![]() The bottom line from all this is - there are no standard rules/definitions/process involved in becoming a "PhD candidate". As such, the candidacy exam is more of a formality - no 30 page proposals (who reads them anyway?) just a presentation on the papers already published + future work remaining. At this point, their course is pretty set and the committee members don't generally feel like they need to say/do much (unless if there are serious flaws hitherto unnoticed). In ECE/CS (applied, not theoretical), the labs/PIs are generally quite rigorous themselves and by the time a student is ready to take the candidacy exam, they've had at least 2 first author publications and 3-4 conference publications. The life/physical sciences departments require you to have a 20-30 page written proposal + a presentation on it + preliminary results (usually at least 1 journal paper) and your committee members grill you on the proposal. They throw a bunch of stuff at you, poke holes in your proposal, make you sweat epsilons and deltas from all your pores before declaring you a "candidate". The math department is pretty rigorous and the "candidacy exam" is mostly a blackboard and chalk routine. ![]() ![]() To expand on what JeffE said – "Every department is different.", here's an example from my university (a top UC school):
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |