1. A Few Thoughts on the Qualifying Exam
By Keith Gneshin and Mikhail Skliar

2. Format A paper is assigned ~7 days prior to exam
You need to write a written critique of the paper (play a role of the reviewer)
Prepare and deliver min oral presentation (play a role of a conference presenter; include review and critique as appropriate)
Answer questions (not always related to the paper) for min.
Repeat 2 times

3. When do I pass?
You passed the QE outright if ¾ or more votes are in favor of passing
If the vote is between 50 and 75% to pass, the case goes to the Graduate Committee for the decision. Decision may be conditional.
If less than 50% voted to pass, the exam is failed.
Can repeat one time.
If failed both time, you should switch to MS degree or leave the program.

4. When to take the test
As soon as possible after passing Preliminary Examination.
Usually offered at least twice a year (Spring/Summer and Winter).
Limit is ~6-7 students per test. There may be a waiting list.

5. This semester… Attend distinguished lectures!
Real all assigned papers and attend all students’ presentations!
Ask tough questions.
Prepare your own presentation
One/Two presentations per period.

6. What is a critique? Critique ≠ Attack
Your goal is to analyze the paper and assess its potential impact on the field of study

7. The Paper It will look like every other paper you’ve read
It may or may not be though-provoking or controversial; it will not be bad

8. The Process: 1st Impression
What journal?
Read the article through 10 times - seriously
Use the initial readings to brush up on some of the basic concepts/terminology being used

9. The Process: Skeleton Critique
Don’t worry about having a well-developed opinion just yet
Map out the basics
Motivation for the work
Methodology used
Researcher’s conclusions

10. The Process: Hard Work Two Prongs Literature Review Background Study
Find as many of the cited articles as possible
Find any articles that cite your article if applicable
Background Study
Create a comprehensive list of word or phrase you can think of and work through it piece by piece
Know the theory, know the relevant equations, know the way cited instruments function and their error, etc.

11. The Process: The Critique
Answer the following:
What was their approach to the problem investigated and was it appropriate?
What conclusions were reached based upon the data presented and were they appropriate?
What are the limits of the conclusions drawn?
What do you foresee as the potential impact of this work?

12. The Presentation
Heretofore, most all of your presentations have been to a professor or two and a roomful of peers; no longer the case
It’s intimidating; accept it and move on

13. The Presentation Be as basic as possible No flashy PowerPoint motifs
No animations, unless they are substantive
Write slides like an outline to guide you

14. The Presentation
Slide 1: Paper title, authors and institutions, motivation, methodology
Slides 2 - x: Theory and/or data as appropriate
Slides x - x+n: Analysis of data and comparison to theory
Last slide: your critique

15. A Few Tips Go light on text; focus on figures, pictures, equations
Nothing superfluous; guide them through everything on each slide
Be concise; save some for the Q&A - the more questions you get on material you presented, the less you’ll get from out of left field

16. The Q&A
Good luck!