The General Examination is a formal requirement of the Graduate School. Successful completion of the Exam admits the student to Candidacy of Philosophy. The University thereby recognizes that the student has developed the necessary skills to pursue doctoral research.
In this department, the period of the General Exam is divided into two time intervals. The study period starts when the student has found an advisor and formed a Supervisory Committee. This should begin as soon as possible after the student has passed the Qualifying Evaluation. The exam period begins with the "charge," suggesting a format and some questions in the context of a set of papers within a research subarea; this should happen no later than the end of the student's third year. Guided by the charge, the student writes a report on the papers. At the end of the exam period, the Supervisory Committee orally examines the student and judges the report. These steps are intended to facilitate and gauge the preparation and maturity of the student for dissertation work.
For many students, the General Exam is an important exercise in moving along the continuum from uncritical learning to independent research. Uncritical learning is characterized by assimilation of existing knowledge (facts, proof techniques, etc.) and later reproduction/utilization. In contrast, original research is an activity altogether different. The General Exam does not merely measure the student's capacity to store specific knowledge; neither does it demand original contribution. The student is expected to demonstrate preparation to do research in an area.
Even for students who have already begun to do independent research, the General Exam measures aspects of the research process that are necessary for making fully rounded research contributions required of a doctoral dissertation. The skills include assimilation (reading), expression (writing and speaking), evaluation of others' and one's own work, etc. - all at a level of maturity indicative of potential for independent research. This maturity includes individual initiative, interaction with other researchers, and strong reasoning/correlating skills.
The student is expected to develop these skills prior to and during the study period. During the exam period, the student is expected to demonstrate the necessary maturity and mastery of the required skills.
In summary, the steps in completing the General Exam are:
The program of study leading to the General Examination is designed by the student and three computer science faculty members with the hope that this arrangement will increase individual contacts between students and faculty as a side benefit. The student chooses a General Exam Advisor who is responsible for supervising the examination process. The student and the advisor jointly select at least two other members of the committee. At least one committee member must be chosen from outside the student's principal area. The student and advisor must also identify a Graduate School Representative (GSR); the Graduate School no longer makes this assignment. The GSR must be a UW graduate faculty memer who does NOT have adjunct status in the department. Neither can the chair of the supervisory committee have an adjunct appointment in the home department of the GSR. The GSR and the supervisory committee chair cannot have a budgetary relationship. Notify the Graduate Advisor of the committee member names and she will submit them to the Graduate School. Notify the Graduate Advisor of the committee names and she will submit them to the Graduate School. Graduate School Memo 13 details the rules for membership on the Ph.D. Supervisory Committee.
IMPORTANT: Keep your GSR apprised of your progress and of your expectations for your exam dates so that s/he can be sure to attend. The student is responsible for finding a substitute for the GSR should s/he not be able to attend the examination.
Although the exam topic is often selected so as to generate thesis possibilities, it is to be noted that the designation of a supervisory committee for the General Examination does not necessarily imply that the chair of that committee will become the dissertation supervisor for the student. However, by University rules this Ph.D. Supervisory Committee remains effective for your Ph.D. Final defense unless the student or advisor requests changes by contacting the Staff Graduate Advisor.
The study period for the General Exam should begin immediately after the student has passed the Qualifying Evaluation.
The student, under the supervision of the General Exam Advisor, investigates a subject area of mutual interest. This could consist of the student reading and reporting on a series of papers. It also could involve doing original research in the area. The study period provides an opportunity for the student to practice many of the skills necessary in the research process: planning a study, reading and comprehending papers, identifying background material related to the papers, placing work into technical context, assessing the significance of the results, extracting important concepts from the papers, unifying the ideas, proposing possible future research directions, and structuring and writing a report about the papers. In short, the student learns to acquire knowledge in a specific area and develops the skills of comprehending, analyzing and criticizing the work of others.
When the advisor and student feel the student is ready to take the exam, the study period ends. At that time the papers are selected for the written report and General Exam presentation. That is, the Exam period begins.
The exam period begins with the assignment of papers and ends with the exam. Except when explicitly extended by petition to the Graduate Program Coordinator, the Exam period shall begin no later than the later of four academic-year quarters after the student has passed the Qualifying Evaluation, or the third week of the student's ninth academic-year quarter in the program. All petitions for extension shall usually be approved for one quarter at a time.
The exam period is limited to a maximum length of two months; in extraordinary circumstances a short extension is permitted upon petition to and approval of the committee. During the exam period, the student is to conduct the analysis and synthesis described more fully below.
The student will be given a number of papers that contain ideas that are distinct from each other, but are related in some way. In some cases, some or all of papers should be new to the student. The ultimate selection of the papers is the responsibility of the advisor and the examining committee in consultation with the student. The papers should be research papers and not survey papers since a student's survey knowledge is already tested during course work.
In addition to the papers, the student will be given the "charge," a paragraph-long set of instructions directing the student towards certain fruitful questions. Depending on the student's background and interests, this charge may take one of the forms listed in Appendix A. The list of papers and the charge are sent in an email to the Graduate Program Advisor and to each faculty member on the supervisory committee.
Using the skills developed in the study period, the student plans the study, reads and comprehends the papers, identifies the necessary additional background readings, places the papers into technical context, assesses the significance of the results, extracts significant concepts, unifies the ideas, proposes possible future research directions, structures the written report, writes and proofreads the report, and delivers it to the committee at least two weeks prior to the exam.
The written report should reflect the critical reading of the papers which the student has just completed. It will present not only the material extracted from the papers but also the student's assessment of it. An ideal General Exam report would include, in roughly equal measure:
By University rule, each student will schedule the oral examination three weeks in advance (a Request for General Examination form must be filed with the signatures or separate email confirmation by every member of the Supervisory Committee, including the GSR). See Graduate Program Advisor, who will solicit confirmations from the Supervisory Committee members and submit the Request to the Graduate School. Typically scheduling is done as the student's work on the written report is nearing completion. Note: it is prudent to remind faculty of the exam date and location several days prior to the exam.
The oral portion of the General Examination should last approximately two hours, beginning with a forty-minute presentation by the student. Faculty and students are invited to the presentation and are welcome to ask questions. Questions will then be asked in a closed session limited to the committee and possibly other faculty. By University rule, a minimum of 4 faculty members must attend the General (and Final) exams (the chairperson, the outside GSR, and 2 others).
The examiners should ask questions designed to determine the student's preparedness and ability to pursue research.
If the exam is not scheduled by the deadline listed in section IV, and the Graduate Program Coordinator has not approved a petition for extension, the student is considered to have failed the exam. Furthermore, if no examination is held within two months of the date of paper selection and the Chair of the Examining Committee has not accepted a petition for extension, then the student is also considered to have failed the exam.
If an examination is held, there are three possible outcomes:
After the exam: the warrant is signed by the examining committee, a copy of the warrant is made for the student's file, and the warrant is delivered to the Graduate School.
Within the structure of the Generals exam format described above there are potentially a number of differences in emphases that are possible. Below, we list several recommended approaches. but it is expected that over time these may evolve. The exam charge should clarify what is expected in each exam.
This approach focuses on the goals and questions described in Section IV.B. of the Generals Exam document. [Note: This is the way that Generals exams have typically been structured in the 1989-1999 period.]
This would have more emphasis on the broad context of the assigned papers than solely on the specific details of the individual papers, although demonstrated understanding of the assigned papers would still be critical. It would be expected to include much more about papers relevant to the area but not necessarily directly related to the assigned papers. There would tend to be somewhat less emphasis on recapitulating the specific techniques of the assigned papers but more on their context and on the general techniques used within the area as a whole. It would be expected to include discussion of avenues and methods that might be fruitful for future research in the context of the whole range of research in the area.
Unlike a formal thesis proposal, this would not be a contract about what would constitute a satisfactory dissertation. The assigned papers would be starting points in the area planned for the dissertation. The focus of the paper and presentation would be on the open problems in the assigned and related papers, how one might go about addressing them, and how the techniques and ideas of those papers play a role in these directions. One of the reasons that this would not be a contract is that it would not involve the rounds of iteration with the advisor that one might normally expect of a thesis proposal.