phd examination process

• The PhD Journey - Stages of a Doctoral Degree

The PhD Journey

Written by Mark Bennett

A PhD typically involves between three and four years of full-time study, culminating in a thesis which makes an original contribution to your field.

The process of getting a PhD is made up of quite a few components and milestones, from the literature review and writing up your dissertation right through to the viva examination at the end.

This section is a guide on how to do a PhD, providing in-depth advice and information on some of the main challenges and opportunities you’ll meet along the way!.

Get funding updates straight to your inbox

Sign up to our weekly newsletter for the latest funding advice and guidance from our team of experts.

7 stages of the PhD journey

A PhD has a few landmark milestones along the way. The three to four year you'll spend doing a PhD can be divided into these seven stages.

• Preparing a research proposal
• Carrying out a literature review
• Conducting research and collecting results
• Completing the MPhil to PhD upgrade
• Participating in PhD teaching, conferences and publications
• Writing your thesis
• Defending your PhD results at a viva voce

We've expanded on what you can expect from each stage below.

1. Preparing a research proposal

Strictly speaking, your research proposal isn’t part of your PhD. Instead it’s normally part of the PhD application process.

The research proposal sets out the aims and objectives for your PhD: the original topic you plan to study and / or the questions you’ll set out to answer.

It also explains why your work is worthwhile and why it fits with the expertise and objectives of your university.

Finally, a PhD proposal explains how you plan to go about completing your doctorate. This involves identifying the existing scholarship your work will be in dialogue with and the methods you plan to use in your research.

All of this means that, even though the proposal precedes the PhD itself, it plays a vital role in shaping your project and signposting the work you’ll be doing over the next three or more years.

2. Carrying out a literature review

The literature review is normally the first thing you’ll tackle after beginning your PhD and having an initial meeting with your supervisor.

It’s a thorough survey of work in your field (the current scholarly ‘literature’) that relates to your project or to related topics.

Your supervisor will offer some advice and direction, after which you’ll identify, examine and evaluate existing data and scholarship.

In most cases the literature review will actually form part of your final PhD dissertation – usually setting up the context for the project, before you begin to explain and demonstrate your own thesis.

Sometimes a literature review can also be evaluated as part of your MPhil upgrade .

Research vs scholarship

Research and scholarship are both important parts of a PhD. But they aren't the same thing - and it's helpful to know the difference. Research is the original work you produce with your thesis. Scholarship is the expert understanding of your subject area that enables you to conduct valuable research.

3. Conducting research and collecting results

Once you’ve carried out your literature review, you’ll move from scholarship to research .

This doesn’t mean you’ll never read another academic article or consult someone else’s data again. Far from it. You’ll stay up to date with any new developments in your field and incorporate these into your literature review as necessary.

But, from here on in, your primary focus in your PhD process is going to be investigating your own research question. This means carrying out organised research and producing results upon which to base your conclusions.

Types of PhD research

The research process and the type of results you collect will depend upon your subject area:

• In Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects you’ll focus on designing experiments, before recording and analysing their outcomes. This often means assembling and managing complex numerical datasets – sometimes in collaboration with the rest of your laboratory or workshop.
• In Social Science subjects you’ll be more focussed on designing surveys or conducting case studies. These will produce quantitative or qualitative data, depending on the nature of your work.
• In Arts and Humanities subjects you’ll often have less raw data, but that doesn’t mean you won’t be working with ‘hard’ factual information. You’ll analyse texts, sources and other materials according to an accepted methodology and reflect upon the significance of your findings.

Whatever subject you’re in, this research work will account for the greater part of your PhD results. You’ll have regular meetings with your supervisor, but the day-to-day management of your project and its progress will be your own responsibility.

In some fields it’s common to begin writing up your findings as you collect them, developing your thesis and completing the accompanying dissertation chapter-by-chapter. In other cases you’ll wait until you have a full dataset before reviewing and recording your conclusions.

4. Completing an MPhil to PhD upgrade

At UK universities it’s common to register new PhD students for an MPhil before ‘ upgrading ’ them to ‘full’ doctoral candidates. This usually takes place after one year of full-time study (or its part-time equivalent).

Forcing you to register for a ‘lesser’ degree may seem strange, but it’s actually an important part of the training and development a PhD offers:

• As an MPhil student you’re able to comprehend your field and produce new research.
• As a PhD student you’re able to go that crucial step further and produce the significant original contribution to knowledge that defines a doctorate.

The MPhil upgrade is when you take the step from the former to the latter.

The MPhil upgrade exam

Upgrading from MPhil to PhD registration usually involves a form of oral exam – similar to the viva voce that concludes a PhD. But, unlike a full viva, the MPhil upgrade is less formal and only covers part of your thesis.

In most cases you’ll submit a small amount of the material you’ve produced so far. This could be a draft of your first chapter (or part of it) and / or your literature review. You could also be asked to reflect on your progress in general.

You’ll then sit down with your supervisor and someone else from your department (familiar with your field, but unrelated to your project). They’ll offer feedback on the quality of your work and ask questions about your findings.

The aim of the process won’t be to examine your drafts so much as to confirm that your project has the potential to justify a PhD – and that you’re on track to complete it on time.

‘Failing’ a PhD upgrade is actually quite rare. Your university may ask you to repeat the procedure if they are concerned that you haven’t made sufficient progress or established a viable plan for the rest of your project.

What is an MPhil?

The MPhil (Master of Philosophy) is also a research degree, but its scope is more limited than a PhD (Doctor of Philosophy). And no, just like a PhD, an MPhil isn’t necessarily a Philosophy qualification. Our guide covers all you need to know about the difference between a MPhil and PhD .

5. PhD teaching, conferences and publications

During the PhD process, you’ll have lots of opportunities to take part in extra-curricular activities, such as teaching, academic conferences and publications.

Although it isn’t usually compulsory to participate in these, they can be an incredibly rewarding experience and will look great on your CV.

Teaching during a PhD normally involves hosting undergraduate seminars or supervising students in the lab, as well as marking work and providing feedback.

Academic conferences are an excellent way to network with like-minded colleagues and find out the latest developments in your field. You might even be able to present your own work to your peers at one of these events.

Publishing during a PhD will help you increase your academic profile, as well as give you experience of the peer review process. It’s not normally a requisite of your PhD, but publications will certainly help if you plan on applying for postdoc positions.

6. Writing your thesis

As the culmination of three or more years of hard work, the thesis (or dissertation) is the most important part of the procedure to get your PhD, presenting you with the opportunity to make an original scholarly contribution to your discipline.

Our guide to writing your thesis covers everything you need to know about this lengthy research project, from structure and word count to writing up and submission.

We’ve also written a guide to the PhD dissertation abstract , which is an important part of any thesis.

7. Defending your PhD results at a viva voce

Unlike other degrees, a PhD isn’t normally marked as a piece of written work. Instead your dissertation will be submitted for an oral examination known as a viva voce (Latin for ‘living voice’).

This is a formal procedure, during which you ‘defend’ your thesis in front of appointed examiners, each of whom will have read your dissertation thoroughly in advance.

Examiners at a viva voce

A PhD is normally examined by two academic experts:

• One will be an internal examiner, usually appointed from elsewhere in your faculty and department. They won’t be directly associated with your project, but will have sufficient expertise to assess your findings.
• The other will be an external examiner. They will be a recognised expert in the area you are researching, with a record of relevant research and publication. Most universities in the UK allow you to invite an external examiner of your choice, provided there is no existing conflict of interest.

Your supervisor will help you prepare for the viva and will offer advice on choosing an external examiner. However, they will not normally be present during the examination.

The PhD timeline

Ready to take the next step?

There's lots more information about how to get a PhD in our advice section . Or, if you're ready to start looking at different projects, why not check out one of the thousands of current PhD opportunities in our database?

Not sure how PhD study will differ from a Masters? In this guide, we take a look at how the two qualifications compare, including applications, course structure, assessment and more.

Every student will need to write an abstract for their PhD dissertation. Here's everything you need to know about what an academic abstract is and how to write one.

What can you expect from a PhD? What's life actually like as a postgraduate student? Read our guides to the doctoral research experience.

The viva voce is the final oral exam at the end of a PhD degree. Our guide explains the usual viva format, covers common questions and explains how to prepare.

FindAPhD. Copyright 2005-2024 All rights reserved.

Unknown    ( change )

Have you got time to answer some quick questions about PhD study?

Select your nearest city

You haven’t completed your profile yet. To get the most out of FindAPhD, finish your profile and receive these benefits:

• Monthly chance to win one of ten £10 Amazon vouchers ; winners will be notified every month.*
• The latest PhD projects delivered straight to your inbox
• Access to our £6,000 scholarship competition
• Weekly newsletter with funding opportunities, research proposal tips and much more
• Early access to our physical and virtual postgraduate study fairs

Or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

*Offer only available for the duration of your active subscription, and subject to change. You MUST claim your prize within 72 hours, if not we will redraw.

Do you want hassle-free information and advice?

Create your FindAPhD account and sign up to our newsletter:

• Find out about funding opportunities and application tips
• Receive weekly advice, student stories and the latest PhD news
• Hear about our upcoming study fairs
• Save your favourite projects, track enquiries and get personalised subject updates

Create your account

Looking to list your PhD opportunities? Log in here .

• Youth Program
• Wharton Online

How the PhD Program Works

Program Overview

Completing your doctorate at Wharton requires 5 years of full-time study. The first 2 years in the program prepare you for admission to candidacy by taking courses, qualifying exams, and starting research projects. In the last few years, you are primarily conducting research full-time including writing and defending your doctoral dissertation.

Admission to candidacy.

You begin by taking courses required for your program of study. All programs requires a preliminary exam, which may be either oral or written.

Some programs may have further requirements, such as an additional exam or research paper. If you enter with a master’s degree or other transfer credit, you may satisfy the formal course requirements more quickly.

Beginning the Wharton PhD Curriculum How the first two years of the Wharton program helped students discover their interests, learn the tools of the profession, and fuel their passion for teaching.

The Doctoral Dissertation

Upon successful completion of coursework and passing a preliminary examination, you are admitted to candidacy for the dissertation phase of your studies.

Your doctoral dissertation should contain original research that meets standards for published scholarship in your field. You are expected to be an expert in the topic you choose to research.

You are admitted to candidacy for the dissertation phase of your studies upon successful completion of coursework and passing a preliminary examination, but you can start thinking about and working on research of relevance at any time.

The dissertation process culminates with a “defense,” in which you defend the proposal orally before your dissertation committee.

While working on your dissertation, you interact extensively with Wharton faculty. Together with interested faculty, you create your own research community that includes your dissertation advisor and dissertation committee.

Policies and Procedures

Get more detailed explanation of course requirements, academic standards, the Teacher Development Program, time limits, and dissertation procedures and requirements.

Sample Program Sequence

Years 1 & 2.

Coursework Examination Research Papers Research Activities Field-Specific Requirements

Directed Reading & Research Admission to Candidacy Formulation of Research Topic

Years 4 & 5

Continued Research Oral Examination Dissertation

Hear From Our Doctoral Community

Wharton is the "perfect" place to do research, why this phd student chose to study business ethics at wharton, from phd student to colleague.

What is a PhD Test / PhD qualifying exam?

Embarking on a PhD journey is a significant milestone in an academic career, and the PhD qualifying exam plays a crucial role in determining a student’s ability to progress in their program.

This exam, which tests a candidate’s understanding of their chosen field and their capacity to conduct high-level research, typically includes both written and oral components.

Success in this exam depends on thorough preparation, consistent study, and maintaining a balanced lifestyle.

The PhD qualifying exam serves as an assessment of a doctoral student’s comprehension of their chosen field and their ability to conduct high-level research. Passing this exam is a prerequisite for advancing to the next stage of their graduate program and commencing their dissertation research.

Here’s everything you need to know about it!

What is a PhD Qualifying Exam?

A PhD qualifying exam, a critical milestone in a doctoral student’s journey, serves as an assessment of a student’s comprehension of their chosen field and their ability to conduct high-level research.

Passing this exam is a prerequisite for advancing to the next stage of their graduate program and commencing their dissertation research.

Usually taken after completing coursework and before starting dissertation research, the qualifying exam’s format can differ by field of study.

Generally, students are required to answer questions posed by a committee of professors who are experts in their research area.

Success in this exam depends on demonstrating a deep understanding and command of their field.

The process reveals various tips and strategies for preparing for and succeeding in a qualifying exam.

Early preparation is essential, and students should allocate consistent study time, create a study schedule, and break their materials into digestible sections. They should also practice answering questions, ideally by simulating the exam with mock calls or committees.

During the exam, students should remember that they are in control of the conversation and steer it in their preferred direction. Instead of apologizing for not knowing an answer, they should use logical reasoning to provide educated guesses.

Taking time to answer questions and limiting responses to precise, succinct answers can also lead to success.

Finally, showing excitement about their project and viewing the exam as an opportunity for an engaging conversation with experts can make a significant difference.

Key Takeaways:

• The PhD qualifying exam is a critical milestone that assesses a student’s understanding of their chosen field and their ability to conduct research. Passing this exam allows students to progress to the next stage of their graduate program and begin their dissertation research.
• Adequate preparation is crucial for success in the qualifying exam. This includes allocating consistent study time, creating a study schedule, breaking materials into digestible sections, and practicing answering questions through simulations or mock committees.
• During the exam, students should remain confident and in control of the conversation, providing logical reasoning for educated guesses when unsure of an answer. Embracing the exam as an opportunity for engaging discussion with experts and learning from any mistakes will ultimately aid in academic advancement.

Failure is not the end of the journey; many students fail and later succeed after regrouping and learning from their mistakes.

With determination and the right strategies, students can conquer the PhD qualifying exam and advance in their academic careers.

What is the Format of the PhD Qualifying Exam? Oral, Written?

The format typically includes both a written and an oral component. The written exam involves answering questions related to the student’s research area and the surrounding literature.

The oral exam usually comprises a discussion of the student’s research proposal and the interpretation of research data.

Conducted by a committee of faculty members who are experts in the student’s research area, the qualifying examination evaluates the student’s performance on the written and oral components to determine their eligibility for moving forward with their PhD research.

The exam is taken at the end of the student’s second year or after the completion of their coursework.

In the case of an unsuccessful first attempt, a retake or second attempt may be granted, although a unanimous decision is often required from the committee members.

The PhD qualifying exam is an integral part of the graduate program admission process, ensuring that only the most qualified students are granted the opportunity to pursue a doctoral degree.

The PhD qualifying exam is a vital step in a student’s journey towards earning their doctorate, requiring dedication, preparation, and a deep understanding of their area of research to achieve success.

How Long Is the PhD Qualifying Exam?

Typically consisting of a written or oral examination, this comprehensive exam tests a student’s understanding of fundamental concepts in their chosen field.

Ranging from several hours to even days, the exam comprises multiple questions or tasks, assessing the candidate’s ability to apply their knowledge to complex problems.

The duration of the exam may differ across institutions, faculty expectations, and subject matter, but the importance of thorough preparation and mastering the subject matter remains constant.

With helpful tips and guidance from many schools and advisors, students can navigate this rigorous process, ultimately paving the way for their PhD candidacy and dissertation defence.

How Do You Prepare for the PhD / Doctoral Qualifying Exam? Tips to ace the test!

Preparing for the PhD qualifying exam can be an intimidating process, but with the right approach, it is manageable. As a crucial milestone in the PhD journey, this exam determines whether a student is qualified to continue their studies. To excel, consider the following steps and insider tips:

• Understand the exam format and requirements: Start by reviewing guidelines and past papers provided by your university to understand what to expect. Familiarizing yourself with the format helps to reduce anxiety and focus on the content.
• Create a study schedule : Allocate sufficient time to review course materials and research papers related to your field of study. A well-structured study schedule ensures that you cover all necessary material and stay on track.
• Form a study group: Collaborate with fellow PhD students to discuss and review material together. Sharing insights and learning from each other can strengthen your understanding and address any gaps in your knowledge.
• Practice with past exam papers: Working through past papers and taking self-assessment tests regularly will help you gauge your progress and identify areas that need improvement.
• Maintain physical and mental health: Don’t underestimate the importance of self-care during the preparation phase. Prioritize good sleep, healthy eating habits, and regular exercise to improve focus and concentration.
• Seek guidance: Consult your advisor or committee members for tips and insights on how to approach the exam. Their experience can provide invaluable guidance and help you avoid potential pitfalls.

Thorough preparation and discipline are crucial to succeeding in the PhD qualifying exam. By following these steps and maintaining a balanced lifestyle, you will be well-equipped to face this critical academic challenge.

What other entry tests and requirements are there for PhDs?

When pursuing a PhD, applicants must navigate a complex admission process that often goes beyond submitting academic transcripts and letters of recommendation. Various entry tests are required to assess a candidate’s suitability for doctoral study. One of the most common exams is the GRE (Graduate Record Examination), which measures a candidate’s aptitude for graduate-level work.

However, some universities and colleges may require subject-specific exams, such as the GRE Subject Tests, to evaluate an applicant’s knowledge in a particular discipline. These tests can be particularly important for PhD programs that demand a high level of specialization in a specific field.

In addition to these standardized tests, some PhD programs require applicants to have completed a Master’s degree in a relevant field before being considered for admission.

This prerequisite ensures that candidates possess a solid foundation in their chosen discipline and are prepared for the rigorous demands of doctoral research.

Another important aspect of the PhD application process is the submission of a research proposal, personal statement, or other supporting documentation.

These materials demonstrate the applicant’s interest, expertise, and ability to specialize in a particular area of study.

Lastly, international students may need to take an English proficiency test, such as the TOEFL or IELTS, to demonstrate their language skills if the program is conducted in English.

Entry tests and requirements for PhDs can vary significantly depending on the subject area and the institution. Prospective students should carefully research their options and ensure they meet all necessary criteria for the doctorate they wish to pursue.

Wrapping up – PhD/Doctoral Entrance examinations

The PhD qualifying exam plays a crucial role in a doctoral student’s academic journey, testing their understanding of their chosen field and their ability to conduct high-level research.

This comprehensive exam, which typically consists of both written and oral components, determines a student’s eligibility to progress in their PhD program.

To succeed in this exam, students must engage in thorough preparation, create a study schedule, form study groups, and maintain a balanced lifestyle that prioritizes physical and mental health.

In addition to the PhD qualifying exam, various entry tests and requirements, such as the GRE, subject-specific exams, and research proposals, may be necessary to assess a candidate’s suitability for doctoral study.

By understanding these requirements and dedicating the necessary time and effort to prepare, aspiring PhD students can navigate this challenging process and work toward achieving their academic goals.

Dr Andrew Stapleton has a Masters and PhD in Chemistry from the UK and Australia. He has many years of research experience and has worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate at a number of Universities. Although having secured funding for his own research, he left academia to help others with his YouTube channel all about the inner workings of academia and how to make it work for you.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

2024 © Academia Insider

Ace Your PhD Qualifying Exam: A Guide To Academic Success

Unlock success in your PhD qualifying exam with expert tips and comprehensive resources. Ace the milestone with confidence!

In the academic journey of a PhD candidate, the qualifying exam is a significant milestone toward your research goals and earning that coveted doctorate. Leaping can be both exhilarating and intimidating. Fear not, for this blog will guide you along the way.

At its core, a PhD qualifying exam tests your analytical and critical thinking skills. The exam is an opportunity to demonstrate your expertise, and if you approach it correctly, you’ll be able to ace it. You will find expert tips, helpful insights, and a wealth of resources in this comprehensive resource.

Our goal is to empower you with the tools and knowledge you need to succeed, regardless of whether you are just contemplating the exam or deep into your preparations. This blog will be your trusted companion on your journey through studying strategies, time management techniques, and acing the oral defense.

Let’s unlock your PhD qualifying exam success together. This guidance will assist you in becoming a confident, accomplished scholar and achieving your academic aspirations.

Understanding The PhD Qualifying Exam

One of the most pivotal milestones in earning a doctorate is the PhD qualifying exam, which is one of the most important milestones along the way. As we proceed through this section, we will explore what exactly the exam entails, its purpose, and why it is so important.

As part of the PhD qualification exam, often called the comprehensive or candidacy exam, students are evaluated rigorously to determine whether or not they are ready to conduct research during their doctoral studies. PhD candidates must cross this threshold before they can become official candidates. Written and oral examinations are the two primary forms of this examination. Furthermore, some institutions are adopting a new approach in which a few questions are sent and the answer is given time to be processed. 

The Written Component

An important part of this phase is to demonstrate a thorough understanding of your field of study, usually through a series of essays or tests, which are usually based on written tests. In some cases, the questions can be broad, which means that you will need to draw connections between several aspects of the topic that you are discussing.

Also read: Write Like A Pro: Explore The Magic Of An Academic Paragraph

The Oral Component 

During the oral defense phase, which is often held after the written part of the proposal has been submitted, you will have to defend your proposal or answer questions from a committee of faculty members. As a result, you will be able to demonstrate your expertise and receive feedback that is of great value.

Also read: Preparing for a Successful Dissertation Defense

The Importance Of This Academic Milestone

Here’s why the PhD qualifying exam is so important in academia.

• Providing evidence of mastery: The exam serves as a litmus test of what you know about the subject. To succeed, you must be immersed deeply in your field and familiar with its literature and methodologies.
• Evaluation of Readiness: This assessment aims to determine whether or not you are prepared to work on complex research projects at the end of your PhD program. The passing of this test indicates your readiness for the dissertation’s rigors.
• Making the transition to Candidacy: Passing the qualifying exam is an important milestone. It signifies your readiness to begin PhD dissertation work by officially advancing you to the status of a PhD candidate. Your academic career is about to take an exciting and prestigious step forward.
• Improve Your Career Prospects: A PhD qualifying exam can significantly enhance your career prospects in academia and beyond, as it demonstrates your expertise and dedication.

PhD qualifying exams are not just hurdles to overcome; they’re transformative experiences that equip you with the skills, knowledge, and recognition needed to excel in your academic career. The doctoral dissertation is a challenge that tests your intellectual prowess and sets you on your path to a doctoral degree.

Preparing For Success

In order to succeed in your PhD qualifying exam, you must prepare well before the exam takes place. Early and diligent preparation is the key to your triumph. The purpose of this section is to discuss how to prepare for this major academic milestone, including how to develop a study schedule, set goals, and collaborate with others to accomplish them.

Early Preparation Is Essential

A successful PhD qualifying exam requires early preparation. Using this method, you can cover a lot of material systematically, reducing anxiety and stress at the last minute. It is easier to comprehend and retain knowledge if you start early, giving you the gift of time.

Also, early preparation allows you to identify the need for additional assistance or resources. In this way, you can break down the extensive syllabus into manageable chunks, making studying faster and more effective.

Setting Goals And Creating A Study Schedule

To prepare effectively for an exam, it is essential to develop a study schedule and set clear, attainable goals. With a well-organized study plan, you’ll be able to manage your time efficiently and ensure that you don’t overload yourself with too many topics. Break down your objectives into smaller, manageable steps by defining them at the beginning of the preparation period.

Make sure your study sessions have specific, measurable, and realistic goals so that you can monitor your progress easily. Make sure your study routine is suited to your personal learning style, incorporating revision, practice, and self-assessment. As you prepare, this will help you remain focused and disciplined.

Study Group Collaboration For Learning

Although most of your exam preparation will be done alone, studying with a group can be highly beneficial. Study groups provide new perspectives, diverse insights, and emotional support, facilitating your preparation journey and reducing isolation.

Study groups can help you clarify doubts and discuss complex concepts. In addition to holding you accountable, they decrease the temptation to procrastinate. Make sure you form a well-organized, productive study group with a shared commitment to success.

The Exam: How To Navigate It

The PhD qualifying exam is a formidable challenge that often comprises two main components: the written exam and the oral defense. To succeed, it’s crucial to understand the format of this academic hurdle, know what to expect during each stage, and be aware of common pitfalls that can trip you up. Let’s delve into these aspects to help you navigate the exam with confidence.

Format Of A Typical PhD Qualifying Exam

Written exam.

The written exam serves as a robust assessment of your comprehensive knowledge of your field of study, and it is the first hurdle on the path to earning your PhD. Depending on the specific requirements of your program, this phase may last several hours or even days.

• Questions that delve deeply into the core concepts and themes of your discipline will be encountered in the written exam. In these questions, your understanding is tested not just on its breadth but also on its depth.
• Your ability to synthesize information from various sources, including coursework, research, and relevant literature, is a key expectation during the written exam.
• Your field of study may require you to analyze, interpret, and draw conclusions from data. Your ability to apply your knowledge in practice is demonstrated here.
• You will be able to show a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter in the written exam. Show your understanding of key theories, methodologies, and current debates.

Oral Defense

The oral defense is another pivotal component of the qualifying exam after you have successfully completed the written portion. The oral defense will involve a panel of faculty members assessing your writing and ability to defend it.

• Your written responses must be presented and defended during the oral defense. You will be asked probing questions and asked to explain your reasoning. You should demonstrate your ability to apply your knowledge to real-world scenarios during this phase.
• The panel will assess the depth of your knowledge in this area. Your assumptions may be challenged, clarification sought, or specific questions may be explored in depth. Your academic preparation and understanding will be assessed during this phase.
• During the oral defense, it is critical that you can effectively articulate your ideas. Communication skills will be evaluated by faculty members in order to ensure that you can clearly and coherently convey complex concepts.

Common Pitfalls And How To Avoid Them

Now let’s take a closer look at each of these common pitfalls in more detail and see what we can do to avoid them:

Lack of Time Management

The written test presents a challenge for many candidates, as they struggle to manage their time effectively. Timed mock exams can help you conquer this challenge. Decide on a timer and allocate time-based on the weight and complexity of each question. Make sure you get valuable points for those sections by prioritizing questions you feel most confident about. The more challenging questions can be left until the end and then revisited after the rest of the questions have been answered.

Also read: Time Management for Researchers: A Comprehensive Toolkit

Inadequate Preparation for the Oral Defense

You can fall victim to a serious pitfall by not thoroughly understanding your written responses or ignoring potential questions during the oral defense. Providing adequate explanations may be difficult due to stumbling. You can prevent this by conducting mock oral defenses with peers, mentors, or academic advisors. Request that they ask challenging and unexpected questions, just like in a real trial. In addition to preparing you for possible questions, practice will also improve your ability to communicate effectively. Take the time to fully understand the literature and the written answers you provide. Be prepared to answer in-depth questions by reviewing your research, methodologies, and context.

Overlooking Stress and Anxiety

Exam performance can be adversely affected by stress and anxiety. This can result in nervousness, memory lapses, and difficulty articulating ideas confidently. Relaxation techniques can help you cope with stress and anxiety. You can stay calm and focused by practicing deep breathing exercises, meditation, and mindfulness. Maintain a growth-oriented attitude, visualize your success, and remind yourself of your capabilities. A healthy diet, regular exercise, and adequate sleep can also reduce stress. Support from mentors or counseling services can help you manage anxiety more effectively if it persists.

How To Stay Motivated While Preparing For The PhD Qualifying Examination

In the midst of the rigorous preparation process for a PhD qualifying exam, it can be challenging to maintain motivation and a positive mindset. It can be demanding and emotionally draining during this stage of academic life, but you can make the most of it with the right strategies.

Identify And Break Down Your Goals

• Preparation should begin with clear, attainable goals.
• Set smaller, manageable milestones to help you pass the exam.
• Set reading goals, proficiency goals for topics, and practice essays every week.
• Maintaining motivation by achieving these small milestones fosters a sense of accomplishment.

Organize Your Study Time

• Consistency and discipline can be achieved by building a structured study routine.
• Study, break, and relaxation activities should be scheduled specifically.
• Procrastination can be combated with consistency in your routine.

Ensure Accountability And Support

• Consult your peers, mentors, and academic advisors when you need support.
• Take part in or form a study group to feel a sense of community and accountability.
• Having regular discussions with fellow students keeps motivation high, clarifies doubts, and exchanges ideas.

Resolve Common Challenges

• Understand that self-doubt is normal. Track your progress and acknowledge your accomplishments.
• Manage stress by exercising, meditating, or seeking professional help if necessary.
• Take regular breaks and prioritize self-care to avoid burnout. Relax and enjoy fulfilling activities.

Staying motivated while preparing for your PhD qualifying exam is an important part of your academic journey. To maintain motivation and stay on track, you should set clear goals, establish a structured routine, seek support, and address common challenges. Ultimately, you will be able to achieve academic success by overcoming these challenges.

The Power Of Visualization Of Mind the Graph Will Take Data Visualization To The Next Level

A game-changer is at hand in the quest to better communicate and understand scientific findings. Research and dissertations can be made easier with Mind the Graph . Scientific communication will be redefined as we know it when visuals are seamlessly integrated into your drafts. Through Mind the Graph’s powerful tools, you can visually engage your audience with complex data, making it easier for them to understand. Visit our website for more information.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

About Aayushi Zaveri

Aayushi Zaveri majored in biotechnology engineering. She is currently pursuing a master's degree in Bioentrepreneurship from Karolinska Institute. She is interested in health and diseases, global health, socioeconomic development, and women's health. As a science enthusiast, she is keen in learning more about the scientific world and wants to play a part in making a difference.

Content tags

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Search Ohio State

Section 9: PhD Candidacy Examination: Overview, Committee, and Process

9.1 candidacy overview.

Qualifying conditions and the candidacy examination, written and oral portions, must be passed prior to the student's admission to candidacy for the PhD degree (i.e., the part of the program dealing mainly with research and dissertation progress). The purpose of the Candidacy Examination is to assess the student’s knowledge base and thinking ability to make a determination of their suitability to continue towards independent research and a doctoral degree. The sequence and timing of the examination is at the discretion of the student's research advisor after all courses on the approved program of study have been taken. Note that BME seminar is the only course permitted to be completed concurrent with or after the candidacy examination is taken. 

With advisor approval, requests to take the exam concurrent with a final course can be made to the BMEGSC in exceptional cases. Students who begin candidacy should have no more classes to take and are expected to register for no more than 3 credits per term unless approved by the student’s GRA or GTA supervisor or funding source.

A student must be registered for at least 3 credit hours in each term in which any part of the candidacy examination is taken. A unanimous vote of the committee members is required for the student to pass the exam. The student is admitted to candidacy at the end of the term in which the Candidacy Examination is passed. The examination can be taken only twice and the second time, only on recommendation of the Candidacy Examination Committee. For complete details, see section 7 of the GSH .

9.2 Composition of the Candidacy Examination Committee

The candidacy examination committee will consist of at least 4 graduate faculty members, including at least one core BME departmental faculty member, and will be chaired by the research advisor, who must have level-P graduate faculty status in BME. The composition of the committee must be approved by the BMEGSC when the completed PhD program of study is submitted. Faculty signatures imply both approval of the program and membership on the student’s candidacy committee. The approved program and committee must be on file with the Graduate Studies Office before the end of the second Autumn semester (or the student’s third term of enrollment). Students should request BMEGSC-approval of their candidacy committee in the cover letter that accompanies their proposed program of study. Students should be sure to work closely with their candidacy committee to ensure satisfactory and efficient progress and preparation toward the dissertation topic.

9.3 Identifying Candidacy Committee Members

The student and research advisor are responsible for identifying faculty in areas related to the student’s program of study and research. The additional committee members must have M or P graduate faculty status. Questions about graduate faculty status may be directed to the Graduate Studies Coordinator. The student is responsible for carefully screening and asking faculty to serve on their committee and for obtaining their approvals to serve via the program of study.

Q: Can external members serve on the candidacy examination committee?

With BMEGSC permission, a petition can be made to the Graduate School to include additional, non-faculty members. It may be easier for clinical faculty and external researchers to serve on dissertation committees as there is a smaller time commitment. Once approved by the BMEGSC, petitions can be submitted to the Graduate School. Details on how to file a committee petition may be found on the gradforms.osu.edu website. 

9.4 Qualifying Conditions for Candidacy: Courses, Fundamental GPA, and Proposal

The purpose of qualifying conditions is to determine if a student’s academic record is strong enough to indicate a good chance of success towards a doctoral degree. Prior to taking the Candidacy Examination a student must:

• Satisfactorily complete the approved program of study. (The BMEGSC will consider requests for students to take the exam prior to completing their entire course of study in exceptional circumstances.)
• Students achieving an average GPA between 3.00 and 3.35 on the four BME fundamental courses may petition the BMEGSC for permission to take a 5 th required BME fundamental course – selected with the help of their advisor – and to have their average recomputed after dropping the lowest grade.
• Students achieving less than a 3.00 in the four required BME fundamental courses (or less than 3.35 after the recomputation above) will be allowed to continue towards an MS degree but will not be allowed to sit for their candidacy examination.
• The student will prepare a research proposal in their chosen area which will include a clearly stated goal: either an original (i.e., distinct from the advisor’s current research) Hypothesis, or a Technology Development objective; Specific Aims; a review and analysis of the relevant literature; a series of proposed experiments; and a discussion of the data to be collected and the means by which it will be analyzed.

Adherence to a standard grant format (e.g., NIH R-21 or NSF format) as selected by the Candidacy Examination committee is suggested. The candidate will provide the proposal to his/her research advisor no less than three full weeks prior to the oral portion of the candidacy exam. The advisor or student is responsible for distributing the proposal to the candidacy examination committee, who will evaluate the quality of the proposal and determine if the student has satisfactorily completed this condition.

9.5 Written Candidacy Examination

The written portion of the exam will consist of one question from each of the candidacy committee members, sent to the research advisor. The student’s research advisor is responsible for overseeing and coordinating the exam, and must make sure the student has no less than one full week to complete all parts of the written exam, not including holidays. Each candidacy examination committee member will provide one question to the advisor that may be directly based on the research proposal (i.e. typical review-type question) or may be based on the research area described by the candidate. Questions also may be based on coursework and/or ask for a critical review of the literature in a certain area. Each question may include multiple parts. The student is required to submit all written responses to both the committee member and the research advisor in the time period set by the advisor.

The entire written exam may be taken over an extended period of time, not to exceed one month. It is not uncommon for written exams to be completed over the course of 7 to 10 days. The oral portion should take place no later than one month past the date of the last written exam, but no sooner than one week after the date of the last written exam. The advisor is responsible for communicating with the committee about BME procedures and policies. This is especially important when the committee is composed of faculty outside of BME who will require guidance on what to expect.

9.6 Oral Candidacy Examination

The student may give a brief presentation of their pre-candidacy/qualifying research proposal before the oral examination begins. This typically lasts between 15-20 minutes. Immediately following, the committee will examine the student on the proposal and his/her understanding of the engineering and life science disciplines underlying the proposed research. The GSH states that the oral examination should last no more than two hours, with additional time allotted for any pre-examination presentation. Students should be prepared for oral questions that examine (but are not limited to):

• general knowledge and reasoning skills in the area of biomedical engineering (especially in the domains of their coursework and in the area of their undergraduate background), and topics raised in the written portion of the candidacy exam
• the fitness of the student to formulate and address a research problem including knowledge of background materials, current literature, experimental design, methods, alternative techniques, statistical analysis, likely outcomes, etc.

See Section 7.3 – 7.7 of the GSH for complete candidacy policies.

9.7 Candidacy Results

At the conclusion of the oral portion, the committee determines pass or fail of the entire Candidacy Examination, based on both the written and oral performance. Attendance at the oral portion of the exam is limited to the student and the members of the Examination Committee. Successful completion of the Candidacy Examination requires a unanimously affirmative decision of the Committee. If the examination is not passed, a supplemental examination may be taken with the permission of the Candidacy Committee and in accordance with Graduate School policies. See Section 7.6 of the GSH for more information.

9.8 Candidacy Processes

It is the student's responsibility, with the approval of the advisor, to contact all examiners on the candidacy committee and schedule the candidacy examination. When the date and time for the oral examination are arranged, students may schedule a room for a 2-hour block of time in BMEC or elsewhere on campus if it is more convenient for the committee. 

An Application for Candidacy form may be submitted by the student (approved by the advisor) to the Graduate School via gradforms.osu.edu when starting the written examination, but must be submitted at least two full weeks before the date of the oral examination. The location and 2-hour time block must be listed on the form.

Once the oral examination is complete, the candidacy committee will complete the Candidacy Examination Report via gradforms.osu.edu. Links will be sent to their osu.edu email addresses for this purpose. Candidacy status established in one doctoral program or at another institution is not transferable to another doctoral program. 

Q: Are there deadlines for candidacy like there are for defenses?

With two-week notice, you may take the candidacy exam up until the day before the start of the next semester (i.e., the published end-of-semester deadline) and candidacy exams may span one to the next semester. You will be considered a post-candidate the semester immediately following passage of the oral exam.

Q: How long after passing candidacy should I defend my dissertation?

It is up to your advisor and dissertation committee; however, it must be no longer than 5 years after passing the candidacy exam. If the dissertation is not completed in that time, candidacy will be cancelled and a supplementary candidacy exam will be required.

Q: I am a new student with transfer credits. Can I take candidacy right away?

No, you will need to complete the BME program of study which will allow you to use up to 30 transfer credits but will require you to take at least some required “fundamental” BME courses here, as a qualifying condition. In order to graduate with a PhD you will need 80 credit hours total, or 50 post-master’s hours, at least 24 of which must be taken here. Many of the 24 credits may be taken post-candidacy as research.

Q: My research advisor is new, from a home unit outside of BME. Who can they contact for guidance on running their first BME candidacy exam?

Advisors with questions about coordinating the written and oral exams are welcome to contact the Graduate Studies Chair, Jun Liu at [email protected]; a BME colleague; or the student’s core faculty advisor. 

9.9 Post-Candidacy and Continuous Enrollment

All students who successfully complete the doctoral candidacy examination will be required to be enrolled in every term of their candidacy (summer excluded) until graduation. Students must be enrolled for at least 3 credits per semester. More than 3 credits may be taken, only with written permission of the research supervisor and funding source . It ultimately will be the responsibility of each student to ensure that they are meeting the enrollment provisions of the continuous enrollment policy. For more information, review the GSH. 

9.10 Obtaining the Master’s Degree as a Result of Passing Candidacy

Students who pass candidacy may earn an MS credential en route to completing the doctoral degree by completing an Application to Graduate with an MS on gradforms.osu.edu in any semester after candidacy has been passed. The application indicates that the student is continuing on for a PhD and is earning the Master’s as a result of passing the candidacy examination, and will be approved by the student’s advisor and BMEGSC Chair. 

Work Backwards to plan Candidacy: Sample timeline using random dates

The qualifying proposal and examinations may take the better part of a semester, but the actual examinations should aim to take place in no less than one month, no more than two. Here is one sample of a common examination timeline, as agreed upon by student and advisor:

If the Oral Examination is planned for Nov 27:

• At least one full week and no more than one full month before the Oral Exam: Last Written Exam question completed by student no later than Nov 20
• At least 2 full weeks before the Oral Exam:  Candidacy Application submitted to Grad School by student via gradforms.osu.edu no later than Nov 13 or preferably sooner to allow time for faculty signatures. On the application, students may list a time range for writtens (e.g., Nov 13 thru Nov 20) and must include the date/time/location of the Oral Exam. 
• In no less than one full week and no more than one full month:  Written Exam questions distributed by Advisor between Nov 13 and date TBD by advisor: Collected no sooner than Nov 20, excluding holidays

A sample timeline might look like this but written exams also may take longer: Oral Exam – Nov 27 Written 4 due – Nov 20 Written 3 due – Nov 18 Written 2 due – Nov 16 Written 1 due – Nov 14 Start Written 1 – Nov 13

• Send completed proposal to the advisor/committee no later than Nov 6
• Achieve a 3.35 in 4 approved fundamental courses before the semester in which the exam begins.

.cls-1{fill:#a91e22;}.cls-2{fill:#c2c2c2;} double-arrow Handbook

Appendix B:   Admission Prerequisites for Non-engineers  

Appendix D:   Department History & Background  

Frequently asked questions about the PhD examination process

How long will it take to examine my thesis.

• The examination of a PhD thesis is a serious and time-consuming process involving a large number of steps, documents and participants. There are, therefore, many possible sources and causes of delay. The staff of Student Administration – Research will do their very best to facilitate a smooth and timely process for you, however you should bear in mind that delays are common and so it is important to be realistic about how long it will take before a result is available.
• The usual time between submission and receiving the initial outcome, based on historical data, is approximately 4 months.
• This period does not include the time needed for doing amendments and submitting your final hard-bound thesis.
• The assessment of a PhD thesis is a large and serious undertaking and it usually requires a substantial period of uninterrupted time. The time of the year at which the thesis is submitted can also be a significant factor.
• Student Administration – Research will remind examiners about two weeks before their reports are due. A reminder will also be sent if an examiner's report has not been submitted within the timeframe suggested. This usually results in a renegotiated deadline for the report. If the response is unsatisfactory, senior management will attempt to expedite matters.
• Once all the examiners' reports have been received, the oral will be held (see Oral Examination ). The Convener of Examiners is responsible for reaching a final consensus recommendation regarding the results in consultation with the examiners at the conclusion of the oral examination. Candidates will usually be informed of the result at this point but if no consensus has been reached, this will be conveyed to the candidate, together with a likely timeframe for a decision.

May I contact Student Administration – Research during the examination period?

• For any queries about the progress of your doctoral examination, please contact Student Administration – Research. Should there be any unusual delays, you will certainly be informed.
• It is essential that you keep Student Administration – Research informed of your current postal and email addresses during the examination process.

Student Administration – Research Email [email protected]

Do I need to be on campus for an oral examination or to make corrections to my thesis, if required?

• The answer is preferably yes as it will greatly facilitate the completion of your examination process. If it is unavoidable for you to move away from the campus, you should discuss the implications with your supervisor, HOD and the Convener of Examiners before making a decision.
• At the discretion of the Convener of Examiners, it may be possible to arrange an oral examination by video or audio conference.

Do I have to enrol and pay fees if I have amendments/revisions to make?

Usually not since fees are waived during the examination period. However, there are expected time frames in which amendments/revisions are to be completed. After this time, you will be required to (re-)enrol and pay fees. For general amendments resulting from the two “accept” results, this is a period three months (full-time study); for a “revise and resubmit” result, this is extended to 6 months (full-time study) or 12 months (part-time study).

Do I have to be on campus when I am receiving a Postgraduate Publishing Bursary?

The Postgraduate Publishing Bursary Regulations (which are printed on the reverse side of the application form) state the student must prepare the publication(s) “with the direct involvement of their supervisor”. As long as this criterion is met, students may be off-campus or overseas during the tenure of the bursary; however, payment will only be made into a nominated New Zealand bank account in the name of the student.

Postgraduate Publishing Bursary Regulations (PDF)

May I take up employment during the examination process?

The University does not have any regulations that prohibit you from taking up employment, including post-doctoral positions, during the examination process. It is your, and your prospective employer's, decision whether you wish to do this. If you are contemplating employment, it is recommended that you carefully consider the implications of that employment should you be required to make amendments/revisions or attend an oral examination.

Why do I have to make amendments/revisions?

• It is important that thesis candidates understand that, as a result of the examination of their thesis, revisions may be required. Sometimes these are relatively straightforward and will not take very long to complete. However, examiners may decide that more substantial work has to be undertaken.
• The examination of a thesis is similar to the critical scrutiny that academic work receives when it is submitted for publication in a scholarly journal or by scholarly publishers. When you submit your work for publication, you will have two to three critical readers of your work. It would be unusual for work to be accepted without revision. Often the revisions required can be very substantial before your article or chapter will be accepted for publication. In that case you have a choice: either you do the revisions to the satisfaction of the reviewers and editor, or you do not get your work published. The examination of theses is similar to the processes involved in peer review for scientific journals.
• Candidates should be aware that when they submit their thesis for examination it is read and critically evaluated by three examiners. There is no guarantee of the outcome of any examination process. A thesis may pass; it may fail; it may require revision. When you submit your thesis, you and your supervisor may believe that it is ready to be examined. However, submitting the thesis for examination does not mean that you have “completed” your thesis. It means that you have reached the point where you believe that your work is ready to be scrutinised by people knowledgeable in your field of study.
• If you are required to undertake revisions, please remember that this is part of the process of being a thesis candidate. The revisions will make your thesis a better thesis. This means that you will achieve a higher quality of work than you initially submitted. That is good for both the completed thesis on the library shelf and for your own training as a researcher.
• When you submit your revised thesis for checking by the Convener and/or internal examiner, please ensure you include a cover letter that details how the examiners' concerns have been addressed. Also, contact your Convener to determine in which format they want the revised thesis to be submitted.

If I submit now, can I graduate at the next graduation ceremony?

• Probably not! The nature of the PhD examination process unfortunately means that it is simply not possible to guarantee any particular graduation date.
• If amendments are required, then this will also affect when you are able to graduate. It is important to be realistic about that. A thesis will not be passed unless, in the view of the examiners, it reaches the standard required for a PhD degree.

PhD Completion Process

Congratulations!

As a PhD student, you have spent spend significant time at the University of Rochester taking courses, completing research in your field, completing milestones and are now ready to complete your degree.

The final requirement in earning a PhD degree is the completion and defense of the doctoral dissertation. Understanding the steps and associated deadlines in the dissertation submission and degree conferral process is necessary to establish a successful plan. For complete descriptions of the process, please review the Regulations and University Policies Concerning Graduate Students .

The page below is organized by before, during and post-oral defense. Please read the page in it’s entirety and email questions you have to [email protected]

Doctoral Qualifying Exam / Admission to Candidacy

All PhD programs must administer a qualifying examination as part of the PhD program requirements. The qualifying examination may be either written or oral or both, at the discretion of the department/program, and must be passed at least six months before the final examination may be taken.

The associate dean of a school certifies that a student has passed the qualifying examinations and is recommended for candidacy.

For more details, please review page 12 of the Regulations and University Policies Concerning Graduate Students .

Planning for the Final Oral Exam / Dissertation Defense

At least six months before you plan to defend your dissertation, you should contact the graduate coordinator of your program for details regarding the submitting the defense. During the months leading up to the anticipated defense, your graduate coordinator will walk you through the process and explain any department specific nuances.

Pay careful attention to the five PhD degree cycle deadlines. In each degree cycle, there is a deadline for the last day to complete your degree requirements.  There are no exceptions to the deadlines. If a deadline is missed, your name cannot be approved by the Council on Graduate Education and presented to the Board of Trustees until the following degree date.

The oral exam/defense/dissertation is approved at multiple levels of the University. Starting with the program, oral exam/defense/dissertation committee, school graduate deans and the University Dean of Graduate Education. You will receive emails a few days before your defense confirming that the approvals for the defense have all been received.

PhD academic calendar

PhD students can reference their specific academic calendar in the drop-downs below.

To enable review by the Graduate Education Offices in the Schools and University Graduate Education, online dissertation committee and program director approvals must be completed the following number of working days before the defense:

• SMD and SON: At least 10 working days before the defense
• AS&E, Warner and Simon: At least 15 working days before the defense
• ESM: At least 20 working days before the defense

A minimum of five working days must elapse between the approval of the candidate’s School Dean to advance the record to University Graduate Education and the day of the defense. This time has been included in the schools’ lead times listed above.

Defenses may be held during regular business hours on any University working day with the exceptions listed below. See calendar below for additional non-working days.

Monday, May 27:  The University is closed in observance of Memorial Day. This day cannot be counted as a working day.

Wednesday, June 19: The University is closed in observance of Juneteenth. This day cannot be counted as a working day.

Thursday, July 4: The University is closed in observance of Independence Day. This day cannot be counted as a working day.

Friday, August 23, 4 p.m.: Last day to submit final corrected dissertation to the ProQuest website to fulfill degree requirements for an August 2024 degree conferral.

Monday, August 26: Fall semester begins.

Saturday, August 31: August 2024 PhD date.

Monday, August 26 at 4 p.m.: Last day for students who have completed defenses to submit final corrected dissertation for October 2024 degree to the ProQuest website without having to register for Fall 2024. AFTER THIS DATE, SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS FOR DEGREE COMPLETION REQUIRES REGISTRATION FOR THE FALL SEMESTER.

Monday, September 2: The University is closed in observance of Labor Day. This day cannot be counted as a working day

Thursday, September 26, 4 p.m.: Last day to submit final corrected dissertation to the ProQuest website to fulfill degree requirements for an October 2024 degree. NOTE: Students must be registered for the Fall 2024 Semester if submitting documents after August 26.

Friday, October 4: October 2024 PhD conferral date.

Monday, September 2:  The University is closed in observance of Labor Day. This day cannot be counted as a working day.

Wednesday, November 27 through Friday, November 29: The University is closed in observance of Thanksgiving. These three days cannot be counted as working days.

Monday, December 16 at 4 p.m.:  Last day to submit final corrected dissertation to the ProQuest website to fulfill degree requirements for a December degree. NOTE: Students must be registered for the Fall 2024 Semester if submitting final documents after August 28.

Friday, December 13: Last day for dissertation defense registration approval by University Dean of Graduate Education for defenses scheduled January 2, 2025.

Thursday, December 19 through Friday, December 31:  Due to recess and holidays, no dissertation registrations will be completed in the University Graduate Education office. No PhD defenses may be held during this time period.

December 31: December 2024 PhD conferral date.

Tuesday, February 28 at 4 p.m.: Last day to submit final corrected dissertation to the ProQuest website to fulfill degree requirements for a March degree.

March 7, 2025: March 2025 PhD conferral date.

Wednesday, April 30 at 4 p.m.: Last day to submit final corrected dissertation to the ProQuest website to fulfill degree requirements for a May 2025 degree.

Friday, May 16:  University Doctoral Commencement

Additional Information about Planning for your Defense

Writing your dissertation.

The dissertation process webpage offers several writing resources to help you get started, meet your goals, and complete your thesis/dissertation on time.

You also will want to take full advantage of internal reviews of the dissertation before uploading the thesis for defense registration, in order to minimize the number of errors in the registration version.

Final Oral Examination Committee

Page 11 of the Regulations and University Policies Concerning Graduate Students (“Redbook”) goes into detail about the make-up of the committee.

PhD Committee Matrix

Approval Process for Non-Standard Committee Membership

Approval must be obtained in writing, based on a petition that includes a rationale for the request and a CV of the proposed nonstandard member.

Contact your Graduate Coordinator to start the petition process.

Page 12 of the Regulations and University Policies Concerning Graduate Students (“Redbook”) goes into detail.

Scheduling your Defense

Contact the graduate coordinator of your program for details regarding the scheduling the defense.

Click here to Download a checklist of information needed to schedule defense

Rubric for Oral Defense

Click here to download the Oral Defense Rubric.

After the final oral exam / defense

Submitting your final dissertation.

Approximately, 24 hours after oral exam, an email is sent that details out the next steps. Including uploading the final abstract and dissertation to ProQuest®, submitting a UR Research authorization form, and completing two required surveys.

UR Research Form

The libraries at  University of Rochester, electronically store and publish the dissertations based on a students embargo restrictions.

You can access our database of dissertations on the UR Research page hosted by the library.

Survey Completion

There are two required survey’s for completion of the PhD Process. The University of Rochester PhD Survey and the national Survey of Earned Doctorates. The links to completing these surveys will be included in the completion memo sent post-defense.

We use a service called ProQuest to administer the electronic final thesis/dissertation (ETD) submission. ProQuest provides services that enable strategic acquisition, management and discovery of information collections. Once you have made any necessary revisions and the thesis/dissertation is final, you are ready to begin the submission process.

PhD Completion Confirmation

Once you have completed the steps above, you will receive an email the confirms that all of the requirements have been completed and will include a PhD Completion memo.

We offer both an electronic diploma and a paper copy diploma to students after their graduation date. Information on ordering replacement diplomas is located on the registrar’s webpage .

Commencement

The University holds one doctoral commencement ceremony each year in May. Eligibility to walk in the May ceremony includes students that graduated between August of the previous year through August of the current year. As an example, the May 2025 ceremony is for students who graduated August 2024, October 2024, December 2024, February 2025, May 2025 and August 2025. Doctoral students are only eligible to walk once.

You will receive information about the ceremony that your are eligible to walk in during the Spring semester.

• MyU : For Students, Faculty, and Staff

PhD Exam Process

Written preliminary exam (wpe), + description and policies for the wpe.

Description of Exam Subjects

The written preliminary examination is the first step for students wishing to pursue their doctorate in AEM.  Five exam subjects are offered and original problems are written by AEM faculty each year.  The questions are be open-ended and require creative application of the subject matter.  The  exam subjects are:

• The WPE in Computational Fluid Mechanics covers topics presented in AEM 4253/5253 (Computational Fluid Mechanics).  The exam has an emphasis on introductory concepts in finite difference and finite volume methods as applied to various ordinary and partial differential model equations in fluid mechanics.  Fundamentals of spatial discretization and numerical integration; character of equations; finite difference approximations; convergence, consistency, and stability; methods for the solution of parabolic, elliptic and hyperbolic equations; numerical linear algebra; solution of nonlinear equations; solution of systems of equations.
• The WPE in Continuum Mechanics aims to evaluate a student’s potential for success in conducting original research and draws from concepts presented in AEM 5501 (Continuum Mechanics).  This includes topics such as the kinematics of motion, forces and stresses, thermodynamics, balance laws or constitutive equations.  A typical question poses a particular physical problem relevant to science and engineering in which students must demonstrate knowledge of one or more of these concepts and the ability to synthesize ideas and techniques in ways not explicitly demonstrated in their course work.
• The WPE in Controls aims to evaluate a student’s potential for success in conducting original research and draws from concepts presented in AEM 5321 (Modern Feedback Control) related to the modeling, analysis, and design of finite-dimensional linear systems in continuous and discrete time.  This includes (but is not limited to) input-output and state-space modeling; linearization of nonlinear systems; fundamental solution matrices and state transition matrices; controllability, observability, and related analyses; Lyapunov and input-output stability; realization theory; state feedback; pole placement; observer design; observer-based control; linear quadratic regulation; and Lyapunov and Riccati equations.
• The WPE in Dynamics covers topics in the course AEM 5401 (Intermediate Dynamics).  In particular, the following topics are of importance: Kinematics and kinetics of particles in non-inertial frames; Analytical mechanics including Lagrange’s equations with holonomic and non-holonomic constraints; Rigid body dynamics in three dimensions including Euler angles, inertia matrix, equations of motion.
• The WPE in Fluid Mechanics is based mainly on application of fundamental equations and concepts considered in introductory fluids courses such as AEM 8201 and 8202 (Fluid Mechanics I & II).  Problems may require application of fundamental conservation equations in integral or differential forms (e.g. mass, momentum, and energy), fluid kinematics concepts including mapping of pathlines, streaklines, streamlines, deformation, rotation, and volumetric expansion, understanding of vorticity transport, vortex dynamics, basic concepts of potential flow, viscous flow, and laminar vs. turbulent flow.  Exam problems may include multiple parts where some require direct application of equations while others ask for physical interpretations and estimates based on scaling of relevant parameters.

Policies for the WPE

• In determining whether a student has passed or failed the WPE, faculty will consider the student's overall performance in the AEM graduate program including the WPE subject exam results, but also other information such as performance in course work, progress toward degree, etc.
• The WPE cannot be taken after the second year of study.
• Students are given two attempts to pass, provided they take the exam for the first time during their first year.  Students who take the exam for the first time their second year of study are only given one opportunity to pass.
• Students must pass two of the five WPE subjects exams and should pre-register for the specific subjects in which they will participate.
• Students must select at least one of the following subjects: Fluid Mechanics, Continuum Mechanics, or Dynamics.
• The WPE is held during spring semester each year on a Friday evening and Saturday morning, typically the first weekend in April.  Students complete one subject exam per day.
• Exams are 3 hours long.
• Students are allowed a calculator and one notebook containing their notes on the subject for each session.  The notes can be typed and contained in a 3-ring binder.
• Practice exams are provided for students' preparation.  However, solved problems from previous exams cannot be included in the notebook during the exam

Students are encouraged to discuss their preparation and preparedness for taking the WPE with their faculty advisor and/or the AEM DGS.  Students may also consult and register with the Disability Resource Center ( https://disability.umn.edu ) to arrange for appropriate accommodations if needed.

AEM Written Preliminary Exam Registration Form

+ Sample Written Preliminary Exam

Fluid Mechanics

Computational Fluid Dynamics

Solid & Continuum

Preliminary Oral Exam

Submit your exam committee.

Please submit your Examining Committee at least  one month prior  to the exam.  For more information see  Exam Committee Selection .

Schedule Your Exam

Schedule your final exam through GSSP's digital form  at least one week in advance  of your intended exam date.

Conducting the Examination

Immediately before the preliminary oral examination, the committee chair stipulates the objectives of the examination and, in consultation with other members of the examining committee, determines how the examination is to be conducted. Immediately after the examination, the candidate is excused from the room and a written secret ballot is taken before discussing the examination. Following the discussion, a second and final vote is taken.  Note: If the exam result is PASS WITH RESERVATIONS, the committee is permitted one week to return the Preliminary Oral Examination Form along with a copy of the letter or email outlining the steps the student must take to remove the reservations.

The outcome of the examination, with all committee members present and voting, is recorded in one of three ways: pass, pass with reservations, or fail. The voting proportions necessary for these decisions are as follows: if the committee consists of four members, a favorable verdict for passing consists of either a unanimous vote or a vote of 3-1; if the committee consists of five members, a favorable verdict for passing consists of either a unanimous vote or a vote of 4-1; if the committee consists of six members, a unanimous vote or a vote of 5-1 or 4-2 is needed; and if there are seven members, a unanimous vote or a vote of 6-1 or 5-2 is needed. Candidates who do not earn committee votes in these proportions fail the examination. If, in order to achieve the minimum number of votes to reach a verdict of pass, any vote of pass with reservations is included, then the outcome is recorded as a pass with reservations. A vote to pass the student with reservations still constitutes a passing vote.

Pass with Reservations

If the student passes the examination with reservations, the student is informed immediately, but the committee is permitted one week in which to convey its reservations to the student in writing, informing the student of the steps that must be taken to remove them, as well as a deadline by which the committee expects the reservations to be removed. A copy of this letter must be sent to the GSSP along with the Preliminary Oral Examination Form. When the student has satisfied the committee's reservations, a second letter or email informing the student and GSSP that the reservations have been removed and that the student may proceed toward the degree is also required. The committee chair should write both letters. The final oral examination may not be scheduled until GSSP has received a copy of the letter indicating that the reservations have been removed.

If the committee members disagree as to whether the reservations have been satisfactorily removed, the committee chair asks for another vote, the results of which are subject to the same voting proportions as the initial vote.

A student who is unable to satisfy the committee's reservations may be terminated from doctoral candidacy and from the graduate program.

Failure of the Preliminary Oral Exam

Students who fail the examination may be excluded from candidacy for the degree (i.e. dismissed from the doctoral program). The student may retake the examination, provided that all committee members, or all committee members save one must approve the re-take. The original preliminary oral examining committee conducts the reexamination.

Recess of a Preliminary Exam

If the preliminary oral examining committee recesses without having determined whether a student has passed the examination, the chair of the committee must send a letter to the Dean of the Graduate School explaining the reasons for the recess and noting the date on which the examining committee will reconvene. If the recess will be longer than one week, the examination report form must be returned to GSSP, 160 Williamson Hall. The student must schedule the Preliminary Oral Examination at least one week before the rescheduled exam. A new examination report form will be mailed to the chair of the committee before the date on which the committee will reconvene. The reconvened committee must comprise of the same members as the original preliminary oral examining committee.

Final Oral Exam (Defense)

Please submit your Examining Committee at least one month prior to the exam. For more information see  Exam Committee Selection .

Schedule your final exam through GSSP's digital form  at least  one week in advance  of your intended exam date.

Examination Protocol

Step One - The Public Seminar: The final examination begins with a seminar to which the scholarly community is invited and which includes a presentation of the dissertation by the candidate.

Step Two - The Closed Examination: A closed meeting between the candidate and the appointed examining committee immediately follows the public seminar. The examination is limited to the candidate's dissertation subject and relevant areas. The entire examination (i.e., public seminar and closed examination) is not to exceed three hours.

Step Three - The Vote: At the end of the closed examination the candidate is excused from the room. A written, secret ballot is taken before discussion of the examination begins. Following the committee's discussion, a second and final vote is taken on whether the student passed the examination.

Examination Outcome

To be recommended for the award of the doctoral degree, candidates must receive a vote with no more than one member of the total examining committee dissenting.

Supporting Examination Results (Recommended by Committees)

If the committee recommends revisions to the dissertation, the student's adviser is responsible for ensuring that the student includes the appropriate modifications and required revisions in the final dissertation.

Special Circumstance

Retakes and "Pass with reservations"

According to the rules defined by the graduate faculty, the student either passes or fails the final doctoral examination. Retakes are not permitted, and (unlike the preliminary oral examination) there is no provision for a "pass with reservations." The faculty examining committee has both the authority and the responsibility to fail a student whose dissertation or performance in the oral defense does not meet the standards for award of the doctoral degree.

Recessing the examination

Occasionally there are instances in which the final examination does not proceed well, but in which the faculty feel that the student has an acceptable dissertation that she or he is capable of adequately defending. While such instances should be rare, it is in both the student's and the faculty's interest to follow clearly defined procedures (see below) for recessing and reconvening the final oral examination.

Note: Suggestions for minor revisions in the dissertation are common and do not require that the faculty or the student follow the procedures outlined below. Such minor revisions need only be made in the text of the dissertation before the final copy is submitted.

Circumstances that might prompt a recess of the final oral examination would fall into two broad categories involving 1) primarily non-substantive matters or 2) cases in which the faculty have a serious concern about either the dissertation itself or the student's ability to defend it, but in which they believe that the situation can be remedied if the student is given additional time to revise the dissertation or prepare for the examination.

1) Primarily non-substantive matters: Cases in this category include, but are not limited to, those in which the student's nervousness prevents him or her from adequately defending the dissertation. In such circumstances, the examining committee may decide informally to recess for up to one week. The committee and the student should select a date and time for reconvening that is agreeable to all parties. No written notice need be given to the student, although the faculty should give him or her advice and assurance, as they deem important.

2) More serious concerns: When the faculty has serious concerns about the dissertation or the student's ability to defend it, but feels the student has the potential to improve the dissertation or his/her examination performance, the faculty should stop the examination, inform the student of their intent to recess, and discuss with the student the deficiencies that prompted the recess.

• Future undergraduate students
• Future transfer students
• Future graduate students
• Future international students
• Diversity and Inclusion Opportunities
• Learn abroad
• Living Learning Communities
• Mentor programs
• Programs for women
• Student groups
• Visit, Apply & Next Steps
• Information for current students
• Departments and majors overview
• Departments
• Undergraduate majors
• Graduate programs
• Integrated Degree Programs
• Additional degree-granting programs
• Online learning
• Academic Advising overview
• Academic Advising FAQ
• Academic Advising Blog
• Appointments and drop-ins
• Academic support
• Commencement
• Four-year plans
• Honors advising
• Policies, procedures, and forms
• Career Services overview
• Resumes and cover letters
• Jobs and internships
• Interviews and job offers
• CSE Career Fair
• Major and career exploration
• Graduate school
• Collegiate Life overview
• Scholarships
• Diversity & Inclusivity Alliance
• Anderson Student Innovation Labs
• Information for alumni
• Get engaged with CSE
• Upcoming events
• CSE Alumni Society Board
• Alumni volunteer interest form
• Golden Medallion Society Reunion
• 50-Year Reunion
• Alumni honors and awards
• Outstanding Achievement
• Alumni Service
• Distinguished Leadership
• Honorary Doctorate Degrees
• Nobel Laureates
• Alumni resources
• Alumni career resources
• Alumni news outlets
• CSE branded clothing
• International alumni resources
• Inventing Tomorrow magazine
• Update your info
• CSE giving overview
• Why give to CSE?
• College priorities
• Give online now
• External relations
• Giving priorities
• CSE Dean's Club
• Donor stories
• Impact of giving
• Ways to give to CSE
• Matching gifts
• CSE directories
• Invest in your company and the future
• Recruit our students
• Connect with researchers
• K-12 initiatives
• Diversity initiatives
• Research news
• Give to CSE
• CSE priorities
• Corporate relations
• Information for faculty and staff
• Administrative offices overview
• Office of the Dean
• Academic affairs
• Finance and Operations
• Communications
• Human resources
• Undergraduate programs and student services
• CSE Committees
• CSE policies overview
• Academic policies
• Faculty hiring and tenure policies
• Finance policies and information
• Graduate education policies
• Human resources policies
• Research policies
• Research overview
• Research centers and facilities
• Research proposal submission process
• Research safety
• Award-winning CSE faculty
• National academies
• University awards
• Honorary professorships
• Collegiate awards
• Other CSE honors and awards
• Staff awards
• Performance Management Process
• Work. With Flexibility in CSE
• K-12 outreach overview
• Summer camps
• Outreach events
• Enrichment programs
• Field trips and tours
• CSE K-12 Virtual Classroom Resources
• Educator development
• Sponsor an event

• MyAucklandUni
• Student Services Online
• Class search
• Student email
• Change my password
• MyCDES+ (job board)
• Course outlines
• Learning essentials
• Libraries and Learning Services
• Forms, policies and guidelines
• Campus Card
• Enrol in courses
• Postgraduate students
• Summer school
• AskAuckland
• Student Hubs
• Student IT Hub
• Student Health and Counselling
• Harassment, bullying, sexual assault and other violence
• Complaints and incidents
• Career Development and Employability Services (CDES)
• Ratonga Hauātanga Tauira | Student Disability Services (SDS)
• Rainbow support
• Covid-19 information for our community
• Emergency information
• Report concerns, incidents and hazards
• Health and safety topics
• Staff email
• Staff intranet
• ResearchHub
• PeopleSoft HR
• Forms register
• Careers at the University
• Education Office
• Early childhood centres
• University Calendar
• Opportunities
• Update your details
• Make a donation
• Publications
• Photo galleries
• Video and audio
• Career services
• Virtual Book Club
• Library services
• Alumni benefits
• Office contact details
• Alumni and friends on social media
• No events scheduled for today You have no more events scheduled for today
• Next event:
• Show {0} earlier events Show {0} earlier event
• Event_Time Event_Name Event_Description
• My Library Account
• Change Password
• Edit Profile
• My GPA Grade Point Average About your GPA GPA not available Why can't I see my GPA?
• My Progress
• Points Required Completed points My Progress Progress not available All done!
• Student hubs
• Health and counselling
• All support
• Health, safety and well-being

Breadcrumbs List.

• Mō mātou | About us
• About the University
• Research and innovation
• Doctoral study
• Examination
• You are currently on: Doctoral Examination Procedures

Doctoral Examination Procedures

Application.

Doctoral examinations for candidates governed by programme regulations that came into effect in or after 2020, other than examinations of coursework components of named doctorates.

Note: DocFA candidates are subject to clauses 9-55 of these Doctoral Examination Procedures only and to the DocFA Submission and Examination Procedures.

To specify the procedures that apply to doctoral examinations  other than examinations of coursework components of named doctorates.

Appointment of examiners and Academic Head (AH) Nominee

1. Two examiners will be appointed by the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) in accordance with the Doctoral - Appointment of Examiners Policy and Procedures .

2. The Academic Head will appoint a nominee (hereafter the ‘AH Nominee’), who will serve on the Examination Committee (where convened) and on the Oral Examination Committee .

• The AH Nominee will have knowledge of the general field of the work submitted for examination, but not necessarily of the specific topic, and will normally be a staff member of the University
• The Academic Head and the AH Nominee must not have been involved in the supervision or preparation of the work submitted for examination
• The Academic Head and the AH Nominee must not have a personal or business relationship with the candidate or a close personal relationship with an examiner or member of the candidate’s supervisory team

Examiner reports

3. Each examiner will be provided with an electronic copy of the work submitted for examination in fulfilment of the thesis requirement, including access to (a recording of) any creative work submitted for examination as part of the thesis requirement.

4. Each examiner must examine, and provide a written report on, the submitted work in relation to criteria outlined in Regulation 6 of the PhD Statute and the corresponding regulation (as to criteria for the award of the degree) in the applicable named doctorate regulations.

5. Examiners must contact the School of Graduate Studies immediately if they consider they may have a conflict of interest.

6. Examiners are not permitted to communicate with each other about the examination before they have submitted their reports.

7. Neither the supervisors nor the candidate may communicate with the examiners regarding the examination at any stage of the examination process except as specified in these procedures and in the Doctoral Oral Examination Procedures .

• If an examiner is contacted by someone other than a member of the School of Graduate Studies in relation to the examination, the examiner must refer the matter to the School of Graduate Studies

8. Examiners must report on the work submitted or resubmitted for examination in its entirety, including material which may have been previously refereed for publication.

• Examiners are at liberty to disagree with the conclusions of peer review processes

Replacement of examiners

9. a) The Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) reserves the right to replace an examiner:

i) where an examiner fails, or is unable, to deliver a report or ii) where an examiner provides a report that the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) (acting independently at any stage of Board of Graduate Studies [or delegate] involvement under these procedures, or on the recommendation of the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) under clause 14 or clause 20) considers unfit for purpose or iii) where an examiner declares a conflict of interest under clause 5 or iv) where an examiner is unavailable to examine work resubmitted for examination or to assess revisions to (re)submitted work, or v) where a breach of clause 28 occurs or vi) pursuant to clause 25b or clause 29.

b) Where the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) is satisfied that a replacement examiner is warranted, the Board (or delegate) will, subject to clause 23:

i) appoint a replacement examiner, in accordance with the Doctoral - Appointment of Examiners Policy and Procedures, to examine the submitted work as per clauses 3-10 of these examination procedures and ii) determine any reset of the examination in relation to these examination procedures.

i) Any examiner may be replaced subject to the provisions of this clause 9; this includes examiners appointed as “further” or “replacement” examiners.

ii) A replaced examination report is irrelevant to the remaining and/or reset examination process.

Examiner recommendations

10. The examiners must include with their reports one of the following recommendations:

(a) That the candidate proceed to oral examination, and that the degree be awarded subject to satisfactory performance at that oral examination.

• This recommendation is made where the examiner does not regard any amendment to the submitted work as required in order for the degree to be awarded

(b) That the candidate proceed to oral examination, and that the degree be awarded subject to satisfactory performance at that oral examination and the satisfactory completion of revisions to the submitted work post oral examination.

• Revisions may be minor (e.g. typographical errors or minor clarifications or elaborations) or major (e.g. re-analysis of data, or rewriting of chapters to address significant omissions or lapses in logic or coherence)
• Revisions must be made within a 6 month period
• Minor revisions will normally be made within a 3 month period

(c) That the candidate does not proceed to oral examination but that the candidate be permitted to re-enrol for a period of up to 12 months (full-time equivalent) to revise the work and resubmit it for examination.

• This recommendation is made when an examiner concludes that further supervised research (which may include additional experimentation and/or the need for ethics approval) is warranted, and/or that the type and/or scale of revisions warranted is such that the candidate should not proceed to oral examination at this juncture
• This recommendation is not available where work has already been revised and resubmitted for examination

(d) That the candidate does not proceed to oral examination, and that the submitted work be referred for consideration of the award of a masters degree.

• This recommendation is made when an examiner is of the opinion that the submitted work does not meet the requirements for the award of a doctorate and that the flaws are either irreparable by the candidate or incompatible with the provisions for re-enrolment and revision and resubmission of the work (where available), but where the submitted work is appropriate to the award of a masters degree

(e) That the candidate does not proceed to oral examination, and that no degree be awarded.

Consideration of examiners’ reports and recommendations

11. Where both examiners independently recommend that the candidate should proceed to oral examination , the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) will, subject to clause 9, either approve the candidate’s advancement to oral examination or require the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) to convene an Examination Committee to consider the reports and make a recommendation as per clauses 18-21.Where an Examination Committee is required to convene, at least one supervisor will be invited to provide comment within 7 days on the examination reports for consideration by the Examination Committee.

12. Before making a decision under clause 11, the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) may (directly or by proxy) seek fuller commentary or clarification from the examiner(s), and/or clarification from supervisor(s), and/or advice from the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) with regard to any aspect of the examination reports and/or recommendations (see also clause 26).

13. Where at least one examiner recommends that the candidate should not proceed to oral examination , at least one supervisor will be invited to comment on the examination reports within 7 days, and the reports (and any supervisory comment) will be considered by the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) who will follow the process at clauses 14-21 below.

• The Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) will normally be from the same faculty/Large Scale Research Institute (LSRI) as the candidate, but if that person is in the same academic unit as the candidate, or considers that they have a conflict of interest or are otherwise unavailable, then an Associate Dean/Director from another faculty/LSRI, or another Associate Dean/Director from their faculty/LSRI who is not in the same academic unit, must fulfil the role of the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) under these procedures

14. The Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research), acting independently, or as Chair of an Examination Committee convened under clause 18, may seek fuller commentary and/or clarification from the examiner(s) and/or supervisor(s) with regard to any aspect of the examiners’ reports or recommendations, and/or (where there are unresolved concerns about the integrity of an examination report) recommend to the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) that a replacement examiner be appointed.

15. Where examiners:

a) disagree as to whether or not the candidate should proceed to oral examination

b) agree that the candidate should not proceed to oral examination but disagree as to whether or not the candidate should be permitted to re-enrol to revise and resubmit the work for examination

c) agree that the candidate should not proceed to oral examination but disagree as to whether or not a degree should be awarded

and the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) considers that the conflict may be resolved, the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) will invite the examiners to consult and to report to the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) either jointly or separately as to the outcome of their consultation, and as to the rationale for their position(s) on the examination.

16. Where the examiners agree (in their initial recommendations [not applicable to (a) below] or as the outcome of examiner consultation):

a) that the candidate should proceed to oral examination

b) that the candidate should re-enrol for a period of up to 12 months (full-time equivalent) to revise and resubmit the work for examination

c) that a masters degree should be awarded

d) that no degree should be awarded

and where the Associate Dean (Postgraduate Research) is satisfied as to the integrity of the examination reports and any consultation process facilitated under clause 15 (including any subsequent clarification or elaboration requested by the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research)), the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) will provide the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) with copies of any communications with the examiners and/or supervisor(s) made under clause(s) 14 and/or 15 and/or 16 and make a recommendation to the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) as per the recommendation agreed by the examiners.

17. Where the recommendation of the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) under clause 16 is that the candidate should proceed to oral examination, the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) will also recommend which examiner should serve as Oral Examiner, and whether the Oral Examiner should attend the oral examination in-person or by video-conference.

18. The Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) will convene and chair an Examination Committee comprised of the Academic Head and the AH Nominee to consider the examination reports and any supervisor commentary in cases where:

a) the examiners disagree as detailed in clause 15(a-c), and the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) does not consider that the conflict may be resolved through consultation between the examiners, or considers that such consultation is unwarranted or inappropriate

b) the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) has invited the examiners to consult under clause 15 and is not satisfied with the integrity of the examiners’ consultation and/or with the rationale(s) provided (including any subsequent clarification or elaboration requested by the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research))

c) the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) is satisfied with the integrity of the examiners’ consultation under clause 15 and with the rationale(s) provided but the examiners do not reach agreement as specified in clause 16

d) the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) has referred the examination reports for consideration by the Examination Committee under clause 11

e) the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) wishes to consult the Examination Committee on any matter associated with the Associate Dean’s/Director’s considerations in relation to clauses 16 or 17 before proceeding with a recommendation.

To avoid doubt: where the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) exercises this clause 18(e), the process then continues in accordance with clause 19-onwards, rather than under clauses 16-17.

19. Where examiner consultation has not taken place under clause 15, the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research), as Chair of the Examination Committee, may still invite the examiners to consult and report as per the provisions of clause 15.

20. The Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research), as Chair of the Examination Committee, will then provide the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) with copies of any communications with the examiners and/or supervisor(s) made under clauses 14, 15 and/or 19, and (if applicable) report on why examiner consultation was considered unwarranted or inappropriate under clause 18(a), and on the rationale for the Examination Committee’s recommendation of one of the following:

(a) That one or more further examiners be appointed to report on any areas of conflict, or that one or more examiners be replaced

(b) That the candidate proceed to oral examination

(c) That the candidate not proceed to oral examination but that the candidate be permitted to re-enrol for a period of up to 12 months (full-time equivalent) to revise the work and resubmit it for examination by a specified date.

• This recommendation is not available where the work has already been revised and resubmitted for examination

(d) That the doctorate not be awarded but that the candidate be invited to fulfil the requirements for the award of the MPhil degree

(e) That no degree be awarded.

21. Where the recommendation of the Examination Committee under clause 20 is that the candidate proceed to oral examination, the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) will also report the Examination Committee’s recommendation as to which examiner should serve as Oral Examiner, and whether the Oral Examiner should attend the oral examination in-person or by video-conference.

22. Upon consideration of the report and recommendation made under clause 20, the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) may appoint one or more further or replacement examiners in accordance with the Doctoral - Appointment of Examiners Policy and Procedures to examine the submitted work as per clauses 3-10 of these examination procedures and to report on any matters which the Board (or delegate) may specify. The Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) will determine whether or not existing examination material is shared with any further (as opposed to replacement) examiner(s).

23. In the event that one or more further or replacement examiner(s) are appointed under clause 22:

a) the supervisor(s) may be invited to comment on the further or replacement examination report(s)

b) the Examination Committee will consider the further or replacement examination report(s) alongside the original examination reports (where not replaced) and any comment provided by the supervisor(s) in accordance with these procedures, and make a further report and recommendation to the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) via the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) under clause 20

c) the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) may exercise clause 14 for the purposes of clause 23b.

24. Upon consideration of the reports and recommendations of all examiners appointed in accordance with these procedures and not replaced, and any and all reports and recommendations received from the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) under clauses 16, 17, 20, 21 and 23, the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) will decide:

a) That the candidate will proceed to oral examination

b) That the candidate must re-enrol for a period of up to 12 months (full-time equivalent) to revise and resubmit the work for examination by a specified date.

• This outcome is only available where the candidate has not previously revised and resubmitted the work for examination

c) That the doctoral degree not be awarded but that the candidate be invited to fulfil the requirements for the award of the MPhil degree

d) That no degree be awarded.

a) Before making a decision under clauses 22 and/or 24, the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) may require clarification from the Examination Committee, and/or require the Chair of the Examination Committee to seek clarification from the examiner(s) and/or supervisor(s) with regard to any aspect of the examination material, and/or require the Chair of the Examination Committee to invite the examiners to consult where examiner consultation has not already occurred under clauses 15 or 19.

b) Where the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) regards it as warranted for the integrity of the examination, the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) may, at the time of decision under clause 24, convert a further examiner appointed under clause 22 to a replacement examiner for a previously appointed examiner.

26. Where the decision of the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) under clauses 11 or 24 is that the candidate should proceed to oral examination, the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) will appoint one of the examiners as Oral Examiner and specify if the Oral Examiner should attend the oral examination in person or if they may attend via video-conference.

a) Where the decision to proceed to oral examination was made under clause 11, the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) may seek the advice of the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) before making a decision under this clause 26

b) Prior to the oral examination, the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) will appoint an independent party to chair the oral examination. The independent chair must be a member of the academic staff of the University, but will not be a member of the faculty/LSRI in which the candidate was enrolled. The independent chair must not have a personal or business relationship with the candidate or a close personal relationship with an examiner or member of the candidate’s supervisory team

27. The examination reports, excluding formal recommendations as to the examination outcome and any confidential sections and any material withheld under clause 28, will be released to the candidate when they receive notification of the decision of the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) pursuant to clauses 11 or 24.

28. The candidate is not to be informed of the names of, or other identifying information relating to, their examiners unless this is specifically agreed to by the individual examiner at the time of, or after, submission of their examination report.

Where a candidate proceeds to oral examination

29. Where the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) is not satisfied as to the integrity of any aspect of the examination process, the Board (or delegate) may reset the examination process accordingly.

For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of this clause may be exercised at any stage of the examination process detailed in these procedures.

30. All candidates are expected to attend the oral examination in-person, unless permission for attendance via video-conference is granted by the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate).

31. The oral examination will be conducted by an Oral Examination Committee consisting of the Chair of the Oral Examination Committee , the Oral Examiner and the AH Nominee, and in accordance with the Doctoral Oral Examination Procedures .

32. On completion of the oral examination, the Oral Examination Committee will provide a written report to the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate). The report will include one of the following recommendations:

(a) That the degree be awarded.

(b) That the degree be awarded after specified revisions have been made to the satisfaction of the Oral Examiner or nominee, or to the satisfaction of one or more of the examiners, by a specified date appropriate to the work required and within a period of up to 6 months.

• For minor revisions (see clause 10(b)), which will normally be made within a 3 month period, the Oral Examiner’s nominee may be one of the candidate’s supervisors or the AH Nominee
• For major revisions (see clause 10(b)), the Oral Examiner’s nominee must be the AH Nominee or an examiner who was appointed in accordance with these procedures
• For the AH Nominee to act as the Oral Examiner’s nominee, the nature of the revisions must be such that the AH Nominee can certify that compliance has been achieved. The AH Nominee may discuss the revisions with the supervisor(s). If the AH Nominee is unable to assess whether the revisions have been made to the required standard, the revisions must be assessed by one of the examiners

(c) where the candidate has not already been permitted to re-enrol to revise and resubmit the work for examination, that the candidate be permitted to re-enrol for a period of up to 12 months (full-time equivalent) to revise the work and resubmit it for examination by a specified date

This recommendation is made where the Oral Examination Committee concludes that further supervised research (which may include additional experimentation and/or the need for ethics approval) is warranted, and/or that the scale of revision warranted exceeds the provisions for major revisions at 10(b)

(d) That the doctoral degree not be awarded but that the candidate be invited to fulfil the requirements for the award of the MPhil degree

33. The Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) may seek clarification from any member of the Oral Examination Committee of any matters represented in the report provided under clause 32.

34. The Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) will consider all reports, recommendations and material supplied in accordance with these procedures and determine the outcome of the examination.

When re-enrolment to revise and resubmit the work is permitted

35. Where the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) determines that the candidate must re-enrol for a period of up to 12 months (full-time equivalent) to revise and resubmit the work for examination by a specified date under clauses 24 or 34, clauses 35-39 apply.

• The Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) may set conditions on the re-enrolment

36. Where an oral examination has occurred, the AH Nominee will supply the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) with a written report, endorsed by the Oral Examiner, providing advice for the candidate on the revision. 

a) The Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) will, where warranted, seek clarification from and/or agreement between examiners regarding advice for the candidate is on the revision. 

b) Where the requirement to revise and resubmit the thesis is determined by the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) under clause 24, the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) may exercise clause 37(a) prior to and/or post the determination by the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate).

38. The Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) will (re)convene the Examination Committee (as per the committee composition at clause 18) to meet with the candidate and supervisor(s) to discuss the revision as soon as is practicable upon written notification of the examination outcome to the candidate.

• Where an oral examination has occurred, the Examination Committee will be provided with a copy of the oral examination report to inform discussions with the candidate. 
• The Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research), as Chair of the Examination Committee, will provide the candidate with a written record of the advice issued on the revision.

39. The Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) will provide a written report to the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) on the meeting with the candidate and supervisor(s), including a record of the advice issued on the revision. 

40. The Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) may require additional advice to be provided to the candidate through further exercise of clause 37(a).

41. Candidates may submit, for examiner consideration, a response to the original examination reports (and or/subsequent examiner advice secured and provided to the candidate in accordance with these procedures) along with their revised and resubmitted work. 

Note: As it may be necessary for the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) to appoint one or more replacement examiners for the revised and resubmitted work, candidates are advised to detail, in their response, any examiner-issued advice to which they are responding. 

42. The revised and resubmitted work is to be examined in its entirety in relation to the criteria for the award of the degree, and in accordance with these procedures,  except that:

a) where an oral examination has previously been held, the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate), acting on the recommendation of examiners and/or the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) (acting independently or as Chair of the Examination Committee), may determine that a second oral examination is not required.

b) where one or more further examiners were appointed under clause 22, the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) may, subject to clause 25b and examiner availability, permit more than two examiners to examine the revised thesis upon submission.  

Where revisions are required without re-enrolment

43. The AH Nominee will ensure that the candidate is provided with a copy of the required revisions endorsed by the Oral Examiner.

44. The revisions that the candidate undertakes must be limited to those specified under clause 43.

45. The person tasked by the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) with approving the revisions will notify the School of Graduate Studies as to whether or not the revisions have been satisfactorily completed.

46. Where revisions are not completed within the required time, or not completed to the satisfaction of the approving person, the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) will (re)convene the Examination Committee (as per the committee composition at clause 18) to consider the evidence and make a report and recommendation to the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) in accordance with clause 47.

47. The Examination Committee, acting under clause 46, may recommend additional time for the completion of revisions to a satisfactory standard or the further involvement of existing or new examiners, or that the degree be awarded, or that the submitted work be awarded the MPhil rather than the doctoral degree, or that no degree be awarded.

48. Upon consideration of the evidence and the report and recommendation from the Examination Committee, the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) will determine the matter in accordance with the recommendations available to the Examination Committee at clause 47.

49. Before making the recommendation under clause 47, or the decision at clause 48, the Examination Committee and the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) may, respectively, seek further information from the person responsible for approving the revisions, and/or from the candidate and/or supervisor(s).

Confidentiality of examination material

50. The examination material is to remain confidential to the processes detailed in these procedures, except that the material released to the candidate at clause 27 may also be released for the purpose of judging the Vice-Chancellor’s Prize for Best Doctoral Thesis, and that relevant material, which is not withheld for reasons consistent with the Privacy Act, may be released to the candidate for the purposes of the preparation of an appeal consistent with the doctoral examination appeal procedures.

51. A candidate may request a statement of reasons for the decision to award or not to award the degree in accordance with section 23 of the Official Information Act (1982).

Where suspicions of academic misconduct arise

52. Where suspicions of academic misconduct arise in the course of a doctoral examination, the examination will be suspended while the process stipulated under the Student Academic Conduct Statute is followed.

53. Where academic misconduct is confirmed during a doctoral examination, the Academic Head will provide the Associate Dean (Postgraduate Research) and the AH Nominee with the details of any material contained within the work submitted for examination that constitutes a breach of academic integrity . To avoid doubt: this information is provided for the purposes of facilitating assessments pursuant to these procedures in relation to the statutory criteria for the award of the degree and not for any punitive or disciplinary purpose.

54. Where an oral examination is involved, the AH Nominee will convey any information provided under clause 53 to the Oral Examination Committee for the purposes identified at clause 53.

55. Where academic misconduct is not confirmed pursuant to clause 52, the Academic Head may advise the Associate Dean (Postgraduate Research) and the AH Nominee, and the AH Nominee may advise any Oral Examination Committee, of this information.

Definitions

The following definitions apply to this document:

Academic Head refers to the Head of the relevant academic unit or their nominee for the purposes of doctoral matters.

Academic Head (AH) Nominee is a member of the (oral) Examination Committee nominated by the Academic Head on the basis that they have knowledge of the general field of the thesis, but not necessarily of the thesis topic, and will be an academic staff member of the University with a contractual obligation to undertake research.

Academic integrity means the ethical practices of the academic community, including honest execution of research and study and the acknowledgement of sources.

Academic unit may refer to a faculty, Large Scale Research Institute (LSRI), school or department.

Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research) normally refers to the person holding that role (or equivalent) in the faculty or Large Scale Research Institute (LSRI) in which the candidate is enrolled, but if that person is in the same academic unit as the candidate, or considers that they have a conflict of interest or are otherwise unavailable, then an Associate Dean/Director from another faculty/LSRI, or another Associate Dean/Director from their faculty/LSRI who is not in the same academic unit, will fulfil the role of the Associate Dean/Director (Postgraduate Research).

Chair of the oral examination committee is the person appointed by the Board of Graduate Studies to act as an independent chair of a doctoral oral examination. The chair must be a member of the academic staff of the University with a contractual obligation to undertake research, but will not be a member of a faculty or large scale research institute in which the candidate is enrolled.

Doctoral candidates are candidates for a doctoral degree at the University; candidature commences upon enrolment in the doctoral programme and concludes when the requirements for the degree are met or confirmed as not having been met, except where candidature is terminated or expires or a candidate withdraws prior to completion of the degree.

Examination Committee is the committee, distinct from the oral examination committee, that may be formed for the purpose of considering the examiners’ reports. It comprises the Academic Head, an associate dean or director, and the Academic Head (AH) Nominee.

Higher doctorates include the Doctor of Engineering (DEng), Doctor of Laws (LLD), Doctor of Literature (LittD) and Doctor of Science (DSc).

Independent chair (chair) is the person appointed by the Board of Graduate Studies (or delegate) to act as an independent chair of a doctoral oral examination. The chair must be a member of the academic staff of the University with a contractual obligation to undertake research, but will not be a member of a faculty or large scale research institute in which the candidate is enrolled.

Oral Examination Committee is the committee, distinct from the Examination Committee, formed for the purpose of the oral examination. It comprises the independent chair, oral examiner and the Academic Head (AH) Nominee.

Oral examiner refers to the doctoral thesis examiner who attends the doctoral candidate’s oral examination, either in person or by video conference.

Staff member refers to an individual employed by the University on a full or part time basis.

Submitted work refers to the work submitted for examination in fulfilment of the thesis requirement in the case of all doctoral programmes other than the DocFA. In the case of the DocFA, “submitted work” refers to the creative work and supporting thesis submitted for examination in accordance with the programme regulations. “Submitted work”, in the case of all doctoral programmes, includes recordings made of live performances and/or exhibitions where such recordings are utilised within the examination process.

Supervisor refers to main supervisor, joint supervisor, or co-supervisor.

Thesis is a substantial presentation of the outcome of an original and coherent doctoral research project. It situates the research in the broader framework of the disciplinary field(s), and entails a cohesive written document.

Key relevant documents

Include the following:

• PhD Statute
• Student Academic Conduct Statute (2020)
• Doctoral Appointment of Examiners Policy and Procedures
• Doctoral Examination Appeal Procedures
• Doctoral Oral Examination Procedures

Document management and control

Content manager: School of Graduate Studies Owner: Dean of Graduate Studies Approved by: Board of Graduate Studies, Senate and Council Date approved: 11  December 2023 Review date:  11  December 2028

• PhD Viva Voces – A Complete Guide
• Doing a PhD
• A PhD viva involves defending your thesis in an oral examination with at least two examiners.
• The aim of a PhD viva is to confirm that the work is your own , that you have a deep understanding of your project and, overall, that you are a competent researcher .
• There are no standard durations, but they usually range from one to three hours, with most lasting approximately two hours .
• There are six outcomes of a PhD viva: (1) pass without corrections (2) pass subject to minor corrections, (3) pass subject to major corrections, (4) downgrade to MPhil with no amendments, (5) downgrade to MPhil subject to amendments, (6) immediate fail.
• Almost all students who sit their viva pass it, with the most common outcome being ‘(2) – pass subject to minor corrections’.

What Is a PhD Viva?

A viva voce , more commonly referred to as ‘viva’, is an oral examination conducted at the end of your PhD and is essentially the final hurdle on the path to a doctorate. It is the period in which a student’s knowledge and work are evaluated by independent examiners.

In order to assess the student and their work around their research question, a viva sets out to determine:

• you understand the ideas and theories that you have put forward,
• you can answer questions about elements of your work that the examiners have questions about,
• you understand the broader research in your field and how your work contributes to this,
• you are aware of the limitations of your work and understand how it can be developed further,
• your work makes an original contribution, is your own and has not been plagiarised.

Note: A viva is a compulsory procedure for all PhD students, with the only exception being when a PhD is obtained through publication as opposed to the conventional route of study.

Who Will Attend a Viva?

In the UK, at least two examiners must take part in all vivas. Although you could have more than two examiners, most will not in an attempt to facilitate a smoother questioning process.

One of the two examiners will be internal, i.e. from your university, and the other will be external, i.e. from another university. Regardless, both will be knowledgeable in your research field and have read your thesis beforehand.

In addition to your two examiners, two other people may be present. The first is a chairperson. This is an individual who will be responsible for monitoring the interview and for ensuring proper conduct is followed at all times. The need for an external chairperson will vary between universities, as one of the examiners can also take on this role. The second is your supervisor, whose attendance is decided upon by you in agreement with your examiners. If your supervisor attends, they are prohibited from asking questions or from influencing the outcome of the viva.

To avoid any misunderstandings, we have summarised the above in a table:

Note: In some countries, such as in the United States, a viva is known as a ‘PhD defense’ and is performed publicly in front of a panel or board of examiners and an open audience. In these situations, the student presents their work in the form of a lecture and then faces questions from the examiners and audience which almost acts as a critical appraisal.

How Long Does a Viva Last?

Since all universities have different guidelines , and since all PhDs are unique, there are no standard durations. Typically, however, the duration ranges from one to three hours, with most lasting approximately two hours.

Your examiners will also influence the duration of your viva as some will favour a lengthy discussion, while others may not. Usually, your university will consult your examiners in advance and notify you of the likely duration closer to the day of your viva.

What Happens During a Viva?

Regardless of the subject area, all PhD vivas follow the same examination process format as below.

Introductions

You will introduce yourselves to each other, with the internal examiner normally introducing the external examiner. If an external chairperson is present, they too are introduced; otherwise, this role will be assumed by one of the examiners.

Procedure Explained

After the introductions, the appointed chair will explain the viva process. Although it should already be known to everyone, it will be repeated to ensure the viva remains on track during the forthcoming discussion.

Warm-Up Questions

The examiners will then begin the questioning process. This usually starts with a few simple opening questions, such as asking you to summarise your PhD thesis and what motivated you to carry out the research project.

In-Depth Questions

The viva questions will then naturally increase in difficulty as the examiners go further into the details of your thesis. These may include questions such as “What was the most critical decision you made when determining your research methodology ?”, “Do your findings agree with the current published work?” and “How do your findings impact existing theories or literature? ”. In addition to asking open-ended questions, they will also ask specific questions about the methodology, results and analysis on which your thesis is based.

Closing the Viva

Once the examiners are satisfied that they have thoroughly evaluated your knowledge and thesis, they will invite you to ask any questions you may have, and then bring the oral examination to a close.

What Happens After the Viva?

Once your viva has officially ended, your examiners will ask you to leave the room so that they can discuss your performance. Once a mutual agreement has been reached, which can take anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour, you will be invited back inside and informed of your outcome.

PhD Viva Outcomes

There are six possible outcomes to a viva:

• Immediate award of degree: A rare recommendation – congratulations, you are one of the few people who completely satisfied your examiners the first time around. You do not have to do anything further at this point.
• Minor amendments required: The most common recommendation – you obtain a pass on the condition that you make a number of minor amendments to your thesis, such as clarifying certain points and correcting grammatical errors. The time you have to make these changes depends on the number of them, but is usually one to six months.
• Major amendments required: A somewhat uncommon recommendation – you are requested to make major amendments to your thesis, ranging from further research to collecting more data or rewriting entire sections. Again, the time you have to complete this will depend on the number of changes required, but will usually be six months to one year. You will be awarded your degree once your amended thesis has been reviewed and accepted.
• Immediate award of MPhil: An uncommon recommendation – your examiners believe your thesis does not meet the standard for a doctoral degree but meets the standard for an MPhil (Master of Philosophy), a lower Master’s degree.
• Amendments required for MPhil: A rare recommendation – your examiners believe your thesis does not meet the standard for a doctoral degree, but with several amendments will meet the standard for an MPhil.
• Immediate fail: A very rare recommendation – you are given an immediate fail without the ability to resubmit and without entitlement to an MPhil.

Finding a PhD has never been this easy – search for a PhD by keyword, location or academic area of interest.

What Is the Pass Rate for Vivas?

Based on an  analysis of 26,076 PhD students  who took their viva exam between 2006 and 2017, the PhD viva pass rate in the UK is 96%; of those who passed, about 80% were required to make minor amendments to their thesis. The reason for this high pass rate is that supervisors will only put their students forward for a viva once they confidently believe they are ready for it. As a result, most candidates who sit a viva are already well-versed in their PhD topic before they even start preparing for the exam.

How Do I Arrange a Viva?

Your viva will be arranged either by the examiners or by the chairperson. The viva will be arranged at least one to two months after you have submitted your thesis and will arrange a viva date and venue that is suitable for all participants.

Can I Choose My Examiners?

At most universities, you and your supervisor will choose the internal and external examiners yourselves. This is because the examiners must have extensive knowledge of the thesis topic in order to be able to examine you and, as the author of the thesis in question, who else could better determine who they might be than you and your supervisor. The internal examiner is usually quite easy to find given they will be from your institution, but the external examiner may end up being your second or third preference depending on availability.

Can I Take Notes Into a Viva?

A viva is about testing your competence, not your memory. As such, you are allowed to take notes and other supporting material in with you. However, keep in mind that your examiners will not be overly impressed if you constantly have to refer to your notes to answer each question. Because of this, many students prefer to take an annotated copy of their thesis, with important points already highlighted and key chapters marked with post-it notes.

In addition to an annotated copy of a thesis, some students also take:

• a list of questions they would like to ask the examiners,
• notes that were created during their preparation,
• a list of minor corrections they have already identified from their viva prep work.

How Do I Prepare for a PhD Viva?

There are several ways to prepare for a PhD viva, one of the most effective being a mock viva voce examination . This allows you to familiarise yourself with the type of viva questions you will be asked and identify any weak areas you need to improve. They also give you the opportunity to practise without the pressure, giving you more time to think about your answers which will help to make sure that you know your thesis inside out. However, a mock viva exam is just one of many methods available to you – some of the other viva preparation methods can be found on our “ How to Prepare for a PhD Viva ” page.

Browse PhDs Now

Join thousands of students.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

• Corpus ID: 210646350

A study of the PhD examination: process, attributes and outcomes

• Published 2018

4 Citations

What do examiners look for in a phd thesis explicit and implicit criteria used by examiners across disciplines, ‘smile and nod’ or more reassessing the role of the silent supervisor in the doctoral viva, understanding doctoral progress assessment in the arts and humanities, managing the expectations of doctoral students and their supervisors: a uk perspective, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

A Guide for Internal and External PhD Examiners

I do not expect this output to be returned to the REF because I have selected four better outputs in this list and I have another output which is sufficiently advanced that I expect it to be published before 31st December 2013.

Related Papers

International Journal of Higher Education Pedagogies

Deborah Chetcuti

Achieving a PhD degree is viewed by academic institutions as a major landmark of success and achievement. It gives recognition to researchers and provides entry into academia. Considering its significance, a PhD degree is not awarded lightly and doctoral candidates undergo a rigorous examination process that involves the evaluation of a written thesis and the viva voce defence of this thesis. This study seeks to gain a better understanding of the way in which examiners go about assessing doctoral work with the aim of providing more transparent and clear guidelines for examiners. Data for the study included 50 written examiner reports for twelve doctoral candidates who submitted their thesis to the Faculty of Arts at the University of Malta, for the years 2017-2018. The findings suggest that examiners in their reports include summative comments about the quality of the work. They are impressed by work that makes a contribution to knowledge, is critical and analytical and is not marre...

Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology

Terence Lovat

Terence J Lovat

Melbourne Studies in Education

Studies in higher education

Kirk Agbenu

Quality in Higher Education

Carol Costley

Studies in Higher Education

This paper outlines the procedures used in the textual analysis of examiner reports for 101 PhD candidates across disciplines in one Australian University. The method involves the use of QSR software2. Three levels of findings are outlined. The first level is the coding categories that emerged out of reading the report text. There are five broad categories of codes that capture: the structure of the reports, the ways in which examiners communicate, the subject matter of the thesis, the characteristics of examiners' evaluative comment and their comments on their role and the examination process. The second level of findings concerns the frequency of different categories of comment and the prevalence of comment on the analysis and interpretation of the candidate's results. The third extends beyond the individual categories to what we can learn about the utilization of the report. One key finding is that the examiners took on specific roles: mentor-colleague, supervisor-instr...

Yuri Kalnishkan

I declare that this dissertation was composed by myself, that the work con-tained herein is my own except where explicitly stated otherwise in the text, and that this work has not been submitted for any other degree or professional qualification except as specified.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Mike Caddis

Ansie Lessing

Linguistics and Education

Hedy Fairbairn

Kerry Dally

Gavin Hazel

Australian Journal of Education

Allyson Holbrook

The Australian Universities' review

International Journal of …

UK Council for Graduate Education

Stan Taylor

Quality Assurance in Education

Solomon Arulraj David

Margaret Price

International Journal of Social Science and Human Research

JOSEPH BENJAMIN ARCHIBALD AFFUL

International Journal of Educational Research

Louise Morley

Sue Starfield

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Previous Article
• Next Article

A different approach

A better way to evaluate students, support for students, teaching research and communication, the decision, fixing the phd qualifying exam.

• Open the PDF for in another window
• Reprints and Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Timothy DelSole , Paul A. Dirmeyer; Fixing the PhD qualifying exam. Physics Today 1 July 2024; 77 (7): 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1063/pt.rrfn.dklz

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

As senior scientists, we have navigated the challenging waters of the PhD qualifying exam—both as students taking it and as professors administering it. As students, both of us excelled academically, yet we anticipated the qualifying exam with anxiety and dread. How could we not? The professors judging us could inquire about any aspect on which they were expert. We prepared for the exam by revisiting our coursework, aware that even the most thorough review might not suffice, as some professors saw the exam as an opportunity to push students beyond core knowledge.

We recall preparing diligently for specific topics about which we were never queried, and thus we were unable to showcase our extensive preparation. We recall knowing the answers to some exam questions in retrospect, but in the pressure of the moment, we couldn’t remember them. What’s more, passing the qualifying exam left us no closer to defining our thesis research direction.

fizkes/shutterstock.com

Later we discovered that professors also approach the qualifying exam with anxiety and dread. The consequences of the exam put immense pressure on professors to craft questions that can accurately gauge a student’s potential. The exam’s duration—mere hours or days—seems inadequate for making such a significant judgment on a student’s future. Students commonly stumble over questions, compelling us to look past their mistakes to infer their potential. Such a process depends heavily on subjective judgment. And the fact that those judgments usually rest with a few faculty members raises concerns about fairness and the inclusion of diverse viewpoints. Even more troubling, insights gained from the exam are often minimal; we could usually predict a student’s outcome from their past coursework performance.

When questioning the rationale behind the qualifying process, we find that the arguments for retaining the traditional qualifying exam’s written and oral components do not hold up to scrutiny. One commonly stated goal is to assess the student’s grasp of the core knowledge attained from one to two years of coursework. We wondered whether failure to pass the qualifying exam reveals more about the inadequacies of the courses than those of the student. If the true goal is to ensure mastery of core knowledge, a simple way to ensure it is to make that mastery the standard for passing the courses.

Another common argument is that the exam tests the student’s ability to synthesize concepts across disciplines. Although synthesis is a valuable skill, so are deep dives—Nobel Prizes, for instance, are often awarded to scientists who relentlessly pursue a narrow scientific question.

Yet another argument is that the exam assesses creativity. A student’s creative strengths, however, may lie in emerging fields, such as artificial intelligence, that are not covered by the traditional written and oral components and that may fall beyond the expertise of the examiners.

There also are compelling arguments against the traditional format. The qualifying exam is the most stressful milestone in a graduate degree. Not all students perform well under stress, regardless of their capacity for deep thought. Moreover, the traditional exam embodies a contradiction: It is contrived and fails to mirror the realities of actual research. A successful scientific career relies on conducting actual research, not on taking exams. Judging a researcher’s potential by testing them on tasks unrelated to their future work is inherently flawed.

Despite those shortcomings, there remains a compelling necessity for qualifying exams: Experience shows that some students, despite passing their courses, struggle to complete a dissertation within the typical five-year doctoral program. Identifying those students early allows all parties to move forward without investing years of effort into a PhD journey that may ultimately be unsuccessful.

Recognizing the limitations of the traditional qualifying exam, we convinced our colleagues in the department of atmospheric, oceanic, and Earth sciences at George Mason University to scrap the traditional format five years ago and institute a new process that was designed to overcome its shortcomings.

Figure 1 provides a visual summary of the new process and its place within the overall PhD track. It centers on a semester-long course typically taken in the spring of a student’s second year. In the course, the student works with their adviser to formulate a project that will lead to a research paper.

The qualifying exam, revisited. An incoming PhD student in the atmospheric, oceanic, and Earth sciences department at George Mason University completes a series of milestones (blue) in the semesters before the qualifying course. The milestones of the qualifying course are listed in the central box. The successful student goes on to submit a manuscript to a journal and form a dissertation committee (green). The unsuccessful student may take the course again or exit to the master’s degree track (red).

The student presents their paper idea in two meetings. In the first, the student delivers their proposal during the first 15 minutes, followed by a 75-minute period during which panel members pose critical questions about it, as shown in figure 2 . Half the department’s faculty members are present in that meeting. About four weeks later, the student presents to the other half of the faculty. The two faculty panels function independently without communicating with the other. The autonomy provides the student with two independent opportunities to present their work at their best, free from biases influenced by the previous performance.

A student in the new PhD qualifying process presents a proposal for a paper to half the department's faculty. About four weeks later, the student gives a revised presentation to the other half of the faculty. The two faculty groups function independently without communicating with the other.

After each meeting, the student receives written feedback from each panel member on various aspects of their paper idea. That feedback includes an assessment of the student’s grasp of the relevant literature, their physical understanding of the scientific problem, their ability to perform quantitative analysis, and their effectiveness as a communicator. Panel members evaluate each of the categories, but they don’t assign a grade. The feedback is intended to be constructive—to help the student identify areas in which they need improvement.

By the end of the semester, the student submits either a manuscript that is nearly ready for submission to a peer-reviewed journal or, if the research is not yet completed, a proposal for a scientific paper that incorporates their original research. All panel members read the student’s document. On the final day of the course, the student gives a longer oral presentation to the entire faculty. The faculty members then discuss and make recommendations to the program director.

The new qualifying process has several advantages over the traditional format. First, instead of assessing a student’s knowledge, faculty members evaluate the student’s ability to perform the activities critical to scientific inquiry: identifying a scientific problem, devising solutions, and engaging in discourse. Second, the process spans an entire semester, so decisions on a student’s performance are not based on a singular moment. Third, each student chooses their own research topic, affording them the opportunity to showcase their creativity.

Furthermore, a student receives questions tailored to their chosen topic. That focus avoids the pitfall of evaluating them on their response to questions far removed from their prepared area. Although confronting a student with unanticipated questions can have merits, using that approach as a sole determinant of the student’s future is risky. A semester-long engagement provides a more reliable assessment of potential.

The new qualifying process also offers each student multiple opportunities to succeed. Because the two faculty panels are independent, a student who struggles in the first meeting can present a revised version of their work to a fresh audience. Some students might face special challenges in the oral presentation, such as stage fright or language deficiencies. To address that issue, the new process includes a written submission as an additional means to demonstrate the student’s abilities.

Grading in the qualifying process does not rely on averaging individual scores. The primary goal is to identify evidence of the student’s research capabilities. The evidence may not be uniformly apparent across all components, but outstanding performance in a single aspect can eclipse weaker performance in other areas. Additionally, we consider the student’s progress throughout the semester because improvement is often a key indicator of potential success in research.

Another advantage is that a student has ample opportunity to revise their work. Even the best student may not fully explore their ideas initially. Our semester-long process mimics the peer-review process and typically exposes any serious shortcoming that may exist in a student’s proposal. Observing how students adapt to constructive feedback often provides more insight into their potential than does reviewing their initial proposals.

Unavoidably, subjective judgments affect the final decision, and they may be influenced by biases tied to race, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. Even the traditional format, with its fact-based questions, involves subjective judgments in deciding the acceptability of a student’s response. One way to counter biases is to involve a diverse panel of judges whenever subjective judgments come into play. In the traditional format, the decision often rests with a select few faculty members. In the new format, the entire faculty openly participate in the decision-making process, which brings a wider range of perspectives into the discussion.

By distributing responsibility across all faculty members, the new process also lightens the burden on individual advisers, who often hesitate to single out their own struggling students. When a student is redirected, their adviser usually appreciates the collective intervention.

Although the new format requires a greater investment of time from faculty, productive scientists are accustomed to allocating time for conferences and peer-review duties. And the new qualifying process calls for minimal preparation by faculty, with only modest tasks required post-meeting, such as filling out evaluation forms. When it comes to peer-review services, the question is how to best manage one’s time reviewing others’ work. Allocating a portion of that time to assisting students in one’s own department proves to be a sound investment in upholding the quality and integrity of the qualifying process. Ultimately, the efforts produce better student outcomes, which, in turn, cast a positive light on the faculty and the department.

Fellow scientists who hear about our qualifying process are often doubtful about its feasibility in their own departments. They cite factors such as a large student population. We are confident, however, that the new process can be tailored to any department. Our PhD program at George Mason has a dozen faculty members and admits three to six candidates per year. For larger departments, splitting students and faculty into smaller cohorts operating in parallel is a feasible solution.

Another concern has been the perceived inefficiency of involving faculty who lack expertise in a student’s chosen topic. But we have found the opposite to be true: Observing how the student articulates their research to nonspecialists, who nonetheless possess broad scientific knowledge, has several advantages. Incorporating diverse expertise in faculty panels, for instance, ensures that a mix of technical and foundational questions will be addressed, which makes the evaluation more thorough.

The new process also encourages faculty to engage with each student out of genuine interest, thus fostering a less adversarial interaction than the traditional approach. The reversal of the conventional roles of teacher and student mirrors what a student will encounter in advanced doctoral research. Furthermore, the shift in dynamic creates opportunities for a student to demonstrate creativity in handling conflicting criticisms that arise from reviewers with different knowledge backgrounds.

One issue that has generated considerable debate among our faculty is the grading policy. Currently, a student who passes the qualifying course receives either an A or a B. The A grade, however, is reserved for students who submit a manuscript that the faculty believes can be refined into a publishable paper after a few months of revision. That’s a high standard, and not all exceptional students meet it.

We believe that a significant distinction exists between a student who develops a nearly publishable paper in their second year and one who does not, and the grade assigned to each one is intended to reflect and reward that difference. Moreover, the standard is attainable: One or more students achieve it each year.

Most second-year graduate students find the prospect of formulating and defending a publishable scientific analysis in a single semester daunting. Indeed, many students have never presented their own research in front of a group of scientists. To address the issue, we have implemented support mechanisms to assist each student throughout the qualifying process.

First, the student works with their adviser to formulate an idea that will be integrated into their dissertation. If the student is supported by a grant, they are encouraged to select a topic related to that grant, but their contributions must be independent. The new format provides opportunities for the student to innovate while still benefiting from their adviser’s guidance.

Advisers must avoid overdoing their guidance; otherwise, the process becomes an evaluation of the adviser instead of the student. Our tenet is that the process should not disrupt the natural interaction between student and adviser. Reasonable guidance includes suggesting research topics, offering feedback on presentations and written materials, assisting in problem diagnosis, and helping the student devise strategies for solutions.

Beyond that, it is left to the student to use the information they receive. The adviser should avoid writing code on behalf of the student or producing text that could be copied into the student’s written submission. The student is expected to defend their ideas without assistance from their adviser. In addition, we advise each student to reduce their course load or take a reading course during the qualifying process to allow more time for conducting independent research.

The two of us currently lead the qualifying course, guiding students through the process. We listen to practice talks prior to panel meetings and offer guidance on delivering effective presentations. Students consistently underestimate the level of detail necessary to communicate their research plan effectively, and some are unwittingly too dependent on their advisers to address basic questions related to their project. We strive to inspire students to take ownership of their work and to thoroughly understand the models and data that they use. Practice talks can expose potential research flaws early enough for students to make adjustments before their first panel meeting. For a point-by-point comparison of the traditional exam’s shortcomings and the advantages of the new process, see figure 3 .

Comparing qualifying processes. The traditional PhD qualifying exam assesses a student's knowledge through written or oral exams that last a few hours or days. The new PhD qualifying process evaluates a student's progress toward a publishable research paper over a 16-week semester.

We also meet with each student after their panel meeting to discuss written feedback from the faculty. That feedback resembles the kind that might be encountered during a genuine peer-review process, encompassing not only constructive feedback but also potential contradictions. As educators, we believe that it is crucial not to shield students from that reality. Instead, we strive to expose students to diverse perspectives and help them interpret the resulting feedback constructively.

Sixteen weeks is hardly enough time to complete a serious research project. Accordingly, we encourage every PhD student to begin preparing for the qualifying process as soon as they enter our program. Any research conducted by a student during their time in the graduate program is permitted for use in the qualifying process. And the qualifying process is explained in detail to PhD students at the end of their first spring semester. The early introduction helps instill a productive mindset in each student as they approach their first summer in the program—a period devoid of course distractions that allows them to focus wholeheartedly on their research goals.

As advisers, we try to strike a balance between providing assistance and giving students space to develop their own thinking. To do that effectively, we’ve adopted a strategy inspired by what’s known as the Heilmeier catechism. George Heilmeier, who led the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in the mid 1970s, crafted a series of questions that every good proposal should answer. 1 The list distills years of wisdom into a concise question set. We have adapted it to create the following questions that every research project should address:

What are you trying to do? State your objectives without jargon.

Who should care? If you are successful, what difference will it make?

What research has been done about the topic in the past?

What is the precise gap that you are trying to fill?

What is new in your approach?

Why do you think your approach will be successful, and how will you measure success?

The simplicity of the questions can deceive students into underestimating the effort needed to answer them effectively. To ensure the development of thorough answers, students write an abstract for their projects early in the semester. Those abstracts are then shared with the class, sparking discussions about best practices and common pitfalls when communicating scientific ideas. Invariably, some abstracts fail to address one or more key questions. Some students are convinced that they have responded adequately to a question until further discussion reveals gaps in their explanation. The value of carefully addressing the questions often hits home during the discussions.

Many advanced students begin the semester with a well-defined paper plan but are surprised by the challenge of communicating their plan to others. The situation reflects a fundamental reality: Success as a scientist relies on communication as well as critical thinking. Proficient communication skills are vital for today’s PhD graduates, whether it’s for securing funds, responding to peer review, teaching, or mentoring. Although research and communication skills are often regarded as distinct, we find much truth in the adage that poor communication may reflect poor thinking.

The final decision of whether a student passes the qualifying process is a collective one. Although faculty opinions may vary initially, discussions usually lead to a consensus. Students who do not pass typically display one or more common traits: an inability to demonstrate quantitative analysis; a failure to understand the relevant literature; insufficient familiarity with the data or model chosen for study; an inability to answer questions related to calculations, models, or assumptions; an inability to articulate how the proposed research addresses key questions; difficulty in communicating the research plan; and an inability to understand or convey the relevant concepts.

A student at risk of failing is typically alerted after the panel meetings. That early notification gives them time to make improvements and address the concerns. Consequently, a negative outcome is rarely a surprise to the student. Some students have voluntarily withdrawn from the qualifying process during the semester after recognizing that they were unlikely to meet the necessary requirements. The self-selection process allows students to make informed choices about their academic path and potentially explore alternative options that better align with their capabilities and interests.

A student who fails the qualifying process has the opportunity to reframe their work into a master’s thesis and complete that degree instead. Some students have retaken the PhD qualifying process and progressed to candidacy, having benefited from the early identification of areas for improvement.

A fortunate byproduct of the new qualifying process is that it energizes the student for their dissertation research. Throughout the semester, the student has multiple opportunities to present and refine their research ideas. When the student successfully passes the qualifying process, they do so with confidence in their ideas and typically reduce the time required to complete their first paper. Compare that with the traditional qualifying exam, which a student might pass without gaining any clearer direction for their research. Another byproduct is that faculty members learn of the student’s research topic early and may develop productive dialogues with them. Likewise, a student becomes familiar with faculty interests early on. That helps them identify suitable candidates for members of their dissertation committee.

Each year we watch students rise to the challenge of crafting original ideas. Witnessing students’ growth and maturation is inspirational. Indeed, the faculty also learn from the process. Many of us feel that our skills as research advisers improve as a result of it. The new format elevates the qualifying process from a routine student assessment to a shared journey of scientific discovery.

We thank our fellow faculty members for their patience and for helping to refine the qualifying process, testing it (with two of our own students), and ultimately integrating it into the department’s curriculum. We also thank faculty and students for their feedback on the manuscript.

Tim DelSole ( [email protected] ) and Paul Dirmeyer are professors of climate dynamics at George Mason University and senior research scientists at its Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies in Fairfax, Virginia. Together they have overseen the PhD qualifying exam in their department for more than two decades.

Citing articles via

• Online ISSN 1945-0699
• Print ISSN 0031-9228
• For Researchers
• For Librarians
• For Advertisers
• Our Publishing Partners  
• Physics Today
• Conference Proceedings
• Special Topics

pubs.aip.org

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

Connect with AIP Publishing

This feature is available to subscribers only.

Sign In or Create an Account

• Study Abroad Get upto 50% discount on Visa Fees
• Top Universities & Colleges
• Abroad Exams
• Top Courses
• Read College Reviews
• Admission Alerts 2024
• Education Loan
• Institute (Counselling, Coaching and More)
• Ask a Question
• College Predictor
• Test Series
• Practice Questions
• Course Finder
• Scholarship
• All Courses
• B.Sc (Nursing)

PhD Admission 2024: Important Dates, Eligibility Criteria, Entrance Exams, Admission Process, Top Colleges

Bhaskar Nandi

Updated on - Jul 1, 2024

PhD Admission Quick Update

July 01 :  IIM Bangalore PhD 2025 Admission Open. Apply Till January 24, 2025. 

June 27 : SAGE University PhD Application Out. Exam on July 21, 2024. 

June 26:   IIM Sambalpur Admission is open for Dual-Degree Doctorate Program (Executive PhD & DBE IAE). The last date to Apply is July 15, 2024

PhD Admission 2024 is done based on entrance exams like UGC/CSIR NET, GATE, etc. NTA conducts the NET to offer PhD Admission 2024 in top universities such as JNU, DU, IITs, etc. UGC/CSIR NET is conducted in 2 sessions, June and December, to offer PhD Admission in 2024. DU, JNU, BHU, and all other national universities accept UGC NET scores for admission to the PhD Course. UGC has announced that PhD Admissions will be done based on the UGC/CSIR National Eligibility Test (NET) scores from 2024 – 2025 . 

IIT Madras has released the  IIT JAM 2024  Answer Key and  IIT JAM results have also been declared , to offer Integrated PhD Admission 2024 in various IITs and the IISc Bangalore. IITs, NITs, NISER, etc. also offer PhD Admissions based on the GATE/NET exam. 

To be eligible for PhD Admission 2024 in  Top PhD Colleges , you must have scored a minimum of 50% aggregate marks or equivalent CGPA score in your postgraduate degree, along with a valid cut-off score in an entrance exam. IIT Bombay, IIT Roorkee, IIT Guwahati and other IITs have opened their PhD Admission Process.

Table of Contents

Top PhD Colleges: Application Deadline

• PhD Admission 2024 Important Dates
• PhD Entrance Exams

3.1 Exam Schedule

3.2  UGC NET Schedule

3.3  Syllabus

3.4 Preparation Tips

• PhD Admission Process

4.1 Eligibility

4.2 Merit Based Admission

4.3 Entrance Based Admission

• PhD Admission 2024: FAQs

PhD Admission 2024: Important Dates

The table below lists the application form dates for PhD Admission 2024 in top colleges offering different PhD courses:

PhD Entrance Exams 2024

PhD Admission 2024 will be done based on an entrance to several universities. Universities accept the scores of either a national-level entrance examination or a university-level entrance exam. The schedule of various PhD Entrance exams is given below.

PhD Admission 2024: Entrance Exam Schedule 

Candidates can pursue the PhD course in different  PhD Specializations  like Education, Engineering, Mathematics, Engineering, etc. Exam schedules for the top PhD Entrance Exams in India are given in the below table.

UGC NET Schedule 2024

• PhD Admission in several national universities such as DU, JNU, etc, will be done based on the UGC NET Scores.
• The  UGC NET Application Fee is INR 1100 for Unreserved Candidates, INR 600 for EWS/OBC-NCL candidates and INR 325 for the reserved candidates

The full information regarding the UGC NET 2024 (June Session) is given below. 

PhD Entrance Exam Syllabus 2024

• The syllabus for the PhD Entrance Exams is based on the specialization the candidates have opted for.
• The entrance exam syllabus for PhD Admission 2024 usually consists of the course that the candidate has studied in their UG and PG degrees.
• Several universities conduct an interview round to offer PhD Admission in 2024.

PhD Admission 2024: Entrance Exam Preparation Tips

• Solve as many previous year entrance exams as possible.
• Prepare according to the syllabus of the PhD entrance exam as per the specialization.
• Start preparing in advance to have sufficient time for revision. 
• Practice various mock tests.
• Be aware of the current affairs.

PhD Admission Process 2024

PhD Admission 2024 can be done based on merit or an entrance exam. The admission process is explained below along with the basic eligibility criteria.

PhD Admission 2024: Eligibility Criteria

• Candidates must have completed a PG degree to pursue a PhD Course.
• They must obtain a minimum of 50 - 55% of marks in their previous degree from a recognised university. 
• Candidates with work experience in the field of research are highly preferred by universities.

Merit-Based PhD Admission 2024

• Top institutions offer PhD admission through a merit-based process.
• For this, the institute may ask for the candidates to submit the outline of the research proposal.
• This is done mainly for scrutinizing the candidates and the selected candidates are notified after the process.
• Also, the candidates should fulfill the basic eligibility of 50 - 55% of marks in the PG course.

Entrance Exam Based PhD Admission 2024

• National wise and institution wise entrance exams are conducted for the admission of PhD courses.
• Some institutions even organize personal interviews along with the entrance exams for the admission of PhD courses.

PhD Admissions 2024: FAQs

Ques. How to enroll for PhD Admission 2024?

Ans.  Candidates must be familiar with the admission process to seek PhD Admission 2024 in their preferred college. They must qualify for an entrance exam for several top universities.

Ques.   What is the process of PhD Admission 2024?

Ans.  PhD Admission 2024 can be done either on the basis of merit or based on an entrance where the admission is done through the marks scored by the candidates in the entrance exam.

Ques.   What is the PhD stipend for doctorate students in 2024?

Ans.  For doctorate students, the PhD stipend is INR 37,000 for JRF, and the SRF stipend is INR 42,000. However, to get a stipend students must clear CSIR/UGC NET JRF. Besides this, students are also eligible for an institute stipend, and the eligibility and qualifying exam will be different. Students should also note that for IIT PhD Stipend, and IISC PhD Stipend, students must check with the institutes.

Ques. Is there any age limit to seek PhD Admission 2024?

Ans.  There is no specific age limit to pursue PhD courses. 

Ques. What is Direct PhD Admission 2024? Is a direct PhD advisable in India? Can a candidate apply for an assistant professor post after that in India?

Ans.  Direct PhD is a program that can be done immediately after completing aundergraduate degree. There is no need to complete a master’s degree. It is devised mainly for the students who want to pursue a career in the research field. Direct PhD Admission is offered in IITs which ca be done directly after the BTech course.

Ques. Is IGNOU PhD Admission 2024 ongoing? Is IGNOU PhD valid?

Ans.  Yes, IGNOU PhD Admission has begun. The admission dates for IGNOU PhD Admission is December 12 – 31, 2023. Yes, you can pursue a PhD Course at IGNOU as IGNOU is a recognized University in India. All degrees from IGNOU, including PhD is valid.

Ques. How can I take DU PhD Admission 2024?

Ans.  DU PhD Admission can be done on the basis of UGC NET. However, NTA also conducts a university level entrance to offer Phd Admission 2024 at DU/JNU/BHU/BBAU. 

Ph.D. Admission Exams Dates List 2024

Ph.D. : 43 answered questions

Ques. are master's degrees from ignou acceptable for admission into ph.d courses in top universities.

● Top Answer By Anumita Mukharjee on 28 Apr 22

Ques. Is a Phd from IGNOU worth it/valuable?

● Top Answer By Srabani Guha on 24 Jul 23

Ques. How is the Direct PhD program of IIT Madras?

● Top Answer By Arati Sinha on 29 Mar 23

Ques. What is the value of a Ph.D. degree from IIT Bombay?

● Top Answer By Karuna Nair on 13 Mar 23

Ques. Why do some students in IIT Bombay leave high-paying jobs and join grad schools for PhD?

● Top Answer By Advait Joshi on 23 Mar 23

Ques. What is the placement scenario after PhD in IIT Bombay?

● Top Answer By Advait Joshi on 17 Mar 23

Ques. Is a PhD from IGNOU valid?

● Top Answer By Pankaj Kumar on 18 Oct 22

Ques. What is the placement record of MSc applied statistics students of IIT Bombay?

● Top Answer By Poornima Sahoo on 18 Mar 23

Ques. How difficult is it to get a PhD from IISc Bangalore?

● Top Answer By Bidita Ghose on 14 Jul 23

Ques. How good is doing a PhD in BITS Pilani compared to IITs?

● Top Answer By Advait Joshi on 27 Jun 23

Ph.D. (Chemistry)

Ph.d. (physics), ph.d. (mathematics), ph.d. (biotechnology), ph.d. (zoology), ph.d. (psychology), ph.d. (business management), ph.d. (management studies), master of science [ms], ph.d. (computer science), ph.d. colleges in india.

IIMV - Indian Institute of Management

Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research - [PGIMER]

IIM Jammu Indian Institute of Management

University Business School, Panjab University - [UBS]

PSG Institute of Management - [PSGIM]

Krea University

Indian Institute of Social Welfare and Business Management - [IISWBM]

Bharathidasan Institute of Management - [BIM]

Subscribe to our news letter.

Accreditation

• University of Maine
• University of Maine at Augusta
• University of Maine at Farmington
• University of Maine at Fort Kent
• University of Maine at Machias
• University of Maine at Presque Isle
• University of Southern Maine
• University of Maine School of Law
• New Students
• Transfer Students
• Current Students
• Veterans & Military
• International Students
• Early College
• Academic Program Search
• Course Search
• Student Health Insurance Plan
• Licensure & Certification Programs
• UMS Peoplesearch
• System Employee Manual
• Agenda Calendar
• Board Meeting Calendar
• Board Membership
• Board of Trustees Strategic Initiatives
• Committee Responsibilities and Membership
• Guidelines for Board & Committee Meetings
• Meeting Actions
• Meeting Agendas & Materials
• Meeting Minutes
• Policy Manual
• Student & Faculty Representatives
• Student Related Reports
• System Policies, Procedures & Financial Reports
• Administrative Practice Letters
• European Union’s General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR)
• Human Resources Reports
• UMS Dashboard
• Data Governance
• UMS Strategic Plan
• Unified Accreditation
• State Authorization & Certification Information
• University of Maine System (UMS) Offices
• Chancellor’s Office
• Academic and Student Affairs
• Finance and Administration
• Research and Innovation
• Strategic Initiatives 

About the University of Maine System

Established in 1968, the University of Maine System is the state’s largest educational enterprise.

It has an annual enrollment of nearly 30,000 students and positively impacts the lives of hundreds of thousands of Mainers each year through its educational and cultural offerings as well as outreach and public service to individuals, businesses, organizations and policymakers.

The System has an estimated $1.5 billion total statewide economic impact each year, a return of $7.50 for every dollar of State appropriation. Two-thirds of its alumni—approximately 120,000 people—live in Maine.

The University of Maine System is accessible with seven universities—some with multiple campuses—located across the state, as well as a law school, an additional 31 course sites, and Cooperative Extension.

The University of Maine System Chancellor’s office is located in Estabrooke Hall on the University of Maine campus in Orono. System-wide services and governance employees work from campuses across the state.

The University of Maine System is accredited by the New England Commission of Higher Education (NECHE). This accreditation encompasses the System’s constituent universities and law school: the University of Maine and its regional campus, the University of Maine at Machias; the University of Maine at Augusta; the University of Maine at Farmington; the University of Maine at Fort Kent; the University of Maine at Presque Isle; the University of Southern Maine; and the University of Maine School of Law. Learn more about University of Maine System accreditation.

Strategic Plan

In keeping with the University of Maine System’s commitment to the students of Maine’s Public Universities and the University of Maine School of Law, the University of Maine System is launching a comprehensive and system-wide strategic planning effort to ensure the effective coordination and assessment of strategic activities that fulfill our tripartite mission to benefit all University of Maine System students and the State of Maine. The process will recognize the ongoing strategic plans of universities, and articulate a five-year vision that leverages the advantages of Unified Accreditation to achieve a fiscally sustainable institution while maintaining the quality and impact for which our universities are known. The planning will coincide with the New England Commission of Higher Education’s Fall 2022 comprehensive evaluation of the System’s unified accreditation. Learn more about the University of Maine System Strategic Plan.

100+ Degrees

Degrees and certificates spanning a wide range of professional and personal interests from the seven University of Maine Campuses.

Onsite & Online

Study onsite, online or both. We have seven campuses across Maine, providing access to programs.

Get credit for what you know and take advantage of our low tuition and numerous financial aid options.

Advanced Technology

Advanced, Interactive Technology allows you to gain the knowledge, the experience, and a nationally recognized degree to help you advance your career or start a new one.

University of Maine System News

University of maine system trustees to consider authorizing sales of underutilized properties.

Materials that include requests for approval to sell the Hutchinson Center in Belfast and buildings and land in Farmington are now publicly available in advance of a June 27 meeting ORONO, Maine — A University of Maine System (UMS) Board … Read More

Hannaford Supermarkets and University of Maine System partner on exclusive tuition discount

New partnership expands Hannaford’s Groceries to Grads tuition benefits program, and makes Hannaford associates eligible for a 10 percent discount on all University of Maine System courses SCARBOROUGH, Maine – Hannaford Supermarkets and the University of Maine System (UMS) today announced … Read More

Chancellor Dannel Malloy: College can be affordable, so don’t give up on the FAFSA or your future

The following commentary from University of Maine System Chancellor Dannel Malloy appeared in the Bangor Daily News (External Site) on May 29, 2024. The rocky rollout of the new Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) could be “catastrophic” to the college … Read More

News from Maine’s Public Universities

• UMF and USM receive grants to recruit educators, help alleviate Maine’s teacher shortage (External Site)
• Alfond Foundation providing $80 million for athletic facility upgrades (External Site)
• UMaine-led research team making new frozen foods from squid fins (External Site)

Follow Us on Social Media

Facebook (External Site)

Instagram (External Site)

X (External Site)

Linkedin (External Site)

SAIL Management Trainee Recruitment 2024 – Fresh Engineering Graduates Can Apply

• Anamika Kumari
• July 5, 2024

SAIL Management Trainee Recruitment 2024 – Notification Summary

Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), a Maharatna CPSE, has released a notification for the recruitment of 249 Management Trainees (Technical) from promising engineering graduates. The selection process is based on the candidate’s GATE 2024 score, followed by a Group Discussion (GD) and Personal Interview (PI) round. This is a fantastic opportunity for young and energetic engineering graduates to join a prestigious organization and contribute to India’s steel sector.

This recruitment drive aims to fill positions across various engineering disciplines, including Mechanical, Electrical, Instrumentation, Metallurgical, Electronics, Chemical, Civil, and Computer Science. SAIL offers a competitive salary package with attractive perks and benefits. Selected candidates will undergo a comprehensive one-year training program designed to equip them with the necessary skills and knowledge for a successful career in the steel industry.

Important Links and Details for SAIL Management Trainee Recruitment 2024

Eligibility Criteria for SAIL Management Trainee Recruitment 2024

To be eligible for SAIL Management Trainee Recruitment 2024, candidates need to fulfill the following criteria:

• Nationality:  Must be an Indian national.
• Age Limit:  Should not be born earlier than 25.07.1996. Age relaxations are applicable for reserved categories as per government norms.
• Educational Qualification:  A Bachelor’s degree in Engineering with a minimum of 65% aggregate marks in relevant disciplines like Mechanical, Electrical, Instrumentation, Metallurgical, Electronics, Chemical, Civil, and Computer Science. Details of discipline wise eligible engineering branches are provided below –

• GATE 2024 Score:  Candidates must have appeared for the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE) 2024 in the relevant discipline and secured a valid score. The minimum qualifying marks in GATE may vary for different categories.

Application Process for SAIL Management Trainee Recruitment 2024

Interested and eligible candidates can apply for the SAIL Management Trainee Recruitment 2024 by following these steps:

• Registration:  Visit the official SAIL careers website ( https://www.sail.co.in/  or  https://www.sailcareers.com/ ) and create an account by providing a valid email ID and mobile number.
• Fill the Application Form:  Fill in all the required details in the online application form accurately. This includes personal information, educational qualifications, GATE 2024 details, and other relevant information.
• Upload Documents:  Upload scanned copies of your recent passport-size photograph, signature, and other relevant documents as specified in the notification.
• Pay Application Fee:  Pay the prescribed application fee online through the available payment gateways. Candidates belonging to SC/ST/PwBD/Departmental categories are exempted from paying the application fee.
• Submit Application:  After verifying all details, submit the application form online. Take a printout of the system-generated registration slip and application form for future reference.

Exam Pattern and Syllabus for SAIL Management Trainee Recruitment 2024

The SAIL Management Trainee Recruitment 2024 selection process doesn’t involve a separate written exam. It’s based on the GATE 2024 score, Group Discussion (GD) & Personal Interview (PI)

• GATE 2024:  Candidates need to appear for the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE) 2024 conducted by the IITs. The exam pattern and syllabus for GATE 2024 will be as per the respective branch of Engineering.
• Group Discussion (GD):  Shortlisted candidates based on GATE scores will be called for a Group Discussion (GD) round to assess their communication skills, teamwork, and problem-solving abilities.
• Personal Interview (PI):  Candidates who clear the GD round will be invited for a Personal Interview (PI) to assess their personality, technical knowledge, and suitability for the role of Management Trainee.

Preparation Tips for SAIL Management Trainee Recruitment 2024

To increase your chances of success in the SAIL Management Trainee Recruitment 2024, consider the following preparation tips:

• Focus on GATE 2024:  Your GATE 2024 score holds significant weight in the selection process. Therefore, it’s crucial to have a strong understanding of the GATE syllabus for your respective engineering branch and prepare accordingly.
• Strengthen Technical Knowledge:  Revise your core engineering subjects thoroughly. Brush up on fundamental concepts, definitions, and problem-solving techniques.
• Practice Mock Tests:  Solve previous years’ GATE papers and mock tests regularly. It will help you get familiar with the exam pattern, difficulty level, and time management. Analyze your performance in these tests to identify areas of improvement.

Post-Examination Process for SAIL Management Trainee Recruitment 2024

• Shortlisting:  SAIL will shortlist candidates for the GD/PI rounds based on their GATE 2024 scores. The cut-off marks for shortlisting may vary for different categories and disciplines.
• GD/PI Rounds:  Shortlisted candidates will be called for Group Discussion (GD) and Personal Interview (PI) rounds at designated centers. The dates and venues for these rounds will be communicated to the candidates via email/SMS or the official website.
• Final Merit List:  A final merit list will be prepared based on the candidates’ performance in the GATE 2024 exam, GD, and PI rounds. The weightage given to each stage will be as per the SAIL recruitment norms.
• Document Verification & Medical Examination:  Candidates shortlisted in the final merit list will be required to undergo document verification and a medical examination before joining.

Important Dates and Deadlines for SAIL Management Trainee Recruitment 2024

Tips for Cracking for SAIL Management Trainee Recruitment 2024

• Time Management:  During the GD/PI rounds, manage your time effectively. In the GD, ensure you convey your points clearly and concisely within the allotted time. In the PI, answer the questions to the point without rambling.
• Communication Skills:  Work on your communication skills, both verbal and non-verbal. In the GD, express your opinions confidently while being respectful to other participants. In the PI, maintain good eye contact, a positive body language, and answer the questions clearly.

How to Stay Updated and Prepare for SAIL Management Trainee Recruitment 2024

• Regularly Visit Official Website:  Keep visiting the official SAIL careers website for any updates or notifications related to the recruitment process.
• Check Email/SMS:  Check your registered email ID and mobile number regularly for communication from SAIL regarding call letters, interview schedules, or any other important information.
• Join Social Media Groups:  Consider joining relevant social media groups or forums dedicated to SAIL Management Trainee Recruitment to connect with fellow aspirants, exchange information, and stay updated on any news or announcements.

Check More Related Jobs

• Vacancy: 09
• Last Date: July 18, 2024
• Vacancy: 4500
• Last Date: July 21, 2024
• Vacancy: 64
• Last Date: July 17, 2024
• Vacancy: 1049
• Last Date: July 14, 2024
• Vacancy: 502
• Last Date: July 20, 2024
• Vacancy: 8326
• Last Date: July 31, 2024
• Vacancy: 690
• Last Date: August 4, 2024
• Vacancy: 197
• Last Date: July 9, 2024
• Vacancy: 61
• Vacancy: 544
• Last Date: July 16, 2024