E1.6 Departmental Review of Student Progress

Updated: August 26th, 2011

Departments are responsible for monitoring their students’ overall progress toward graduate toward graduate degrees. Departments should evaluate graduate students at the middle and end of their first year of graduate study and annually thereafter. The yearly evaluation gives faculty an opportunity to review the performance of each student and, more importantly, to provide students with timely information about the faculty’s evaluation of their progress and performance. The Graduate Division further advises that the results of all evaluations be sent to the students in writing. A negative evaluation may be considered a letter of warning if it includes the information required by the Graduate Council (see “Warning Letters,” below) and a copy should be sent to the Graduate Division.

The Graduate Council requires that all students advanced to candidacy meet a minimum of once a year with their dissertation committeee members and complete annually the Report on Progress in Candidacy (www.grad.berkeley.edu/policies/pdf/progress_report.pdf).  The report should be kept in the department’s files and a copy sent to the Graduate Services: Degrees Office (318 Sproul Hall, #5900).  At least two members of the committee, includeing the chair, must meet with the student.

In fairness to students and to avoid problems later on, departments should let students know—by published materials, by written evaluations, or both—what the faculty considers to be satisfactory progress.

Criteria for evaluating student progress. The definition of adequate progress is intentionally flexible. With the approval of the Graduate Council, departments may establish progress requirements beyond those set by the Graduate Division. Such requirements may include:

1. a specified grade-point average above a 3.0;
2. no Incompletes or a fixed number of Incompletes;
3. specific courses completed in a timely fashion and at a given level of performance;
4. a master’s degree completed en route to a doctorate;
5. departmental preliminary exams passed before admission to the Qualifying Exam;
6. an acceptable thesis or dissertation prospectus submitted before advancement to candidacy;
7. formation of an appropriate QE committee;
8. acceptance by a regular faculty member who agrees to supervise the student’s research and to serve as chair of the dissertation committee; and
9. certain general requirements, such as passing the Qualifying Exam, completed within a clearly specified period.

Action regarding insufficient progress. If a department assesses a student’s performance as below standard, it may: 1) send the student a warning letter, with a copy to the Graduate Services: Degrees Office (318 Sproul Hall), apprising the student of his or her insufficient academic progress (see “Warning Letters” in the section directly below), or 2) write to the Graduate Division requesting to place the student on formal probation, with the consequence that the student is ineligible to receive a fellowship or hold an academic appointment (see E1.8 “Academic Probation”). Placement of a student on formal probation is required before the student can be dismissed from the program except in instances when a student fails a comprehensive, preliminary, or qualifying examination.

Warning letters. Whether a department sends the student a warning letter or requests the Graduate Division to place the student on formal probation or be lapsed early if advanced to candidacy, the Graduate Council requires that department supply the following for the student’s information:

1. the nature of the problem or deficiency;
2. the steps to be taken to correct the deficiency;
3. a reasonable period in which to correct the problem or to show acceptable improvement; and
4. an approximate date on which the student’s record will next be reviewed.

---

See All Topics in the Category: E. Course Work, Grading, Probation, and Dismissal, Guide to Graduate Policy