Ph.D. Review Procedures and Guidelines
Section I: Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this document is to provide guidelines and policies for the academic, instructional and educational conduct of the doctoral students and faculty of the School of Interactive Computing (IC), as well as some components of faculty service to the School. The policies and procedures of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, both present and future, as well as those issued by the School Chair, College of Computing, and the upper administration of the Georgia Institute of Technology, automatically supersede this document.
Section II: Revising This Document
This document may be revised according to the procedures defined in the School of Interactive Computing Voting Faculty Bylaws.
Section III: PhD Review Procedures and Guidelines
GOAL
The goal of the PhD review process in the School of Interactive Computing is to give students feedback on their progress in the program, in relationship to clearly articulated expectations and milestones. Every case is unique and exceptions are sometimes warranted (see “Exceptions” below). However, this document provides a general guide as to what to expect as well as how students and faculty can calibrate expectations, respectively. These School of Interactive Computing policies must also be interpreted with respect to the relevant Georgia Tech regulations for doctoral degrees:
• Georgia Tech Graduate Admissions & Studies
When a student is accepted into any of the Ph.D. programs offered by the School of Interactive Computing, they are granted certain rights based on the expectation that the student maintains a good standing within the Ph.D. program. The Ph.D. review process is the mechanism by which the faculty periodically communicate to the students whether or not they are in good standing. In the worst case, when a student is no longer deemed to be in good standing, the school will no longer have a commitment to financially support that Ph.D. student (see “Not in good standing” below). The milestones outlined in this document can help students plan a successful Ph.D. course of study.
Defining the Process of the Ph.D. Review
Each year, the school faculty conducts two PhD Reviews as follows. The first review occurs during the Fall semester and entails a review of all PhD students by the faculty. The primary outcome of the Fall Review is an assessment of every Ph.D. student advised by faculty in the School of Interactive Computing. During the second, Spring semester, Review all first year PhD students are reviewed. Additionally, those students previously determined, during the Fall review, to not be making satisfactory progress are again reviewed during the Spring review. The primary outcome of the Spring Review is an assessment of all first year and the Fall semester’s probationary students.
The Fall Review takes place on the second Friday in November. The Spring Review typically takes place during the last week of classes for spring term. If there is any deviation from this pattern, it will be announced in advance.
1. Every PhD student must submit a self-assessment one month prior to the PhD Review date. In their self-assessment, students must clearly document their progress towards meeting PhD program milestones.
There are many good reasons for moving at a slower (or faster) pace than the suggestions. For example, students may switch advisors. A student’s progress might also be delayed by major life events, or by the need to build significant lab infrastructure (for example, a robot) before their research can begin. These reasons should be clearly explained in the student’s self-assessment.
2. Faculty must complete their individual assessments three weeks prior to the review date.
At this stage, each faculty member is responsible for indicating which students are his or her advisees. This ensures that students are not overlooked in the review system especially when a student has yet to specify a faculty advisor.
3. Faculty subgroups meet to discuss each student two weeks prior to review.
This step ensures a larger group of faculty are familiar with all PhD students and helps identify potential problem cases before the official review date.
4. The actual review is a full-day meeting of all departmental faculty and others (affiliated faculty and research scientists) who advise or co-advise PhD students in which the status and progress of every PhD student is discussed.
Faculty must be present for the entire review day, or designate a per-student proxy to represent them at the discussion of the student.
5. Advisors are responsible for preparing individual review assessment letters within one week of the review date each semester.
6. PhD students have 10 days to acknowledge receipt of their letter, and may submit a rebuttal to be reviewed by the faculty.
A student rebuttal offers an opportunity to correct factual errors, provide relevant context, and express disagreement with the faculty-produced assessment. The student’s status is not normally changed in response to the rebuttal, except in cases of substantial factual error. However, the rebuttal is filed with the student’s permanent record, and will be included in the discussion the next time the student is reviewed.
7. Any student who is reviewed as less than “Satisfactory” during the Fall Review will be reviewed again in a Spring mini-review, typically during dead week of the Spring semester.
Additionally, every first year student is reviewed in the Spring to ensure that they are making progress towards identifying an advisor. Further, if a student and faculty member decide to end an advisee-advisor relationship, that student will be reviewed again at the next available opportunity, which might be the Spring mini-review. Any student who has a review in the Spring semester will receive a letter indicating the results of the review by the end of May of that year.
8. Any student who feels they have been treated unfairly as part of this process is encouraged to consult with and/or appeal to the graduate coordinator for the school. Beyond this, the student may request that the graduate coordinator appoint a neutral faculty member to serve as ombudsman.
Milestones for Fall Review
The following are the milestones for the fall review, in November of each year.
Fall Year 1: Student should have an interim advisor. The student should have regular meetings with at least one faculty member. If the interim advisor does not have an intellectual connection with the student’s work, then the student should have regular meetings with another faculty member who is connected to his/her intellectual interests. The motivation for this is that there be someone by the Fall review period who can vouch for the student’s intellectual progress.
Fall Year 2: The student should have an advisor for research. The student should also show evidence of having worked on one research project. This is compatible with the kind of evidence of research progress that is needed in the research portfolio for the qualifying exam. Starting this year, the student is expected to have submitted at least one publication per year (see below).
Fall Year 3: The student should have attempted the Qualifying Exam for their degree program during the previous spring. If the student failed the Qualifying Exam, a plan for the second and final attempt at the Qualifier must be provided, which we expect will happen during the third year in most cases. The student should present a plan for a thesis proposal, including identification of the research area and a schedule for when the thesis proposal will tentatively happen. Students subject to the TA requirement should have TA’d at least once, or at minimum have concrete plans to TA a specific course this academic year.
Fall Year 4: The student should have passed the Qualifying Exam, should have begun writing their thesis proposal and have a concrete plan for completing it before next fall.
Fall Year 5: The student should have completed their thesis proposal. The student should have finished the bulk of their research, and be preparing for thesis defense. Students subject to the TA requirement should have TA’d two times, or have concrete plans to TA a specific course this academic year to finish their requirement.
Fall Year 6: The student should have graduated or have a concrete plan for graduation before the next fall review.
Publication: Additionally, students are expected to have submitted at least one publication to a peer-reviewed venue each year, starting at their review in fall of year 2 and onwards. Note that this requirement refers to submissions, and the faculty understands that not all submission will be accepted for publication.
PhD Review Status Determination
There are four possible status determinations for a PhD students during PhD reviews: satisfactory, concern, warning, and not in good standing as described below.
Satisfactory, means the student is in good standing and will be reviewed again the following year
The remaining three status determinations (concern, warning, or not in good standing) require some level of follow-up review in the Spring PhD Review; these students are expected to meet any deficiencies expressed in the written documentation from the fall review before the Spring PhD Review.
Concern. If a student misses a milestone, the particular circumstances will be discussed at the PhD review. There may be legitimate reasons for missing a milestone such as switching research areas or advisors, birth of a child, visa processing delays, logistical issues beyond the student’s control (like a delay in obtaining an essential piece of hardware), etc.. Each case will be discussed individually. In general, a student late on a milestone will be placed on “concern” status, and their case will be marked for discussion at the Spring PhD Review.
Warning. Students will be reviewed in the Spring if a “concern” was noted during the Fall PhD Review. At this time, if the milestone causing the “concern” has still not been met, the student’s review status will be changed to “warning” unless there are extenuating circumstances.
Not in Good Standing. A student whose review resulted in a Warning status, may be moved to “not in good standing.” Once a student is deemed “not in good standing,” the school is no longer financially obligated to support the student. This does not preclude the student obtaining funding from sponsored research or fellowships; however, the school has no further financial commitment to the student.
When a student who was previously on a non-satisfactory status is re-reviewed and shows improvement, faculty decide on a case-by-case basis whether their status should be changed to satisfactory or remain at "concern" or "warning."
A student will automatically be asked to leave the program as a result of failing the qualifier twice, irrespective of whether they were satisfactory, concern, or warning.
After each review, the student’s status will be clearly explained to them in a letter delivered in a timely fashion (no more than 10 days after the review meeting). The review letter will clearly map out the milestone(s) that need to be met and the time frame allowed for milestone completion, and the consequences of failing to meet that milestone by the next review. The student will be given an opportunity to respond to their status in written form, and their rebuttal will be included in their file and discussed at the next review when their status is addressed again.
What To Do When You Are At Risk For An Unsatisfactory Status
The faculty as a whole decide whether a student's particular situation justifies missing milestones. Thus, it is important for students to be explicit in their self-review about why specific milestones have been missed and how/when the student plans to meet the previously missed milestones. For example, if a student is delayed in meeting a current milestone because of a previously missed milestone, and the student is still trying to catch up, such an explanation must be included in the student’s self-assessment.
Each student’s self-assessment is important, but every faculty member does not read every student self-review. For any student, it can be beneficial if faculty members beyond the student’s advisor are well acquainted with the student’s academic situation because these faculty members can further vouch for the student at the review meeting. In situations where a student has a conflict with their advisor, they are encouraged to approach another professor familiar with the situation, asking them to speak on the student’s behalf at the meeting can ensure all viewpoints are heard.
Broader Considerations
• Funds are a shared resource. Most students are expected to be supported by fellowships or sponsored funds. However, there are times when such funds are not available. The school has a limited pool of funds to be used in these cases.
• Students and faculty should view the available funds as “belonging to” all of us. If one student lingers in the program for many years funded by department funds and ultimately leaves the program without a degree, that means less funds for other students who for example may simply need one year of funding after their fellowship has expired.
• Life happens. In a community of this size, it is inevitable that some students will face chronic illness (of themselves or a family member), the birth of a child, or other major life events during their time here. However, it is important for students to keep their advisors “in the loop” during such times. A student who is not accomplishing their work can no longer be supported on sponsored funds with clear deliverables. If a student is unable to work at all, they must make use of the College of Computing’s leave policy. If a student is able to work at a reduced pace, there may be some school funds to support them through this period of time. This time period is limited to one semester, and availability of such funds is not guaranteed. Students who need to take a leave of absence should obtain the leave form from the School of Interactive Computing’s graduate programs coordinator. The form should be approved by the student’s advisor and the director of graduate studies for the School of Interactive Computing, then returned to the graduate programs coordinator.
• Part-time students. Expectations are different for part-time students. Part-time students typically are not dependent on the school for financial support, but still demand the attention of the faculty. These students will take longer to complete the program, but as a general guideline that time should not exceed twice the normal time to reach each milestone. In planning their career, part-time students must be aware of one time limit set by Georgia Tech: “Students must complete all degree requirements within seven years from the end of the term in which they pass the comprehensive examination.” (See: http://www.catalog.gatech.edu/students/grad/doctoral/time.)
• Good standing. Good standing in the PhD program is dependent upon making satisfactory progress towards milestones, and having a committed advisor. It is not dependent on funding. Timelines for milestones are what we normally expect; however, there are many legitimate reasons from deviating from those norms and each case is treated on an individual basis.
When a Student Has No Advisor
Before each review (fall and spring), the school will ask all faculty to confirm which students they are advising. Students lacking an advisor will be reviewed and notified in writing that they must have an advisor before the next review. If a student does not have an advisor for two consecutive PhD reviews, then they will be designated as not in good standing. The school is not obligated to provide funds to support students who are not in good standing. Students with no advisor will be clearly notified of the date of the next review, and the consequences of not having an advisor by that date.
Students are never asked to leave the program simply because they do not have funding. If the student has an advisor who is willing to advocate for them and they are in good standing, they will be supported on school funds.
Institute Limits
Beyond the guidelines here, there are institute limits to be aware of, particularly: “Students must complete all degree requirements within seven years from the end of the term in which they pass the comprehensive examination.” (See http://catalog.gatech.edu/academics/graduate/doctoral-degree-info/#time-limit)
Summer
Regardless of their standing, students are never guaranteed funding for summer term.
Exceptions
Exceptions to this policy may be made with approval of the School Chair or the chair’s designate.