Transfer Viva: What UK Universities Ask For and How to Prepare

A transfer viva is the oral exam that decides whether you move from provisional or MPhil registration to full PhD registration. It usually falls between 9 and 18 months into a full-time PhD. You submit a written report, a panel questions you on it, and most universities allow a second attempt if the first one does not pass.

The rules are set by each university, and often by each department. The names, deadlines, report lengths and outcomes below come from seven UK universities’ own regulations, so you can see the range and know what to look up in your handbook.

What a transfer viva is, and the other names for it

A transfer viva is the oral part of a progression event: the formal check that you can do a PhD before you are fully registered for one. The QAA’s doctoral degree characteristics statement describes candidates who are “initially registered for a master’s degree and transfer to doctoral status at or around the end of the first year”.

Your university may never use the word “transfer”. The same stage goes by different names:

• Upgrade at UCL and Exeter
• Transfer assessment at Leeds
• Confirmation Review at Sheffield
• Second Progression Review (Confirmation) at Southampton
• Early Stage Assessment at Imperial

Whatever the name, it is not your final viva. The final viva examines a finished thesis. The transfer viva asks a narrower question: is this project, with this plan, likely to become a PhD?

When the transfer viva happens

Most full-time deadlines sit at 12 months, with some as late as 21. Here is what each university’s own rules say for full-time students.

Part-time deadlines stretch in proportion. Leeds sets 24 months for a student studying at 0.6 time, Imperial sets 24 months, and Southampton’s decision falls by the end of month 42.

Two things follow from the table. First, at Imperial a repeat still has to fit inside the same 12-month limit, so a late first attempt leaves little room. Second, your deadline is set by your university and department, so look up your own handbook before you plan backwards. Our year-by-year PhD timeline shows where this review sits among the other milestones.

What goes in the transfer report

The report shows three things: you know the field, your method can answer your question, and your plan fits the time left. UCL’s regulations list the contents most plainly: a literature review, a section on methodology, a substantial piece of work towards the thesis objectives, and a plan and timetable.

Other universities stress different parts:

• Leeds says the submission “typically includes a written report, plan for completion/Gantt chart”.
• Southampton asks for “a substantial literature review; well-developed plans for fieldwork and data analysis”.
• Imperial’s guidance says data at this stage “may be minimal but should be indicative of the student’s ability to perform”.

Length is set by the department, not the university, and the range is wide. Exeter’s Engineering department asks for a report of 5,000 words at most, and its Human Geography department allows up to 8,000 words excluding references and appendices. At SOAS, Anthropology asks for 20,000 words and Law for 10,000.

A report skeleton you can copy

Use this as a starting order, then match it to your handbook’s headings. Each section answers one question the panel will ask.

1. Research question and aims (half a page). What exactly are you asking, and why does it need asking now?
2. Literature review (the largest section). What has been done, and where is the gap your project fills?
3. Methodology. Why this method for this question, and what alternatives did you reject?
4. Work so far. A draft chapter, a pilot study or early results, with what they show and what they do not.
5. Plan and timetable. A month-by-month plan or Gantt chart to submission, with the risks you can see.
6. Training and skills. Courses done and still needed, if your handbook asks for them.

Who is in the room

Who sits on the panel, and whether your supervisor is there, depends on your university.

• UCL: at least two members of academic staff, normally chaired by your subsidiary supervisor. Your principal supervisor may attend if you agree, and leaves while the panel decides.
• Leeds: at least two academics independent of your supervisory team. Your supervisors “normally attend the viva but have no say in the outcome”.
• Southampton: at least two independent assessors, one of whom chairs. Your supervisor is normally invited to observe, and you can ask for the viva to go ahead without them.
• Sheffield: the code of practice says “it is not appropriate for supervisors to be involved in deciding the outcome of the Confirmation Review as members of the panel.” Your primary supervisor may attend as an observer, with your permission and the assessors’.
• Imperial: at least one assessor who is independent of your project and your supervisor.

The QAA statement describes the usual pattern: a neutral assessor or panel, with the supervisor present as an observer. If your handbook is unclear, ask your supervisor who will sit on the panel and whether they will be in the room.

How long the transfer viva lasts

Plan for about an hour, and check your department’s guidance. Southampton says there is “no prescribed time limit for the viva voce”. Exeter’s Mathematics department sets a 15-minute presentation followed by a 45-minute discussion, and SOAS Anthropology describes its upgrade viva as approximately one hour.

If a presentation is expected, your department will say so. Build it from the report skeleton above: one slide per section, with the plan slide doing the most work.

Questions to prepare for

The questions follow from what the report has to show. Prepare an answer of two or three sentences for each of these, written down, then practise saying it out loud.

On the question and the gap

• What is your research question, in one sentence?
• Which two or three studies are closest to yours, and what do they leave open?
• Why is this question worth a PhD and not a smaller project?

On the method

• Why did you choose this method over the obvious alternative?
• What could go wrong with your data collection, and what would you do then?
• What would make you change your approach?

For the method questions, our guide to defending your methodology has a reusable answer shape.

On the work so far

• What do your early results show, and what do they not show yet?
• What surprised you in the first year?

On the plan

• Walk us through your timetable to submission.
• What is the riskiest step, and what is your fallback?
• If you lost three months, what would you cut?

Some questions you will not be able to answer. That is normal at this stage, and the panel is partly testing how you handle it. Our piece on questions you cannot answer gives wording for those moments.

A four-week preparation plan

Start four weeks before your submission date, not your viva date. That leaves time to revise the report itself.

Week 4: confirm the rules. Read your university and department regulations. Write down the deadline, the word limit, the required sections, and whether there is a presentation. Ask your supervisor who the panel will be.

Week 3: write the one-page summary. One paragraph each on your question, the gap, the method, the early results and the plan. If a paragraph is hard to write, that section of the report needs work.

Week 2: run a mock viva. Ask someone outside your project to question you from the list above. Time your answers and note every question where you hesitated. Revise the report where the hesitation came from a gap in the report.

Week 1: tighten the plan. Check every date in your timetable against your registration deadlines. Reread your report, mark the pages you will want to point to, and prepare one sentence on what you will do in the next six months.

If you are also reading US advice, our guide to the research proposal defense works through similar questions about size, gap, method and timeline.

Outcomes, and what a second attempt looks like

Most universities give you a second attempt before any fallback to an MPhil. The outcome names differ.

• Leeds: transfer to doctoral registration, transfer to MPhil registration, deferral of the decision (first occasion only) so the work can be revised and reassessed, or withdrawal.
• Exeter (Physics and Astronomy): on a first attempt, pass, minor corrections within one month, major corrections within two months, or referral for a second attempt within three months. On a second attempt, pass or remain registered for an MPhil or MbyRes.
• Southampton: after a second attempt, confirmed, transferred to MPhil candidature, or candidature terminated.
• Imperial: a student who does not pass may be required to withdraw, or the College may transfer their registration to the MPhil.
• Sheffield: after a failed second attempt, students “will be automatically transferred to an MPhil programme”.

Exeter’s handbook expects “the vast majority of students will be successfully ‘upgraded’”. A resubmission is a request for more evidence, and the panel’s written comments tell you what that evidence is.

A resubmission plan to send your supervisor

If you are asked to resubmit, turn the panel’s comments into a table within a few days of the decision.

Send it to your supervisor with one question: does this cover everything the panel asked for? Then work through it row by row.

What Thesisroom does with this

Scope Check reads a research proposal and asks about the places where what it asks for and what it plans do not obviously meet. Each result is two passages quoted from the proposal plus one question about how they join, which is the same question a transfer panel asks of your aims and your plan. It never estimates a duration or tells you what to change. You can see how it works on the rooms page.

Frequently asked questions

Is a transfer viva the same as a PhD viva?

No. A transfer viva decides whether you continue to full PhD registration, usually around the end of your first full-time year. The final PhD viva examines the finished thesis. The transfer viva looks at a report, a plan and early work.

Can you fail a transfer viva?

Yes, but most universities allow a second attempt first. UCL and Southampton allow two attempts, and Leeds allows one deferral. If the second attempt fails, the usual outcome is transfer to an MPhil. Sheffield makes that transfer automatic, and Southampton can also end candidature.

Is my supervisor in the transfer viva?

It depends on your university. At Leeds your supervisors normally attend but have no say in the outcome. At UCL your principal supervisor may attend if you agree. Sheffield says supervisors should not be panel members. Check your own handbook.

How long is a transfer report?

There is no national length. Departments set it, and the range is wide: Exeter Engineering allows 5,000 words at most, while SOAS Anthropology asks for 20,000. Your department handbook gives the limit and the required sections.

When is the transfer viva in a PhD?

For full-time students it is usually at or before 12 months, as at Imperial and Leeds. UCL allows it from 9 months up to 18. Southampton’s confirmation decision falls by the end of month 21. Part-time deadlines are longer.

Do I need to give a presentation at my transfer viva?

Only if your department asks for one. Exeter’s Mathematics department sets a 15-minute presentation before a 45-minute discussion. If your handbook says nothing, ask your supervisor or the panel chair before you prepare slides.

Sources

• QAA, Characteristics Statement: Doctoral Degree (2020)
• UCL, Upgrade and Progression
• University of Leeds, Transfer
• University of Southampton, Code of Practice for Research Degree Candidature and Supervision 2026-27
• Imperial College London, Early Stage Assessment Guidance Notes
• University of Sheffield, Code of Practice for Research Degree Programmes 2025-26
• University of Exeter, Upgrade to PhD
• SOAS, Upgrade from MPhil to PhD

How this guide was made: Thesisroom drafted this guide with the help of AI writing tools. Every fact, figure and source in this post was checked against its original source before publishing.