The emergence of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools presents unprecedented challenges for assessing doctoral students' mastery of critical thinking and disciplinary knowledge. This study examined how doctoral programs in a College of Agricultural and Life Sciences are responding to the potential impact of generative AI on written qualifying examinations, an assessment designed to evaluate students' ability to synthesize literature, formulate original arguments, and demonstrate deep disciplinary expertise. A survey was administered to graduate coordinators and program directors across doctoral programs within a College of Agricultural and Life Sciences. Respondents (35%, n=7 out of 20 programs) represented programs with diverse qualifying exam formats, such as flexible take-home examinations, closed-book formats, and combined written-oral assessments. The survey assessed current policies regarding AI use, awareness of AI usage in examinations, levels of concern about AI's impact, and anticipated program responses. Results revealed a striking policy vacuum: 0 of 7 programs had developed formal guidelines or policies regarding the use of generative AI in qualifying examinations, despite 86% (6/7) of respondents expressing moderate to extreme concern about its impact. No confirmed cases of AI use were identified, though 29% (2/7) of respondents were unsure whether students had utilized these tools. Respondents' primary concerns centered on AI enabling students to bypass essential doctoral competencies—specifically literature synthesis, critical thinking development, and cultivation of deep disciplinary knowledge—rather than traditional academic integrity violations. Three distinct response strategies emerged: increased emphasis on oral examinations as a verification mechanism, proposals for restrictive in-person testing environments, and calls for training on appropriate AI use. Notably, 57% (4/7) anticipated future format changes, yet respondents explicitly requested institutional or field-wide guidance, indicating uncertainty about appropriate responses. This study documents an urgent need for the graduate education community to develop policies that preserve the rigor of doctoral assessment while navigating technological transformation.