Effective Models for Postgraduate Education in
Engineering, Science and Technology
David M Holburn and Thomas P Bligh
Editor's note: during
the summer vacation Dr Holburn and Br Bligh were invited to give
a keynote paper at RESPEC '97 - a Seminar on Postgraduate Education
organised by the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia - which took place
in Johor Bahru in Malaysia. The paper compares the factors that
have shaped the evolution of postgraduate education in the University
of Cambridge and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, both acclaimed
centres of excellence in postgraduate education, and sets out
some recommendations for achieving an effective graduate programme.
As a number of you may already have set your sights on a higher
degree, we thought you might find it interesting.
This paper seeks to explore some of the factors that
contribute to an effective programme for postgraduate education
and research in engineering and technology. The paper opens with
a review of the significant benefits that accrue to the individual,
the institution, and the nation through postgraduate education.
Drawing from the authors' personal experiences in North America
and the UK, two models for postgraduate education which have
stood the test of time are discussed in detail. The paper concludes
with some recommendations for a successful postgraduate programme
which are based on proposals currently being implemented in the
Department of Engineering in the University of Cambridge.
This paper seeks to explore some of the factors that contribute to an effective programme for postgraduate education and research in engineering and technology. We maintain a strong belief in the system for graduate teaching and research operated in the University of Cambridge. This is based on many years of accumulated experience of academia in the UK and the USA both in the field of postgraduate education and in the supervision and administration of research in engineering, science and technology
The education and training of postgraduate students play a central role within the total range of activities undertaken by higher education institutions. They deliver benefits in a multiplicity of ways to the nation, to the institution and to the individual.
In the public domain, a research programme based
on postgraduate education contributes directly to employment and
wealth creation. For those nations actively pursuing such programmes,
it is almost inconceivable that they could compete effectively
in the global economy without a thriving postgraduate educational
sector.
There is no doubt that an effective research programme
makes a substantial contribution to the creation of intellectual
capital for industry and the economy. Research results may feed
directly into industry, stimulating the development of new products
and so making the national economy more competitive. An effective
postgraduate programme generates a stream of graduates which feeds
into the high end of industry, a potent source of experts trained
in the techniques of research, essential to maintain the innovative
edge. Their presence serves to enhance the industrial competitiveness
needed to pursue original design and innovation and effective
technical development which is eminently preferable to simply
providing a manufacturing base for products designed elsewhere.
Postgraduate education contributes to 'quality of life' in another sense. It provides a nation with an important avenue for the initial and continuing development of the professional and administrative staff which delivers its private and its public services - for example, the government and health sectors. In addition, it contributes to the knowledge base which underpins policy development and innovation in service provision. As sophisticated society makes higher demands on these services, and seeks greater value from them, the role of postgraduate education is seen to be vital in this context.
An effective graduate programme furnishes an excellent
source of future generations of faculty members capable of working
at the forefront of their subjects for the local institution as
well as for the wider, growing academic environment. Citing the
University of Cambridge as an example, in 1995 56% of PhD graduates
from the University Engineering Department who entered employment
in the UK were employed in academia.
Through dissemination of published results and other material, postgraduate education contributes directly to the expansion of the stock of world knowledge. In so doing, it helps establish an international reputation for the institution, essential to attract the best people from all over the world. The University of Cambridge believes that teaching is best conducted by individuals who are active in research. High quality research feeds directly into teaching, and, together with staff commitment, skilful teaching and individual attention to students' work, provides an environment that combines learning with academic challenge and stimulates intellectual independence among students.
As well as these more global purposes of postgraduate education, there exist powerful personal aspirations within the individual, most of which are complementary to the benefits just outlined. Postgraduate education is seen by those who receive it as a means to learning new skills and acquiring new knowledge, as well as an opportunity to develop intellectual and cultural appreciation. Naturally, such aspirations are not unique to the postgraduate level of education, but within an already highly qualified society in an increasingly sophisticated world, more people are likely to pursue postgraduate study in an attempt to satisfy these aims.
It affords an opportunity to experience and savour the excitement of discovery in the pursuit of knowledge. It provides advanced training, top-up skills and assists career conversion, supporting individuals in gaining the jobs and careers of their choice, and broadening options in terms of their longer-term employment. Above all, by all these means it enhances their chances of a rewarding and personally satisfying life.
From the foregoing, it may be concluded that the
most important element in any effective scheme for graduate education
is a research programme of excellence. While it is evident that
this can only be achieved given adequate resources, material and
financial, it is also clear that these are not sufficient to guarantee
an institution of international renown, nor research activity
of world class. It is also essential to attract students of the
greatest possible academic potential, and to attract and keep
faculty members of outstanding calibre and with the highest motivation.
In fact, it may reasonably be argued that these two issues transcend the material factors. The question which naturally follows is: how can these objectives be achieved, when in particular, financial structures make it quite impossible to remunerate quality staff in a manner comparable with industry or the professions? We shall attempt to suggest possible means by which these objectives might be achieved by considering models in two Universities with which we are acquainted, both of which institutions have achieved international standing, but in which the approaches pursued are discernibly different.
The models we shall consider are Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts (MIT), USA , and the University of Cambridge, England. In many senses these are comparable. In MIT, the size of the student body is approximately 12,000, of which approximately 5,000 are graduate students. In Cambridge, the overall student body is roughly similar, at 15,000, but with a rather lower proportion of graduate students (4,400). Both institutions have long and illustrious histories of involvement in postgraduate education.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), founded
in 1865 in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is widely regarded as the
leading North American academic institution for technical disciplines.
Study and research have held a prominent place here for over
a century; the Institute has consistently awarded the largest
number of Master's and Doctoral degrees in engineering in the
nation.
At MIT, the doctorate is awarded on completion of
a programme of advanced study and the performance of significant
original research, design or development. Normally, the graduate
candidate studies first for the Master's degree in a programme
of typically six taught courses plus a thesis - a programme of
original research. Some of these course modules are in fact
part of the undergraduate teaching programme, rather than advanced
courses specifically oriented towards graduate teaching, and there
is no particular requirement that the chosen courses relate directly
to the thesis. The thesis is regarded as the centrepiece of a
student's graduate experience, and is carried out under the direction
of a supervisor. The Faculty expects that this programme can be
accomplished within one and a half years.
Towards the end of the Master's programme, promising
students may apply for the Doctoral programme. This is a maximum
of three further taught terms, consisting of major and minor programmes
of advanced study and written and oral examinations, plus a substantial
thesis. Once again, there is no requirement that the major and
minor programmes be intimately connected with the research project.
Broadly speaking, approximately equal weights are attached to
the two elements of coursework and research. The total length
of the doctoral programme should thus be 3 years; however, experience
suggests that 4-5 years is much more typical.
The kinds of project undertaken for both the Master's and the Doctoral programmes are frequently in the form of contract research. These are intrinsically short in term, limited in scope, and with clearly identified, often legally framed milestones or deliverables. As a result, there are few opportunities for individualism or creativity, the work proceeding under the close direction of the supervisor and sponsor.
In the United States, it is normal for graduate students to be granted admission initially with no funding. They then compete for Research Assistantships (which are held by faculty members) in a form of 'free enterprise'. Research Assistant (RA) contracts are fixed in term, and the faculty member must continually seek to 'top up' these awards. The individual professor naturally seeks the best research student for his research project, while the student may seek the most interesting or satisfying research experience. Normally RAs are associated with contractual conditions imposed by the sponsor (industry or government organisation), and there is a corresponding contractual relationship between RA, faculty member and sponsor. Often, students may decide to accept Assistantships lying outside their primary area of interest and experience. In a few cases, students arrive with their own independent funding. In such circumstances, they do not compete with other students for assistantships, but must identify a supervisor prepared to oversee their proposed project. Although the availability of independent support might appear to simplify the matter of arranging a programme supervisor, in fact it does not. In the first place, no obvious contractual relationship exists between the student and the supervisor or institution. Moreover, a research project requires resources, often substantial, and the cost of supplying these may be far in excess of the simple maintenance costs of the graduate student, who must in consequence be prepared to accept a project for which the resources are already in place.
The University of Cambridge, founded in 1287, has a long history of scientific research, traceable back to the era of Isaac Newton and before; however, it is in the 1840s (when a natural science tripos was first introduced) that the growth of its modern strength can first be detected.
A number of strategic policies adopted at different
times over the last century are regarded as being particularly
significant in shaping the evolution of research at Cambridge:-
To obtain a Cambridge PhD it is necessary to complete
three years' full-time training, and carry out an original piece
of research in one of the many research areas in the Department,
under the supervision of a member of staff. At least one of the
three years must be spent in Cambridge; most students spend all
three years here although a sizeable minority have some time away.
The graduate is required to write a dissertation on the research
carried out, and must have an oral examination. The dissertation
is assessed and the oral examination conducted by an internal
examiner chosen from within the University (normally from within
the Department), and an external examiner who must be from outside
the University and is normally a world authority in the subject
area concerned. The supervisor takes no part whatsoever in the
examination.
Many post-graduate students attend one or two lecture
modules from over seventy offered in the Department, and some
contribute to workshops and discussion groups, although there
are currently no formal requirements of taught course work for
the PhD degree. Students are strongly recommended to attend some
of the many weekly research seminar series, which run in the Department.
Students are encouraged to present results of their research in
Departmental seminars, and at national and international conferences.
Many research students choose to widen their experience, and earn
extra money, by teaching small groups of engineering undergraduates
for a few hours each week.
Students who have funding for only one year may register instead for the MPhil degree. This can be retrospectively converted to a PhD registration, subject to satisfactory progress, if funding is obtained for the second and third years of research.
UK residents are normally eligible to compete for
the award of a research studentship from the Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), an arm of the state. This provides
a maintenance allowance and fees for the three years of a PhD
course. For European students such an award pays fees only. The
Department has a number of schemes which supplement these awards
to UK and European students. Each year up to five Newton Scholarships
worth an additional 1500 pounds per annum are awarded to highly
qualified holders of EPSRC awards. Other options include EPSRC
Collaborative Awards in Science and Engineering (CASE) awards,
for research carried out in direct collaboration with industry:
students with an EPSRC CASE award receive additional financial
support from the industrial partner.
Many students from abroad get grants or scholarships
from their home country. However, the University has a number
of schemes of awards for overseas students: the Cambridge Overseas
Trust, the Cambridge Commonwealth Trust and the Croucher Foundation
make a substantial number of grants to overseas students each
year. Cambridge is an active participant in the Overseas Research
Student (ORS) scheme, which provides for support grants for students
of high quality in British universities, selection being solely
on the basis of academic potential, without regard to the institution
to which they apply.
In addition a number of Research Studentships are available providing fees and a maintenance allowance for students working on specific research contracts. These are funded by the sponsor of the research.
The point was made above that no educational institution
can realistically remunerate top-class faculty members at the
levels associated with industry or the professions. How then
can an institution hope to attract staff of the calibre necessary
to secure international standing? The approach pursued at Cambridge
is to offer benefits in other, non-pecuniary forms to its faculty
members.
While in many universities the contract of employment
with faculty members is uniform, specific and allows little margin
for flexibility, at Cambridge (and indeed, at MIT), the contractual
relationships between the university and faculty member are rather
loose, simply stating that 'in accordance with the principles
of academic freedom, academics are expected to devote themselves
to their subject, and to promote the interests of the University
as a place of education and research'. As a result, academics
at Cambridge and MIT have a great deal of freedom and are treated,
and feel treated, as responsible and independent individuals.
Another distinctive aspect is the University's attitude
towards commercial exploitation of academics' know-how. The policy
is to leave it to the individual to decide how he wishes to spend
the rest of his time (once his academic tasks are satisfactorily
discharged). Similarly, the University has a permissive attitude
to the ownership of intellectual property. These vest in the
individual academics, not the University or any other party unless
the research contract generating the know-how states otherwise.
In any event there is no automatic presumption that these should
vest in the University.
In consequence there exists a very 'laissez-faire'
attitude to consultancy undertaken by faculty members, and to
the development of companies and industrial links. There is a
natural presumption that staff, because of their quality, will
undertake consultancy and similar activities independently of
the University, and indeed, these are encouraged as a vital means
of transferring the latest knowledge and technology into industry.
Typically, an academic might spend one day per week on 'extra-mural'
activities such as these, though it is important to emphasise
that no specific maximum limit is imposed. Note that the corollary
to these policies is that the University accepts no legal liability
in respect of any outside work done by its staff. The risk is
borne by the individual, or by any business entity set up for
the purpose.
As a result of these policies, a number of non-University
companies are run concurrently by serving academic staff. University
staff frequently establish 'spin-off' companies based in the Cambridge
Science Park or elsewhere. Contact may also be maintained through
consultancy, or it may lapse. These companies themselves may
fund further research within the University, or participate in
projects which strengthen the ties - for example, LINK, CASE or
Teaching Company schemes. Financial arrangements rest with the
individual.
In Cambridge, the Wolfson Industrial Liaison Office
exists to promote contacts with industry, consultancy and technology
transfer, and has close ties with researchers. It offers advice
to potential research sponsors, and, internally, advice on intellectual
property matters and the commercial exploitation of inventions.
The researcher is free to pursue the acquisition of patents and
financial support in order to exploit his invention, if he wishes;
however, recognising that this may be an onerous, time-consuming
and expensive activity, the University may be prepared, to undertake
these activities through the Industrial Liaison Office, and will
meet the administrative costs. In such circumstances, of course,
the University will expect an equitable share in the proceeds
from any such enterprise - for example, royalties, licence fees
or other financial gains. Typically, a one-third share is returned
to the University to cover exploitation costs; one-third is remitted
to the researcher's Department, and the researcher himself also
receives one third. This dilution of the return is seen by many
as a modest sacrifice to make in order to avoid the vicissitudes
of pursuing these activities.
The resultant networks have helped create an environment
in which industrial links of all kinds have flourished without
fear of sanction or bureaucratic intervention. They represent
an extremely effective way to transfer the latest technology into
the industrial world, contributing to its international competitiveness.
Much the same phenomenon is apparent in the vicinity of MIT, in the form of the '128 Belt', the major orbital road around Boston, Massachusetts, where major innovative companies have become established. The 128 Belt is among the oldest developments of its kind in the USA, and indeed the world, and was a model closely studied by those involved in the later development of the Cambridge Science Park. It has been suggested that the single most important source of entrepreneurs within the 128 Belt is formed by the staff and graduates from MIT. It is perhaps reasonable to suppose that the strong links already in existence between MIT, government and industry by virtue of collaboration over postgraduate projects has been a stronger influence fostering the rapid growth of entrepreneurial activity than is encountered in the Cambridge model. However, there is no doubt that the style of evolution and interaction between industry and academia there and in the Cambridge Science Park are strikingly similar.
One possible measure of research excellence in terms of long range, fundamental research, might be quantified in terms of internationally recognised awards - for example, Nobel Prizes. In Cambridge, approaching 70 Nobel Prizes have been awarded, with 29 of these being ascribed to Trinity College, and 9 to Gonville and Caius College. At MIT, despite the larger graduate student population and the correspondingly larger number of higher degrees awarded, the number of Nobel Prizes claimed is 17. These facts cannot easily be dismissed, and it is worth reflecting on the possible reasons for this disparity.
The system of Master's and Doctoral courses that
has evolved at MIT revolves around the provision of a large number
of short-term projects to serve the needs of the substantial body
of graduate students. There is continuous, on-going pressure
on faculty members to secure resources and support from external
sponsors (government and industry) to sustain the prodigious number
of project activities under way at any time. There is no doubt
that this in itself absorbs a substantial amount of time and energy,
and detracts directly from the effort that can be dedicated by
those faculty members to longer term, basic research. In addition,
the requirement to conform to formal deliverables and milestones
tends to stifle significant creativity.
There is a clearly perceived view that research excellence
equates to the number of papers published by an individual, and
on the amount of financial support he is able to attract. Moreover,
a proportion of the individual faculty member's salary is paid
out of research grants. Salary raises are also linked to the
success achieved in obtaining research grants. No tangible merit
is gained by a researcher who agrees to collaborate with a colleague
who is principal investigator on a project. Unfortunately, this
attitude tends to lead to the emergence of empire builders who
are little disposed to interact with other faculty members, and
in consequence forgo valuable potential opportunities for collaborative
or multidisciplinary projects. This culture is not unique to
MIT, however, and there is at least anecdotal evidence of a trend
in this direction in a number of otherwise highly successful institutions.
Cambridge takes the view, on the other hand, that
by setting a long time horizon there is the best opportunity for
the development of sound basic research and the fruitful consequences
of lateral thinking - on which wealth creation for the nation
ultimately depends. In addition, flexible University policies
enable and encourage members of staff to spend time in other universities
throughout the world, to the benefit of international scholarship.
In Cambridge, it has hitherto always been necessary for newly admitted graduate students to identify their own project - to formulate the question as well as the procedure for reaching the answer - with guidance from the supervisor. With the funding structures currently in place, these decisions can be reached on purely academic grounds, with minimal risk of research objectives being compromised by commercial expediency. Moreover, in the vast majority of cases this is a powerful motivating factor, since the student plays an active role in determining his own future. In this way the probability of success can be greatly enhanced. In the USA, where emphasis is necessarily placed on contract-oriented, short term projects, this valuable procedure is not really practicable.
Cambridge is a collegiate system. This has some
important ramifications. Each College in effect forms a community,
where people from many different disciplines and backgrounds can
have an informal social exchange in a way that is qualitatively
very different from that in the university departments (which
are staffed by people from the same discipline). These collegiate
communities also tend to command a high degree of social loyalty.
The number and strength of the Colleges together reinforce the
decentralised structure of the University, and emphasise the devolution
of responsibility to the individual.
Many teachers and researchers in the University also
hold a fellowship within a College. Many of the more senior fellows
play an important role in the University's various committees.
Likewise, the heads and other senior members of the faculties
and departments will all have College attachments. So, while
in the formal sense, the University and the Colleges are separate
entities, in practice there are innumerable interconnections which
revolve around individuals simultaneously holding positions of
influence in different parts of the overall structure. All of
these factors strongly encourage global thinking and facilitate
interacting in a collaborative and multidisciplinary way.
A further issue is the recent policy in the U.K.
of establishing various interdisciplinary research centres in
which different groups and faculties are deliberately drawn together
to contribute their various skills to a common objective. This
has been shown to be remarkably successful in such areas as superconductivity,
where theoretical and practical skills drawn from chemistry, physics,
engineering and materials science have been harnessed to great
effect.
If you have a personal goal it is not hard to pursue
it in Cambridge
At MIT it is comparatively difficult to meet those from other faculties or departments to promote cross-fertilisation of ideas; the highly evolved system of networks that has been found so crucial to the success of Cambridge as an academic, social and high technology environment is essentially absent.
Science and engineering are international activities,
and a world-class institution with a highly regarded programme
of graduate education and research will attract applicants of
outstanding quality from across national and international boundaries,
fostering a wide range of academic contacts at all levels. This
is clearly to the substantial benefit of international scholarship.
However, for this ideal to be feasible, there is an urgent need
for common international standards. It is sometimes very difficult
to judge applications from overseas applicants in the absence
of such standards, or of detailed knowledge of the teaching methods
and qualifications available elsewhere.
In the European Community a major effort is currently under way to achieve coherence, consistency and comparability of teaching and examining standards across national boundaries, as well as a unified framework for recognition and accreditation by the various professional organisations. However, the difficulties associated with this route should not be underestimated, even for a comparatively close-knit and homogeneous community like Western Europe.
It is clear that like virtually all other activities,
postgraduate education is subject to myriad pressures, including
financial and market-led constraints, while others may be political
or sociological, or may arise from other forces. In any event,
the delivery of excellence in postgraduate education demands continuous
vigilance and a willingness to evolve as circumstances dictate.
In the Department of Engineering in Cambridge, we
are now moving to a middle ground, requiring graduates to complete
a proportion of coursework in the form of lectured courses carefully
tuned to the needs of the research programme. Some groups have
actually pursued this approach for some years, appreciating the
need for specific intellectual 'tools' in order to proceed effectively.
It is now recognised that this approach is of universal value,
and should form a part of every graduate student's programme.
We set out below our recommendations and proposals for implementing an effective graduate programme based on research leading to the Master's and Doctor's degree.
The Graduate Education programme should ensure that
it:
The PhD programme should aim to be a three-year period
of study, although it is recognised that over-running may be unavoidable
on occasions. We believe that students' training would be enhanced
by improving the structure and focus of the course, and that nearly
all students would benefit from some taught material in their
first year. We therefore recommend that a graduate student should
take, and be assessed on, two 16-lecture modules (or their equivalent).
All first-year students should write a short dissertation on
their research project, to be submitted towards the end of the
first year. This could make the first year of the PhD programme
identical to a Master of Philosophy (MPhil) by research, and it
would be expected that many candidates for the PhD would take
the MPhil in their first year. The assessed modules and the later
dissertation would be a serious hurdle, and should provide a way
of identifying any weaker students, who should not proceed to
the PhD degree. We recommend that a progress review be introduced
at the end of the second year. By this stage, most students should
have produced (at least) one journal or conference paper. The
progress review would usually be based on this and the student's
plans for the completion of the PhD within the three years of
study.
Recommendations for publicity and for attracting
applications are made.
Postgraduate students are vital to a successful Department. Their work contributes to the quality and volume of research in the Department, and they will be the next generation of professional researchers and academics. Moreover, research students who subsequently work in industry take leading-edge research capability with them, providing one of the most effective means of technology transfer. We fully support the view that postgraduate research education plays a unique part in the development of the individuals who can contribute, within the research base and in industry, to innovation and competitiveness, and who assist in the production of knowledge.
The international reputation of the Institution and
of its staff are the primary reasons why students choose to undertake
postgraduate studies. For example, at Cambridge University Engineering
Department, most students (68 %) are recommended to apply to Cambridge
by a member of staff in their undergraduate university. Active
research staff, who publish regularly and frequently attend international
conferences, are one of the best forms of publicity for the Graduate
Programme. The Institution's World Wide Web pages are rated as
an important source of information by most students, and are effective
in leading potential students to make enquiries about postgraduate
studies in the Institution.
Recommendation 1. An
illustrated brochure of a few pages in length, describing the
facilities and research in the Department, should be produced.
This would be of a general nature and
have a large print run. It would be supplemented by more detailed
listings of topics, which change from year to year. Applicants
would be able to see what is on offer more clearly if the research
degrees (e.g. MPhil and PhD) were to have a common structure for
the first year.
Recommendation 2.
The Institution should include a graduate prospectus on its web
pages, and maintain a web page with an up to date list of studentships,
references to other sources of financial support, and research
contracts currently seeking research students. The
address of this page should be listed in the graduate studies
prospectus and a printout of the current page might be included
in information packs sent out in response to enquiries.
Recommendation
3. The various schemes by which the Institution
may be able to increase the financial value of research studentships
should be detailed.
Recommendation 4. Institutions should consider initiating 'Open Days'. As a means of attracting applications from good students from other institutions, letters could be sent to Department Heads at selected universities inviting interested undergraduate students to visit the research groups for the day. Current research would be presented to the undergraduates through a programme of laboratory visits, talks and demonstrations.
The aim of postgraduate Research Degrees is to produce
high quality, innovative, independent researchers. We believe
that advanced taught courses, carefully selected, are one of the
most effective ways for students to acquire the appropriate background
knowledge required of successful professional researchers.
In the proposals that follow, the target time for
completion of the PhD is 3 years including the MPhil year. Submitting
research for the MPhil year does not disqualify the same material,
suitably enhanced, from being submitted for the PhD. We believe
that the structured first year that is proposed, including taught
modules, will get the students off to a good start. It will also
provide additional information, which will help to identify weaker
students who should not continue on to the PhD. To avoid the possibility
of students 'drifting' in their second year, we recommend the
introduction of a formal check on their progress at the end of
their second year, together with a clear statement to the student
that they are expected to have produced at least one paper by
that stage.
Recommendation
5. Most students undertaking a MPhil by research or the first
year of a PhD course should take two 16-lecture modules.
The modules would each involve 16 lectures aimed at enhancing
the students' training in research. The modules would be set
at a level appropriate for first-class graduates, and would be
assessed either by an examination or entirely by coursework.
Recommendation
6. Students should be required to participate in a 'reading club'.
By a reading club we mean a group of
students who meet for 16 hours, e.g. a weekly two-hour session
for 1 term, and work through a book or a collection of papers.
Each student would be expected to prepare material and work through
examples in advance of the class. They should be prepared to
present and discuss the material during the class. A member of
staff would be present but, in general, the preparation and presentation
of the material would be done by the students.
Recommendation
7. The Institution should set up a Graduate Teaching Committee.
This Committee would annually approve
a list of lecture modules and 'reading clubs' and, where appropriate,
would grant students exemption from all or part of the taught
courses.
Recommendation
8. In addition to their Supervisor, each student should be allocated
an Adviser. The Adviser would be expected
to take an interest in the student and the project and would,
from time to time, formally review the student's progress.
Recommendation
9. After eight months has elapsed, the Supervisor and Adviser
should meet with the student to review the student's progress.
Where the student has been taking taught
courses, the review would be based on the examination results
and the student's progress with the MPhil thesis. A student who
has obtained exemption from the taught material would be expected
to provide written evidence of his or her research progress, perhaps
in the form of a draft MPhil thesis. There would be a formal
report of the assessment. Students who had performed poorly in
the examination papers (where appropriate) and/or who had made
unsatisfactory progress in their research would be warned in writing
that they were in danger of not being allowed to continue for
the PhD degree.
Recommendation
10. All First Year students would write a 10,000 - 15,000 word
thesis to be submitted and examined at the end of the first year.
This recommendation would make the first
year of the PhD programme identical to the MPhil. We would expect
many candidates for the PhD to take the MPhil in their first year.
The principal Examiner would normally be the student's Adviser.
A further Examiner would be appointed to serve as the second
Examiner for all MPhil students in the same subject area of research.
The Examiners would hold an oral examination on the thesis, and
on this basis reach a recommendation on the award of the degree.
As a separate matter, the Examiners would consider, on the basis
of the thesis and any assessed coursework, whether to recommend
the candidate's continuation for the PhD degree. To simplify
the examination procedure, the oral would consist of oral presentations
by the students, followed by questions from the Examiners. The
examiners should be required to prepare independent reports.
Recommendation
11. A progress assessment should be
made towards the end of the second year of research. This
would involve the Supervisor and Adviser holding a formal meeting
with the student to assess progress and to agree a programme leading
to the submission of the PhD dissertation not later than the end
of the third year. Some students will have written a journal
or conference paper in time for consideration at the second year
assessment meeting. Where a student's project was so structured
that publishable results could not be expected until the third
year, the student would be expected to submit two or more chapters
of the PhD dissertation for consideration at the meeting. The
programme for completion for the PhD dissertation (after amendment
if necessary) would be signed by the Supervisor, Adviser and Student
and each would retain a copy. Copies would also be sent to appropriate
Officers.
Recommendation
12. Students who, in the opinion of the Supervisor, were unlikely
to submit by the end of their third year should be interviewed
by the Supervisor and Adviser. At this
meeting, a realistic submission date would be set, or other appropriate
action taken. A report of the meeting would be sent to the Head
of Department.
Recommendation
13. The Institution should appoint two Examiners, one of whom
should be external to the University, and should be a world authority
in the field covered by the research. The
supervisor should not also be an Examiner. The appointment of
an Examiner external to the institution confers additional credibility
upon the examining procedure, and may also contribute to raising
the profile of the Institution elsewhere. The Examiners should
report independently on the dissertation before the date of the
oral examination. Each independent report should provide sufficient
technical information about the content of the dissertation that
the Faculty Board can, with guidance from the reports, make their
own assessment of the work. Each report should conclude with
a definite recommendation which should be one of the following:-
(i) that the candidate be approved for the degree
of PhD. If an Examiner is satisfied that a candidate has in general
reached the standard required for the degree to be awarded, but
may nevertheless be of the opinion that the dissertation requires
minor amendments and corrections not so substantial as to call
for submission of a revised dissertation (see below), the Examiner
may recommend that the candidate be approved for award of the
degree subject to the candidate correcting the dissertation.
(ii) that the candidate be not approved for the PhD
degree but be given the option of submitting a revised dissertation
or of being approved for a lesser degree.
(iii) that the candidate be not approved for any
degree but be allowed to submit a revised dissertation
Recommendation 14. After the Examiners have examined the candidate for the PhD degree, and assuming the work is approved for the degree, the candidate should make a 30 minute presentation of his work to a quorum of faculty members. The presentation should be made with the supervisor in attendance. The Graduate Teaching Committee should determine the constitution of the quorum and prescribe appropriate arrangements for the presentation.
Review of Postgraduate Education, May 1996, published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom.
The Cambridge Phenomenon, 1985, Segal Quince and Partners.
Cambridge University Strategic Plan: 1996-97 to 2000-01, Cambridge University Reporter, CXXVII No 40, 14th August 1997.
A guide to Graduate Study in Mechanical Engineering
at MIT
(WWW: http://www.mit.edu).
University of Cambridge Board of Graduate Studies, October 1995, Memorandum to Examiners for the PhD, MSc and MLitt Degrees.
Graduate Studies at the Department of Engineering,
University of Cambridge
(WWW: http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/research/studies.html).