About the Exam By passing the preliminary exams the student demonstrates their competence to begin dissertation research. Upon completion of the exam and submission of the completed warrant to the Graduate School, the student will obtain dissertator status. (Please note that all Department and Graduate School requirements except the dissertation must be complete in order to obtain dissertator status). Preparation, grading, and administration of the preliminary exams is the responsibility of the area group or the IGM student’s mentoring committee subject to the following guidelines:
a. Each preliminary examination committee shall consist of no fewer than three psychology faculty (no more than one joint/affiliated faculty member may count as a psychology faculty member) b. Exams should be administered so that a student can finish the exam and faculty can strive to grade the exam before the start of the Fall or Spring semesters c. The exam must include at least one or more of the following formats: writing a publication-quality paper, a take-home examination, or a four-hour test session. Regardless of the format, the work must be completed specifically for the preliminary examination, so that previous publications, papers written to fulfill course assignments, or other assignments may not be used for the preliminary examination.
If a student fails the preliminary examination, the student may repeat the examination only if the student’s major professor and major area group or mentoring committee grant permission to take the examination a second time. If a student fails the preliminary examination a second time, permission for a third and final attempt must be based on highly unusual circumstances and must be approved by the major professor, the major area group or mentoring committee, and the department. Having failed the examination, if a student does not obtain permission to attempt the preliminary examination a second or third time, the student will be dropped from the graduate program at the end of the semester in which the examination was failed. Warrant Process Students only need to initiate the warrant process when they are completing their final preliminary exam. This means students with two preliminary exams do not need to initiate this process until the semester they intend to complete their specialty preliminary exam.
1. Student must notify the Graduate Coordinator via gradinfo@psych.wisc.edu early in the semester that s/he intends to take the final preliminary exam 2. Student must clear any incomplete, unreported, or progress grades (with the exception of progress grades in research/thesis). Independent study must be given a grade. 3. Student must complete the breadth/PhD Minor form, obtain appropriate signatures, and return to Graduate Coordinator no later than three weeks prior to examination date. 4. The Graduate Coordinator will initiate the Certification Process with student’s area group chair in order to ensure all requirements have been met to obtain dissertator status. This is an internal process that does not require action on the student’s part. 5. The Graduate Coordinator will then send out a warrant request to the Graduate School.
o A warrant request will not be issued to the Graduate School until:
§ All course deficiencies have been cleared
§ The breadth/PhD Minor form has been completed and received by the Graduate Coordinator
§ The Certification Process has been completed with student’s area group
o All warrant requests must be received by the Graduate School no later than three weeks prior to student’s defense date.
6. Within a few weeks the student will receive the official preliminary warrant. 7. Upon successful completion of the final preliminary exam, student must obtain all necessary signatures and information to complete the warrant. 8. Student will then submit the completed warrant to the Graduate Coordinator in person or via mailbox. 9. The Graduate Coordinator will then submit the completed warrant to the Graduate School and upon approval the student will be granted dissertator status.
*INTERIM AI-USE POLICY*
When going through the preliminary exam process, keep in mind that the Interim AI-Use Policy comes into play at both the proposal and final paper stage for any written work. The policy and associated forms are below.
Interim AI-Use Policy
If students utilize generative-AI in any fashion while preparing written work that is part of a major department milestone (specifically: FYP paper, preliminary exams, dissertation), they must include an AI-use statement fully describing the ways AI was used in the preparation of the written work. The statement will consist of a checklist (e.g., use of AI for developing analysis code, data-visualization code, creating bullet points or paper skeleton/structure, editing grammar, editing style, coming up with new research ideas, making suggestions regarding possible research designs or methods, reviewing literature), and a more open-ended short narrative section describing in more detail how generative AI was used for these purposes.
Students should discuss their planned use of generative-AI with their respective committees and fill out the associated AI-Use form prior to beginning any written work to ensure that the student and committee members are on the same page with regard to the planned use(s) of generative-AI and if any deviations from that plan occur during the process of producing the written work, to inform the committee prior to implementation (in essence, the committee members should not be surprised by any uses when they receive the final document(s)).
Students should have this discussion and fill out the associated AI-Use Form for BOTH the proposal and final paper stages.
Bio/ Perception Requirements to Attain Dissertator Status
Motivation:
These requirements are intended to ensure that a student has both the depth of knowledge to make original significant contributions to an area (i.e., complete a successful dissertation), as well as the breadth of knowledge to be a valuable member of a (future) psychology department. The requirements below should be understood to satisfy those goals.
To fulfill these requirements, students will (1) complete a prelim examination that evaluates a student’s mastery of a content area within Perception/Biological basis of Behavior (BBB), and (2) write and defend a thesis proposal.
Format:
Prelim requirement:
The Preliminary Examination will have two components. The first component is a thesis proposal, and the second component is an outside-area paper.
The thesis proposal should take the form of a grant proposal, e.g., National Research Service Award (NRSA), including Specific Aims and Research Strategy. The thesis advisor, committee and student are responsible for defining the precise form of the thesis proposal.
The outside-area paper should review a topic unrelated to the graduate student’s research. The graduate student selects the topic, which their Committee needs to approve. The paper should demonstrate depth of understanding and critical analysis. This would generally require approximately 20 pages.
There will be an in-person examination to defend the thesis proposal and to defend the outside-area paper. Both components can be tested in a single Committee meeting, in which one hour is devoted to the thesis proposal and another hour is devoted to the outside-area paper. Alternatively, each component can be tested in one of two separate Committee meetings.
Timeframe:
The Prelim Exam can be completed as early as the end of the 2nd year, but should be completed by the end of the 3rd year (as soon as all class requirements are fulfilled).
Students should consult their committee regarding the areas of emphasis and timing of the examination. Students are strongly encouraged to meet with the members of their committee on a regular basis prior to the anticipated date of the exam. Students should meet with each member of their committee, typically 2-6 months before the anticipated exam date to discuss a possible topic so that the student can begin their literature research.
Prelim committee:
The student’s major advisor serves as chair of the prelim committee. 3-4 additional faculty members are selected to serve on the committee. Ideally, these members will also serve on the dissertation committee.
Evaluation:
The student’s work is read by all members. Upon completion of the written part of the prelim exam, there will be a 1-2 hour meeting/in-person exam with the prelim committee during which the committee can ask questions related to the written answers. The intent of this in-person exam is to allow the student to expand on the issues addressed in the written format (i.e., exam and/or papers) in an informal setting that is similar to professional evaluations. The faculty members will meet in private immediately after the in-person exam to decide upon the final evaluation. Grades for the prelim exam are: Fail or Pass
Advancement to dissertator:
Students advance to dissertator status once they have both passed their prelims and successfully defended their thesis proposal. Unless the student has written the thesis proposal before the Prelim Exam, this may mean that there will be a 1-semester gap between passing the Prelim and becoming a dissertator.
The thesis proposal is evaluated by a full 5 people thesis committee (with one outside member). The mentor communicates to the committee members what the expectations are for the format of the thesis proposal.
Current Preliminary Exam Information (note: students who started in Fall 2024 or before have the option to utilize either the current or previous process)
MOTIVATION
Students in the CCN Area Group must complete both a breadth and a depth requirement for the prelim exam. Students should first complete the breadth prelim to obtain a general overview of the field and then complete the depth prelim to dive into a topic that will motivate their dissertation research. The CCN group provides several options to fulfill these breadth and depth requirements, which are detailed in the “Formats” section below. All formats have both a written component and a defense, which is open-ended discussion of the submitted written materials and
Below are general learning outcomes for the breadth and depth prelims, and additional learning outcomes particular to each format are highlighted in the “Formats” section.
Breadth prelim general learning outcomes
- Organize literature spanning areas in cognition and cognitive neuroscience according to general themes or debates.
- Identify core research questions in the chosen areas.
- Explain studies/theoretical arguments that have addressed these core questions.
- Propose open questions in the field and consider new studies that might address them
- Formulate answers to questions posed by the committee about the chosen areas during an open ended discussion.
Depth prelim learning outcomes
- Demonstrate a deep understanding of the literature that may form the basis for dissertation research.
- Explain competing theories or hypotheses in this research area by providing arguments for/against each theory/hypothesis.
- Develop new research questions that have not yet been answered by existing literature.
- Develop preliminary ideas of how these new research questions could be answered by future experiments.
- Formulate answers to questions proposed by the committee about the chosen topic during an open ended discussion.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
The committee structure follows the overall department guidelines. Prelim committees must include at least three psychology faculty members, including the primary advisor(s). One affiliate member can count toward the three faculty-member requirement. Students can have additional non-affiliate committee members if they choose, but those individuals do not count towards the required three members. The committee members can change between the breadth and depth prelim exams.
GENERAL STRUCTURE AND TIMELINE
Students should begin planning their prelims by the end of their second year and are required to complete both prelims by the beginning of their fourth year (Sept 15st) to remain in satisfactory standing. Under extenuating circumstances, the committee can warrant an extension of this deadline by submitting a letter to the CCN Area Chair with a new timeline. The CCN faculty will evaluate progress at the end of the subsequent spring semester and will make a recommendation on standing at that time.
Each prelim exam (depth and breadth of all formats) will adhere to the following structure over 5 month timeline:
Month 1: Conduct preparatory work specific to the type of prelim format (see formats below). Note that for the depth prelim (but not the breadth prelim), preparatory work includes holding the proposal meeting.
Month 2-4: Read relevant literature/textbooks and prepare written materials (with figures as appropriate). Schedule the 1-hour defense with the committee at least one month before the defense date.
Month 5: Submit written materials to the committee at least one week before the defense date and then defend on the scheduled date. The defense will include all committee members (in person or virtually).
Note: Students may wish to expedite this process and complete a given prelim in less than 5 months. Students should not take more than 5 months for any prelim unless there are extenuating circumstances discussed with the primary advisor(s).
EVALUATION
The student’s submitted work will be read by all members of the prelim committee prior to the defense. During the defense, the committee members will ask questions that arose during their reading of the submitted materials and will give the student further opportunity to demonstrate their command of the material. This component will also assess the student’s ability to draw on a body of knowledge to answer questions on-the-fly. This skill is important for several aspects of one’s professional life, including answering questions during conference presentations, while teaching in the classroom, and while interviewing for potential jobs.
This defense will adhere to the following structure over the course of a 1-hour period:
- The committee and student will gather in the meeting room. When all members have arrived, the committee will ask the student to step outside while the committee holds a brief pre-meeting. Then the student will be invited back into the meeting room.
- The student will give a brief (~15 minute) presentation based on the submitted material and the committee will ask questions. Some committees will wait until the end of the presentation to ask questions, whereas others may ask questions throughout the presentation.
- The committee members will meet privately immediately following this discussion to evaluate the student’s progress on the general prelim learning outcomes and specific learning outcomes from the chosen format.
The committee will assign one of the following grades and invite the student back into the room to inform them of the outcome.
Pass: No further work on this prelim is needed.
Preliminary Pass: Revisions are needed, as specified by the committee, and must be submitted within one month of the defense date. The committee will evaluate the revised materials. There will be no additional defense meeting.
Fail: Students are allowed one additional attempt to pass this prelim type (breadth or depth). The second attempt must take place no more than three months from the initial examination and will include a second defense.
PRELIM FORMATS
The CCN group provides several options to fulfill written components of the breadth and depth requirements. Below are multiple options for the breadth and depth prelims that have been approved by the CCN area. When choosing a prelim format, students should work closely with their mentoring committee to develop a plan that is tailored to the student’s training needs and that is satisfactory to the committee members.
Breadth prelim formats
Breadth option 1: Read papers provided by committee and write response papers
Each committee member provides the student with a reading list and then the student writes a series of response papers over a 1 month period to answer specific questions posed by their committee. The procedure is as follows:
Month 1
- The student meets with each member of their mentoring committee to discuss potential topics and readings.
- Each committee member provides a reading list for each topic (~20-25 papers per topic).
Months 2-3
- The student reads all the papers on the reading lists.
- Each committee member submits 2 candidate questions to the advisor. The advisor then selects 3 pairs of questions (i.e., 1A or 1B, 2A or 2B, 3A or 3B).
Month 4
- The advisor assigns the student 1 pair of questions each week during this 1-month period. Each week the student chooses 1 question from the pair and writes an in-depth scholarly review answering the question. Each response paper should demonstrate depth of understanding and critical analysis. Each response paper should be ~16-20 pages (double spaced, not including references) and draw on knowledge from a substantial part of the reading list. An example reading list and questions, can be found here.
- The student schedules the defense with the committee
Month 5
- The advisor sends the response papers to the committee members.
- The defense is held with all committee members.
Learning outcomes specific to this format:
- Synthesize readings that the committee members indicate are central to the field.
- Develop well-organized arguments in a cohesive narrative and integrate knowledge to answer general questions in the field.
Breadth option 2: Develop reading lists and write open-note take-home exam
Students develop their own reading list with support from their committee members and complete a 6 hour take-home exam to answer questions posed by their committee. The procedure is as follows:
Month 1
- The student meets with each committee member to decide topics (one topic per committee member, within the purview of that committee member’s expertise).
- The student begins reading and formulating their reading lists for each topic (~20-25 papers per topic).
Month 2
- The student shares a full draft of their reading lists with each corresponding committee member and the committee members provide input on which parts of the list to emphasize and where there might be gaps that need to be filled.
- The student continues reading, updates the list, and sends it back to the committee member for final approval.
Months 3-4
- The student completes all the readings on the list and studies for the open-note takehome exam.
- The advisor will ask each committee member for two questions on their topic (3 topics x 2 questions = 6 questions total).
- The student schedules the defense
Month 5
- On the day of the take-home exam, the advisor sends the student all 6 questions. The student will choose 1 question from each topic, answering 3 questions in total within 6 hours. It is recommended that the student spend approximately 2 hours per question, drawing on the relevant literature from their reading lists.
- The advisor sends the response to questions to the committee members.
- The defense is held with all committee members one week after the take-home exam.
Learning outcomes specific to this format:
- Construct a core list of readings on a given topic that spans the key authors and perspectives on the topic. The ability to do so effectively is useful for learning how to orient oneself to a new literature when starting a new research project, developing a grant proposal, or teaching a course.
- Synthesize knowledge on a particular topic quickly and efficiently. The ability to do so effectively is helpful when working under time constraints, such as when writing for a paper/grant deadline or preparing new lectures to teach during the flow of a semester.
Breadth option 3: Develop a course and write about debates in the field
Students design an undergraduate course covering a broad content area in cognition or cognitive neuroscience. The course should include a lecture component and a discussion section, with a syllabus for each. In addition, students write three different essays (see below).
Month 1
- The student selects a broad content area in cognition or cognitive psychology, such as Cognition, or Perception, or Cognitive Neuroscience. For example, a course on Perceptual Development would be too narrow because it would only cover developmental approaches to the field.
- The student checks in with all committee members either as a group or informally one-on-one to make sure that all of them approve the course topic.
Month 2-3
- Syllabus for lecture course. The student composes a syllabus for a semester-long undergraduate lecture course. Assume the semester has 15 weeks and that your class will meet twice a week. Students often begin this part of the assignment by reviewing textbooks to help them organize the potential material and structure of the course. Students can consult with faculty and/or other students who have recently taken the prelim about possible textbooks (since they may already have copies that can be borrowed). Students should be prepared to explain why they chose their particular textbook, rather than others, during the prelim defense meeting. The syllabus should include:
- the topic(s) that will be covered by each lecture
- details about required readings to support each lecture
- basic information about how you will evaluate students’ performance in the course (e.g., “there will be 3 exams and 2 papers”).
The focus should be on the content of the course (items A and B). It is not necessary to include specific details about assignments or grading criteria (e.g., the exact prompt for the second paper assignment; information about how different components of the group project will be weighted; etc.).
- Syllabus for discussion section. The student composes a for a once-a-week discussion section to accompany the lecture component of the course. The goal of the section is to allow the class to engage more deeply with the lecture material and discuss important findings. Each discussion section meeting should include 2 primary journal articles that go deeper into the topics being discussed in the lecture course that week. The syllabus should include the reading for each class meeting, resulting in a total of 30 journal articles (2 per week x 15 weeks).
Please note: the discussion section readings should not copy the reading list of existing courses (e.g., breadth courses being taught in our department or courses the student took in the past).
Month 4
- The student prepares three short essays (4-6 double-spaced pages each, not including references) that are inspired by their course preparation. Each essay should describe a debate or theme that will be emphasized in the course. Distinct topics should be chosen for each essay spanning the range of topics in the breadth course.
Essay 1: Discuss a classic debate in the field that plays a major role in your course.
Essay 2: Discuss a current debate in the field that plays a major role in your course
Essay 3: Discuss a topic, debate, or theme that you anticipate emerging in the near future that current students should engage with in your course.
In each essay, the student should discuss why the issue selected deserves significant attention in the course. The committee expects to see evidence suggesting the importance of the issues described in the three essays in the syllabi documents (e.g., choice of reading assignments, textbook, topics, etc.). The committee will evaluate how the student’s thinking about these debates/issues inspired the decisions made about the course. The essays will be a focal point of the discussion during the prelim defense.
- The student schedules the defense
Month 5
- The students sends all documents (i.e., lecture syllabus; section syllabus; 3 essays) to the committee at least one week prior to the defense meeting.
- At the defense the student should come prepared to describe and answer questions about their course, including:
- Subject matter (Why these course topics and not others?)
- Selected readings (What other readings/textbooks were considered, and why were the current ones chosen?)
- Content in the three essays
- Assumptions and themes underlying the lecture course and discussion section (e.g., will the course have a particular theoretical bent? How does this course differ from other courses in cognition or cognitive neuroscience?
Learning outcomes specific to this format:
- Develop teaching materials that could be useful for future teaching activities
- Identify relevant primary articles that accompany general textbook topics
- Explain debates/themes in the field that have (and have potential to) advanced scientific topics in the literature.
Depth prelim formats
Depth option 1: Write a grant proposal
Students write a 2-year grant proposal (e.g., NRSA) that is focused on the student’s dissertation topic. To insure depth in the field, the proposal should include at least 40 references. The primary goal is to assess depth of background knowledge in the field, so the evaluation will focus more on the theoretical motivation for the proposed project rooted in the literature, and less on the details of the proposed experiments. If the proposed experiments form the basis of the dissertation, then the dissertation proposal will provide an opportunity to assess the experiment details.
The procedure is as follows:
Month 1
- The student plans and discusses ideas for the grant proposal with the primary advisor(s)
- The student writes a 2-page outline of the proposal and sends it to the committee at least one week in advance of the proposal meeting.
Month 2
- The student and full committee meet for the depth prelim proposal meeting (in person or virtually). Ideally all committee members meet together, but separate meetings are allowed if necessary.
- The student makes modifications to the plan as requested by the committee members and sends updated outline.
Months 3-4:
- The student reads the relevant literature and writes the grant proposal adhering to the formatting requirements for the particular grant type. The proposal should include at least 40 references to relevant literature.
- The student schedules the defense.
Month 5
- The student sends the full grant proposal to the committee at least one week before the defense date
- The defense is held with all committee members.
Learning outcomes specific to this format:
- Synthesize literature to identify gaps in the field that should be addressed with future research.
- Develop the motivation for a novel set of experiments that will advance the field.
Depth option 2: Write a review paper
Students write a review paper on their primary area of research. The paper should synthesize/analyze existing literature and offer new perspectives on future directions. The paper should avoid “laundry list” descriptions of previous studies, and instead, put a new spin on the existing literature. This document may form the foundation for the dissertation, and the “new spin” might motivate the dissertation research. The paper should be about 40-60 pages (double spaced) and incorporate at least 40 references.
Month 1
- The student plans and discusses ideas for a review paper that would advance the student’s research program and could contribute the field.
- The student writes a 2-page outline of the review paper and sends it to the committee at least one week in advance of the proposal meeting.
Month 2
- The student and full committee meet for the depth prelim proposal meeting (in person or virtually). Ideally all committee members meet together, but separate meetings are allowed if necessary.
- The student makes modifications to the plan as requested by the committee members and sends an updated outline.
Months 3-4:
- The student reads the relevant literature and writes the review paper (40-60 pages double spaced, including at least 40 references to relevant literature).
- The student schedules the defense.
Month 5
- The student sends the review paper to the committee at least one week before the defense date
- The defense is held with all committee members.
Learning outcomes specific to this format:
- Develop a new perspective on the existing literature (e.g., find new commonalities across seemingly disparate areas in your field, develop an overarching theoretical framework, identify and explain trends in the literature).
- Develop a comprehensive narrative of prior work in your field, including core research questions, approaches to answering them, conclusions drawn from existing research, and open questions that require future research.
CCN students and faculty are welcome to propose new formats to add to the set of approved options described below. For a new format to be approved, the case must be made that this new format helps students achieve distinct learning outcomes that are not achieved by the currently approved formats. Here is the procedure for proposing new prelim formats:
- The individual proposing a new format should write a description of the new format by following the structure of the existing formats. The proposal should include the following components:
- brief summary of the new format (few sentences)
- timeline of the new format using the 5-month structure of the existing formats
- List of learning outcome(s) that are unique to the proposed format (not covered by existing formats)
- If the new format is proposed by a student, it should first be approved by the committee and then be emailed to the CCN Area Chair. If the new format is proposed by a faculty member, it can be emailed to the CCN Area Chair directly.
- The CCN Area Chair may consult with other faculty members in the area and may request revisions prior to making a decision on approval.
- The CCN Area Chair will notify the individual who submitted the proposal of the outcome.
*****************************
Previous CCN Preliminary Exam Information (still available as options for students who started in Fall 2024 or before)
Motivation: Students in the CCN Area Group must complete both a “depth” and a “breadth” requirement for the prelim exam. The CCN group allows a wide range of options to fulfill these requirements, including but not limited to those described below. In all cases, the student should work closely with their mentoring committee to develop a plan tailored to the student’s training needs and satisfactory to the committee members. Committees must include at least three psychology faculty members, including the primary advisor(s) and may differ for breadth versus depth.
Format: Options for breadth: 1) Course design. Students can demonstrate mastery of the CCN area by designing an introductory-level course. The committee should decide the content area together, and the student should follow the guidelines laid out in the accompanying document. 2) Write a series of response papers to answer specific questions. Students will meet with their mentoring committee to discuss potential topics and readings (committee members may provide a reading list). Each committee member will write 2 candidate questions. The advisor will submit 3 pairs of questions (i.e., A1/B1, A2/B2, A3/B3) to the student, submitting 1 pair each week during a 1-month period. Each week the candidate chooses 1 question from each pair and writes an in-depth scholarly review. Each response paper should demonstrate depth of understanding and critical analysis. The committee may specify an expected length for response paper (historically 16-20 double-spaced pages). 3) Write a review paper on a topic outside of the student’s primary area of research. The student should consult closely with their committee to choose a topic of appropriate scope. Prior to beginning writing, the student will put together a reading list that will be approved by the committee. Typical manuscript length is 30-40 double-spaced pages.
Options for depth: 1) Write and submit a grant proposal (e.g., NRSA), typically on the student’s dissertation topic. 2) Write a review paper on the student’s primary area of research, which may then be submitted for publication and/or serve as the first chapter of the student’s dissertation.
Timeframe: Students should start planning their prelims by the end of their second year and should aim to complete the first prelim by the end of their third year and the second prelim by the beginning of their fourth year.
Evaluation: The student’s submitted work will be read by all members of the prelim committee. Upon completion of the written part of the prelim exam, the student will typically meet with the committee for a 1-2 hour meeting/in-person exam during which the committee will ask questions related to the paper. The intent of this in-person exam is to allow the student to expand on the issues addressed in the written format in an informal setting that is similar to professional evaluations. The committee members will meet in private immediately after the in-person exam to decide upon the final evaluation. Grades for the prelim exam are Fail or Pass. The committee may still request revisions from a student who passed the exam; the timeline and details of such revisions (including which committee members will read the revision, and whether additional meetings are warranted) will be decided by the committee.
Clinical Prelim Info Students in the Clinical Area Group must demonstrate both “depth” and “breadth” as part of the area group degree requirements. Breadth is demonstrated in the preliminary examination through the design of an honor’s sections of an undergraduate course in a broad content area in Clinical Psychology such as Abnormal Psychology and through 3 papers on classic, current and future debates and/or issues in the field of clinical science broadly. Depth is demonstrated by the “Integrative Paper” requirement that is due by the end of the fourth year in the program. Depth is also demonstrated through the development of a “Research Statement” (approximately 3 pages; single spaced) modeled on what applicants would submit for a tenure track assistant professor position. Students submit this to the mentor each year as part of their spring evaluation meeting. A version of their Research Statement is also reviewed by the area group at the time that the student submits their integrative paper.
Process and Components (1) Compose a syllabus for a semester-long honor’s section of an undergraduate lecture course in a broad content area in Clinical Psychology. Assume the semester has 15 weeks and that your class will meet twice a week. The syllabus should include: (A) the topic(s) that will be covered by each lecture; (B) brief description of the key concepts, themes, research findings, etc. that will be emphasized in that lecture, (C) details about required readings to support each lecture (e.g., “read pp. 135-150 of Chapter 9 of our textbook”); (D) basic information about how you will evaluate students’ performance in the course (e.g., a midterm and a final; final project). Note that you do not need to write the exams or the lectures for the course. (2) Compose a syllabus for a once-a-week discussion or lab section to accompany the lecture component of the course. Assume that the goal of the section is to allow your students to engage more deeply with the lecture material and have the opportunity to discuss important findings (classic and/or modern) in the field. The syllabus should include the reading(s) (and activities, if relevant) for each section. Note that discussing a reading (or pair of readings) is an acceptable section activity. (3) Write three papers (4 pages each; single spaced) on the following topics: (1) describe a classic debate in the field; (2) describe a current debate in the field; (3) describe where you think the field is going in the future. These issues may not be addressed well in the text and reading assignments the student chose for the course, but are topics that a course instructor should feel confident teaching and discussing. Students are encouraged to take an integrative approach to these topics and attempt to cut across historic domains within the literature. (4) All documents (i.e., lecture syllabus; section syllabus; paper on classic debate; paper on current debate; paper on future direction) are due to the area group chair by September 1st. The in-person defense must occur after the start of the fall semester but prior to October 1st. The in-person defense committee will consist of three members of the area group (including affiliates) but will not include the student’s mentor. The student will be notified of the faculty that will serve on their in-person defense committee when they turn in their materials. The student should come to the meeting prepared to describe and answer questions about your course, including your choice of topics, readings, and materials to be covered, as well as your three “big question” papers. As such, any topic related to Abnormal Psychology broadly defined could be discussed at the defense.
Additional Details Students may schedule an initial meeting with their committee before beginning their course design if desired; this is an opportunity to discuss the scope of the intended course and for faculty to provide specific suggestions or guidance to the student (if any are needed). We expect that the student’s course design will be her/his own work; as such, students should not consult other students who have done this assignment before nor seek feedback on the materials the student has compiled. During the preparation of the materials, students may seek out committee members if the need for clarification arises, but it is expected that students will work independently on the selection of topics, readings, and assignments for the syllabus, as well as in the preparation of the three papers.
Rationale for Assignment Format This assignment is designed to allow students to achieve three goals through one process. First, this assignment will require students to review and engage with a wide range of topics in clinical psychology, including topics outside the specialty areas of our faculty. Second, this assignment will help students develop and receive feedback on teaching materials that could be useful to them in the future. Note that the purpose of the final meeting is not to evaluate students’ teaching methods and/or philosophy, although students may choose to discuss such topics with faculty after the defense if so interested. Third, this assignment will help the faculty assess the student’s mastery of the domain.
New System beginning for students entering Fall 2023
Old System for students entering prior to Fall 2023
Please see departmental guidelines for general information about the preliminary exam process. The Developmental prelim process consists of two components: (a) a breadth requirement and (b) a depth requirement. When students are ready to begin the prelim process, they should assemble a prelim committee. Note that the student’s advisory committee can serve as the prelim committee. The minimum prelim committee size is three faculty members (including the advisor). Students should aim to assemble a committee comprised of faculty with different areas of expertise. Ideally, the same committee members will advise both the breadth and depth prelim components for a student.
The Breadth Prelim Requirement Overview. For the breadth requirement, students typically design an undergraduate course covering a broad content area in developmental psychology. The course should include a lecture component and a section, with a syllabus for each. In addition, students write three different essays (see below). The course design option serves three goals: First, the assignment requires students to review and engage with a wide range of topics in developmental psychology, including topics outside the specialty areas of our faculty. Second, the assignment helps students develop and receive feedback on teaching materials that could be useful to them in the future. Third, the assignment helps the faculty assess the student’s mastery of the field. Note: If a student thinks the course design option is not the best way to satisfy the breadth component of the prelim, the student may seek her or his committee’s approval to follow a different plan and process than the one outline below. Process and Components for the Course Design Option. (1) We suggest that students have a preliminary meeting with their committee before they start working on the breadth prelim. However this is recommended, not required. Students may also check-in with committee members informally rather than hold a meeting with all committee members present. (2) Select a broad content area in developmental psychology. Broad areas include: child development, adolescent development, or adult development (“cognitive development”, for example, would be too narrow for this exercise). (3) Compose a syllabus for a semester-long undergraduate lecture course in that area. Assume the semester has 15 weeks and that your class will meet twice a week. The syllabus should include: (A) the topic(s) that will be covered by each lecture; (B) details about required readings to support each lecture (e.g., “read pp. 135-150 of Chapter 9 of our textbook”); (C) basic information about how you will evaluate students’ performance in the course (e.g., a midterm and a final; final project; other ideas?). Note that you do not need to write the exams or the lectures for the course. (4) Compose a syllabus for a once-a-week discussion or lab section to accompany the lecture component of the course. Assume that the goal of the section is to allow your students to engage more deeply with the lecture material and have the opportunity to discuss important findings (classic and/or modern) in the field. The syllabus should include the reading(s) (and activities, if relevant) for each section. Note that discussing a reading (or pair of readings) is an acceptable section activity. (5) As you prepare your course, think about how you would introduce your students to: classic debates in the field, current debates in the field, and future directions for the field. For the prelim, write three papers (~4-6 pages each) that dovetail with your course preparation. In one essay, describe a classic debate in the field. In a second essay, describe a current debate in the field. In a third essay, describe where you think the field is going in the future. (6) Schedule a final meeting with your prelim committee. Send all documents (i.e., lecture syllabus; section syllabus; paper on classic debate; paper on current debate; paper on future directions) to the committee at least one week prior to the meeting. Come to the meeting prepared to describe and answer questions about your course, including topics (Why these topics and not others?) and readings (What other readings did you consider? If your course requires a textbook, why did you choose the one you chose?), as well as your three essays. Also come to the meeting prepared to answer questions about what the assumptions and themes are for your course. For example: Will your course have a particular theoretical bent (e.g., evolutionary psychology)? How does your course differ from any other course in developmental psychology (e.g., in-depth coverage of a particular topic or approach)? Note. We expect that the student’s course design will be her/his own work; as such, students should not consult other students who have done this assignment in the past. During the preparation of the materials, students may seek out committee members if the need for clarification arises, but it is expected that students will work independently on the selection of topics, readings, and assignments for the syllabus, as well as the preparation of the three essays.
The Depth Prelim Requirement For the depth requirement, students write a formal paper covering a specific area of interest. Process and Components (1) Work with your mentor to determine the scope and nature of your depth prelim paper. Possible formats include an NRSA proposal, a meta-analysis, a review paper, or a draft of the first chapter of your (intended) dissertation. (2) Meet with your prelim committee before you begin writing your depth prelim. Draft a formal summary of your depth prelim plan, and send it to your committee one week before the meeting. (3) Schedule a final meeting with your prelim committee. Send your depth prelim to the committee at least one week prior to the meeting. Come to the meeting prepared to describe and answer questions about the material in your depth prelim.
Goals and Format of Prelims The goals for the preliminary exams are to promote mastery of the breadth of ideas in Social Psychology as well as a set of professional capabilities including reviewing and consideration of methods and issues in the conduct our science. Together these skills will help to prepare students to become independent thinkers and scholars, capable of launching their own professional careers.
Components of the revised prelims will be:
Prepare a review of a scholarly article submitted to a journal. Reviewing journal articles is one of the most frequent and important tasks we complete as scholars in the discipline. The goal of this requirement is to develop an understanding of what a review should entail and to practice preparing reviews. To wit, students will complete at least one review (overseen by advisor) written in the year before prelims are taken. The target paper should be long enough to warrant a review of approximately 2 pages. In the process, students should think about the role of the reviewer and the role of the editor in the review process. Students should also consider the author’s perspective when drafting the review. Writing critical (often the, perhaps too, easy part) yet constructive reviews (the more challenging and possibly more important part) is critical to progress in science.
Lead one brown bag on a topic of interest that is not the student’s specific research topic. Leading discussions is an important skill to develop for the purposes of teaching, participating in brown bags, and more general discussion of the issues related to the field. The goal is to encourage breadth in thinking about the field. Examples of possible topics include but are not limited to: Use of control groups, power, replication, good research practices. Pretty much any topic that facilitates good discussion of critical issues to doing quality science or to advancing theory would be appropriate. Students should present a 10-15 minute overview and then serve as discussion leader. The topic should be approved by all members of the social area.
In class portion of the prelim. As has been true historically, there will be an in class portion of the prelim. The goal of this portion of the prelim is for students to demonstrate mastery of the substance of our discipline. Mastering the substance of the discipline is essential for doing one’s own science in the field and it is essential for engaging with other scholars, reviewing, engaging is dialogue/debate about issues in the field, etc. Historically, there has been considerable choice in the questions students could answer on the prelim. The downside of such latitude in choosing what to answer is that students could selectively prepare for the exam. Moving forward, the format will be similar to years gone by (e.g., identifications, short answer, longer essays), but students will have less choice in questions to answer.
The “at home” portion of the prelim will be a scholarly paper. Historically, the take home exam included 5 essay questions (one typically being an article to review) and was completed over a 1-week period. Moving forward, students will prepare a scholarly a paper aimed at outlining the future issues to be addressed in the student’s research area. Writing this type of paper is a professional productive activity and could lead to a publication. It should be roughly 30 pages of text excluding references. For most students, the paper should serve to launch dissertation ideas. A one-page paper proposal is required four months before the paper due date. All of these components will be evaluated by all members of the social area, except the review, which is subject to confidentiality constraints. In addition to readings in P728, the faculty expects students qualifying for candidacy to have read the following classic papers. Questions about these pared may be posed on the in-class portion of the prelim. Question for the in class exam, however, are not limited to these readings. Students should be up-to-date in their journal reading and conversant with topics covered in brownbag sessions (e.g., outside speakers, field related discussions led by faculty or other students).
Asch, S.E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 35–35. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3), 285-290. Hastorf, A.H., & Cantril, H. (1954). They saw a game: A case study. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 129-134. Janis, I.L. (1971). Groupthink. Psychology Today, 5, 43-36. Jones, E. E. (1979). The rocky road from acts to dispositions. American Psychologist, 34(2), 107-117. Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1971). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior, 79–94. Katz, D., & Braly, K. (1933). Racial stereotypes of one hundred college students. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 28, 280-290. Latane, B., & Darley, J. Bystander “Apathy”, American Scientist, 1969, 57, 244-268. Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. Under- mining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic rewards: A test of the overjustification hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 28, 129-137. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1966). Teacher’s expectancies: Determinants of pupils’ IQ gains. Psychological Reports, 19, 115-118. Schachter, S., & Singer, J. E. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review, 69, 379-399. Sherif, M. (1961). Experiments in group conflict, Scientific American, 195, 54-58. Snyder, M., Tanke, E.D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior. On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656- 666. Tajfel, H., (1970). Experiments in intergroup prejudice. Scientific American, 233, 96-102. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27.