what is phd candidacy exam

How to succeed in the Ph.D. candidacy exam

Worrying about your Ph.D. candidacy exam (prelim)?

Been there, and here to help!

I will cover everything from what candidacy is and what a first-year grad student should focus on, to what to do on the day of your oral exam.

It’s an exam. Get ready to study 🙂

Make sure to visit your school’s official website and look up the candidacy requirements for your specific graduate program.

Here, I share my personal experience and guideline, having completed my Ph.D. candidacy in Physics at Ohio State University.

What is the Ph.D. candidacy exam?

6-week formal exam required by the graduate school, advisor/committee chooses a topic, typically not something you have worked on, but good for you to know.

You do a literature review, some calculations and become a mini-expert on the assigned topic

Deliverables: 20 page paper (at the end of 4 weeks) + Talk (at the end of 6 weeks)

The talk / oral exam makes students nervous because they can be asked any question from the assigned topic and in-context Physics during the talk.

In my program, this talk is given only to the candidacy committee. In other programs, the talk may even be open to the public.

If you are a first-year graduate student

Focus on finding a good Ph.D. advisor

Professor with whom you feel relatively comfortable

To interact with regularly and ask questions

Has research money OR ability to get TA support

Has project ideas that interest you

Yes, in that order

If you are a second-year graduate student

Hopefully, you have found a good Ph.D. advisor. If not, keep looking or get out of the program!

There are plenty of other things you can be doing.

A Ph.D. is not worth doing unless you have found a good match for a Ph.D. advisor.

And, usually, you take the candidacy exam with the professor you hope to get your Ph.D. from so… don’t worry about candidacy until you have found your match.

Personally, I found my match for a Ph.D. advisor in the fourth group I tried out in grad school.

This delayed my candidacy by a *few months*, which is really not a big deal.

Your Ph.D. candidacy exam committee

Usually comprises 4 professors as follows:

1. Advisor: you choose this person (say experimentalist)

2. In-field experimentalist, advisor recommends this person

3. In-field theorist, advisor recommends this person

4. Out-of-field professor, you choose this person

For your out-of-field, choose someone you are relatively comfortable with. Ideally, a professor who would have loved to be your advisor – the next best thing is to be on your committee.

It is important to foster good professional relationships with multiple professors in your department, not just your advisor.

Since I worked with multiple professors in the department and maintained great professional relationships with all of them, most of my committee ended up being professors I had directly worked with at some point.

Candidacy is hard work either way but familiarity with your committee members can definitely make the process seem less scary.

TIME IT RIGHT

Professors are BUSY

Ask them to be on your committee ~4 months in advance

Schedule your exam on a day and time that works well for you – this is YOUR Ph.D. candidacy exam.

Make sure your oral exam is on your committee members’ schedules

If a committee member is a hard-to-get professor such as Chair of the department, talk to their assistant for scheduling and don’t rest until he/she has your exam on the professor’s schedule!

ONCE YOU GET THE TOPIC REMEMBER YOU ARE NOT ALONE

The Ph.D. candidacy exam is not meant to be a solo journey, so don’t make it one.

You will need help and so get ready to ASK FOR HELP. 

Ask clarification from your advisor/committee on the topic – What are their expectations? Broadly, what outline should your paper follow?

Communicate profusely with your advisor/committee.

They picked the topic, they want to see you are interested in it – Ask away, they will tell you when they cannot tell you something.

FIND THE LOCAL EXPERT!

Your candidacy topic is not something you have worked on directly – but someone else in the department probably has.

Find that person!

Ask around if needed…

There has to be a professor, or a postdoc, or a senior grad…

Someone that will know the literature on this topic way better than you.

Meet with the local expert, take their suggestions

START WORKING ON YOUR PAPER ON WEEK 1

Don’t wait till week 3, start writing or at least making notes as you are reading. You will read a LOT during candidacy but everything you read will be NEW. Something you read during week 1, you might forget during week 2.

So, write it down!

Make notes, flashcards, whatever works for you, but find a way to easily revisit the things you have read and noted to be important or have questions about or want to include in your paper.

It is when you revisit a point and think about it again or differently that you really learn it.

Personally, I had a go at the literature and made a list of all the things I did not understand or had questions about. Then, I attacked this list and slowly went through and looked up or worked out everything I did not know.

When I went to meet with my local expert I already had topics I wanted to go over with him. I met with him on the first day for about 2 hours and over the course of my candidacy may be total 3 hours.

You will be surprised how much you can learn from an expert even in a few hours!

So, don’t forget to track down the expert on your topic!

GET EARLY AND REGULAR FEEDBACK ON THE PAPER

If your advisor/committee members like to give a lot of feedback, then that feedback flow needs to start in week 1, not week 3. Or, it will be very overwhelming.

Most students are worse scientific writers than they think. So it is essential to incorporate your advisor + group’s feedback into your paper to make it better. You can also catch mistakes in your conceptual understanding by asking for feedback.

You might think you know something well but you will be surprised by how many misconceptions you might have about the work that your research group does.

During the Ph.D. candidacy exam is when you clarify these things and learn them for good!

GIVE A PRACTICE TALK

Schedule it a week before your real talk

Invite everyone in the department (at least some will come)

It’s going to be brutal

Have someone else take notes

Make note of all weaknesses and gaps in your knowledge

AFTER THE PRACTICE TALK, STUDY STUDY STUDY

It’s OK, no one does well on their practice talk – Go home and cry! Watch Jane the Virgin.

But then, STUDY

Study topics you were shaky on / didn’t know

This last week you learn the MOST

Now that you know more, you will know how little you know

If you are feeling beyond nervous, tell yourself to fake it till you make it

Remember the idea is to make your committee feel confident that you are ready to be a Ph.D. candidate.

Get to the exam early — get familiar with the room, whiteboards, set up your talk.

During the exam – station yourself near a whiteboard, do NOT try to hide behind your talk.

No crutches allowed!

You won’t always have an immediate answer to their questions.

You will have to work it out on the board.

So, show that you are a professional and willing to work it out!

Having the right attitude goes a long way

Be very respectful, alert, and attentive.

Your committee wants you to succeed. Failing you will inconvenience them!

If you get stuck/flustered under questioning they might throw you a lifeline – recognize, utilize, and move on!

Carry a water bottle.

My Ph.D. candidacy oral exam was exactly 2 hours.

Good to stay hydrated. Good to breathe. You can do this!

Good luck and let me know any questions in the comments!!

You might like this post .

How to actually finish your PhD in a timely manner

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• October 2023
• September 2023
• February 2023
• January 2023
• September 2022
• August 2022
• January 2022
• December 2021
• October 2021
• September 2021
• August 2021
• February 2021
• January 2021
• December 2020
• November 2020
• October 2020
• September 2020
• August 2020
• January 2020
• December 2019
• November 2019
• October 2019
• September 2019
• August 2019
• February 2019
• January 2019
• December 2018
• November 2018
• October 2018
• September 2018
• August 2018
• January 2018

• Majors & Careers
• Online Grad School
• Preparing For Grad School
• Student Life

PhD Candidate vs Student: What’s the Difference?

Many people use the terms “PhD student” and “PhD candidate” interchangeably. However, these terms actually mean something quite different, including a different status level at universities.

We’re here to define the differences between a PhD candidate vs student, as well as other essential information, before you continue your educational journey.

Table of Contents

What I s a PhD student?

A doctoral student is anyone who is enrolled in a doctorate degree, also referred to as a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) program. PhD students are typically required to complete a certain number of course credits and sit qualifying exams. Next, they can move on to conduct research and present it in the form of a dissertation.

A PhD is centered around self-directed research and possibly teaching/running tutorials, but they typically also involve a substantial amount of coursework and require attending classes, either online or in person.

Unlike candidates, PhD students are in the process of completing the required coursework for the degree. They haven’t passed the relevant qualifying exams yet.

What Is a PhD Candidate?

A PhD candidate has completed the required coursework and passed the qualifying exams for their doctorate program. They are currently working on their dissertation.

Most PhD students need to go through an application process  and show they meet certain requirements such as a relevant master’s degree . To become a PhD candidate, doctoral students need to pass an internal application process, typically involving a set of exams.

This stage involves significant research usually in innovative areas and incorporating this into a dissertation (this stage is sometimes referred to as “all but dissertation” [ABD]), as they’ve completed all other aspects of the program and satisfied these requirements. To complete their doctoral journey, a PhD candidate must defend their dissertation. Once they’ve successfully done this, they will be awarded their degree and move from PhD candidate to doctor of their chosen field.

PhD Candidate vs Student: 6 Key Differences

There are a number of key differences between a PhD student vs PhD candidate, from their status to the structure and nature of study.

Note: Some universities have recently started adopting hybrid approaches (where there is no clear difference between PhD students and PhD candidates). These programs don’t involve any qualifying exams and students typically begin the dissertation as part of their coursework. Most schools, however, continue with the traditional distinction between a PhD candidate and PhD student.

1. Program Stage

A PhD student could be at any stage of the doctoral program . Coursework still needs to be completed and qualifying exams must be passed. Students may be in the initial stage of the program or about to complete the coursework (before beginning their research).

On the other hand, a PhD candidate has completed all coursework and has at least started their research. They may have completed their dissertation and are preparing to defend it.

2. Research Progress

A PhD student may not have selected their research topic or settled on a particular research question. A candidate’s research is in progress and they should already have a clear research question.

3. Relationship with Advisors

A PhD student may not yet have an advisor. A candidate has an established working relationship with their advisor and works closely with them to complete their research and dissertation.

4. Level of Support

Although they work closely with an advisor, a PhD candidate is generally expected to work more independently than a student enrolled in a doctoral student. Once candidates reach this stage of their doctorate, they typically won’t receive as much direction or supervision.

5. Flexibility and Structure

Understandably, PhD candidates have more freedom and flexibility in their work. Most candidates choose their area of research, as well as the methods used to conduct their work. As part of their coursework, PhD students usually have to work within a set structure (e.g., completing core subjects, meeting deadlines).

Being a PhD candidate comes with a certain degree of status. If they’ve demonstrated a degree of expertise through completing qualifying exams, candidates can put the letters PhD(c) after their name.

Tips for PhD Candidates

A PhD is an advanced degree designed to demonstrate expertise in a given field, as well as high-level skills and abilities in various areas (including research and writing). As such, earning a doctorate can be a challenging process.

The following tips for doctoral candidates will help you put your best foot forward and set yourself up for success.

Stay Organized

Because PhD candidates have to balance many competing priorities, organization is essential. Using organizational tools such as calendars,  note-taking apps , and project management software can help you keep track of deadlines and meet your targets.

Focus on Your Research

PhD candidates likely have busy schedules with plenty of demands (such as teaching commitments and crafting a dissertation). As it’s the backbone of any doctoral program, be sure to prioritize this part of your work and monitor progress to stay on track.

Actively Seek Out Feedback

Because PhD candidates often work independently, there’s a risk of feeling isolated. Ask your advisors, mentors, and fellow candidates for feedback and advice. This will help ensure that you’re considering all aspects of your research question and multiple solutions, rather than focusing too intensely on a single area.

Take Advantage of Networking Opportunities

Networking is one of the biggest benefits for PhD candidates, so take full advantage of these events. Use this time to build a strong network of professors, advisors, fellow candidates, and other professionals you meet at conferences and events.

Take Care of Yourself

A PhD program can be taxing, and it’s easy for your mental and physical health to take a backseat. Make sure you exercise, eat well, and get enough sleep . Remember: Resting and recharging is crucial for working on your dissertation.

How Long Is a Typical PhD Candidacy?

Most PhD students require 1-2 years to complete their coursework and pass their qualifying exams. However, the length of a PhD candidacy is much more open. In most cases, programs take between two and five years, depending on:

• the complexity of the field of research
• the candidate’s other commitments, such as teaching load
• other abilities, such as a candidate’s level of organization.

Once a PhD candidate has completed their dissertation, they have to defend it successfully before a panel of faculty members before they can earn their doctorate degree. This process of defending a PhD dissertation can take several months.

Some universities specify a maximum length for PhD candidacy duration. For example, Carnegie Mellon University limits this to six years .

Benefits of Being a PhD Candidate

Being a PhD candidate can be rewarding for several reasons:

1. Research Opportunities

You’ll be exposed to vast research opportunities in your field. You may contribute to valuable discoveries while developing advanced knowledge and skills.

2. Networking

Through your PhD candidacy, you’ll also be in a great position to build gain a stronger network of fellow professionals.

3. Critical Thinking

A PhD candidacy can help you develop high intellectual independence and critical thinking skills.

4. Career Opportunitie s

A PhD is an advanced degree that allows you to build a rewarding career in the academic, government, and private sectors. PhD-holders can also expect to earn more than other graduates and are most likely to find a job.

5. Salaries

According to Northeastern University , professionals with a doctorate degree earn an average annual salary of $99,290 on average (and much more for the highest-paid PhDs ) and have a 1.5% unemployment rate. For master’s degree holders, the average annual salary is $81,867 average annual salary and a 2.6% unemployment rate.

6. Personal Fulfillment

Being a PhD candidate can help you pursue your passions. This advanced qualification will allow you to become a specialist in your chosen field, allowing you to hone in on the exact subject thatl fulfills you the most.

Qualifying Exams to Become a PhD Candidate

While requirements vary by program, to become a PhD candidate, most students will need to pass a set of exams. These will test students’ knowledge in the field, measure their research skills, and ensure they’re ready to start their dissertation research.

Traditionally, qualifying exams for PhD candidates involved a written test and an oral exam. These will cover a range of topics related to your field of study, with the oral component designed to demonstrate your level of understanding.

Some universities have recently started to issue doctoral students with a set of questions and have them submit the answers within a set timeframe (usually around two weeks). Other schools ask prospective doctoral candidates to submit a dissertation proposal instead of an exam.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a phd candidate be called a doctor.

In most cases, a doctoral candidate cannot be called a doctor until after they successfully defend their dissertation and receive their doctorate.

Can I Put ‘PhD Candidate’ after My Name?

Once you’ve passed qualifying exams and embarked on dissertation research, you’re technically entitled to put “PhD candidate” or “PhD (c)” after your name. However, this is uncommon and not always recommended. It is generally more acceptable to mention that you are pursuing a doctorate (along with the field of research and university) or that you expect to complete your PhD in a certain year (on your CV and online profiles).

How Long Can You Be a PhD Candidate?

There isn’t a set length of time that a person can be a PhD candidate. The length of candidacy depends on a range of factors, including the subject of research and program requirements. Most PhD candidates complete this phase in around 3-5 years (where some university programs have set limits).

Do PhD Students Take Classes?

Yes, most PhD students must take classes and complete coursework as part of the first 1-2 years of their doctorate program. Once they’ve completed this coursework and passed qualifying exams, they move on to work on their research dissertation. At this stage, they’ll be considered a PhD candidate.

Key Takeaways

Now that you know the differences between PhD candidates vs. students, you’ve got a deeper understanding of how to obtain a doctorate. However you slice it, both will help you build your knowledge and skills to become an expert in your field.

However the program is structured, a PhD is a highly valuable degree that allows you to become a high-level professional and build a successful career.

If you know a PhD candidate who’s celebrating their accomplishments soon? Take a look at this guide to the best PhD graduation gifts .

• 10 Best PhD Programs in Pennsylvania
• Top 10 Best PhD in Cybersecurity Online Programs
• 10 Top PhD Programs in Chemistry
• The Top 10 Easiest PhDs: Tuition, Duration, and Financial Aid
• Top 10 Fully Funded PhD Programs and Universities
• Top 10 Best PhD in Medicine Programs

Lisa Marlin

Lisa is a full-time writer specializing in career advice, further education, and personal development. She works from all over the world, and when not writing you'll find her hiking, practicing yoga, or enjoying a glass of Malbec.

• Lisa Marlin https://blog.thegradcafe.com/author/lisa-marlin/ 12 Best Laptops for Computer Science Students
• Lisa Marlin https://blog.thegradcafe.com/author/lisa-marlin/ ACBSP Vs AACSB: Which Business Program Accreditations is Better?
• Lisa Marlin https://blog.thegradcafe.com/author/lisa-marlin/ BA vs BS: What You Need to Know [2024 Guide]
• Lisa Marlin https://blog.thegradcafe.com/author/lisa-marlin/ The 19 Best MBA Scholarships to Apply for [2024-2025]

Should You Take Work Advice From TikTok?

Today’s graduates are in a “perkcession” – here’s what that means, related posts.

• Breaking Records: Yale Sees Most Selective Grad Admissions Season Yet

• 12 Best Laptops for Computer Science Students

• Is a Master’s Degree Worth It? [2024 Guide]

Graduate Certificate vs Degree: What’s the Difference? [2024 Guide]

What is a Good GRE Score?

BA vs BS: What You Need to Know [2024 Guide]

Today's Graduates Are In A "Perkcession" - Here's What That Means

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Recent Posts

• Applying to Big Tech This Year? Here’s How to Ace It.
• 73% of job seekers believe a degree is needed for a well-paying role–but is it?

© 2023 TheGradCafe.com All rights reserved

• Partner With Us
• Results Search
• Submit Your Results
• Write For Us

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Search Ohio State

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

9.1 candidacy overview.

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

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

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

9.2 Composition of the Candidacy Examination Committee

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

9.3 Identifying Candidacy Committee Members

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

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

With BMEGSC permission, a petition can be made to the Graduate School to include additional members. In some cases, it may work well to add unofficial non-voting members to the dissertation committee instead. Clinical faculty and external researchers commonly serve on dissertation committees. See GSH for petition details.

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

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

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

Adherence to a standard grant format (e.g., NIH R-21 or NSF format) as selected by the Candidacy Examination committee is suggested. The candidate will provide the proposal to his/her research advisor at least three full weeks prior to the oral portion of the candidacy exam. The advisor or student is responsible for distributing the proposal to the candidacy examination committee, who will evaluate the quality of the proposal and determine if the student has satisfactorily completed this condition.

9.5 Written Candidacy Examination

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

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

9.6 Oral Candidacy Examination

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

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

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

9.7 Candidacy Results

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

9.8 Candidacy Processes

It is the student's responsibility, with the approval of the advisor, to contact all examiners on the candidacy committee and schedule the candidacy examination. When the date and time for the oral examination are arranged, students may schedule a room for a 2-hour block of time in BME or elsewhere on campus if it is more convenient for the committee. (Under normal circumstances, a teleconferenced exam would require a petition; due to COVID 19, all exams are currently required to be teleconferenced via Zoom so no petitions are needed unless for external members.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9.9 Post-Candidacy and Continuous Enrollment

All students who successfully complete the doctoral candidacy examination will be required to be enrolled in every term of their candidacy (summer excluded) until graduation. Students must be enrolled for at least 3 credits per semester. More than 3 credits may be taken, only with written permission of the research supervisor and funding source . It ultimately will be the responsibility of each student to ensure that they are meeting the enrollment provisions of the continuous enrollment policy. For more information, review the GSH. Before registering for the next term, students should complete the BME assessment post-candidacy survey and remind their Candidacy Committee members to do the same. (Contact the graduate studies coordinator for the survey at [email protected] .)

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

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

WORK BACKWARDS TO PLAN CANDIDACY: Sample timeline using random dates

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

If the Oral Examination is planned for Nov 27:

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

A sample timeline might look like this: Oral Exam – Nov 27 Written 4 due – Nov 20 Written 3 due – Nov 18 Written 2 due – Nov 16 Written 1 due – Nov 14 Start Written 1 – Nov 13

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

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

6 Effective Tips on How to Ace Your PhD Qualifying Exam

It’s probably not your first day at the university and you are still exploring the campus, determining which place would be your “nook”. Just as you do, you find a place to sit and it then feels surreal as you reminisce, “How did I get here?”—from determining your areas of interest for research to finding the university that offers a suitable program, from drafting personal statements to finally receiving the acceptance letter. And as you are looking into oblivion surrounded by these thoughts, you feel content and just as you breathe a sigh of relief, you hear muttering sounds from some students passing by. What do you hear? — “…something…something…Qualifying exam!”. And that’s when reality strikes you! Although you are in the program now, you must prove your candidacy for it by passing the PhD qualifying exam.

Table of Contents

What is a PhD Qualifying Exam?

In simpler words, a PhD qualifying exam is one of the requirements that determine whether or not the PhD student has successfully completed the first phase of the program and if they should be recommended for admission to candidacy for PhD. It is also referred to as the PhD candidacy exam and is probably one of the most arduous times for doctoral students. Furthermore, it is imperative for all doctoral students to prove their preparedness and capabilities to apply and synthesize the skills and knowledge during the graduate program by appearing for the qualifying exam. An integral part of the qualifying examination is a research proposal submitted to the examining committee at least two weeks before the examination.

What is the Purpose of a PhD Qualifying Exam?

A PhD student is someone who enrolls in a doctoral degree program. Typically, a PhD program requires students to complete a certain number of credits in coursework and successfully pass qualifying exams, which is followed by the dissertation writing and defense. The purpose of a PhD qualifying exam is to evaluate whether the student has adequate knowledge of the discipline and whether the student is eligible of conducting original research .

This qualifying exam is a bridge that transforms a PhD student into a PhD candidate. The difference between a PhD student and a PhD candidate is that the student is still working through the coursework and is yet to begin the dissertation process, and thus do not qualify to present and defend their dissertation to receive their doctorate. This period of transition means there is no more coursework to complete or classes to take; it is a self-defined structure of work from now with guidance from your supervisors at regular intervals.

What is the Format of the PhD Qualifying Exam?

Just as no two research projects can be alike, so cannot the qualifying exams for two different students. Thus, rather than asking your seniors about the questions that they were asked, a better approach is to understand the format and the process of the qualifying exam.

Typically, a PhD qualifying exam is conducted in two phases: a written exam and an oral exam.

1. Written Qualifying Exam

After completing your coursework, the written qualifying exam is the first one that you must take. The aim of this exam is to assess your ability to incorporate your learnings from all of the different classes you took in the program to formulate research questions and solve your research problems. Ideally, each of your committee members will test you separately on this.

2. Oral Qualifying Exam

The oral qualifying exam is undertaken after completion of the written part. Its purpose is to evaluate your thought process and ability to conduct the research required to complete a PhD . Additionally, some universities require you to present your research proposal and defend it during your oral qualifying exam.

During the oral exam, each professor from your committee will ask few questions related to your research proposal and your answers from the written exam. Sometimes, the committee members may also ask you to draw your answers on the board, especially if it’s an equation, a molecular structure, mechanism, or a diagram.

4 Possible Outcomes of the Qualifying Exam

“what if i fail my qualifying exam”- the petrifying thought.

Though this is the rarest situation that PhD students face,  its possibility cannot be neglected. While the final result is based on what your committee members decide, they often give you a chance to retake the exam and meet certain conditions. However, if you fail the exam by unanimous decision of all committee members who oppose you from taking the reexam, you may have to leave the program and opt for another field of study or university.

But why should you be worried? You’ve got these nifty tips to crack your PhD qualifying exam!

Tips to Ace the PhD Qualifying Exam

Don’t you want to excel at your qualifying exam? Here are some things you should know!

1. Know Your Qualifying Exam Committee

• Identify the area of expertise of each committee member.
• Consult your seniors and other grad students who have worked with them and are currently working with them or have taken classes from them, or best—have had them for their own qualifying exam.
• Try to anticipate the pattern of their questions they are likely to follow and prepare your answers accordingly. However, do not spend too much time on this. It is likely, that your research proposal may give rise to a different line of questioning.

2. Know Your Subject

• Hit the library and stay updated with recent research in your field.
• Acquaint yourself with knowledge of your subject matter, as that’s what you’ll be tested on the most.

3. Know What is Expected of You

• Schedule a meeting with your committee members in advance, at least twice before appearing for your qualifying exam.
• Initiate a conversation about what you are expected to cover for the exam.
• Be an attentive listener and make note of their points as they speak.
• Ask them relevant questions so that you don’t get back to your room with doubts.

4. Know Your Plan

• Start with managing your time
• Organize your data and start writing the research proposal .
• Do not overcommit. Allot yourself 1–2 months of intense studying prior to the exam to master all the background and general knowledge you may need.
• Make your notes including textual as well as graphical content for quick revision.
• Request your supervisor or seniors to quiz you and critique your presentation. Work optimistically on their constructive suggestions.

5. Know the Challenges

• Presenting your proposal may at times be quite daunting. Hence, practice giving mock presentations during lab meetings or even in front of your mirror.
• Be prepared for technical as well as analytical questions.

  6. Know the Do’s and Avoid the Don’ts

• While presenting, follow a narrative approach to keep the committee interested in your research.
• Explain your research briefly and add details as you are asked.
• Don’t overwhelm the examining committee with irrelevant details.
• Ensure that it’s a stimulating discussion among peers.
• Dress professionally and stay composed.
• More importantly, take a good night’s sleep before your exam day.

Final Thoughts

As my research advisor would say, “There’s only one step that keeps you away or brings you closer to your goal. It’s for you to choose the direction!” Similarly, the PhD qualifying exam is that one step you take to reach closer to the hallowed status of “Doctor”. So follow these nifty tips and share them with your friends and colleagues for we know what the future of research holds for us. Let us know the challenges you faced while preparing for your qualifying exam. How was it different from the experiences of your colleagues? You can also visit our  Q&A forum  for frequently asked questions related to different aspects of research writing and publishing answered by our team that comprises subject-matter experts, eminent researchers, and publication experts.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for data interpretation

In research, choosing the right approach to understand data is crucial for deriving meaningful insights.…

Comparing Cross Sectional and Longitudinal Studies: 5 steps for choosing the right approach

The process of choosing the right research design can put ourselves at the crossroads of…

• Career Corner

Unlocking the Power of Networking in Academic Conferences

Embarking on your first academic conference experience? Fear not, we got you covered! Academic conferences…

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

Research recommendations play a crucial role in guiding scholars and researchers toward fruitful avenues of…

• AI in Academia

Disclosing the Use of Generative AI: Best practices for authors in manuscript preparation

The rapid proliferation of generative and other AI-based tools in research writing has ignited an…

Intersectionality in Academia: Dealing with diverse perspectives

Meritocracy and Diversity in Science: Increasing inclusivity in STEM education

Avoiding the AI Trap: Pitfalls of relying on ChatGPT for PhD applications

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

• Undergraduate
• Master’s
• CBE Research Areas
• Centers + Institutes
• Shared Facilities
• Faculty Labs
• Graduate Group
• Undergraduate Research
• Open Faculty Positions
• Overview + Welcome
• Visiting CBE
• Make a Gift
• Current Students
• Ph.D. Candidacy Examination

Ph.D. Candidacy Examination: Submission and Defense of the Dissertation Proposal

To be eligible for the Ph.D. Candidacy exam, a student must have passed the Qualifications Evaluation and be in good academic standing. All Ph.D. students should defend their dissertation by the end of the fall semester of their third year of graduate studies.

Step 1: Getting Started - Registration for Your Dissertation Proposal

Before the third year, each student and advisor should identify a dissertation research topic, select potential committee members, and develop a timeline for their Dissertation Proposal by the end of the fall semester of their third year of study. All students must formally register for the Dissertation Proposal Candidacy Exam (access registration form here) by the end of the fifth semester of graduate study. If the student took a leave of absence during their studies or believes he/she may have other extenuating circumstances, contact the Graduate Program Coordinator so that a timeline to defend the proposal can be determined based on individual circumstances.

Step 2: Registration Review - Committee Approval and Appointment of Chair

The Graduate Group Chair will review the topic, committee members, and timeline proposed on the registration form. After reviewing your registration and committee recommendations, the Graduate Group Chair will appoint your Dissertation Committee Chair. Changes or additions to the committee require the approval of the Graduate Group Chair.

Guidelines for Selecting your Committee

Dissertation Committee Composition:

• The committee shall be composed of 4 faculty members (including the advisor) and approved by the CBE Graduate Group Chair. In special circumstances, an additional member may be added, subject to the approval of the Graduate Group Chair. Appointment of committee members who are not part of Penn faculty requires details of their full title, affiliation, and a short biographical sketch.
• The dissertation advisor is an ex officio member of the committee.
• Three committee members must have full-time Standing or Research faculty appointments at Penn.
• Two committee members must be members of the CBE Graduate Group.
• One committee member must hold a doctorate in an Engineering discipline or a highly quantitative subject (e.g. math, physics), AND/OR is a Primary Faculty member in a School of Engineering and Applied Science Department.
• One member (who meets the criteria listed below) is recommended as Chair by the advisor and must be approved by the CBE Graduate Group Chair

Responsibilities of the Dissertation Committee Chair:

• At every stage, verify that the dissertation meets the CBE requirements for rigorous engineering and Chemical and Biomolecular science content. Discuss any concerns in this regard with the student and advisor, and contact the CBE Graduate Group Chair when concerns arise.
• Ensure that the content and tone of the proposal defense, annual committee meetings, and dissertation defense meeting are constructive for the student and advisor. If the student and advisor have difficulty in scheduling meetings in a timely manner, the Committee Chair will contact the CBE Graduate Group Chair to recommend the replacement of committee members with limited availability.
• At each meeting of the committee, review the student’s course planning guide and transcript (provided by the student) to ensure the student is meeting CBE course requirements in a timely manner. Inform the advisor and Graduate Group Chair of any concerns, and include committee recommendations for additional coursework in the official meeting report.
• At each meeting of the committee, ensure that proper forms are completed with comments to the student, signed by all members of the committee, and submitted to the Graduate Group Coordinator (Ken Lambert)

Qualifications of the Dissertation Committee Chair (must satisfy all criteria):

• Is a member of the CBE Graduate Group
• Is a member of the Standing Faculty of the University of Pennsylvania
• Has served as a member or advisor on the proposal defense of at least one University of Pennsylvania CBE dissertation committee previously (Preferred).

Step 3: Write your proposal - and have your advisor read, edit and approve it.

The advisor must approve the dissertation proposal before it can be distributed to the committee. The dissertation proposal is based on the NIH application format and should have the following sections:

• Cover page including title, student and advisor name and contact information,
• Table of Contents, Abstract (<1 page),
• The Specific Aims section states the specific objectives of the research proposed (e.g., to test a stated hypothesis, create a novel design, solve a specific problem, challenge an existing paradigm or clinical practice, address a critical barrier to progress in the field, or develop new technology).
•  The Research Strategy section includes subsections: Significance (e.g. importance of the problem and how the project will improve scientific knowledge, technical capability), Innovation (e.g. methods, instrumentation, theories, etc.), and Approach (overall strategy, methods and analyses, as well as preliminary data, potential problems and alternative strategies).  This format emphasizes the scientific and technical merit of the proposed studies, with less emphasis on preliminary data.
• There is a 13-page limit, single-spaced with a minimum font size of 11, excluding the Cover Page, Table of Contents, Abstract, and References.

Step 4: Schedule the Dissertation Proposal Date & Location

Concurrent with the final stages of writing, the student should schedule a date for the examination, allowing a minimum of two weeks for the proposal to be reviewed by the committee. The student should copy his/her advisor on all correspondence with committee members. To facilitate rapid convergence on convenient meeting time and dates, students should find 5-7 dates/times that work for the student and advisor, and use meeting planner websites (e.g. www.doodle.com, www.surveymonkey.com, when2meet) to help schedule the exam. If the student has continued difficulty scheduling an exam due to an unresponsive committee member, he/she should inform the advisor for help. If the member is non-responsive for more than a week, do not hesitate to contact the Graduate Program Coordinator or Graduate Group Chair to expedite the scheduling of the oral exam.

When the student has finalized a date, they must inform the Graduate Program Coordinator. Meeting rooms can be reserved through the SEAS Room Reservation Request Form . If a student needs assistance reserving a room he/she should contact the Graduate Program Coordinator.

• The student should send an email to all committee members with confirmation of the date and meeting place.
• The student will send a reminder to all committee members of the time and place of the examination one week before the meeting.
• The Graduate Group Chair and Graduate Program Coordinator should be copied on the reminder, which can be distributed by e-mail.
• The student must also prepare and bring the proper paperwork for the proposal meeting. This includes a CPG, updated transcripts, and the Acceptance of Dissertation Proposal Form found online.

If there is a need to change the meeting time of the presentation the student must confirm these changes with committee members and make sure that everyone is agreeable to the change. The student must also inform the Graduate Program Coordinator and the Graduate Group Chair of any changes that are made.

Step 5: The Oral Dissertation Proposal

The Oral Presentation period of the dissertation proposal should last approximately 45 minutes and will be followed by a question-answer period of similar length. Adjustments may be made concerning the length of the presentation and subsequent discussion based on committee discretion, but the student should tailor the presentation roughly to these guidelines. The exam room should be reserved for two and a half hours to also allow the committee time for evaluation and discussion. The committee chair will report the recommendations to the Graduate Group Chair on the form provided by the student. The Acceptance of Dissertation Proposal form can be found online.

All committee members must be present at the oral presentation. If a member of the committee is unable to attend, the student must obtain approval from the committee chair and Graduate Group Chair to proceed with the proposal. In this case, the absent member will be required to send comments to the Committee Chair two days before the presentation. At the Committee Chair’s discretion, these comments or questions may be used during the exam to test the candidate’s knowledge of the subject area.

The dissertation advisor is an ex-officio member of the committee and should always be present at the examination and all meetings of the committee. However, the advisor must allow the student to demonstrate their knowledge and command of the subject on their own and will be recognized by the committee chair only to clarify issues when requested by a committee member.

Step 6: Feedback from the Dissertation Proposal

The student may be informed orally on the outcome of the dissertation proposal following the examination. Written confirmation of the outcome will follow after the Committee Chair returns the examination approval form to the Graduate Program Coordinator. The committee may request revisions to the proposal, accept it as is, or fail the student. The dissertation committee must accept the proposal before the student advances to Candidacy.

NOTE:  Students who have not defended their dissertation proposal and passed their Candidacy Exam by the end of the Fall semester of their 3rd year of graduate studies must petition to the Graduate Group Chair for an extension. The petition should explain why a proposal was not submitted and provide a schedule for submission. The University regulations state that the maximum time limit for a student to “Advance to Candidacy” is five years, after which time the student will be dropped from the rolls. Dissertation proposals must be defended and approved at least 12 months before the Doctoral Dissertation is submitted. The Graduate Group Chair will not accept a Doctoral Dissertation before this period has passed.

University of South Florida

College of Education

Tampa | St. Petersburg | Sarasota-Manatee

Main Navigation

Graduate student resources, qualifying exam and doctoral candidacy, doctoral qualifying exam.

The purpose of the Doctoral Qualifying Examination is to evaluate a doctoral student's ability to apply and synthesize the skills and knowledge acquired during graduate study. This exam is an important benchmark in a doctoral student's progress towards candidacy. Doctoral Qualifying Exams can take multiple formats, and every doctoral program will have a list of exam options available for its students. The Qualifying Exam is required for all doctoral students (in both Ph.D. and Ed.D. programs). All students will have two (2) attempts at passing the qualifying exam. If the student fails on both attempts, they will be dismissed from their program and the College of Education.

Qualifying Exam Options

College wide.

The College Wide exam option is taken over the course of three days (typically Monday through Wednesday) from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm. Please see the "Current Qualifying Exam Schedule" link in the Exam Application section below for the current academic year's exam dates. Each student's supervisory committee will provide three days' worth of written exam questions covering the student's work in their program specialization area, cognate area, and the educational foundations area. The Major Professor will submit the exam questions to the Graduate Support Office at least one week prior to the College Wide exam date.

All students who chose the College Wide exam option will be invited to a College Wide Exam course in Canvas after the clearance process is completed. Once you join the Canvas course, you will be instructed to install the Honorlock proctoring extension and take a practice test to ensure that Honorlock is working properly. Students will have three quizzes assigned to them within the course, one for each day and question of the exam. Each day, students will complete one question of the exam through Honorlock and submit their answers in a Microsoft Word document to the Canvas page. 

Program Specific

There are four Program Specific exam options available within the College of Education. All Program Specific exams are administered independently by the program or department offering them rather than through the Graduate Support Office. The four exam options are listed below:

• Program Administered Comprehensive 3 Day Exam
• Catalyst for Dissertation
• Scholarly Paper for Journal Submission
• A Scholarly Portfolio

Students who wish to complete a Program Specific exam should meet with their Major Professor to discuss the different formats available to them. The Qualifying Exam application will also provide more details about each exam option available in your chosen program. Your Major Professor and/or committee will provide specific details on potential exam dates, testing locations, and the timeline for completion once you have been cleared to take the exam. Some exam formats, like the Program-Administered exam, may take place around the same time as the College Wide exam; other formats, such as the portfolio project or catalyst for dissertation, will be completed throughout the course of an entire semester.

Qualifying Exam Eligibility

The Graduate Support Office recommends that all doctoral students meet with their Major Professor and supervisory committee one semester prior to the semester they plan to take the Qualifying Exam. This allows time to determine if the student is completely ready to take the Qualifying Exam and to complete any missing paperwork (planned program, Committee Appointment forms, course transfers or substitutions, etc.) and/or coursework.

All students, regardless of the exam option chosen, must meet the eligibility criteria listed below to apply for and take the Qualifying Exam:

• Must have an approved Planned Program of Study on file in the Graduate Support Office.
• Must have an approved Advanced Graduate Student Supervisory Committee Appointment form on file in GSO. Any changes made to the supervisory committee must be formally recorded on a Change of Committee form.
• Students should not have more than nine (9) hours of coursework left to complete in their program (besides dissertation hours) by the start of the semester in which they take the qualifying exam.
• Must be enrolled in a minimum of two (2) graduate credit hours in the semester(s) in which the qualifying exam will be taken.
• Students must be in good academic standing with a GPA of at least 3.0 ; all completed coursework must have a grade of "C" or higher. Any coursework with a grade of "C-" or lower cannot be used to fulfill program requirements.
• The student cannot have any incomplete (I) or missing (M) grades on their transcript. (Note: your Major Professor may allow you to take the exam while you work to remediate an incomplete grade, but you will not be admitted to candidacy until the incomplete grade is officially removed.)

Exam Application & Deadlines

Current Qualifying Exam Schedule/Deadlines

Students must apply to take the Qualifying Exam before the current semester deadline using the Qualifying Exam Application . (The Qualifying Exam Application is NOT supported in the Mozilla Firefox or Apple Safari web browsers. Please use Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge.) You will need to select your doctoral program in the "Specialization" box, then click your degree type in the "Degree" box for your program's approved exam options to populate.

Approximate Deadlines for Qual Exam Applications

• Fall - End of the second week of the semester (late August)
• Spring - End of the second week of the semester (mid January)
• Summer - End of Spring semester's Final Exam Week (early May)

Note: these deadlines are provided as estimates and are subject to change per the University calendar.

Qualifying Exam Clearance

Students will need to obtain signatures from all committee members on their Qualifying Exam Application before submitting the completed application to the Graduate Support Office. After the semester deadline for exam applications has passed, the Graduate Support Office will begin the Qualifying Exam clearance process. GSO staff will check the student's record against their planned program, review their Committee Appointment form, and check for any additional documents (such as course substitutions, course transfer requests, etc.). If students have any outstanding items that need addressing, the student and their Major Professor will be notified of the issue.

If students meet all eligibility criteria listed above and have all required paperwork on file, they will be cleared to take the Qualifying Exam. Once a student has been cleared, they will receive an email from the Graduate Support Office with instructions specific to the type of qualifying exam they have chosen. For College Wide exam applicants, the email will provide the dates, time, and location of the College Wide Exam, as well as information about any materials you may or may not bring to the examination. For Program Specific applicants, the email will direct you to contact your Major Professor or program advisors for dates, times, testing locations, and any additional guidelines regarding the exam. Students should expect to receive their clearance letter at least one week prior to the College Wide exam date for that semester.

Please note: You may not take the Qualifying Exam until you have been formally cleared by the Graduate Support Office. This applies to both College Wide and Program Specific exams.

Verification of Qualifying Exam Results

Once a student has completed their Qualifying Exam, the student's Major Professor will notify them of their exam results approximately 3-6 weeks after the College Wide exam date for the semester in which the exam was taken. This timeframe applies to all students, regardless of the type of Qualifying Exam you have chosen to complete (both College Wide and all Program Specific formats). The student's Major Professor will fill out the Verification of Qualifying Exam Results Form , stating whether the student passed or failed the exam, and obtain signatures from the entire supervisory committee. Once signed, the Major Professor will submit the Verification of Qualifying Exam Results Form to the Graduate Support Office.

Doctoral Candidacy

Students apply for Doctoral Candidacy once they have passed the Qualifying Exam and have completed all other program requirements. Doctoral candidacy status indicates that the program has approved the student for dissertation research. With the assistance of their supervisory committee, students must complete and submit the Admission to Candidacy Form to the Graduate Support Office. Candidacy applications are typically submitted during the same semester in which the Qualifying Exam was completed, but no later than the semester immediately following the exam. 

Both the Verification of Qualifying Exam Results and the Admission to Candidacy form are due to the Graduate Support Office 3 weeks before the last day of class for the semester (see Dates and Deadlines page for exact dates). This allows time for GSO staff to review the qualifying exam results and candidacy applications before submitting all completed Admission to Candidacy forms to Graduate Studies. 

Admission to Doctoral Candidacy Form

Admission to Candidacy Checklist

To be admitted to candidacy, students must complete the following requirements: 

• Appointment and approval of a (Co-) Major Professor(s) and supervisory committee
• Proof of successful completion of the Qualifying Exam by submitting the Verification of Qualifying Exam Results Form
• Must be enrolled in a minimum of two (2) graduate credits in the semester that the Admission to Doctoral Candidacy form is submitted. Students should have also been enrolled in at least two (2) credits in the semester they took the Qualifying Exam – GSO recommends that students do both within the same semester.
• No incomplete (I) or missing (M) grades on the student's current transcript. All I and M grades must be cleared before submitting the Admission to Candidacy form, so that an accurate GPA can be determined. 
• Overall graduate GPA of at least 3.00 . An unofficial transcript must be submitted with the Admission to Doctoral Candidacy form to verify the student's GPA.

Before completing their candidacy application, students should meet with their Major Professor and/or program advisors to ensure that they have completed all program requirements. The Admission to Doctoral Candidacy form should be signed by the student, the student's entire supervisory committee, and the Graduate Program Coordinator or Department Chair. Once all signatures have been obtained, the Admission to Doctoral Candidacy form is submitted to the Graduate Support Office for processing, along with the Verification of Qualifying Exam Results if those have not been previously submitted.

The Graduate Support Office will review the Admission to Candidacy form, ensuring that all program requirements have been met, before obtaining the COEDU Associate Dean's signature. Once signed by the Associate Dean, the form will be submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies for processing and approval. If the Admission to Candidacy form is approved by Graduate Studies, it will be forwarded to the University Registrar’s Office, and the student’s record will be updated to reflect their status as a Doctoral Candidate.

In the final weeks of the semester, students who are admitted to candidacy should expect to receive a Candidacy Letter via email confirming their status and outlining their next steps. Students will be eligible to enroll in dissertation hours (xxx 7980) in the semester immediately after their Candidacy application was submitted and approved. For example, students approved during the Fall semester may enroll in the Spring, students approved during the Spring may enroll in the Summer, and so on. Students may NOT enroll in dissertation hours prior to being admitted to doctoral candidacy. Before being admitted to candidacy, with program and department approval, students may enroll in Directed Research hours to decrease the total number of dissertation hours required.

Directed Research

While students are waiting for their Qualifying Exam results and/or admission to doctoral candidacy, they can register for Directed Research hours. Directed Research (xxx 7910) is an independent study course that can reduce the number of dissertation hours required in your doctoral program. Students who wish to use Directed Research hours to fulfill dissertation requirements should have their Major Professor submit a request in writing to the Graduate Support Office. Please note that you cannot reduce more than 50% of the required dissertation hours in your program by using Directed Research coursework.

Biomedical Graduate Studies

Graduate group in genomics and computational biology.

Candidacy Exam

The purpose of the Candidacy Exam is for students to demonstrate preparation for PhD level research. Once a student passes their exam, they can begin full-time research toward the PhD. Candidacy Exams are given to second year PhD students and first year Combined Degree students in May. The Candidacy Examination consists of 2 parts: a written Proposal describing plans for the thesis project, and an oral Defense of that document. If there is not a well-developed thesis project of the candidacy exam year, the proposal can be focused on a possible thesis project, or previous lab rotation.

The proposal guidelines closely follow those for a Predoctoral Fellowship application to the NIH (NRSA F31). Thus, students should craft their proposal with the following section headings, using single spaced, 11 point Arial font, 0.5 inch margins, and the indicated page limits.

Cover page (1 page): proposal title, student’s name, and thesis lab.

Project Abstract (30 lines or less): Clear, concise description of the proposed work, understandable to any scientifically literate reader.

Specific Aims (limit of 1 page): There are three objectives for this page. First, focus the reader's attention on the problem being addressed; second, present the hypothesis to be tested; third, provide an outline of the experiments testing that hypothesis. Use one or two paragraphs to address the first two objectives. Then outline the experimental approach in (usually) two Specific Aims, where each aim reflects a major experiment or experimental category.

Research Strategy (limit 6 pages): There are two objectives in this section:

Communicate the Significance of the question using a brief, but scholarly review of the field to explain the importance of the problem central to the proposal. Move from the general to the more specific. Additionally, describe how scientific knowledge would be increased if the proposed aims were achieved.

Convey the Approaches proposed to address each aim, by restating its hypothesis, and briefly describing the rationale behind it. Then, for each aim, describe the Experimental Approach and Analysis, Expected Results and Interpretations, and Potential Pitfalls and Alternative Approaches.

There is no expectation that extensive preliminary data should exist, but if it does, present it within the Research Strategy section (remaining within the 6 page limit). For example, such data might be included as part of the rationale or justification for a particular approach. Any preliminary work that represents unpublished data of others from the thesis lab should be explicitly approved by those providing such data and be properly cited.

Human tissue or Animal use (limit of 0.5 page): For proposals involving the use of human tissues or vertebrate animals, please justify why this use is essential to achieving the goals of the proposal. For animal use also justify the numbers required to accomplish the proposed experiments.

Literature Citations (no page limit): Each citation should be numbered in the body of the proposal; in the bibliography, each citation must include names for all authors, article title, journal (or book name), volume and page numbers, and year of publication.

The emphasis of the proposal should not be on a review of the literature but on dealing creatively with the problem selected. The proposal should be "hypothesis-driven". That is, it should aim explicitly to address a working hypothesis regarding an unresolved issue in Genomics and Computational Biology.

For the Proposal Defense, there is an expectation of substantial depth of knowledge in the thesis area, broadly defined. Thus, it will not be sufficient to defend only the particulars of the proposed experiments. A key element of the oral examination will be to explain and defend the importance of the questions to be addressed, and to place these questions in the broader context of the field. Thus, in both the Significance section of the written Proposal and in the subsequent oral Defense, the student should be able to marshal knowledge from the relevant literature and from broader areas of Genomics and Computational Biology. Each student's performance will be evaluated on: 1) quality of the written proposal; 2) quality of the oral presentation; 3) defense of the proposal; and 4) general knowledge of computational biology, their Approach, and their Biological Specialty (covered in coursework).

The student is encouraged to consult with their Thesis Advisor during preparation for the Candidacy Examination. The student is also free to consult with any other faculty, students, or postdocs as they develop their ideas. Thesis advisors should not give copies of current or former grant applications to students nor should they edit the student's written proposal. It is the Thesis Advisor's responsibility to ensure that the overall objectives of the proposal are worthwhile. The student can discuss potential experimental approaches with their advisor or others. The Thesis Advisor is excluded from being on the committee for their own student and has no role in determining the composition of the committee.

The purpose of having a Uniform Examiner on the committee is to be able to compare all exams with respect to rigor and the decision making processes of the different exam committees. With this information, uniformity in decisions can be established. These examiners will be responsible for the evaluation forms that constitute the written record for the exam.

The remainder of the committee will be chosen by the GCB chair and will consist of three faculty members with a reasonable degree of expertise covering core knowledge and the student’s chosen Approach and Biological Specialty.

A Week before the Exam

As indicated in the timetable for preparation of the preliminary exam proposal, each student will provide each member of their committee with a copy of the proposal. In addition, the GCB office will provide a copy of the student's file to each examiner. Faculty should read and review both of these documents prior to the exam. Any problems with the submitted proposal should be held for discussion at the committee meeting. Prior to the Exam To facilitate independent review of the student's proposal, each committee member will write and submit comments to the GCB coordinator prior to the student's exam date. These comments will be shared with the examination committee to evaluate the proposal, and will be shared with the student after the exam.

On the Day of the Exam

The Uniform Examiner will serve as the chair of each examining committee. Examinations will be scheduled to allow 1.5-2 hours for each exam. When the committee has gathered and the members have been introduced to the student, the Uniform Examiner should ask the student to leave the room briefly. The topics to be discussed in the student's absence are:

• The student's overall record. Any deficiencies that might need special attention in the oral questioning should be identified.
• The quality of the written proposal. If the quality is so poor as to be unacceptable, the student can be given a "fail" at this point.
• If the proposal is generally acceptable, any specific deficiencies revealed in the written proposal should be identified and pursued in the oral questioning.
• The "ground rules" for the examination should be established. The student should prepare a 15 minute presentation. The committee members should plan to let the student give the presentation uninterrupted except for questions of clarification.

The student will then be invited to return to the room. The chair should explain the ground rules to the student and ask the student to begin the presentation. The student may prepare a 1-2 page handout for members of the committee if a complex diagram is needed for the oral presentation. With the exception of this handout, the student will be expected to use the whiteboard if needed. If questioning is slow in getting started, the committee chair should lead off by asking a question. The chair should then turn over the questioning to one of the other examiners. In a rotating fashion, the other examiners should question the student.

Exam questions should be designed to probe the student's depth of knowledge on the subject of the proposal, both theoretical and technical. In addition, exam questions should determine the student's general knowledge, especially as it relates to lecture and seminar courses taken and independent study and rotations completed. Special emphasis should be placed on questions designed to elicit the ability of a student to describe how an experiment was or will be done and to interpret it appropriately. When the Uniform Examiner feels that the student has been examined sufficiently, they will ask the student to leave the room while the committee discusses the performance. Each student's performance should be evaluated in four areas: 1) quality of the written proposal, 2) quality of the oral presentation, 3) defense of the proposal, and 4) general knowledge of computational biology, their Approach, and their Biological Specialty. Each faculty examiner will be asked to fill out a form providing a numerical assessment of the performance in the four areas on a 1 to 9 scale according to the NIH scale (1 = superlative to 9 = unacceptable).

This is the outcome for most students. It can represent a range from absolutely stellar performance to a good, generally solid one. It is appropriate to give a pass when the performance is good, but not perfect, and perhaps was not all that the examiners think the student might be capable of doing. All four aspects listed above should come into play in the discussion, and a very strong performance in one area may serve to offset a weak performance in another area.

Conditional Pass

This is the outcome for students who do well, but perhaps exhibit a significant weakness in a specific, single area. For example, an excellent presentation, oral defense and impressive fund of general knowledge in the setting of a written proposal that is significantly below average could lead to the recommendation of a Conditional Pass. In the event of a "conditional pass" recommendation, the committee must suggest to the Graduate Group Chair what the student should be required to do to address the deficiency (such as rewrite the proposal, do an independent study, etc.). If the student is expected to consult with the committee members individually, this should be stated, and a time frame for completing the remediation should be established. This should typically take less than one month. It is important for the committee chair to put this in writing so that there is no ambiguity about what is being asked of the student. At the end of all the exams, the Graduate Group Chair will evaluate and compare all Conditional Passes to make sure they are fair decisions and to assure that the proposed remedial action is equitable from student to student. When the Chair communicates the outcome of the exams, they will discuss the conditions of a conditional pass with the student involved.

This is the outcome when the written proposal, the oral defense, and/or grades from coursework are unacceptable. The GCB chair, in consultation with the committee, the Uniform Examiner, and the thesis advisor(s) will decide if the student should be given a chance to retake the oral exam. Students who are given this option must do so within the time frame decided by their committee and GCB chair. If no remediation is granted, the student will be dismissed from GCB. In the case where dismissal is deemed necessary, the student may be eligible for a terminal Master’s degree if all other requirements have been met.  

/images/cornell/logo35pt_cornell_white.svg" alt="what is phd candidacy exam"> Cornell University --> Graduate School

Advancing to doctoral candidacy.

The A exam is also known as the examination for admission to candidacy. This oral exam may include a written component, as determined by your special committee. You can take the exam after completing two registered semesters in your program, but before beginning your seventh semester—unless special permission is obtained from the dean.

Passing the A exam means the graduate faculty believes that you are ready to proceed into the dissertation phase of your degree program.

Some fields may offer a special master’s degree after a doctoral candidate has completed four semesters of registration and either passed the A exam or performed at the level of an A exam. This is a master’s degree awarded to a student who is continuing on for the Ph.D., and is awarded without completion of a thesis.

• Youth Program
• Wharton Online

How the PhD Program Works

Program Overview

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

Admission to candidacy.

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

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

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

The Doctoral Dissertation

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

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

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

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

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

Policies and Procedures

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

Sample Program Sequence

Years 1 & 2.

Coursework Examination Research Papers Research Activities Field-Specific Requirements

Directed Reading & Research Admission to Candidacy Formulation of Research Topic

Years 4 & 5

Continued Research Oral Examination Dissertation

Hear From Our Doctoral Community

Phd student creates a new pipeline for women in academia, how this phd student discovered a dynamic research community at wharton, closing the tenure gap for business faculty of color.

The Wharton School

• Current Students

UTHealth - Houston's Health University

Uthealth - graduate school of biomedical sciences.

• Why the GSBS
• Our Location
• Information Technology
• Digital Classroom
• Campus Safety
• Classroom Calendar
• Administered by MD Anderson and UTHealth Houston
• Located in The Texas Medical Center (TMC), the world's largest medical center
• Accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and School Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC)
• Over 600 faculty members with expertise in the latest biomedical research
• Genetic Counseling
• Medical Physics
• Milestone Requirements
• Faculty Seeking MS Students

Explore GSBS Labs

• Cancer Biology
• Genetics & Epigenetics
• Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
• Molecular & Translational Biology
• Neuroscience
• Quantitative Sciences
• Therapeutics & Pharmacology

Research Interests

• Program Directory
• Faculty Seeking PhD Students

• Message From the Director
• MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences
• McGovern Medical School
• MD Anderson Cancer Center
• Center for Clinical Translational Sciences

Student Research Day 2020

• Admissions Overview
• Requirements & Instructions
• Financial Assistance
• Recruitment Schedule
• What factors are considered in admissions decisions?
• What is the minimum GPA required to apply?
• Do you require interviews?
• When will I be notified regarding interviews?
• What are the application deadlines?
• What if my recommender does not have an institutional letterhead or an institutional email address?
• How can I get an assistantship?
• How can I get an assistantship if I am seeking a MS degree?

Admissions Office

6767 Bertner Avenue S3.8344 Mitchell BSRB Houston TX 77030

• Summer Undergraduate Research Programs
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics
• Cell Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Epigenetics
• Infectious Diseases
• Microbiology
• Pharmacology
• Therapeutics
• Translational Research
• Discover Houston
• Explore Campus
• Career Development
• Parking, Transportation, Disability, Worklife, More
• Student Support
• Graduate Student Association
• Association of Minority Biomedical Researchers
• Association of Science Communication
• Community Outreach
• First Generation Student Group
• International Student Association
• LGBTQ+ Student Alliance
• Student InterCouncil

About the GSBS

Quick facts, thesis based ms programs, specialized ms, individualized ms program in biomedical sciences, phd programs, md/phd program, participating institutions/entities.

Admission FAQs

• Biostatistics
• Infectious Disease

Student Life

Student organizations.

nav = Academics

PhD Candidacy Exam

All GSBS students must petition for PhD candidacy by the end of their second year of enrollment. The purpose of the candidacy examination is to test the student's breadth and depth of knowledge in the biomedical sciences. The examination is meant to be an evaluation of the student's ability to construct a hypothesis, to design the means by which to test it, and to critically analyze obtained results.

• Timing/Requirements for Petition
• On-Topic Exam and Proposal Guidelines
• Examining Committee
• Exam Results/ MS Bypass
• Helpful Information
• Guidelines for Faculty Service on Exam Committees

These are the general GSBS guidelines for the timing of candidacy exams. Individual programs may specify a different schedule. Students should check with their Program Director or Coordinator to make sure they meet their program's requirements.

• The candidacy exam must be taken by the end of the first term of the student's third year.
• For example, students that started in a fall semester must take the exam by the end of the fall semester of their third year.

Before submitting the petition, the student must be in good academic standing and have completed the following requirements:

• Three tutorials
• Core Course  or Program-specific Area Courses
• Ethical Dimensions of the Biomedical Sciences
• Two online ethics modules, namely:

1) Responsible Authorship and Publication 2) Data Acquisition and Management

Instructions for completing the modules will be emailed during the spring semester to all students who completed the Ethics course from the previous fall term.

• A course that satisfies the GSBS scientific writing requirement
• Program-specific pre-candidacy course requirements

The "Petition for the PhD Candidacy Examination" form may be found on our Forms Page .

• Students that first enrolled in the fall semester must petition for candidacy no later than August 31 of their second year of enrollment.
• The petition must be approved by the Academic Standards Committee (ASC) , which meets on the second Wednesday of the month.
• The deadline to submit items for consideration by the ASC is 12:00 PM (noon) on the first Wednesday of the month (i.e., one week before the ASC meeting).
• Students will receive an email when the candidacy exam petition has been approved by the ASC. Please allow at least two weeks after the meeting for processing.

Once the petition is approved by the ASC, the process is as follows:

• The student contacts the Exam Committee to schedule the exam at least 6 weeks into the future, but no later than the end of the first term of the 3rd year of study. The student should also reserve a room to hold the exam.
• The student should have a total of 6 weeks to prepare for the exam.

This 6-week period is the amount of protected time that the student may reasonably expect to have in order to focus on preparation for the exam. It is also reasonable for the advisor to expect the student to at least keep things moving along in the laboratory during this period. It is important that the student and advisor work out a schedule for the student's exam prep period beforehand.

• During the first 4 weeks of this period, the student prepares the written proposal, then forwards the final proposal to the Exam Committee (the proposal is also submitted to Academic Affairs for a Turnitin analysis).
• The Exam Committee then has 2 weeks to review the proposal prior to the examination.

The general GSBS guidelines for the on-topic candidacy exam and research proposal are provided below. Individual programs may specify a different format. Students should also check for information on Program-specific requirements.

Although the written proposal is based on the student's dissertation research that was originally developed with input from the research advisor, independent contributions by the student are required.

The proposal must not be a simple recapitulation of a section from the advisor's research grant. Rather, it should demonstrate the student's ability to think independently and develop all aspects of a research project. The student will be expected to expand upon the current project to include the student's own original ideas that go beyond those of the mentor.

Students may seek feedback on the exam proposal from others, such as peers and faculty (including the research advisor). However, the final research proposal must be the original work of the student. The text must be composed entirely of the student's writing and not that of any other person.

Please note that some programs may have limitations on help from faculty. To be safe, it is best to check with your Program Director.

It is the student's responsibility to submit a research proposal to the Examining Committee at least two weeks prior to the scheduled exam date. It is important to meet the two week deadline. Late submission of the proposal may be negatively considered by the committee members when determining a result of the exam.

In addition to submitting the proposal to the Committee, students must submit the proposal to Academic Affairs for a Turnitin analysis. Please send all proposals to Bunny Perez .

General written proposal format

The format of the proposal follows the research section in NRSA F31 Fellowship Applications:

• 1 page for Specific Aims
• 6 additional pages for research strategy
• These page limits do not include the Bibliography/References section
• Other components of the F31 are not needed

Margins should be 0.5" or greater, and final font size should be Arial 11 point font (or larger).

Smaller font sizes may be used for figures; however they must be clear and legible.

Although individual programs may have pools of faculty that are required to serve on the Examining Committees of their students, the composition of exam committees must also comply with the following general GSBS guidelines:

• The PhD Examining Committee consists of 5 members, with at least 2 who have not served on the student's Advisory Committee.
• The advisor (chair of the student's Advisory Committee) may not serve in any capacity on the Examining Committee, and is not permitted in the exam room.
• The Examining Committee Chair must be a member of the student's Program.
• At least 1 member's research must lie outside the student's major discipline.
• Students with an approved Second Area of Research Concentration should have at least one member from that program serve as a member of the Examining Committee.
• The spouse, domestic partner, parent, or child of the advisor may not serve in any capacity on the Examining Committee.
• Individuals outside the GSBS Faculty may serve on a student's committee when their particular areas of expertise are not represented on the GSBS Faculty, but there may be no more than two such members on the committee. Students must submit an NIH format biosketch for all proposed members who are not GSBS faculty.
• Faculty with a terminal MS or SMS degree may serve on an Examining Committee only if the faculty member has specific relevant expertise not found among available GSBS members who hold a doctorate and a written justification is provided to the Academic Standards Committee along with the committee composition form.

Upon approval by the Academic Standards Committee, the Examining Committee and the student are notified by the Dean and sent instructions for the exam.

If it is necessary to change the composition of the Examining Committee after it has been approved by the Academic Standards Committee, go to the Academics  Forms Page to find the "Change of Advisory/Examining Committee Member(s)" form.

If a member of the Examining Committee is unable to attend the examination, a substitute who meets the same criteria (e.g., outside the student's major interest or from another department/Program) must be added. The individual must be a GSBS faculty member. The student should send an email to Dr. Mattox and copy the committee chair as well as the substitute member to request approval of the substitution.

After the exam, the chair of the Examining Committee must submit two forms :

• Results of the PhD Candidacy Exam
• Evaluation of the Candidacy Exam Performance

Possible exam outcomes:

• Unconditional Pass: the student passes with no conditions/deficiencies
• Conditional Pass: the student passes, but with conditions

In a memo to Academic Affairs, the exact nature of the conditions/deficiencies should be described, along with the mechanism by which the student should resolve them and the estimated date for resolution (within one year after the original exam date).

The conditions may include the completion of the MS degree.

The chair of the Examining Committee serves as a member of the student's Advisory Committee during the resolution period and must provide a memo certifying to Academic Affairs when the student has resolved the conditional pass. If the MS bypass was deferred originally, the committee's choice should also be indicated upon resolution of the condition.

• Re-examination: the committee elects to re-examine the student before rendering a decision.

The chair of the Examining Committee must provide a memo to Academic Affairs, the advisor, the student, and all Examining Committee members that describes specific needs for improvement, areas of strength, conditions for a re-examination, and a deadline for the re-examination. The GSBS maximum is one year after the original exam, but usually an earlier time is specified.

It is advised that the student meet with and receive advice from each Examining Committee member prior to the re-examination.

Possible results of the Re-examination are Unconditional Pass or Fail, and students may only be re-examined once.

The Chair of the Examining Committee must separately communicate to Academic Affairs the result of the re-examination using a second copy of the "Results of the Candidacy Exam" form.

Students are permitted to bypass the MS degree after satisfactory completion of the PhD candidacy exam:

A recommendation from the Examining Committee that the student should be permitted to bypass the MS degree will be reviewed by the Academic Standards Committee.

Completion of the MS degree is recommended for students:

• with little experience in laboratory research; or,
• who have not written research papers or literature reviews; or,
• who would benefit from the opportunity to pursue a research project under close supervision; or,
• who need significant improvement in written and oral communication; or,
• who have not determined which biomedical problem(s) they intend to pursue independently

Slides  presented at the 2020 candidacy exam prep meeting.

Senior students give their best advice to students preparing to take the candidacy exam:

2020 2019 2018 2017

Here are sample proposals and slides submitted in 2017-19 by students who received high marks in communication from their Examining Committee:

Proposal 1  and  Slides 1 Proposal 2 Proposal 3 and Slides 3 Proposal 4  and Slides 4 Proposal 5  and Slides 5 Proposal 6   Proposal 7  and Slides 7 Proposal 8  and Slides 8

Note that most students included an "Acknowledgements" slide in their presentations to thank their committee, advisor, lab mates, etc. These slides were deleted from the samples to maintain confidentiality.

Responsibilities of all Committee Members:

• Read the proposal in advance of the examination. If you have serious concerns, contact the committee chair.
• Arrive at the exam on time. All committee members must be present.
• If you cannot attend the exam, you must notify the student and exam committee chair immediately.
• If you are unfamiliar with the exam format, discuss this with the committee chair.
• After the exam, be available to the student to discuss their performance on the exam. In the case of a conditional pass or re-examination, it is appropriate to give the student advice on how to address specific issues.
• Keep exam results confidential. Discuss them only with the student's advisor, committee members, and GSBS Academic Affairs.

Responsibilities of the Exam Committee Chair:

• Meet with the student as early as possible before the exam to answer any questions an discuss the exam process.
• For an exam to be valid, all exam committee members must be present. In case a committee member cannot attend, contact  Dr. William Mattox at GSBS to determine how to proceed.
• At the exam, check that all committee members understand the exam format and possible outcomes.
• Ask committee members to share their evaluation of the written proposal before the oral presentation begins (this is generally done while the student is outside the room).
• During the exam, make sure that all members have an opportunity to ask questions. Politely intervene if a question is inappropriate or a member is taking too much time.
• Oversee the deliberations and make sure that all viewpoints are considered. See to it that a careful decision about bypassing the Masters Degree is reached.
• Communicate the exam result as simply and clearly as possible to the student. Briefly discuss reasons for the decision.
• Complete the evaluation form and exam results form and return them to GSBS.
• IMPORTANT: If the result of the exam is a Conditional Pass or Retake, the chair is responsible for providing an email to the student that describes the issues that were encountered in the exam and how they should be remedied. This email should also provide a deadline for meeting the condition or scheduling the re-examination. The email should be copied to all committee members and to  Bunny Perez at GSBS.

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Search Ohio State

Candidacy Examination

The Candidacy Examination is intended to establish the student’s preparation and readiness for independent doctoral level research by assessing the following:

• Intellectual independence of the candidate.
• Familiarity of the candidate with the literature relevant to her/his research area(s).
• The ability to formulate a meaningful research problem and a corresponding research plan.

The Candidacy Examination is comprised of a research proposal, a written exam and an oral exam.

Candidacy Examination Committee

The first step in the process leading to the student's candidacy exam is the formation of the candidacy examination committee.

• This committee consists of at least four faculty members : the student’s advisor (who must have graduate faculty P-status in ECE) and at least three other faculty members chosen by the student and advisor together, subject to the approval of the Graduate Studies committee.
• One of the members of the exam committee must be an ECE faculty member from the student’s secondary research area.
• There must be at least three faculty members (including the advisor) with graduate faculty P-status in ECE. The fourth member can have graduate faculty P-status or M-status.
• To add external members without graduate faculty P-status in addition to the four regular members described above, requires permission from the Graduate Studies Chair.

Exam Schedule and Timeline

The candidacy exam is usually taken in the third year in the PhD program after all coursework is completed. The timeline of the exam is as follows:

• After the candidacy examination committee has been formed, the student submits the ECE form, Request for Approval of Candidacy Examination Committee , to the ECE graduate program office for Graduate Studies Chair approval.
• The student works with her/his advisor and the members of the exam committee to set a date for the oral portion of the exam that is agreeable to all parties.
• The student must be given at least 3 weeks to complete the written portion of the candidacy exam.
• The oral portion of the candidacy examination must be completed within one month of the written portion.
• At least two weeks prior to the scheduled date for the oral exam, the student submits the Application for Candidacy online at gradforms.osu.edu. The Application for Candidacy must be approved online by the faculty advisor and the ECE graduate program. This deadline is strict.
• A Committee Petition submitted through gradforms.osu.edu is required to add non-faculty external members to a graduate exam committee.
• The research proposal and the written exam must be submitted to the members of the exam committee at least one week before the scheduled date for the oral exam. This deadline is strict.

Research Proposal

The research proposal forms a major part of the exam. The proposal must be a complete document with a thoughtful, in-depth treatment of the dissertation topic. It should be substantial enough to form the basis of a meaningful oral examination, establishing a worthy research problem and developing an effective research plan. It should only be written after the student has done enough work on the problem to speak meaningfully about it, including discussing her or his preliminary investigations. Above all, it should be a technically sound and scholarly document, not to exceed 15 pages (single spaced, one column, 11 point or larger font), excluding title page, abstract, table of contents, references cited and appendices.

The proposal should include:

• A cover sheet including title, a one-page abstract and a table of contents.
• A discussion of the problem and its significance.
• A history of the problem and previous relevant research.
• A summary of the student’s own preliminary work on the problem and results to date (details of the preliminary results can be placed in appendices).
• A research plan leading from the current status toward a clearly defined goal or goals. Listing multiple methods of attacking the problem, or other options, by priority is strongly advised. The research plan should typically be about 5 of the 15 pages.
• Anticipated results and expected contributions to the state-of-the-art in the relevant field of study.
• A list of references compiled in IEEE Transactions format.

Written Exam

The written portion of the examination is formulated by the student's advisor with input from the entire Candidacy Examination Committee. The written part of the exam consists of:

• At least one significant, open-ended problem (to assess intellectual independence).
• A critique, simulation or analysis of one or two key papers written in the student’s area of study (to assess familiarity with the relevant literature).

Attendance to the oral exam is limited to the student and members of the Candidacy Examination Committee. Except when video conferencing is involved, all members of the Candidacy Examination Committee must be present during the entire oral examination. The oral portion of the candidacy examination lasts approximately two hours. Questioning of the student should occupy the entire period of the examination. All committee members are expected to participate fully in the questioning during the course of the examination and in the discussion and decision on the result of the candidacy examination.

The vote must be unanimous in order for the student to pass the exam. Results of the candidacy exam are submitted by each committee member online at gradforms.osu.edu.

Outcome from the Candidacy Examination

For the direct BS to PhD program, three outcomes are possible:

• The student passes and is awarded the MS degree.
• The student fails; however, the student is awarded the MS degree.
• The student fails and is not awarded the MS degree.

For the MS to PhD program, two outcomes are possible:

• The student passes.
• The student fails.

Please refer to the Graduate School Handbook for a complete list of rules and regulations. http://www.gradsch.ohio-state.edu/Depo/PDF/Handbook.pdf

The Graduate School

The Graduate Studies Committee

• Getting Help
• Communications between the Graduate Program and the Student

New Student Course Registration

Course Registration Issues

The Master of Science Program

Dual Master's Degree Program

The Doctor of Philosophy Program

• Requirements
• Qualifying Exam
• Candidacy Exam
• Dissertation, Archival Paper Submission, and Final Oral Defense

Request for Transfer of Graduate Credit

Combined BS/MS Program

English Language Requirements

Financial Aid

• Types of Appointments
• Stipend Increases
• Terms of Appointments

Equipment and Computer Facilities

Miscellaneous

• Departmental Colloquia and Seminars
• Office Assignments and Keys
• Change of Address

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

• Graduate Programs
• Undergraduate Programs
• Schedule a tour
• Strategic Research Areas
• Research Groups, Centers and Labs
• Undergraduate Research Opportunities
• Executive Leadership
• Administrative Staff
• Faculty Awards and Honors
• Resources and Groups for ECE Women
• ECE Advisory Council
• ECE Connections
• Giving Opportunities
• Ways to Give
• Academic Support
• Financial Support
• Mental Health Resources
• Experience and Employment
• Undergraduate Services
• Graduate Services and Activities

Admission to Candidacy Examination (A Exam)

Students are eligible to schedule their A Exam after Two (2) Semesters of registration have been completed in the ECE Ph.D. Program.

The A Exam must be taken PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING of a Student’s Seventh Semester of registration.

The format of the A Exam is up to the discretion of the Student’s Special Committee Membership. In general, it is an oral examination. The Student will present the topic that has been chosen to devote his/her dissertation to.

Scheduling the Admission to Candidacy Examination (A Exam)

The Student will need to schedule the A Exam at a time that is convenient for both them and their Special Committee Membership.

Reserving a Room for the A Exam

Once a date and time have been confirmed, the Student should reserve a Conference Room where the A Exam will be held. There are Conference Rooms of varying size available in Phillips Hall, Rhodes Hall and Duffield Hall that can be reserved. You will need to work with the ECE Administrative Staff in order reserve a Conference Room.

Schedule A Examination and Research Compliance Form

Filling It Out, Obtaining Online Approvals, Submitting the Form, Deadline for Submission

• The Student will need to go online and fill out the Schedule A Examination and Research Compliance Form . It can be found on the Graduate School's Forms Page listed under "Exams and Research." 
• The Student will fill out the form completely before submitting it for the necessary approvals of their entire Committee Membership, the ECE Director of Graduate Studies and the ECE Assistant Director of MEng/PhD Programs (listed as "Graduate Field Assistant" on the form). 
• The Student will be responsible for obtaining the completion of all required online approvals in order for the form to be submitted to the Graduate School. 
• Once all online approvals have been submitted, an automated email will be sent by the Graduate School confirming the scheduling of the Student's A Exam. 

The completed Schedule A Examination and Research Compliance Form must be submitted to the Graduate School a minimum of Seven (7) Calendar Days prior to the date of the scheduled examination.

There are no exceptions   to this rule. Late submission of the Schedule A Examination and Research Compliance Form will result in the examination having to be re-scheduled.

The Date, Time and Location of the Student’s A Exam will be posted on the ECE Events Calendar Page.  

Results for Admission to Candidacy (A Exam) Form

• The Student will need to go online and fill out the Results for Admission to Candidacy (A Exam) Form . It can be found on the Graduate School's Forms Page listed under "Exams and Research." 
• Once all online approvals have been submitted, an automated email will be sent by the Graduate School confirming the receipt of the Student's Results for Admission to Candidacy (A Exam) Form. 

The completed Results for Admission to Candidacy (A Exam) Form must be submitted to the Graduate School within Three (3) Days of the completion of the A Exam.

There are no exceptions   to this rule. Late submission of the Results for Admission to Candidacy (A Exam) Form will result in the results of the Student’s A Exam not being accepted.

Master of Science without Thesis Degree

All Students who successfully complete their A Exam are eligible to earn a Master of Science (M.S.) without Thesis Degree. The Student may only be awarded the M.S. Degree if their Committee Membership deem it appropriate.

The Student should discuss this option with their Special Committee Membership in advance of participating in their A Exam.

When the Student's Committee Chair / Advisor submits their online approval for the Results for Admission to Candidacy (A Exam) Form, he/she should then indicate if the Student should be receiving the Non-Thesis MS and continuing on in the ECE PhD Program. 

Be aware that the Graduate School will only award the Non-Thesis MS degree if it is clearly indicated on the results for Admission to Candidacy (A Exam) Form. The Graduate School will NOT retroactively award the Non-Thesis MS Degree if it was not specifically indicated at the time of the submission of the Results for Admission to Candidacy Examination (A Exam) Form. 

Ohio State nav bar

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Find People
• Search Ohio State

Candidacy Examination Procedures

For a list of important milestones related to scheduling and completing the candidacy examination, please review this important deadline chart .

• Student’s name/email/phone number
• Names and Ohio State email addresses of Committee Chair and all committee members
• Preferred format of the oral examination
• Three preferred dates and times for the defense
• Please indicate your AV needs
• Academic Program Coordinator Responsibility: The results of the PhD Candidacy Exam Scheduling survey will be routed to the Graduate Academic Program Coordinator. If an on-campus format is indicated, the Graduate Academic Program Coordinator will reserve a conference room or classroom through Outlook for the exam. The room should be reserved for a two hour block of time. If rooms are not available during the preferred dates, the Graduate Academic Program Coordinator will contact the student for three new meeting dates.
• The Graduate Data Manager
• The student
• All committee members.
• Student Responsibility: If the exam must be rescheduled, it is the student’s responsibility to notify the Graduate Academic Program Coordinator. The Graduate Academic Program Coordinator will cancel the Outlook invitation and the student will be required to resubmit the PhD Candidacy Exam Scheduling survey with new potential times for the rescheduled exam. It is the student’s responsibility to ensure all information included in the Outlook invitation is accurate and all committee members have been included on the invitation.

Written portion of candidacy examination procedures

• The written portion of the Candidacy Examination is completed in a “take-home” format.
• a brief discussion of the problem and rationale for the study; implications of the study for nursing (research, policy and practice);
• discussion of the theoretical or conceptual framework(s) that will guide the dissertation research including an overview of the theoretical or conceptual framework(s);
• an analysis of how knowledge can be developed using the identified theoretical/conceptual model(s), and
• a description of the benefits and limitations of knowledge generation of the specific area of research through the use of the identified theoretical/conceptual model(s).
• Literature Review: The purpose of this section is for the student to conduct an integrative literature review on the dissertation topic including both quantitative and qualitative research as is available on the topic.
• the rationale for the design, strengths and limitations;
• consideration for the vulnerabilities of the target population, including the investigator role as the researcher;
• sampling strategy and rationale;
• study setting and plans to gain entrance and conduct research in the setting;
• measures for the study; and
• the analysis plan.

The student will write the exam using each of the major headings and subheadings above to organize the response. Written examinations should be no longer than 30 pages total excluding references and select tables. No supplemental materials are allowed. Exams must be prepared in 11 font with 1 inch margins; all text should be double spaced. Pages must be numbered. Style format should be approved by the candidacy advisor. Candidacy committee members may request a print copy of the examination.

The completed written portion must be submitted to the candidacy committee within 2 weeks of the scheduled oral examination. A copy of the exam (unbound print copy or in electronic form such as PDF) must also be submitted to the Student Data Manager in Newton Hall for the College of Nursing’s archives.

Oral portion of the candidacy examination procedures

Oral portion of the candidacy examination procedures must follow Graduate School guidelines.

• The oral portion, which lasts approximately two hours, is held after completion of the written portion.
• The oral portion must be held within one month of completion of the written portion.
• The Graduate School must be notified at least two weeks in advance of the oral exam’s proposed time and place by the submission and APPROVAL of the Application for Candidacy Examination form.
• After the Candidacy Examination Committee has been confirmed by the Graduate School, the Report on Candidacy form is generated electronically for access by the student’s advisor (Chair of the Advisory Committee).

Candidacy examination evaluation

The Candidacy Exam is evaluated on the basis of comprehension of the field, allied areas of study, and thoroughness. The decision about the outcome of the candidacy exam is reached in the absence of the student. After discussion, a decision of satisfactory or unsatisfactory is reached by means of a vote. Each examiner indicates judgment by logging into Grad Forms and electronically completing the Report on Candidacy Examination form that must be submitted to the Graduate School. A unanimous affirmative vote is required to receive a satisfactory and successfully pass the candidacy examination. If the vote is unsatisfactory, the committee must decide whether the student will be permitted to take a second candidacy examination and must record that decision on the Report on Candidacy Examination form.

Procedures for a second candidacy examination, failure and review are available in the Graduate School handbook .

Doctoral Candidacy Exam

Students must get at least a B (3.0) averaged over the required core courses offered in the fall and winter terms to take the DCE examination. Students who enter with an MS degree and other graduate students who transfer in credit for a core course can petition the graduate program to substitute equivalent courses in which they obtained  a minimum grade of A-  for one or more of the ChE courses.

Download Doctoral Candidacy Exam Rules and Procedures (pdf)

The Doctoral Candidacy Examination (DCE) will be composed of a written report and an oral examination to be conducted on the 3rd Wednesday in May in the graduate student’s first year. Students must apply to take the DCE by a date to be determined by the Graduate Chair.

The content of the oral examination and written report will be a critical discussion of a topic closely related to the student’s anticipated Ph.D. research. A one page biographical sketch should be appended to the document.

The oral presentation will be 15 minutes long (uninterrupted and strictly enforced), followed by a 10 to 15 minute question period. The student’s examining committee will consist of three faculty members, none of whom is the student’s advisor(s).

The student’s examining committee will determine his/her performance in the oral examination and written report by evaluating the student’s written and oral presentation skills, technical understanding, ability to critically analyze the literature, potential to conduct research, ability to answer questions and the committee’s overall assessment of the student’s promise to carry out research.

The faculty as a whole will determine the students that pass the DCE by evaluating their performance in the oral examination and the written report, their grades in the core courses and evaluations by the faculty.

Students have the right to petition the faculty to take or retake the exam; however, the intention is that decisions should be final and that second chances should be rare.

Preparing Ph.D. Students for the Qualifying Exam

Navigating Ph.D. programs is notoriously challenging, and the qualifying exam stands as a major milestone all students must achieve. To support Ph.D. students in this critical checkpoint, the Graduate Division recently hosted the Qualifying Exam Discourse (QED) workshop, focused on preparing for the qualifying exam. Ten participants from six graduate programs were selected from a pool of 53 applicants for this pilot.

Led by Associate Graduate Dean and Professor Sayantani Ghosh and academic counselor Maria Nishanian and organized by events services manager Jennifer Quiralte, the workshop aimed to equip second- and third-year Ph.D. students with the knowledge, strategies and skills needed to successfully complete the qualifying exam process and advance to candidacy.

“The qualifying exam is a significant step in a Ph.D. journey, and we wanted to provide our students with the tools and guidance to approach it proactively and effectively,” Ghosh said.

The workshop covered a range of topics, including:

• Providing clarity on administrative requirements for graduate program-related policies and procedures.
• AI and scientific writing techniques, with insights from guest speaker Professor Brian Utter.
• Review of successful proposal samples to share best practices.
• Discussion on "The Do's and Don'ts of a Presentation,” by Nishanian.

By offering this qualifying exam preparation workshop, the Graduate Division demonstrated its commitment to supporting the academic and professional development of UC Merced Ph.D. students.

“We were encouraged by the positive response from our participants,” Ghosh said. “The presentation by Nishanian was particularly beneficial, and Utter’s timely discussion on the undeniable reality of AI in scientific writing was very well-received. We are pleased to expand this training starting Fall 2024.”

In collaboration with Nishanian, Graduate Division will offer a course beginning the next academic year aimed at second- and third-year Ph.D. students that will systematically navigate the process of writing the qualifying proposal and preparing for the oral exam. This 1-unit course, titled GSTU 210: Graduate Researchers’ Road Map, will comprise weekly workshops and by addressing a multifaceted set of preparation areas, will provide doctoral students with a comprehensive toolkit to approach the qualifying exam with confidence and success. It is scheduled for Wednesdays at 9:30 a.m. in Fall 2024.

Video Spotlight

Author Jorge Cham Simplifies Science in an Entertaining Way

“Raise your hands if you want to know a secret,” acclaimed author and cartoonist Jorge Cham instructed a crowd of young children. Hundreds of...

Campus Grad Slam Winner Examines ‘Gut Viruses: Friends or Foes?’

Earlier this month, Ambarish Varadan competed in UC Merced’s Grad Slam finals and seized the title of Campus Champion. This was the second time...

Arbor Day Tree Planting Event (Slideshow)

A tree planting ceremony was held on campus to commemorate Arbor Day 2024. Various campus groups planted and dedicated 14 trees, each type representing a...

Additional Links

• Executive Leadership
• University Library
• School of Engineering
• School of Natural Sciences
• School of Social Sciences, Humanities & Arts
• Ernest & Julio Gallo Management Program
• Division of Graduate Education
• Division of Undergraduate Education

Administration

• Office of the Chancellor
• Office of Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
• Equity, Justice and Inclusive Excellence
• External Relations
• Finance & Administration
• Physical Operations, Planning and Development
• Student Affairs
• Research and Economic Development
• Office of Information Technology

University of California, Merced 5200 North Lake Rd. Merced, CA 95343 Telephone: (209) 228-4400

• © 2024
• About UC Merced
• Privacy/Legal
• Site Feedback
• Accessibility

Nevada Today

Graduate student in speech-language pathology reflects on her time at unr med, madeleine m. daugherty shares how a community of support shaped her graduate experience.

After graduation, Daugherty will provide diagnostic and therapeutic services to children experiencing feeding and swallowing difficulties.

Madeleine M. Daugherty always knew she wanted to work with kids but was never quite sure what that looked like. When she was considering returning to school for a graduate degree, her mother suggested the field of speech-language pathology (SLP). After she began the program at the University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine (UNR Med), Daugherty immediately knew it was the perfect fit for her.

The argument can be made that all areas of SLP have profound impacts on the lives of patients, and Daugherty is particularly excited about the opportunity to make an impact on the lives of infants and children through her work on pediatric feeding and swallowing.

After graduation, Daugherty plans to move to the Pacific Northwest with her husband and two dogs, where she will provide diagnostic and therapeutic services to children experiencing feeding and swallowing difficulties.  

Why did you decide to become a speech pathologist/audiologist?

“I credit my mom for suggesting speech-language pathology when I was considering a return to school a few years ago. It didn’t take long for me to realize that it was a good fit, so I took the leap and I’m so glad I did. The area of pediatric feeding and swallowing really piqued my interest. I’ve always known I wanted to work with kids but never sure how. This area of the field offers the opportunity to make a huge impact on the lives of infants and children.”

What is the biggest challenge you have faced in your medical education and how did you overcome it?

“Imposter syndrome… I’ll let you know how to overcome it whenever I figure it out. For now, I surround myself with people who love me, believe in me, and tell me what I need to hear (including tough love). My loved ones are my superpower.”

Can you share a memorable experience during your medical training that has significantly impacted your journey?

“I am fortunate to have experienced grad school with a cohort of incredibly strong and empowering women. Their influence has shaped me into the woman and clinician that I am today. In the best way possible, I am leaving grad school a different person. Everything I have learned over the past few years has left me feeling empowered and secure. I don’t have all the answers, but I have the tools to find them.”

What advice do you have for future students interested in becoming a speech-language pathologist?

“Don’t sell yourself short. Put in the work, be kind, lean on the people around you, and you’ll be just fine.”

Health & Medicine

Office for Community Faculty brings education full-circle

Community faculty at the University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine mentor the next generation of medical professionals

Family-friendly casino areas contain unhealthy levels of second-hand smoke, new study finds

Unsafe levels were found regardless of size, age or ventilation system in the facility, according to School of Public Health study

Put the person first: M.D. student encourages others to pursue a career that aligns with their values

Spencer Joseph Horsley Trivitt, class of 2024, shares the importance of following one’s internal compass

A passion for learning: Ph.D. candidate reflects on the importance of growing from mistakes

Lauren Parker studies cellular molecular pharmacology and physiology

Editor's Picks

Remembering the Holocaust

Earth Month events focus on increasing campus sustainably, gardening, thrifting and more

Anthropology doctoral candidate places second in regional Three-Minute Thesis Competition

A look at careers of substance and impact

Nevada kicks off Wildfire Awareness Month with preparedness activities

Extension and partners team up to provide Nevadans with information and resources

Student wins $169,000 DOE fellowship to pursue a doctoral degree in nuclear materials

Broad experience led Thomas Selmi to specific area of study

Journalism alumna shares how she turned her passion for sports into a career

When an injury took Gianna Hearn (‘13) off the field, she set her sights on sports journalism

Grads of the Pack: Debi and Kaylie Smith

The mother-daughter duo is set to graduate with master’s degrees from the School of Social Work this month

Researchers, water managers gather to discuss challenges facing Truckee River watershed

Conference hosted by NWII draws stakeholders from around the region

Grads of the Pack: Trinity Alvarez

"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams" Eleanor Roosevelt

University’s 12th annual College Day pep rally encourages middle school students to attend college

University of Nevada, Reno and Sparks Middle School partnership promotes enthusiasm for learning and college attainment

Affinity Graduate Celebrations to take place before commencement

The Multicultural Center is set to hold the celebrations to honor campus affinity groups

• Student Resources
• PhD Candidacy & Dissertation Guidelines

PhD Candidacy and Dissertation Guidelines

• Request Info
• Apply for your PhD
• Faculty Directory
• PhD Funding Opportunities
• Fellowship Application & Policy
• Meet our Current Students
• Candidacy & Dissertation
• PhD Guidelines & Forms

Interim Program Director Jaclene Zauszniewski [email protected]

Department Assistant Atreya McCall [email protected]

Office of Admissions Kristi Lehmer [email protected]

PhD Brochure‌

Candidacy Exam Process

Note:  The following guidelines are for use within the Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing (FPB). They are congruent with School of Graduate studies guidelines. It is important to note that all PhD students and their advisors need to be familiar with specific Graduate Studies guidelines, particularly related to the dissertation process and format. However, please be aware that students are required to present a copy of their proposal to all committee members at least three weeks prior to their oral candidacy exam and proposal defense.

To advance to candidacy for the PhD, students are required to write a candidacy proposal  (Step 1)  and pass an oral examination  (Step 2)  as evidence of the student's ability to synthesize knowledge and apply research methodologies. The student should consult with his/her Academic Advisor to identify a candidacy chair and committee prior to completion of course work. It can be helpful to seek the advice of the student's assigned academic advisor to prepare for and consider options for selection of committee members.

View FPB School of Nursing PhD Forms & Guidelines

Criteria for Chair and Members of Candidacy Committee

A candidacy committee consists of at least three faculty members in the Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing . The chairperson for the candidacy committee is to be selected by the student. The chairperson of the student's candidacy committee must hold the rank of Assistant Professor or above; be tenured or on the tenure-track; have served on a minimum of two candidacy committees at the FPB School of Nursing or a comparable institution; and have considerable expertise in the student's content and/or research area. Expertise is determined by the faculty member's authorship of research publications in refereed journals and recognition by peers as an expert in the student's content and/or research area. The student must consult with the Chair to identify and select two additional members of the FPB faculty with research doctorates to serve as candidacy committee members. Selection these two members should be based on faculty expertise in the student's substantive area of study, theoretical and conceptual expertise, or methodological expertise. The PhD Program Director must approve the composition of the candidacy committee and candidacy proposal topic.

Step 1: Written Candidacy Proposal

This step examines the student's ability to create a written argument to support a scientific study. The candidacy proposal will include the following three chapters: Chapter 1 Introduction, Chapter 2 Literature Review, and Chapter 3 Methods. The written candidacy proposal is in essence the written component of the candidacy exam. The student, who is required to be registered for NURS 671 for 3 credits, is supervised in proposal development by his/her Candidacy Committee Chair in consultation with the candidacy committee members. The written candidacy proposal should be based on the research problem the student intends to explore for his/her dissertation research. However, the written candidacy proposal should demonstrate the depth and breadth of knowledge the student has obtained through PhD course work, synthesized, and now is applying.

For example, in Chapter 1 (Part 1 if using manuscript option) of the candidacy proposal, the student wants to demonstrate in writing an understanding of the philosophical, theoretical and conceptual issues that have been considered and his/her rationale for the choices s/he has made. In Chapter 2 or Part 2 if manuscript option, the student should demonstrate his/her knowledge of substantive literature relevant to the population and problem of interest, critically analyze the state of knowledge, and demonstrate ability to write an integrated literature review. Chapter 3 or Part 3 if using manuscript option should demonstrate the student's knowledge regarding methodological issues demonstrating in writing what the design, measurement, analyses, and ethics issues are with rationale for the student's methods choices.

Step 2: Oral Examination

Note : Some candidacy committees may choose to schedule a pre-examination meeting in advance with the respective student but it is not required.

The student must have  completed required course work and the research practicum , and have a GPA of 3.0 to schedule the oral candidacy exam. In addition, the members of the candidacy committee must have read the written candidacy proposal and agreed that the student is ready for the oral candidacy exam.

The oral examination requires the student to demonstrate the knowledge s/he has obtained as result of completing the PhD curriculum.

The oral examination should test the depth and breadth of the student’s knowledge and comprehensive ability to synthesize and apply that knowledge.The content foci of the oral candidacy exam are: 1) the nursing discipline (theory, research, profession); 2) research methods and statistics; 3) review and evaluation of literature concerning content/competing theories/competing methods (includes disciplinary literature and relevant literature from other disciplines including historical perspective); and 4) articulation of the above. The examination is the culmination of a research proposal development process guided by a candidacy committee. Participation in the oral exam is limited to the student and the student's candidacy committee members.

Advancement to Candidacy

Advancement to candidacy status is based on candidacy committee recommendation signed by the PhD Program Director. The student must have completed his/her research practicum and submitted an updated Program of Study Plan for Graduate Studies to take action to advance the student to candidacy status

A student who fails the candidacy examination may be permitted to retake the examination following completion of additional course work and/or revision of the proposal and/or a written response to questions from the committee. The respective candidacy committee has the responsibility to determine which option should be selected for a specific student and to inform the student of the course of action verbally and in writing. The candidacy committee chair will inform the PhD Program Director of the course of action the committee has determined in writing

A student who is refused admission to candidacy may not undertake further study within the School of Nursing for credit toward the Ph.D. With the approval of both FPB and the School of Graduate Studies, such a student may take a limited number of additional courses to complete a Master's degree or enter the graduate program in another department.

Dissertation Process

Note: The following guidelines are for use within the School of Nursing. They are congruent with School of Graduate studies guidelines. It is important to note that all PhD students and their advisors need to be familiar with specific Graduate Studies guidelines, particularly related to the dissertation process and format.   View FPB School of Nursing PhD Forms & Guidelines

Dissertation Requirements

All candidates for the Ph.D. degree must submit an electronic dissertation as evidence of their ability to conduct independent research at an advanced level. The dissertation must represent a significant contribution to existing knowledge in the student’s field, and at least a portion of the content must be suitable for publication in a reputable professional journal or as a book or monograph. Students must prepare their own dissertations. Joint dissertations are not permitted. The dissertation must conform to regulations concerning format, quality, and time of submission as established by the Dean of Graduate Studies.

Detailed instructions on submitting an electronic version of your dissertation can be obtained from  the School of Graduate Studies website .

Research work connected with a dissertation is to be carried out under the direct supervision of a member of the university faculty selected by the student in consultation with departmental faculty and approved by the chair of the department.

Criteria for Chair and Members of Dissertation Committee

• Each doctoral student is responsible for becoming sufficiently familiar with the research interests of the School of Nursing faculty to choose in a timely manner a faculty member who will serve as the student’s research Advisor. The research Advisor is expected to provide mentorship in research conception, methods, performance and ethics, as well as focus on development of the student’s professional communication skills, building professional contacts in the field, and fostering the professional behavior standard of the field and research in general.
• The research Advisor also assists with the selection of at least two other School of Nursing faculty to serve as members of the dissertation advisory committee. At a minimum, the dissertation defense committee must consist of a minimum of four members of the university faculty, including the advisor/chair, the two nursing members and at least one whose primary appointment is outside the student’s program, department or school.
• The committee is appointed by the Dean of Graduate Studies upon recommendation of the PhD Program Director in the School of Nursing.
• The student’s dissertation Advisor must be a member of the dissertation advisory committee and serves as chair. The chair of the committee must be a Case Western Reserve University tenured or tenure-track faculty member in the School of Nursing. Any tenured or tenure-track Case faculty member, and any full-time Case faculty member whose primary duties include research who is authorized to serve on a Ph.D. dissertation committee by the school of nursing, may serve on a Ph.D. dissertation committee.
• Any appropriate outside researcher may serve on a Ph.D. committee upon approval by the Dean of Graduate Studies. A petition with the rationale for the request must be presented to the Dean along with the proposed member’s curriculum vitae.
• Under special conditions, a former faculty member whose time of leaving the university has not exceeded 18 months may be approved as a voting university member by the Dean of Graduate Studies.

Written Research Proposal

Following successful advancement to candidacy, the student will revise the written candidacy proposal in consultation with his/her dissertation committee members. This document then becomes the written dissertation research proposal. The student in consultation with his/her dissertation committee will set the date and time for oral defense of the dissertation research proposal. Please be aware that students are required to present a copy of their proposal to all  committee members at least  three weeks prior to their oral candidacy exam and proposal defense.

Dissertation Research Proposal Defense

Before beginning dissertation research, the candidate must defend his/her proposal. The dissertation research proposal defense is a separate meeting, activity, and focus from the oral candidacy exam. It is specific to the proposed research study which will be the respective student’s dissertation research. Thus the defense questions and discussion specifically focus on the conceptualization and methods of the proposed study.

The dissertation research proposal defense is done in the presence of a committee consisting of three nursing faculty and one faculty member from Case Western Reserve University, but whose appointment is outside of the School of Nursing. The purpose of this defense is to present and defend the significance, design, methods, and contribution of the proposal research and to address the committee's questions related to the line of inquiry. Upon successful defense of the dissertation research proposal, the student can submit IRB applications and begin the research once IRB approval(s) have been obtained. The dissertation chair and committee members will continue to supervise the student’s implementation and completion of the dissertation research.

Throughout the development and completion of the dissertation, members of the dissertation defense committee are expected to provide constructive criticism and helpful ideas generated by the research problem from the viewpoint of their particular expertise. Each member will make an assessment of the originality of the dissertation, its value, the contribution it makes, and the clarity with which concepts are communicated, especially to a person outside the field. The doctoral student is expected to arrange meetings and maintain periodic contact with each committee member. A meeting of the full committee for the purpose of assessing the student’s progress should occur at least once a year until the completion of the dissertation.

Final Oral Examination: Defense of Dissertation

Each doctoral candidate is required to pass a final oral examination in defense of the dissertation. The examination may also include an inquiry into the candidate’s competence in the major and related fields.

• The defense must be scheduled with the School of Graduate Studies  no later than three weeks  before the date of the examination.
• The chair of the examining committee should give approval to schedule the defense when the written dissertation is ready for public scrutiny.
• The candidate must provide to each member of the committee a copy of the completed dissertation  at least three weeks  before the examination so that the committee members have an opportunity to read and discuss it in advance.

Please note that these guidelines differ from those described in the School of Graduate Studies handbook–the dissertation document is to be submitted sooner (at least  three weeks  in advance rather than two weeks in advance) for students in the School of Nursing.

Scheduled defenses are made known through on-campus publication, and any member of the university may be present at that portion of the examination pre-designated as public by the chair of the dissertation defense committee. Others may be present at the formal defense only by invitation of that chair.

It is expected that all members of the dissertation defense committee be present at the defense. Exceptions to this rule: a) must be approved by petition to the Dean of Graduate Studies and only under extraordinary circumstances, b) no more than one voting member can ever be absent, c) the absent member must participate through real-time video conferencing at departmental expense; however, if such video conferencing is not available, the absent member may participate through telephone conferencing; and d) the student must always be physically present.

The dissertation defense committee is responsible for certifying that the quality and suitability of the material presented in the dissertation meet acceptable scholarly standards. A student will be certified as passing the final oral examination if no more than one of the voting members of the committee dissents.

Special Instruction for those using the Manuscript Option

PhD students choosing the manuscript option to the traditional dissertation should plan to configure it into "Chapters" for the final submission through the electronic process. Chapter 1 should consist of an introduction to the two or three manuscripts that follow. Each manuscript will comprise a chapter. A final chapter should summarize the foregoing manuscripts and provide recommendations for future research, practice, education, policy, etc. For example:

• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Manuscript 1
• Chapter 3: Manuscript 2
• Chapter 4: Manuscript 3 (if applicable)
• Final Chapter: Summary and Recommendations

• International
• Today’s Paper
• Premium Stories
• Express Shorts
• Health & Wellness
• Board Exam Results
• Brand Solutions

Government’s new PhD guidelines will make universities more elite

What we need today are more publicly-funded research institutes with better infrastructure and more fellowships. this would be meaningful for individual students and the country, only if the requirements for rigour and the active provisions for sustained mentoring are not diluted.

Recently, the UGC chairperson announced that students with four-year undergraduate degrees can now appear for the National Eligibility Test (NET), an exam that certifies eligibility for lectureship in colleges and universities in India, and PhD programmes. Earlier, the eligibility for both was a Masters’ degree. In other words, if one qualifies for the NET after a four-year undergraduate degree, one can now teach other undergraduate students. Which universities would recruit these fresh undergraduates? Will these be the universities with the Institution of Eminence tag, and high NAAC ratings, positioned as the Harvards and Oxfords of India? Would it be the local public colleges which provide education to lakhs of first-generation university-goers who dream of social and economic mobility through quality higher education? It is not difficult to imagine for whom the quality of higher education stands further compromised.

The chairperson added that candidates could appear in a subject in which they want to pursue a PhD irrespective of the discipline in which they have obtained the four-year bachelor’s degree. According to him, “This step will help replace the need for separate entrance tests conducted by individual universities and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).” It is, he added, the aim of the UGC to dismantle the perception of PhD as an “elite qualification”.

Not an ‘elitism’ issue 

A PhD or a doctorate in philosophy is a degree awarded after a candidate carries out rigorous original research for a period usually longer than two to three years. If a Master’s degree in any discipline is seen as a “specialisation”, a PhD reflects a research scholar’s ability to think creatively, ask new and insightful questions, explore them rigorously and systematically and, through this process, enable newer insights that challenge and advance existing theories and concepts.

For this, a student would need to be conceptually and methodologically informed and able to use these skills for observation and analysis. This is not to say that a PhD programme should not itself aim to strengthen the conceptual and methodological tools of the research scholars, but there is a huge difference between strengthening and refining existing tools and aiming to introduce and instil them in a short period of one year. To further suggest that the hierarchies across degrees, from undergraduate, postgraduate and research levels are indicative of “eliteness”, is dangerous.

To confuse a foundation attained through immersed and rigorous engagement with concepts with “eliteness” is a grave undermining of the academic process.

NET must maintain standards

A rigorous conceptual and methodological preparedness at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels must be the aim. What we instead find is consistent dilution of this responsibility by first eliminating the MPhil programmes and now even the need for postgraduate degrees. It also appears to be a misinformed understanding of PhD-level research when one sees separate entrances as a hurdle, rather than as a useful modality to align the research interest of a student with a supervisor who is an expert in the given field, in an institution with the necessary resources to support the research.

As a university faculty engaged with teaching and research for the past decade, it is clear to me that the inequities of our schooling systems have only become more glaring with time. It takes considerable mentoring and work to help students transition from a system that requires confining oneself to textbooks, to reading original and more advanced works and writing analytically and reflectively.

Also, in the case of social sciences in particular, the development of questions that hold possibilities to advance an existing knowledge discourse requires active, critical and reflexive living and participation in social spaces. This, in turn, requires an entry into the various theoretical and conceptual frameworks that provide us with the vocabulary to talk about it. This is how theories on gender, caste, class, group processes, identities and many other aspects of the human world have evolved and transformed.

As a student of Psychology, the undergraduate programme was crucial in helping me become familiar with the focus and language of the discipline, but it was in the postgraduate programme that a deeper exploration of concepts became possible. Thereafter, work in clinics and classrooms enabled me to see the potencies, contradictions and gaps in the current theorisations. In the last few years, it has not been uncommon to find PhD candidates appearing in interviews without their own questions, but willing to adopt the questions of the supervisors as their own.

• How India is making friends and influencing the world
• A year after Manipur violence: No attempt at negotiation
• Congress fights for women, BJP reduced them to election jumla

The several critical researches that have managed to challenge the status quo would not have been possible without newer questions emerging from locations that were, till then, denied opportunities to ask and research. A related concern is also that if undergraduate degrees were to be sufficient for undertaking PhD research, it would actually lead to further “elitisation” of higher education as only those with existing linguistic and academic capital would be able to take the risk of pursuing a four-five year research programme in the absence of sufficient mentoring and preparation period.

What we need today are more publicly-funded research institutes with better infrastructure and more fellowships. This would be meaningful for individual students and the country, only if the requirements for rigour and the active provisions for sustained mentoring are not diluted.

The writer is an assistant professor at the School of Education Studies in Ambedkar University, Delhi

• National Eligibility Test

40 Years Ago

Sanjay Leela Bhansali's school of filmmaking is known for its maximalism and beautiful actresses in intricate jewellery and costumes. In his first web series, Heeramandi, Bhansali introduces us to the world of 'tawaifs' or courtesans. While these women are portrayed as powerful decision-makers, the reality is far from it.

EXPRESS OPINION

Best of Express

More Explained

May 03: Latest News

• 01 Hardik Pandya casts long shadow as Rohit Sharma and Ajit Agarkar defend T20 World Cup squad
• 02 IPL 2024 Purple Cap update: Natarajan surpasses Bumrah to top spot during SRH vs RR match
• 03 With Shinde in afternoon, back to Thackeray by evening; Rs 500 notes vanish from Baramati co-op bank
• 04 US says Israel should prevent attacks on aid convoys, Hamas diverting aid also unacceptable
• 05 BJP ‘punished’ Uddhav after go-ahead from Amit Shah: Shelar
• Elections 2024
• Political Pulse
• Entertainment
• Movie Review
• Newsletters
• Gold Rate Today
• Silver Rate Today
• Petrol Rate Today
• Diesel Rate Today
• Web Stories

Doctoral Oral Exams for May 13, 2024 – May 17, 2024

The Graduate Dean invites all graduate faculty to attend the final oral examinations for the doctoral candidates scheduled as follows:

Isaac McAllster , PhD., Hispanic Literature and Linguistics Tuesday, May 14, 2024, 9:00AM, Heter Hall 301 Dissertation: “A More ‘Perfect’ Union: Acquisition by L1 Speakers of Brazilian Portuguese of the Present Perfect in Spanish and English.” Luiz Amaral, Chair.

Cielo A. Sharkus , PhD., Civil and Environmental Engineering Wednesday, May 15, 2024, 1:30PM, ELab 11 Kellogg Room Dissertation: “Investigating the Potential Impact of Climatic Variability Water Resources in Massachusetts Environmental Justice Communities.” Christian Guzman, Chair.

Matthew DeCapua , PhD., Physics Wednesday, May 15, 2024, 2:00PM, Physical Sciences Building and via Zoom Dissertation: “Optical Spectroscopy of Quantum Materials.” Jun Yan, Chair.

Global footer

• ©2024 University of Massachusetts Amherst
• Site policies
• Non-discrimination notice
• Accessibility
• Terms of use

• Campus News
• Student News
• UK HealthCare
• UK Happenings
• Arts & Culture
• Professional News

Graduate Stipend and Benefits Committee updates fiscal year 2025 baseline stipends

LEXINGTON, Ky. (May 1, 2024) — Aft er reviewing data analyses and working closely with colleges and leadership across campus, the University of Kentucky's Graduate Stipend and Benefits Committee has updated baseline graduate stipends for fiscal year 202 5 .

Beginning in the fall semester of 2022, the University of Kentucky announced its commitment to further support graduate students through enhanced compensation and benefits.

In 2023, after much work and research, the Graduate Stipend and Benefits Committee provided updates to the Office of the Provost and other college leadership. T he university then implemented baselin e graduate stipends based upon these recommendations ; colleges, graduate programs and other hiring departments had until Jan. 1, 2024, to raise any stipends that did not meet these baseline amounts.

Preliminary data showed that a majority of UK graduate programs already provided stipends on par with or higher than the average for their disciplines when compared to benchmar k institutions.

The committee worked closely with colleges and departments, hiring departments across campus, Institutional Research, Analytics and Decision Support (IRADS), and other partners to ensure that fiscal year 2024 baseline amounts were met by Jan. 1, 2024.

The multi-year plan to implement baseline graduate stipends includes:

• Working with IRADS and colleges to regularly analyze current graduate stipends for all graduate programs at UK , as well as stipends provided to graduate students by non-academic units;
• Participating in the Oklahoma State University (OSU) Graduate Stipend Survey, which is an annual national survey with participants including 10 SEC schools in 2022-23;
• Establishing baseline stipends based on standardized data from the OSU Graduate Stipend Survey; and
• Reevaluating baseline stipends annually, using this s tandardized benchmark data.

“Supporting our graduate students is something we do not take lightly because they are so vital to our Graduate School mission,” said Padraic Kenney, dean of the UK Graduate School and associate provost for graduate and professional education. “We work closely with our partners across campus to ensure we invest in their futures, just as they invest in ours.”

You can find more information about graduate student funding here .

As the state’s flagship, land-grant institution, the University of Kentucky exists to advance the Commonwealth. We do that by preparing the next generation of leaders — placing students at the heart of everything we do — and transforming the lives of Kentuckians through education, research and creative work, service and health care. We pride ourselves on being a catalyst for breakthroughs and a force for healing, a place where ingenuity unfolds. It's all made possible by our people — visionaries, disruptors and pioneers — who make up 200 academic programs, a $476.5 million research and development enterprise and a world-class medical center, all on one campus.   

In 2022, UK was ranked by Forbes as one of the “Best Employers for New Grads” and named a “Diversity Champion” by INSIGHT into Diversity, a testament to our commitment to advance Kentucky and create a community of belonging for everyone. While our mission looks different in many ways than it did in 1865, the vision of service to our Commonwealth and the world remains the same. We are the University for Kentucky.   

Latest Stories

Uk graduate school student finishes as finalist in regional competition, summer parking and transportation information, pedway over cooper drive to permanently close, lewis honors college celebrates outstanding seniors, faculty and staff at medal ceremony, markey’s kolesar to lead national cancer research consortium.