Reconsidering Qualifying Exams for Doctoral Students: Promoting Inclusive Excellence in STEM
The Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) is the highest academic degree awarded in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Earning a Ph.D. typically takes four to six years of study, including one to two years of coursework and the remaining time dedicated to mentored research, often involving roles as a teaching assistant (TA) or research assistant (RA) to cultivate practical skills. A central component of many STEM doctoral programs is the qualifying exam (QE), usually administered after one or two years of doctoral study, focusing on core courses like probability, inference, and applied biostatistical methods in biostatistics programs. Successful completion of the QE allows students to complete remaining courses and transition to the dissertation phase, where they independently conceptualize and execute original research.
However, the reliance on QEs as the primary tool for assessing readiness for Ph.D. level research can perpetuate problematic principles, potentially hindering inclusive excellence. This article examines the structure of written qualifying examinations to mitigate potential disparities in student success in doctoral training programs, focusing on the format of the exams, the evaluation criteria, and the support available to students as they prepare for the exam. It also addresses the necessity and purpose of the QE, beyond being a necessary milestone to complete, on the way to earning one’s doctoral degree.
The Historical Context of Biostatistics and its Implications
The Department of Biostatistics at Johns Hopkins University, founded in 1918, is the oldest in the United States. The discipline's origins are largely attributed to the development of core statistical approaches between the 1880s and 1930s by figures like Francis Galton, Karl Pearson, and R.A. Fisher. It has come under scrutiny that many of these individuals developed foundational methods in support of their views around eugenics. Galton, considered the founder of eugenics, described it as the "science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also, those that develop them to the utmost advantage.”
Understanding this historical context is crucial when reconsidering the utility of the QE as part of the doctoral curriculum. Framing this discussion as a strategy to increase inclusive excellence is arguably counter to the ideas of some of the founders of the discipline, making it a critical aspect of the conversation.
Attrition Rates and the Impact of Qualifying Exams
Data on attrition rates for students who enter graduate programs in biostatistics and do not complete their degrees is limited. There is even less data published summarizing how much of that attrition is directly attributable to not successfully passing the QE. Goodman et al. (6) summarized student enrollments in graduate biostatistics programs as well as graduates (master’s and doctoral) of those programs using data from the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health (ASPPH) member institutions in 2010 and 2020. Forty-one biostatistics programs reported data to ASPPH on 514 and 635 students enrolled in biostatistics programs in 2010 and 2020 (respectively) and on 240 and 330 students who graduated in those same years.
Read also: Applying to USF Doctoral Programs
While attrition from graduate studies in biostatistics seems to be better than in other STEM fields, it remains unclear and understudied largely because of the dearth of data monitoring attrition and retention rates for doctoral students specifically.
Efforts to Diversify and Promote Inclusion in Biostatistics
Despite challenges, there are notable, long-standing initiatives focused on addressing barriers to entry into biostatistics. These include the Eastern North American Region (ENAR) of the International Biometric Society’s Fostering Diversity in Biostatistics Workshop, NIH’s Summer Institute in Biostatistics and Data Science (SIBS) initiative, and the Summer Program in Biostatistics and Computational Biology at Harvard, as well as various initiatives sponsored by the American Statistical Association (ASA).
However, these efforts were not designed to address the larger goal of making the profession more welcoming and inclusive. Institutions often operationalize "assimilationist inclusion," where individuals who have typically been excluded are granted entry into those spaces, but there is little to no effort to intentionally consider how those spaces can be made more welcoming and inclusive.
The Structure and Purpose of Qualifying Exams: A Critical Evaluation
Most graduate programs in biostatistics require a bachelor’s degree with at least one year of calculus and a semester of linear algebra. Doctoral programs typically involve one to two years of coursework, followed by a written QE, and culminate in a dissertation. The QE is a comprehensive evaluation of core curriculum, often covering probability theory, inference, and statistical methods.
While the necessity of coursework and dissertation phases is well-established, the purpose of the QE is less defined. Many argue that the QE assesses whether a doctoral student has the foundational knowledge and skills required to engage in independent research. Others argue that preparing for the exam facilitates student’s independent synthesis of the information covered in the core courses, therefore demonstrating their mastery of this material in order to move on to the dissertation phase of their training. However, there are no universally agreed upon competencies evaluated by the QE and typically no published rubrics detailing how student performance will be evaluated, resulting in potentially wildly different exams and outcomes both within and across institutions conferring PhDs. The fact that there is no universally agreed-upon set of competencies for the QE is problematic for at least the following reasons. First, it makes it difficult for students to know what to study, when preparing for the QE. Secondly, there is often very little feedback on performance that goes back to students, beyond whether they passed or failed the QE.
Read also: Requirements for Ed.D. in Leadership
Concerns and Criticisms of Qualifying Exams
Qualifying exams have faced criticism for their rigidity, length, and potential irrelevance to research. The substantial time spent focusing on grades and performing in domains that are largely irrelevant to growth and development. The work and effort put in to qualify for a PhD, is not anywhere near sufficient for the completion of a masters. The main goal of the PhD in the sciences is to conduct research and the purpose of the qualifying exam is to demonstrate research ability.
Some argue that an intelligent qualifying process should account for and encourage research-oriented deliverables such as proposals, plans, experiments, papers, conferences, reports and more. More radically, you could even envision a PhD absent qualifying exams altogether. Imagine determining if someone could do research, by having them do research.
Alternative Approaches to Assessing Doctoral Student Readiness
Given the limitations and potential biases associated with traditional QEs, alternative methods for assessing doctoral student readiness should be considered. These may include:
- Research-Oriented Deliverables: Evaluating students based on research proposals, plans, experiments, papers, conferences, and reports.
- Comprehensive Evaluation by Faculty: Relying on professors, advisors, and senior scientists to gauge a student’s research capabilities after working with them for an extended period.
- Modified Qualifying Process: An intelligent qualifying process accounts for and encourages research-oriented deliverables.
- Degree Requirements: Auxiliary learning objectives can be met by setting degree requirements (any time before graduation) rather than through a qualifying process.
Columbia University's Programs for Non-Degree Students
Columbia University offers several programs for students who wish to study without pursuing a degree. Non-degree special students and visiting scholars register only at the Graduate School and are not eligible to participate in exchange or consortium agreements through the Graduate School. International students seeking doctoral degrees may apply as International Exchange Scholars through special exchange partnerships with Columbia GSAS. Admission as a non-degree special student is offered by the Dean of the Graduate School in consultation with the faculty in the department with which the student hopes to study. Doctoral students who wish to conduct independent research without formally enrolling in classes and without receiving formal guidance from Columbia faculty may apply for Visiting PhD Scholar status.
Read also: Guide to Doctoral Scholarships
tags: #doctoral #students #exempt #from #non #exam
