Note: Do not use both the title and the degree. If the degree is listed after the name, the title is not used before the name. Passer au contenu Passer aux liens institutionnels. Liens de la barre de menu commune English.
Rechercher dans Canada. This way, readers can easily understand his qualifications and authority. Punctuating this marking can seem a bit complex, especially since different people write it differently. Standard rules do apply to this issue, but the most important thing is consistency; however you punctuate it, do it the same way throughout your paper, article or document. Type "Ph. Put a period after the "h" and after the "D," and do not type a space between the "h" and the "D.
This section defines permitted outcomes of comprehensive exams at the University of Waterloo. A student who is deemed to have failed to satisfy the comprehensive exam requirement Exam Unsuccessful may not continue in the current PhD program. The outcome of the exam is determined by the majority vote of the examining committee. The following rules govern the voting process:. Those members of the examining committee who are voting members shall be clearly communicated to the candidate.
In programs where the comprehensive exam involves multiple components, a student may obtain different outcomes on each component of the exam.
The comprehensive exam will be considered satisfied when the candidate has passed all components of the exam. The comprehensive exam will be considered failed if the candidate receives an exam unsuccessful outcome on any component. No component may be repeated more than once. A student may seek reassessment of the exam evaluation only when the outcome is re-examination or exam unsuccessful based on the written element of the comprehensive exam. A student may not seek a reassessment of the oral component.
A request for reassessment shall follow the process described in Policy 70 reassessment challenge. The University considers academic integrity to be an integral part of all scholarship. Violations of academic integrity are handled under University Policy The student is encouraged to discuss the reports generated from the software with their supervisor s to avoid academic integrity violations. The Associate Dean shall then assess the allegations.
If the vetting cannot be completed prior to the scheduled date of the oral component of the exam, the oral exam shall be postponed, pending the outcome of the investigation. If the vetting is completed prior to the oral exam, and no violation is identified, then the exam can be held as scheduled. When a change in comprehensive exam date is necessary, the Associate Dean Graduate Studies shall inform the candidate, the supervisor or co-supervisors and the Graduate Officer not later than one week prior to the date of the scheduled exam.
If a violation is determined to have happened, the Associate Dean shall proceed under Policy If no violation is deemed to have occurred, the exam shall be rescheduled to the satisfaction of the student, the supervisors, and the examining committee. This rescheduling of the exam shall be considered a valid extenuating circumstance to extend the exam deadline. If an academic integrity violation is believed to have occurred during the oral component of the comprehensive exam, the person suspecting the violation shall ask the Chair to pause the exam.
The concerns identified shall be communicated to the Chair only who will then determine the course of action. If the Chair believes that uncertainty exists regarding the concerns identified, the Chair may determine that the exam shall continue and the potential academic integrity violation will be vetted after the completion of the exam. If the Chair believes that the suspected violation is likely to be valid or that the alleged occurrence precludes a fair evaluation of the candidate, the Chair shall then suspend the exam until a determination can be made as to whether an academic integrity violation has occurred.
Some PhD programs at the University of Waterloo require doctoral students to successfully complete a qualifying exam s instead of, or in addition to, a comprehensive exam as part of their academic requirements. The differentiating features between a qualifying exam and a comprehensive exam are:. A qualifying exam is a cohort-based exam where all students being examined answer the same set of questions or problem s with a common time allotment.
The purposes of qualifying exams at the University of Waterloo may include demonstrating that:. The timing requirements of the qualifying exam — the latest date by which students must successfully complete the exam and the process for managing exceptions to this requirement — are equivalent to those specified for the comprehensive examination.
Earlier deadlines are at the discretion of the Faculty, Department, or Program level. Please see the comprehensive examination regulations. These rules govern the composition of such an examining committee. The qualifying exam committee shall include those who can advance the purpose s of the exam. Committee members are subject matter experts in areas in which the students will be examined. The University requires that the committee includes at least three members:.
Additional committee members may be required at the discretion of the Department or Program. When examining committee members are external to the University of Waterloo, their purpose in the exam process shall be clearly communicated to the student s taking the exam. The Chair is a non-voting member of the qualifying examining committee. The composition of the qualifying examination committee will be approved by the Associate Dean, Graduate Studies, or a delegate.
The method by which the qualifying examining committee is constituted and the timing of the examining committee formation shall be clearly articulated and communicated to students. The exam format is designed to test an entire cohort of students who attempt this milestone simultaneously, based on a common examination in a given time.
The content of the qualifying exam shall be directly related to the stated purpose s of the exam. Students may warrant an accommodation to allow for an alternative exam format other than that which is described by Department or Program.
AccessAbility Services shall determine whether an accommodation is warranted. All student submissions made available to the committee for review shall be anonymous. Normally, the committee will meet to deliberate the outcomes. The permitted outcomes and re-examination process for a qualifying examination are equivalent to that of a comprehensive examination.
Perceived violations of academic integrity are handled under University Policy The guidelines surrounding process and academic integrity with respect to qualifying examinations are equivalent to that of comprehensive examinations. When a department considers that a candidate must have some level of competence in a particular foreign language or languages, the successful demonstration of this competence becomes a requirement for the degree.
Candidates shall have their program of study and research approved by the department or delegated committee in which they are enrolled. In certain Faculties, a candidate will be responsible, upon entry to the program, to a supervisor who will be approved by the Associate Dean Graduate Studies of the Faculty.
0コメント