Qualifying for doctoral candidacy is a multi-faceted process. Required core area courses are an integral part of the qualifying process, as is the other coursework you have completed, your annual student review, and any requirements your area of specialization may have.

On this page:

Required Coursework

Beginning Fall 2023, registration in two semesters of EDP 395R Qualifying Process Research before the end of the semester in which students go through the qualifying process will now vary depending on which program you are in. Doctoral students should check with their advisor to see what their particular program requires. Some programs may still require 6 hours of EDP 395R, while others may require only 3 hours, or none. Summer registration in EDP 395R is contingent on approval of the qualifying process adviser and the adviser’s ability to supervise the student’s work during the summer.

Students must have successfully completed at least 5 of the 6 required foundation courses during the semester prior to the semester in which they go through the qualifying process. With supervisor permission, the 6th foundation course may be completed during the same semester the student is going through the qualifying process. Careful planning is required to get these courses completed on time, and it is recommended these courses be taken as soon as possible (summer offerings are not guaranteed).

Once the date for turning in the qualifying document has been officially determined, it cannot be moved to a subsequent semester. If the deadline is not met, this usually constitutes a failure in the process. For this reason, students sometimes officially choose to turn in the qualifying document one semester later than the one in which they actually hope to turn it in - just in case a courseload causes a problem in completion of the core area courses, etc. If no problem arises (and if all other requirements will be met on time) the student can, with approval of the qualifying process adviser, turn in the document a semester early. To do so, the adviser must email approval to the Graduate Coordinator with enough advance notice for the student to be sent the new deadline information and to be able to meet the deadlines.

In accordance with the Department’s timeline, faculty will meet to determine the two remaining committee members. Usually, one member will be from the student’s area and the other member will be from another area. Such decisions will be made based on the student's qualifying document topic summary, and members will be assigned based on their expertise with respect to the student’s topic and faculty workload considerations. You should send your up-to-date Program of Work to your committee members so they know which courses you have completed and with what level of competency.

Purpose of the Qualifying Process

The purpose of the qualifying process and the examination is to allow students to demonstrate readiness to advance to candidacy. The examination is one part of a comprehensive evaluation. Readiness to advance to candidacy involves that the student demonstrates the following:

base of knowledge relating to a specific field,
ability to integrate prior literature and synthesize it to generate new ideas,
can design a study based on their research question, using methods appropriate to the research question,
understands how to conduct analyses, aligned with their research question and their method,
situates their study back into the broader literature, showing sufficient understanding of the implications as well as the limitations,
can draw upon prior knowledge to reason through questions, even where there is no clear answer.

Note: For the qualifying document, there are no automatically unacceptable methodologies. It is the QP advisor’s responsibility to ensure that the research design and analytic method is appropriate to their field, but it is the student’s responsibility to convey the appropriateness in the document. Students are not required to know analytical methods from courses they have not yet taken, but are expected to adequately describe or explain any methods that they include in their document.

Timing of the Qualifying Process

In line with the department requirements for the qualifying process, students will produce a qualifying document (and have an oral exam and a written exam, if they opted for the Legacy QP) and be evaluated no later than their 7th semester.

(On very rare occasions and due to extreme circumstances, a petition for an extension of any part of the QP process may be granted if it is approved by the GSC Executive Committee with the support of the area of specialization and the Graduate Adviser.)

Students must have completed the qualifying process in time to be evaluated at the regularly scheduled fall or spring GSC meetings.

Once the date for turning in the qualifying document has been officially determined, it cannot be moved to a subsequent semester. For this reason, students sometimes officially choose to turn in the qualifying document one semester later than the one in which they actually hope to turn it in - just in case a courseload causes a problem in completion of the core area courses, etc. If no problem arises (and if all other requirements will be met on time) the student can, with approval of the qualifying process adviser, turn in the document a semester early. To do so, the adviser must email approval to the Graduate Coordinator with enough advance notice for the student to be sent the new deadline information and to be able to meet the deadlines.

The schedule for submission of the qualifying document through oral examination:

Title & Summaries Due Date: First class day in January of the spring semester and first class day in August for the fall semester. The summary is a 115-word (including data analytic method) statement about what your document will be about, just enough to give committee members a good idea of what you’re doing.

Qualifying Document Due Date: Monday of the fourth full week of the semester in which the qualifying document is due.

Qualifying Written Examination (Legacy QP only):

Qualifying Oral Examination (QM or Legacy QP only): To be held by Wednesday of the eighth full week of the semester.

Evaluation Committee Report and Recommendation: To be delivered by the qualifying process adviser to the Graduate Adviser's office immediately following the oral examination (if Legacy version) or after the committee has reviewed the document. The student will be informed of the recommendation after the oral exam, but it is not final until the GSC vote.

GSC Vote: The Report and Recommendation of the evaluation committee is presented and acted on by the GSC on Friday of the eighth full week of the semester.

QP Advisor

Students should contact the Program Director or Area Chair no later than their 4th semester to discuss the selection of their qualifying process adviser, as the Areas/Programs have slightly varying processes.

In exceptional cases, it is permissible for students to seek advisers outside of their areas of specialization. The process for obtaining approval for this would begin with the student’s faculty adviser. The adviser must always be an EDP GSC faculty member. Each student will have an officially assigned qualifying process adviser (chosen in accordance with the process developed by the student’s area of specialization) and turn-in date.

Advisement Guidelines

Students who are beginning the qualifying process are required to work with their qualifying adviser to complete the Qualifying Process Student/Faculty Adviser Agreement. After completion, the student is to upload a copy of the signed Agreement to his/her UTBox Program of Work folder.

During the two semesters of 395R: Qualifying Process Research registration, the qualifying process adviser is responsible for assisting the student with the basic tasks involved in preparing the document. The adviser will guide the student by providing general information and criticism. This advising may include guidance and feedback on selecting a suitable topic, sampling the pertinent literature, analyzing issues and problems, and developing an appropriate research study derived from this knowledge base. For those students taking the New QP, the adviser will also provide guidance and feedback in the implementation and analysis of the research study.

The help provided should not be particularly specific and detailed; the document should be the student’s own product. The adviser should not evaluate the specifics of the student’s product but rather guide the student to attempt the full range of conceptualization and analyses called for in the document.

Students needing assistance with research design and quantitative methods should read appropriate texts and seek free consultation from the Department of Statistics and Data Sciences (SDS). UT Austin graduate students are eligible to sign up for a free 30-minute consultation with a SDS faculty member for assistance with experimental design, survey design, model design, or data analysis. An additional follow-up appointment may be arranged depending on appointment availability.

Qualifying process advisers agree to be available, in the final two weeks before the document is due, to read and give final feedback if the student requests it. Students who have made little or no effort to seek adviser consultation in the two semesters of 395R may not expect more time than one hour per week during the two weeks before the document is due.

Advisers may conduct a final meeting with the student (shortly before or after the document is turned in) to discuss the logistics and procedures of the two exams. Students may not consult with any EDP faculty regarding the qualifying document after it is turned in.

Components of the Qualifying Examination

Legacy vs. New QP

Students who matriculated into the PhD program before Fall 2021 can choose between two options:

Legacy Qualifying Process: The Legacy QP examination is composed of three parts: qualifying document, written examination, oral examination.
New Qualifying Process: For CP, HDCLS, and SP students, the New QP examination is composed of the qualifying document and a non-evaluative oral presentation. For QM students, the New QP examination will also include an oral examination (see program-specific QM requirements).

Students who matriculated into the PhD program in Fall 2021 or after must take the new qualifying process.

Qualifying Document

The written product that students submit can vary, depending on the area/program. In all cases, the document must be the student’s own work to the degree that it would deserve first or sole authorship, and must be prepared under the supervision of a UT-Austin EDP faculty member. First authorship is based on “work to which individuals have substantially contributed” (APA Ethics Code Standard 8.12a, Publication Credit). Substantial contributions may include, “formulating the problem or hypothesis, structuring the experimental design, organizing and conducting the statistical analysis, interpreting the results, or writing a major portion of the paper.” (Publication Manual of the APA, 6th Edition, p. 18).

Developing the qualifying document encompasses a process and a product. That is, it involves the acquisition of knowledge and skills as well as the reporting of them. Acceptability, therefore, is a matter of whether the student has gained a sufficient degree of mastery of the subject and whether the reporting of the results of these intellectual activities is adequately done. Along with a copy of the document, each member of the qualifying process evaluation committee receives an evaluation data sheet upon which he/she will independently rate the acceptability of the document.

The qualifying document should be written as a research article and should follow the most up-to-date version of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. The Qualifying Document (excluding references, tables, and figures) has a maximum of 50 pages.

Legacy version of the Qualifying Document: The document should include an integrative analysis and interpretation (i.e., an extended introduction and literature review that serves as a review and evaluation of theoretical, empirical, and methodological developments) and proposed research study (including proposed methods, appropriate analytic procedures, anticipated results, and implications).

New version of the Qualifying Document: The document should comprise a full research paper (introduction, method, results, and discussion).

The qualifying document is the student’s product and responsibility. QP advisers conduct a final meeting with the student, before (or soon after) the QP document is turned in, to discuss the logistics and procedures of the examination process.

Written Examination (Legacy QP only)

Note: students may reference their QP document for both the written and oral Qualifying Process examinations.

After the qualifying document is turned in, faculty are not to advise the student about the document or possible questions that may be asked on exams. However, the adviser should have one meeting with the student about the general exam process.

The focus and purpose of the written examination is to obtain evidence that the student has gained a thorough knowledge of the topic, along with powers of critical analysis in interpretation of that knowledge, and skills of investigation or experimentation. You may be asked about any topic that you should have learned in one of the courses you have taken that a committee member is somehow reminded of by reading your qualifying document, even if you did not write about it directly.

Examiners. The student's three-member committee serves as the qualifying process evaluators for each student, with the student’s qualifying process adviser as one of these members and serving as chair.
Format. The written examination will consist of six essay questions, two submitted by each committee member. The student is to answer three questions, one from each examiner, to be weighted equally. Each question is labeled with the name of the submitting faculty person. All three members of the committee evaluate the entire exam.
Note: School and Counseling Psychology doctoral students will have a choice between two questions regarding methodological issues, two questions about the substance of their document, and two questions that demonstrate their ability to integrate two or more core areas of educational psychology (affective, biological, cognitive, social, developmental).
Administration. On the morning of the written exam, EDP’s graduate coordinator will email each student a copy of their exam questions. Students will have three hours to answer the questions.
Evaluation. Each member of the student’s evaluation committee independently evaluates the student’s entire written examination.

Oral Examination (QM or Legacy QP only)

After the qualifying document is turned in, faculty are not to advise the student about the document or possible questions that may be asked on exams. However, the adviser should have one meeting with the student about the general exam process.

The qualifying oral examination will pursue the designated topic and research study, your answers on the written examination (if applicable), and any other matters relevant to determining your readiness for admission to candidacy. You may be asked about any topic that you should have learned in one of the courses you have taken that a committee member is somehow reminded of by reading your qualifying document, even if you did not write about it directly.

Timing: The oral examination must be taken as soon as possible after the committee has evaluated the written examination, but no later than Wednesday of the eighth full week of the semester. It is scheduled by the qualifying process adviser, and must be administered before the GSC convene.
Administration: The members of the qualifying evaluation committee also serve as examiners for the oral examination. It is the qualifying process adviser’s responsibility to schedule the oral exam. Students are allowed to have a copy of the written exam, the qualifying document, and brief notes during the oral exam (other materials may be allowed by the qualifying process adviser).
Evaluation: When the oral exam is concluded, the student is excused and each committee member makes a rating of the exam, using the evaluation form provided for this purpose.

The qualifying process adviser will inform the student of the committee recommendation to be made to the GSC. No final determination is made about the student’s status until the GSC meeting.

Note: Students are strongly encouraged to discuss with their qualifying advisers the procedures for the oral exam. Lengthy or formal presentations are strongly discouraged.

The process for the qualifying oral exam:

Everyone arrives.
Student leaves room during preliminary committee discussion.
Committee reviews the information from the student’s academic record (if needed) and existing scores from all committee members.
Committee discusses any problem areas, etc.
Student returns to the room and completes the oral exam.
Student leaves after exam.
Committee members rate the student separately, share ratings, and arrive at a group recommendation, considering all qualifying process ratings and other relevant matters.
Student is advised of the committee’s recommendation to the GSC.

For QM students taking the New QP, please see the program-specific requirements for the oral exam.

Oral Presentations (New QP Only)

All students going through the New QP version must also present their QP research in a program-wide or department-wide forum. This presentation will be non-evaluative, but should be prepared and appropriate as a professional presentation. This presentation does not need to occur before the GSC vote.

Evaluation

Committee Evaluation Documents

The qualifying process committee members use Rubrics and the Qualifying Process Ratings Report to evaluate students’ documents and examinations.

Evaluation for Advancement to Candidacy

The qualifying process adviser serves as chair and coordinator of the qualifying process committee. Each committee member reviews coursework the student has completed.

After evaluating all necessary evidence and discussing the case, the committee votes on the recommendation to the GSC regarding the student’s suitability for advancement to candidacy. The recommendation of the evaluation committee is by majority vote. If the vote is not unanimous, the evaluation committee will report the contrasting recommendations, and the reasons for them, to the GSC.

The four options available to the student’s evaluation committee and to the GSC members in making a final decision about the student are as follows:

Continuation in the doctoral program with the recommendation for admission to candidacy when the required 6 core area courses have been satisfactorily completed (check with your area of specialization regarding any other pre-candidacy requirements).
Continuation in the doctoral program with the recommendation for admission to doctoral candidacy only after certain specified conditions made by the committee have been met within a specified amount of time - usually one or two long semesters. The required 6 core area courses must also have been satisfactorily completed as well as any other area-specific pre-candidacy requirements.
Termination, with permission to take a terminal master’s degree: These students may register only for courses counted toward the master’s degree.
Termination: These students may not register for future semesters.

Evaluation committees’ recommendations are presented to the GSC for discussion and voting. The GSC members take into consideration the committee's recommendation as well as the student's academic record in making a final decision. Final decisions are made by majority vote of the GSC for each student. It is the responsibility of the student’s qualifying process adviser to convey this decision to the student at the earliest opportunity. Notification will also be sent directly to the student regarding the GSC’s decision.

Effects of Area/Program Probation on Qualifying Process

Program-Specific Processes

Counseling Psychology Qualifying Process

General

Qualifying process completion enables students to 1) file for doctoral candidacy, and 2) begin to make arrangements for the dissertation proposal meeting, which thereby affects eligibility for internship. Counseling Psychology students are encouraged to plan ahead and to consult with their advisers in deciding the timing to the qualifying process. For example, a student who submits and passes the qualifying process and the necessary coursework during the 6th semester (spring of the 3rd year) will advance to candidacy that summer, or the following academic session/semester. When planning, bear in mind that most faculty are on 9-month appointments. Faculty on 9-month appointments are not obligated to review materials over summer. Therefore, a tight timeline leaves little time to have a dissertation proposal meeting occur before October 1st of that year, which is a program requirement for applying to internship.

Assignment of Adviser

Students should contact their faculty adviser no later than their 4th semester to begin the process. The CP program expects that a student’s program adviser will also be the student's qualifying process adviser. If for any reason a student wants a different qualifying process adviser, they should begin by notifying their program adviser. Students will then need to petition the CP faculty to be allowed a different adviser, whether this is another CP faculty member or a faculty member outside the program. Prior to petitioning the CP faculty, the student should have contacted the potential adviser and solicited their agreement to chair the qualifying process pending CP faculty approval.

Document

The qualifying document details the completion of a research project. The study should represent a contribution to the literature and be well-designed. There are no specific requirements for analytic method, etc., but the QP document must be a contribution to whatever area of work in which it is based.

The student must submit for examination a document comparable to a scholarly work in the field. The options are:

A document that includes an integrative review of the literature and a proposal for a study that addresses an important issue arising from the review of literature; or
An article describing a research study on which the student is the first author and which is written under the supervision of a UT-Austin Educational Psychology faculty member.

Regardless of the option chosen, the manuscript is expected to be of sufficient quality to be able to be submitted to a respectable journal. Please note that students should not see completion of option 1 (the review) as the “easier” option. In most cases, a publishable review will be more difficult and time-consuming than an original research project.

Process for Students not Passing on Their First Try

Students who are not on probation will be given another opportunity to go through the qualifying process (either one semester or one year later). For students on probation, the default decision following a non-pass of the QP will be termination from the program. The student may submit a written summary to the CP faculty if the student wishes to have another attempt at the QP before termination. This summary is to be submitted prior to the GSC meeting following the QP decision, and will be reviewed by faculty. Termination may include an option to earn a Master's degree, or no option to earn a Master's degree, and this decision will also be made by the GSC.

HDCLS Qualifying Process

Assignment of Adviser

No later than their 4th semester, students must contact the faculty member they want as their adviser. If that person agrees, the student must then report the choice to the HDCLS Chair by completing and turning in the "Verification of Selection of Qualifying Process Adviser" form (signed by the student and the proposed adviser). The qualifying process adviser will be approved by HDCLS faculty. Choosing an outside area/program qualifying process adviser is an option with the approval of the HDCLS Chair and the intended outside area/program adviser.

Document

The student must submit for examination a high quality document that demonstrates that the student is prepared to advance to candidacy (see Purpose).

The document can take one of two forms:

Legacy QP version, consisting of an integrative review of the literature to serve as rationale for a study and a detailed description of how one would undertake the study (note that quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, and meta-analysis are all possible methodologies for the proposed study).
New QP version, a completed study that adds to the integrative review of the literature and description of study methods an actual report of findings and final discussion.

QM Qualifying Process

Assignment of Adviser

Students should discuss qualifying process adviser selection with the QM Chair as early as their 2nd semester and no later than the end of their 4th semester. The qualifying process adviser is to be assigned by QM faculty. QM qualifying process students will submit to the QM Chair a ranked list of their top three QM faculty member choices for qualifying process adviser by the last class day of the semester before they begin the qualifying process. QM faculty will meet every semester to assign qualifying process advisers. Decisions will be based on student’s ranked list of preferred advisers, match of faculty’s expertise with the student’s interests, and faculty advising workload. Adviser assignments will be given to students before the start of the semester in which they are beginning the qualifying process.

Document

The student must submit for examination a document comparable to a scholarly work in the field. The research proposed in a QM student’s qualifying document should contribute to an existing line of inquiry in the field of quantitative methods. Assessment of the document will include consideration of the feasibility of the proposed study.

Students will design and carry out a simulation study and develop the QP document to align approximately with standards for publication in an academic journal. Depending upon the complexity and computational demands of the simulation study, partial completion of the study is acceptable (i.e., most of the simulations should be completed at the time the document is submitted such that the main research questions can be discussed). The document should not be longer than 40 pages (double-spaced, 12pt font) in length (inclusive of Tables, Figures, References, Titles, and Abstract of 200-250 words).

Oral Exam

The purpose of the oral exam is to assess student’s ability to clearly articulate and describe their research study. The student must be able to defend their rationale for specific approaches.

Oral exam time and location will be scheduled by the QP advisor. The oral exam should take no longer than 1 ½ hours total, including committee discussion. For the oral exam, students will have to prepare a 12-minute presentation highlighting their QP simulation study, including introduction/literature review, method, results, and discussion sections.

At the beginning of the oral exam, students will be asked to step out while committee members discuss performance on the QD. Once the student returns to the meeting, they will present their 12-minute QP presentation. Committee members may ask questions during the presentation or after it is completed. Questions during the oral exam will be directly related to the QD, but they can also be related to relevant topics covered in the student’s coursework.

Once the oral exam is over, the student will be asked to step out again while committee members discuss performance during the oral exam and decide whether or not the student passed or failed the QP.

The QP advisor will then meet with the student to inform them of the committee’s decision. It is important to note that the committee’s decision is not confirmed until the GSC officially votes on the decision.

Rubric for Evaluating the Oral Exam:

presentation is organized
clearly presents elements from the QD
student responses are related to the questions asked
student responses are informative to the questions asked
student responses exhibit satisfactory knowledge in the subject area
clearly communicates rationale for specific approaches

School Psychology Qualifying Process

SP Students who matriculated (entered) into the PhD program before Fall 2021 can choose between two options:

Legacy Qualifying Process: The Legacy QP examination is composed of three parts: qualifying document, written examination, oral examination–see above for description.

New Qualifying Process: the New QP examination is composed of the qualifying document and a non-evaluative oral presentation.

SP Students who matriculated into the PhD program in Fall 2021 or after must take the new qualifying process.

Qualifying process completion enables SP students to 1) file for doctoral candidacy, and 2) begin to make arrangements for the dissertation proposal meeting, which thereby affects eligibility for pre-doctoral internship. School Psychology students are encouraged to plan ahead and to consult with their advisers in deciding the timing to the qualifying process. For example, a student who submits and passes the qualifying process and the necessary coursework during the 6th semester (spring of the 3rd year) will advance to candidacy that summer, or the following academic session/semester. When planning, bear in mind that most faculty are on 9-month appointments. Faculty on 9-month appointments are not obligated to review materials over summer. Therefore, a tight timeline leaves little time to have a dissertation proposal meeting occur before October 15th of that year, which is a program requirement for applying to internship.

Assignment of Adviser

In most cases, the QP advisor will be the SP student’s primary research mentor and program advisor. The qualifying process adviser will be formally designated by the School Psychology faculty by the end of the student’s third semester. An outside area/program committee qualifying process adviser is an option with the approval of the School Psychology faculty and the intended outside area/program adviser.

Document

The student must submit for examination a high quality document that demonstrates that the student is prepared to advance to candidacy (see Purpose).

The document can take one of two forms:

Legacy QP version, consisting of an integrative review of the literature to serve as rationale for a study and a detailed description of how one would undertake the study (note that quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, and meta-analysis are all possible methodologies for the proposed study)--this is an option only for students who matriculated before Fall 2021.
New QP version (required of all students who matriculated Fall of 2021 or after), a completed study written as a research article that follows the most up-to-date version of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. The Qualifying Document (excluding references, tables, and figures) has a maximum of 50 pages. The document should be prepared as though it will be submitted to a respectable journal within the scholarly area on which it focuses, but may not be an already published manuscript.

The study should represent a contribution to the literature and be well-designed. There are no specific requirements for analytic method, etc., but the QP document must be a contribution to whatever area of work in which it is based.