Annual Reviews
A key component of our Ph.D. Program is that each student will undergo a yearly evaluation by the Graduate Affairs Committee during each Spring quarter. The goal of these evaluations is to give each student a fair and honest assessment of their progress in the Ph.D. Program. Students making excellent progress are recognized, and students in need of assistance beyond what is normally offered by the Department are given individualized counseling.
As part of this process, each student completes a detailed but brief accounting of their accomplishments in the past year (e.g. courses taken, independent study projects completed, efforts to find an advisor, papers submitted/published, talks given, teaching assistant evaluations, etc.). This information, along with an assessment by each student's advisor is reviewed by the Graduate Affairs Committee. After being reviewed and discussed by the faculty, students will receive a letter with the faculty's assessment. Any recommendations for improvement are passed along to the student's advisor for discussion and planning a course of action. Students who have not made sufficient progress are put on probation or given an unsatisfactory review. Students on probation are required to be re-evaluated at the end of the next quarter.
The requirements used to compare students vary, based on how many years the student has been in the program. The requirements start out relatively specific but become more general as the student moves into the later stages of their Ph.D. studies. The yearly requirements break down as follows:
- Year 1: First, students should have made some progress in completing the Ph.D. course requirement. In most cases, this means taking between 4 and 6 courses in the first year. However, a student could justify taking less than 4 classes by making superior progress in research. Second, students should make progress in starting research work and finding a research advisor. Students typically begin by identifying a set of potential faculty advisors and working with those faculty to initiate a research project. Third, students who are TAs must have good teaching evaluations. And fourth, students should participate in CS department activities such as seminars, colloquia, etc.
- Year 2: Students are expected to have found a research advisor. Students should make progress towards completing the Ph.D. course requirement and Major Area Exam.
- Year 3: Students are expected to have completed the Ph.D. course requirement and passed the Major Area Exam. Students should make progress towards completing their dissertation proposal.
- Year 4 and beyond: Students are expected to have completed their dissertaion proposal. Students are expected to continue making progress towards finishing their dissertation and graduating.
This evaluation process is seen as very valuable by both faculty and students. For the faculty, the review is an opportunity to assess students and the research they are doing. For the students, it is an opportunity to get advice and a progress evaluation from a larger group of faculty than their own advisor. Students who receive satisfactory reviews can be confident that the faculty feel they are making good progress toward successfully completing their Ph.D. studies.
