Satisfactory Academic Progress

I. The department’s approach to administering its satisfactory progress policies follows these priorities and practices:

1. The determination of satisfactory progress is made by the faculty as a whole at the Annual Review.
2. The expected time of key events in a degree and degree completion are benchmarks by which the faculty as a whole make a determination of a student’s progress.  Additional benchmarks include grade point average, timely completion of incompletes, and the completion of all required courses in a timely manner.
3. These expected times in a degree may occur well before the next Annual Review.  Each year, the faculty as a whole at Annual Review will consider authorizing the Chair and the GPC to write a letter of concern or warning to students who fail to meet benchmarks that occur well before the next Annual Review.  For instance, if an M.A. student does not defend their thesis by the end of their third fall quarter, the Chair and GPC may be authorized by the faculty as a whole at Annual Review to send a letter of concern. For Ph.D. students failure to meet the various mid-year benchmarks that come after the Annual Review may, with the same faculty authorization, generate a letter of concern.

Students may assume they are making satisfactory progress if they are progressing through their degree programs in keeping with the timelines below.

II. The Expected Timeline for the M.A. describes what M.A. students should do and when in order to graduate in two years. Accordingly, these are the following M.A. specific benchmarks for assessing satisfactory progress and for determining leave requests:

1. The expected time for completion of the M.A. is two years.  Students who do not complete their M.A. by the end of their third fall quarter in the program are not making satisfactory progress.   
2. In addition to the above, the assessment of progress in the M.A. program will include evaluations of grade point average, presence of incomplete grades on the transcript, and the completion of all required courses in a timely manner.
3. Students should be making satisfactory progress to have a leave approved. 

III. The Expected Timeline for the Ph.D. describes what students should do and when in order to graduate in four to five years.  Accordingly, these are the following Ph.D. specific benchmarks for assessing satisfactory progress and for determining leave requests: 

1. Students who delay their reviews and exams beyond expected times are not making satisfactory progress.  It is imperative that students move through these pre-dissertation phases of their Ph.D. will no or little delay in order to complete the Ph.D. in a timely fashion.  The delays in reviews and exams that will trigger a determination of unsatisfactory progress are: 
   1. Preliminary Review:  this should be completed by the end of the Spring quarter of the first year.  If it has not been completed by the end of Fall quarter of the second year, a student is not making satisfactory progress.  
   2. General Exam:  this should be completed by the end of the Spring quarter of the second year.  If it has not been completed by the end of Fall quarter of the third year, then a student is not making satisfactory progress.
   3. Dissertation Proposal: this should be completed by the end of Winter quarter in the third year.  If not then a student is not making satisfactory progress.
2. The expected time for completion of the PhD (defense and filing of the dissertation) is four years from entry into the program although we recognize that many students take up to an additional year because of fieldwork.  Allowing for unexpected delays, students who do not complete the dissertation by the end of their sixth academic year in the PhD program are not making satisfactory progress.
3. In addition to the above, the assessment of progress in the Ph.D. program will include evaluations of grade point average, presence of incompletes on the transcript, and the completion of all required courses in a timely manner.
4. Students should be making satisfactory progress to have a leave approved. 

IV. The faculty conducts an Annual Review of continuing graduate students during the spring quarter to assess satisfactory academic progress for each enrolled graduate student.

If the faculty determine at the annual Annual Review that a student is making satisfactory progress, the Chair or Graduate Program Coordinator communicates that to them in writing after the review.

If the faculty determine at the Annual Review that a student is not making satisfactory progress, the Graduate Program Coordinator or Chair will issue a letter of concern that specifies the next benchmark that must be met and a timeline for completion of that benchmark. If the student has not met the benchmark at the specified timeline, the GPC and/or the Chair may send a warning letter.  If the student continues not to meet the benchmark at the specified timeline, the GPC and/or the Chair may send a second warning letter. If two warning letters have been sent and the student does not achieve the benchmark defined in the second warning letter at the specified timeline, the faculty may authorize the GPC to recommend academic probation via the Graduate School  (See Graduate School Memorandum 16, Continuation or Termination of Students in the Graduate School, for a full explanation of policies, guidelines and procedures for “low scholarship” and “unsatisfactory progress” cases). 

All letters of concern and warning letters must specify the reason for the letter or warning, the steps that need to be taken, and potential consequences for not taking these steps. The students’ committee chair should be consulted throughout this process and copied on any communications.