There was a prof in my department who routinely passed grad students without a single publication because his standards were extremely high. All of his publications going back to like 2005 were Science or Nature
> who routinely passed grad students without a single publication
I really hope these were just Masters level students, because at least they could get the benefit of the doubt that it was coursework or something.
If it's PhDs, I feel so sorry for them: a major part of the degree is learning to communicate research. Without publications, there is no proof they can do research or communicate it.
PhDs, and they did present at conferences (which in my field were not very selective), but yes it does seem like they did not get the whole PhD experience
It depends on the context. I don’t bother reading American theses anymore because there is usually not much of value in them. Even in countries where theses usually mean something, they are often seen as a box-ticking exercise that needs to be done in the quickest and easiest way possible. If we fail students who don’t have a good thesis, not many would pass.
In my experience, the thesis doesn't properly test the skills involved in being a researcher. All it shows is that you've done some research, and that you can write and talk about it given a large amount of prep time and guidance. Without any publications, it's hard to judge if the PhD knows how to do peer review for instance.
On the other hand, after having gotten through a couple of publications, a couple of seminars and at least one peer review process, the thesis becomes almost just a formality. Since by then you've already had plenty of experience writing, dealing with criticism, and presenting your work to experts.
