Graduate Exams

Overview

All UCSD graduate students are required to complete a Qualifying Exam to advance to pre-candidacy status. Astronomy and Astrophysics PhD students are required to complete

both a(n):

• Research-based written report
• Oral qualifying exam before the end of their second year.

Both the written report and oral presentation will focus on novel research completed by the student advised by a participating faculty member as part of the ASTR 298 (Directed Studies) requirement.

This document details the expectations, policies, and procedures of the Qualifying Exam, as well as outcomes based on exam performance. An additional document provides a sample of questions from Core A and B courses from which oral exam questions will be drawn.

Timeline

The Qualifying Exam is typically attempted in Spring Quarter of the second year of graduate study. Students may attempt the exam earlier. However, the exam should be completed by the end of the second summer of graduate study. Any exceptions or postponements must be approved by the Department Graduate Advisory Committee (GAC).

Exam Structure

The qualifying exam is administered by the GAC, consisting of three (3) GAC faculty members. If the student’s research advisor is a committee member, the research advisor will not be eligible to serve as one of the examiners during that student’s oral exam. The exam covers research and the material of Core A and B courses. Students will choose the three Core B courses to be examined on. The student should prepare a substantial ApJ-style paper (~10 pages) on research that was conducted in ASTR 298. The paper is due 2 weeks prior to the exam date.

Exam Procedure

The qualifying exam will consist of two parts:

Part 1

i) 30-minute oral presentation of research by the student. Only short questions of clarification are permitted, followed immediately by a 15-20 minute Q&A on the research paper and presentation.

ii) Break of 10-15 min.

Part 2

Q&A on Core A & B course material, 45 minute maximum. Generally, each committee member will put questions to the student for 15 minutes. Each examiner will typically ask 1–3 primary questions. Follow-up questions are to be expected. The existing Qual Question Bank may be used as a guide, but students should be prepared for questions beyond this that cover material from the relevant courses.

The student or the committee may call one 5-minute “time out” during the exam. If, after a time out, the committee and the student agree that it is unproductive to continue, the exam may be terminated.

Outcome

i) The exam rubric shall be:

1. Mastery of Research Area: Quality of research, Q&A on research
2. Communication: Paper and Presentation
3. Mastery of Fundamentals: Q&A on course material

Part 1 of the exam is graded on rubric items (1) and (2) alone, while Part 2 of the exam is graded on rubric item (3) alone.

ii) The committee shall vote on each of the 3 rubric elements. The majority vote carries.

iii) A grade of “Pass” requires passing all 3 rubric elements, separately.

iv) The committee will debrief the student and produce a detailed written summary and feedback for the student and department leadership. The exam chair and/or academic advisor will meet with the student to discuss the committee feedback.

v) Should the student clearly pass one part of the exam but not both, the student will need to retake only the part of the exam that was not passed.

N.B.: To “pass research” the student must pass parts (1) and (2) of the rubric. To “pass academics”  the student must pass part (3) of the rubric.

In Case of Difficulties

The student is permitted two attempts at the exam. The student needs to only re-take the part of the exam that was not passed on the first attempt.

On the second attempt, the outcome can be:

• Pass —> as above
• No Pass —> as above
• Conditional Pass. In rare cases, if a single isolated weakness is identified by the exam, the student may pass, subject to the condition that the weakness be rectified. That  student’s exam committee shall state the conditions in writing and give a deadline for the student to meet them. The exam committee chair must sign off when the conditions are met. Conditional Pass grades are to be given on the second attempt only. Conditions must be met prior to Advancement to Candidacy.

After Two ‘No Pass’

If after two attempts, the student has not achieved a Pass or a Conditional Pass, GAC will review the case, considering: the exam reports, the student’s academic record, a letter from the research advisor solicited by GAC, and any other relevant material. GAC will vote on the outcome of the case. Ordinarily, students with two No Pass outcomes will be asked to leave the program. In rare instances, GAC may decide otherwise, but the case for such an exception should be clear and compelling

Terminal Masters

A student who:

i) Receives a grade of “No Pass” after two attempts at the Qualifying Exam;

ii) Or who abandons the Qualifying exam process after a single “No Pass” result;

and:

iii) Completes all course requirements with a grade of B- or better in all required courses, and a 3.0 GPA, overall, is eligible for consideration for a Terminal Masters degree, however, may not continue in the Ph.D. program.

Consideration for a Terminal Masters will be based on Qualifying Exam results, academic record and the research advisor’s statement obtained after the second “No Pass” result.

To receive a Terminal Masters degree, the student must pass two out of three areas of the Qualifying Exam Rubric, per the examining committee. Failure to meet either the course requirements or the exam requirements means a Terminal Masters will not be awarded.

Astronomy and Astrophysics Department Candidacy Policy (approved November 2024)

 Timeline

Students must attempt the Candidacy Exam by the end of their third year of graduate study. In rare and compelling cases, and with GEPA’s approval, extensions are possible. The extension should not be longer than 1 year. All other Ph.D. requirements must be met prior to advancing.

Terminal Masters

The Ph.D. committee (which examines the student for Candidacy) shall consist of at least four members (per GEPA). Additional members are possible.

• One member must be a tenured faculty member from outside Astronomy & Astrophysics (A&A), per GEPA.
• The chair of the committee must be a tenured A&A faculty member with no conflict of interest (COI) in the matter of the Candidacy Exam or Thesis Defense. (Tenure satisfies GEPA rule.)
• The student’s research advisor will ordinarily be the Committee’s Co-Chair.
• The Chair will preside at the Candidacy Exam and Defense.

Here, COI applies if:

a) A prospective Chair has a joint grant with the Research Advisor which funds the student’s research or other research by the Advisor which is pertinent to the student’s research.

b) A prospective Chair is a collaborator of either the student or the Advisor in the student’s research, or in other research by the Advisor which is pertinent to the student’s research.

If either (a) or (b) applies, another Chair must be identified.

The student, in consultation with the Research Advisor, should identify the committee chair, who must be approved by GAC of A&A. The committee must include at least one A&A faculty member from outside the research area group of the student. That committee member can be the Chair, if appropriate. In that case, the student should select another A&A faculty member for the committee.

Exam Structure

The Candidacy Exam is arranged and scheduled, per usual GEPA procedure. The student should prepare a written thesis proposal, approximately 8-12 journal pages long, INCLUDING figures, pictures, tables and references. . The proposal should consist of:

1. A general introduction, giving motivation, background and context. The introduction should include a literature review. The introduction should be accessible to any research scientist working in astronomy and astrophysics.
2. A section presenting relevant research results the student has obtained so far.
3. A plan for the remainder of the work leading to the Ph.D. The plan should contain goals, a road map and milestones. The paper should be delivered to the committee at least 2 weeks prior to the exam.

The exam should consist of:

1. A presentation lasting no longer than 45-55 minutes, questions of clarification included.
2. A Q&A period of 20-30 minutes. Any aspect of the paper, presentation, plan or background is fair game.
3. Committee Discussion and Debrief as necessary.

Outcome

Outcome shall be Pass or No Pass, following standard procedure. The Pass or No Pass decision should be guided by the following considerations:

1. Does the student understand the basic science relevant to the thesis work? Is the literature review satisfactory.
2. Is the proposed thesis project a substantive independent body of work?
3. Is the plan feasible? Are available resources sufficient for its completion?
4. Was the presentation clear, logical and accessible?

In rare cases, a Conditional Pass is possible. The conditions, and deadline for their fulfillment, must be stated clearly in the Exam Report. In the case of a Conditional Pass, the Committee Chair should not sign the exam document until the conditions have been satisfied. In that case, the student must submit a written report which details how the conditions have been satisfied. The report should be signed by the Advisor and submitted to the Committee Chair and members, who must approve it. In the event the student does not satisfy the conditions within the allotted time period, that student will no longer be in Good Standing.

During the Debrief, the committee should give constructive feedback to the student, on all aspects of the Exam, following the guidelines a-d, above. Feedback on goals, road map and milestones is of particular importance. The Committee Chair should provide the student, advisor and the Dept with a written summary of the Debrief. This must be approved by the exam committee members. The student can pass with one negative vote, but not more.

In Case of Difficulties

No Pass. A student who receives a grade of No Pass must attempt the Candidacy Exam again within six months.

A second outcome of No Pass, or failure to meet the 6mo deadline ,means the student must leave the Ph.D. program.

Ph.D. Candidates are required to complete a dissertation and oral defense in order to complete their degree requirements. Candidates should coordinate with their thesis advisor(s) and Dissertation Committees well in advance to schedule the completion of these elements, and to complete University requirements outlined on the Division of Graduate Education webpage.

The dissertation is a written exposition of the student’s thesis research work. It will be reviewed by the members of the Dissertation Committee, who are typically the same as the members of the candidacy exam committee. The form and style of the dissertation must conform to procedures described in the Division of Graduate Education Dissertations and Master’s Theses “Bluebook”. A final draft of the dissertation must be submitted to the Dissertation Committee no less than four (4) weeks prior to the planned oral defense date.

The oral defense is a public presentation of the thesis work, followed by a closed-door examination by the Dissertation Committee. This defense should be scheduled with the Dissertation Committee several months in advance of the anticipated completion date.

If corrections to the dissertation are mandated by the Dissertation Committee, these should be completed within four (4) weeks of the defense, or before the final submission date of dissertation materials to the Division of Graduate Education, whichever comes first.

Additional University requirements for the dissertation and defense, as well as templates for the dissertation file, can be found on the Division of Graduate Education webpage.