☜ IX. Timetable

Contents
Preface
Philosophy
Admission Policies
Requirements for the Degree:
I. Time Limits for Degrees
II. Supervisory Committee
III. Required Courses
IV. Teaching Requirement
V. Program of Studies
VI. MS Prospectus
VII. PhD Proposal
VIII. Graduate Examinations
IX. Timetable
Annual Reviews
Financial Support
Registration
Miscellaneous
Appendices:
I: Residency
II: Student Travel
III: Dual Compensation
IV: English Competency
V: Graduate Appeals Policy
VI: Teaching Assistants Manual
VII: Neuroscience Program
Detailed Contents

ANNUAL REVIEWS and SCHOLARLY ENGAGEMENT REQUIREMENT

The purpose of the Scholarly Engagement requirement is to ensure that students are active participants in the scholarly community. To meet the Scholarly Engagement requirement, doctoral students should interact with faculty and peers in ways that may include enrolling in courses; attending seminars, symposia, and conferences; engaging in collaborative study and research beyond the university campus; and utilizing the library, laboratories, and other facilities provided by the University. The goal is to prepare students to be scholars who can independently acquire, evaluate, and extend knowledge, as well as develop themselves as effective communicators and disseminators of knowledge.

All students will be evaluated annually. The intent of the annual review is to assure that each student has the opportunity for scholarly engagement and continues to make timely and satisfactory progression toward completion of the degree program.

Course-type MS students
Graduate students will be evaluated annually by the program director.

Thesis MS and PhD students
All graduate students in the Department have an opportunity to present their progress each year to the faculty in their areas. Through this process the student can be aided in fulfilling the degree requirements on a timely basis. The review also encourages interaction between graduate students and faculty who otherwise may have little direct contact.

All graduate students will be informed of their status and the results of their evaluations each year. It obviously is difficult to provide an in-depth evaluation; but the major professor should meet with the student following the review for discussion.

The committee meetings should be completed between the fourth week in September and the second week of December each year and should be reasonably uniform across groups.

The mechanism should be:

All students, except those who entered in August of the current academic year, are required to meet with their committees prior to the Reviews. DO NOT WAIT UNTIL IT IS TIME TO HAVE THE REVIEWS TO HAVE THESE MEETINGS. Faculty serve on many committees and their schedules will not permit them to accommodate last minute or spur of the moment scheduling. Those doctoral students who have passed the Preliminary Examination are required by the University to have an annual committee-signed statement (the Graduate Advising Office maintains the Annual Evaluation Forms) in their permanent University file. The Graduate Office will provide this form. It is the student's responsibility to see that the completed form is submitted to the Graduate Office.

Each student fills out a progress report plus a 250 word abstract and submits them to the Graduate Office. These will be distributed to the faculty.

Each student beyond the first year is required to present a 5-10 minute summary of his/her progress, outlining goals and presenting plans for the following year. The student's presentation should be informal, without slides, overheads or handouts. All first-year students must appear, but should merely be prepared to discuss their goals. There will be an additional 5 minutes for questions and another 5 minutes for discussion after the student leaves.

Review Outcomes
Thesis MS and PhD Students receiving a satisfactory review will be guaranteed support for the next academic year.

Any student who receives an unsatisfactory rating by the area faculty will be on probation and must meet specific conditions to continue support. When submitting an "unsatisfactory" rating for a student, the area faculty should enumerate specific criteria by which the student can achieve "satisfactory" status (e.g., get off academic probation, meet specified levels of performance in the research lab, etc.) along with a required timeline for meeting these criteria and consequences of not meeting them (loss of Department support or dismissal from the program). These recommendations will be submitted to the Associate Chair for Graduate Studies who will monitor the student’s compliance.

Each area representative will notify the Graduate Office of the results of the Reviews. Shortly after the Reviews, each student should receive from the area representative written results of the evaluation, and if necessary, any specific recommendations.

☞ Registration