September 2023

PhD Candidacy Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Okay, I wrote “The Qualifying Exam” and “A PhD Candidacy Postmortem,” so check those out too. This post is going to be more straightforward questions I have been asked and my perspective on them!

What is “candidacy” or “the qualifying exam”?

See The Qualifying Exam for a thorough answer, but for here: it is a milestone that marks the transition from student to candidate, which typically means that you begin dissertation work.

What helped you both individually and as a cohort to prepare for your candidacy?

Individually, I think the most important thing was getting over the psychological hurdle that I was “ready.” Leaning into the idea that if my committee thinks I am ready, then I am ready. More practically, nothing in the exam was binding. I wasn’t proposing my dissertation and only one of my tasks was for publication. A part of being in a PhD is making the best decision at the time and running with that. Change will happen, so there’s no point in delaying for perfection.

As for my cohort, a few folks setup a recurring working group that I wasn’t able to attend frequently. Outside of time set aside to make progress, I found it most helpful to have a space to vent. The A-Exam puts a lot of pressure on all of the moving pieces of a committee and you will need a space to vent these frustrations.

When did you talk to your committee about their expectations and deliverables for your A exam?

I had my first full committee meeting to explicitly discuss the A-Exam the summer before my third year. To be honest, the biggest misstep in my exam process was that expectations and deliverables were not discussed in-depth. This led to major problems and way more work for me down the line. So, this is one of the most important questions to ask and re-ask during the process.

What are the usual deliverables for an A exam?

This depends on the field. For humanities, you may be given a list of books and articles to read and a set of questions to answer in essay format. In engineering, you may not have a deliverable. Or, just a presentation on what you have been working on up until this point. My department has a “choose your own adventure” structure. Typically the only reliable facet is that each committee member assigns and oversees a task. These tasks can range from first-author publications to a syllabus to a grant application.

How did you determine when to take an A exam?

My chair recommended the date. However, I would take into account your proposed workload (are you TAing/trying to submit papers/taking courses) and opportunity (internships that delineate between students and candidates). This is not something you want to do under duress.

How do you handle answering a question you don’t know the answer to?

First things first, take a breath. You are entitled to time to think through the questions. You will know at least part of any question. Often the committee is fishing for your stance rather than the “right” answer. What I have learned through this process is that having a “side” that you are on makes you more legible in the academe, though this was never told to me.

How much of the A exam is “work that I’ve completed” vs “work I want to complete for my dissertation”?

As always, it depends on field and committee. For me, I had a work-in-progress research paper which was original. For the syllabus and literature review, I was able to pull in past readings, but the writing had to be original. Typically there isn’t a point to the exam is you aren’t creating something new.

Even though it’s in everyone’s best interest a student passes their A exam, what happens if a student doesn’t pass?

In my department, this is unheard of. As general advice, no self-respecting chair would put their student into a situation like this to fail. It reflects poorly on them and the university. However, disciplines where hazing is more common (physics, chemistry, etc), then this is a real thing to watch out for.

Do I need any “physical” demonstrations (e.g., poster/oral presentations, journal submissions)

I think this question is about the state of the deliverable for the exam. The answer is no. Even for the dissertation, the content many times goes unpublished. Perhaps there are proof of concepts, pilot data, experimental methods, or the goal is to revise the dissertation into a book. I would say for candidacy, the general expectation is to provide evidence of particular skills rather than building your CV.

Did co-advising change the dynamic of the committee?

For me, not too much. However, I got pretty lucky that some semblance of hierarchy was already embedded in my committee. When I arrived at Cornell, I was assigned two advisers. My chair was a close topical research fit, but outside my home department and my co-chair was less of a research fit, but within the department. I had a discussion with my minor member before adding them about their expectations of their role. So, it was pretty clear whose word was final and who was deferential to whom.