Qualifying exams: I laughed, I cried, I cried, I cried...

Ph.D. qualifying exams are such total epic and total bullshit. These departments need to fail some fraction of their students to keep their reputation as academic bad-asses so they come up with these completely pointless exams that test you on the most esoteric, obscure bits of subject trivia in your field. Since it's impossible to know everything, some quantity of students will always fail. And, of course, if they don't... well, evaluation is secret and passing is typically subjective, so it isn't really a problem. The bottom line is that you probably aren't passing or failing on your abilities: They are probably passing or failing you based on a bunch of random factors largely out of your control. You didn't think this was going to be fair or ethical, did you? I don't think I can know enough about your situation to say whether you should keep pressing where you are, jump to someplace different, or just move on with your life. But if you decide to go someplace else and keep working on the Ph.D., know that you're not a failure and that you're not alone.

I don't believe that my profs are trying to give me low scores to deliberately push me out of the division; honestly, I think if that's what they'd wanted, they could've directly told me to switch majors when I picked my adviser or flunked me out during the first year of classes. I do, however, wonder if I'm at a disadvantage relative to the rest of my classmates, who are more directly tied to the division and have advocates (advisers) sitting in on divisional meetings and presumably being privy to discussion of quals. I do wonder if there might be just a little more leniency in grading given to a student who fell a little short on a question and represented a direct "investment" for a division member, compared to one who wasn't a "real" division student. More positively, I wonder if having the option to switch divisions is making my current division's profs take my problem a bit less seriously--i.e. "well, anon will be fine either way, just let it happen." If your exam grading is in fact not anonymized, I think this scenario is very likely. In fact, I think you've nailed the likely attitude exactly here. It's not malicious, it's just that they're not invested in you. Of course, I have no idea what your department is really like, but I think situations like the one you've laid out here are not uncommon.

In terms of prepping for quals, without knowing your discipline and/or how things work in your department as well as how you study, it is hard to say. HOWEVER, 15 hours a week for prepping for quals sounds like too little to me. In my quals prep, I (with a baby ages 3 months - 5 months at the time) worked 50 hours a week on quals. In my program, it is assumed that one spends all their time on quals preps. What else are you doing with your time? Working in the lab? TAing? I mean, these are quals -- EVERYTHING ELSE beyond basic eating, sleeping, and exercise goes out the window. Do the bare minimum for your RAing and TAing. People understand. Go through all the syllabi of all your core classes and re-read those readings and re-do your notes on them, now that you've been in the program for longer. (If you're in a friendly program, maybe have a shared folder of people's notes on these readings?) Then read any critiques or followups to those pieces. Take notes in a wiki or something. Keep all the readings in some sort of reference management system. Getting through quals sucks. However, it is the most important prep for the dissertation in terms of time and energy management as well as kicking your ass from 'grad student' to 'scholar.' And the diss is a prep for you to be an assistant professor (or postdoc or whatever...) In many programs/departments/disciplines living and breathing your work is the norm. Quals are the first time that you're really expected to do this. And it seems that for many, it doesn't really slow down after that time.

In my eyes, there isn't really a problem here. Worst case, you switch to the other division, you take more coursework, and you're in the sub-division that you have support in. If your work is really related to both sub-divisions, it is probably a good thing that you took the coursework requirements for both. You'll know the literature better and be better prepared to work in both sub-divisions.

I'm with mr_roboto. I think its entirely possible that they are judging you harder than others. I doubt they are consciously grading you down, and I expect that a really good exam wouldn't fail but IANIYS (I am not in your shoes, although I've worn the same brand). My advice is the same whether they are consciously grading you down or not though: double-down. My advice: think about why you are where you are and what your most important goals are. For most of my life science grad school peers, if they were in your shoes, doubling down and soliciting some magic (and passing) would have made reaching their goals easier. If you are at a really small school/program/set of divisions, this goes double. Obviously, but making some assumptions, I favor the strategy of trying to improve your situation in your current division (i.e. pass the exam, have the choice of departments). It won't be the last time you're unfairly judged, and you might as sharpen your skills of succeeding in unfair conditions. Succeed or not, it will make the next time easier, I'm convinced. Gather data. Could you get honest feedback from peers? If you have a sense of how well they are prepared, they probably have a sense of how well you are prepared. Do you see their writing? If you think that might be a factor, write out some stuff you might see on the next exam (no matter how wrong you might be about whether its on the exam or not), and see if you can get some honest peer or faculty feedback. Typically, you need to emphasize that you really want you have to be honest about wanting the feedback. Often the dean's office has experience with this kind of thing, and they can be really valuable in the reality check department, although they usually have to be circumspect. You might ask them about what factors might weigh in the prospects of a department losing a student (+ hard-ass points, + more money for ..., - they look pedagogically incompetent (sadly that's probably not a factor)). Whether faculty have a bias about you or not, it helps to know their values. Primary lit is fundamental, but also see if you can get some insight into the perspectives of your potential graders. Read reviews they've written. If your topic is covered at Faculty 1000, see if they've reviewed particular papers. See if they've written commentaries on newly published papers. I'm guessing you're in the field because of some kind of passion for it -- stay in touch with that as much as you can. I am; I do; it's an imperfect process. Good luck!

A couple of questions about the formats of these exams. Are they orals or are they written? Do you give answers in front of a panel of people? Do you know how the grading is shared among members of the department? Also, if you did very well on the next exam, will you pass the exam phase? Something to be said for having it over with.

Are you doing exam post-mortems with other students? If you can't get feedback from your examiners, that may be the next-best thing. (Disclaimer: my quals were in a completely different format.)

You've consulted your adviser and your DGS. They both gave you the same advice. Follow it. You are seeking to become a professional colleague of your faculty members. Lose the us-them attitude and you will be more likely to find one of these people acting as your advocate and mentor.

Is funding involved in some way?