Student Evaluations

Guidelines for Annual Evaluations

Mentors/Advisors and students should meet in the first two weeks of spring semester to discuss student performance during the past calendar year in all relevant areas (coursework, research, practice, placements, work assignments, etc.).

• All students are required to fill out, review with their mentors/advisors, and submit to the Director of Clinical Training, the Annual Graduate Student Report and Evaluation of Professional Activities prior to the beginning of student evaluations. The form will be sent to the students by the Director of Clinical Training at the end of fall semester and should be returned to the Director of Clinical Training by the end of the first two weeks of the spring semester (approved by the mentor/adviser, either by signature on the form or by email confirmation of the approval).

Mentors/Advisors should review their students’ permanent files and make note of:

• grades, especially those of PR, I, and any grades below B-;
• deadlines met or failed for thesis proposals and final meetings, comprehensive examinations, and dissertation proposals;
• ratings from teaching assignments and assistantship duties;
• progress toward degree requirements;
• professional conduct and personal behavior that bears upon the profession;
• accomplishment of the yearly dissemination of research requirement (second year students and up); and
• other pertinent information.

The Clinic Director will prepare a brief summary of all clinical supervision ratings from practicum and traineeship placements, with focus on areas that need improvement and areas of exceeding expectations, to present to the faculty.

The Director of Clinical Training will provide templates for the evaluation letters at the beginning of the spring semester; mentors/advisors should fill in as much information as they can in the template prior to the scheduled meetings where students are reviewed.

Mentors/Advisors will report pertinent information from their meetings with their advisees and reviews of the advisees’ files to a meeting of the clinical faculty for discussion. The mentors/advisors will serve as their advisees’ representatives during the meeting. Feedback and comments will be solicited from other faculty/supervisors and from the Clinic Director. During the meeting, the bases of evaluation will include 1) academic progress and performance, 2) research, 3) clinical skills, 4) professional and ethical behavior, and 5) GA/RA Duties. Unsatisfactory evaluations will automatically result from failure to meet the thesis and dissertation proposal or defense deadlines, poor academic progress (receipt of a grade lower than B- or presence of many PRs and Is), evidence of unprofessional behavior, and failure of any part of the comprehensive examination, but may also result from other concerns in research or clinical training.

Following the meeting, the student’s mentor/adviser will complete the evaluation summarizing the evaluations in each category and specifying the recommendations, if any, from the evaluation. Evaluation letters must be co-signed by the Director of Clinical Training before they are distributed. Letters should be given to students within the first half o the spring semester.

Evaluation letters will include an overall rating of student performance, as well as ratings in each of the five evaluation categories: 1) academic progress and performance, 2) research, 3) clinical skills, 4) professional and ethical behavior, and 5) GA/RA Duties. The lowest rating (which is the highest number) obtained in categories 1 through 5 will determine the overall evaluation letter rating. The rating system used is as follows:

• Type I. The student generally is considered as being on schedule with respect to fulfilling the requirements of the clinical program. Any minor deficiencies of the student’s record (e.g., an outstanding PR) are noted. Areas where the student requires additional training and expertise are suggested.
• Type II. The student has a deficiency (e.g., one grade below a “B-“, failure to meet a deadline, failure of comps, low clinical competency rating) that has led them to no longer be on schedule with respect to fulfilling the requirements of the program. The deficiency is described; any steps suggested to correct the problem are also noted. It is anticipated that the student will correct the deficiency between receipt of a Type II letter and a deadline established by the Clinical Section. Failure to correct the deficiency within the prescribed time may be cause for dismissal from the program.
• Type III. Academic performance (e.g., 2 grades less than a “B-“ in any given year) or professional behavior has seriously jeopardized the student’s continuation in the clinical program.
• Type IV. On the basis of unsatisfactory performance, the student is subject to immediate dismissal from the clinical program.