phd qualifying exam presentation

Practical advice for preparing your qualifying exam presentation

The qualifying exams are an important milestone for doctoral students in MechE. The exam is currently administered in two parts– a subject examination and research examination (RQE). The RQE is a research presentation meant to demonstrate the candidate’s competency as a researcher.  A new RQE CommKit article by Varner et al takes a deep dive into creating a cohesive narrative, designing effective visuals and fielding questions from faculty. This blog post focuses on practical advice for getting started on the presentation. I’ll discuss the major elements of the presentation, provide strategies for practicing and offer advice to nip procrastination in the bud. 

To get started, start small

Preparing for the RQE can be intimidating, and getting started always seems to be the hardest part. Before we dive into the nuts and bolts of the exam, I want to emphasize the importance of starting early and starting small. Small goals consistently met over days and weeks add up to big goals over time. The Tao Te Ching reminds us that all grand projects emerge from humble beginnings:

A tree whose trunk is of a man’s embrace, Begins from something extremely tiny.  A tower of nine stories high, Is built from a heap of earth. A trip of a thousand miles,  Begins right at one’s feet.

The RQE is about YOU (and your research)

Before you make any slides it’s essential to understand the purpose of the exam: showcasing your ability and potential to contribute meaningful research to your field. If you have made it to the qualifying exam, we believe that  you possess the competency and thoughtfulness to complete a PhD that meets departmental expectations for rigor and ingenuity. The RQE is your chance to demonstrate this.The faculty are evaluating your skills as a researcher through the lens of your presentation. Remember that you are an essential element of the RQE, unlike other technical talks you may have given before.

Build a case for your research

The structure of the RQE has the same narrative arc of most technical presentations: motivation to address a problem or explain a phenomenon, how the current state of the art applies to this question and the gaps that must be filled in order to answer it, and how your research will address these gaps to solve the problem and advance the state of the art. There are some questions all presentations should strive to answer: 

• What problem/puzzle/challenge does your research address, and why is it important? 
• Why are your methods the best approach? 
• What is the key takeaway of your findings? 

If you don’t have findings yet, you should still be able to say how the expected results of your study will advance the state of the art by contributing to current knowledge, practice or policies. This is why you may hear some students say that your results are not as important in the RQE. This does not mean you should exclude results from the RQE. It means that if you don’t have as many results as you wanted you can still have a successful presentation. Regardless of results you can still demonstrate your ability to ask meaningful research questions, to answer those questions using sound methodology, and to understand and justify how your study advances the state of the art. 

A note on procrastination

Procrastination is more than just delaying tasks. When I’m struggling with procrastination, I try to bring awareness to what exactly I am trying to avoid. Tasks that stir up fear, self-doubt and anxiety can be especially prone to procrastination. According to health practitioner Anastasia Locklin, people attempting aversive tasks feel compelled to choose short-term mood benefits of procrastinating over long-term rewards. Awareness of this has been helpful for me because it’s a reminder that a desire to procrastinate does not mean I am lazy or incompotent. As you are preparing for quals, remember that every task you achieve counts as a success, no matter how small, and celebrate each of them. Check out NPR’s Life Kit podcast episode “How to stop procrastinating” for more on this!

One antidote to procrastination is to focus on a narrow list of specific tasks each day. A popular approach is the Ivy Lee method for organizing time. The idea is pretty simple. At the end of every work day, write a list of six tasks in order of priority. The next day, work on the tasks sequentially and don’t move on to the next task until the one before is completed. Anything that doesn’t get completed gets moved to the next day’s list. For more on the Ivy Lee method, see this blog post. A pitfall of the Ivy Lee method is to write tasks that are too broad and intractable. Setting specific, measurable tasks will make completion more clear. For example, instead of creating a task to ‘finish a draft of my presentation’ break it down into bite-size chunks such as ‘write a script for my motivation section’ or ‘create a diagram of my experimental setup’. 

Another strategy for mitigating procrastination can be to set accountability partners. Tell your study group what you plan to achieve this week and have them follow up to see if you did it. Schedule a practice presentation with your lab or through the GAME lunch seminars. Or book a CommLab appointment; we are here to work with you at any stage of the presentation preparation. 

Plan. Practice. Repeat.

Practicing your talk in realistic scenarios will help hone spoken and visual aspects of your delivery. When first planning what to say, it may be helpful to write the takeaway message of each slide in a full sentence, just to get you started. Some scripting can be helpful as you begin practicing, but we don’t recommend writing and memorizing your talk word for word. Either way, practicing in front of varied audiences—labmates, GAME lunches, Comm Lab fellows, non-MechE friends, family—will give you more opportunities for feedback to improve your delivery. Developing the RQE is an iterative process, and practice is a part of that cycle. The CommLab is here to help you at any stage of the process, from brainstorming to putting on the finishing touches. Reference the RQE CommKit article or schedule an appointment with a CommLab Fellow today!

Blog post by Andrea Lehn with contributions from Carlos Diaz-Marin, Georgia Van de Zande and Hannah Varner

LPL Grad Site

How to Pass Your Ph.D. Qualifying Exam

Successfully passing your comprehensive exams will involve a fair bit of organization beforehand on your part. As always, the best way to get a grip on these exams is to talk to people. Talk to your advisor and committee members about what their expectations and/or reservations are. Talk to the grad students to hear what the exams are actually like. We're all more than willing to help you out (even if we do like telling scary orals stories!).

As of the 2013-14 academic year, the requirements for the Planetary Science Ph. D. include a written comprehensive exam, to be completed before attempting the oral comprehensive exam. See How to Pass The Writtens page for more information about the Writtens!

Oral Qualifying Exam

Fondly known as orals, this exam is as scary as the stories you'll hear about them, but no worse. The oral portion of the qualifying exam is intended to test your ability to conduct the research necessary to complete a Ph. D. Thus it is the point where you present your proposed dissertation research plan to your committee. It is expected to last at least two but not more than three hours.

The Official LPL Policy on Oral Preliminary Exams can be found at the following links:

Ph. D. Requirements (PDF)

Ph. D. Procedures (PDF)

A Sample Timeline for Completing the Oral Qualifying Exam

Prerequisites for taking the oral qualifying exam.

You must have completed all required PtyS core classes, and your minor classes before you may take your orals. You will have to take more classes to fulfill the requirement to graduate, but not before your Orals. The University stipulates that your oral exam be taken within one year of your written exam, which is offered at the end of every spring semester. If you have not been working on your project long enough to feel prepared, or if extenuating circumstances prevent you from taking the exam in this time frame, you must petition the Graduate College to take the exam after one year. This is usually a lot of paperwork but not a big problem in terms of getting the extension. See Pam Streett for information on how to petition.

Three months prior: Choose your Committee

Five or more faculty members administer the test. The Department "standing member" is common to all orals committees to ensure continuity within the Department--you must have this person at your exam. Most students choose to put this person on their committee since the standing member will be there anyway, but you do not have to do this. You personally choose your 5-person committee with the help of your advisor and the Graduate Admissions and Advising Committee.

Do not underestimate the difficulty of assembling five committee members into one room at the same time for the exam! Start emailing potential committee members well in advance of your desired date, and offer them multiple options (10 or so) of possible dates for scheduling. Don't forget holidays and department scheduled colloquia and such, it is best to avoid those when choosing a date.

The presence of your advisor on your committee is currently a topic of discussion, with the changes to the Ph. D. procedures underway in 2013-14. Readers are directed to the following link to find the current rules for orals committee selection:

Ph. D. Rules for Committees (PDF)

One or two months prior: Individual Meetings

It is a very good idea to meet with your committee members individually to discuss your proposed research and their expectations for your oral exam. Often these meetings will be very helpful in directing your studying for the exam. Again, due to scheduling difficulties, it is wise to start setting up these meetings as early as possible.

One month prior: UAccess Grad Path Forms

Fill out all of the necessary forms on UAccess Grad Path. This will be your Doctoral Plan of Study (if you haven't completed it already), your Comp Exam Committee Appointment Form, and when those are finished, your Announcement of Doctoral Comprehensive Exam. Each form will become available when all the prior forms are filled out.

One month prior: Set up "Practice Orals"

It is also a good idea to have a "practice orals" session with a practice "committee" made up of grad students who have taken orals with the members of your real committee. Treat this like the real thing, reserve the projector and room, ask your "committee" to ask you difficult questions like those you expect in the actual exam. Once again, start scheduling this practice session well in advance of the exam, due to grad students' busy schedules. Shoot for a date that is one or two weeks before your actual exam.

Three weeks prior: Proposals Due

Distribute your primary and secondary proposals, as well as a copy of your Doctoral Plan of Study, to your committee members three weeks in advance of the date.

Suitable propositions for research may be of various forms such as:

• a non-trivial original scientific assertion that can be defended as plausible on the basis of existing data
• an outline of a research project by which a significant contribution to knowledge would result
• a truly compelling criticism of a conclusion drawn by a reputable scientist in the open literature
• an originally conceived principle by means of which a large number of scientific facts may be understood

Some example proposals from past grad students can be found on the  Oral Exam Proposal Examples  page.

One week prior: Create Presentations

You will present your primary project in the first 15 minutes of the exam. This presentation needs to show the committee that your research topic is of value to the scientific community, and your goals are achievable in a reasonable period of time. Don't forget to prepare and practice this presentation! You should also prepare a secondary project presentation (10 minutes), but do not expect to give this presentation unless the committee specifically requests to see it.

During the Exam: What Happens?

The exam must be no less than two hours, and no more than three hours. Each committee is different, but there are a few basic guidelines for how oral exams should typically go.

The committee will need to discuss their procedures (who asks the first question, how many questions each) sometime near the beginning of the exam, either before the exam starts, or after the 15-minute presentation. They will ask you to leave the room for this.

Each committee member will typically ask one or two questions, and often ask followup questions to lead you through a problem. They will want to see you write things on the board: equations, plots, diagrams, anything that shows your thought process.

The purpose of the exam is not only to quiz you but also to evaluate the thought process that leads to the answers you give. It is often valuable to talk through a question as you work it out--the oral equivalent to "show all work." You'll also be expected to be able to answer questions and refute criticism of either the logic or the importance of both of your proposals and to relate your ideas to other areas in planetary science.

Midway through the exam, you will be given a short break. At the end of the exam, they will again ask you to leave, and they will discuss your performance and vote on the outcome of the exam.

The outcome

You have two chances to take the exam subject to the approval of your committee, the Department, and the Graduate Council. If you pass the first time, congratulations! However, if the committee feels that your general knowledge is deficient or that your research topic is either inappropriate or inadequate, they may do one of two things: pass you conditionally and ask you to reappear before the committee, or not pass you at all. If you fail the first time, you're not the only one!! Don't get permanently discouraged. Your advisor will go over the committee's recommendations with you. You may retake the exam after six weeks, but you may have up to a year to redo them if you like.

Some Tips/Wisdom

( from Pete Lanagan )

When you go into orals, you will be one person being tested by at least five people who are experts in their fields. You are not expected to match their knowledge for the simple reason that you can't. I don't care how much you prepare or how many facts you can cram. You will not pass on book knowledge alone.

A good orals committee will test your ability to work through unfamiliar problems. Some questions will be deceptively easy. Some questions will be hard. If you already know what they are asking, good committee members will continue asking you more questions (perhaps on the sametopic, perhaps on a different topic) until they find something with which you're unfamiliar. At that point, you will have to show off your ability to address the unfamiliar problem.

By all means, be familiar with material taught in the core classes. Redo homework problems. Certainly know the in's and out's of your primary project and backup project.

But, most importantly, practice how to solve unfamiliar problems orally. Know what is being asked and rephrase the question aloud. State what is known aloud. State the assumptions aloud. State what you need to know aloud. Practice drawing diagrams related to the problem in real-time. Practice doing math under pressure. Practice speaking about your problem-solving approach aloud.

A few tips:

• Do practice how to solve problems aloud. In the exam, show the committee your thought process.
• Related to #1, if you have no feakin' idea how to approach the problem, frame the question for the committee aloud. State what's known. State your working assumptions. State what facts you need to know. (In some cases, the committee might throw you a bone in the form of a suggestion to see how you approach the rest of the problem.)
• Don't give up hope if you feel you aren't doing well. Few people come out of orals without experiencing some degree of mental anguish. Most committees look more favorably on someone who tries and struggles than someone who gives up.
• Take charge of your exam any way you can. For example, if you need the committee to shut up for a minute so you can think, tell them to shut up (preferably in a polite way). Just remember to start talking about the problem again once you've thought about the issues for a minute. (During a break in my orals, I was actually told by a committee member that telling my committee to be quiet for a minute so I could think was a good move.)
• Don't BS the committee. Just don't.

More lessons learned from post-orals grads: (feel free to add to this!)

• Start trying to set a date early. Faculty schedules are hard to work around, and you have to coordinate 5 of them. If they're extremely busy, double-check with their admin assistants that they really will be in town. When you finally find a date that works for all of them, confirm it with them, and remind them a few times. It has actually happened that someone's advisor forgot about their exam, and had to be called at home to come in. You don't need that extra stress!
• You need a LARS account if you don't already have one to schedule the room & a data (not overhead) projector. Make sure you bring the right adapter for your laptop for the projector.
• Ask postdocs and older grads with the same advisor and committee members for tips. You can get good practice questions that way, and some will have tips on your specific committee members (their different approaches, even some examples of what they might ask).
• Some people meet with each committee member about a month before the exam. Some of these meetings can be very useful, some are not, but it's not going to hurt.
• When you're putting together your study schedule, don't forget to leave time to write the proposals, and to and make (and practice!) the presentations.
• Most people will say that they won't ask about your second proposal unless you're really flailing. However, that's not always true - I was asked about my second proposal, and I think it was mainly because my advisor happened to be interested in it. So don't blow it off completely.
• Don't neglect any aspect of the core curriculum just because it's not relevant to your project. If you can't think of how it's related to your project, you probably haven't thought hard enough about it. Anyway, they can ask you anything from the core curriculum, and it doesn't have to be related even tangentially to your research. If they hear a hint of uncertainty when you mention a subject, they'll delve deeper into that topic.
• Don't burn out! Take breaks and de-stress however you de-stress. Stay healthy and get enough sleep.
• Definitely, definitely practice answering questions out loud. It's helpful to do it just by yourself out loud in an empty room with a whiteboard, but also do some with a friend or relative. A more formal practice exam in front of an audience is very valuable, especially if you have limited experience with oral examinations (which most of us do). Don't expect it to go well....
• Don't expect the exam itself to go well, either. The committee's job is to find the extent of your knowledge. That means they WILL eventually ask you a question to which you don't know the answer. Don't panic, don't clam up, and don't try to bullshit them. Start talking about relevant things you DO know, even if it starts out really basic. Sometimes what they're looking for is actually very basic. If you're not giving them the answer they want, they will probably try to lead you in the right direction. If it's clear you're foundering, they'll probably try to help you or suggest different approach. That being said, your committee WANTS you to pass. They're not your enemies. They know you're nervous, and that's OK. They've probably seen people do worse than you!

Another thing the committee is looking for (for the research oral exam, post-2014) is 1) whether you are familiar with the background material, 2) what is new or unique about your proposed work compared to previous work, and 3) are you presenting a reasonable, straightforward project?

Ace Your PhD Qualifying Exam: A Guide To Academic Success

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

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

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

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

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

Understanding The PhD Qualifying Exam

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

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

The Written Component

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

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

The Oral Component 

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

Also read: Preparing for a Successful Dissertation Defense

The Importance Of This Academic Milestone

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

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

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

Preparing For Success

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

Early Preparation Is Essential

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

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

Setting Goals And Creating A Study Schedule

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

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

Study Group Collaboration For Learning

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

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

The Exam: How To Navigate It

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

Format Of A Typical PhD Qualifying Exam

Written exam.

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

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

Oral Defense

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

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

Common Pitfalls And How To Avoid Them

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

Lack of Time Management

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

Also read: Time Management for Researchers: A Comprehensive Toolkit

Inadequate Preparation for the Oral Defense

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

Overlooking Stress and Anxiety

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

How To Stay Motivated While Preparing For The PhD Qualifying Examination

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

Identify And Break Down Your Goals

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

Organize Your Study Time

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

Ensure Accountability And Support

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

Resolve Common Challenges

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

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

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

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

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Unlock Your Creativity

Create infographics, presentations and other scientifically-accurate designs without hassle — absolutely free for 7 days!

About Aayushi Zaveri

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

Content tags

Email forwarding for @cs.stanford.edu is changing. Updates and details here . CS Commencement Ceremony June 16, 2024.  Learn More .

PhD | Qualifying Examination

Main navigation.

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

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

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

Information about the Qualifying Examination

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

• The candidate student must form a committee of 3 faculty members.  A committee needs to have (at least) 2 core AI faculty on it.  Upon request, we can consider having 1 core AI and (at least) 1 AI-affiliated faculty.  In all cases, at least 1 core AI faculty must be present.
• The student is asked to prepare a 30-minute presentation on a research project the student is working on.
• The student supplies to each committee member a short report summarizing the student’s research project and a list of references that is related to such a project. Report and list of references are due to the committee members 3 days before the exam.
• During the first half hour the student presents the research project.
• The second half hour comprises a 30min QA session related to the research project by the committee. During such sessions committee members can (but are not necessarily committed to) ask questions related to any of the papers in the list of references. This gives the opportunity to committee members to assess general mastery of the area the student is working on.
• Statistical Machine Learning (Percy Liang)
• Natural Language Processing (Dan Jurafsky)
• The candidate’s advisor/s should be a member/s.
• At least one member must be a Stanford CS faculty.
• Two members must be working in Computational Biology.
• One member will be non-computational from an affected field of biomedicine.
• At least two members must be doing work directly relevant to the candidate’s work.
• 30 minutes presentation on their research.
• 30 minutes presentation on 3 papers which are jointly picked by the quals committee and the student, relating to the student’s current and future research directions.
• After the exam has been taken, the candidate will email the CS PhD Student Services Admin, cc’ing all members of their quals committee, with the exam’s outcome.
• HCI (Michael Bernstein)
• InfoQual (Jure Leskovec)
• The physiqual will now consist of exams with faculty in 5 areas:  vision, geometry, math, graphics and robotics .
• The second part of the physiqual (which consists of a talk on a few selected papers) will no longer be part of the physiqual, given that there is requisites for the thesis proposal .
• For students who have already taken the second oral portion of the physiqual, we  suggest that their advisors exempt them through the thesis proposal requirement. As the current language of the thesis proposal requirement would seem to allow this.
• Form a panel of 3 professors (CS systems faculty). Select 3-4 papers, in consultation with the panel, in an area not identical to your thesis work for you to read, review and synthesize over a period of 3 weeks. Depending on the panel's advice, you may need to execute a small implementation project. For example, a project might answer a related research question, reproduce or compare results in a novel setting, or quantitatively investigate the implications of certain design decisions.
• The exam has a written and an oral component. Three weeks after selecting the papers, turn in a 5-10 page report (not counting references) as well as pointers to any software or hardware artifacts created as part of the project (if any). Approximately one week after submitting the report, make an oral presentation to the panel, followed by questions.
• Analysis of Algorithms
• Form a panel of three professors, select 3-4 papers in an area related (but usually not identical) to your thesis work for you to read, review and synthesize over a period of a month (30 days). Write a report on your review/synthesis, give it to the committee, and also make an oral presentation to the committee, followed by questions.
• The candidate student must form a committee of 2-3 faculty members, where at least one is a Visual Computing faculty member.
• The student and the committee agree on a list of at least 5 papers in the student’s research area of interest.
• During the first half hour, the student presents a lecture on the topics in the said papers and any relevant background.
• The second half hour comprises a 30min Q&A session where committee members can ask questions related to the lecture and any of the said papers. This gives the committee an opportunity to assess the general mastery of the research area the student is working on.

PhD Qualifying Exam

Quals form :  application for qualifying examination, guidelines for conducting the phd qualifying exam via zoom:  zoom qualifying exam guidelines.

All PhD students need to complete and pass the qualifying exam, prior to the end of winter quarter of their second year of study (last day of class).  You must be registered in the quarter you take the qualifying exam.

The qualifying exam is an oral examination intended to provide the examination committee with evidence of your research preparedness and capabilities and allow the committee to give you useful feedback on your research direction.

Examination Committee

Your committee consists of 3 members, your advisor and two others. All committee members must be on the Academic Council, and at least two must be EE faculty (not courtesy).

You will be responsible for forming your exam committee and scheduling the exam date and room. Once the details of your event are finalized, bring the  Application for Qualifying Examination  form to the Degree Progress Officer. 

Room Scheduling

You are responsible for reserving a room for your exam. After you have located a room, if it is in the Packard Building or Allen/AllenX building, contact either Kara Marquez (for rooms in the Packard building) or Douglas Chaffee (for rooms in the Allen/AllenX building).

To schedule a room in another building on campus, please use Stanford 25live . View the Stanford 25live quick reference guide (PDF) .

Examination Format

• 15 minutes for the student to present background and proposed research.
• 15 minutes for the committee to ask questions. Question topics can include the presented research or related general topics.
• (Optional) 15 minutes for committee members to make suggestions.
• The Faculty committee will then deliberate. 

Final Reporting Procedures

After the qualifying exam, students must remind their committee to submit their vote at  gradapps.stanford.edu/QualsVote . 

If there is a split vote (2-1 for or against), the Degree Progress Officer will give the results to the Associate Chair for Graduate Education, who will make the final decision.

Exam results will be sent to you via email within 1 week.

QUESTIONS? 

Feel free to contact the Degree Progress Officer, Laura Wuethrich, Packard 165 or email  [email protected] .

• M.Eng. Admissions Requirements
• M.Eng. Early Admit Options for Cornell Students
• M.Eng. for International Students
• M.Eng. Tuition and Funding
• Design Project and Annual Poster Session
• M.Eng. Degree Requirements
• Post-Grad Activities/Career Information
• Ph.D. Program
• 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

Qualifying Examination (Q Exam)

The following is a set of guidelines to govern the administration of the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) Graduate Field’s Qualifying Examination. The purpose of these guidelines is to create a uniform, rigorous standard by which the ECE Graduate Field can assess the qualifications and preparation of students to continue in the ECE Ph.D. Program.

Format of the Qualifying Examination

The Qualifying Examination is an assessment of the qualification of incoming graduate students for a graduate program in the Field of Electrical and Computer Engineering. The overall outcome of the Qualifying Examination is determined during the Gradate Annual Review (GAR) by the entire ECE Field Faculty and holistically considers the following components to aware one of two possible outcomes.

• Results for a Set of Subject Area Examinations
• Grades for all Graduate Level Coursework taken at Cornell to date
• Direct input from the Student’s Advisor / Committee Chair describing the Student’s Research Progress
• Direct input from the members of the ECE Graduate Field Faculty describing the Student’s Progress and Demeanor as an ECE Ph.D. Student

Outcomes of the Qualifying Examination

• PASS - Based on the above points of criteria, the Student will have demonstrated the necessary ability and aptitude to continue in the ECE Ph.D. Program.
• FAIL – Based on the above points of criteria, the Student has not demonstrated the necessary ability to effectively continue in the ECE Ph.D. Program. The Student will be instructed to meet with the Director of Graduate Studies and his/her Advisor / Committee Chair to discuss the proper course of action.

Timing of the Qualifying Examination

• The Student’s Qualifying Examination results will be considered during the Graduate Annual Review (GAR) which usually takes place soon after the Subject Area Examinations are completed.
• The Qualifying Examination is offered once a year, at the end of the Spring Semester.
• Students are eligible to participate in the Qualifying Examination at any time during their first Four (4) Semesters of Enrollment of graduate study.
• Students must successfully complete the Qualifying Examination by the end of their Fourth Semester of enrollment of graduate study in order to remain in good academic standing as determined by the Field of Electrical and Computer Engineering.

Subject Area Examinations

Format of the subject area examinations.

• Subject Area Examinations are oral examinations with a duration of 20 – 30 minutes each.
• Random Processes and Probability
• Computer Architecture
• Computer Systems
• Circuits and Devices
• Solid State and Quantum
• Electromagnetics and Optics
• Digital VLSI
• Linear Systems  
• Each Subject Area Examination will focus on material covered in a reasonable undergraduate curriculum on Electrical and Computer Engineering. Subject Area Examinations will have an associate syllabus to act as a study guide.
• Subject Area Examinations are administered by a Two (2) Person Committee consisting of ECE Graduate Field Faculty Members that are well-versed in the corresponding subject.
• The Subject Area Examination Committee must not include a Student’s Advisor / Committee Chair.

Subject Area Examination Outcomes

For each Subject Area Examination, the Subject Area Examination Committee will aware One of Three Possible Outcomes:

• EXCELLENT – Student has demonstrated an excellent understanding of the corresponding Subject Areas that exceeds the expectations of a reasonable Ph.D. candidate within the ECE Graduate Field.
• SATISFACTORY – Student has demonstrated a satisfactory understanding of the corresponding Subject Areas that meets the expectations of a reasonable Ph.D. candidate within the ECE Graduate field.
• UNSATISFACTORY – Student has demonstrated an unsatisfactory understanding of the corresponding Subject Areas that is beneath the expectations of a reasonable Ph.D. candidate within the ECE Graduate Field.

The Subject Area Examination Committee will provide a written review of the Student’s performance on the Examination(s) and the justification for the awarded outcome.

Achieving an outcome of either EXCELLENT or SATISFACTORY on Two (2) or more of the Subject Area Examinations covering at least Two (2) separate Subjects is sufficient to complete the exam criteria of the Qualifying Examination.

Timing of the Subject Area Examinations

• Subject Area Examination are administered annually during a one-week period near the end of the Spring Semester.
• The scheduled dates of the Subject Area Examinations are determined by the ECE Director of Graduate Studies and will be announced in advance.
• Subject Area Examinations may potentially be administered at other times due to family, medical emergency or other exceptional circumstances only, as determined by the ECE Director of Graduate Studies.
• Students are encouraged to take Two (2) Subject Area Examinations on Two (2) Separate Subjects in their first year of graduate study.

Appeals of Subject Area Examination Results

• Students may appeal the results of a Subject Area Examination if he/she believes that an error has been made in his/her case.
• The Student must file a written appeal to the ECE Director of Graduate Studies within One (1) Week of receiving the results of the Subject Area Examination.
• The written appeal must be in the form of a formal, signed letter detailing the specific reasons why the Student believes the outcome of the Subject Area Examination should be changed.
• A finalized decision regarding the written appeal will be rendered by the ECE Director of Graduate Studies in consultation with the Graduate Committee.

Requests for Accommodations for Students With Disabilities

In compliance with Cornell University's policy and equal access laws, the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering are happy to discuss appropriate academic accommodations that students with disabilities may require in order to participate in the Subject Area Exams as part of the Qualifying Examination.

Requests for academic accommodations should occur at least One (1) Month in advance of the Qualifying Examination and Subject Area Exams, in order to make any and all necessary arrangements beforehand. ECE encourages students to register with  Student Disability Services to verify their eligibility for suitable accommodations.

Syllabi for ECE Qualifying Examination

Students may review details regarding each Subject Area in order to effectively prepare for the Subject Area Examinations.

01 Subject Area: Random Processes and Probability

Probability, Statistics, and Random Processes for Electrical Engineering by Alberto Leon-Garcia.

Basic Concepts:

Sample spaces, probability measures, outcomes, events, combinatorial approaches to computing probabilities, conditioning, total probability, independence, Bayes’ rule.

Random Variables:

Definition of, probability mass functions (PMFs), probability density functions (PDFs), cumulative distribution functions (CDFs), commonly used distributions, expectations, characteristic functions, moment inequalities.

Random Vectors:

Definition of, joint PMFs, PDFs, and CDFs, joint characteristic functions, conditional distributions and conditional expectation, joint moments, covariance matrices and their properties, jointly Gaussian random variables.

Limit Theorems:

Law of large numbers, central limit theorem.

Estimation:

LLSE and MMSE estimators.

MAP and ML detectors. 

Second-Order Random Processes:

Stationarity and wide-sense stationarity, autocorrelation, power spectral density, white noise, filtered random processes. 

Discrete-Time Markov Chains:

Definition, conditions for stationarity, n-step transition probabilities, stationary distributions, occupancy rates. 

Continuous-Time Markov Chains: 

Definition, conditions for stationarity, the forward and backward equations, Poisson processes, the M/M/1 queue, occupancy rates. 

02 Subject Area: Computer Architecture

Helpful resources:.

The area exam will cover the topics listed below. The following resources may be helpful in studying the topics. 

• Cornell Undergraduate Courses: ECE2300, ECE4750 
• References: “Digital Design and Computer Architecture” by Harris & Harris, “Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach” by Hennessy & Patterson, “On-Chip Networks (Synthesis Lectures on Computer Architecture)” by Peh and Jerger. 

Boolean Algebra: 

Axioms and main theorems of Boolean algebra; combinational logic minimization: Algebraic simplification, Karnaugh maps, don’t-cares, races. 

Combinational Blocks: 

Mux, demux, decoder, encoder; carry-propagate adder, carry-save adder, carry- lookahead adder; integer multiplication. 

Sequential Logic:  

D-latch and SR-latch; master-slave D-flip-flop; timing of latches and flip-flops (setup/hold times); timing analysis (max. clock frequency, critical path, clock skew); race conditions; FSMs, communicating FSMs; Mealy and Moore automata; sequential logic design; registers, counters, timers. 

Processors (basic): 

Instruction set architectures; single-cycle processor datapath and control unit; hardwired vs. microcoded processors; pipelined processors; resolving structural, data, control, and name hazards; handling exceptions; analyzing processor performance (iron law of processor perf.); transition from CISC to RISC. 

Memories:  

Memory technology (registers, register files, SRAM, DRAM); spatial vs. temporal locality; direct-mapped vs. associative caches; write-through vs. write-back caches; replacement policies; parallel-read, pipelined-write caches; integrating processors and caches; analyzing memory performance (avg. memory access latency); virtual memory, page table, TLB; virtually vs. physically addressed/tagged caches; cache coherence, MSI; memory consistency; locks, barriers. 

Networks: 

Integrating processors, caches, and networks; analyzing network performance (ideal throughput, zero-load latency). 

Processors (advanced):  

Superscalar execution; out-of-order execution: scoreboard, issue queue, reorder buffer, handling exceptions; register renaming: pointer-based, value-based schemes; memory disambiguation: finished-store buffer, finished-load buffer, load/store queues, in-order vs. out-of-order load/store issue; branch prediction: software-based, predication, one-level and two-level branch-history tables, tournament predictors, branch-target buffer, return address stack; speculative execution; VLIW processors: loop unrolling, software pipelining; SIMD processors: subword-SIMD, vector-SIMD; multithreaded processors: vertical multithreading, simultaneous multithreading. 

Note: 

It is not enough just to be able to describe concepts; you will need to be able to apply concepts in new contexts, and also be able to evaluate design alternatives. 

03 Subject Area: Computer Systems

Helpful resources: .

• Cornell Undergraduate Courses:  ECE2400, ECE3140, CS4410, [CS4450]
• References:  “All of Programming”, Hilton & Bracy, “Hard Real-Time Computing Systems” by Buttazzo (available online through Cornell Library), “Operating Systems: Three Easy Pieces” by Arpaci-Dusseau & Arpaci-Dusseau. 

Programs: 

Instruction set architectures: instruction encoding, register organization, endianness, control flow; compiling, linking, and loading. 

Calling Conventions and Stack: 

Parameter-passing conventions; stack structure; stack frame. 

Interrupts and Exceptions: 

Polling; interrupts; exceptions; software traps; system calls. 

Process Management: 

Time-sharing; context switching; scheduling: FCFS, round-robin, priority, SJF; aperiodic real-time: EDD/EDF; periodic real-time; rate-monotonic scheduling; inter-process communication. 

Memory Management and Storage:  

Program layout, stack, heap; Memory protection, translation, and virtualization: base/bound, paging, segmentation; TLB; virtual memory; memory allocation; basic I/O; storage. 

Concurrency: 

Critical sections; atomicity; mutual exclusion, progress, fairness; locks and monitors; RMW operations, t&s; ticket lock; semaphores; wait/signal; Hoare vs. Mesa semantics; readers and writers; producers and consumers; priority inversion, PIP, PCP. 

Networking:  

End-to-End argument, Physical networking: wireless, circuit-and packet-switched, mobile networks; data link: MAC addresses, error correcting codes; medium access: ethernet, wireless LANs, bridging; network layer: routing, congestion control, QoS; transport layer: sockets, UDP, TCP; application layer: remote procedure calls, DNS; security: basic crypto, symmetric key algorithms, public key, digital signatures, key management, firewalls/IPSec, authentication protocols, web security (SSL). 

Note:  

It is not enough just to be able to describe concepts; you will need to be able to apply concepts in new contexts, and also be able to evaluate design alternatives. 

04 Subject Area: Circuits and Devices

The Circuits and Device area Subject Area Exam tests for the physical understanding of the behavior of semiconductor electronic devices and the principles underlying the behavior, and the ability and understanding of the design, analysis, and limitations of fundamental circuits. 

This therefore includes the breadth of the behavior of electrons and holes and their transport in devices; modeling of that behavior in static, low frequency and high frequency conditions; and the application of such devices to circuits. Students are expected to demonstrate an understanding of devices (diodes, transistors and memories), transfer functions, feedback, and the limitations to the analysis of the physical behavior and models and the limits this places on their applicability. 

A list of Topical Areas in Circuits includes: 

• Derive transfer functions of RLC circuits in Laplace and Fourier domains and be able to sketch the Bode plot of a transfer function. 
• Apply Millers theorem to an amplifier with feedback (This includes real amplifiers such as common-source, common drain, etc). 
• Analyze basic op-amp circuits assuming an ideal op-amp. 
• Draw complete (with capacitors) small-signal model of a MOSFET or BJT. 
• Bias and Analyze a i) common source/common emitter amplifier, ii) common drain/common collector amplifier, and iii) common gate/common base amplifier for small signal gain, Zin and Zout for both low- and high-frequency cases (ie with and without including capacitors) 
• Analyze a CMOS inverter in large signal, low frequency behavior, both single and multi-stage 
• Analyze a cascode amplifier at low frequency for small signal gain, Zin and Zout. 
• Analyze a differential pair at low frequency for small signal gain, Zin and Zout. 
• Perform small-signal high-frequency analysis of an active current mirror. 
• Calculate common-mode gain of a differential pair biased with a current mirror. 
• Calculate the gain and transfer function of a simple op-amp. 
• Be able to estimate the input impedance of an op-amp or other large amplifier. 
• Common mode feedback 
• Improve linearity 
• Stabilize unstable systems 
• Understand noise sources due to pn-junctions, BJTs, MOSFETs, and flicker. 

A list of Topical of Areas in Devices includes: 

• Electrons and holes in semiconductors (donors, acceptors, carrier populations, thermal equilibrium, electrostatic potential, Fermi energy, quasi-Fermi energy, temperature dependences, transport by drift and diffusion, generation and recombination). 
• Energy description of device structures via band diagrams (conduction and valence band edges, quasi-Fermi energy and heterostructures). 
• Junctions and diodes (metal-semiconductor junctions, ohmic contacts based on tunneling and interface recombination, p/n junction) in static, quasistatic, dynamic, and at high frequencies and their models. 
• MOS junction (charge analysis, low-frequency, high frequency, deep depletion behavior, inversion layers, quantum-confinement effects). 
• MOSFET (sheet charge modeling of MOSFET, gradual channel approximation, characteristics in sub-threshold and supra-threshold conditions with drift and diffusive flow, quasistatic and small-signal models). 
• MOSFET at small scale (scaling, short channel effects, parasitic bipolars, gate tunneling, drain-induced barrier lowering, gate-induce drain leakage, hot electron effects, Instabilities and stress-induced leakage currents, and transistors based on SOI, double-gate, strain, high-permittivity and fins). 
• Memories (static and dynamic random access memories, non-volatile FLASH memories) 
• Bipolar transistors (Design, polysilicon emitters, Ebers-Moll models, breakdown, Gummel plots, graded heterostructure bases, SiGe, IIIV, high frequency and digital models). 
• Noise (Thermal, shot and 1/f noise, and such noise in MOSFETs and bipolar transistors) 

A reasonable text that tackles much of this breadth is Y. Taur and T. H. Ning, “ Fundamentals of modern vlsi devices ,” Cambridge, ISBN 978-0-521-83294-6 

05 Subject Area: Solid State and Quantum

The Material covered in ECE 4070 (Solid State Physics of Semiconductors and Nanostructures) and material on introductory quantum mechanics. 

Material covered in ECE 4070 can be found at the following course website: 

• https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/ece407/ (all lecture handouts) 

Material on introductory quantum mechanics can be found in the following book: 

• Title: Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (Chapters 1 through 9)
• Author: David J. Griffiths
• Publisher: Pearson Prentice Hall

06 Subject Area: Electromagnetics and Optics

There are five general areas in E&M that you are expected to understand with sufficient depth to be able to describe the physics and limitations of a simple device or process. 

Electrostatics

• Coulomb’s law 
• Poisson, Laplace equations 
• Gauss’s law of electrostatics 
• Potential energy 
• Image charges 
• Boundary value problems
• Energy stored in the electric field

Magnetostatics 

• Biot-Savart law
• Ampere’s law of magnetostatics
• Vector potential 
• Lorentz force and torque 
• Energy stored in the magnetic field

Maxwell’s equations

• Faraday’s law, induction
• Displacement current
• Constitutive relations 
• Solutions with rectilinear, cylindrical, and spherical boundary conditions 
• Plane electromagnetic waves, wave propagation, and evanescent waves 
• Polarization
• Reflection, refraction, interference 
• Energy conservation and Poynting’s vector

Waveguides, Resonant cavities, and Modes

• Electromagnetic boundary conditions 
• TE, TM, TEM waveguide modes 
• Fabry-Perot resonators
• Electric dipole fields and radiation
• Magnetic dipole fields and radiation
• Simple dipole arrays, and image dipoles 

07 Subject Area: Digital VLSI

• Cornell Undergraduate Courses: ECE2300, ECE4740 
• References: “Digital Design and Computer Architecture” by Harris & Harris, “CMOS VLSI Design: A Circuits and Systems Perspective” by Weste & Harris. 

VLSI General: 

Moore’s Law; Kryder’s Law; Koomey’s Law. 

MOSFET: 

P-N junction and diodes; operation regimes; body effect; short-channel effects; parasitic capacitances; switch model; pass transistors and transmission gates. 

CMOS Inverter: 

Voltage transfer characteristics; operation regimes; regenerative property and noise margins; latch-up; dynamic behavior; propagation delay; sizing (logical effort). 

Static CMOS: 

Pull-up and pull-down networks; CMOS gate synthesis and analysis; standard-cell design; stick diagrams and Euler path; timing characteristic (worst/best case delay, rise/fall times); gate sizing (logical effort); pass-transistor (PT) logic; transmission-gate (TG) logic. 

Dynamic Logic: 

Dynamic CMOS; domino logic; np-CMOS, zipper, and NORA logic. 

Sequential Logic: 

D-latch and SR-latch; master-slave D-flip-flop; timing of latches and flip-flops (setup/hold times); timing analysis (max. clock frequency, critical path, clock skew); race conditions. 

Wire Models:  

RC model; fringing capacitance; wire parasitics and crosstalk; Elmore delay; IR drop. 

Energy/Power Consumption: 

Static CMOS power consumption; dynamic CMOS power consumption; statistical power analysis; low-power design techniques; voltage-frequency scaling; leakage reduction. 

Architecture Transforms:  

Area/delay trade-off; coarse- and fine-grain pipelining; retiming; replication; iterative decomposition; time sharing.  

Adder Circuits:  

Full adder (various designs); ripple-carry adder; Manchester-carry chain; carry-skip adder; carry-select adder; carry-save adder (CSA); carry-lookahead adder (CLA). 

Arithmetic/Logic Circuits:  

Two’s complement/sign magnitude numbers; shifters and rotator circuits; comparator circuits; n-input multiplexers; array and CSA multipliers. 

Memories and ROMs:

NAND and NOR ROM; SRAM (design and sizing of 6T cells); DRAM (3T and 1T cells); NAND/NOR row decoders; precharge circuitry; sense amplifiers. 

08 Subject Area: Linear Algebra, Signals, and Systems

References: .

Linear algebra at the level of Gilbert Strang’s Introduction to Linear Algebra (see also the MIT couseware http://web.mit.edu/18.06/www/ ) or Sheldon Axler’s Linear Algebra Done Right . Signals and systems concepts at the level of A. V. Oppenheim and A. S Wilsky’s Signals and Systems . 

Linear Algebra: 

Vector spaces, linear mappings, spanning sets, bases and dimension of finite-dimensional vector spaces; nullspace, range, and rank of arbitrary real and complex matrices; determinant, trace, invertibility, eigenvalues, and eigenvectors of square real and complex matrices; inner-product spaces and orthogonal/unitary diagonalizability of Hermitian matrices; singular-value decomposition of arbitrary real and complex matrices; condition number of invertible square matrices. 

Signals Basics: 

Real- and complex-valued continuous- and discrete-time signals; convolution in continuous and discrete time. 

Systems Basics:  

Single-input single-output LTI systems in continuous and discrete time; impulse response; causality and BIBO stability of SISO LTI systems (definitions and impulse-response criteria). 

Spectral Concepts in Continuous Time: 

Fourier series of continuous-time periodic signals; Fourier transforms of continuous-time signals; the idea of frequency content and bandwidth of continuous-time signals; frequency response of continuous-time LTI systems; ideal filters. 

Spectral Concepts in Discrete Time: 

The discrete-time Fourier transform and the Sampling Theorem; frequency response of discrete-time LTI systems; The DFT and the FFT for N-point signals. 

Other Transforms and Applications:  

The two-sided z-transform and two-sided Laplace transform; transfer functions of continuous - and discrete-time SISO LTI systems; criteria for BIBO stability in terms of transfer functions. 

Electrical and Computer Engineering

College of engineering, qualifying exam.

Students working toward a PhD degree are required to take the PhD Qualifying Examination. The PhD Qualifying Examination tests students' ability to think, speak, and write. Students have to read and understand  three technical papers  that define the examination topical area. Students then write a  review paper  and  orally present  it to a faculty examining committee. This committee includes three faculty from the ECE Department, whose research focuses on the area the student wants to be tested on. The student has to answer detailed questions from the faculty committee. These  questions  can be about the review paper and presentation, the reference papers, and obvious undergraduate-level technical background for the material in the review and reference papers.

Review important dates and deadlines .

Unlike other PhD programs, this is not a comprehensive examination or an open-ended examination of what faculty feel the student should know. Instead, it is a focused examination, scoped by the student's choice of reference papers, review paper, and presentation. The Qualifying Exam stresses the student's understanding of ECE fundamentals within this scope as well as their ability to understand and communicate the technical linkages to their chosen topics.

For students entering the PhD program in or after Fall 2015, they must take the PhD Qualifying Exam for the first time no later than the fourth semester after program admission and must pass the exam no later than the fifth semester. Summer semesters are not included in this qualifying exam timeline.

For students entering the PhD prior to Fall 2015, they must take the PhD Qualifying Exam for the first time no later than the fifth semester after program admission and must pass the exam no later than the sixth semester. Summer semesters are not included in this qualifying exam timetable. Students are encouraged to take the PhD Qualifying Exam as soon as possible. Each student should determine with their advisor when to take the Qualifying Exam for the first time.

Students failing the Qualifying Exam the first time can take it a second time, no later than the sixth semester after program admission. One faculty member from the first exam committee will serve on the second committee. A student who fails the exam twice must leave the program at the end of that semester.

The time clock determining when a student must take the Qualifying Exam is stopped for one semester if the student is engaged in an industrial internship during an academic-year semester (fall or spring). This policy applies for only one semester of internship. Students engaged in internships for more than one academic-year semester may submit a petition to request a deferment of the Qualifying Exam timeline beyond one semester.

Three background papers

These three papers provide context to the faculty examining committee regarding the student's area of focus. They help describe what the student's work is about and why it matters. They describe the chosen research field's history and motivations.

The student selects these three papers with input from their advisor. The Graduate Student Committee reviews the paper choices  and assigns a three-faculty examining committee. These papers can include conference papers, journal papers, book chapters, thesis chapters, and the student's own papers or technical reports.

Restriction on background papers

The student may choose no more than two papers with authors who are currently faculty at Carnegie Mellon. The student can choose no more than one paper they have coauthored. The total length of all three papers should not exceed 50 pages.

Written review paper

The Qualifying Examination tests the student's written communication skills through a short review paper. This paper defines the focus of the student's Qualifying Examination topic. It should explain the student's technical area, their work, and the relationship of their work to the background provided in the  three background papers . This paper should not exceed more than four pages and should be in a two-column format. Use of the  standard template  is encouraged.

Oral presentation

The Qualifying Examination tests the student's oral communication skills by having them present a short talk during the first 30 minutes of the Qualifying Examination, which is scheduled for three hours. The student should consider this oral presentation to be like a conference presentation, as the research of the three  faculty in their Qualifying Examination committee relates to the focus of their presentation. The examining faculty will typically ask the student questions to help clarify their presentation immediately after.

Questions and answers

Once the clarification questions and answers are completed, the examining committee will ask the student questions about their research area, reference papers, review paper, and relevant electrical and computer engineering fundamentals.

These question and answer sessions are part of the three- hour  Qualifying Examination. Following these sessions, each of the examining faculty grade your performance. They do not decide if you passed or failed the Qualifying Examination. This pass/fail decision is made at the Graduate Progress Review meeting (held on the Friday of the second week of Qualifying Examinations) .

Spring 2024 important Qualifying Exam dates & deadlines

• Fall 2023 presentation slides  
• Spring 2024 presentation slides  
• Fall 2023 information session recording (overview)
• Spring 2024 information session recording (overview)
• Friday, February 23:   Qualifying Exam declaration deadline
• Qualifying Exam declaration application portal
• Required materials : Completed application, faculty selections, one-page abstract, three background papers (no more than 50 pages total)
• Friday, March 29 :  Qualifying Exam review paper deadline
• Qualifying Exam review paper submission portal
• Review paper template available
• LaTeX templates are available through  IEEE  and  ACM . If you are using a LaTeX template from either of these sources, you do not need to specify keywords or use the copyright blurb at the bottom of the ACM template.
• Friday, April 12:  Qualifying Exam committees announced to students via email
• Monday, April 15–Thursday, April 25:  Qualifying Exam period
• Exams will be scheduled by committees during this period
• Prepare to conduct exam at any point during this exam period
• Monday, April 29:  Official Qualifying Exam results and feedback issued to students

Helpful links

To apply, select  Master's  or  Doctoral  from the dropdown, then select  Electrical and Computer Engineering . The list of available programs will then display. You may select up to three programs for which to be considered.

Visit Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh handbook

Silicon Valley 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.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

PhD Program in Epidemiology

Guidelines for the qualifying examination (dissertation proposal).

THE EPIDEMIOLOGY PH.D. DISSERTATION PROPOSAL

I. Establishing the Dissertation Committee

1) Once a student has passed the comprehensive examination, they will formally select a dissertation advisory committee of not fewer than four members.

• The student may begin to identify likely candidates for the committee in advance of passing the comprehensive exam.
• The dissertation committee is intended to bring specialized expertise and resources to a student’s research and career development process. The dissertation chair is primarily responsible for overall guidance of the student’s research and training.
• The dissertation committee is responsible for administering the qualifying examination (proposal defense) and the final dissertation examination.
• The student should review the list of Graduate Faculty and talk with the Program Manager about the specific individuals under consideration, to make sure they are qualified by the Graduate School to serve on a PhD committee.

2) The committee will be chosen in consultation with the student’s research mentor.

3) The committee must include two members of the Epidemiology faculty other than the mentor and at least one faculty member from Biostatistics, unless a different quantitative person is more appropriate.

4) The committee must be appointed by the Graduate School no less than two weeks before the time of the qualifying examination.

II. Preparing the Dissertation Proposal

1) The dissertation proposal is a comprehensive proposal detailing the motivation, approach, and feasibility of the student’s proposed doctoral dissertation research.

2) The dissertation will comprise, at the minimum:

1. Critical review of the literature, including quantifying results from previous studies

2. Motivation for the study, and how it fulfills certain gaps in the field

3. Statement of specific aims, and hypotheses for each aim

4. Proposed approach and analytic plan, including:

a) Table 1 equivalent descriptors with overview of population (for each aim if population differs)

b) Detailed operational definitions of key exposure and outcome variables in text and potentially figures/tables, including the construction of variables and any decisions that need to be made (spline, percentiles, categorical from continuous)

c) Detailed operational definitions of other variables proposed and their construction (can be in table format)

d) Rationale for candidate confounders for each aim

e) Rationale for consideration of effect modification

f) Detailed analysis plan that includes statistical methods to be used for each aim, and an explanation as to the assumptions and/or caveats associated with such methods

g) Clear defense of superiority of the modeling approach over common alternatives

h) Power calculations for each aim

5. Description of papers to be written from the research

6. Potential limitations of the study

7. Appendices with key source documents.

3) There is no page limit; the length of the proposal will vary.

4) It is highly recommended that students attend each other’s qualifying exams (proposal defenses), in preparation for their own.

III. Working with Your Committee

1) The first, full draft of the dissertation proposal should be presented to the dissertation committee at least 2 months prior to the planned date of the qualifying exam.

• The final, completed draft of the proposal should be given to the committee 3 weeks before the date of the exam.

2) The student is in charge of this process:

• You are responsible for organizing committee meetings and making sure that things progress. At this point in your career, you should be in charge of moving things along, not your committee.
• Provide your materials/rewrites/proposal to your committee members with plenty of time to review (three to four weeks ahead for formal meetings). Do not expect to give material to your committee the night before and get something in the next day or two. Demonstrate that you value the committee members’ input and time by being courteous.
• Make sure you give your committee members quality work, work that you and potentially others have edited, checking for grammar and spelling errors. There is nothing worse than when a student wants quality feedback, but hasn’t bothered to provide quality material. Furthermore, if a committee member suggests changes, don’t give it back to them for review without those changes. If you disagree – discuss it, but just don’t ignore it.
• Provide a schedule for your committee so they know what to anticipate and potentially make time for. An example:

– Aug 1- will provide 1st draft to committee members

– Aug 28- request that committee feedback be given by this date

– Sept 21- makes changes return to committee (repeat cycle as needed until committee is satisfied with your proposal)

– Oct 10- final proposal will be given to committee members

– Oct 31 – Committee meeting/proposal defense

• Prior to scheduling the qualifying exam, you should have agreement from all committee members that your proposal is ready, by their standards and taking into account their concerns, to be defended.
• Practice the oral presentation!

IV. Qualifying Exam (aka oral proposal defense)

1) The qualifying examination is an oral defense of the dissertation proposal.

2) The Graduate School must be notified of the time and place of the qualifying examination at least 2 weeks in advance.

3) To qualify for candidacy, a student must complete all of the required first and second year courses, must be in good academic standing (GPA ≥3.0), must pass the comprehensive examination and must pass an oral qualifying examination.

4) The examining committee is the student’s dissertation committee.

5) The examining committee assesses the written proposal and oral defense by rating the success of the student in the following components:

1. Familiarity with research literature

2. Ability to organize scientific data

3. Critical thinking skills

4. Mastery of principles and methodology proposed

5. Oral presentation of proposal

6. Ability to interpret and answer questions appropriately

6) The three possible outcomes of the examination are: Pass; Conditional Pass; or Fail.

1. A Fail requires a complete Qualifying Exam take-over (if a second Fail occurs, the student is dismissed from the program).

2. A Conditional Pass requires a set of conditions to be set out by the committee, with a due date by which such conditions must be fulfilled. Upon satisfactory completion by the due date, the Conditional Pass will then become a Pass; otherwise it will become a Fail.

Feel free to contact  [email protected]  with any questions.

• About the School
• Quick Facts
• Administration
• Basic Sciences
• A-Z Directory
• Contact Information
• Campus Maps & Parking

• Current Students
• Basic Sciences Faculty Affairs
• Clinical Faculty Affairs
• Eskind Biomedical Library
• People Finder

• Facts and Figures
• Accreditation
• Maps and Directions
• Organization Chart

• Undergraduate
• Engineering Honors
• Global Programs
• Student Organizations
• MSEN Fast Track Program
• Admissions and Aid
• Entry to a Major Process
• Scholarships and Financial Aid
• Research Centers, Facilities and Labs
• Undergraduate Research Opportunities
• Core Faculty by Broad Expertise Area

• Department Leadership Team
• Affiliated Faculty
• Research Staff

Ph.D. Qualifying Exam

Objectives of the ph.d. qualifying exam.

The objective of the Qualifying Exam (QE) in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering (MSEN) is to test the candidate’s intellectual maturity and fundamental knowledge and understanding of materials science and engineering.

The QE will serve as an indicator of the candidate’s ability to continue the Ph.D. dissertation work and carry out research independently in a chosen field of study. An important component of the examination is evaluating the capability for critical and creative thinking, the ability to summarize and critically assess a large body of the literature and the ability to propose cutting-edge research to fill gaps in knowledge related to the selected topic.

Doctoral students who are in the two-semester Qualifying Exam process are called Qualifying Exam Candidates.

General requirements for Ph.D. Qualifying Exam

All MSEN students pursuing the Ph.D. degree, with or without a prior master’s degree, are required to pass the QE to be eligible to continue their Ph.D. work. Students should take QE for the first time by the end of their third 15-week semester (spring or fall semesters) in the MSEN Ph.D. program. The qualifying exam is offered during fall and spring semesters only.

Three or more of the following courses must be completed: MSEN 601, MSEN 603, MSEN 640, MSEN 620, and/or MSEN 602.

Students who are on probation by the MSEN QE request submission deadline (established through the MSEN Graduate Program) are not eligible to take the QE. 

Format of the Ph.D. Qualifying Exam

The MSEN qualifying exam consists of:

(1) Ph.D. Qualifying Exam Paper - a written focused literature review with critical analysis of a specific topic, not directly connected to the candidate's Ph.D. thesis topic ( for more details see Section 9.1 in handout );

(2) Oral Ph.D. Qualifying Exam consisting of a presentation and defense of the Ph.D. Qualifying Exam Report ( for more details see Section 9.2 in handout ). Students must demonstrate basic knowledge of fundamental materials science and engineering concepts related to the written report.

Ph.D. Qualifying Exam Report and Oral Ph.D. Qualifying Exam are evaluated by the Ph.D. Examination Committee appointed by the chair of the MSEN Ph.D. Examination Committee for each candidate. ( See Section 6 of handout for more details ).

Timelines of Ph.D. Qualifying Exams

Request for qualifying exam.

To register for QE, students provide the MSEN Graduate Advisor with an electronic version of a completed application form by the designated date listed in the timeline above for that semester. The application form includes the following:

• name of your chair (faculty advisor)
• current thesis topic
• abstract of dissertation research
• abstract of the master’s degree thesis, if applicable
• degrees received

In addition to the application, please provide:

• Unofficial Texas A&M University transcript
• Degree Plan ,  if filed and approved, include degree plan.

• Graduate Programs in Biostatistics

PhD Qualifying Exams & Dissertation Requirements

Phd qualifying exams, preliminary written statistics and biostatistics examination.

The PhD Written Qualifying Examination has two parts: A statistical theory part, developed and scored by the Statistics Group within the Math Department; and a biostatistics part, developed and scored by the Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics within the Department of FMPH. The exam committees in charge may be different for each part of the exam. Whether or not students pass or fail is determined separately by the exam committees for the Statistical Theory part and the Biostatistics part of the exam. The student must pass both QEs at the PhD-provisional pass level or higher, with one QE receiving a PhD pass grade. Each exam committee will forward its recommendation to the chair of the Graduate Program Committee, which will be the final arbiter of pass or fail.

The PhD written qualifying examination will be given at the end of each spring quarter and also at the beginning of each fall quarter. Students in the PhD program must attempt the exam in the spring quarter immediately after they complete both the Math 281A-B-C and FMPH 221-223 core course series. A well-prepared student will take these exams during the first year of the program. Otherwise, they are expected to take the exams during the second year of the program. Students must pass both QEs by the end of the second year in the program. At least one of the exams must be completed with a provisional PhD pass or better by the end of the first year. Failure to meet the passing requirements (i.e.,PhD-provisional pass or better on both QEs with at least one PhD-level pass by the end of the second year) on the QEs, may result in a recommendation to the Dean of Graduate Studies for disqualification of the student in the PhD program and dismissal from the University.

Scientific Research Examination

Students in the PhD program must also pass a Scientific Research Examination. This consists of a seminar presentation of a statistical application in a particular area of life sciences. The presentation will be evaluated by an ad-hoc committee of three faculty members, including at least one outside (non-statistician) member with expertise in the area of application. The exam is taken Pass/Fail. The student is allowed two attempts at taking this exam. The student should pass this requirement prior to the end of the third year of study. The presentation will be evaluated on the students’ demonstration of a sufficient understanding of the area of application, and on the relevance of the statistical approach to this area.

Advancement to Candidacy

It is expected that by the end of the third year (9 quarters), students should have a field of research chosen and a faculty member willing to direct and guide them. A student will advance to candidacy after successfully passing the oral qualifying examination, which deals primarily with the area of research proposed. The student will also have successfully completed at least 64 units of required and elective courses within the Program. More information on the process can be found   here .

Exams taken before receiving committee membership approval from Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Affairs (GEPA) may be deemed null and void. Students must be registered during the quarters in which they take any portion of their QE. To be eligible for the QE, the student must have:

• A “B” average in all work done in graduate standing;
• Satisfied all departmental or group requirements; and
• Removed all academic deficiencies

The preparation for the exam will be done by working closely with a faculty mentor (independent study) who is a regular member of the interdepartmental Program in Biostatistics. The exam committee consists of the Doctoral Committee. The PhD Qualifying Examination examines a student on the breadth and depth of knowledge expected from the coursework taken, and a special research topic approved by the committee. The primary purpose of the QE is to validate that the student is academically qualified to conceptualize a research topic, undertake scholarly research and clearly communicate its results, and successfully produce the dissertation required for a doctoral degree. A thirty minute presentation given by the student is followed by a question period that covers the special research topic as well as coursework in general.

GEPA guidelines for PhD Qualifying Examinations apply and may be viewed here . A student who passes the PhD QE is eligible for Advancement to Candidacy for the PhD degree. Title and abstract of the PhD QE presentation will be distributed to all faculty and students of the participating departments in the Program in Biostatistics, who are invited to attend the presentation portion of the examination. The subsequent question period is a closed session between the student and the committee. The student must file the appropriate paperwork with the Office of Graduate Studies (assisted by the Graduate Coordinator) and pay the candidacy fee to be promoted to Candidacy for the PhD degree. The candidacy fee will post to the student's bill and is the student's responsibility to pay. 

Qualifying Exam: Outcomes. A committee, having reached a unanimous decision, shall inform the student of its decision as “Pass” (no conditions may be appended to this decision), “Not Pass” (the Chair’s report should specify whether the student is required to retake all or part of the exam, list any additional requirements, and state the exact timeline for completion of requirements to achieve a “Pass”) or “Fail”. If a unanimous decision takes the form of “Not Pass” or “Fail”, the Chair of the QE committee must include in its report a specific statement, agreed to by all members of the committee, explaining its decision and must inform the student of its decision. Having received a “Not Pass” or “Fail”, the student may attempt the QE one additional time. After a second exam, a vote of “Not Pass” is unacceptable; only “Pass” or “Fail” is recognized. Only one retake of the QE is allowed. A student who fails the QE on the second attempt will be recommended to the Dean of Graduate Studies for disqualification from the PhD program.

PhD Dissertation Requirements

Doctoral dissertation.

The doctoral dissertation is an essential part of the PhD program. A topic will be selected by the student, under the advice and guidance of a Major Professor (thesis adviser) and a Dissertation Committee chaired by the Major Professor. The Committee is composed of at least 4 members with UC San Diego faculty appointments; at least 1 member must have a primary appointment in a different department than your chair's primary department; at least 2 members must be from Biostatistics. Students are encouraged to begin some research activity as early as possible during the second year of their graduate studies, and to use the Biostatistics Rotation to assess potential thesis advisers. The dissertation must contain an original contribution of quality that would be acceptable for publication in the biostatistics literature that extends the theory or methodology of biostatistics, or extends biostatistical methods to solve a critical problem in applied disciplines.  More details on the dissertation can be found here .

Dissertation Defense

The entire dissertation committee will conduct a final oral examination, which will deal primarily with questions arising out of the relationship of the dissertation to the field of Biostatistics. The final examination will be conducted in two parts. The first part consists of a one-hour presentation by the candidate followed by a brief period of questions pertaining to the presentation; this part of the examination is open to the public. The second part of the examination will immediately follow the first part; this is a closed session between the student and the committee and will consist of a period of questioning by the committee members. Title and abstract of the oral presentation will be distributed to all faculty and students of departments that participate in the Biostatistics.

Normative Time to Degree

The normative time for the PhD in Biostatistics is five years; a student must have advanced to candidacy by the end of 11 quarters. A student is eligible for support for a maximum of five years. The final thesis defense must have been conducted by the end of the 5th year.

Students must pass two written qualifying exams at the PhD level by the end of their second year. At least one of the exams must be completed with a provisional PhD pass or better by the end of the first year. In the second year, a student begins Biostatistics Rotations so that they become familiar with the process of doing research and familiarize themselves with a number of faculty members who may serve as their advisor. Optimally, a student advances to candidacy sometime in their third year; a student must have advanced to candidacy by the end of 11 quarters. This allows for the fourth and fifth year to concentrate on research and produce a thesis. In contrast to coursework, research is an unpredictable endeavor, so it is in the interest of the student to have as much time as possible to produce a thesis.

• PhD Milestones
• PhD Course Requirements
• PhD Qualifying Exams & Dissertation

Share Options

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Linkedin

Ph.D. Qualifying Exam Presentation by Matthew Clark

Computer Science Department

Event Actions

• Add to iCal
• Add to Google

Mining Multimodal and Multidimensional Patterns of Trustworthy Behavior

  abstract:  .

Interpersonal trust takes many forms and can be influenced by small, challenging-to-quantify events. However, no study investigates relationships between multimodal behavioral patterns and different dimensions of trust. We conducted a study involving 500 participants to explore the connection between an individual’s behavior and how trustworthy they are perceived by others. Participants were shown videos of people being interviewed and were asked to fill out a questionnaire rating the trustworthiness of the person in the video. We developed a novel method to extract common behavioral patterns linked to different levels of trustworthiness, and our analysis revealed that these associations are highly variable. While some behavioral patterns appear to be commonly linked to particular dimensions of trust, they do not provide clear relationships. Conversely, less common behaviors are more conclusive. We also discovered that behavioral patterns differ depending on the type of trust. These findings could be useful for developing machines that can evaluate the trustworthiness of their users.

• Seongkook Heo, Committee Chair , (CS/SEAS/UVA)
• Afsaneh Doryab, Advisor  (SYS, CS/SEAS/UVA )
• Tariq Iqbal (SYS, CS/SEAS/UVA ) 
• Jack Davidson (CS/SEAS/UVA)

Science News by AGU

Are the Geosciences Failing Their Qualifying Exam Goals?

Share this:

• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Editors’ Highlights are summaries of recent papers by AGU’s journal editors.

Source: agu advances.

Most faculty can remember their own qualifying exams as graduate students and have since administered many more, but is there method to this milestone in graduate education?

Exam processes vary widely among academic departments, mostly according to each institution’s tradition and with few data on outcomes. Sadly, the qualifying exam is often a point of failure for retention of underrepresented students. Lack of clarity of expectations, processes, and assessments may pose obstacles for students with marginalized identities in science. Women are more likely to fail than men; international students fail more than domestic students; and few data exist for other minority identities.

The first step towards improvement is to collect and analyze data, which surprisingly few departments do. Dove et al. [2024] discuss eleven more steps of evidence-based practices to align examination processes to values of graduate education. With this roadmap, faculty and administrators can re-examine their qualifying exam outcomes.

Citation: Dove, L. A., Singer, C. E., & Murphy, S. E. (2024). Bringing a lens of equity to geoscience qualifying examinations. AGU Advances , 5, e2024AV001260. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024AV001260

—Eric Davidson, Editor, AGU Advances

Text © 2024. AGU.  CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Features from agu publications, tsunami sands help scientists assess cascadia earthquake models, repeated coseismic uplift above the patton bay splay fault, alaska, agu introduces a new policy to foster inclusion in global research.

The Department of Political Science offers a graduate program of study leading to the Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree. The organization of the graduate program is based on two convictions. One is that political science is a unique subject matter that requires specialization. The second is that all of the social sciences, including political science, rely on systematic evidence and quantitative analysis. The primary goal of the program is to educate scholars who will contribute to the development of political science through careers in teaching and research.

Students pursuing the PhD are normally required to take five semesters of coursework, including five courses providing training in research methodology and statistics. Beyond coursework, completion of the PhD program requires passing comprehensive examinations in both of a student’s primary areas of expertise. When a student passes these examinations, completes all the requirements outlined above and presents a prospectus for the dissertation, the student receives a master’s degree. Remaining requirements for the PhD consist of researching, writing and defending the PhD dissertation.

Admission Requirements

Applicants are expected to have a minimum undergraduate grade-point average of 3.3.

Formal admission to the PhD program occurs only when the student has completed at least one semester in full-time residence in the department’s graduate program and has successfully passed the qualifying examination in the fall of their second year. Until these requirements are fulfilled, all admissions to the PhD program are provisional.

Program Requirements

The PhD curriculum is divided into three subfields: American politics, comparative politics and international relations. Students are expected to identify two sub-fields in which they will specialize from among these substantive subfields. Students are advised to consult the Graduate Student Handbook throughout the degree process.

Course Requirements

Students pursuing the PhD in Political Science must take the required five semesters of coursework, which includes:

• Introduction to American Politics
• Introduction to Comparative Politics
• Introduction to World Politics
• Research Methods and Statistics I
• Research Methods and Statistics II
• Introduction to Formal Theory
• Two advanced skill courses
• Seven Electives (usually four in the student’s primary field and three in their secondary)
• Advanced Research Seminar course

Note: A minimum of 16 seminars (61 credit hours) is required for the PhD. The exact mix of courses and the distribution requirements are determined in consultation with a student’s general guidance committee.

Committe Selection

Doctoral candidates must have a guidance committee and a dissertation committee during their stay at Binghamton University. These committees may be composed of the same members throughout or may change if the student or a committee member wishes. Each committee serves a slightly different function, as described below. The committees may be organized or changed by obtaining the Nomination of Graduate Committee Form from the graduate secretary, collecting the signatures of the proposed members, and submitting it to the director of graduate studies for approval.

General Guidance Committee: Doctoral candidates must organize a general guidance committee by the end of their fourth semester in residence. This committee is made up of three members of the department faculty. The guidance committee advises the student on courses and other requirements needed to complete the degree. 

Dissertation Guidance Committee: The dissertation guidance committee serves in advisory and evaluative capacities during the preparation of the dissertation prospectus and the dissertation itself, and may include extra-departmental faculty. Admission to candidacy may not be completed without the dissertation guidance committee in place. Changes may be made during the dissertation phase as the student deems necessary and with approval of the director of graduate studies. An examiner from outside the department is assigned to the committee by the vice provost and dean of the Graduate School to participate in the oral defense.

Skill Requirement

The skill requirement has two parts: basic and advanced. Successful completion (with a grade of B- or better) of PLSC 500, PLSC 501 and PLSC 502 (which are required for all PhD students) fulfill the basic skill requirement. The advanced research skill may be acquired in either research methodology or a foreign language. Further, students are encouraged to attend a summer Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) program in methodology at the University of Michigan or a comparable alternative program that will materially aid their dissertation research.

Advanced Skill in Research Methodology: Students entering the program with a BA or BS degree must complete a minimum of eight credit hours (two seminars) in research methodology beyond the three-course basic skill requirements.

Advanced Skill in Foreign Language:  Students can meet the foreign language skill requirement necessary for fieldwork or to support their dissertation research by successfully completing an advanced foreign language course (excluding English) at Binghamton with a grade of B or better.  To use a foreign language to satisfy this advanced skill requirement, Ph.D. students must obtain prior approval from both their Guidance Committee and the Graduate Committee, ensuring the language study directly contributes to their field research or dissertation needs.

Qualifying Exam Requirement

In late November or early December of the third semester in the program, all graduate students must take a three-hour written exam in one subfield of their choosing. The exam will be written and graded by the entire faculty in the appropriate subfield. The exam is open book and note. 

The implementation, structure, and style of the exam will be determined by the director of graduate studies. The director of graduate studies will make choices aimed at eliciting short and on-point answers. The faculty of the subfields themselves will write the questions, determine the number of questions and place limits (if any) on length of answers. 

There are three possible grades and outcomes to this exam:

• Sufficient to continue in the doctoral program.
• Insufficient to continue in the doctoral program, sufficient for MA. Student exits program at end of the third semester with an MA degree.
• Fail. Student exits program.

Evaluation of the qualifying exam will also involve consideration of performance in the program so far, especially performance in classes, in determining whether the student should continue in the doctoral program.

Comprehensive Exam Requirement

Paper Requirement

In the fifth semester, every PhD student must present a single-authored paper to the entire faculty (usually in one of the standing workshops in the department). Papers must be presented no later than the end of October of the fifth semester unless there are special circumstances and approval of the graduate committee is secured. The presentation will usually be 10-15 minutes; the remainder of the time will be for questions.

The full faculty will consider the paper and presentation as evidence regarding the student’s capacity to perform original research, and regarding the student’s prospects for completing the dissertation. If the faculty believes the paper and presentation demonstrate that the student is capable of independent research, the student will proceed to the comprehensive written exam. Students are not eligible to take the comprehensive exam without faculty approval.

Written Requirement

In January of the sixth semester, PhD students who successfully completed the paper requirement of the comprehensive exam with a grade of Pass must complete a written exam in the second of their declared fields (that is, not the field represented by the paper presented in the paper component of the comprehensive exam). PhD students who completed the paper requirement with a grade of Low Pass must complete a written exam in each of their declared subfields. The exams will be open book. The content, number of questions and page limit (if any) will be determined by the subfield. Each exam will span three to eight hours, at the discretion of the subfield. The director of graduate studies, in consultation with the faculty, will make the appropriate decisions regarding the exam’s implementation. 

There are three possible outcomes to this exam:

• Pass: The student continues in the program. The dissertation prospectus must be successfully defended within six months of successful completion of the comprehensive exam(s).
• Provisional Pass: The student must retake the exam. The provisional pass is a temporary grade and will be replaced with a grade of Pass or Fail based on the retake. The deadline for the retake is at the field’s discretion but may not be later than one month after the student has been notified of the exam result. Depending upon the nature and quality of the answers provided on the original exam, and at the field’s discretion, the retake may be in whole or in part, and may be oral or written in format. The retake must be in the same field as the original exam.
• Fail: The student may retake the exam one time. The deadline for the retake may not be later than the end of the semester. The retake will follow the same format as the original exam and must be in the same field as the original exam. A second failure results in dismissal from the program.

Dissertation Prospectus Requirement

Students should defend their dissertation prospectuses within six months of passing their comprehensive examination. The prospectus proposes a theoretically grounded important question and demonstrates how the research is to be conducted for, and reported in, the dissertation to answer the question. It should be submitted to all members of the student’s PhD guidance committee one month prior to its oral defense. It is the student’s responsibility to schedule the oral defense in consultation with the guidance committee.

Dissertation Requirement

The development of the dissertation is aided by the dissertation supervisor. Students should take care to choose someone with whom they can work closely and who has an interest in the proposed research. The supervisor gives advice on the direction the research should take, critiques work in progress, encourages the advisee to finish the task within a reasonable time frame and assists in job placement. A final draft of the dissertation must be submitted to the dissertation committee within five years of successful completion of the PhD comprehensive examination.

Before the PhD may be conferred, the candidate must defend the work in an oral public defense. The dissertation committee must unanimously recommend conferral of the degree. Specific guidelines regarding the dissertation may be found in the Graduate School Manual. The handbook clearly outlines all the procedures for proper preparation and submission of the dissertation, including formatting, microfilming and binding. Protecting the research through copyright is explained as well.

Additional Information About the Program

For more information on the Political Science PhD program, please refer to the Political Science Department website . To apply to the Political Science PhD program, please visit the University Admissions website .

INVENTING THE FUTURE OF MEDICINE

Andres Armenta – Ph.D. Qualifying Exam

Exam title: in vitro proximal tubule models for studying the role of curvature on renal epithelial cell function, exam details:.

Date: June 7, 2024 Time: 10:00am Location: Foege N503 and Zoom Zoom Link: https://washington.zoom.us/j/8128533121

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!