Timeline: a. 3rd year, by the end of September, declare the main advisor b. 3rd year, December, first presentation c. 3rd year, January, deadline to form the five (5) faculty panel d. 3rd year, April, provide writing to the advisor two weeks before the presentation. One week before the presentation, receive approval from the advisor and the advisor submits email approval to the Graduate Program Director. e. 3rd year, April, second presentation f. 4th year, December, second presentation (retake)
First presentation: a. Two days at the end of the Fall semester, all faculty invited to all presentations (all students can attend; in particular, 2nd year PhD students are encouraged to attend). The purpose is to review the literature, identify potential ideas, and receive feedback. b. 20 min presentation, no interruptions, short questions at the end: contents i. Topic ii. Research question(s) iii. Potential answers (yes/no/number) iv. Placing the project in the literature
Motivation (why the topic/question is important/interesting)
Current state of the literature
Potential ideas (ideally multiple ideas). If possible, discuss the novelty of ideas. v. The path ahead (dataset/model/experiment design) c. At the end of each group of presentations, all faculty get together, discuss, and the advisor brings back the feedback to the student. No pass/fail decision; the main purpose is to receive early feedback from a wide audience. d. All 3rd year PhD students are expected to present as scheduled, and there is no pass/fail decision following the presentation. In extreme circumstances (medical emergencies, etc.), the Graduate Program Director and the advisor can make alternative presentation arrangements. e. After the presentation, students are expected to address the comments received and follow up with the advisor and faculty who have provided feedback. f. The composition of a tentative spring proposal faculty panel should be discussed as soon as possible after the presentation.
Panel formation for the second presentation a. Five (5) faculty b. One is the main advisor c. The other four have to be proposed by the main advisor to the Graduate Program Director. The names have to be given to the Graduate Program Director by the deadline in January. d. Up to two faculty members from different parts of Georgetown (e.g. SFS, Business School, Policy School) are allowed to be members. Faculty outside Georgetown are not allowed. e. The members may be adjusted by the Graduate Program Director to ensure spreading the burden more equally across department faculty, and then formally assigned by the Graduate Program Director.
Writing for second presentation. a. Length Guideline: 10 to 15 pages b. Approved by the main advisor (at least) a week before the scheduled presentation. At this point the main advisor makes the decision of whether the student is ready to present; if not, the student will go to the “Retake” stage below automatically. c. Contents (i.-v. are the minimum requirement) i. Topic ii. Research question(s) iii. Potential answer (yes/no/number) iv. Placing the project in the literature
Motivation (why the topic/question is important/interesting)
Current state of the literature
Novelty of the project v. Preliminary results from data/model/pilot experiment vi. Main results, further discussions
Second presentation a. Scheduled for the end of the Spring semester. b. One hour, seminar style (with interruptions and questions) c. All faculty panel members (5) attend the presentation. Other faculty members and graduate students are allowed to attend the presentation, but not involved in the process of pass/fail discussion and vote. 2nd year graduate students are encouraged to attend. d. After the presentation and ensuing discussion, the faculty panel makes a pass/fail decision. e. If a fail determination is made, the student will re-propose at the end of the Fall semester of the 4th year, following the long presentation format. f. The contents for the presentation are the same as for the writing (in 4.c). The presentation should clearly indicate the plan for finishing the paper and the proposed place in the dissertation (e.g. finish up and make it one chapter of the dissertation, extend and make it a job market paper, etc.) g. The standard for passing: i. Clear motivation and research question ii. Project is novel iii. Project is feasible for the student iv. Sufficient progress for the panel to determine that the project is likely to result in a publishable paper.
Retake a. The same as the second presentation in terms of the writing requirement b. Can have a new advisor/new panel, have to be declared before the end of September c. The student is terminated from the program if they fail the retake proposal.
