Download Report of APAM PhD Qualifying Exam Student Experience and more Exercises Quantum Mechanics in PDF only on Docsity!
Report of APAM PhD Qualifying Exam Student
Experience
Survey and report administered / compiled by members of the the
APAM Graduate Student Association (AMPS) with major contributions by
Julia Carmen Hestenes, Andrew Bishop, Dion Ho, and Han Yong Wunrow
August 1, 2022
Abstract In June 2022, the APAM graduate student organization ran a survey to all current PhD students to put on record the general climate surrounding the qualifying exams and to gauge reasonable reforms to the current quals structure, which, to the best of our knowledge, has not had a major structural reform in decades. 74% of all current APAM PhD students responded to the survey. 64.5% of all survey respondents, and 80% of women respondents, wanted written quals to be reformed. 41.5% of “advanced PhD students” (2+ years in APAM) do not think that written quals prepared them for their PhD research and another 36.6% of respondents said that they felt somewhat more prepared but felt there are more effective ways. Materials Science and Applied Physics students had a majority in favor of changing the Oral Exam. Students’ men- tal health testimonials reflected that the cramming required for the qualifying exams produces a lot of stress and anxiety that might be avoided with less memorization- focused exams. Almost half of all respondents, and 9/10 female respondents, reported struggling with mental or physical health in some way during the process of studying for the exams. Multiple students said that they would have left the program if they failed the exam the first time to avoid going through the process again. It became clear from several survey questions that women, the only historically excluded STEM minority group with an adequate sample size, are disproportionately affected by the current quals format compared to the rest of APAM, indicating that APAM’s quals are not equitable and interfere with SEAS’ mission of creating an inclusive and diverse STEM community that uplifts minorities in STEM. Several minor and major changes to the quals structure were polled and gained majority approval from all respondents. The strong positive response about minor changes (meaning: small revisions to the current format) stresses that the faculty can reasonably make minor reforms by the end of the summer for the incoming class. Students were in favor of replacing the quals with a placement exam (similar to the current format of the GSAS Physics de- partment) or a research/literature-focused examination. This conclusion is supported by student testimonials, which indicated that students find the cramming required for the course-focused written exam not conducive to long-term learning, and the content redundant to course material they have demonstrated competence on while taking the relevant classes.
Contents
1 Summary of Report
The Survey and Demographics In June 2022, the APAM graduate student organization ran a survey to all current PhD students to examine the climate surrounding the qualifying exams and to gauge reasonable reforms to the current quals structure, which, to the best of our knowledge, has not had a major structural reform in decades. 74% of all current APAM PhD students responded to the survey. Demographics from the survey confirm that APAM lacks a diverse student body, bringing to light that the APAM Faculty should develop an action plan to actively recruit students belonging to historically-excluded minority groups. Of historically excluded minorities in STEM, only women have an adequate sample size (10+ responses).
Effects of the Quals on Attracting Students and Retention of Students 15% of all respondents indicated that they wished that they had given quals more thought when deciding between PhD programs. 13.8% of all respondents, but 40% of women respon- dents, hesitated to enter into the APAM doctoral program due to quals. 40% of women had considered leaving the program with quals as a consideration, compared to 25% for all of APAM.
Sentiments about relevancy of the qualifying exams and mental health 41.5% of “advanced PhD students” (2+ years in APAM) do not think that written quals pre- pared them for their PhD research, while separately, 36.6% said that they were somewhat prepared but felt there are more effective ways to prepare. A common complaint among students is that certain qualifying exam topics have no relevance to their research, which also causes them to have less time to take courses on material related to their research. For this reason, it is common for some students to “self-study” some quals topics in their “free time” so that they can take more research-relevant courses or spend more time on research itself. Several suggestions for changing required topics were made by respondents. Students’ mental health testimonials reflected that the cramming required for the qualifying exams produces a lot of stress and anxiety that might be avoided with less memorization-focused exams. Several students said they would have left the program if they failed to avoid going through the process again. Almost half of all respondents reported struggling with mental or physical health in some way during the process of studying for the exams, while 9/10 of female respondents report poor mental or physical health in preparing for the exam.
Sentiments on if students want the qualifying exams to be reformed: written vs. oral 64.5% of all respondents, and 80% of women respondents, wanted written quals to be re- formed. Because the oral quals vary by program in APAM, responses from each program were evaluated separately. Applied Math students and Plasma physics were unanimously in favor of keeping oral quals as-is. Applied Physics (Solid State and Optical) and Materials Science students were discontented with their oral exams, where they both had the majority in favor of changing or eliminating the oral exam, most citing irrelevance to their research and that they did not learn anything “new” that they hadn’t already learned during written quals.
Minor and Major changes to quals Overall, all respondents were very positive of minor changes to the current exams, indicating that the faculty can at least make minor changes for the incoming students that would greatly improve morale amongst PhDs if the faculty can’t commit to major changes before the academic year begins. Minor changes included reducing the stakes of the exam, allowing a formula sheet while maintaining difficulty of past years, and having the quals exam writers release a specific list of content required to be studied. Of the minor changes, students were most in favor of minor change #1, which was to have students that fail a qualifying exam question retake the class instead of having to retake the whole qual. This feedback suggests that a large part of the reason students are unhappy with the qualifying exams is the threat of being kicked out of the department based on a single, high-stakes exam. Out of the 3 major changes proposed, all respondents were overall in favor of options 2 (placement test, 78% in favor) and 3 (research/literature assessment, 65% in favor). 90% of women (9 out of the 10 that responded) were in favor of option 3 (research/literature), varying from the general student body by a 25% discrepancy. This divergence indicates that women in the department largely prefer to be examined on research ability rather than coursework. Women were overall in favor of all 3 changes overall, while international students were in favor of option 2 by majority. Next, we probed more precisely on how students would prefer to be examined if the current quals were eliminated and replaced with a research-oriented assessment. Of the 3 research/literature proposals that were floated (based on other current quals formats in SEAS), in general, all of APAM was most positive about option 2 (research + literature) with 74% indicating that this would be a positive change. Our semi-quantitative analysis of general preferences between all changes (minor + major changes) showed that all students were most positive about the placement test (“Major Change #2”, see section 7.4), followed by Minor Change #1 (if a student fails a question, they just have to retake the class in- stead of retaking the whole qual), followed by Major Change #3 (replacement of quals with a research/literature-focused exam). Positivity for this placement exam spanned across all APAM, including women and international students. Women were more positive about all three “major changes” than the rest of APAM (bottom three options in Figure 21), where they were most positive about the placement test and replacing the quals with a research / literature-focused assessment.
2 Introduction
In February 2020, PhD students in the Physics Department in GSAS, who had a similar qualifying exam to APAM’s (multiple-day long course-focused examination followed by oral qualifying exam), formed a graduate student council (PGC, the Physics Graduate Student Council) and ran a survey to gauge student experiences surrounding the qualifying exam. PGC presented the GSAS Physics faculty with these findings in a faculty meeting. In this faculty meeting, the faculty voted to cancel the qualifying exam. An alternative examination
responses from historically excluded minorities without potentially identifying them. Since we don’t know exactly how many students in the program are non-binary as our survey participation is only 72.5%, we estimate that a little more than 2/3 of male students and over 3/4 of female students in the program responded to the survey. 53.5% of respondents had taken written quals in the last two years (were either in their 1st or 2nd year of the PhD). There were two demographic groups with a large enough sample to be evaluated separately: women (10 responses) and international students (16 responses). Hence, some of the plots in this report also show separate analyses for these demographic groups, when they diverged from the response rate from the general student body.
Figure 1: Subfields of survey respondents
Figure 2: Demographics of survey respondents
4 Impact of Qualifying Exams on Program Choice and
Program Retention Rate
Figure 3 shows that 13.8% of respondents in APAM hesitated to enter into the APAM doctoral program due to the quals, however, 40% of women respondents hesitated to accept the offer (Figure 3b). For international students 6.3% said that the quals had them hesitate to enter the program. In addition, 15% of all respondents indicated that they wished that they had given quals more thought when deciding between PhD programs. 25% of all respondents said that they had considered leaving the program and that quals were a factor in this (Figure 4a), while 40% of women respondents said that quals were a factor in considering leaving the program. These findings suggest that our quals, being more intensive than many other equivalent programs in the US (See Section 8.2, Quals in similar PhD programs in US), could play a part in repelling women from joining APAM and also play a role in retention of women/female experience in APAM. This effect may extrapolate out to other marginalized groups in STEM, though we do not have sufficient sample sizes on this.
how students only have 1-2 weeks leading up to quals to study specifically for quals, because they are focused on these other commitments. Cramming content in this short time may not be conducive to long-term understanding of the material as well as ties into the poor mental health of the students during this time (See Section 8.4: Mental health quotes from studying for the written quals)
Figure 5: Who students study with
Figure 6: Students were asked to rate from 1-5 (1 least, 5 most) on what study materials they prioritized for studying for the written exam.
5.2 Self studying for written quals questions and pertinence of
questions on the quals exams
The following summarizes written responses to the survey which can be found in the appendix Section 8.6 Written responses: Did you self study any quals questions instead of taking the class? If so, why? Section 8.7.1 Written responses: Do you have any general complaints about pertinence of topics/classes required for the exam (e.g. being required to take certain math courses if in Plasma/Materials Science, etc.). Section 8.7.2 Written responses: Should some ”qual questions” (topics/required courses) be replaced with topics from other courses? If so, which and why? Students who self-studied topics instead of taking the associated APAM course largely did so because they had studied the topic during their undergraduate or masters and wanted to save time due to a heavy course load workload or a desire to spend more time on research. A few students chose to self-study qualifying exam topics so that they can take classes which they perceive as more relevant to their research. By far the most popular topic to self- study is Linear Algebra. Other topics which students self-studied are Statistical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, Phonons, Laser Physics, Physics of fluids, and Optics. A common complaint among students is that certain qualifying exam topics have no relevance to their research, which also causes them to have less time to take courses on ma- terial related to their research. The most complained about topics are Classical Mechanics followed by Quantum Mechanics. Also mentioned are Statistical Mechanics and Phonons. A few students complained about excessive overlap between Intro to Numerical Methods and Numerical Methods for PDEs. With regard to the replacement of quals topics, a Plasma student wants Complex Analysis to be swapped in for it would have helped them better understand Kinetic Theory. Other topics students asked to be swapped in are Thermody- namics, atmospheric science topics and analysis topics. Non-math students had split opinions on the importance of studying and being tested on math topics. They, however, were united in their concern about the math component of their quals being of equal weightage to the field-specific component of their quals. They were also concerned about having their grades for the math component of their quals be curved against math students doing those same questions.
5.3 Sentiments on if students want to change written quals / quals
usefulness
In Figure 8, students were asked if APAM should keep the written quals as they are currently. Figure 8 shows that 34.5% of all respondents were in favor of keeping quals as is, while only 20% of women respondents agreed with this statement. 50% of international students were in agreement. 17.2% of all respondents were in favor of getting rid of written quals completely. Figure 9 shows that 41.5% of all respondents that have completed at least two full years in APAM do not think that quals prepared them for their PhD research, while another 36.6% say that they were somewhat prepared but felt there are more effective ways to prepare.
Figure 8: Responses on if students want to change quals (a) all APAM (b) women respondents (c) international students
Figure 9: Students having completed at least two full years in APAM asked if quals were effective to prepare them for their doctoral research.
6.3 Plasma Physics Oral Exam Feedback
Oral exam overview:
The exam is course focused, though some responded that research topics were also ques- tioned. Plasma physics PhD students are given a committee of 3 professors. One of which is their advisor, and the other two are chosen by their advisor from among other plasma physics professors. However, the chair of the committee must be someone other than their advisor. The exam is typically somewhere between one to two hours long, and typically consists of questions on a single topic from each of the examiners that are split up into multiple smaller questions. More topics and questions can be covered if time permits. The questions tend to be on the topics covered in the first year courses, including topics that were covered in classes but not tested in the written qual, as well topics found in graduate level introductory textbooks. The questions also tend to be more qualitative than the written exam.
Survey feedback:
Only 6 Plasma respondents had taken oral quals. All respondents answered “Yes, they are fine for their stated purpose” to the question “Do you think we should keep oral quals the way they are currently?”. Students that have completed 2 years+ only were asked: “Do you think oral quals were effective to prepare you for your PhD research?” All respondents responded positively, with one of them saying they felt so, but thought there were more effective ways to do that.
6.4 Applied Math Oral Exam Feedback
Oral exam overview:
The exam is research-focused. Applied Math PhD students are given a committee of 3 professors, including the advisor. The advisor is allowed to pick the committee and also ask questions during the exam. Applied Math students were instructed to prepare a 20-min presentation on research followed by about 75 minutes of questions from the committee, ranging from my basic knowledge about their research topic to their perspective on where the research might be heading. Some were instructed for the presentation to consist of theoretical material underlying their current research, with the understanding that they would be interrupted throughout to be asked questions. Questions ranged from simple understanding to being asked to work out examples to theoretical future research questions. Students are able to show their thought processes and have full discussions on research toward the end of the exam.
Survey feedback:
Only 6 Applied Math respondents had taken oral quals. All of these respondents answered “Yes, they are fine for their stated purpose” to the question “Do you think we should keep oral quals the way they are currently?”. Students that have completed 2 years+ only were asked: “Do you think oral quals were effective to prepare you for your PhD research?” All respondents responded yes.
6.5 Materials Science Oral Exam Feedback
Oral exam overview:
The exam is course-focused. Materials science PhD students are given a committee of 3 professors, typically at least 2 out of the 3 professors wrote questions on the written exam and thus it does not represent the thesis committee. Their advisor is allowed to observe but not allowed to ask questions or participate in the discussion after the exam about if the student should pass. It is an hour-long oral exam where students are asked several questions about concepts from the classes that were tested on the written exam. The questions are typically more qualitative than the written exam.
Survey feedback:
14 of 16 materials science survey respondents had taken oral quals, and thus were asked questions about their sentiments. Figure 10 shows that 8 out of 14 respondents of Materials Students think that oral quals should be changed. Figure 11 shows that 8 out of 14 of students that have completed at least two years in materials science believe that oral quals did not prepare them for doctoral research, while 3 out of 14 respondents said that they felt somewhat more prepared for doctoral research, but that they believe there are better ways to prepare students for this via quals structures. Mental health responses about this exam were generally negative compared to other programs, with one student reporting being “denounced” by faculty during the exam (Section 8.5.4). Two materials science students complained that their examiners were unfamiliar with their research work and one student was unhappy about memorization, indicating discontent about the exam being on similar content as the written exam.
Figure 10: Materials Science students asked if they think oral quals should be reformed
7 Proposed changes to exam structure
Contents
7.1 Summary of survey findings about proposed changes...... 19 7.2 Explanation of how data was collected............... 21 7.3 Minor changes to current exams.................. 21 7.4 Major changes to current exams.................. 24 7.5 Major changes to current exams: specific proposals....... 25 7.6 Semi-quantitative analysis of minor and major changes.... 26
7.1 Summary of survey findings about proposed changes
First, we will list all proposed changes that the respondents voted on in this section:
Minor changes to quals:
- If a student fails a written quals question, the student retakes the course instead of having to retake the entire written qualifying exam. There is no threat of being kicked out by the department as long as the student retakes the course and passes.
- For written quals, students are allowed a standardized formula sheet made by the exam writers and the exam taking time is extended by two hours on each day (and the difficulty of questions are to be maintained the same as previous years).
- Explicit, clearly communicated list of relevant content for each qual question provided at least a month before the written exam (e.g. a list of textbook chapters relevant to the question)
Major changes to quals:
- Eliminate written quals and keep a course-based oral exam only (which is how it currently is for all programs except applied math).
- Eliminate written/oral quals. Instead administer an optional placement test upon ar- rival and implement a uniform GPA requirement for PhD students in the core classes that were tested on the former written quals. Students that pass placement test ques- tions can skip that course and take a department approved elective instead. (Optional placement test because some students come in with no background in their program and need to take all classes).
- Eliminate written/oral quals and replace with research or literature focused quals
Proposals for research/literature-focused quals:
- (Research only proposal) At the end of the second semester the 2nd year, the qualifying exam is a 10-15 min presentation of the student’s research project and the examiners ask questions about their project as it relates to fundamentals of their program. There is also a written research report for all APAM students
- (Research + literature review) At the end of summer after first year, the student will first present their research project idea and progress in 5 minutes. The student will also have to read 3 academic papers related to the student’s field of research provided by the faculty committee members at least two weeks in advance (each member will provide one paper). The examiners will ask questions about the papers and how they relate to the proposed research to gauge that the student has fundamental understanding of their field and the challenges in their project
- (Literature review only) At the end of summer after first year, the student will submit a 6-8 page summary, critical analysis, and literature review of their chosen research problem/topic of interest. There will then be a presentation and oral exam of the content of this report to gauge the student’s understanding of the fundamentals of their field and the challenges specific to their chosen topic
A majority of respondents are in favor of all minor changes to the current exams that were proposed, indicating that minor changes in the next academic year would greatly improve morale amongst PhDs as the faculty decide on more major changes for the following year. Of the minor changes, students were most in favor of minor change #1: retake the course if the qual question is failed. This feedback suggests that a large part of the reason students are unhappy with the qualifying exams is the threat of being kicked out of the department based on a single exam. Out of the 3 major changes, the majority of respondents were in favor of options 2 (placement test, 78% in favor) and 3 (research/literature assessment, 65% in favor). 90% of women (9 out of the 10 that responded) were in favor of option 3 (research/literature), indicating that women in the department largely prefer to be examined on research ability rather than coursework. The majority of women are in favor of all 3 changes, while international students were only in favor of option 2 by majority. Next, we probed more precisely on how students would prefer to be examined if the current quals were eliminated and replaced with a research-oriented assessment. Of the 3 research/literature proposals that were floated based on other quals formats in SEAS, in general all of APAM was most positive about option 2 (research + literature) with 74% indicating that this would be a positive change. For option 1 (research only qual), 71% said this structure would be a positive change. For option 3 (literature only), 69% said this would be a positive change. Women were most in favor of option 1 (research only, 80% approval by women) while international students were most in favor of option 2 (research + literature, 62.5% by international students). Our semi-quantitative analysis of all changes (minor + major changes) showed that all students were most positive about the placement test (“Major Change #2”, see section 7.4), followed by Minor Change #1 (if a student fails a question, they just have to retake the class instead of retaking the whole qual), followed
