I am not sure if everyone or anyone is aware of the new NCU process. When your dissertation is submitted for University Review, you get feedback and a call scheduled with the school reviewer, dean, chair, and learner. The discussion is to ensure you understand all of the reviewer’s comments so they can be addressed. If you submit a second time and everything has not been addressed you run the risk of being removed from the program. I know there is something like this for the dissertation proposal also but I am not sure of the sequence or number of submissions you get. It is good and bad – good is you get live feedback and the bad is the results could be less then favorable (to say the least). The end point is noble – help the student but this should be a little more structured and not change the rules mid-stream. I will be glad to be done. The last 4 months have been more nerve racking then the previous 4 years!
I have my call scheduled to discuss the reviewer comments. I have most of the changes already made. After the call, I will triple check everything, resubmit, cross fingers, jump and scream like a madman when it is approved. After that it is the oral defense then a long nap...
Excellent idea. Too many students were complaining that they weren't getting appropriate feedback: Well, now they're going to get it telephonicly. It sounds similar to a conference, but instead, it will be a conference call. It's still evolving.
Okay, it is more like finish my MBA in Marketing at TUI since I only have three classes plus the one I just started...then nap.
So if you make a careless error and forget to address something they called you on, you could get booted from the program? After spending all that money and time? If that happened I would consider a lawsuit.
That is what the chair is for - to catch those mistakes. Actually there is more accountability on the committee now also with this model.
As a committee member, you're not trying to boot students for careless or minor errors. However, if one of your students "just doesn't understand" some methodological principles, even after a year or two, then that may be a different story. Your goal is to help, not hinder.