Policies

The following procedures and expectations reflect long-standing practices within the department. They are designed to support students in making consistent and meaningful progress throughout their academic journey, and to ensure that they are well prepared for future careers as doctoral scholars. Faculty members view the training of Ph.D. students as one of the most important, impactful, and enduring aspects of their professional work. We are committed to working collaboratively with students to help them achieve their goals and contribute to the department’s academic mission. 

Roles and responsibilities of advisors and students  

Advisor responsibilities 

Advisors play a central role in guiding the intellectual and academic development of their students. While advising relationships vary depending on the discipline, research focus, and individual personalities and learning styles, all students can expect their advisor to act as a mentor and advocate. Key elements of a successful advising relationship include clear and open communication, constructive feedback, honesty, integrity, professionalism, and regular meetings occurring at least once a month – and typically weekly, especially during the student's first two years and when landmark requirement dates (e.g., thesis proposal defense) are approaching. 

Student responsibilities 

Students in the Cognitive Science Ph.D. program are expected to take ownership of their progress through the program. This includes showing increasing independence and leadership in coursework, teaching, research, and professional development over time. Early stages of the program emphasize academic excellence in coursework, balanced with acquiring and honing research skills and first forays into designing and initiating new research. Later stages focus more thoroughly on research design and execution, analyses, and laying the foundations for an independent research program. Typically, most of these later activities occur in the context of dissertation work. 

With guidance from their primary advisor and other committee members — who are expected to serve as advisors and in some cases as secondary mentors — students should develop and regularly update an Individual Development Plan (IDP) that outlines expectations and milestones. Students are responsible for informing the staff graduate advisor of any changes in the advising relationship or of committee membership. In the event of a lapse or breakdown in advisor mentorship, the student should meet with the staff graduate advisor and the faculty graduate advisor to discuss their concerns and seek guidance. 

In the event that a breakdown in advisee mentoring is occurring (e.g., the student is not responding to the advisor or is not carrying out expected tasks or working towards agreed-upon goals), the advisor should make and document reasonable efforts to convey their concerns to the student and to inform both the staff and faculty graduate advisors. If the situation continues, the advisor should also inform and seek consultation with the department chair (or vice-chair, as appropriate) and possibly the student's other committee members. 

Departmental advisor requirement 

Each Ph.D. student must have a primary advisor within the Cognitive Science department. Typically this will be a ladder-rank, full-time professor. In special cases a teaching professor, emeritus professor, or adjunct professor can serve as advisor; these situations must be petitioned and approved by the department chair (or vice-chair, as appropriate) and the faculty graduate advisor in order to be codified. Either the chair/vice-chair or faculty graduate advisor can request an all-faculty discussion of the petition. Both the student and the advisor must formally report their advising relationship to the department’s staff graduate advisor. 

The primary advisor is accountable for the student’s day-to-day academic progress. While students may also work with mentors from other departments, the primary advisor must be a faculty member in the department of Cognitive Science. If no faculty member within the department is available or willing to serve in this role, the student cannot be considered in good standing within the program. In cases where a student seeks to work primarily with a faculty member outside the department, a petition to transfer programs may be appropriate. 

Any changes to the advisor-advisee relationship must be promptly communicated to the department chair and faculty graduate advisor by both parties. In some cases a temporary or acting advisor might be assigned (e.g., in the case of a prolonged medical absence of the advisor); typically (although not necessarily) this will be another of the student's committee members. In these cases the acting advisor should be identified as soon as possible, and the temporary assignment should be petitioned to both the staff and faculty graduate advisors. The temporary advisor should meet with the student (and, if possible, with the regular advisor) as soon as practicable to ensure that they know the student's status and progress goals and are prepared to effectively advise the student. 

Acceptable conduct 

Any conduct considered inappropriate per the Division of Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Affairs (GEPA) for students, or the Academic Personnel Manual (APM) for faculty, should be reported to the department chair, faculty graduate advisor, and staff graduate advisor where they will be reviewed, and appropriate action taken per GEPA and APM guidelines.

Guidelines for acceptable progress 

The following provides a general framework for expected progress through the Ph.D. program. Individual timelines may vary, so students should consult regularly with their advisors to clarify expectations. 

Year 1 

• 2-3 quarters (and minimally 1 quarter) of lab rotation(s) (note: as appropriate, such as to learn additional methods, later lab rotations can be undertaken in years 2, 3 or 4)
• Completion of 3 foundation courses, 1 elective course, and 2 methods courses
• 1 teaching assistantship (TA) 
• Development of core competencies in neuroscience, programming, mathematics, and other relevant areas 

Year 2 

• Completion of all coursework 
• Satisfactory completion of the second-year project 
• Additional lab rotation(s) if only 1-2 quarters were fulfilled in Year 1 

Year 3 

• All course requirements completed, including foundation, elective, methods, and rotation requirements 
• Draft dissertation proposal 
• Journal submissions and/or conference presentations 
• Establishment of at least three members of the dissertation committee ● For non-residents: advancing to candidacy 

Year 4 

• Advancement to candidacy 
• Data collection for dissertation research 
• Continued journal submissions and/or conference presentations 
• Application for dissertation funding 
• For residents: Advancing to candidacy 

Year 5 

• Finalization and defense of dissertation 
• Continued conference presentations and /or journal submissions 
• Application for postdoctoral, industry, or faculty positions 

Indicators of unacceptable progress 

The following are examples of situations that may signal inadequate progress in the program. While each case is considered individually, students should consult their advisors if any of the following apply. In addition, the advisor should inform the faculty graduate advisor if any of the following are occurring, and the advisor has attempted but been unsuccessful in establishing a

clear, agreed-upon plan for resolving the situation. In cases where extenuating circumstances (e.g., medical or family leave) have created a delay, the indicators are not necessarily considered a "warning sign" of inadequate progress. However, it is contingent on the student and advisor to formulate a plan and concrete schedule for completion of goals, to consult with the staff and/or faculty graduate advisors as appropriate, and for the student to keep their advisor and the staff graduate advisor informed of any changes to their leave schedule, as well as target dates for completing any delayed milestones. 

Year 1 

• No completed lab rotations 
• Fewer than 2 foundation or methods courses completed 
• No TA assignments (unless other funding has been awarded and delay of TA assignments until year 2 or later has been agreed upon by the department) 
• Lack of progress in developing core competencies in research and scholarship
• Fewer than 5 non-rotation, non-TA classes completed by the end of the first year

• Missing more than one key component (rotations, foundation, or methods courses)
• Second-year project does not meet the standard for Ph.D.-level research potential
• More than three significant areas of concern identified 

Year 3 

• Incomplete course requirements 
• Absence of a primary advisor or qualified co-advisors (one of whom must be in the department) 
• Lack of a clear dissertation plan that has been approved (or at least scheduled for discussion) by the student’s advisor and committee 
• For non-residents: failing to advance to candidacy 

Year 4 

• Loss of contact with advisor or dissertation committee
• For residents: failing to advance to candidacy

Spring 2020 Update: Typically, all courses taken for credit toward the Cognitive Science PhD course requirements must be taken for a Letter Grade, with the exception of specific courses (see list of courses below).  However, for SP20 the UCSD Academic Senate is allowing courses approved with the grading option of "Letter Grade Only" on a P/NP or S/U basis. This is a one-time exception for Spring 2020.  While the department will allow students in our majors to take courses for their requirements as P/NP in SP20, it is encouraged that students strongly consider taking required classes with a Letter Grade.

The expectation is that graduate students in the program will maintain a 3.4 GPA and falling below this expectation may lead to the student being put on departmental probation. No course in which the student is assigned a grade below B- will be allowed to fulfill department requirements.

Letter grade required:

• Foundation Courses (COGS 201, 202, 203)
• Elective Courses
• Methods Courses
• Second Year Project Courses (COGS 210ABC, COGS 211ABC).  Note: the first two quarters will be graded IP or "in progress".  A letter grade will be assigned when the last part of the sequence is completed and graded.

Letter grade or S/U courses:

• COGS 291
• COGS 298 (Pre-candidacy research)
• COGS 299 (Thesis Research)

S/U required:

• COGS 205
• COGS 241
• COGS 290
• COGS 500

Annual review of student progress. The annual review for each enrolled Ph.D. candidate will ensure that students are meeting the normative program requirements for progress (here). Annually, the primary advisor, with approval of the full faculty, will provide one of 3 ratings for the student, which correspond to the “Overall academic rating” on the official Graduate Division Student Evaluation:

(A) Excellent, Very good, or Good. Student is making satisfactory progress

(B) Fair. Student is making progress but with significant areas of concern

(C) Needs improvement. Student did not make adequate progress

Recommendations will be based on the following:

1. Written self-evaluation and/or Individual Development Plan by the student
2. Written evaluation by outside faculty advisor when that advisor has a significant advisory role.
3. Discussion by the full faculty to evaluate progress and identify potential areas of concern.
4. Written evaluation by the primary faculty advisor (Cognitive Science department faculty member).

Faculty evaluations should be submitted prior to the faculty meeting discussion in cases where a primary advisor cannot be present for the discussion.

An evaluation should be submitted prior to the faculty meeting discussion in cases where an advisor believes a B or C is warranted (see below)

Criteria for receiving a B or C evaluation may include: poor performance in courses, or failure to meet the course requirements; lack of sufficient progress in research; inadequate performance in teaching; or lack of a primary departmental advisor.

Follow-up and ongoing review

- Students receiving (A) will be re-evaluated every 12 months.

- Students receiving (B) will be given specific written feedback about faculty expectations for improvement. These improvements will be assessed, ideally within 6 months of the initial evaluation but no later than the next annual review in 12 months. The specific progress on items of concern should be directly addressed in the student’s self-evaluation and advisor-written evaluation at that time. The advisor may judge a second year of continuing concern sufficient to constitute inadequate progress (C) for the year.

- Students receiving (C) will be required to submit a plan with their faculty advisor to address the faculty’s concerns. The student’s plan must be signed by their academic advisor and the department’s graduate advisor, and must include both specific objectives and milestones as appropriate for the student as well as expectations about faculty involvement. Within 6 months of the evaluation, the student will be required to obtain certification from their faculty advisor and the department’s graduate advisor that they have made adequate progress, so that their recommendation is likely to be A or B at the next yearly evaluation.  If the faculty and graduate advisor do not provide this certification, the student is subject to dismissal.

– Students who receive two (C) evaluations are subject to academic disqualification and dismissal from the program.