phd advisory committee

McGill Alert / Alerte de McGill

Gradual reopening continues on downtown campus. See Campus Public Safety website for details.

La réouverture graduelle du campus du centre-ville se poursuit. Complément d'information : Direction de la protection et de la prévention .

Main navigation

• Undergraduate
• Teacher Education
• Graduate Programs
• First Nations & Inuit
• 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

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

The power of storytelling in public health

New center to tackle health disparities affecting LGBTQ community

Alcohol use disorder among reproductive-age women—and barriers to treatment

Prosthetics nonprofit wants to hear from its patients

• Dissertation Advisory Committee
• Introduction

Harvard Griffin GSAS strives to provide students with timely, accurate, and clear information. If you need help understanding a specific policy, please contact the office that administers that policy.

• Application for Degree
• Credit for Completed Graduate Work
• Ad Hoc Degree Programs
• Acknowledging the Work of Others
• Formatting Your Dissertation
• Publishing Options
• Subject, Invention, and Patents
• Submitting Your Dissertation
• English Language Proficiency
• PhD Program Requirements
• Secondary Fields
• Year of Graduate Study (G-Year)
• Master's Degrees
• Grade and Examination Requirements
• Conduct and Safety
• Financial Aid
• Non-Resident Students
• Registration
• Residence Halls
• Student Groups

Dissertation Advisory Committee; Thesis Acceptance Certificate

The Dissertation Advisory Committee formally approves the dissertation by signing the Thesis Acceptance Certificate . In PhD programs that are not lab-based, this committee also guides the student in writing the dissertation. The committee should work cohesively in supporting the student to produce their best work. The signatures of these faculty members on the Thesis Acceptance Certificate indicate formal acceptance of the student’s scholarly contribution to the field.  

In some fields, especially in the sciences, the Dissertation Advisory Committee described below is known locally as the “Dissertation Defense Committee.” In these programs, a separate additional committee (also called the Dissertation Advisory Committee) that includes the student’s primary advisor, will guide the student’s progress until submission for formal review by the DAC/defense committee. The members of the DAC/defense committee give formal approval to the finished work, but the student’s work will be understood to have occurred under the guidance of the primary advisor. The changes to the DAC/defense committee as described below do not in any way affect the essential structure of dissertation advising that already exists in lab-based PhD programs. 

The following policy applies to every Harvard Griffin GSAS Dissertation Advisory Committee formed on or after July 1, 2024. Any Dissertation Advisory Committee approved before July 1, 2024 is subject to the rules outlined below, see “Grandfathering.”  

Effective July 1, 2024:  

•  The graduate thesis for the PhD shall be accepted, and the Thesis Acceptance Certificate signed, by at least three advisors, who will form the Dissertation Advisory Committee (DAC). At least two members of the committee shall be on-ladder faculty members. 
• In FAS-based programs, the Director of Graduate Studies or Department Chair or Area Chair shall sign off on the proposed committee.  
• For programs based outside the FAS, the Program Head shall sign off. 
• A program may petition the Dean of Harvard Griffin GSAS to consider a variation to the above requirement. 
• A Professor in Residence or Professor of the Practice may serve as a non-chairing member of the DAC, as long as the committee composition is consistent with “1.”  
•  Senior Lecturers and other non-ladder faculty may serve on the DAC as the third member when appropriate, as approved by the Director of Graduate Studies, Department Chair, Area Chair, or Program Head, as long as the committee composition is consistent with “1.” 
• Tenured emeriti faculty members (including research professors) may serve on the DAC. They may co-chair the DAC with a current on-ladder faculty member from the student’s department or program but may not serve as the sole chair. 
• Non-Harvard faculty of equivalent appointment rank to on-ladder faculty at Harvard may serve as one of the non-chairing members of the DAC.  
• A committee with co-chairs shall require a third member, consistent with ”1.” 
• Additional members may be appointed to the DAC, as long as the core three-member committee is consistent with ”1.” 
• They may continue to serve as a committee member if they have moved to another institution with an appointment rank equivalent to on-ladder at Harvard.  
• Or, if they are no longer serving on the DAC (by choice of the student, the student’s program, and/or the departing faculty member), the advisor must be replaced in accordance with ”1.” 
• If the departing faculty member will remain as chair on the DAC, a co-chair must be designated in accordance with “1.” The co-chair may, in this instance, be the Director of Graduate Studies in the student’s program if a faculty member with field expertise is not available to serve in this capacity. 

Please note:

• “On ladder” refers to faculty members with tenure or who are tenure-track. The phrase “on ladder” is generally not used at HMS, but all HMS and HCSPH assistant, associate, and full professors are considered to be “on ladder” according to HMS Faculty Affairs, and, for the purposes of this legislation, may serve on the DAC/defense committee. 
• With regard to paragraph 3.b.ii, and in keeping with the spirit of this legislation, ordinarily a scholar appointed as a College Fellow would not be ready to serve as one of the three core members of the committee. 
• With regard to paragraph 3.b.iv, individuals who do not fit this category (e.g., a scholar holding a non-ladder faculty position at another institution) may sit on the committee as a fourth member, in accordance with paragraph 3.d.  
• On the rare occasion that a situation requires special consideration, programs are advised to consult with the Dean of Harvard Griffin GSAS.  

Grandfathering

Grandfathering, and rules applying to all dissertation advisory committees, regardless of status prior to July 1, 2024:  

For dissertation advisory committees approved before July 1, 2024 under the former policy ( Two signatories must be members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS); FAS emeriti (including research professors) and faculty members from other Schools at Harvard who hold appointments on Harvard Griffin GSAS degree committees are authorized to sign DACs as FAS members. Harvard Griffin GSAS strongly recommends that the chair of the dissertation committee be a member of the FAS. If approved by the department, it is possible to have co-chairs of the dissertation committee as long as one is a member of FAS) , the following rules apply:   

Dissertation Advisory Committees approved prior to July 1, 2024 will be grandfathered, except in two situations:  

• An existing DAC chaired by an individual whose faculty appointment does not meet the requirements of the new rules will need to be adjusted. A co-chair should be designated, with the option of appointing the DGS to serve as co-chair, as allowed in paragraph 3.e.iii;  
• An existing DAC with fewer than three members should be updated, and the new member(s) should be consistent with the new policy.   

Thesis Acceptance Certificate

Contact info, noël bisson, shelby johnson, explore events.

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)

• The Institut in numbers
• Our governance
• Our commitments
• Conference Center
• Innovation and technology transfer
• Strategic plan for 2019-2023
• How to support us
• Why support us?
• We need you
• Disease sheets
• Find in journal
• Press documents
• Resources for medias
• Our Sars-Cov-2 research projects
• All our COVID-19 news
• Our Covid-19 disease fact sheet
• Our response to fake news
• The Institut Pasteur
• Our missions
• Medical Center
• The research journal
• All SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 from the Institut Pasteur
• Education center
• Programs and courses
• Startup Awareness
• Housing in Paris
• Cooperation
• International programs
• International calls
• Fellowships and mobility
• Pasteur Network
• Biological Resource Center (CRBIP)
• WOAH Collaborating Centers
• Industry Partnerships
• Investor Partnerships
• The Carnot Label
• Our job offers
• When you arrive
• Why join us?
• Pasteurians and Alumni Network
• Picture Library
• Scientific publications
• Follow the institut Pasteur on Facebook
• Follow the institut Pasteur on LinkedIn
• Follow the institut Pasteur on Twitter
• Follow the institut Pasteur on Youtube
• International
• Public Health

Thesis advisory committee (TAC)

A central component of the PPU program, offering additional support and guidance to the students, is the thesis advisory committee (TAC) that follows the progress made by each student on their thesis project.

The role of the TAC is to discuss the project with respect to the original aims and in light of new advances in the scientific field and the research plan for the next year and to provide advice for scientific and career issues. Each Committee is composed by three to four members : the Ph.D. advisor, a tutor (mentor), an external expert in the domain of the student’s Ph.D. project and a member of the doctoral school. The latter is suggested by the university, while the Ph.D. advisor suggests the names of two experts to the PPU Program Committee.

The Teaching Director of Institut Pasteur appoints the tutor, in agreement with the director of the scientific department to which the student is affiliated. The tutor serves as chair of the TAC. This role may be given to the external expert or the representative of the doctoral school (but not the advisor) by prior agreement, informing the PPU program office. In most cases, the TAC replaces the university committees taking place in other programs.

Students meet with the TAC whenever necessary, but not less than once per year. The meetings are organized by the student, in consultation with the Ph.D. advisor and the PPU program office. The first TAC meeting takes place in February of the first year. The second and third TAC meetings are programmed between October and March of subsequent academic years.

Before the meeting, the student writes a brief progress report that addresses research progress and plans, courses, publications, and any additional information pertinent to the student’s thesis, to be sent to the TAC Committee and the PPU program office at least one week before the scheduled meeting.

The meeting is organized in the following sequence:

1. A brief discussion among the members of the TAC in the absence of the student.

2. A presentation of the research progress and future plans by the student to provide an opportunity to discuss in detail the work described in the progress report.

3. The members of the TAC address questions to the student, discuss obstacles that may arise, and offer suggestions (the advisor should not participate in the discussion, unless requested).

4. A brief discussion with the student in the absence of the thesis advisor.

After the meeting, the chair writes a report on the progress and plans for the thesis. This report is sent to the PPU program office at Institut Pasteur ( [email protected] ), within one month of the date the TAC was held, preferably sooner. The PPU office submits a copy of the report to the doctoral school of the student. This report serves the purpose of updating the PPU program and the doctoral school on the student’s progress, and suggestions made by the TAC.

• Faculty/Staff
• MyMichiganTech
• Safety Data Sheets
• Website Settings
• Graduate School
• Policies and Procedures
• Degree Requirements

Committee Selection

Advisory Committee

All graduate students completing a dissertation, thesis, report, or practicum for their degree are required to have an advisory committee that meets the requirements of the Graduate School.  The advisory committee should be appointed early in the student’s residence and no later than the end of the student’s fourth academic-year semester.  

Role of the Advisory Committee

The purpose of the advisory committee is to provide the student:

• multiple independent viewpoints to guide the research,
• advice and mentoring as the student progresses towards timely completion of the degree, and
• assessment of their work.  

Master’s Advisory Committee Requirements

A master’s advisory committee consists of at least three members (including the advisor or co-advisors ). Each member must have full or associate Graduate Faculty Status. An external faculty member is not required. 

PhD Advisory Committee Requirements

A PhD advisory committee consists of at least four members (including the advisor or co-advisors ) and includes at least one external member. Each member must have full or associate Graduate Faculty Status. 

A committee member is classified as external if one of the following is true:

• They do not have an academic appointment in the student’s home department or college,
• Their academic appointment is less than 50% in the student's home department or college, or
• They are affiliated faculty in the student's home department or college, or
• They are adjunct faculty.

An advisor or co-advisor can be from outside the student’s home department or college, but cannot serve as the sole external member of the committee.

Role of the external committee member

The external member of a PhD graduate student's committee fulfills the following roles:

• provides consideration of a student's research from a perspective that might not be available if all committee members were drawn solely from the student's home department;  
• promotes cross-disciplinary scholarly collaboration;  
• serves as a liaison to the Graduate School and ensures that Graduate School policies and procedures are followed; 
• ensures that the level of research is appropriate to the student’s degree objective.   

If committee members have a close, personal relationship , none  of the faculty may be the sole external member of the advisory committee.

Appointing and changing committee members

The members of the advisory committee are recommended to the dean of the Graduate School by the graduate program using the Advisor and Committee Recommendation form .

If a committee member change is necessary, students should consult with their graduate program handbook or graduate program director to determine the procedure to follow. Once a new committee has been selected, students must submit a revised Advisor and Committee Recommendation form to the Graduate School.

Committee members without full Graduate Faculty Status must submit the appointment to Graduate Faculty Status form for each advisee.

Ensuring Independence of Opinions in Evaluation of Graduate Students

The University is committed to protecting the educational interests of students and maintaining an open and transparent environment in the evaluation of students. Faculty in close personal relationships should not be members of the same graduate student’s committee. If there are compelling reasons such that two (or more) faculty in a close personal relationship are recommended as members of a student’s committee, the relationship must be disclosed during committee formation (or when advisors are named if the co-advisors are the faculty in the relationship), a rationale for including these faculty on the committee must be included, and a   management plan   must be developed for the committee.

Related policies

Ensuring Independence of Opinions in Evaluation of Graduate Students   - Graduate School Policy

Graduate Faculty Status - Senate Policy 711.1

External Membership on Graduate Committees - Senate Proposal 40-19

Master of Science Examination Committee Members - Senate Policy 405.1

Graduate advisory committee

Doctoral Programs: Consist of a minimum of five graduate faculty members; the chair, at least two faculty members from the student’s major department/program, at least one faculty member from a department in a field related to the student’s major, and at least one Graduate School representative.

In the case of interdisciplinary graduate programs, the Graduate School Representative cannot have a primary appointment in the same department (or other appropriate major unit) as the student's committee chair. Formal approval of all student advisory committees is made by the Graduate Dean.

After a student has chosen a research advisor, he or she should consult with the advisor to form a Graduate Advisory Committee. The student should be prepared to suggest members for the committee which must have at least five members: two from each of the chemistry and physics departments (including the research advisor), and one from an outside department.

The student initiates the Declaration of Advisor/Major Advisor/Committee Chair form   and other necessary paperwork necessary to form this committee and the research advisor acts as its chairman. The committee is responsible for formally approving the student’s program of study and for administering the Oral Comprehensive Exam and the Final Oral Examination upon the completion of the research dissertation. The appointment of this committee should be accomplished no later than the beginning of the student’s third semester at the university.

Return to the Chemical Physics handbook Table of Contents

Thesis Advisory Committee

The Thesis Advisory Committee consists of 3-4 persons including the first referee of your thesis as well as your day-to-day supervisor/group leader and will be chaired by the thesis advisor. The Committee has to be formed by the student within 5 months.

TAC-Meeting

After 6, 18 and 30 months a meeting takes place, with the following agenda:

»    Title of thesis (temporary) »    Workplan »    Results »    Educational plan (lectures, summer schools, seminars, soft skills)

The meetings are organised by the student and the results are reported to the IMPRS coordinator by means of a TAC form (Download Area). The form should be taken to the meeting by the student. It is advisable to combine the 3rd meeting with an oral presentation at the „Doktorandenseminar“ ( doctoral Seminar ).

If the project start is unsuccessful, i.e. if  it is not expected that a PhD will be obtained, the project will be discontinued. Here you find a recommendation how a TAC-meeting should look like.

The TAC reports are important to monitor the PhD progress throughout the 3 year period and to document any unforeseen delays which are for example due to problems with instrumentation.

A report of about 5 pages text has to be written after 12 and 24 months (in English). It describes the progress and results of the PhD project and should include a workplan/timetable. It is recommended to write it in terms of a paper with a short introduction, material and methods, results and discussions including figures, tables and references. The report needs to be sent to the coordinator and assessed by the TAC committee (good progress, slow progress, insufficient progress).

If there is a delay with submitting the TAC Meeting/Report let the PCGS coordinator know in time! A short note with the reason and the new date is sufficient.

Here you find a summary and an example how a TAC-report should look like.

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.

What's the difference in responsibilities between a committee member, a co-advisor and an advisor in an PhD committee?

What are the differences in responsibilities among them? Can anybody give me an example to elucidate that. Also why are non-tenured faculty more interested in a co-adviser role than a committee member role?

• research-process

2 Answers 2

The advisor is the person who is formally recognized as the person most responsible for supervising the student's thesis research. A co-advisor is a person who also works with the doctoral candidate, but often in a secondary role (perhaps providing scientific but not financial support, for instance).

In my own case, for instance, I had two advisors who were fully equal in both supervising the research and supporting it financially. However, formally one of them had to be in charge of the thesis research—I believe they decided it by a coin flip.

The thesis committee is a body that convenes only sporadically (although sometimes on a regular schedule) to ensure that a doctoral candidate is progressing according to expectations. The committee—which usually includes the advisor and several other faculty members (or other advisors)—is also usually responsible for deciding when a candidate is ready to schedule a defense of the thesis and graduate.

As you can see, this is a very different role than a co-advisor, who takes on a much more active role in supervising and guiding the doctoral candidate's work. While a thesis committee member rarely is a co-author on a paper with the candidate, a co-advisor often will be. Consequently, it's much more useful for a faculty member to be a co-advisor than simply a committee member. (The latter role will not carry anywhere near as much "credit" toward a tenure case as being an advisor or a co-advisor.)

• @aeiesmail ,i am just afraid my PhD advisor might think i am trying to promote my MS advisor by bringing her in as an co-adviser. –  user14285 Commented Apr 18, 2014 at 21:23
• My experience was similar, in that I had two supervisors who were equal in terms of input. Rather than forcing one of them to be a co-supervisor, the institution allows them to share the role, and share the credit, equally. Incidentally, my chair (our word for committee member) also occasionally acted as a third supervisor as his area of expertise was also helpful to my thesis. –  Jangari Commented Apr 19, 2014 at 2:36
• @user14285: If you're only going to consult with your MS advisor sporadically, he need only be a thesis committee member. If he's going to be a co-author, then he should probably be a co-advisor as well. –  aeismail Commented Apr 19, 2014 at 12:32

This breakdown of the different roles comes from the University of Melbourne:

Principal supervisor (i.e. advisor) An appropriately qualified person who takes primary responsibility for the academic supervision of a candidate’s research and candidature

Co-supervisor (co-advisor) An appropriately qualified person designated to assist in the academic supervision of a candidate's research and candidature

Advisory committee chair (committee member) A registered principal supervisor in the administrative department of the candidate who is neither a supervisor of the candidate nor associated with the research project and who is appointed to oversee the advisory committee

In committee meetings (12 month confirmation, 2 year review, etc.) the chair organises the paperwork, basically. They are also there if the candidate needs to confide about their supervisors and potentially make a complaint if one of the supervisors' actions is unethical, or if there is some kind of professional or personal issue between them and the candidate.

As to your second question, I would suggest that non-tenured staff/faculty would push to be a co-adviser rather than committee member, because it raises their supervisory profile whereas being a committee member is really just a bureaucratic position. When applying for tenure-track positions, employers will look at the theses that the person has supervised or co-supervised, in addition to a range of other things, obviously.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged phd research-process advisor ..

• Featured on Meta
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process
• Upcoming initiatives on Stack Overflow and across the Stack Exchange network...
• We spent a sprint addressing your requests — here’s how it went

Hot Network Questions

• Reorder for smallest largest prefix sum
• What was the purpose of the SCAN commands on the Intel 8272 / NEC μPD765 floppy disk controllers?
• What is the meaning of the "Super 8 - Interactive Teaser" under "EXTRAS" in Portal 2?
• What are good reasons for declining to referee a manuscript that hasn't been posted on arXiv?
• Can I cause a star to go supernova by altering the four fundamental forces?
• Mass driver - reducing required length using loop?
• How can I handle an ambitious colleague, promoted ahead of me, that is self-serving and not that great at his job?
• Fourier series using DFT
• What does "as to" mean in "to request to be quiet, **as to** start (a meeting)"
• Are Windows ReFS file-level snapshots what File History should have been?
• Is the XOR of hashes a good hash function?
• The Zentralblatt asked me to review a worthless paper, what to do?
• How to add personal lines to a language syntax?
• Formula for bump function
• What concretely does it mean to "do mathematics in a topos X"?
• Why does "They be naked" use the base form of "be"?
• What sort of security does Docusign provide?
• Would human-shaped sperm cells work?
• Interesting Weighted Sum over Even Fibonacci Numbers
• Is it worth it to apply to jobs that have over 100 applicants or have been posted for few days?
• Why can THHN/THWN go in Schedule 40 PVC but NM cable (Romex) requires Schedule 80?
• When can widening conversions cause problems?
• Why not use computers to evaluate strength of players?
• Can't select an aura component in autolaunched flow

PhD advisory committee

Formation of the dissertation advisory committee, basic requirements for the dissertation proposal, preparation for the dissertation proposal, expected form and contents of the dissertation proposal, requirements of and procedures for the approval of the dissertation proposal.

Within one month of successful completion of the comprehensive examination, the dissertation advisory committee for the PhD student should be formed.

The Advisory Committee will normally have three or four members. At least two members of the committee must have majority appointments in SERS (at least one of whom must be a non-supervising member). At least one non-supervising member must be external to SERS, and is referred to as the “internal-external” member. If the Supervisor does not have a regular appointment at the University of Waterloo, then the Advisory Committee must include a Co-supervisor who has a majority appointment in SERS. Note that each member of the Advisory Committee must have a University of Waterloo appointment (be “a member of the university”) for the purposes of meeting the defence committee requirements. Adjunct professor status at UW qualifies.

The advisor or co-advisor/student are responsible for submitting the PhD Advisory Committee Approval Form (DOCX) to the Graduate Program Administrator. The committee must be approved by the Associate Chair, Graduate Studies of SERS and the Associate Dean, Graduate Studies.

Each student must prepare and gain committee approval for a dissertation proposal following successful completion of the comprehensive examination, and no later than the end of their second year (sixth term) in the program.

The dissertation advisory committee will be responsible for guiding proposal development and for reviewing and approving the completed proposal. The expected form and contents of the proposal and the procedures for the committee review and approval are set out below.

Before approving the proposal in cases where the proposed dissertation research depends significantly on texts and/or interviews and/or other communication in a language other than English, the dissertation advisory committee must determine whether the candidate has sufficient proficiency in that language. If the candidate does not have sufficient proficiency in the view of the committee, the committee must prescribe suitable means for the candidate to achieve the necessary proficiency for the particular circumstances of the case. This may include requirements to take formal courses at the University and/or special training courses at the research location.

Upon formal approval of the proposal by the dissertation advisory committee, the candidate proceeds to the research and writing of the dissertation. In the absence of mitigating circumstances, candidates who fail to win approval for their thesis dissertation proposal within the established time frame will be required to leave the program. In cases where the candidate’s research agenda changes significantly following the proposal defence, the dissertation advisory committee will determine whether a revised proposal must be prepared and defended.

Preparation of the dissertation proposal is the responsibility of the candidate but is to be guided by the dissertation advisory committee. A key early step, therefore, is establishment of that committee.

In preparation for drafting the dissertation proposal, the candidate should, in addition to discussions with their advisor(s), meet with the full dissertation advisory committee to discuss the dissertation agenda and other key matters to be addressed in the proposal. The committee should attempt to ensure reasonable clarity and agreement about expectations for the proposal, beyond the general expectations set out below.

The dissertation proposal is expected to:

• set out the main purposes, scope and focus of the dissertation research and the core question or questions that the dissertation will attempt to answer;
• outline the intellectual context within which the research will be situated, including the literatures immediately relevant to the dissertation agenda;
• show how the proposed work fits with and aims to contribute to the broader contexts of transdisciplinary research and concerns related to the sustainability of socio-ecological systems;
• outline the practical context of the research, including as appropriate the major ecological, social, economic, cultural, institutional and other aspects, and their interrelations;
• outline the main anticipated contributions to knowledge, and the grounds for expecting that the contributions will be significant and original;
• outline the methodology, including justification for the chosen research methods;
• identify and provide justification for the basic form of dissertation presentation to be used (the standard monograph option or the manuscript option – see the explanations provided in the general guide to the SERS PhD Program); and
• provide a timeline for completion of the dissertation.

The proposal does not have to address these items in the order adopted above.

The length of the proposal document is not limited, but 10,000 words should be sufficient and the document should not in ordinary circumstances exceed 15,000 words.

The student will provide the complete proposal to the members of the advisory committee. The student's advisor will convene a meeting of the full advisory committee. At this meeting, members of the committee will have an opportunity to seek clarification from the student and to offer suggestions. If the committee decides that the proposal is satisfactory, then the members will sign the form Dissertation Proposal Approval Form and the student will be authorized to proceed. In the event that the proposal is deemed unsatisfactory, the student will be required to make revisions in a timely fashion. A subsequent committee meeting to consider the revised proposal is needed only in cases where substantial changes were required. Regardless of whether or not a further meeting is held, the advisor is responsible for ensuring that the Dissertation Proposal Approval Form is signed by the committee members.

A completed copy of the "Dissertation Proposal Approval Form" will be kept in the student's file.

Major Professor and Advisory Committee - Mechanical Engineering - Purdue University

Major Professor and Advisory Committee

Major professor.

All graduate students are required to select a Major Professor who acts as the Chair of their Advisory Committee and who agrees to supervise the student’s graduate study, research and thesis preparation, if applicable. The Major Professor must be a Mechanical Engineering faculty member.

All students are assigned a temporary advisor when admitted to the ME graduate program. Students can consult with their temporary advisor and other faculty to determine a major professor, but should choose a Major Professor (from ME) before the end of their first semester and identify them on their plan of study (POS ).

Those who are employed as a research assistant by ME work under the supervision of the faculty member(s) associated with that project. Major Professors are the faculty members supervising the research. When a student accepts a research assistantship the student also accepts the faculty offering the assistantship as the Major Professor. 

Students may have a Major Professor who serves as the Chair of their Advisory Committee, or they may have two Co-chairs who share equally in the advisory role as Major Professors. Students cannot have a Chair and a Co-chair.

Advisory Committee

Members of the Advisory Committee are to assist the student in the preparation of the POS and to offer advice on graduate work, including research and thesis preparation.  Selection of the Advisory Committee members is done in consultation with the Major Professor, but the student should seek consent of all of the desired faculty members who are requested to serve on the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee is formally established when the POS is submitted by the student and approved by the Purdue Graduate School.

All persons serving on the Advisory Committee of students must be regular or special graduate faculty, i.e., certified by the Graduate School to serve on the committees of graduate students.

Students may also include non-Purdue academics (faculty at other Universities), scientists at national labs, or researchers in industry, but they require prior approval from the Graduate School in the form of a certification as special graduate faculty (see below). Please keep in mind the Grad School policy that at least 51% of the advisory committee has to be composed of ‘R1’ appointments.

Request Approval of a Special Faculty Appointment: The Major Professor (not the outside person) must send the completed Special Faculty Appointment Form , to the ME Grad Office requesting special faculty certification with a clear justification for the specific expertise that the outside member brings to the student’s research, in addition to an electronic version of the complete vita for the outside person being considered. This request must be submitted in one transaction. Do not ask the outside person to submit information directly to the Graduate Office. This should be done by the ME professor.

Master’s Advisory Committee

Thesis Option:  Consists of at least 3 members:

• Major Professor (from ME)
• Another professor who is interested in the student’s major field (usually from ME)
• 3rd Professor representing a related area (usually, but not necessarily, from outside ME).
• Students with Co-chairs need to select only one other member to complete the 3-member Advisory Committee.

Non-thesis Option:

• Consists of at least one faculty member from the school of Mechanical Engineering.

PhD and Direct PhD Advisory Committees

Consists of at least 4 members:

• Two other professors who are interested in the student’s major field (usually from ME)
• At least 1 member of the Advisory Committee (in addition to the Chair or one of the Co-Chairs) must be a ME faculty member at the Purdue West Lafayette campus
• Fourth professor representing a related area and required to be from outside ME.
• Students with Co-chairs need to select at least two other members to complete the 4-member Advisory Committee.

IUPUI-West Lafayette Cooperative PhD Program Advisory Committee

• Must be co-chaired by one ME faculty member from Purdue West Lafayette campus and one ME faculty member from IUPUI campus, who serve as Major Professors.
• At least 2 members of the Advisory Committee (including a Co-Chair must be ME faculty at the Purdue West Lafayette campus.
• One committee member must be from a department/school outside of ME (can be from Purdue West Lafayette or IUPUI); can be from non-Purdue academics, scientists at national labs, or researchers in industry.  (See special faculty appointment information , above.)

Changing the Advisory Committee

Requests for changes in the Advisory Committee are made electronically through myPurdue, by submitting a change to your POS .  Each request for a change should have a comment added on the POS as to the reason for the change.  The change request will need to be approved by the member(s) whose status is affected by the request, the Major Professor, the POS Coordinator, the Graduate Chair and Grad School.

ME Graduate Office 516 Northwestern Ave. (4th floor of Wang Hall) West Lafayette, IN 47906 [email protected] (765) 494-5730 Virtual office hours available every Tues/Wed/Thurs

• Graduate Programs
• Undergraduate Programs
• Schedule a tour
• Strategic Research Areas
• Research Groups, Centers and Labs
• Undergraduate Research Opportunities
• Executive Leadership
• Administrative Staff
• Faculty Awards and Honors
• Resources and Groups for ECE Women
• ECE Advisory Council
• ECE Connections
• Giving Opportunities
• Ways to Give
• Academic Support
• Financial Support
• Mental Health Resources
• Experience and Employment
• Undergraduate Services
• Graduate Services and Activities

Ph.D. Advisor/Committee Chair and Special Committee Minor Selection

Advisor / committee chair selection.

• All ECE Ph.D. Students are encouraged to make their formal selection of their Advisor / Committee Chair from the members of the ECE Graduate Field Faculty by the end of their first semester of enrollment.
• All ECE Ph.D. Students are required to make their formal selection of their Advisor / Committee Chair from the members of the ECE Graduate Field Faculty by the end of their first year of enrollment, in order to be considered making the necessary academic progress as determined by the Field.
• The Advisor / Committee Chair must be a member of the ECE Graduate Field Faculty.
• ECE Ph.D. Students must nominate their Advisor / Committee Chair via the Student Center . ( https://studentcernter.cornell.edu/ )

Minor Committee Membership Selection

Special Committee Membership will consist of Three (3) Faculty Members. The First will be the Advisor / Committee Chair. The Second Two will be considered the Minor Committee Members of the Committee.

• The Advisor / Committee Chair must be selected from the ECE Graduate Field Faculty membership
• The Two Minor Members may be selected from any of the current Cornell Graduate Faculty.
• ECE PhD Students must nominate their Advisor / Committee Chair and Minor Committee Members via the Student Center . ( https://studentcernter.cornell.edu/ )

The selection of the Two Minor Members and the completion of the Special Committee Membership nominations must be done no later than the end of the Third Semester of Enrollment.

Choosing a Minor / Selection of Minor Committee Members

All Ph.D. Students at Cornell are required to participate in Two Minors that will be overseen by the Two Minor Members of the Special Committee. They will each represent the Field and its requirements to satisfy the Minor.

Go here to view or download a list of all Cornell Graduate Fields and their subsequent Concentrations . 

In ECE, many Ph.D. Students will opt to nominate an ECE Graduate Field Faculty Member as one of their Minor Members, representing the Field ECE on their Special Committee. (Note, this is not a requirement, but it is fairly common.)

Choosing a Concentration in ECE

When selecting an ECE Graduate Field Faculty Member to serve as a Minor Member on a Special Committee, Ph.D. Students will also need to select which specific Concentration within ECE they will represent. 

The four Concentrations available for ECE are: 

• Computer Engineering
• Electrical Engineering
• Electrophysics
• Electrical Systems

Since ECE is such a broad field, in many cases, the Concentration of Electrical Engineering is one of the most commonly chosen. 

Satisfying the Minor Requirements

Since all Ph.D. Students are required to have Two (2) Minor Members as part of their Special Committee, which means that the Minor Requirements for each of the Two (2) Graduate Fields of each Minor Member must be specifically satisfied.

Students will need to inquire from the Faculty Members that they ask to join their Special Committee as Minor Members what their requirements are in order to effectively satisfy the Minor for each of their Graduate Fields.

There is no level of consistency in the ways that Minor Requirements are to be satisfied. They are “Field specific,” in that they are determined by each individual Graduate Field. Some have very specific requirements that must be adhered so, while others leave the requirements up to the judgment of the Faculty Member themselves. After speaking to the Faculty Member, it is advised to contact the Graduate Field directly as well, in order to be certain.

In many cases, the Minor Requirements will consist of specific courses that will need to be taken and a particular Letter Grade that must be earned as a result in each course.

Be aware that the Graduate Field of ECE has no specific Minor Requirements. The Minor Requirements are left up to the individual Faculty Member to determine what is most appropriate in each individual student’s case and what should be done to satisfy the Minor.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to main navigation

Committee and Defense

Announcement of oral exam.

The student's GPD or department administrative staff is responsible for submitting an  Announcement of Oral Exam  at least 10 days prior to the defense date. It is advisable to submit earlier to ensure that the committee composition is approved and that the student's audit meets requirements prior to the defense (and with ample time to make changes if necessary.) Please review the information below before submitting.  *This form has been updated with a new link as of 9/16/2022.

Defense Requirements

Students must abide by  semester deadlines  set by the Dissertation and Thesis Office to determine when to defend their dissertation or thesis. While defenses are typically conducted in person, some departments may approve virtual defenses. It is up to the student and their chair to communicate with committee members to establish a defense date and time that works for all members that falls  before or on  the defense deadline date for the semester. Beyond this, the Graduate Schools leaves defense requirements up to individual departments.

Committee Requirements

Committee members must be Baylor  graduate  faculty as documented with the Graduate School.   Teaching graduate courses does not ensure that faculty are officially graduate faculty, which entails a nomination and approval process by the faculty's department GPD and the Dean of the Graduate School. Students and chairs should confirm that all members are graduate faculty prior to the submission of the Announcement of Oral Exam form. You can  search graduate faculty here . The only exception is for additional committee members beyond the minimum requirements listed below.

Dissertation Committee Composition

Please see the Graduate Catalog for a full description of  dissertation committee requirements . The basic composition is as follows:

• A committee chairperson who is graduate faculty from the student's department
• Another committee member who is graduate faculty from the student's department
• A committee member who is graduate faculty from a Baylor department other than the student's home department (a "Baylor outside reader")
• A committee member that may be graduate faculty from the student's department, graduate faculty from another department, or faculty from another institution as approved by the committee chair and the department GPD

Please note that having a committee member from another institution does not satisfy the requirement of having a Baylor faculty member from a different department. Students may have more than four committee members after the above requirements are met.

Thesis Committee Composition

Please see the Graduate Catalog for a full description of  thesis committee requirements . The basic composition is as follows:

Students may include additional committee members, including members from other institutions, after the above requirements are met.

Baylor Graduate School

Baylor Graduate School Morrison Hall, Suite 200 One Bear Place #97264 Waco, TX 76798-7264

• General Information
• Academics & Research
• Administration
• Gateways for ...
• About Baylor
• Give to Baylor
• Pro Futuris
• Social Media
• College of Arts & Sciences
• Diana R. Garland School of Social Work
• George W. Truett Theological Seminary
• Graduate School
• Hankamer School of Business
• Honors College
• Louise Herrington School of Nursing
• Research at Baylor University
• Robbins College of Health and Human Sciences
• School of Education
• School of Engineering & Computer Science
• School of Music
• University Libraries, Museums, and the Press
• More Academics
• Compliance, Risk and Safety
• Human Resources
• Marketing and Communications
• Office of General Counsel
• Office of the President
• Office of the Provost
• Operations, Finance & Administration
• Senior Administration
• Student Life
• University Advancement
• Undergraduate Admissions
• Graduate Admissions
• Baylor Law School Admissions
• Social Work Graduate Programs
• George W. Truett Theological Seminary Admissions
• Online Graduate Professional Education
• Virtual Tour
• Visit Campus
• Alumni & Friends
• Faculty & Staff
• Prospective Faculty & Staff
• Prospective Students
• Anonymous Reporting
• Annual Fire Safety and Security Notice
• Cost of Attendance
• Digital Privacy
• Legal Disclosures
• Mental Health Resources
• Web Accessibility

• Meet our Team
• Academic Affairs Mission and Goals
• Accreditation
• Centers and Institutes
• Research and Creative Activity
• Communications
• Course Development
• Program and Unit Development
• Course, Laboratory, Miscellaneous Fee Proposals
• Education Policy Advisory Committee
• General Education and Dual Enrollment
• Student Learning Outcomes
• Assessment Committee
• Assessment Resources
• Academic Program Review
• Academic Planning Council
• General Education Assessment
• Center for Faculty Excellence
• Faculty Senate

Faculty Advisory Committee

• Faculty Development Fellowships
• Faculty Evaluation and Advancement
• Faculty Credentials
• Faculty Workload Policy
• Faculty Searches and Recruitment
• Collective Bargaining Agreement 2023-25
• American Association of University Professors (AAUP)
• Documents and Resources
• President's Excellence Awards
• University Awards
• Faculty Awards
• Staff Awards
• Student Honors Convocation
• UNO Chapter of Phi Kappa Phi
• Global Engagement
• Community Engagement
• Academic Communities
• Office of National Scholarships and Fellowships
• Initiatives

A Culture of Belonging

The Faculty Advisory Committee focuses on building a culture of belonging for and among faculty at UNO.

It is comprised of a diverse group of faculty representatives who are actively engaged in developing strategies for an inclusive and equitable working environment.

The committee works closely with the Office of Academic Affairs and is charged with identifying and prioritizing faculty recruitment and retention initiatives and establishing action plans for the campus.

Early on, the committee identified six focal areas:

• Faculty searches and recruitment
• Faculty retention, campus climate, and workplace environment
• Lived experiences of faculty in the community
• Supporting faculty in working with students from underrepresented groups
• Faculty leadership and professional development
• Faculty advancement and recognition

• Calendar Policies
• Virtual Events
• Other Calendars
• 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

Thesis Defense: Emma Letourneau

Recurring dates.

• Jul. 29, 2024, 1pm to 3pm

Campus Location

Office/remote location, description.

Emma Letourneau, M.S. Candidate

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Carbon dioxide adsorption capacities of unmodified biochar derived from the great basin desert ecosystem

Committee Members: 

• Jaeyun Moon, Ph.D., Advisory Committee Chair
• Kwang Kim, Ph.D., Advisory Committee Co-Chair
• Brendan O'Toole, Ph.D., Advisory Committee Member 
• Erica Marti, Ph.D., Graduate College Representative

Admission Information

This event is free and open to the public

Contact Information

External sponsor.

Ohio State nav bar

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Find People
• Search Ohio State
• Search  

Amy Ferketich named associate dean of academic and student affairs

Longtime Buckeye brings passion for academics, student experience to new role

Professor  Amy Ferketich has been named The Ohio State University College of Public Health’s associate dean of academic and student affairs. Ferketich, who joined the Ohio State faculty in 2003, is a leading voice in the field of tobacco control and brings “a passion for academic programming, teaching and the student experience” to her new role, said Interim Dean Karla Zadnik. 

“I’m really looking forward to working with college leadership, faculty and staff on new academic initiatives and expanding current academic initiatives. I enjoy thinking about the possibilities for academic programming and how to work with students to make sure they have the best possible experience at Ohio State and the College of Public Health,” Ferketich said.

“ Two of my mentors, people who have been very important to me in my academic career, have worked in this role, Michael Bisesi and R.J. “Jeff” Caswell. I feel honored to have been named as the next associate dean of academic and student affairs.”

Ferketich began her new role July 15. 

Ferketich served as the first undergraduate studies chair in 2012 when the college launched the Bachelor of Science in Public Health degree program. During her term, she helped develop the undergraduate epidemiology minor and rolled out the combined BSPH/MPH program. She also worked with Gail Kaye, associate dean for undergraduate studies and assessment, to start and co-direct the CPH honor’s program.

Ferketich also served as the college’s graduate studies chair when the university switched from quarters to semesters in 2012, a massive undertaking that involved curriculum and course redesign. Later, as a faculty fellow at the Graduate School, she worked with colleagues across the university to develop learning outcomes and to design and implement program assessments for graduate programs.

When Ohio State began a major overhaul of its general education curriculum in 2017, Ferketich served on two university-wide committees focused on general education planning and course review. She also served on two Graduate School committees: the Advisory Committee and the Awards Committee. 

Ferketich led the development of the college’s public health and the arts interdisciplinary minor, an innovative program that opens students’ eyes to a different way of thinking about community well-being.

Ferketich is a recipient of the College of Public Health’s Excellence in Teaching Award, the university’s Distinguished Undergraduate Research Mentor Award and the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Spotlight Mentor Recognition.

More news stories

*****      

About The Ohio State University College of Public Health

The Ohio State University College of Public Health is a leader in educating students, creating new knowledge through research, and improving the livelihoods and well-being of people in Ohio and beyond. The College's divisions include biostatistics, environmental health sciences, epidemiology, health behavior and health promotion, and health services management and policy. It is ranked 29 th  among all colleges and programs of public health in the nation, and first in Ohio, by  U.S. News and World Report. Its specialty programs are also considered among the best in the country. The MHA program is ranked 8 th , the biostatistics specialty is ranked 22 nd , the epidemiology specialty is ranked 25 th and the health policy and management specialty is ranked 17 th .

• CEPH Report for Accreditation 2017-2024
• CPH Competencies Surveys

Faculty and Staff

• Faculty and Staff Resources
• Emergency and Safety Information

News and Communications

• News and Events
• Website Feedback

© 2024 College of Public Health            250 Cunz Hall, 1841 Neil Ave.            Columbus, OH 43210            Phone: 614-292-8350            Contact Admissions             Request an alternate format of this page             Privacy Policy

• Dean's Message
• Mission, Vision and Values
• Diversity, Equity and Inclusive Excellence
• Strategic Plan
• Undergraduate Programs
• Graduate Programs
• Office of Academic Programs and Student Services
• Biostatistics
• Environmental Health Sciences
• Epidemiology
• Health Behavior and Health Promotion
• Health Services Management and Policy
• Health Outcomes and Policy Evaluation Studies
• Center for Public Health Practice
• Information Sessions
• BSPH + MPH in 5 years
• Dual/Combined Degrees
• Minors/ Specializations/ Certificates
• Bachelor of Science in Public Health
• Master of Public Health
• Master of Health Administration
• Master of Science
• Doctor of Philosophy
• Student Forms and Resources
• Minors / Specializations / Certificates
• Competencies
• Course Descriptions
• Scholarships
• Student Organizations
• Advising and Student Services
• CPH Graduate Student Handbook
• Curriculum Guides
• MPH Applied Practice Experience
• MPH Integrative Learning Experience
• MHA Administrative Residency
• CPH Undergraduate Student Handbook
• Internships and Research
• Education Abroad
• Career Development
• Public Health Career Paths
• Career Events
• Career Resources
• Employer Resources
• Dean’s Thought Leader Series
• Public Health Buckeyes
• Media Requests

• Moscow Oblast
•  » 
• Elektrostal

State Housing Inspectorate of the Moscow Region

Phone 8 (496) 575-02-20 8 (496) 575-02-20

Phone 8 (496) 511-20-80 8 (496) 511-20-80

Public administration near State Housing Inspectorate of the Moscow Region

Get the Reddit app

A subreddit for those who enjoy learning about flags, their place in society past and present, and their design characteristics

The flag of Elektrostal, Moscow Oblast, Russia which I bought there during my last visit

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Eastern Europe
• Moscow Oblast

Elektrostal

Elektrostal Localisation : Country Russia , Oblast Moscow Oblast . Available Information : Geographical coordinates , Population, Area, Altitude, Weather and Hotel . Nearby cities and villages : Noginsk , Pavlovsky Posad and Staraya Kupavna .

Information

Find all the information of Elektrostal or click on the section of your choice in the left menu.

• Update data

Elektrostal Demography

Information on the people and the population of Elektrostal.

Elektrostal Geography

Geographic Information regarding City of Elektrostal .

Elektrostal Distance

Distance (in kilometers) between Elektrostal and the biggest cities of Russia.

Elektrostal Map

Locate simply the city of Elektrostal through the card, map and satellite image of the city.

Elektrostal Nearby cities and villages

Elektrostal Weather

Weather forecast for the next coming days and current time of Elektrostal.

Elektrostal Sunrise and sunset

Find below the times of sunrise and sunset calculated 7 days to Elektrostal.

Elektrostal Hotel

Our team has selected for you a list of hotel in Elektrostal classified by value for money. Book your hotel room at the best price.

Elektrostal Nearby

Below is a list of activities and point of interest in Elektrostal and its surroundings.

Elektrostal Page

• Information /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#info
• Demography /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#demo
• Geography /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#geo
• Distance /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#dist1
• Map /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#map
• Nearby cities and villages /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#dist2
• Weather /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#weather
• Sunrise and sunset /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#sun
• Hotel /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#hotel
• Nearby /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#around
• Page /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#page
• Terms of Use
• Copyright © 2024 DB-City - All rights reserved
• Change Ad Consent Do not sell my data

The Migration Observatory informs debates on international migration and public policy. Learn more about us

• Publications
• Press & Commentary

Home / publications / commentaries /

UK election 2024: immigration policy tracker

28 May 2024

This table compares statements on immigration policy made by the Conservative Party and Labour Party ahead of the 2024 election. It covers both visas and the asylum system and will be updated as the election campaign progresses.

The table includes statements about policy that our team has been able to identify as of 2nd July 2024. Note that some sources are older than others and may be changed or superseded by new ones. Readers can send any additional sources to [email protected]

Asylum and migration enforcement policies compared

Legal migration policies compared.

Press Contact

If you would like to make a press enquiry, please contact:

+ 44 (0)7500 970081 [email protected]

Browse all analysis

View all briefings, primers, commentaries and reports

 Contact Us 

General Enquiries

T: +44 (0) 1865 612 375 E: [email protected]

Press Enquiries

T: +44 (0)7500 970 081 E: [email protected]

• Newsletter sign up
• Follow us on twitter
• Like us on facebook
• Watch us on vimeo

 Connections 

This Migration Observatory is kindly supported by the following organisations.

• Accessibility
• Privacy Policy & Cookies

The Migration Observatory, at the University of Oxford COMPAS (Centre on Migration, Policy and Society) University of Oxford, 58 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 6QS

• © 2024 The Migration Observatory
• Website by REDBOT

To provide the best possible experience, this website uses cookies. By clicking 'Accept All' you accept our use of cookies.

Necessary Cookies

Necessary cookies are always on and are required to enable core functionality such as secure login. They don't contain personally identifiable data.

Analytical Cookies

Analytical cookies help us understand how visitors interact with our website, providing metrics such as the number of visitors and page views.