Doctor of Philosophy

Students are required to take three 2-unit courses during the first year

Each year, the department evaluates students to assess progress to a degree, identify areas of strength, provide helpful resources, and note potential issues or areas of concern. This annual review includes a record of accomplishments presented by the student, written evaluations by the faculty advisor of the student’s progress, and (after the first year) committee feedback on the academic and research progress of the student. The student should have no ‘I’ grades in core courses, maintain a 3.0 grade-point average, and show evidence of productive and sustained research progress with no conflict of interest or commitment.

Possible outcomes of the annual review include:

1. Continuation of the student in good standing

2. Notifying the student that they are not making academic progress, with specific written guidelines for the necessary steps to reinstatement to good standing.

Annual reviews are required for all PhD students, including first-year PhD students. In the first year, the annual assessment is conducted between the student and the PhD advisor(s) (before forming a doctoral committee). After the first year, the annual review must be conducted between the student and the student’s doctoral committee. The committee should meet as a group simultaneously, although in the cases of extreme scheduling conflict a separate meeting can be organized with one of the committee members. In the unusual case where second-year PhD students have obtained approval for a delay in the qualifying exam, this annual review meeting should include a closed committee session. Post-candidacy review meetings typically last for one hour.

The student and advisor must complete and sign the written annual review form in all years. In the year students are undertaking their candidacy exam (research qualifying exam), that exam serves as the annual review. In addition, any student who has scheduled the dissertation defense and petitioned to graduate in Axess may elect not to hold an additional yearly review meeting.

As a program requirement, students in ESS complete a minimum of two TA quarters. These should be the equivalent of a 25% position. In addition, additional TA quarters may be considered and/or required in consultation with the research advisor, depending on academic goals and funding availability.

Admission to candidacy for the doctoral degree is a judgment by the faculty in the department or school of the student’s potential to successfully complete a Ph.D. It occurs when a student passes a qualifying exam and completes their required coursework. University policy is that admission to candidacy must normally occur by the end of the second year in the PhD program. Requests for extensions on this timeline must be provided in writing and approved by both the advisor and the Director of Graduate Students. They cannot be supported without sufficient cause (e.g., advisor on sabbatical). Scheduling constraints are generally not considered adequate cause. 

The qualifying process consists of two components

1. Evaluation of a written document containing a proposal for the student’s PhD research

2. An oral examination

The first component, the research proposal, is a document whose text is up to – but no more than – 10 single-spaced pages in length (inclusive of figures, but exclusive of references, minimum 11 point font). It cannot include any supplementary text or appendices. The research proposal must concisely review the background literature and discuss the proposed problem, its importance, and the methods to be applied to the problem. The proposal must be well thought out, carefully written and edited, and finished with appropriate references and illustrations. It must be sent to the committee in final form at least two weeks before the date of the oral examination, and it must be reviewed by the advisor before being sent to the committee. Note that proposals that are longer than the maximum length can be sent back to the student for revision. 

The second component, the qualifying examination, is a wide-ranging examination of the feasibility of the proposed research and the student’s preparedness to complete it. It starts with a presentation of no longer than 30 minutes, followed by a question and answer period, with questions from all committee members. These questions can cover the proposed research, the subfield in which it falls, and topics in which you should be proficient to conduct the research. The qualifying examination must be scheduled for at least 2.5 hours and for no more than 3 hours, although it may end earlier than the scheduled time. A 3 hour scheduling block is ideal, but this can be shortened to 2.5 hours in case of scheduling difficulties.  

These two components (the written document and the qualifying examination) are judged by the student’s Examining Committee. The committee, including your faculty advisor or advisors, must consist of at least 4 and no more than 5 members, at least 3 of whom are academic council members at Stanford, and at least 2 of whom are appointed as faculty in the Department of Earth System Science. The committee must have a designated chair who is on the Academic Council, but who is not the student's dissertation research advisor(s). The chair’s Stanford appointment can be in either the Department of Earth System Science or a different Stanford department. The Examining Committee is typically, but not necessarily, the same as the university reading committee that evaluates the doctoral work. The outcome of the exam may be a ‘pass’, a ‘conditional pass’, a ‘retake’, or a ‘fail’. In the case of a conditional pass, a range of possible conditions can be imposed by the committee. In the case of a ‘retake’, the student is required to retake the exam in the next quarter (or if the exam is held in the spring quarter, this can be two quarters later). A student who received a ‘fail’ cannot continue in the program. However, if a student who failed the qualifying exam feels that the qualifying exam was performed in an unfair or inequitable manner, they may appeal to the department chair or Director of Graduate Studies (DGS) to request a new examination. Policies governing such appeals are described in the department handbook.

When evaluating the exam, the committee will assess the student's preparedness for completing the PhD along multiple axes:

1. Ability to synthesize existing literature and articulate both knowledge gaps and important outstanding questions.

2. Ability to communicate advanced topics clearly in writing and through verbal/visual displays. 

3. Critical reasoning

4. Domain expertise

5. Feasibility of the proposed research and the student’s ability to conduct it

The doctoral dissertation is defended in the university oral examination.

Under the supervision of the research advisory committee, the candidate must prepare a doctoral dissertation that is a contribution to knowledge and is the result of independent research. The format of the dissertation must meet university guidelines. The student is urged to prepare dissertation chapters that, in scientific content and format, are readily publishable.