The purpose of the mandatory Annual Research Progress Review is to support and provide timely guidance to graduate students and their advisors to help maintain a successful path to graduation. The review is designed to provide constructive feedback to graduate students and advisors on their past performance and future plans in order to support a timely graduation, promote a strong thesis, and possibly detect and correct potential problems before they cause delays. The Annual Research Progress Review also creates a scientific advisory committee to help guide the student’s research and keep the APS faculty abreast of graduate student projects and progress.
All graduate students, starting in their sixth semester in the APS graduate program (post Comps 2), must convene a progress review committee. Meetings of that committee must occur annually during the Spring semester prior to Spring break, and are a condition for continued enrollment in the graduate program, with a registration hold in place until the review is completed. If, for any reason, a student is unable to convene a meeting with the minimal committee make-up outlined below, the student should seek the guidance of the APS department chair or associate chair of graduate education by scheduling a meeting with one of them along with an additional member of the faculty during the Spring semester prior to Spring break. A path forward should be determined at that meeting, or during follow-up, and communicated to the student and their advisor.
Progress reviews are shared with the student, and they become part of a graduate student’s departmental academic record.
Committee make up: Committee membership should be determined through a discussion between the graduate student and their advisor. Optimally the committee includes the Research Advisor with a total three members or more, at least two of whom are APS Faculty members (Tenure Track Faculty, Research Faculty and Senior Instructors). Some committee members can participate by teleconnection if necessary. In the case where convening a three-member committee is impossible within the review timeframe, a minimum committee of two APS faculty is allowed. This impacts the review structure (described below) and makes it difficult in cases where the Research Advisor is not APS faculty. A two-member committee should be avoided if at all possible. A three-member committee is required if the previous Progress Review determined that the student is not making satisfactory progress.
An APS Faculty member not serving as the Research Advisor should chair the committee. If the student’s Research Advisor is not a APS Faculty member, both the Titular Advisor and Research Advisor should be part of the committee (see summary of Advisor titles and roles below).
Structure of review: The progress review is not an annual examination and should be structured to benefit the student and their advisor. There are three components of the review:
(1) Past accomplishments and future plans. We recommend a brief (10 to 15 minute) presentation by the student, presenting past accomplishments and future plans followed by constructive feedback and guidance from the committee. Early career graduate students need only provide a plan for the coming year. Later career graduate students should present a thesis outline and milestones to completing their thesis.* The group may also discuss:
