Official Rules and Procedures for the Ph.D. Program
Download this document in .pdf format.
Registrar's Office Graduate Forms
1. Introduction
This document is a formal description of the requirements and procedures that are specific to the Communication Department Ph.D. program. This document does not list the University-wide requirements as specified in various University documents. We expect that all Ph.D. students will be aware of all rules relevant to them.
This document is not meant to be an introduction to the department or to the Ph.D. program, nor is it meant as a vision statement or mission statement for the Ph.D. program.
This document is meant to supercede and expand on all prior communications concerning requirements for the Ph.D., including the relevant statements in the 2006-2007 Stanford Bulletin. These rules will remain in effect unless the University explicitly prohibits them or they are amended in writing and approved by the Ph.D. faculty.
The following list details the remaining sections of this document, categorized by the section title.
2. Departmental Graduate Studies Committee
3. Ph.D. Committee
4. Advisor
5. Deadlines
6. Course Requirements
7. Grading Requirements
8. Review of First Year Progress
9. Qualifying Exams
10. Major Project
11. Complementary Project
12. Admission to Candidacy
13. Area Examination
14. Dissertation Proposal and Proposal Meeting and Reading
Committee
15. Final Public Orals and the Dissertation
16. Teaching Requirement
17. Research Assistantship
18. Satisfactory Progress
19. External Funding
20. Summer Funding
2. Departmental Graduate Studies Committee
2. 1. The Graduate Studies Committee (GSC) consists of three faculty members and one alternate in the Department of Communication, all of whom must be members of the Academic Council.
2.2. The members of the GSC will be appointed by the Chair.
2.3. All decisions of the GSC will be by majority vote unless explicitly noted.
2.4. All decisions of the GSC will be described in writing, and will be given to the Chair, the relevant student(s), and the student's advisor (or temporary advisor). A copy of the decision will be placed into the student's file.
2.5. If a member of the GSC wishes to write a report distinct from the official report, he or she may do so. The report will be given to the Chair, the relevant student, and the student's advisor (or temporary advisor). A copy of the report will be placed into the student's file.
2.6. The GSC will follow all rules and procedures as determined by the University.
2.7. The decision of the GSC is the final arbiter within the department; that is, the decision cannot be appealed within the department, except when explicitly noted. The student may of course pursue all appeals as provided for by the University.
3.1. The Ph.D. Committee (PhDC) will consist of the Director of the Ph.D. Program, two other members, and one alternate. The Ph.D. Director, the members, and the alternate will be Ph.D. faculty in the Communication Department.
3.2. The members of the PhDC will be appointed by the Chair.
3.3. All decisions of the PhDC will be by majority vote unless explicitly noted.
3.4. All decisions of the PhDC will be described in writing, and will be given to the Chair, the relevant student(s), and the student's advisor (or temporary advisor). A copy of the decision will be placed into the student's file.
3.5. If a member of the PhDC wishes to write a report distinct from the official report, he or she may do so. The report will be given to the Chair, the relevant student, and the student's advisor. A copy of the decision will be placed into the student's file.
3.6. The PhDC will follow all rules and procedures as determined by the University and Department rules and regulations.
3.7. Any decision of the PhDC may be appealed to the GSC. The student may of course pursue all appeals as provided for by the University.
4.1. A student must have a faculty advisor who is an Academic Council member and a member of the Communication Department. It is the responsibility of the student to have an advisor.
4.2. Students are assigned a temporary advisor upon their admission to the Department. If the student does not have a permanent advisor by the end of the third quarter of their first year in the Department, the student will be referred to the GSC with a recommendation that the student be terminated from the Ph.D. program.
4.3. Students may change their advisor for any reason at any time as long as the student and the new advisor both consent (the former advisor need not give consent).
4.4. When a student transitions from a temporary advisor to a permanent advisor or changes advisors, the student should file a Change of Advisor form with the Student Services Administrator (the Student Services Administrator will notify the Ph.D. Director).
4.5. When a student's advisor leaves the University, the faculty recognize that this puts a unique burden on the student. While the faculty urges the student to find an advisor within the department, we will, if necessary, accommodate the student in one of the following two ways:
a) The department will allow the advisor who left to be a co-advisor with a faculty member from the Communication Department, and allow the advisor who left be considered a Communication Department faculty member for the purposes of Section 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16.
b) The department will allow an Academic Council member from another department be a co-advisor with a faculty member from the Communication Department, and allow the faculty member from the other department be considered a Communication Department faculty member for the purposes of Section 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16.
The rules concerning the timing of finding an advisor as described in sections 4.6 and 4.7 remain in effect.
4.6. If a faculty member no longer wishes to have a student as an advisee, the faculty member should notify the student, the Ph.D. Director, and the PhDC in writing of his or her decision. If the advisor terminates the student before the end of the fifth week of the quarter, the advisor must retain the student until the start of the subsequent quarter or until the student finds another advisor, whichever happens first. If the advisor terminates the student after the end of the fifth week of the quarter, the advisor must retain the student until the end of the subsequent quarter or until the student finds another advisor, whichever happens first.
4.7. If a student does not have an advisor, the student must find an advisor within one full academic quarter. If the student fails to find an advisor within one academic quarter, the student will be referred to the GSC with a recommendation that the student be terminated from the Ph.D. program.
5.1. Virtually all of the department requirements are associated with a deadline. When a student fails to meet a deadline, they are assumed to have failed the particular requirement.
5.2. Failure to meet a deadline for a particular requirement will be treated in all respects as if the student had performed below an acceptable level on that requirement, i.e., failed because of poor performance. That is, failure due to insufficient work and failure due to missing a deadline will be treated in the same way procedurally.
5.3. The student will be notified in writing by the Ph.D. Director that the student has missed the deadline.
6.1. Students must take the maximum allowed units each quarter. The goal of this requirement is to facilitate their prompt graduation from the Ph.D. program. First year students must register for and satisfactorily complete not less than 18 units for the fall and winter quarters and not less than 10 units for the spring quarter. All other students, with the exception of those at the TGR level, must register for and satisfactorily complete not less than 10 units per quarter (not including summer). Future financial support is conditional upon satisfactory progress toward the degree for which you are admitted as determined by the faculty. Failure to comply may mean that the student is no longer in good standing. If a situation arises whereby a student does not meet the unit requirement on a single occasion, a note signed by the relevant faculty member, the Director of the PhD Program, and the student will be placed in the student's file indicating that should the situation arise a second time, graduate funding may be discontinued. Furthermore, after the first year a student dropping below the 10 unit requirement may also face the consequences of being on academic probation and having a hold placed on their account.
6.2. Students are required to receive a grade of B+ or higher for each of the following courses. If the courses are not offered during the first two years of the student's Ph.D program, the courses need not be taken.
Communication 206
Communication 208
Communication 311
Communication 314
Communication 317
Communication 318
6.3. Students must receive a grade of B or higher in at least three 200-level courses in the department beyond the requirements listed under 6.2 and 6.4.
6.4. Students must receive a grade of B or higher in at least three 300-level seminars in the department that are in the same topic area as the 200-level courses under 6.8. Ideally, the 300-level seminar courses should be taken after the 200-level course. With the permission of the instructor of the 200-level course, the student may take an independent study class in lieu of the seminar.
6.5. A student who does not meet the minimum grade requirement under sections 6.2 through 6.4 will be placed on academic probation.
The student will also receive a letter, written by the instructor of the course, describing in detail the deficiency or deficiencies that led to the grade. The letter will also describe the steps that must be taken by the student to remedy the failure. This remedy may include any combination of the following: i) performing additional specified work at a satisfactory level; or ii) meeting a minimum grade standard (set by the faculty member) in another course, including a repetition of the course the student failed initially. If the student has not remedied the failure within one year of the failing grade, the student will be terminated from the Ph.D. program.
6.6. Students are required to take, before the qualifying exam, Statistics 160. They must receive a grade of B or higher.
6.7. Students are required to take, before the qualifying exam, an advanced methods course. The course must be approved by the student's advisor and the Ph.D. Director. The student must receive a grade of B- or higher. If the course is only given as pass/fail, the student must pass the course.
6.8. Students are required to take, no later than the 9th quarter, a second advanced methods course. The course must be approved by the student's advisor and the Ph.D. Director. The student must receive a grade of B- or higher. If the course is only given as pass/fail, the student must pass the course.
6.9. Students receiving one or more incompletes in any quarter will be required to meet with their academic advisor who will subsequently provide documentation to the PhD director confirming that the situation has been discussed and that an agreement has been made to remedy the situation by a specific date or dates. This remedy is to be decided by the student, the professors of the courses in question, and the advisor. The student must also acknowledge in writing (via email) that they are aware of and agree with the plan to complete the course work satisfactorily as discussed. The PhD director will then approve the plan or suggest an alternate solution and a record of this correspondence will be kept in the student's file.
6.10. A student who does not meet the requirements of 6.6, 6.7, or 6.8 will be placed on academic probation.
The student will also receive a letter, written by the Ph.D. Director, describing in detail the deficiency or deficiencies that led to the grade. The letter will also describe the steps that must be taken by the student to remedy the failure. This remedy may include any combination of the following: i) performing additional specified work at a satisfactory level; or ii) meeting a minimum grade standard (set by the faculty member) in another course, including a repetition of the course the student failed initially. If the student has not remedied the failure within one year of the failing grade, the student will be terminated from the Ph.D. program.
6.11. If a student believes that they have taken a course that is virtually identical to a required course or intends to take a course that is virtually identical to one of these courses, the student may petition to have the course counted as meeting that course requirement. Approval of this petition must come from both the student’s advisor and the PhDC.
7.1. All students are expected to maintain a minimum LGI (GPA) of 3.3 each quarter. Failure to achieve this level of performance may be an indication of unsatisfactory progress. The faculty will evaluate any such cases and determine whether the student should be placed on academic probation. All Communication courses toward the PhD must be taken for a letter grade, if offered as such, including Comm 399, Independent Study.
8. Review of First Year Progress
8.1. By the end of the sixth week of the Spring Quarter of the student's first year, the PhDC will assess the student. The PhDC will assign an evaluation of "Approved to Continue" or "Probation." The decision will be based on: a) whether the student has an advisor; b) performance in classes within the department; c) performance in classes outside the department; and d) judgment of the student's ability to meet the forthcoming requirements for the Ph.D.
8.1.1. If the student is assigned an evaluation of "Approved to Continue," there will be no further action and the student will continue in the Ph.D. program.
8.1.2. If the student is assigned an evaluation of "Probation," the student will be told, in writing, the basis for the evaluation and the remedies that must be performed to remove the probation. While the faculty recognizes that a judgment at this time is too early to be definitive, the assignment of "Probation" is meant to alert the student that they may be terminated in the Fall of their second year and that they may consider whether to return and attempt to remedy their situation. Students on "Probation" will not receive summer funding.
8.2. By the end of the sixth week of the Fall Quarter of the student's second year, the PhDC will assess the student. The PhDC will assign an evaluation of "Approved to Continue," "Probation," or "Terminated from the Ph.D. program." The decision will be based on: a) whether the student has an advisor; b) performance in classes within the department; c) performance in classes outside the department; and d) judgment of the student's ability to meet the forthcoming requirements for the Ph.D.
8.2.1. If the student is assigned an evaluation of "Approved to Continue," there will be no further action and the student will continue in the Ph.D. program.
8.2.2. If the student is assigned an evaluation of "Probation," the student will be told, in writing, the basis for the evaluation and the remedies that must be performed to remove the probation. The student will receive continued funding, and will be assessed during every subsequent quarter by the PhDC with an evaluation of "Approved to Continue," "Probation," or "Terminated from the Ph.D. program." The procedures under sections 8.2.1, 8.2.2, or 8.2.3 will then apply.
If the student is not removed from probation by the end of the second year, the Ph.D. Director will recommend to the PhDC that the student be terminated from the Ph.D. program.
8.2.3. If the student is assigned an assessment of "termination from the Ph.D. program," the Ph.D. faculty, by majority vote, will determine whether the student is terminated from the Ph.D. program. If the student is not terminated from the Ph.D. program, the student will be placed on probation and the procedures described under 8.1.2 will apply.
9.1. Ph.D. students will be required to take the Qualifying Exam in their second year of study. The examination may be taken any time from the start of the break between Winter and Spring Quarters to the Sunday following the end of the first week of courses in the Spring Quarter. It will be a one week, take-home, open book examination.
9.2. The PhDC is responsible for setting the timing, content, and format (e.g., number of questions, number of pages per answer) of the Qualifying Exam.
9.3. The PhDC will provide an overall, written assessment of a student's performance on the Qualifying Exam, as determined by majority vote of the PhDC. The PhDC can request input (including grading) from the other members of the Ph.D. faculty. The three possible assessments are: Pass with Distinction, Pass, or Fail.
9.3.1 A student who received a "Pass with Distinction" or "Pass" will have met the Qualifying Exam requirement.
9.3.2. A student who receives a "Fail" on the Qualifying Exam will receive a letter describing in detail the deficiency or deficiencies that led to the determination that the student had failed. The letter will also describe the steps that must be taken by the student to remedy the failure. This remedy may include any combination of the following: i) receiving a minimum grade in one or more specified courses taken subsequent to the Qualifying Exam; ii) re-writing, at a satisfactory level, one or more answers that the student was deemed to have done poorly on; and/or iii) producing, at a satisfactory level, a writing assignment or assignments specified by the committee. The letter will also provide a deadline for the student to successfully complete the remedy; this deadline may be no later than the first day of classes of the Fall of the student's third year.
The PhDC will determine (soliciting other faculty input as needed), by majority vote, whether the student has successfully completed the remedial action. The decision will be put into writing.
If the student successfully performs the remedial action, the student will have been considered to have passed the Qualifying Exam requirement. The original failure will be expunged from the student's records.
If the student is deemed to have failed the remedial action, the student will be referred to the GSC with a recommendation that the student be dismissed from the Ph.D. program.
9.4. Results of the Qualifying Exam will be communicated to the student by the end of the end of the Spring Quarter of the student's second year.
9.5. Students who have not passed the Qualifying Exams will not be eligible for "guaranteed" summer funding.
10.1. Each student must pass the Major Project by the end of their ninth quarter in the Ph.D. program. It is strongly recommended that the student complete the Major Project well before this deadline.
10.2. The Major Project is a research paper that is considered to be of sufficient quality to be publishable in a serious journal (assuming, if need be, that journals would accept research papers with non-significant results). The paper may be grounded in any intellectual tradition. The paper need not be published nor accepted for publication.
10.3. The topic of the Major Project and the activities performed in support of that project (e.g., an experiment, a survey, archival research) will be agreed upon in advance by the student and a Major Project Advisor (MPA) from the Communication Department selected by the student. With approval from the PhDC, the MPA may be from another department at Stanford.
10.4. The Major Project is meant to be an opportunity for the student to demonstrate that the student is able to successfully and independently perform all relevant aspects of a research project in collaboration with a faculty advisor. That is, the student must independently: a) develop the conceptual framework, b) analyze the relevant literatures, c) formulate hypotheses (if relevant), d) gather data (if relevant), e) statistically analyze data (if relevant), f) do archival research (if relevant), and g) write the paper. Put another way, the Major Project should be structured such that if the paper were published, guidelines as promulgated by the International Communication Association (which are currently the American Psychological Association guidelines) would dictate that the student would be the sole author or the student would be the first author with a faculty advisor as a second author.
10.5. The faculty recognizes that a project that initially may appear appropriate for a major project may not turn out that way. In that case, we expect the advisor, together with the student, to carve up the project in such a way that it can provide a learning experience equivalent to the Major Project (in which case, it would count as a major project).
10.6. The MPA will assign one of three possible assessments to the Major Project: Pass with Distinction, Pass, or Fail. Assessments should come within six non-vacation weeks.
10.6.1. If the MPA assigns an assessment of "Pass with Distinction" or "Pass," the student will have met the First Project requirement.
10.6.2. If the MPA assigns an assessment of "Fail," the MPA will write the student a letter describing in detail the deficiency or deficiencies that led to the determination that the student had failed. The letter will also describe the steps that must be taken by the student to remedy the failure. This remedy will include any combination of the following: i) re-writing, at a satisfactory level, the research paper; and/or ii) performing, at a satisfactory level, additional research. The letter will also provide a deadline for the student to complete the remedy.
If the MPA determines that the student successfully performed the remedial action, the student will have been considered to have completed the Major Project requirement. The earlier failure will be expunged from the student's record.
If the student is judged by the MPA not to have successfully completed the remedial action(s), the student will be referred to the GSC with a recommendation that the student be dismissed from the Ph.D. program. The MPA will write a letter that will be given the to student, the student's advisor, the PhDC, and the GSC. The letter will also be placed into the student's file.
11.1. Each student must submit the Complementary Project by the end of their ninth quarter in the Ph.D. program. Students are strongly urged to complete this requirement well before their tenth quarter.
11.2. The Complementary Project is a research paper that is considered to be of sufficient quality to be publishable in a serious journal (assuming, if need be, that journals would accept research papers with non-significant results). The paper may be grounded in any intellectual tradition. The paper need not be published nor accepted for publication.
11.3. The topic of the Complementary Project and the activities performed in support of that project (e.g., an experiment, a survey, library research) will be agreed upon in advance by the student and a Complementary Project Advisor (CPA) from the Communication Department selected by the student. With approval from the PhDC, the CPA may be from another department at Stanford.
11.4. The CPA will assign one of three possible assessments to the Complementary Project: Pass with Distinction, Pass, or Fail. Assessments should come within six non-vacation weeks.
11.4.1. If the CPA assigns an assessment of "Pass with Distinction" or "Pass," the student will have met the First Project requirement.
11.4.2. If the CPA assigns an assessment of "Fail," the CPA will write the student a letter describing in detail the deficiency or deficiencies that led to the determination that the student had failed. The letter will also describe the steps that must be taken by the student to remedy the failure. This remedy will include any combination of the following: i) re-writing, at a satisfactory level, the research paper; and/or ii) performing, at a satisfactory level, additional research. The letter will also provide a deadline for the student to complete the remedy.
If the CPA determines that the student successfully performed the remedial action, the student will have been considered to have completed the Complementary Project requirement. The earlier failure will be expunged from the student's record.
If the student is judged by the CPA not to have successfully completed the remedial action(s), the student will be referred to the GSC with a recommendation that the student be dismissed from the Ph.D. program. The CPA will write a letter that will be given the to student, the student's advisor, the PhDC, and the GSC. The letter will also be placed into the student's file.
12.1. Ph.D. students must apply for admission to candidacy (a University status) by the end of the Spring of their second year.
12.2. To apply for candidacy, a student must meet the following requirements:
a. Passed the Qualifying Examination
b. Passed either the Major Project or the Complementary Project or both
c. Met the requirements as described in Sections 6.1 and 6.2
d. Have received a grade of B+ or higher for at least one course and its associated seminar as described in Section 6.8
e. Have a Communication Department faculty member agree to serve as the student's advisor
f. Have two faculty members in the Communication Department, in addition to the advisor, agree to serve on the student's dissertation committee.
12.3. The student's application to candidacy will be received by the Ph.D. faculty as a whole in the Fall of the student's third year. The decision will be by majority vote. While the requirements listed under 12.2 are necessary for admission to candidacy, they are not sufficient. To be admitted to candidacy, the Ph.D. faculty must also be convinced that the student is likely to be able to complete a Ph.D. dissertation and all other departmental requirements.
12.4. The Ph.D. faculty will assign one of three possible assessments to the Application for Candidacy: "Admitted to Candidacy," "Not Admitted to Candidacy but Opportunity to Continue," or "Not Admitted to Candidacy and Terminated from the Ph.D. Program.
12.4.1. If the Ph.D. faculty assigns an assessment of "Admitted to Candidacy" the student is admitted to candidacy.
12.4.2. If the Ph.D. faculty assigns an assessment of "Not Admitted to Candidacy but Opportunity to Continue," the Ph.D. faculty will write the student a letter describing in detail the deficiency or deficiencies that led to the determination. The letter will also describe the steps that must be taken by the student to remedy the failure. Students in the status "Not Admitted to Candidacy but Opportunity to Continue" will not receive funding subsequent to the Fall of their third year until their status is changed to "Admitted to Candidacy."
In each subsequent quarter, the student will again be assessed as in 12.4. If the student is eventually admitted to candidacy, the fact that the student was not previously admitted to candidacy will be expunged from their records.
12.4.3. If the Ph.D. faculty assigns an assessment of "Not Admitted to Candidacy and Terminated," the Ph.D. faculty will write the student a letter describing in detail the deficiency or deficiencies that led to the determination. The letter will be given to the student, the student's advisor, and the Ph.D. Director. The letter will also be placed into the student's file. The student will not be permitted to continue in the Ph.D. program beyond Fall Quarter of their third year. This decision may be appealed to the GSC.
13.1. Each student must pass an Area Examination by the end of the student's ninth quarter in the Ph.D. program.
13.2. To take the Area Examination, the student must form an "Area Exam Committee" (AEC). A normal AEC will consist of two Academic Council members from the Communication Department. With permission from the PhDC, the Area Exam Committee may consist of one faculty member from Communication and a specific Academic Council member from another department at Stanford. (The PhDC must be given three weeks to determine the appropriateness of the non-Communication Department faculty member).
13.3. The Area Exam will involve a one-week, take-home exam format. The exam will be a written exam consisting of 6500 to 9000 words (roughly 25-35 pages), not including references.
13.4. The precise question or questions to be answered will be determined by the AEC. The question or questions should allow the student to demonstrate that the student has mastered the literature of one of the generally-recognized areas of the field. A guiding criterion is that an "area" could be the topic of an advanced undergraduate survey course.
13.5. The Area Exam may not be substantially derived from or identical to a paper submitted to meet a course requirement or a project requirement, nor may it subsequently be used to meet a course requirement or project requirement. The Area Exam may be incorporated into the student's dissertation.
13.6. It is urged that the two members of the AEC will agree on one of three possible assessments of the Area Exam: Pass with Distinction, Pass, or Fail.
13.6.1. If both members of the AEC agree on an assessment of "Pass with Distinction" or "Pass," or if one member insists on a "Pass with Distinction" and the other member insists on a "Pass," the student will have met the Area Exam requirement.
13.6.2. If both members of the AEC agree that the exam should be assigned the grade of "Fail," the student will not have met the Area Exam requirement. The AEC will write the student a letter (with a copy going to the PhDC, the Chair, the student's advisor, and the student's file) describing in detail the deficiency or deficiencies that led to the determination that the student had failed. The letter will also describe the steps that must be taken by the student to remedy the failure. This remedy may include any combination of the following: i) re-writing, at a satisfactory level, all or parts of the Area Exam; and/or ii) producing, at a satisfactory level, a written assignment specified by the faculty member. The letter will also provide a deadline for the student to complete the remedy.
The two members of the committee are expected to agree on whether the student has successfully completed the remedial action or not. If the AEC determines that the student has successfully performed the remedial action, the student will have been considered to have satisfactorily completed the Area Exam requirement. The earlier failure will be expunged from the student's record.
If one or both members of the AEC determine that the student did not successfully complete the remedial action(s), the member(s) of the committee believing that the student failed the requirement will detail, in writing, the reasons for the determination. This letter will be given to the student, the student's advisor, and the PhDC. A copy of the letter will also be placed into the student's file. The student will be referred to the GSC of the department with a recommendation that the student be dismissed from the Ph.D. program. That is, after a failed Area Examination, both members of the AEC must agree that the student passed the examination before the student is considered to have passed the examination.
13.6.3. If one member of the AEC insists that the student has failed with the other insists that the student has "Passed" or "Passed with Distinction," the student will not have met the Area Exam requirement. The faculty member failing the Area Exam will write the student a letter (with a copy going to the PhDC, the Chair, the student's advisor, and the student's file) describing in detail the deficiency or deficiencies that led to the determination that the student had failed. The letter will also describe the steps that must be taken by the student to remedy the failure. This remedy may include any combination of the following: i) re-writing, at a satisfactory level, all or parts of the Area Exam; and/or ii) producing, at a satisfactory level, a written assignment specified by the faculty member. The letter will also provide a deadline for the student to complete the remedy.
The AEC member who failed the student will determine whether the student has successfully completed the remedial action or not. If the member determines that the student has successfully performed the remedial action, the student will have been considered to have satisfactorily completed the Area Exam requirement. The earlier failure will be expunged from the student's record.
If the member determines that the student did not successfully complete the remedial action(s), the member(s) of the committee believing that the student failed the requirement will detail, in writing, the reasons for the determination. This letter will be given to the student, the student's advisor, and the PhDC. A copy of the letter will also be placed into the student's file. The student will be referred to the GSC of the department with a recommendation that the student be dismissed from the Ph.D. program.
14. Dissertation Proposal and Proposal Meeting
14.1. A dissertation proposal meeting cannot take place until the following requirements have all been passed: Qualifying Exam, Major Project, Complementary Project, Area Exam, and Course Requirements.
14.2. The proposal meeting is based on a dissertation proposal. The dissertation proposal should describe the research plan for the dissertation. That is, the proposal should clearly specify the concepts and theories, literature(s), method(s) and data sources, and analysis strategy. Details of the format and content of the proposal will be determined by the dissertation advisor and the student.
14.3. The proposal meeting must be attended by the Reading Committee of the student's dissertation.
14.4. The Reading Committee will consist of at least four members, at least three of whom are members of the Department of Communication (not including courtesy appointments) and at least one of whom is not a member of the Department of Communication (although this member may have a courtesy appointment). Any exceptions to this structure must be approved by the PhDC and the student's advisor.
14.5. The proposal meeting is not open to other faculty or the public, except with permission of the student and the student's advisor. We view the proposal meeting as a working session.
14.6. There are two key goals for the proposal meeting: a) to evaluate the proposal, and b) to guide the student toward successful completion of the dissertation. The proposal meeting is not intended to be an evaluation of the student.
14.7. It is expected that the proposal meeting will suggest necessary revisions to the student's dissertation plan. Subsequent to the proposal meeting, the student is responsible for revising the proposal based on the committee's feedback and receiving appropriate guidance from the reading committee.
14.8. The format and content of the proposal meeting will be determined by the dissertation advisor and the student.
14.9. The Reading Committee members must be given a minimum of 14 days to read the proposal before the proposal meeting.
15. Final Public Orals and the Dissertation
15.1. The final public orals, which fulfils the University Oral Examination requirement, will be based on a complete and presumptively final draft of the dissertation. The Reading Committee can require revisions, however.
15.2. The final public orals will have two parts.
15.2.1. The first part of the orals will be approximately one hour in length. This part of the orals begins with the student giving a 20-40 minute presentation of his or her dissertation. There will then be a period of questioning, controlled by the outside chair, in which the audience may ask questions. Students and department faculty are urged to attend this part of the orals.
15.2.2. The second part of the oral examination involves only the candidate, the outside chair, and the Reading Committee. (The outside chair and the Reading Committee are hereafter defined as the "Orals Committee"). All other attendees of the first part of the orals must leave during this part of the orals. In this part of the orals, the Orals Committee will ask questions of the candidate. Although we expect that the questions will primarily focus on the dissertation, the Orals Committee may ask any questions they wish. This orals constitutes the University orals.
15.3. After the Orals Committee has completed its questioning, the student must leave the room in order to give the committee time to deliberate. The committee has two roles at this point: i) to determine whether the student has passed or failed the oral examination, and ii) to determine what revisions will be required for the final dissertation. The outside chair chairs (i) and the dissertation advisor handles (ii). For (ii), the advisor should take detailed notes on the revisions required or suggested by the committee. These should be communicated to the student.
15.4. The student and the faculty advisor are jointly responsible for finding an outside chair that conforms to all University requirements.
15.5. Because it is often difficult to find particular faculty to sign the final dissertation documents, the department requests that all members of the Reading Committee, with the exception of the dissertation advisor, sign the final approval documents. The dissertation advisor is not permitted to sign the final approval documents until all Reading Committee members have approved the final draft of the dissertation in writing. It is the student's responsibility to ensure that each member of the Reading Committee informs the dissertation advisor of his or her acceptance of the final dissertation.
15.6. Students are required to give the Reading Committee at least two weeks to read the pre-orals draft of the dissertation.
15.7. The dissertation draft presented to the Orals Committee is assumed to be a final draft by the faculty advisor and the student. However, the Reading Committee may request revisions to the dissertation. To ensure that the student is not put in a difficult position, students with absolute deadlines involving graduation (e.g., a job contingent on completion of the dissertation), should leave a minimum of four weeks between the time of the final public orals and the signature of the dissertation advisor (a combination of re-writing time and committee reading time). Of course, it is possible that it will take significantly longer (or shorter) than four weeks, and it is also possible that the dissertation will not be approved or that the student will fail the final public orals.
15.8. Students are required to give the Reading Committee at least ten days to read the revised draft of the dissertation if revisions are needed.
15.9. Other rules and procedures concerning the final public orals are detailed in University documents; the student should become very familiar with these documents.
16.1. All students are required to be a successful teaching assistant or instructor (hereafter described as "teacher") for at least two quarters. In extremely unusual circumstances, approved by the student's advisor and the PhDC, one of these teaching assignments may be a significant role in advising BA and/or MA students under a faculty member.
16.2. Although students may meet the teaching requirement by being a successful teacher for the same course in two different quarters, it is preferable that the student teach two different courses.
16.3. It is desirable, though not required, that at least one of the two required teaching experiences involve one of the core courses of the undergraduate major: Communication 1, Communication 106, or Communication 108.
16.4. The instructor for the course will assign one of three possible assessments for the teaching assignment: Pass with Distinction, Pass, or Fail.
16.4.1. If the instructor assigns an assessment of "Pass with Distinction" or "Pass," the student will have met the teaching requirement.
16.4.2. If the instructor assigns an assessment of "Fail," the instructor will write the student a letter describing in detail the deficiency or deficiencies that led to the determination that the student had failed. The letter will also describe the steps that must be taken by the student to remedy the failure. This remedy will include any combination of the following: i) satisfactorily teaching an additional course and/or ii) satisfactorily working with BA and/or MA students in some capacity. The letter will also provide a deadline for the student to complete the remedy.
If the student successfully performs the remedial action prescribed by the instructor, as determined by the instructor, the student will have been considered to have completed one of the two required teaching activities. The earlier failure will be expunged from the student's record.
If the student does not successfully complete the remedial action(s), the student will be referred to the GSC of the department with a recommendation that the student be dismissed from the Ph.D. program. The instructor will write a letter, detailing the deficiencies, that will be given the to student, the student's advisor, the PhDC, and the GSC. The letter will also be placed into the student's file.
17.1. The professor responsible for a research assistant will assign one of three possible assessments for the research assignment: Pass with Distinction, Pass, or Fail.
17.1.1. If the professor assigns an assessment of "Pass with Distinction" or "Pass," the student will have passed the research assistantship.
17.1.2. If the professor assigns an assessment of "Fail," the professor will write the student a letter describing in detail the deficiency or deficiencies that led to the determination that the student had failed. The letter will also describe the steps that must be taken by the student to remedy the failure. This remedy will include any combination of the following: i) satisfactorily completing additional research or research-related activities. The letter will also provide a deadline for the student to complete the remedy.
If the student successfully performs the remedial action prescribed by the professor, as determined by the professor, the student will have been considered to have successfully competed the research assistantship. The earlier failure will be expunged from the student's record.
If the student does not successfully complete the remedial action(s), the student will be referred to the GSC of the department with a recommendation that the student be dismissed from the Ph.D. program. The instructor will write a letter, detailing the deficiencies, that will be given to the student, the student's advisor, the PhDC, and the GSC. The letter will also be placed into the student's file.
18.1. Subsequent to admission to candidacy, students will be evaluated by their advisor on whether they are making satisfactory progress or not. The determination should be sent to the Ph.D. Director and should be placed in the student's file.
18.2. Subsequent to admission to candidacy, each student's progress will be evaluated by the PhDC in the Spring of each year.
18.3. If the student is not making satisfactory progress, the advisor will write the student a letter describing in detail the deficiency or deficiencies that led to the determination that the student is not making satisfactory progress. The letter will also describe the steps that must be taken by the student to remedy the failure in the subsequent quarter.
18.4. University rules and procedures will be followed in the cases in which a student is consistently not making satisfactory progress.
19.1. Students are encouraged to obtain external funding when deemed appropriate by their advisor, as this will demonstrate external validation for their academic efforts and relieve the burden of support from the Department.
19.2. Students obtaining support from outside the department but within the University will have their departmental support reduced by the amount of the external support. If the external support is larger than the departmental support, the student may keep the difference.
19.3. Students obtaining support from outside the University (e.g., their own NSF grant, Fulbright, etc.) will have their departmental support reduced by the amount of the external support. If the external support is larger than the departmental support, the student may keep the difference. To recognize the student's efforts in obtaining outside funding, the student will receive the lesser of $1000 or the amount of the grant as a bonus.
19.4. "Prize money" (e.g., Nobel Prize, McArthur Genius Award) does not count against departmental support. That is, students may retain all of their prize money without a reduction in departmental support.
20.1. Summer Quarter starts on July 1 and ends on the first day of fall quarter classes.
20.2. The standard summer RA-ship is eight weeks at 20 hours per week. Department- or University-provided funding is for eight weeks only. If the faculty member supporting you over the summer has external funds or gift funds, the faculty member may fund you for 10 weeks or 12 weeks at 20 hours per week. You may NOT be funded for more than 20 hours per week under any circumstance, and you may not be funded for a period other than 8, 10, or 12 weeks.
20.3. During the weeks you receive funding, you must be on campus. If your research necessitates you being off campus for part of the time that you will be funded, your travel must be approved by the Chair. Foreign students are responsible for ensuring that they are conforming with any travel restrictions associated with their visas.
20.4. You may complete your 8, 10, or 12 week term during ANY 8, 10, or 12 week period, respectively, between July 1 and the first day of fall quarter classes that your faculty employer approves.
20.5. The two summers of "guaranteed" summers of funding are NOT provided by the University. They are primarily provided for by faculty sponsored projects. When there is not enough faculty support to meet the requirements, the DEPARTMENT must cover students out of general funds. This is the reason behind 20.6.
20.6. Any "guaranteed" summer funding will be associated with a faculty member, even if it comes from the department. If you are given summer funding by the department (as opposed to by a faculty member), the determination of who you will work with over the summer will be made by the department. While the Department tries to be accommodating, there is no guarantee that the student will be assigned to work with their advisor.
20.7. The "guaranteed" summers for summer support will be the first and third summers of the student's Ph.D. program. With the permission of the advisor and the Ph.D. Director, the particular "guaranteed" summers may be moved to other years.
20.8. Students who are on probation or who are terminated from the Ph.D. program are not eligible for "guaranteed" funding.