PhD Readmission

[Hibush]

Are you saying that if PhD candidate X has to drop out  of a PhD program due to an obvious demonstrable health issue, he does not have the right to reenter that program when the health issue has cleared?

I only know my system, but these three scenarios may clarify.

If somebody leaves the graduate program without having an official leave of absence that includes a return plan, then they are simply out. There is no right to reenter.

If they leave with a leave of absence, but fail to return as specified in the LOA, then they are likewise out.

If they receive a leave of absence (with renewals if needed), and return as specified, then they are automatically back in where they left off. This is not considered readmission.

In any case, irrespective of the legal issues, why would a dept not want to readmit a candidate who had had to leave for demonstrable medical reasons, once those issues have cleared up?   What about basic humanity, fairness, good PR, etc.?   This of course does not mean it couldn't and shouldn't require the candidate to retake exams/ coursework, that it would determine to have become outdated, etc.

We provide full funding for graduate students, so a faculty member needs to be willing to commit something on the order of $50,000 a year to the readmitted student. That would be the #1 obstacle.

When we have had students with medical challenges, they have been dealt with very humanely. Having the graduate director and advisor keep their status and funding commitments current during the medical leave is part of that.

I'd say two years is probably the longest something like that would last. The harsh reality of my field is that being professionally inactive for a couple of years at any point in your career--for any reason--would drop you out forever. That can be inhumane, but we know what we are signing up for.

[polly_mer]

In any case, irrespective of the legal issues, why would a dept not want to readmit a candidate who had had to leave for demonstrable medical reasons, once those issues have cleared up?   What about basic humanity, fairness, good PR, etc.?   .

In a competitive program that is routinely turning away many qualified people every year, what is the evidence that this person is the best investment for limited resources?  Having been a good investment previously compared to the pool of candidates at the time is no guarantee of currently making the cut.

The point of graduate school in my fields is educating future scientists and engineers.  Most programs turn away applicants every year because money is limited to provide tuition, fees, travel budget, and stipends for living expenses.  The fairness involved is ensuring that everyone admitted is likely to graduate and become a contributing member of society using their graduate degree. 

Less qualified applicants cannot be admitted because that's unfair to all the highly qualified applicants who didn't get admitted.  It's also short-sighted for program survival to admit applicants out of pity instead of focusing on the most highly qualified applicants who will get professional jobs and maintain an alumni network for future professional opportunities for undergrad interns.

Someone who stepped out for a couple years for health reasons and is still a good candidate now has a shot at being readmitted if the resources exist.  In my fields, if the department no longer has someone in that specialty, then the student can't complete a degree unless they were on the cusp of defending.  There's no research group for them to join.  There's no expert with funding who can mentor.  Even with at least one professor having the expertise, there may be no funding/opening in the research group at this point, which means no readmission to the program.

Focusing on pity over qualifications is bad PR and hurts society in the long run when qualifications matter and we need expert, educated people doing great things instead of just warm bodies going through the motions.

[Caracal]

Yeah, I think a lot has to do with whether you officially severed ties with the program (vs. taking a leave). And I would assume, at most places, leaves do not have indefinite time limits.

Yes, I defended my dissertation about seven years ago. Let's imagine that I'd left because of health issues instead. My advisor is emeritus, as is the other faculty member who regularly read and commented on my work in progress. Actually, there's only one person I even took a class with who is still there. It wouldn't make any sense to readmit me in this scenario. The faculty now there have their own grad students who came there to work with them and they selected.

It probably wouldn't be a great situation for me either. I was admitted because there were faculty who were interested in the work I wanted to do. I developed my dissertation under the guidance and influence of those faculty members-primarily my advisor. There could be real problems if my ideas or methodology didn't mesh well with a new advisor.

Of course, these factors might not apply in this case, but there are lots of issues that could come into play.

[Rochallor]

I wanted to reply again and acknowledge everyone who's taken the time to comment. I know I was unhelpfully vague (privacy concerns), but all of your remarks are great. It helps to consider the issue from every side.