UNSW: School of Computer Science and Enginerring

School of Computer Science and Engineering
Guidelines for Research Student Reviews

These guidelines are based on the guidelines produced by the Postgraduate Studies Committee when it began to require Research Student Reviews in 1990.

You might also like to look at a more recent University draft report on Progress Reviews.

It includes information (again note that it is a draft) on the University's perception of the responsibilities of students, supervisors, school postgraduate coordinators, and the School/Faculty/University itself.


Reviews must be documented on the Faculty's Standard Research Student Review Form. The review process includes but is not limited to obtaining the information necessary to complete this form. All reviews must result in a written report signed by the committee. The supervisor and student must also sign that they have sighted the report. A copy of the report must go in the student's school file, and another copy to Postgraduate Section.


Initial Review

This is normally conducted in the student's second session of enrolment. A candidate cannot continue enrolment if the review outcome is "unsatisfactory", although the review group may recommend that the student repeat the review process, this follow-up review being undertaken within 3 months. If the review is again unsatisfactory, cancellation of enrolment will be seriously considered. In the case of a first unsatisfactory review of this type, the review outcome will be forwarded to Postgraduate Section, but normally not referred to the Higher Degree Committee for exclusion unless and until the follow-up review had been carried out, with a second "unsatisfactory" outcome.

Second Review

A requirement of postgraduate enrolment is that all candidates undertake a mid-term review. This is normally conducted in the student's fourth session of enrolment.


Subsequent Reviews

The PSC guidelines did not include further reviews. I believe that this was because the PSC was pushing a "finish in 3 years" line. However, in the case of students talking 4, 5, or 6 years, it would make sense to review them at the end of their 3rd, 4th, and 5th years, too.
No Longer Maintained
Last substantive modificiation: 04 November 1996