Research Requirements
Graduate Studies at the Department of Mechanical Engineering
Graduate students play a central role in the success of research projects and programs led by faculty members at the Department of Mechanical Engineering. They are responsible for conducting cutting edge research in core (thermo-fluids, mechanics, design and control/measurement, and manufacturing) and interdisciplinary (sustainable energy systems, dynamics and control of electromechanical systems, advanced manufacturing and materials, and micro-systems and bio-systems) areas of mechanical engineering. The research outcomes and findings achieved through the graduate program are of utmost significance for various key industrial sectors, leaving our students career-ready. Moreover, they may be excellent champions in creating new ventures by translating their own research into commercialized products and services.
Our graduate students are expected to initiate and fulfil the degree-level research requirements below in the Mechanical Engineering Graduate Program, in full consultation with their supervisor(s).
Within the first two (2) weeks of study, graduate students must establish their supervisor(s), and within the first two (2) terms of study you are required to form your supervisory committee. Recommendation of membership of master’s thesis or doctoral dissertation supervisory committee must be submitted to the Supervisor and Supervisory Committee portal .
Master’s thesis supervisory committees consist of a minimum of two faculty members from the Faculty of Graduate Studies, at least one of whom must be from the program in which the student is enrolled, and who serves as the principal supervisor.
A dissertation supervisory committee will consist of a minimum of three members from the Faculty of Graduate Studies, at least two of whom must be members of the graduate program in which the student is enrolled. The principal supervisor must be a Full Member of the graduate program in which the student is enrolled.
• More information about composition of MASc committees can be found here.
• More information about composition of PhD/Direct PhD committees can be found here.
If the research requires ethical approvals of any sort, students must visit this page and consult with their supervisor(s) and the Graduate Program Director about the process.
Master’s thesis supervisory committees consist of a minimum of two faculty members from the Faculty of Graduate Studies, at least one of whom must be from the program in which the student is enrolled, and who serves as the principal supervisor.
A dissertation supervisory committee will consist of a minimum of three members from the Faculty of Graduate Studies, at least two of whom must be members of the graduate program in which the student is enrolled. The principal supervisor must be a Full Member of the graduate program in which the student is enrolled.
• More information about composition of MASc committees can be found here.
• More information about composition of PhD/Direct PhD committees can be found here.
If the research requires ethical approvals of any sort, students must visit this page and consult with their supervisor(s) and the Graduate Program Director about the process.
Your Annual Committee Meeting is a meeting with your supervisory committee that must happen at least once a year to track and help with your progress.
Suggested submission schedules for incoming students are as follows:
Summer entry, Report is due in February
Fall entry, Report is due in June.
Winter entry, Report is due in October.
• Students who have a scheduled oral defence date may not be required to submit the Annual Committee Meeting Report.
• An Annual Committee Meeting Report must be completed and submitted to the program office by all students.
Suggested submission schedules for incoming students are as follows:
Summer entry, Report is due in February
Fall entry, Report is due in June.
Winter entry, Report is due in October.
• Students who have a scheduled oral defence date may not be required to submit the Annual Committee Meeting Report.
• An Annual Committee Meeting Report must be completed and submitted to the program office by all students.
MASc students must submit their MECH-Thesis and Proposal Form to the Graduate Program Office via graduate proposal milestone portal at the end of their first year of studies.
Prior to scheduling the Milestone examination, PhD and Direct PhD students must submit their Dissertation Proposal: MECH-Thesis and Proposal Form and a dissertation proposal to the Graduate Program Office via graduate proposal milestone portal.
Prior to scheduling the Milestone examination, PhD and Direct PhD students must submit their Dissertation Proposal: MECH-Thesis and Proposal Form and a dissertation proposal to the Graduate Program Office via graduate proposal milestone portal.
** Doctoral students who entered the program in September 2023 or after must follow the “PhD Graduate Milestone Examination (GME) Guidelines”
Mechanical Engineering Graduate Program (MEGP)
PhD Graduate Milestone Examination (GME) Guidelines [1]
The Faculty of Graduate Studies (FGS) proposed revisions to the regulations of the comprehensive examination on March 2021. The purpose of this document is to bring clarity to PhD students and faculty members at MEGP, so they are aware of the timing and scheduling, format and structure, assessment criteria and feedback, accommodations, and outcomes of this exam. Students shall receive this document within the first term of joining the MEGP.
As per the new FGS guidelines, the name of the PhD Comprehensive Exam in the MEGP will be changed to the Graduate Milestone Examination (GME). The purpose of the GME is two-fold:
1- To assess the student’s fundamental knowledge in mechanical engineering and/or the subject matter directly related to the dissertation; and
2- To assess the student’s potential to conduct independent research of highest quality by the time of graduation, based on the research done to the date of the GME and the proposed research thereafter.
The MEGP examination guidelines are provided below for the five main areas related the GME.
1-TIMING AND SCHEDULING
1.1) Timing of GME
Within the first 12 to 18 months of starting the MEGP, each PhD student must pass the GME. Direct entry PhD students must complete their GME within 24 to 30 months of beginning the program. For MASc students who transfer to the PhD or Direct PhD programs, an additional 6 months can be added to the deadlines above, and timing of the GME is calculated from their placement term in the PhD or Direct PhD programs (please refer to the MEGP Transfer Guideline document for more details).
1.2) Minimum Requirements before Scheduling the GME
The minimum requirements before setting the GME are:
1) establishing the PhD Supervisory Committee (recommended in the first term of studies),
2) submitting the Dissertation Proposal Forms TD1 and ME TD1 to the MEGP Coordinator,
3) holding at least one annual meeting with the Supervisory Committee at the end of the first year of PhD (2 meetings for Direct PhD students, one each year) (one committee meeting can be skipped if the GME is going to be held on months 12 (PhD) or 24 (Direct PhD)),
4) passing the MEGP not-for-credit courses (MECH 9002, MECH 6000, and ENG 6000) as per program requirements, and
5) passing two (2) and three (3) for-credit graduate courses for PhD and Direct PhD students, respectively, with at least one (for PhD) and two (for Direct PhD) MECH core course(s).
GME deadline and the minimum requirements above may be deferred due to exceptional circumstances upon approval of a petition submitted to the Graduate Program Executive Committee (GPEC). Requests for deferral must be made by the students to the Graduate Program Coordinator (GPC) within the timelines above and at least 60 days before the deadlines. In addition to a petition form, a statement by the student justifying the exceptional reasons behind the delay, a support letter by the supervisor describing the efforts to conduct the examination as soon as possible and with clear timelines, and the student’s up-to-date York transcript are needed.
1.3) Scheduling the GME
Scheduling starts by completion and submission of the Graduate Milestone Examination Request Form 1 to the GPC at least 45 business days prior to the proposed date of the exam. This process must be initiated by the student in consultation with their supervisor(s) and supervisory committee. The purposes of GME Request Form 1 are:
1) to ensure the student meets the minimum requirements for the examination,
2) to set the GME Committee,
3) to set the date of the GME,
4) to set the topics on which the student’s fundamental knowledge will be examined, and
5) to decide on the public or private nature of the presentation and examination sessions.
The scheduling of the examination – the date, time and location (if in-person) – will take place and be communicated to students and all faculty members involved in the examination process by the GPC no later than 20 business days (as per FGS requirements) prior to the examination date.
1.4) GME Committee Composition
The GME Committee shall be formed by the supervisor(s), in consultation with the supervisory committee and the Graduate Program Director (GPD), at least 45 days before the proposed date for the exam. The GME Committee shall consist of at least three voting members and a non-voting Chair, as follows:
a) One (1) faculty member acting as the Chair, from the Lassonde School of Engineering (must be outside the Mechanical Engineering Department), who is not part of the Supervisory Committee and is at arm’s length from the PhD dissertation. The Chair can ask optional questions, mostly high level on research motivation and application, but has no vote. In case of a tie in the vote of the GME Committee (see the outcomes section), the chair will have a tie-breaking vote.
b) One (1) faculty member acting as the Examiner, from York University (can be from the Mechanical Engineering Department), who is familiar with the research area, but is not serving on the student’s Supervisory Committee. This member will examine the student’s fundamental knowledge in Mechanical Engineering (or field(s) related to PhD research) and should have knowledge about the area of dissertation (e. g., fluid mechanics for microfluidics research, materials science for multifunctional polymers). The Examiner has one (1) vote.
c) At least two (2) faculty members from the Supervisory Committee to examine the student’s fundamental knowledge and the proposed research. At least one non-supervisor member from the Supervisory Committee should serve, who will have one (1) vote. If the student is co-supervised by two faculty members who are both serving on the GME Committee, they will each have half (0.5) a vote on the examination committee. A single supervisor serving on the GME Committee will have one (1) vote.
For the GME session, the students are expected to enhance their fundamental knowledge in areas related to their dissertation, and to prepare a written PhD Dissertation Research Proposal (see section 2 for details) that must be submitted to the GME Committee and the GPC at least 15 days prior to the proposed date of the exam. Students are expected to prepare for the fundamental knowledge examination on the general topics communicated to them on GME Request Form 1, by reading the scholarly works in the literature, the mainstream textbooks in the area, and any materials provided to them by the GME Committee members. Students are strongly encouraged to consult the topics in detail with their GME Committee members right after completion of GME Request Form 1.
2-FORMAT AND STRUCTURE
The students will be examined on the foundation and breadth of knowledge in the field of study/research, the novelty of the proposed research, and their ability to conduct research independently by the time of graduation and engage in both oral and written scholarly communications. The format of the GME in Mechanical Engineering is a combined format exam comprising:
A) a PhD Dissertation Research Proposal covering 1) the literature and research gaps, questions, and or opportunities, 2) student’s past research progress and its novelty, and 3) the future research plan for completion of PhD with a focus on research independence and impact, and
B) a PhD Dissertation Oral Qualifying Examination conducted based on 1) fundamental knowledge in the field of research and 2) the PhD Dissertation Research Proposal above.
Students are required to work closely with their supervisor(s), as the best source of support, to prepare for the GME.
2.1) Format and Structure of the PhD Dissertation Research Proposal (15 pages max)
The following sections are expected in the research proposal, which the student must write independently in full consultation with the supervisory committee members, especially their supervisor(s):
· Title, student name, committee membership, affiliations, and abstract (300 words max): ~ 1 page
· Background and literature review with emphasis on research gaps, questions, opportunities and or hypotheses: ~ 4 pages
· Goal, objectives and significance or novelty of the proposed work: ~ 1 page
· Materials and methods: ~ 3 pages
· Progress made and research completed (prior to submitting the report) with emphasize on results interpretation: ~ 3 pages
· Schedule of tasks to be completed and expected timeline: ~ 3 pages
· References: not counted towards page limit.
· Appendix: Additional sections of the report may be included if needed. These will not count towards the page limit and should not contain materials with high necessity for understanding the research.
The research proposal must adhere to the following guidelines:
· 15 pages maximum (including tables and figures but not references and appendices)
· Explain any acronyms and abbreviations fully on their first use
· Pages must be 8 ½” × 11” (216 mm x 279 mm)
· All text must be written in Times New Romans 12 pt font, single spaced
· Margins must be set at a minimum of ¾” (1.87 cm)
· Pages must be numbered sequentially
· The proposal should be submitted in Portable Document Format (PDF).
2.2) Format and Structure of the PhD Dissertation Oral Qualifying Examination
During the Oral Qualifying Examination, the student’s fundamental knowledge and research capabilities are formally assessed by the GME Committee and a decision about the outcome of the GME is made. This format mimics a dissertation defence structure in which the candidate submits their dissertation to the examination committee in advance, and then elaborates and defends this work orally to the committee. Therefore, in addition to the primary purpose of determining whether a student is suitably prepared to continue his/her research, this format also provides the student with exposure to defence-type oral examinations.
The Oral Qualifying Examination consists of 4 phases: 1) A presentation session normally conducted for the public; 2) A public question and answer period, if applicable; 3) An Oral Qualifying Examination session normally conducted privately; and 4) GME Committee deliberation. The chair of the examination committee in consultation with the student and supervisor(s) should decide on the public or private nature of the sessions above, which should be justified under special circumstances, such as an academic accommodation or thesis embargo. The duration of the entire Oral Qualifying Examination will typically be up to 3 hours, and thus it is recommended that a 3-hour block be reserved to assure that the student has adequate time to answer questions and the committee has adequate time to deliberate and arrive at an outcome. If there is a need for extra time to examine the student, a follow up session should be scheduled with the agreement of the student and the GME Committee. The Oral Qualifying Examination is typically held in-person, but online alternatives (e.g., Zoom) may be explored when necessary (e.g., during campus closures). The typical structure and timeline of the exam is outlined below, with each section discussed in detail thereafter.
1) Presentation session (normally public, 20 minutes, extendable to 25min with consent of the GME Committee)
2) Public question and answer period, if applicable (less than 10 minutes)
3) Oral Qualifying Examination session (normally private, 130 minutes)
4) GME Committee deliberation (20 minutes)
Phase 1: Presentation Session (normally public)
In this presentation session, the student is expected to give a comprehensive oral presentation, typically accompanied by slides, which, at a minimum, summarizes the main content included in their PhD Dissertation Research Proposal. The talk will be normally open to the public (the GME Committee chair to decide in consultation with the student and supervisor(s)), and will typically be attended by peers, supervisors, and faculty within the department. As the presentation is public, the student may choose to structure the talk similar to a conference presentation to make it engaging to a wide audience. However, the student should keep in mind the Assessment Criteria when structuring the talk, as noted in Section 4. For example, the talk should include things like the research motivation, the goals and objectives of the research, some literature review, the scientific and technical research gaps and unanswered questions, and the proposed research progress, timelines, and next steps, which might not otherwise be included in a conference style presentation. In presenting the progress to date, emphasize should be placed on research result interpretation and their novelty. In the future plan section, the student must demonstrate his/her plan in becoming independent from the supervisor(s) by the time of degree completion.
Phase 2: Public Question and Answer Period
Following the public talk, the general audience will be given an opportunity to ask questions to the student. The student is expected to be able to answer the general questions that may be asked from the public audience. Phase 2 will typically last up to 10 minutes, although it may continue for another 5 minutes if there are additional questions from the public audience.
Phase 3: Oral Qualifying Examination (normally private)
Following the Public Question and Answer period, and if the Oral Qualifying Examination is agreed to be done privately, the audience will be asked to exit the room to facilitate closed-doors examination of the student by the GME Committee. The examination will comprise two stages: 1) An examination of the student’s fundamental knowledge in the researched discipline (typically 65 minutes); and 2) An examination about the contents of the PhD Dissertation Research Proposal and Public Presentation (typically 65 minutes).
Stage 1 will comprise a first round of questions to assess the student’s fundamental knowledge in the relevant field(s) of study. The examination committee will notify the student about pre-determined content that they will be examined on, in GME Request Form 1. For example, the student may be notified about specific textbook(s) or selected journal articles about the relevant fundamentals that they will be questioned on. Students are strongly encouraged to seek guidance from their supervisors and GME Committee members on the topics of examination. The GME committee chair can call for any final questions from the committee members at the end of stage 1. Stage 2 will comprise a second, and any subsequent, round(s) of questions to assess the student’s understanding of their proposed research with focus on areas such as novelty, originality, impact, methodologies, timelines, resources needed, and the student’s independence potential towards degree completion.
All questioning during the examination period will be overseen by the Chair. The Examination Committee will typically ask questions in the following order: 1) Examiner; 2) GME committee member(s) other than supervisor(s); 3) Chair (optional); and 4) supervisor(s). The student shall be given ample time to answer the questions, and should take special care and consideration to formulate concise and direct answers. The questions from the committee and student should be framed and asked in a way to examine, and if needed criticize, the research constructively.
Phase 4: Committee Deliberation
Following the Oral Qualifying Examination session, the student will be given an opportunity to ask procedural questions or make a statement related to the GME. Afterwards, the student and all guests will be asked to exit the room to enable the confidential deliberation of the GME Committee regarding the outcome of the exam (see section 5). The Chair shall lead the discussion while keeping the GME Evaluation Form 2 in mind. Once a decision is reached, the student shall be asked to return to the room, and the outcome, along with any noteworthy comments, shall be communicated to the student by the Chair immediately after the exam.
Following the Oral Qualifying Examination, the Chair shall see that Form 2 is filled, signed, and forwarded to the GPC. The supervisor(s) and the student should receive Form 2 within 3 business days after the exam.
3-ACCESSIBILITY AND ACCOMMODATIONS
Students requiring accommodations will register with the appropriate accessibility office at the university well in advance of the examination(s). Students will submit a letter of accommodation obtained from the accessibility office to the GPC, GPD and the supervisor(s) outlining the accommodation request.
Scheduling of examination(s) will be done in consultation with the applicable accessibility advisor and/or in compliance with specified program procedures. In cases where accommodations not specified in advance are identified in process, a petition will be submitted to the GPC for consideration. All accommodations must be made in consultation with the student and will follow applicable policies related to access to information and privacy.
When it comes to the scheduling of the GME Presentation Session (Phase 1) and the Oral Qualifying Examination (Phase 3), students must consult with the GME Committee Chair and their supervisors whether they want these session to be conducted publicly or privately. These consultations must take place while filling the GME Request Form 1, and provide documents and evidence to justify the request by the student. Approval of such requests is at the discretion of the GME Committee Chair.
4-ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND FEEDBACK
The GME is held to assess if the student has an academically sound proposal for PhD research, while progressively advancing towards independence in the program. It will also examine if the student has a strong fundamental knowledge in scientific and engineering areas related to research and is capable of handling concepts at an advanced PhD level. Moreover, the GME serves as an important program milestone during which expert advice and feedback should be provided to the student to improve the quality of research.
The criteria that will be used by the examination committee to assess the two exam components discussed in section 2 are provided below. There is no separate weighing associated with each of these components. The overall evaluation of the student’s performance in both components will be integrated in a single decision by the GME Committee.
4.1) Assessment Criteria for the PhD Dissertation Research Proposal
Clear writing and explanation of the research gaps, hypotheses, and questions: the student must clearly present a case for the proposed research project by articulation of specific research gaps, hypotheses and questions that will be addressed, based on a thorough literature review.
Demonstrate the originality and significance of the work: through the thorough literature review, the student should also demonstrate the need for and novelty of the proposed research and its potential impact upon completion, on matters related to the society, health, environment, and or economy.
Goals and objectives: the student must propose a clear goal and suitable set of objectives to achieve the goal of the proposed research. The student should also set tangible milestones to achieve the objectives.
Research methodology: the student must articulate a clear set of research methodologies that are appropriate to undertake the research milestones and eventually address the proposed research questions.
Timelines of research activities: the student must present a clear and realistic timeline for the completion of the proposed research, by clearly stating the timelines of the research milestones and or objectives. Use of Gantt Charts are highly advised to set the major milestones and timelines.
Results and Discussions: The obtained results up to the date of examination should be presented and interpreted in a scientific and professional way in the proposal, and discussions of the results, including comparisons to the literature, must be provided whenever applicable.
Formatting: the student should follow the formatting guidelines stated in Section 2.
4.2) Assessment Criteria for the PhD Dissertation Oral Qualifying Examination
The criteria below will be used to evaluate the presentation session:
· Presentation was a clear reflection of the written proposal
· Clearly stated the topic and motivation behind the research
· Established the relevance/significance of the topic by presenting relevant literature and providing research gaps, hypotheses and questions
· Discussed relevant theory and/or background and its applicability to the research gaps and questions
· Explained the main theoretical and/or experimental goals, objectives, methodologies, setups, etc.
· Discussed the results in a concise manner (e.g., trends, significant data points, statistical analysis and/or comparison).
· Results addressed or have the potential to address the research questions
· Provided comprehensive concluding remarks or presented a solid plan for continuation of research in the next years
· Clarity and quality of slides with effective use of tables, figures, graphs, videos, and/or animations, etc.: the student should prepare professional slides and visualizations to present the proposed research. A good standard to consider is aiming to prepare an oral conference-level presentation.
· Logical flow and organization throughout the presentation and adhering to the time limits
· Confidence, clear voice, and reasonable pace that engaged the audience
· Response to audience questions and ability to convince the audience of the importance of the research topic
The Oral Qualifying Examination after the presentation session will follow with a series of questions asked by the GME Committee. Typically, two rounds of questions will be asked by the examining committee. Additional rounds of questions may be required by the examining committee at the discretion of the examination chair. The Oral Qualifying Examination will focus on the candidate’s fundamental knowledge and the candidates research methodology.
Candidate background knowledge: the candidate demonstrates that they have sufficient background and fundamental knowledge to complete the research project. This will include relevant undergraduate and graduate course work and relevant theories and background knowledge related to the specific research topic.
Candidate demonstrates a good working knowledge of the field of study related to the research proposal: the candidate should be well versed in the existing literature related to the proposed research topic. The candidate should be able to cite important contributions of other researchers to the field of study. The candidate must also be able to identify and articulate gaps and shortcomings in the current research literature and relate these deficiencies to the proposed research project. The candidate should be able to demonstrate the immediate need for the proposed research project.
The candidate is able to explain theories and techniques related to the proposed research: The candidate should be able to thoroughly explain any relevant theories or techniques related to the results project. The candidate should be able to explain in depth key equations or theories related to the research project.
The candidate can explain how they will approach the research topic: Using appropriate techniques and approaches, the candidate can explain how they will approach their research (milestones, methodologies). The candidate must also be able to explain in detail the time plan for conducting the proposed research.
Candidate provides satisfactory answers to the committee member questions: During the Oral Qualifying Examination, the candidate will be asked a series of questions by the examining committee. The candidate must be able to convincingly respond to the examiners questions by drawing upon their knowledge of the existing literature in the field of study and by citing appropriate theories and techniques.
4.3) Feedback to the student
The chair of the the GME Committee is responsible to fill in the Form 2 based on the evaluation and deliberation of the committee. Feedback will be provided to the students by sharing the GME Evaluation Form 2 with them within three (3) business days after the exam. After completion of the rounds of questioning in the oral exam session, the candidate will be excused from the room and the GME Committee will discuss the outcome of the exam, keeping the criteria and Form 2 in mind for evaluation of their written proposal, presentation, and oral sessions as outlined above. For each criteria, the GME Committee members will evaluate the candidate based on the following levels:
· Exceeds Expectations – the candidate has exceeded the GME Committee’s expectations
· Meets Expectations – the candidate has met the expectations of the GME Committee
· Needs Improvement – the candidate has meet some of the expectations of the examination committee, however, there are areas that required further improvement or development. Feedback must be solicited and provided by the GME Committee chair for each criteria that needs improvement in the comments section of Form 2.
· Unsatisfactory – the candidate did not meet the expectations of the examination committee. Feedback must be solicited and provided by the GME Committee chair for each criteria that was unsatisfactory in the comments section of Form 2.
After the examination, the student will receive written communication of the evaluation and outcome of the exam (Form 2). The form communicating the examination results will be signed by the session chair, supervisor(s), graduate program director, and the student. The outcome of the examination document shall provide feedback on the written proposal, the public talk and on the performance during the Oral Qualifying Examination. Feedback on the public talk will include quality of the presentation and the student’s ability to answer audience questions. Feedback on the Oral Qualifying Examination will include comments on the students’ research plan for their thesis and comments on their fundamental understanding of topics related to their PhD thesis research. In cases of conditional pass or unsuccessful outcome, an outline of the process for re-examination and improvements required to the PhD research program as well as the grounds and applicable process for appealing a decision will be provided to the student.
5-OUTCOMES OF THE GME
The GME Committee should strive to unanimously agree on the outcome of the GME in light of the assessment criteria described in section 4. During the GME Committee deliberation session, the GME Committee Chair will call for committee members’ input in the following order: 1) Examiner; 2) GME committee member(s) other than supervisor(s); 3) Chair (optional, since not voting); and 4) Supervisor(s). The chair of the GME Committee will record the committee’s feedback on the written proposal, presentation session and oral session in the deliberation meeting, and helps the committee to collegially decide on the criteria rankings in the GME Evaluation Form 2. Once each of the examination criteria have been deliberated and ranked in From 2, the GME Committee will use this data to decide on the outcome of the examination. There are three possible outcomes:
· Passed: Requirements for all the examination components (proposal, oral presentation and Oral Qualifying Examination) have been successfully completed. This outcome is normally expected when the student obtains “exceeds expectations” and “meets expectations” on the majority of the evaluation criteria in Form 2.
· Passed with Conditions: Requirements for the examination have been successfully completed pending conditions. This outcome is normally expected when the student obtains “Needs Improvement” on a large portion of the evaluation criteria in Form 2. In this case, the committee will provide specific details of the deficiencies of the student during the GME. The student will be given specific instructions on the timeframe during which a clear set of conditions are to be satisfied. The timeframe for a conditional pass normally does not exceed six (6) months from the date of the GME.
· Unsuccessful Outcome: Requirements for the examination(s) have not been successfully completed. This outcome is normally expected when the student obtains “Needs Improvement” and “Unsatisfactory” on a large portion of the evaluation criteria in Form 2. In this case, the committee will agree on a timeline for re-examination, normally not more than 6-months from the time of first examination. The student will have one (1) opportunity for re-examination if an unsuccessful outcome occurs from the first exam. If the student receives an unsuccessful outcome in the GME re-examination, then the student will be required to withdraw from the program.
If consensus cannot be reached, then the outcome shall be decided by a majority vote called by the GME Committee chair. The following rules govern the voting process:
If the student is co-supervised, the co-supervisors’ votes will count collectively as one vote. In the cases where co-supervisors votes differ, these votes shall count as 0.5 votes towards the outcome.
Examiner will get one (1) vote
Supervisory Committee member(s) of the GME Committee will each get one (1) vote
Chair has no vote but in case of a tie vote from the above GME Committee members, the chair decides on the final outcome.
Once a decision is reached, the student shall be asked to return to the room, and the outcome, along with any noteworthy comments, shall be communicated to the student by the GME Committee chair immediately after the exam. Following the GME, the chair shall see that GME Evaluation Form 2 is filled, signed, and forwarded to the GPC. The supervisor(s) and the student should receive this form within 3 business days of the exam. The actions to be taken for each outcome are provided in GME Evaluation Form 2.
Appeals Procedure:
1. Appeals on procedural or academic grounds on the outcome of the GME shall be formally lodged to the Mechanical Engineering GPD. The student shall put in writing the rationale behind why the outcome of the GME was unjust. The appeal should be filed in the format of a petition within 10 days after completion of the GME.
2. The petition must be brought forward to the Mechanical Engineering Graduate Program Executive Committee (ME-GPEC) by the GPD. The student can add a representative to this committee who can be either a student or a faculty member. This committee must exclude members from the student’s GME committee.
3. After the formed committee reviews the file (GME Forms 1 and 2 and student’s petition), and performs interview of both the student and the members of the GME committee if needed, the following decisions may be found
a. The GME decision is academically and procedurally sound
b. An error in academic or procedure has occurred. In this situation, the formed committee will rectify the error. Resolutions may include passing the student or allowing the student to repeat all or part of the GME.
4. If the formed committee finds the decision of the GME Committee to be academically and procedurally sound, it may recommend to the Faculty of Graduate Studies that the student be required to withdraw from the program.
[1] This document was approved by the Mechanical Engineering Graduate Program Executive Committee on April 26, 2022; by the Mechanical Engineering Department on June 2, 2022; by Lassonde GLCS on Jun 14, 2022; Dec 13, 2022, and by Lassonde Faculty Council on October 7, 2022.
Forms:
Graduate Milestone Examination Request Form 1
Graduate Milestone Examination Evaluation From 2
ME Comprehensive Oral Examination Chair Responsibilities
Request for Extension of PhD Milestone Exam Form
Mechanical Engineering Graduate Program (MEGP)
PhD Graduate Milestone Examination (GME) Guidelines [1]
The Faculty of Graduate Studies (FGS) proposed revisions to the regulations of the comprehensive examination on March 2021. The purpose of this document is to bring clarity to PhD students and faculty members at MEGP, so they are aware of the timing and scheduling, format and structure, assessment criteria and feedback, accommodations, and outcomes of this exam. Students shall receive this document within the first term of joining the MEGP.
As per the new FGS guidelines, the name of the PhD Comprehensive Exam in the MEGP will be changed to the Graduate Milestone Examination (GME). The purpose of the GME is two-fold:
1- To assess the student’s fundamental knowledge in mechanical engineering and/or the subject matter directly related to the dissertation; and
2- To assess the student’s potential to conduct independent research of highest quality by the time of graduation, based on the research done to the date of the GME and the proposed research thereafter.
The MEGP examination guidelines are provided below for the five main areas related the GME.
1-TIMING AND SCHEDULING
1.1) Timing of GME
Within the first 12 to 18 months of starting the MEGP, each PhD student must pass the GME. Direct entry PhD students must complete their GME within 24 to 30 months of beginning the program. For MASc students who transfer to the PhD or Direct PhD programs, an additional 6 months can be added to the deadlines above, and timing of the GME is calculated from their placement term in the PhD or Direct PhD programs (please refer to the MEGP Transfer Guideline document for more details).
1.2) Minimum Requirements before Scheduling the GME
The minimum requirements before setting the GME are:
1) establishing the PhD Supervisory Committee (recommended in the first term of studies),
2) submitting the Dissertation Proposal Forms TD1 and ME TD1 to the MEGP Coordinator,
3) holding at least one annual meeting with the Supervisory Committee at the end of the first year of PhD (2 meetings for Direct PhD students, one each year) (one committee meeting can be skipped if the GME is going to be held on months 12 (PhD) or 24 (Direct PhD)),
4) passing the MEGP not-for-credit courses (MECH 9002, MECH 6000, and ENG 6000) as per program requirements, and
5) passing two (2) and three (3) for-credit graduate courses for PhD and Direct PhD students, respectively, with at least one (for PhD) and two (for Direct PhD) MECH core course(s).
GME deadline and the minimum requirements above may be deferred due to exceptional circumstances upon approval of a petition submitted to the Graduate Program Executive Committee (GPEC). Requests for deferral must be made by the students to the Graduate Program Coordinator (GPC) within the timelines above and at least 60 days before the deadlines. In addition to a petition form, a statement by the student justifying the exceptional reasons behind the delay, a support letter by the supervisor describing the efforts to conduct the examination as soon as possible and with clear timelines, and the student’s up-to-date York transcript are needed.
1.3) Scheduling the GME
Scheduling starts by completion and submission of the Graduate Milestone Examination Request Form 1 to the GPC at least 45 business days prior to the proposed date of the exam. This process must be initiated by the student in consultation with their supervisor(s) and supervisory committee. The purposes of GME Request Form 1 are:
1) to ensure the student meets the minimum requirements for the examination,
2) to set the GME Committee,
3) to set the date of the GME,
4) to set the topics on which the student’s fundamental knowledge will be examined, and
5) to decide on the public or private nature of the presentation and examination sessions.
The scheduling of the examination – the date, time and location (if in-person) – will take place and be communicated to students and all faculty members involved in the examination process by the GPC no later than 20 business days (as per FGS requirements) prior to the examination date.
1.4) GME Committee Composition
The GME Committee shall be formed by the supervisor(s), in consultation with the supervisory committee and the Graduate Program Director (GPD), at least 45 days before the proposed date for the exam. The GME Committee shall consist of at least three voting members and a non-voting Chair, as follows:
a) One (1) faculty member acting as the Chair, from the Lassonde School of Engineering (must be outside the Mechanical Engineering Department), who is not part of the Supervisory Committee and is at arm’s length from the PhD dissertation. The Chair can ask optional questions, mostly high level on research motivation and application, but has no vote. In case of a tie in the vote of the GME Committee (see the outcomes section), the chair will have a tie-breaking vote.
b) One (1) faculty member acting as the Examiner, from York University (can be from the Mechanical Engineering Department), who is familiar with the research area, but is not serving on the student’s Supervisory Committee. This member will examine the student’s fundamental knowledge in Mechanical Engineering (or field(s) related to PhD research) and should have knowledge about the area of dissertation (e. g., fluid mechanics for microfluidics research, materials science for multifunctional polymers). The Examiner has one (1) vote.
c) At least two (2) faculty members from the Supervisory Committee to examine the student’s fundamental knowledge and the proposed research. At least one non-supervisor member from the Supervisory Committee should serve, who will have one (1) vote. If the student is co-supervised by two faculty members who are both serving on the GME Committee, they will each have half (0.5) a vote on the examination committee. A single supervisor serving on the GME Committee will have one (1) vote.
For the GME session, the students are expected to enhance their fundamental knowledge in areas related to their dissertation, and to prepare a written PhD Dissertation Research Proposal (see section 2 for details) that must be submitted to the GME Committee and the GPC at least 15 days prior to the proposed date of the exam. Students are expected to prepare for the fundamental knowledge examination on the general topics communicated to them on GME Request Form 1, by reading the scholarly works in the literature, the mainstream textbooks in the area, and any materials provided to them by the GME Committee members. Students are strongly encouraged to consult the topics in detail with their GME Committee members right after completion of GME Request Form 1.
2-FORMAT AND STRUCTURE
The students will be examined on the foundation and breadth of knowledge in the field of study/research, the novelty of the proposed research, and their ability to conduct research independently by the time of graduation and engage in both oral and written scholarly communications. The format of the GME in Mechanical Engineering is a combined format exam comprising:
A) a PhD Dissertation Research Proposal covering 1) the literature and research gaps, questions, and or opportunities, 2) student’s past research progress and its novelty, and 3) the future research plan for completion of PhD with a focus on research independence and impact, and
B) a PhD Dissertation Oral Qualifying Examination conducted based on 1) fundamental knowledge in the field of research and 2) the PhD Dissertation Research Proposal above.
Students are required to work closely with their supervisor(s), as the best source of support, to prepare for the GME.
2.1) Format and Structure of the PhD Dissertation Research Proposal (15 pages max)
The following sections are expected in the research proposal, which the student must write independently in full consultation with the supervisory committee members, especially their supervisor(s):
· Title, student name, committee membership, affiliations, and abstract (300 words max): ~ 1 page
· Background and literature review with emphasis on research gaps, questions, opportunities and or hypotheses: ~ 4 pages
· Goal, objectives and significance or novelty of the proposed work: ~ 1 page
· Materials and methods: ~ 3 pages
· Progress made and research completed (prior to submitting the report) with emphasize on results interpretation: ~ 3 pages
· Schedule of tasks to be completed and expected timeline: ~ 3 pages
· References: not counted towards page limit.
· Appendix: Additional sections of the report may be included if needed. These will not count towards the page limit and should not contain materials with high necessity for understanding the research.
The research proposal must adhere to the following guidelines:
· 15 pages maximum (including tables and figures but not references and appendices)
· Explain any acronyms and abbreviations fully on their first use
· Pages must be 8 ½” × 11” (216 mm x 279 mm)
· All text must be written in Times New Romans 12 pt font, single spaced
· Margins must be set at a minimum of ¾” (1.87 cm)
· Pages must be numbered sequentially
· The proposal should be submitted in Portable Document Format (PDF).
2.2) Format and Structure of the PhD Dissertation Oral Qualifying Examination
During the Oral Qualifying Examination, the student’s fundamental knowledge and research capabilities are formally assessed by the GME Committee and a decision about the outcome of the GME is made. This format mimics a dissertation defence structure in which the candidate submits their dissertation to the examination committee in advance, and then elaborates and defends this work orally to the committee. Therefore, in addition to the primary purpose of determining whether a student is suitably prepared to continue his/her research, this format also provides the student with exposure to defence-type oral examinations.
The Oral Qualifying Examination consists of 4 phases: 1) A presentation session normally conducted for the public; 2) A public question and answer period, if applicable; 3) An Oral Qualifying Examination session normally conducted privately; and 4) GME Committee deliberation. The chair of the examination committee in consultation with the student and supervisor(s) should decide on the public or private nature of the sessions above, which should be justified under special circumstances, such as an academic accommodation or thesis embargo. The duration of the entire Oral Qualifying Examination will typically be up to 3 hours, and thus it is recommended that a 3-hour block be reserved to assure that the student has adequate time to answer questions and the committee has adequate time to deliberate and arrive at an outcome. If there is a need for extra time to examine the student, a follow up session should be scheduled with the agreement of the student and the GME Committee. The Oral Qualifying Examination is typically held in-person, but online alternatives (e.g., Zoom) may be explored when necessary (e.g., during campus closures). The typical structure and timeline of the exam is outlined below, with each section discussed in detail thereafter.
1) Presentation session (normally public, 20 minutes, extendable to 25min with consent of the GME Committee)
2) Public question and answer period, if applicable (less than 10 minutes)
3) Oral Qualifying Examination session (normally private, 130 minutes)
4) GME Committee deliberation (20 minutes)
Phase 1: Presentation Session (normally public)
In this presentation session, the student is expected to give a comprehensive oral presentation, typically accompanied by slides, which, at a minimum, summarizes the main content included in their PhD Dissertation Research Proposal. The talk will be normally open to the public (the GME Committee chair to decide in consultation with the student and supervisor(s)), and will typically be attended by peers, supervisors, and faculty within the department. As the presentation is public, the student may choose to structure the talk similar to a conference presentation to make it engaging to a wide audience. However, the student should keep in mind the Assessment Criteria when structuring the talk, as noted in Section 4. For example, the talk should include things like the research motivation, the goals and objectives of the research, some literature review, the scientific and technical research gaps and unanswered questions, and the proposed research progress, timelines, and next steps, which might not otherwise be included in a conference style presentation. In presenting the progress to date, emphasize should be placed on research result interpretation and their novelty. In the future plan section, the student must demonstrate his/her plan in becoming independent from the supervisor(s) by the time of degree completion.
Phase 2: Public Question and Answer Period
Following the public talk, the general audience will be given an opportunity to ask questions to the student. The student is expected to be able to answer the general questions that may be asked from the public audience. Phase 2 will typically last up to 10 minutes, although it may continue for another 5 minutes if there are additional questions from the public audience.
Phase 3: Oral Qualifying Examination (normally private)
Following the Public Question and Answer period, and if the Oral Qualifying Examination is agreed to be done privately, the audience will be asked to exit the room to facilitate closed-doors examination of the student by the GME Committee. The examination will comprise two stages: 1) An examination of the student’s fundamental knowledge in the researched discipline (typically 65 minutes); and 2) An examination about the contents of the PhD Dissertation Research Proposal and Public Presentation (typically 65 minutes).
Stage 1 will comprise a first round of questions to assess the student’s fundamental knowledge in the relevant field(s) of study. The examination committee will notify the student about pre-determined content that they will be examined on, in GME Request Form 1. For example, the student may be notified about specific textbook(s) or selected journal articles about the relevant fundamentals that they will be questioned on. Students are strongly encouraged to seek guidance from their supervisors and GME Committee members on the topics of examination. The GME committee chair can call for any final questions from the committee members at the end of stage 1. Stage 2 will comprise a second, and any subsequent, round(s) of questions to assess the student’s understanding of their proposed research with focus on areas such as novelty, originality, impact, methodologies, timelines, resources needed, and the student’s independence potential towards degree completion.
All questioning during the examination period will be overseen by the Chair. The Examination Committee will typically ask questions in the following order: 1) Examiner; 2) GME committee member(s) other than supervisor(s); 3) Chair (optional); and 4) supervisor(s). The student shall be given ample time to answer the questions, and should take special care and consideration to formulate concise and direct answers. The questions from the committee and student should be framed and asked in a way to examine, and if needed criticize, the research constructively.
Phase 4: Committee Deliberation
Following the Oral Qualifying Examination session, the student will be given an opportunity to ask procedural questions or make a statement related to the GME. Afterwards, the student and all guests will be asked to exit the room to enable the confidential deliberation of the GME Committee regarding the outcome of the exam (see section 5). The Chair shall lead the discussion while keeping the GME Evaluation Form 2 in mind. Once a decision is reached, the student shall be asked to return to the room, and the outcome, along with any noteworthy comments, shall be communicated to the student by the Chair immediately after the exam.
Following the Oral Qualifying Examination, the Chair shall see that Form 2 is filled, signed, and forwarded to the GPC. The supervisor(s) and the student should receive Form 2 within 3 business days after the exam.
3-ACCESSIBILITY AND ACCOMMODATIONS
Students requiring accommodations will register with the appropriate accessibility office at the university well in advance of the examination(s). Students will submit a letter of accommodation obtained from the accessibility office to the GPC, GPD and the supervisor(s) outlining the accommodation request.
Scheduling of examination(s) will be done in consultation with the applicable accessibility advisor and/or in compliance with specified program procedures. In cases where accommodations not specified in advance are identified in process, a petition will be submitted to the GPC for consideration. All accommodations must be made in consultation with the student and will follow applicable policies related to access to information and privacy.
When it comes to the scheduling of the GME Presentation Session (Phase 1) and the Oral Qualifying Examination (Phase 3), students must consult with the GME Committee Chair and their supervisors whether they want these session to be conducted publicly or privately. These consultations must take place while filling the GME Request Form 1, and provide documents and evidence to justify the request by the student. Approval of such requests is at the discretion of the GME Committee Chair.
4-ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND FEEDBACK
The GME is held to assess if the student has an academically sound proposal for PhD research, while progressively advancing towards independence in the program. It will also examine if the student has a strong fundamental knowledge in scientific and engineering areas related to research and is capable of handling concepts at an advanced PhD level. Moreover, the GME serves as an important program milestone during which expert advice and feedback should be provided to the student to improve the quality of research.
The criteria that will be used by the examination committee to assess the two exam components discussed in section 2 are provided below. There is no separate weighing associated with each of these components. The overall evaluation of the student’s performance in both components will be integrated in a single decision by the GME Committee.
4.1) Assessment Criteria for the PhD Dissertation Research Proposal
Clear writing and explanation of the research gaps, hypotheses, and questions: the student must clearly present a case for the proposed research project by articulation of specific research gaps, hypotheses and questions that will be addressed, based on a thorough literature review.
Demonstrate the originality and significance of the work: through the thorough literature review, the student should also demonstrate the need for and novelty of the proposed research and its potential impact upon completion, on matters related to the society, health, environment, and or economy.
Goals and objectives: the student must propose a clear goal and suitable set of objectives to achieve the goal of the proposed research. The student should also set tangible milestones to achieve the objectives.
Research methodology: the student must articulate a clear set of research methodologies that are appropriate to undertake the research milestones and eventually address the proposed research questions.
Timelines of research activities: the student must present a clear and realistic timeline for the completion of the proposed research, by clearly stating the timelines of the research milestones and or objectives. Use of Gantt Charts are highly advised to set the major milestones and timelines.
Results and Discussions: The obtained results up to the date of examination should be presented and interpreted in a scientific and professional way in the proposal, and discussions of the results, including comparisons to the literature, must be provided whenever applicable.
Formatting: the student should follow the formatting guidelines stated in Section 2.
4.2) Assessment Criteria for the PhD Dissertation Oral Qualifying Examination
The criteria below will be used to evaluate the presentation session:
· Presentation was a clear reflection of the written proposal
· Clearly stated the topic and motivation behind the research
· Established the relevance/significance of the topic by presenting relevant literature and providing research gaps, hypotheses and questions
· Discussed relevant theory and/or background and its applicability to the research gaps and questions
· Explained the main theoretical and/or experimental goals, objectives, methodologies, setups, etc.
· Discussed the results in a concise manner (e.g., trends, significant data points, statistical analysis and/or comparison).
· Results addressed or have the potential to address the research questions
· Provided comprehensive concluding remarks or presented a solid plan for continuation of research in the next years
· Clarity and quality of slides with effective use of tables, figures, graphs, videos, and/or animations, etc.: the student should prepare professional slides and visualizations to present the proposed research. A good standard to consider is aiming to prepare an oral conference-level presentation.
· Logical flow and organization throughout the presentation and adhering to the time limits
· Confidence, clear voice, and reasonable pace that engaged the audience
· Response to audience questions and ability to convince the audience of the importance of the research topic
The Oral Qualifying Examination after the presentation session will follow with a series of questions asked by the GME Committee. Typically, two rounds of questions will be asked by the examining committee. Additional rounds of questions may be required by the examining committee at the discretion of the examination chair. The Oral Qualifying Examination will focus on the candidate’s fundamental knowledge and the candidates research methodology.
Candidate background knowledge: the candidate demonstrates that they have sufficient background and fundamental knowledge to complete the research project. This will include relevant undergraduate and graduate course work and relevant theories and background knowledge related to the specific research topic.
Candidate demonstrates a good working knowledge of the field of study related to the research proposal: the candidate should be well versed in the existing literature related to the proposed research topic. The candidate should be able to cite important contributions of other researchers to the field of study. The candidate must also be able to identify and articulate gaps and shortcomings in the current research literature and relate these deficiencies to the proposed research project. The candidate should be able to demonstrate the immediate need for the proposed research project.
The candidate is able to explain theories and techniques related to the proposed research: The candidate should be able to thoroughly explain any relevant theories or techniques related to the results project. The candidate should be able to explain in depth key equations or theories related to the research project.
The candidate can explain how they will approach the research topic: Using appropriate techniques and approaches, the candidate can explain how they will approach their research (milestones, methodologies). The candidate must also be able to explain in detail the time plan for conducting the proposed research.
Candidate provides satisfactory answers to the committee member questions: During the Oral Qualifying Examination, the candidate will be asked a series of questions by the examining committee. The candidate must be able to convincingly respond to the examiners questions by drawing upon their knowledge of the existing literature in the field of study and by citing appropriate theories and techniques.
4.3) Feedback to the student
The chair of the the GME Committee is responsible to fill in the Form 2 based on the evaluation and deliberation of the committee. Feedback will be provided to the students by sharing the GME Evaluation Form 2 with them within three (3) business days after the exam. After completion of the rounds of questioning in the oral exam session, the candidate will be excused from the room and the GME Committee will discuss the outcome of the exam, keeping the criteria and Form 2 in mind for evaluation of their written proposal, presentation, and oral sessions as outlined above. For each criteria, the GME Committee members will evaluate the candidate based on the following levels:
· Exceeds Expectations – the candidate has exceeded the GME Committee’s expectations
· Meets Expectations – the candidate has met the expectations of the GME Committee
· Needs Improvement – the candidate has meet some of the expectations of the examination committee, however, there are areas that required further improvement or development. Feedback must be solicited and provided by the GME Committee chair for each criteria that needs improvement in the comments section of Form 2.
· Unsatisfactory – the candidate did not meet the expectations of the examination committee. Feedback must be solicited and provided by the GME Committee chair for each criteria that was unsatisfactory in the comments section of Form 2.
After the examination, the student will receive written communication of the evaluation and outcome of the exam (Form 2). The form communicating the examination results will be signed by the session chair, supervisor(s), graduate program director, and the student. The outcome of the examination document shall provide feedback on the written proposal, the public talk and on the performance during the Oral Qualifying Examination. Feedback on the public talk will include quality of the presentation and the student’s ability to answer audience questions. Feedback on the Oral Qualifying Examination will include comments on the students’ research plan for their thesis and comments on their fundamental understanding of topics related to their PhD thesis research. In cases of conditional pass or unsuccessful outcome, an outline of the process for re-examination and improvements required to the PhD research program as well as the grounds and applicable process for appealing a decision will be provided to the student.
5-OUTCOMES OF THE GME
The GME Committee should strive to unanimously agree on the outcome of the GME in light of the assessment criteria described in section 4. During the GME Committee deliberation session, the GME Committee Chair will call for committee members’ input in the following order: 1) Examiner; 2) GME committee member(s) other than supervisor(s); 3) Chair (optional, since not voting); and 4) Supervisor(s). The chair of the GME Committee will record the committee’s feedback on the written proposal, presentation session and oral session in the deliberation meeting, and helps the committee to collegially decide on the criteria rankings in the GME Evaluation Form 2. Once each of the examination criteria have been deliberated and ranked in From 2, the GME Committee will use this data to decide on the outcome of the examination. There are three possible outcomes:
· Passed: Requirements for all the examination components (proposal, oral presentation and Oral Qualifying Examination) have been successfully completed. This outcome is normally expected when the student obtains “exceeds expectations” and “meets expectations” on the majority of the evaluation criteria in Form 2.
· Passed with Conditions: Requirements for the examination have been successfully completed pending conditions. This outcome is normally expected when the student obtains “Needs Improvement” on a large portion of the evaluation criteria in Form 2. In this case, the committee will provide specific details of the deficiencies of the student during the GME. The student will be given specific instructions on the timeframe during which a clear set of conditions are to be satisfied. The timeframe for a conditional pass normally does not exceed six (6) months from the date of the GME.
· Unsuccessful Outcome: Requirements for the examination(s) have not been successfully completed. This outcome is normally expected when the student obtains “Needs Improvement” and “Unsatisfactory” on a large portion of the evaluation criteria in Form 2. In this case, the committee will agree on a timeline for re-examination, normally not more than 6-months from the time of first examination. The student will have one (1) opportunity for re-examination if an unsuccessful outcome occurs from the first exam. If the student receives an unsuccessful outcome in the GME re-examination, then the student will be required to withdraw from the program.
If consensus cannot be reached, then the outcome shall be decided by a majority vote called by the GME Committee chair. The following rules govern the voting process:
If the student is co-supervised, the co-supervisors’ votes will count collectively as one vote. In the cases where co-supervisors votes differ, these votes shall count as 0.5 votes towards the outcome.
Examiner will get one (1) vote
Supervisory Committee member(s) of the GME Committee will each get one (1) vote
Chair has no vote but in case of a tie vote from the above GME Committee members, the chair decides on the final outcome.
Once a decision is reached, the student shall be asked to return to the room, and the outcome, along with any noteworthy comments, shall be communicated to the student by the GME Committee chair immediately after the exam. Following the GME, the chair shall see that GME Evaluation Form 2 is filled, signed, and forwarded to the GPC. The supervisor(s) and the student should receive this form within 3 business days of the exam. The actions to be taken for each outcome are provided in GME Evaluation Form 2.
Appeals Procedure:
1. Appeals on procedural or academic grounds on the outcome of the GME shall be formally lodged to the Mechanical Engineering GPD. The student shall put in writing the rationale behind why the outcome of the GME was unjust. The appeal should be filed in the format of a petition within 10 days after completion of the GME.
2. The petition must be brought forward to the Mechanical Engineering Graduate Program Executive Committee (ME-GPEC) by the GPD. The student can add a representative to this committee who can be either a student or a faculty member. This committee must exclude members from the student’s GME committee.
3. After the formed committee reviews the file (GME Forms 1 and 2 and student’s petition), and performs interview of both the student and the members of the GME committee if needed, the following decisions may be found
a. The GME decision is academically and procedurally sound
b. An error in academic or procedure has occurred. In this situation, the formed committee will rectify the error. Resolutions may include passing the student or allowing the student to repeat all or part of the GME.
4. If the formed committee finds the decision of the GME Committee to be academically and procedurally sound, it may recommend to the Faculty of Graduate Studies that the student be required to withdraw from the program.
[1] This document was approved by the Mechanical Engineering Graduate Program Executive Committee on April 26, 2022; by the Mechanical Engineering Department on June 2, 2022; by Lassonde GLCS on Jun 14, 2022; Dec 13, 2022, and by Lassonde Faculty Council on October 7, 2022.
Forms:
Graduate Milestone Examination Request Form 1
Graduate Milestone Examination Evaluation From 2
ME Comprehensive Oral Examination Chair Responsibilities
Request for Extension of PhD Milestone Exam Form
MASc students are required to become involved in research activities immediately upon registration in the Mechanical Engineering program and under the general direction of their supervisors. They must be registered for non-credit Mechanical Engineering 9001 0.0: MASc Thesis course. Students are required to submit a progress report to their supervisory committee in compliance with the requirements of the Faculty of Graduate Studies. The progress report documents courses taken, teaching assistant duties, knowledge dissemination through publications and presentations and supervisory committee’s direct feedback on the overall performance of the graduate student. If the performance of the student in research is deemed unsatisfactory by the supervisory committee, they may be asked to withdraw from the program immediately. If recommended to continue, students are obliged to conduct and conclude their research and to submit a written thesis to their supervisory committee at the end of their degree period. The thesis should clearly demonstrate the candidate’s ability to conduct independent research and creative activities with guidance, resulting in contributions to the body of knowledge in the area of investigation. The research undertaken and the thesis should be defended by the student in an oral examination session, according to the Faculty of Graduate Studies regulations. The examination committee members are selected and the defence is conducted based on regulations set by the Faculty of Graduate Studies.
PhD students are required to conduct research independently through defining, planning and solving of scientific problems to lead and advance knowledge in their field of specialization. Research outcomes should lead to creativity and competence at an international level and have the significance and standard level that can be disseminated in the form of scientific publications. The PhD student’s research progress is examined annually by meeting with their supervisory committee. Students are required to submit a progress report which documents courses taken, teaching assistant duties, knowledge dissemination through publications and presentations, and supervisor’s direct feedback on the student’s overall performance. If the annual performance of the student in research is deemed unsatisfactory by the supervisory committee, they may be asked to withdraw from the program immediately, even after successful completion of the PhD comprehensive examination. If recommended to continue, students are obliged to conduct and conclude their research and to submit a written dissertation to their supervisory committee at the end of their degree period. The dissertation must clearly demonstrate the candidate’s ability to conduct independent research and creative activities, resulting in contributions to the body of knowledge in the area of investigation. The research undertaken and the dissertation must be defended by the student in an oral examination session. The examination committee members are selected and the defence session is conducted based on regulations set by the Faculty of Graduate Studies.
– MASc students must submit their MECH-Thesis and Proposal Form to the Graduate Program Office via graduate proposal milestone portal at the end of their first year of studies.
– Prior to scheduling the Milestone examination, PhD and Direct PhD students must submit their Dissertation Proposal: MECH-Thesis and Proposal Form and a dissertation proposal to the Graduate Program Office via graduate proposal milestone portal.
– Other FGS-TD forms can be found here, based on requirements in FGS-TD1.
– Recommendation for Oral Examination Form (MASc, PhD and Direct PhD) should be submitted to the Graduate Program Assistant a minimum of one (1) month before your desired defence date.
– Your thesis/dissertation should be sent to your examination committee a minimum of three (3) weeks before your desired defence date
PhD students are required to conduct research independently through defining, planning and solving of scientific problems to lead and advance knowledge in their field of specialization. Research outcomes should lead to creativity and competence at an international level and have the significance and standard level that can be disseminated in the form of scientific publications. The PhD student’s research progress is examined annually by meeting with their supervisory committee. Students are required to submit a progress report which documents courses taken, teaching assistant duties, knowledge dissemination through publications and presentations, and supervisor’s direct feedback on the student’s overall performance. If the annual performance of the student in research is deemed unsatisfactory by the supervisory committee, they may be asked to withdraw from the program immediately, even after successful completion of the PhD comprehensive examination. If recommended to continue, students are obliged to conduct and conclude their research and to submit a written dissertation to their supervisory committee at the end of their degree period. The dissertation must clearly demonstrate the candidate’s ability to conduct independent research and creative activities, resulting in contributions to the body of knowledge in the area of investigation. The research undertaken and the dissertation must be defended by the student in an oral examination session. The examination committee members are selected and the defence session is conducted based on regulations set by the Faculty of Graduate Studies.
– MASc students must submit their MECH-Thesis and Proposal Form to the Graduate Program Office via graduate proposal milestone portal at the end of their first year of studies.
– Prior to scheduling the Milestone examination, PhD and Direct PhD students must submit their Dissertation Proposal: MECH-Thesis and Proposal Form and a dissertation proposal to the Graduate Program Office via graduate proposal milestone portal.
– Other FGS-TD forms can be found here, based on requirements in FGS-TD1.
– Recommendation for Oral Examination Form (MASc, PhD and Direct PhD) should be submitted to the Graduate Program Assistant a minimum of one (1) month before your desired defence date.
– Your thesis/dissertation should be sent to your examination committee a minimum of three (3) weeks before your desired defence date
The Oral Exam Report should be submitted by your examination committee to the Graduate Program Assistant a maximum of three (3) days after your defence. Please ensure that your examination committee submits the Oral Exam Report.
The Revisions Approved Memorandum must be submitted to the Graduate Program Assistant a maximum of three (3) days after you finalize your revisions and receive signatures from your supervisor and the chair of the defence examination committee on this form.
Requests for delay of thesis/dissertation publication (Embargo) can be submitted here.
Apply to Graduate:
OCTOBER Convocation application to graduate is due August 1st
JUNE Convocation application to graduate is due March 1st
February (Convocation in Absentia) application to graduate is due November 1st.
Ordering transcripts online/Online degree verification service can be found here.
The Revisions Approved Memorandum must be submitted to the Graduate Program Assistant a maximum of three (3) days after you finalize your revisions and receive signatures from your supervisor and the chair of the defence examination committee on this form.
Requests for delay of thesis/dissertation publication (Embargo) can be submitted here.
Apply to Graduate:
OCTOBER Convocation application to graduate is due August 1st
JUNE Convocation application to graduate is due March 1st
February (Convocation in Absentia) application to graduate is due November 1st.
Ordering transcripts online/Online degree verification service can be found here.