committee for phd students

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Graduate School Updates>

The latest COVID-19 news and information is available at  Penn State's Coronavirus Information website . 

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Update

On March 11 th  the University announced that beginning March 16 th  instruction for all students will be moving to a remote delivery format. Graduate students enrolled in resident courses should plan on participating remotely, and not coming to campus specifically for face-to-face instruction. Learn more at gradschool.psu.edu/covid19 .

Internet Explorer Detected

The Penn State Graduate School website is best experienced in Firefox or Google Chrome. It is highly recommended that you use an alternative browser.

GCAC-603 Ph.D. Committee Responsibilities - Research Doctorate

Ph.d. committee responsibilities - research doctorate.

To identify the duties and responsibilities of the Doctoral Committee – Research Doctorate (hereafter, Ph.D. Committee) in guiding the student in scholarly work and professional development.

Academic Goal

The academic goal of this policy is to ensure that research doctoral students receive timely and comprehensive guidance from members of the Graduate Faculty that facilitates progress toward their degree, including meeting the Graduate Council’s Scholarly and Professional Goals for All Graduate Degree Students .

All students enrolled in programs of study leading to the Ph.D.

Background keyboard_arrow_down

The broad purpose of the Ph.D. Committee is to ensure that each Ph.D. student receives the attention, guidance, and mentoring necessary to successfully earn their degree and meet the Graduate Council’s Scholarly and Professional Goals for Penn State graduates from a representative cross section of the Graduate Faculty. This policy describes the particular responsibilities of the Ph.D. Committee.

Moreover, continuing communication on a regular basis among the student, the committee chair, the dissertation adviser, and the other members of the committee is strongly recommended, in order to preclude misunderstandings and to develop a collegial relationship among the student and all members of the committee.

Definitions keyboard_arrow_down

Policy statement.

• The Ph.D. Committee can require additional education, including course work, depending on the student’s background and research plans.
• Include a review of any prior annual assessments.
• Recommendations, as appropriate, to improve the student’s research;
• Any concerns identified and recommend actions to address the concerns.
• Assess the student’s professional development and provide any recommendations as appropriate and that reflect, to the extent possible, the student’s career goals;
• Accurately reflect the assessment by all members of the committee, including any minority opinions.
• The Ph.D. Committee shall administer the student’s Comprehensive Examination and assess the student’s performance on the examination.
• The Ph.D. Committee shall assess the student’s dissertation and recommend (or not) its approval to the Graduate School.
• The Ph.D. Committee shall conduct the student’s Final Oral Examination and assess the student’s performance on the examination.
• If the student’s program has received approval through the Graduate Council’s curricular review process to establish the Ph.D. Committee later than specified in GCAC-602, then the program head or designated academic adviser assumes Ph.D. Committee responsibilities as outlined in this policy. The first assessment will take place approximately one year after the Qualifying Examination is passed; the program head or designated academic adviser will provide an assessment of the student at least once annually after that until the student’s Ph.D. Committee is formed.
• Assess the quality and progress of the student’s research;
• Assess the student’s professional development;
• Decide whether any interim meetings should take place and, if so, when.
• It is strongly recommended and a best practice for the entire Ph.D. Committee to meet together with the student to conduct the annual assessment. If there is no meeting, it is strongly recommended that the student meet individually with each member, at least annually.
• The student, the student’s Dissertation Adviser, the Ph.D. Committee Chair, or any two members of the Ph.D. Committee may request a meeting of the Ph.D. committee.
• The Ph.D. Committee’s assessment of the student’s research and professional development progress, along with any advice the Ph.D. Committee may have for the student; such advice may include recommendations for supplemental study, an improvement plan (if necessary), and/or any other advice that would support the student’s progress toward their degree.
• Any comments by the student with respect to the report.
• The Ph.D. Committee’s decision on whether any meetings of the full Committee are to be scheduled (remote participation is acceptable).
• The student must acknowledge receipt and understanding of the annual assessment.
• The Ph.D. Committee Chair shall submit the completed annual assessment, with all approvals, to the major (and as appropriate, dual-title and/or minor) Graduate Program Head.

P1 - Distance Participation Request

insert_drive_file Annual Assessment of Ph.D. Student Progress - SAMPLE (PDF)

Further Information

Ph.D. Committee Responsibilities - Research Doctorate - FAQs

Cross-References

INSERT CROSS-REFERENCES HERE (REPEAT BELOW p AS NECCESSARY)

list CROSS_REFERENCE_NAME

Revision History

• Policy revised extensively.
• Adapted from Graduate Bulletin: June 2018.

Prospective Students

• Current Students
• Staff Directory

My UNC Charlotte

Campus events.

• About UNC Charlotte
• Campus Life
• Graduate Admissions

Faculty and Staff

• Human Resources
• Auxiliary Services
• Inside UNC Charlotte
• Academic Affairs
• Financial Aid
• Student Health Center

Alumni and Friends

• Alumni Association
• Advancement
• Make a Gift
• Thesis and Dissertation

Forming Your Committee

Students should not schedule the proposal defense prior to their committee being finalized and their appointment form being approved by the Graduate School.

It is necessary to have the form approved in advance of the proposal defense, as there are instances in which committee members are not approved (for example, if someone is listed as the Graduate Faculty Representative who the Graduate School does not deem  qualified to serve in this capacity).

The Graduate School's requirements for everything from committee formation to graduation clearance can be found under the Current Students tab on the Graduate School website. 

Composition of the Doctoral Committee: Roles and Responsibilities

The Graduate School requires that doctoral committees consist of no less than four members. These four members must be regular members of the Graduate Faculty or must be granted an exception by the Dean of the Graduate School.  All committees must include a chair and a Graduate Faculty Representative. Assistant Professors are usually not approved to serve as chair unless they have served as a committee member first. Exceptions are granted on a case-by-case basis. 

Graduate Faculty Representative

The primary role of the Graduate Faculty Representative is to ensure that the student is treated fairly and that Graduate School policies are upheld. Expertise in the student's area of research is not a requirement. The Graduate Faculty Representative's responsibilities are explained in greater detail here . Assistant Professors are not eligible to serve as Graduate Faculty Representative. 

The requirement to include an outside member on all dissertation committees is not uncommon among institutions of higher education and is in keeping with best practices in doctoral support. 

Committee Members

Committee members are often chosen to provide topic or methodological expertise. Even without contributing their expertise, committee members may be chosen based on faculty with whom the student has a good professional relationship or who could offer a helpful outside perspective. Committee members are generally not as involved as the committee chair in the everyday progression of the dissertation.  Typically, they read the dissertation only in its final form before the defense, although they should be available for consultation throughout the process and may be more closely involved in sections or chapters in which they have particular expertise. 

The committee members and Graduate Faculty Representative will:

• Approve of the subject matter and methodology of the thesis or dissertation research
• Review and comment on drafts of the thesis or dissertation prior to submission to The Graduate School
• Verify, to the best of their ability, the quality of the data collection and evidence, data analysis, and logical reasoning or interpretation in light of the proposal aims
• Evaluate whether the student’s thesis or dissertation fulfills the requirements of the degree

PhD Research Advisors, Committees, and Meetings

[Part of the Policies of the CHD, August 2019]

Selecting a Research Advisor: Spring of G1 Year

During the second semester of study, the student will focus on identifying a specific research area and a potential Ph.D. research advisor.  The potential research advisor may be the same person as the student's first-year advisor, but not necessarily so.   Students are required to finalize their research advisor by early spring of the G1 year to be making satisfactory progress to degree.  The Office of Academic Programs will communicate about the specific deadlines and forms required as part of the selection process.

Occasionally, the potential research advisor may not be a SEAS faculty member, but ordinarily must be a Harvard faculty member.  The appropriate Director of Graduate Studies (DGS) must approve in advance if the student wishes to have a primary advisor who is not a member of the SEAS faculty. Every Ph.D. student with a non-SEAS primary advisor must have an active SEAS co-advisor; some degree areas, e.g., Computer Science, stipulate that the SEAS co-advisor must be in that area.  The SEAS co-advisor will communicate with the student’s primary research advisor, the CHD, and the Office of Academic Programs about academic or financial issues as needed. The SEAS co-advisor will chair the qualifying exam committee (if that role would normally belong to the primary advisor when they are a SEAS faculty member) and the research committee, meet with the student at least once each semester to be updated about degree progress, sign off on the annual student progress report, advise the student about coursework and program requirements as needed, lift the student’s advising hold when primary research advisor is not a member of the FAS faculty, allow the student to register for their 300-level research course and submit the necessary grades at the end of the semester when primary research advisor is not a member of the FAS faculty, and communicate with the student’s primary research advisor about the student’s progress on a regular basis (at least once each semester).

Note that Ph.D. students who have a non-SEAS primary advisor have their G2 tuition paid for by the non-SEAS advisor rather than by SEAS.

Research Committee

Once the qualifying examination has been passed, the final stages of the path to the Ph.D. are initiated by the nomination by the research advisor of a research committee to oversee the student's dissertation research.  The committee monitors the student's research progress and approves the final dissertation.  The Designation of Research Committee form, signed by the research advisor and indicating the other members of the proposed research committee, must be submitted to the Office of Academic Programs, ordinarily within one week after the qualifying examination.   Typically the research committee is comprised of a subset of the members of the qualifying committee.  Subsequent changes in the composition of the research committee must be approved by the CHD or by its representative.  A duly constituted research committee must be in place throughout the rest of the student's graduate career.

The research committee normally consists of three or four Harvard faculty members, with the research advisor as chairperson.  MIT faculty members or other technical professionals of comparable stature from the local area may be included with the approval of the CHD.  At least two SEAS faculty members, at least one of whom is a senior faculty member (i.e. full professor), must be included.  If the research advisor is not a Harvard faculty member, the SEAS co-advisor will chair the research committee.

G3+ Committee Meetings

Starting in the 2019-2020 academic year each SEAS Ph.D area has specific expectations regarding Ph.D. students to meet with their committee members at least annually.  Students in Applied Physics and in Electrical Engineering are to meet 1:1 with each committee member.  The Computer Science faculty hold annual “PhD Review Days” in which the full faculty meet to review each individual student’s situation; students in Computer Science are required to respond to surveys requesting information for the Review Days.  Students in other areas are to meet with their full committee at the same time.  S ee area-specific guidelines for  Applied Math ,  Applied Physics ,  Bioengineering ,  Computer Science ,  Electrical Engineering ,  Environmental Science & Engineering ,  and   Materials Science & Mechanical Engineering .

The final oral examination may be considered to be the committee meeting for that year at the discretion of the research advisor (or the SEAS co-advisor, if applicable), provided the Office of Academic Programs is duly notified.

Students who are in-between advisors have the length of one full semester to identify a new advisor. Students are expected to find external funding or to serve as TF on a two-section appointment for their funding in the Fall or Spring terms.  The TF covers the monthly salary and all tuition/fees. The monthly salary is equal to the RA salary.  There are not TF opportunities over the summer and SEAS does not provide summer funding.  Note a student must be in good standing in order to qualify to serve as a TF and receive funding. Students who cannot identify a new advisor at the end of one full semester will be asked to withdraw from the program based on a lack of progress to degree.

There may arise situations in which the research advisor is temporarily absent on leave or ceases to be a Harvard faculty member while a Ph.D. candidate is engaged in dissertation research.  When the research advisor is temporarily absent for a substantial period, another member of the research committee ­-- ordinarily a SEAS senior faculty member -- should be designated by the research committee as chairman, and the Office of Academic Programs should be notified accordingly.  If another member of the research committee ceases to be a Harvard faculty member, the committee should be reconstituted.

Faculty members normally should not agree to serve as research advisors unless they expect to see the research through to its conclusion.  Should the research advisor cease to be a Harvard faculty member before the Ph.D. candidate completes the requirements for the degree, the research committee must be reconstituted.  The student may wish to find a new research advisor.  If the original research advisor and the student wish to continue their research collaboration, two situations arise.  If the original research advisor remains in the local area and the research can be carried out primarily at Harvard, the previously stated rules shall apply.  If the original research advisor does not remain in the local area or the research cannot be carried out primarily at Harvard, the rules stated below regarding dissertation research in absentia shall apply; these require that a SEAS faculty member assume the formal role of research advisor.

In Academic Programs

• Non-Resident and Part-Time Study
• CHD Meeting Schedule
• PhD Overview and Timeline
• PhD Course Requirements
• PhD Program Plans
• Teaching: G2 year
• Qualifying Exam: by end of G2 year
• Research Advisors, Committees, and Meetings
• Dissertation and Final Oral Exam
• SM and ME Course Requirements
• SM and ME Program Plans
• Masters Thesis and Supervisor
• SM degree en route to the PhD
• Graduate Student Forms
• Teaching Fellows
• External Fellowships List
• COVID-19 Graduate Program Changes (archived)

Guidelines for Forming Ph.D. Committee

The role of Ph.D. committees is to provide frequent feedback and advice to the Ph.D. candidate. The committee shares the responsibility of guiding the student's research to successful completion. Students should not view the committee as obstacles, but rather as additional mentors and possible promoters of their thesis research. When applying for jobs, committee members are often the first choice for seeking recommendation letters. It is expected that the Ph.D. advisor work closely with the student in determining the most appropriate committee members.

Timeframe for Establishing Committees

In the semester that the qualifying exam is passed, the student is expected to form a Ph.D. committee. Committee members may easily be added or removed during the time from the qualifying exam to the final exam (thesis defense).

Committee Members

The Ph.D. committee must satisfy the requirements imposed by the Graduate College and the Department of Computer Science:

• There must be at least four voting members (normally, all are designated as such).
• At least three and no less than half of the voting members must be members of the Illinois Graduate Faculty.
• At least two of the voting members must be tenured faculty from the University of Illinois.
• At least three members must be members of the extended faculty in the Department of Computer Science (DCS) at Illinois with graduate advising privileges in the DCS. Members who satisfy this criteria include the regular faculty, the teaching faculty with graduate advising privileges in the DCS, and people with non-visiting (assistant/associate/full) professor appointments in the DCS that carry one or more of the following modifiers - adjunct, affiliate, research or emeritus). Two of these three members must be full-time (non-affiliate) members in the DCS.
• At least one member must be from outside of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (outside member is required only for students who have passed the qualifying exam in spring 2006 or later, however, it is highly recommended for all students). The outside member cannot have been a student of the current thesis advisor or any other University of Illinois committee member nor have been a University of Illinois student within the last five years. The outside committee member must have independent publications that occurred after earning their Ph.D. In addition, if the outside member is a Post-doc, he/she can serve as a non-voting member only.
• If there are more than 4 members on a committee, the majority vote needs to favor the CS Department faculty. If you are unsure, please contact Jennifer Comstock at [email protected] .

Note: The outside member must have a Ph.D. and does not need to be a university faculty member. For example, this member could belong to an industrial or government research lab. If necessary, teleconferencing technology may be used for the prelim exam. For approval of the outside member, the Department of Computer Science and the Graduate College require their CV and a brief statement of why they were chosen.

The five requirements above are also imposed on the Ph.D. committee for the Final Exam (although the committees may be different) .

Advice on How to Form the Committee

• It is good for students to involve additional researchers in their efforts as early as possible. Remember, students are not locked into particular committee choices until their Preliminary Exam. In some sense, the Ph.D. committee is just a formal mechanism to stimulate interaction between faculty and students.
• It is generally recommended that a student have at least one committee member who is not a specialist in the general area of research pursued in the thesis. The ability to explain and justify research to outsiders is crucial to the success of a researcher.
• It is fairly common to have more committee members than the minimum of four. This helps to further enhance the quality and visibility of the work. Furthermore, it may be easier to satisfy the five requirements on Ph.D. committees by having more members.

Graduate Advising

The Graduate Academic Office, a guiding hand for CS graduate students, assistance is available every weekday.

First Ph.D. Committee Meeting

1. introduction.

The purpose of this CommKit is to demystify the contents and expected deliverables for your first PhD Committee Meeting. After reading this document, you will know what your committee members are expecting from you when they show up to this first meeting. 

2. Criteria for Success

Preparing for the committee meeting, you have already done the following. 

• Formed your committee, composed of at least three committee members: your thesis advisor, your thesis committee chair, and another thesis committee member. For AeroAstro, two of these members must be MIT faculty. 
• Created a presentation for the committee meeting, comprising slides explaining your assessment of what gaps exist in your expected PhD research area, a summary of your work in this area so far, and your coursework thus far in graduate school.
• Reviewed the presentation with your advisor to ensure the content is in line with their expectations for the first committee meeting. If possible, you can ask your advisor for their slide expectations before you start creating your presentation.

During the committee meeting itself, you will: 

• Introduce your committee members to your proposed PhD topic. You will also introduce your committee members to one another.
• Establish your expectations for your committee members on the sort of help, feedback, and meeting frequency you would like to have for the rest of your PhD. 

Your first committee meeting is the first time that your committee members are formally introduced to your PhD topic and your understanding of the area. Of lesser importance but still good to keep in mind, is that this meeting also be the first time your committee members meet one another. For many students, the first committee meeting serves as a dress rehearsal for the PhD proposal. Therefore, the first committee meeting is a great opportunity to get feedback from your committee members about research progress or ideas that you think will be in your proposal. 

4. Analyze Your Audience

Your committee members may be familiar with only one component of your PhD topic (i.e. the methodology but not necessarily the application). As a result, you will have to balance going into very thorough technical detail for the subject matter experts on your committee, but also providing a high-level context to your other committee members.

However, the focus of the meeting should be to provide a thorough, technical update on your understanding of the state-of-the-art and where the gaps in the field lie. As a result, the majority of your topic slides should be explanations of comparable works as well as what specific techniques and results you have in your own research in this area. If you are planning to do your proposal defense after your first committee meeting, this is an opportunity to get feedback on your planned PhD contributions as well as your initial research direction. 

5. Best Practices

5.1. explain your background and the skillsets of your committee members.

Before you dive into your technical topic, take some time to explain your personal background. This could be your hobbies, where you went to school, where you grew up. If you haven’t worked with any of your committee members before, this is their first introduction to you as a person. As a result, you should take some time to explain who you are and any relevant career goals you have so that your committee members can best understand how to help you.

Figure 1: An example introductions slide is shown on the left. This slide is more informal in tone, as it mentions the students personal interests, and has photos taken from outside the lab. An example career goals slide is shown on the right. This slide deck had a much more formal tone, and is clearly stating the student’s intentions following a PhD. By making the career goals slide a stand-alone slide, the student is opening a discussion with their committee about what they want as an outcome of their PhD.

Additionally, your committee members may not have worked with one another before. As a result, you should provide a brief overview of their background and core competencies. This does not have to be a deep-dive into the background and accolades of your committee members; a brief bullet that explains their specialties will suffice. This will help your committee members understand their role on the committee and which person is most knowledgeable in each piece of your PhD.

5.2. Describe the state-of-the-art of the field and your differences from other approaches

The focus of your first committee meeting is to establish that you’ve thoroughly researched the field to find a gap in current work that can serve as your proposed PhD thesis topic, so you will need to demonstrate an advanced understanding of the current state of the field. As your first committee meeting is a presentation rather than a document, the review of the field should not necessarily be a systematic review of every paper out there. Instead, focus on synthesizing commonalities between your approach and others, and the weaknesses in these other methodologies. If there are one or two works that are going to serve as baselines that you will improve upon, then it is worthwhile to highlight these approaches and explain them in more detail. 

5.3. Provide timelines for your anticipated milestones for your PhD.

Following your description of the state of the field and your research, you should cover housekeeping items related to the progression of your degrees. This should include the classes you intend to take (or have taken) in support of your degree, as well as when you plan to propose your PhD topic and when you would like to have the next committee meeting. It is important to cover your expectations for committee meeting frequency in this first committee meeting, so that your committee meeting members understand the kind of support that you will need throughout this process. 

5.4. Answer questions surrounding your work

Following your presentation, it is customary that your committee will ask you questions about the direction of your work and the results you have presented. You should be able to explain the assumptions and experimental setup. For questions you are unable to answer, it is always fine to be honest with your committee and reply that you have not heard of a resource/method they are mentioning. If there are areas that you want specific feedback on, focus on asking detailed, thorough questions. When asking your committee for feedback or input, avoid asking them questions like “what should I do next”, or treating the committee meeting as a group brainstorming session. For example, a better alternative question for them would be that you have researched a specific set of methodologies, and you would like their input on what they think is most applicable for your problem. It is expected that you will define the direction of your PhD and complete a thorough enough literature review to be able to confidently assess the gaps in the field. Your committee serves to help you find resources to complete your experiments or techniques they may think are suitable for your approach. Your committee will not tell you what to do verbatim for your PhD, that is up to you to decide and defend.

Resources and Annotated Examples

Annotated 1st ph.d. committee meeting sldies.

Example 1st Ph.D. committee meeting slides with annotations 3 MB

• Public Lectures
• Faculty & Staff Site >>

Policy 4.2: Supervisory Committee for Graduate Students

This section outlines the policy for the supervisory committee of master’s students and doctoral students.

As a general principle, each student working toward a graduate degree at the University of Washington is guided by a faculty supervisory committee. This committee serves an important evaluative and mentoring function for the student throughout the student’s graduate career.

Questions about the timeline and process for appointing a supervisory committees for master’s or doctoral students should be directed to the Graduate School’s Graduate Enrollment Management Services (GEMS) office. All other questions about supervisory committee appointment or function, as well as concerns about the proceedings of an exam, should be directed to the Graduate School’s Office of Academic Affairs.

4.2.1     The Master’s Supervisory Committee

Appointment of a supervisory committee for students aspiring to the Master’s degree is determined by the Graduate Faculty in the degree-offering unit or program. The Graduate Program Coordinator, in consultation with the student and appropriate faculty members, appoints a committee of two to four members. The Chair and at least one-half of the total membership must be members of the graduate faculty.

For any thesis project that may include human or animal subjects, the GPC or GPA must advise the student of the need to  comply with the University of Washington Human Subjects Division and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee’s requirements, as appropriate, and the student and committee chair must complete the Use Of Human And Animal Subjects For UW Graduate Student Theses And Dissertations form.

4.2.2     The Doctoral Supervisory Committee other than Practice Doctorates

The appointment of a doctoral supervisory committee indicates that the Graduate Faculty in the student’s field find the student’s background and achievement a sufficient basis for progression to the next stage of a program of doctoral study and research.

Doctoral supervisory committee member responsibilities include the approval of a course of study which will fulfill the general course requirements of the student’s major and supporting fields, conducting the student’s General Examination and, when appropriate, recommending advancement to Candidacy.

The doctoral supervisory committee approves the Candidate’s dissertation proposal and guides the student in carrying out appropriate research for the dissertation. The Graduate School does not stipulate the content of the dissertation; guidance on the dissertation is the responsibility of the supervisory committee.

For doctoral committee responsibilities for the General Exam and Final Exam, see Policy 1.1.4 .

4.2.2.1     Timeline and Process

• In order to allow time to identify a suitable Graduate School Representative (GSR), it is suggested that the doctoral supervisory committee be established at least four months prior to the intended date of the General Examination.
• The appointment of a committee is initiated by the Graduate Program Coordinator (GPC) after consultation with appropriate Graduate Faculty members in the student’s field and with the student.
• The GPC recommends members of the supervisory committee to the Dean of The Graduate School by entering this information into MyGradProgram (MGP).
• For any dissertation project that may include human or animal subjects, the GPC or GPA must advise the student of the need to comply with the University of Washington Human Subjects Division and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee’s requirements, as appropriate, and the student and committee chair must complete the Use Of Human And Animal Subjects For UW Graduate Student Theses And Dissertations form.

4.2.2.2     Committee Composition

• The doctoral supervisory committee consists of a minimum of four members, at least three of whom (including one Chair and the GSR) must be members of the Graduate Faculty with an endorsement to chair doctoral committees.
• A majority of the members must be members of the Graduate Faculty.
• The GSR must be a productive scholar in the GSR’s own research area that may differ from that of the student’s dissertation project.
• The members outside the GSR must be identified by the student’s appointing department or program as productive scholars in the student’s major field and/or subfields.

4.2.2.3     The Committee Chair

• The Chair(s) of a committee must be able and willing to assume principal responsibility for advising the student. In addition, the Chair(s) should have adequate time available for this work and should expect to be accessible to the student.
• Emeritus/a and affiliate faculty may serve as Chair(s) if the above conditions are met.
• If a committee has Co-Chairs, both serve with equal importance on a student’s supervisory committee and equally share the responsibility for the student’s progress. In the case of Co-Chairs, the first Co-Chair must have a Graduate Faculty appointment with doctoral endorsement. The second Co-Chair may be appointed without Graduate Faculty status if the individual has a qualified UW faculty appointment. Qualified faculty appointments in this case are those appointments eligible for continuous or five-year graduate faculty roles. A Co-Chair without qualified UW faculty appointment may be appointed only by petition through the Office of Academic Affairs to the Dean of the Graduate School or the Dean’s designee.

4.2.2.4     The Role of the Graduate School Representative (GSR)

The GSR represents the broad interests of the Graduate School with respect to high standards of scholarly performance. The GSR is a voting member of the dissertation supervisory committee, and as such provides an important service function to the Graduate School and the University.

In all cases, the GSR must meet the following Graduate School requirements:

• attest to the validity of examinations and indicate approval of the process by which examinations are conducted;
• ensure that the student is treated in an unbiased manner; and
• represent the Graduate School in ensuring university-wide standards of scholarly performance.

In addition, any graduate program may choose to define the role of the GSR to include one or both of the following:

• ensure that the student’s mastery of the subject matter is broad and comprehensive;
• provide additional support for the student as the student navigates the exam and dissertation process.

If a graduate program sets additional expectations for the GSR beyond the Graduate School requirements, the graduate program must clearly articulate these expectations, and the Graduate Program Coordinator (GPC) or designee must communicate them in writing to all parties (student, chair, committee members, GSR) upon appointment of the GSR. The minimum role of the GSR must be defined consistently across all committees in the graduate program.

The GSR’s signature on the committee signature form affirming the decision of the committee communicates to the Dean of the Graduate School that the Graduate School and program-level responsibilities have been met.

4.2.2.5     Graduate School Representative (GSR) Eligibility

• As with all doctoral supervisory committee members, the GSR is proposed to the Graduate School by the Graduate Program Coordinator in the student’s degree-offering unit and must be a member of the Graduate Faculty with an endorsement to Chair.
• Faculty members with a primary, joint, or affiliate appointment in the student’s degree-offering unit or the committee chair’s department are not eligible to serve as the GSR.
• It is vital that a conflict of interest in the selection of the GSR be avoided. Budgetary relationships, personal relationships, or research and/or publication relationships between the GSR and either the student or the committee chair are examples of possible conflicts of interest. (See GSR Eligibility for more information.) The GSR is responsible for ensuring that no such conflicts of interest, or appearance of conflicts of interest, exist, and must attest to this upon request.

4.2.2.6 Reading Committee Timeline and Composition

• After the General Examination, the Graduate Program Coordinator informs the Dean of The Graduate School of at least three members of the supervisory committee who will serve on the reading committee.
• At least one of the members of the reading committee must hold an endorsement to chair doctoral committees. The reading committee is appointed to read and approve the dissertation.

4.2.2.7 Function of the Reading Committee

It is the responsibility of the reading committee to:

• Ensure that the dissertation is a significant contribution to knowledge and is an acceptable piece of scholarly writing.
• Determine the appropriateness of a candidate’s dissertation as a basis for issuing the Committee Signature Form for a Final Examination.

4.2.3 The Practice Doctorate Supervisory Committee

The appointment of a practice doctoral supervisory committee indicates that the Graduate Faculty in the student’s field finds the student’s background and achievement a sufficient basis for progression in the doctoral program.

Responsibilities of the practice doctoral supervisory committee include: approval of the student’s program of study; criteria for progression, which may include a general examination, certification, or other requirements set by the graduate program; approval and oversight of the student’s project proposal; and approval of the completed project.

4.2.3.1 Timeline and Process

The practice doctoral supervisory committee should be established as soon as possible during the student’s training. The Graduate Program Coordinator initiates the appointment of the committee after consultation with appropriate Graduate Faculty members in the student’s field and with the student. The Graduate Program Coordinator recommends members of the supervisory committee to the Dean of The Graduate School by entering this information into MyGrad Program.

4.2.3.2 Committee Composition

The practice doctoral supervisory committee consists of a minimum of three members. At least two committee members, including the Chair, must be members of the Graduate Faculty with an endorsement to chair doctoral committees, and at least half of the total number must be members of the Graduate Faculty. The following applies to all practice doctoral supervisory committees:

• Any committee members who are not Graduate Faculty must be identified by the student’s appointing department or program as productive scholars or practitioners in the student’s major field and/or subfields.
• Co-chairs may be appointed when both serve with equal importance on a student’s supervisory committee and equally share the responsibility for the student’s progress. If co-chairs are appointed, each must be a member of the Graduate Faculty with endorsement to chair.
• The Chair or Co-chairs of a committee must be able and willing to assume principal responsibility for advising the student. In addition, the Chair or Co-chairs should have adequate time available for this work and should expect to be accessible to the student. Emeritus faculty may serve as a Chair if the above conditions are met.
• A Graduate School Representative (GSR) is not required.

Policy 4.2 revised: October 2021, March 2022; May 2022; December 2022

Policy 4.2.1 and 4.2.3 revised March 2023

Policy 4.2.3.6 and 4.2.4 revised March 2023

Policy 4.2.3.7 and 4.2.3.9 were deleted March 2023 , with content moved to Policy 1.1

Policy 4.2 revised October 2023

Dissertation Advisory Committee (DAC)

The purpose of the dissertation advisory committee (DAC) is to help set research goals and directions, while assessing progress toward the completion of an original body of research appropriate for completion of a PhD dissertation.

OVERALL, THE MAJOR GOALS OF THE DAC ARE TO:

• critically assess the student’s progress in both a specific research project and development as a scientist;
• provide advice and assistance to the student to overcome hurdles to progress in both areas;
• assure that the student’s research project remains focused within a reasonable scope;
• guide the student toward completion of the project in a timely fashion, usually resulting in at least one first-author primary research publication.

DAC MEMBERSHIP

The DAC is a group of faculty selected by the student and mentor to provide guidance and direction on the student’s dissertation research and assess both the progress of the project and the development of the student scientist. In addition to providing practical and technical assistance to the student, the DAC also serves to moderate the mentor-student relationship and any non-scientific issues hindering progress. It is, therefore, important for the students to have committee members they trust and with whom they feel comfortable discussing such issues. Students select DAC members in consultation with their dissertation advisor, who must agree to the make-up of the committee.

The membership of the DAC must be approved by the BPH Program Office. Students should submit the DAC Membership Form to the BPH Office as soon as they have assembled a potential committee for approval. The requirements for the DAC composition are the following:

• The DAC is composed of three or more faculty members who have complementary and relevant expertise to fit the student’s dissertation project.
• Additionally, the dissertation advisor must attend each DAC meeting but is not an official member of the DAC.
• The Chair of the DAC is required to be a BPH faculty member, usually with the same departmental affiliation as the student’s advisor.
• At least one member should be from outside the BPH program, from another Harvard-affiliated institute, or an unaffiliated institute (e.g., MIT, Brown University, University of Massachusetts, etc.).
• The other DAC member(s) should have Harvard-affiliated faculty positions.
• Unless otherwise approved by the BPH Program Office, all members should be tenure track faculty or equivalent.
• All DAC members should be present at DAC meetings unless there are extenuating circumstances.

PREPARING FOR THE DAC MEETING: STUDENT TIMELINE AND PROGRAM PROCEDURES

• The first DAC meeting should be scheduled within six months of completing the PQE and prior to the beginning of the sixth semester. Subsequent DAC meetings should be scheduled about every six to nine months to assess student progress.
• DAC meetings will be more frequent for students G4 and above. All students must demonstrate to the DAC committee a plausible track towards degree completion by year five or they may not be allowed to continue in the program. The BPH Program Director may attend DAC meetings for students in the G6 year and above to assess whether appropriate progress towards degree completion is being made.
• Students bear primary responsibility for setting up the DAC meetings. Students must notify the BPH Office about all meeting dates and times as soon as these have been set. Additionally, students should include the BPH Office in any material distribution in advance of DAC meetings.
• Seven to ten days prior to each DAC meeting, the student assessment and advisor assessment portions of the DAC Report Form should be completed and sent to the DAC along with any relevant materials (e.g., progress report). NOTE: For the first DAC meeting, students will submit a dissertation proposal—please see the directions below for more details. Additionally, students should send the DAC guidelines/overview to the committee before the first DAC Meeting.
• The DAC Report Form contains three sections: 1.  student self-assessment of progress 2. an advisor/mentor assessment of the student’s progress 3. the DAC’s assessment of the project and student’s progress
• The first two parts of this form are completed by the student and advisor, respectively. The DAC assessment part of the form is filled out during or just after completion of the DAC meeting. As an additional component of the DAC report, the student is asked to provide two “elevator-pitch” statements of four sentences or less, one that is more technical for non-expert scientists and one that is in lay language for non-scientists. The purpose of these statements is to improve science communication skills to different audiences.
• The BPH program is required to give the Harvard Griffin GSAS an accounting of student progress via Satisfactory Progress Reports, a key component of which is regular DAC meetings for G3 students and above. Unsatisfactory progress will be reported for any student who fails to have DAC meetings at six-to-nine-month intervals. However, this may be changed to satisfactory progress at the submission of a DAC report to the BPH Program Office.

DAC CONTENT AND MATERIALS

The first dac meeting: dissertation proposal.

In addition to completing the specified portions of the DAC Report Form noted in the “preparing for the DAC” section, students submit a written dissertation proposal to the dissertation advisory committee within six months of successfully completing the preliminary qualifying exam. At this initial DAC meeting, it is not expected that extensive preliminary studies have been completed, but the scope and focus of the dissertation research should be defined. Students should present a clear plan for completing all of the work required for the PhD dissertation within approximately three years. While it is understood the plans will evolve over the course of thesis research, especially since highly creative projects engender some risks, and delays of an unexpected nature may arise, students are encouraged to strive for this goal. The full proposal should be about seven to eight pages in length (excluding references) and should include the following sections:

• specific Aims
• background and significance
• experimental design, including expected results and interpretations
• references (author, title, journal, inclusive pages, and year)

The DAC and student will meet to discuss the dissertation proposal, and committee members will provide the student with feedback, guidance, and suggestions to help define the dissertation project in terms of scope, direction, and general quality. Please see the “Organization of the DAC Meetings” section for more details.

SUBSEQUENT DAC MEETINGS:

In addition to completing the specified portions of the DAC Report Form noted in the “preparing for the DAC” section, students submit a written Research Progress Report of three to five pages in length (not including figures):

• Specific aims: If the aims have been modified from the original DAC meeting proposal, the revised aims should be presented and the reasons for the modifications.
• Studies and results: The studies directed toward specific aims and the positive and negative results obtained should be presented, as well as any technical problems encountered and how addressed. Figures of key pieces of data and working models should be included.
• Significance: A brief discussion on the significance of the findings to the current state of the scientific field.
• Plans: A summary of plans to address the remaining specific aims, including any important modifications to the original plans.

ORGANIZATION OF DAC MEETINGS

1. FACULTY AND STUDENT ALTERNATELY LEAVE THE ROOM. To provide an opportunity for both the student and the advisor to communicate with DAC members on a confidential basis, each meeting follows this format: 1) the DAC meets with the student while the PI steps out; 2) the DAC meets with the PI while the student steps out; 3) the student gives a presentation on their project to date, everyone discusses, and the DAC makes recommendations . In the absence of the student, the advisor will have a chance to expand on the written comments in the DAC Report form, present their assessment of the student’s progress, and whether the student is on course to graduate in a timely fashion. The student self-evaluation form should be discussed (this should have been reviewed by the student with their PI prior to the DAC meeting) along with any issues perceived as hindering the student’s progress. In the absence of the advisor, the student may likewise communicate their own assessment of their progress and whether the advisor and the laboratory environment provide the support that they need. Again, the student self-evaluation form can help frame this discussion. This is also an opportunity to share with the committee any other problems of a confidential nature with which the student needs help or that the DAC should be aware of in assessing progress. In this manner, the DAC serves to moderate the student-advisor relationship and recognize hurdles to progress that the student faces that may be arising from their interactions with the advisor, or lack thereof, or within the laboratory environment. If needed, the DAC chair will bring issues that arise to the attention of the Faculty Director, or encourage students and advisors to do so, for further mitigation. After these private meetings with the DAC, the DAC, the advisor, and the student will proceed to the student presentation portion as described below.

2. STUDENT PRESENTATION. The main part of the meeting will consist of a 30–40 minute presentation by the student of results and plans. Committee members will typically interrupt the presentation with questions, and the presentation is followed by a discussion of progress and future plans. The advisor should interject minimally so that the student has the opportunity to demonstrate mastery of their field and scientific maturity surrounding ongoing and future work.

3. COMMENTS/FEEDBACK GIVEN TO STUDENT BY DAC. The DAC meeting is not an exam but a scientific discussion geared toward critically assessing current data, discussing next steps, and discussing the overall direction of the student’s project. The student does not present an exhaustive set of data generated since the previous DAC but rather summarizes the core findings and conclusions, alternative interpretations, and impediments to progress. Typically, the committee will spend much of the time on technical hurdles or key decision/branch-point experiments in the project, along with a broader discussion of the novelty and impact of the findings. The collective expertise of the DAC, advisor, and student are employed to help set or reset the course of experiments, focusing on the student recognizing the highest priority experiments and developing a plan of action to complete those experiments. Rigor and reproducibility should be points of emphasis in the DAC meeting, accompanied by a critical discussion of quantitative approaches and proper use of statistical methods. In addition to providing constructive comments and point-by-point suggestions on the science, both during the meeting and in the written report, the DAC assesses and documents whether the student is on a good track toward graduation and the progress of the student’s development as a scientist. Moreover, the DAC should comment on the student’s progress on experimentation and whether it has the potential to lead to one or more first-author publications. The committee should evaluate the student’s ability to think independently, including development of hypotheses, practical approaches for testing hypotheses, critical interpretation of data, understanding relevance of results in light of current thinking in the field, and judging how to effectively pursue the line of investigation.

4. REPORTING STUDENT’S PROGRESS. The DAC chair will complete the committee’s section of the DAC Report form, which the BPH Program Director will review. Other concerns that arise during the DAC meeting may also be communicated to the BPH Office.

5. DURATION OF DAC MEETING. The overall DAC meeting usually lasts about two hours.

FINAL DAC AND PERMISSION TO WRITE THE DISSERTATION

It is ultimately the DAC’s decision, in consultation with the student and advisor, when the student may begin writing their dissertation. The core requirement for this milestone is that the student must have completed a body of primary research deemed to be of publishable quality. While a first-author research paper is not required to attain the degree, our hope is that graduating students will have at least one published first-author, peer-reviewed, primary research paper or at least one that is largely prepared or submitted prior to graduation. In addition, the DAC considers the scientific maturity, independence, and capacity for original thinking in considering the student’s readiness to graduate. Career aspirations and immediate future plans can also factor into the timing of this decision.

When the DAC concludes that the student has met the requirements for earning a PhD and is ready to begin writing their dissertation, the committee will “check the box” on the student’s DAC Report form at the completion of the final DAC meeting. The student’s dissertation defense must take place within six months of the date on which the box is checked.

News from the School

At Convocation, Harvard Chan School graduates urged to meet climate and public health crises with fresh thinking, collective action

Graduation 2024: Award winners

Once a malaria patient, student now has sights set on stopping the deadly disease

Providing compassionate care to marginalized people

All about Ph.D. committee meetings

The most common email I got during my Ph.D. was from the director of my graduate program. Over the years, it contained various ways of asking me if I’d scheduled my next committee meeting. It had varying levels of urgency, capital letters and exclamation points, depending on how late in the year it was. I would always respond politely but continue to procrastinate scheduling until the last possible minute. Committee meetings scared me, and I just didn’t want to face it. I was sure that my committee would discover that I was incompetent and stupid and didn’t deserve a Ph.D.

I realized eventually that committee meetings are incredibly helpful, and I regretted putting them off. I do not think I was the only one who felt that way, so I’m devoting this column to committee meetings: What they are, what they’re for, and how to get the most out of them. 

What is a committee? 

Throughout your Ph.D., you typically will be working in one lab under one principal investigator. Your committee is a group of PIs outside your lab who have complementary expertise. They meet with you to assess your progress, including deciding when you can graduate. They help you through your research, share their ideas and knowledge, and act as a reality check. The committee meeting is typically an annual or semi-annual presentation of your work and discussion about how to proceed. The format varies from school to school and committee to committee.

In addition to the presentation and discussion, there is usually a component where you step out of the room and they talk about you while you wait outside. Sometimes there is also a component where the PI steps out and you talk about any problems you may be having with them. 

Importantly, your committee typically has the final say about whether and when you proceed to your defense. Which means, while it might feel like you and your PI are in charge, your committee is actually what determines when you have done enough work to defend. Sometimes this is perfunctory, with the committee agreeing with the PI when a student is ready. Other times there can be conflict with a committee evaluating the situation differently. 

What is the point of a committee meeting? 

First off, it’s important to be clear: Committee meetings are for you . In the end, the purpose of a committee meeting during the years of your Ph.D., is to help guide you, keep you on track to graduate, and make sure the work you are doing is good and will lead to a thesis and paper. Your committee is made of people you can turn to for advice and outside opinions. They (usually) want the best for you and don’t want you to be wasting your time. 

It’s maybe your only opportunity to sit down with a bunch of experts who all are focused on you and your work. The meetings can be great opportunities for learning and growth. 

There are many things a committee can do for you: They can suggest experiments, come up with new ideas about how to interpret your data, make new connections about your work, and generally ask insightful questions to make sure you’re not barking up the wrong tree or leaving out something important.

Having a committee of experts outside your lab is a great reality check to make sure you and your PI are not so deep in your project with blinders on that you are missing something big.

They can help give you guidance if your PI is too distant or too involved, and they can be a voice of reason if your PI has expectations that are unrealistic for a Ph.D. project. In rougher times, your committee can be your lifeline. 

Your committee members are also people you can talk to outside of your official committee meetings, in good times and bad. 

Also, your committee members will know you scientifically and can probably write you letters of reference when you find yourself applying for a job or grant. 

Are committee meetings exams?

A committee meeting is not a continuation of your qualifying exam, but you will be expected to know your stuff. It’s a discussion, so there will definitely be questions. And if you don’t know how to answer them, sometimes it can feel a little humiliating. But, generally, if you keep two things in mind, it’s all good: First, you actually do know your project better than anyone else, because you are the one doing it. And, second, it’s much better to find the things you don’t know and need to know early on, so you can build your foundation early and well, and then build your research on top, instead of finding out later that you missed something obvious and wasted your time. 

Do they judge my progress?

Yes. Committees can decide whether you are making enough progress and set expectations for what they want to see done by the next meeting. Sometimes they will tell you that you are not doing enough. That can be stressful, but they want you to get things done so you can graduate, not because they want to torture you. 

If you’re not getting enough done, you can talk to them about why. Maybe a protocol is too complicated and you need more training, maybe troubleshooting is taking forever, or maybe you can’t get the mice or strains you need. Maybe you’ve been struggling with mental or physical health, or maybe you need help managing your schedule or setting priorities. Maybe you’ve actually been working well and efficiently but think the expectations are just too high for how long experiments take. You can have these conversations and work out how to make better progress. 

How do I choose who should be on my committee?

The short answer is: Choose people whose skills and expertise will be useful to you. Also, check if your program has rules for who must or must not be on your committee. 

Of course, it is impossible to find the perfect committee, but you can keep these things in mind:

Look for complementary qualities: It’s helpful to choose people who aren’t clones of your PI but complement your PI’s style and strengths. If you have a young PI, maybe look for a more established person for your committee. If you have a hands-off PI, maybe look for a committee member who will be more involved and help you work out the small things. If you have a detail-oriented PI, look for someone who likes to step back and look at the big picture. If you have a PI who loves to daydream about unrealistic experiments, look for someone who is very realistic and pragmatic. You get the point. 

Look for someone invested: It might be tempting to choose people who seem like they’ll be easy and not challenge you, but this is your chance to have your horizons expanded and be pushed, so someone who might not care much about your work is not a great choice though they might be easier to deal with in the moment. 

Ask around: If you are thinking about asking a certain person to be on your committee but are unsure what working with them will be like, find someone who has that person on their committee and talk to them about it. 

Think about who will help you if things go badly: If everything goes smoothly in grad school, your choice of committee might not matter so much, and anyone you choose will be fine. But if things go bad, your committee will be very important, and you might want to plan for that just in case. 

While researching for this article, I talked with a few grad students who stressed this point: PI–student relationships can get really fraught, and, with the power dynamic, they can become abusive, as described here , here and here . In cases where your relationship with your PI has really gone down the drain, it’s essential to have people on your committee who can be objective and help you navigate — or even help get you out. 

If you can help it, your committee shouldn’t be longtime friends of your PI. That might seem appealing at first: They’ve known your PI’s work for a long time and probably want their pal’s students to do well. If everything stays good, then it’s not a problem. But if things start to go badly in the PI–student relationship, it will be useful to have someone who isn’t guaranteed to see things only from your PI’s point of view. Having someone who is more of an outsider on your committee can help here. A neutral voice who doesn’t have a long friendship invested already with your PI might be able to look objectively at the dynamics and figure out how to move everyone forward. A committee of all old friends of your PI can leave you feeling trapped and helpless if things get rough.

Anything else?

Be gracious and respectful. These professors are taking time out of their day to focus on your work. 

It’s pretty tricky to find a time when a group of professors are all free for two hours. Start scheduling early. Maybe use Doodle or another scheduling aid. 

Enjoy reading ASBMB Today?

Become a member to receive the print edition monthly and the digital edition weekly.

Elizabeth Stivison is a postdoctoral researcher at Vanderbilt University studying inositol signaling and a careers columnist for ASBMB Today.

Related articles

Featured jobs.

from the ASBMB career center

Get the latest from ASBMB Today

Enter your email address, and we’ll send you a weekly email with recent articles, interviews and more.

Latest in Careers

Careers highlights or most popular articles.

Upcoming opportunities

Register for ASBMB's webinars on coping with the midcareer doldrums and NIAMS funding opportunities!

Scientists in a law firm: The job of a patent agent

A law degree is not required; a strong science background is. Two trained scientists describe their journeys to patent law.

Celebrating science and community in San Antonio

The ASBMB Science Outreach and Communication Committee hosted local high school students for a day of interactions and activities with scientists.

Remember to vote in ASBMB's election! Plus, we've extended the abstract-submission deadline for our meeting on transcriptional regulation.

2024 new-grad gift guide — the industry edition

A newly employed scientists might not have a lot of desk space for trinkets, so here are some non-physical suggestions.

More than just omics

Meet the three co-organizers of an intimate meeting that focuses on transcription from all angles.

Main navigation

• For supervisees
• For supervisors
• Supervision Snapshots
• Ask an Associate Dean
• Graduate Mentorship
• McGill Expectations for Graduate Supervision
• Co-supervision

Supervisory committees

• Clarifying expectations
• Communication
• Tracking student progress
• Warning signs
• Giving feedback
• Infrastructure and resources
• Roles over time
• Resolving Conflict
• Fostering Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• New supervisors
• Improving the supervisory practice
• Training for Supervisors
• FAQ for Supervisors
• Practical advice
• Ideas for reflection

All PhD students at McGill must have a supervisory committee

Supervisory committees act as a support system for both students and supervisors, and assist with progress tracking and research project development. They also help with problem solving in the supervisory relationship. Participating in supervisory committees can help faculty members develop important supervisory skills, including communication with graduate students and evaluation of student work.

According to McGill’s Regulations on Graduate Student Supervision , “PhD students must have a supervisory committee consisting of at least one faculty member in addition to the supervisor(s). The supervisory committee must provide, on a regular basis, guidance and constructive feedback on the student’s research.”

The supervisor and supervisee should choose supervisory committee member(s) as early as possible in the PhD program. This is often in the first or second term of the program.

Points to consider when selecting committee members

Field of expertise

What value will this expertise add to the student’s research program?

Does the expertise of committee members and supervisor(s) cover a broad range?

Availability

Do they have the time to complete the responsibilities of a committee member, such as attending annual progress tracking meetings and giving feedback on writing?

Objectivity on committee

Committee members cannot have a conflict of interest with the supervisor(s) or supervisee.

General roles and responsibilities of committee members

All supervisory committee members are expected to:

participate in annual progress tracking meetings (see the Tracking student progress page and the Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies’ page on progress tracking for more information);

participate in additional meetings if there is unsatisfactory performance, or if requested by the student;

evaluate academic progress and advise on the next year’s objectives;

assist in providing guidance, consultation, and advice on the student’s research;

determine mutually-agreed upon expectations for feedback and best methods of communication (see Clarifying expectations for more information);

provide expertise that complements and expands on that of the supervisor; and

with the rest of the committee, approve when the thesis is ready for examination.

According to Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, it is the responsibility of students to communicate regularly with and send progress reports to their supervisory committee (for more, see Responsibilities of the Academic Units ).

Specific responsibilities of committee members

Although many roles and responsibilities of supervisory committee members are consistent across all graduate programs at McGill, some responsibilities may be specific to the requirements of certain programs. A list of possible responsibilities are below; however, it is a good idea to contact your academic unit for clarification of their expectations.

Helping define courses and other program requirements (e.g., comprehensive exam requirements)

Providing timely feedback on draft dissertation chapters only after the student has completed at least one round of revision based on feedback from the supervisor, or on other written work

Evaluating comprehensive exams, research proposal, final thesis and oral defence (note that the composition of the oral defence committee is slightly different than supervisory committee)

Advising on career options and opportunities for professional development

Providing mentoring/mediation if the relationship with the supervisor is strained

Remaining available for consultation with the student or supervisor throughout the year 

How would you handle conflicts in the supervisory relationship?

When there is a conflict between a supervisee and supervisor, supervisory committee members are often expected to help with conflict resolution.

Consider the following situations that may be experienced by committee members. If you were a committee member, how would you respond? Would your thoughts on the situations change if you were the student’s primary supervisor (i.e., how would you expect the student’s committee members to respond)?

• The student has not had a committee meeting or a formal evaluation (comprehensive or thesis) for over a year. You have not received any updates from them since the last meeting.  
• What if, despite attempts to resolve this disagreement, you continue to have differences of opinions with the other committee member(s) and the student appears to be confused and unsure how to proceed?  
• The student’s primary supervisor approaches you and expresses that they are having conflicts with the student (e.g., lack of progress or communication, differences of opinion). What would you suggest? Would you react differently if the student approached you expressing the same conflict?  

In all cases, attempt to resolve the conflict between those involved; however, if this is not successful, supervisory committee members, supervisors, and students can contact the Graduate Program Director. If this still does not resolve the issue, contact a GPS Associate Dean .

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International License . Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, McGill University .

Department and University Information

Graduate and postdoctoral studies.

Thesis Committee

The Ph.D. Thesis Committee has the responsibility of advising a student on all aspects of the thesis experience, from the proposal process through the preparation and defense of the final document.

The Committee should be comprised of

• the Thesis Advisor(s),
• the Thesis Committee Chair who presides at all committee meetings (must be a BE faculty member), and
• at least one additional member (unrestricted).

The student and research supervisor should agree upon members of a Thesis Committee, and the student is responsible for inviting faculty to sit on their committee. Beyond administration of the Oral Exam, the Thesis Committee is meant to provide guidance on the various aspects of the student’s project; Thesis Committee members should therefore be selected with this goal in mind.

Forming the Committee

During the summer of the second year, the student must submit the BE PhD Thesis Committee form  to the BE Academic Office ) to request approval of the Thesis Committee membership.

Changing the Committee

The Thesis Committee constituted for the Oral Exam/Thesis Proposal may change over the course of the student’s research, as determined by the student and advisor with approval by the Graduate Program Chair. Students should submit a new PhD Thesis Committee form (above) to the BE Academic Office.

• Utility Menu

Committee on the Study of Religion

• PhD Handbook
• Loeb Fellowship

PROF. ALI ASANI describes "Giving Voice to Silenced Islams"

Click for the podcast sponsored by the Alaweed Islamic Studies Program

Undergraduate: Concentrating in The Comparative Study of Religion

Study the human experiences that produced much of the world’s greatest literature, art & philosophy & shaped moral consciousness

Ph.D. in the Study of Religion

Applications for admission for the 2024-2025 academic year are now closed.

Doctoral Program: Frequently Asked Questions

Application requirements? Financial aid? Teaching opportunities? Look here!

Professor Asani discusses the role of diversity at Harvard

Advice to students: Learn from diversity, click for the Gazette article

Courses for Undergraduates

Doctoral students: Consider Studying Religion as a Secondary Field

Click here for more information

Check out our outstanding job placement record!

Within 5 years of graduation, 85% of our graduates are in tenure-track positions across the country and the world

Religion is a dynamic and powerful force in shaping cultures and complex civilizations, so understanding religion is critical for many areas of study from art, literature, and music to history, politics, and public health.

Studying religion is exciting and demanding. the history of religions is global in scope and invites us to study the languages and cultures of the world. the currents of religion today are swift and often turbulent and require the very best analysis of scholars in the humanities and social sciences., comparative, harvard’s programs in religious studies are distinctive for the intensive study of historical religious traditions and the insistence that such study is always, in some sense, comparative. religious traditions have not developed in isolation, but in constant interaction with each other and in ever-new contexts., the academic programs, for undergraduates, we offer an array of courses introducing the study of religion. these lead to more specialized work in areas of the students’ own interests., for graduate students, the committee on the study of religion offers the ph.d. in a range of specialized areas. all graduate students take two common seminars, one on the history of “religion” as a subject of critical inquiry and one on contemporary conversations in the discipline of religious studies. as they move on to more specialized work, we expect our graduate students to continue thinking about how their areas of research contribute broadly to knowledge in the field..

For alumni wishing to make gifts exclusively to the Study of Religion:

Gifts by credit card, please click here (for general University gifts) and follow the instructions.  When selecting a school/affiliate to donate to, please choose “Other” from the dropdown menu and enter a note in the “Comments/Other Designation” box with instructions that this gift should go to the “Committee on the Study of Religion”. You may include a program too (AB or PhD).

Gifts by check:  Harvard University, Recording Secretary’s Office, 124 Mount Auburn Street, Cambridge, MA  02138.  Please make checks payable to “The President and Fellows of Harvard College” and include a note in the memo line of the check that this is for the “The Committee on the Study of Religion”.

Thank you! Please contact us if you have any questions: [email protected]

• Notices(PhD)
• PhD Students
• PhD Fee Structure
• Phd Regulation 2023
• Phd Regulation 2019
• Phd Regulation 2017
• PhD Old Regulations
• Registration Form
• Online Thesis Submission
• Guidelines for Post-doctoral Research
• CRPI guidelines
• CRPI: Institute Names

RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PhD Students)

6.1 There shall be a Research Advisory Committee (RAC), or its equivalent body for similar purpose as defined in the Statutes of the University for each Ph.D. scholar. The RAC shall have the following responsibilities:

(1) To review the research proposal and finalize the topic of the research.

(2) To guide the research scholar to develop the study design and methodology of research, and

(3) To periodically review and assist in the progress of the research work of the research scholar in every six month duration.

6.2 A research scholar shall appear before the Research Advisory Committee (RAC) once in six months to make a presentation of the progress of his/her work for evaluation and further guidance.

About Presidency

• Introducing the University
• Best Practices
• Institutional Development Plan
• Vision & Mission
• Code of Conduct (Employees)
• Students' Manual
• Organisation Structure
• Presi200 Song

Quick Links

• Value Added Courses
• Announcement
• People Search
• Conferences & Seminars
• Annual Report
• Prevention of Caste based discrimination
• Institute of Health Sciences
• Grievance Redressal Cell
• Examinations
• Dean of Students Corner
• Career Counselling
• International Students
• Student Grievance Redressal Committee (SGRC)
• Internal Committee for Persons with Disabilities
• Equal Opportunity Cell
• Anti-Ragging
• Internal Complaints Committee (ICC)
• Gender Sensitization and Prevention of Sexual Harassment Cell(GSPSHC)

How to Find Us

Phone Numbers

Routine and emergency care.

Companion Animal Hospital in Ithaca, NY for cats, dogs, exotics, and wildlife

Equine and Nemo Farm Animal Hospitals in Ithaca, NY for horses and farm animals

Cornell Ruffian Equine Specialists, on Long Island for every horse

Ambulatory and Production Medicine for service on farms within 30 miles of Ithaca, NY

Animal Health Diagnostic Center New York State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory

General Information

Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine Ithaca, New York 14853-6401

Clinical Sciences

Committee on research and graduate education.

The Department of Clinical Sciences (DCS) Committee on Research and Graduate Education is represented by volunteers from DCS and other college faculty and staff in an effort to facilitate clinical research within the department.  Faculty members serve two year terms that may be self-renewing.  The most recent term began April, 2022.

Committee Goals

• Develop a cohesive and steadfast strategic plan to advance animal health and the profession;
• Provide an infrastructure to support faculty efforts to conduct clinical investigations and research;
• Foster the physical capacity required to fulfill the objectives of the strategic plan;
• Promote clinical investigations within the Department of Clinical Sciences;
• Promote communication to foster collaborations across departments, the University, and the world;
• Identify clinical and research funding opportunities for successful submissions and awards;
• Promote early stage veterinarians seeking career opportunities in clinical investigations and research;
• Disseminate accomplishments and advances in animal health to the public domain.

Committee Chair

Rob Goggs , Associate Professor, Section of Emergency and Critical Care

Committee Members

Parminder Basran , Associate Research Professor, Section of Medical Oncology

Mike Byron , Innovation Lab Manager, Department of Clinical Sciences

Erin Daugherity , Director of the Center for Animal Resources and Education, Attending Veterinarian

Douglas Fink , Material & Safety Coordinator, Department of Clinical Sciences

Carol Frederick , Clinical Trials Coordinator, Cornell University Hospital for Animals

Stephanie Hon , Assistant Professor, Section of Anesthesiology and Pain Management

Weihow Hsue , Assistant Professor, Section of Cardiology

Theresa Lagasse , Finance Specialist, Department of Clinical Sciences Carol Merkur , Director of Business Operations, Department of Clinical Sciences

Christie Sayre , Research Administration Coordinator, Department of Clinical Sciences Tracy Stokol , Professor of Clinical Pathology, Department of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences

Graduate Committee Participation

Go to the following link to be added to the general committee to participate on a graduate committee for MS and PhD.

https://gradschool.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Code-of-Legislation-November-2019.pdf

Events and Seminars

Clinical Sciences Nestle Purina Seminar Series

Clinical Sciences Resident Seminar Series

Clinical Investigators' Day

• Saturday AM Zoom Link: https://uwmadison.zoom.us/j/97085880394?pwd=dVYweFZ2cmlvblpLT2ZYK1JiK0Mvdz09
• Saturday PM Zoom Link: https://uwmadison.zoom.us/j/96677194085?pwd=R3RrbWhmWnJmZDFPQ0ZsQncvOU1adz09
• Sunday   AM Zoom Link: https://uwmadison.zoom.us/j/95036046810?pwd=MElUczZoQWJ5RVNhZ1JFSUxpWXdtUT09

Recent News

Cornell surgeons repair pitbull’s perforated small intestine

College holds clinical educator community celebration

Kate Anderson, D.V.M. '08, in HuffPost: 6 signs your dog is happy

Department Chair

Julie Hasenwinkel 329 Link Hall 315-443-1931; fax: 315-443-9175

Jesse Q. Bond, Katie D. Cadwell, Ruth Chen, Viktor J. Cybulskis, Julie M. Hasenwinkel, James H. Henderson, Ian Hosein, Xiyuan Liu, Zhen Ma, Mary Beth Monroe, Shikha Nangia, Dacheng Ren, Ashok Sangani, Cindy Smith, Pranav Soman, Radhakrishna Sureshkumar, Theodore Walker, Yaoying Wu,  Pun To Yung, Yi Zheng

Adjunct/Research Faculty:

Eric Finkelstein, Kent Ogden, David Quinn, Katherine Tsokas

Affiliate Faculty:

Samuel Herberg, Juntao Luo,  Liviu Movileanu, Davoud Mozhdehi, Alison Patteson, Rachel Steinhardt 

Emeritus Faculty:

Gustav Engbretson, John Heydweiller, George Martin, Philip Rice, Robert L. Smith, Lawrence L. Tavlarides

Graduate Chemical Engineering Program Director:

The Department of Biomedical and Chemical Engineering offers a comprehensive set of graduate programs in bioengineering and chemical engineering, including Master’s of Science (MS) degrees and Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degrees. Graduates of these programs work in the medical profession, the biomechanics and bioinstrumentation industries, the pharmaceutical industry, the chemical engineering industry, the government, and in education.

The graduate program in chemical engineering features a core of courses in chemical engineering, elective courses in areas of student interest, and an intense research or independent study experience with the student’s faculty advisor. Elective courses may be concentrated in a large number of special areas, including bioengineering, environmental engineering, computer science, materials science, and manufacturing engineering. New initiatives are underway in the multidisciplinary area of environmental systems that should provide a wealth of opportunities to graduate students in chemical engineering.

Student Learning Outcomes

1. Define research objectives and acquire the necessary skills to achieve these objectives

2. Choose and use appropriate research methods to achieve the defined objectives

3. Use appropriate methods to analyze research data and interpret the findings

4. Effectively communicate the work to its intended audiences

5. Critically analyze his or her own research work and existing scholarship in the field

Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering

The Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Chemical Engineering is designed for students interested in research and teaching. The program of study consists of coursework, a qualifying examination, and preparation and defense of the dissertation. A student entering the PhD program with a MS degree may apply up to 30 credits toward the required coursework, with the approval of the program director.

Residence Time

A student must be enrolled for at least three academic years of full-time graduate-level study beyond the baccalaureate degree.

General Requirements

Minimum gpa.

All graduate students must achieve the following minimum grade point averages (GPA):

• 3.000 GPA for all credits counted toward the completion of coursework requirements; and
• 2.800 GPA cumulative for all credits earned at Syracuse University.

Maximum Credits of 500-level Coursework

Graduate students in the PhD program may not count more than 14 credits of 500-level coursework toward the completion of their PhD program of study.

Maximum Credits of Independent Study

Applicants entering the program post-BS degree may count up to 6 credits of independent study toward the completion of their PhD program of study.

Applicants entering the program post-MS degree may only count up to 3 credits of independent study toward the completion of their PhD program of study.

Independent study credits cannot by supervised by the student’s dissertation advisor.

Program Requirements

Chemical engineering graduate core.

All graduate students in Chemical Engineering are required to complete a set of 4 core courses:

• CEN 651 - Molecular and Statistical Thermodynamics 3 credit(s)
• CEN 671 - Chemical Engineering Methods I 3 credit(s)
• CEN 786 - Kinetics 3 credit(s)

And choice of:

• CEN 741 - Transport Phenomena I 3 credit(s)
• CEN 643 - Fluid Dynamics 3 credit(s)

Coursework Requirements (42 credits)

In addition to the 12 credit Chemical Engineering Graduate Core, all PhD students must complete:

• At least 12 additional credits of coursework in chemical engineering (CEN); and
• 18 credits of approved electives

Exit Requirements

Qualifying examination.

All PhD students must successfully complete a Qualifying Examination in order to be entered into doctoral candidacy.

The Qualifying Examination has two components; a written outline of the student’s research and an oral presentation before the examination committee.

Students are expected outline and present their research to a faculty examination committee by the end of their third semester of study.

Organization of Outline

The written outline will consist of two parts; a concise summary of the student’s research since entering the program (the Research Update) , and a description of future plans for the duration of PhD study based on the current research topic (the Research Plan ).

The Research Update should include sections for Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. The Research plan should include sections for Significance, Rationale, Proposed Research, and Potential Pitfalls.

The document should be from the student’s own writing but students are encouraged to consult with their advisor on how to best summarize research results and design future studies.

Document Length

The outline should be no more than ten pages, all included, plus a cover page.

Examination Committee

The examination committee will consist of the dissertation advisor and at least three tenured or tenure-track faculty members. All faculty are invited to participate.

Dissertation

The Oral Dissertation Defense and submission of the dissertation document to the Syracuse University Graduate School are the final requirements of the PhD program.

Defense paperwork must comply with Graduate School policy, including formatting.

Link to the Graduate School’s guidelines

Preparation

It is recommended that the student meet with their defense committee to review dissertation progress at least three to six months in advance of the defense.

The official Request for Examination form must be signed and submitted to the Graduate School at least three full weeks prior to the oral defense date.

A copy of the dissertation document must be delivered to all members of the defense committee at least two full weeks prior to the oral defense date.

Defense Committee

The dissertation defense committee will consist of six members, including

• the research advisor;
• four tenured or tenure-track faculty members from the department; and
• the Chair of the Oral Examination Committee.

The Chair of the Oral Examination Committee must be a Syracuse University tenured or tenure-track faculty member from outside the department and program.

The student may substitute one committee member based on subject-matter expertise who is external to Syracuse University. Additional external committee members may be allowed by petition.

Current Research Areas

Bioengineering and Chemical Engineering

• Biomaterials & Tissue Engineering
• Complex Fluids, Soft Matter & Rheology
• Catalysis & Reaction Engineering
• Corrosion and Electrochemistry
• Drug Delivery
• Molecular Biotechnology
• Multiscale Modeling and Simulation
• Nanotechnology
• Sustainable Energy Production
• Systems Biology & Metabolic Engineering

SL-RSCA Proposal Review Committee

Student-led research, scholarship, and creative activities (sl-rsca) program: proposal review committee, call for applications:.

Applications are invited from eligible graduate students to serve on the Student-Led Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activities Program Proposal Review Committee . This committee will read and review grant proposals and make funding recommendations to the Vice Provost for Research.

Applications to serve on the SL-RSCA Proposal Review Committee are due via the Google form located below no later than 5pm on June 25, 2024 .

SL-RSCA Proposal Review Committee Application SL-RSCA Proposal Review Committee Instructions

Faculty endorsements from the Doctoral Program Director (DPD), Graduate Program Coordinator (GPC), or Department Chair are due via email to the Vice Provost for Research by 11:59 pm on June 30, 2024.

Applicants are strongly encouraged to discuss their application materials with their DPD, GPC, or Department Chair, and alert them in advance that you are seeking their endorsement for this Committee.

Applications will be reviewed by the Vice Provost for Research and RSCA Program Administrator in the Office of Sponsored Programs. The composition and size of the SL-RSCA Proposal Review Committee will be determined in part by the number of grant proposals received and the disciplinary expertise needed to evaluate the proposals received. We anticipate inviting committee members during the week of July 8, 2024.

Please direct any questions to: Dr. Brachfeld, Acting Vice Provost for Research at: [email protected] .

Jump to navigation

Search form

The Graduate School

• Faculty/Staff Resources
• Programs of Study Browse the list of MSU Colleges, Departments, and Programs
• Graduate Degree List Graduate degrees offered by Michigan State University
• Research Integrity Guidelines that recognize the rights and responsibilities of researchers
• Online Programs Find all relevant pre-application information for all of MSU’s online and hybrid degree and certificate programs
• Graduate Specializations A subdivision of a major for specialized study which is indicated after the major on official transcripts
• Graduate Certificates Non-degree-granting programs to expand student knowledge and understanding about a key topic
• Interdisciplinary Graduate Study Curricular and co-curricular opportunities for advanced study that crosses disciplinary boundaries
• Theses and Dissertations Doctoral and Plan A document submission process
• Policies and Procedures important documents relating to graduate students, mentoring, research, and teaching
• Academic Programs Catalog Listing of academic programs, policies and related information
• Traveling Scholar Doctoral students pursue studies at other BTAA institutions
• Apply Now Graduate Departments review applicants based on their criteria and recommends admission to the Office of Admissions
• International Applicants Application information specific to international students
• PhD Public Data Ph.D. Program Admissions, Enrollments, Completions, Time to Degree, and Placement Data
• Costs of Graduate School Tools to estimate costs involved with graduate education
• Recruitment Awards Opportunities for departments to utilize recruitment funding
• Readmission When enrollment is interrupted for three or more consecutive terms
• Assistantships More than 3,000 assistantships are available to qualified graduate students
• Fellowships Financial support to pursue graduate studies
• Research Support Find funding for your research
• Travel Funding Find funding to travel and present your research
• External Funding Find funding outside of MSU sources
• Workshops/Events Find opportunities provided by The Graduate School and others
• Research Opportunities and programs for Research at MSU
• Career Development Programs to help you get the career you want
• Graduate Educator Advancement and Teaching Resources, workshops, and development opportunities to advance your preparation in teaching
• Cohort Fellowship Programs Spartans are stronger together!
• The Edward A. Bouchet Graduate Honor Society (BGHS) A national network society for students who have traditionally been underrepresented
• Summer Research Opportunities Program (SROP) A gateway to graduate education at Big Ten Academic Alliance universities
• Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) A community that supports retention, and graduation of underrepresented doctoral students
• Recruitment and Outreach Ongoing outreach activities by The Graduate School
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Funding Funding resources to recruit diverse students
• Graduate Student Organizations MSU has over 900 registered student organizations
• Grad School Office of Well-Being Collaborates with graduate students in their pursuit of their advanced degree and a well-balanced life
• Housing and Living in MI MSU has an on and off-campus housing site to help find the perfect place to stay
• Mental Health Support MSU has several offices and systems to provide students with the mental health support that they need
• Spouse and Family Resources MSU recognizes that students with families have responsibilities that present challenges unique to this population
• Health Insurance Health insurance info for graduate student assistants and students in general at MSU
• Safety and Security MSU is committed to cultivating a safe and inclusive campus community characterized by a culture of safety and respect
• Why Mentoring Matters To Promote Inclusive Excellence in Graduate Education at MSU
• Guidelines Guidelines and tools intended to foster faculty-graduate student relationships
• Toolkit A set of resources for support units, faculty and graduate students
• Workshops Workshops covering important topics related to mentor professional development
• About the Graduate School We support graduate students in every program at MSU
• Strategic Plan Our Vision, Values, Mission, and Goals
• Social Media Connect with the Graduate School!
• History Advancing Graduate Education at MSU for over 25 years
• Staff Directory
• Driving Directions

Call for Applications: It's On Us Planning Committee

Graduate Students

Award: $500

The Prevention, Outreach and Education Department is recruiting two (2) student co-chairs to lead the Fall 2024 It’s On Us planning committee . This student leadership opportunity is open to both undergraduate and graduate students.

The mission of It’s On Us is to “build the movement to combat campus sexual assault by engaging all students, including young men, and activating the largest student organizing program of its kind in grassroots awareness and prevention education programs.” 

MSU’s chapter of It’s On Us is run by a committee of students and staff, supported by a staff member from the Prevention, Outreach and Education (POE) Department. The planning committee meets regularly to prepare for each semester’s “Week of Action”, a week of events highlighting work being done on-campus and in the Lansing community to prevent and respond to gender-based violence. POE is excited to recruit two (2) student co-chairs to lead the fall 2024 It’s On Us planning committee.

Responsibilities

The co-chair position will entail:

• Organizing student recruitment to the planning committee
• Leading regular in-person committee meetings, including developing agendas
• Proposing an event budget, in consultation with the POE department
• Strategizing event promotion
• Attending and participating in the Week of Action programming

In addition to the above expectations, by accepting this position, a co-chair would be committing to:

• A weekly 1-1 meeting with a POE Staff Member
• Regularly scheduled committee meetings

We expect the typical time commitment to be 2-3 hours per week, from the week of August 26 through the week of November 15, 2024. However, please note that weekly time commitments may vary depending on committee needs.

A stipend of $500 is available to each co-chair, to be paid out at two points during the semester, contingent upon meeting the role’s responsibilities, outlined above. Please note, while this opportunity is considered a student leadership position that is being offered a stipend, to honor the time and commitment by the student Co-Chairs, the University’s expectations surrounding student pay will be adhered to. Domestic students are allowed to work 29 hours/week between ALL on-campus jobs. International students are allowed to work 20 hours/week between all on-campus jobs. If you have any other job on-campus, you will be responsible for tracking your hours to ensure you are not overscheduled.

Application

To apply, click this link and complete your application before June 28th at 11:59pm EST. Please email Jodie Goodman , Prevention Education Manager, at  with any questions.

• Call us: (517) 353-3220
• Contact Information
• Privacy Statement
• Site Accessibility
• Call MSU: (517) 355-1855
• Visit: msu.edu
• MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer.
• Notice of Nondiscrimination
• Spartans Will.
• © Michigan State University

Statistics and Actuarial Science

Information for new graduate students in actuarial science, data science and statistics at the university of iowa..

Welcome New Graduate Students!

Information for NEW graduate students in Actuarial Science, Data Science and Statistics at the University of Iowa. 

Last Updated, May 31, 2024.                                   Additional  updates will be sent this summer!

Important Information for International Students

The Office of International Students and Scholars does an incredible job helping you settle into Iowa City and the University of Iowa.  They have webinars to help with:  

1. Getting Started and Making Travel Arrangements

2. Achieving Success: On-campus Involvement and Cultural Adjustment (undergraduate students)

3. Graduate Student Professionalization and Support

4. Understanding Orientation Expectations, Responsibilities, and Placement Tests (graduate students)

5. On-campus Housing Assignments and Move-in Tips (undergraduate students)

6. Student Employment

7. Money Matters - University Billing

Do you need to take the SPEC (Spoken Proficiency of English for the Classroom)?

All students for whom English is not a first language (as self-reported on their admissions application) and who have first-time appointments as graduate teaching assistants (TAs) are required to go through a testing process to assess their effectiveness in speaking English before they are assigned assistantship responsibilities. Beginning in Fall 2024, there will be a new test to assess communication in English in a classroom context called SPEC (Spoken Proficiency of English in the Classroom).  This is replacing ESPA and ELPT.  Details will be coming soon.

Any graduate student who is included in the following categories needs to have their oral English proficiency tested by the TAPE Program:

• Students whose first language is not English (i.e., learned another language first) as self-reported on their admissions application, and
• Have been appointed as a Teaching Assistant

Exemptions (may change):

• Students with an official valid (within the last two years) iBT Listening score of 25 and an iBT Speaking score of 26.
• Undergraduate degrees and/or     
• Continuous attendance of English-language schools since the age of 12 (or younger)
• Students who served as teaching assistants at other institutions of higher learning in which the language of instruction is English, if they were listed as the instructor of record for a course or led a discussion section in English for at least one year, with a year defined as either two academic semesters or three academic quarters.
• Requests for exceptions regarding the SPEC  can be submitted for evaluation to a committee consisting of the Director of ESL Programs, the Associate Dean for Administrative Affairs in the Graduate College, and a representative from University Human Resources.

Requests for exemption and exceptions must come from the department by the deadline, not the student.   Deadlines to register students for the SPEC are:

• March 1  

NOT Exemptions:

• Students who come from a country where English is one of the official languages.
• Students who are U.S. permanent residents or U.S. citizens whose first language is not English.

Testing Procedures & Results

 To be announced soon!

Graduate/Professional International Students Important Dates

July 12, 2024:  Earliest date you may enter the U.S. in F-1 or J-1 status. August 11, 2024:  Latest date by which you should arrive in Iowa City August 12 - 16, 2024: International Student Orientation August 26, 2024:  Classes begin.

Housing Information for All Students

The department has a housing webpage, please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. If you are looking for a roommate, please let us know and we can update this web page!

Looking for housing options ?

All US citizens that are financially supported (TA, RA) need to be here on August 21.

All students will register for classes the week before classes start.  International students must complete the required Orientation Program before  they can register for classes.    

____________________

Fall Classes Advising will be August 19-23

All NEW UI students must meet with their advisor prior to registration.  There is no worry about getting into any of the classes we teach.  

• IF you are an Actuarial Science MS or PhD student you will need to meet with Professor Shyamalkumar.  Email him after August 12 at [email protected] to set a time to meet to discuss what classes to take, it may be on Zoom or in his office (233 Schaeffer Hall).
• IF you are a Data Science MS, Statistics MS, or PhD student you will need to meet with Professor Boxiang Wang.  Email him after August 12 at [email protected]  to set a time to meet to discuss what classes to take, it may be on Zoom or in his office (261 Schaeffer Hall).

New Graduate College Welcome and Orientation, August 21

The Graduate College Fall 2024 Graduate Student Orientation event will take place on Wednesday, August 21, 2024.  A registration form will be sent to your UI email sometime this early summer from the Graduate College. All new doctoral and master’s students are invited to attend.  

New Teaching Assistant Orientation, August 22- required for all new supported students

Sponsored by the Center for Teaching

This event will introduce participants to the role of teaching assistant at the University of Iowa and prepare them for the first week of classes and beyond. 

Participants will discuss evidence-based teaching strategies for lesson planning, inclusive teaching, and more with Center for Teaching staff. Participants will also choose two workshops of interest to them out of several options; these will be facilitated synchronously by experienced TAs.  This is a virtual event for 9-noon.

• Sign up before August 21!

New Student Department Orientation, August 23 at 9 a.m., Room to be determined.

• All New Student Orientation —Group Introductions and General Policy Procedures.

New Supported Graduate Assistants Orientation, August 23 at 1 p.m., Room to be determined.

• Our Director of Graduate Studies will have a department review of expectations and your specific roles in our department. Teaching and grading assignments will be explained, as well as preparation, teaching tips, problems and questions, quizzes and exams, weekly meetings, grading, appropriate office use and the Sexual Harassment Prevention Education

Mailbox in 241 Schaeffer Hall 

All graduate students will have a mailbox in our main office.  The faculty do as well.  Please check your mailbox at least once a week!

Office Desk Assignment

Nearly all supported students will have a desk in one of our offices.  The assignment priority (in this order) includes Ph.D. and Fellowship candidates, research assistants, half-time teaching assistants, quarter-time teaching assistants and lastly graders.  Having a desk is a privilege and should be used only for university business.  Office assignments will be given to students on, August 23.  Keys are checked out ONLY after that time.  Please remember to keep the rooms clean and take out all trash to the large bins in the main hallways.

Set-up your University of Iowa Email

All University of Iowa students are required to activate their assigned uiowa.edu email address, as all official communication from university offices are now sent via email, rather than hard copy. This address usually follows the pattern [email protected]   (However, often a number is also attached.) 

To activate the account:

• Log on to  MyUI
• Click on My UIowa / My Email / Request Email Account
• Complete the specified steps.

Students who prefer to maintain only their work or home email addresses can do so by routing the uiowa.edu email to a work or home account. To do so, follow these steps:

• Click on My UIowa / My Email / Update Email Routing Address

Important Notes:

• If your uiowa.edu email address is routed to a different account, you will  not  need to change your address in ICON, as your messages will already forward to your routed address.
• Log on to MYUI.
• Click on My UIowa / My Email / Email Account Filter bulk mail.
• Make sure that none of the categories are checked.

Required Graduate Assistants Teaching Courses:

• ONLINE CLASS Requirement: Sexual Harassment Prevention Edu.  Use your HawkID and password to log into Employee Self Service. Click the Personal tab, next (under Learning and Development) click on Sexual Harassment Prevention Edu., follow instructions.
• ONLINE CLASS Requirement:  Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), Use your HawkID and password to log into Employee Self Service. Click the Personal tab, next (under Learning and Development) next click on Available Online Icon Courses, next FERPA Training, then click on View Details twice and the last click will be to Enroll in this ICON Course Session.
• A six-hour orientation program will be required of all students who are certified at level A or B and are teaching for the first time.  This orientation helps new teaching assistants understand the culture of the U.S. classroom and treats topics such as student expectations, teacher-student relationships, and understanding and answering student questions. Discussion focuses on suggestions for maximizing comprehensibility in spoken English. This course meets twice for 3 hours early in the semester. Both meetings are held in the evening.

Administrative Department Staff:

Professor aixin tan (until july 1, 2024).

Director of Graduate Studies, Statistics and Data Science Graduate Advisor: [email protected]   (319) 335-0821.

Professor Boxiang Wang (beginning July 1, 2024)

Director of Graduate Studies, Statistics and Data Science Graduate Advisor: [email protected] (319) 335-2294.

Professor N.D. Shyamalkumar

Actuarial Science Graduate Advisor:  [email protected]    (319) 335-1980

Margie Ebert

Academic Services Coordinator ,  [email protected]  (319) 335-2082

Heather Roth

Administrative Services Coordinator  [email protected]   (319) 335-0712

Tammy Siegel

Department Administrator ,  [email protected] , (319) 335-0706

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

The Faculty Senate voted Thursday to create an ad hoc committee on university speech following a robust discussion focused on academic freedom.

The Faculty Senate voted to create an ad hoc committee on university speech and heard a presentation on the COLLEGE undergraduate requirement program in Thursday’s meeting. (Image credit: Harry Gregory)

The vote came after some faculty voiced concerns at the last senate meeting about a perceived threat to academic freedom – both at Stanford and nationwide – and a language initiative that garnered heavy media coverage over winter break.

Senators also heard a presentation about the Civil, Liberal, and Global Education (COLLEGE) first-year undergraduate requirement program.

In remarks to the senate, President Marc Tessier-Lavigne noted that faculty have reached out with concerns about the national environment for scholars engaged in international collaborations and in particular about attacks and accusations directed at scholars who are Americans of Chinese descent or Chinese nationals.

A response has been posted to the website of the Global Engagement Review Program, which provides information about issues regarding foreign engagement at Stanford. The letter includes resources available to scholars.

Stanford takes seriously threats from foreign governments to the security and integrity of the research environment, Tessier-Lavigne said.

Yet, inflammatory rhetoric and generalized accusations have caused some researchers in the U.S. to feel targeted and vulnerable due to their relationships with and collaborations in China, he continued. “Stanford pursues its mission drawing on the talents and contributions of a diverse international community of students and scholars,” Tessier-Lavigne said. “Likewise, engagement and collaboration with international partners are essential to our efforts to develop knowledge and innovations for some of the world’s most pressing problems.”

Academic freedom

Senators voted to establish the Ad Hoc Committee on University Speech to assess whether there are constraints on academic freedom and speech, to share findings with the university, and to recommend changes, if necessary, as to how the senate conducts oversight of the issue.

On Jan. 26, the Faculty Senate postponed a motion to establish an ad hoc committee after senators agreed more time was needed to consider the matter.

The ad hoc committee will report to the senate on issues such as how faculty should approach the “ ‘right’ of speech, and associated responsibilities, in an academic environment.” Read the full approved motion here .

While considering the motion to establish the committee, senators voted to make several amendments. Much of the lengthy discussion focused on a proposed amendment to specify support for programs to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the exchange of ideas at Stanford from David Palumbo-Liu , the Louise Hewlett Nixon Professor and professor of comparative literature. The amendment failed following discussion of how it may affect the committee’s work.

Philip Levis , professor of computer science and of electrical engineering, argued that the idea that primacy of speech could trump all university concerns or responsibilities is not true. “We care about speech, and we care about everyone participating in speech,” Levis said. “And in the end, these efforts of diversity, equity, and inclusion are about helping people who have been historically excluded or inhibited from speech being able to participate.”

Larry Diamond , senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Hoover Institution , and professor, by courtesy, of sociology and of political science, said including language referencing DEI “could be interpreted as applauding generally all programs that are seeking to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion, and frankly, I think there are many people that have some concerns about some specific programs, one of which is what triggered this entire conversation.”

The Ad Hoc Committee on University Speech will report its findings and recommendations to the senate in the 2023-24 academic year, and an interim report will be provided to explain the committee’s work process. The committee will include up to seven academic council members as the committee’s voting members, and no more than four non-academic council members and staff can be appointed as ex-officio non-voting members.

“One of the things I hope this committee will do is examine carefully how we need to think of academic freedom and academic responsibility in the light of the wide and weird dissemination and influences, like doxxing, that social media and the internet have,” added David Spiegel , the Jack, Lulu and Sam Willson Professor of Medicine.

Stanford’s COLLEGE program, which began rolling out in academic year 2021-22, is designed to provide a unifying intellectual experience, establish a foundation and capacity for exploration, and develop critical and ethical thinking skills for new undergraduates, said Dan Edelstein , the William H. Bonsall Professor of French and professor, by courtesy, of history and of political science.

Edelstein provided senators with an update on the program, along with Emily Levine , associate professor of education, and by courtesy, of history; Dustin Schroeder, associate professor of geophysics and of electrical engineering, and senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment; and Parna Sengupta , associate vice provost and director of Stanford Introductory Studies.

COLLEGE is administered by Stanford Introductory Studies, part of the Office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education , and overseen by a first-year governing board with close quality control over the classes.

A distinctive feature of the program is that all students in the fall and winter quarters take a version of the same course. Instruction is delivered in a discussion seminar capped at 16 students, which is “essential for meeting our learning goals,” Edelstein said.

COLLEGE courses are taught by a mix of faculty, lecturers, and fellows. The fall and winter courses are designed so that any faculty member, regardless of discipline, can teach the course, alone or with a co-instructor, Edelstein said, while any faculty member can propose a spring quarter course.

In the fall, students reflect on their own education and purpose; in the winter, on how to live in and organize a society with people who are very different from themselves; and in the spring, on what it means to think globally about issues and challenges. COLLEGE aims to spark discussions on these topics that continue outside the classroom.

The program’s Why College syllabus currently incorporates one of the books from the university’s Three Books program, and the author is invited to Stanford during fall quarter. Due to this model’s success, COLLEGE will absorb the entire Three Books program and distribute the texts across three quarters, Sengupta said.

A multi-modal assessment plan has been developed to combine surveys, evaluations, interviews, and direct analysis of student work to ascertain whether the program is working, Levine said.

Feedback thus far has generally been very positive, she said, with a small number of critiques about the amount of reading as well as that the course is required. Also, nearly every COLLEGE instructor who isn’t going on leave has signed up to teach it again, Levine said, citing helpful support like the detailed lesson notes and activities provided.

The citizenship course is running 78 concurrent sections and enrolls more than 1,100 students, nearly four times more than last year, Schroeder said. A study of last year’s citizenship course reveals many encouraging outcomes but also challenges: while 58% of students reported feeling comfortable stating their opinion in class, 30% of students do not for fear of “getting canceled,” Schroeder said.

“That’s one of the issues we’re hoping to improve this year, but it also highlights the importance of having such a class,” he added.

A survey found that pre-quarter, 34% of students “often” or “very often” stay informed about challenges facing citizenship while that number rises to 75% post-quarter, Schroeder said. The number of students who reported they “strived to stay informed as a citizen” increased from less than 1% to 46%.

At the end of the program’s pilot phase in academic year 2025-26, the program’s creators will request a full three-quarter implementation of the requirement. Edelstein asked senators to share what kinds of data and information they may want to review in making a decision about COLLEGE’s future.

Senators widely praised the program. Susan McConnell , the Susan B. Ford Professor and professor of biology, said she was intrigued by the use of contract grading and asked how its use will be assessed.

COLLEGE used contract grading – in which students are told what satisfactory work they need to do for a grade – for the first time in the fall quarter.

“The point is that the grading system is based on completion through participation, rather than evaluation and discernment,” Levine said. “I think the reason for that is because there’s so much emphasis on self reflection. … We want you to think deeply about the intrinsic motivations for learning.”

Judy Goldstein , the Janet M. Peck Professor of International Communications, professor of political science, and senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research , recommended that COLLEGE instructors help prepare students for how grading will work in courses that do not use contract grading, and where the quality of their work will be an important factor in determining their final grade. “I’m explicitly clear about what you have to do in order to complete the class … the grades you get [are] based on the quality of what you do, not the completion of the assignment,” she said. That is “a big conceptual jump.”

David Miller , the W.M. Keck Foundation Professor of Electrical Engineering and professor, by courtesy, of applied physics, said he would like to see more engineering in the syllabus, citing its crucial role in understanding the world. Provost Persis Drell, who co-taught in COLLEGE with historian Caroline Winterer last fall, responded that because COLLEGE is designed to be flexible, engineers can bring engineering into the program. “I really encourage engineering faculty to think very seriously about co-teaching this course with one of your humanities or social sciences colleagues,” Drell said.

Multiple senators added that they would like to hear from students who have participated in COLLEGE once they graduate to best assess the impact of the program on their Stanford experience.

Senators also heard a memorial resolution for W. Bliss Carnochan , the Richard W. Lyman Professor in the Humanities in the School of Humanities and Sciences , Emeritus, and former director of the Stanford Humanities Center. He died Jan. 24, 2022, at age 91.