committee for phd students

• My.SiebelSchool

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 Siebel School of Computing and Data 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 Siebel School of Computing and Data Science with graduate advising privileges in the school. Members who satisfy this criteria include the regular faculty, the teaching faculty with graduate advising privileges in the school, and people with non-visiting (assistant/associate/full) professor appointments in the school 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 school.
• 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 Siebel School of Computing and Data Science 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 Siebel School of Computing and Data 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 graduate students, offers assistance every weekday.

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)

Choosing Your Team: Selecting a Chair and Academic Committee

Qualities to Look for in Committee Members and Faculty Chairs

When deciding whom they would like to act as their committees and chairs, graduate students should consider (a) if faculty have compatible personalities with similar research interests; (b) if faculty are experienced in and enthusiastic about directing, advising, helping, and working with students; and (c) what kind of teaching and research reputations the faculty have. Graduate students should definitely consider all three of these characteristics for both committee members and faculty chairs, but graduate students should especially consider the first two characteristics in their choices of faculty chairs. Graduate students work more closely with faculty chairs than they do with academic committee members, so it is important that graduate students can get along with their faculty chairs.

Differences in Mentorship Styles

Being a member of a graduate student’s committee or acting as a chair for a graduate student is a form of faculty mentorship, and most faculty approach mentorship with different styles depending on where faculty are in their own academic careers. For example, a newly hired professor hoping to gain credibility with his or her department might be more involved in a graduate student’s research than would a professor with a well-established academic career. Neither style (hands on or hands off) is inherently good or bad, but both styles have pros and cons. For example, a hands-on chair may provide a graduate student with lots of direction and guidance but may subsume the student’s original research goals into his or her own research. On the other hand, a hands-off chair may provide a graduate student with a wealth of knowledge about research and other industry information but may have less time to spend with the graduate student because he or she is too involved in his or her own work. Before choosing their academic committee members and faculty chairs, graduate students should understand differences in mentorship styles and should identify the mentorship styles of potential committee members and faculty chairs to determine if their mentorship styles will provide them as graduate students with the support that they will need to succeed in graduate school.

Click here to cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Copyright © 2024 PhDStudent.com. All rights reserved. Designed by Divergent Web Solutions, LLC .

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

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

Red meat and diabetes

How for-profit medicine is harming health care

A tradition of mentoring

Promising HIV treatment

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 careers columnist for ASBMB Today and an assistant laboratory professor at Middlebury College.

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.

Uncertain Ph.D. path ends with a sprint to an industry job

Serena Dossou is an expert in tumor immunology, macrophage biology and nanoparticle technology — and a member of the ASBMB Membership Committee.

The fourth third of my career: Living the dream

After a few decades of being a professor, Jonathan Monroe thought it would be fun to return to the life of a postdoc after retiring. Here’s how he did it.

Upcoming opportunities

Reminder: ASBMB accreditation applications are due Sept. 16. Plus, on Sept. 18, join us for a National Postdoc Appreciation Week webinar on starting your own lab!

Advice for first-year grad students

A second-year and a fourth-year grad student share their tips on choosing the right lab, getting through tough courses, keeping up with your non-research interests and more.

The 2.5 points of no return in my scientific career

An industry toxicologist shares several crossroad experiences that have changed her approach to research.

5 growing threats to academic freedom

From educational gag orders to the decline of tenure-track positions, academic freedom in the United States has been worsening in recent years.

Graduate School

• Resources to Prepare for Graduate School
• Adonara Mucek, Ph.D. Geology '17
• Adriana Mendoza, Ph.D. Mathematics '14
• Andrew Olsen
• Becca Maher ('21, Ph.D.)
• Bryan Lynn, Ph.D. Integrative Biology
• Celeste Frazier Barthel, Ph.D. Education '21
• Diane Brandt
• Francesca Germano, Toxicology, M.S.
• Garrett Rogers
• Jafra Thomas
• Jen Hayes, Horticulture, PhD
• Jordan Jimmie
• Jordan Spradlin, Public Health, MPH
• Kalina Fahey, Psychology, Ph.D.
• Katie Stelling, Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, Ph.D.
• Kelsey Contreras
• Layla Ghazi
• Marie Tosa, Ph.D. Wildlife Sciences
• Sara Letton
• Tiara Walz, Ph.D. Public Health
• Glossary of Terms
• Master's Students
• Doctoral Students
• Certificate Students
• Graduate School Orientation 2024
• Graduate Teaching Orientation 2024
• Do I Qualify to Attend Graduate Summer Step?
• Orientation for Winter, Spring and Summer Terms
• Co-sponsorships

Your Graduate Committee

• Student Resources
• Grad Research Photo Competition
• Tips for Scheduling Committee Meetings
• Program of Study
• Formatting a Thesis or Dissertation
• Pretext Pages Templates
• Commencement
• Grad Inspire
• Grievance Procedures
• Request a Workshop
• Earning Concurrent Degrees or Pursuing a Dual Major
• Career Preparation
• Grad Writing Group Challenge
• Graduate Writing Center Online
• Changing or Adding a Degree, Major or Certificate
• GRAD 420 - Graduate School Preparation
• GRAD 512 - Current Issues in Higher Education
• GRAD 513 - Professional Development in College and University Teaching
• GRAD 516 - Graduate Teaching Seminar
• GRAD 520 - Responsible Conduct of Research
• GRAD 521 - Research Data Management
• GRAD 542 - The Inclusive College Classroom
• GRAD 543 - Dialogue Facilitation in Professional Contexts: Skills and Practice for Graduate Students
• GRAD 550 - Introduction to Online Course Development and Facilitation
• GRAD 560 - Theories of Teaching and Learning
• GRAD 561 - Course Design and Methods
• GRAD 599 - Creating Happiness
• GRAD 599 - Cultivating Productive and Positive Academic Relationships for Graduate Success
• WR 599 - Graduate Writing for English Language Learners
• WR 599 - Scientific and Technical Research Writing
• WR 599 - Writing Workshop for Thesis and Dissertation Writers
• OSU Grad Advantage
• Graduate Faculty Membership
• Graduate Council Representatives
• Policy updates
• Holistic Admissions
• Defining the Graduate Mentor
• The Importance of Mentors
• Apprenticeship and Mentoring
• Mentor and Mentee Pairing
• Maintaining and Evaluating Mentoring
• Suggestions for Mentoring Programs
• Handbooks, Manuals, and Guides
• Mentoring Bibliography
• Communication Items
• Detailed Considerations for a Joint Degree Program
• MOU Outline for Creating a Joint Program
• College and Program Recruitment Representatives
• Graduate Recruitment Tips
• Helpful Recruitment Links
• Shared Graduate Recruitment Schedule
• Leave of Absence and Family Medical Leave Eligibility
• Mentor Training for Faculty
• Student Funding
• Student Progress
• Student Progress Information for Programs
• Student Registration Information
• August 2023 Newsletter
• Sept 2023 Newsletter
• October 2023 Newsletter
• November 2023 Newsletter
• April 2024 Newsletter
• Dec 2023 Newsletter
• Feb 2024 Newsletter
• Jan 2024 Newsletter
• June 2024 Newsletter
• March 2024 Newsletter
• May 2024 Newsletter
• Strategic Plan
• Request Info
• Current Students
• Faculty Resources

You are here

Committee function.

Your graduate committee guides your course work and research and serves as your final examining committee. It is generally expected that all committee members or approved substitutes must be present for all formal meetings with the student (e.g. final oral exams). If you have a special case in which a committee member may need to participate remotely, you and your committee must assure that all the conditions listed below for remote participation are met. Your major professor serves as chair of these meetings. 

Roles of committee members

• Major Professor : Your major professor (MP) is the committee member from your major field who serves as your primary academic advisor, your principal thesis advisor, and the general mentor for your academic program and your research. Your MP must be a Graduate Faculty member in your major department/program who is approved to direct students at your level. In some departments/programs, the student is responsible for selecting a MP; in others, the department/program assigns a MP in consultation with the student. Please check with your major department/program regarding local procedures.
• Minor Professor : The minor professor is the member on your committee who represents your minor department or field, if you have declared one. This person must be an approved Graduate Faculty member in this minor department/program. If you have an "integrated" minor, your minor professor cannot be from your major department/program but must be from one of the departments/programs represented by the courses in the minor.
• Graduate Council Representative : All Doctoral students and Master's students who are writing a thesis (as well as all MAIS students) are required to include a Graduate Council Representative on their committee. The Graduate Council Representative (GCR) serves in the role of impartial committee member who advocates for the student and insures that all rules governing committee procedures are followed. They must be present at your final defense of your thesis and are strongly encouraged to attend program meetings. GCRs are required at MAIS degree program meetings. You must select a GCR from the list generated by the  online GCR list generation tool . Faculty can learn more about being a GCR on the GCR guidelines page.

Committee composition

• EdD, PhD : A minimum of five members of the Graduate Faculty, including two from the major department/program, one from each declared minor field, and a Graduate Council Representative are required. The major professor is one of the two members representing the major department/program. The committee can be completed with graduate faculty from other programs who have been nominated to serve on doctoral committees for the student’s program.
• Non-Thesis : The examining committee consists of three members of the graduate faculty-two in the major field and one in the minor field if a minor is included. When a minor is not included, the third member may be from the graduate faculty at large. 
• Thesis : The examining committee consists of at least four members of the graduate faculty-two in the major field, one in the minor field if a minor is included, and a Graduate Council representative. When a minor is not included, the fourth member may be from the graduate faculty at large.
• MAIS : A minimum of four members of the Graduate Faculty: one from each of three fields, and a Graduate Council Representative are required. The member representing the primary field is the major professor.
• MAT : A minimum of two members of the Graduate Faculty from the major department and one member of the Graduate Faculty representing the teaching speciality are required. The major professor is one of the two members representing the major department/program.
• EdM : Individual committees are usually not established for students in these programs. Each student will need to identify a Graduate Faculty member from the major department and Graduate Faculty member representing the minor department if a minor is declared.
• MF : Two members of the Graduate Faculty from the major department; one member of the Graduate Faculty from the minor if a minor is declared, otherwise another member of the Graduate Faculty; and a Graduate Council Representative if a thesis is involved. The major professor is one of the two members representing the major department.
• MPH : Three members of the Graduate Faculty from the department and a Graduate Council Representative if a thesis is involved. The major professor is one of the members representing the department.

Remote access at committee meetings

It is generally expected that all members of graduate committees should be physically present at all required graduate committee meetings (i.e., program meetings, preliminary examinations, and final examinations). However, it is permissible for the student, and/or committee members to participate from a remote location provided the conditions listed below are met:

• Advance agreement of the student and all committee members has been obtained.
• All participants join in with two-way audio and video connections; audio-only connections must be approved by the major professor if the video connection is not possible. When the student is the remote participant, his or her connection must be an audio and video connection.
• Any visual aids or other materials have been distributed in advance to the remote participants.
• The committee members participate in the complete meeting, discussion, presentation, and evaluation.
• The student is responsible for making arrangements.

Changing your committee membership

If it becomes necessary to replace one of your committee members after your committee has been established or to substitute a committee member for a particular meeting, refer to your committee composition requirements. Ensure that your replacement member is a member of the Graduate Faculty and approved for his or her proposed role. If the faculty member is not a member of the Graduate Faculty or is not approved for the role proposed, your major department/program will need to nominate the proposed member to act in those roles using the Nomination to Graduate Faculty form . Committee structure is evaluated when your program of study is received by the Graduate School and when you schedule your formal examination(s).

Contact Info

Graduate School Heckart Lodge 2900 SW Jefferson Way Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331-1102

Phone: 541-737-4881 Fax: 541-737-3313

• Programs - Majors, minors and certificates
• Academic Progress
• Student Success
• Faculty Support
• Staff Directory
• Graduate Catalog

Capstone Documents: Capstone Committee Process

• Supplemental Resources for the PhD Social Work
• DBA Capstone: Traditional Capstone Options
• DBA Capstone: Portfolio Project Options
• DBA Capstone: Consulting Capstone Option
• DHA Doctoral Study (Summer 2021 or before)
• DIT Doctoral Study
• DNP Doctoral Project
• Doctor of Nursing Program Capstone Resources
• DNP Capstone Resources NURS 8702 and NURS 8703
• DPA Doctoral Study
• DrPH Doctoral Study
• DSW Doctoral Study
• EdD Doctoral Study
• PsyD Doctoral Study
• Doctoral Prospectus Resources This link opens in a new window
• Oral Defense
• Capstone Committee Process
• Doctoral Prospectus Resources
• DHS Doctoral Study
• DHA Doctoral Study Landing Page
• DHA Doctoral Study (Fall 2021 or after)
• Previous Page: Oral Defense
• Next Page: Doctoral Prospectus Resources

Faculty Capstone Committee Resources (For Faculty Only)  

Download Doctoral Capstone Committee (PDF)

Committee Formation Process: PhD Students

PhD students request the formation of their dissertation committee as part of an assignment during a course in their program.

Using information that students share about their dissertation interests, program leaders match them with an appropriate committee chair and second committee member. Students may request a specific faculty member to serve on their committee. While we do our very best to honor requests, faculty members are selected based on program and specialization, research method expertise, subject matter expertise, and workload.

Students will be notified about who is on their committee shortly before the term in which they start their dissertation courses. At that time, students are encouraged to introduce themselves to their committee members. However, committee members will not review research drafts prior to the beginning of the dissertation courses.

PhD Courses with Committee Formation Assignment

Committee Formation Process: Professional Doctorate Students

Students in professional doctorate programs at Walden should refer to their program leadership or Student Success Advisors regarding the committee formation process.

Professional doctorate programs include:

• Doctor of Business Administration (DBA)
• Doctor of Education (EdD)
• Doctor of Healthcare Administration (DHA)
• Doctor of Human Services (DHS)
• Doctor of Information Technology (DIT)
• Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP)
• Doctor of Public Administration (DPA)
• Doctor of Public Health (DrPH)
• Doctor of Social Work (DSW)
• PsyD in Behavioral Health Leadership (PsyD, BHL)

Social Media

Connect with the office of research and doctoral services.

• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Cost of Attendance
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

• 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

/images/cornell/logo35pt_cornell_white.svg" alt="committee for phd students"> Cornell University --> Graduate School

Selecting and changing a special committee, forming a new committee.

Students must select their special committee chair within three weeks of registering with the Graduate School. A temporary committee chair or the field’s director of graduate studies may assume the role for new students who have not yet identified a permanent committee chair. The faculty member who represents your major subject is considered the chair of your special committee. Your chair will supervise your thesis or dissertation work and will typically provide the facilities and supervision necessary to conduct your research. Students have a lot of flexibility when it comes to selecting members of a special committee. Any member of any graduate field may serve on a special committee, with occasional limits imposed on the faculty based on their field standing. Minor members are typically selected to add a breadth of expertise to the anticipated research topic.

Changing a committee

Changing the members of a special committee requires approval from all members of the newly formed committee. It does not require approval from members who are leaving the committee.

Master’s students may make changes at any point prior to three months before the final examination by visiting their Student Center. Doctoral students may make changes to their special committee at any time prior to the A exam. Committee changes after an A exam require the dean’s approval.

Although it occurs only infrequently, any member, including a chair, may resign from a special committee. It is the student’s responsibility to reconstitute their special committee if this occurs, often with guidance from the field. Students who do not have a complete, valid special committee may not register or continue in their program.

• Committee policies
• Committee request tool
• Adding non-Cornell faculty to committees

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

How to select a dissertation committee member wisely?

I'm currently developing my dissertation proposal, and am in the process of choosing my committee members. I have heard that one should carefully choose their committee members, since they ultimately judge if and when your PhD work is done. As far as I can tell, a committee member should at least have some expertise in my research topic. I'm sure there's more to it than that, but I want to know what other qualities should I look out for? What qualities in a committee member should I avoid? I imagine these other qualities are subtle and difficult to judge at first. Nonetheless, how do I know if they are a good fit for the success of my PhD?

• thesis-committee

2 Answers 2

First, ask your adviser . He/she likely knows more about most of your department faculty than you do. You don't have to do exactly as you're told. But if you don't, this should be an intentional choice on your part, and you should have a good reason for that choice. Beyond that, I see at least 3 broad areas to consider. You want committee members who will

• strengthen your professional network : introduce you to potential collaborators, and possibly help with your search for a postdoc or tenure track position; and/or write a letter of recommendation for you
• give valuable feedback on your work : you think they'll actually read your thesis (you might be surprised how uncommon this is), and might have something constructive to say
• be easy to work with in the defense process: likely to be flexible on the date of your defense, and likely to sign off on your dissertation without demanding lots of changes (fitting into 4 schedules besides your own can be a nightmare; it's nice to have a few committee members who are easy to work with on this)

Which of these contributions you value most will depend on what you're hoping to do after your PhD. If you're looking to move into industry, many of your professors' contacts may be less valuable to you than if you hope to stay in academia. Do you plan to stay research active? In the field of your dissertation? Practically, you may have limited options. At the very least, you should weigh 1, 2, and 3, and estimate how you think each candidate will contribute in each area.

• 13 Only one thing I would add to this excellent answer: At least one committee member should take you out of your professional comfort zone. Do not choose committee members only from your subfield, your department, or even your university. Part of defending your research, especially if you are continuing into academia, is being able to explain your work and defend its importance to people outside your narrow academic circles. –  JeffE Commented Oct 13, 2012 at 16:00
• @JeffE: One caveat to the suggestion of an external reviewer—try to avoid someone who's geographically far away. Scheduling committee meetings is hard enough as it is; it's exponentially more difficult if you have to organize them around the schedule of someone who needs to fly in for the meetings! –  aeismail Commented Sep 11, 2014 at 8:08
• 1 @aeismail: That's what Skype is for. I've been in more than one defense where the committee was spread across multiple continents. –  JeffE Commented Sep 11, 2014 at 10:59

This is certainly a very important question. Here is the make up of my committee and its pitfalls. This isn't the best committee but has its advantages. You could easily extrapolate from my experience:

Adviser/Committee member 1:

• I have a fantastic adviser who always stands by me and supports my work. He essentially fights for me if things go awry.
• He is also the PI of the project I am working on so my successful graduation and publications do interest him.

Co-adviser/Collaborator/Committee member 2/Extradepartmental committee member:

• He champions the the ideas behind my research and has done so for the last 20+ years. So there is no problem that I'll get support from him

Committee member 3:

• Doesn't have anything invested in my research but since it is generally related to his work, he is on board.
• He is sitting on the fence as far as criticism goes.

Committee member 4:

• He doesn't like my work since his adviser didn't like this work and its implications.
• However, since I have a generally pro-me committee, I should be alright but not without breaking a sweat.
• If I convince him of the merit of my work, I'll have no problem in the future convincing any other detractors See comment by JeffE .

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged phd thesis-committee ..

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• Centering tikz graphic in OpTeX
• What are the French verbs that have invariable past participles?
• How does the summoned monster know who is my enemy?
• What is an intuitive way to rename a column in a Dataset?
• Looking for the meaning of a word in first verse of Rig Veda
• MetaPost: Get text width in a narrower environment
• The answer is not wrong
• Trying to find an old book (fantasy or scifi?) in which the protagonist and their romantic partner live in opposite directions in time
• Can a subgroup be covered by a non-conjugate subgroup?
• DATEDIFF Rounding
• Why do National Geographic and Discovery Channel broadcast fake or pseudoscientific programs?
• Does Vexing Bauble counter taxed 0 mana spells?
• Why there is no article after 'by'?
• `Drop` for list of elements of different dimensions
• Migrate SBS 2008 to 2019
• How could Bangladesh protect itself from Indian dams and barrages?
• Is there a phrase for someone who's really bad at cooking?
• How long does it take to achieve buoyancy in a body of water?
• Do metal objects attract lightning?
• Fill a grid with numbers so that each row/column calculation yields the same number
• My school wants me to download an SSL certificate to connect to WiFi. Can I just avoid doing anything private while on the WiFi?
• I'm trying to remember a novel about an asteroid threatening to destroy the earth. I remember seeing the phrase "SHIVA IS COMING" on the cover
• Which programming language/environment pioneered row-major array order?
• My Hydraulic brakes are seizing up and I have tried everything. Help

Main navigation

• Undergraduate
• Teacher Education
• Graduate Programs
• First Nations & Inuit
• Teaching Resources
• B.A.(Education); Major in Education in Global Contexts
• Education & Society - Non-Thesis - Math / Science - Project
• Foundation Course Options

What is the Role of the Doctoral Advisory Committee?

Who is on my dac.

The DAC is comprised of:

• one supervisor, and two or three committee members OR
• two co-supervisors, and one or two committee members

Should I have one supervisor or two co-supervisors?

The decision to opt for co-supervision (taking “one supervisor with primary responsibility” to be the default) should be based on the nature of the student’s dissertation project. A student engaged in interdisciplinary work that cuts across one or more disciplinary boundaries, and who intends to privilege two (or possibly more) disciplines equally rather than working primarily in one well-defined field, will often be well served by a co-supervision arrangement if two appropriate co-supervisors can be found. One of the two must be in the student’s home department; the other need not be.

The two co-supervisors must feel that they will be able to establish an equitable working relationship where they will both contribute to the student’s needs equally, though in different domains. A sense of hierarchy or dominance, with one co-supervisor playing a larger role, is not ideal for co-supervision. In a good co-supervision, discussion of the student’s research goals, course selection, research design and ethics issues, data collection, analysis and reporting of results (chapter by chapter, including revisions) is always shared, timelines are mutually agreed upon, and all discussion is three-way.

If your supervisor retires from DISE/McGill, that person may continue to be on the DAC as a co-supervisor with another co-supervisor from DISE.

How should I choose supervisor(s) and committee members?

Regardless of whether the members of the DAC are in a supervisory or a committee member role, it is essential that they complement each another’s expertise. The student should, with guidance of course, think carefully about the three or four areas of academic expertise that the dissertation will draw upon. These might include a specific methodological focus that makes the inclusion of a committee member specialized in that kind of study highly desirable and perhaps essential.

Generally speaking, the primary supervisor or the two co-supervisors will probably be in the specialized fields that are most central/ relevant/closest to the student’s dissertation project, and the committee members, while contributing essential expertise will play more peripheral roles because the fields they represent are not as central to the project. A guiding question about complementary expertise could be: Do the committee members publish in different journals, contribute to edited volumes with different topics, present at different conferences?

The supervisor or one co-supervisor must be from DISE. The other co-supervisor can be from DISE, McGill or another university. Normally, all DAC members should hold a PhD degree. Normally, no more than half the DAC members should be from outside McGill.

What is the role of committee members in contrast to the role of supervisor?

Despite their less central roles, the committee members should be involved with the student’s research throughout the entire research and writing process.

At the start of the program:

The supervisor should meet with the student to discuss potential candidates for committee membership. The supervisor needs to approve, and the student should contact potential members. At least a provisional committee should be formed by the end of the first semester. The supervisor and student both need to notify the Graduate Program Coordinator about DAC members, and each member must confirm membership to the GPC as well.

When the committee is formed, all the members should have a chance to meet (or “e-meet”) one another. If personalities or paradigms clash, the committee will not work effectively; any such danger should be identified at the outset, and alternative members found.

Required coursework

Establishing which courses the student will take is a decision that, while it is usually handled by the supervisor(s) and student, may also usefully draw on the expertise of committee members. It may be desirable for the student to undertake an independent study course with a committee member in the first or second year to build up essential knowledge in the specialization that that person is bringing to the DAC.

Candidacy Papers

The wording of questions, reading of the final papers, participation in the oral presentation, and awarding of a pass or fail grade for the Candidacy Papers is the responsibility of all the members of the DAC and all their signatures on the form (DISE Graduate Student webpage) are required for a passing grade. This process is expected to be complete before the beginning of the student’s third year in the program (see note below). During the student’s second year in the program, the supervisor(s) will be more involved in the stages along the way (drafting of questions, reading draft versions of papers and providing feedback and suggestions for revisions, approval of revisions). But the final papers must be read and approved by the entire DAC.

Note: Most PhD students enter the program with a MA degree in hand, and are thus considered to be “PhD 2” – with a six-year time limit, they will have until the end of PhD 7. PhD students entering without an MA degree enter as PhD 1, and have until the end of PhD 7, i.e. 7 years. Most students, beginning in PhD 2, have two years to complete the Candidacy Papers, i.e. the end of PhD 3. Students beginning in PhD 1 have three years to complete the Candidacy Papers and should finish them by the end of PhD 3.

As the student starts to write dissertation chapters, committee members should be asked for feedback according to their availability and their preference. A common model, though by no means the only one, is for the supervisor(s) to provide feedback chapter-by-chapter, with several feedback rounds on each chapter/section being common and expected, while committee members read through the entire completed dissertation once and provide feedback once (after the student and supervisor(s) have gone through a couple of feedback rounds, and before a final pre-submission supervisory feedback round). Another model is for at least one committee member to read each chapter as drafts are done – this is particularly true for specialized areas such as methodology.

Thesis Oral Defence

One committee member (not the supervisor or co-supervisor) who is from DISE or another department at McGill will be asked to be the internal examiner for the thesis. This entails writing an evaluative report after the initial official thesis submission, and being present as a member of the student’s oral dissertation defence committee. This person should have a thorough knowledge of the dissertation, reflecting closeness to and knowledge of the student and the student’s process second only to that of the supervisor(s).

What if one committee member becomes more important than the supervisor?

If you find that you are going to see one of your committee members far more often than you go to see your supervisor(s); asking that person for advice about courses, readings, research design, and/or other important concerns in preference to your supervisor; and if you find that you are becoming increasingly reliant on that person as an academic mentor and guide, then perhaps that person should be your supervisor and your current supervisor should be a committee member…

Department and University Information

Department of integrated studies in education (dise).

• Faculty Home Page
• Internships and Student Affairs
• Education Career Services
• Dept. of Kinesiology and Physical Education
• Dept. of Educational & Counselling Psychology
• Education Curriculum Resources Centre
• Education Computer Labs
• McGill eCalendar
• Student Services Directory
• IT Services
• Education Graduate Student Society (EGSS)
• Education Undergraduate Society (EdUS)
• Ministère éducation et enseignement supérieur
• Direction de la formation et de la titularisation du personnel scolaire
• Learn Quebec (Leading English Education and Resource Network)
• SPEAQ (Société pour la promotion de l'enseignement de l'anglais langue seconde au Québec)
• McGill Links

PhD Thesis Guide

This phd thesis guide will guide you step-by-step through the thesis process, from your initial letter of intent to submission of the final document..

All associated forms are conveniently consolidated in the section at the end.

Deadlines & Requirements

Students should register for HST.ThG during any term in which they are conducting research towards their thesis. Regardless of year in program students registered for HST.ThG in a regular term (fall or spring) must meet with their research advisor and complete the  Semi-Annual PhD Student Progress Review Form to receive credit.

Years 1 - 2

• Students participating in lab rotations during year 1, may use the optional MEMP Rotation Registration Form , to formalize the arrangement and can earn academic credit by enrolling in HST.599. 
• A first letter of intent ( LOI-1 ) proposing a general area of thesis research and research advisor is required by April 30th of the second year of registration.
• A second letter of intent ( LOI-2 ) proposing a thesis committee membership and providing a more detailed description of the thesis research is required by April 30th of the third year of registration for approval by the HST-IMES Committee on Academic Programs (HICAP).

Year 4 

• Beginning in year 4, (or after the LOI-2 is approved) the student must meet with their thesis committee at least once per semester.
• Students must formally defend their proposal before the approved thesis committee, and submit their committee approved proposal to HICAP  by April 30 of the forth year of registration.
• Meetings with the thesis committee must be held at least once per semester. 

HST has developed these policies to help keep students on track as they progress through their PhD program. Experience shows that students make more rapid progress towards graduation when they interact regularly with a faculty committee and complete their thesis proposal by the deadline.

Getting Started

Check out these resources  for finding a research lab.

The Thesis Committee: Roles and Responsibilities

Students perform doctoral thesis work under the guidance of a thesis committee consisting of at least three faculty members from Harvard and MIT (including a chair and a research advisor) who will help guide the research. Students are encouraged to form their thesis committee early in the course of the research and in any case by the end of the third year of registration. The HST IMES Committee on Academic Programs (HICAP) approves the composition of the thesis committee via the letter of intent and the thesis proposal (described below). 

Research Advisor

The research advisor is responsible for overseeing the student's thesis project. The research advisor is expected to:

• oversee the research and mentor the student;
• provide a supportive research environment, facilities, and financial support;
• discuss expectations, progress, and milestones with the student and complete the  Semi-Annual PhD Student Progress Review Form each semester;
• assist the student to prepare for the oral qualifying exam;
• guide the student in selecting the other members of the thesis committee;
• help the student prepare for, and attend, meetings of the full thesis committee, to be held at least once per semester;
• help the student prepare for, and attend, the thesis defense;
• evaluate the final thesis document.

The research advisor is chosen by the student and must be a faculty member of MIT* or Harvard University and needs no further approval.  HICAP may approve other individuals as research advisor on a student-by-student basis. Students are advised to request approval of non-faculty research advisors as soon as possible.  In order to avoid conflicts of interest, the research advisor may not also be the student's academic advisor. In the event that an academic advisor becomes the research advisor, a new academic advisor will be assigned.

The student and their research advisor must complete the Semi-Annual PhD Student Progress Review during each regular term in order to receive academic credit for research.  Download Semi Annual Review Form

*MIT Senior Research Staff are considered equivalent to faculty members for the purposes of research advising. No additional approval is required.

Thesis Committee Chair

Each HST PhD thesis committee is headed administratively by a chair, chosen by the student in consultation with the research advisor. The thesis committee chair is expected to:

• provide advice and guidance concerning the thesis research; 
• oversee meetings of the full thesis committee, to be held at least once per semester;
• preside at the thesis defense; 
• review and evaluate the final thesis document.

The thesis committee chair must be well acquainted with the academic policies and procedures of the institution granting the student's degree and be familiar with the student's area of research. The research advisor may not simultaneously serve as thesis committee chair.

For HST PhD students earning degrees through MIT, the thesis committee chair must be an MIT faculty member. A select group of HST program faculty without primary appointments at MIT have been pre-approved by HICAP to chair PhD theses awarded by HST at MIT in cases where the MIT research advisor is an MIT faculty member.**

HST PhD students earning their degree through Harvard follow thesis committee requirements set by the unit granting their degree - either the Biophysics Program or the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS).

** List of non-MIT HST faculty approved to chair MIT thesis proposals when the research advisor is an MIT faculty member.

In addition to the research advisor and the thesis committee chair, the thesis committee must include one or more readers. Readers are expected to:

• attend meetings of the full thesis committee, to be held at least once per semester;
• attend the thesis defense; 

Faculty members with relevant expertise from outside of Harvard/MIT may serve as readers, but they may only be counted toward the required three if approved by HICAP.

The members of the thesis committee should have complementary expertise that collectively covers the areas needed to advise a student's thesis research. The committee should also be diverse, so that members are able to offer different perspectives on the student's research. When forming a thesis committee, it is helpful to consider the following questions: 

• Do the individuals on the committee collectively have the appropriate expertise for the project?
• Does the committee include at least one individual who can offer different perspectives on the student's research?  The committee should include at least one person who is not closely affiliated with the student's primary lab. Frequent collaborators are acceptable in this capacity if their work exhibits intellectual independence from the research advisor.
• If the research has a near-term clinical application, does the committee include someone who can add a translational or clinical perspective?  
• Does the committee conform to HST policies in terms of number, academic appointments, and affiliations of the committee members, research advisor, and thesis committee chair as described elsewhere on this page?

[Friendly advice: Although there is no maximum committee size, three or four is considered optimal. Committees of five members are possible, but more than five is unwieldy.]

Thesis Committee Meetings

Students must meet with their thesis committee at least once each semester beginning in the fourth year of registration. It is the student's responsibility to schedule these meetings; students who encounter difficulties in arranging regular committee meetings can contact Henrike Besche at henri737 [at] mit.edu (henri737[at]mit[dot]edu) . 

The format of the thesis committee meeting is at the discretion of the thesis committee chair. In some cases, the following sequence may be helpful:

• The thesis committee chair, research advisor, and readers meet briefly without the student in the room;
• The thesis committee chair and readers meet briefly with the student, without the advisor in the room;
• The student presents their research progress, answers questions, and seeks guidance from the members of the thesis committee;

Please note that thesis committee meetings provide an important opportunity for students to present their research and respond to questions. Therefore, it is in the student's best interest for the research advisor to refrain from defending the research in this setting.

Letters of Intent

Students must submit two letters of intent ( LOI-1 and LOI-2 ) with applicable signatures. 

In LOI-1, students identify a research advisor and a general area of thesis research, described in 100 words or less. It should include the area of expertise of the research advisor and indicate whether IRB approval (Institutional Review Board; for research involving human subjects) and/or IACUC approval (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee; for research involving vertebrate animals) will be required and, if so, from which institutions. LOI-1 is due by April 30 of the second year of registration and and should be submitted to HICAP, c/o Traci Anderson in E25-518. 

In LOI-2, students provide a description of the thesis research, describing the Background and Significance of the research and making a preliminary statement of Specific Aims (up to 400 words total). In LOI-2, a student also proposes the membership of their thesis committee. In addition to the research advisor, the proposed thesis committee must include a chair and one or more readers, all selected to meet the specified criteria . LOI-2 is due by April 30th of the third year of registration and should be submitted to HICAP, c/o Traci Anderson in E25-518.

LOI-2 is reviewed by the HST-IMES Committee on Academic Programs (HICAP) to determine if the proposed committee meets the specified criteria and if the committee members collectively have the complementary expertise needed to advise the student in executing the proposed research. If HICAP requests any changes to the proposed committee, the student must submit a revised LOI-2 for HICAP review by September 30th of the fourth year of registration. HICAP must approve LOI-2 before the student can proceed to presenting and submitting their thesis proposal. Any changes to the thesis committee membership following HICAP approval of LOI-2 and prior to defense of the thesis proposal must be reported by submitting a revised LOI-2 form to HICAP, c/o tanderso [at] mit.edu (Traci Anderson) . After final HICAP approval of LOI-2, which confirms the thesis committee membership, the student may proceed to present their thesis proposal to the approved thesis committee, as described in the next section.

Students are strongly encouraged to identify tentative thesis committee members and begin meeting with them as early as possible to inform the direction of their research. Following submission of LOI-2, students are required to hold at least one thesis committee meeting per semester. Students must document these meetings via the Semi- Annual PhD Student Progress Review form in order to receive a grade reflecting satisfactory progress in HST.ThG.

Thesis Proposal and Proposal Presentation

For MEMP students receiving their degrees through MIT, successful completion of the Oral Qualifying Exam is a prerequisite for the thesis proposal presentation. For MEMP students receiving their degrees through Harvard, the oral qualifying exam satisfies the proposal presentation requirement.

Proposal Document

Each student must present a thesis proposal to a thesis committee that has been approved by HICAP via the LOI-2 and then submit a full proposal package to HICAP by April 30th of the fourth year of registration. The only exception is for students who substantially change their research focus after the fall term of their third year; in those cases the thesis proposal must be submitted within three semesters of joining a new lab. Students registering for thesis research (HST.THG) who have not met this deadline may be administratively assigned a grade of "U" (unsatisfactory) and receive an academic warning.

The written proposal should be no longer than 4500 words, excluding references. This is intended to help students develop their proposal-writing skills by gaining experience composing a practical proposal; the length is comparable to that required for proposals to the NIH R03 Small Research Grant Program. The proposal should clearly define the research problem, describe the proposed research plan, and defend the significance of the work. Preliminary results are not required. If the proposal consists of multiple aims, with the accomplishment of later aims based on the success of earlier ones, then the proposal should describe a contingency plan in case the early results are not as expected.

Proposal Presentation

The student must formally defend the thesis proposal before the full thesis committee that has been approved by HICAP.

Students should schedule the meeting and reserve a conference room and any audio visual equipment they may require for their presentation. To book a conference room in E25, please contact Joseph Stein ( jrstein [at] mit.edu (jrstein[at]mit[dot]edu) ).

Following the proposal presentation, students should make any requested modifications to the proposal for the committee members to review. Once the committee approves the proposal, the student should obtain the signatures of the committee members on the forms described below as part of the proposal submission package.

[Friendly advice: As a professional courtesy, be sure your committee members have a complete version of your thesis proposal at least one week in advance of the proposal presentation.]

Submission of Proposal Package

When the thesis committee has approved the proposal, the student submits the proposal package to HICAP, c/o Traci Anderson in E25-518, for final approval. HICAP may reject a thesis proposal if it has been defended before a committee that was not previously approved via the LOI-2.

The proposal package includes the following: 

• the proposal document
• a brief description of the project background and significance that explains why the work is important;
• the specific aims of the proposal, including a contingency plan if needed; and
• an indication of the methods to be used to accomplish the specific aims.
• signed research advisor agreement form(s);
• signed chair agreement form (which confirms a successful proposal defense);
• signed reader agreement form(s).

Thesis Proposal Forms

• SAMPLE Title Page (doc)
• Research Advisor Agreement Form (pdf)
• Chair Agreement Form (pdf)
• Reader Agreement Form (pdf)

Thesis Defense and Final Thesis Document

When the thesis is substantially complete and fully acceptable to the thesis committee, a public thesis defense is scheduled for the student to present his/her work to the thesis committee and other members of the community. The thesis defense is the last formal examination required for receipt of a doctoral degree. To be considered "public", a defense must be announced to the community at least five working days in advance. At the defense, the thesis committee determines if the research presented is sufficient for granting a doctoral degree. Following a satisfactory thesis defense, the student submits the final thesis document, approved by the research advisor, to Traci Anderson via email (see instructions below).

[Friendly advice: Contact jrstein [at] mit.edu (Joseph Stein) at least two weeks before your scheduled date to arrange for advertising via email and posters. A defense can be canceled for insufficient public notice.]

Before the Thesis Defense 

Committee Approves Student to Defend: The thesis committee, working with the student and reviewing thesis drafts, concludes that the doctoral work is complete. The student should discuss the structure of the defense (general guidelines below) with the thesis committee chair and the research advisor. 

Schedule the Defense: The student schedules a defense at a time when all members of the thesis committee will be physical present. Any exceptions must be approved in advance by the IMES/HST Academic Office.

Reserve Room: It is the student's responsibility to reserve a room and any necessary equipment. Please contact imes-reservation [at] mit.edu (subject: E25%20Room%20Reservation) (IMES Reservation) to  reserve rooms E25-140, E25-141, E25-119/121, E25-521. 

Final Draft: A complete draft of the thesis document is due to the thesis committee two weeks prior to the thesis defense to allow time for review.  The thesis should be written as a single cohesive document; it may include content from published papers (see libraries website on " Use of Previously Published Material in a Thesis ") but it may not be a simple compilation of previously published materials.

Publicize the Defense:   The IMES/HST Academic Office invites the community to attend the defense via email and a notice on the HST website. This requires that the student email a thesis abstract and supplemental information to  jrstein [at] mit.edu (Joseph Stein)  two weeks prior to the thesis defense. The following information should be included: Date and time, Location, (Zoom invitation with password, if offering a hybrid option), Thesis Title, Names of committee members, with academic and professional titles and institutional affiliations. The abstract is limited to 250 words for the poster, but students may optionally submit a second, longer abstract for the email announcement.

Thesis Defense Guidelines

Public Defense: The student should prepare a presentation of 45-60 minutes in length, to be followed by a public question and answer period of 15–30 minutes at discretion of the chair.

Committee Discussion:  Immediately following the public thesis presentation, the student meets privately with the thesis committee and any other faculty members present to explore additional questions at the discretion of the faculty. Then the thesis committee meets in executive session and determines whether the thesis defense was satisfactory. The committee may suggest additions or editorial changes to the thesis document at this point.

Chair Confirms Pass: After the defense, the thesis committee chair should inform Traci Anderson of the outcome via email to tanderso [at] mit.edu (tanderso[at]mit[dot]edu) .

Submitting the Final Thesis Document

Please refer to the MIT libraries  thesis formatting guidelines .

Title page notes. Sample title page  from the MIT Libraries.

Program line : should read, "Submitted to the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology, in partial fulfillment of the the requirements for the degree of ... "

Copyright : Starting with the June 2023 degree period and as reflected in the  MIT Thesis Specifications , all students retain the copyright of their thesis.  Please review this section for how to list on your title page Signature Page: On the "signed" version, only the student and research advisor should sign. Thesis committee members are not required to sign. On the " Accepted by " line, please list: Collin M. Stultz, MD, PhD/Director, Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology/ Nina T. and Robert H. Rubin Professor in Medical Engineering and Science/Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

The Academic Office will obtain Professor Stultz's signature.

Thesis Submission Components.  As of 4/2021, the MIT libraries have changed their thesis submissions guidelines and are no longer accepting hard copy theses submissions. For most recent guidance from the libraries:  https://libguides.mit.edu/mit-thesis-faq/instructions  

Submit to the Academic Office, via email ( tanderso [at] mit.edu (tanderso[at]mit[dot]edu) )

pdf/A-1 of the final thesis should include an UNSIGNED title page

A separate file with a SIGNED title page by the student and advisor, the Academic Office will get Dr. Collin Stultz's signature.

For the MIT Library thesis processing, fill out the "Thesis Information" here:  https://thesis-submit.mit.edu/

File Naming Information:  https://libguides.mit.edu/

Survey of Earned Doctorates.  The University Provost’s Office will contact all doctoral candidates via email with instructions for completing this survey.

Links to All Forms in This Guide

• MEMP Rotation Form (optional)
• Semi-Annual Progress Review Form
• Letter of Intent One
• Letter of Intent Two

Final Thesis

• HST Sample thesis title page  (signed and unsigned)
• Sample thesis title page  (MIT Libraries)

Resources for Current Graduate Students

This page curates the departmental and university resources for graduate student success. 

Department Graduate Student Handbook

Many common graduate student questions are answered in the Department’s Graduate Student Handbook, updated at least once each year. 

Advising and Mentoring Resources

Graduate students meeting with their advisers or advisory committees may also wish to make use of GSAS guidance on advising and mentoring , including the “ Guide to Advising Processes for Faculty and Students” booklet. In addition, the Anthropology Department has put together subfield-specific, year-by-year guidance that can serve as a quick reference to the policies described in the Graduate Student Handbook.

• Milestones to a Ph.D. in Archaeological Anthropology
• Milestones to a Ph.D. in Biological Anthropology
• Milestones to a Ph.D. in Sociocultural/Linguistic Anthropology and Combined Programs

Graduate Student Support

GSAS Student Support Main Page

Discrimination and Harassment Resource Coordinators

Sexual Misconduct Response & Prevention

Belonging at Yale

Health and Wellness

Student Accessibility Services

Office of International Students and Scholars

Departmental Forms

1st Year Advisory Committee Form

2nd Year Advisory Committee Form

There are more frequently used GSAS forms found on the Registrar’s  website .

Resources for Teaching Fellows

General Teaching Fellow Guidelines from GSAS

​​Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning

Anthropology-Specific Resources for Anti-Racist Pedagogy and Inclusive Teaching (Canvas Site)

Funding Sources

Note: Common sources for external funding are coming soon.

• Departmental Funding
• Other Common Source of Funding at Yale
• Schwartz Fund Application (for conference travel in all subfields and programs)
• Smith Fund Application Instructions & Application Form (for doctoral student research in all subfields and programs)
• Albers, Coe, & Hazard Application (for archaeological anthropology)

MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies

Center for the Study of Race, Indigeneity, and Transnational Migration

Yale Institute for Biospheric Studies

GSA Conference Travel Fund

• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Postdoctoral Fellows
• Faculty and Staff
• Make a Gift

Responsibilities of Graduate Admissions Committees

Faculty and university goals for access, opportunity, and excellence in graduate education are strongly impacted by the work of faculty serving on graduate admissions committees. In evaluating applications and making admissions recommendations on behalf of their programs and the Rackham Graduate School, graduate faculty are responsible for:

• Safeguarding the privacy of student information in admissions applications
• Understanding the role of Michigan’s Proposal 2 in admissions decisions
• Using holistic admissions practices to admit graduate cohorts that are both excellent and broadly diverse

Safeguarding the Privacy of Student Information in Admissions Applications

While serving on graduate admissions committees, you will have access to confidential admissions files that contain sensitive information about prospective students, including grades, academic records, and demographic data. These files may also include information about prospective students’ race, ethnicity, gender, age, marital status, veteran status, disability status, etc. It is imperative to maintain ethical and professional standards when reviewing applications, including safeguarding student privacy. You should refrain from disclosing the contents of application files outside the graduate admissions committee or from discussing, both in committee meetings and in the documentation of committee review of an individual applicant or pool of applicants, personal information about applicants that is irrelevant to the criteria for admission.

Your actions on a graduate admissions committee are governed by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ( FERPA ), a federal law that protects the privacy of student education records, including graduate admissions. Please be reminded that admitted students have a right of access to their records, including admissions files.

To learn more about graduate faculty responsibilities regarding FERPA compliance, Rackham recommends that you complete the university’s online FERPA training course , which is now included as part of some faculty orientations on campus. U-M Information and Technology Services (ITS) has also developed a safe computing guide for how to protect sensitive student data.

Understanding the Role of Michigan’s Proposal 2 in Admissions Decisions

While serving on graduate admissions committees, graduate faculty are obligated to understand and comply with state and federal law as you seek to admit graduate students who contribute to both the excellence and diversity of our graduate programs.

Michigan’s Proposal 2 was adopted by the state’s voters in 2006. This constitutional amendment prohibits public colleges and universities in Michigan from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public education, public employment, or public contracting. The scope of the recent Supreme Court SFFA decision focuses only on the use of race and ethnicity in admissions. For this reason, the university’s existing practices for complying with Proposal 2 are already in compliance with this Supreme Court decision.

Therefore, as a member of a graduate admissions committee, you cannot admit students or provide financial aid, in whole or in part, based on race, ethnicity, sex, or national origin; however, you can continue active efforts to increase broad diversity in your applicant pools, which will thereby also increase the depth and quality of your applicant pools. Moreover, graduate admissions committees can also consider a broad range of factors of a student's background and experience in performing holistic review and making admissions decisions. For example, Rackham has developed a set of race-neutral criteria for the Rackham Merit Fellowship (RMF) Program, including factors such as first-generation status, familial income, geographic underrepresentation, and commitment to advancing diversity in the U.S., which can serve as an instructive model for evaluating graduate school applicants who contribute to both the excellence and diversity of your program.

In addition to Rackham resources, the graduate school also recommends that you consider taking advantage of other campus resources, such as the U-M Human Resources Unconscious Bias Learning Suite ; ADVANCE STRIDE ; and, Equity, Civil Rights & Title IX (ECRT) . Better understanding unconscious bias will help mitigate its potential impact on graduate admissions decisions.

Using Holistic Admissions Practices to Make Admissions Decisions

Holistic admissions practices provide a more comprehensive understanding of a prospective graduate student’s potential for successful degree completion by considering a wider range of factors, assessing an applicant’s unique experiences, and evaluating traditional measures of academic readiness within their broader context. These practices provide useful tools for making fine distinctions among large numbers of highly qualified applicants, assessing all information presented in an application in a way that complies with federal and state law, and mitigating potential unconscious bias.

Rackham recommends that graduate faculty serving on graduate admissions committees participate in the Faculty Workshop on Holistic Graduate Admissions for Excellence and Diversity offered each year by the graduate school to support faculty in their efforts to admit graduate students who contribute to the excellence and diversity of their programs. Additionally, the Rackham Partnerships for Access, Community and Excellence (PACE) team supports the needs of graduate faculty interested in implementing and/or improving the use of evidenced-based, race-neutral holistic admissions practices in their programs. To request an initial consultation, the admissions committees of graduate programs are welcome to complete this online form .

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

An Olympics first

University Disability Resources celebrates Disability Pride

Brian Lee to step down as VP for alumni affairs and development

The gate outside Lamont Library.

Stephanie Mitchell/Harvard Staff Photographer

Student committee for presidential search named

Christopher cleveland to serve as chair.

Following the recent announcement of the faculty and staff advisory committees for Harvard’s presidential search, the student advisory committee has now been assembled.

Each of the three advisory committees will provide advice to the presidential search committee, which includes the 12 members of the Harvard Corporation other than the president along with three members of the Board of Overseers. The advisory committees will also assist in ensuring broad outreach to the wider Harvard community.

The members of the student advisory committee are:

• Christopher Cleveland (chair), Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and Harvard Graduate School of Education
• Esias Bedingar, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and Harvard Chan School of Public Health
• Jack Blank, Harvard Extension School
• Laura Pesquera Colom, Harvard School of Dental Medicine
• Sarah Eisen, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
• Sonya Falkovskaia, Harvard Graduate School of Design
• Caleb Kimball King, Harvard College
• Anneka Kumli, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
• Max Meehan, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and Harvard Business School
• Yinka Ogunbiyi, Harvard Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and Harvard Business School
• Xavier Pérez Román, Harvard College
• Natalie Sadlak, Harvard Medical School
• Lena Shi, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and Harvard Graduate School of Education
• Dustin Tillman, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
• Emma Thomas, Harvard Divinity School
• Rosa Vargas, Harvard Law School
• Jenny Yoon, Harvard College
• Daniel Yue, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and Harvard Business School.

“Harvard is home to some of the world’s most remarkable students, and it will be invaluable to benefit from the views of this group of outstanding students from across the University, as our search committee thinks about Harvard and its future leadership,” said Penny Pritzker, senior fellow of the Harvard Corporation and chair of the presidential search committee. “We’re grateful to these students for their willingness both to share their own insights with us and to help us learn more about the varied perspectives of their peers.

“More generally, as the search progresses, we invite continuing input on the major opportunities and challenges likely to face Harvard in the years ahead, on key qualities and experience to seek in our next president, and on individuals who merit serious consideration,” Pritzker added.  “Many students, faculty, staff, and alumni have already been in touch, and we welcome hearing from more.”

As noted in the community-wide  message launching the search , advice and nominations may be conveyed directly to the search committee in any of three ways:

• By sending an email to  [email protected] .
• By providing answers to the questions posted  here .
• By addressing a letter to the Harvard Presidential Search Committee, Loeb House, 17 Quincy St., Cambridge, MA 02138.

The search committee will hold replies in confidence.

Share this article

More like this.

Faculty, staff committees for presidential search named

Harvard begins search for 30th president

You might like.

First-year fencer makes history as member of all-Harvard squad in Paris

Investments and realignment of resources creates greater access for Harvard community members

‘Champion of Harvard and our mission’ will depart at end of calendar year

The way forward for Democrats — and the country

Danielle Allen is more worried about identity politics and gaps in civic education than the power of delegates

Good genes are nice, but joy is better

Harvard study, almost 80 years old, has proved that embracing community helps us live longer, and be happier

Between bright light and a good mood, plenty of sleep

Researchers outline path to lower risk of depression

• Directories

Quick Links

• Directories Home
• Colleges, Schools, and Departments
• Administrative Units
• Research Centers and Institutes
• Resources and Services
• Employee Directory
• Contact UNLV
• Social Media Directory
• UNLV Mobile Apps
• Graduate & Professional Student Association

Public Notice: 44-04 GPSA Ways & Means Committee Meeting Minutes

The UNLV Graduate & Professional Student Association

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING

Ways & means committee meeting 44-04.

Tuesday, July 23, 2024

HYBRID PUBLIC MEETING:

IN PERSON : Graduate Commons, LLB 2141

4505 S Maryland Pkwy, Las Vegas, NV 89119, USA

VIRTUAL : https://unlv.zoom.us/j/7028952261  

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE AGENDA AND PUBLIC MEETING NOTE:

PERTAINING TO VIRTUAL MEETINGS:

Public Comment may be submitted via email to [email protected] .

Messages received by 9:00 AM on the day prior to the meeting, may be entered into the record during the meeting. Any other public comment form submissions and/or voicemails received prior to the adjournment of the meeting will be transcribed and included in the permanent record.

Members of the public wishing to listen to the meeting may do so via: https://unlv.zoom.us/j/7028952261

Below is an agenda of all items scheduled to be presented and considered at the meeting. Notification is hereby provided that items on the agenda may be taken out of the order and presented, two or more agenda items may be combined for consideration, and an agenda item may be removed from the agenda or discussion relating to an item on the agenda may be delayed at any time.

Some agenda items are noted as having accompanying reference material. Copies of the reference materials that are distributed at the meeting may be requested by emailing the Chair at [email protected] . Copies of any such materials will also be made available at unlv.edu/gpsa on the “Agendas and Minutes” folder of the appropriate meeting. Reasonable efforts will be made to assist and accommodate persons with a disability attending the meeting. Please email the GPSA Manager at [email protected] in advance so that arrangements may be made.

This meeting’s agenda has been posted in accordance with NRS 241.020. Agendas may also be also be available online at unlv.edu/gpsa/agenda in the appropriate session and meeting number folder.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Public comment will be taken during this agenda item. No action may be taken on a matter raised under this item until the matter is included on an agenda as an item on which action may be taken. Comments will be limited to three minutes per person. Persons making comment will be asked to begin by stating their name for the record and to spell their last name. The Board Chair may elect to allow additional public comment on a specific agenda item when that agenda item is being considered. In accordance with Attorney General Opinion No. 00-047, as restated in the Attorney General’s Open Meeting Law Manual, the Chair may prohibit comment if the content of that comment is a topic that is not relevant to, or within the authority of, the Body, or if the content is willfully disruptive of the meeting by being irrelevant, repetitious, slanderous, offensive, inflammatory, irrational or amounting to personal attacks or interfering with the rights of other speakers.

WAYS & MEANS COMMITTEE MEMBERS

☒ Blanca Peña, Chair, William S. Boyd School of Law

☒ Lila Hearn, Vice Chair, College of Liberal Arts

☒ Devin Lopez, GPSA Treasurer, College of Liberal Arts

☒ Hoor Ain, Committee Member, College of Liberal Arts

☐ Daniella Nikoloska, Committee Member, College of Engineering EXCUSED

☒ Amruta Godbole, Committee Member, School of Public Health 

All other members present will be available in the meeting minutes and listed below.

Members of the Public Present:

• CALL TO ORDER

Chair Peña opened the meeting at 5:33pm.

• PUBLIC COMMENT                                                                            INFORMATION ONLY

(See foregoing notation regarding public comment)

No public comment.

• APPROVAL OF MINUTES                                                                 FOR POSSIBLE ACTION

Request is made for approval of minutes of previous meetings.

3a) CONSENT AGENDA:

• Minutes for the June 27, 2024 (44-03) Ways & Means Committee Meeting as posted to the public GPSA Drive.

Motion to approve: Hearn

Second: Ain

Motion passed 6-0-0.

• REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS                                              INFORMATION ONLY

4a) GPSA Treasurer Report

• Upcoming revisions to the Operating Policy and the duties of the Treasurer

Treasurer Lopez will be meeting with Business Manager Nia and President Teresa to discuss the budget soon. The budget will be reviewed, then the committee will be asked to review the budget before it is solidified.

4b) Ways & Means Committee Chair Report

• Agenda overview

Chair Peña asked for questions about the general operation of the Ways and Means Committee, and there were none.

4b) GPSA Manager & Advisor

The business manager was not in attendance.

• UNFINISHED BUSINESS                                                                    FOR POSSIBLE ACTION

Unfinished Business is any motion or action item that was under discussion and was postponed or moved to this meeting at the discretion of the public body as approved by the chair.

5a) No Unfinished Business as of the posting of this Agenda.

Motion to open new business: Ain

Second: Lopez

Motion passed 6-0-0

• NEW BUSINESS                                                                                    FOR POSSIBLE ACTION

New business is any motion that is new to this meeting. All items will be for possible action unless otherwise stated .

6a) Discussion and Approval of new RSO Funding Application(s) in TeamDynamix (TDX)

Chair Peña requests the Ways & Means Committee to discuss and provide decisions relating to recently submitted RSO Funding applications.

6b) Discussion and Approval of Revisions to the Ways & Means Operating Policy

Chair Peña requests the Ways & Means Committee to review and vote on revisions to the Ways & Means Operating Policy.

Lopez asks for a motion to strike Section 3 “Student organization funding guidelines” from the operating policy for Ways and Means, in order to formally transition RSO funding out of the Ways and Means purview as the committee will no longer be handling RSO funding.

Hearn motioned to strike Section 3 “Student organization funding guidelines” from the operating policy.

Godbole seconded.

Chair Peña asked if any revisions to the operating policy are needed. Seeing no suggestions, the operating policy stands.

6c) Discussion and Approval of Revisions to the Treasurer’s Role within Ways & Means

Chair Peña requests the Ways & Means Committee to review and vote on revisions to the role of the Treasurer within the Ways & Means Committee.

Treasurer Lopez put the language he would like to see in the operating policy under “suggested edits”. Lopez wanted to make it clear who are and are not voting members of the Ways and Means Committee. He suggested we have a minimum of 4 voting members, including Chair and Vice Chair and at least two members of GPSA on the council. Additionally, he suggests we rename the Treasurer an ‘ex-officio non-voting member’, meaning the treasurer will serve on the Ways and Means Committee in an advisory capacity. He further suggests that the Treasurer appoint the chair (who will be approved by council), and the chair will then appoint the vice chair, who does not need to be approved by GPSA council.

Lopez asked for feedback on the deadline for the appointment of the new chair. Peña suggested that the chair be appointed before the first meeting of the committee in the fall semester of each year.

Lopez suggested the deadline be before the overall GPSA budget needs to be approved for each school year.

Peña is okay with the Treasurer voting in the case of a tie. Hearn agrees.

Lopez asks for consideration that the Treasurer’s attendance at meetings will not count towards attaining quorum. Quorum means that a 50% +1 of voting members must be present to hold a meeting.

Peña asks if the chair is a voting member, and Lopez said generally chairs are voting members. Peña asks if chairs are supposed to be neutral throughout the meeting, but Lopez clarified that chairs could present an opinion on voting matters when the time comes to cast votes (but should remain neutral throughout the proceedings as a whole).

Ain motions to approve the minimum voting members for the committee, not letting the treasurer vote, and the chair appointing the vice chair, and the treasurer should appoint the chair before the overall GPSA budget needs to be approved each school year. She motioned to group these changes in the operating policy together and approve.

Seconded by Hearn.

Motion passed 5-0-1 (Lopez abstained). 

Lopez addressed new changes that need to be made to the operating policy due to the Ways and Means Committee no longer approving RSO funding applications.

Hearn motioned to strike all wording addressing RSO funding applications and subsequent liaisons in the operating policy.

Seconded by Ain.

Agenda item was then closed.

6d) Call for New Business Agenda Items

Chair Peña requests a call for New Business agenda items. Agenda items not previously posted to this agenda may be raised for discussion for either the present or subsequent meeting.

• ANNOUNCEMENTS                                                                            INFORMATION ONLY

Lopez announced that the state will consider another GA stipend increase over the next two years .

Peña encouraged the committee to vote in the next presidential election, and the next Ways and Means meeting is scheduled for August 20th.   

• ADJOURNMENT                                                                                  FOR POSSIBLE ACTION

Chair Peña adjourned the meeting at 6:02pm.

Graduate Student Association

Call for GSA Committee Volunteers

Volunteer Opportunity—gain valuable volunteer experience while helping GSA serve students! GSA now has open positions on our Election Committee, Services Committee, and Finance Committee. For more information on what these committees do, click here . Email us for more information at  [email protected]  (Finance Committee),  [email protected]  (Election Committee), or  [email protected] (Services Committee).  All volunteers must be confirmed by the GSA Board of Directors at the September 4th Board meeting.

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Why row from Boston to London? Because it’s there.

Next up for House renewal: Eliot

FAS receives gift to bolster arts, humanities, and strengthen financial aid

‘access, awareness, prevention, and support’.

Harvard moves to implement Student Mental Health task force recommendations

Gray Milkowski

Harvard Correspondent

Robin Glover (left) and Giang Nguyen are co-chairs of the Implementation Committee for Student Mental Health and Wellness.

Stephanie Mitchell/Harvard Staff Photographer

In an email to the Harvard community on Thursday, Provost Alan Garber shared updates on the work to implement recommendations from the Task Force on Managing Student Mental Health, including the We’re All Human campaign, a University-wide initiative to raise awareness of resources to help students prioritize their well-being and access programs, support, and care at Harvard.

To learn more about the campaign, the Gazette spoke with the co-chairs of the Implementation Committee for Student Mental Health and Wellness: Robin Glover, associate provost for student affairs, and Giang Nguyen, associate provost for campus health and well-being and executive director of Harvard University Health Services. The interview was edited for clarity and length.

Robin Glover and Giang Nguyen

GAZETTE:  In July of 2020, the provost’s office released the Report on the Task Force on Student Mental Health . Can you remind us what the takeaways were, and how they have driven work on the campaign that the community is going to see in the coming weeks and months?

GLOVER:  Our work on this committee was guided from the beginning by that report, which gave us direct insights into the state of student mental health on campus and offered recommendations for us to act on. What stood out to me, based on feedback from students, were rising levels of anxiety disorders, depression, and loneliness. For the undergraduates, that included high levels of stress and measuring up to their peers, and for graduate students it was isolation, thinking about their academic careers, financial security, and their adviser relationships, which impact their academic and career prospects.

Those findings gave us a clear pathway to focus on four areas of well-being and mental health at Harvard that we knew would have the greatest impact: access, awareness, prevention, and support.

“… part of our effort is to encourage self-care and provide students with the tools to maintain good mental and physical health by helping them manage things like stress and anxiety with these resources.” Robin Glover

GAZETTE:  Provost Garber gave us a preview into what has been developed to support those four areas. What are those resources and what can students expect to see in the coming months?

NGUYEN:  Access to mental health care services has been an area of great attention: the creation of an Access Team as a first point of contact for students reaching out to CAMHS for clinical care. This new team includes a group of licensed therapists, known as clinical access coordinators. When any student contacts CAMHS for support, these Access Team members will provide the initial evaluation of the student’s emotional state and then help determine what type of support that student needs; from there, the clinical access coordinators continue to engage with the student through the process of initiating care, whether that’s getting scheduled for a formal intake at CAMHS, getting urgent same-day services for their mental health, helping with referrals to community providers, or offering another CAMHS service, like workshops or groups.

We’ve also launched a new partnership with TimelyMD to deliver TimelyCare, which offers telehealth counseling services to every student covered by the student health fee (SHF) at Harvard, beginning this week. Any student covered by SHF who wants to be seen through telemedicine will have access to up to 12 TimelyCare sessions each academic year. Additionally, students who need psychiatric prescriptions will have the option to receive telemedicine care through a TimelyCare psychiatrist. This new service significantly multiplies opportunities that students have for mental health support and care because now they will be able to access counseling sessions free of charge via telehealth with TimelyCare or access traditional services through the office at CAMHS. And the 24/7 CAMHS Cares phone line remains an option for in-the-moment support from a licensed therapist.

More like this

Expanding student access to mental health care through telehealth

GLOVER:  Beyond CAMHS, we’re also providing the community with tools to help them when they are experiencing stress or anxiety, or when they need to help a friend, colleague, or student who is. For students, one of the resources we’ve rolled out is a learning module that offers self-care strategies, advice on when to seek help, tips for supporting a friend, and what resources are available for support.

There are separate modules for undergraduate and graduate students, whose student experiences are a little different, but the same principles apply, providing them with the tools to manage stress or anxiety. For graduate and professional students, it talks about managing the adviser-advisee relationship, and has a list of resources that they can use. All new and returning students will be encouraged to complete the module in the fall semester. There is also a learning module specifically for faculty and staff, which we will be making available later this month.

In addition to the learning modules, we’ve also built a quick reference guide, called the Crimson Folder, targeted to faculty and staff to help be a resource to students whom they recognize as being in distress or in need of support. Each School has developed their own Crimson Folder , tailored to the needs of their students specifically. It gives our faculty and staff common scenarios, guidelines in how to identify a student in minor or severe distress and provides them with options to direct students to the appropriate resource, all in one concise, School-specific document. Students will have access to that too if they have a peer who’s in distress and need to know where to turn.

All these things are going to be accessed at the new Student wellbeing at Harvard website , alongside all the other resources at Harvard — including those available through places like Counseling and Mental Health Services, the Center for Wellness and Health Promotion, the Office for Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging, Harvard University Disability Resources, the Office for Gender Equity, and others.

NGUYEN:  The website is really going to be the central hub for the information that is being provided. One of the findings from the Task Force for Student Mental Health was that students often were not fully aware of what was available to them, even though there was a wealth of resources at the University and at their individual Schools. This centralized website is meant to address that very real concern, because at a time of need, students need to be able to find the services that they need.

“The work of culture change takes time, but we build culture collectively.” Giang Nguyen

GAZETTE:  Something underscored in the report is that this is long-term work and changing culture around mental health requires a sustained effort. Can you speak to the importance of that and how the University is planning to keep the effort going?

NGUYEN:  I think incorporating well-being promotion into our everyday lives and into how we interact with each other on a day-to-day basis isn’t always automatic in the way we currently live our lives, on campus or anywhere right now. The work of culture change takes time, but we build culture collectively. One of the recommendations from the task force was to implement a University-wide public awareness campaign aimed at changing culture and raising awareness to help students prioritize their well-being and access care, when it’s needed. Responding to this recommendation, we have launched the We’re All Human campaign. This awareness campaign was developed with input from students, both undergraduate and graduate, and faculty and staff. It is meant to be a catalyst for Harvard to be the center of this culture change, that hopefully will spread well beyond this campus. Throughout this academic year, you will start seeing posters and programming as part of this campaign. It’s really targeted at helping folks truly build their own well-being into the way they live their lives while they are students here, and for when they go off into the world.

Importantly, going back to a point we discussed above, a key component of the We’re All Human campaign is that the campaign visuals — such as posters and table tents — will include a QR code. With the click of your phone or tablet this QR code will take you directly to the Student wellbeing at Harvard website to quickly connect our community members with resources and support, whether that’s tools to help you prioritize your well-being or if you need to quickly connect with CAMHS for more urgent mental health care.

GLOVER:  It’s important that we keep talking about this. Not just as part of a campaign, but as part of a discussion when we’re meeting with students or even when we’re talking to a colleague, and not feeling uncomfortable to talk about our mental health. As the name of the campaign says, we’re all human beings, and we all have these emotions, moments of insecurity or stress or anxiety, and sometimes it’s a little bit of baggage. We must be able to at least have a conversation about it, and I think we need to feel comfortable doing that, and hopefully the campaign gets the conversation started.

NGUYEN:  This initial campaign is a yearlong effort, but it will be refreshed in subsequent years, because it’s important for us to not consider this a one-time event.

GAZETTE:  A big part of this campaign is recognizing that it’s not just important to be aware of well-being when someone is in distress, it’s equally important to be mindful of your well-being on a daily basis. Why is that important for people on campus, and what is the University doing to support the community in doing that?

GLOVER:  Well-being is very important, and so is maintaining good mental and physical health. When we’re stressed and we have anxiety, it impacts all aspects of our lives — work, school, everything. So, part of our effort is to encourage self-care and provide students with the tools to maintain good mental and physical health by helping them manage things like stress and anxiety with these resources.

NGUYEN:  Physical well-being, as Robin mentioned, plays an important role in keeping our minds well, and other factors of our well-being, like social and relational well-being, spiritual well-being and our sense of purpose, and the ability to find joy in our own intellectual and vocational endeavors. All these things contribute to the well-being that we feel and the emotions that we experience.

Part of our humanity is our ability to feel human emotions and, sometimes, to feel them very deeply. The human experience includes connecting with each other and building community, all of which are important components of the campaign, and what we’re trying to help our community in achieving.

Share this article

You might like.

Spaulding Rehabilitation physiatrist, team taking new route, aim to set records 

Building refresh aims to boost accessibility, preserve historic character

Business leader Joseph Y. Bae ’94 and novelist Janice Y. K. Lee ’94 expand upon three decades of supporting academic excellence, opportunity at Harvard

When should Harvard speak out?

Institutional Voice Working Group provides a roadmap in new report

Had a bad experience meditating? You're not alone.

Altered states of consciousness through yoga, mindfulness more common than thought and mostly beneficial, study finds — though clinicians ill-equipped to help those who struggle

Finding right mix on campus speech policies

Legal, political scholars discuss balancing personal safety, constitutional rights, academic freedom amid roiling protests, cultural shifts