Doctoral Comprehensive Exams: Standardization, Customization, and Everywhere in Between

Abstract

Comprehensive examinations mark one of the final student assessments within doctoral programs. Despite the presumed importance of this process, little is known about how it is carried out within the field of criminology and criminal justice. This study examined the structure of comprehensive exams in relevant doctoral programs. The findings reveal considerable variation in how programs organize comprehensive exams. This variation might suggest that programs vary in the objectives they associate with the comprehensive exam process, though other explanations are possible. The discipline may need to open a dialogue on the goals and objectives driving these processes to better understand their fit within doctoral education.

Notes

1. Hinchey and Kimmel (2000) offer a critical review of graduate education, suggesting that assessment mechanisms and degree requirements have historically been implemented to manage graduate student enrollment, rather than being motivated by educational objectives and ideals. This argument is particularly focused on how graduate programs support institutional needs on both formal (resource acquisition, cheap labor, and prestige) and informal (ego, power, and control) levels.

2. Foreign language requirements, at least in criminology and criminal justice programs, are uncommon.

3. Interestingly, graduate students express support for this “weeding out” process (see Anderson & Swazey, 1998). Presumably those who successfully pass the assessments enjoy not only degree progress, but also the ego gratification of succeeding where others failed.

4. The ADPCCJ list represented the population for the purposes of the present study. To the best of the authors' knowledge, the list is the most complete source available of programs offering doctoral degrees in criminology or criminal justice. Data only reflect institutions listed as ADPCCJ members in January of 2006.

5. Completed interviews were obtained from representatives from the following universities: Arizona State University, Florida State University, Indiana University, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, City University of New York (John Jay College of Criminal Justice), Michigan State University, North Dakota State University, Northeastern University, Penn State University, Prairie View A&M University, Rutgers University–Newark, Sam Houston State University, Temple University, University of Southern Mississippi, University at Albany, University of Arkansas–Little Rock, University of California–Irvine, University of Central Florida, University of Cincinnati, University of Delaware, University of Florida, University of Illinois‐Chicago, University of Maryland, University of Missouri–St Louis, University of Nebraska–Omaha, University of South Florida, Washington State University.

6. The topics represented the areas covered on comprehensive examinations as indicated by program representatives. The total number of topics exceeds the total number of exams offered by programs since multiple topics may have been covered on a single examination.

7. As Clear (2001) noted, “[criminal justice and criminology] language and methods are borrowed from other disciplines, and we have no uniform theoretical infrastructure, in part because we employ the various theoretical orientations of those several disciplines” (p. 711). Our discipline is rooted in other fields of inquiry, a pattern that continues to manifest in contemporary education and scholarship.

8. The classification scheme is based on all possible examination offerings in a given program. For example, if a student was required to complete two exams but could choose from four possible options—two outside of class options and two fixed‐time/location options—the program is classified as a hybrid. Even though a student could choose two fixed‐time/location examinations, the totality of offerings is best classified as hybrid since both fixed‐time/location and outside of class options were available.

9. Some examination formats required that all students complete questions in core areas and then complete questions within their self‐identified area of study. For the purposes of this analysis such approaches are considered to be standardized if questions in areas of study were standardized (i.e. all students completing the “corrections” exam were presented with the same set of questions).

10. Classification of programs along the standardization dimension is based on a review of all possible exam offerings by the program. Thus, a program's exam format is completely standardized only if all exams offered made use of standardized questions.

11. The representative from one of these programs indicated that complete individualization would likely be replaced in whole or in part by standardized exams given the size of the program.

12. The representative indicated that, while this is technically an option of the committee, it has never been exercised.

13. Though a logical counterargument might suggest that responding to this particular market demand should not drive curricular decisions.

14. Albert Einstein, in commenting on his university exams, noted that “One had to cram all this stuff into one's mind for the examinations, whether one liked it or not. This coercion had such a deterring effect on me that, after I had passed the final examination, I found the consideration of any scientific problem distasteful for an entire year.” See http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/4065.

15. Beck and Becker cite a study by Mechanic (1962) that suggested other metrics, such as faculty evaluations of student aptitude, might produce the same outcome with less effort. Mechanic's study found that poorly rated students tended to fail exams.