Qualifying, General, and Final Exam requirements and practices

Goals of the Qualifying Exam

The overarching goal of the Qualifying Exam (QE) is to prepare our Ph.D. students to succeed in a fast-changing, cutting edge research environment, to learn how to learn and pursue their own independent research, and to contribute to the generation and dissemination of new knowledge. The Final Exam is a defense of the student’s dissertation and marks the culmination of their doctoral studies.

The Qualifying Exam has the following objective:

1. Foundation: The QE should provide an opportunity for students to consolidate and reinforce ideas to solidify their understanding of material.
2. Synthesis: Students should synthesize information from multiple courses and publications to form a big-picture view of their field.
3. Communication: Technical communication is a primary skill of a PhD. The exam should evaluate communication, both written and oral.
4. Community: Forming strong connections within the PhD cohort and with faculty has long- lasting value.
5. Grit: Long-term success is highly correlated with grit and determination. The QE should still require perseverance and drive from the candidate.
6. Program Checkpoint: Finally, the QE provides an offramp for students who are unlikely to succeed in the department or, having begun to develop a research plan, decide that this is not the right path for them.

In addition to the goals above, which should persist throughout the Ph.D. study, there are additional goals for the GE:

1. Novel research: By the GE, students should be engaged in original research.
2. Committee involvement: Committee involvement early on will provide valuable feedback to help the student steer their research directions early.
3. Ownership of ideas: Ph.D. candidates should be synthesizing new ideas and proposed research based on their growing big-picture view.
4. Propose, plan, and execute: The GE can provide students an opportunity to propose an interesting, important, and attainable research topic, make a research plan, and execute this plan.

Qualifying Exam Structure

To ensure rigor, Ph.D. students must complete a core curriculum consisting of a set of required courses (ME564/565 plus 3 courses chosen from this list), along with a GPA requirement (cumulative average GPA > 3.5 in core curriculum).

The core curriculum develops proficiency in 2 fundamentals that represent the most advanced technical approaches within the student’s principal technological area. The student is expected to work with their advisor to select an optimal set of courses for their program of study.

• Rationale: There is a strong correlation between performance in coursework and foundational knowledge required to successfully complete a Ph.D. If students have a GPA < 3.5 in these core courses, the committee will determine appropriate remedial actions including retaking a course, TAing courses, taking additional courses, or completing an additional oral or written examination to synthesize material.
• Timing: This requirement must be completed prior to scheduling the GE, but is not a requirement for the QE. Further information is provided in Section 3.
  

Written document (3-5 pages, not including references)

1. Paper review (1-2 pages) - in-depth review of a research paper suggested by advisor and QE committee. An in-depth review should:
   • Provide a brief summary of the paper, including methods used, principal conclusions, etc., so that the reader gets the main ideas of the paper.
   • Discuss in detail some aspects of the paper that you think are especially important.
   • Critique the paper: what strengths and weaknesses do you find?
   • Suggest future research, based on the findings of the paper, or discuss how the paper informed subsequent research. It may be helpful to use Google Scholar or the Web of Science to find related papers and context.
2. Literature review and context (1-2 pages) - perform a related literature review to understand broader context of proposed work;
3. Research plan (1 page) - plan a well-scoped research project. If the student has not yet begun to develop a plan with their research advisor, this can be a research plan that follows from the paper review or otherwise represents a reasonable plan of research in the intended field of study;

Oral exam

1. 20 minute student presentation (strict limit)
2. Maximum 10 minutes public Q&A (strict limit)
3. Maximum 60 minutes questions by committee
4. Closed door committee deliberation and vote on exam outcomes (maximum exam duration of 120 minutes including committee deliberation and conveying the exam outcome to the student.

Questions should be designed to probe the student’s knowledge of fundamental concepts, relevant literature, and proposed research. Additional guidance for students and the committee is provided in the appendices.

The committee may provide the student with guidance on the recommended time to allocate to each topic, but all three components of the written document should be addressed in the student presentation and discussed with the committee.

General Exam

• A written research proposal should be provided to the committee 2-4 weeks in advance of the exam.
  • The written document should describe a plan for research that will culminate in a dissertation, demonstrate the feasibility of this plan through the student’s work to date and synthesis of relevant literature, and propose a timeline outlining key milestones for completion.
  • The exact format is up to the committee and advisor, but a concise document (e.g., 10-15 pages, plus references) similar to an NSF or NIH proposal is recommended. A copy of a conference proceeding or journal paper authored by the student may be appended to the exam to provide committee members with further details.
• An oral presentation to the committee and members of the public describing work to date and plans for the remainder of the dissertation. The following guidelines are suggested by the ME department's Graduate Committee:
  • The oral presentation typically lasts 40-50 minutes, followed by time for questions from the audience.
  • The closed session with the Supervisory Committee follows the public portion and serves as the final evaluation. This has two components: a committee discussion with the student and a committee deliberation and vote on exam outcomes with the student excused.
  • The total duration of the General Exam is usually between 2 and 2.5 hours. Students are encouraged to conservatively reserve the exam room for 2.5 hours.
• Per the Academic Progress Policy, the GE should be taken within 18 months of QE and must be completed within 5 years of entering the Ph.D. program.

Final Exam

The Final Exam is a defense of the dissertation and is divided into two parts: a public presentation and a closed session, with the latter only open to the committee members. The exam typically starts with an oral presentation of the dissertation, followed by questions from both the Supervisory Committee and the audience. The exam concludes with a closed session where the Supervisory Committee evaluates the student's performance. The committee determines whether the student passes the exam. The Final Exam follows Graduate School policies, and it is the student's responsibility to be thoroughly familiar with all Graduate School requirements related to the exam.

The following guidelines are suggested by the ME department's Graduate Committee:

• The dissertation should be submitted to your reading committee prior to the exam date.
• The oral presentation typically lasts 40-50 minutes, followed by time for questions from the audience. This should describe major findings from the research, but may not go into the same level of depth for all areas of the dissertation in the interest of time.
• The closed session with the Supervisory Committee follows the public portion and serves as the final evaluation. This has two components: a committee discussion with the student and a committee deliberation and vote on exam outcomes with the student excused.
• The total duration of the Final Exam is usually between 2 and 2.5 hours. Students are encouraged to conservatively reserve the exam room for 2.5 hours.

The Final Exam should be taken at least 6 months after passing the General Exam and must be completed within 10 years of entering the PhD program. A successful Final Exam should demonstrate that the student has contributed to the body of knowledge in their field of study.

Timeline

Table 1 summarizes recommended timelines for milestones in the Ph.D. program and Table 2 summarizes required timelines. A petition and waiver are required to receive an extension to required exam completion dates. Further details are given in the department policy on Standards for Sufficient Academic Progress for Ph.D. Students.

Track	Core courses	Qualifying Exam	General Exam	Final Exam
Direct Ph.D.	By General Exam	18 months after entry to Ph.D. program	Within 18 months of Qualifying Exam	>6 months after passing General Exam
Traditional Ph.D. w/ UW ME Masters	By General Exam (can be satisfied by Masters coursework)	12 months after entry to Ph.D. program	Within 18 months of Qualifying Exam	>6 months after passing General Exam
Traditional Ph.D. w/ non-UW ME masters	By General Exam (can waive requirement)	9 months after entry to Ph.D. program	Within 18 months of Qualifying Exam	>6 months after passing General Exam

Track	Core courses	Qualifying Exam	General Exam	Final Exam
Direct Ph.D.	By General Exam	24 months after entry to Ph.D. program	Within 5 years of entry to Ph.D. program	Within 10 years of entry to Ph.D. program
Traditional Ph.D. w/ UW ME Masters	By General Exam (can be satisfied by Masters coursework)	18 months after entry to Ph.D. program	Within 5 years of entry to Ph.D. program	Within 10 years of entry to Ph.D.program
Traditional Ph.D. w/ non-UW ME masters	By General Exam (can waive requirement)	15 months after entry to Ph.D. program	Within 5 years of entry to Ph.D. program	Within 10 years of entry to Ph.D. program

Supervisory committees for the General Exam should be established within 1 year of passing the Qualifying Exam. The Reading Committee for the Final Exam should be established around 3
months prior to scheduling the Final Exam, as soon as the dissertation draft is complete.

Further information on specific timelines and policies:

• UW Mechanical Engineering Ph.D. students
• UW's Graduate School exams policies
• MyGrad Program for students (Scheduling)

Qualifying Exam Guidance to Committee and Students

Committee formation and composition

• The committee consists of a minimum of four members. If students are co-advised, the committee must consist of at least five members.
• At least three members should be from the student’s probable PhD committee and at least two must be core ME faculty members. This committee may be adjusted between the QE and GE and does not need to be officially registered with the Graduate School.
  • The Graduate Program Coordinator and Assoc. Chair for Academics monitor changes in committee composition to identify and discourage any trends towards stacking committees for an “easy pass”.
• The committee must also include one member of the core ME faculty who is designated Departmental Representative (DR). The student’s advisor(s) must have no substantive record of collaboration with the DR. The role of the DR is to ensure fairness and consistency across exams, as well as promote transfer of successful exam strategies across faculty interest areas. The DR is analogous to the Graduate School Representative (GSR) for the GE and Final Exam.
• Committee should be formed at least 6 weeks before the Qualifying Exam is scheduled.
• Committee members should be agreed upon by the student and their advisor(s).

Timeline (Dates relative to exam)

• -6 weeks: exam scheduled (committee appointment, including DR must be complete)
• -4 weeks: committee sends review paper to student
• -2 weeks: student submits written document to committee for review
• -0.5-1 week: short committee meeting (may be virtual) to discuss approach to exam and comment on the student’s exam document
• 0: exam and committee vote on outcome
• +1 week: exam summary document sent to student

Roles prior to the exam

• Selection of the review paper is the responsibility of the student’s advisor(s), though all committee members should concur with the selection.
  • The paper selected by the committee for the student to review should be one that they consider foundational to the student’s course of study.
  • The paper should include concepts that lend themselves to questions about engineering fundamentals related to the student’s research (e.g., energy balances, material properties, dynamical systems).
  • The paper should not be one that the student has previously discussed in detail with their research advisor(s) or peers (e.g., a journal club). A paper that a research advisor may have previously recommended to a student or one that a student may be generally familiar with, but has not reviewed in depth, is allowable. The research advisor(s) should be transparent about such circumstances in their communications with the other committee members.
• Committee members, including the advisor(s), are allowed and encouraged to prepare their students through a variety of mechanisms (e.g., review another paper with their students, incorporate journal reviews during lab meetings, discuss research directions and background literature, encourage participation in seminars).

Roles during the exam

• The written document and oral presentation must be the sole product of the student. The student may not solicit or receive assistance from their peers, research advisor(s), other faculty, or members of the general public. Soliciting or receiving such assistance constitutes academic misconduct. Further information about what types of activities are allowable is provided in Section 7.
• All committee members, including research advisor(s) and DR, are encouraged to question the student during the exam to assess capabilities and potential for successful pursuit of doctoral research. Elements to be assessed are described in Appendix B (Section 5).
• All committee members, but especially the student’s research advisor(s), are strongly discouraged from immediately “rescuing” a student who is struggling during the exam to allow the student the space to work through their thought process and learn from the exam.
• The student’s research advisor(s) should not monopolize the discussion during the exam.

Exam outcomes

• Exam outcomes are determined by a 3/4 majority vote of the committee members (see specific guidance from Graduate School on 3/4 majority for committees with more than four members).
• In reaching a decision, the committee should consider the student’s performance on the written and oral exam, relative to the exam elements given in Appendix B (Section 5).
• Exam outcomes are recorded on the exam committee signature form provided by the Graduate Program Advisor. All members of the committee must sign this form before it is returned to the Graduate Program Advisor by the student.
• A short summary (0.5-1 page) of the exam must be prepared by the student’s advisor(s), with input and concurrence by other committee members (including the DR), describing strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. This summary must be provided by the student to the Graduate Program Advisor within one week following the exam.
• Possible outcomes:
  • Pass: The norm for a pass will include recommendations to improve on areas of identified weakness.
  • Pass w/ qualifications to proceed: This can include, but is not limited to, additional coursework with GPA requirements or for the student to TA a specific course.
  • Fail with option to retake.
  • Fail without option to retake: This should be a rarely used “off ramp” for students who, in the consideration of the committee, are not suited to further graduate study.
  • Students may take the Qualifying Exam no more than two times. A re-test following failure of the exam must occur within 6 months.

Appendix B: Qualifying Exam Elements

The following table describes the elements of the QE that should be assessed through the written document and oral exam.

Topic area	Objective
Writing capability	Identify deficiencies in a student’s ability to structure written arguments in a clear manner.
Presentation capability	Identify deficiencies in a student’s ability to present oral and visual information in a clear manner.
Grasp of ME fundamentals	Ensure that, in the opinion of the committee, the student’s fundamental knowledge is sufficient to build towards a doctoral degree.
Ability to critically review literature	Identify deficiencies in a student’s ability to explore literature with a critical eye (see additional guidance in Appendix C, Section 6).

How to prepare for the Qualifying Exam

The qualifying exam structure requires students to engage in the research process earlier in their program to develop good practices and build towards a research plan. The exam format challenges students and requires maturity in forming their own independent opinions and conclusions based on the relevant literature.

A few concrete steps that can help students prepare for and succeed in the exam:

• New student outreach: The department offers a presentation to PhD students, providing an overview of the exam format and expectations. We present the goals of the exam and guide students to help prepare them.
• Journal clubs: Many groups in the department have student journal clubs, where students rotate each week carefully reading and presenting a paper to the club. This involves critical reading and analysis of the relevant literature.
• Mock QE: Although advisors are not allowed to help the student in the actual QE, they are free to help students prepare in a mock QE with a different paper.
• Special topics courses: Several special topics courses have similar formats, and students will get preparation by taking these courses.
• Consolidate knowledge: Students are also encouraged to review and consolidate material from relevant coursework, as examiners will probe fundamental knowledge. Studying in groups and asking each other oral exam questions is encouraged.

Examples of allowable and unallowable assistance during the Qualifying Exam

The following is a non-exhaustive list of allowable and unallowable assistance for the Qualifying Exam, organized in the form of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). If you have a question about whether a specific type of assistance is allowable during the exam, please contact your committee, with the Graduate Program Advisor copied.