Hitachi Developing Generative AI That Saves the Knowledge of Retiring Workers

Doctoral Candidacy exam Instructions

All students participating in a Master of Science or Doctor of Philosophy degree program must complete a thesis or dissertation proposal for approval by the members of the student's steering committee. The major professor and each of the graduate steering committee members must approve the proposal using the Graduate School's proposal approval form. MS thesis proposals should generally be completed two semesters prior to defense of the thesis; PhD dissertation proposals must be completed to achieve candidacy (in concert or in parallel with the candidacy examination process). Each Department/Program may have requirements that exceed those specified broadly in this policy; however, they must be consistent with the Graduate School's requirements. Departmental requirements beyond the minimum stated here must be specified in writing and submitted to the Graduate School as well as listed in departmental web pages. It is the responsibility of the student to be aware of, and comply with, all Graduate School and Departmental dissertation proposal requirements.

The objectives of this examination are to confirm the student's breadth and depth of knowledge in their chosen field of study as well as the student's understanding of the scientific process. The doctoral candidacy examination should be administered upon completion of the majority of coursework, and successful completion of the exam signifies readiness to undertake the research and dissertation component of the doctoral program. This examination must be taken within three years from the first date of matriculation, and at least one year prior to the dissertation defense.

Upon the recommendation of the appropriate Department Chairperson, the Associate Provost for Instruction and Office of the Graduate School appoints the doctoral candidacy examination committee consisting of the student's major professor, the student's steering committee and an additional faculty member from an appropriate area. Additionally, the Associate Provost for Instruction and Office of the Graduate School appoints a committee chair who is not from the department of the student's degree program. The role of the examination committee chair is to manage the examination, ensure its integrity and represent the interests of the faculty and student.

The examination must have both written and oral components, described below.

The purpose of the written exam is to assess the readiness of the student to move beyond the coursework stage of the doctoral program, into the development of a substantial research project and dissertation. Traditionally, questioning should verify sufficient breadth and depth of knowledge to successfully undertake such research, and then communicate the results in a scholarly manner appropriate to the discipline.

To initiate the examination process, the examining committee shall convene at a planning meeting with the student. During the first part of the planning meeting, the committee determines the form and schedule for the process and establishes the date for the oral component (reported on form 6E). The student is then excused from the meeting and the committee develops and discusses the exam content. There are three alternative forms for the written component, as follows:

At least 3 business days prior to the oral exam, the major professor shall confirm with the chair of the examining committee that the oral examination should proceed as scheduled. The written exam is thus considered to be "provisionally successful." If the written examination component does not meet the standards established for the candidacy exam, the committee has two options.

The purpose of the oral examination is to further confirm the fitness of the student to apply the skills and knowledge acquired to date toward a successful and significant research project. The oral examination provides the opportunity for the student to demonstrate their ability to think synthetically and critically in a manner conveying their readiness to commence the dissertation project.

The oral component of the candidacy examination is typically scheduled for a period of approximately two hours, and is broken in to two distinct rounds of questioning. The first round, lasting approximately 60 minutes, consists of questions from each of the members of the examination committee, including the chair should they choose to contribute questions. Time should be shared equitably among the questioners, with interjections or interruptions by other questioners prohibited during the first round. The second round of questions may be more flexibly structured, with broader discussion and interchange among questioners is encouraged.

Any member of the faculty may be a silent observer for the oral component. The candidate may also invite a silent student observer to attend the oral examination. At the completion of the oral examination, the candidate and observers are excused from the room and the examination committee determines whether the student has successfully completed the oral component of the exam and achieved the status of "doctoral candidate." The committee chair has the option to vote. Unanimous agreement is required to pass the student on the first attempt. If less than unanimous agreement is reached, the student is considered to have failed the first candidacy examination. A student who fails the first candidacy exam may request a second exam, which must take place no more than one year from the date of the first examination. The second candidacy examination may, or may not include a new written component, at the discretion of the student's major professor and examination committee, in consultation with the examination chair. At the second exam, the student has passed if there is not more than one negative vote. A student who is determined to have failed the second candidacy examination is terminated from the doctoral program.

To schedule a doctoral candidacy examination, the student should complete the following steps:

Exam question about crickets is so tricky even adults are struggling to solve it

The confusing exam question is so baffling that people even made memes about it afterward, with some sharing that they still couldn't work it out - and parents were miffed too

Image: Getty Images/iStockphoto)

Sometimes, exam questions are so difficult that they leave even adults scratching their heads, wondering where to even start with answering them. And students sitting a Higher School Certificate exam in Australia were left seriously baffled after a question about crickets, finding it super challenging, and wondering whether they even studied for it.

According to news.com.au the syllabus was recently altered by the NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA), which sets the exam papers, and one of these changes saw some of the same questions feature in both the standard and advanced maths tests.

And the crickets question from October 2020 left students so stunned that it became a meme after the examination, but can you answer it?

The baffling exam question featured a box plot of temperature data and those taking the test were asked to "calculate the number of chirps expected in a 15-second interval when the temperature is 19° Celsius."

Answers had to be given "correct to the nearest whole number."

Pupils were left not knowing what to write in the answer section, and some parents were even left thinking that it was too tricky.

One person tweeted a hilarious meme showing the difference between what they had studied for the exam, compared to the content they actually found in it.

Someone responded to the tweet saying: "I still have absolutely no idea how to do it", but someone else said: "Wow you're all idiots I am a grade eight student and it took me less than five min to solve."

A student wrote: "The HSC Maths exam papers are another NESA stuff-up. The way they are justifying it is ridiculous. At the very least, NESA should have told everyone what they might expect instead of dropping it in the exams."

Speaking to news.com.au, a spokeswoman for NESA said it had received feedback from a number of students and parents about the maths exam "being difficult".

She added: "NESA confirms that all questions asked within the Maths Standard 2 exam were within the scope of the syllabus.

"All HSC exam papers are designed to differentiate student achievement. NESA will monitor the marking of the Maths Standard 2 paper very closely. Mathematics education is a priority for the NSW Government."

Do you have a similar story to share? Email: danielle.wroe@mirror.co.uk