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.