Departmental case study of physics doctoral students’ perspectives of written qualifying exams

Abstract

Little research in physics education focuses on graduate student experiences related to structural elements of their programs. This departmental case study examines the impact and perceptions of written qualifying exams (QEs) from a student perspective, following recent research which questions the role and utility of such exams. We conducted semistructured interviews with two physics doctoral students at a large research university before and after taking their QEs, capturing their expectations, preparedness levels, and apprehensions regarding the exam. We also conducted a survey of the rest of their student cohort one month before and one month after their exams to understand further variation in the students’ perspectives. The students’ experiences reflected substantial frustration with the nature and transparency of the QE process, as well as substantial negative emotional and mental impacts of the exams. The students’ experiences with the QEs are consistent with psychological responses to traumatic events. The responses further indicate that building trust and establishing transparency around the QE process, as well as creating emotionally and academically safe spaces that allow students to fail on exams and in coursework without the threat of punitive action, are important trauma-informed pedagogical strategies that faculty can use to support students through this process and help them build resilience. While we do not suggest that the current QE process in this department follows best practices for assessment, the students and faculty in this department do agree on the need for some kind of assessment indicating research readiness early in the graduate program; this provides a common perspective from which departmental change can begin. Published by the American Physical Society 2024