Evaluation

Evaluation is one of the few moments when the academic system directly intervenes in the quality of work. When it works, it produces real improvement. When it doesn’t work, it produces only wear, stagnant versions, and collective time loss.

The Program adopts the guidelines below because they make evaluation useful, not just formal.

The Program expects that faculty evaluation:

• Focuses on work decisions, not on student characteristics
• Makes explicit what needs to change: where it appears in the text and how to verify the change
• Differentiates requirement from suggestion, especially in high-impact evaluations
• Produces justifiable decisions for other faculty, not just for the evaluator

This does not reduce rigor. On the contrary: it protects judgment, reduces rework, and gives institutional support to decisions.

The Program does not consider productive:

• Generic feedback without next step
• Comments about “profile”, “maturity”, or “potential”
• Evaluations where it is not clear what is mandatory

These practices do not produce academic progress.

The Program expects the student to:

• Read evaluations looking for actions, not intentions
• Differentiate what is a condition for progression from what is a recommendation
• Transform feedback into traceable changes in the text

Defending the text against the review does not improve the work. Using the review to revise does.

The Program does not consider productive:

• Responding to the review with abstract arguments
• Submitting new versions that do not respond to previous reviews

Feedback is not a verdict; it is a work input. In graduate school, learning to use criticism is part of the training.

The Program uses different instruments to monitor student progress:

Each instrument has a specific purpose. The pages above detail what is expected in each one.

Advisor monitoring is detailed on the Advisory page. This section summarizes the main points.

The supervisor and student prepare a list with 4 names of potential advisors. The CCP designates 1 or 2 advisors considering adequacy to the project and number of students already advised by each person (maximum 5).

The advisory follows an open review format: the advisor’s identity is known to the student and supervisor, favoring productive interaction.

The student must meet with the advisor at least once a year. The meeting can be in-person or virtual. It is recommended that the supervisor not participate, so the student can openly discuss the project’s progress.

After each meeting, the student fills out a form with the measures adopted. The form must be signed by the advisor and sent to the CCP along with the report.

Master’s (36 months):

Doctoral (56 months):

Direct Doctoral (68 months):

Master’s (24 months):

Doctoral (56 months):

Direct Doctoral (60 months):