A Few Thoughts on the Qualifying Exam By Keith Gneshin and Mikhail Skliar

Format A paper is assigned ~7 days prior to exam You need to write a written critique of the paper (play a role of the reviewer) Prepare and deliver 10-15 min oral presentation (play a role of a conference presenter; include review and critique as appropriate) Answer questions (not always related to the paper) for 30-45 min. Repeat 2 times

When do I pass? You passed the QE outright if ¾ or more votes are in favor of passing If the vote is between 50 and 75% to pass, the case goes to the Graduate Committee for the decision. Decision may be conditional. If less than 50% voted to pass, the exam is failed. Can repeat one time. If failed both time, you should switch to MS degree or leave the program.

When to take the test As soon as possible after passing Preliminary Examination. Usually offered at least twice a year (Spring/Summer and Winter). Limit is ~6-7 students per test. There may be a waiting list.

This semester… Attend distinguished lectures! Real all assigned papers and attend all students’ presentations! Ask tough questions. Prepare your own presentation One/Two presentations per period.

What is a critique? Critique ≠ Attack Your goal is to analyze the paper and assess its potential impact on the field of study

The Paper It will look like every other paper you’ve read It may or may not be though-provoking or controversial; it will not be bad

The Process: 1st Impression What journal? Read the article through 10 times - seriously Use the initial readings to brush up on some of the basic concepts/terminology being used

The Process: Skeleton Critique Don’t worry about having a well-developed opinion just yet Map out the basics Motivation for the work Methodology used Researcher’s conclusions

The Process: Hard Work Two Prongs Literature Review Background Study Find as many of the cited articles as possible Find any articles that cite your article if applicable Background Study Create a comprehensive list of word or phrase you can think of and work through it piece by piece Know the theory, know the relevant equations, know the way cited instruments function and their error, etc.

The Process: The Critique Answer the following: What was their approach to the problem investigated and was it appropriate? What conclusions were reached based upon the data presented and were they appropriate? What are the limits of the conclusions drawn? What do you foresee as the potential impact of this work?

The Presentation Heretofore, most all of your presentations have been to a professor or two and a roomful of peers; no longer the case It’s intimidating; accept it and move on

The Presentation Be as basic as possible No flashy PowerPoint motifs No animations, unless they are substantive Write slides like an outline to guide you

The Presentation Slide 1: Paper title, authors and institutions, motivation, methodology Slides 2 - x: Theory and/or data as appropriate Slides x - x+n: Analysis of data and comparison to theory Last slide: your critique

A Few Tips Go light on text; focus on figures, pictures, equations Nothing superfluous; guide them through everything on each slide Be concise; save some for the Q&A - the more questions you get on material you presented, the less you’ll get from out of left field

The Q&A Good luck!