1.1. The objectives of this policy are to:

(a)    provide a framework to guide decisions regarding candidates’ academic performance and academic progress;

(b)    ensure that academic progress processes are transparent, consistent, and fair; and

(c)    set clear responsibilities and accountabilities for academic progress review decisions affecting candidates in higher degrees by research.

2.1. This policy applies to all:

(a)     research components of higher degrees by research (HDRs). It does not apply to coursework subjects in HDRs which are subject to the Academic Progress Review in Coursework Courses Policy, however failure to pass required coursework subjects will result in candidates not being confirmed;

(b)     candidates in higher degrees by research; and

(c)     supervisors, advisory committees and any University staff responsible for higher degrees by research and candidates, and persons external to the University appointed as a supervisor.

3.1. This policy is made under the University of Melbourne Act 2009 (Vic) and the Academic Board Regulation and supports compliance with the:

(a)     Higher Education Support Act 2003;

(b)     Higher Education Standards Framework;

(c)     Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000;

(d)     National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018.

4.1. Candidates must:

(a)      make satisfactory progress towards the timely completion of their course;

(b)      maintain a satisfactory academic standard to be allowed to continue;

(c)      understand the progress expectations for their course as discussed and confirmed with their supervisors and advisory committee; and

(d)      meet milestones set by the supervisor(s) and their advisory committee.

4.2. Supervisors must monitor candidates’ progress against milestones and candidates’ performance standards in their research, written, or creative work produced during their candidature, at their regular supervisory meetings which must be held, at a minimum, on a monthly basis.

4.3. Candidates’ supervisors and advisory committees must:

(a)      understand the academic progress expectations for the candidate’s course;

(b)      discuss, confirm and record expectations at commencement, including ensuring a supervisory agreement is completed and signed;

(c)      discuss, confirm and record an academic progress plan and expectations:

i.      at confirmation;

ii.     in the regular scheduled meetings between the candidate and the supervisor; and

iii.    at regular meetings between the candidate and the advisory committee.

(d)      monitor the candidate’s progress and assess whether satisfactory academic progress is being made;

(e)      maintain records of all milestones set, whether met or not, including those set at supervisory meetings and advisory committee meetings, in the relevant University record keeping system;

(f)       formally review the candidate’s progress at 12 monthly progress reviews at meetings between the candidate and the advisory committee, or more frequently if requested or required,  and record the outcome in a prescribed academic progress review form;

(g)       consider, on the basis of regular supervisory meetings and meetings of the advisory committee, whether the candidate is at risk of making unsatisfactory progress and implement remedial measures including formal interventions where required;

(h)      ensure that where a candidate fails to make satisfactory progress all requirements of this policy are followed including ensuring that the candidate is:

i.      asked to attend an “at risk” meeting with the advisory committee;

ii.      offered advice, and support through the “at risk” process;

iii.      provided with a progress plan including realistic milestones that allow the candidate to complete in a timely way; and

iv.     advised of the consequences of failing to meet milestones;

v.     invited to attend a Course Academic Progress Committee meeting when their circumstances require.

vi.     where a candidate has not met academic progress requirements set at “at risk” meetings, and/or request an unsatisfactory progress notice be issued to the candidate.

4.4. Advisory committees must review candidates’ academic progress on a minimum 12 monthly basis. Where a candidate has previously been classified as making unsatisfactory progress, advisory committees must set six monthly progress review meetings until such time as the candidate returns to “good standing”. For the avoidance of doubt, the six monthly progress meetings commence after the candidate has met any requirements set at a CAPC meeting as described at 4.29(a).

4.5. The purpose of academic progress reviews is to monitor progress and to support candidates to successfully complete on time. The review is to consider the progress of research project progress to that point and to consider any issues with the research project, the supervision, and how the candidate is tracking towards timely completion.

4.6. Candidates must:

(a)      engage and comply with the requirements of this policy; and

(b)      read and act upon, as appropriate, all notices and correspondence from the University.

4.7. Where a candidate is identified as being at risk of making unsatisfactory progress, the advisory committee must meet with the candidate to discuss the “at risk” status and fulfil all requirements of the policy at the “at risk” meeting.

4.8. A Course Academic Progress Committee (CAPC) is responsible for hearing all matters relating to unsatisfactory progress, except “at risk” meetings, and must hear any unsatisfactory progress meetings that arise from an unsatisfactory progress or “show cause” notice.

4.9. The dean responsible for each higher degree by research must nominate members to a CAPC. The dean is responsible for ensuring that those nominated are eligible to sit on the committee.

4.10. The composition of the CAPC is set in the Academic Board Regulation – Part 7 – Academic Progress, Division 1 – Academic progress requirements, section 35.

4.11. A CAPC may only make a decision where the committee composition meets the requirements set out in the Academic Board Regulation – Part 7 – Academic Progress, Division 1 – Academic progress requirements s35(4) and the following requirements set by the Board. The membership of a CAPC comprises:

(a)       the Associate Dean (Research training) or faculty equivalent, or their nominee, who is the CAPC chair; and

(b)       two other senior academic staff members who are not the candidate’s supervisor or members of the candidate’s advisory committee, but are active supervisors who have a proven record in supervising candidates to timely completion.

4.12. The membership of the CAPC must approach gender balance wherever possible.

4.13. The candidate’s principal supervisor and the chair of the advisory committee are invited to attend the meeting to answer any questions the CAPC may have.

4.14. The CAPC meeting can only proceed if the principal supervisor is in attendance.

4.15. The faculty graduate research manager (or equivalent) will provide executive support to the meeting.

4.16. Candidates may be accompanied by a support person. The support person may not speak unless a committee member asks them a direct question or with permission of the chair.

4.17. A candidate may not send a representative in their place.

4.18. Audio and/or visual recording of CAPC meetings is not permitted.

4.19. Where a candidate has failed to respond to a notice, the matter will be heard without the response.

4.20. Where a candidate has been asked to appear at a CAPC and fails to do so, the matter will be heard and decided in their absence.

4.21. The chairperson may exclude the support person from the meeting if they disrupt or unreasonably impair the conduct of the meeting.

4.22. Information available to the CAPC, which pertains to the matter being heard, must be made available to the candidate and all committee members, and be provided with the CAPC notice where possible and practicable.

4.23. Where a candidate attends the meeting, the CAPC must:

(a)      allow the candidate to be heard on the circumstances that have affected their academic performance; and

(b)      ask whatever questions necessary of the candidate and their support person (where a support person is present) to determine the candidate’s capacity to successfully complete the course.

4.24. In reaching a decision a CAPC may take into account any relevant information available, including:

(a)      documentation from the student record (where use of this information complies with the Privacy Policy);

(b)      the candidate’s academic record in the course, including their response to any previous recommendations from their supervisor, advisory committee, and achievement against progress plans; and

(c)       any other relevant information provided by the candidate.

4.25. At the meeting the CAPC must:

(a)      discuss the unsatisfactory progress;

(b)      allow the candidate to raise concerns and issues they have had with their progress. If the candidate does not attend consider the candidate’s written response, where one is received; and

(c)       discuss the candidate’s progress, including any progress plans, to date.

4.26. A CAPC must not:

(a)      comment on a candidate’s personal circumstances outside of the context of their unsatisfactory academic progress;

(b)      attempt to counsel a candidate on any matters other than their unsatisfactory academic progress; or

(c)       make assumptions about a candidate’s motivation for study/research either at University generally or within the specific course/research project.

4.27. The CAPC must not inform the candidate of the outcome of their deliberations during the meeting.

4.28. The CAPC may only make a decision if all three members are present. The decision must be reached by majority.

4.29. The CAPC may:

(a)      permit the candidate to continue and require the advisory committee to issue a revised progress plan to the candidate with a three-month (maximum) timeline to demonstrate satisfactory progress by meeting the requirements of the progress plan; or

(b)      where progress conditions have been previously set, in accordance with 4.29(a), and have not been met, issue a “show cause” notice (except where the CAPC has been convened to hear a “show cause” case);

(c)       grant the candidate a period of leave where the candidate has not reached expected course duration or maximum submission date. On return the candidate is required, within three months, to meet the requirements of the new progress plan issued in accordance with 4.29(a); or

(d)      offer the candidate the opportunity to transfer to a masters by research course (where the candidate has no prospect of completing within the maximum time to submit, a transfer to masters by research cannot be offered); or

(e)      terminate the candidate’s enrolment. If this is the CAPC’s decision, the CAPC must notify the candidate of their decision to terminate the candidate’s enrolment, and a “show cause” notice must be issued (except where the CAPC has been convened to hear a “show cause” case); or

(f)       after a “show cause” meeting, impose progress conditions and one final three-month timeline on the candidate to meet those requirements. In these cases a candidate’s enrolment is automatically terminated if they do not satisfy the progress conditions. This outcome cannot be offered if a candidate has reached expected course duration or maximum time to submit; or

(g)      after a “show cause” meeting, uphold the decision to terminate the candidate’s enrolment.

4.30. Where the CAPC decides that outcome 4.29 (a) or (c) is appropriate:

(a)      the advisory committee must, within 5 days of the outcome notice to the candidate, meet with the candidate to set a new progress plan with specific progress requirements to be met within a maximum three-month period; and

(b)      the candidate’s standing is returned to “probation” in the student management system.

4.31. Where the CAPC decides that outcome 4.29 (d) or (f) is appropriate, the candidate’s standing remains at “unsatisfactory” in the student management system until the requirements are met, or their candidature is terminated and their enrolment cancelled.

4.32. The CAPC must terminate the candidate’s enrolment in the course where the committee determines the candidate:

(a)       is unlikely to be able to meet the requirements of the course in the required timeframe; or

(b)       has reached the maximum course duration and is unlikely to be able to complete within the next 6 months, where an additional 6 months does not exceed the maximum time to submit; or

(c)       has failed to show cause as to why their enrolment should not be terminated.

4.33. A CAPC may only terminate a candidate’s enrolment where it can be demonstrated that the candidate has previously been issued with at risk and unsatisfactory progress notices in accordance with this policy.

4.34. Candidates must be advised of the outcome of the CAPC meeting within five (5) business days of the meeting. The outcome notification is sent to the candidate’s University student email address.

4.35. Where a candidate has been offered the opportunity to transfer to a masters by research course and does not take up that opportunity with 10 business days of the CAPC outcome notice, their candidature and enrolment is terminated.

4.36. The formal outcome notification must include:

(a)       the details of the CAPC decision and outcome(s) agreed by the CAPC;

(b)       include details of any progress conditions and requirements, and recommendations;

(c)        information about the implications of the decision for the candidate; and

(d)        the right to appeal any decision of the CAPC in accordance with the Student Appeals Policy.

4.37. The formal termination of enrolment notification must include particular advice to international candidates to seek guidance from Student Services on the consequences of that decision in respect to their student visa.

4.38. A termination of enrolment cannot be actioned in the student management system until the time for appeal has passed and it has been determined that the candidate has not lodged an appeal.

4.39. The faculty graduate research manager (or equivalent), or person providing executive support to the CAPC meeting must keep a written record of the meeting, the decision and the outcome in a form which meets the requirements of the University’s records policy, in the relevant University record keeping system.

5.1. After confirmation PhD candidates must attend academic progress reviews every 12 months full time equivalent. Research masters candidates may be required to attend progress review meetings every 6 months.

5.2. Candidates who are not in “good standing” (i.e., at risk or probation) will attend progress reviews every 6 months until they are at, or return to, “good standing” by meeting all progress requirements set by the supervisors and/or their advisory committee.

5.3. The advisory committee must formally review the candidate’s academic progress at the academic progress review meeting and record the outcome in a prescribed academic progress review form.

5.4. The principal supervisor must advise the candidate in writing, ten (10) business days prior to the scheduled meeting date, of:

(a)      any information they need to present to the advisory committee; and

(b)      who will attend the meeting.

5.5. Candidates must complete any additional reports required as a condition of their scholarship or sponsorship.

5.6. For full-time PhD candidates the first academic progress meeting with the advisory committee must be scheduled prior to the confirmation meeting. For Masters (Research) candidates the first progress meeting is at 6 months and is their conformation meeting.

5.7. Part-time candidates must attend an academic progress review meeting prior to confirmation as follows:

(a)      Master Degree (Research) candidates – within six months of commencement; and

(b)      Doctoral Degree (Research) candidates – within 12 months of commencement.

5.8. Academic progress review due dates are adjusted to take account of any approved leave of absence, changes between full and part-time candidature, approved extensions to candidature, and where a candidate’s enrolment has been suspended as a penalty for academic or general misconduct. (N.B. Where a candidate has been suspended for misconduct no progress meetings can be scheduled during the period of suspension. The candidature period is not extended and the original submission date stands.)

5.9. If a candidate fails to attend an academic progress review meeting and fails to respond to a reasonable request to attend subsequently, they are in breach of the conditions of candidature and the unsatisfactory progress process is initiated. The first time this occurs “at risk” notice must be issued to the candidate. If it occurs a second time (even where the second failure to respond relates to the same scheduled meeting) an unsatisfactory progress notice may be issued.

5.10. Where a candidate is identified as “at risk” during a regular progress review meeting with their advisory committee, the advisory committee must discuss with the candidate the matters set out at 5.17.

5.11. In the circumstances set out at 5.10, following the advisory committee meeting the chair must issue an “at risk” notice, a progress plan, and set a date for a follow up meeting (“at risk”) in accordance with the requirements of 5.13 – 5.20.

5.12. Candidates are identified as at risk of making unsatisfactory progress (“at risk”) if any of the academic progress expectations have not been met’ for the first time or where a candidate has previously been in “good standing”, including one or more of the following:

(a)      during the preconfirmation period, candidates appear to not be making progress towards the confirmation requirements; and/or

(b)      milestones set by the supervisor(s); and/or

(c)       milestones set by the advisory committee; and/or

(d)      a first report of failing to respond to, or attend a, scheduled academic progress meeting.

5.13. The candidate’s advisory committee must notify the candidate in writing that they are at risk of making unsatisfactory progress explaining their status and include information about:

(a)      the requirement to attend an “at risk” intervention meeting with the advisory committee and complete a written submission; and

(b)      the purpose of the meeting including the requirement for an action plan to be discussed and implemented; and

(c)       the possible consequences of further poor performance, or failure to respond to or attend scheduled academic progress meetings.

5.14. Candidates who receive an “at risk” notification must respond according to the instructions and within the timeline specified in the notification, and:

(a)      should seek clarification from the issuing faculty of any instruction or information that is unclear; and

(b)      may seek advice and support from the Student Union Advocacy Service (SUAS) or other support service.

5.15. It is a candidate’s responsibility to read and act upon an “at risk” notification. Failure to respond to any notification may lead to the issue of an unsatisfactory progress notice.

5.16. Where a candidate declines to appear and/or fails to respond to an “at risk” notice the advisory committee will hear and decide the matter in their absence, which may include issuing an unsatisfactory progress notice.

5.17. At the “at risk” meeting, the advisory committee must discuss the candidate’s progress and any identified obstacles to progress identified by the candidate and/or the supervisor(s), provide advice and make recommendations to the candidate on matters including those listed below except where a candidate has failed to respond to the “at risk” notice:

(a)      a candidate’s progress including any issues with the project, supervision, or time management;

(b)      a progress plan including expectations, and a reasonable timeline by which to meet the requirements of the plan (which must not be greater than 3 months) and thereby demonstrate satisfactory progress or equivalent period for candidates who are not full time;

(c)       assistance available from support services including academic skills support or counselling; and

(d)      that continued unsatisfactory progress may lead to the issuing of a notice of unsatisfactory progress.

5.18. If a candidate fails to respond to an “at risk” notice the advisory committee may discuss matters above and issue an outcome to the candidate in accordance with 5.20 (a) & (b); or the advisory committee may request that an unsatisfactory progress notice be issued, in accordance with 5.20 (c).

5.19. The advisory committee must keep a written record of the “at risk” meeting, and any other actions including the progress plan and intervention strategy, progress requirements, or the decision to request the issue of an unsatisfactory progress notice.

5.20. No later than five (5) business days after the meeting, the advisory committee chair must advise the candidate in writing:

(a)      of a progress plan, and a reasonable timeline by which to meet the requirements of the plan (which must not be greater than 3 months) and thereby demonstrate satisfactory progress; and

(b)      alert the candidate to the potential outcome of failing to meet the progress plan requirements, that is a failure to make satisfactory progress which may lead to a notice of unsatisfactory progress; or

(c)       that the advisory committee has requested that the dean issue an unsatisfactory progress notice.

5.21. Candidates are classified as making unsatisfactory progress if any of the progress requirements, including confirmation requirements, have not been met, and

(a)      the candidate has previously been issued an “at risk” notice and has failed to meet the requirements of a progress plan put in place after an “at risk” meeting, or the candidate has previously been issued an unsatisfactory progress notice;

(b)      the candidate has failed to respond to an “at risk” notice within ten (10) business days of the date of the notice (sent date); or

(c)       the candidate has not met milestones and cannot complete within the maximum time to submit.

5.22. The dean must:

(a)      issue an unsatisfactory progress notice to the candidate in a form approved by the Academic Secretary;

(b)      request that the candidate submit a written response to the unsatisfactory progress notice within 10 business days of the notice sent date; and

(c)       request that the candidate appear at a CAPC meeting.

5.23. The unsatisfactory progress notice must be sent to the candidate’s University student email address.

5.24. The candidate must:

(a)      respond to the unsatisfactory progress notice within 10 business days of the notice sent date;

(b)      attach a written submission as detailed in the unsatisfactory progress notice;

(c)       advise whether they intend to appear at the CAPC meeting in person; and

(d)      advise whether they intend to bring a support person, who must not be a qualified legal practitioner.

5.25. It is a candidate’s responsibility to read and act upon a notice.

5.26. If a candidate fails to respond to an unsatisfactory progress notice within the timeline set out in the notice, the dean may issue a “show cause” notice.

5.27. Whether or not a candidate submits a written response or notifies of their intention to attend the meeting, the dean must convene a CAPC to hear the case not more than twenty (20) business days after the issue of the unsatisfactory progress notice.

5.28. The CAPC must be constituted in accordance with the requirements set out at 4.10 – 4.12 of this policy.

5.29. Where a CAPC is convened, the chair must send formal notification of the CAPC meeting and meeting papers to the candidate, supervisors, the advisory committee chair, and CAPC members such that the notice is received five (5) business days before the meeting. The notice must:

(a)      be sent to the candidate’s University student email address;

(b)      advise the candidate of their right to bring a support person to the meeting, who must not be a qualified legal practitioner;

(c)       include the documentation relating to the candidate’s progress including any progress plans; and

(d)      include the candidate’s written response to the unsatisfactory progress notice (where one is received).

5.29. The CAPC meeting is conducted in accordance with 4.8 to 4.26 of this policy.

5.30. The CAPC may make any decision as set out at 4.29 of this policy and advise the candidate of their decision in the timeline set out at 4.32 of this policy.

5.31. A dean may require a candidate to show cause as to why the candidate should not have their enrolment terminated if a candidate has previously been warned of the consequences of making unsatisfactory progress and asked to attend “at risk” and a CAPC meeting, and one or more of the following apply:

(a)      has not met the requirements of a progress plan, issued following a CAPC meeting, at the expiration of the three-month period;

(b)      has failed to attend an at risk or CAPC meeting, or respond to an “at risk’ notice or an unsatisfactory progress notice;

(c)       has had their enrolment terminated as an outcome of a CAPC meeting; and

(d)      chooses not to take up the opportunity to transfer to a masters by research course offered by a previous CAPC meeting.

5.32. The dean must issue a “show cause” notice to the candidate in a form approved by the Academic Secretary, together with any relevant documents, which may include the candidate’s most recent progress plan at the expiration of the three-month period allowed to meet the requirements, and the outcome of any previous CAPC meeting.

5.33. A candidate must respond to a "show cause" notice by submitting a response in writing within ten

(10) business days of the sent date of the notice, as detailed in the "show cause" notice.

5.34. In addition to a written response, a candidate is invited to attend the CAPC meeting to explain their circumstances in support of their written submission.

5.35. The CAPC must be constituted in accordance with 4.10 – 4.12 of this policy. The membership of the CAPC can be the same members as any CAPC that heard any previous case of unsatisfactory progress of the candidate.

5.36. The chair must send formal notification of the meeting and the meeting papers to the candidate, supervisors, the advisory committee chair, and the CAPC members, by email five (5) business days before the meeting. The notice must:

(a)      be sent to the candidate’s University student email address;

(b)      advise the candidate of their right to bring a support person, who must not be a qualified legal practitioner, to the meeting;

(c)       include the documentation relating to the candidate’s progress including matters discussed with supervisors and their advisory committee about their academic progress; and

(d)      include the candidate’s written response to the show cause notice, where a response has been submitted.

5.37. The CAPC meeting is conducted in accordance with 4.8 to 4.26 of this policy.

5.38. The CAPC may make any decision as set out at 4.29 and 4.31 of this policy and advise the candidate of their decision in the timeline set out at 4.34 of this policy.

5.39. Any conditions a CAPC imposes remains in place until:

(a)      amended or overturned by a Student Appeal Panel; or

(b)      the candidate meets the conditions imposed and returns to “at risk” or “good standing”.

5.39. Matters relating to academic progress in a course are out of scope of the Student Complaints and Grievances Policy.

5.40. Being detrimentally affected by a failure to read and act upon, as appropriate, a notice or correspondence from the University is not grounds for appeal.

5.41. Appeals against a decision made under this policy must be made in writing to the Academic Secretary within twenty (20) business days of the date (sent date) of any decision or outcome, in accordance with the Student Appeals Policy.

“academic status” means a status assigned to candidates in the Student Management system to monitor academic progress.

“advisory committee” is a committee appointed by the head of department in which the candidate is enrolled.

“at risk” an academic status assigned in the Student Management System to a candidate who has previously been  in “good standing” and has not met the progress requirements of their course, as set out at 5.11in this policy, and must attend an “at risk” meeting with their Advisory Committee..

“candidate” means any person admitted to and enrolled in a planned course of research leading to a graduate research course at the University of Melbourne. A candidate is a student of the University.

“candidature” means the period of study towards the graduate research course being the period from the date of commencement until the end of enrolment based on successful completion of all coursework and mandatory training completed satisfactorily leading to lodgement for thesis examination (after which time the candidate holds the status of 'Under Examination’) or until the candidature is terminated or the candidate withdraws, but excludes periods spent on leave of absence or lapsed.

“course” means a degree, diploma or other award.

“expected course duration” means the expected time for completion of a course expressed in full-time years.

“good standing” is a status assigned in the Student Management System to candidates who are making satisfactory progress in their course.

“Maximum course duration” for graduate research courses is expressed in full time years, and is calculated based on the expected course duration, allowing for part time enrolment in coursework degrees and RTP in research degrees. In research degrees it is also adjusted to take account of periods of leave.

“Maximum submission date” also referred to as the maximum time to submit, means the maximum number of years allowed to submit a thesis or dissertation for examination, and to undertake any other examination components, for graduate research courses taking into account an allowance for late submission.

“probation” is an academic progress status assigned to a candidate in the Student Management System. All candidates in graduate research courses commence candidature on probation. A candidate who has been allowed by a CAPC to continue their candidature with conditions, is on “probation” until they have satisfied the requirements set by the Advisory Committee and continue to meet all progress requirements for a minimum further 6-month period.

“senior member of academic staff” means a member of academic staff appointed at classification Level C or above

“supervisor” means an appropriately qualified person who is responsible for the academic supervision of a graduate research course candidate.

“suspension” means the suspension of a candidate’s enrolment at the University for a specified period and exclusion from the University during this period without any right to enrol or re-enrol in any course or subject at the University, or any right to access University premises, facilities, services, activities, except with the consent of the Vice-Chancellor. At the end of the specified period the student's enrolment is reinstated unless otherwise requested by the student. Suspend has a corresponding meaning.

“thesis” means a dissertation embodying the results of original research and especially substantiating a specific view.

“University” means the University of Melbourne.

“unsatisfactory progress” means a candidate has not met one or more progress requirements, as set out at 5.9, for a second or subsequent time.

Academic Board

Academic Secretary

This policy is to be reviewed by 21 October 2024.