Home > Our Work > Research > Institutional Research > Published Research >

Published Research Article

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

June 10, 2025

In a new article published in Frontiers in Public Health, Breaking Tradition: Should Biostatistics Doctoral Qualifying Exams Evolve to Better Serve Our Students’ Ability to Demonstrate Readiness to Conduct Independent Research?, authors Scarlett L. Bellamy and Lisa M. Sullivan explore how the traditional qualifying examination in biostatistics doctoral programs may create barriers to inclusion and equity. They propose reconsidering the format, evaluation, and purpose of these exams to better support student success and align with calls for inclusive excellence in graduate education.

Key Findings

  • Qualifying exams may perpetuate inequities
    • While designed to assess readiness for independent research, doctoral qualifying exams can act as structural barriers for students from historically underrepresented groups. The absence of universal competencies, clear rubrics, and consistent evaluation criteria can disadvantage students with less access to mentoring or resources.
  • Historical context highlights the need for change
    • The authors note that foundational figures in biostatistics also supported eugenics, a fact that underscores the importance of ensuring today’s academic structures do not unintentionally uphold exclusionary practices. Reconsidering the qualifying exam is framed as part of dismantling systemic barriers.
  • Diversity efforts have not fully addressed inclusion
    • Initiatives like summer programs, mentoring, and diversity workshops have expanded representation in biostatistics but have not always addressed whether academic environments are truly inclusive or welcoming. The authors distinguish between “assimilationist inclusion” and approaches that center historically excluded perspectives.
  • Data reveal persistent disparities
    • Limited available data suggest retention in biostatistics graduate programs is better than in some STEM fields, but disparities remain. Proxy measures from 2010 and 2020 ASPPH data show lower graduation percentages relative to enrollment for Hispanic/Latino, Black/African American, and Asian students.
  • Student experiences raise concerns
    • Some students earn top grades in coursework yet fail the qualifying exam, often without detailed feedback or guidance for improvement. The high-stakes nature of the exam, combined with vague preparation resources, can intensify stress and disadvantage those less familiar with the “hidden curriculum.”
  • Alternative approaches could better serve students
    • The authors suggest that once the purpose of the qualifying exam is clearly defined, programs should identify essential competencies and consider multiple ways to assess mastery. Alternatives could include different exam formats or non-exam-based assessments that still ensure readiness for dissertation research.

Implications

Revisiting the role of the qualifying exam in biostatistics doctoral programs offers an opportunity to align assessment with principles of equity, transparency, and student success. The authors call for graduate programs to:

  • Define the exam’s purpose and establish universal competencies.
  • Provide clear evaluation rubrics and transparent preparation guidance.
  • Consider alternative assessments that reflect real-world collaborative research.
  • Monitor outcomes to identify and address disparities in progression.

By centering student perspectives and prioritizing inclusive excellence, programs can maintain rigorous standards while reducing structural barriers to success.

Access the Full Article

Read the full text in Frontiers in Public Health.