Welcome to the Doctor of Philosophy in Public Health program with a concentration in Health Services Research and Implementation Science (HSRIS). This program is designed to address the social determinants of health through the exercise of community engaged research in both traditional and non-traditional health service settings. The mission of our program will be to prepare students for research careers in public health and health services, teaching and public service in university, governmental and public policy settings. The purpose of this handbook is to guide you through the next few years in your PhD journey.

Degree requirements include 72 units of coursework, including 56 units of required courses in Health Services Research and Implementation Science content and methods, an HSRIS colloquium series, successful grant writing for dissertation research and scientific ethics; and 16 units of electives, including two 2-unit community-engaged research practicum rotations.

During the first two years, students will be expected to complete 54 units of core courses and 18 units of electives. The core courses include 6 methods courses, 5 content courses, 1 course designed to prepare students for submission of pre-dissertation research grants and 6 one-unit (S/U) health services research and implementation science colloquia. Elective requirements may be fulfilled through formal coursework and completion of a minimum of two quarters of a Community Engaged Health Research Practicum Rotation. Elective courses may be taken to develop competencies in another specialization or concentration (e.g., Clinical Epidemiology, Health Policy, Health Behavior, Global Health, Human-Centered Design) or to enhance expertise in qualitative methods, mixed methods or advanced statistical methods.

Students will be expected to successfully pass their qualifying examination (QE) by the end of the second year or beginning of the third year, advance to candidacy by the end of the third year and successfully defend their dissertations by the end of the fifth year. All students will be expected to have met each of the foundational public health learning objectives specified by the Council of Education in Public Health (CEPH).

Policy on Enrollment for Placeholder Units at UC San Diego

Students only enroll in placeholder units at UC San Diego if they meet one of the following criteria:

• Employed at UC San Diego (i.e., as Graduate Student Researcher or Teaching Assistant)
• Received a stipend from UC San Diego (on a fellowship, T32, F31, etc.)
• Received any other monetary payment from UC San Diego (received an award, travel stipend, etc.)
• Living in UC San Diego housing

If students have answered YES to any of the above, they will need to enroll into a 12-unit placeholder course at UC San Diego, even during their first year. This will then allow funds to be released. If students are not registered, it will hold up payments from these UC San Diego sources. The graduate coordinator will provide students with the placeholder course to enroll into each quarter via email.

Policy on Enrolling in Independent Study Course at UC San Diego

Students who wish to complete an independent study should first form a plan with the faculty who will serve as instructor of record. Students typically enroll in 2 units for this course. Approvals from the program director and instructor of record are required. To request enrollment, students should complete the UC San Diego ISP Form.

**Note: UC San Diego Registration Deadline

**Note: this placeholder unit does not count toward UC San Diego residency requirement. Please contact the graduate coordinator with any questions about the above criteria or registering for the placeholder.

Please see the UC San Diego New Student Orientation website to register. In addition, please refer to UC San Diego GradLife website for more information about UC San Diego.

Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity and the PhD program will have their own orientations. The date and times will be emailed by the graduate coordinator.

The Campus ID Card office is located in the Student Services Center, 355 University Center (Building #931 on campus maps), east of the Administration Complex and southeast of the Price Center. Student Financial Solutions, including the Bursar’s office, occupy the third floor, south wing of the building. The initial ID card is free, but replacement cards cost $25.

PhD in Public Health students have privileges at all of the UC San Diego libraries on campus, using their ID. A list of current graduate students is provided to the library each academic year to enable library privileges.

Lounge: The WongAvery Library Graduate Student Lounge provides a location for current UC San Diego graduate and professional students to study undisturbed 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, excluding campus closures. Please follow the link above for details and information on using the study room.

Lounge: A shared grad lounge space is located in the basement of Biomedical Sciences Building (BSB-B306). Students will have 24 hour card swipe or code access. This space has windows, study and lounge space, and a fridge.

In accordance with CEPH accreditation requirements, the PhD program builds upon prior training in public health and related fields to meet each of the following foundational public health learning objectives.

Profession & Science of Public Health

• Explain public health history, philosophy and values
• Identify the core functions of public health and the Essential Services
• Explain the role of quantitative and qualitative methods and sciences in describing and assessing a population’s health
• List major causes and trends of morbidity and mortality in the US or other community relevant to the school or program
• Discuss the science of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention in population health, including health promotion, screening, etc.
• Explain the critical importance of evidence in advancing public health knowledge

Factors Related to Human Health

• Explain effects of environmental factors on a population’s health
• Explain biological and genetic factors that affect a population’s health
• Explain behavioral and psychological factors that affect a population’s health
• Explain the social, political and economic determinants of health and how they contribute to population health and health inequities
• Explain how globalization affects global burdens of disease
• Explain an ecological perspective on the connections among human health, animal health and ecosystem health (e.g., One Health)

Core Competencies

The table below outlines the core competencies in health services research and in implementation science.

Prerequisites

Students who do not have a BSPH, MPH or undergraduate or graduate degree in a health-related field may be required to take introductory level courses to demonstrate a broad understanding of the field of public health. This requirement may be fulfilled by taking the following courses:

This requirement may be waived at the discretion of the PhD program committee if evidence of competence in these topics is provided.

Course requirements

PhD students are required to obtain 72 units of coursework from the following courses. Full time graduate students must register for a minimum of 12 units per quarter. These 12 units can be made up of a combination of required coursework as described below, additional elective coursework, and research seminars. All student course programs, as well as any changes throughout the quarter, must be approved by a faculty advisor prior to registering for classes each quarter. Students prepare an Individualized Course Study Plan (ISP) with their faculty mentor in the spring of the first year that is approved by the doctoral committee. It details classes and tutorials that each student will take during the second and third years of the program.

Required courses (56 units)

The core courses include 6 methods courses, five content courses, one course designed to prepare students for submission of pre-dissertation research grants, and one course on scientific ethics. Courses listed in the 400 series are currently offered to MPH students but can be cross-listed for doctoral students with additional course requirements (e.g., completion of a paper suitable for submission for publication and a presentation suitable for a research conference).

Methods courses

Content courses

Note: UC San Diego MPH students who wish to apply to the PhD Program may be able to gain credit for having taken FMPH 405, 440 and 441 to fulfill their MPH requirements. UC San Diego PharmD students who wish to apply to the PhD Program may be able to gain credit for having taken SPPS 207 and 209 in lieu of FMPH 440 and 441.

Grant writing course

PH221 (Successful Grant Writing for Dissertation Research) (4)

Scientific ethics

BIOM 219 (Ethics of Scientific Research) (2 units)

HSRIS colloquium series (6 courses)

PH 275 (HSRIS Colloquium) (1 unit)

CeHR practicum rotations (2 courses)

NEW (CeHR Practicum Rotation) (2 units)

Elective courses (16 units)

Students are required to take a minimum of 16 units of elective courses for letter grade. Elective requirements may be fulfilled through formal coursework and completion of a minimum of two quarters of a Community Engaged Health Research Practicum Rotation. Elective courses may be taken to develop competencies in another specialization or concentration (e.g., Clinical Epidemiology, Health Policy, Health Behavior, Global Health, Human-Centered Design) or to enhance expertise in qualitative methods, mixed methods, or advanced statistical methods (e.g., FPM 288. Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods; FMPH 226. Statistical Methods for Observational Studies, and/or FMPH 227. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis). Courses offered in other schools and academic units at UC San Diego may also qualify for credit as electives subject to the approval of the student’s advisor and Doctoral Program Committee.

Mentorship in the Public Health PhD takes many different forms. Junior students receive guidance from students who are further along in the program; students collaborate and learn from instructors. For the purpose of this handbook, the Mentor/Student relationship is a key relationship in a student’s program and we would like to offer guidance to enhance this experience.

The NIH offers guidelines for students and trainees to build a strong working relationship with your committee chair and/or your direct faculty supervisor for research activities. There are four key components for students: understand and establish expectations, integrate into your research group, develop a network of mentors and know where to turn when issues arise.

1. While formal mentorship agreements are not required in the Public Health PhD, having conversations early in the mentor/mentee relationship can help students and mentors understand and establish expectations for both parties. Discussing goals, obstacles, learning styles and communication styles is highly encouraged.
2. Integrating into a new research group can be an uncertain and frustrating time. Some tips for success include stress management, observing research group culture, finding the “helpers” and having conversations within and outside of this community.
3. Your primary research mentor is not the only mentor you will have in the program. It is crucial for students to develop a team of people as there is no one person who can meet all mentoring needs. Students will have formal advisory committees, full doctoral committees and the program director to help with their mentorship needs. Depending on a student’s individual needs, mentorship can also come from other experts in classroom or research. The program recommends reaching out to faculty whose guidance may be of particular assistance to each individual student. Students may find mentors who have different research areas but shared life experiences are also worthwhile relationships to build. It’s important to not just have mentors with expertise in your field but also have gaps in mentorship knowledge filled with other advocates and mentors.
4. The program always hopes that there are no major issues in your relationship with your research mentor but recognizes that there are instances where conflicts arise. Knowing where to turn when there is a concern with your primary mentor or if you are experiencing negative interactions in the research group as a whole can make all the difference. The NIH states: Disagreements and differences of opinion are a part of all workplaces, even healthy ones. Your success depends on your ability to develop healthy relationships with peers, colleagues and supervisors. This requires the development of skills to set boundaries and have high-stakes or difficult conversations. High-stakes conversations can be complicated by differences in communication styles, the level of assertiveness of the parties involved and the influence of hierarchy. Furthermore, when people are busy and/or stressed their impatience and frustration is more visible, making us feel unsupported when we ask questions and need help. Resources such as the program director, program coordinator and university ombudsman all exist to help navigate challenges and offer potential solutions.

Resources:

• UC San Diego Office of the Ombuds
• CIMER (Center for the Improvement of Mentored Experiences in Research) Resources for Mentors and Mentees
• AAMC Group on Graduate Research: Example Mentoring Agreements and Contracts
• Sample Welcome Letter/Agreement 
• Sample Compact Between Student and Mentor Outlining Expectations and Responsibilities

The default method for the doctoral and master’s committee to conduct graduate examinations (doctoral qualifying examination and final dissertation defense) is when the student and all members of the committee are physically present in the same room. The formal rules for conducting the doctoral examination can be found here.

The Graduate Council recognizes, however, that practical exigencies do not always make this possible. Therefore, the Graduate Council will defer to the graduate programs (department chair or program director) to review requests for exceptions and to make decisions to allow remote participation. The graduate program must ensure that when an exam is approved to be held entirely remote or in a hybrid format (i.e., some members are physically present and some are remote) that the student has agreed to this format.

Core Competency Examination

All students will undergo a written examination at the end of their first year in the program to evaluate their competency in the core elements of health services research and implementation science. The exam will be developed from questions submitted by instructors of the required first year courses. Two members of the core competency exam committee will independently grade each exam without knowledge of the student’s identity. Both readers will agree on the assignment of a numerical grade for each exam. If two readers disagree about the competency of a student, a third member of the preliminary exam committee will evaluate the exam.

Scoring of the exams will be on a 100-point scale. Students with a grade of 80% or higher will receive a “pass.” Students with a grade of 75% or lower will receive “fail.” The pass/fail status of students with a grade of 75% to 79% will be determined on an individual basis. For these students, the preliminary exam committee will review the student’s record and the items missed on the exam and determine whether the student will:

1. be given a pass conditional on taking additional coursework in weak areas;
2. be asked to answer additional questions in weak areas to determine pass/fail status;
3. be given a fail and be instructed to retake the entire exam the next time it is offered. Failure to pass the exam by the end of the second year will result in termination from the program.

Qualifying Examination for Advancement to Candidacy

The Qualifying Exam (QE) has two components: one is a grant proposal at the end of the second year of coursework and the second is the oral defense of the dissertation proposal. Both components can be completed by the student at any time after completion of the required coursework. However, it is expected that the quals would be completed no earlier than the end of the third year of study.

Part I: Written Exam

Over a 2-week period, students are required to write an NIH-style proposal (12 pages single-spaced in addition to a specific aims page). The student will pick three to five NIH PAs or RFAs on a topic that is of interest to the student. The PAs or RFAs must propose a behavioral intervention. The chair and the committee will select one of the three announcements (with modification of the topic as deemed appropriate by the committee). The scope of the proposal topic could be within the R21 or R01 mechanism.

It is important that the topic and approach not overlap completely with the area of training/expertise of the student. The student may request the general research area (e.g., physical activity) of the qualifying exam but the committee will determine the parameters of the research approach. For example, the student may be knowledgeable about promoting physical activity in a group using a specific approach (e.g., tailored print). The committee may choose the topic of physical activity but require the student to propose a different approach to promote physical activity.

It is the responsibility of the chair to send the following documents to the student at the start of their exam: 1) Selected RFA/PA, 2) sample excel budget sheet and 3) budget planning sheet. The chair will also send the NIH review criteria sheet to the rest of the committee and a core competencies sheet. The chair is also responsible for informing the student and the committee of the timelines for completion of these activities.

Factors to consider in the proposal: These guidelines are to be used by the students and committee members.

1. There should be multiple aims.
2. The background literature and rationale, while important, are not the focal point of this exam (limit to 3 pages).
3. The following sections are required: aims, significance, innovation, approach.
4. A preliminary data section is not required.
5. Students are strongly encouraged to include an overall study design figure.
6. Students should be clear on the elements of the proposed health behavior change model on which they plan to intervene.
7. Students should describe the target population, the proposed setting and if applicable (organization, community), how the population will be recruited.
8. A justification for the use of measures (e.g., validity, reliability) to address the aims should be included. The student is strongly encouraged to use the best possible “state of the science” measures appropriate to address the aims.
9. A detailed data analyses section is required that outlines how each of the aims will be addressed.
10. The analyses section should include a power calculation (although statistical consultation is allowed, a statistician cannot write or edit this section).
11. A human subjects section (and DSMB) should be included.
12. A study timeline diagram and description should be included.
13. A detailed budget and budget justification should be included (use sample Excel sheet).
14. References should be included (formatted using AMA or APA manual style).

The proposal must be an original document that is written independently without the assistance of fellow students, consultants, editors, other researchers or project managers. Note that the student is not allowed to use text from previous grants that they were involved in or any text that was written or prepared by someone else.

This proposal will be reviewed by the three members of the Advisory Committee as if it were a formal NIH peer review, paying particular attention to the required core competencies. The committee chair will address discrepancies in feedback provided by the committee. A written critique will be provided to the student within 1 month of the completion of the proposal. The committee members may choose to give feedback in track changes, in addition to the written NIH critique form.

The student will respond to the reviewers’ critique in a written, point-by-point NIH-style

(Introduction to Revised Application), not to exceed three pages. The student will also revise the proposal (bolding the text that involves the changes). The student will submit both documents to the full committee no later than 1 month after the student receives the initial review. If necessary, the student may meet with a member of the committee to help clarify a point/critique.

Core Competencies that will be assessed on the written qualifying exam are as follows:

1. Ability to critically review research in an area
2. Skill/knowledge of research design
3. Knowledge of appropriate measurement techniques, including quantitative and qualitative
4. Knowledge of appropriate statistical analysis techniques
5. Ability to ground the proposal in an appropriate theory
6. Ability to design an appropriate health behavior intervention
7. Knowledge of appropriate research ethics

Graduate Studies guidelines for PhD qualifying examinations (QE) apply. A student who passes the PhD QE is eligible to apply for advancement to candidacy for the PhD degree. Title and abstract of the PhD QE presentation will be distributed to all Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health faculty and students, who are invited to attend the presentation portion of the examination. The subsequent question period is a closed session between the student and the committee. The student must file the appropriate paperwork with the GEPA and pay the candidacy fee to be promoted to Candidacy for the PhD degree.

Qualifying Exam: The student will pass the written qualifying exam if the advisory committee agrees that the student has adequately responded to the critiques and met the 7 core competencies in the proposal. The committee, having reached a unanimous decision, shall inform the student of its decision as “Pass” (no conditions may be appended to this decision), “Not Pass” (the chair’s report should specify whether the student is required to retake all or part of the exam, list any additional requirements and state the exact timeline for completion of requirements to achieve a “Pass”) or “Fail”. If a unanimous decision takes the form of “Not Pass” or “Fail”, the chair of the QE committee must include in its report a specific statement, agreed to by all members of the committee, explaining its decision and must inform the student of its decision. Having received a “Not Pass” or “Fail”, the student may attempt the QE one additional time. After a second exam, a vote of “Not Pass” is unacceptable; only “Pass” or “Fail” is recognized. Only one retake of the QE is allowed. A student who fails the QE on the second attempt will be recommended to the Dean of Graduate Studies for disqualification from the PhD program.

Part II: Advancement to Candidacy – Oral Proposal Defense

It is expected that by the end of the third year (nine quarters), students should have a field of research chosen and a faculty member willing to direct and guide them. A student will advance to candidacy after successfully passing the oral qualifying examination, which deals primarily with the area of research proposed. The student will also have successfully completed at least 72 units of required and elective courses within the program. With the exception of the HSRIS colloquium series and the Ethics of Scientific Research course, required courses will be completed letter grade only.

Advisers must submit the application for the qualifying exam four weeks prior to the exam date; exams taken before receiving GEPA’s approval may be deemed null and void. Students must be registered during the quarters in which they take any portion of their exam. To be eligible for the qualifying exam, the student must have:

• A “B” average in all work done in graduate standing;
• Satisfied all departmental or group requirements; and
• Removed all academic deficiencies

The qualifying exam has two components: one is a grant proposal at the end of the second year of coursework and the second is the oral defense of the dissertation proposal. Both components can be completed by the student at any time after completion of the required coursework. However, it is expected that the quals will be completed no earlier than the end of the third year of study.

Upon successfully completing the written qualifying examination, the student will begin the process of advancement of candidacy. This will involve the following steps:

• Identifying a dissertation topic area.
• Determine the members of the dissertation committee.
• Writing the dissertation proposal with guidance and oversight from the chair of the committee.
• Orally defending the dissertation proposal in front of the dissertation committee (i.e., the oral qualifying exam).

Step 1: Identifying a Dissertation Topic Area

The doctoral dissertation is an essential part of the PhD program. A topic will be selected by the student, under the advice and guidance of a major professor (thesis adviser) and a dissertation committee chaired by the major professor. Students are encouraged to begin some research activity as early as possible during the third year of their graduate studies and to use the CeHR Practicum Rotations to assess potential thesis advisers.

The dissertation must contain an original contribution of quality that would be acceptable for publication in the health services research or health policy literature that extends the theory or methodology of health services research and/or implementation science or extends health services research and/or implementation science methods to solve a critical problem in applied disciplines. The usual process is to prepare a brief (one page) description of the proposed dissertation project and consult with Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health faculty to refine ideas.

Step 2: Identifying a Dissertation Committee

The dissertation committee will consist of a minimum of four members, including the chair. At least one committee member must be tenured or tenure track. The committee may include additional non-voting members, including non-UC San Diego faculty, as deemed necessary by the student with the consent of the committee Chair. The student should begin selecting the committee as soon as appropriate and check with the program director to ensure that the committee composition complies with all rules.

After the dissertation committee has been nominated and approved by GEPA, the student will meet with all committee members to discuss a dissertation topic. This requires a written document presented to the dissertation committee 10 days before a scheduled oral presentation. Feedback from the dissertation committee will be verbal at the meeting but may include written comments that need to be addressed. The student should then present the revised written proposal to the committee for approval (this can be done by email). If dissertation committee members have major problems with the written proposal, then they should share these with the chair and the planned proposal defense should be postponed.

Step 3: Write the Dissertation Proposal

The PhD dissertation should consist of original health services and/or implementation research that adds significantly to the existing state of knowledge. The project should include original data collection, although the dissertation committee may waive this requirement provided that the student has had significant experience with original data collection through other projects.

At the discretion of the dissertation committee, each student has the option of submitting a dissertation consisting of three peer-reviewed manuscripts or a traditional dissertation. Students should present their choice of method as part of the presentation of the dissertation proposal. If the committee agrees to this peer-reviewed manuscript option, students must also present a discussion of each of the proposed manuscripts as part of the oral defense. Any changes in papers that have been successfully defended (even those requested by peer-reviewers) must be approved by the chair of the committee. If it is a major change, including a change in paper topic, the full committee needs to approve it.

Step 4: Orally Defend the Dissertation Proposal

Once the dissertation proposal is completed, the student can schedule an oral defense of the proposed research. After selecting a date when all of committee members can be present, the student will circulate a written proposal at least two (2) weeks prior to the oral defense date. At the oral defense, the student will present the dissertation proposal and answer questions from committee members. Typically, a PowerPoint presentation is prepared to highlight key elements of the proposed research. The presentation should not last longer than 30-45 minutes to allow sufficient time for questions. Successful completion of the proposal defense will allow advancement to candidacy. If the committee feels that the student is not adequately prepared to conduct the proposed project, the student will be advised of committee concerns and may be asked to re-defend the proposal at a later time. Unanimous agreement among dissertation committee members is required for passing.

Successful defense leads to advancement to candidacy.

Completion of the requirements for the Doctoral Dissertation include preparation of a written document and defense of the research described in the document. The dissertation document will be structured in accordance with either of the two options exercised by the student.

Option 1: The preferred dissertation approach includes 3 or more published or submitted empirical manuscripts accompanied by a short introduction and discussion as well as a comprehensive set of appendices. All manuscripts should relate to the central theme of the dissertation. The role of the dissertation committee is to review these manuscripts for evidence that the research in the dissertation proposal had been satisfactorily completed. The student must be first author on these manuscripts and co-authorship will be subject to the rules now standard in the field. It could be expected that dissertation committee members may provide reviewer comments to the manuscript if they are concerned that the manuscript is not of publishable quality. In such cases, the student, the committee chair and the concerned committee member will meet to discuss changes that need to be made to the manuscript to improve its chances of publication. This will not occur if the manuscript has been accepted for publication in a reputable journal in the health services research/implementation science area. Appropriate appendices are data collection instruments, informed consent forms, etc.

If choosing Option 1, prior to scheduling the final defense, students need to send a letter to the Dean of Graduate Studies at UC San Diego which outlines the proposed papers and provides evidence of co-authors permission to submit the manuscript/paper as evidence of independent work for the purposes of a dissertation.

Option 2: The traditional dissertation approach may be selected in the event the topic or methods selected for the dissertation research are not conducive to the three-paper format: This approach typically includes the following sections or chapters: introduction, literature review, methods, results and discussion. Appropriate appendices, i.e. data collection instruments and informed consent forms, should be included.

Acceptance of the dissertation by three designated members of the dissertation committee follows GEPA’s guidelines. A draft of the dissertation shall be given to each dissertation committee member at least four weeks before the final examination.

The entire dissertation committee will conduct a final oral examination, which will deal primarily with questions arising out of the relationship of the dissertation to the field of health services research and/or implementation science. The final examination will be conducted in two parts. The first part consists of a 45-minute presentation by the candidate followed by a brief period of questions pertaining to the presentation; this part of the examination is open to the public. The second part of the examination will immediately follow the first part; this is a closed session between the student and the committee and will consist of a period of questioning by the committee members. Title and abstract of the oral presentation will be distributed to all Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health faculty and students, who are invited to attend the presentation portion of the examination.

When working on any research project while in the PhD program, all students must ensure human and/or animal subject concerns have been addressed by having the project approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and following university policies on the protection of research subjects. All research projects are subject to IRB approval, even secondary analysis of data that have already been collected in some cases. Research projects that involve primary data collection must have IRB approval prior to any data collection.

IRB forms and instructions are available online. IRB approval from one institution will usually allow for the other institution to accept research subjects’ clearance. However, research that is deemed greater than minimal risk of harm is not covered by this agreement and should be submitted to both IRBs.

Up to 3 quarters of time spent on leave from the program will not count towards the time limits. Additionally, any unexpired time limits will get moved forward equivalent to the number of semester(s)/quarters(s) taken off. Time spent on an approved leave of absence (LOA) in excess of 3 quarters will count toward time limits.

To request a leave of absence, please contact the graduate coordinator who will provide and process the form. At the time of the request, students will need to indicate if they are registered or not registered for classes. When the form is processed and approved by GEPA and the Registrar's Office, they will remove the student from classes if needed. Students should not remove themself from classes.

The LOA form must be filed no later than the end of the second week of instruction of the quarter in which the leave is to begin.

Students are not permitted to continue in doctoral status if they have not advanced to candidacy before the expiration of the pre-candidacy time limit (4 years) or if they have not completed the program before the expiration of the total time limit (7 years). Students will not be permitted to receive financial support after the expiration of the support limits (6 years).

If a student withdraws and subsequently returns with a completed dissertation, the student may petition the department for readmission. To be eligible for readmission, the student must have been in good academic standing at the time they left the program and must satisfy departmental requirements for readmission. Upon leaving the program, the department may provide a letter specifying the conditions under which the student can be readmitted.

PhD candidacy lapses when a student withdraws from the PhD program. If a previously-advanced student withdraws and is later readmitted, the doctoral committee members are asked if they will continue serving on the doctoral committee; if they will not, the doctoral committee must be reconstituted. Students will be re-advanced to candidacy upon the recommendation of the doctoral committee (who may require the student to retake the oral qualifying examination) and upon payment of the candidacy fee, after which the student can defend their dissertation.

Further Details from GEPA on Leave of Absence and Withdrawals

Procedures: Extension of a Leave

To extend an approved leave of absence, a student must notify the graduate coordinator at least two weeks prior to the end of the quarter in which the leave terminates. An extension requires approval of the department. The International Services and Engagement Office (ISEO) must approve a Leave of Absence for all international students.

Procedures: Returning from a Leave

When planning on returning from a Leave of Absence, a student must notify the graduate coordinator of the quarter in which they intend to register. The coordinator notifies GEPA who then reinstates the student. The student cannot register until this is done. Notification of return from a leave can only be given to GEPA by the department.

Employment While Conducting Research

The doctoral candidate is a full time student prior to the successful defense of their dissertation. Normally, employment up to 50% time is permitted for graduate students. It is expected that the remainder of their time is devoted to their studies or research. Therefore, the student should not secure full-time employment until their dissertation is successfully defended. The doctoral candidate should consult their dissertation chair to determine the optimal time to start applying to jobs and postdoctoral opportunities.