- Proposal 1: For the special project carried out in the summer between the first and second years, students will be required to make a Powerpoint or similar presentation, and will be provided with written feedback concerning their overall research performance by the summer research advisor, that will be reviewed by the DGS.
- Proposal 2: A core thesis committee, consisting of 3 faculty members, will be appointed for each student at the earliest opportunity, either in the second semester of the second year or in the first semester of the third year. The student will present his/her 2-to-3 summer research and research plans to this committee early in the the first semester of the third year. The committee composition can be changed later.
- Proposal 3: Each student will meet periodically with her/his core thesis committee in closed session to discuss progress. These meetings will occur at least once per year, but could be more frequently at the discretion of the committee.
- Proposal 4: Each student will present his/her thesis Prospectus in an oral presentation to their core thesis committee (before the end of their third year). In addition, the committee will review the written prospectus, and will approve or suggest modifications to the Prospectus. The current system of review of the Prospectus by the entire faculty will be discontinued.
- Proposal 5: In addition, students will periodically give presentations (at least once per year) in a public forum, which the core thesis committee members are expected to attend and concerning which provide written feedback to the student. Possible forums for such presentations could include the Weak Interaction Discussion Group, the Monday Evening Seminar, the Single Molecule Discussion Group, collaboration presentations, group meeting presentations, etc.. The format of the presentation should be a a talk that lasts 40 minutes or more.
- Proposal 6: After admission to candidacy, each student will be provided with yearly written feedback from the Department, prepared by the student’s advisor and reviewed and approved or disapproved by the student’s core thesis committee.
- Proposal 7: The current format of a formal Field Oral Exam will be replaced by a requirement on the thesis committeee to ensure a sufficiently broad knowledge of the student’s subfield.
Rationale. An important recommendation of the Engelman report, that the GS is emphasizing, was that students’ research experiences should be formally evaluated and the evaluation results communicated to students in writing. Thus, substantive feedback to a student concerning his/her progress at the end of each year will shortly be required of us by the graduate school. This motivates re-evaluation of the department’s formal procedures for monitoring a student’s progress towards their PhD, and mentoring her/him along the way. Indeed, in the questionnaires, the reaction of most students was that they had never received any feedback concerning their research performance, and that they would like feedback. Students particularly mentioned lack of feedback after talks, and a few bemoaned the absence of instruction in how to give a good talk. Some students, however, who were already making a number of research presentations to collaborators, disdained the idea of having to do an additional, special presentation for the thesis committee.
The Graduate School is especially concerned that research performance and potential be evaluated early on. This motivates Proposal 1.
A student’s thesis prospectus is a very important document, representing an initial vision for the student’s thesis. Currently, the prospectus is prepared by the student, in collaboration with the student’s advisor. It is then submitted to the DGS and, if the DGS approves, it is posted on the Departmental web site for review by the entire faculty. The weaknesses in this procedure are two-fold. First, the DGS is not expert across subfields - certainly not the current one. Second, in most cases, expert faculty do not read the posted prospecti. Thus, the current procedure provides an inadaquate review of the thesis prospectus. By contrast, the proposed procedure provides the opportunity for mentoring and advice from more than solely the student’s advisor. In this context, it is worth noting that Physics seems to be unique at Yale in not establishing a thesis committee essentially until the thesis is finished. These considerations lead to Proposals 2 and 4.
Proposals 3, 5 and 6 are designed to more closely monitor progress and mentor students beyond Year 3, and also provide detailed written feedback to the student about their progress as required by the Graduate School. The allowable format and content for the “public presentations” should be viewed broadly, subject only to the participation of the core thesis committee. Especially early on in her/his research career, to satisfy this requirement, it may be that it makes most sense for a student to make a journal club-type presentation in the context of a group meeting, later on progressing to a research-based presentation in one of the regularly scheduled series. Yearly private meetings with the core thesis committee, in addition to yearly public presentations which the core thesis committee attends will provide ample opportunity for the core thesis committee to determine that a student has a sufficiently broad knowledge of the subfield and to insist on steps to correct any important gaps. These extensive meetings will include any function that the Field Oral plays currently, leading to Proposal 7.
Preparing for presentations is likely to improve students’ presentation skills and the ongoing monitoring of a student’s research progress will diminish the chances of surprises at the thesis defense. Such monitoring will also provide a protection to both the student and advisor that is presently lacking: First, if a student has sufficient material for a PhD, why then the committee can push a reluctant advisor to agree to a thesis defence. (One questionnaire respondent complained that his/her advisor was reluctant to let him/her graduate, even though his/her thesis was really done, because as a senior student, he/she was less expensive and more skilled than a junior replacement would be.) Alternatively, if a student’s research performance is inadequate, the committee can support academic sanctions on the student, i.e. that the student is not in good academic standing.
Finally, the use of a mutual assessment from, currently in use at Stanford, was considered but overwhelmingly rejected by the students.