Academic
Viva voce simulation built from your submitted work.
What it simulates
Two examiners. Your research. Different questions every session.
Describe your thesis in the intake and the examiners draw from it directly. The internal examiner opens by referencing something specific in your work, then moves through methodology, theoretical framework, and contribution. A second examiner perspective surfaces on questions two, three, and four.
Hover the highlighted phrases in the examiner's question to understand exactly what they are probing for. Each answer is scored, followed up on, and compiled into a debrief at the end.
Built on examination research
Examiners arrive with a view
Tinkler & Jackson (2004) found that examiners form a provisional pass/fail view before the viva begins, from reading the thesis alone. The viva confirms, challenges, or revises that view. The examiner here has read your thesis before the session starts. Every question references your specific work, not a generic version of your topic.
Conceptual framework is the differentiator
Trafford & Leshem's decade of viva research identifies the conceptual framework as the single area that separates doctoral-level thinking from advanced master's work. Candidates who can show the framework as an active analytical instrument, not just a named theory, perform at the highest level. Area 3 of every examination is weighted most heavily as a result.
Ownership of argument is the marker
Golding et al. (2014) found that high-performing candidates claim their conclusions in the first person, draw contribution claims that match what their methodology can actually establish, and acknowledge limitations with precision. The Ownership dimension in your score tracks this explicitly. 'I concluded' scores higher than 'the data suggested'.
Challenge must be named to be useful
Research on interview simulation (ACM CSCW, 2024) found that unlabelled counter-arguments confused candidates rather than building resilience. The examiner signals intellectual challenge with 'some would argue...' or 'a critic of this approach might say...' so you know you are being tested, not corrected. The briefing screen sets this expectation before the session starts.
Weak answers get pressed, not re-asked
Real examiners identify the weakest phrase in an answer and press on that specific point. Generic follow-ups produce generic preparation. When an answer leaves something unresolved, the follow-up quotes your exact words and asks about that sentence, not a restatement of the original question.
Scoring criteria
Clarity and precision
Can you state your central claim without retreating into jargon? The examiner listens for precision, not length.
Methodological understanding
Do you understand why you made each methodological choice, or did you follow convention without examining it?
Command of the literature
Can you place your work within the field and identify where it departs from or builds on existing knowledge?
Defending under pressure
Can you hold your position when challenged without becoming defensive or collapsing into agreement?