Proposal and Qualifying Exam

It is expected that all members of the QEC will attend the exam, either in person or via teleconference or videoconference. In the unusual event that one member of the QEC knows in advance that he or she cannot attend the exam, he or she must submit a written report, with questions and a preliminary vote (per the decision categories), to the appropriate administrative office within the academic unit/program at least one week before the exam. This office will arrange for the chair or a member of the QEC to read the questions of the absent member during the rounds of questioning in the exam and to share the preliminary vote of the absent member during the “in camera” committee deliberations. Only if the absent member is the external examiner will the preliminary vote count toward the decision. If two or more members of the QEC inform the appropriate administrative office in advance that they cannot attend the exam, it may be rescheduled.

In the case of an unexpected absence of the chair or a QEC member, the person who is going to be delayed or who cannot attend must, if possible, telephone the office of the chair of the department or of the program director. If any member of the QEC will be delayed not more than one hour, the department chair’s/program director’s office will inform the QEC Chair, the candidate, and the other QEC members that the exam will be delayed for this period of time. If a QEC member is unable to attend, questions to be addressed to the candidate are to be dictated over the telephone, along with a confidential vote (per the decision categories).

If the QEC chair or a QEC member do not appear for the exam and do not contact the department’s office within one-half hour, or when the department’s office has been notified of the QEC chair’s or QEC member’s unexpected inability to attend, the following procedures are to be implemented:

• A representative of the department’s office will inform the candidate, the chair of the exam, and the QEC of the unexpected absence.
• If the thesis advisor is unable to attend, another member of the DAC will be appointed as acting advisor by the chair, after an in-camera discussion with members of the QEC.
• If the chair is unable to attend, the department’s office will arrange for a replacement within one (1) hour.
• If the external examiner is unable to attend, the questions and vote of the external examiner will be delivered to the chair, who will represent the external examiner, ask the questions dictated or provided in the report by the external examiner, and share the external examiner’s preliminary vote during the in-camera deliberations (and this vote will count in the determination of a decision).
• If a member of the QEC is absent, but is able to dictate questions to be addressed to the candidate, the chair will be provided with and ask the member’s questions. The chair will share the absentee member’s preliminary vote during the in-camera deliberations, but this vote will not count in the determination of a decision.

The examination is to be postponed and rescheduled as soon as possible only if the candidate or two or more members of the QEC do not appear.

Chair “In Camera” Meeting with QEC

Once all members of the QEC are present and necessary introductions have been made, the chair will ask the candidate and all other attendees to leave the room. The chair will then conduct an “in camera” meeting to:

• Remind the members that the candidate is being examined on the written thesis proposal, the oral defence of the thesis proposal, and the candidate’s ability to answer questions related to topics chosen by the QEC in advance of the examination (that constitutes the “qualifying” portion of the exam).
• Remind the members of the time frame for the exam (normally 2½ to 3 hours duration).
• Decide in which order members will ask questions – the external examiner is always the first to question the candidate, the committee member from outside the academic unit of the candidate (if there is one) is usually the second to question, and the thesis advisor is usually the last.
• Decide how many rounds of questions (normally two) will be used before other attendees can ask questions, and decide a rough limit on the number of questions or the time allotted to each member for each round of questions (e.g. two to three questions or 10-15 minutes per person in each round). Each round of questions should not normally exceed 60 minutes. The first round of questions should be directly related to the research proposal. The second round of questions from the QEC constitutes the “qualifying” portion of the exam, and should be related to topics chosen by the QEC in advance of the examination.
• Agree on any other procedures that might be required for the exam. The chair will then invite the candidate and other attendees back into the room and inform them of the procedures that have been decided upon.

Candidate Presents Oral Summary of Thesis Proposal

The chair will ask the candidate to present an oral summary of the thesis proposal (approximately 20 minutes) to begin the exam. This presentation will be followed by a brief period for questions from members of the audience, excluding the QEC.

Second Part of Examination: Question Rounds

The second part of the examination will consist of two rounds of questions from the QEC to the candidate, and will be performed in camera in the presence of the QEC and the Chair.

The chair will ask the external examiner to commence the rounds of questioning (in the absence of the external examiner, the chair will ask his or her questions). Upon the conclusion of all questions, the chair will ask the candidate and others to leave the room.

“In Camera” Deliberations of the QEC

If present, the dean of Graduate Studies, the dean of the candidate’s Faculty, the departmental chair, and the graduate coordinator/program director are permitted to stay and observe the “in camera” deliberations of the QEC; however, they may not participate in the discussion except by invitation and they have no vote.

The chair will conduct an “in camera” meeting of the QEC to:

• Summarize the decision categories (see below).
• Review the voting procedures (see below).
• Ask all members, beginning with the external examiner, to summarize their evaluation of the written thesis proposal, the oral presentation and the candidate’s ability to answer questions related to topics chosen by the QEC in advance of the examination, indicate their vote.
• Assist the committee to reach consensus on a final category (this information must be noted on the PhD Proposal and Qualifying Examination Report).
• Have members of the QEC sign the PhD Proposal and Qualifying Examination Report.

Committee Decision

The chair will then invite the candidate back into the room and:

1. Inform the candidate of the committee’s decision.
2. Offer the QEC members the opportunity to provide feedback to the candidate on both the written proposal, the oral presentation and their answers to questions related to topics chosen by the QEC.

The chair should return the PhD Proposal and Qualifying Examination Report to the appropriate administrative office in the candidate’s academic unit/program. This office should then forward a copy of the form to the Graduate Studies Office.

Note: The first phase of the exam is public and the chair has the responsibility to ensure that high standards of conduct are exercised by those in attendance. Thus, the chair has the right to exclude persons whose conduct disturbs the exam or to stop and reschedule the exam, if necessary.

If all but one member of the QEC agree on a decision category (see below), the decision shall be that of the majority. Where two dissenting votes are cast, discussion must continue to arrive at a decision on which there is consensus (i.e. no more than one dissenting vote). When consensus is reached, all members of the QEC should sign the PhD Proposal and Qualifying Examination Report. As discussed above, if a QEC member is absent but has provided a preliminary vote, this vote will be shared with the committee during the in-camera deliberations, but the vote will count in the determination of a decision only if it is that of the external examiner.

The following are the decision categories that are available to the QEC:

Based on the candidate’s written proposal, defence of their research proposal and responses to questions, the QEC will render a pass/fail/deferred decision on the first attempt at the exam. If the decision is “deferred”, then it must be concluded with either “pass” or “fail” within four weeks. For a second attempt of the exam, the decision is limited to “pass” or “fail”.

Pass

• The written proposal, proposal defence, and qualifying examination were all satisfactory.

Fail 

• The written proposal was unacceptable and/or the student was unable to successfully defend the hypothesis, objectives, experimental approaches and significance of their research proposal and/ or the student lacked the basic knowledge and depth of understanding of the majority of the assigned topics.

Deferred

• The written proposal requires major revision or substantive additions, the decision can be deferred until the revised proposal is resubmitted.
  
  • Resubmission and decision (pass or fail) must be completed within four weeks.
• If the student is deficient in basic knowledge or depth of understanding in a few areas of the assigned topics, the decision can be deferred. In this case, the QEC will need additional input from the candidate in order to render a decision. The QEC should request answers to specific questions or explanations to specific problems/concepts/techniques in which the candidate was found lacking. The QEC will have one (1) week to provide these follow up questions. The student can have the option of written or oral answers.
  • Completed answers and decision (pass or fail) must be done within four weeks.

Note: If the QEC is not prepared to reach a decision at the time of the exam, it is the responsibility of the chair to determine what additional information is required by the committee to reach a decision, to arrange to obtain this information for the committee, and to call another meeting of the committee as soon as the required information is available. It is also the responsibility of the chair to inform the candidate about the delay.

Students must “Pass” the Research Proposal and Qualifying Exam in order to continue in the program. Students will gain 0.5 credit if they pass the Qualifying Exam. If on the first attempt the student’s performance is deemed to be unsatisfactory (and as such the decision is “Fail”), the examination may be repeated no later than 6 months from the date of the first examination. If the student does not receive a pass following the second examination, the Program Coordinator will recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies that the student withdraws from the PhD program.