PhD Examination Policy

Department of Computer Science
Utah State University

1 Introduction

This document outlines the policies of the USU Computer Science Department regarding the written and oral Ph.D. qualification examinations. The document states the objectives of both types of exams and the expectations that prospective USU Ph.D. candidates should meet in order to pass them. The document also explains the administrative procedures that have been put in place to ensure quality control and fairness.

PhD Qualifying Policy - Effective Fall 2008

       1 PhD Paper Development and Presentation Examination

In order to complete a PhD in Computer Science from Utah State University, among other requirements, a student must show that they possess the ability to do PhD level research. While successful defense of a PhD dissertation is the final step, as a first step, PhD students must write a technical research paper exhibiting their ability to follow a complete research methodology on a small scale. While publication of the paper is not a requirement, it must be in a publishable format. The expectations for this paper are as follows:

• The student is the primary author of the paper, and its topic has been agreed to by his/her PhD committee.
• It is 5-8 pages in length written in IEEE or ACM two column format.
• The paper should be written in the style of a standard technical research paper, i.e. incorporating elements such as an introduction, significance, problem definition, methodology, experimental results, discussion, and correct citations.
• When deemed ready by their major professor, the student will defend their paper in a public meeting before their PhD committee. At the day/time of presentation of the paper to their PhD committee members, the defense date must be set at least 10 working days from that date.
• The goal of this qualifying policy is to provide early validation of a student’s ability to succeed in the research component of the doctoral program.
• Upon completion of the paper defense, each member of the PhD committee will vote indicating his or her approval or disapproval of the paper as an indication of appropriate capability for a doctoral student; this will be a majority rules vote. If the student fails this qualifier, he or she must re-apply to the Ph.D. program and be re-admitted in order to continue in the program.

  While there is some flexibility in the scheduling of the qualifier, it is important that it be completed early in one’s program. For that reason, the following timelines are given:

• Those without an MS must have completed 18 credits, 6 of those being 7000 level and have a 3.5 GPA, in order to take the qualifier.
• Those with an MS must have completed 12 credits, 6 of those being 7000 level and have a 3.5 GPA, in order to take the qualifier.
• Students may complete (register for) a maximum of 6 credits of CS7970 (dissertation credits) before successfully completing the qualifier.

    

  2 Oral Exams

  After the candidate passes the paper development and presentation examination, the candidate must pass two oral exams: the competency exam and the thesis proposal defense.

  2.1 Competency Exam

  2.1.1 Objectives and Expectations

  The primary objective of the competency exam is to test the candidate’s competency in the following three areas: oral communication, scientific methodology, and rational inference. The candidate is also evaluated in terms of his or her creativity and the ability to think under pressure.

  The oral communication competency tests the candidate’s ability to clearly and coherently articulate ideas and concepts in English.

  The scientific methodology competency tests the candidate’s ability to conduct experiments and analyze the outcomes of experiments conducted by others. Special attention is paid to the candidate’s understanding of such concepts as experimental design and statistical significance.

  The rational inference competency tests the candidate’s ability to understand and make logical inferences, i.e., make logical derivations given a set of definitions and assumptions.

  2.1.2 Administration

  Within one year after passing the paper development and presentation examination, the candidate must pass the oral competency exam. The supervisory committee includes a total of five members. At least three must be CS faculty members (internal members) and there must be at least one  external member. One of the internal members is the candidate’s major professor.

  In consultation with the supervisory committee, the candidate schedules the date of the competency exam. One week prior to the scheduled date, the candidate receives a set of publications from the supervisory committee. The publications may be real journal and/or conference articles or something written by the committee specifically for the purpose of the oral exam. The candidate’s task is to do a careful review of the publications and make an oral presentation of the review. The review should address such issues as the purpose of each publication, the validity of scientific methodology, and the logical soundness of conclusions. The exact instructions on the expectations and objectives of the competency exam are given to the candidate by an internal committee member when the candidate receives the publications.

  The competency exam is conducted by the student’s supervisory committee and chaired by the examination chair selected according to the standard USU practice. A typical competency exam lasts one hour with thirty minutes for the candidate’s presentation and thirty minutes allowed for questions.

  All five members of the supervisory committee must be present at the exam. If a committee member cannot be present, the department, in consultation with the absentee, if possible, the other committee members, and the candidate, will either reschedule the date of the exam or provide an adequate committee member replacement for the exam to proceed as scheduled.

  In grading the student’s performance on the competency exam, the supervisory committee gives one of the following three grades: unconditional pass, conditional pass, and fail.

  An unconditional pass means that, in the committee’s opinion, the candidate exhibits satisfactory levels of competence in oral communication, scientific methodology, and rational inference, shows adequate creativity, and has the adequate ability to think under pressure.

  A conditional pass means that, in the committee’s opinion, the candidate exhibits satisfactory levels of competence in some, but not all areas and must, therefore, satisfy a specific condition determined by the supervisory committee. For example, if a student’s competency in oral communication is found unsatisfactory, the student may be asked to give a few presentations at the department’s research seminar and/or give several lectures in an undergraduate class. A student lacking in scientific methodology may be asked to take a statistics course.

  The exact formulation of the condition, its extent, and the time period during which the condition must be satisfied is at the discretion of the supervisory committee. To satisfy the condition, the candidate may be asked to retake a portion of the competency exam at a later date.

  A failure means that, in the committee’s opinion, the candidate exhibits unsatisfactory performance in most competency areas.

  After the competency exam, the supervisory committee produces a written report documenting the candidate’s performance. The report offers a brief justification of the committee’s decision. The report is made available to the candidate and to the department. If the candidate fails the competency exam, the candidate may retake the competency exam once.

  If the candidate fails the competency exam, the candidate may retake the competency exam once. If the candidate fails the retake, the candidate may reapply to the Ph.D. program.

   

  2.2 Thesis Proposal Defense

  2.2.1 Objectives and Expectations

  The primary objective of the thesis proposal defense is to determine the quality of the research proposed by the candidate. It is expected that the quality of the proposed research will be worthy of a Ph.D. in Computer Science.

  2.2.2 Administration

  The thesis proposal defense is conducted by the student’s supervisory committee and chaired by the examination chair selected according to the standard USU practice. The format of the thesis proposal defense is an oral presentation followed by questions. The length of the oral presentation is at the discretion of the supervisory committee, but will not exceed one hour.

  All five members of the supervisory committee must be present at the exam. If a committee member cannot be present, the department, in consultation with the absentee, if possible, the other committee members, and the candidate, will either reschedule the date or provide an adequate faculty replacement for the defense to proceed as scheduled.

  The supervisory committee grades the candidate’s performance in terms of two grades: pass or fail.

  After the defense, the supervisory committee produces a written report documenting the student’s performance. The report offers a justification of the committee’s decision.

  In case of failure, the candidate will have one more opportunity to pass the thesis proposal defense. If the candidate fails the retake, the candidate may reapply to the Ph.D. program.

   

  Click here for pdf of this document.