Procedures for Doctoral Evaluation

The Department of Linguistics
has several mechanisms in place to aid students in assessing their progress.
We make an effort to give students a detailed picture of what is expected of
them from the beginning, and we provide yearly evaluations to help them maintain
a clear understanding of their progress.

1. Orientation

   During the orientation period before Fall semester, incoming
   Ph.D. students are introduced to the formal academic requirements in place
   at that time using two primary mechanisms: the graduate student handbook and
   a meeting with doctoral advisor.

   The Linguistics Department graduate student handbook

   The handbook outlines program requirements, including required courses,
   and qualifying papers (e.g., deadlines and procedures for committee formation
   and oral paper defense), and provides a summary sheet which the student can
   fill in over time to track his/her academic progress.

   Meeting with the doctoral advisor

   Also during the orientation week, the incoming Ph.D. students meet
   as a group with the doctoral advisor to review the formal requirements of the
   program, and to discuss strategies for making the most of their graduate training
   in the department. The other department faculty are also available during orientation
   week for individual meetings with the students.

2. Ongoing Assessment
   
   Mentors and Advisors

   Students are urged to consult the
   doctoral advisor, or any other faculty member, whenever they have questions
   or concerns about their participation or progress in the program. Before students
   begin qualifying papers, their progress is supervised by the Doctoral advisor
   and informal faculty mentors (in addition to annual evaluation by the full
   faculty; see below). Incoming Ph.D. students will be assigned to faculty mentors
   during their first semester. The mentors will meet with the students periodically
   throughout the year. Students can change mentors at any time, as their education
   advances and their research interests become more focused. Once students are
   writing qualifying papers, the chairs of the qualifying paper committees play
   a major advisory role. The instructor(s) of the Qualifying Paper Workshop also
   are an important source of input on student progress.

   Evaluation of student progress in Ph.D. program

   Faculty evaluates student progress in the program
   at the end of every academic year and a summary letter is sent to the student.
   The letter highlights what the faculty perceive to be the student’s particular
   strengths and weaknesses (if any), and makes specific suggestions for remedies.
   Students are asked to acknowledge receipt of this evaluation by returning a
   signed copy of the letter to the department. The criteria for evaluation address
   both the academic progress and the professional development of the student,
   and include: success in class work, aptitude for research, integration into
   the department, and TA/GA/RA performance.

   Criteria for formal student evaluation

   1. Academic Progress
      
      1. Progress in satisfying formal academic requirements of the program.
         Requirements for advancement to candidacy include required courses,
         two qualifying papers (each of which must be defended before a department
         committee), and a requirement that the student present his/her research
         in a public forum. The final version of the first qualifying paper
         must be submitted not later than six weeks before the last day of classes
         of the fifth semester, and the final version of the second qualifying
         paper must be submitted not later than the last day of classes of the
         sixth semester.
      2. Quality of course work. Evaluation of performance in courses includes
         written work and contributions to class discussions.
   2. Professional Development
      
      1. Intellectual development criteria include the student’s ability to
         identify research questions of interest, work independently, construct
         logical and convincing arguments, and carry a project to completion.
         Ability to make effective public presentations of research results
         is also an important criterion for evaluating development as a scholar.
         We have a formal department requirement that the student make a public
         presentation of research before advancement to candidacy. An equally
         important informal department practice is to have students give practice
         talks to the department before conference presentations. Students are
         expected to participate in departmental activities such as colloquia,
         brown bag lunches and invited lectures.
      2. Performance of duties associated with paid teaching and research
         positions Students are given feedback on their performance as teaching
         and research assistants. To assist in evaluation of teaching, the department
         has developed its own TA evaluation form, given out in classes at the
         same time as the University instructor evaluation forms. For teaching
         positions in which the TA provides instruction to students as a group,
         as in recitation sections, teaching performance is also evaluated by
         a faculty observer. The criteria for evaluating TA performance are
         as follows:
         • Professionalism, including regularly meeting classes, holding
           the requisite number of office hours, informing students/course supervisor
           if can’t meet recitation/class in timely way, attendance in course
           lectures, promptness in correcting/returning assignments, fulfilling
           other course responsibilities.
         • Quality of teaching/leading recitations,
           including preparation, organization of material, clarity of presentations,
           ability to handle student questions, helpfulness, availability to students,
           correction of student work, any special initiatives or additional contributions.
         • What does the TA do well? What needs improvement? Specific suggestions
           for how to make the needed improvement.