Standards needed? An Exploration of Qualifying Exams from a Literature Review and Website Analysis of University-Wide Polices

Abstract

PurposeWhile known by many names, qualifying exams function as gatekeepers to graduate student advancement to PhD Candidacy, yet there has been little formal study on best qualifying exam practices particularly in biomedical and related STEM PhD programs. The purpose of this study was to examine the current state of qualifying exams through an examination of the literation and exploration of university policies. Design/methodology/approachWe conducted a literature review of studies on qualifying exams and completed an external evaluation of peer institutions and internal institutional qualifying exam requirements to inform our discussion of common practices of qualifying exams in doctoral training at a research-intensive institutions. FindingsOur research identified the need for more evidence-based research on qualifying exams, which are nearly universal as a major doctoral training milestone across US institutions of higher education. Our findings indicate a wide variety of qualifying exam formats, often lacking the establishment of explicit expectations and evidence for specific formats. This lack of understanding of best practices coupled with insufficient clarity has a real potential to disadvantage doctoral students, particularly first generation, underrepresented minority, international, and/or other trainees who are not privileged or socialized to navigate training environments with vague landmarks such as the qualifying exams. OriginalityThere are very few studies that evaluate qualifying exams in US doctoral education, particularly in STEM fields, and to our knowledge, there has been no analysis of campus wide policies on qualifying exams reported. The lack of evidence for best practices and the need for to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of qualifying exams are discussed.