How to Track PhD Students' Progress: A Supervisor's Three-Layer System

To track PhD students’ progress, run three layers at once: a short record of every supervision meeting that you and the student both agree, a few targets checked at the next meeting, and your university’s formal milestones as fixed checkpoints. The record and the targets show drift between meetings. The milestones are the formal checks your university schedules.

At the universities in this guide, the rules already set a minimum for the first and third layers. This guide shows what named universities require, gives you a meeting record and a tracker to copy, and lists the signs that a student is slipping before a review makes it official.

What your university already requires

Start with your own code of practice, because the floor is set there. The UK’s Quality Assurance Agency advice on research degrees (2018) asks providers to put in place “clearly defined mechanisms for monitoring and supporting research student progress”, including formal reviews at different stages. A Vitae analysis of ten UK institutions’ policies found minimum contact ranging from termly to fortnightly, and every one of the ten required contact to be logged.

Here is how that looks at named universities:

In India, the MMMUT Gorakhpur PhD ordinances require the scholar to present progress to the Doctoral Research Committee once every six months, and say the supervisor monitors progress every month. If your institution is not listed, search its site for “code of practice” plus “research degrees”.

Layer 1: a meeting record you both agree

A meeting record is the cheapest tracking you will ever do, and the rules above already require one. The QAA advice says the outputs of supervisory meetings “should be recorded by both the student and the supervisory team”. Leeds allows either side to create the record, but both must agree it is correct.

Edinburgh’s code names three things the student’s note should include: the date and purpose of the meeting, any problems identified, and action points. Add two more and you have a record that tracks progress, not just attendance:

• Date and purpose: one line.
• What was done since last time: the targets from the last record, each marked done, partly done or not started.
• Problems identified: data, access, method, writing, or anything personal the student chooses to share.
• Action points: each with an owner (student or supervisor) and a date.
• Next meeting: booked before you leave the room.

Ask the student to write it and send it within a day or two, then correct it rather than rewrite it. Their version shows you what they took from the meeting.

Layer 2: targets checked at the next meeting

Targets turn a record into a measure. The UKCGE good supervisory practice framework describes supervisors monitoring progress by checking at supervisory meetings whether targets have been achieved, and treats learning agreements as “live” documents for that discussion.

Keep targets small enough to check. “Finish chapter 2” cannot be checked in four weeks; “send a 2,000 word draft of the methods section” can. Open each meeting with the previous record’s action points before anything new.

A tracker for one student can be this simple:

The column that matters is Blocker. A target that is late with a named blocker is a plan. A target that is late with no blocker, two meetings running, is the pattern worth raising.

Layer 3: the formal milestones as fixed checkpoints

Put every formal milestone in the tracker on the day the student starts, and work backwards from each. The common ones:

1. Confirmation or transfer: 9 to 12 months after starting at Sheffield and ANU. Edinburgh holds its first progression review within nine to 12 months of matriculation. At UNSW, a PhD candidate’s first Research Progress Review is the Confirmation of Candidature, and it must be passed to continue. Our guide to the transfer viva covers what students submit.
2. Annual reviews: at Leeds the student submits a reflective account of how the work has gone, including any problems, and a timetable for completing the thesis. Manchester’s Science and Engineering reviews add a written report and an oral exam with an independent assessor.
3. Submission review: Sheffield holds one 6 months before the end of the fee-paying period, and ANU’s Submission Readiness Review is due 3 to 6 months before the intended submission date.

A year-by-year view of these stages is in our PhD timeline. Book the internal deadlines for each milestone, such as a draft report to you a month before it is due, in the same tracker.

Early signs that a student is slipping

Delay is common in the data. A study of Dutch PhD candidates (van de Schoot and colleagues, 2013) found planned and actual duration differed by 9.52 months for women and 10.11 months for men. At Utrecht, 38% of final-year candidates surveyed expected problems finishing on time.

Watch for these in your records:

• The same target late twice, with no blocker named. Ask what is stopping the work before you assume anything about effort.
• A change of topic or supervisor. In the same study, for men, a change of supervisor or thesis topic was associated with a five-and-a-half month delay. Replan the milestones the week it happens.
• A milestone outstanding. At ANU, eligibility for ongoing candidature is decided where milestones remain outstanding for 3 months or more.
• Meetings that happen but change nothing. A 2026 analysis of the Nature Careers global PhD survey found contact time alone is insufficient to explain students’ learning experience. Count meetings, but judge the records.

Rules give a structure for acting early. When an Edinburgh annual review panel finds progress unsatisfactory, the code lets the Postgraduate Director or Head of Graduate School, with the supervisors, recommend a repeat review within three months. At MMMUT, two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations can lead the committee to recommend cancelling registration, so students need to hear about the first one plainly. If a student fails a confirmation, our guide to a failed PhD upgrade viva sets out the second attempt.

If you supervise in the US

At the two US graduate schools below, an annual review carries the formal tracking. Virginia Tech’s graduate school says all graduate students must have an Annual Review of Progress at least once a year by their advisory committees. Illinois recommends a student self-report, a review by the adviser and at least one other faculty member, and a chance to discuss it in person.

In 2013 the NIH encouraged institutions to develop a policy requiring an individual development plan for every graduate student and postdoctoral scientist supported by any NIH grant. NIGMS describes an IDP as helping students identify their career goals and what they need to accomplish to achieve them.

What Thesisroom does with this

For supervisors with several students, Thesisroom’s Lab Cohort collects the Meeting Pack each student chooses to share: what was asked, what changed and what is still open, assembled before every supervision. It does not grade a thesis or say whether it is ready; those judgements stay with you.

Frequently asked questions

How often should a PhD supervisor meet a student?

It depends on the university. Leeds requires at least 10 meetings a year for full-time students, no more than eight weeks apart. Manchester’s Science and Engineering faculty expects at least monthly meetings, and Edinburgh at least twice in every three months. Your code of practice sets your minimum.

Who should write the supervision meeting record?

Rules differ. Edinburgh asks students to send their principal supervisor a written note after meetings. Leeds lets either side create the record in GRAD, but both must agree it is correct, and emails do not count.

What should a PhD progress review include?

It varies by university. Leeds asks for a reflective account including any problems and a completion timetable. Edinburgh asks for a presentation or report with a forward plan. Manchester’s Science and Engineering reviews add an oral exam with an independent assessor.

When is the PhD confirmation review?

At Sheffield and ANU, 9 to 12 months after starting. Sheffield’s Confirmation Review falls 9 to 12 months after start, and ANU’s Confirmation of Candidature within 9 to 12 months of the beginning of candidature. Part-time timings are longer.

What are signs a PhD student is falling behind?

The same target missed at two meetings with no blocker named, an outstanding milestone, or a change of topic or supervisor. In a Dutch study, a change of supervisor or topic was associated with a five-and-a-half month delay for men.

Sources

• QAA, UK Quality Code Advice and Guidance: Research Degrees (2018)
• Vitae, analysis of ten UK institutions’ supervision policies
• UKCGE, Keeping the research on track and monitoring progress
• University of Leeds, Supervision meetings
• University of Leeds, Annual progress review
• University of Manchester, Science and Engineering Doctoral Academy, Progression and review
• University of Edinburgh, Code of Practice for Supervisors and Research Students (August 2026)
• University of Sheffield, Progress monitoring and milestones
• ANU, Higher degree by research: candidature
• UNSW, Higher Degree Research Academic Progression
• University of Illinois, Graduate Student Annual Academic Progress Reviews
• Virginia Tech Graduate School, Annual Review Good Practices
• NIGMS, Encouraging the Use of Individual Development Plans (2013)
• MMMUT Gorakhpur, Doctor of Philosophy Ordinances
• van de Schoot et al. (2013), What Took Them So Long? Explaining PhD Delays among Doctoral Candidates, PLOS ONE
• Li et al. (2026), How does supervisor support shape PhD students’ learning experience?, PLOS One

How this guide was made: Thesisroom drafted this guide with the help of AI writing tools. Every fact, figure and source in this post was checked against its original source before publishing.