Securing an Academic Advisor

Students are responsible for finding an academic advisor, and in consultation with this advisor, identifying research topics that are appropriate and adequate for a doctoral dissertation in mechanical engineering. Students will be admitted to Ph.D. or M.Sc./Ph.D. programs only after a faculty member has agreed to be their academic advisor. Students currently enrolled in a master’s program at KAUST and wishing to continue with Ph.D. studies must obtain the consent of a faculty member to supervise their Ph.D. work, and, thereafter, submit an application to the University Admission Office for admission to the Ph.D. program.

Ph.D. Course Requirements

The required coursework varies for students entering the Ph.D. degree with a bachelor’s degree or a relevant master’s degree. Students holding a bachelor’s degree must complete all program core courses and elective courses, outlined in the master’s degree section, and are also required to complete the Ph.D. courses below. Students entering with a bachelor’s degree will qualify to earn a master’s degree by satisfying the master’s degree requirements.

Students entering the Ph.D. degree with a relevant M.Sc. degree must complete the requirements below, though additional courses may be required by the academic advisor.

Ph.D. Courses

• Four courses are required: two ME 300 level courses, one 200 level or higher course in AMCS or STATS, one 200 level or higher elective course.
• Graduate seminar 398 (non-credit) – all students are required to register and receive a satisfactory grade for every semester of the program they attend. Failure to do so may result in academic probation and/or dismissal.
• Completion of one Winter Enrichment Program (WEP) – students who completed WEP while earning the M.Sc. are not required to enroll in a full WEP for a second time during the Ph.D.

Ph.D. Candidacy

In addition to the coursework requirements, students must successfully complete the required Ph.D. candidacy milestones to progress towards Ph.D. candidate status. These milestones consist of the subject-based qualifying examination and Ph.D. proposal defense. Once students have advanced to candidacy, students are designated as Ph.D. or doctoral candidates.

Ph.D. Qualifying Examination

All ME Ph.D. students must pass an oral comprehensive subject examination (also known as the PhD. qualifying examination) within the stipulated time frame.

Schedule

This qualifying examination will be given twice a year during a single time window. This window is approximately a week in length: the beginning of spring semester and fall semester.

Timeline

1. Ph.D. students (who already have an M.Sc. degree) must pass the exam within 18 months of the start of their Ph.D. studies in the ME program at KAUST. These students should, therefore, plan on making their first attempt within the first year of their Ph.D. studies.
2. MS/PhD students (who have a bachelor’s degree) must pass the exam within 24 months of the start of their studies in the ME program at KAUST. These students should, therefore, plan on making their first attempt within the first year and a half of their studies.

Subjects

The exam will comprise of one oral examination in mathematics and two oral examinations in any of the following areas: (a) fluid mechanics, (b) solid mechanics, (c) control and dynamics, and (d) heat transfer and thermodynamics. The exam in each area will include common questions to be asked of all students who have selected that area. In addition, the examination will extend beyond the common questions to test students’ ability in their major area of interest. Students may petition the ME program to replace one of the specified areas (other than mathematics) with an area that is not on the list and is not a subspecialty of one of the listed areas. Examples of "other areas" that might be appropriate are biomechanics and scientific computation, to mention only two.

Multiple Attempts

At the first attempt, students must attempt the exams in all three subjects simultaneously. In the event students fail the qualifying examination in one or more subjects, then at most one additional attempt (in the failed subject) will be allowed at the discretion of the ME faculty.

Format

All examinations will be closed book and closed notes. The exam is forty-five minutes in length, preceded by a fifteen-minute period during which students will be allowed to review the written questions for that exam. The fifteen minute period is for students to collect their thoughts and there will be no consultation of reference material. Students may write some notes during this time to bring into the exam. The examiners will probe more deeply into the issues raised in the questions.

Notification by Ph.D. Students

At least one month prior to the examination, students must notify the GPC in writing of their choice of the two subject areas (other than mathematics) for the exam.

Subject Contents

While the exam in each subject area need not be limited to the content of any particular course, the nominal level of preparation for the exam is suggested by the courses appearing opposite each area listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Subject Areas for the Candidacy Examination

Subject area descriptions which detail the topics from which exam questions may be drawn are available on the ME website here.

Ph.D. Proposal Defense

In addition to the subject component of the qualifying examination, Ph.D. students must also pass the research component examination (Ph.D. proposal defense). This exam should take place within one year of students passing the subject component of the qualifying examination. Failure to complete the exam in the stipulated time frame may result in academic probation and/or dismissal. The exam essentially consists of two items (with more details given below):

• Proposal: submission of a 10-page proposal to the examining committee at least 10 days prior to the scheduled presentation
• Presentation: approximately 30 minutes duration on the dissertation topic is required by the examining committee

Students should submit a 10-page proposal document (note: the number of pages is a recommendation and not a strict requirement) to the three members of the committee at least 10 days before the examination. The proposal should describe the proposed topic of research, relevant survey of the literature and any preliminary results or laboratory preparation.

Students should make a half-hour oral presentation of the research proposal, followed by questions from the committee consistent with the scope of the examination. The examination is expected to last approximately one hour. The exam is not open to the public.

Scope of the Examination

The scope of this examination is to demonstrate that students have the ability and are adequately prepared to undertake Ph.D. level research in the proposed area. This preparation includes necessary knowledge of the chosen subject, a review of the literature and preparatory theory or experiment as applicable. It is not necessary to have final results, a working computer program, a functioning piece of equipment or fully analyzed data. It is also not necessary to present a definitive dissertation outline.

Scheduling

Students should schedule the examination at a time acceptable to the committee within one year of passing the subject component of the qualifying examination. For any special circumstances, extensions must be approved by the program chair at least one month prior to the deadline.

Examination Committee

The Ph.D. dissertation proposal defense committee, which must be approved by the dean, must consist of at least three members and typically includes no more than six members. The chair, plus one additional faculty member must be affiliated with the student’s program. Students should propose the committee, in consultation with the advisor, in writing to the GPC. Students are advised to seek the consent of the members before proposing them. The relevant form must be submitted at least two weeks prior to the scheduled proposal defense.

Notes:

• Members 1-3 are required, member 4 is optional
• Academic advisor may serve as chair
• Faculty members holding secondary affiliation with ME may serve as member 1 or 2 but not as member 3
• Adjunct professors and professor emeriti may retain their roles on current committees, but may not serve as chair on any new committees
• Professors of practice and research professors may serve as members 2 or 3 depending upon their affiliation with the student’s program, they may also serve as co-chairs

Once constituted, the composition of the proposal committee can only be changed with the approval of both the academic advisor and the dean.

View a list of faculty and their affiliations here. 

Results

The examination committee can make one of four recommendations. These must be recorded on the Ph.D. Proposal Evaluation form.

1. Pass. This recommendation is made if students satisfy the criterion that forms the scope of this examination.
2. Pass subject to remedial action. This recommendation is made if students satisfy the criterion that forms the scope of this examination except for an isolated deficiency. No further examination is required. The examination committee will propose the remedial action, specify criteria to demonstrate that students have taken this action and a time-table to complete this action. Examples include but are not limited to (a) taking an additional course or (b) conducting additional literature survey in a specified area.
3. Fail with an option for re-examination. This recommendation is made if students fail to satisfy the criterion that form the scope of this examination, but the committee judges that students may be able to do so in the future with additional study. The examination committee will propose when the re-examination is offered; this date cannot be later than six months from the time of the examination.
4. Fail. This recommendation is made if students fail to satisfy the criterion that form the scope of this examination, and if the examination committee judges the deficiencies are so serious that students are unlikely to be able to do so in a re-examination.

The chair of the examination committee will notify the GPC of the recommendation. The final decision will be made by the associate dean. If the decision of the committee is

1. Pass, then students will be accepted to Ph.D. candidacy on fulfillment of the remaining requirements.
2. Pass subject to remedial action, then students will be accepted to candidacy on fulfillment of remaining requirements and the remedial action.
3. Fail with an option for re-examination, then the committee will specify the time table for the re-examination; this cannot be later than six months from the time of the examination. Further, the associate dean will suggest a faculty member (chair of the examination committee, academic advisor or another faculty member, as appropriate) to provide feedback to students regarding the examination and also to counsel students regarding the reexamination. The result of any re-examination can only be a pass or fail (with no second reexamination).
4. Fail, students will not be allowed to continue in the Ph.D. program.

Ph.D. Dissertation Progress

After passing the subject- and research-components of the qualifying exam, students become Ph.D. candidates. It is the responsibility of students to keep making steady and timely progress towards the goals set forth for Ph.D. dissertation work. The progress is overseen on a regular basis by the academic advisor. It is recommended (not required) that students update, typically every semester, the Ph.D. Proposal Committee members with regards to their progress. If students are having serious problems with dissertation work and the issues are not resolved by the academic advisor, students must inform the GPC and seek help from other members of the Proposal Committee and/or the associate dean.

Ph.D. Dissertation Defense

This is final and most important stage of students’ Ph.D. journey. In consultation with the academic advisor, students will target a specific semester for dissertation submission and defense.

Ph.D. Dissertation

The Ph.D. dissertation must contain original results demonstrating students’ scholarly activities during the course of the PhD. The dissertation must conform to the University library guidelines for Ph.D. dissertation. The student must be fully aware of what is considered plagiarism and must avoid all forms of plagiarism. The Ph.D. dissertation must be written in fluent high-quality English using proper language, style, and appropriate methods of scientific reasoning. Parts of the dissertation research should have been presented at international conferences. The dissertation research must lead to high quality scientific publications in international peer-reviewed journals, ideally leading journals of the field. The ME program expects that at least one such journal publication has appeared in print before the scheduling of the Ph.D. dissertation defense. In the introductory part of the dissertation, students must list all scientific publications coming out of their work. For each publication, students must indicate the contributions made by the key co-authors.

Petition to Defend

Students must submit the following to the GPC at least two months prior to the scheduled defense date or by the second week of the semester (whichever is earlier):

• Petition form signed by all committee members
• Draft of the Ph.D. dissertation
• Current transcript
• Current CV
• A list of publications

Dissertation Submission to the Committee

Students must send the final draft of the dissertation to all committee members and GPC at least four weeks prior to the scheduled defense. If the dissertation is not sent by this deadline, the defense will have to be rescheduled with a new petition form.

Ph.D. Dissertation Committee

The Ph.D. dissertation defense committee, which must be approved by the dean, must consist of at least four members and typically includes no more than six members. At least three of the required members must be KAUST faculty and one must be an external examiner who is external to KAUST. The chair, plus one additional faculty member must be affiliated with the student’s program. It is expected that the Ph.D. proposal committee members will be part of the Ph.D. dissertation committee due to their familiarity with the dissertation work.

Notes:

• Members 1-4 are required, members 5 and 6 are optional
• Academic advisor cannot serve as the chair
• Faculty members holding secondary affiliation with ME may serve as member 1 or 2, but not as member 3
• Adjunct professors and professors emeriti may retain their roles on current committees, but may not serve as chair on any new committees
• Professors of practice and research professors may serve as members 2, 3 or 6 depending upon their affiliation with the student’s program, they may also serve as co-chairs
• Visiting professors may serve as member 6, but not as the external examiner

Co-supervisors can be considered one of the above four members required, provided they come under the categories listed (i.e., meets the requirements of the position).

View a list of faculty and their affiliations here.

External Examiner

The academic advisor is responsible for nominating a well-qualified, objective, and experienced individual who is not a permanent faculty at KAUST. The specific qualifications of an external examiner are:

• Holds a Ph.D.
• Has previous experience with supervision and examination of doctoral students
• Has an established reputation in the area of the dissertation research and is able to judge whether a dissertation is acceptable
• Should be of either full or associate professor rank at a university, or have comparable expertise and standing if not at a university. If not presently associated with a university, nominees should have some previous university affiliation
• Attachment of a bio/web link for the associate dean to approve

Proposed external examiners must not be closely associated with Ph.D. candidates as research collaborator, co-author, previous supervisor, through family ties, or the like. External examiners must evaluate the Ph.D. dissertation and inform the chair if the thesis is not ready for defense. In such a case, the defense will be cancelled and rescheduled at a later date. The external examiner must submit their report to the GPC at least two days before the scheduled defense. The coordinator will pass this report on to the chair of the dissertation defense committee. The attendance of the external examiner at the oral defense is encouraged but not required. If the external examiner cannot be present, skype video conferencing is required. If the external examiner chooses to attend the Ph.D. defense in KAUST, then travel and lodging costs will be taken care of by KAUST.

Chair of the Dissertation Defense Committee

The chair of the dissertation defense committee must be from the ME program but not the Ph.D. academic advisor. The responsibilities of the chair are:

• Introduce the Ph.D. candidate and the committee members
• Outline the process followed for the dissertation defense
• Moderate the Q&A session with the general audience during the open session
• Organize the Q&A session with the committee members during the closed session
• Take votes and recommendations of the committee members for the final decision
• Write a short report (1 page) about the Ph.D. dissertation and defense for review by the associate dean within three days of the defense

Examination

The examination is divided into an open session and closed session. During the open session, the Ph.D. candidate will describe the dissertation work during a 45-minute (maximum) presentation which may be attended by other students, faculty, staff and student family members. No questions are allowed during the presentation. The student should clearly outline the big picture of the work, state the goals, illustrate the technical work and contributions, and finally conclude with key achievements and future work. Thereafter, the chair of dissertation committee will invite the audience (excluding committee members) to ask questions. This Q&A session is expected to last for no more than 15 minutes. At the conclusion of audience questions, the chair will request the audience to leave the room. The closed session of the exam will then begin where the committee members will ask questions to the Ph.D. candidate. Chairs may organize this session as they deem fit. The closed session of the exam is expected to last anywhere from one to three hours. At the conclusion of committee questions, the Ph.D. candidate will be asked to leave the room. The committee will then discuss their findings and reach a decision either by consensus or by voting. The Ph.D. candidate will then be asked to return to the room where the chair will inform students of the final decision of the committee.

Results

The Ph.D. dissertation committee can make one of four recommendations. These must be recorded on the Ph.D. Dissertation Defense form.

1. Pass. This recommendation is made if the committee agrees that the dissertation is already of high quality and no further changes are needed.
2. Pass with conditions. This recommendation is made if the committee is satisfied by the overall quality of the work but deems certain changes are necessary to be made to the dissertation. The Committee specifies the time period, typically four weeks or less, for students to submit a revised copy of the dissertation to all committee members and GPC. The chair will collect feedback from the committee members and accordingly inform the GPC that the revised dissertation is accepted.
3. Fail with an option for re-examination. This recommendation is made if the committee judges that the dissertation needs major modification with, for example, additional experiments or simulations. The committee will propose when the re-examination is offered, typically within one year.
4. Fail. This recommendation is made if the committee judges that the dissertation has major holes and the deficiencies are so serious that the student is unlikely to overcome those in a reasonable time frame.

The chair of the dissertation committee will notify the GPC of the recommendation. The final decision will be made by the associate dean.