academics

Exam Rules and Regulations

Please consult the Student Handbook for the information on En Route M.A., Advancement to Doctoral Candidacy, Dissertation Proposal, Dissertation Committee, and the Third Examination (Oral Defense)

---

First Examination / Qualifying Paper

Content:

Each student writes a QP1 that demonstrates that the candidate controls the literature in one or more core area (s) of linguistics relevant to the topic of the QP1 (i.e., Phonology or Phonetics; Morphology; Syntax; Semantics).  The research question may be in any area of linguistics, but the analysis applied to it must be informed by knowledge of a core area commensurate with 30-45 credits of study.

Form:
A QP1 should be written with a linguistically informed audience in mind, including readers not specialized in the topic area. It must conform to a consistent style accepted by some standard journal, it must be in 12-point Times New Roman or Arial font, double spaced with one-inch margins. The body of the paper, excluding the bibliography or appendices, must be between 6,000 and 10,000 words.

Advising:
The student shall secure the participation of two faculty advisors, one of whom shall be the main advisor. Both will be selected by the student and approved by the Executive Officer. It is strongly recommended that, at the outset of preparing for the QP1, the student meet with each advisor to establish a reasonable working plan.

Time limits:
Students must pass theQP1 before registering for the 46th credit. Students are advised to start the writing process around the time they have 30 credits (approximately 10 courses).

QP1 Workshop:
Students preparing to submit their QP1 are required to enroll in the QP1 Workshop. The QP1 Workshop will be offered every Fall semester as a regular three credit course. The purpose of the QP1 Workshop is to enhance students’ research, argumentation and writing skills. For the content of the QP1, students should consult with their advisors and other faculty members specializing in the chosen topic.

Procedures and Evaluation of the QP1:
QP1’s will be evaluated twice yearly. The Qualifying Paper Coordinator (QPC) and Faculty Readers will meet twice a year, within two weeks of the submission deadline. Final submission deadlines are: December 15th and May 15th. Students who anticipate not being able to meet the deadline should be sure to consult with their advisors and Executive Officer.

Abstract:
The student will submit an abstract approved by both advisors, including a brief description of the topic (150 words or less) and at most one page of examples, diagrams and references. The core area should be clearly specified, along with the names of the two advisors. The Executive Officer shall pass it on to the QPC. The QPC will offer advice or request clarification if it is not clear that the chosen topic is able to fulfill the content requirements.

Abstracts are due no later than February 1st for the December 15th final submission, and no later than July 1st for the next May 15th final submission.

Evaluation Committee:
Every year the Executive Officer (EO) appoints a QP1 Coordinator (QPC), who will then select two other Faculty Readers for each submitted QP1. Each QP1 is evaluated by the QPC and the two Faculty Readers. Each Faculty Reader will give the QP1s they are reading a grade of Pass, Pass with revisions, or Fail.  Comments are required in case of a Fail or Pass with revisions. The QPC will collect the grades and may call on the advice of a third reader in case of a disagreement.

Evaluation:
The QPC and the two Faculty Readers will decide whether the QP1 constitutes a Pass, Pass with Revision, or a Fail. In the case of a Pass with Revision, the student must follow the readers' comments to revise the QP1 under the supervision of the main advisor. In the case of a Fail, the student will be allowed to re-take the QP1 once, within one year of having submitted it initially. For the re-take, the student may change advisors, topic or core area(s). In the case of a Fail the student will receive written feedback from the QPC, detailing the reasons for the Fail. Students may not continue in the Program following a second failed submission.

Second Examination

Students write a Qualifying Paper in a core or non-core area on a topic not overlapping that of the First Exam.  As in the case of the First Exam, the content of the Qualifying Paper must be the student’s original research.  As part of the exam, the student must orally present and defend the Qualifying Paper. The Qualifying Paper is evaluated by three faculty members. The committee will decide whether the Qualifying Paper constitutes a Pass or Fail of the Second Exam. In the case of a Fail, the student will be allowed to re-take the Second Exam once, within one year of having taken the exam for the first time.  For the re-take, the student may ask the Executive Officer to form a new committee and/or choose a new area or topic.  Students must successfully complete the Second Exam by no later than the end of their fifth year (tenth semester) to remain in the program.
Formal Proposal Defense:

1. The literature/bibliography review which has been part of the formal requirement of the Second Exam will now be part of the proposal defense.
2. The proposal defense must take place within one semester after passing the Second Exam

Guidelines:

General description:
The second exam consists of a Qualifying Paper (QP2) in a core or non-core area on a topic different from that of the student’s first QP. Like the First QP, the Second QP must consist of the student’s original research. The 2nd QP is written under the direction of an Advisory Committee consisting of three members of the faculty selected by the student and approved by the EO. One member of the Advisory Committee, selected by the student, will function as the Chair of the Committee.

Defense of the Second Exam:
Students will set a date for the presentation and defense of the Second Exam. A non-specialist faculty who is not part of the Advisory Committee and chosen by the Committee and the student, will be invited to attend the presentation. The Second QP will include an abstract which will be made available to the non-specialist faculty member prior to the presentation, so as to familiarize him/her with the topic. The non-specialist faculty member will, however, not read the QP itself before the presentation. The purpose of the inclusion of a non-specialist in the presentation part of the Second Exam is to give students the opportunity to defend original research to a wider audience, in preparation for eventualities such as job talks.

Evaluation of the Second Exam:
The Advisory Committee will decide whether the Second QP constitutes a Pass or a Fail of the Second Exam. The non-specialist faculty member will participate in the question and discussion period during the presentation of the Second QP and will also participate in the discussion period evaluating the QP after the presentation. However, the non-specialist faculty member will not have a vote. The non-specialist faculty will be chosen by the student and the Advisory Committee.

Pass/Fail Guidelines:
Every member of the Advisory Committee will have a vote to pass or fail the 2nd QP. In case of a Fail, the student will be allowed to resubmit the Second QP once, within one year of having submitted the Second QP for the first time. The student may form a new Advisory Committee or choose a new topic for the resubmission.

Time limits:
Students must take the Second Exam by no later than the end of their tenth semester.