Milestone 2: Written Preliminary Examination

Prior to receiving approval to take the Written Preliminary Examination, students must submit a proposal to the Coordinator of Graduate Studies, who forwards the proposal to program track faculty members for review. For the proposal, each student, in consultation with their advisor(s), selects an important issue, problem or topic relevant to the student's studies. The issue should be represented in the research literature by a variety of perspectives, conclusions or phases of development. Working with their advisor (and other faculty members, if desired), the student writes a proposal that briefly presents what the student intends to write about in the written preliminary examination. The proposal should: 

• Identify the issue under investigation, ideally with a guiding question that can be addressed through analysis of the relevant literature. Students should briefly justify the question's significance.

• Propose a theoretical or conceptual framework to be used for the review of the literature and briefly justify its appropriateness for analysis of the literature. The framework might be based, for example, on theory, on stages of development of the issue, on chronology, on a comparative analysis across nations or institutions, or other appropriate way of organizing what the student intends to say about the literature to be reviewed.

• Present a brief overview of what the literature review will cover. 

• Include a list of all references cited (only the references cited in the proposal. 

• Include a cover page with the student’s name, the advisor’s name, the name of the program coordinator, and the date on which the proposal was submitted; The student's name should not appear on any other pages of the proposal. 

• The proposal should be well-written and be between 750 and 1,000 words in length, excluding references and the cover page.

Examples of topics of previous written prelim proposals and exemplary proposals can be made available from the student's Faculty Program Coordinator. Coordinators and students' advisors should also be consulted for examples of exemplary critical, well-integrated, published literature reviews. Previous written prelim exams are not made available to students.

The written preliminary proposal must be submitted to the Coordinator of Graduate Studies (only—do not cc: advisors) by 4:30 p.m. Central Time on the due date unless otherwise specified. Each proposal will be reviewed and evaluated by the student's primary advisor and at least two other faculty members in the students' program. The possible scores are Acceptable and Not Acceptable.

If the reviewers determine that the proposal is Acceptable, the student may proceed to the written preliminary examination. If the reviewers determine that the proposal is Not Acceptable, the student will have seven days from the notification date to make revisions (as specified by the faculty reviewers) and resubmit the proposal to the Coordinator of Graduate Studies. The student should consult with their advisor immediately to discuss how to revise their proposal.

If the faculty reviewers determine that the revised proposal is Acceptable, the student may proceed to the examination; if the faculty reviewers determine that the revised proposal is Not Acceptable, the student must wait until the next examination period and begin anew. The student cannot take the written prelim examination without having received an Acceptable score on the written proposal. The written preliminary examination happens twice per year. The exam cycle is as follows: 

•  Summer Exam Period

  • • • Proposal due April 30

      • Examination begins May 30

      • Examination due August 30

•  Winter Exam Period

  • • • Proposal due October 15

      • Examination begins November 15

      • Examination due February 15

Note: When a due date falls on a weekend or University holiday, the due date automatically shifts to the next workday. Proposals and examinations are due at 4:30 p.m. on the due date unless otherwise specified.

Once students’ proposals are deemed acceptable by their program faculty, they proceed to the Written Preliminary Examination. The Written Preliminary Examination is completed independently by the student, without the support of their advisor or other program faculty. Students may consult the Coordinator of Graduate Studies during the examination period if they have general questions about procedures. Students may consult with their advisor(s) and faculty about non-examination matters during this time period.

As noted above, the Written Preliminary Examination is a review of the literature on the issue that was presented initially in the written preliminary proposal. The review must be a critical, scholarly synthesis of the literature. Students are not required to pursue a topic that is directly related to future dissertation work, though such a connection is often desirable and may help the student to make timely progress toward the doctoral degree.

Please note that students may consult with an editor or fellow students for their project, but the editor or fellow student may only provide technical advice on grammar, punctuation, and spelling, not on the content of the examination itself. When students submit the examination, they must verify in their submission email that the examination is entirely their own. All content included in the examination should be appropriately cited, with quotation marks for direct quotes where appropriate.

The written preliminary examination must be submitted by email to the Coordinator of Graduate Studies (only—do not cc: advisors) by 4:30 p.m. Central Time on the due date unless otherwise noted. Once the exam is submitted and acknowledged as received, updates to the submission will not be accepted unless requested by OLPD staff. If an unexpected, documented problem arises during the examination period (e.g., significant health issue or family emergency) a student may request cancellation of the exam, which must be approved by the advisor, the Coordinator of Graduate Studies, and the Director of Graduate Studies. Students who cancel exams will be eligible for the next examination period.

Upon submission to the Coordinator of Graduate Studies, the examination will be anonymized and distributed to two reviewers in the student’s program area. Coordinators of program areas assign these reviewers. Reviewers will not know the identity of the author, and authors will not know the identity of reviewers, to promote the most unbiased review process possible. Students will receive either a rating of “pass,” “revise,” or “fail.” If there is a split decision on the evaluation, program area Coordinators will assign a third reviewer, and the majority decision will be final. Students are evaluated on the following criteria:

• The student has identified the issue under investigation, presented a question or questions about the issue that drives analysis of the literature, and justified the questions’ significance. 

• Presented the theoretical or conceptual framework that is used for the review of the literature and justify its appropriateness for the topic (e.g., stages of development of the issue, a chronological review, a comparative analysis across contexts, etc.). 

• Presented a review that is a critical, scholarly synthesis of the literature. 

• Included a list of all references cited and only the references cited in the examination. 

• Included a cover page with the student’s name, the advisor’s name, the name of the program coordinator, and the date the examination was submitted. The student's name should not appear on any other pages of the examination so that the exam review can be anonymous. 

• The paper is well-written according to the norms of the program area’s disciplinary traditions. 

• The final paper is between 6,000 and 7,500 words in length, excluding references and the cover page.

Students in the Human Resource Development track must also include two to three potential research questions for future research, based on information gleaned from the literature. This is not a requirement for other program areas in OLPD.

Students who receive an evaluation of “pass” may begin working toward their oral examination immediately. Students who receive an evaluation of “revise” must meet with their advisor to review feedback on the examination within seven days of receiving their results. Students then have one month to revise and resubmit their examination. Students who revise examinations should address feedback from reviewers and may (although not required) attach an anonymous cover letter outlining the ways in which feedback was addressed to the Coordinator of Graduate Studies. Once materials are submitted, they will be re-assigned to faculty reviewers who evaluated the examination as in need of revision. Revised exams will then receive an evaluation of “Pass” (for which students may begin working on next milestones) or “Fail.” A rubric that will be used for evaluation can be found by clicking here.

Students who receive an evaluation of “Fail” may take the examination again during the next examination period. If a student receives two evaluations of “Fail” (whether in an original or revised version of an examination) they will be discontinued from the program. Students who submit a proposal for an examination period but do not submit an examination (and have not cancelled it) will receive an evaluation of “Fail.”

Students can visit the University of Minnesota’s Graduate School Degree Completion Steps document at any time for abbreviated explanations of degree steps on this and other Milestones.