Summary of the Graduate Affairs Committee meeting April 11, 2014,
3:30-4:30pm.

Present: Stephen Cook (Chair), Christina Christara, Eyal de Lara
(via speaker phone), Ken Jackson, Allan Jepson (Grad Chair),
Aida Nematzadeh, Bogdan Simion

Regrets:  Michael Brudno

The committee considered how to revise the April 7 document "Working Draft: PhD Checkpoint Proposal" to take into account the
feedback from students and faculty.  Here are some points:

1.  The Qualifying Oral.  It should be emphasized that the requirements
for this are significantly reduced from the present one.  The requirements might be called a "light weight survey" (rather than a full survey).  Also it is important to make clear to the student
what will be expected at the oral exam.  The scope of the questions
should be spelled out in writing ahead of time (and approved by the
committee).  The scope need not necessarily be equivalent to one
of the current 14 research areas listed in the Handbook, but it should
include some fundamental CS concepts.
   The Grad Skills Seminar should be separated from the Qualifying Oral.

2.  Concerning the annual meetings:

--One idea is that students should submit a progress report (similar
to our current progress reports) *before* each annual meeting.

--There should be a suggested time line for the various new checkpoints,
similar to our current time lines.

--The annual meetings could be open to other students, if the student
in question agrees.

--Current students could switch to the new requirements if they wish,
but then they could not switch back.

--Students entering the PhD Direct Program would have the same time lines
as those with an MSc.  In particular, they would be required to take
their Qualifying Oral within 16 months.
  (Ken J suggested that students in the MSc program could be allowed to
switch to the PhD Direct program, with the recommendation of their
supervisor. This is allowed by some other CS departments.)

--Possible summary of the changes:
The proposal is essentially the old set of checkpoints minus the
presentation of the MSc research paper and the research proposal,
plus time-driven (rather than event-driven) meetings to monitor
and council students; and when necessary, terminate the registration of 
those who are floundering for too long.