committee in phd

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

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

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Update

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

Internet Explorer Detected

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

Guidelines and Best Practices for Doctoral Committees

•  /  Graduate Program Resources
•  /  Faculty and Staff
•  /  Guidelines and Best Practices for Doctoral Committees

GCAC-602 Ph.D. Committee Formation, Composition, and Review - Research Doctorate

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

GCAC-702 Professional Doctoral Committee Composition - Professional Doctorate

GCAC-703 Professional Doctoral Committee Responsibilities - Professional Doctorate

Guidelines and Best Practices

Committee appointment.

The policies guiding committee appointments are GCAC-602 for the research doctorate and GCAC-702 for professional doctorates. As stated in both policies, doctoral committees should be formed in the best interest of the student .

The graduate program head 1 nominates members of the doctoral committee to the Graduate School and is expected to ensure that the committee composition is appropriate. When forming the committee, the student should consult with their adviser to identify committee members who will be able to provide valuable input to the student’s research and represent a diversity of thought and independent opinions. To ensure that committees function appropriately, program heads should take the following into account when evaluating the appointment of proposed committee members.

• All members or a majority of members are current collaborators on a research project.
• All members have a recent (within 5 years) history of professional collaboration.
• The chair and/or adviser is a senior faculty member, and all other members are pre-tenured faculty members.
• Members have personal relationships that might affect committee functioning (e.g. spouses, family members).
• Each committee member should be available to serve as a resource for the student, independent of the chair and/or the adviser. Every committee member should be able to provide valuable insight and advice to students on their project.
• The dissertation adviser does not have to be the committee chair. There can be benefits to separating out these two roles. Refer to GCAC-602 and GCAC-702 for descriptions of these roles and their responsibilities.
• The Outside Unit Member be a tenured professor at the rank of associate professor or above.
• The Outside Unit Member should not have an established budgetary or collaborative relationship with other members of the committee.
• There should be at most one Special Member on a doctoral committee. The Special Member does not necessarily need to hold a Ph.D. degree and may have other expertise that brings a unique perspective to the committee.

Changes to Committee Membership

According to policies GCAC-602 and GCAC-702 , program heads should review committee membership annually to ensure that all members continue to qualify for service in their designated roles. It is recommended that program heads also review committee membership at least 3-6 months prior to benchmark examinations to ensure that any necessary changes can be made to the committee membership in advance. Last minute changes to doctoral committee membership are not in the student’s best interest. Refer to GCAC-602 and GCAC-702 for the procedures to follow when committee members retire or leave the university.

In cases where there are problems involving doctoral committees, program heads have unilateral authority to make changes to the committee to improve committee functioning and in the best interests of the student . Reasons program heads may need to do so include:

• Personal conflicts among committee members that are not resolvable and that hinder the student’s progress.
• Scholarly or academic disagreements among the committee members. The committee’s opinion in assessing the student does not need to be unanimous and committee members can disagree. However, the program head should consider replacing committee members if scholarly disagreements within the committee reach a point where they are interfering with the student’s progress.

Committee Responsibilities

The policies guiding committee responsibilities are GCAC-603 for the research doctorate and GCAC-703 for professional doctorates.

Annual meetings with the student and the full doctoral committee to review the student’s progress are strongly encouraged. If that is not possible, each member of the committee is strongly encouraged to meet individually with the student at least once per academic year to review and give the student feedback on their progress. Students should feel free to contact all members of the doctoral committee for advice, guidance, and input.

Note that according to policy, committee members must alert the committee chair at least one week in advance of the final oral examination date if there are concerns about proceeding with the examination . Thus, to avoid problems with the final oral examination, doctoral committee members should review the dissertation or written component of the professional doctoral culminating experience at least one week before the exam will be held to assess whether there are serious concerns with the written document that would preclude continuing with the oral examination. GCAC-607 Dissertation and GCAC-707 Professional Doctoral Culminating Experience - Professional Doctorate outline the Process to follow in these cases.

Conflicts of Interest

Anyone concerned about conflicts of interest in the functioning of a doctoral committee is encouraged to report their concerns to the graduate program head; this includes the student, the adviser, and any doctoral committee member. In cases where the conflict of interest involves the graduate program head, these issues should be reported to the Associate Dean for graduate education in the college.

1 If the program head has appointed a Director of Graduate Studies (DGS), then that person is delegated authority to sign on behalf of the program head wherever the program head’s signature is necessary; see GCAC-101 P2 - Graduate Program Roles and Responsibilities .

Further Information

Revision history.

• Added Conflicts of Interest section. Updated references to professional doctorate policies with the new policy numbers and links. Added a reference to GCAC-101 P2 - Graduate Program Roles and Responsibilities.
• New guidelines.

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

Guidelines for Forming Ph.D. Committee

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

Timeframe for Establishing Committees

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

Committee Members

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

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

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

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

Advice on How to Form the Committee

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

Graduate Advising

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

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)

All about Ph.D. committee meetings

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

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

What is a committee? 

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

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

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

What is the point of a committee meeting? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are committee meetings exams?

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

Do they judge my progress?

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

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

How do I choose who should be on my committee?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anything else?

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

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

Enjoy reading ASBMB Today?

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

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

Related articles

Featured jobs.

from the ASBMB career center

Get the latest from ASBMB Today

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

Latest in Careers

Careers highlights or most popular articles.

Industry partnership opportunities

The deadline for these is May 31.

Let’s make ASBMB awardees look more like BMB scientists

Think about nominating someone outside your immediate network.

Calendar of events, awards and opportunities

It's time to vote in the society's election, and time's running out to nominate colleagues for the ASBMB annual awards.

Apply for our Advocacy Training Program by April 19. Plus, submit your entry for molecule of the year!

So, you went to a conference. Now what?

Once you return to normal lab life, how can you make use of everything you learned?

Touching the future from the bench

Scholar, scientist, teacher and mentor Odutayo Odunuga discusses the important roles of the institutional PI, his journey and his research.

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

Bethany Kotlar, PhD '24, studies how children fare when they're born to incarcerated mothers

Soccer, truffles, and exclamation points: Dean Baccarelli shares his story

Health care transformation in Africa highlighted at conference

COVID, four years in

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

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

How to Present PhD Progress Report to Doctoral Committee Members in 03 Simple Stages

As I reflect on my journey through the challenges and triumphs of presenting my PhD progress to the doctoral committee, I’m reminded of the invaluable lessons learned and the transformative experiences gained along the way.

1. Diverse Committee Composition: From the outset, the composition of the doctoral committee struck me with its diversity—comprising experts from within and outside my university, each member brought a unique perspective and wealth of knowledge to the table. Their ability to seamlessly map my research problem to their respective domains underscored the richness of their insights and the importance of their feedback in shaping the trajectory of my study.

2. Thorough Preparation: Meticulously crafting my presentation was only the first step. I realized the necessity of thorough preparation, ensuring that each slide effectively communicated my research objectives, methodology, preliminary findings, and future directions. Despite the initial nerves, I remained composed and focused, drawing upon months of dedication and hard work invested in my research.

3. Anticipating Diverse Requests: During one particularly memorable meeting, the committee members had varied requests—one member asked for a demonstration of my work, while another member wanted to delve into the intricacies of my data collection, cleaning, and wrangling process. These diverse requests underscored the importance of being prepared for any eventuality during the presentation, including the need for live demonstrations and detailed explanations of data-related processes.

4. Embracing Constructive Criticism: I welcomed the committee’s feedback with an open mind. Their constructive criticism and encouragement not only bolstered my confidence but also reignited my passion for my work. I learned to recognize the invaluable role of feedback in guiding the next steps of my research journey.

5. Displaying Previous Meeting Observations: One valuable lesson I learned along the way was the importance of displaying and addressing previous committee meeting observations in subsequent presentations. It was during my second presentation that one committee member suggested this approach, highlighting the need to showcase how suggestions were addressed and incorporated into the research progress. From that point onward, I made it a regular practice to include this information in my presentations, ensuring transparency and accountability in my research journey.

In retrospect, each PhD progress presentation was a transformative experience, shaping me into a more resilient, prepared, and adaptable researcher.

As I reflect on the journey of presenting my PhD progress, I invite you to join me in exploring the intricacies of navigating these pivotal meetings. From preparation to presentation, and from feedback to refinement, each step of the journey offers valuable insights into the art and science of doctoral progress presentations.

Introduction

Summary of plan of actions before phd progress presentation meeting, presentation tips, summary of plan of actions during phd progress presentation meeting, summary of plan of actions after phd progress presentation meeting, email template to doctoral committee members for extension or modification for the work proposed, mastering the art of oral and visual presentations for phd presentations, what should be included in the one-page summary for phd doctoral committee members, how can i effectively demonstrate a software-based project during the phd progress presentation, what level of detail should i include in the background section of my presentation, how can i ensure that there are no surprises for my supervisor during the doctoral committee meeting, what types of questions can i expect from the committee members regarding my research plan, how should i respond to suggestions and feedback given by the committee members during the meeting, under which circumstances phd progress presentation can be rejected.

The PhD Doctoral committee is constituted by the university in which the candidate has registered for PhD. The committe is there   to support and guide the research scholar  till his final thesis is submitted. The committe involves the experts in the domain of the candidate from various universities and research labs. The Committee will evaluate your progress and help to make sure that you are on track to get your dissertation within a reasonable time.

At the beginning of your research, their focus will be on making sure you have defined reasonable and achievable objectives. Later, they will help you decide when it is time to write your thesis. Finally, they will be there at your thesis seminar and defence presentations. Their support as mentors will likely continue as you move on in your career.

Doctoral committee meeting happens usually once in 06 months. Here it is expected that the research scholar has to present his  PhD progress work of the past six months. The meeting should not be felt like an exam. The outcome should be productive advice to you for your future research.

The  Presentation of  PhD Progress Report to Doctoral Committee Members happens in three stages namely: i) Before the meeting:   i.e. Once you start preparing the report for the meeting to till the meeting begins. ii) During the meeting:  i.e. From entering into the meeting hall to  till the meeting gets over and iii) After the meeting:   i.e. From the time meeting concludes to till the next six months before you really start preparing for your next meeting report.

Before the PhD Progress Presentation Meeting

Along with your supervisor go through all the comments given in the previous PhD progress doctoral committee meeting. Discuss in detail with your supervisor the work carried out for the past six months. If any issues are still pending have justification for not addressing or partially addressing those issues.

Do not hide details regarding the implementation and pending issues with your supervisor.  This actually helps the supervisor to defend you and take inputs from the committee members regarding the future course of directions.

A summary of  PhD progress and plans should be prepared and submitted to the  Doctoral committee at least one week prior to the meeting. Make sure that you have gone through the report with all grammatical corrections and plagiarism checks.

Send out the agenda to your committee members beforehand, but also remind them of the topics you want to cover before you begin the presentation. If you have any manuscripts published or accepted send your committee a copy of the same.

You should prepare a  PhD progress presentation (no more than 20 minutes without interruption) that includes a brief background of your research, objectives and the work carried out from the last presentation to till date. Without fail discuss in detail the presentation slides with your supervisor. In your presentation slides list all the previous comments and your response for each committee in the form of a table.

If you are planning to change the title of your work getting consent from the committee members is essential. Have at least    04-05 titles which you and your supervisor feel appropriate beforehand. This will ease the process of changing the title immediately in the meeting and the committee can recommend the same to the university along with regular suggestions.

The best way to ensure that your  PhD progress meeting goes smoothly is to meet individually with each committee member to discuss your results well in advance. If you cannot meet with them in person, share your results ( refer my blog on how to write result section ) over email and ask for their feedback. If there are any disagreements, resolve them before the meeting by speaking with your supervisor to ensure that the meeting goes smoothly.

During the PhD Progress Presentation Meeting

Before the start of the PhD progress presentation give copies of the one-page summary to other faculty members who are attending the session. Submit copies of the complete report to the committee members including your supervisor. No need to present details of any published work. Provide a reprint or preprint, preferably ahead of the meeting. If your work is software based then keep the demo ready. If you do not have a working module then show the video demonstration of the model. This will help the committee members to suggest future directions for your work.

During your PhD progress committee meeting, you should focus on the last six months’ work rather than the background. Only spend as much time on the background as is relevant to what you will be talking about.

There should not be any surprise slides/facts to your supervisor during your committee meeting.

At your first PhD progress Doctoral committee meeting, you will present an outline of your plan for your research. You can build a detailed description of what you plan to do ( literature survey to carry out,  algorithms or theorems to study,  experiments to carry out, software and hardware components to add, systems integration to perform, tests to accomplish ).  The plans can be represented with specific milestones and timelines with a  Gantt Chart .

Example: The sample Gantt chart below shows a set of activities planned for the next few months for the Research work. This can be extended to any length. This chart helps the committee members to know how well the researcher has planned the research activities.

At subsequent PhD progress meetings you should present a brief introduction (one or two slides) to remind the committee of your research area – don’t expect them to recall everything from the last meeting, but no need to go into great detail. Aim to put your work in context.

Show your current working objective in the form of a block diagram. This will set the boundary for the presentation and discussion. This will help the committee members to focus on the specified objective. For example in the figure below the candidate is focusing on the “Wheeled mobile Robot” objective in Robot Path Planning.

Make sure you are comfortable moving back and forth among your slides.  Do not cross the time limit. Add photographs of any field visits for data collection , or conference presentations in your presentation slides. If you had any interactions with domain experts in your area then add interaction details with a date. If you have visited any organization as a resource person relating to your Ph.D. work with your supervisor then add that details.

Seek advice from your committee members during the meeting. Note down all the suggestions by yourself or ask one of your research colleagues to note the same.  This is highly desirable, almost to the point that you should make it mandatory. Give a timeline of your plans. What will you be doing over the next month, and what do you hope to accomplish before your next meeting in the next six months’ time.

Keep additional slides along with your regular slides. Get into additional slides detail if any clarifications are sought on any equations or algorithms etc.

Additional slides can be presented as follows:

i) The equipment details you are planning to purchase or currently using for implementation.

ii) The Algorithms which you have implemented or planning to implement.

iii) The mathematical model you have developed,  or

iv) Any slides that you think are important but do not have time to cover at the end of your presentation.

Here are some tips regarding the presentation, including time management, devices, backup, laptop usage, uploading PowerPoint, video, and audio:

• Practice your presentation beforehand to ensure it fits within the allocated time.
• Use a timer or stopwatch during practice sessions to gauge your pace.
• Be mindful of the time during the actual presentation and make necessary adjustments to stay on track.
• Ensure your laptop or presentation device is in good working condition.
• Carry a backup copy of your presentation on a USB drive or cloud storage.
• Test the compatibility of your presentation files with the equipment at the presentation venue in advance.
• Close any unnecessary applications or notifications on your laptop to avoid distractions.
• Disable sleep mode or screensavers to prevent interruptions during the presentation.
• Familiarize yourself with the laptop’s function keys or shortcuts for adjusting display settings, volume, etc.
• Save your PowerPoint presentation in a compatible format (e.g., PPT or PPTX).
• Verify that all embedded media (images, videos, audio) are properly linked and functional.
• If possible, upload your presentation to the venue’s computer system before the session to avoid last-minute technical issues.
• Check the audio and video components of your presentation beforehand to ensure they work properly.
• If you plan to play a video, ensure it is in a compatible format and smoothly integrated into your presentation.
• Test the sound levels to ensure audibility for everyone in the room.

Additional tips (from personal experience):

• Rehearse your presentation multiple times to build confidence and familiarity with the material.
• Prepare cue cards or key points to refer to if needed, but avoid excessive reliance on them.
• Maintain eye contact with the audience to engage them and convey confidence.
• Speak clearly and project your voice to ensure everyone can hear you.
• Use visual aids and diagrams to enhance understanding and clarify complex concepts.
• Incorporate storytelling or real-life examples to make your presentation more engaging.
• Practice smooth transitions between slides and maintain a logical flow throughout.
• Be prepared to answer questions and engage in discussions following your presentation.

Remember, the more prepared and confident you are, the better you can deliver your presentation effectively.

After the PhD Progress Presentation Meeting

End your  PhD progress committee meeting with a summary of what you have discussed, common points that you have reached and an action plan for the next six months. Your action plan needs to have “actionable” items, specifically what milestones you will work towards after the meeting and approximate timelines.

A written summary of the  PhD progress committee meeting will be prepared by the supervisor and the committee, and that will be sent to the University. You will receive a copy of this and a copy will be placed in your research file.

Send an email note to each of your committee members through your supervisor to thank them for their time, and summarize the action items or milestones you agreed to. This will give your committee members another chance to give you feedback or suggestions.

During the meeting, you might have accepted to complete some implementation before the next meeting, but you may run out of time or you may not get any ideas regarding implementation. In such situations, have a discussion with your supervisor and the committee members and discuss the challenges faced by you. They may either extend the implementation time or ask you to change the methodology of implementation.

Simply do not wait for suggestions from committee members till the next PhD progress presentation meeting. In order to build trust between you and your committee members, you need to take committee members and your supervisor into confidence before taking any major decisions.

In the meeting, the committee might have suggested publishing your work in a quality conference or journal for better citations. Selecting a reputable journal and avoiding predatory conferences and journals is crucial for maximizing the visibility and impact of your research article.

By publishing in a respected journal, you increase the likelihood of attracting a broader and more qualified readership, thus increasing the chances of your article being cited by other researchers. Choosing the right journal involves considering factors such as the journal’s scope, target audience, impact factor, indexing in reputable databases, peer-review process, and overall reputation in the field.

Additionally, it is important to stay vigilant and avoid predatory conferences and journals that may engage in unethical practices or lack rigorous peer-review processes. These predatory outlets may hinder the credibility and recognition of your work. By carefully selecting a reputable journal, you position your research for greater exposure, credibility, and citation potential.

Visit my articles on ” How to identify and avoid predatory conferences and journals ” and “ Identifying Reputable journals for your research paper “. These articles will help you in getting your articles cited by many authors.

Here is an email template which you can communicate to your doctoral committee members in case you fail to keep the deadline or are unable to work on the ideas you proposed. Please take consent from your supervisor before sending any communication to Doctoral Committee members.

Improving both oral presentation and visual presentation skills is crucial for effective communication. To enhance your oral presentation skills, focus on aspects such as clarity, organization, and delivery. Practice speaking clearly, using appropriate tone and volume, and engaging with your audience. Additionally, consider refining your body language, utilizing effective gestures, and maintaining eye contact. For further guidance and resources on honing your oral presentation skills, you may explore reputable platforms and online courses available in this domain.

When it comes to visual presentation skills, it is essential to create visually appealing and impactful slides or visuals. Pay attention to design elements, such as color schemes, fonts, and layout, to ensure coherence and readability. Utilize visuals, such as graphs, charts, and images, to convey information effectively. Incorporate appropriate animations or transitions to enhance the flow and engagement of your presentation. To access valuable tips, techniques, and tools for enhancing your visual presentation skills, you can explore recommended platforms and tutorials available online.

If you are interested in further developing your oral presentation skills, I recommend checking out this comprehensive course on oral presentation skills . It covers essential techniques, strategies, and practical exercises to help you deliver impactful presentations confidently. Likewise, if you want to enhance your visual presentation skills, you may find this resource on v isual presentation design highly beneficial. It provides valuable insights, best practices, and examples to create visually stunning and effective presentations. Feel free to explore these resources to elevate your presentation skills and captivate your audience.

Presenting your PhD progress report to the doctoral committee can be a daunting task, but it is an essential part of your PhD journey. The committee is there to provide guidance and support, ensuring that you are on track to complete your dissertation within a reasonable time. It is crucial to approach the committee meeting with a positive attitude and view it as an opportunity to receive productive advice for your future research.

Remember that the presentation of the progress report to the committee happens in three stages: before, during, and after the meeting. The preparation of the report should be meticulous and thoughtful, and during the meeting, you should be open to constructive feedback and suggestions. After the meeting, you should take note of the committee’s recommendations and use them to shape your future research endeavours.

As you move forward in your career, the support and guidance of the doctoral committee will likely continue to be a valuable resource. By effectively presenting your progress report to the committee, you can make the most of this opportunity and receive the guidance you need to succeed in your PhD program.

Frequently Asked Questions

Research Objective: Clearly state the objective of your research and the problem you are addressing. Methodology: Provide a brief description of the methodology or approach you are using to conduct your research. Key Findings: Highlight the major findings or results you have obtained so far in your research. Progress Update: Summarize the progress you have made during the past six months, highlighting significant achievements or milestones reached. Challenges: Briefly mention any challenges or obstacles you have encountered in your research and how you are addressing them. Future Plans: Outline your planned next steps and future goals for your research, including anticipated timelines or milestones. Relevance and Impact: Discuss the relevance and potential impact of your research in your field or discipline. Support Needed: Specify any specific support, resources, or expertise you require to further advance your research.

To effectively demonstrate a software-based project during the presentation: Have the demo prepared and functional Show a video demonstration if the software is not available or requires specific conditions Focus on showcasing key features and functionalities Provide context and explain the purpose of the software

Include only the necessary level of detail in the background section of your presentation, focusing on what is directly relevant to your research and the specific objectives you will be discussing. Keep it concise and provide enough context to help the doctoral committee members to understand the significance and motivation of your work without delving into unnecessary details.

Maintain open and regular communication with your supervisor throughout the research process. Share progress updates, challenges, and findings with your supervisor in a timely manner. Discuss any potential issues or deviations from the original plan as soon as they arise. Seek feedback and guidance from your supervisor at various stages of your research. Keep your supervisor informed about any changes in methodology, data, or results. Address any concerns or questions from your supervisor before the committee meeting to align expectations.

The types of questions you can expect from committee members regarding your research plan may include: Clarification questions seeking a deeper understanding of your research objectives, methodology, or proposed experiments. Questions about the theoretical framework or literature review supporting your research. Inquiries about the feasibility and potential limitations of your proposed research. Questions related to the significance and impact of your research in the field. Suggestions for alternative approaches or methodologies to consider. Questions about the expected timeline and milestones for your research. Inquiries about potential ethical considerations or data management strategies. Questions exploring the potential implications and practical applications of your research. Requests for additional details or explanations on specific aspects of your research plan. Questions about the expected contributions of your research to the existing body of knowledge in your field.

When responding to suggestions and feedback given by the committee members during the meeting: Listen actively and attentively to understand the suggestions and feedback. Thank the committee members for their input and valuable insights. Remain open-minded and receptive to different perspectives and ideas. Clarify any points of confusion or seek further clarification, if needed. Acknowledge the validity of the suggestions and show a willingness to consider them. Provide thoughtful responses that demonstrate your understanding of the suggestions. Clearly articulate your rationale if you choose not to implement a specific suggestion. Engage in constructive discussions and ask follow-up questions, if appropriate. Demonstrate your ability to integrate feedback into your research plan or adjust your approach. Express gratitude for the committee members’ support and guidance throughout the process.

Lack of Clear Objectives: If your progress presentation fails to clearly define and articulate the objectives of your research, it may be rejected. The committee expects a clear understanding of what you aim to achieve and the significance of your research goals. Inadequate Progress: Insufficient progress made during the specified period can lead to rejection. The committee expects tangible advancements in your research within the given timeframe. If there is a lack of substantial work or limited progress, they may question the feasibility or dedication to your research. Methodological Issues: If there are flaws in your research methodology or data collection techniques, the committee may reject your progress presentation. It is essential to demonstrate a robust and well-designed research approach that aligns with the requirements of your field. Poor Presentation Skills: Your presentation skills play a crucial role in conveying your research effectively. If your presentation lacks clarity, coherence, or fails to engage the audience, it may lead to rejection. Effective communication and the ability to present complex ideas in a concise and understandable manner are vital. Inadequate Literature Review: A comprehensive literature review is expected in a progress presentation. If your review of existing literature is incomplete, lacks depth, or fails to address relevant studies, your presentation may be rejected. It is essential to showcase a thorough understanding of the existing research and its relationship to your work. Failure to Address Committee Feedback: If you neglect to incorporate previous feedback and suggestions from the committee, it may result in rejection. The committee expects you to demonstrate the ability to reflect on and address their recommendations, showing your commitment to improving your research. Remember, the specific parameters for rejection may vary depending on your academic institution and the expectations set by your doctoral committee. It is crucial to consult your supervisor and committee members for clear guidelines and expectations for your progress presentation.

Upcoming Events

• Visit the Upcoming International Conferences at Exotic Travel Destinations with Travel Plan
• Visit for  Research Internships Worldwide

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Posts

• How to End Your Academic/Research Internship?
• PhD or Industry Job? A Comprehensive Career Guide
• Post Doc Positions in India
• 04 Reasons for Outsourcing Academic Conference Management
• How to Put Research Grants on Your CV ?
• All Blog Posts
• Research Career
• Research Conference
• Research Internship
• Research Journal
• Research Tools
• Uncategorized
• Research Conferences
• Research Journals
• Research Grants
• Internships
• Research Internships
• Email Templates
• Conferences
• Blog Partners
• Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Research Voyage

Design by ThemesDNA.com

• Search This Site All UCSD Sites Faculty/Staff Search Term
• Meet the Dean
• Meet the Team
• Professors of the Graduate Division
• Funding Opportunities
• Alumni & Friends
• Prospective Students
• Degree Programs
• Requirements
• Admitted Students
• Admission FAQ
• Compliance/Health and Safety Information
• Tuition & Fees
• Fellowships
• Third-Party Payments
• Non-UC Visiting Grads
• Financial Support FAQ
• News & Updates

Progress to Degree

• Enrolling at UC San Diego
• Preparing to Graduate
• Policies & Procedures
• Student Academic FAQ
• Merkin Graduate Fellows Program
• Student Updates
• Health & Wellbeing
• Professional Development
• Student Spotlights
• Programs and Resources
• Postdoctoral Affairs
• Master's & Doctoral Committees
• Doctoral & Master's Committees

Find information on how to form doctoral and master's committees.

Appointment of the Doctoral Committee

A doctoral committee conducts the qualifying examination, supervises the preparation of the dissertation, passes the dissertation, and administers the final defense. An advancement exam or defense must not be scheduled unless the Division of Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Affairs (GEPA) has approved the student's committee. Students are advised to consult the department graduate advisor and/or coordinator at least six weeks prior to the exam.

The following policy is a general one for all doctoral students at UC San Diego. A department may have more specific requirements for appointments (e.g., a departmental ladder rank faculty member on each committee) and the department chair has final departmental authority to recommend a committee.

Completed committee form  must be electronically submitted to GEPA   no later than two weeks prior to the date scheduled for the qualifying examination or doctoral defense . 

The department chair’s electronic approval of the committee form is certification that the composition of the doctoral committee is in compliance with Senate Regulations concerning Requirements for Higher Degrees.

 Membership of the   Ph.D . committee must comply with the   Manual of the San Diego Division, Academic Senate, Regulation 715 . Effective for Fall 2021 , committee membership rules have been updated to reflect the following significant changes:

• Minimum of 4 members with UC San Diego faculty appointments
• At least 1 member must have a primary appointment in a different department than the chair's primary department
• At least 2 members must be from the student's home department or program
• At least 1 member must be tenured or emeritus
• Proposed members from other UC campuses, other universities, or industry are exceptions and must be requested in writing

Senate Regulation 715 states in full :

In consultation with their faculty dissertation advisor and following their Ph.D. program guidelines, candidates shall request to appoint a Doctoral Committee consisting of at least four members with faculty appointments at UC San Diego . Eligibility of faculty in different academic series at UC San Diego to serve on and/or chair Doctoral Committees is determined by the Graduate Council. At least one Doctoral Committee member must have their primary appointment in a different department than the one in which the candidate’s dissertation advisor/Doctoral Committee Chair holds their primary appointment. (Doctoral Committee Co-Chairs from different departments or programs satisfy this requirement; note that, even with evenly split appointments, faculty are primary in one department). At least two Doctoral Committee members must be from the department or program in which the student is enrolled and at least one Doctoral Committee member must be tenured or emeritus.

Additional committee members beyond the required four members can be requested to serve, including from another UC campus, non-UC academic institutions and industry. Appointment of such external members who will participate in Doctoral Committee decisions must be justified with a written explanation at the time of requesting committee constitution and must be approved by the Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Affairs (GEPA) . Willingness of external members to serve on the committee must be verified prior to nomination and efforts should be made to maintain continuity of service on the committee for the duration of candidacy.

Departments and graduate programs that have received approval from the Council for exceptions to the membership requirements for Ph.D. committees remain in effect (e.g. Div. of Biological Sciences, Neurosciences Graduate Program).

Membership of the   DMA   doctoral committee must comply with the   Manual of the San Diego Division, Academic Senate Regulation 717 . 

Academic Senate regulations: 

http://senate.ucsd.edu/operating-procedures/educational-policies/academic-degrees/

Appointment of the Master's Thesis Committee

A master's thesis committee supervises the preparation of the thesis, passes the thesis, and administers the final defense. For programs that require a defense, it must not take place unless the Division of Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Affairs (GEPA) has approved the student's committee. Students are advised to consult the department graduate advisor and/or coordinator at least four weeks prior to the defense.

The following policy is a general one for all master’s thesis students at UC San Diego. A department may have more specific requirements for appointments (e.g., a departmental ladder rank faculty member on each committee) and the department chair has final departmental authority to recommend a committee.

Completed committee form   must be electronically submitted to GEPA   no later than two weeks prior to the date scheduled for the thesis defense .

The student should work with their department/program on finalizing their committee constitution, and then the department/program will submit the committee request to GEPA via the online committee form . The department chair’s electronic approval of the committee form is certification that the composition of the master’s committee is in compliance with Senate Regulations concerning Requirements for Higher Degrees.

Please use the Doctoral Committee Membership Table to determine which academic titles may serve on Master's committees and in which capacity.

 Membership of the master's thesis committee must comply with the Manual of the San Diego Division, Academic Senate, Regulation 700 , which states:

a master's thesis to be approved by a committee of three faculty members appointed by the Dean of Graduate Studies. [Am 12/9/14]

The Graduate Council confirms that that at least 2 members must be from the candidate's major department.

Please note: There is no requirement for a tenured or emeritus member, and a 4th member is considered an additional member. MFA committees consist of 4 faculty members: 3 from the department and 1, preferably tenured, from outside the student's department.

Appointment of the Joint Doctoral Program Committee

A doctoral committee conducts the qualifying examination, supervises the preparation of the dissertation, passes the dissertation, and administers the final defense. An advancement exam or defense must not be scheduled unless the Division of Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Affairs (GEPA) has approved the student's committee. Students are advised to consult the program's graduate advisor and/or coordinator at least six weeks prior to the exam.

  Completed committee form  must be electronically submitted to GEPA   no later than two weeks prior to the date scheduled for the qualifying examination or doctoral defense .

The department/program chair’s electronic approval of the committee form is certification that the composition of the doctoral committee is in compliance with Senate Regulations concerning Requirements for Higher Degrees.

Per San Diego Senate Regulation 715: Guidelines on Doctoral Committee composition are modified for joint Ph.D. programs offered collaboratively by San Diego State University and UC San Diego with the approval of the Graduate Council. Joint Doctoral Program rules vary by program. Please consult the program directly or contact Sara Miceli in the Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Affairs (GEPA) with any questions.

A Doctoral Committee of five or more members shall be appointed by the Dean of Graduate Studies under the authority of the Graduate Council. At least five of the committee members shall be officers of instruction and no fewer than four shall hold professorial titles (of any rank). The committee members shall be chosen from at least two departments, and at least two members shall represent academic specialties that differ from the student’s chosen specialty. In all cases, each committee must include one tenured or emeritus UCSD faculty member from outside the student’s major department.   [Am 10/26/93]

Membership of the   AuD   doctoral committee must comply with the   Manual of the San Diego Division, Academic Senate Regulation 716 .

Membership of the   Ed.D.   doctoral committee must comply with the   Manual of the San Diego Division, Academic Senate Regulation 718 .

Doctoral [and Master's] Committee Membership Table

The Doctoral Committee Membership Table specifies which academic titles may serve on doctoral and Master's committees and in what capacity. 1,2   The faculty titles listed on the chart refer to UC San Diego faculty members only (with the exception of the "Professor from another UC campus or Non-UC institution" title). 

The Dean of GEPA will consider exceptions to individual committee membership with plausible justification from the graduate program.

Staff and students may use the online Faculty Search Tool to look up faculty titles and home departments to help determine committee eligibility. The Faculty Search Tool is available to graduate students in the GEPA Student Portal and to staff via  StudentDB . VPN is required to access the Faculty Search Tool.

Applicable to committees constituted as of Fall 2021  

^Confers Academic Senate membership, see https://senate.ucsd.edu/Operating-Procedures/Senate-Manual/Appendices/105.1 * Only one person in this category per committee unless there are more than four members. # Adjunct professors and Professors of Practice of all ranks may serve as chairs of doctoral committees as long as a ladder rank faculty member serve as a co-chair. ## Voluntary basis. + Teaching Professors of all ranks may serve as chair or co-chair with exception by Dean of GEPA or Graduate Council.

1 San Diego Senate Regulation 715.B defines the requirements for doctoral committee composition. A doctoral committee consists of at least four members with faculty appointments at UC San Diego. Eligibility of faculty in different academic series to serve on and/or chair doctoral committees is determined by the Graduate Council. 2 The Doctoral Committee Membership Table applies to Master’s thesis committees with regards to which academic titles are eligible serve on thesis committees and in what roles but the rules for committee composition differ from doctoral committees. For Master’s thesis committees: three UCSD members are required, there is no requirement for a tenured outside member, and a fourth member is considered an additional member.

Joint Doctoral Committee Membership Table

Per San Diego Senate Regulation 715: Guidelines on Doctoral Committee composition are modified for joint Ph.D. programs offered collaboratively by San Diego State University and UC San Diego with the approval of the Graduate Council.

The Doctoral Committee Membership Table specifies which academic titles may serve on doctoral committees  and in what capacity. The faculty titles listed on the chart refer to UC San Diego faculty members only (with the exception of the "Professor from another UC campus" title). 

The Dean of Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Affairs (GEPA) will consider exceptions to individual committee membership with plausible justification from the graduate program.

Applicable to JDP Committees, and PhD Committees constituted prior to Fall 2021

* Only one person in this category per committee unless there are more than five members. ** May serve as a member inside or outside the student's home department. # Adjunct professors and Professors of Practice of all ranks may serve as chairs of doctoral committees as long as a ladder rank faculty member serve as a co-chair. ## Voluntary basis. + Teaching Professors of all ranks may serve as chair or co-chair with exception by Dean of GEPA or Graduate Council.

Printable JDP committee table

Submission and Reconstitution of a Doctoral or Master's Committee

When submitting a new or reconstituted committee, the student must consult with their committee chair to ensure that the committee meets their research needs. The student must also consult with their department/program coordinator to ensure the committee meets the standards of their graduate program.

For a variety of reasons a doctoral or master’s committee may need to be reconstituted. The request to reconstitute the membership of a committee must specify the reason/s for the change and must be approved by the department chair and the committee chair. The reconstitution request must be submitted to the Division of Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Affairs (GEPA) no less than two weeks prior to the qualifying examination or defense of the dissertation or thesis.

All requests for new or resconstituted doctoral or master's committees are submitted electronically. The department/program graduate coordinator will submit a reconstituted committee request to GEPA via the  Committee Membership tool .

Rules for Conducting Master's and Doctoral Examinations

San Diego Senate Regulation 715, Requirements for the PhD Degree at San Diego, requires that the doctoral committee conduct the qualifying examination and final oral examination (the dissertation defense). The Graduate Council approved the following rules for the scheduling and administration of Master’s and Doctoral qualifying exams and defenses. (The rules detailed below replace the previous rules approved by Graduate Council on 10/8/2018.)

Effective Fall 2022:

The default method for the doctoral and master’s committee to conduct graduate examinations (doctoral qualifying examination and final dissertation/thesis defense) is when the student and all members of the committee are physically present in the same room.

The Graduate Council recognizes, however, that practical exigencies do not always make this possible. Therefore, the Graduate Council will defer to the graduate programs (Department Chair or Program Director) to review requests for exceptions and to make decisions to allow remote participation. The graduate program must ensure that when an exam is approved to be held entirely remote or in a hybrid format (i.e., some members are physically present and some are remote) that the student has agreed to this format.

It is expected that there will be synchronous participation by all committee members in the scheduled exam. If an unavoidable situation arises that affects a committee member’s ability to participate synchronously, the committee chair (or co-chairs) may decide how to proceed. There must be sufficient expertise among present members to examine the student. If a committee member must be absent for the scheduled exam, it is permissible for one absent committee member to examine the candidate on a separate date. The committee chair, or one co-chair, must participate synchronously in the scheduled exam.

Graduate Council Actions

  Graduate Council Action 4/8/93

A professor who leaves UC San Diego may continue to be on the committee and may serve as co-chair, but may not continue as chair.

Graduate Council Action Regarding Committee Participation at the Doctoral Qualifying Examination and Doctoral and Master's Final Oral Examination (Defense) 5/26/22

San Diego Senate Regulation 715, Requirements for the PhD Degree at San Diego, requires that the doctoral committee conduct the qualifying examination and final oral examination (the dissertation defense). The Graduate Council approved the following rules for conducting PhD qualifying exams and defenses, effective Fall 2022. (The rules detailed below replace the previous rules approved by Graduate Council on 10/8/2018.)

The default method for the doctoral and master’s committee to conduct graduate examinations (doctoral qualifying examination and final dissertation/thesis defense) is when the student and all members of the committee are physically present in the same room. The Graduate Council recognizes, however, that practical exigencies do not always make this possible. Therefore, the Graduate Council will defer to the graduate programs (Department Chair or Program Director) to review requests for exceptions and to make decisions to allow remote participation. The graduate program must ensure that when an exam is approved to be held entirely remote or in a hybrid format (i.e., some members are physically present and some are remote) that the student has agreed to this format. It is expected that there will be synchronous participation by all committee members in the scheduled exam. If an unavoidable situation arises that affects a committee member’s ability to participate synchronously, the committee chair (or co-chairs) may decide how to proceed. There must be sufficient expertise among present members to examine the student. If a committee member must be absent for the scheduled exam, it is permissible for one absent committee member to examine the candidate on a separate date. The committee chair, or one co-chair, must participate synchronously in the scheduled exam.

Graduate Council Action Regarding Teaching Professors Chairing MA/MS and Doctoral Committees 12/17/18

The Dean of the Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Affairs (GEPA) may review and make a decision on requests that involve allowing a Teaching Professor to chair or co-chair an individual student’s committee. If there is a second request to allow the same Teaching Professor to chair or co-chair another student’s committee, the Graduate Dean will forward the request to the Graduate Council. The Council will review the request for consideration of a blanket exception for that specific Teaching Professor to chair or co-chair any MS or PhD committee in their program.

Departments and programs may submit a request to the Graduate Council, via the Graduate Dean, to review and make a decision on requests to grant a blanket exception to allow an individual or group of Teaching Professors to chair or co-chair any MS or PhD committee in their program.

The criterion for approval of all the above exceptions is the demonstration of the Teaching Professor’s research expertise in their field. After a blanket approval has been granted, if the Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Affairs (GEPA) receives a report from a student, a Master or PhD committee, or a department, that the Teaching Professor does not have adequate research expertise in their  field, the Graduate Dean will bring the case forward to the Graduate Council. The Council, with input from the department, will re-examine the case and can revoke the blanket exception.

• Pre-Candidacy
• Advancing to Candidacy
• Spring Evaluations
• Time to Doctorate Policy

6 Email Templates to Ask Someone to be on Your Thesis Committee

By: Author Hiuyan Lam

Posted on Last updated: October 20, 2023

Categories Professional Etiquette

Writing a thesis is one of the most challenging parts of being an undergraduate or graduate student. You need to know how to ask someone to be on your thesis committee, especially if you are looking for a mentor to guide you through the writing process.

If you are currently starting the dissertation process, these unique email templates will help show you how to ask someone to be on your thesis committee.

How to ask someone to be on your thesis committee: When asking senior students

  These email templates will help you figure out how to ask a senior student to be on your thesis committee.   Senior students are perfect for helping you through the writing process. You can ask a student with whom you get along and share similar ideas.  

When asking professors to be on your thesis committee

  Your professor would be an invaluable addition to your thesis committee, especially since they could provide you with unique insight and constructive criticism.   Here is how to ask someone to be on your thesis committee if the person is your professor.  

You May Also Like:

30 Great Words to Describe a Teacher

How to ask someone to be on your thesis committee: When asking professionals in your field

  Professionals can offer diverse and useful expertise if they choose to join your thesis committee. Here is how to ask someone to be on your thesis committee if you’re asking professionals in your field.  

  These are unique email templates that you can use when trying to figure out how to ask someone to be on your thesis committee.   Whether it is your professor, a senior student in your faculty, or a professional in your field, these templates will help you get that positive response that you are seeking.   If you are currently working on your thesis and wondering how to ask someone to be on your thesis committee, these templates will surely help you get some ideas.  

Research guidance, Research Journals, Top Universities

What is a research degree committee in PhD?

The committee will recommend the approval of synopsis and candidate’s registration. Provided that if RDC does not recommend a candidate for the registration to Ph.D. program, she/he will resubmit the proposal within a month after due modification as suggested by RDC.

Research Degree Committee

Main task of RDC in PhD

Share this:, leave a comment cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

What Do Admission Committees Look For in College Applicants?

When it comes time for your college or graduate school search, the application process can be the most daunting part. From asking for recommendation letters to writing a stellar essay, applying to college is no walk in the park, especially when you're juggling multiple applications at once. After finally submitting your application, you may be ready to take a deep breath and relax. But even still, you may find yourself asking questions such as, what will the admissions committee think of my application? Was my application good enough? Understanding what admissions looks for in applicants can help you craft a stellar application.

What Do Admissions Committees Look For in College Applicants?

College applications ask for a variety of information and materials, which may initially feel overwhelming. However, it's essential to view this process as your opportunity to personalize your application and showcase your unique strengths, interests, and experiences. College admissions officers typically look for a combination of academic achievements, extracurricular activities, personal qualities, and unique experiences, taking a holistic approach to evaluating college applicants. In this blog, we'll go over each criteria the admissions committee considers when reviewing college applications so that you can feel confident in your submission.

1. Academic performance

As you probably already know, a key component to a college application is academic performance . Whether you're applying to college from high school or looking to earn your master’s degree, there are several grade criteria that admissions take into consideration. Not only is your GPA considered, but the types of courses you took plays an important role. Taking rigorous courses such as AP courses in high school or upper-level courses in college will strengthen your academic profile. The admissions committee wants to see evidence of strong academic performance and the ability to handle college-level coursework.

2. Essays and personal statements

Essay prompts and personal statements are a common aspect of a college application. Personal statements and essays allow you as an applicant to showcase your personality, passions, interests, and writing abilities. These writing assignments are an excellent opportunity for you to show why you’d be a great fit for the college program you’re applying to. Admissions officers look for essays that are authentic, well-written, and demonstrate self-reflection. They also look to determine how the program will help you meet your goals. Be creative and most importantly, be yourself so that your essay can be compelling, memorable, and an accurate reflection of who you are.

3. Letters of recommendation

A letter of recommendation is your chance to further support your application from a different perspective. Letters of recommendation from teachers, counselors, coaches, supervisors, or mentors provide insights into an applicants' character, work ethic, and potential for success in college. A recommendation letter can offer anecdotes, examples, and observations that test scores and essays can’t. When requesting recommendation letters , ask academic or professional sources that you have developed a meaningful connection with and who can provide positive insights about your character and abilities. Strong letters of recommendation can help applicants stand out.

4. Extracurricular activities

Being involved in extracurricular activities can help demonstrate your well-roundedness and passions, which will further strengthen your application. Admissions committees will get a greater sense of who you are and what you are interested in, which can help them determine whether you’d be a good fit for the program. They also look to see how you are able to balance activity involvement with academics. If you’re involved in a few extracurriculars, be sure to highlight them in your application, whether it's a sports team, student club, volunteer work, or an internship.

5. Demonstrated interest

Another important factor that admission committee’s take into consideration when evaluating college applications is the students interest in the school and program they’re applying to. The committee wants to see a student’s demonstrated interest as it can help them determine that the student will fit with the campus culture and community, and that they are more likely to enroll in the school. Applying early, expressing your eagerness in your essays, showing off your knowledge of the school or program you're applying to, and attending college events such as open houses or information sessions are all ways you can demonstrate your interest to the committee.

Tips for Crafting a Standout College Application

Now that you have a better understanding of what goes on in the admissions process, here are a few tips to help you craft a standout college application.

1. Make your application strong where you can

Overall, the review of college applications by admissions is typically a holistic process and no single factor determines admission. If you feel that your application might be lacking in an area or two, you can likely compensate for it by showcasing strength elsewhere. If you have great writing skills, be sure to write a stellar essay. Or, if you participated in different extracurricular activities, highlight your accomplishments in your application. Be sure to make your application as strong as possible where you can.

2. Proofread

It may seem simple, but proofreading not just your essay, but all of your application material is a crucial part of your college application. Be sure to read over your personal statement, resume, essays, and any forms you fill out for any grammatical errors and spelling mistakes. Having a second pair of eyes can be helpful to catch any mistakes you may have missed, so don’t hesitate to ask a friend, family member, or teacher for help.

3. Stay organized

Chances are you aren’t applying to just one college. You may have a few top choices for universities you’d like to attend on your radar, and a few backup options for extra measure. Having several applications you're working on is even more reason to stay organized. Keep track of application deadlines, requirements, and submission materials for each college you're applying to. You can create a checklist or use a planner to stay organized throughout the process.

Create an outstanding college application

Crafting a great college application can be challenging, but understanding key components and guidelines can make the process easier and less stressful. When completing your application, try to do your best for each component and emphasize your strengths. All in all, the admissions committee simply wants to see if you’d be a good fit for the school, and having a strong application that aligns with your goals and the program will help you stand out. If you’re ready to begin the next step in your academic journey, apply to one of NJIT’s top-STEM programs today .

Daily, Edwards Appointed to National STEM Pipeline-Building Committees

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) appointments will develop future data and computer science talent and improve career opportunities for women of color in tech

Shaundra Daily , the Cue Family Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Computer Science, and Emily Edwards , associate research professor of electrical and computer engineering, have been appointed to influential roles within the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).

Earlier this year, NASEM appointed Daily and Edwards as committee members on the Developing Competencies for the Future of Data and Computing: The Role of K-12 committee . This project aims to identify the tools needed for students to thrive in our current techno-changing society and the role that K-12 education plays in crafting these skills.

In these new roles, Daily and Edwards have the opportunity to contribute to the NASEM report and provide recommendations, thus shaping national policies, guiding decision making and aiding the advancement of scientific knowledge.

“I am thrilled to be contributing to these critical initiatives aimed at broadening participation in computing/tech,” Daily said.

“I am honored to serve on this committee with such a tremendous group of colleagues,” echoed Edwards. “I am particularly excited to explore ways to support students as they navigate future careers dependent on computation, and more broadly, emergent areas of science and technology.”

NASEM is a nonprofit and nongovernmental organization that works to ignite advancements in science, engineering and medicine for the betterment and progress of society. As selected members on NASEM’s committees, these positions are a recognition of their expertise, research contributions and success in their field.

Additionally, Daily was also recently appointed to a role with NASEM as an advisory committee member on the Action Collaborative on Transforming Trajectories for Women of Color in Tech . The Action Collaborative “aims to engage leaders, share promising practices, develop data collection methods, advance research priorities, and create communication strategies to support the recruitment, retention, advancement, inclusion and belonging of women of color in tech.”

In this role, Daily is able to share her own insights and inform the committee’s strategies, directly impacting the progress and focus of the initiative, as well as maximizing its success. Daily said that she is also able to collaborate with other experts who share the same goal of improving gender equity in the tech world, bringing new insights to her own research and contributing to positive change in the field.

“By sharing my expertise and advocating for diverse voices, I am committed to driving meaningful change and improving opportunities for underrepresented groups in the computing field,” Daily said. “These initiatives have the potential to make a significant impact on the future of education and the workforce, and I am honored to be a part of these efforts.”

With all of these new appointments, Duke faculty continue to add their influence to local and national efforts to make STEM a more diverse and welcoming place.

DEIC at Duke Engineering

Outreach news.

Working To Uplift Underrepresented Student Voices in Engineering

The National Society of Black Engineers at Duke continues to promote principles of equity and collaboration between researchers across the industry who come from underrepresented communities.

Bolstering Access to Engineering Graduate School

Duke Engineering’s annual Graduate Program Boot Camp inspires, mentors and empowers aspiring engineers from diverse backgrounds.

When It Comes to Outreach, It’s in the Community

Two emerging programs at Duke provide valuable lessons on how to build experiences for a diverse set of local students to help expand the STEM pipeline.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to FDA Search
• Skip to in this section menu
• Skip to footer links

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

•   Search
•   Menu
• For Patients

Learn About FDA Advisory Committees

When a scientific, technical, or policy question arises, such as whether an unapproved product is safe and effective, FDA often relies on advisory committees to provide independent advice. Committee members include scientific experts—such as physician-researchers and statisticians—and members of the public, including representatives of industry, consumers, and patients.

Advisory Committees Give FDA Critical Advice and the Public a Voice

Why Does FDA Use Advisory Committees?

The Federal Advisory Committee Act, or FACA, spells out the activities and operations of Federal advisory committees. FACA defines the committee as an entity that is used by an agency of the Federal Government to gain advice or recommendations. FACA also states that any committee is not entirely made up of full-time government employees.

What this means is that FDA uses advisory committees to:

• obtain advice from experts who work outside of the government.
• work towards an open and transparent government.
• encourage patients, healthcare providers, and other interested people to share their views during the open public hearing or by submitting comments to the open docket.

Part of the FDA mission is to evaluate new therapies and determine which are safe and effective for their intended use. This complex job often involves many areas of expertise, and sometimes FDA turns to outside experts for counsel.

The primary role of the FDA advisory committee is to:

• provide independent expert advice to the Agency in its evaluation of these regulated products.
• help the agency move toward making sound decisions based upon reasonable application of sound scientific principles.

Advisory committees weigh the available evidence and provide scientific and medical advice on the safety, effectiveness, and appropriate use of products that FDA regulates. Many times committees are asked to provide advice on general topics that may not be related to a one specific product, such as a class of products which would represent products grouped together because of how they function in the body or what diseases they may treat. FDA advisory committees are just that, advisory, in nature. Therefore, the advice that it receives from the committee does not represent the position of the FDA; rather, the FDA weighs the advice that it receives when taking actions on medical products. FDA makes the final decisions on all matters that come before the committee. FDA has 50 technical and scientific advisory committees and panels.

When Does FDA Use Advisory Committees?

Advisory committee meetings can occur during any stage of a medical product's review process and after a product has been approved and marketed. 

The decision to involve an advisory committee is usually at the discretion of the director of the review division.

How and When are the Meetings Announced?

Advisory committee meetings are officially announced through the Federal Register and are announced at least 15 days in advance of the meeting. The announcement includes:

• Date(s) the meeting will be held.
• Time of the meeting
• Location of the meeting.
• Topics of discussion that will be discussed at the meeting.
• Web-links for further information.
• Instructions for written and in-person comments from the public.

Who Are the Advisory Committee Members?

Advisory committee members include:

• Scientific experts, including physician-researchers, statisticians, engineers, medical faculty, chemists, biologists, and other science-oriented professionals
• Consumer representative
• Industry representative
• FDA Patient Representative

An advisory committee ordinarily consist of 9 fixed or “standing” members including the chairperson. Members are selected because they are knowledgeable in expertise specific to the committee’s function. Most committees will also have a consumer representative and an industry representative.

Qualified candidates are appointed as members for terms from 1-4 years. Anyone can nominate an individual for committee membership, with the nominee’s awareness. An individual may also self-nominate.

Temporary members may also be invited to participate in specific meetings. These temporary members include Patient Representatives and other scientists or medical personnel whose expertise may not be represented by the fixed voting membership.

To apply for membership, visit the FDA Advisory Committee Membership Application portal

What is the Role of the Chairperson?

The role of the chairperson is multi-faceted and critical to the effective performance of a committee. The chairperson:

• presides over a meeting and conducts all aspects of the meeting.
• ensures that the meeting is conducted in a manner that allows for balanced presentations of the issues by both the FDA and the sponsor.
• ensures that the public participation is conducted as prescribed.  
• sets the tone for the committee interaction with the sponsor as well as deliberations by the committee.

One of the most important roles of the chairperson is to:

• balance adherence to the agenda.
• protect committee discussion and deliberation time.
• assure sufficient coverage of relevant issues.
• make sure that the committee provides clear and scientifically valid advice to the FDA in a timely manner.
• make sure that the Open Public Hearing is conducted properly.
• make sure that the committee hears from persons who wish to speak as arranged.

The chairperson cannot perform these functions without the Designated Federal Officer (DFO), also referred to as the DFO, who is primarily the “keeper of the committee”. The DFO is the primary point of contact for the agency, the public, and committee and is responsible for seeing that all functions of the committee are carried out accordingly.

As needed, the DFO works closely with Agency staff in selecting a Patient Representative and preparing them to serve at an upcoming advisory committee meeting.

How Do Advisory Committee Meetings Work?

FDA's advisory committee program is governed by a number of Federal laws and regulations that set forth standards for holding advisory committees and reviewing potential conflicts of interest, among other things. FDA also has developed guidance documents that describe FDA's recommendations and policy related to our advisory committees.

We make these laws , regulations , and guidance documents available through our web site to provide ready access to the statutory and regulatory framework that FDA advisory committees operate within and to describe the steps that FDA has taken to enhance decision making, increase transparency, and strengthen public confidence in our advisory committee program.

• Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA)  
• Federal Advisory Committee Act (DOC - 90KB)
• Government in the Sunshine Act (TXT - 22KB)

Regulations

• 5 CFR 2640 – Interpretation, Exemptions and Waiver Guidance Concerning 18 U.S.C. 208 (Acts Affecting a Personal Financial Interest)
• 5 CFR 2635.502 Impartiality in Performing Official Duties
• Public Hearing Before a Public Advisory Committee (Code of Federal Regulation, 21 CFR Part 14)  

Guidance Documents

• Public Availability of Advisory Committee Members' Financial Interest Information and Waivers - Final Guidance - March, 2014
• Procedures for Evaluating Appearance Issues and Granting Authorizations for Participation in FDA Advisory Committees - Draft Guidance - June 29, 2016
• Voting Procedures at Advisory Committee Meetings - Final Guidance - August 1, 2008  
• Preparation and Public Availability of Information Given to Advisory Committee Members - Final Guidance - August 1, 2008
• The Open Public Hearing at FDA Advisory Committee Meetings - Final Guidance - May 15, 2013

What Are the Different FDA Advisory Committees?

The FDA has 50  Advisory Committees, one of which, the Medical Devices Advisory Committee, has 18 panels. The committees are established to provide functions which support the FDA's mission of protecting and promoting the public health, while meeting the requirements set forth in the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Committees are either mandated by statute or established at the discretion of the Department of Health and Human Services.

What Are FDA Patient Representatives?

FDA Patient Representatives play an important role in providing advice as part of the medical product approval process. The Agency identifies, screens, and places patients on specific committee meetings that best fit their background, situation, and experience. Learn more about becoming a FDA Patient Representative .

Resources For You

• Guidelines for Speakers at the Open Public Hearing of an FDA Advisory Committee Meeting
• Calendar of Public Meetings

Nevada Today

Engineering recognized for dei efforts, college also admitted into the gem fellowship program.

Engineering’s DEI Committee members are, from left, Keri Ryan, Gabrielle Bachand, Maryam Raeeszadeh-Sarmazdeh, Mehdi Etezadi-Amoli, Cahit Evrensel, Chris Moran and Syreeta Williams. Not pictured: Sara Davis.

The College of Engineering has been recognized by the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Diversity Recognition Program at the entry level (Bronze) for its effort in making measurable progress towards increasing diversity, inclusion and degree attainment.

The ASEE Diversity Recognition Program acknowledges colleges making progress within diversity categories. The program encourages improvement and accountability within the engineering higher education community.

Related Link

• Engineering DEI Committee

“Receiving the ASEE Diversity Recognition is a great achievement for the college and (takes us) one step closer to … diversity and inclusion in engineering,” Maryam Raeeszadeh-Sarmazdeh, assistant professor and Engineering DEI Committee member, said. “Hearing diverse voices and including all from different backgrounds among the college in this conversation has a great importance.”

Engineering’s commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion also is reflected in its future plans.

“Next, our committee plans to work on the objectives outlined in the DEI action plan,” Gabrielle Bachand, Engineering DEI Committee chair, said. “Two of our top priorities are to build greater student-faculty-staff connection and to strengthen support for faculty and staff.”

“We look forward to achieving the next ASEE Diversity Recognition Program level (Silver) in the future, and this will require sustained progress towards our DEI goals,” Bachand added.

The ASEE recognition is the second DEI-related affirmation the College has earned over the past year.

“In 2023, we also gained admission to the GEM Fellowship program,” Bachand said, “so we are working on promoting opportunities and engagement with this valuable resource.”

The GEM Fellowship focuses on promoting opportunities for graduate students to enter high-level tech industry jobs.

The College’s DEI Committee continues to grow and improve through its activities and support for affinity groups such as the University chapters of the   Society of Women Engineers ,   National Society of Black Engineers   and the   Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers .

Campus Life & Athletics

Sit down with Nevada Soccer Head Coach Vanessa Valentine

Nevada Soccer Head Coach Vanessa Valentine talks about her first year at the helm of the pack and her experience winning gold with the U.S. Women's Beach Soccer National Team

Earth Month events focus on increasing campus sustainably, gardening, thrifting and more

Campus community asked to take the pledge to Make Silver and Blue the New Green

Savor the adventure with weekends at the University of Nevada, Reno at Lake Tahoe

Nevada Dining provides delicious meals for the weekend getaway program available for students, faculty and staff

Students versus staff in the fight against food waste

A Pack Place battle for sustainability with WasteNot 2.0

Editor's Picks

Remembering the Holocaust

Anthropology doctoral candidate places second in regional Three-Minute Thesis Competition

A look at careers of substance and impact

New advanced degree option will help fulfill state’s need for registered dietitian nutritionists

University of Nevada, Reno develops mostly online program to accommodate busy schedules

Three journalism students win prestigious Hearst Awards

Students Zoe Malen, Madison Lloyd and Sophia Holm placed in the multimedia and audio categories

The University of Nevada, Reno to hold “Week of Democracy” from April 29 to May 3

Week of events will highlight the voting process, issues related to the 2024 election and more

Reno Jazz Festival at the University of Nevada, Reno

Performances to run April 25 to 27 in Nightingale Concert Hall

Mountain chickadees have remarkable memories. A new study explains why

The spatial memory of mountain chickadees is influenced by genetics and may need to evolve with a changing climate

Center for Urban Water Conservation celebrates 30 years of research

Public invited to tours, presentations and native plant sale

Reno/Sparks selected to be part of Urban Heat Mapping Campaign

The summer 2024 effort will involve community volunteers and is supported by the National Institutes of Health, NOAA, Climate.gov and Heat Watch

College of Education and Human Development hosts awards ceremony

This year, 24 awards were given to outstanding students, faculty and staff in the College during the Spring Celebration

Release type: Media Release

Date: 23 April 2024

Applications open to join the Government’s Youth Steering Committee

The Albanese Government is looking for young people to play a vital role in shaping government policy and programs that matter to them. 

Minister for Youth Dr Anne Aly today invited young people from across Australia to apply to be part of the Government’s Youth Steering Committee. 

“Young people are uniquely placed to help shape practical solutions to the problems they are facing,” said Dr Aly.

“It’s an exciting time to join the Committee, help us implement Engage! and embed the role of young people in our democratic processes.”

With no experience required, applicants aged between 12 and 24 are encouraged to apply for at least seven new two year positions, alongside some existing members reappointed to the 14 person Youth Steering Committee. 

To ensure the committee represents the diversity of young people in Australia, applications are sought from young people with a range of backgrounds and experiences including young people with a disability, young people with lived experience of mental ill-health and First Nations young people. 

The Committee will work closely with Dr Aly, ensuring that young people are involved in government decision-making, including the implementation of  Engage! A strategy to include young people in the decisions we make.  

Applications to join the Youth Steering Committee close on Sunday 19 May 2024. More information is available at  youth.gov.au .

Local News | Committee passes bill to declare Lance Cpl….

Share this:.

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Share via SMS (Opens in new window)
• Lake County
• Geauga County
• Cuyahoga County
• Opioid Epidemic

Local News | Committee passes bill to declare Lance Cpl. Austin B. Schwenk Memorial Highway

Hb 350 will dedicate portion of sr 44 between prouty road and mentor avenue.

The Ohio House Transportation Committee has unanimously passed House Bill 350 , which will dedicate a portion of state Route 44 between Mentor Avenue and Prouty Road as “Lance Corporal Austin B. Schwenk Memorial Highway.”

The vote was recently announced by state Reps. Jamie Callender, R-Concord Township, and Daniel Troy, D-Willowick.

Born in Onslow County, North Carolina, near Camp Lejeune on May 22, 2004, the 19-year-old Painesville Township resident and Riverside High School graduate enlisted in 2022 and returned to the base to serve in a unit weapons armory for the Infantry Unit Headquarters and Service Company Second Battalion, Sixth Marine Regiment.

Schwenk, awarded the National Defense Service Medal , trained to become an electro-optical ordnance repairer, “where he learned to fix ground ordnance lasers, night vision devices, and small missile and fire control equipment.”

On October 18, 2023, he was shot and killed in a base barracks room at the facility in what service officials described as “an isolated incident between two Marines.”

The suspect detained in the case, which remains under investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service , has not been publicly identified.

Schwenk previously told The News-Herald that he chose to enlist in the Marines to follow in his father’s footsteps.

“He’s always given me a reason to look up to him,” Schwenk stated, adding the Corps “….will give me the discipline and leadership that I believe I will be able to use later in my life.”

Callender characterized Schwenk as a proud son of Lake County who stepped up to answer the call of his country.

“Dedicating part of Route 44 is a fitting memorial to his courage and commitment to serve others,” he said.

Troy added, “I am hopeful that the General Assembly will support this effort to honor the memory of Lance Cpl. Schwenk for his service to our nation, which was so tragically cut short.”

House Bill 350 now heads to the House floor for a vote.

More in Local News

SUBSCRIBER ONLY

Local news | richmond heights schools hosts public information session on funding.

Local News | Fairport Harbor Schools unveils new district logos, tagline

Local News | Painesville reports progress on adding Rec Park facilities, getting geese to leave

Local News | Garfield National Historic Site announces summer hours