Updated August 1, 2005

Management Ph.D. Program Committee Structure

The UConn Management Ph.D. program has adopted a student-centered committee structure that places major developmental and appraisal responsibilities on a faculty committee at three stages of the student’s program. Depending upon the stage in the program, the faculty committee will have different responsibilities (as articulated below). The composition of a committee should primarily reflect the developmental needs and research interests of the student. Additionally, to the extent possible, both tenured and untenured faculty should be represented on a committee. At key developmental milestones (e.g., passing qualifying paper), an entirely new committee may be formed, or the committee may remain relatively intact, as student and faculty needs dictate.

Stage 1: Preliminary Committee

By December 15th of a student’s first year in the program a preliminary committee shall be constituted that includes the faculty member(s) supervising the student’s graduate research assistantship and, optionally, one other faculty member who is a member of the graduate faculty of the department.

The Preliminary Committee is charged with the following responsibilities:

• Mentor and monitor the progress of the student.
• By May 15th of the first year, write a performance appraisal letter to the student with a copy sent to the departmental Ph.D. Program Coordinator and Department Head. This review should serve as a mechanism for setting goals and establishing expectations for the coming year. The letter should evaluate the student’s academic progress (e.g., grades and any research related products) as well as the student’s performance as a graduate assistant (e.g., teaching ratings, GA performance appraisals); and highlight potential problems and make specific suggestions for improvement and/or follow-up. If the committee concludes that there should be a reduction or elimination of graduate support (based on the student’s performance as a graduate assistant), the letter should be framed as a recommendation to the Department Head, should the student want to seek recourse.

The Preliminary Committee may be disbanded upon the formation of the Qualifying Paper Committee.

Stage 2: Qualifying Paper Committee

By May 15th of a student’s first year in the program a qualifying paper committee shall be constituted. This committee shall be comprised of one member of the department’s graduate faculty selected by the student who will serve as the chair of the committee. The chair, with input from the student and approval of the departmental Ph.D. Program Coordinator, shall choose two additional members so as to complement the student’s interests and needs. In addition, two ex officio, voting members (readers) will be assigned to this committee for the sole purpose of evaluating the qualifying paper, but not for any of the other responsibilities delineated below. The departmental Ph.D. Program Coordinator and Department Head in consultation will appoint the two readers, involving, as much as is practical, Management faculty from different ranks and sub-specialties.

This Qualifying Paper Committee is charged with the following responsibilities:

• Mentor and offer developmental feedback to the student regarding his/her qualifying paper.
• Discuss the student’s progress at least once a semester.
• In conjunction with the two appointed readers, evaluate (consistent with existing departmental policy on qualifying papers) the student’s qualifying paper and vote to decide whether or not the paper should be accepted, revised and resubmitted, or rejected. The clear objective is to develop a consensus encompassing both readers and committee members regarding the proper course of action; but in the event that such a consensus is not feasible, a majority vote will carry the decision.
• Should the committee vote to accept a qualifying paper, the Chair shall work with the “brown bag” coordinator to schedule a formal presentation of the accepted paper by the student to the department faculty at the next most practical time on the brown bag schedule.
• Should the Committee vote to reject the qualifying paper, the committee shall notify the Ph.D. Program Coordinator for the department, indicating that the student did not receive a pass on his/her qualifying paper. Given that failure to pass the qualifying paper results in dismissal from the program, the Ph.D. Program Coordinator would then convene the department’s Ph.D. Committee to review the case and make a final determination.
• By May 15th of the second year, write a performance appraisal letter to the student with a copy sent to the departmental Ph.D. Program Coordinator and Department Head. This review should serve as a mechanism for setting goals and establishing expectations for the coming year. The letter should evaluate the student’s academic progress (e.g., grades and any research related products) as well as the student’s performance as a graduate assistant (e.g., teaching ratings, graduate assistantship performance appraisals); and highlight potential problems and make specific suggestions for improvement and/or follow-up. If the committee concludes that there should be a reduction or elimination of graduate support (based on the student’s performance as a graduate assistant), the conclusion should be framed in the letter as a recommendation, subject to the Department Head’s approval.
• Should the committee consider that circumstances warrant it (e.g., the student’s performance was unsatisfactory in the previous year), a mid-year performance appraisal letter may be prepared. A recommended course of action should be outlined in this letter, subject to the Department Head’s approval.

The Qualifying Paper Committee may be disbanded upon formation of the Pre-Dissertation Committee.

Stage 3: Pre-Dissertation Committee

By June 15th of a student’s second year in the program, a pre-dissertation committee shall be constituted. This committee shall be comprised of one member of the department’s graduate faculty selected by the student who will serve as the Chair of the committee. The Chair, with input from the student and approval of the departmental Ph.D. Program Coordinator, shall choose two additional members so as to complement the student’s interests and needs.

The Pre-Dissertation Committee is charged with the following responsibilities:

• Mentor and offer guidance regarding preparation for comprehensive examinations.
• Discuss the student’s progress at least once a semester.
• By May 15th of the third year, write a performance appraisal letter to the student with a copy sent to the departmental Ph.D. Program Coordinator and Department Head. This review should serve as a mechanism for setting goals and establishing expectations for the coming year. This letter should evaluate the student’s academic progress (e.g., grades and any research related products) as well as the student’s performance as a graduate assistant (e.g., teaching ratings, graduate assistantship performance appraisals); and highlight potential problems and make specific suggestions for improvement and/or follow-up. If the committee concludes that there should be a reduction or elimination of graduate support (based on the student’s performance as a graduate assistant), the conclusion should be framed in the letter as a recommendation, subject to the Department Head’s approval.
• Should the committee consider that circumstances warrant it (e.g., the student’s performance was unsatisfactory in the previous year), a mid-year performance appraisal letter may be prepared. A recommended course of action should be outlined in this letter, subject to the Department Head’s approval.

The Pre-Dissertation Committee only serves until the formation of the student’s Dissertation Committee, at which time all the responsibilities delineated are transitioned, as is practical, to the Dissertation Committee. The Dissertation Committee, governed by School of Business policy, continues with these same responsibilities for the balance of the student’s program.