phd qualifying exam example

Qualifying Examination

The Qualifying Examination (QE or orals) in Mathematics is an oral examination that covers three principal topics, two of which are designated as major topics, and one as a minor topic; the minor topic is examined in less depth than the major topics. The intent of the QE is to ascertain the breadth of the student's comprehension in the selected subject areas, and to determine whether the student has the ability to think incisively and critically about the theoretical and practical aspects of the topics. The exam is administered by a faculty committee of four members and lasts approximately 3 hours. The result of the exam is decided via a committee vote. Possible results include, pass, partial fail, and total fail. Students who receive a partial or total fail may be granted, by the committee, a second opportunity to take the exam on some or all of the topics covered, or may be recommended for dismissal from the Ph.D. program.  

For Current Students

Students in the Mathematics Ph.D. program are required to attempt the QE before the start of their third year in the program (within 24 months of matriculation). The Graduate Office has accommodated requests for short extensions of this time frame so that students may take their orals in the fall term of their third year. Such requests must be made in advance to and approved by the Vice Chair for Graduate Studies. Any further request for an extension must be approved by Committee Omega. Most QE exams take place over the fall or spring terms as faculty are often away from campus during the summer months. ***For international students, it is quite crucial that students pass their orals and advance to candidacy before the start of the fall term of their third year. Advancing to candidacy initiates a 3-year (calendar year) Nonresident Supplemental Tuition (NRST) reduction. In most circumstances, the program only agrees to pay NRST for international students for 4 semesters, so to avoid paying NRST on one's own in the third year, students must advance to candidacy and trigger the NRST reduction.***

Steps to Scheduling the Qualifying Examination

• Identify a Faculty Advisor (Dissertation Chair): To arrange the QE, you must first settle on an area of concentration, and identify and secure a prospective Dissertation Chair (Faculty Advisor) — someone who agrees to supervise your dissertation research if the examination is passed.
• Committee Formation:   Two months before the date of the exam, you must constitute the QE committee. Students should seek advice from their prospective dissertation chair (faculty advisor) when putting together their exam committee. All committee members can be faculty in the Mathematics Department and the chair must be in the Mathematics Department. The Math member least likely to serve as the dissertation advisor should be selected as chair of the qualifying exam committee.
• Create an Exam Syllabus: In consultation with the Chair of the QE committee, you will write up an exam syllabus. Sample syllabi and a list of faculty who have served as outside members (formally called Academic Senate Representatives (ASR)) in the past are all available in the QE Resource Folder linked below. The syllabus must indicate the departmental sections for which you will be examined and must be approved by the QE Committee. To properly format your syllabus, please use the template provided in the QE Resource Folder linked below.
• Distribution of Exam Syllabus to Faculty: 6 weeks before the exam, you should send a PDF copy of the QE syllabus to the Graduate Advisor who will distribute it to all faculty in the two (or three) sections in which you will be examined. You should allow two weeks for a response from the faculty. If feedback on the syllabus content is received, the student must then consult the Chair of the QE Committee and their prospective advisor before proceeding with changes to the syllabus. Starting in Fall 2024 you can submit the  Application for the Qualifying Exam  (hyperlinked) to notify the Math Grad Office.
• Exam Logistics: 4 weeks before the date of the exam, the student should reserve a room using the room reservation calendar or schedule a remote meeting via Zoom. Any department space with chalk or whiteboard (aside from 1015 Evans Hall) should be suitable for the exam. If a room in the department is not available you can ask Main Office staff to reserve a room in Evans from the central Scheduling Office. If you are taking the QE on Zoom, please review these Best Practices for Zoom Qualifying Exams .

Four weeks before the exam you should submit the Graduate Division Application for the QE which is an eForm housed in CalCentral . The eForm is called the “Higher Degrees Committees Form.” Once your QE is formally approved at the Graduate Division level you will see a notice of approval on the My Academics tab of your CalCentral account. Please note that the QE will not be valid until approved at the Graduate Division level. Failure to submit the application four weeks prior to your QE may require you to reschedule the exam!

Two or three days before the exam date, the student should send a reminder to all committee members with all exam details (date, location, time) and a copy of the syllabus.

Other Details

At the conclusion of the exam, the QE Committee submits the exam results to the Graduate Office, which is then submitted to the Graduate Division.

Once you have passed the QE you are required to advance to candidacy by the end of the following semester. Students who fail to advance to candidacy in the stated time will have an enrollment hold placed on their account.

QE Resources

The QE Post-Exam Survey: Students are sent the survey via email by the advising staff shortly after completing any exam attempt. Responses include data on a student's advisor, committee members, topics examined, questions asked, and general exam experience. The response sheet is viewable by all current students here. Students may sort by creating a filtered view in the "Data" drop-down menu. You must be logged into your  @berkeley.edu account to access this resource.

CLICK HERE  TO VIEW RESPONSES  TO THE QE POST-EXAM SURVEY

QE Resource Folder:   The QE Resource Folder has been replaced by the post-exam questionnaire, but will remain active and accessible. The folder includes copies of past student syllabi, a QE syllabus template, a list of faculty from outside of the Math Department who have served as Academic Senate Representatives (Outside Member), and other useful documents.  You must be logged into your @berkeley.edu email account to access this folder. 

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS RESOURCE FOLDER

CalCentral eForm Support Resources

Having trouble with the CalCentral Higher Degrees Committee eForm? Use the guides below for assistance.

• Click here for a YouTube tutorial on how to apply for the QE
• Click here for a step-by-step guide for completing the Higher Degrees Committee eForm

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.

Sign Up for Free

Try the best infographic maker and promote your research with scientifically-accurate beautiful figures

no credit card required

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

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

Want to Get your Dissertation Accepted?

Discover how we've helped doctoral students complete their dissertations and advance their academic careers!

Join 200+ Graduated Students

Get Your Dissertation Accepted On Your Next Submission

Get customized coaching for:.

• Crafting your proposal,
• Collecting and analyzing your data, or
• Preparing your defense.

Trapped in dissertation revisions?

Phd qualifying exam: 5 steps to success, published by steve tippins on may 27, 2022 may 27, 2022.

Last Updated on: 2nd February 2024, 05:02 am

The PhD qualifying exam varies by institution and discipline, but they all share something in common: they are among the most difficult tests you will ever take. A PhD qualifying exam is given after you completed your coursework. It is the final hurdle before you begin to work on your dissertation . Passing the PhD qualifying exam is your ticket out of coursework and into the research phase of your degree.

In this article, we’ll cover what the process looks like and how to prepare for the written and oral parts of the exam. We also include sample questions to give you an idea of the territory.

Traditional vs New Qualifying Exams

There is a distinction between how qualifying exams are traditionally structured and how some institutions are now conducting them. Here’s the lowdown:

Traditional Qualifying Exams

Traditionally, the exam has one or two parts: a written part and sometimes an oral part. The exam is made up of whatever the faculty wants to ask you, so you have to be prepared for just about anything that was covered in your classes.

To prepare, people typically take two to four months to review the literature they covered in the previous few years so that they are prepared to answer questions on any topic. Many times, you might know broad topics where questions can be drawn from but not specific questions. If that is the case, the oral exam would typically be used for clarification, allowing you to further explain a topic and show your understanding to faculty.

New Qualifying Exams

Some schools have moved to a model in which you receive the questions and have two weeks or so to answer them. Then, you have time to prepare lots of material for your answers. However, faculty might expect more perfection in this case because you get a chance to review and ponder, as opposed to the traditional exam. 

Other schools may just want to see your dissertation proposal, which takes the place of your exam. Either way, you have to show that you have grasped the material from your first several years of coursework.

How Long Is the PhD Qualifying Exam?

If you are writing the traditional model, you will have five to seven questions over two days, and you basically write everything you can think of on those questions . Students typically dump everything they know, whether it applies or not, just to show how much they know. 

If you’re taking the exam at home, you will probably type it. Many schools now allow typing in the traditional model as well. Your answers will usually run in the neighborhood of 15 to 20 pages per question because they want to see everything you can come up with.

How Do You Prepare for the PhD Qualifying Exam?

Many students waste valuable study time because they don’t know how to structure their preparation to be most effective. Here’s how to best prepare for the PhD qualifying exam.

Step 1: Assemble the Literature

To prepare for the qualifying exam, the first step is to assemble the literature you want to review . Look at each class you took and gather the academic articles you read in those classes. 

Step 2: Review and Take Notes

The next step is to read the articles again and take notes on them, including the key findings and methodology. This step might take you a couple of months to do.

Step 3: Go Back Through the Notes and Summarize

The third step is to go back through the notes you took on all of those articles and summarize them again to condense them even further. 

Step 4: Review Your Summaries

The fourth step is to spend four to five days going back through your condensed summary so that you have it all in your mind. That way, you can quickly recall which author said what and how it relates to what other authors have said. Keep all those relationships in your head.

Step 5: Rest

The day before your exam, the fifth step is to rest so that you’re ready for the intense nature of the next couple of days.

PhD Qualifying Exam Pass Rate

The PhD qualifying exam pass rate is difficult to determine because schools don’t usually publish or talk about it. About half the people who enter a PhD program complete it.

Most of the people who don’t complete the program leave before or at the qualifying exam. When people get to the dissertation phase, they’re more likely to finish.

When you take your qualifying exam, many schools have four levels of grades: high pass, pass, low pass, and didn’t pass.

What Happens If You Fail the PhD Qualifying Exam?

If you fail the PhD qualifying exam, most schools will allow you another attempt to pass it. They may only do them a certain number of times a year, so it could be six months to a year later. But you may get another shot at it.

Ultimately, if you fail the PhD qualifying exam, you do not get to move forward to write the dissertation and you are finished with the program. They have determined that you have not learned, gathered, or synthesized enough material and you’re not ready to work on a dissertation.

On the other hand, if you pass the PhD qualifying exam, most schools then say you have reached what has become known as “all but dissertation” or ABD . With everything but the dissertation finished, some people use the term “ PhD candidate ” or PhD(c) to represent themselves.

What Is an Oral Exam?

There are two types of oral exams. One takes place after a written exam, while the other stands alone.

Written Exam Followed by Oral Exam

If you are taking a written exam and an oral exam follows, you can usually provide clarification in the oral exam and dig further into what was on the comprehensive exam. 

Oral Exam Only

Some schools just give an oral exam, where you and a number of faculty members meet in person or on a zoom call. They ask you the questions, and you get to answer them without writing.

Tips for Navigating the Oral Exam

• Treat the committee with respect. Remember that you’re walking into a room of people who control your future. If you don’t respect them, they will take it as a sign that you are not serious, which could negatively impact the likelihood of you moving forward.
• Answer every question.
• If you get stuck, ask them to rephrase the question. Doing so will allow your brain a chance to relax.
• Ask the committee questions. When you finish answering a question, you can always ask “Have I answered your question?” or “Have I answered to the level you want me to answer?” Then, ultimately, you can ask them questions, such as, “Do you have any thoughts on that?”

Sample Questions for the PhD Qualifying Exam

It’s vital to know what to expect when you take your exam. Here are some methods for getting familiar with the question you may be asked.

First, a Tip: Look at Past Tests

Some institutions keep old PhD qualifying exams or comprehensive exam questions. You can look at those to see the types of questions they may ask and what they might be looking for. 

Other institutions might even let you see the questions that have been asked in the past. They’re not going to ask the exact same questions, but you will at least be able to see which areas have been emphasized or revisited over time. If there’s an area that comes up every year, you definitely want to make sure you’re ready to answer questions related to it. Look at the questions to determine tendencies and identify the types of questions you might be asked.

Some Broad Example Questions

The questions are going to be discipline specific, but here are some broad examples:

• Trace the development of the capital asset pricing model from its first author to the current thoughts.
• Author X proposes that the Roman Empire fell for certain reasons, and Author Y proposes different reasons. What are the current thoughts on that, and how does it apply to the current situation in the United States?
• Trace the antecedents of Greenleaf’s servant leadership. Where has it gone from there? What are authors currently proposing regarding servant leadership?
• Trace the development of generally accepted accounting principles and how they might be applied in a nonprofit situation.

Final Thoughts

The doctoral comprehensive exam is a big deal. Take it seriously, and be prepared to show the faculty that you have grasped what they have offered to you as opportunities to learn. Show that you understand how the material and literature fit together and provide a platform for future learning and research.

Steve Tippins

Steve Tippins, PhD, has thrived in academia for over thirty years. He continues to love teaching in addition to coaching recent PhD graduates as well as students writing their dissertations. Learn more about his dissertation coaching and career coaching services. Book a Free Consultation with Steve Tippins

Related Posts

Dissertation

Phd by publication.

PhD by publication, also known as “PhD by portfolio” or “PhD by published works,” is a relatively new route to completing your dissertation requirements for your doctoral degree. In the traditional dissertation route, you have Read more…

What Does Ph.D. Stand For?

“What does Ph.D. stand for?” This is a question that can be answered several different ways. First of all, typically Ph.D. stands for doctor or doctorate in philosophy. I know that can be a little Read more…

A Professor’s Top 3 Pieces of Advice for Ph.D. Students

When it comes to getting a Ph.D., there is no one-size-fits-all approach to ensuring success in graduate school. Every student must find their own path to navigating the most rigorous academic experience that most people Read more…

PhD | Qualifying Examination

Main navigation.

The qualifying examination tests a student's depth of knowledge and familiarity in their area of specialization. Qualifying exams are generally offered in all areas covered by the written comprehensive exam. It is possible for a student to request a qualifying exam in an area not already offered, such as one that cuts across current divisions. The feasibility of this request is determined on a case-by-case basis by the PhD program committee. A student should pass a qualifying exam no later than the end of their third year.

A student may take the qualifying exams only twice. In some cases a conditional pass is awarded. When the designated conditions have been met (such as CAing for a certain class, taking a course, or reading additional material in a specific area), the student is credited with the pass. If a student fails the qualifying exam a second time, the PhD program committee is contacted because its an indication that the student is not "making reasonable progress". This is cause for dismissal by default from the PhD program. The qualifying exams are a University requirement and are taken very seriously. Therefore, sufficient time and in-depth preparation must be given to the quals area that the student chooses, to ensure success.

The format of the qualifying exams varies from year-to-year and area-to-area, depending on the faculty member or quals chair in charge of each specific exam. Examples are in-class written exams, "take-home" written exams, oral exams, written assignments and/or a combination of the above. The quals chair administers the exams and the results must be submitted to the PhD program officer, as they will enter the information into the University's Axess (PeopleSoft) and Departmental database systems. Passing the qualifying exam certifies that the student is ready to begin dissertation work in the chosen area. If a student wishes to do dissertation work in an area other than their qualifying exam area, the student's advisor and/or the faculty in the new area will determine whether an additional exam is required.

Information about the Qualifying Examination

The student's advisor needs to email [email protected] (and cc faculty who were on the Quals committee) the qual results.

• The candidate student must form a committee of 3 faculty members.  A committee needs to have (at least) 2 core AI faculty on it.  Upon request, we can consider having 1 core AI and (at least) 1 AI-affiliated faculty.  In all cases, at least 1 core AI faculty must be present.
• The student is asked to prepare a 30-minute presentation on a research project the student is working on.
• The student supplies to each committee member a short report summarizing the student’s research project and a list of references that is related to such a project. Report and list of references are due to the committee members 3 days before the exam.
• During the first half hour the student presents the research project.
• The second half hour comprises a 30min QA session related to the research project by the committee. During such sessions committee members can (but are not necessarily committed to) ask questions related to any of the papers in the list of references. This gives the opportunity to committee members to assess general mastery of the area the student is working on.
• Statistical Machine Learning (Percy Liang)
• Natural Language Processing (Dan Jurafsky)
• The candidate’s advisor/s should be a member/s.
• At least one member must be a Stanford CS faculty.
• Two members must be working in Computational Biology.
• One member will be non-computational from an affected field of biomedicine.
• At least two members must be doing work directly relevant to the candidate’s work.
• 30 minutes presentation on their research.
• 30 minutes presentation on 3 papers which are jointly picked by the quals committee and the student, relating to the student’s current and future research directions.
• After the exam has been taken, the candidate will email the CS PhD Student Services Admin, cc’ing all members of their quals committee, with the exam’s outcome.
• HCI (Michael Bernstein)
• InfoQual (Jure Leskovec)
• Physiqual (Ron Fedkiw)
• Form a panel of 3 professors (CS systems faculty). Select 3-4 papers, in consultation with the panel, in an area not identical to your thesis work for you to read, review and synthesize over a period of 3 weeks. Depending on the panel's advice, you may need to execute a small implementation project. For example, a project might answer a related research question, reproduce or compare results in a novel setting, or quantitatively investigate the implications of certain design decisions.
• The exam has a written and an oral component. Three weeks after selecting the papers, turn in a 5-10 page report (not counting references) as well as pointers to any software or hardware artifacts created as part of the project (if any). Approximately one week after submitting the report, make an oral presentation to the panel, followed by questions.
• Analysis of Algorithms
• Form a panel of three professors, select 3-4 papers in an area related (but usually not identical) to your thesis work for you to read, review and synthesize over a period of a month (30 days). Write a report on your review/synthesis, give it to the committee, and also make an oral presentation to the committee, followed by questions.
• The candidate student must form a committee of 2-3 faculty members, where at least one is a Visual Computing faculty member.
• The student and the committee agree on a list of at least 5 papers in the student’s research area of interest.
• During the first half hour, the student presents a lecture on the topics in the said papers and any relevant background.
• The second half hour comprises a 30min Q&A session where committee members can ask questions related to the lecture and any of the said papers. This gives the committee an opportunity to assess the general mastery of the research area the student is working on.

UC Davis Graduate Studies

Doctoral qualifying exam.

MANDATORY IN-PERSON PARTICIPATION IN THE QUALIFYING EXAMINATION  In accordance with the Doctoral Qualifying Examinations Policy (Revised March 22, 2024), QE’s must be held fully in-person with the option to include up to one committee member participating remotely, other than the QE chair.

The Doctoral Qualifying Examination (QE)

Qualifying exam topics.

• Student Eligibility
• Applying to take the QE
• Committee Selection
• Not Pass & the Second Exam

Advancing to Candidacy

• Forms & Policy Links

The Qualifying Exam Application (via GradSphere)

Purpose of the Qualifying Exam

All UC Davis doctoral students must take a Qualifying Examination (QE) to demonstrate they are prepared to advance to candidacy, undertake independent research, and begin the dissertation.  Doctoral students may have no more than two opportunities to pass the QE.  

The QE evaluates the student’s preparation and potential for doctoral study, including:

Strategies for Success

Review proven QE tips, gathered by students in Professors of the Future, on  Acing Your Qualifying Exam .

• Academic preparation in the field, and sufficient understanding of the areas related to the dissertation research.
• Knowledge and understanding of the literature in the field, and the ability to evaluate and integrate those concepts.
• Knowledge and understanding of relevant research methods and applications.
• The viability and originality of the research proposal, and the ability to communicate those topics.

Information below is included in the Doctoral Qualifying Examination policy .  The QE must be an oral exam, 2-3 hours in length, and may include a written component covering both breadth and depth of knowledge.  Specific format is determined by the graduate program degree requirements which have been approved by Graduate Council.  Graduate Council specifies that Qualifying Exams must also have the following essential characteristics:

• Be Interactive
• The examiners must be able to ask questions, hear the answers, and then follow up with another question or comment in response to the student's initial reply. Committee members, individually and collectively, must be able to engage in a discourse with the candidate on topics relevant to the candidate’s area of competence.
• Be a Group Activity
• In addition to the ability to follow up to one's own questions, it is also very important for all examiners to hear all of the questions and all of the student's responses, plus have the ability to interject an alternate follow-up question. The collective wisdom of a group is generally greater than that of the individual. Further having other examiners present serves to moderate the group, to ensure that one examiner does not ask questions that are either trivial or too difficult, and that any one examiner is neither too friendly nor too obstreperous. Thus, to optimize the examination process and evaluation of the candidate, the committee as a whole must collectively: 1) experience the discourse with a candidate, 2) evaluate the candidate’s performance, 3) determine the length and content of the examination, and 4) moderate the demeanor of the candidate and the members of the committee.
• Be Broadly Structured
• Based on the candidate’s past academic, research, and scholarly record and the performance on the examination, the candidate must broadly demonstrate sufficient competence in the selected disciplinary area, which must go beyond the limited area of scholarship associated with a dissertation topic. Further, the candidate must demonstrate the capability for integration and utilization of knowledge and skills that are critical for independent and creative research, thereby qualifying them for advancement to the research-intensive phase of doctoral education.

Student QE Eligibility

To be eligible to take the exam, a student must:

• Be enrolled in the quarter in which the exam will be conducted, or if the exam is held during a break between quarters, the student must have been enrolled in the previous quarter and be enrolled in the subsequent quarter.  
• Maintain a minimum cumulative GPA of 3.0 in all course work completed.
• Have completed all degree requirements (including coursework and language examinations), with the possible exception of any requirements being fulfilled during the quarter the QE is to be held.

Applying to take the QE

The exam may not be held until a QE application has been approved by Graduate Studies.  QE applications are due to Graduate Studies at least 30 days prior to the expected exam date.

• If requesting an external committee member (employed outside the UC) - fill out the Justification for Proposed External Member Participation within the QE application in GradSphere. Upload proposed member CV.
• Up to one committee (never the QE chair) member may be approved to participate remotely by the program
• Justification for fully remote requests must be entered in the QE application in GradSphere
• If you are participating in a Designated Emphasis, and haven't yet submitted an application, complete the DE Application via GradSphere.  
• After initiation, the QE application is routed to the graduate program advisor (and DE chair if relevant) for approval.
• External Member Requests are determined by the Associate Dean for Students, and require additional review time.

Reconstituting & Rescheduling the QE

• Students may change their QE committee membership prior to the exam by submitting a Reconstitution of Committee Membership Request via GradSphere.  The eligibility of the committee will be re-evaluated according to the standards listed below.  
• Once the QE application has been approved, students and programs do not need to notify Graduate Studies if the exam date is changed - the date listed on the QE Report will be recorded in the student's record.  

The QE Committee

QE committee selection and recommendation vary from program to program, and students should discuss the membership with their Graduate Advisor and major professor.  Graduate Studies evaluates the eligibility of the committee and individual members using the regulations included in the Doctoral Qualifying Examination policy.  The QE Chair and committee members should be selected to avoid any real or perceived conflict of interest.

• QE Committee Chair Requirements
• • The Chair of the QE committee must be a member of the student’s graduate program and either a UC Davis Division Academic Senate member or a UC Davis Academic Federation member. • The student’s major professor may be a member of the QE committee, but may not serve as the QE Chair.
• QE Committee Membership Requirements
• • The QE committee must include four or five members, as included in the graduate program degree requirements. • A student or program may petition Graduate Studies for one additional member beyond the number required by submitting a brief statement of explanation with the QE application.  Most often additional members are requested for students in a Designated Emphasis. • At least three of the members must be members of the student’s graduate program. • At least three members of the QE committee must be members of the Academic Senate of the University of California. • At most two members of a 5-person committee or one member of a 4-person committee may be from categories that include non-Senate faculty. • At least one committee member who is not a member of the student's graduate program, unless the program has an approved exception.  
• Students in Designated Emphases
• • In cases where a student is completing one or more Designated Emphases (DE), at least one committee member must be affiliated with each DE.   • Students must have an approved DE application prior to taking the Qualifying Exam.  
• Optional External Member - not employed by a University of California
• • At most one member may be a faculty member from another university outside the UC system or a scholar from outside academia.  

Outcomes of the QE

QE Committees must inform the student of the result of their QE immediately following the exam.  QE Chairs report the results to Graduate Studies by submitting the Qualifying Examination Report via GradSphere . A memo of explanation from the QE Chair must be submitted along with the QE report for any result other than unanimous pass.  More information about the QE results is available on the QE Regulations .

• The committee unanimously decides the student passed the examination and is prepared to advance to candidacy for the doctoral degree.  No conditions or additional requirements may accompany this decision.
• The QE Report must specify whether the student is required to retake all or part of the examination, list any additional requirements, and state the expected timeline for completion of requirements before retaking all or part of the exam. The format of the second attempt may include a retake of all or a specific portion of the exam, a rewritten proposal, a paper addressing the areas of deficiency, or an alternate format determined by the QE committee and approved by the Dean of Graduate Studies.  The second QE may include multiple components (e.g. responding to committee questions in writing and then retaking the oral exam), but requirements must be stated in full on the QE Chair memo.  Requirements may not be added or determined necessary after submitting the memo to Graduate Studies. 
• The committee unanimously determines the student failed the examination due to significant deficiencies, and the student is not currently prepared to continue in the doctoral program.  A unanimous fail on either the first or second exam is a recommendation of the student’s disqualification from the degree objective. 
• If the QE committee is unable to reach a unanimous decision on pass, retake, or fail, the QE chair will inform the student that the committee is divided, that the majority and minority are making recommendations subject to further review, and that the Administrative Committee of the Graduate Council or its designee will make the final decision with all available input.  In the Split QE memo, the QE Chair must include the number of committee members supporting each decision, and the recommendations from each side.  The QE Chair should not identify the names of committee members supporting each decision when discussing the results with the student or in the Split QE memo

First QE Retake & the Second Exam

Students who receive a Retake in their first QE are permitted one additional opportunity to pass the exam.  The second exam may take a different format depending on which parts of the exam the student needs to retake, and how the committee can best evaluate the clearing of the deficiencies noted in the first exam.  Committees may require students to submit a rewrite of their proposal or written response to committee concerns/questions.  They may require students to retake all or portions of the examination (e.g. the oral portion, but not the written, or the proposal portion, but not the field foundation knowledge portion).  Committees may combine requirements (e.g. a written response and retaking the oral exam). 

The written memo from the QE Chair will clarify the requirements of the second exam in full, how the student should carry these out, and provide a specific timeline for meeting the requirements.  Not Pass memos should indicate one or more contact member(s) if the student has questions about the deficiencies in the first exam or the requirements for the second exam. Graduate Studies will review the QE Retake memo, and may follow-up with QE Chairs for clarification if needed.  Once approved, the Associate Dean for Students will write a letter to the student confirming the second exam requirements.  Letters are sent by the Director of Advising to the student, the Coordinator, the QE Chair, and the program Graduate Chair.

Following the second exam end date included in the Retake memo, the QE Chair will notify the student of the outcome and complete the QE Report in GradSphere (noting that it is a Second QE).  The outcome of the second exam may only be Pass or Fail, and follow the guidelines included in the Outcomes section above.  

After passing the QE and prior to the first day of the following quarter, the student will complete the appropriate Candidacy Application (Plan A, B, or C), identifying their proposed dissertation committee. The Candidacy Application will be submitted to Graduate Studies via GradSphere for review and advancement to candidacy.  

Forms, Policies, & Resources

• Qualifying Exam Application
• Remote Committee Member Request
• External Member Request
• Qualifying Exam Report
• Second Qualifying Exam Report

QE Policies & Resources

• Doctoral Qualifying Examinations (GC2005-02)
• Service on Advanced Degree Committees (GC1998-01) 
• UC Davis Qualifying Exam Regulations
• Acing Your Qualifying Exam

The Qualifying Exam

The qualifying exam is designed to measure the breadth of students’ knowledge in mathematics. While some students are able to pass the qualifying exam in one try, passing the exam early is mainly an indication that a student has attended an undergraduate university with a broad undergraduate program in mathematics. It is not a good predictor of the quality of the eventual PhD dissertation.

Students are required to take the qualifying examination at the beginning in the first term. The exam may prove a useful diagnostic in helping to identify areas in which a student’s knowledge is weak. There is no stigma attached to taking the exam several times, but students are expected to pass the examination by the second year in residence in order to begin more specialized study leading to research work.

The department runs tutorials and offers several introductory graduate courses (e.g. Math 212a, 213a, 230a, 231a, and 232a) to help students acquire the necessary broad basic background in mathematics to pass the exam.

The exam consists of three, three-hour papers held on consecutive afternoons. Each paper has six questions, one each on the subjects: Algebra, Algebraic Geometry, Algebraic Topology, Differential Geometry, Real Analysis and Complex Analysis. Each question carries 10 points. In order to pass each subject, students must obtain at least 20 of the 30 points in that subject. Students are considered to have passed the qualifying exam when they have passed in all six subjects (120 of 180 points) in one sitting, or they have passed at least four subjects in one sitting and obtained an A or A- grade in the basic graduate courses corresponding to the subject(s) not passed. Students are expected take the recommended course(s) at the first opportunity.

Once students have passed the qualifying exam, they no longer need to take math courses for a letter grade and may elect to receive the grade (EXC) excused. Students should inform the instructor at the beginning of the term if they elect to take (EXC) as a grade.

PhD Qualifying Examinations - Sample Questions

Below you will find examples of questions from previous PhD Qualifying Examinations (also called Comprehensives or “Comps”).

The issues arising from the relationship between media, technology and society have been examined from different theoretical frameworks, including technological determinism, and social constructivism. Compare and contrast the ideas and approach of McLuhan, Williams and Winner, inter alios to consider both technology as an independent factor and how it is shaped by political and social contexts.

What is the relationship between a semiotic conception of photography and an affective one?

To what extent can national business culture influence the technology adoption life cycle? How could industrial culture affect the way organizations respond to a discontinuous innovation?

In what way does the concept of persuasion apply to evolving forms of digital communication?

What does management theory offer to explain the ways that individuals can develop their own brand alongside organizational brands?

Explain how the medium of comic books and the superhero genre facilitate engagement with fans and the larger cultural landscape.

If you were to design a survey course focusing on key themes and theorists in critical race theory and gender studies, which theorists and readings would you choose and why? How would you structure and develop the course?

How do new technologies problematize existing forms of knowledge? How have scholars theorized these epistemological shifts as they relate to technology’s evolving role in society?

How has research-creation been theorized as a hybrid theory and practice method for the study of media and digital culture? What methodological frameworks have been established in this field? Use examples from the field to provide case studies that integrate theory and practice into creative work.

What is the relation between nationalism, history, and photographic archives?

Taking into account a wide array of cultural, political, and economic considerations, account for the viability of an independent Kashmir.

Define and provide an example of a contemporary Black countervisuality by bringing Mirzoeff’s The Right To Look into conversation with Leigh Raiford’s Imprisoned in a Luminous Glare alongside other texts from your list.

Drawing on your list, explain how race was made and operationalized in the world.

The term “Anthropocene” is contested by many scholars. Outline the major debates in the emerging field of study associated with the Anthropocene.

Cooperation between arctic countries has been strong since the end of the Cold War; however, the media describes the relationship between arctic countries as tense, in part because military exercises in the area are increasing and the political rhetoric is sometimes adversarial. Discuss the geopolitical situation in the Arctic from the perspectives of academic scholars and the media. 

Discuss how race-centric far-right movements like the American ‘Alt-Right’ can exist amorphously – with no strict rules, leaders, or goals – and yet maintain momentum in terms of producing violent effects, upholding followers, or fostering adjacent racist trends. What is the function of concepts like race and nationhood, which uphold racializing systems, in sustaining that momentum? Are there limitations to that success?

Healy (2015) differentiates between effective and obstructive use of detail and nuance in sociological writing and theory. They discuss how all abstraction requires the deletion of some detail, and argue that nuance for the sake of nuance can get in the way of effective theorizing. At first glance, Healy’s position appears to sharply contrast with ethnography’s traditional emphasis on detailed, contextual thick description (Geertz, Lambeck). However, some contemporary ethnographic work (e.g. Stewart, Bubandt) suggests by example that theoretical abstraction can be paired with strategic deployments of detail to evoke new depictions and definitions of culture. Is it useful to apply Healy’s critique to anthropological work? If so, what is gained through its application? In your answer, show specific examples of how extensive detail or description is useful for contemporary ethnography, and when or whether adherence to ethnographic detail gets in the way of theorizing culture.

How does the early development of the field of visual culture elide the importance of materiality?

There is a growing body of literature related to psychology and games. Describe the current state in the cognitive and social psychology literature, and how it has been applied within game design and gameplay?

The proliferation of new technologies and their impact on culture has been debated by media scholars. Some theorists take the position that digital technologies create new possibilities for interconnectedness, improved access to information, and engender communities of support and belonging. Others caution that a cultural emphasis on and preoccupation with digital technology is creating deep divides in our culture, generating a sense of individual isolation and social anxiety. These debates, at times, focus on the impact of technologies on human empathy, relationships, and the quality, or lack thereof, of social discourse afforded by digital technologies. Develop these positions, with attention to how these two positions have been theorized in media scholarship. What is your position in this debate?

The Internet and cellphones are examples of technologies that were not only globally accepted but also spread rapidly. There are other technologies that do not share the same level of success despite technical capability. Could this phenomenon be explained by characteristics of technology that are associated with cultural values? How might this association affect technology diffusion?

Charting the emergence of Islamic art within Art History, what are the advantages and disadvantages of using this rubric when studying historical and contemporary art from the MENASA region and its diasporas? Further, are there alternative categories that can be deployed to research this area?

Considering the diversity in exhibitionary lineages between different past and present colonized communities, how has the curatorial been employed to forge new solidarities that challenge historical exclusions/appropriations and formulate more dialogic pathways?

Using theories of communication and cultural studies, consider the role of popular culture in the conception, creation, and portrayal of social robots.

An emerging problematic in theories of material culture and dress centres on moving beyond viewing the fashion object as passive, and instead interpreting material as an influencer of bodies, experiences, and cultures. Whereas foundational fashion studies scholars studied the subjective experience of those who engaged with the material object, more recent scholarship has complicated these perspectives by introducing the object as an active force with agency of its own. Considering these divergent approaches, assess theories of material culture in relation to the fashion object.  

Explore the ways in which scholarship in the field has highlighted a turn to affective and psychosocial regulation in postfeminist culture. Given postfeminism’s propensity toward exacting regimes of self-improvement and surveillance, how does this shift indicate prevailing themes and/or critical changes in an ongoing regulation of gendered subjects?

How have comic studies addressed race and gender, and how have they failed?

The Anthropocene is said to challenge the notion that nature and culture are two separate entities. Explain how scholars have explored this idea. 

Disciplinary “turns” – while provoking debate – can also engender new methodological and theoretical modes of practice. Describe the “ontological turn” in anthropology, discuss its criticisms, and examine its points of contact and/or contrast with other contemporary ethnographic work. What does the ontological turn provide, in terms of alternative ways of doing ethnography (whether in terms of fieldwork, writing, or otherwise)? Are there further ways the principles of the ontological turn have been or could be used or extended? Can the ontological turn be synthesized with other contemporary developments in ethnography?

What is the ‘documentary mode’ in photography? Discuss its major tenets and criticisms.

A prominent feature of many recent games has been improved graphical realism and the implementation of avatar customization for the playable character. Discuss the role avatars have played in current research and explorations within HCI and digital games?

In fashion studies scholars have laid claim to a unique connection between fashion and modernity, with fashion historians and theorists asserting ties between “modernism,” “modernity,” and “la mode.” Using fashion as a starting point, what connections can be traced more broadly and/or problematized by viewing these ties through the lens of material culture and the processes of cultural production and consumption? 

What are the barriers to sustainable education among fashion consumers? How can long-term sustainable fashion be fostered through education?

If you were to construct an undergraduate course on modest fashion, what rationale would you use to synthesize your research material into a comprehensible, dynamic, and relevant overview? What theories and historical processes would you draw on?  What audio-visual materials and written materials would be included? What pedagogical philosophy would underpin the course? 

What is the ‘girl’ in girls’ studies? How has the field theorized the concept of girlhood as well as the possibilities in expanding and diversifying the construction and categorizations of ‘girl’?

How do different theorists approach the intersection of the material, visual and textual in fashion?

Can moving-image be theory? Discuss with reference to the texts on your list.

How do Black feminisms in Canada inform academia about black women’s lives and how to make black women legible? In particular, how do Black feminisms help position black women as human and include black women in the human historical, social and political project?

Discuss the tensions between mainstream accounts of journalism history, and Black press accounts of history? In what ways can the mainstream historical narrative be revisited through a focus on the Black Press?

Explain how museums, their collections, archives, and concomitant exhibitions are thought of as constituting ‘history from above,’ and how this is countered via ‘histories from below.’

Affect has become an influential way of thinking about emotions and psychology within game studies. How has affect been discussed in scholarship related to game studies with regard to its relationship to player behaviours?

McLuhan (1964) argued that through the advent of electric technologies human beings have externalized their central nervous systems, calling this extension of the self “a desperate suicidal autoamputation, as if the central nervous system could no longer depend on the physical organs to be protective buffers against the slings and arrows of outrageous mechanism” (p. 111). Have new digital technologies increased individual anxieties, degraded individual and collective senses of self, and degenerated social bonds and devolved discourse? Drawing upon selected theorists, make an argument for or against digital technologies creating greater individual or cultural anxieties.

“Big Other’s” ecosystem and its blind eye of radical indifference. Assuming that platforms are inevitable and that people are part of this connective culture; how does the relationship between its interdependence and interoperability, which are fundamental to platforms’ strategy, affect collective privacy? Why is this relationship crucial to our “right to the future tense”?

Cultural producers become platform complementors as the winner-take-all orientation and network effects strategy result in a siloed-fenced-garden ecosystem in which standardization is mandatory. How is cultural production being affected by this relationship? How are platforms’ strategies, values, and politics influencing the relationship between cultural producers and their audience? Why might this relation be pivotal to the business and future of platforms?

If you were to design a survey course focusing on the topic of digital content branding, which theorists and readings would you choose and why? How would you structure and develop the course?

How is labour conceptualized and discussed in the academic discourse of Creative Industries? In what ways are issues of social and cultural inequality part of the discourse?

Situate science and technology studies in its historical cultural context. What are the origins, contributing disciplines, and key theorists? How do these overlap with the field of communication studies? What problems have both fields attempted to address?

In museum and archive studies, collecting has been theorized across a wide range of interdisciplinary perspectives. By drawing on relevant theories, trace the diverse approaches for studying the act of collecting, as they relate to dress studies in the museum, the archive, and private collections. Your discussion should speak to the central debates regarding collection and curatorial practices in dress studies.

Outline major theories on the production of space. What is the critical utility of these theories?

What does climate change reveal about the social production of space? How can these revelations be articulated?

With reference to the principal themes, debates, and theoretical issues, define how modesty has been understood in fashion studies and articulate how perspectives on modesty can be challenged from a decolonizing perspective.

Aerial and nonhuman viewpoints in photography is a major precursor to art responding to the Anthropocene. How is the nonhuman viewpoint currently understood in Anthropocene art, and how are artists challenging or reinforcing this approach to making Anthropocene-related art?

Across a selection of ethnographic monographs (Bubandt, Garcia, Biehl), journaled reviews (Bialecki, Bessire & Bond, Robbins), and experimental texts on new ethnography and creative methods (Elliot & Culhane, Pandian & McLean), there emerges a theme of “taking seriously”. For these texts, the concept of “taking seriously” is applied in various ways, and helps form authors’ critiques of traditional and contemporary ways of doing ethnographic theory, data collection, and written form. Describe and compare these uses of “taking seriously” as a conceptual tool, and discuss the historical, methodological, and theoretical critiques they forward. Are these critiques warranted? Contrast work that foregrounds the concept of “taking seriously” with other contemporary ethnographic work that does not in order to show what distinctive insights and/or limitations this foregrounding can generate.

To what extent is the “fresh cookie” conundrum (does the cookie sell more because it is fresh? Or, is it fresh because it sells more?) applicable to social media algorithms? Are automated decision-making tools that inform social media a reflection of social and political structural inequities or vice versa? How are the relationship between biased prejudice and the development of secret algorithms affecting the way people engage in social media? Can we find a solution to the “internet freedom oxymoron”?

How should we understand the work that the audience does in the digital environment?

How does neoliberal ideology in creative economy frameworks exacerbate issues around inclusivity and diversity, both in cultural participation and in cultural production?

Describe how the methods used to study communication and emotion in humans can be leveraged for the study of social robots.

Design a queer inclusive toolkit to tackle queer exclusivity and exclusive policies. In the toolkit, refer to academic literature, theorists, and scholars in the field to support your document. Consider the impact the toolkit will have (e.g., metrics and measurement of its use and success). How will you ensure that the toolkit supports your intention? 

What are some of the implications of queer inclusive/exclusive policies for the lived experiences of queer athletes? How do these implications shift or change depending on given sport spaces?

Explain how intersectionality challenges understandings of identity formation in fashion studies and discuss how useful it is as an organizing principle for the study of modest fashion and how it has expanded research in that field.

Much of the theoretical work with intersectionality has been coopted and stripped of its origins in black feminist thought. Drawing from the body of work by black feminists describe the role of social justice and transformation in intersectional research. Discuss how fashion and intersectionality can be grounded in social transformation.

What might it mean to consider if we have entered a ‘post-postfeminist’ moment? In what ways might new “emergent feminisms” (Keller & Ryan, 2019), social justice discourses, and an increased prevalence of intersectionality, all reveal critical gaps in, or reconsiderations of, foundational postfeminist scholarship and its ubiquity within feminist cultural criticisms?

Explore audiences’ emerging capacity to appropriate, reproduce, and circulate celebrity, (their image and persona), within digital culture. How might scholarly consideration of these practices as a ‘remix’ of digital celebrity further illuminate and extend fan studies scholarship on the affective dynamics of participatory culture and fan labour?

Provide a genealogical reading of Black queer and trans documentary cinema. Using select texts from your list, discuss the relevant critical issues and themes.

Endangered life is often used to justify humanitarian media intervention, but what if suffering humanity is both the fuel and outcome of such media representations? Pooja Rangan argues that this vicious circle is the result of immediation, a prevailing documentary ethos that seeks to render human suffering urgent and immediate at all costs. What is the commemorative value and ethics of documentary value in such contexts?

How has the ‘archival turn’ impacted the ways photographs are thought about in archival theory?

In what ways has the centrality of nation state actors in communications governance been displaced by new non-state actors since the emergence of internet communications?

According to some studies, digital representations of a player character can alter behaviour and decision-making in virtual worlds (Yee et al., 2009; Yee & Bailenson, 2007; Fox et al., 2013). Yee et al. (2009) coined the term the Proteus Effect for behavioural changes in game players who selected avatars that differed from their own physical forms. Using your theorists and research evidence, explain how immersive embodiment is said to enhance training, learning and communication. What are the issues with these claims?

Discuss Édouard Glissant’s archipelagic thinking in relation to other postcolonial works on diaspora, racial multiplicity, and cultural syncretism. Can such comparative studies on race illuminate our understanding of ethnicities in relation? 

How has the relationship between Islamic Art, institutions, and their patrons developed in the post-9/11 context? Using an institutional case study, consider the role of funders in developing the narrative of historical and contemporary Islamic Art.

Identify and describe three key influences of communication studies in the formation of science and technology studies.

As a scholarly field, dress studies faces a challenge shared by practice-based approaches of preserving the fashion object, while still allowing these ephemeral materials to be accessed by researchers and the public. How have digital technologies impacted these approaches? Your answer should address the methodological challenges faced by both conservators and curators when incorporating digital methodologies.  

In what ways does bounded rationality affect the optimal decision-making ability of sustainable fashion consumption?

How do key scholarly contributions in girls’ studies contemplate a prevailing social investment in girls; subsequently, how does this literature mediate debates and ideas on the collective anxieties and fixations that surround contemporary girlhood?

Examine different approaches to the body and non-visual senses in visual culture, highlighting complementary and conflicting debates.

“Popular culture is made by the people, not produced by the culture industry.” (Fiske, 1989, pg.24). Discuss the validity of this claim and how it relates to both audience studies and fan cultures.

Using Castells, Dyer-Witheford, and Moody, how does technological change result from and affect relations of labour?

Design an undergraduate course on Black studies. Provide the syllabus and rationalize your choices.

Critical technology scholars work to confront the social, historical, and ideological forces that shape our experiences with and the development of technology. While some authors develop direct explanations or tentative solutions to matters of continuing oppression (Noble, Barlett, Gallon), others provide more abstract critiques. Summarizing and combining abstract discussions and anti-oppressive strategies from critical media and technology studies, develop a critical concept that could be applied to contemporary research contexts.

Who controls the internet? Drawing on readings from across your comps lists, propose a theoretical framework for how we ought to understand power and control in regards to the internet and forward and argument about contemporary power relations.

If according to Ella Shohat and Robert Stam, the postcolonial incorporates multiple chronologies, what are some of the beginnings of postcolonialism and in what ways have these origins been activated and altered function in the global art historical turn?

Compare and contrast how the academic fields of comics studies and fan studies conceptualize and situate audiences/consumers in their fields. Are “audiences,” “consumers,” and “fans” framed differently as subjects in these fields?

Discuss how Stuart Hall’s theories of cultural representation have influenced the field of cultural studies with reference to how subjects are positioned.

Imagine that you have just completed instructing a survey or introductory course exploring intersectionality in sport activism. It is your closing lecture. Explain the important highlights from the class in terms of subjects and knowledge and why you delivered the course in the way that you did. 

With reference to the principal themes, debates, and theoretical and/or methodological issues, define “critical fashion” as an object of study and articulate how Indigenous fashion engages with and challenges the field. 

How are objects discussed and theorized in relation to biography and memory?

If you were to design a course syllabus on “Diversity, Representation and the Comic Form”, what texts and theorists would you choose and why? Describe how you would structure your course in terms of reading assignments and exercises. If you choose to include film examples and case studies, mention those as well.

In the past, audience and fan studies have been criticized for its absence of race and gender interventions. Has scholarship addressed this oversight well enough or have their efforts been tokenized?

How has Visual Studies developed over the last 30 years? Does Visual Studies represent an independent academic discipline or an interdisciplinary field? Does this matter? What are the implications of each for the study of Visual Culture?

Discuss the more contemporary (i.e. post- Cold War) dimensions of the Kashmir crisis, paying particular attention to recent domestic events in India and Pakistan, as well as broader regional and international developments.

Discuss the broad historiography of scholarship on the Kashmir conflict, identifying major issues, schools of thought, prospects for resolution, and the difficulties confronting any scholar dealing with the topic.

How does technological change result from and affect relations of power? (e.g. Fuchs, Kline et al, Terranova)

Discuss the artistic responses to the notion of the Anthropocene in photography and video. What themes, topics, and representational strategies are used to depict the Anthropocene?

How does photography operate at the intersection of personal memory and social history?

As a practice and method, digital ethnography emphasizes multi-modality of interactions as well as a multi-sited approach. How can this approach be used to remedy any shortcomings in traditional ethnographic approaches?

Are digital games empathy machines? How do they differ from other modalities in their ability to produce affective empathy? Engage with selected theorists to make a case for or against games as uniquely capable in creating fellow feeling for another’s lived experience.

Based on the progression and evolution of sustainable fashion, how do you anticipate our understanding of sustainable fashion will evolve in the next 10 years?

How are digital platforms involved in the production of tourism commodities? What dynamics do platforms introduce to the political economy of tourism?

How has girls’ studies scholarship understood the significance of girls’ visibilities and participation in digital culture? How are girls’ emerging contributions in digital media industries, and girls’ production and/or consumption of content in online spaces, analyzed and theorized in this field?

Survey and discuss changes in the field of creative industries, focusing on issues of race and social justice. How does Indigenous cultural sovereignty enter into this discussion? 

What is the impact of major theorists on communication and culture? Using major schools of thought (Frankfurt, Birmingham, and Toronto) discuss the main themes and direction of the literature. 

Examining the research and views of social marginalization, in respect to race, class, and gender, compare theories of how and to what purpose social marginalization occurs, using Ahmed, Butler, Foucault, and Hall.

Explain how actor-network theory describes society’s relationship to technology and other nonhuman actors, and what the significance of nonhuman actors is in conceptualizing technological innovation. Discuss critiques of this theory from various scholars’ perspectives.

Describe the ideas and approaches of Manovich, Kittler, Fuller, Kitchin and Dodge, inter alios, the impact of software in society, and how the work of these scholars informs our understanding of the relationship between software and gender.

How has the positionality of colonial privilege been challenged in contemporary acts of commemoration?

Three key concepts developed within critical race, racism, and critical whiteness studies are citizenship, sovereign nationhood, and racializing discourse. Compare, combine, or contrast these concepts and discuss their utility in articulating the social function and constitution of race and racism. 

How has the visual field been theorized as a place where power is constituted? How has that power been countered?

Game play’s vaunted “magic circle” is a space that games create for players to detach themselves from ordinary life and experience problem-solving outside of the constraints of reality (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004; Huizinga, 1950). The magic circle is a protective frame which stands between the player and the real world and it problems. Using your theorists, engage with the concept of a magic circle. Do you believe in the magic circle? Is it a necessary aspect of game play and an element that attracts people to games?

Chart the emergence of research creation and inclusion-based models within curatorial projects in the 21st century, including exhibitions, public programs, and publications. In what ways has durational and collaborative research become a precept in the contemporary field of the curatorial?

An important theoretical, social, and cultural space in modernist studies is the city and the urban landscape. Discuss the figure of the flâneur as a touchstone of urban modernity with reference to specific, relevant theories. Address how issues of gender, race, and class figure in the diverse conceptualizations of this figure. In formulating your argument, consider centrally how diverse theories configure the flâneur vis-à-vis processes of cultural production and consumption.  

Consider how scholars of postfeminism engage with debates surrounding women’s attachment to a culture and media that feminist activism might situate as oppressive, harmful and misogynistic. What theories and frameworks are offered to mediate debates on women’s apparent passivity, complicity, or resistance within this culture, and how can these attachments to hegemonic cultural ideologies be theorized?

How are issues of politics and visual culture related? With specific reference to discussions, theorists, and artists working in the field of visual culture, argue or describe the importance of the political dimension of practices (production and circulation) in visual culture?

Summarize and comment on how structures of power are established and maintained through the division of labour (Althusser, Durkheim, Marx, Thompson, Veblen) 

What lessons are there in Black feminist thought for present-day activism and scholarship?

If you were to design a course focusing on the use of digital technology in art practices, which theorists and readings would you choose and why? How would you structure and develop the course?

Identify and describe some of the limitations that undermine social media’s potential to develop democracy, and explain how computer-mediated communications have the potential to expand the role of the public in political discourses and enhance the democratic process.

Social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube provide users with diverse participatory environments and accessible tools for public communication and political activism. Individuals use social media to try to make their issues known and publicly visible. Explain how these platforms have been used both as a tool to publicize and mobilize political activism and as a tool for law enforcement, propaganda and surveillance.

From the Arab Spring to Occupy Wall Street and Tahrir Square to the Maidan, the mobile phone with its built-in video camera has been an invaluable ally in witnessing and documenting revolution, civil unrest, protests, police brutality, beheadings, and state sanctioned terror in the 21 st century. What are the possibilities and limitations of social media and mobile phones in particular, for witnessing social change?

In the mid to late 20 th century, live “happenings” were a staple of theoretician and performance artist Alan Kaprow wherein by design, the audience became part of the live performances. Similarly, in the early 21 st century, Philip Auslander ascribed the term “liveness” to both the live performance as well as the audience engagement within an environment that directly shaped the relational aesthetic (Bishop) between the audience and the performance/performers. What does the concept of ‘liveness’ add to the concepts of performance, participation and to the documentary form?

Do theories of public communication and political economy adequately account for the “irrational” dimensions of communication such as affective, subjective and emotional? Bringing the work of three or four scholars working in these theories into dialogue with political economy and/or public sphere approaches, reflect on if and how these elements can combine into a singular viable theoretical framework.

Discuss and critique the various understandings of “data” in Human-Robot Interaction, communication, and emotion research.

What insights about power and gender have you gained as a result of examining queer inclusive/exclusive policies? Imagine you are presenting your reflection to a sport governing body or an agency about to embark on writing such a policy. Review the many levels of power, decision making, influence, and beliefs they (governing bodies/agencies) have on policy making and/or stakeholders. 

How can framing and identity affect the way we view sustainable fashion consumption?

How are places defined, and who has the power to define them?

Discuss how consumption can be understood as a system of control, using Debord, Baudrillard, and Veblen.

Deconstruct/analyze the pedagogical role of relationships in black and Indigenous methodologies.

What is the rationale for interdisciplinarity in Human-Robot Interaction/Human Computer Interaction?

Provide an overview and critically discuss research methods currently being applied in Human-Robot Interaction, communication studies, and the expression of human emotion.

Compare and contrast competing definitions of sustainability outside of and within the field of fashion.

What responsibilities does the consumer have in educating themselves about sustainable fashion?

What are tourism commodities? To what extent are tourist destinations commodified spaces?

Trace the genealogy of arts-based, arts-informed, practice-based, multi-modal research, and research creation by exploring the similarities, differences, and tensions between them.

How do fashion exhibitions fit within theories of “new” museology?

How have black and Indigenous methodologies shaped the conversations around knowledge production, consciousness raising and empowerment of communities?

How did the Black press in the 19th and 20th centuries circulate, and for which reasons? How did black women in particular participate in and make use of the Black press?

The use of digital technology in creating artworks has changed art as artefact to art as experience. Explain how interactive art has transformed the nature of audience experience, and how audience engagement assists digital artists in conducting practice-based research to further understand art and its viewers.

Discuss the key barriers to commercial and shipping activities in and around the Arctic Ocean. How is the Canadian Government responding to these barriers, and what does this mean for issues of Arctic sovereignty in Canada? 

The concept of discourse has played a key role in critical race, racism, and critical whiteness studies (Chavez, Lensmire, Bonilla-Silva, Weed, Hanbrink). Some authors have expanded the term with concepts such as “inter-discursivity” (Parsons-Dick) and have implicated discursive means within racialized constructions of law, education, and other institutions (Capers, Alexander, Gillborn, Tallbear, Leonardo, Simpson). Discuss the work that the concept of discourse and its extensions do across varying texts.

What are the main areas of contestation arising from the emergence of Visual Studies, and its study of visual culture, as a separate, distinct field from Art History?

What is it about modern museum logic that amplifies the unruly nature of photographs, and vise-versa?

Using the frameworks and theories of platform studies and media archeology, explore how virtual reality has been positioned as in interface technology throughout its history. What has changed in the contemporary discourse about virtual reality?

How have international exhibitions, from world fairs to biennales, produced the status of the national and the global, since the Great Exhibition of 1851? Include historical and political events that contributed to the development of the curatorial in the 19th century and early 20th century. 

How have theorists, artists and activists theorized artistic practices as forms of resistance? How do these theories apply to the everyday spaces of contemporary digital media? Provide examples of artistic resistance within the field of new media art.

Discuss how intersectionality has challenged theories of identity and embodiment in fashion studies. How has it been used in fashion studies research and research in gender studies that engages with fashion? Discuss the gaps and the next horizon for research that will further advance knowledge in the field of fashion studies. 

Select three moving-image texts from your list and offer a critical reading that comments on how each has chosen to situate Blackness and queerness within its sociocultural landscape. Draw upon the theorists and scholarship from your list in order to support this reading and discuss whether or not it is useful to think of these films/videos in this way.

One of the most significant recent phenomena in visual cultures around the world is the explosion of the selfie culture—the documentation of the self. The selfie culture, with its own visual culture and commemoration, is not only predicated on documenting the everyday and the mundane it can also bear witness to violence, trauma and memory. How does the selfie’s prominence and ubiquity aid in documenting and commemorating visual culture?

Social media platforms rely on user-generated content as the basis of their economic model. What does platform studies tell us about the monetization strategies of social media platforms, and how they shape how content is presented on these platforms?

Discuss Édouard Glissant’s archipelagic thinking in relation to other postcolonial works on diaspora, racial multiplicity, and cultural syncretism. How can such comparative studies on race outline possibilities for transcultural solidarities?

How do different models of networked agency account for distributions of power and causality across large systems?

In his 2011 article “The Object of Fashion: Methodological Approaches to the History of Fashion,” fashion historian Giorgio Riello traces three branches of fashion analysis: the history of dress and costume (focusing on historical and object-based methods), fashion theory or fashion studies (involving a distancing from artefacts), and the material culture of fashion (an interdisciplinary method). Reflecting on Riello’s positionality, how do other scholars understand the field especially the last two streams—fashion theory and fashion studies, as well as the material culture of fashion? More generally, can one really engage the material culture of fashion without any kind of theory, and if so what does that tell us about some understandings of theory?

Imagine that you have just completed instructing a survey or introductory course exploring queer theory and sports. It is your closing lecture. Explain the important highlights from the class in terms of subjects and knowledge and why you delivered the course in the way that you did. 

How have different modes of mobile visuality been theorized, especially around the theme of modernity?

How should we interpret photographs of political violence and armed conflict?

From Jean Rouch to Mike Broomfield, Barbara Kopple to Ngozi Onwurah, Spike Lee to Michael Moore these directors have participated/performed in their documentary films as intentional and/or inadvertent subjects, narrators, directors and crew. How have these documentarians negotiated an expectation for veracity in documentary and to what degree has “performance, race; and spectatorship” (Bruzzi, 2000) factored into the relationship between the story and the audience?

Phillips and Milner (2017) discuss the concept of “ambivalence” as a framework for mapping participatory Internet culture. In the context of their application, what does this use accomplish? Could such a concept be applied or combined with other theories or contexts within critical media & technology studies? If so, provide an example, and discuss advantages or disadvantages of this.

Games scholarship has focused heavily on game design in the last 10+ years, highlighting the need for academics to understand the implications of game design on the interactions players have with technologies. Describe current approaches within HCI and digital game design.

How is cultural production being affected by platforms’ ecosystem? How are the relationships between rationalization, information processing, and reciprocal communication, which are central to the idea of control and platformization, influencing cultural production? Which other aspects related to this techno-economic alignment could also influence the way people produce and consume culture?

Apply historical understandings of presentations of self to digital environments to explore the underlying contributions and gaps of these environments for further consideration.

How are constructs of whiteness and masculinity defined and situated within the fields of critical race theory and gender studies? Discuss how each field intervenes in these forms of social and cultural hegemony.

Discuss the way in which stories told through archives, museums, and exhibitions can be the locations for both the subjugation and the resurgence of marginalized voices. What are some of the key theoretical debates surrounding the marshalling of the exhibition space as a locus for empowerment and positive social change? Formulate an argument regarding the intersection of curatorial practices and diversity. 

There are many voices in queer theory. One could argue that race and eurocentrism are not major features of queer theory. Situate your research in relation to key debates around these issues in the field.

Position yourself and your research in relation to queer theory. Explain the relationship between queer theory and sport and the importance of applying a queer theoretical framework in academic literature/writing on sport-based research. Provide at least one example of existing sport-related research that effectively uses a queer theoretical framework and one example of existing sport-related research that would benefit from a more fulsome application of queer theory.

State and societal apparatuses protect the sartorial privileges of some bodies and mobilize the policing of others. Drawing on literature from gender and fashion studies among others, discuss how fashion reinforces these realities.

With reference to the principal themes, debates, and theoretical and/or methodological issues, define “arts- and media-engaged research” as a method of study and articulate how fashion studies can benefit from and engage with digital storytelling.

What has the role of fashion been in crafting cultural identity and mobilizing the politics of marginalized and oppressed groups? Drawing on literature about Black and queer fashion, among others, discuss how Indigenous makers might use fashion in similar ways. 

How would you structure and develop a survey course focusing on Indigenous resurgence through the fashion and the creative industries? 

Based on current literature, what are the foundational principles of decolonizing methodologies? Describe and analyze examples of decolonizing methodologies with specific methods as they are applied to research on fashion and the creative industries. 

If you were to design a survey course on fashion studies, which theorists and readings would you choose and why?

Who is answerable for these images and what is the ethical responsibility of the image-maker, the spectator, and those represented?

History, memory and photography are intricately connected, yet the study of photographs as evidence in the discipline of history is a relatively recent phenomenon. Discuss the difficulty of analyzing photographs as historical documents, some of the central issues related to the specific ontology of photography, and the manner in which theorists, historians, and artists have approached the study and use of photographs as evidence of the past. Make sure to situate your own perspective, supported by evidence from the texts, within your essay.

Explain the makings of the Canadian nation state and its employment of racialization using the texts on your list.

What are the various ways we can understand the relationship and connections between content creators and their audiences on social media?

 Should the responsibility of educating oneself about the ‘safest’ and most ‘responsible’ garment choice lay with citizens (i.e., consumers) or should the responsibility be on governments to ensure only safe and responsible products are available for citizens to purchase, thus alleviating citizens of the need to become experts on all product categories?

How does intersectionality disrupt, challenge, change the frameworks of arts- and media-engaged research methods in use in fashion studies?

Design a syllabus for the course entitled “Taylor Swift: Celebrity in the Digital Age”, which will aim to illuminate the intersections and convergences between the key arguments and literature in this field. Demonstrate the ways in which the scholarship in the field could be communicated and organized in the structure of an academic course.

How can an understanding of the affordances of digital platforms (e.g., Twitter, Instagram, TikTok) utilized by celebrities and their audiences illuminate the varied ways in which celebrity is understood to operate and circulate affect in digital culture? How might celebrity appear differently according to the structures of these platforms, and how might some platforms facilitate the different types of celebrity explored in the scholarship in this field?

While many theorists in the latter half of the twentieth century have argued that the photographic archive represents a totalizing space that controls and shapes the dissemination of knowledge, recently others have challenged this notion and instead have shown the ability of archives to challenge institutional power. With reference to the principal themes, debates, and theoretical and/or methodological issues, discuss this debate and your own position within it along with reference to specific artists and theorists.

How does Susan Sontag articulate, position, and/or construct the audience in relation to the body in pain in Regarding the Pain of Others? Consider, assess and bring her work into dialogue with other texts from your list.

The technological and digital revolutions of the early 21 st century greatly influenced and impacted the engagement, consumption and commercialization of all media. How does the changing technology impact the nature of community, social networks and public access?

 Authors in critical technology studies have pointed out technology’s tendency to replicate pre-existing systems of racial and gendered oppression in new forms (Nakamura, Noble, Zuckerburg, Gallon). Simultaneously, authors in digital and Internet cultural studies have mapped nuanced potential opportunities for non-normative life or resistance, provided by the affordances of digitally mediated communication (Milner, Phillips & Milner, Boellstorff, Noble, Barnett et al., Khazraee & Novak). Discuss whether and how these seemingly divergent conceptual approaches might be worked together. Do they entail different understandings of digitally mediated communication, or do they together capture its contradictions?

The literatures of the public sphere, political economy, and on communications industry practice give different perspectives on the roles and responsibilities of communication for the public interest. What implications does this have for the way we consider the role of private sector practices in public life?

In what ways has digital ethnography been applied to digital media and games? How has the application of digital ethnography changed the academic framing of digital spaces?

In the field of Cultural Studies, media is the site for both hegemony and resistance. Following this approach, what are the processes and strategies through which racialized cultural producers have displaced Eurocentric media to provide counter-narratives?

What are the gaps in collections of Islamic art, in terms of media, geography, and period? Define these gaps to illustrate the ways in which they systematized collecting practices of Western institutions, from the 1800 to the present?

Describe the relationship between production and consumption in creative economy frameworks. How is consumption situated within a creative economy framework, and how are products valued? Discuss with reference to the comics industry.

What is intersectionality? How does intersectionality operate as a framework in examining the nuances and interconnections in racial and gender inequalities? How are structures of power defined according to critical race theory and gender studies?

Using a communication studies perspective, discuss the role of science and technology studies in contemporary cultural discourses.

Demonstrate how communication theory can be used to explain the relationship between popular culture representations of social robots and their development.

How do STS theories account for the concealment of values and politics within technical designs? To what extent do contemporary software platforms and digital infrastructures extend notions of “the black box”?

Intersectionality is an important framework to include in analyses of sport and activism. Provide an overview of the framework and explain how it can enhance understandings of sports and activism. Incorporate at least one example of existing sport-related research that effectively uses an intersectional framework and one example of existing sport-related research that would benefit from an intersectional framework. 

Should there be one singular global definition of sustainable fashion or allow for multiple definitions that honour pluriverse (pluralism)? Can a definition be established that is fluid and adaptable?

What are the different ways in which consumers can practice sustainable fashion and does the current definition of sustainable fashion encompass all of the ways to be sustainable?

Identify major theoretical perspectives on the relationship between nature and the value form under capitalism.

What is Indigenous land-based education and how can it be applied to fashion and the creative industries? What are the merits of Indigenous pedagogical literature for land-based education, and how can it contribute to decolonization? 

Critically analyze contemporary feminist literature on Muslim women’s agency, representation, and subjectivity and discuss the relevance or limitations of key approaches.

Design an undergraduate course in visual culture. Provide the syllabus and rationalize your choices with reference to the field of visual culture as a whole.

In considering the concept of autonomous technology, scholars have debated the idea of technological development being self-propelling, self-sustaining and following its own independent course. Discuss the theoretical contributions scholars such as Winner, Ellul, Marcuse and Mumford, inter alios have made to the concept of autonomous technology, considering the strengths and limitations of their ideas.

Discuss how scholars have applied the concept of affordances to social media, including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, to different contexts. Use examples of contemporary political activism to demonstrate how affordances in social media have played a major role in enhancing political movements.

In Claiming the Real II (Winston, 2008), the documentary form is seen as an advocate for social justice and an ally of the public. Over its century of evolution, the audiences’ faith in ‘documentary’ films to reveal the truth continues to set it apart from other forms of storytelling media. What constitutes truth in the documentary form?

From the cinema to the gallery, from direct cinema to re-enactment, from citizen journalism to documentary podcasts, ‘documentary’ continues to engage and enrage the public. How has documentary’s ability to influence real and imagined change in the context of the 21 st century shifted in response to digital media?

What are the compatibilities and incompatibilities between the political economy approach and platform studies?

Assuming that people carry values or, as Hofstede named, “mental programs” that are developed, shaped, and influenced by several institutions such as family, schools, and organizations; how is the relationship between the individual and the media being affected by the inevitability of technology? Why is this central to the idea of technological diffusion?

Life is a collection of experiences. How we feel in regard to these experiences is crucial in determining happiness, things we like to do, and people we want to engage with. How is the relationship between attention, reputation, interaction, and co-creation of value influencing engagement in social media? Moreover, why might this association be more harmful to equity-seeking groups?

The task of deciding whom to trust, what to choose, and which ideas to support in the “look-at-me” market is challenging. How is the association of deindividuation, attentional manipulations, automated reputation systems, and electronic engagement affecting our digital experience; hence, making the aforementioned task even harder? How could some communities be privileged over others as an outcome of our digital experience?

How have scholars theorized technological systems as embodiments of ideology and social control? Articulate this debate with reference to the emergence of algorithmic forms of control and governance.

In his study of fashion and semiotics, Roland Barthes argues for an understanding of fashion as a system of signification, even going so far as to see fashion as a form of communication (especially in the case of the language of fashion magazines and fashion photography). For Barthes, there are two modes for understanding the structures of fashion: the first, real clothing, “is burdened with practical consideration (protection, modesty, adornment); the second, represented clothing (through image and text), “which no longer serves to protect, to cover, to adorn, but at most to signify protection, modesty, or adornment.” (8). Discuss Barthes’ two versions of fashion in relation to specific examples of material culture objects and in conversation with more recent feminist theoretical frameworks of fashion.   

In his essay “The Painter of Modern Life” (1863), French poet Charles Baudelaire provides an influential definition of modernity, describing it as “the ephemeral, the fugitive, the contingent, the half of art whose other half is the eternal and the immutable” (13). What are some of the arguments in modernist studies that support or contest Baudelaire’s understanding of modernity? By reflecting also on the more recent focus on “modernisms” in the plural, how do these concepts shine a light on the current critical inquires of cultural production and consumption in a diversity of “modern” contexts? 

How does the literature on activism and intersectionality in sport apply to fields outside of academia? Discuss how academic and non-academic approaches can work together to lead to social change.  

How is sustainable fashion consumption susceptible to mental accounting?

How does analysis of stereotypes about gender in Islam contribute to understanding contemporary “cultural imperialism”? Discuss at least two examples from your bibliography.

Updated February 2022.

PhD Qualifying Exams

The requirements for the PhD program in Mathematics have changed for students who enter the program starting in Autumn 2023 and later. 

Requirements for the Qualifying Exams

Students who entered the program prior to autumn 2023.

To qualify for the Ph.D. in Mathematics, students must pass two examinations: one in algebra and one in real analysis. 

Students who entered the program in Autumn 2023 or later

To qualify for the Ph.D. in Mathematics, students must choose and pass examinations in two of the following four areas: 

• real analysis
• geometry and topology
• applied mathematics

The exams each consist of two parts. Students are given three hours for each part.

Topics Covered on the Exams:

• Algebra Syllabus
• Real Analysis Syllabus
• Geometry and Topology Syllabus
• Applied Mathematics Syllabus

Check out some Past and Practice Qualifying Exams to assist your studying.

Because some students have already taken graduate courses as undergraduates, incoming graduate students are allowed to take either or both of the exams in the autumn. If they pass either or both of the exams, they thereby fulfill the requirement in those subjects. However, they are in no way penalized for failing either of the exams.

Students must pass both qualifying exams by the autumn of their second year. Ordinarily first-year students take courses in algebra and real analysis throughout the year to prepare them for the exams. The exams are then taken at the beginning of Spring Quarter. A student who does not pass one or more of the exams at that time is given a second chance in Autumn. 

Students who started in Autumn 2023 and later

Students must choose and pass two out of the four qualifying exams by the autumn of their second year. Students take courses in algebra, real analysis, geometry and topology, and applied math in the autumn and winter quarters of their first year to prepare them for the exams. The exams are taken during the first week of Spring Quarter. A student who does not pass one or more of the exams at that time is given a second chance in Autumn. 

Exam Schedule

Unless otherwise noted, the exams will be held each year according to the following schedule:

Autumn Quarter:  The exams are held during the week prior to the first week of the quarter. Spring Quarter:  The exams are held during the first week of the quarter.

The exams are held over two three-hour blocks. The morning block is 9:30am-12:30pm and the afternoon block is 2:00-5:00pm.

For the start date of the current or future years’ quarters please see the  Academic Calendar

Upcoming Exam Dates

Autumn 2024.

Tuesday, September 17: Applied Math , Room 384I and Algebra , Room 384H

Wednesday, September 18: Real Analysis , Room 384H

Thursday, September 19: Geometry and Topology , Room 384H

Qualifying Exam Presentation

Criteria for success.

• Center you and your qualifications as a researcher.
• Articulate why your research is a valuable contribution to your field.
• Demonstrate critical thinking and maturity regarding your methods and analysis approach.
• Engage in an extended productive technical discussion with the faculty audience about your work.

Message and Purpose

The purpose of the doctoral qualifying exam is to demonstrate that you possess the qualities required to complete the PhD. This includes “mastery of the research discipline coupled with ingenuity and skill in identifying and solving unfamiliar problems” as stated in the Graduate Guide (2020-2021 edition) [ http://meche.mit.edu/sites/default/files/MechE_Grad_Guide.pdf ]. This CommKit article focuses on the presentation portion of the Research Qualifying Exam (RQE) though many of the concepts can be applied to the oral subject exams as well.

You are an essential element of your research talk. Unlike many academic talks you may have given before, the focus extends beyond your results and is more about your capacity as a researcher. In this article we will discuss how you can successfully scope, create and deliver a talk that communicates your abilities.

The audience will be professors in your chosen subject area. They will be familiar with the broader field but not your specific problem. Use best practices of technical communication when introducing your research including: define technical jargon specific to your research, use analogies to explain unfamiliar topics. 

Choosing your topic

Present research that will let you tell a complete story about your qualifications. This may be work from your masters degree at MIT or another school, or it can be preliminary work towards your PhD. If you are in doubt, ask your advisor or other professors in your potential RQE subject if they believe your work is a good fit. This will help ensure you meet the expectations of your audience and present the best case you can. Since the goal of the RQE presentation is to demonstrate your personal qualifications, it is OK if your presentation does not align with your current research (you have committee meetings for that once you pass Quals!)

Use the ‘hourglass’ concept to structure your RQE presentation: start broad to motivate the problem, narrow to specific details in the middle, expand back out to the work’s significance in your field. Spend enough time in the narrow (detailed) part of the hourglass to demonstrate your aptitude as a researcher. 

Typically, these talks are ~20-30 minutes long with ample time for questions. (Time limits can vary year to year so check the Graduate Guide and make sure you meet the current expectation.) Use your time wisely to create a cohesive, logical presentation that does not overwhelm the audience with superfluous information. It is not a race to see how much you can fit into 30 minutes. Be selective in your figures and language and use appropriate redundancy to guide your research narrative. 

Introducing your research

This will be the most general part of your presentation. Clearly explain why the problem is important, what the potential challenges are, and the potential impacts. 

For the RQE presentation it is often more important to highlight the state of the field than it would be in a presentation to your lab group or at a conference of researchers in your subfield. Do not expect the professors in your audience will be familiar with all the nuances of your subfield, or what gap your work is aiming to fill. By articulating how your work fits into the scientific landscape, you show that: 

• you are familiar with current work, 
• you understand what the challenges are in your chosen approach, and 
• your contributions matter to the field.

This sequence of slides concisely and impactfully presents the top of the hourglass, while also emphasizing the researcher’s contributions early on (slide 6). Slide courtesy of Maanasa Bhaat. Fluid Mechanics RQE, Jan 2021.

Methods and results

Place more weight on methods (and less on results) than a conference-style technical presentation. Be sure to spend time presenting your research design and your rationale for any chosen methods. Your methods should be well reasoned and scientifically sound, but after all, this presentation is about you as the person behind the research.

Whether or not you have results to show, you should be able to explain why your results (will) matter. Why is the problem significant in your field? How are your methods going to provide information that is different from what exists already or fills the knowledge gap you identified? Link your results back to your motivation and problem statement.

Highlight your contributions

Highlight your research contributions from the start of the presentation. A “contribution” could address any part of the stated goal for the RQE, demonstrating your:

“mastery of the research discipline coupled with ingenuity and skill in identifying and solving unfamiliar problems”

While publications, presentations and patents are external signals of your achievements, there may be other examples that meet this goal as well. If you are light on formal academic credentials so far in your research, alternative achievements might include: collaborations you have led with other labs, competitive awards you have received, experimental set-ups that you created or (yet) unpublished results. Be selective with non-traditional achievements, though, as this is a presentation not a resume review.

Get comfortable using the word “I” instead of “we.” Unlike most technical presentations, in the RQE you will be presenting on behalf of yourself only, not your research group. Be truthful about what parts of the research you did not do, but use “I” at every opportunity it is appropriate.

Consider ‘bookending’ your presentation with a single slide summary of your contributions at the start and end. At the start, this allows you to clearly differentiate where previous work ends and your ingenuity begins. For any collaborative efforts, clearly identify what you did. At the end of your presentation, conclude with your goals in mind. It may be useful to have your final slide to reiterate your contributions (instead of thanking the audience or asking for questions). Given that the goal of the RQE is to show your research qualifications, repeating the information as the final slide will complete the narrative you told throughout your presentation.

A final slide showing your contributions lets you highlight publications, patents, and/or awards while also reminding the audience what you have covered and prompting questions. Slide courtesy of Victor Prost. Machine Design RQE, Jan 2018.

The supplemental materials linked at the bottom of this page have additional annotated RQE slides from all areas of the hourglass.

Visual Presentation

See the full MechE CommKit article on Technical Presentations ( https://mitcommlab.mit.edu/meche/commkit/technical-presentation/ ) and Virtual Presentations ( https://mitcommlab.mit.edu/meche/commkit/virtual-presentations/ ) for more details.  This slideshow presentation [ http://www.writing.engr.psu.edu/speaking/rethinking_psu.pdf ] from Pennsylvania State University’s writing center has additional visuals as well.

Improve clarity of your message by…

Providing a clear structure for your presentation

“Visual signposting” and slide consistency will make the information easier to digest. A visual signpost is a way for you to remind your audience what point you are making, and remind them where in the presentation you are. Tools such as a visual outline or progress bar in the slide header/footer can be used for this purpose. Visual outlines (with queue images or diagrams) can also be a good way to reiterate your key contributions!

Throughout your slides, follow a clear format. For example: try to use a consistent slide template and highlight key results with the same color or placement on the slides. These strategies will allow the audience to focus on your message without the distraction of decoding each slide format individually. 

A progress bar keeps your audience anchored in the sequence of your presentation. This outline also calls out four specific areas the researcher will address later. Slide courtesy of Hilary Johnson. Machine Design RQE, May 2018.

Take a look at the supplemental information linked at the bottom of this article for some annotated examples!

Including one ‘claim’ per slide

This claim can often be used as your title. Avoid introducing a concept, method, plot and key result all in one place. Ask yourself what the most important (single sentence) take away is from a given slide, and have the rest of the slide support the claim. Evidence to support the claim should be succinct text or a visual. 

The first slide of this pairing introduces the audience to the context, variables and coordinate systems present within the problem. The results are presented on a second slide and the conclusion has a (literal) ‘big red box’ around it to focus the audience even more. Slide courtesy of Rashed Al-Rashed. Structures RQE, Jan 2018.

Maximizing the signal-to-noise ratio

Many slides can be improved by cutting out visual distractions. Removing text is one way to reduce noise. If you have too many written words, your audience may entirely ignore what you are saying to them! 

The example below is from the CommKit article on Technical Presentations ( https://mitcommlab.mit.edu/meche/commkit/technical-presentation/ ). Notice the elements discussed above as you look over these slides. 

Quite a few elements make this slide pairing successful, including: 1) a single claim is introduced as the title of each slide. 2) Signal to noise is maximised by presenting an expected trend to introduce a concept before presenting ‘messier’ real data. 3) The layout and format are consistent between the first slide (introducing the *type* of data collected) and the second (with messier, real data). 4) The key finding on the second slide is highlighted in red.

Apply these principles to figures too

Figures are a visual way to support the claims, evidence and reasoning you present verbally.

Align your figure message to one of the motivating areas of the RQE: your ability to perform significant research into previously unknown topics. 

While figures in a journal article may include many concepts at once, figures used in a presentation should support your narrative and overall message. A figure can be used to show a gap, a significant achievement, or a new way of thinking. Which purpose does each figure you have included fulfill?

Consider schematic representations

Extraneous details in photographs can distract from the main takeaway of the visual. Consider the signal you are trying to send with a given diagram, and what parts of it may just be noise .

(The metaphor of “signal-to-noise ratio” comes from Jean-luc Doumont’s book Trees, Maps, and Theorems .)

Photographs can show your creativity or expertise in setting up experiments. By contrast, diagrams can emphasise the flow of information (eg power, light, data) and individual components. Comparison courtesy of Jungki Song.

See the full MechE CommKit article on Figure Design here ( https://mitcommlab.mit.edu/meche/commkit/figure-design/ ) 

Oral Delivery

Anticipating and fielding questions.

The question and answer portion of the Qualifying exam presentation is almost as long as the presentation itself. There is no way to know exactly what you will be asked but you can prepare and practice strategies to respond effectively. And remember, detailed questions are a good thing – they mean the audience was interested and paid attention to the details.

Think about your audience

Tailor your talk to the professors you know will be in the room, but don’t go overboard. Do not try to ‘game’ the audience by presenting only what you think certain professors would like to see. You will present yourself best if you present a genuine and comprehensive story about the work you have done. 

However, be prepared for a range of questions in the discussion portion. Think about your research in the context of frameworks and methods used throughout your field as professors may ask you about this. Does Professor X apply machine learning in your domain? You may want to prepare a back up slide with your assumptions or initial conditions for the models you used. Is Professor Y an experimentalist and you presented mainly theory? Maybe anticipate a question on how your research could transfer into experiments. 

Actively listen to questions you are asked

Listen to the whole question before starting to respond. Avoid preemptively flipping through your slide deck while the person is still posing their question as this might cause you to miss what they are really asking.

Check your body language, eye contact, etc. Direct your attention to the person posing the question both physically and with your ears.

Be empathetic and listen for what the questioner is really asking. For example: before answering a detailed question that seems unrelated, consider if you presented your problem formulation clearly enough. Perhaps the questioning is really indicating they missed a more fundamental piece of information in your presentation. Reflecting on and understanding the intent of a question can also be achieved through structuring your responses…

Structuring your responses

Ideally, the question and answer portion of the presentation should flow naturally as a very engaging conversation between you and the professors in the audience. For some people this will come easily, but for others it might be a daunting task in the moment. Framing each response with the four steps outlined here can help you slow down and answer any question with composure and clarity. First, verify that you understand the question topic/intent. Next, pause and think. Consider what you will say before you start rambling without purpose. A shorter, more concise answer will often go further in demonstrating your understanding than a longer answer. Once you respond, follow up with the person who asked the question to confirm you have answered it. Repeat this cycle as often as necessary.

The framework of verifying the question, reflecting before you begin to speak and then responding appropriately will often create a natural dialogue with productive follow up conversation between you and the audience. 

This flow works in many circumstances.

• Clarify the intention of the question.
• Rephrase what was asked in your own words.
• Consider if the question is meant to stretch you beyond the scope of your work, or whether it is to test your depth of knowledge.
• Identify the most important aspects or alternatives.
• Articulate why it is out of scope for your research (if it is).
• Say true things and be honest about your limits.
• Identify the specific area of disagreement: is it a method? A calculated result? An interpretation of your data?
• Think about why they believe it is wrong or could have been done better.
• Present your counter reasoning. 
• Consider and discuss if this could be an alternate path forward in your research.

Questions may come up during your presentation as well. If you think you will answer the professor’s question in a few slides, this framework can still be useful. Acknowledge the question when you are asked but defer it with something like: “I believe I will answer that shortly. Do you mind waiting until then?” Once you think you’ve answered their question, go back and verify that your response was sufficient. They might have a follow up question, or you may need to start the four step cycle of responding again. 

Expect to be asked questions you don’t know the answer to. Practice a graceful and thoughtful way to say you don’t know. In your ‘thinking pause’ decide what tactic you will take in replying: you could reason through something on the spot (this will show you are considering their question), or return to the knowledge gap you identified and why you believe the question is out of scope, or use the question as a springboard to discuss future work. Whatever you choose, do not try to make it seem like you know something you do not. Professors are very good at seeing through this, and that will likely cost you more points than not knowing.  

Delivery should enhance the message

Amplify signal and reduce noise

To make your message come across clearly, stick to a concise “claim, evidence, reason’ structure throughout your presentation. Link new information to previous information verbally. Be mindful to not ‘over talk’ as this may distract your audience from the message you are trying to convey. Don’t put more on your slides than you plan to talk about, this is noise.

Not only what you say, but how you say it

Be aware of your normal speech patterns and how they might change the way your audience receives the message. For example, how many different ways can you say the word “seriously” so that you convey a different message each time? In the context of the RQE presentation, consider the following: 

• Volume and tone that places emphasis on key points 
• Pacing (often slowing down) to give your audience time to digest important points 
• Diction , especially for key technical terms (e.g. from the author, how do you really say ‘ Poiseuille flow’?)
• Inflection to place questions and emphasis where you intend (avoiding persistent upspeak)
• Physical movement can be distracting if overblown. Pacing, talking with your hands, and rocking can be useful ways to handle presentation anxiety, but overdoing any of them may cause your audience to lose focus on your message.

Everyone has a unique presentation style. The more you practice presenting to peers (or CommLab fellows!) the better you will be able to isolate your presentation style from ticks that others may find distracting. 

COVID note: Also take a look at the Virtual Presentations CommKit article ( https://mitcommlab.mit.edu/meche/commkit/virtual-presentations/ )  for specific advice relevant to all virtual presentations. 

Enjoyed what you learned here and want more? Make an appointment with a CommLab Fellow today! Fellows go through training in written, visual, and oral communication and will be able to work with you on any of the topics discussed in this article. 

Resources and Annotated Examples

Roadmap summary examples, visual formatting examples.

Ph.D. Qualifying Examination

The Qualifying Examination is an important checkpoint meant to show that you are on a promising research track toward the Ph.D. degree. It is a University examination, administered by the Graduate Council, with the specific purpose of demonstrating that “the student is clearly an expert in those areas of the discipline that have been specified for the examination, and that they can, in all likelihood, design and produce an acceptable dissertation.” Despite such rigid criteria, faculty examiners recognize that the level of expertise expected is that appropriate for a 3rd-year graduate student who may be only in the early stages of a research project.

See campus policies about the Qualifying Exam.

Professor Ali Javey and Professor John Wawrzynek have made available useful information for students planning to take the Qualifying Exam. See slides  (Calnet authentication is required).

• For students entering Fall 2003 or later, the Qualifying Examination must be taken within 6 semesters of starting the program
• you need a total of at least four members on your committee
• at least three of the members must be regular UC Berkeley faculty that are members of the Academic Senate
• your advisor(s) cannot be the Chair
• One member must be from outside the EECS Department (As of spring 2020, the outside member can be a UCB faculty member with no more than 0% appointment in EECS, or a faculty member or distinguished researcher from another institution.  To request an off-campus person to be the outside member, students must request an exception by submitting an EECS Non-Senate Committee Request Form , including the person’s CV, to their staff advisor for review with the Head Graduate Advisor. )
• Apply online through  Calcentral under your “Dashboard”. On the right-hand side for “Student Resources”, students will see an option to Submit a Form for Higher Degree committees. Choose the option for the Qualifying exam application.
• Department Qualifying Exam Application
• Completed and advisor-approved White Card
• You must be registered the semester the exam is given. Summer quals are OK if you are registered the previous Spring or the following Fall semester.
• The prelim requirements (which include passing the oral exam and completing the prelim breadth course requirements) must be completed before a student is eligible to take the Qualifying exam. However, it is not required that all the coursework (e.g., the courses listed in the major and minors) be completed before taking the Qualifying exam.
• Students take quals, format A or B , within 6 semesters of starting the EECS graduate program. Format A : Research area survey, directions, evidence of research ability. Format B : Research area survey, directions, thesis proposal defense.
• Students passing only Format A for quals must also do a satisfactory thesis proposal defense within 10 semesters after matriculation.
• In the unfortunate case that a student does fail the qualifying exam twice, per the Graduate Division’s policy, a third attempt is not permissible. The student will not be eligible to continue in the doctoral program and may be dismissed.

In This Section

• Qual Eligibility
• Qual Deadlines
• Qual Committee
• Qual Format
• Applications for the Qualifying Exam
• Advancement to Candidacy
• Thesis Proposal Defense and Application

Ph.D. Student Guide

• Ph.D. Coursework
• Ph.D. Oral Exam
• Ph.D. Breadth Requirement
• Ph.D. Blue Card
• Ph.D. Applications for the Qualifying Exam
• Ph.D. White Card
• Ph.D. Advancement to Candidacy
• Ph.D. Thesis Proposal Defense and Application
• Ph.D. Qual Eligibility
• Ph.D. Qual Committee
• Ph.D. Qual Format
• Ph.D. Teaching Requirement
• Ph.D. Dissertation Filing Fee
• Giving the Ph.D. Dissertation Talk
• Ph.D. Dissertation Filing Procedure
• Ph.D. Technical Report Submission
• Ph.D. Graduate Division Surveys
• Ph.D. Commencement
• Ph.D. Diploma and Transcript
• Ph.D. Student Review Instructions
• Ph.D. Student Review Forms
• Ph.D. Student Review Frequently Asked Questions

Grad school can be a challenging time

We are here to help

• Blogs In-depth articles covering every aspect of scholarly communications
• Other Resources Explore a wealth of free academic research and publishing resources 
• Reporting Research Effective and best strategies for reporting research findings and insights.
• Publishing Research Guides on the scholarly publishing process, from manuscript preparation to journal submission.
• Promoting Research Increase your research impact – reach wider audiences, boost citations, and maximize influence
• Diversity and Inclusion Addressing challenges, sharing best practices, and highlighting initiatives promoting diversity and inclusion.
• Industry News Stay ahead of the curve with the latest developments, policies and trends in research publication

Qualifying Exam Statement Samples

My first year of the PhD program in philosophy at Penn State University has been very fruitful and intellectually stimulating. Coming from a completely different system, based on (almost) exclusively front-style lessons and oral examinations, I was at first confronted with the task of learning how to write a paper, as well as how to appropriately participate in class discussion. Considering the development and results of my first year of study, I am both satisfied with the progresses made so far and deeply aware of the several steps I still need to take in order to achieve a stable position as a professional scholar. First and foremost, I have to learn a method to individuate those philosophical questions and themes that underlie different philosophical movements and authors without either confounding or reducing them, hence situating such themes and questions in their respective contexts.

In the first semester, my research focused on Kant’s practical philosophy, Peirce’s pragmatic conception of reality, and the theoretical relevance of Levinas’ philosophical proposal as it is developed in Totality and Infinity. In the second semester, I inquired into the problem of soul’s divisibility in Aristotle’s De Anima, Irigaray’s perspective on sexual difference, and the relevance of the last chapter of Voice and Phenomenon for Derrida’s general philosophical project (as such project was developed in that early masterpiece).

With the only exception of Peirce (and, to a minor degree, of Kant and Derrida), I have chosen my classes and the related research topics with the intention of acquiring some initial familiarity with authors and problems that were extraneous to my previous knowledge. In part, this is the reason why I often found myself hesitant at intervening in class discussion. On the other hand, I am aware that I need to risk more, taking advantage of classes not only as an opportunity to study certain important texts, but also to develop my rhetorical skills and put my ideas to the test of others’ reflections. As to my writing, considering that only two years ago I was not able to write a text message in English, I am satisfied of the progresses I made so far. However, I would like to develop a richer style of writing, broadening my vocabulary as well my knowledge of sentence-structures. Most importantly, the past year was very instructive in this respect inasmuch as it made me realize that I need to develop a more precise timeline for the completion of my final assignments, starting to work on them earlier in the semester and taking the time to revise them more than once.

Regarding my future direction of study, I am still quite undecided as to what particular line of research I shall purse. I would like to frame a research project that could somehow include the work of different authors prominent between the end of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth. In particular I have in mind philosophers like Peirce, James, Royce, Bergson, Blondel, Husserl and Scheler, with respect to their philosophical contribution to questions on subjectivity, selfhood, rationality, the nature of truth and reality, methods of pursuing and attaining knowledge, the relation between action and knowledge, self-knowledge, desire, affectivity and personal fulfillment. But I am also interested in investigating those motivations that brought philosophers like Levinas and Derrida, among others, to overcome that (epistemological-metaphysical) paradigm of thought which the aforementioned authors are often said to a-critically accept and reproduce. Before putting myself on a more precise road of inquiry, however, I want to take advantage of my second year of classes to make the acquaintance with certain authors and movements that I have not yet had the occasion to examine. In particular, I am thinking to the philosophical revolution introduced by Wittgenstein (and the important influence he had upon contemporary mainstream analytic philosophy) and the existential phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty.

While my actual horizon of interests is too broad for it not to result extremely vague and fragmented, I do have a precise (though still confused) question that guide my studies, namely: what is the nature of that kind of “reason” that, before determining itself as theoretical or practical, contemplative or instrumental, etc., “perceives” those ethical and esthetic ideals that guide our daily life and in relation to which we establish ourselves as self-conscious, human subjects? While this question situates itself in the general perspective of a philosophical anthropology, its immediate implication calls for the development of a phenomenological analysis of the normative structure of rationality, especially of that aspect of reason that our philosophical tradition has always called the “will”.

I am more and more persuaded that the department to which I am proud to belong as a graduate student represents an excellent ground for the clarification, development and elaboration of my aforementioned philosophical interests. At the beginning of the second year of my PhD, I look forward to progress toward an always-greater personal and philosophical maturation.

I. Academic Progress

In my first year in the doctoral program in Philosophy at The Pennsylvania State University, I discovered many of my strengths and weaknesses and areas for future research by paying attention to the success and failure of my work. For instance, my first attempt at writing the paper for Dr. Bernasconi’s Medieval Ethics seminar revealed both the paper’s lack of focus and my lack of knowledge in certain topic-relevant areas. To make up for the lack of knowledge, I researched my paper topic independently. This research taught me that I must learn to recognize what my argument needs to be successful and how I can use my research to provide that support. Currently, I have a hard time recognizing when an argument is complete and persuasive. Specifically, I am often unsure what needs to be said and what can be left out. As a result, my papers tend to contain both superfluous material and incomplete arguments. To make up for the paper’s lack of focus, I reorganized the paper as a response to one of my sources. I learned in this process that I can write a more engaging and pertinent scholarly essay by responding to recent work on a topic that I also find philosophically interesting. However, this essay was not successful in the end for two reasons: one, I did not understand the genre well enough to present a compelling response and two, I did not leave myself enough time to reorganize the entire paper effectively. These two reasons mark two more areas for improvement: one, I need to learn how to write this kind of essay so that it is more focused, argumentatively sound, and persuasive and two, I need to manage my time to identify possible weaknesses in my paper sooner.

The strengths and weaknesses revealed writing for Dr. Schmidt’s and Dr. Bowman’s Hegel seminars differ from those discussed above. For each course, I wrote 5, 5 to 8 page papers throughout the semester. I consider my short essay titled “Individuality Real In and For Itself’s Criterion of Truth and Its Initial Failure in the Work” for Dr. Bowman’s seminar to be my first year’s strongest essay. It is my strongest because it achieves the task of being at once exegetical and interpretive, it is the most well-organized and well-argued, and it shows a nuanced attention to the text. However, there are certain paragraphs with messy argumentation and clunky sentences. The essay also lacks development of its theme in relation to the larger movement of Hegel’s text. This is a weakness that many of my shorter papers share. I would like to develop themes or arguments in the light of the text as a whole and, if possible, in the light of their historical development, particularly when I’m writing for a course in an intended AOS or AOC.

II. Research Trajectory and Future Coursework

After my first year at Penn State, I plan to develop my knowledge of German Idealism an contemporary French philosophy in order to claim both as an AOS. Concerning an AOS in German Idealism, I began a profile for this area by taking Dr. Schmidt’s, Dr. Bowman’s, and Dr. Mensch’s seminars on Kant and Hegel in my first year. My profile for an AOS in contemporary French philosophy began with Dr. Lawlor’s Foucault seminar. In the coming fall, I plan to take Dr. Bernasconi’s Nietzsche seminar, Dr. Colapietro’s Wittgenstein seminar, and Dr. Schmidt’s Heidegger seminar. Outside of their own philosophical contributions, Nietzsche’s, Heidegger’s and Wittgenstein’s critiques of their German idealist predecessors and their influence on 20th century French philosophers such as Derrida, Foucault, and Deleuze (and 20th century philosophy generally) makes their work crucial areas of study for me.

In both of these historical areas, my topical interests concern their metaphysical and ontological claims. For example, I am interested in how Hegel responds to and criticizes claims to knowledge of immediacy as well as claims of a substance-accident model of objective reality in the Sense-Certainty and Perception sections of the Phenomenology, respectively. I am also interested in how the metaphysical commitments of these thinkers require them to formulate consistent political and ethical positions. For example, Kant’s transcendental idealism allows him to distinguish between transcendental and empirical freedom, so while he can argue that theoretically freedom and nature are compatible, he must also design a conception of politics that reconciles our innate freedom with the fact that our external manifestations of this freedom impede and limit the free actions of others.

Dr. Christman’s Social Contract Theory seminar in the spring of 2011 led me to consider an AOC in both social/political philosophy and ethics. Here I am concerned with the concepts of rights and agency and with arguments that attempt to establish their grounds. Dr. Christman’s and Dr. Bernasconi’s seminars last year, and Dr. Clark-Miller’s course on feminist ethics in the coming fall, will hopefully establish a strong foundation for such concentration. In addition to my philosophical interest in all of these areas, I hope that both my Areas of Specialization and my Areas of Concentration will make for an attractive and marketable research and teaching portfolio. However, I am aware that this trajectory is still quite vague. I believe this is because I have not had the time to become familiar with the ins and outs of these areas’ respective discourses. I see these areas of specialization and concentration as my general interests in which I hope to develop specific research agendas as I continue my education in the doctoral program at Penn State.

Ph.D. Qualifying Exam Forms

The Ph.D. Qualifying Exam Form includes required documentation of your Ph.D. qualifying exam as well as a program-specific qualifying exam assessment.

Select the Qualifying Exam form for your Ph.D. program

Qualifying Exam

The Qualifying Exam is an important part of the process of admission to candidacy. The oral exam seeks to give the student an opportunity to exhibit a broad knowledge of physics and an in-depth understanding of a particular area of physics that is not the one of their thesis research. The student should exhibit command of the material, an ability to extract the essential elements of a relatively recent development in physics, and the capacity to present this material to an audience of general professionals in a way that demonstrates their expertise.  It is required that students schedule the exam for the Winter or Spring quarter of their second year. To learn more about the exam, please review the policy (below):

2023-2024 Qualifying Exam Policy

2023-2024 Qualifying Exam Topic Submission Form

2023-2024 Qualifying Exam Action Items

Qualifying Exam Previously Approved Topics

2023-2024 Qualifying Exam Evaluation Form

Qualifying Exam FAQs

How many basic physics questions will I be expected to answer?

Questions will generally be related to the topic presented, but they may stray far from the initial discussion, depending on the circumstances, as commonly happens in a good physics discussion. This may be the result of an unsatisfactory answer to a previous question or may simply arise from questions from a committee member.

What are the committee members looking for in my talk?

We are generally looking for a clear description of the paper's key result and the basic physics behind it. While the main emphasis is on the science, a clear and crisp exposition will generally help the candidate. Note that while most of the exam clearly relates to the topic of your choice, you will need to know enough to provide context and make connections with a broader  range of  physics.  The presentation should be lecture/expository style, at a level accessible to any physicist. So start at the advanced undergraduate level and develop the explanation as fully as you can in the time available. You may be asked questions, both during and after the exam, on both the particular result being presented and on related topics.  The questions may be at any level, but good responses to foundational-level questions are most important. On-your feet thinking is encouraged and reasonable discussion of specialist-level questions might be considered a stretch goal.

How closely can the selected topic be to our current research?

You should identify a research topic from a field of interest to you that is also close to the forefront of current research. However, the topic cannot be in the same broad area of research as your intended research work. To clarify this point, you are required to identify your area of research as one of the four areas in the table below and select your topic from one of the remaining three:

How long should my presentation be?

One should expect the exam to last roughly 90 minutes (try to reserve a 2-hour block with your committee). The candidate should plan to talk for 45 minutes, leaving the remaining time for questions from the committee and a closed session. 

Who is on the Examination Committee?

The examination committee for an oral exam will ordinarily consist of three faculty members. One of tthese will be chosen from the members of the Qual Exam Committee (QEC). Ordinarily, all three oral exam committee members will be faculty within the Physics Department, Applied Physics, or SLAC (PPA and Photon Science), but exceptions may occur for special reasons, as decided by the QEC. After approval, the student must contact the assigned committee and schedule the examination – this is often the most difficult part of the whole process, so ask your committee early (and often!).

Are there any examples of past topics that have been approved by the committee?

Please see this table of  APPROVED TOPICS  for examples of topics that have been approved.

Can I choose a topic similar to that chosen in prior years? What if two students in a given year choose the same topic?

There is no prohibition against a student choosing a topic that was covered in a previous year or that happens to have been chosen during the current year by another student but it is recommended that you do not pick a topic directly from the previously approved topics list. Students must work independently; i.e there should be no contact or collaboration in preparing for the exam with other grad students. One exception is that students may give practice presentations to other students, and seek presentation advice as a consequence of those practice runs.

I'm interested in topic X. Who can I talk to to ensure that this is acceptable for an exam?

We can't pre-judge exam topic proposals. Please take a look at the descriptive materials and make the best judgment that you can as to whether the topic is appropriate and sufficiently far from your PhD research area/style. Prepare and submit your proposal. If your proposal is evaluated as not meeting requirements, you will be given a chance to chose and prepare an alternate topic.

Department of Educational Administration

• Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education
• M.A. in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education
• M.A. in Student Affairs Administration

Ph.D. in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education

• Ed.D. Leadership for Equity-Minded Change in Postsecondary Education
• All Graduate Programs
• Center for Higher & Adult Education
• HALE Graduate Research Colloquium
• HALE Faculty Research
• HALE Dissertation Abstracts
• K-12 Educational Administration
• Master of Arts in K-12 Educational Administration
• Ed.D. in Educational Leadership
• Ph.D. in K-12 Educational Administration
• Urban Education Graduate Certificate
• Certification Pathway
• K-12 Graduate Research Colloquium
• K-12 Admin Faculty Research
• K-12 Admin Dissertation Abstracts
• University Council for Educational Administration
• Education Policy Doctoral Program
• Economics of Education
• Education Policy Forum
• Education Policy Innovation Collaborative
• Green and Write Blog
• Faculty Research
• Dissertation Abstracts
• Graduate Student Conference Support
• Erickson Chair
• Raines Colloquium
• Focus on Urban Education
• International
• Featherstone Society
• Student Forms & Policies
• Funding & Scholarships
• Faculty Resources
• Requirements
• HALE MA MEDIA
• Handbook & Forms
• Funding Opportunities for SAA MA Students
• Our Students
• Experiences
• Teaching Opportunities
• What to Expect
• Certificate Completion Requirements
• State Authorization
• Additional Resources
• CENTER FOR HIGHER & ADULT EDUCATION

Doctoral Comprehensive Exam Sample Essays

Part One of the HALE Doctoral Comprehensive Exam is a written exam designed as an opportunity for students to demonstrate the integration of knowledge of topics, issues, and resources in postsecondary education reflecting successful completion of the HALE Core Curriculum.  For more information on the HALE Comprehensive Exam, please visit the  HALE Program Handbook , under the Program Requirements and Policies section. 

Two essay samples of Part One follow:  

Part One examples:

• PhD Comprehensive Exam, Part One, Sample One
• PhD Comprehensive Exam, Part One, Sample Two
• PhD Comprehensive Exam, Part One, Sample Three
• PhD Comprehensive Exam, Part One, Sample Four