Postgraduate Progression Interviews


We conduct a series of postgraduate interviews both to meet formal administrative requirements (satisfactory completion of probationary period, MPhil to PhD transfer, and to tick boxes in students' logs) and as a matter of good practice. The key milestones are:
  1. First-year interview, ca. 9 months after studies begin. A check that students have made a satisfactory start to pg studies and that the outlook is okay. For STFC-funded students, this interview serves to confirm formally that the probationary period is successfully completed (this confirmation must take place in year 1).

  2. Second-year interview, ca. 18 months after studies begin. Another staging point to check on progress, with the important formal function of endorsing transfer from MPhil to PhD registration (which UCL requires must occur in year 2).

  3. Final-year interview, ca. 9 months from end of funding. The main function is to ensure that students have started writing up (and that they're aware of the importance of submitting within 4 years at the very most).
Each stage requires a short written report, organized by the first supervisor, and an interview, organized by the second supervisor. I intend that there should be considerable flexibility in what's required of the student, but that, as a rule of thumb, if everything is believed to be more or less on course, then these interviews shouldn't be onerous for anyone involved (including the student). I'd expect the written report to provide, in general, not much more then enough information to act as the basis for the interview; and it may often be helpful if the first supervisor liaises with the student and interviewers, to ensure that expectations match up, and are appropriate.

N.B.: College rules are currently draconian about the appointment of PhD examiners, and in effect exclude anyone with any significant role in the candidate's training. This means that anyone involved in any of the three interviews is unlikely to make an acceptable 'internal' PhD examiner. It may therefore be prudent to try to involve the *same* interviewers at each stage (which also has the benefit of giving them a synoptic view of the student's progress).


First-year Interview

This review is to check that the student has made a satisfactory start to postgraduate studies, and that the outlook is okay. For STFC-funded students, it also serves to confirm formally that the probationary period has been successfully completed; this has to be done within the first year of study.

The chain of actions/responsibilities is:

  1. The student should prepare a short written report on work accomplished to date (including, in addition to actual research work, notes on background reading, evidence of maintenance of e-log, any outreach activities, training undertaken, etc.). The first supervisor should ensure that the report is completed in a timely manner, and should be prepared to provide guidance on the format and content.

    [It's not the intention that the student should invest unreasonable effort in the report, which might typically be 'a few' pages long. This might be a good time to introduce LaTeX to some students.]

  2. The student should provide copies of the report to two assessors, who will conduct an interview. The first assessor should be the second supervisor. A second assessor (a staff member or senior postdoc) should be recruited by the supervisors, and need not be expert in the student's research area.

The interview might typically last 30-45 minutes if everything is straightforward. The student should be given an opportunity to raise any matters of concern to them. If any 'issues' arise from the interview, the assessors should first raise these with the first supervisor (or Ian Howarth, if appropriate). Thereafter, a simple form (Word, OpenOffice) should be completed (and agreed by both assessors) and returned to Ian Howarth by email. The form includes some questions that might be used to structure the interview, but the assessors shouldn't feel obliged to use all (or only) the questions listed.


Second-year Interview

This is the interview leading to formal transfer from MPhil to PhD registration, if considered appropriate.
  1. To provide a context for the interview, the student is expected to prepare a progress report, summarizing work completed to date and outlining plans for future work (including writing up). This should normally to be reasonably detailed, and perhaps 'several' pages in length. The student may compile this report in consultation with the first supervisor, but isn't required to do so. However, it is the first supervisor's responsibility to ensure that the student is aware of this requirement, and prepares the report in a timely manner.

  2. The student should submit two copies of the report to the second supervisor, who will arrange a formal interview with the student at a mutually convenient time. The interviewers should normally be the second supervisor, and a second academic staff member, who need not be expert in the student's research area; the second supervisor should recruit a suitable "volunteer". The interview should be reasonably probing, and will probably last between a half-hour and an hour.

    [In order to retain some flexibility in the eventual choice of PhD examiners, given College's strict rules, and in the interests of continuity, it may be useful to use the "volunteer" recruited for the first-year interview.]

If any issues arise in the interview, the second supervisor should first raise these with the first supervisor (or me, if appropriate). Thereafter, a simple form (Word, OpenOffice) should be completed (and agreed by both the attached simple form should be completed (and agreed by both interviewers) and returned to Ian Howarth by email.

Note that this report will be seen by the student; it is part of the paperwork that they need to submit to effect the transfer to PhD registration.

[I will then chase students to complete the formalities required for the transfer, as set out on the Deptl. page on transfers]


Final-year Interview

By this stage the student should be substantially self-propelling, so the main aim of the final-year thesis chat is just to establish that everything is on track for the write-up and submission of the thesis in a timely manner.

It is also an opportunity to remind students that the sort of "soft money" that has frequently supported completing students in the past will not generally be available in future, and that UCL will levy late-submission financial penalties on students who don't submit within a year of the end of their formal funding. [The other side of the coin is that the Dept. offers modest, but non-negligible, cash bonuses to students who submit on schedule.]

It's therefore more than ever in the student's own interests to complete in a timely manner (and that it is CRUCIAL that they submit within 4 years if they are on Research Council funding, regardless of the duration of the studentship). A good thesis submitted promptly is far better than an excellent thesis submitted late!

The interview need not be particularly formal, and may be performed by the second supervisor alone. Nevertheless, in order to bring a focus to the meeting (and to the student's thoughts), the supervisors may well ask the student to write up a draft outline of the thesis, identifying chapters and sections and their plans for completion, with a timeline for the write up. The student will normally discuss this with the first supervisor before submission to the second supervisor. The document need not be long (something like a couple of sides, typically).

  1. It is the 1st supervisor's responsibility to liaise with the student to arrange for a thesis outline outline to be submitted;

  2. It is the 2nd supervisor's responsibility to organize the interview.
In case of any problems being identified, the first and second supervisors should formulate a plan, with the student, with a view to timely, successful submission of the thesis.

After the interview (and the resolution of any "issues"), the supervisors should complete the feedback form (Word, OpenOffice) and return it to Ian Howarth.

[Links to information on prompt submission bonuses; and
late submission penalties.]