[78124781]

Generally, the focus here should be on: 1) Not bombing any classes (i.e. A/A- in all, maybe a B+ in one; a B or below is failing) 2) Doing very good work and trying to write an original paper for professors that you want to work with while doing just enough to get by in other classes [this is in part how you figure out who you want to work with] 3) Being good enough with the literature to pass the comprehensive exams (or, as another comment points out, have some kind of protection from a sponsor; it is not uncommon to have profs use comps as a chance to take out students they don't like for various reasons, even as small as "they do X field, which I don't like" or "they work with Y, who really gets on my nerves).

Of course there's plenty of additional ways to derail this as well, including advisor moving, advisor getting into a fight with the rest of the department, advisor giving poor advice, advisor deciding that they don't like you, etc.

[lumost]

It really makes you wonder if the university should just have a mechanism to "fire" a grad student rather than pretending that these events aren't simply a mechanism to "fire" someone because they didn't pass X hurdle.

If the advisors can vouch for, or strike a student regardless of their qual performance - then why not simply have an end of year performance review?

[tnecniv]

For many schools that’s basically their qualifying exam. Normally multiple professors are involved so that your advisor can’t fire you unjustly, but if you don’t demonstrate you are up to standards on the exam and your advisor doesn’t go to bat for you in their deliberations, you will fail. Normally you have a chance to retake the exam, but two strikes and you’re out.

In my program we had annual committee reviews as well as a review submitted to the program chair and graduate school of the student by their advisor (with the student providing both a self-review and review of their advisor). Ultimately, unless you’re in a sub-field with many faculty, it is hard to get an accurate evaluation from three professors. My other committee members could understand the big picture of my work but they weren’t experts on the specifics, and they were the best equipped faculty in the department to be on my committee besides my advisor. The goal is to make sure that there is a paper trail and multiple professors aware of your progress (or lack thereof), so your advisor can’t just give you the boot for something tertiary like not watching his dog during a holiday weekend.

Professors are aware of their problematic peers in the department. Even if they can’t fire them outright (tenure has pros and cons), they can steer students away from them to more supportive professors (or give you a hint that maybe you should consider a different school during your visit day). Our program chair was very good at helping relocating students who initially started in the lab of one or two bad actors.

[78124781]

Most depts do have some kind of official review, but it's more of a formality. I think they're also concerned about how students would react if they suggest that academia isn't for them directly. So instead they resort to more passive-aggressive or arbitrary measures.

On the other hand, not all departments are good fits with students and there's a very wide asymmetry in information between many new students and programs, even if you "do your research" beforehand, given just how specialized these disciplines are at a high level. It would be nice if transferring programs was made easier and if more departments would just agree to help students "master out" and look for jobs rather than discard them like roadkill.