Breaking Tradition: Should Biostatistics Doctoral Qualifying Exams Evolve to Better Serve Our Students' Ability to Demonstrate Readiness to Conduct Independent Research?

Scarlett L Bellamy^*Lisa M Sullivan

• School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, United States

Doctoral programs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education often include qualifying exams as a central component of the curriculum. While these exams are designed to assess a student's knowledge and potential to conduct independent research as part of the culminating dissertation phase of their studies, they can also inadvertently perpetuate structural biases and barriers for underrepresented groups. Biostatistics programs have increasingly focused on efforts to address diversity. While some programs had long-standing initiatives, others began following the summer of 2020. The momentum following some of these efforts has been disrupted following the recent Supreme Court ruling around the college admissions process. In response to the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health’s Framing the Future 2030 (ASPPH FTF2030) call to action, most specifically to “create and support inclusive and anti-racist teaching, learning, and working environments,” we propose examining the structure of the written qualifying examination to mitigate potential disparities in student success in doctoral training programs including the format of the exams, the evaluation criteria, and the support available to students as they prepare for the exam. In this paper, we briefly review the history and founding of our discipline, present data on the continuing under-representation of historically marginalized groups in our field, review the basic structure and purported purpose of the qualifying exam, and finally we propose several recommendations to address this potential structural barrier and encourage others to engage in critical reflection of their curricular requirements to assess whether they promote inclusive excellence.