As part of the English department´s comprehensive effort to streamline the Ph.D program and improve time-to-completion figures for our doctoral students, the Graduate Studies committee submitted a motion outlining changes to the ACE exam structure and process at the November 30 department meeting. The department approved the new plan, and on December 7, a day that hopefully will not live in infamy, Graduate Council approved it as well, clearing the way for the department to begin implementing it.

At the end of this document, I will provide the amended Graduate School catalog text describing the new exam structure and timeline. Beginning with the 2003 catalog, this text will replace the text that now appears on pp. 71-72 of the 2001 Graduate School catalog, under the headings "Advanced Candidacy," "M.A. Degree," and "Dissertation Prospectus."

For now, however, let me run down the major changes in the exam system and try to address their implications for students currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program, and especially for students already underway with their reading lists and/or exams.

1. The new exam is based on *two* (rather than three) areas of inquiry, with their attendant reading lists. Everyone will still be required to choose an historical period in British or American literature as the focus of one list. The other area/list will focus on a special topic. Such topics can include studies in a literary genre or in the works of a major author or select group of authors, in addition to the subjects listed under "special topics" under the old system. The two lists will be formally approved at the same time, at a meeting of the Ph.D. committee.

2. The new exam has only *one* written component (rather than three): an original, article-length research essay on the special topic area/list. As before, the committee responds to the written exam by accepting it, rejecting it, or requesting revision/resubmission. As before, the exam may be resubmitted once.

3. The other component of the new exam system is a 2-hour oral examination. The oral examination covers the historical period area/list *only*; it is no longer a comprehensive exam covering *all* lists. As before, the oral can only be scheduled once the student has satisfied all foreign language requirements for the degree and passed the written section of the examination. As before, the oral is graded Pass or Fail. As before, a failed oral may be retaken once.

4. Students under the new system will be *timed* through the different stages of the exam process, beginning with the formation and approval of reading lists. The new system allows for a maximum of 18 months between the final approval of reading lists and successful completion of the oral exam. For a more detailed description of deadlines in the new system, see the full catalog text below.

5. All students currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program, including those currently underway with reading lists and/or exams, may opt to be "grandfathered" in to the new system if they feel it would be to their advantage. This will often involve reconfiguring, renegotiating, or even reclassifying reading lists, as well as figuring out how to "translate" exams completed under the old system into the new system. The department has not attempted to legislate how this transition process should work according to a one-size-fits-all model. Rather, it will be up to students and their committees to determine how an existing set of reading lists and exams should be modified to meet the requirements of the new system responsibly. A few general guidelines, however, suggest themselves:

a. The modifications should result in two reading lists, one on an historical period and one on a special topic. Moreover, with the exam now covering only two broad areas, it is more important that ever that each reading list cover a substantial body of work, including relevant secondary sources. The intent of reducing the reading lists from three to two was not necessarily to reduce the amount of reading for the exams by one-third; rather, it was to reorganize the reading in a way that would require less redundancy in testing it.

b. The modifications should not leave either list uncovered by an exam.

c. A seated examination passed under the old system should not be allowed to substitute for the research essay required under the new system. Students who have passed a seated exam under the old system will still need to complete, and have approved by the committee, a research essay on the special topic list. Nor should a seated exam on the historical period list under the old system be allowed to substitute for the oral examination under the new system.

It is true that, under such terms, students who switch to the new system may wind up doing more work than students who enter the Ph.D. program under this system. It is also true, however, that such students should still wind up doing less work than they would have under the old system.  If not, there would seem to be little incentive for them to switch to the new system.

d. The oral exam should cover the historical period reading list only, rather than the topic list or both lists.

e. Students who are already underway with lists or exams will not be subject to the specific time deadlines described under the new system. However, it would be useful for these students, while working with their committees to modify existing lists or exams to fit the new system, to discuss and perhaps even to formalize a schedule for the various stages of the exam to insure timely progress through the new system.

6. I will have a revised Ph.D. "checklist" reflecting the new exam structure and timeline ready for distribution to students and faculty in January.

7. CATALOG DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW EXAM SYSTEM

[Replaces the language on pp. 71-72 of the 2001 graduate catalogue:]

Advanced Candidacy o Admission to advanced candidacy follows the successful completion of the Advanced Candidacy Examination. This examination, which is both written and oral in form, tests the candidate´s knowledge of two areas of inquiry, consisting of: (1) an historical period in British or American literature and (2) a special topic. (Special topics include, but are by no means limited to, the representative writings of a single author or select group of authors, studied intensively and supplemented by relevant secondary materials; the intensive study of a single genre, supplemented by relevant theory, criticism, and literary history; issues of rhetoric, structure, technique, gender, race, power, ideology, culture, literary theory, methodology, intellectual history, canonicity, and interdisciplinarity.)  The candidate and the Ph.D. committee will draw up and agree upon an intensive reading list for each of the two areas of inquiry. Both reading lists must be formally approved at a single meeting of the Ph.D. Committee, at which copies of each list must be initialed and dated by the student and each member of the committee for submission to the Graduate Studies Director. This meeting must take place by no later than one semester after the student completes classroom course work for the degree. All members of the committee will participate in evaluating the written and oral sections of the Examination, and in all future responsibilities of the committee.

The written section of the examination is an original, article-length (20-25-page) publishable* research paper on the special topic area and its reading list. The essay is expected to address the topic in a thorough, critically responsible manner, not to provide a broad overview of the materials on the reading list. This essay must be submitted to the Ph.D. committee within six months of *either* the completion of the student´s final semester of classroom course work *or* the date of final approval of the reading lists, whichever comes *later*.

The reading lists and the topic of the written research paper should be arrived at through consultation between the student and his or her committee. The topic should be a fresh undertaking for the student, although certainly it can be derived from course work. The topic should reflect an interest in and knowledge of the exam area it is to represent; that is, although narrow in focus, the topic should be situated convincingly within the context of its area. It should illuminate as well as be illuminated by the area of study in which the student has located it. A kind of two-way street ought to be apparent in the finished work: the research paper providing insight into the special topic, the special topic expanding the implications of the paper.

Students and committees are encouraged to work closely together, especially during the formative stage of the topic. Some sort of outline or prospectus may well be a part of this stage, although full or fragmentary drafts should not be. Once the student submits the research paper, the committee will respond in one of three ways: acceptance, rejection, or request for revision. In the event of the last option, a single revision will be permitted, to be resubmitted according to a schedule agreed on by the student and the Ph.D. committee but ordinarily within one month of the student´s notification of the need to revise. If the research paper is rejected, either at first or after revision, the student is not permitted to continue in the Ph.D. program.

The oral section of the examination may be taken only after all foreign language requirements have been satisfied and the written section of the examination has been accepted. The student must pass the oral examination within 18 months of *either* the completion of the student´s final semester of classroom course work *or* the date of final approval of the reading lists, whichever comes *later*. Ordinarily 2 hours in length, the oral is a comprehensive exam covering the historical period reading list; the examiners will expect the candidate to be familiar with all of the primary and secondary materials from this list and to be able to discuss them critically and comparatively. The exam is graded Pass or Fail. On passing the oral examination, the student is admitted to advanced candidacy. A failed oral may be retaken once, at a time agreed on by the student and the Ph.D. committee but within the time constraints described above. If the student fails the oral again, s/he is not permitted to continue in the Ph.D. program.

*The concept of a "publishable paper" should be understood as a descriptive rather than a valuative term. Such a paper should be original, demonstrating a familiarity with relevant secondary sources to support that claim. It should constitute a complete argument within the range of the 20- to 25-page paper.

Dissertation Prospectus o Within 6 months of admission to advanced candidacy, the candidate is expected to submit a dissertation prospectus to the Ph.D. committee and an outside (extradepartmental) examiner. The prospectus is a statement of a problem the student intends to address, and a brief narrative indicating the direction of future reading and research toward the dissertation; it should also include some sort of methodological statement and a rudimentary bibliography. The Ph.D. committee and the outside examiner will conduct a formal prospectus defense, which the candidate must pass in order to proceed with dissertation work.