Annual Progress Reviews (APR)

For IDP paperwork,

click here

All Graduate Students:

Students who fail to fulfill the following requirements need to repair the problem by the next review (in ~ six months) or may have their graduate student status terminated by the department:

• passing proficiency exams
• maintaining a cumulative program coursework GPA of 3.0 (not counting research)
• earning satisfactory ratings at annual and semi-annual progress reviews

At the annual review, if a graduate student receives a rating of "marginal" or "unsatisfactory" (instead of "satisfactory"), Graduate Studies expects another formal review to take place during the following semester rather than a whole year later. If such a rating is given, the committee chair outlines on the annual progress review form what is expected in order to raise the rating before the next review. This prompt review provides continued close supervision for a student who is having difficulty, helps the student maintain a good understanding of the requirement for improvement, and provides an opportunity for timely correction of the sub-standard performance.

The final defense on a student's dissertation or thesis will count for the annual review in the student's last year of their program.

APR Requirements Based on Year

BYU Graduate Studies and the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry require an annual evaluation of each graduate student's progress in the program. This formal progress review is an oral presentation given to members of your graduate committee and other designated faculty in which you should summarize your status in the graduate program. Your committee/evaluating committee is asked to determine if your performance during the past year has been satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory. Graduating students will defend their thesis or dissertation in lieu of an annual review.

Coursework, research, TA performance, and other requirements of your graduate program are reviewed. Students must have an evaluation before the start of the second year of their program. The student’s area faculty and faculty advisory chair determine the procedure and scheduling of progress reviews within the area.

1st Year :
In consultation with his or her faculty advisory chair, each first-year student must prepare a 2-3 page project summary of research conducted during the first year. Then, at least one week before the scheduled annual review, the student submits a copy of the summary to each faculty advisory committee member.

There is no public presentation, meaning no outside visitors; only the committee and the student will be in attendance. The student should prepare to present on the 2–3 page project summary for 12-15 minutes. After, with the committee only, the students will address IDP for 2-3 minutes.

The presentation should contain the following –

• Slides that cover research progress and the answers to the following questions of the IDP paperwork: Objective 2 Question 1

AND

• A slide that goes over critical aspects of the student's career objective and what activities will be planned in the upcoming year to work towards their career objective, e.g., skills obtained, publications, and presentations (reference Objective 1 Question 1, in the IDP paperwork). (12-15 minutes for 1st two bullet points)
• With Committee Only - A slide (last slide) addressing the student's progress plans (reference Questions 2-4 of the General Progress review section, Objective 1 Questions 2-3, Objective 2 Question 2 from the IDP paperwork, Objective 3 Questions 1-3, and Objective 4 Question 1), including what their plans are for passing proficiencies or classes to be on track for Ph.D. candidacy. (last bullet points - 3 minutes total)

Each committee is different, and each student should consult with their faculty advisory chair on any additional expectations beyond the 2–3-page project and IDP summary for the review.

2^nd, 4^th, and beyond until thesis or dissertation defense:
Each year the student is in the program, beginning in the second year, they will:

• Write a 2-3 page review of their accomplishments since their last annual progress review. This project summary should be an updated and improved version of the document written for their 1^st-year review.
• Give the research review and an updated IDP with advisor comments to their committee one week before the presentation.
• Give a 15-minute oral presentation outlining what occurred that year and what will occur in the coming year regarding their research. After student questions, class participants will be dismissed, and the defending student with the committee only will address the remaining IDP for 2-3 minutes.
  

The presentation should include the following -

• Slides that cover research and how they met the objectives of the following questions of the IDP paperwork: Objective 2 Question 1.

AND

• One slide goes over key aspects of the student's career objective and what activities the student used to work towards their career objective in the past year. Reference Objective 1 Question 1&4 in the IDP paperwork. (12-15 minutes for 1st two bullet points)
• With Committee Only - One additional slide should address their plans to continue, on track, for a timely Ph.D. defense (reference Questions 2-4 of the General Progress review section, Objective 1 Question 2—, and Objective 2 Question 2, Objective 3 Questions 1-3, Objective 4 Question 1, and any of the Questions 1-4 from Objective 5 from the IDP paperwork. (3 minutes)

The presentation for 2nd and 4th-year students will occur in conjunction with the Current Topics course. The audience is the student committee members and other members of the student's Current Topics section. The faculty advisor will have digital access to the annual progress review form, progress report, and TA reviews, if applicable, provided by the graduate program administrator. The student will bring a copy of the research summary and their IDP to the meeting. Immediately following the class, the student's committee meets with the student individually to provide feedback and direction.

3rd-Year Research Proposal - (also known as Degree Qualifying Exam):
Ph.D. students write and orally present a research proposal on the topic of their graduate research that outlines their anticipated research project. The proposal, drafted as part of Chem 694, is typically taken during the second year's winter semester. Students develop and polish the proposal immediately following the class during the summer between their second and third years. The final written proposal should:

• Be well written, single-spaced, 7-10 pages, excluding references.
  
  • The paper should be in an NSF or NIH grant proposal format.
  • Within the 7-10 pages, the proposal must contain (may use different ordering and titles that are field appropriate):
    
    1. Background/introduction,
    2. Hypothesis or research question,
    3. Experimental methods/project design,
    4. Preliminary results/expected results,
    5. Societal impact/merit,
    6. References.
  • Contain a one-page project summary and project description with specific aims (2-3 are typical), expected significance, background, research description, and plan of work.
  • Have at least one aim of the proposal originating from the student.
• Be distributed to their committee at least one week before the oral presentation.
  
  • The student will also send out their IDP, with their proposal, before the presentation. Students should be specific in their 3^rd year IDP responses about how the proposal writing process has helped them progress in the program regarding the following aspects: Objective 2 Question 1, Objective 3 Questions 1&2, Objective 5 Question 1&4. Objective 5 Questions 1&4 will specifically pertain to how the student did in independently writing and designing the proposal specifics.
    

The student will give a 40-minute oral presentation on their proposal in the Fall of their third year. This presentation serves as a candidacy exam. Following the presentation, the student can receive a pass, a pass with qualifications, or a fail. The descriptions of each evaluation are below.

• A pass is a satisfactory evaluation and indicates the student's continuation in the program.
• A qualification indicates that the student must work on the proposal with committee guidance and reconvene with their committee to present their revised proposal. A student with a qualification will receive a marginal rating for that semester.
• If a student receives a fail, they are subject to dismissal from the program and will receive an unsatisfactory for that semester.

With approval from their committee, students may take the Chem 694 class in the winter of their first year, develop and polish the proposal during the summer between their first and second years, and present the proposal during the fall of their second year.