serenade

I remember how stressful those types of interviews were, particularly when they invite more people than they plan to admit. From my experience, I would advise to be familiar with the existing literature in your field that is related to the kind of research you want to pursue. Not that they will likely ask you directly what XXX said in his article XXX, but rather what you perceive to be the general trends in the literature and then how your proposed direction of research fits in relation to those trends. Not that you should have a super specific dissertation idea already in place, but rather that you have an idea of how the direction of your research can make an intervention, however small, into your field. I think they want to see that you have a generally solid understanding of what's going on in your field at large and that you realize the importance of (eventually) making an original contribution. 

At the beginning of an interview, one of the interviewers sat down and said, "Now this isn't an interview, it's just a conversation." I wanted to say, "um yeah that's a great line, except for the fact that you're judging whether I'm admitted or not based (partly) on this "conversation" we're about to have so um yeah....this is an interview." Ha. They can be nerve-wracking but it's important to be confident yet relaxed. Best of luck! 

I think everyone at an interview has some level of imposter syndrome going on (with the notable exception of a guy at my interview who had already decided to go to Princeton but only came to our interview to go on Tinder dates - yes really, true story). 

But FWIW, I went to the bathroom directly after my in person interview and cried for like 30 minutes because I thought I did terribly. And then ended up getting admitted. Just this week I was talking to the professor I TA for who told me that back when he was on the job market, he struggled with getting to the interview stage and then getting cut. He assumed (most likely erroneously) that he looked good on paper until a committee met him in person. He said that before one interview at a conference, he had to lay on the floor of his hotel room and experienced a mild panic attack for the first time in his life. He ended getting a TT job at a highly ranked R1. So it's totally normal . . . but the outcome is often better than you think! 

Totally forgot I started this thread! (That seems to be a recurring theme for me...I often see a post title and think "Wow, I have that same problem," only to realize I started the thread several months back. I need to work on checking gradcafe more regularly, but I digress). 

Interesting to hear everyone's perspectives. As it turns out, I corrected the student in question, who had a really teachable attitude about the whole situation and wasn't defensive at all. She started meeting with me more frequently at the latter half of the semester to talk about her paper topic. After that, I better understood where she was coming from (SUPER Catholic family/upbringing) and really enjoyed getting to know her as a person. (Would my reaction have been different had I known her as an individual before midterm when she first wrote "JMJ" and might I have been less harsh in my reaction? Maybe. In some ways I fault myself for reacting so strongly when she was really just a nice person who was clueless on this issue). 

At most R1 institutions, such a person would be considered successful. To get tenure at such an institution you need to publish and have a successful research program, and you need to not suck at teaching and service. Doing great at those two but not succeeding in research will probably not be enough for a person to get tenured. As a result of these tenure requirements, people learn to apportion their time, and students may not come first. That's unfortunate, but in some cases very true and encouraged by the system.
There are actively bad advisors and teachers out there, but more often than not they're just not as good as they could be, or they have priorities that aren't the same as yours. So now the question is how you manage it, and that depends on the people involved and the situation. Maybe you need a second advisor who's more available. Maybe you need to learn how to communicate with your advisor better (if they're not good at email, maybe there are other ways to get a hold of them, etc). Maybe you need to be better at managing the time you do have (I personally like it the best when a student has a pre-prepared list of things they want to discuss so they don't forget anything, and bonus points if they email it ahead of time so I know what to prepare for). Maybe you need to have an explicit conversation about what you need that you feel you're not getting, and how to go about getting it. Some (many!) advisors will not know something's wrong or missing unless you tell them, and when you do, they will work to help you. But not everyone is good at guessing there's a problem, even if you think it's glaringly obvious. Or maybe you just need a new advisor, because you've discovered that your work styles and expectations are incompatible. 

To be clear, I don't mean to say this is the only way to define a successful professor. There are definitely more than one way to succeed in academia and I think what you described is certain one way to be very successful. Not necessarily the way that I would want to be successful but that doesn't invalidate that mode of success.
Also, I don't mean to say that every institution would define this person as successful. As I wrote above, it really all depends on what each institution is looking for in their employees. The University is the entity that sets the job description for their faculty members so whether or not the description you gave is going to be considered a "successful professor" at any given school depends on what that school wants out of their faculty members. But to answer the question generally, many schools, especially the research intensive ones, would count this person as very successful. To expand on what I wrote above, some schools do not even consider mentoring/advising/graduating students as a necessary part of a professor's job (i.e. having done so might help a prof on their tenure/promotion review, but not contributing much in this area might have no negative effects at all).

I agree with you that this definitely depends on the school and how each school writes the "job description" for their profs. That is, I don't think there is a right answer because each school is hiring profs to do the job the school wants them to do. The school has the prerogative to define the duties expected of their employees.
However, we can still have our preferences on what we'd like, individually, so I'll answer your question with what I'd look for in a graduate advisor! I did my PhD at an R1 school where profs have a teaching load of 3 quarter-length (10 week) courses every 2 years. Most teach one core course per year and one speciality course that only runs every other year. The core course rotates every 3 years-ish, so it's more work for the prof the first time but it gets a lot easier for years 2 and 3. They also have some department service duties, for example, sitting on or chairing various committees. It seems like some committees are reserved for tenured faculty (e.g. the quals examination core committee) while others tend to be for junior faculty (e.g. the colloquium committee). There are also university level commitments for administrative type things as well as research promotion type things, e.g. the fundraising office will often ask profs to present their work to donors, alumni etc. in order to get people to donate to the school. If the prof holds grants or other fellowships funded by the school or outside sources, these might come with some service requirements as well.
In all, I would say that at a primarily research focussed school like my PhD program, I would expect that profs spend around 50% of their time on research-related activities, 35% on service and 15% on teaching. Teaching is easy to define: it's time spent preparing for and delivering courses. I would define service as everything that doesn't directly advance their own (or their group's research). For example: the talks/committees mentioned above, but also peer review, serving on conference organizing committees etc. Research is everything related to their group's research. This includes **both** supervising/advising their grad students as well as conducting their own research. 
I think this part is the most interesting to me. In my opinion, the main effort of a professor's research time should not be doing their own research but to lead/supervise research carried out by those who work/train under them. One example is my PhD advisor: all of their papers since 2014 have only been led by their students or postdocs. They might come up with some new research ideas but it is their group that carries it out. My advisor got tenure this year. There are usually 5-7 grad students and 3-4 postdocs in their group. I feel that my advisor's main research output is to ensure that their group are productive scientists. And in my field, this counts as your own work too, since you win awards and earn tenure based on what you and your group produces. But this is just one style.
Another professor in the same department only ever has 1 full grad student at a time and 1-2 postdocs. They still produce their own research and actually spend most of their time doing what they want to do. This person is many years past tenure (but not a super senior prof either) and has been working this way since the beginning. I've talked to this person about their stance on mentoring and advising and they basically said that they don't take on more than 1 student at a time because the time it takes to mentor/train a student is not worth the science that student produces. So, clearly this person has a different view on why they train students compared to others. But this is also acceptable to my department! I think this is a good thing, as long as people know what their potential advisors are like before committing to a group.
 
Finally, on the topic of tracking down busy profs: My advisor is a superstar with a super busy schedule but they are also super organized. We have a regular weekly meeting time and we always give each other 1-2 weeks advance notice if a meeting needs to be rescheduled. This really works well for my advisor and I because we both have similar organizational personalities. For another advisor, I sometimes had to stalk them on Twitter to see if they are even on campus. I remember one day I wanted to find them so I checked their Twitter and learned that they were in DC receiving an award from the POTUS (the previous one, not the current one). For another busy prof who was on my committee, I had to camp outside their class in order to ask them a quick question about scheduling my defense date as they were leaving. I did work with both of these super busy people for a short while but our personality fit wasn't good. I would get stuck on things that would have immediately moved forward if I had a 10 minute chat with them but sometimes it took 2 weeks to actually get that 10 minutes. I also felt that cancelling meetings minutes before they are scheduled is a sign of a lack of mutual respect for each other's time so I found it very unfun to work with these people (they are generally great people to have as colleagues or to bounce ideas of off, but not as an advisor). But this is just me---clearly plenty of other students prefer this flexible, non-scheduled style

Hello! I just wanted to pass along the link for the online program. https://aha.confex.com/aha/2018/webprogram/start.html So much to see and do!
I'd also like to share the most unexpected website for conference attending tips. I discovered this yesterday: http://www.datingadvice.com/for-women/the-american-historical-association-unites-thousands-of-members-at-annual-meetings
Enjoy perusing! 

Thanks for sharing.   Who would have thought that AHA annuals were such a hotbed (oops) of dating. 

I love the fact that someone from AHA was willing to be interviewed for the article. Obviously it's the whole reason I'm attending the conference...
I definitely read a history book once where in the acknowledgements the author wrote about how he met his wife when their eyes locked at a conference. I wish I could remember the book.

This comment made me think of something. I wonder how much of the quals process at your department depends on your "performance" at the oral exam stage vs. taking a holistic view of your work throughout the entire grad career thus far. This was something that was very confusing in my own dept as well, until we (the older students) finally convinced the faculty to release more information to the first years about the quals evaluation process (they weren't against releasing it, they just thought everyone already knew). For us, the decision to pass or not pass you is made right after the oral exam stage, however, we learned that the decision is not solely based on the oral exam itself. I think this is good, because some people are better at one-on-one discussions than standing in front of the board talking to a committee than others. Yes, both are important in your academic career, so some minimal level of comfort/confidence in the group setting is necessary. But this means that no one has to feel that everything rides on that 3 hour time slot and nothing you have done leading up to the exam matters.

Put the fear of God in 'em! That's what I say!

Thanks, guys! You're all so helpful. 

After having a meeting with my advisor today, I figured a few things out: 

It looks unlikely that I'll be allowed to retake my written exams anyway, so the focus is just on the oral now. My advisor pointed out that this is somewhat to my disadvantage because I won't have any heads up as to what they could ask (follow up on written answers; asking the other questions that I didn't choose to answer in the written exams etc). But in other ways, it will be nice to not have to worry about written exams. TMP, I like your idea about sharing revisions with the committee to show them that you've made improvement, albeit it in a more informal way. 

My advisor was supportive of the January exam date. I agree, Sigaba, it will be miserable to have it hanging over my head over Christmas break, but given the (temporary) financial stability it would provide if I fail the retake, I think it will be worth it in the long run. If I failed, I could then spend January - May looking for jobs while still having an income. The Grad School only stipulates that the retake must occur by the end of the semester following the one in which the student fails the first time, so this looks doable per regulations. 

As to meeting with my committee, I apparently woefully misunderstood my advisor's email. He explained to me that he meant none of my committee was available for what he calls "extra" meetings, but he said that as far as he's concerned, he and I could meet just as frequently as we always did. He said he envisioned us meeting every 2-3 weeks (which is somewhat more frequent than our norm!) So basically, he was trying to say that he couldn't meet with me more than normal (why he didn't just say that, I have no idea). And he said I could meet with my other members as much as they were willing, but not to expect "extra" meetings with them either. I'm still not really sure where the fine line is between a "regular" meeting and an "extra" meeting since it's not like we have a schedule of every time we're going to meet in a given semester, but I trust that he will tell me if I'm asking for a quantity of meetings that exceeds what he thinks is appropriate in line with what he said today. (Of course, in his mind, it's my fault for misinterpreting his email - not his for not being more clear -- but alas, that's just part of learning to get along with people, I suppose). 

Regarding seeing a counselor: yes, I actually started going to one on campus in July shortly after I returned from a research trip abroad and it's been SO great. And yes, she holds a PhD so is able to offer a level of empathy about comps (and grad school more generally). When I failed exams, it was nice to already have established a relationship with someone for about six weeks prior who already knew how much stress and work went into my preparing and how much anxiety I was already having about them, rather than beginning the counseling process then and having to get acquainted with someone. I actually scheduled a meeting with my counselor for the afternoon after I took my oral that morning just in case things didn't go well, and it turned out to be much needed!

TMP, wow, this gives me hope to learn that you failed but eventually made it and were able to stay in your program. Same with me from what my advisor told me - my writtens weren't great but he hoped I'd redeem myself during orals. Didn't happen. And yep, synthesis and organization are my major problems, I learned. And my committee has said similar things about their doubts about my ability to teach this material to undergrads. Yes, definitely a wake up call. Interesting to hear that your dissertation proposal was what saved you. I am taking my advisor's grad seminar this semester and he agreed today to let my written paper for that class be a draft of my proposal. So maybe if he's on the fence at my oral retake, a good proposal might tip the balance in my favor? (On the other hand, a bad one could do the opposite, I suppose). TMP, did you find writing and passing the proposal/prospectus as difficult as exams? I keep thinking, "If I can just get through exams, I can do the rest" but maybe the proposal is actually harder? 

Anyway, thanks everyone! 


 

Congrats on making it to this stage! I agree with @Sigaba. I would add:
1. Do not retake the written exam when there is no reason to do so. (Yeah this is not anything new to what was said above but I think it's worth repeating).
2. Normally, I would say this is something worth discussing with your advisor. From your most recent post, it sounds like your main advocate is in fact your department head and not your advisor. Perhaps this is something that is different in different fields, or maybe this is something different about your situation. I normally would advise students to discuss the possibility of not passing with their advisor. Usually, the advisor is 100% on their side (or no retake would even be allowed) and in almost all cases, the advisor will hire the student as an assistant for a few months to help transition them out.
If something like this is not possible, for whatever reason, then perhaps talking to the dept head could be a good idea, especially given that they seem to be your advocate. Maybe the dept head can have the dept hire you as a TA so that you have some minimal income while you figure out the next steps. 
If nothing like this is possible, I would say although nothing is guaranteed, I'd advise you to "play to your outs" so to speak. It sounds like your main goal is to stay in this program and finish so I think it makes the most sense to focus on that goal. Applying for jobs takes a lot of time and energy and it's better to succeed at one task than be mediocre at two tasks. You said that you have the means to support yourself for a little while so use that if you need to. 
That said, I think your dept head has a good point to suggest a January exam date. If you decide that you want to try this route, speak to the dept head again (and check the Grad School policies on exam timings). If the dept head and the policy handbook confirms that you can reschedule to January, then perhaps that is the best route. I would only do this if your committee members have not already been notified of an exam date and if you can ask the dept head to take the lead in this rescheduling (i.e. the decision on the date would be coming from the dept head instead of you). I feel like sure, the Grad School might think you are gaming the system, but this type of scheduling is fairly common in my experience (e.g. some students will prefer to defend in January 2018 instead December 2017 so that their dissertation date is defended in 2018, making them eligible for fellowships that require a PhD within X years last longer instead of being cut short one year.....and alternatively, other students will defend December 2017 instead of January 2018 because they have time limits where they needed to finish in X years!). Since the dept head suggested this first, if they are willing to follow through on it, I'd consider it. Sigaba's point of whether or not you want this looming over you during the holidays is a good one though. Personally, I don't celebrate and I don't travel home during this time (I go in November or January instead, where things are less crowded and flights cheaper) so the holidays has generally been a time for work for me.
3. Don't take it personally that the committee members decided to not meet with you prior to the exam. This might be some policy or agreement they came to while debating whether you should retake. You can also flip it and think about it from another perspective: this way, you will (and the committee will) know that you performed well on your retake exam because you improved as a scholar, not because you got coaching from one of the members. For my quals, we all had two advisors on the committee. There were no rules about communicating with committee members, but one of my advisors said they would not want to discuss the quals exam at all prior to the exam while the other reviewed my presentation with me, asked me some sample questions that they thought I would get etc. This was the case for all the other students with these two advisors---it's not you.

I definitely agree with @Sigaba . Don't retake more of the exam than you need to. Your written scores were sufficient so move on to showing you have improved in these areas in your orals. You don't need to study 100% of the time. Give your brain some breaks so you don't burn out. Also, you definitely should practice the orals multiple times before your retake. If your written answers were good but your orals weren't, maybe there is some way you are presenting the information verbally that is hurting you? In any case, it's good to practice.
 
As for the refusal to see you, it could be a specific prof's whim, a condition of you being allowed to retake, or something else. You don't know so try not to take it personally. 

@serenade
Congratulations on earning an opportunity to pass your qualifying exams! You have shown a tremendous amount of courage by having these conversations with your professors.
As for your questions.
Only retake those parts of the exam that you absolutely have to and not one question more. Getting ready for your oral exam is plenty to do. I don't know that anyone should study 100% of the time for anything under any circumstances -- that level is not sustainable. I recommend breaking up your studying into realistic chunks of time and maybe doing some job hunting. Think carefully about pushing the exam to January. Do you want to go through the holiday season in this state of liminality?  Don't worry about what your committee members are not doing, focus on what they ARE doing. They are going to let you take all or part of the exam over. Yes, meeting with them before you retake the exam would be preferable, but as that's not an option, it's time to come up with a plan B. May I recommend: Review all of their written and verbal feedback on your qualifying exams as well for other papers and tests they've evaluated. Write down the questions you were asked during your initial oral exam with notes on how you answered and how, in retrospect, you would have liked to have answered. Track down ABDs who have had any of your committee members on their committees and pick their brains. Develop a list of potential questions that they may ask you on the oral exams.  Figure out if there are other professors who can/may/want to talk to you about preparing for your oral exam. Start a thread in the history forum of this BB. In the OP, provide a link to this thread. Perhaps stalwarts including @kotov @maelia8 @telkanuru and @TMP will provide support on line or off line.  Find three (or more) people with whom you can sand box the oral exam -- as in do a couple of test runs. A comment. Your committee members' decision not to talk to you about the exam may be part of the ritual of qualifying exams. IME, professors gave varying levels of grief to graduate students who were taking quals. What ever their motivation, I recommend taking it in stride and driving on.

Thanks, everyone. The meeting with #3 went well. No comps-type questions asked. We just talked about what went wrong and what he was looking for instead. He said yes to letting me retake them though he also told me that on a scale of 1 to 10, he predicts my likelihood of passing to be between a 3 and a 4 (yikes). I got an email from my advisor the following day saying that the committee has approved my request to retake exams. Anyway, a few questions I'd like input on: 

1) Each of my three comm members passed me on my written exams but failed me on the oral. So when talking to my department head, he said he's not sure if I will be retaking both written and oral components or just the oral. On the one hand, I would like the chance to redo written exams (based on new questions) in order to clear up any doubt in my committee members' minds that I have gained skills in organization/analysis/synthesis. On the other hand, however, my dept head pointed out that it would be bad if, upon taking them a second time, I failed the written exams and never got to the orals. My dept head advised me to take the "pass" I already have on the written exams and go forward with just the oral since the committee can't renege the pass they already gave me and that was officially recorded. He said he's not even sure if the Grad School will let me retake a portion of the exam that I already passed so it may be a moot point. But he also said if I really wanted to retake writtens, he could ask on my behalf. Does anyone have any thoughts on which might be better - the chance to show you've gained skills by doing new written exams or conversely, not risking the chance of not passing again and proceeding with just an oral exam? 

2) If I take the exams again this semester (late November/December) and fail again, my stipend ends in December, meaning I will have no income in January. I don't know whether I should spend the rest of the semester looking for jobs (in case things don't work out) on top of studying for comps. Each minute spent on job searches lessens the amount of time studying for exams so part of me thinks it's best to devote all of my time to studying and worry about looking for a job when the time comes (between my parents and savings, I could probably get by temporarily while I searched). But I also wonder if it would be foolish to not look for jobs since passing exams is not certain. The other option my dept head tentatively suggested was to push the retake to January, at which point if I failed, my stipend would last until May, though he isn't certain on the time frame for retaking exams and he wondered if the Grad School might see this as an attempt to game the system to keep getting a stipend (which, admittedly, it is!). Any thoughts on whether to devote 100% to studying or to look for jobs on top of studying? 

3) Finally, I'm unclear on how much contact with committee members is appropriate before I retake them. Originally, my advisor told me that while he couldn't meet with me every week (which I never asked for), we could meet "a few" times before I retake exams to go over the material. Members #2 and #3 said we could meet once before I retook them. Then in the email that I got from my advisor saying that the committee is letting me retake exams, he said that I would not have the opportunity to meet with any of my committee members (including himself) before the retake. This struck me as odd both because each of them had agreed to meet at least once if not "a few" times and also because it seems to not make sense to refuse a student help when they most need it (i.e. after having failed exams and trying again). I understand that grad school in general, and exams more specifically are not meant to be "hand holding" or "spoon feeding" but does it strike anyone else odd to refuse to meet with a student at all in at least three months time? Or is this normal? 

 

I understand why you feel like this, but he is only doing his job as your advisor. Have you talked to him about specifics as to why he thinks you won't progress through the comps to your dissertation proposal? Have you failed your comps previously? Usually, they give you two shots at it before asking you to leave. If you have done the proper research, your proposal shouldn't be that difficult to write. If you haven't written one before, it can be daunting. I had two professors who started with UGs doing proposals for their final papers, in order for us to learn the mechanics of how to do one. I finished my master's thesis proposal last fall. Sometimes, advisors and committees will want an annotated bib and sometimes not. You don't say what field, but I'm basing this on what I am familiar with--English.

I think you are saying two very different things. 
On the one hand, you are bummed about the prospect of not continuing into a Phd. On the other, you are struggling with accepting this as a 'professional' piece of criticism. 
It is very hard not to take things personally because we sacrifice a lot to be in grad school. I'm an international student, and I left a good job, my friends, my things behind to come here. It was my choice, a personal choice about my professional life. So, like you, sometimes I find it hard not to take things personally. Further, I think of all my friends attending grad school with children! They literally leave a piece of them aside to be here. The way to cope with this is knowing very clearly where the line between personal and professional is. For example, a professor sent me an e-mail today about a possible professionalization seminar (ironic, right?) he will give the Tuesday after Labor Weekend. I told him my family is going to be visiting until Wednesday and that, if possible, I'd prefer the seminar to be any other day that week. My family doesn't visit much, never actually. So I'm not going to sacrifice one day with them for one seminar. I know this now, in fourth year. I'm sure this line I talk about will shift because life changes. 
Now, yes, it is his job to be honest with you and you should be thankful for that honesty. If he is a mentor to you like you said, saying those things must have been really hard. That said, I'm sure that you can work out a plan together. Big questions to ask: Why does he think you won't succeed? What skills does he think you haven't fully developed? What evidence does he have to support this? Did you know you needed these skills? What broad change do you need to do? Smaller questions to ask: What can you do each month or each week to improve your situation? [Anecdote: after my first class in my first semester with my advisor, she sent me an e-mail about my final paper. It was a horrible e-mail, not because of what she said but because of what I felt. I went to her office and she walked me through the paper. It was a messy paper. She gave me one week to correct it otherwise, I'd be out. I don't know where I got the strength to do this, but I nailed it and stayed]. 
Talk to your advisor.

If he has been a good and supportive advisor, I think you may benefit from seeing this statement in a completely different way: "I enjoy having you as a student and worry about not having you around after this semester". If it were me in this situation, that is what I would mean by such a statement, with every intention of wanting you to stay, if that's what you want. I understand that it's an unpleasant thing to hear, and I'm sure it's a difficult thing to say. I hope that you've been able to ask why and to ask for help in passing, since I'm sure that's your ultimate goal and that's something your advisor wants for you. He may be seeing systemic issues with how you approach problems or with your work style that he may think are incompatible with the life of an academic, and those are hard to fix (and just to be very very clear, that doesn't diminish you and your work in any way, it's simply that it takes a specific kind of person to really succeed *and be happy* in academia). But he may still have thoughts, and there may be some habits you can change, or skills you can learn. So, while this is a difficult conversation, since he's initiating it, it's important to follow through and really have it.

I think it's a really easy trap to try to infer more meaning into what our advisors say than what they actually said. But if you want to overthink it, or if you know you will be prone to overthinking it, I like fuzzylogician's advice to think about the positive meanings too, not just focus on the negatives. After all, *you* are in charge of your overthinking, so why not, right?
I also think that some advisors are not very good at mentoring their students. And that some advisors can make mistakes sometimes. One example I noticed in this thread is what @Hope.for.the.best's advisor said ("not convinced that [you] used other papers as a guide"). I think advisors should generally keep criticism away from their student's efforts, because they don't know for sure how hard the student worked. Instead, it's far better and far more helpful to keep the criticism to the output/product and discuss how the student could improve. If you don't think your student is spending enough time (or spending their time in the wrong way), there are many other approaches to helping your student manage their time/efforts instead of basically saying they didn't try hard enough.
The reason I say this is because one thing that helps me and many students avoid taking criticism too harshly or too personally is to remember that not all advisors are great mentors and they screw up sometimes. Your advisor doesn't have absolute authority to judge you as a person, so even if they don't like your work, that doesn't mean you have no other value. 
For @serenade, fuzzy's tip above is helpful to manage how you feel towards your advisor's criticism. I think it might also be helpful to clarify your advisor's intentions when you feel this way. For example, from your post, it's not super clear if your advisor is saying these things to motivate you in order for you to pass these exams because they want to keep you as their student, or if they are trying to give honest career advice that they think you should leave the program. One thing that helps me use criticism effectively is to ask the person what they would suggest I do differently. If they don't have good answers, then it's easier for me to dismiss their criticism as someone who just wants to put others down. Even if they are right, I don't really have time/energy in my life to deal with non-constructive criticism. If they have good answers, then I know that they have thought about it carefully and care about my success and that helps me not feel as bad about the criticism. 

I can totally relate to you, even though I don't develop that sort of personal relationships with my advisors. I am not very good at academic writing and even though I tried learning how papers in top journal are written, I still cannot get to that level. All my advisors encourage me to keep trying, but one of my advisors says she is not convinced that I used other papers as a guide in my writing. It is very hurtful that she dismisses my hard work at all! One thing my psychologist (a PhD graduate herself) advises is to think about the good things that your advisor has done to you, e.g. he not just cares about your academic life, but also other aspects in your life. It is natural that you hate your advisor at some point, but negative thoughts like "I'm not really excited about the thought of you being around for several more years" would not improve the situation. Once you try to be positive, then you are better at coping. When I appreciate my advisor her time to go through my manuscript, I feel much better, even though I don't like her comment!
It is definitely very difficult to take his comment of "whether you will progress through the program". How about you sit down with him and work out what you should do to improve progress? Having a personal relationship with your advisor is good in this aspect because it is easier for you to raise concerns to him. I think if you work out how you can improve and you are working towards it, then he has less to criticise you in this aspect. 
Hope this helps. 

I sit at the front of the room and stare forward, motionlessly, like this:
 

FWIW, it sounds like you've got a good plan and a good sense of how to deliver on his expectations (talking to other students can be hard when you're feeling impostery but it's a smart move). I've written two comps, with 6 different committee members total, and part of the studying work is meeting with them and getting a good read on their expectations and then doing the work to deliver on them. I've had members that liked specificity, members that liked 'big picture' stuff, and one committee member who said that he thought that grad students played it too safe on comps and he'd be open to a creative/risky submission where I bash the classics (if I could support it) and had 'fun' with the material. Meeting with your committee member and strategizing is part of the work, so acknowledge yourself for putting the work in.
Before I wrote my comps, a senior student in my department gave me insight on failing comps that made me feel immensely better during studying: (1) There are a number of acclaimed and accomplished scholars who failed their own comps whilst in grad school, it happens and struggling with comps doesn't make one an imposter, and (2) It's actually a pain in the ass to fail people; like, it's a lot of paperwork for committee members and a headache and a general time-sink and even the hard-ass faculty should recognize that there's little incentive to do so - if the committee says you're ready to defend and then you fail, it reflects poorly on them, so even if you put work in over the next few weeks and your committee member still doesn't think you're ready, try to see that as them doing you a solid, even if it's disappointing in the moment, and if they DO say you're ready, try to have faith in that, as they have some skin in the game on this too.
Good luck!

After studying for a very difficult professional certification (with 4 parts), the GMAT, and now comps, something I've learned is that you can't really retain things for a test past 6 weeks, so having 3 months to prepare is more than enough time.  Use the next six weeks to sketch out the major ideas and a game-plan on how to tackle the rest, but don't study too hard until you are six weeks out or you will be burnt out before the exam.

There's always that one faculty member in a department who envisions themself a hardass - gives out B+s to everyone, asks lots of specific, detailed questions, expects graduate students to know nitty-gritty details most of his colleagues have probably forgotten, etc.
The good news is you have three months and you have forewarning - that's plenty of time to prepare. Don't feel bad - you simply weren't aware of the level of detail that you were expected to know. That's no reason to feel ashamed or humiliated. The whole point of this process is to learn more, and the fact that you couldn't pass your exams three months before you were expected to actually take them is not a bad thing - it's an expected thing.