Exam FAQ

Current Students: Comprehensive Written Qualifying Examinations FAQ

This document is intended as a companion to the page outlining the Exams timeline and policies. Here, you’ll find answers to frequently asked questions about the exams process. If you have a related question that is not answered here, please contact the Director of Graduate Studies.

General

What is the relationship among the three written parts of the exam?

Part 1 The written exams ask you to review coursework and those works on the Major Exam reading list. You will be preparing a submission-ready journal article or book chapter for Part 2, and an annotated bibliography for Part 3. Although there may be overlap among these three parts, such connections are not required.

Should the three parts be completed in order?

Not necessarily. All students will take Part 1 at the same time in late July/early August, but you can proceed through the exam and bibliography in any order. The oral exam necessarily comes last. And of course, all of your exam components including the oral defense will ideally be complete by the end of the fall semester of your third year. At the latest, they must be completed by May 15 of your third year.

How do I choose an Exam Committee Chair?

Your chair should be a current CCR faculty member who works in the scholarly area that you see your exams and/or dissertation focusing on. Ideally, they’ll also be someone you can build rapport with.

When should I select my Exam Committee?

Ideally, you’ll begin discussions with your exams chair in the spring of your second year, but your committee should be set no later than the first few weeks of fall semester of your third year. You’ll work with your chair to invite a reader and one member of the MEC to serve on your exam committee for the purpose of the Oral Exam. There may be reasons (CFP deadlines, e.g.) to choose members earlier; this should be done no earlier than spring semester of the second year. Choosing the committee should be done in consultation with the Director of Graduate Studies.

Part 1 (Major Exam)

Who serves on the Major Exam Committee?

The Major Exam Committee (MEC) is composed of the Director of Graduate Studies and those faculty who have taught core courses during the previous two years. The MEC is responsible for writing the Major Exam questions, reading and assessing all of the Major Exams. One member of the MEC will serve on your committee for the purpose of the Oral Exam.

When are the questions available?

The MEC meets at the end of each spring semester in order to draft that year's Exam questions, but the questions themselves are not provided to students until the Exam itself in late July or August. For each of the two exams, students will be given a set of two questions, from which they will choose one to research and answer during the week for that exam.

Do the questions require outside research?

The questions themselves will emerge from issues dealt with in the core courses, but will also require students to draw on works from the shared reading list other than those taught in a particular course. Research beyond the reading list is not expected, nor should it be necessary in order to produce a successful exam.

How is the Exam period scheduled?

The Director of Graduate Studies will consult with the Department of Writing Studies, Rhetoric, & Composition to ensure that the two week Exam period can be completed prior to any campus or departmental orientation activities in August.

Is it possible to do practice exams and/or get feedback prior to the Major Exams?

When they draft the Exam questions, the MEC will also draft 1-2 practice questions. Interested students can practice the exam process; however, in order to provide adequate time for reading and responding to them, practice questions must be completed no later than the end of June. Prior summer commitments may prevent the full MEC from reading and responding, but available committee members will provide students with written and/or oral feedback.

What is the central purpose of the Core Reading List?

The Core Reading List is designed to provide an introduction to the broad spectrum of research occurring within the field of Composition and Rhetoric. The CCR program believes that by thoroughly engaging with the list, students will gain familiarity with central issues in the field as well as how their work relates to other that of other scholars. That is, the list provides a thumbnail ecology of the discipline. When reading the works, the goal is not only to understand the specific texts, but also to begin to develop an understanding of how those texts are part of a broad disciplinary conversation.

In what other contexts might this Reading List and the practices it encourages prove  useful?

We are all necessarily generalists and this list also acts as an enactment of this fact. As you move toward a dissertation and a professional career, you will endlessly be required to position your own unique interests in broader disciplinary terms. You will also be asked to work with students who will need you to provide guidance on how their specific projects relate to “composition and rhetoric” as a whole. Therefore, beyond any exam requirements, you expect to consistently read scholarship across the discipline, to stay in touch with issues being discussed in multiple journals, and to continue to fill in your sense of the field. Not only will such continued study ensure that your dissertation deeply engages with relevant issues in the field, it will also ensure that in the future you will be an effective mentor to students and a productive colleague within your department.

How does the Core Reading list relate to graduate classes?

Given the centrality of many of the texts on the Core Reading list, there will necessarily be some overlap between the list and assigned course readings. The CCR Office also works with faculty teaching core courses to see where Core Reading texts can organically be integrated into these courses as well as to ensure there is not significant overlap among courses. Even with this support through coursework, however, the expectation is that students will read the list as part of their own professional development work. Ultimately, it will be your responsibility to gain an understanding of the Core Reading list.

When should I start reading the Core Reading list?

Students should consider beginning their study of the Core Reading list during their first year in the program. A cohort study group is a good way to accomplish this. Since the goal of the list is to provide a skeletal framework to understand the field, beginning the list will initiate the process of developing a deep understanding of the discipline from the beginning of your coursework. That is, you want to immerse yourself in the broadest conversations of the field from the beginning of your education.

Ideally, students will complete the Core Reading list prior to the end of their second semester. This would leave the summer after their second semester to review the texts prior to the exam. This will also allow students to spend significant time developing a networked understanding of the materials they have encountered throughout their graduate career to date. This ecological understanding of the field will ensure the best responses to the exam and the strongest framework in which to develop a dissertation project.

How should I begin to approach the reading list?

To a great extent, students will most likely approach the Core Reading List based upon their previous knowledge of the field. They might also seek advice from faculty on how to proceed. As an overarching strategy, however, it might make sense to read the list in a broadly defined chronological order. This will allow you to trace the influence of certain authors, ideas, and trends within the field. This understanding will also create a framework that allows you to place your non-core list reading into a relationship with the list. As you read, you will no doubt see the failings of a strictly chronological reading strategy. Still, as an opening moment, it can be useful.

What are the features of a strong exam answer?

The CCR Office will keep outstanding student exam answers on file. You may read them at any time during your preparation for exams. You may also make an appointment with the DGS  to talk about how specific features of those exams represented a successful answer.

As a general rule, however, it is useful to think of strong exam answers as demonstrating how different texts relate to each other. And having developed this nuanced perspective, a strong exam answer will also offer a statement on where you imagine your own commitments as a future scholar. A response that links three process pedagogy answers would not be as strong as a response that establishes a relationship between classical rhetoric, process pedagogy, and assessment. The former shows a ^{relationship within a subfield of the discipline, the latter is a set of relationships between three different sub}_‐fields.

When crafting your answer, then, consider that the MEC is looking for how you understand the “field,” not a specific element of it.

To what extent should I critique areas of the field?

In staking out your own position in the field, the goal is not to announce a strict allegiance to a particular area through critiquing other areas of the field. Rather, you are being asked to align yourself with a set of theoretical stances/questions in which you find an affinity. For instance, you might suggest that issues of assessment, as taken up by a range of scholars, pose questions you would like to consider in the future. This does not mean you need to critique other elements of the field that do not address these questions.

Part 2 (Submission-ready Journal Article or Book Chapter)

Should Parts 2 & 3 be on the same topic?

There may be advantages to doing so, but this is not necessary. Part 3 (see below) is well suited to preliminary research on a dissertation topic, but there are scenarios where it may make sense to write your essay/chapter/article on a different topic. For example, the opportunity to revise a seminar paper for a particular CFP may present itself, or you may be interested in establishing a secondary area of interest through publication.

What if there are no CFPs that interest me?

The primary advantage of topic-specific CFPs, obviously, is a built-in audience/interest for your work. But there is nothing wrong with submitting directly to a journal. In either case, you are responsible for understanding the submission guidelines as well as the particular interests, focus, and tone of the journal (or press in the case of an edited collection).

When should I start working on Part 2?

We assume that you will be working formally on Parts 2 & 3 during the fall of your third year, but informal work may begin on it towards the end of your second year. You are not "behind" if you wait until after the Major Exam, however. CFP deadlines may make waiting until then problematic.

Do I have to submit the article/chapter to receive credit for Part 2?

No. Part 2 should be deemed "submission-ready" by your Exam Committee, but the responsibility for actual submission is yours. If deadlines require you to submit it for publication prior to the completion of the Exam process, this should be done only in explicit consultation with your Committee.

How often should I meet with my Exam Chair during Part 2?

This is something that you'll want to work out explicitly with your Chair. We recommend that you stay in regular contact (meetings every 1-2 weeks). Additionally, the Director of Graduate Studies will schedule at least one conference with both you and your Chair during the fall semester to check on your progress.

May I compose a completely new essay for this part?

We strongly recommend that you use prior work (seminar paper, conference presentation, e.g.) for Part 2, and revise it for publication. At the very least, you should have done significant reading and/or research already in an area if you plan on drafting a new essay. You should consult with your Exam Chair and the Director of Graduate Studies before embarking on this particular path.

Part 3 (Annotated Bibliography)

How does Part 3 segue into the dissertation?

Your annotated bibliography should provide you with the raw materials for much of the contextualization necessary for the dissertation, in a literature review chapter, for example. Your introductory essay might provide the basic outline for such a chapter.

What if Part 3's topic differs from Part 2's? How does that affect my committee?

If you are working primarily with your Exam Chair on Part 2, but are working in a different area for your dissertation, it makes sense to select a Reader for your Committee who can provide you with specific assistance on your Annotated Bibliography.

How Should I Gauge My Progress Through the Exams Process?

The Core Reading List Exam occurs between the summer of the second and third year, typically in August. To this point, every student will be moving at approximately the same pace. As students move through qualifying exams, however, individuals will begin to take on their own unique trajectory through the program. One student might pass the Core Reading list the first time it is offered; another student might need an additional period to study and retake the exam. Several students might pass the final two stages of the exam, Annotated Bibliography and Article, in December or February; other students might not complete the entire process until March. Rather than understand this process as a “horse race”—first one done wins—it is better to remember that the goal of CCR is to ensure every student graduates with an outstanding dissertation and professional profile. This may mean that some students spend more time at one stage then another. In fact, this is exactly what will happen. Our goal is not to push students through, but to create a pedagogical environment which ensures the possibility of success. This is the reason for consistent review and evaluation of student work. This is also the reason that you will no doubt be asked to repeat or revise work at key moments in the process. So rather than focus on the progress others are making, it is important to make sure at each moment in your journey through the program that you are doing the dedicated and hard labor of producing excellent work that is aligned with your own scholarly ethics.