´óÏó´«Ã½

Students must complete a PhD Candidacy Exam and register in BISC 892 PhD Graduate Candidacy Exam in the semester the exam is to be completed. The exam is normally taken prior to the end of the 4th semester in the PhD program or prior to the 2nd semester after transfer from MSc.  

Purposes of the Candidacy Exam

1. To stimulate the student to prepare and defend a written proposal for original research at an advanced level
2. To ensure that the student is able to pursue and complete that research
3. To ensure that the student has sufficient knowledge of the relevant literature and background information
4. To identify areas of weakness in the research discipline or in the subject matter relevant to the student's general field of research
5. To permit the examining panel to recommend courses, reading, or other work by which the student can address any weaknesses well before the time of the defense
6. To give the student an oppotunity to present any parts of the proposed research that are in progress or completed.

Paperwork for the PhD Candidacy Exam must be received by the Graduate Program Assistant 4 weeks before your exam.  Please contact the Graduate Program Assistant for the 'Step-by-step' guidelines. 

Composition of the Examining Committee

The examining committee is composed of the student's supervisory committee, a faculty member external to the supervisory committee to act as external examiner, and a member of the DGSC to act as chair. The external examiner is chosen by the senior supervisor.  The external examiner should hve some degree of expertise in the student's general area of research, be able to provide an independent assessment of the student, and should not have attended any previous supervisory committee meetings.

Format of the Candidacy Exam

1. The exam is an oral exam that is closed to the public. In person Candidacy Exams are strongly preferred.  Automatic exceptions would be committee members who do not live and work in Metro Vancouver, are on study leave, or are doing field work.
   
2. The exam, consisting of the student presentation and questioning, may last a maximum of 2 hours.  With breaks, deliberations, and feedback to the student, the exam ca often extend longer than 2 hours.  It is recommended to schedule 3 hours for the exam.
3. The exam is taken prior to the end of 4th semester for students admitted directly into the PhD program or prior to the end of the 2nd semester for students who transfer from a Master's program into the PhD program (i.e., typically 1.3 years after starting the work on the PhD project).  This is relatively early compared to many other universities, which should be taken into consideration if the examining committee includes members from other universities with different practices.
4. The examining committee should be provided with an original research proposal of the student's intended doctoral research two weeks prior to the exam. The proposal should take the general form and approach of an NSERC Discovery Grant Proposal.  In five single-spaced pages, the proposal should include a discussion of relevant background literatuure, a clear explanation of the rationale for the proposed research and the research objectives, presentation of methodology to be used, and explanation of how the results of the work will contribute to progress in the field.  Progress to date and preliminary results may also be included.
5. The exam will begin with a short (10-15 min) summary of the proposed research. Questioning by the panel follows. During questioning, each examiner is typically given 15-20 minutes for questioning, starting with the external examiner, followed by committee members, and ending with the senior supervisor.  If time remains following the first round of questioning, an additional round or ad-hoc questions may be permitted at the chair's discretion.  The exam will concentrate on the student's area of research. See "Nature of the Questioning" below for more details.  After the questioning, the student will be excused and the committee considers the performance of the student and the qulity of the proposal.

Potential Outcomes

With guidance from the Chair, the examining committee will reach a consensus classification of the proposal and the student's performance as ‘Acceptable’, ‘Acceptable after conditions listed below are met’, ‘Re‑evaluation required’ at a second candidacy exam, or ‘Not acceptable’.  A ‘Not acceptable’ outcome is permitted only after a re-evaluation at a second candidacy exam.

1. Acceptable can include suggestions (not requirements) for additional work such as courses or directed reading, but the student will pass BISC 892 whether or not those suggestions are followed.
2. Acceptable after the conditions below are met should be chosen when the Examining Committee requires (not merely suggests) more extensive additional course work, directed reading, revisions to the proposal or other work or other improvements but without re-examination at a second candidacy exam.  In this case, the DGSC chair will approve the examination outcome (and the student will pass BISC 892) after the senior supervisor indicates that the required work has been satisfactorily completed.  If the additional work or revisions require more time, the student may have to enrol in BISC 892 in an additional semester.
3. Re-evaluation required at a second candidacy exam.  This outcome should be chosen only at a first candidacy exam and only when the examining committee agrees there are substantial problems with the student's background preparation, research proposal, or responses to questions.  Before the exam ends, the examining committee must set a date for the second candidacy exam (<6 months after the first exam).  The composition of the examining committee (including the external examiner and the chair) must be the same at the second candidacy exam.
4. Not acceptable outcome after a second candidacy exam will normally required the student to withdraw from the PhD program.

Nature of the Questioning

The examining committee should use these guidelines for posing questions and evaluating the student and the proposal.

1. Has the student satisfactorily demonstrated how the proposed research logically follows from existing scientific knowledge and previous investigations in the research discipline?
2. Has the student satisfactorily demonstrated how the proposed research will contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the discipline?
3. Does the student have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the relevant literature and the discipline?
4. Are the objectives of the research clearly defined and achievable?
5. Has the student demonstrated sufficient knowledge of experimental design, data collection, and methods of analysis to ensure completion of the research program?
6. Does the student have written and verbal communication skills needed to complete PhD level scholarship?
7. Does the student need a better understanding of subject matter related to the broad field of research?
   
8. On the whole, is the student capable of completing original research at the advanced level expected of PhD researchers?

Roles and responsibilities of the examining committee

The chair iis responsible for administering the exam and for ensuring that all rules are followed and the student is treated fairly and respectfully by the examining committee.  To start the exam, the chair will introduce the student and research topic, briefly explain the exam format, and remind the examiners of the potential outcomes.  The chair is responsible for managing the duration of the presentation (this should not exceed 15 minutes).  Based on the number of examiners, the chair will choose an appropriate questioning time available for each examiner, manage the timing of the qeustioning, and warn each examiner when then time for questions is ending (e.g., a 2-minute warning).  The chair will lead the discussion during deliberations, gather and summarize feedback from all examiners, and encourage the examining committee members toward a consensus outcome for the exam.  The chair will then present that result to the student along with a summary of the feedback from examining committee members before additional feedback is provided by individual committee members.  The chair completes the candidacy exam form including comments, any required conditions, and a date for a second candidacy exam if necessary, then signs and submits that form to the graduate program assistant. 

The examiners are responsible for reading the proposal ahead of the exam and preparing appropriate questions that will contribute to achieving the purposes listed above and will conform to the guidelines outlined in "Nature of the questioning".  Questions should lead to a discussion that will deepen the student's thinking on a subject or give the student new insights into the research field, topic of study or methods.  Each examiner should contribute at the end of the exam a summary evaluation of the written proposal, the presentation, and responses to questions in order to contribute to deliberations.  Each examiner will make a recommentation to the chair on the outcome of the exam.

In addition to the responsibilities of an examiner, the senior supervisor may wish to take detailed notes on the subjects covered in the exam and the student's performance in order to provide detailed feedback to the student after the exam.  This is not the responsibility of the chair, who may not have sufficient exertise in the field of study.