Files
obsidian-yanxin/documents/academic/phd_defense/defense_evaluation_guidelines.md
2026-04-05 17:46:47 -07:00

2.4 KiB

type, category, person, date, source
type category person date source
form academic Yanxin Lu 2018 defense_evaluation_guidelines.pdf

Department of Computer Science

Rice University

Guidelines for Evaluating Ph.D. Thesis and Defense

Problem statement

  • Excellent: Compelling problem statement that demonstrates the challenge and utility of the work, as well as theoretical or practical applications
  • Satisfactory: Problem is clearly stated; a case is made for utility, application
  • Unsatisfactory: Problem is not clearly stated; little context or justification

Impact of work

  • Excellent: Groundbreaking work or a novel problem; a thesis that will change the literature
  • Satisfactory: Solves an important or novel problem; quality of work merits publication in important venues
  • Unsatisfactory: Obvious extension to the existing literature

Technique

  • Excellent: Develops new approach to solution or applies techniques that are novel to the area
  • Satisfactory: Uses established techniques to solve novel problems
  • Unsatisfactory: Uses techniques incorrectly or inappropriately

Content of results

  • Excellent: Computer Science content is substantial and correct
  • Satisfactory: Content has acceptable depth and breadth & requires only minor corrections
  • Unsatisfactory: Content is shallow and/or contains significant errors

Thesis text

  • Excellent: Well organized text, fluent prose, and few grammatical errors
  • Satisfactory: Acceptable organization & text, limited grammatical errors
  • Unsatisfactory: Poor organization, difficult prose, or numerous grammatical errors

Oral Presentation

  • Excellent: Engaging, polished presentation with well crafted visual aides that illustrate key results; includes a substantial conclusion
  • Satisfactory: Professional presentation on a par with a solid conference talk; includes a coherent project narrative and conclusion
  • Unsatisfactory: Too much or too little detail; unclear about project goals and direction; incoherent slides; candidate reads from slides

Replies to questions

  • Excellent: Complete answers that demonstrate a deep understanding of the discipline that extends beyond the thesis
  • Satisfactory: Competent answers that illustrate a facility with the issues and techniques immediately relevant to the thesis
  • Unsatisfactory: Answers reveal a limited comprehension of the work and its context