so did the mechanics of oral dissertation defenses. While some departments very occasionally hosted virtual defenses, the COVID-19 pandemic changed everything. With in-person events suspended, all defenses moved online. 

In a May 2020 Rackham Q&A, recent Ph.D. graduates talked about their experiences with this new way of completing the defense, and how they might advise future Ph.D. candidates to prepare for it. Especially at a time when people were only becoming accustomed to online meeting technology, it added complications and considerations to what was already an intense day.

“Probably the biggest adjustment was simply realizing that my home would be on camera,” said Angie Baecker (Ph.D. ’20, Asian Languages and Cultures). “I bought a new plant because I knew it would be in the frame.”

Other students focused on technical aspects of the process, especially using BlueJeans, which was then the university’s primary video-conferencing platform.

Outside of the technological—and aesthetic—factors, however, several students cited positive elements of their online defense.

“The day before my defense, I tried sharing my screen and it crashed my aging computer,” said Jesse Contreras (Ph.D. ’20, Epidemiology). “I fortunately was able to borrow another laptop. I also found out while setting up that you can only use Presenter Mode in BlueJeans if you have two monitors. I was able to borrow one at the last minute. With one monitor only, you cannot share your screen and use Presenter Mode at the same time. The actual defense went smoothly after that.”

“My aunts, uncles, and cousins in India, Canada, and across the U.S. could see my defense,” said Samir Nath (Ph.D., M.D. ’22, Cellular and Molecular Biology). “Even our scientific collaborators in Northern Italy were able to attend virtually. The room I had originally booked for an in-person defense prior to COVID-19 only fit 60 people, but online we had over 80 attendees. It was really nice to share that moment with people who wouldn’t normally be able to be there.”

“I felt much less pressure to perform in front of an audience,” said David Martel (Ph.D. ’20, Biomedical Engineering). “I liked being able to sit, rather than stand, and present. I also had much more control over the presentation; a few non-defense talks I’ve given in the past had all sorts of logistical challenges related to slide advancers, etc., which were not present virtually. Overall, I much preferred a virtual defense to an in-person defense.”

Together, these perks of virtual presentations bolstered U-M’s early vision of the oral defense as a public practice, pulling in larger and more diverse audiences than ever. 

No matter where Rackham P.h.D. candidates are defending, whether in a wood-paneled campus meeting room or via web cam from their kitchen tables, the core of the oral defense remains unchanged: a generous public sharing of years of rigorous, transformative research.

Learn more about 150 Years of Doctoral Research at Michigan.