Preliminary Written Exam Guidelines

Preliminary Written Exam Guidelines – Background, Procedure, and Outcomes

for PhD Students in Environmental

Scope:

The Ph.D. Written Qualifying Exam consists of two parts: 1) a written critical review of one peer-reviewed journal article followed by a brief research plan consisting of a potential next step for this line of research and 2) an oral presentation and question and answer period (1 hr) with a committee of three environmental faculty. You and your advisor will decide on the start date together. The written exam committee for each student is formed by three faculty members, not including the student’s advisor(s), within our department. The committee is selected upon discussion between the student and their faculty advisor, typically depending on the area of expertise of the faculty. If needed, faculty outside of our department may serve in this capacity, although this is not common; inclusion of an outside faculty member is decided upon in the discussion between the student, their faculty advisor, and the rest of the faculty within the environmental engineering group.  

Discussion of the literature and the concepts presented in the research articles with any individual during the exam period is not allowed and constitutes a violation of the University of Minnesota Student Conduct Code

(https://regents.umn.edu/sites/regents.umn.edu/files/2020-01/policy_student_conduct_code.pdf).

Use of any reference material (articles, textbooks, etc.) is permitted.

Objective of the written exam:

The goal of the qualifying exam is to ensure that the student has sufficient knowledge of environmental engineering principles from their coursework and other training to succeed in the Ph.D. program and has the ability to learn independently, write concisely, think critically, design well-structured scientific experiments, make a brief, effective oral presentation, and answer questions logically. The written exam allows the committee to assess a student's potential for success in the Ph.D. program by evaluating their foundational knowledge in the subject area and their critical thinking abilities. It requires the student to demonstrate their ability to design experiments (or develop models) that contribute to new knowledge. The exam serves as both a knowledge assessment and an opportunity for the student to showcase their skills in evaluating and critiquing literature, applying critical thinking, and designing experiments based on their acquired understanding. Additionally, it acts as a checkpoint to ensure the student is synthesizing knowledge and applying it rather than simply recalling information. From an educational perspective, the exam provides valuable experience in academic writing, literature review, and responding to constructive feedback during the oral defense. It also serves as preparation for the oral/candidacy exam.

Timing of written exam:

The written exam should be taken as soon as the student is ready. Most students who enter the Ph.D. program immediately following their undergraduate education (i.e., no master's degree) should take the written exam following their third semester. Students with a master's degree should take the written exam after their first or second semester, unless they are substantially changing their scientific area of focus. Delays are reasonable on a case-by-case basis given that different people enter our graduate programs with different backgrounds (for example, students without an undergraduate engineering degree often need prerequisite coursework).

Exam instructions: 

1. Written Critique and Research Plan

The Ph.D. Written Qualifying exam will begin on receipt of the instructions and the journal article(s) via email from your advisor. Students will be given 10 days to complete the written portion of the exam. The exam needs to be submitted by 5 pm on the 10th day. Upon receiving the journal article(s) and instructions, you may obtain and read any references necessary to assist in their understanding of the research article. The paper submission must be turned via email to your committee by 5pm on the 10th day. 

Paper requirements: 

• between 10-15 pages, not to exceed 15 pages (excluding citations)

• double spaced with 1-inch margins with Times New Roman size 12 font

• References page

• Approximately 1/3 to 1/2 of the document should be a critical review of the journal article with the remaining 1/2 to 2/3 outlining the proposed research plan and experiment(s)

The written critique and research plan should: 

• Critically evaluate the research article and design an experiment or experiments that could be a logical next step in the line(s) of inquiry presented in the assigned article. 

• Quickly summarize the fundamental/mechanistic status of knowledge in the research area 

• Identify and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the research presented in the paper, and how the journal article builds upon prior knowledge. 

• Identify knowledge gaps or open research questions remaining and then design their own experiment(s) that logically follow from the article

• explicitly state of a meaningful hypothesis for the proposed experiment(s) is strongly recommended. 

Suggested guidelines for reviewing a journal article and designing an experiment are at the end of this document.

2. Oral presentation/Q&A session

After the paper has been submitted to the committee, each member of the exam committee will read and judge whether the submission is acceptable to proceed with the oral portion of the exam. The student's advisor will communicate the committee’s decision to the student within one week of the submission. A revision may be requested prior to or subsequent to the oral component of the exam. The oral portion of the exam is typically scheduled within 1-2 weeks after the decision to proceed has been communicated to the student. Exceptions to this timeline may occur in the event of scheduling challenges. The student is responsible for communicating with the committee to schedule a time for the exam (recommended using Doodle (www.doodle.com) or When2Meet (www.when2meet.com)). A total of 1.5 hours should be blocked for the exam to leave time for faculty deliberation. Once a time is found, the student should reserve a room for the exam that has a dry erase board (https://sites.google.com/umn.edu/cegereservations/home). 

There are two parts to the oral exam: 

1. A concise 5-minute (maximum time) presentation using up to 3 slides that comprises their paper review/critique and experimental design. The main findings of the review and a short description of the experimental design should be highlighted. Students are allowed to include original figures/tables or figures/tables from the papers or other sources in their slides. The committee will not ask questions during the presentation.

2. A Q&A session where each of the three faculty members will ask questions for the remainder of the time. Questions will be relevant to the journal article, the critical review, the planned experiment(s), and the presentation. Students should expect questions related to the fundamental aspects of environmental engineering that may pertain to the research described in the articles, in their proposed research, or classes. 

Assessment and how decisions are made:

Each faculty member reaches an independent opinion about the student's performance on the exam. The faculty panel will then discuss their opinions and reach a consensus regarding a grade of pass, fail (with retake), or fail (final). The final decision will be based on the student’s written submission and the oral component of the exam. The faculty may determine the student has passed the exam but also impose additional other steps to address a student’s deficiencies that were identified during the exam. If not otherwise specified, all additional other steps to pass the exam need to be completed before the candidate meets the requirements to take the oral/candidacy exam.

A fail (with retake) is warranted for students who demonstrated a substantial effort but failed to demonstrate the sufficient background knowledge and critical thinking skills needed to be a successful Ph.D. student. The qualifying exam may be re-taken once if the student fails. If the decision is to retake the exam, the committee members will provide clear suggestions for improvement. In the event of two failures, the student is deemed not suitable for the Ph.D. program. Students who receive a fail (final) have performed poorly on the exam or they have failed the written exam for a second time. 

The student’s advisor will communicate the final decision of the exam committee to the graduate program coordinator (GPC). The GPC needs to know the students name, the exam date, and the outcome of the exam (incl. potential options for re-take).

Guidelines on use of AI "Artificial intelligence (AI) language models, such as ChatGPT, and online assignment help tools, such as Chegg®, are examples of online learning support platforms; they cannot be used for this exam. The following actions are prohibited in this exam and will result in failure: 

• Submitting all or any part of an assignment statement to an online learning support platform;

• Incorporating any part of an AI-generated response in an assignment;

• Using AI to brainstorm, formulate arguments, or template ideas for assignments;

• Using AI to summarize or contextualize source materials;

• Submitting your own work for this exam to an online learning support platform for iteration or improvement.

Material provided to students with their exam instructions:

Suggested Components of a Critical Manuscript Review

1. Briefly (~ 1 paragraph) summarize the present status of knowledge of the scientific issues that the manuscript is addressing.  

2. What is the motivation behind the work? Is this motivation valid; i.e., does it justify the work performed?

3. What is (are) the objective(s) of the work? 

4. Evaluate the experimental approach. 

5. Analyze the results. Are the data adequately interpreted? Do the interpretations correspond with the data shown?

6. Do the conclusions flow from the data presented, or do the authors over-interpret their data (i.e., do they use too much conjecture)? 

Each of these components should be written within the context of the present status of knowledge in this specific field of inquiry. That is, students may need to read other research publications to be knowledgeable of the areas where there is scientific consensus as well as areas where the fundamental knowledge is poorly understood. A strong critique often means putting the paper in the context of other literature.

Suggested Components of an Experimental Design

1. Define knowledge gaps and the scientific or practical importance of the knowledge gap.  Formulate a research objective (i.e., what would you like to learn?)

2. Be sure to explain the novelty of your proposed research (e.g., methodological approach). 

3. Formulate a novel and meaningful hypothesis. A meaningful hypothesis is not merely a prediction of the experimental/modeling results. A meaningful hypothesis is conjecture of the pertinent mechanisms that control the outcome of the experiments and/or modeling exercises.

3. Define the data that you intend to collect. 

4. Describe your methodological approach. Students also should be knowledgeable of the strengths and weaknesses of their approach.

5. Describe your data management and analysis plan (data handling & storage, visualization, statistical analysis) 

6. What are expected outcomes? How will these outcomes advance the knowledge and understanding within your topic area? How will this new knowledge have a meaningful impact on the field and/or society? What could potentially go wrong? What might be potential fallback plans? Do alternative experimental strategies (methods, analysis tools, etc.) exist to address your formulated objective and hypothesis?

Notification of results: 

The student's advisor will communicate the committee’s decision on the written exam part to the student within one week of the submission of the written exam. If no revisions to the written exam are requested, the student is responsible for communicating with the committee to schedule a time for the oral exam part. After the oral exam the student’s advisor will communicate the final decision of the exam committee to the graduate program coordinator (GPC). The GPC needs to know the students name, the exam date, and the outcome of the exam (incl. potential options for re-take).

Preliminary Written Exam Guidelines – Background, Procedure, and Outcomes

for PhD Students in Geomechanics

Timeline and structure

The written preliminary exam administered by the Geomechanics and related faculty is held in the fall and/or spring semesters (as needed, but no more than twice a year). The date of the exam is decided as needed in discussion between faculty and students. There is no fixed timeline for when students must take the exam; this depends on the specific background, coursework and research load, and readiness of the student, and is the result of a discussion between the student and their advisor. A typical, non-binding guideline is to take the exam by the end of the second year in the graduate program. The exam is divided into two parts (Part 1 and Part 2) taken in close succession.

Part 1

Objectives

The scope of part 1 is to test in a written setting the following characteristics of the candidates: a) their knowledge of foundational mathematical, physical, and engineering notions that are highly relevant to the program core disciplines; b) their reasoning abilities, critical thinking and problem-solving skills required to navigate complex scientific and technical questions that may go beyond basic information and merge different topics; c) their ability to present coherent, well-organized and neatly presented answers, using the available time efficiently.

Format

Part 1 takes 4 hours. The candidates are presented with 16 questions, written by the group faculty members, and the candidates select 8 questions to answer. They can solve more than 8 questions, but they must clearly indicate the 8 answers that they want to be graded. Part 1 is closed book and closed notes. Each question is worth 10 points. Calculators are allowed.

Topics

Roughly half of the questions are designed to test basic knowledge in the following areas (corresponding to disciplines taught in a typical undergraduate engineering curriculum):

1. Mathematics (including calculus, analytical geometry, linear algebra, differential equations, etc.) 

2. Probability and statistics

3. Classical physics

4. Rigid body dynamics

5. Deformable body mechanics

The remaining questions may require more specific knowledge of the following areas (class numbers of courses offered on campus in these areas are provided, but there is no formal requirements to take these courses at UMN, course selection depends on individual student background and discussion with the advisor):

6.     Continuum mechanics and thermodynamics (e.g., AEM 5501)

7.     Elasticity (e.g., AEM 5503, CEGE 5411)

8.     Structural dynamics / Wave propagation (e.g., CEGE 8421, CEGE 8341)

9.     Fracture mechanics / Plasticity (e.g., AEM 8531, CEGE 8413)

10.   Computational mechanics (e.g., CEGE 8401)

11.   Soil and rock mechanics / Poroelasticity (e.g., CEGE 4301, CEGE 4311, CEGE 8321)

12.   Groundwater mechanics (CEGE 4351, CEGE 4352)

Note that the exam may not have questions in each area.

Grading

The answers are graded by the faculty members who have written the selected questions. The outcome is discussed by the entire group. Part 1 is considered passed if the total score is at least 56/80 (70%).

Part 2

Objectives 

The scope of part 2 is to test the following skills, which are considered essential to conduct independent scientific research: 1) frame a research problem, 2) organize a plan to tackle the problem; 3) conduct a preliminary literature review; 4) perform preliminary analysis/calculations or acquire preliminary data to support an idea and informed a proposed research plan.

Format

Part 2 consists of a research assignment to be completed in 1 week. The candidates are given, by their advisor(s), a topic to investigate. This is assigned in the form of a written problem statement and maybe accompanied by oral clarifications and additional information.  The topic may be completely divorced from their research, or related. If it is related, it must constitute a distinct and independent effort. The assignment may require a literature review, a critical summary of existing work, and preliminary study with analysis and calculations to support assumptions, theories, or new ideas. The candidates must submit a report containing a clear, complete, and concise summary of their findings. No universal format or length requirements apply. Part 2 is assigned shortly after part 1 is completed (typically on the same day or the day after completion of part 1).

Grading 

The report is evaluated by the advisor(s) and the evaluation is discussed by the entire group. Part 2 is considered passed if the effort is deemed meeting evaluation criteria related to the skills listed in the Objectives section.

Notification of Results

The student is notified of the outcome of the exam by their advisor, who also communicates the outcome and the official exam date to the graduate program coordinator for proper recording.

Preliminary Written Exam Guidelines – Background, Procedure, and Outcomes

for PhD Students in Structures

1. Scope

The Preliminary Written Examination (PWE) in Structural Engineering is a 4-hour, closed-book written exam designed to assess students’ knowledge across the core areas of structural mechanics. The exam covers five topics:

1. Solid Mechanics / Applied Structure Mechanics (e.g., CEGE 5411)

2. Finite Element Method (CEGE 8401)

3. Dynamics (CEGE 8421)

4. Stability (CEGE 8431)

5. Design (e.g., CEGE 4412, 4413, 4417)

2. Student Conduct Code and Use of Generative AI

All students are required to comply with the University of Minnesota Student Conduct Code.

• Discussion of exam content with others during the exam period is not permitted.

• The exam is closed-book and no reference material is allowed.

• The use of Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Bard, Copilot, Grammarly, or other AI-based services) is strictly prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to:

  • Submitting exam material to an AI tool.

  • Using AI-generated text, code, or ideas in answers.

  • Using AI for brainstorming, summarizing, or grammar correction.

 Detected use of AI tools will result in immediate disqualification.

3. Objective of the written exam

The PWE ensures that students:

• Possess sufficient knowledge of structural engineering principles from coursework and independent study.

• Can solve complex technical questions, integrating mathematical, physical, and engineering fundamentals.

• Demonstrate critical thinking, concise technical writing, and problem-solving skills necessary for Ph.D. research.

4. Timing/Eligibility/Initiation

• Ph.D. students in Structural Engineering are required to take the Preliminary Written Examination (PWE) within their first 3 semesters of enrollment in the PhD program. Exceptions may be granted for valid reasons with the approval of the faculty advisor.

• The exam is typically scheduled at the end of the academic semesters.
  
  

Initiation process:

• Students must notify their faculty advisor of intent to take the exam at least 3 months in advance.

• Students may request recommended textbooks or reference materials for each topic from the responsible faculty member (typically the faculty who most recently offered the course, or the one from whom the student previously took the course).

• Students shall inform the Directors of Graduate Studies (DGS) and Graduate Program Coordinators (GPC) (cegesps@umn.edu) about their intent to take the PWE.

• The Graduate Studies Coordinator will issue a formal confirmation letter with exam date and instructions.

5. Exam instructions:

Technical Content

• The exam consists of 10 questions, with 2 questions from each of the five topics (Topics 1–5).

• Students are required to answer 6 questions in total, which must include 

  • at least 1 question from each of the 4 Fundamental Topics (Topics 1–4)

  • plus 2 additional questions selected from any of the 5 topics.

*When submitting their exam, students must clearly indicate which 6 questions they wish to have graded.

6. Assessment and how decisions are made

• Each answered question is graded by the responsible faculty member.

• A minimum overall score of 70% across the 6 answered questions is required to pass.

• Results are discussed collectively by the Structural Engineering faculty.

• A pass/fail grade will be assigned for the overall exam. 

Students who do not pass will have one opportunity to retake the PWE in the following semester. Only one retake is permitted, and once the outcome is reported to the Graduate School, it is final. 

7. Notification of Results

• Faculty examiners will report results to the Directors of Graduate Studies and the Graduate Program Coordinator.

• Students will receive a decision letter from the committee with feedback on their performance along with guidance for future improvement.

Preliminary Written Exam Guidelines – Background, Procedure, and Outcomes

for PhD Students in Transportation

Scope

The Ph.D. Written Qualifying Exam in Transportation Engineering consists of two parts:

1. Part 1 – Coursework Examination: Four sections based on graduate-level transportation coursework, each designed to test the breadth of the student’s knowledge.

2. Part 2 – Open-Ended Research Question: A question designed to test depth of knowledge in a specific area and the ability to demonstrate critical and creative thinking toward a challenging transportation problem.

The written exam is prepared and graded collectively by all Transportation Engineering faculty members. For Part 1, each transportation faculty member provides one question based on their area of expertise from the core coursework topics, and these are compiled into the four exam sections. For Part 2, the student’s advisor develops the open-ended research question, tailored to the student’s research area. All transportation faculty participate in grading, and the final pass/fail decision is made jointly by the group.

Ph.D. students specializing in pavement engineering may elect to take the preliminary exam through the Structures or Geomechanics groups, depending on the scope of their research. This decision must be made in consultation with the advisor and the relevant group.

Discussion of the literature and the concepts presented in the research articles with any individual during the exam period is not allowed and constitutes a violation of the University of Minnesota Student Conduct Code

(https://regents.umn.edu/sites/regents.umn.edu/files/2020-01/policy_student_conduct_code.pdf).

Use of any reference material (articles, textbooks, etc.) is permitted.

Objective of the written exam

The goal of the qualifying exam is to ensure that the student has sufficient knowledge of transportation engineering principles from their coursework and other training to succeed in the Ph.D. program and has the ability to learn independently, write concisely, think critically, solve open-ended problems, and design well-structured research approaches.

Part 1 tests the breadth of knowledge across core transportation areas. Part 2 tests depth of knowledge on a topic selected by the student’s advisor, as well as the ability to synthesize information, identify research opportunities, and propose sound methodological approaches.

From an educational standpoint, the exam also serves as preparation for the oral/candidacy exam and helps students gain experience in academic writing, time-limited problem solving, and research framing.

Timing of written exam

The written exam should be taken as soon as the student is ready. Most students who enter the Ph.D. program immediately following their undergraduate education (i.e., no master's degree) should take the written exam following their fourth semester. Students with a master's degree should take the written exam after their first or second semester, unless they are substantially changing their scientific area of focus. Delays are reasonable on a case-by-case basis given that different people enter our graduate programs with different backgrounds (for example, students without an undergraduate engineering degree often need prerequisite coursework).

Exam instructions: 

1. Coursework-based Questions

Four sections (2 hours each) based on the following courses (or equivalent content studied elsewhere):

1. CEGE 8215 Transportation Data Analysis (Prof. Davis) – CEGE 8490 Generative AI for Transportation Research (Prof. Choi) is an alternative.

2. CEGE 5214 Transportation Systems Analysis (Prof. Khani) – CEGE 8217 Transportation Network Analysis (Prof. Khani) is an alternative.

3. CEGE 8211 Advanced Theory of Traffic Flow (Prof. Levin).

4. CEGE 5211 Traffic Engineering (Prof. Stern) – CEGE 8490 Transportation Cyber-Physical Systems (Prof. Stern) is an alternative.

Students are not required to have taken these courses at UMN but must be familiar with equivalent material.

Each section is expected to require approximately two hours to complete.

2. Open-Ended Research Question

The second part is an open-ended research question which the student has 2 days to answer. This question tests the depth of the students’ knowledge on one topic as well as their ability to demonstrate critical and creative thinking towards a challenging problem. The scope of the research question is similar to an open-ended research project in a graduate class. 

Assessment and how decisions are made

Each faculty member reaches an independent opinion about the student's performance on the exam for which they contributed a question. The faculty panel will then discuss their opinions and reach a consensus regarding a grade of pass, pass (with revision), fail (with retake), or fail (final). The final decision will be based on the student’s written submission of both Part 1 and Part 2. The faculty may determine that the student has passed the exam, but also impose additional steps to address a student’s deficiencies that were identified during the exam. If not otherwise specified, all imposed additional steps to pass the exam need to be completed before the candidate meets the requirements to take the oral/candidacy exam.

• Pass (with revision). This outcome indicates that the student has demonstrated sufficient background knowledge and potential to proceed, but that revisions are required to strengthen their written exam. In this case, the student must revise and resubmit their existing written submission, addressing the specific deficiencies identified by the committee. Unless otherwise specified, all revisions and additional steps must be completed within one month of the notification of the exam outcome. A typical timeline is as follows: the student will have one to two weeks to complete revisions and address the committee’s feedback, followed by one week for faculty review of the resubmitted work, and one week for a final decision. The student will not be deemed to have passed the qualifying exam, nor be eligible to proceed to the oral/candidacy exam, until the committee has approved the revisions.

• Fail (with retake). This outcome is warranted for students who made a substantial effort but failed to demonstrate the background knowledge and critical thinking skills necessary for success in the Ph.D. program. Unlike a revision, a retake requires the student to take the qualifying exam again in the following year. A student may retake the qualifying exam only once. Two failures (initial attempt and retake) constitute a fail (final), meaning the student is deemed not suitable for the Ph.D. program.

• Fail (final). This outcome applies when a student performs poorly on the exam without demonstrating sufficient effort, or when they have failed the qualifying exam twice.

Use of Generative AI

The use of Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Bard, Copilot, Claude, Grammarly, or any other AI-based text/code generation services) is strictly prohibited for this exam. This exam assesses students' individual ability to apply transportation knowledge and solve complex transportation problems independently. Any detected use of AI tools will result in immediate disqualification from the exam. Examples of prohibited activities include (but are not limited to):

• Submitting all or any part of the exam content to an AI tool;

• Incorporating any part of an AI-generated text, code, or ideas into exam answers;

• Using AI to brainstorm, formulate arguments, or template ideas for the exam;

• Using AI to summarize or contextualize source materials;

• Using AI to correct grammar, punctuation, or wording for exam responses.

• Submitting your own work for this exam to an AI tool for iteration or improvement.

Notification of results: 

Once the faculty panel has reached a final decision, the Graduate Studies Committee representative will be responsible for official notification. The representative will notify the student (and the student’s academic advisor) of the exam outcome promptly after the decision has been made. If there should be any additional steps associated with the decision, these will be clearly communicated at the same time. Then, the GSC representative will notify the Graduate Program Coordinator of the outcome, including the student’s name, the result of the exam, and the date of the decision, so that departmental records can be updated accordingly.

Preliminary Written Exam Guidelines – Background, Procedure, and Outcomes

for PhD Students in Water Resources

Scope: The purpose of the Preliminary Written Examination is to evaluate students’ understanding of the fundamentals of water resources engineering and their ability to think critically and synthesize knowledge.

Prerequisites: 

1. Completion of at least 4 CEGE Water Resources courses at 5xxx-level or above (list to be maintained by WR faculty). Exceptions can be made upon approval by the committee. 

2. Minimum GPA of 3.3 across these courses, exceptions can be made upon approval by the committee. 

Initiation Process: 

1. The student submits a request to the WR representative on the CEGE Graduate Studies Committee, including: Their UMN transcript (unofficial copy); A 1-page research summary; and 3 possible exam topics (with advisor’s input), each with a brief justification of how it complements their research, in no more than 1 page for each topic.

2. The WR group reviews the request, approves/disapproves, and forms a committee. The committee will consist of 3 WR faculty members, including the student’s WR advisor.

3. Within 2 weeks the committee will contact the students to provide them with the make-up of the committee, the timeline, and the chosen topic (see “Exam format” below). The committee will decide the topic. The student will work with the committee member to choose a date, time, and place for the oral component of the  exam.

Exam format:

1. The committee selects or modifies one topic for the students to use as a basis for writing a research proposal. An alternative option (e.g., literature review) is possible upon approval by the committee.

2. The committee may provide 1-2 key papers for the student to use as part of the background or motivation for their proposal, or the student may identify these papers independently. Students are allowed to include up to 30 references in total.

4. Students will prepare and submit a ≤10 page research proposal. The proposal must synthesize  the literature, identify knowledge gaps, and articulate hypotheses and/or methods that could advance the established understanding of the field. Sections may include: Introduction, Literature Review, Methods, Proposed Ideas, and Discussion. Suggested font: Times New Roman, 12 font size, and single line spacing. 

Oral Component:

1. Student presents (10–15 min) then answers committee questions.

2. Q&A scope: document content + related WR fundamentals.

3. Limited notes may be used as back-up, details to be determined on a case-by-case basis and communicated with students at the initial committee meeting.

Timing: 

1. Students will have 4 weeks to prepare the written proposal after topics are finalized. The oral component will take place about 2 weeks after submission, allowing the committee sufficient time to review the document and the student time to prepare the presentation. 

2. Students are encouraged to take the preliminary exam in their third semester to ensure timely feedback on coursework preparation.

Evaluation:

1. Committee votes pass/fail (majority rule).

2. Conditional pass possible (revision or follow-up tasks).

3. Failure may result in recommendation of dismissal from the program, or recommendation for retake, to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

The Use of AI: Use of generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT, Copilot, etc.) is prohibited unless explicitly approved by the committee. The committee may use software to verify compliance. Violations will be considered by the committee as influencing their evaluation and in the more severe cases may result in a committee decision of failure

The WR faculty considers this to be a living document in that it will be revisited on an annual basis by the WR group and revised when considered beneficial for its purpose of evaluating and training students for their career as the professional environment continues to evolve.

Notification of results: 

Once a decision is made, the student (and the students academic advisor) will be notified of the outcome of the exam. If there should be any additional steps associated with the decision, these will be clearly communicated at the same time. The Graduate Student Coordinator will be notified of the final outcome, including the students name, the result of the exam, and the date of the decision, so that departmental records can be updated accordingly. 

An email with the results of the exam must be sent to the graduate program coordinator at cegesps@umn.edu. 

The email must contain the students name, the exam results and the date of the exam. 

The graduate program coordinator will officially record the exam results to go on the students record.