dissertation committee meeting

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.

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.

Grad students: Get to know your program coordinator

They provide advice about interviews and admissions, curriculum, degree requirements, graduate program policies and information, campus services and more.

Upcoming opportunities

Molecule of the year nominations are due Friday! Plus: A new Finding the Funds webinar and LRD seminar are coming up later this month.

Consider an undergraduate summer research internship in government

Our careers columnist offers a rundown of agencies that can provide you with a couple of months of lab experience.

Putting ASBMB conferences on your radar! Plus: Award nominations are due Friday.

Retiring a research lab

Careers columnist Courtney Chandler talks to Art Spector, a former principal investigator, about making a graceful exit from the bench.

Calendar of events, awards and opportunities

Nominate colleagues for the ASBMB annual awards and your favorite molecule for our inaugural contest!

Code of Ethics
Dissertation Editing
Dissertation Coaching
Free Consultation

Dissertation Committee: Roles, Functions, and How to Choose

The path to a dissertation is filled with choices that determine the quality of your experience as a student as well as the future strength of your professional network.

Choosing your dissertation committee is one of the most important decisions–and one of the most fraught–that you’ll make as a graduate student. With the stakes being so high, many doctoral students worry about making a misstep and getting it wrong.

Fear not! Putting together your dissertation committee becomes easier once you know the right questions to ask: of potential committee members, of your dissertation chair, and of yourself. While forming your dissertation committee can be challenging, striking the right balance will lead to a richly rewarding academic experience that will pay dividends throughout your career. Do your homework, and you’ll be just fine.

Dissertation Committee Questions

What does a dissertation committee do?
Who serves on your dissertation committee?
How do you choose dissertation committee members?
What can you expect from your dissertation committee?

What Does a Dissertation Committee Do?

The basic function of your dissertation committee, which typically consists of five members, is to guide you through the process of proposing, writing, and revising your dissertation.

Dissertation committee members serve in a mentoring capacity, offering constructive feedback on your writing and research, as well as guiding your revision efforts. They are also the gatekeepers of the ivory tower, and the ultimate judges of whether or not your dissertation passes muster.

The dissertation committee is usually formed once your academic coursework is completed. It is not uncommon in the humanities and social sciences for dissertation committee members to also write and evaluate qualifying exams, and of course serve as faculty. By the time you begin working on your dissertation, you may know the faculty members who will serve on your dissertation committee quite well.

Dissertation Committee Member Mentoring Student

Who Serves on Your Dissertation Committee?

To a degree, who serves on your dissertation committee is up to you. Dissertation committees usually consist mostly of faculty members from the doctoral student’s home department, though this can vary due to the rise of interdisciplinary programs.

Some universities also allow an outside expert–a former professor or academic mentor from another university–to serve on your committee. It’s advisable to choose faculty members who know you and who are familiar with your work.

While it’s a good idea to have a mix of faculty members, it’s also important to be mindful about the roles they can play. For instance, I always advise graduate students working in quantitative fields to have a statistician on their committee. When there’s big data to crunch, it never hurts to have a stats expert in your corner. You’ll also want at least one faculty member–besides your chair–whose research is in the same relative area as yours, or adjacent to it.

How to Choose Dissertation Committee Members

Think Carefully. It’s tempting to approach a faculty member who is a superstar in their field (if not, necessarily, in yours) to lend a little extra sparkle to your own academic credentials. Or perhaps the kindly professor you can always count on for an easy A. Or even the faculty member you’d like to be friends with after graduate school. Right?

Not so fast. Here are some things to keep in mind when building your dissertation committee dream team:

Avoid Superstars. Though the prospect of having your department’s most eminent name on your committee sounds exciting, their star power comes with a price. Between guest lectures, books, keynotes, and conference travel, their time is not their own, and it won’t be yours, either. Choose dissertation committee members who have time for you.
Choose faculty members you know, like, and can learn from. It’s not a bad idea to approach a professor whose coursework challenged you. One of the professors who served on my committee was such an exacting grader that my term papers for her courses were accepted for publication without revision (academia’s most coveted mythical creature).
Keep your eyes on the future. Members of your dissertation committee can be your mentors, co-authors, and research collaborators throughout your career. Choose them wisely.

Forming Your Dissertation Committee

Asking a professor to be on a dissertation committee

Reaching out to potential dissertation committee members and formally asking them to serve on your dissertation committee can be a surprisingly taxing process. It takes some planning, and you’ll want to put some thought into it before making the big ask. While being asked to serve on a dissertation committee won’t come as a surprise to most faculty–they know the drill–these are some considerations to know going in:

Talk to your advisor before approaching anyone to be on your committee. Remember, your advisor knows their colleagues in a way that you don’t, and is also aware of departmental politics, potential personality conflicts, and which faculty members are a good fit on a dissertation committee. Trust your advisor’s judgement.
Know what you’re asking. Serving on a dissertation committee is a big time commitment for any faculty member. If they say yes to being on your committee, it means they are invested in you and your research, and they want to play a role in your future. It doesn’t hurt to send a thank-you note.
Don’t sweat it if they say no. It does not reflect on you as a student or a scholar. A good faculty member is aware of their limitations, and they probably just don’t have the time or bandwidth to take on another big commitment. Thank them and move on.

Expectations

Once your dissertation committee is formed, it’s time to get down to business. As a faculty member, I love serving on dissertation committees because doing so gives me the chance to work with grad students one on one as they journey into new frontiers and carve a place for themselves in academia. It is a deep, rich learning experience, and it’s thrilling to watch students transform into scholars.

Even though researching and writing a dissertation is the most challenging work you’ll ever do, recognize this time for the opportunity it truly represents. In your dissertation committee, you have a panel of experts all to yourself, and they’re eager to help you knock your dissertation out of the park. This is the experience of a lifetime; take advantage of your dissertation committee’s time and talent, and channel that energy and goodwill into your development as a scholar.

close up of taking notes in front of laptop

Courtney Watson, Ph.D.

Courtney Watson, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of English at Radford University Carilion, in Roanoke, Virginia. Her areas of expertise include undergraduate and graduate curriculum development for writing courses in the health sciences and American literature with a focus on literary travel, tourism, and heritage economies. Her writing and academic scholarship has been widely published in places that include Studies in American Culture , Dialogue , and The Virginia Quarterly Review . Her research on the integration of humanities into STEM education will be published by Routledge in an upcoming collection. Dr. Watson has also been nominated by the State Council for Higher Education of Virginia’s Outstanding Faculty Rising Star Award, and she is a past winner of the National Society of Arts & Letters Regional Short Story Prize, as well as institutional awards for scholarly research and excellence in teaching. Throughout her career in higher education, Dr. Watson has served in faculty governance and administration as a frequent committee chair and program chair. As a higher education consultant, she has served as a subject matter expert, an evaluator, and a contributor to white papers exploring program development, enrollment research, and educational mergers and acquisitions.

Comments are closed.

How to Finish Your Dissertation in Half the Time

Learn how to avoid the pitfalls preventing you from finishing your dissertation faster.

Subscribe to get the free eBook!

Dr. Courtney Watson In the News

“ See It for Yourself ” in With Good Reason: Beyond the Book July 22, 2022

“ I Thought You’d Never Ask: Consent in Contemporary Romance ” in New Frontiers in Popular Romance (McFarland) June 13, 2022

Common Errors
Dissertation Success
Presentation
Quantitative Analysis
Surviving Grad School

“How to Finish Your Dissertation in Half the Time”

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.

Two slides, oriented vertically one on top of the other. The top slide says introductions, with a bullet list of the students education and photos of the student doing their hobbies, as well as images of where the student has worked. The lower slide is all text, with a bulleted list of the students career aspirations after the phd

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

Henley-Putnam's Doctor of Strategic Security Subject Guide

HPSSS Doctoral Program Handbook and Dissertation Guide
Roles and Responsibilities of Dissertation Committee
Introduction to Research
Search Strategies
Conducting a Literature Review
Journals Relevant to Strategic Security
Government Resources Relevant to HPSSS
Maps and Satellite Images
Geospatial Apps
GIS & Geospatial Technology
Historical Maps
Mapping Militancy
Remote Sensing
Faculty Member Link Recommendations (Fee-based)
News and Media Resources-Africa, Asia, India, and the Americas
Global Security Newswires
News Archives and Global News Aggregators
News and Media Resources - Middle-East and North Africa
Research Institutions and Think Tanks
Dictionaries and Encyclopedias
Responsible Conduct of Research
The Dissertation Proposal
Possible IRB Outcomes
IRB Forms and Templates
APA Formatting and Style (7th ed.) This link opens in a new window
Before Writing
While Writing
After Writing
Open Dissertations

Subject Matter Expert

Committee Member

Committee chair.

The chair schedules the comprehensive exams, delivers feedback and results of the comprehensive exams, acts as an instructor, oversees the production of the thesis/dissertation, communicates feedback from the subject matter expert and committee member, schedules the dissertation defense, meets monthly via Zoom with the student/candidate throughout the research courses, and reviews work for publication quality. The chair deals directly with the student on the quality of the paper, the presentation, the flow, the sequence, and the conclusions.

The role of the committee chair includes the following responsibilities:

scheduling the comprehensive exams,
communicating the grades and feedback from the doctoral comprehensive exam,
overseeing the production of the dissertation,
managing the timeline and schedule for completion of each phase of the dissertation in the courses.
acting as an instructor in the courses,
contacting the student/candidate regarding setting and meeting deadlines in the dissertation process,
directing the timely and successful completion of each assignment,
working directly with the SME and committee member to garner added perspective, feedback, and constructive criticism to strengthen the dissertation,
communicating with the student/candidate to convey feedback, insights, added perspective, and constructive commentary provided by the committee member and SME,
confirming with the SME that the content of the dissertation is factual and accurate,
advising the student on formatting, sequencing, and organizing the thesis/dissertation,
ensuring the academic quality of the thesis/dissertation, including each of the assignments in courses.
facilitating final approval of the thesis/dissertation by making sure that all committee members sign the approval form, and
scheduling and leading the thesis/dissertation oral defense and publication.

Subject Matter Expert (SME)

All members of the committee are subject matter experts (SMEs). The title of this particular member of the committee emphasizes and highlights specific responsibilities within the committee dynamic. The SME should be in constant contact with the student regarding content of the dissertation. This is the person the student turns to in order to test ideas and conclusions and to ensure the appropriateness, relevance, significance, and accuracy of the dissertation’s content in order to meet university and academic standards.

The SME also certifies the accurate reporting of that material to the chair and determines the factual nature of the work. The SME knows the subject closely and acts as the student’s sounding board. The SME does not establish timelines, length of the thesis/dissertation, etc. The role of SME includes the following responsibilities:

consistently consulting with the student/candidate regarding the relevance and significance of the research content,
regularly discussing content with the student/candidate to test ideas and conclusions,
updating the committee chair about discussions with the student/candidate and about any suggestions or recommendations resulting from those discussions, and
confirming the accuracy, appropriateness, relevance, and significance of the research focus and content with the committee chair.

One additional committee member works for the committee chair. The committee member advises and assists the committee chair in every aspect of the project. The committee member interacts directly with the chair, not the student. This prevents conflicting information from being sent to the student and presents a unified stance during the process. The chair and the committee member work out all responses presented to the student and resolve any conflicting guidance before the student is contacted. If conflicts cannot be resolved, the chair makes the ultimate decision. The chair and the committee member work together constantly, but the chair is the face of the university to the student. The role of the committee member includes the following responsibilities:

interacting with the chair to provide added insight, perspective, and feedback to be shared with the student, and
determining responses, suggestions, and constructive criticism that will be shared with the student through the chair.
<< Previous: Dissertation Committee
Next: Introduction to Research >>
Last Updated: Jan 2, 2024 12:00 PM
URL: https://national.libguides.com/HPDSS

Infrastructure
Education / Career
Cluster Ocean Floor
Data Privacy
Graduate School GLOMAR
Thesis Committee Meetings

Preparing, leading and recording thesis committee meetings

A guide for phd students, why should i meet with my thesis committee.

Thesis Committee Meetings are meetings that you ask and invite for when you would like to get advice from your thesis committee (TC) . They are not meant to be mere status reports of your project (this can often be accomblished with an e-mail).

Reasons to call for a thesis committee meeting can be, for example:

You are at the beginning (first two months) of your PhD project and need to discuss your 3-year time-line (this is something every PhD student should do!)
You would like to conduct a research placement / an advanced training or participate in a conference and would like to ask your TC for recommendations
The initial project plan / schedule needs to be / had to be adjusted due to unforeseen circumstances, your TC could share their experience on how to handle such a situation
You would like to discuss your publication strategy
You have (communication) issues with your supervisor or main advisor and would like to meet with the full TC to try and resolve the issues, thereby counting on the support of the other TC members
You are approaching the end of your PhD phase and would like to get some advice how to develop your further career

There can be many more reasons to call for your TC to meet. As you can see by the examples, the benefit of thesis committee meetings can be much more than just talking about your science!

Preparing a meeting

The better you prepare a meeting, the better the chances that you will be satisfied with the outcome!

Technical preparations:

ask all TC members about their availbility (you should do so well in advance because scientists tend to have full calendars)
book a seminar room or an online meeting room (you can contact [Bitte aktivieren Sie Javascript] if you don't know how and where)
invite your thesis committee members
make a written list of what you want to talk about
prepare a PowerPoint presentation and handouts (if you think it would be helpful)

Preparing the meeting agenda:

Determine clear objectives: ask yourself, what you want to know from your thesis committee. Write down specific questions that you would like to have answered in the course of the meeting. A helpful start is to ask yourself "Which outcome of the meeting do I envision to ensure that I will feel satisfied at the end of the meeting?"

Write down specific questions you want to ask your TC : choose only those questions that you would like to have answered by the group (other questions can maybe be directed to single members of your TC). Be realistic about the number of questions you want to ask ( thesis committee meetings typically have a duration of 90 minutes).

Prepare an agenda for the meeting: use the guideline GLOMAR provides ( link ) and choose the topics that are relevant for you at the current stage of your project. Decide how much time you want to spend talking on each of the topics, remember to write your agenda down (you should include some buffer time for each topic to allow for spontaneous interesting discussions, but not too much, otherwise you might end up having to skip other topics), you can also decide for 'bonus topics' that you address in the meeting if there is some time left at the end (but make sure that you are okay it the topic is dropped, otherwise it should not be a bonus topic but a part of your agenda!)

Send the agenda to the members of your TC : the advantage of sending the agenda in advance is that you will automatically put more effort into your preparations and that the TC members have the chance to already think about some of the topics. It may also be worthwile to send them the questions you would like to address at them during the meeting. This is a tool you can use when you moderate the meeting later on (see below).

Decide how you want to organise your TC meeting: make up your mind whether you want to present all your topics first and then have a discussion at the very end or whether you would like your TC to discuss after every topic you introduce. You should come to a decision before you start preparing your presentation since this will guide the structure of your slides.

Preparing your presentation:

Whether it is a PowerPoint presentation (PPP) or a paper draft you would like to discuss with your TC, the better you prepare it, the better the outcome of the meeting will be. In most cases, PhD students prepare a PPP. Numbering your slides can be helpful for a discussion at the end. If you decided that you would like the TC to start a discussion after every topic you introduced, you should already write down the questions you have at the end of each chapter / topic. NEVER end a PPP with a "Thank you for your attention" slide! Why not? because the last slide is what people look at when the discussion starts. It is much more useful to end with a summary of your most important findings, a take-home message or with questions you have for your audience. Yes, 95% of the scientists end their presentation with a thank-you slide. But don't just copy something that the majority does, if it is not helpful for your cause!

When you are finnished with your written list of topics and questions and your slides are all prepared, you are ready for a trial run of your presentation : people with A LOT of routine may not need trial runs anymore. But as a PhD student, you definitely do. It will improve your meeting a lot! Ask a fellow Phd student to spend 20 to 30 minutes listening to your presentation. In return, you can offer to do the same for them. When we practice, we always find things that can be improved, it's better to find them prior to the 'real' meeting.

Okay, this was a lot of input just to start with! Do you feel overwhelmed by reading what you should do to prepare a meeting? It just seems a lot in the beginning. When you start preparing all your meetings in this routine (not just TC meetings), it will become more and more natural and easy after a while! You will probably notice that many people don't prepare the meetings they host in such a careful manner. But are those meetings enjoyable? Or do they often end up in long discussions about things that were just side topics on the agenda? It's all in your hands! By the way, the time you invest into preparing a meeting is time that you save in the end! Time that would, for example, otherwise be used for discussions about topics that are not your priority.

Now that you have carefully prepared your meeting, let's see how you can successfully take leadership, maybe even without people noticing that you are leading them ;-)

Leading a meeting

Before you start the meeting , you should decide which role you would like to play in the meeting. The main idea of the TC meetings is that they are YOUR meetings. This means that you lead the members of your TC through the meeting. It is important that you start your meeting with this self-image of being the leader, otherwise you may lose leadership over your own meeting in no time at all. This might end up in the committee talking about different things than you wanted them to talk about. Does this sound pushy to you? Don't worry, (most) supervisors are totally okay with you taking the lead. They will be impressed and thankful to see how well prepared you are!

Start the meeting by introducing the agenda for the meeting. Make sure to point out which topics are especially important for you and which questions you would like to have answered at the end. Since you were clever and wrote the questions down in your PPP, the TC members will have a visual impression of what is expected from them.

Keep an eye on the time while you go through the topics. If you want to go on to the next topic, let the participants know! Since you wrote down the time that you assigned for each topic, you can navigate through the meeting. Make sure to insist on getting answers for your questions!

Here are some things you could say if you need some ideas how to lead through the meeting in a polite way:

"Thanks a lot for all your valuable ideas! I wrote them down and I'm sure they will help me move on with my research. Since time is passing, I would like to draw your attention to another topic:..."
"May I kindly ask everyone to pay attention to my next slide where I wrote down some questions that I have for you" (every scientist is flattered when they are asked for their expertise!)
"Thanks so much. May I now kindly move on to another topic that seems very important for my project..." (this underlines that you have some urgent matters to discuss)
"I planned for 90 minutes for this meeting. I don't want to take up more of your valuable time and I still have X topics left I would like to talk about. Could we maybe move on to the next topic?" (if you remind people that time is passing and that you don't want to extend the meeting time, they will most likely respect your agenda and acknowledge that you take care of their needs as well)

As a visual tool , you can leave the slide(s) with your questions up on the screen until they have been answered. This will constantly remind the meeting participants, that there is an open task.

Since you were clever and ended your presentation with a summary or questions slide, you should not forget to thank the meeting participants verbally at the end.

Recording a meeting / writing minutes

"Okay, I've just been in a meeting, I remember what everyone said. Why should I write minutes? Just to please my graduate school and be eligible for funding?" - Maybe there are some other good reasons ;-)

Do you remember what you had for lunch Tuesday two weeks ago? No? Our brain forgets a lot of things. Luckily! Otherwise it would be so full of information that we would probably start to forget really important things like our mother's birthday or where we parked our bike this morning. Everything we write down, relieves pressure from our brain! Writing minutes of meetings has another great advantage: we can go back to the written document and refresh our memory anytime we need it.

Certainly, people's brains are different. Some have an amazing memory. For them it may be enough to write down keywords and by looking at those, they will immediately remember exactly what every meeting participant said. But let's be honest, the great majority of people forgets things. So it may be valuable to write minutes in some detail to make sure you record everything that seemed important to you. In the case of thesis committee meetings, you should record the development of the discussion (who said what?) since this information might become important at a later stage of your project.

Another advantage of writing detailed minutes is that in the process of writing, you may develop new ideas or maybe you find that there are some aspects of the discussion that you did not fully understand. In this case you could go back to your TC and let them know that "When I wrote the minutes for the meeting, I noticed that I didn't fully understand what you told me regarding topic X..."

Finally, written minutes are an important tool of communication with your supervisor and the other TC members. Even if everyhting that has been discussed during a meeting seemed clear at the moment, it may still turn out that you had different things in mind when you talked. Misunderstandings and lack of communication about the own ideas and expectations are the most common source of conflicts! Writing everything down makes sure that you are all on the same page and agree on the same plans and strategies. One thing that PhD students often underestimate is that supervisors cannot always remember every detail of their students' projects. Meeting minutes can therefore also be an important means of keeping a track record for your supervisor.

Writing minutes can take up nearly as much time as the meeting itself. But when you try it once, you will probably notice how helpful it is.

Good luck with your next meeting :-)

Are there any aspects we forgot to mention? Or would you like to share some of your own experiences? Please contact us at [Bitte aktivieren Sie Javascript]

Skip to Content
Catalog Home
Institution Home
Graduate Catalog /
Academic Resources /
Advising & Mentoring PhD Students /

The Dissertation Committee

The academic experience is greatly enhanced if faculty members other than the direct advisor are readily and formally available for consultation and discussion with the graduate student. To provide this element of supervision, a dissertation committee must be put in place for the Ph.D. student early in the dissertation stage. The graduate group is responsible for monitoring the progress of the student through the dissertation committee, as follows:

A dissertation committee must consist of at least three faculty (including at least two members of the graduate group). While some graduate groups require all members of the dissertation committee be members of the graduate group or affiliated department, others encourage/require appointment of a faculty member from another department to encourage an interdisciplinary perspective. Students should be sure to review the policy about the composition of dissertation committee as they are building their committee.
It is required that the dissertation committee meet with the student, as a committee, at least once per year to assess the student’s progress in the program and to provide advice on future work.
The committee submits a written report to the graduate group chair, at least once per year, detailing its observations of the student’s progress and its recommendations.
The student must be given the opportunity to respond to the committee’s report/recommendation and to append a response to the committee’s report.
Copies of the report shall be given to the student and kept by the graduate group.
This annual progress report will be used, in part, to determine the mark given for the student’s dissertation status course.

The Graduate Group is responsible for ensuring that the membership of the dissertation committee is recorded in the student’s official University record. The graduate division office at the home school will monitor compliance with this requirement through reports and an annual audit of the official student file.

Advising on Embargo Options

An important point of guidance from the advisor and dissertation committee – that is sometimes overlooked in the later stage of completion -- is to counsel the student on whether to embargo the dissertation. Penn requires open access publication of dissertations in the University’s institutional repository, ScholarlyCommons . Open access publication provides a wide audience, can help to market ideas to potential employers, and can help make plagiarism or theft much easier to detect. The open access dissertation will be available via the internet, including full text searching through search engines like Google. In cases where papers are in press, patents are pending, or where there are other intellectual property concerns, it may be beneficial to delay publication (commonly referred to as an "embargo"). Students should discuss embargo options with their advisor and their dissertation committee who can help to decide whether a delay in publication is necessary or advisable. Refer to the Dissertation Embargo Guidelines for more information about embargo options.

Print Options

Print this page.

The PDF will include all information unique to this page.

A PDF of the entire 2023-24 catalog.

A PDF of the 2023-24 Undergraduate catalog.

A PDF of the 2023-24 Graduate catalog.

Curriculum in Genetics and Molecular Biology

Dissertation Committee and Meetings Policy

The primary function of the dissertation committee is to help guide the student through the PhD, especially the research component. The committee also administers the doctoral oral exam and monitors the student’s progress. On this page:

Committee structure
Timing of committee meetings
What happens in committee meetings
Documenting meetings – forms and instructions
Responsibilities of student, advisor(s), chair, and other members

Committee Structure

Summary of committee makeup:

At least five members. The advisor(s) and chair count toward this number.
A majority a members must be faculty in Curriculum in Genetics and Molecular Biology.
One member is designated as chair (see below). This should be a senior member of the GMB faculty. The chair has a critical role in ensuring that both the student and advisor adhere to GMB policies and to good practices in graduate training. Thus, it is more important that the chair have a strong record of graduate training (as an advisor and/or member of other committees) than be an expert in the student’s dissertation research area.
Other members should be on the UNC graduate faculty or can be faculty at other institutions (GMB does not pay for members of other institutions to travel to Chapel Hill, except for parking costs). Members from other institutions must be appointed as temporary graduate faculty at UNC. The Student Services Specialist can do this process.

Committee members are chosen by the student, in consultation with the advisor(s). Committee makeups must be approved by the Director of Graduate Studies. Exceptions to the rules above require approval of the Director of Graduate Studies and of The Graduate School (this approval will be obtained by the Director) prior to establishing the committee. Upon approval, the DGS signs the Report of Doctoral Committee Composition. . This form should be filed with the Student Services Manager prior to the first committee meeting.

It is recognized that research projects may go into unanticipated directions as they evolve. Therefore, it is permissible to make changes to the committee, including adding additional members or making substitutions. Changes must be approved by the Director of Graduate Studies and reported to the chair of the committee, the Student Services Manager , and affected committee members.

The first meeting must be held before the end of spring semester of the 2 nd year of graduate school (end of 1st year for MD-PhD students), unless an extension is requested from the Director of Graduate Studies ( e.g. , for students taking extensive coursework or TAing that semester).
The oral exam meeting (typically the 2 nd meeting) must be held before the end of the first semester of the 3 rd year ( i.e. , December; end of 2nd year for MD-PhD students). See the GMB Oral Exam Policy for more information.
After the oral exam, committee meetings must be no more than one year apart until the 6th year, at which time meetings be no more than six months apart . Students that are overdue for a meeting will receive a grade of L (low pass) for GNET 994 – Dissertation Research. Six credits of L in any courses renders a student academically ineligible to continue in graduate school. In addition, students that are not in compliance with this policy will not be considered for awards that require nomination by the program, including Graduate School awards and the Lineberger Graduate Student Award.
The final meeting must be held within four months of the anticipated defense date (see GMB Dissertation and Defense Policy ).

Dissertation Committee Meetings

With the exception of the oral exam, which is described in the GMB Oral Exam Policy , the structure of each dissertation meeting should be decided in advance by the student and the chair. Typically, the student prepares a presentation of about 30-45 minutes that describes the project, progress, and goals. The student might also be asked to prepare a written document outlining their progress and goals, to be distributed to the committee before the meeting. In some cases, especially for senior students, discussion of this document may substitute for a presentation.

At the start of each meeting the student will leave the room briefly to allow the committee to discuss progress, strengths, and any weakness that need to be addressed. After the student returns, the advisor(s) will leave the room so the committee can have a discussion with the student. These discussions are to be considered confidential and should be not be discussed with the advisor unless the student has given explicit consent.

When the committee is re-assembled, the student goes through the presentation and fields questions from the committee. Except for the oral exam, the purpose of the meetings and questions is not to test knowledge or understanding, but to guide the student; however, challenging the student or engaging them in the Socratic method may often be the best way to promote their development. The committee meeting is also a good forum for the student to ask the committee questions and solicit advice about how to proceed. Meetings should include an explicit discussion of goals for the next year and other aspects of training that might be important to the student.

Per Graduate School rules, the full committee must be present for the oral exam and the final defense. Other committee meetings are not required by the Graduate School, but by GMB. It is preferable to have all committee members present, but if this is not possible then a meeting can be held as long as no fewer than three members are present.

Documentation of Committee Meetings

Each committee meeting must be documented through completion of a Dissertation Committee Meeting Report. There are different reports for the first meeting, the oral exam, and all subsequent meetings. The student must obtain the proper form (see below) prior to the meeting , fill out the top section, and then send it to the committee chair and the Student Services Manager; a hard copy should also be brought to the meeting. The chair fills out additional sections during the meeting. The completed form is returned to the Student Services Manager (either the student or the chair can do this), who distributes a copy to the student and advisor(s). Disagreements with the content should be brought to the attention of the chair and/or Director immediately. If no disagreements are registered, a copy is placed into the student’s record. This is distributed to the committee prior to the next meeting.

Report of First Committee Meeting (for the initial meeting with the committee; additional forms must be obtained from the Student Services Manager)

Report of Oral Exam (for the oral exam; additional forms must be obtained from the Student Services Manager)

Report of Committee Meeting (for each meeting after the oral exam)

Report of Final Committee Meeting (granting permission to schedule a defense within four months)

There are also forms required by The Graduate School. These can be found on their Graduate School forms page , but it is best to get them from John when needed. These include:

Report of Doctoral Committee Composition . This is one form with two parts. Part I lists your committee, including advisor(s) and chair. It must be signed by the Director of Graduate Studies to indicate approval of the committee. Part II states that your committee approves of your dissertation project (The Graduate School will refer to this as “prospectus approval”). This is done at the oral exam. Each committee member must sign this form at that time.

The Doctoral Exam Report also has several parts: Report of Written Exam (I); Report of Oral Exam (II); Report of Final Oral Defense (III); and Report of Final Dissertation (IV). Each of these must be signed by your committee chair at the appropriate time (we have the chair sign the written exam part after the oral exam part, since dissertation committees are not involved in administering the written exam).

Responsibilities of Student

Adhere to the timing requirements listed above.
Get approval from the Director of Graduate Studies for the makeup of the committee and any deviations from the standard makeup.
Schedule regular committee meetings. This includes finding a date that works for your committee members (at least a majority), finding a room in which to hold the meeting (the Student Services Manager can assist with this), and notifying the Student Services Manager that a meeting is scheduled (at least one week prior to the meeting date).
Prepare any written materials or presentation requested by the chair.
Obtain a copy of the appropriate from (above), fill out the top section before your meeting, and ensure that the final, completed form is delivered to the Student Services Manager. If we do not receive your completed form, you did not have a committee meeting.

Responsibilities of Advisor(s)

Ensure that students adhere to the current Curriculum in Genetics and Molecular Biology policy regarding timing of dissertation committee meetings. Failure to follow this or other GMB policies may result in future students being ineligible for training grant support.

Responsibilities of Dissertation Committee Chairs

Assist the advisor(s) in overseeing the academic and professional development of the student.
Run all dissertation committee meetings, including the oral exam (see GMB Doctoral Oral Exam Policy ). This includes consulting with the student before each meeting to decide on a format and asking the advisor(s) to leave the room to allow the committee to address the student and vice versa .
Fill out the dissertation committee meeting forms. Go over the contents at the meeting, then send the completed form to the Student Services Specialist.
See the GMB Doctoral Oral Exam policy and the GMB Dissertation and Defense Policy for additional responsibilities.

Responsibilities of Other Dissertation Committee Members

Attend committee meetings whenever possible and offer advice and feedback to the student to help guide them to the PhD and through their research project.

Edit history

05/13/13 Changed first committee meeting timing to “before end of spring semester of year 2”.

06/30/13 Based on comments from several faculty and students, the provision for an option to ask the dissertation advisor to leave the room at the beginning of the meeting was changed to be a standard component of committee meetings.

08/04/13 Wrote new language to clarify the that the new timing requirements apply only to students that joined in 2013 or later.

01/28/14 Clarified rules for makeup of the committee and policy with regard to deviations from the standard makeup.

04/24/14 Added the Assessment of Academic Standing section, additional discussion of the role of the chair, and made some minor clarifications.

07/14/14 Changed the section on documentation to accommodate adoption of new Dissertation Committee Forms.

08/12/14 Edited to discuss the new timing of one meeting per year.

02/02/16 Clarified that discussions that take place when the advisor is out of the room are to be considered confidential and not communicated to the advisor.

02/02/16 Added language about the minimum number of committee members that must be present for a meeting to be valid.

02/10/16 Changed the consequence of non-compliance from I to L in GNET 994 because the Graduate School no longer allows grades if I in 994 courses.

02/16/17 On 2/15/2017 the GMB Steering Committee voted to increase the required meeting frequency to once every six months for students in years 6 and higher.

College of Arts & Sciences
Graduate Division
College of Liberal and Professional Studies

Thesis Committee Meetings - Third Year Students and Beyond
Graduate Student Handbook
Advising, Assessment, and Examinations

An Individual Development Plan (IDP) is required annually after successful completion of the candidacy exam. It should be filled out before each thesis committee meeting. The goals of the IDP are to help the student develop skills, plan their career, and to facilitate open communication between the student and thesis advisor. The form is available here with detailed instructions.

Thesis Committee

After successful completion of the Candidacy Exam, the student must select the members for their thesis committee.

The thesis committee should consist of at least four voting members, three of whom must be from the Biology Graduate Group. The student's thesis advisor shall not be a voting member of the thesis committee. The chair of the thesis committee must be a member of the Biology Graduate Group and cannot be the student's thesis advisor. The names of the thesis committee members must be submitted to the Graduate Chair for approval. Any subsequent changes to this committee must be approved by the Graduate Chair. In addition, the department coordinator must be notified of the committee members and any future changes for notation in the student's file.

After formation and approval of the thesis committee, the Graduate Office will provide a copy of the Candidacy Exam Report to the thesis committee members.

Thesis Committee Meetings

Third-year students must meet with their thesis committee within six months after successful completion of the Candidacy Exam. Additional meetings must be held at least once a year or at the discretion of the thesis committee. The purpose of the meetings is to ensure academic progress. Input from the committee members can be helpful to the student, especially when students encounter technical or other problems in their research. The committee is there to help the student overcome problems.

Students must advise the department coordinator of committee meetings, including date, time, and location. The department coordinator will provide the committee chair a copy of the student’s file along with a committee meeting review form for completion.

In order to alleviate occasional scheduling difficulties, one committee member can be absent from meetings. This committee member can attend through online video conferencing or the student can meet with the member at a later date for their input and advice. Please note that the student's progress report must be submitted to all committee members in advance, even if one member does not attend the meeting.

At least one week prior to the thesis committee meeting, the student will submit the following items to the department coordinator for inclusion in file:

CV - should be formatted in accordance with guidelines as staed by NIH, NSF or other appropriate agency.
Research summary and progress report, 2 pages in length, stating thesis aims, progress and plans.
Parts B and C of the Individual Development Plan as stated on the form instructions.

At the start of each meeting, the student will leave the room so that the committee may consult with the advisor regarding progress and any concerns. The student will return and the advisor will leave the room so that the committee may consult in a similar manner with the student.

After the thesis committee meeting, the committee chair will write an evaluation that will be given to the department coordinator for the student’s file. This form can be downloaded at the Forms web page. The student will also receive a copy of this report for review and comments. At these meetings, the student must show satisfactory progress towards completion of their dissertation research as judged by the thesis committee. If not, the thesis committee can recommend dismissal from the program. Under these circumstances, a Master of Science degree will be awarded.

Please note that thesis committee meetings, as stated in this policy, are a requirement of the Biology Graduate Group as well as a University policy. Students must schedule their meeting as determined by the committee members.

Should the student fail to schedule a thesis committee meeting within the designated time frame stated at the previous committee meeting, the following actions will be taken:

If the meeting is 3 months past due, the student will be put on official academic probation. The University Registrar’s Office will be notified and a hold placed on the student’s account. The department coordinator and graduate chair will schedule a meeting with the student to discuss the reasons for the delay.

When the meeting is 6 months past due, the stipend will be discontinued, and the student will be dismissed from the program.

Masters of Science Degree

The Biology Graduate Program is a doctoral degree program. However, occasionally extenuating circumstances arise which require that a student leave the program before completing their doctoral thesis. Under these circumstances, a Masters of Science degree can be awarded if the student has satisfied the following requirements:

All courses must be graded, including lab rotation(s) and/or independent study work. Courses marked as “Incomplete (I)” or “No Grade Reported (NGR or NR)” must be completed before applying for graduation with a Masters degree.
Grade point average (GPA) of 3.0 or higher.
Completion of 14 course units, including lab rotation(s) and/or independent study work. (done after second year of study).
Research paper (thesis proposal) and oral presentation submitted to exam committee.

UNC Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Make a Gift to CBP

Dissertation Committee Structure and Meetings

The primary function of the dissertation is to support and assist the student during their graduate training, especially with the research component of their dissertation, and to serve as the University’s official examining committee for the student’s dissertation administering the oral qualifying exam and the oral dissertation defense.

Committee Structure

The committee has three basic requirements:

It contains at least of five total members, including the student’s primary advisor(s) and dissertation committee chair.
A majority of members (three of five) are affiliated with the CBP Curriculum ( https://www.med.unc.edu/cellbiophysio/cell-biology-and-physiology-curriculum/cbp-curriculum-faculty/ ).
regular members of UNC Graduate Faculty (full list of UNC Regular Faculty https://gradschool.unc.edu/facultystaff/faculty/regular.html ); or
appointed to the Graduate Faculty for fixed term membership (request the Student Services Manager begin this appointment process if necessary).

Committee Chair

One member of the committee who is not the student’s advisor(s), is an active training member of the CBP Curriculum, and is at associate or full professor level is appointed as Committee Chair. The chair runs all meetings including the Qualifying Examination and Final Oral Defense.

Committee Formation

Students assemble their dissertation committee in the second semester of their second year. Students are encouraged to consult with their advisor(s) as they form their committee. Committees must be approved by the Director of Graduate Studies (DGS) before any meetings take place. The Report of Doctoral Committee Composition form should be filled out and sent to the Student Services Manager to obtain approval.

It is recognized that dissertation projects may evolve in unanticipated ways during a student’s graduate training. Therefore, students are allowed to make changes to their dissertation committee. All changes must be approved by the DGS and reported to the chair of the committee, the Student Services Manager, and the affected committee members.

Frequency of Meetings

Students are required to have committee meetings at least once every academic year. More frequent meetings may be desirable, especially during periods of either rapid progress or unexpected difficulties.

The Oral Qualifying Examination and Final Oral Defense count as meetings.

Format of Meetings

The format of meetings is predetermined in collaboration between the student and committee chair. The goal of the regular meetings is to monitor the student’s progress and provide feedback to aid them toward a successful graduate training experience. The meetings provide a forum for the student to discuss their scientific and professional development with their committee to access the committee’s expertise. Meetings should include explicit discussion of goals for the next meeting and an estimated date for the next meeting.

Meetings start with a private discussion amongst the committee without the student, followed by a private discussion of the student with the committee but without the advisor(s). This is followed by the student’s prepared presentation to the full committee.

Documentation of Committee Meetings

Following any committee meeting (except for the oral qualifying and final defense) the student writes a written summary of the meeting. The summary should include the discussion of progress, goals, and a timetable for the next meeting. This includes the status of any work towards a publication. The summary is submitted to the Dissertation Committee Chair for approval and then distributed to all members of the Dissertation Committee and the Student Services Manager.

Submitting the summary to the Student Services Manager is required for proper record keeping and to meet the requirement of annual committee meetings. Proper graduate school forms are submitted in place of a summary for the oral qualifying exam and final dissertation defense.

Responsibilities of Student

committee composition,
timing, and
submission of all proper forms
Schedule regular committee meetings with proper notice for all committee members. This includes reserving a room and notifying the Student Services Manager.
Prepare any written or presentation materials requested by the committee prior to meeting.

Responsibilities of Advisor(s)

Ensure that the student adheres to the current Cell Biology and Physiology curriculum requirements regarding timing of committee meetings.

Responsibilities of Dissertation Committee Chair

Assist the advisor(s) in overseeing the scientific and professional development of the student. This includes when the student’s best interests diverge from the advisor’s best interests.
working with the student to determine the format of meetings,
ensuring the student can privately discuss with the committee without their advisor(s), and
ensuring the committee can privately discuss the student’s progress without the student.

Responsibilities of Other Committee Members

Attend committee meetings.

Provide the student support and critical feedback to guide them through their PhD and dissertation.

Thesis Committee

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

The Committee should be comprised of

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

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

Forming the Committee

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

Changing the Committee

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

Molecular and Cell Biology

Thesis Committee Meetings

TCM To-Do List

Fill out this Google Form to let the GAO know the date of your thesis committee meeting.
Submit your online academic progress report prior to your meeting.
Have the present committee members sign your completed TCM form and leave it in 299 Weill Hall (you can slip it under the door if no one is in).
Have your committee digitally sign your completed form and email it to the GAO.
Forward the GAO an email thread that shows your committee members agree with the outcome of your meeting; still must send the GAO the TCM form but no signatures are required.

Important Information

It is fine if not all your committee members are available for the meeting. So long as your mentor/advisor and at least two other committee members are present, you have a quorum.
If you are a 3rd or 5th year , your must also schedule a time to discuss your individual development plan (IDP) with your advisor and sign the appropriate space on the TCM form.

Table of Contents

General Information

Committee Meeting Requirements

Following the Qualifying Exam, students are responsible for scheduling regular Thesis Advisory Committee meetings and must have at least one committee meeting every 6 months to remain in good academic standing . MIC students are required to send a 1-page summary of their progress to their entire committee one week before the committee meeting. Students must inform Jennifer Hamlin (ajr9xq) as soon as they schedule a committee meeting , as she needs to provide the committee with documentation.

In addition to an update by the student on their research, a formal discussion will take place during each Thesis Advisory Committee meeting to assess the student’s progress toward their research goals and acquisition of the following competencies.

Acquisition of problem-solving and practical skills.
Acquisition of a strong knowledge-base in the field of study.
Generation of a body of work that contributes new knowledge to the field, and which provides the foundation for the student’s first-author original research publication(s).

Students will receive a written summary after each Committee Meeting.

Additional Graduate Program Requirements

Students are required to present their research at MIC retreats. During the 4 th or the beginning of the 5 th year of graduate studies, each MIC student will present their research to members of the BIMS research community in an MIC departmental seminar.

Policies and procedures for monitoring of student progress are available on the BIMS Academic Progress and Achievement Committee (BAPAC) website here.

MIC Specific Modules
NIH Training Grants
Selecting Faculty for a MIC Dissertation Committee
MIC Qualifying Exam
Graduation Requirements
Steps to Graduation
MIC Academic Advisory Committee
MIC Conference Rooms
Competitive Trainee Fellowships
MIC Student Publications
Contact Information
MIC Postdocs
MIC Seminars
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

Dissertation Advisory Committee
Introduction

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

Application for Degree
Credit for Completed Graduate Work
Ad Hoc Degree Programs
Acknowledging the Work of Others
Advanced Planning
Dissertation Submission Checklist
Formatting Your Dissertation
Publishing Options
Submitting Your Dissertation
English Language Proficiency
PhD Program Requirements
Secondary Fields
Year of Graduate Study (G-Year)
Master's Degrees
Grade and Examination Requirements
Conduct and Safety
Financial Aid
Non-Resident Students
Registration

Dissertation Advisory Committee; Thesis Acceptance Certificate

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

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

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

Effective July 1, 2024:

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

Please note:

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

Grandfathering

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

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

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

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

Thesis Acceptance Certificate

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

University of Notre Dame

Nanovic Navigator

Studying counterterrorism Strategy: From Madrid to London

Published: May 15, 2024

Author: Cora Vulin

Cora Vulin ’24 is a political science major with a minor in European studies. During the winter break of 2024, she traveled to London, UK, to complete research for her senior thesis on European and British counterterrorism strategy. The Nanovic Institute supported her travel and research.

Over the winter break of 2024, I had the opportunity to return to London, United Kingdom to continue an independent research project analyzing UK counterterrorism law for my senior thesis. The project has been a two-year passion project, taking place across two countries in Europe. With the support of the Nanovic Institute’s Vill Family Endowment Grant, I ventured to Madrid, Spain, in the summer of 2022 to begin my project by visiting national archives and interviewing local scholars about Spain’s history of terrorism and its current counterterrorism law.

This research, coupled with emotional visits to terrorist attack sites, led me to discover that the United Kingdom has a strikingly similar history of terrorism. Its counterterrorism strategy, CONTEST, is also well-known globally. Described as a “world-leading” model, it has also been adopted by the European Union (including Spain). This connection inspired me to continue my research in the UK itself, an opportunity I would get the following spring when studying abroad in London.

During my study abroad semester, I interned at the UK Parliament for Ben Wallace MP, who previously served as secretary of state for defense. Every week, I worked in the gorgeous, gothic Palace of Westminster. I wrote defense analysis reports in an office overlooking New Palace Yard, where a terrorist attack took place five years before.

From research to thesis

Guided by my experiences in Spain and work at Parliament, I solidified my research project to encompass three objectives:

discern current terrorist threats in Western Europe;

analyze current counterterrorism strategy in the UK and EU; and

develop an understanding of what constitutes an “effective” counterterrorism strategy and how the existing strategies in the UK and EU might shift to respond to current threats.

This winter, my research trip to London consisted of interviews with British policymakers, counterterrorism experts, and international security professors about the UK’s counterterrorism strategy, CONTEST (est. 2003). I was able to speak with its original creators in government and professionals developing various programs under CONTEST. In these conversations, I learned the UK’s terrorist threat landscape has undergone a sudden shift in the past few years. Attacks from well-established, well-funded jihadist organizations like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS) have decreased in recent years and given rise to a new type of threat: terrorism conducted by self-radicalized individuals or extremists operating independently but under the guise of a radicalized ideology.

My interviewees discussed the inspiration behind CONTEST, its ability to adapt to contemporary challenges, which of its four pillars (“Prevent,” “Pursue,” “Protect,” and “Prepare”) most directly responds to current threats, and how they can be improved as terrorism evolves. My week consisted of regular interviews and a return visit to Parliament to attend the First Delegated Legislation Committee’s meeting on “Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment).” An additional benefit of my trip was a reunion with my former coworkers in Parliament and a scheduled virtual meeting with Mr. Wallace in the coming months to continue our discussions about UK counterterrorism law.

Overall, my winter break research trip to London proved to be a tremendous success. The information I obtained from the interviews serves as the foundation of my analysis for my senior thesis. Through this experience, I developed confidence in my ability to converse with foreign leaders and contribute to the current political conversation surrounding CONTEST, a critical national security concern in the modern age.

Once again, I extend my immense gratitude to the Nanovic Institute for supporting my ambitious project and encourage any student considering a qualitative research project in or about Europe to pursue it wholeheartedly. This experience was truly once-in-a-lifetime. It allowed me to grow as an intellectual, global citizen and craft a project I am deeply proud of.

Read more student stories on Nanovic Navigator

May 14, 2024 Volume 70 Issue 34

From the interim president, provost, and senior evp: ending the encampment, $5.5 million national institutes of health grant to support chronic disease self-management among philadelphia residents, mitchell schnall: inaugural senior vice president for data and technology solutions for university of pennsylvania health system, tyshawn sorey: 2024 pulitzer prize for music, penn medicine signs national health sector climate pledge, penn medicine and the philadelphia union sponsor a community fridge, penn libraries announces new book prize in sustainability sponsored by the lynn family, wharton launches executive online education program strategies for accountable ai, joel conarroe, english, from the senate office: faculty senate executive committee special meeting actions, from the senate office: may 15, 2024 faculty senate executive meeting agenda.

Supplements

Faculty Senate Reports

Arielle xena alterwaite and katherine scahill: 2024 newcombe doctoral dissertation fellowship, sharon y. irving: vice president of aspen, brigitte keslinke: rome prize, valentina proust, taylor smith and azsaneé truss: james d. woods award, psom’s master’s and certificate program’s excellence in teaching awards and master’s student colloquium, kyle vining: hartwell foundation award, daniel a. wagner: fulbright award, joey wu: 2024 udall scholar, karen xu: 2024 p.e.o. scholar award, the state of university city 2024 report from the university city district, retirement information sessions in may, wxpn board meeting: may 22, update: may at penn, weekly crime reports, flexible spending accounts updates and reminders, call for papers: narratives of struggle and hope: ethnography, education, and democracy at a crossroads, spring 2025 stavros niarchos foundation (snf) paideia designated course proposals: requested by may 24, gapsa 2023-2024 annual report.

May 14, 2024
vol 70 issue 34

May 10, 2024

To the Penn Community,

We have worked with serious intention for nearly two weeks to engage the protestors on College Green, who were notified on April 26—the second day of the encampment—that they were in violation of Penn’s policies. This outreach has been met by unreasonable demands and a dangerous escalation of the encampment.

Our community has been under threat and our campus disrupted for too long. Passion for a cause cannot supersede the safety and operations of our University. Early this morning, we took action, with support from local law enforcement, to remove the encampment. We would like to express our gratitude to the City of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Police Department for their support. This is an unfortunate but necessary step to prevent violence, restore operations, and return our campus to our community.

Under these extraordinary circumstances, and to provide for the safety of our community, access to the College Green area of campus will be restricted until further notice. Those wishing to enter the area will be required to show a valid PennCard. Those without proper identification will be asked to leave and, if necessary, will be escorted off campus, or considered trespassing.

The protestors refused repeatedly to disband the encampment, to produce identification, to stop threatening, loud, and discriminatory speech and behavior, and to comply with instructions from Penn administrators and Public Safety. Instead, they called for others to join them in escalating their disruptions and expanding their encampment, necessitating that we take action to protect the safety and rights of everyone in our community. We could not allow further disruption of our academic mission. We could not allow students to be prevented from accessing study spaces and resources, attending final exams, or participating in Commencement ceremonies, which for many did not happen during the pandemic.

University leaders met with representatives of the encampment on multiple occasions, for extended periods of time. We hoped that reasonable conversations could address both the concerns of protestors and the needs of the University. We made clear that their proposals were not possible, including their demands that participating students and faculty receive amnesty without proceeding through our due process for conduct and for divestment from entities engaged with Israel. Penn remains unequivocally opposed to divestment, and it is unlawful for institutions receiving funding from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

We also made clear that the encampment needed to disband and offered ways in which the protestors could continue their demonstration in compliance with our policies. We proposed, and still hope to deploy, Penn’s academic resources to support rebuilding and scholarly programs in Gaza, Israel, and other areas of the Middle East. Despite diligent efforts to find a path forward, the gap between the positions of many in the encampment and the University proved too wide to bridge in this volatile environment, while the risks to our community and our missions continued to increase.

This decision is viewpoint neutral and affirmed by our policies. There are times when our abiding commitment to open expression requires balancing free speech with our responsibility to safety, security, and continuing the operations of the University. This is one of those times and why we have acted. Open expression and peaceful protest are welcome on our campus, but vandalism, trespassing, disruption, and threatening language and actions are not.

—J. Larry Jameson, Interim President —John L. Jackson, Jr., Provost —Craig R. Carnaroli, Senior Executive Vice President

The Philadelphia Community Engagement Alliance (CEAL), funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has announced a new $5.5 million NIH grant focused on chronic disease self-management among Philadelphia residents. The project builds on a sustained strategic partnership between Penn Nursing, the Philly CEAL Community Advisory Coalition, and the City of Philadelphia’s Office of Community Empowerment and Opportunity (CEO).

The strategic partnership includes a $3.2 million contribution to sustain and evaluate Philadelphia’s Community Health Worker (CHW) program over the next four years. This program offers personalized support to Philadelphia residents, aiding them with a wide range of psychosocial needs, such as wellness workshops, resource navigation, and scheduling medical appointments. Community health workers will receive training in the DECIDE intervention, which will enhance their skills in group-based chronic disease self-management. Additionally, by intertwining this effort with a structured research program, Philly CEAL aims to generate compelling data for local stakeholders and policymakers, advocating for continued investment and sustainability of the CHW program beyond the study’s conclusion. Together, Philly CEAL, CEO, and Penn Nursing are committed to nurturing a healthier, more resilient community through innovative practices, dedicated care, and a shared vision of equitable health access for all.

“Our long-standing partnership with the city was the foundation to the initial efforts of Philly CEAL—to engage the community to address COVID-19,” said Penn Nursing dean Antonia M. Villarruel. “We are pleased to expand our efforts to address an issue of concern to our communities, chronic illness management. Our collective efforts will bring needed infrastructure support to engage community health workers in this important work. This partnership and project afford great opportunities for our students and faculty at Penn Nursing and beyond.”

“Our collaboration with Penn Nursing and Philly CEAL has been integral in addressing urgent community health issues, from COVID-19 to various social determinants of health (SDoH),” said Orlando Rendon, executive director of CEO. “Together, we’re not just tackling challenges; we’re building a resilient foundation for the future of public health. This partnership exemplifies the city’s commitment to fostering innovative solutions and empowering our communities to thrive.”

Penn Nursing researchers from the department of family and community health are leading a groundbreaking study to improve chronic disease self-management and address the social drivers of health. This project, funded by NIH Community Engagement Alliance, takes a multipronged approach to chronic disease self-management. First, the study will enable community health workers to lead group sessions, equipping residents with the knowledge and skills to manage their cardiovascular health effectively. Second, the research team recognizes that factors like access to healthy food, safe housing, and stress management tools significantly influence health outcomes. They will partner with local organizations to develop solutions and bridge these gaps.

This project, co-led by Penn Nursing’s José Bauermeister, Antonia Villarruel, Carmen Alvarez, Stephen Bonett, and Ashley Clemmons from CEO, holds immense promise for promoting cardiovascular health equity in Philadelphia. By empowering residents and addressing the root causes of health disparities, Penn Nursing and CEO are paving the way for a healthier future for all.

Dr. Schnall will spearhead the health system’s efforts to understand new tools and approaches and determine how best to implement them across UPHS to improve the provider experience, boost health outcomes for patients, and drive efficiency across the health system.

“Penn Medicine is excited to seize emerging opportunities to use technology in ways that will transform the health care industry,” said UPHS CEO Kevin B. Mahoney. “Dr. Schnall is a talented and visionary leader who will help us draw on our institution’s longstanding culture of innovation and continuous learning in this new space and provide a road map for health systems across the nation.”

In his new role, Dr. Schnall will lead the offices of the chief information officer, chief medical information officer, and chief analytics officer. Together, they will analyze the clinical and business impact of innovations, and work to build on Penn Medicine’s success with tools for automating patient access, monitoring, and self-serve transactions.

During his two terms as chair of radiology, Dr. Schnall doubled both the size of the department and its research funding portfolio. He developed training programs and funding pathways for clinician-scientists in radiology, unified academic programs across UPHS’s Philadelphia hospitals, and created a single Penn Medicine radiology residency that has been named as the top radiology program in the nation. Dr. Schnall also developed a strong collaboration between the department’s community-based physicians and its academic programs. Additionally, he built a framework for “One Penn Medicine Radiology,” which he will continue to lead as he assumes his new role. He will continue to serve in a leadership role in the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group.

Dr. Schnall has a strong national reputation, having been elected as a member of the American Society for Clinical Investigation, the Association of American Physicians, and the National Academy of Medicine.

Presidential Assistant Professor of music Tyshawn Sorey, a multi-instrumentalist and composer who has performed around the world, won the 2024 Pulitzer Prize for Music for “Adagio (For Wadada Leo Smith).” The saxophone concerto was commissioned by the Lucerne Festival and the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and premiered on March 16, 2023, at Atlanta Symphony Hall. Winners in this Pulitzer category are honored for “distinguished musical composition by an American that has had its first performance or recording in the United States during the year.”

“Adagio (For Wadada Leo Smith)”—which Mr. Sorey calls an “anti-concerto”—is dedicated to Mr. Smith, a trumpeter with whom Mr. Sorey has performed and recorded. As Mr. Sorey himself described the concerto, “it is more about introversion than extroversion…the work unfolds slowly and quietly with beautiful, sustained harmonies and only slightly less sustained melodies introduced via the orchestra or intermittently by the saxophone soloist. This stately but understated work is a welcome respite from the chaos and intrusiveness of modern life.”

Mr. Sorey’s composition “Monochromatic Light (Afterlife)” was a finalist for the 2023 Pulitzer Prize in Music. That same year, he and Brooke O’Harra, a senior lecturer in creative writing at Penn, debuted a musical collaboration with percussion ensemble Yarn/Wire titled “Be Holding,” a multimedia adaptation of the book-length poem by Ross Gay about Julius Erving’s momentous sky hook dunk during the 1980 NBA Finals. Mr. Sorey was a 2018 United States Artists Fellow and a 2017 MacArthur Fellow. He has released 13 critically acclaimed recordings as a composer and bandleader, and has received support for his creative projects from the Jerome Foundation and the Shifting Foundation, among others.

In a public commitment to lead among healthcare organizations in reducing the industry’s outsized impact on climate change, Penn Medicine has signed an ambitious national pledge promising to significantly cut and, eventually, eliminate its carbon emissions.

The Health Sector Climate Pledge is a voluntary commitment by healthcare organizations to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Since it was created by the White House and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2022, the pledge has been signed by more than 130 organizations representing nearly 1,000 hospitals, health centers, suppliers, insurers, and others. It constitutes a united effort against climate change by the healthcare sector, which is responsible for an estimated 8.5 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.

Signing the pledge is the latest part of Penn Medicine’s commitment to a wide-reaching goal articulated in the organization’s strategic plan: to become the most environmentally friendly healthcare organization in the nation. The health system is also part of the University of Pennsylvania’s Climate and Sustainability Action Plan , which includes reaching 100 percent carbon neutrality by 2042—eight years ahead of the Health Sector Climate Pledge.

“Advancing sustainability is an investment in the future,” said Kevin B. Mahoney, CEO of the University of Pennsylvania Health System. “As an industry, healthcare has played a role in the changing climate. We’re taking a step back now to consider how to best deliver care while also balancing the ecological impact for the long-term health of our patients, the communities we serve, and the generations that will follow.”

Penn Medicine’s plan to fulfill the objectives of the national pledge involved a year-long assessment of the carbon emissions of the health system’s six hospitals and more than 150 properties. The “carbon baseline” report found that UPHS produces more than 300,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Efforts to halve that number by 2030—one of the goals of the pledge—are already underway. A significant step came in December 2023, when Great Cove Solar Energy Facilities, a massive solar array in Central Pennsylvania, began producing 220 megawatts of electricity each year. The energy, purchased by the University and the health system, will supply about 70 percent of the total electricity demand of the downtown Philadelphia university- and UPHS-owned properties. This renewable power purchase agreement is estimated to cut 50,000 metric tons from the health system’s carbon footprint annually.

Penn Medicine is also taking steps to reduce the carbon emissions generated by employees commuting to and from work. The health system offers employees discounted public transportation passes—costing $10, compared to the standard $96 for a monthly pass from SEPTA. Switching from driving to riding public transit can cut each employee’s annual carbon emissions by more than two tons. Electric vehicle charging stations are being added at the Princeton Medical Center campus to complement those already available on the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (HUP) campus.

The health system has also committed to ensuring that all new building projects are designed to incorporate recycled materials, integrate expansive greenery, use less water, use less energy, and qualify for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver, or better, certification through the U.S. Green Building Council. In 2021, Penn Medicine’s newest hospital, the 1.5 million-square-foot Pavilion on the HUP campus, marked a healthcare first when it received the prestigious LEED Gold Building Certification for Sustainability.

In an effort to jointly target food insecurity to boost the health of the communities around them, Penn Medicine and Philadelphia Union have opened a community refrigerator, located at the Boys & Girls Club of Chester, Pennsylvania. The first project of its kind in Chester, the community refrigerator is accompanied by a deep freezer and pantry shelving to offer a variety of filling and nutritious foods.

“At Penn Medicine, our work has shown the importance of food access for the health of the wider community, and helping establish a program that makes gains in this area brings us great pride,” said Kevin Mahoney, CEO of the University of Pennsylvania Health System. “Everything we do is with an eye toward the communities we serve, and it’s thrilling to have a partner like the Union that shares those priorities. We’re only in the first year of this partnership and already we’re working on projects to benefit the community. I’m excited for what the future holds and what our organizations can achieve together.”

“The Philadelphia Union remains committed to prioritizing our community’s well-being, and in doing so must address the on-going issue of food insecurity,” said Tim McDermott, president of Philadelphia Union. “Together with Penn Medicine, our collective focus on the health and wellness of the community is at the forefront, and we look forward to the ongoing efforts and impact our partnership brings.”

At the unveiling, the refrigerator was full of fresh items that included, grapes, avocados, tomatoes, raspberries, green beans, and oat milk. The pantry shelves held canned tomato sauce, dry pasta, and apple sauce, while the deep freezer chest sitting opposite the shelves held a variety of cuts of beef and steak.

The community refrigerator will be open weekdays from 10 a.m. until 7 p.m. and available for anyone facing food insecurity. There is a no-questions-asked policy. The refrigerator and pantry shelves will continually be re-stocked weekly through deliveries by the non-profit, food donation facilitator Sharing Excess. The Union will supplement stock with partner donations and provide U-serve opportunities for volunteers to donate food and earn rewards. Additionally, Penn Medicine will conduct volunteer days with their staff to stock the pantry.

In addition to the fridge unveiling on May 4, members of the community attended a free farmers market, where they could collect produce and other essential products provided from Sharing Excess. Residents leaving games at the Boys & Girls Club’s gym with basketballs tucked at their hips grabbed fresh tomatoes and red peppers with their free hands. Other residents danced to a DJ’s music and played tailgate-style games.

The University of Pennsylvania Libraries have announced the launch of the Penn Libraries Book Prize in Sustainability, presented by the Lynn Family. This new annual award acknowledges outstanding contributions to the global discourse on environmental sustainability, with a specific focus on books that have a substantial impact on the public’s understanding of these crucial issues.

The winning author will receive an $8,000 cash prize and will present their award-winning research during a formal award ceremony on September 26, 2024.

“The Penn Libraries Book Prize in Sustainability is a call to action, encouraging authors and thinkers to contribute to the vital discourse on sustaining our planet for future generations,” said Brigitte Weinsteiger, interim director of the Penn Libraries and Gershwind & Bennett Family Senior Associate Vice Provost for Collections and Scholarly Communications. “In fostering a deeper public understanding of environmental sustainability, the Penn Libraries continues our tradition of advancing knowledge for the public good, echoing Penn’s broader mission to contribute to a better and more sustainable future for all.”

Penn’s new strategic framework, In Principle and Practice , urges the Penn community to play a leading role in addressing the existential challenge of climate change, stating, “We must, in an all-in University effort, do more.” The framework notes that Penn will seek additional ways to fuel and support a variety of initiatives, including those that advance understanding and promise solutions.

“As the challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion loom large, the need for informed public discourse has never been greater,” said Michael E. Mann, director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability & the Media, and a Presidential Distinguished Professor in the department of Earth & environmental science and in the Annenberg School for Communication. “This prize seeks to elevate books that not only address these critical issues but also inspire actionable insights and solutions and elucidate the interconnectedness of economic progress, social equity, environmental stewardship, and sustainable development, thereby fostering a more informed and proactive global citizenry.”

Dr. Mann is one of five jurors representing academia, climate activism, and the private sector who will select finalists and, ultimately, the winner of the prize. Other jurors include Daniel Cohan of Rice University; Sara Cronenwett of Comcast; Genevieve Guenther of End Climate Silence and The New School; and Julie DiNatale of FMC; along with Brigitte Weinsteiger, ex officio.

All non-fiction books in English published between January 1, 2023, and December 31, 2023 are eligible for submission. Successful candidates for the award will focus on environmental sustainability, covering topics including but not limited to climate change, renewable energy, conservation strategies, sustainable agriculture, water resource management, and green technologies.

Penn Libraries Board of Advisors member Haniel J. Lynn, ENG’91, WG’95, PAR’23, and his wife Anita Hsueh Lynn, ENG’91, PAR’23, generously provided funding to establish the book prize.

“Anita and I are very happy to support this initiative, which spotlights the vital work being done to address the urgent environmental issues of our time,” said Haniel Lynn. “Our hope is that the prize ignites dialogue and discussion and extends the impact of the winning book among researchers, policymakers, and the public.”

The Penn Libraries began engaging publishers and encouraging submissions for the prize earlier this year, and submissions will be accepted through April 30, 2024. Nominations must be submitted directly by publishers, and each publisher may submit only one title for consideration. Publishers can view the full rules and details of the contest and submit a work for consideration through this form .

It’s well established that artificial intelligence (AI) has changed and will continue changing the way we work. Yet with so many organizations rapidly adopting AI technologies, risks are growing as well, including well-known concerns such as bias, hallucinations, privacy and intellectual property issues, legal liability, and regulatory penalties. What are companies doing to prepare and protect themselves? Not enough, it appears. A recent BCG survey found that although 84 percent of executives believe responsible AI should be on top management agendas, only 25 percent have comprehensive programs in place.

“Everyone agrees that accountability has to be a part of what implementing AI means,” said Kevin Werbach, Wharton professor and department chairperson of legal studies and business ethics. “So, you’re either going to be one of the leaders in doing AI governance, or you’re going to get pulled along by regulation or catching up to your competitors.”

Mr. Werbach, alongside Wharton’s thought-leading AI faculty, will help executives get ahead of the curve in the new Wharton Executive Education program, Strategies for Accountable AI . Mr. Werbach serves as academic director, accompanied by faculty experts from the renowned research center AI at Wharton. The live online program will run October 16–December 18, 2024.

Strategies for Accountable AI offers participants a real-world, up-to-the-minute roadmap for effective AI oversight, empowering them to build, monitor, and maintain accountable AI solutions. Participants will explore the legal, ethical, and business controversies posed by AI; acquire techniques to mitigate AI risks; discover how fast-changing laws and enforcement across the globe could affect their business; assess their own organization’s responsible AI readiness; and more. The program helps executives win a competitive advantage as they discover how to protect their firm and its reputation while leveraging AI for business success.

The program’s format enables participants’ exposure to Wharton’s up-to-the minute research and teaching about the subject with direct interaction with the faculty via weekly, 90-minute, flipped-classroom, live online sessions. The learning is interspersed with self-paced online video segments and activities. Moreover, participants will engage in team collaboration, case studies, and a capstone project.

The program’s live online sessions will be led by prominent Wharton faculty and AI thought leaders including Kevin Werbach (academic director), Ethan Mollick, Stefano Puntoni, Scott Snyder, Prasanna (Sonny) Tambe, and Lynn Wu. Participants will also get program-exclusive perspectives of industry experts including top responsible AI executives, ethicists, investors, and government officials, among others.

Executives in all industries who are considering, adopting, evaluating, or expanding AI systems will benefit from this program. So will entrepreneurs working in the AI space, as well as developers and marketers seeking a better grasp of AI’s risks and how to mitigate them. The program is also valuable for those working in legal and compliance groups, although Mr. Werbach noted that implementing responsible AI is by no means limited to the general counsel’s office: “People who are actually managing AI projects need to understand this broader set of issues.”

Strategies for Accountable AI is now accepting applications. Prospective participants can learn more and apply at executiveeducation.wharton.upenn.edu .

Dr. Conarroe was a 1956 honors graduate of Davidson College. He then earned a master’s degree from Cornell University a year later. He joined Penn’s faculty as an instructor in English in Penn’s Faculty of Arts & Sciences (now SAS) in 1964 and was promoted to assistant professor in 1966. In his first decade at Penn, he helped restructure the undergraduate English curriculum and was named the department’s undergraduate chair in 1970, a role he held for three years. As a special assistant to then-Vice Provost Leo Levin, he was also active in involving faculty in undergraduate life, and in 1968, he won the Lindback Award for Distinguished Teaching. While teaching at Penn, Dr. Conarroe earned a PhD from New York University in 1966. In 1971, Dr. Conarroe was promoted to associate professor.

Also in 1971, then-Penn president Martin Myerson named Dr. Conarroe Penn’s first ombudsman ( Almanac July 15, 1971 ), a newly created role. According to faculty senate chair Henry Abraham, Dr. Conarroe “plunged into the manifold tasks of his two-year tenure with élan and imagination.” In reports he wrote for Almanac ( December 21, 1971 , October 3, 1972 , September 4, 1973 ), he expounded poetically about the joys of meeting a wide swath of faculty, staff, and students from across the University and helping them resolve issues. Dr. Conarroe ceded his position as ombudsman in 1973, returning to teaching in English and to his academic work, which included writing biographies of poets and compiling anthologies of their works. His books included William Carlos Williams’ Paterson: Language and Landscape (1970), John Berryman: An Introduction to the Poetry (1977), and, as editor, the collections Six American Poets: An Anthology (1993) and Eight American Poets: An Anthology (1997). During his time at Penn, he received several fellowships to support his work, serving as a Woodrow Wilson Fellow, Cornell Junior Fellow, and Danforth Foundation Fellow.In 1977, he was promoted to a full professor at Penn, and during the late 1970s, he also served as the faculty master of Van Pelt College House.

Dr. Conarroe spent 1978 to 1983 on leave from Penn as executive director of the Modern Language Association (MLA), the influential scholarly organization founded in 1883. At the MLA, he edited the influential PMLA Journal and acted as a spokesman for the humanities in the U.S. and abroad, in part as a member of the ACLS-Soviet Academy of Sciences Commission on the Humanities and Sciences. He led an MLA delegation to Moscow for a symposium on Walt Whitman at the Gorky Institute for World Literature. During this era, he also spent four summers at the Yaddo writers’ colony and served as vice president of the National Book Critics Circle.

In 1982, Penn enticed Dr. Conarroe to return as dean of the Faculty of Arts & Science ( Almanac November 30, 1982 ) and as the Thomas S. Gates Professor. As dean, he produced the second-highest yearly fundraising total for the school, which helped fund the Mellon program to develop fresh graduate curricular options, the biology department’s plant sciences initiative, and the Center for Early American Studies. Dr. Conarroe also oversaw the founding of SAS and Wharton’s Lauder Institute, the expansion of the Writing Across the Curriculum initiative, and the formation of SAS’s External Affairs Office, which managed development and fundraising. In 1984, Dr. Conarroe resigned from the deanship ( Almanac November 13, 1984 ).

Five months later, Dr. Conarroe was named the third president of the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, a position he held until 2002. As president of the Guggenheim Foundation, he was deeply devoted to the foundation’s mission and worked tirelessly to increase the size of Guggenheim Fellowships (one of which he had received himself in 1977). “He was attuned to changing cultural mores—the twists and turns in dozens of academic and artistic fields—while dealing with the financial challenges and working to raise the amount of fellowships so that people could do their own work,” said Edward Hirsch, the current president of the foundation. Dr. Conarroe was also a trustee of the foundation from 1985 to 2016. While president of the foundation, Dr. Conarroe received honorary degrees from Davidson College, Rhodes College, University Maryland, and Tulane University. He also was a former president of the PEN America Center, chaired the National Book Awards in 1988, served on the Pulitzer Prize Fiction Jury in 1989, and sat on the National Book Foundation from 1991-1994.

Dr. Conarroe is survived by his nephews, Ron, Richard, and Michael Conarroe; a niece, Betty Johnson; and a sister, Harriet.

The following is published in accordance with the Faculty Senate Rules. Among other purposes, the publication of SEC actions is intended to stimulate discussion among the constituencies and their representatives. Please communicate your comments to Patrick Walsh, executive assistant to the Senate Office, by email at [email protected] .

Faculty Senate Executive Committee Special Meeting Actions

Thursday, May 9, 2024

Faculty Senate Chair Tulia Falleti announced a special meeting of SEC by email on Thursday, May 2, to be held on Thursday, May 9, and a meeting agenda was placed in Almanac on May 7, 2024.

Discussion of Current Events on Campus and Resolution Proposals Received. SEC members discussed the ongoing “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” on College Green, sharing information about the status of the encampment, communications that have occurred between University administration and those participating in the encampment, and SEC members’ and their constituencies’ perspectives on next steps that should be taken in reaction to the situation.

A motion was made and seconded on whether SEC should consider passing a resolution in any form in response to the encampment. A quorum of 35 voting members was recognized, and a vote was conducted. By a vote of 12 in favor, 16 opposed, and 7 not voting, the motion did not pass, and discussion regarding passing a resolution ceased.

The May 15, 2024 Faculty Senate Executive Meeting Agenda was revised on May 13 following the resignation of Tulia Falleti as Chair of the Faculty Senate on May 10.

To read the revised agenda, visit https://almanac.upenn.edu/volume-70-number-33#from-the-senate-office-faculty-senate-executive-committee-agenda-v70-n33 .

Read the 2023-2024 Faculty Senate Reports .

Two PhD candidates in the School of Arts & Sciences have been named to the 2024 class of the Charlotte W. Newcombe Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship, administered by the Institute for Citizens & Scholars.

The Newcombe Fellowship, funded by the Charlotte W. Newcombe Foundation, is the largest and most prestigious award for PhD candidates in the humanities and social sciences addressing questions of ethical and religious values in interesting, original, or significant ways. Fellows receive a 12-month award of $31,000 to support the final year of dissertation writing.

Arielle Xena Alterwaite, a PhD candidate in the department of history, and Katherine Scahill, a PhD candidate in the department of music, were named as 2024 fellows.

Ms. Alterwaite’s research explores Haiti’s sovereign debt in the aftermath of the Haitian Revolution in her dissertation, “Empire of Debt: Haiti and France in the Nineteenth-Century Atlantic World.”

Ms. Scahill’s dissertation, “The Gendered Politics of Religious Authority in Thai Buddhism: Voice, Embodiment, and Sonic Efficacy in the Movement for Female Monastic Ordination,” is based upon ethnographic fieldwork with three communities of female Buddhist monks (bhikkhunīs) in Thailand. Drawing on the fields of religious studies and music studies, Ms. Scahill’s dissertation investigates the sonic practices bhikkhunīs employ to establish alternate channels of recognition, given that women’s ordination is not accepted at a national level.

Funding at the dissertation stage remains a vital way to support up-and-coming scholars. Since its creation in 1981, the fellowship has supported more than 1,300 doctoral candidates with essential time and resources to complete their writing. Newcombe Fellows have gone on to be noted faculty at domestic and foreign institutions, leaders in their fields of study, Pulitzer Prize winners, MacArthur Fellows, and more.

Founded in 1976, ASPEN is a multi-professional, interdisciplinary professional organization whose members are involved in the research and provision of clinical nutrition therapies across the lifespan. With members from around the world, ASPEN is a community of dietitians, nurses, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, physicians, physician assistants, scientists, students, and other health professionals from every facet of nutrition support clinical practice, research, and education. Currently, there are 5,500 members in ASPEN.

The vice president of ASPEN has responsibility for monitoring progress in the implementation and updating of the society’s strategic plan. In the absence of the president or the president-elect, or in the event of their inability or refusal to act, the vice president performs the duties of the president. As vice president, Dr. Irving will automatically succeed to the office of president-elect (2025), then president (2026), then immediate past president (2027). Her term on the board will end on May 30, 2028.

“We are incredibly lucky and grateful for Dr. Irving’s guidance and leadership,” noted Wanda Johnson, CEO of ASPEN. “Her vast experience as a nurse practitioner and educator and her unwavering dedication to enhancing patients’ lives provides a unique perspective that will be extremely valuable in ASPEN’s mission to widen and increase our influence as an interprofessional organization.”

The American Academy in Rome has named Brigitte Keslinke, a PhD candidate in the art and archaeology of the Mediterranean world graduate group at Penn, among 31 winners out of 1,100 applications. Ms. Keslinke’s proposal, “The Making of a Meal: Commensality in the Cult of Mithras,” was awarded the Samuel H. Kress Foundation/Donald and Maria Cox Rome Prize in the category of ancient studies.

The prize includes a stipend, workspace, and room and board for five to ten months at the academy’s campus in Rome, starting this September. Rome Prize winners are selected annually by juries of distinguished artists and scholars through a national competition.

Annenberg School for Communication doctoral students Valentina Proust, Taylor Smith and Azsaneé Truss have been named co-recipients of the 2024 James D. Woods Award. Named in memory of Annenberg graduate student James D. Woods, the award is given to outstanding graduate teaching assistants.

Valentina Proust was nominated for the award by senior lecturer Kim Woolf for her work as a teaching fellow for Dr. Woolf’s class COMM 2250: Children and Media. Dr. Woolf praised Ms. Proust’s exceptional organizational skills, detailed and constructive feedback to students, and creative teaching style. “Valentina’s guest lecture on gender and media was exceptional,” Dr. Woolf said. “She listened carefully to students’ thoughts regarding the material and handled questions confidently.” Ms. Proust studies collective memory and identity as tools to challenge dominant narratives around gender issues within the Global South.

Taylor Smith was also nominated by Dr. Woolf for her work as a teaching fellow for COMM 2250. Dr. Woolf commended Ms. Smith’s dedication to helping students during office hours, her constructive feedback, and her clear and engaging teaching. “What makes Taylor stand out as a teacher is her commitment to her students and her ability to empathize with the undergraduates while continuing to challenge them,” Dr. Woolf said. “At least two students mentioned to me that meeting with Taylor enabled them to better understand the material and apply both developmental and media theory to content.” In her own research, Ms. Smith explores Black women’s unique contributions to Black textual and visual literacies.

As a teaching fellow for COMM 2640: “Media Culture & Society in Contemporary China,” doctoral candidate Azsaneé Truss’s rapport with students, enthusiasm, and dedication to teaching earned her a nomination from professor Guobin Yang. “It was a big class with 75 enrolled students,” Dr. Yang said. “Azsaneé always came to class with infectious energy and very soon became beloved by the students. I would count Azsaneé as one of the top teaching fellows I have had in my decade of teaching at Penn.” Ms. Truss’s research focuses on Black feminism and how it connects with different forms of expression, drawing from fields like cultural studies, performance studies, critical media studies, and Black studies.

Ms. Proust, Ms. Smith, and Ms. Truss will receive the award at Annenberg’s PhD/MA graduation ceremony on May 20.

caption: (left to right) Rafe McBeth, Laura Conway, Emma Meagher, and Marilyn Schapira.

Emma Meagher, associate dean for the PSOM master’s & certificate (MaC) programs, delivered opening remarks and announced the awardees for student poster presentations and the teaching awards. Dr. Meagher then introduced Carl June, the Richard W. Vague Professor in Immunotherapy in the department of pathology and laboratory medicine, who is one of the pioneers of CAR T-cell immunotherapy, as the keynote speaker. The two discussed Dr. June’s career journey and his insights from his historic work in the form of a fireside chat. To conclude the event, master’s students then gathered in Smilow Commons for a poster presentation session.

The 2024 Excellence in Teaching awardees are:

Rafe McBeth, assistant professor of clinical radiation oncology, Master of Science in Medical Physics Program
Laura Conway, associate director, Master of Science in Genetic Counseling Program
Marilyn Schapira, professor of medicine, Master of Science in Health Policy Research Program

More information, including poster presentation awardees and an event recording can be found on the colloquium website .

Each year, the Hartwell Foundation invites a select group of biomedical research institutions to nominate faculty for its highly competitive awards, which provide significant financial support for three years, specifically for early-stage, innovative, and cutting-edge biomedical research that has not yet received outside funding. Research proposals must focus on improving the lives of children in the United States.

To date, cellular immunotherapy has shown great promise in treating childhood leukemia by engineering immune cells to target cancerous tissue. However, many patients suffer relapses and require additional treatments, risking serious side effects. One reason that some children do not respond to immunotherapy or relapse after treatment may be changes in their bone marrow itself. Dr. Vining’s team recently identified fibrotic tissue—that is, tissue that has hardened or scarred—in the bone marrow of such children. With the support of the Hartwell Foundation, Dr. Vining’s lab will undertake two research projects to investigate whether structural changes in these children’s bone marrow is suppressing the effectiveness of immunotherapies.

Dr. Wagner’s selection recognizes his notable academic and professional contributions, along with his ability to drive long-term collaboration between international institutions. His project aligns with the Fulbright Program’s mission to create enduring global connections through educational exchanges that benefit communities in the U.S. and abroad.

Mr. Wu, who is studying bioengineering and environmental science in the Vagelos Integrated Program in Energy Research, has been named a 2024 Udall Scholar by the Udall Foundation. Scholars, who receive as much as $7,000 each, are recognized for leadership, public service, and commitment to issues related to the environment or to Native American nations. Mr. Wu is the 10th student from Penn to be named a Udall Scholar since Congress established the foundation in 1992.

Mr. Wu is the founder and international director of Waterroots, a nonprofit environmental education project that uses climate storytelling to combat water insecurity in more than 20 countries. He is also a researcher in Penn Engineering’s McBride Lab, where he works as a plant specialist for a project that promotes environmental stability and sustainable agriculture.

The P.E.O. Scholar Awards were established in 1991 to provide substantial merit-based awards for women of the United States and Canada who are pursuing a doctoral-level degree at an accredited college or university. P.E.O. Scholar Awards recipients are a select group of women chosen for their high level of academic achievement and their potential for having a positive impact on society.

The P.E.O., founded January 21, 1869, at Iowa Wesleyan College, Mount Pleasant, Iowa, is a philanthropic educational organization dedicated to supporting higher education for women. There are approximately 6,000 local chapters in the United States and Canada with nearly a quarter of a million active members.

University City by the numbers 2024 infographic

Spotlight on University City: University City is the region’s leader in education, science, and innovation. The 2.4 square mile neighborhood boasts world-class institutions that have catalyzed nearly 80,000 jobs in fields including medicine, higher education, technology, real estate, and hospitality. University City is a destination for culture seekers and food lovers, a transportation hub with some of the most bicycle-and pedestrian friendly streets in the city, and is home to some of the most significant development projects and life sciences breakthroughs in the region. With diverse demographics, a blend of housing and rental options, top-notch schools and hospitals, and amenities galore, University City is one of Greater Philadelphia’s neighborhoods of choice.

Real Estate Development: In a time of flux for real estate developers across the country due to high interest rates, increased construction and land costs, and a lack of debt capital, University City continues to persevere, due in large part to the ongoing demand for life science office and laboratory spaces. University City is on pace to reach a projected 2.525 million square feet of new development valued at over $710 million, both record highs for the neighborhood. Progress on major residential, institutional, public space, and mixed-use projects marked another busy year of groundbreakings, topping outs, and ribbon cuttings in the neighborhood. In the past year, significant progress has been made on three major long-term projects: uCity Square; Schuylkill Yards; and the 30th Street Master Plan. Other key developments, including the next phase of expansion of the Provident Building campus at 4601 Market Street, the new headquarters for Spark Therapeutics at 3001 Chestnut, and over 4,000 units of multi-family housing planned to arrive by 2027, point toward University City’s continued growth, with an additional 2.77 million square feet in the pipeline expected to be completed in 2024.

Employment: New development, institutional expansions, and a burgeoning life sciences scene contribute to University City’s continued status as a top regional employment hub. In 2023, over 18,000 jobs from our neighborhood’s main employers were posted. More than 70% of University City’s 78,000+ jobs pay over $40,000 a year, compared to just under 60% for Philadelphia as a whole. University City accounts for approximately 11% of all jobs within Philadelphia, despite representing only 1.69% of the city’s total footprint. A large percentage of jobs are found at the local hospitals and universities, but growth associated with nascent technology firms and commercialization of research is also creating more employment opportunities at every rung of the career ladder. Leaders at the local, regional, and national level are taking note of the existing jobs and those on the horizon, and are actively working to invest in and accelerate our status as a regional leader in life sciences and biotech, including the newly created Keystone LifeSci Collaborative resulting from a U.S. Economic Development Administration Good Jobs Challenge grant.

Office: University City is home to ample office and lab space. Since 2000, over 4.5 million square feet of office space has been developed within our neighborhood. Recently, developers have altered their priorities when creating new inventory as a reaction to shifting workplace conditions in a post-COVID world, and new projects instead seek to add to the 3.3 million square feet of lab space instead of traditional offices. The asking lease rate in 2023 increased more than 19% over last year’s figure to $58.71 per square foot, the highest rate among regional submarkets. Coupled with the region’s 4th lowest vacancy rate of 15.40%, our accelerating life sciences and technology sector is spurring continued investment that can be felt through the city and beyond.

Higher Education: True to its name, University City offers top options in the region and nation for undergraduate and graduate studies. Over 50,000 students are enrolled in the neighborhood’s institutions of higher education, and whether they’re coming from around the city or around the world, scholars are drawn to the proximity to employment opportunities, the beautiful urban campuses, and the vitality of the surrounding community. Both the University of Pennsylvania and Drexel University fared well in recent U.S. News & World Report rankings, with Penn ranked the 6th best national university and the top business program in the country, while Drexel excelled in similar lists for most innovative schools (#18) and finished #2 for its co-ops and internships.

Healthcare: The neighborhood’s medical institutions—Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (HUP), Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), and Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center—combine to account for over 40% of all jobs in University City, making them an essential component of the local economy. Both CHOP and HUP receive annual accolades for quality of care and as top national workplaces: in the 2023 U.S. News and World Report rankings of hospitals, CHOP finished #4 for top national hospitals for children, while HUP was nationally ranked in 11 adult specialties. Both hospitals landed on Forbes’ list of best large employers for 2023, with Penn Medicine placing at #30 on the list. Our local hospitals are also leading the way in new treatments, procedures, and medical technologies, and with the forthcoming arrival of the Children’s Hospital New Patient Tower and Schuylkill Avenue Research Building, there are more on the horizon.

Innovation: University City is a nationally recognized hub for advances in science, research, and medicine. Cutting-edge innovations originate out of 3.3 million square feet of lab space in research hubs including the Wistar Institute, Pennovation, Drexel’s ic@3401, uCity Square, and Schuylkill Yards. This confluence of labs, benches, and clinics contributed to Philadelphia ranking at #6 in top U.S. metros for life sciences research talent according to CBRE. Discoveries initiated in University City spark billions of dollars in economic growth and attract international attention in fields like biotech, robotics, and medicine. In 2023, 225 patents were issued to University City businesses and institutions, which also accounted for $990 million in NIH funding and over $30 billion in cumulative R&D spending. Since 2021, over 675 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were administered in the United States using messenger RNA delivery, a process developed in 2005 by Penn researchers Dr. Katalin Karikó and Dr. Drew Weissman, who were honored with the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

Transportation: Need to get around the neighborhood? You’re in luck. University City boasts excellent options for bicyclists, pedestrians, and commuters using public transit, earning Walkscore.com’s “paradise” status for all three modes of transportation. It’s no surprise, then, that 84% of neighborhood residents also work in University City. In 2023, the Streets Department and PennDOT completed a major repaving project of Walnut Street from 33rd to 63rd Streets to create safer crossings at intersections, to provide traffic calming, and to install parking-separated bike lanes. As more employees return to the office, University City boasts a network of light rail, bus routes, and protected bike lanes to support them, and in 2023, Amtrak reported 4.2 million riders at William H. Gray III 30th Street Station, or 93% of the pre-pandemic high in 2019.

People: University City is home to a diverse and growing cross-section of residents. Following a dip in 2020 due to COVID, our population has surpassed 55,000 residents for the first time ever, and with a forthcoming increase in housing options—4,200 units of multi-family housing expected by 2026—this surge will likely continue. Our residents skew young (median age of 27.6), educated (25.2% possess a bachelor’s degree or higher), and ethnically diverse, with nearly 19% of residents born outside of the United States and 24% of households speaking non-English languages within their homes. Our dynamic neighborhood, rich in medical and educational institutions, led to 12% of residents moving here from another state, compared to 3% citywide.

Life in the Neighborhood: How do you define a great place to live? For University City, it’s fantastic amenities, an excellent dining scene, diverse housing options, world-class transit, parks and public spaces aplenty, and communities with distinct and unique personalities.

Schuylkill Yards: Currently rising in University City, Schuylkill Yards is the $3.5 billion master-planned neighborhood being developed by Brandywine Realty Trust in partnership with Drexel University. Beginning with the development of Cira Centre in 2005, Schuylkill Yards continues today along the Schuylkill riverfront. Schuylkill Yards is a new nexus of knowledge and innovation within the top life science hub of Philadelphia—a 14-acre neighborhood that features striking architecture, 6.5 acres of public greenspace, 70,000 square feet of dynamic retail and entertainment options, 3.9 million square feet of world-class life science and workspace, and 1.5 million square feet of living space. Drexel Square, the first of Schuylkill Yards’ 6.5 acres of planned green spaces, opened to the public in June 2019. The 1.3-acre park features a 12,000-square-foot elliptical lawn, 23 Dawn Redwood trees, and an array of shrubs and perennials in over 9,000 square feet of raised planted beds.

In August 2019, Brandywine unveiled architectural designs for the east and west towers at Schuylkill Yards. Designed to complement one another, the towers artfully merge inspiration from historic building materials with modern architecture and are linked by High Line Park, a welcoming, publicly accessible destination for intimate programmed events, relaxation, collaboration, and community enjoyment.

As Philadelphia continues to grow as one of the leading life science clusters in the nation, Schuylkill Yards solidifies its place as the ecosystem’s heart. Here, directly adjacent to Amtrak’s 30th Street Station, Drexel University, and the University of Pennsylvania, Brandywine is building a connection point to world-class healthcare and academic institutions, top-tier talent, and readily available investment capital.

For the full report, visit https://issuu.com/universitycity/docs/the_state_of_university_city_2024 .

—University City District

Ready to spring into retirement? To help you prepare for the next phase of your life, Penn will host the next series of Thinking About Retirement presentations on Wednesday, May 29 in Houston Hall from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.

Thinking About Retirement offers three different concurrent sessions specially designed for Penn staff and faculty. Each 90-minute presentation covers an important aspect of retirement benefits: Penn Benefits & Medicare , 5 Steps to Creating Your Retirement Income Plan , and Social Security Benefits Planning .

At the Penn Benefits & Medicare session, representatives from Health Advocate and benefits specialists from Human Resources will explain the Rule of 75 , retiree healthcare options, and how they integrate with Medicare.

During the 5 Steps to Creating your Retirement Income Plan session, a TIAA retirement plan counselor will discuss such topics as budgeting in retirement, income options, and investments to help you get the most out of your 403(b) plan.

The Social Security Benefits Planning session, led by a TIAA representative, provides valuable details about how this program impacts your plans for retirement. You will also get an overview of Social Security benefits, eligibility rules, how to apply, benefits for your spouse, and more.

Benefits specialists from Penn Human Resources will be available throughout the event to answer your questions about Penn’s retirement savings plans, healthcare benefits, and other aspects of retiree benefits for you and your dependents.

To register for the presentations, click on the session times in the table below or visit www.hr.upenn.edu/thinkretirement .

Thinking About Retirement, May 29, 2024 Sessions

For more information about retirement, visit the Retiree Benefits webpage .

An open session of the WXPN Policy Board will meet Wednesday, May 22, 2024, at noon at WXPN. For more information, email [email protected] or call (215) 898-0628 during business hours.

18 Weitzman School 2024 Year End Show ; brings together work from the Class of 2024 in architecture, landscape architecture, city and regional planning, historic preservation, urban spatial analytics, and fine arts; Meyerson Hall. Through June 14 .

Fitness & Learning

16 Executive Program in Design for Sustainability Info Session: Meet XDS Students ; meet current students and instructors and learn how to register at a 30% discount; Zoom webinar; register: https://tinyurl.com/xds-info-session-may-16 (XDS).

17 (deep) listening: Resonance ; features poet and musician Moor Mother with a supporting performance by Delish (featuring exclusive new material) & interstitial sets by DJ Precolumbian; 7 p.m.; Institute of Contemporary Art; register: https://tinyurl.com/deep-listening-may-17 (ICA).

Special Events

18 Penn Women's Center 50th Anniversary Celebration ; help commemorate a half-century of empowerment, advocacy, and community; 2:30-4:30 p.m.; room TBA; the ARCH; register: https://tinyurl.com/pwc-50-may-18 (Penn Women’s Center).

15 Inequities in Severe Maternal and Neonatal Morbidities ; Stephanie Leonard, Stanford University; 9 a.m.; room 701, Blockley Hall, and Zoom webinar; register: https://pennmedicine.zoom.us/j/96442998641 (Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics).

Computational FSI Modeling of the Cardiovascular System ; Ryan T. Black, mechanical engineering & applied mechanics; 2 p.m.; room 212, Moore Building (Mechanical Engineering & Applied Mechanics).

16 Uncovering COPD Subtypes Via Multimodal Immunoprofiling ; Leigh Marsh, Medical University of Graz; Regulation of Smooth Muscle Cell State Through Heterotypic Cell Signaling ; Slaven Crnkovic, University of Graz; 4 p.m.; room 12-146, Smilow Center (Penn-CHOP Lung Biology Institute).

21 Leveraging Implementation Science to Improve Supports for Students ; Abigail Gray, TRAILS; 11 a.m.; Zoom webinar; register: https://tinyurl.com/gray-talk-may-21 (Penn Implementation Science Center).

This is an update to the May AT PENN calendar , which is online now. To submit events for upcoming AT PENN calendars or weekly updates, email us at [email protected] .

Division of Public Safety University of Pennsylvania Police Department Crime Report

About the Crime Report: Below are the Crimes Against Persons and/or Crimes Against Property from the campus report for April 29-May 5, 2024 . The Crime Reports are available at: https://almanac.upenn.edu/sections/crimes . Prior weeks’ reports are also online. –Eds.

This summary is prepared by the Division of Public Safety (DPS) and contains all criminal incidents reported and made known to the Penn Police, including those reported to the Philadelphia Police Department (PPD) that occurred within our patrol zone, for the dates of April 29-May 5, 2024 . The Penn Police actively patrol from Market Street to Baltimore Avenue and from 30 th Street to 43 rd Street in conjunction with the Philadelphia Police.

In this effort to provide you with a thorough and accurate report on public safety concerns, we hope that your increased awareness will lessen the opportunity for crime. For any concerns or suggestions regarding this report, please call DPS at (215) 898-7297. You may view the daily crime log on the DPS website .

Penn Police Patrol Zone Market Street to Baltimore Avenue and from 30 th Street to 43 rd Street

Philadelphia Police 18th District Schuylkill River to 49th Street & Market Street to Woodland Avenue

Below are the Crimes Against Persons from the 18th District: 12 incidents were reported for April 29-May 5, 2024 by the 18 th District, covering the Schuylkill River to 49th Street & Market Street to Woodland Avenue.

The Division of Public Safety offers resources and support to the Penn community. DPS developed a few helpful risk reduction strategies outlined below. Know that it is never the fault of the person impacted (victim/survivor) by crime.

See something concerning? Connect with Penn Public Safety 24/7 at (215) -573-3333.
Worried about a friend’s or colleague’s mental or physical health? Get 24/7 connection to appropriate resources at (215) 898-HELP (4357).
Seeking support after experiencing a crime? Call Special Services - Support and Advocacy resources at (215) 898-4481 or email an advocate at [email protected]
Use the Walking Escort and Riding services available to you free of charge.
Take a moment to update your cellphone information for the UPennAlert Emergency Notification System
Download the Penn Guardian App which can help Police better find your location when you call in an emergency.
Access free self-empowerment and defense courses through Penn DPS.
Stay alert and reduce distractions; using cellphones, ear buds, etc. may limit your awareness.
Orient yourself to your surroundings. (Identify your location, nearby exits, etc.)
Keep your valuables out of sight and only carry necessary documents.

Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) are tax-advantaged accounts that let you use pre-tax dollars to pay for eligible healthcare and dependent care expenses. Using FSAs can save money, however the amount of unused dollars that will roll over—or stay in your account from one plan year to the next—is limited. If you currently have an FSA or you plan to add one to your benefits for 2024-2025, carefully consider your contribution for the new plan year.

Health Care FSA

If you have a Health Care Flexible Spending Account (HCFSA), you will be able to roll over up to $610 of all unused funds from the 2023-2024 plan year to the 2024-2025 plan year. All unused funds over the $610 limit will be forfeited. The maximum amount you can contribute to the Health Care FSA is increasing from $3,050 to $3,200. The rollover amount will also increase from $610 to $640.

You must incur all expenses between July 1, 2024, and June 30, 2025. Claims must be submitted by September 30, 2025. All rollover funds will be available in November.

Dependent Care FSA

You must use all available funds by the end of the plan year deadline, or you will forfeit any remaining balance. You have until September 15 of the following plan year to incur expenses, and until September 30 of the following plan year to submit eligible claims.

For example, if you enroll in a Dependent Care FSA during the 2024-2025 plan year, you’ll have until September 15, 2025 to incur expenses and until September 30, 2025 to submit eligible expenses for reimbursement.

Visit the Flexible Spending Accounts webpage for more FSA details and single-sign-on access to WageWorks/HealthEquity.

—Division of Human Resources

The University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education will host the 2025 Ethnography in Education Research Forum February 7-8, 2025. The topic of the conference is Narratives of Struggle and Hope: Ethnography, Education, and Democracy at a Crossroads. For the conference, the Ethnography in Education Research Forum invites scholars and researchers to submit their qualitative and ethnographic inquiries that interrogate the connection between democracy and education, particularly in uncertain or precarious times. The call for papers seeks to explore the nuanced ways in which educators and educational institutions, broadly defined, may serve as sites for democratic struggle, hope, or something in between.

The conference will discuss the politicized times we live in. The last decade has come to be marked by global crises, political divisions, and economic insecurity, and the approaching 2024 presidential election holds the potential to redress or exacerbate these tensions. As we anticipate the political landscape unfolding, a wide and growing array of issues pose challenges for educators, schools, families, and scholars as they seek to understand and navigate an evolving landscape.

Submissions are encouraged that delve into the multifaceted dimensions of uncertainty, revealing how complex human beings acquiesce, ignore, resist, or challenge their political worlds. Ethnographers, practitioners, students, and scholars are therefore invited to illuminate how university campuses, K-12 schools, and community spaces become dynamic arenas for the negotiation of democratic values, where societal uncertainties are woven into the daily experiences of students, educators, and administrators.

This call for papers goes out to scholars who aim to foster a rich dialogue on schools as (potentially) democratic spaces in uncertain times, challenging researchers to rethink and redefine the boundaries of their ethnographic practice to capture the essence of democratic education in the face of uncertainty.

Papers will be accepted through June 1, 2024. For more information, including submission guidelines, visit https://2025forum.dryfta.com .

SNF Paideia designated courses examine the theory and practice of dialogue across differences from diverse disciplinary and interdisciplinary perspectives. They also explore the interplay among dialogue, citizenship, service, as well as individual and community wellness. Collectively, they are intended to provide students with the scholarly and applied knowledge, skills, ethical orientations, and experiences necessary for integrating their personal, professional, and civic identities—that is, for “educating the whole person.”

Courses are rostered by academic departments. SNF Paideia is not a rostering academic department. Applicants need prior contingent approval from an academic department before they apply for SNF Paideia funding and designation. It is recommended that faculty reach out to their academic department as soon as possible before applying for SNF Paideia funding and designation.

Course proposals will usually be submitted at least eight months before the course will be offered to allow sufficient time to gather all necessary approvals from the SNF Paideia Program and the appropriate departments and schools. Faculty applications to teach in spring 2025 are requested by May 24, 2024.

Proposals can be submitted at https://curf-upenn.smapply.io/prog/snf_paideia_course_proposal/ .

The Graduate and Professional Student Assembly (GAPSA) published its 2023-2024 Annual Report in April 2024. The report can be found here . This report summarizes the project work and initiatives of the 2023-2024 GAPSA Executive Board, General Assembly, and committee members. While navigating an unprecedented and challenging year, GAPSA stood steadfast and provided resources for students and student groups, advocated on behalf of the graduate and professional student community, and hosted dozens of programs for students. GAPSA is thankful to our members for their dedication of time and energy outside of their classroom and other extracurricular responsibilities and to our partners throughout the University for engaging in meaningful and productive dialogue throughout the year. For feedback on this report and any inquiries related to GAPSA, please refer to the contact form on our website, linked here .

—GAPSA

Campus Partnerships
Campus News
Film & Fine Arts
Music & Dance
Architecture
Politics & Social Science
Biotechnology
Children’s Health
Public Health
Engineering
Computer Science & Technology
Water & Environment
News in Brief
UWM in the News
Faculty/Staff Announcements
Student Announcements
Photography
Public Events
For Faculty & Staff
Submissions

News from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

English Graduate Policy Committee, 05/16/2024

English Graduate Policy Committee CRT 368, 01:01 pm Purpose of Meeting: Approves admission of graduate students; Approves dissertation proposals and preliminary exam proposals; Oversight of process for screening and selection of teaching assistants and graduate school fellowship nominees by TA and Fellowship Subcommittee(s); Nominates candidates for graduate fellowships (TA and Fellowship Subcommittee); Approves the graduate schedule for each academic year; Reviews and approves recommendations for changes in policies Contact: Alessandra Gillen, [email protected] , (414) 229-7177.

Meet some of the UWM students hired before graduation By Elora Hennessey May 15, 2024
UWM ranks in top 3.1% of universities in the world By John Schumacher May 14, 2024
Love of tech and desire to help draw student to nonprof-IT By Kathy Quirk May 14, 2024
UWM to house nation’s first Microsoft AI lab focused on manufacturing By Howie Magner May 8, 2024
Soon to graduate at 72, student reflects on the life lessons she’s learned By Sarah Vickery May 6, 2024
Fostering Success office begins cap and gown donation program By Kathy Quirk May 3, 2024
Freiburger honored as part of Business Journal’s Women of Influence By Kathy Quirk April 30, 2024

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

Student information
Faculty/Staff information

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

Clockwise from top left: Richard Saller, Jenny Martinez, Matthew Snipp, Lanier Anderson, Dan Edelstein, Debra Satz

The 2023-24 Annual Meeting of the Academic Council featured insights from university leaders on enhancing dialogue skills among students. | Andrew Brodhead

During the 2023-24 Annual Meeting of the Academic Council, Stanford Provost Jenny Martinez highlighted the importance, and difficulty, of fostering an environment conducive to the open and respectful debate of diverse ideas.

“The goal of civil discourse isn’t enforced agreement or consensus, but understanding and genuine engagement with one another in a pluralistic society,” Martinez said. “We hope to support our students in building the skills of engaging across difference that are fundamental tools to their learning here at Stanford and to their participation in civic life.”

Martinez moderated a panel discussion on “Building the Capacity for Civil Discourse in Our Universities and Our Society,” featuring insights from university leaders on enhancing dialogue skills among students. The meeting, conducted virtually this year, also included remarks from the president and the chair of the Faculty Senate.

Despite encouraging survey data about students’ willingness to engage in difficult conversations with each other, they remain uneasy about discussing controversial topics, with fears of online backlash, said Lanier Anderson , vice provost for undergraduate education, the J.E. Wallace Sterling Professor in the Humanities, and a professor of philosophy.

Students must come to the university with “serious open-mindedness,” Anderson said, and build subsidiary skills such as active listening, mindfulness, self-understanding, and emotional regulation that will help them contribute to fruitful discourse.

The university is supporting students’ development of these skills through several initiatives, such as summer dialogue groups with the McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society, the Civic, Liberal and Global Education (COLLEGE) program , activities during New Student Orientation, and substantive training for residential fellows and residential advisors.

Data collected from participants in the COLLEGE sequence shows what is working and not working, providing “almost a little laboratory for what we’re trying to do,” said Dan Edelstein , the William H. Bonsall Professor in French. For example, feedback suggests that delivery can sometimes be more important than content in affecting how people respond to controversial speech.

Edelstein said instructors must discuss the underlying reasons for free speech and pluralism with students. “Because this generation has grown up in such a hyperpolarized environment, it’s no longer self-evident to them that there is a lot to be learned from people you disagree with.”

C. Matthew Snipp , interim vice provost for student affairs, underscored the importance of the residential experience in cultivating civic discourse skills. Toward that end, the Office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education (VPUE) is developing programs for student leaders in the dorms to help foster dialogue.

“It’s really time for us to look carefully at that experience and try to reinvigorate the intellectual life that we find in the dorms,” said Snipp, who is also the vice provost for faculty development, diversity and engagement, and the Burnet C. and Mildred Finley Wohlford Professor in the School of Humanities and Sciences.

Snipp also shared the ground rules he sets to encourage robust discussion in his course on race and ethnicity in the U.S. These include asking students to be mindful of nonverbal cues such as their body language and facial expressions, mandating participation, and announcing early on that the course will confront uncomfortable truths about American society.

“Trying to avoid the ugliness and the terribleness of some of these things is a little like trying to teach students in a medical school to become doctors without ever letting them see a sick person,” Snipp said. “That knowledge and that experience is something that gives them power rather than weakens them.”

Debra Satz , the Vernon R. and Lysbeth Warren Anderson Dean of the School of Humanities and Sciences , expressed concern that no institution is doing a good job of modeling civil discourse and engagement at this time.

“People are more motivated to manipulate facts, the loudest voices get heard the most, and there’s a lot of demonizing of the opposition,” said Satz, who is also the Marta Sutton Weeks Professor of Ethics in Society.

She emphasized the need for citizens who are open-minded, humble, and willing to admit their lack of knowledge and learn from others.

Satz highlighted a spring quarter class she is co-teaching, Democracy and Disagreement , which showcases experts who hold opposing viewpoints and model civil dialogue on contentious issues such as Israel/Palestine, gun regulation, and institutional neutrality. “It’s really important to know that most of our students, most of the community, really relishes the ability to learn and listen,” Satz said.

Encouraging discussion

During the Q&A session, Snipp addressed the complexities of classroom power dynamics and the effect they can have on student discussions.

“I’m sure many of you have seen this, where you see a pecking order that will develop in a classroom,” he said.

Snipp said it is important for instructors to be proactive in recognizing and correcting these power imbalances. He suggested interventions such as publicly acknowledging the contributions of students who are less frequently heard by saying, “Thank you, that was very insightful. I really appreciate that thought.”

Someone asked about whether there’s any effort to signal the importance of civil discourse during the admissions process. Edelstein said a new question on the Law School’s application probing how applicants responded to ideas they found disagreeable elicited revealing answers. “We’re hoping that we could get some similar results with 17-year-olds, versus 20- to 23-year-olds,” he said.

Panelists also discussed how optimistic they were about their ability to make a difference despite challenging times. They noted that the growing awareness among students of a need for better engagement tools represents an opportunity.

“The fact that they feel the need for that is our opening to make these programs be successful,” Anderson said.

Addressing challenges

During President Richard Saller’s annual report to the Academic Council, he discussed the past “tumultuous” year, which included the ongoing Israel-Hamas war in the Middle East and the dissolution of the 109-year-old Pac-12 conference.

Richard Saller Academic Council remarks

Prepared text of remarks by President Richard Saller for the annual meeting of the Academic Council on May 9, 2024.

Saller said that following the Hamas terrorist attack on Oct. 7, he and Martinez prioritized the safety of the campus community while preserving space for the expression of First Amendment-protected free speech. “It was not to announce our personal judgments or claim to speak for the institution, since members of our community hold different and sometimes sharply conflicting views,” he said. “Preservation of the safety of the campus required that we be sensitive to the changing context both locally and nationally.”

Efforts by multiple departments to increase security, monitor developments, and regularly discuss strategy have been integral to avoiding violence and minimizing disruptions. Saller also acknowledged the need for ongoing efforts to combat antisemitism and Islamophobia. “I am grateful to the two committees who are gathering information and providing recommendations to improve the campus climate,” he said.

Saller said the university’s transition to the Atlantic Coast Conferenc e (ACC) following the dissolution of the Pac-12 was necessary for Stanford athletes to compete at the highest level. He highlighted a task force focused on minimizing the academic impact of increased travel for athletes and navigating the many significant changes affecting college sports, particularly concerning athlete compensation and Title IX obligations.

Saller also showcased notable academic and research achievements, including advances in treating depression ; expanding the potential habitats for life in the universe; and using technology to reduce social inequity .

Despite challenges, Saller noted that Stanford emerged stronger from challenges during the Vietnam War era, “rising from a good regional university to become a world-leading university.”

A busy year

Faculty Senate Chair Mary Beth Mudgett provided the annual report of the Senate of the Academic Council and praised the senate’s “tradition of rigorous questioning of leadership” and the administration’s responsive engagement.

Significant updates heard by the senate this year involved the launch of the Curriculum Transformation Institute from the Center on Teaching and Learning, which allows faculty teams to reimagine their introductory curriculum to better support students; the evolution of the Stanford neighborhood residential system; new educational programming in the residences through the Academic Residential Co-Curriculum ; and insights from the Associated Students of Stanford University about students’ views on life in the neighborhoods. Senators also learned more about how the arts play a vibrant multidisciplinary role on campus.

Mudgett said the senate managed a heavy agenda this year, and its Steering Committee worked to ensure timely consideration of important topics, such as adjustments in academic planning following Stanford Athletics’ move to the ACC; undergraduate admissions in light of the Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action; and a petition to rescind a 2020 senate resolution on Scott Atlas, which Mudgett described as the year’s “ most complex discussion .”

As the academic year concludes, the senate is set to review updates on university finance, university speech policies, and undergraduate admissions.

For more information

Mudgett is also the senior associate dean for the natural sciences in the School of Humanities and Sciences and the Susan B. Ford Professor of Biology.

Yekaterinburg
Novosibirsk
Vladivostok

Tours to Russia
Practicalities
Russia in Lists

Rusmania • Deep into Russia

Out of the Centre

Savvino-storozhevsky monastery and museum.

Zvenigorod's most famous sight is the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery, which was founded in 1398 by the monk Savva from the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, at the invitation and with the support of Prince Yury Dmitrievich of Zvenigorod. Savva was later canonised as St Sabbas (Savva) of Storozhev. The monastery late flourished under the reign of Tsar Alexis, who chose the monastery as his family church and often went on pilgrimage there and made lots of donations to it. Most of the monastery’s buildings date from this time. The monastery is heavily fortified with thick walls and six towers, the most impressive of which is the Krasny Tower which also serves as the eastern entrance. The monastery was closed in 1918 and only reopened in 1995. In 1998 Patriarch Alexius II took part in a service to return the relics of St Sabbas to the monastery. Today the monastery has the status of a stauropegic monastery, which is second in status to a lavra. In addition to being a working monastery, it also holds the Zvenigorod Historical, Architectural and Art Museum.

Belfry and Neighbouring Churches

Located near the main entrance is the monastery's belfry which is perhaps the calling card of the monastery due to its uniqueness. It was built in the 1650s and the St Sergius of Radonezh’s Church was opened on the middle tier in the mid-17th century, although it was originally dedicated to the Trinity. The belfry's 35-tonne Great Bladgovestny Bell fell in 1941 and was only restored and returned in 2003. Attached to the belfry is a large refectory and the Transfiguration Church, both of which were built on the orders of Tsar Alexis in the 1650s.

To the left of the belfry is another, smaller, refectory which is attached to the Trinity Gate-Church, which was also constructed in the 1650s on the orders of Tsar Alexis who made it his own family church. The church is elaborately decorated with colourful trims and underneath the archway is a beautiful 19th century fresco.

Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral

The Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral is the oldest building in the monastery and among the oldest buildings in the Moscow Region. It was built between 1404 and 1405 during the lifetime of St Sabbas and using the funds of Prince Yury of Zvenigorod. The white-stone cathedral is a standard four-pillar design with a single golden dome. After the death of St Sabbas he was interred in the cathedral and a new altar dedicated to him was added.

Under the reign of Tsar Alexis the cathedral was decorated with frescoes by Stepan Ryazanets, some of which remain today. Tsar Alexis also presented the cathedral with a five-tier iconostasis, the top row of icons have been preserved.

Tsaritsa's Chambers

The Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral is located between the Tsaritsa's Chambers of the left and the Palace of Tsar Alexis on the right. The Tsaritsa's Chambers were built in the mid-17th century for the wife of Tsar Alexey - Tsaritsa Maria Ilinichna Miloskavskaya. The design of the building is influenced by the ancient Russian architectural style. Is prettier than the Tsar's chambers opposite, being red in colour with elaborately decorated window frames and entrance.

At present the Tsaritsa's Chambers houses the Zvenigorod Historical, Architectural and Art Museum. Among its displays is an accurate recreation of the interior of a noble lady's chambers including furniture, decorations and a decorated tiled oven, and an exhibition on the history of Zvenigorod and the monastery.

Palace of Tsar Alexis

The Palace of Tsar Alexis was built in the 1650s and is now one of the best surviving examples of non-religious architecture of that era. It was built especially for Tsar Alexis who often visited the monastery on religious pilgrimages. Its most striking feature is its pretty row of nine chimney spouts which resemble towers.

Plan your next trip to Russia

Ready-to-book tours.

Your holiday in Russia starts here. Choose and book your tour to Russia.

The Unique Burial of a Child of Early Scythian Time at the Cemetery of Saryg-Bulun (Tuva)

<< Previous page

Pages: 379-406

In 1988, the Tuvan Archaeological Expedition (led by M. E.вЂЇKilunovskaya and V. A.вЂЇSemenov) discovered a unique burial of the early Iron Age at Saryg-Bulun in Central Tuva. There are two burial mounds of the Aldy-Bel culture dated by 7th century BC. Within the barrows, which adjoined one another, forming a figure-of-eight, there were discovered 7 burials, from which a representative collection of artifacts was recovered. Burial 5 was the most unique, it was found in a coffin made of a larch trunk, with a tightly closed lid. Due to the preservative properties of larch and lack of air access, the coffin contained a well-preserved mummy of a child with an accompanying set of grave goods. The interred individual retained the skin on his face and had a leather headdress painted with red pigment and a coat, sewn from jerboa fur. The coat was belted with a leather belt with bronze ornaments and buckles. Besides that, a leather quiver with arrows with the shafts decorated with painted ornaments, fully preserved battle pick and a bow were buried in the coffin. Unexpectedly, the full-genomic analysis, showed that the individual was female. This fact opens a new aspect in the study of the social history of the Scythian society and perhaps brings us back to the myth of the Amazons, discussed by Herodotus. Of course, this discovery is unique in its preservation for the Scythian culture of Tuva and requires careful study and conservation.

Keywords: Tuva, Early Iron Age, early Scythian period, Aldy-Bel culture, barrow, burial in the coffin, mummy, full genome sequencing, aDNA

Information about authors: Marina Kilunovskaya (Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation). Candidate of Historical Sciences. Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Dvortsovaya Emb., 18, Saint Petersburg, 191186, Russian Federation E-mail: [email protected] Vladimir Semenov (Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation). Candidate of Historical Sciences. Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Dvortsovaya Emb., 18, Saint Petersburg, 191186, Russian Federation E-mail: [email protected] Varvara Busova (Moscow, Russian Federation). (Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation). Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Dvortsovaya Emb., 18, Saint Petersburg, 191186, Russian Federation E-mail: [email protected] Kharis Mustafin (Moscow, Russian Federation). Candidate of Technical Sciences. Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. Institutsky Lane, 9, Dolgoprudny, 141701, Moscow Oblast, Russian Federation E-mail: [email protected] Irina Alborova (Moscow, Russian Federation). Candidate of Biological Sciences. Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. Institutsky Lane, 9, Dolgoprudny, 141701, Moscow Oblast, Russian Federation E-mail: [email protected] Alina Matzvai (Moscow, Russian Federation). Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. Institutsky Lane, 9, Dolgoprudny, 141701, Moscow Oblast, Russian Federation E-mail: [email protected]

Shopping Cart Items: 0 Cart Total: 0,00 в‚¬ place your order

Price pdf version

student - 2,75 в‚¬ individual - 3,00 в‚¬ institutional - 7,00 в‚¬

IMAGES

Dissertation Committees
All You Need to Know About a Dissertation Committee
Dissertation Committee: Roles, Functions, and How to Choose
How To Assemble Your Dissertation Committee
Dissertation Committees
PPT

VIDEO

Building Global Consensus Through G20
77th Meeting of the CITES Standing Committee
77th Meeting of the CITES Standing Committee
Panel Discussion: 15 June 2023 Parliamentary Conference on Interfaith Dialogue
video1465530154
Thesis/ Dissertation Formatting and Guidelines Workshop

COMMENTS

Do's and Don'ts for Preparing for Your Thesis Committee Meeting
Faculty input is the crux of all thesis committee meetings, and their advice will be invaluable in guiding your thesis project, so try to make the scheduling process easy for them. Start scheduling your meeting at least two months in advance, especially if it will fall during the summer months. Using a survey-based tool like Doodle or Google ...
All about Ph.D. committee meetings
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 ...
Dissertation Committee: Roles, Functions, and How to Choose
Members of your dissertation committee can be your mentors, co-authors, and research collaborators throughout your career. Choose them wisely. Forming Your Dissertation Committee. Reaching out to potential dissertation committee members and formally asking them to serve on your dissertation committee can be a surprisingly taxing process.
First Ph.D. Committee Meeting : AeroAstro Communication Lab
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.
Roles and Responsibilities of Dissertation Committee
Committee Chair. The chair schedules the comprehensive exams, delivers feedback and results of the comprehensive exams, acts as an instructor, oversees the production of the thesis/dissertation, communicates feedback from the subject matter expert and committee member, schedules the dissertation defense, meets monthly via Zoom with the student/candidate throughout the research courses, and ...
Preparing, leading and recording thesis committee meetings
invite your thesis committee members. make a written list of what you want to talk about. prepare a PowerPoint presentation and handouts (if you think it would be helpful) Preparing the meeting agenda: Determine clear objectives: ask yourself, what you want to know from your thesis committee. Write down specific questions that you ...
The Dissertation Committee < University of Pennsylvania
A dissertation committee must consist of at least three faculty (including at least two members of the graduate group). While some graduate groups require all members of the dissertation committee be members of the graduate group or affiliated department, others encourage/require appointment of a faculty member from another department to ...
PDF Thesis Committees Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics (BMB) Graduate
Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics (BMB) Graduate Group. Aug 2022. The thesis committee is there to support and guide the student through dissertation research. They evaluate your progress and help to make sure you are on track to get your dissertation within a reasonable time. Early in your graduate career, their focus will be on making ...
Dissertation Committee and Meetings Policy
Dissertation Committee Meetings. With the exception of the oral exam, which is described in the GMB Oral Exam Policy, the structure of each dissertation meeting should be decided in advance by the student and the chair. Typically, the student prepares a presentation of about 30-45 minutes that describes the project, progress, and goals.
Thesis Committee Meetings
Third-year students must meet with their thesis committee within six months after successful completion of the Candidacy Exam. Additional meetings must be held at least once a year or at the discretion of the thesis committee. The purpose of the meetings is to ensure academic progress. Input from the committee members can be helpful to the ...
Dissertation Committee Structure and Meetings
The primary function of the dissertation is to support and assist the student during their graduate training, especially with the research component of their dissertation, and to serve as the University's official examining committee for the student's dissertation administering the oral qualifying exam and the oral dissertation defense. Committee Structure The committee has three basic ...
Thesis Committee
the Thesis Advisor(s), the Thesis Committee Chair who presides at all committee meetings (must be a BE faculty member), and; at least one additional member (unrestricted). The student and research supervisor should agree upon members of a Thesis Committee, and the student is responsible for inviting faculty to sit on their committee.
Thesis Committee Formation and Meetings
Meetings of Ph.D. Thesis Committee. The student is responsible for organizing an initial meeting of the committee, ideally within one month of formation of this committee, but in any event no later than April 30 of the 3rd year. Subsequent meetings of the committee must occur at a minimum of once every 12 months.
Thesis Committee Meetings
General Information. Students are required to hold annual thesis committee meetings to discuss the dissertation project, to review results, and to chart research directions and timelines for the following year up to the completion of the dissertation. The average time to complete the Ph.D. degree is 5.5 academic years.
Dissertation Research and Committee Meetings
Following the Qualifying Exam, students are responsible for scheduling regular Thesis Advisory Committee meetings and must have at least one committee meeting every 6 months to remain in good academic standing. MIC students are required to send a 1-page summary of their progress to their entire committee one week before the committee meeting. Students must inform Jennifer Hamlin (ajr9xq) as ...
Dissertation Progress Meetings
Dissertation Progress Meetings should be scheduled each semester until the semester before the distribution of the defense to the larger thesis defense committee. Students or faculty who are not physically on campus in a given semester may use their preferred video-conferencing platform to participate. If you have any questions or concerns ...
What is a Thesis Committee Meeting
What is a Thesis Committee Meeting. A thesis represents the culmination of years of academic effort, a demonstration of expertise in a specific field and the gateway to a higher academic degree. The journey toward completing a thesis often concludes with a defense - an essential academic rite of passage. In preparation for this critical event ...
PDF Dissertation Committee Roles, Responsibilities and Checklist
iv. If not all committee members or guests can attend in person, the chair sets up zoom and sends the link out. o Facilitate meeting: Chair facilitates the proposal meeting. i. It should begin with a 20 to 30 minute presentation of the proposal by the student, ii. Followed by a discussion in which the committee asks questions, offers
PDF First Dissertation Committee Meeting
presentation of the research proposal at the meeting. After the Meeting - The student will send CMB a copy of the research proposal, within 2 weeks of the meeting. Additionally, at each meeting, the committee should work on filling out the Dissertation Committee Meeting Addendum of the Semester Report (part 2) on page 3 of the "candidate ...
Dissertation Advisory Committee
Any Dissertation Advisory Committee approved before July 1, 2024 is subject to the rules outlined below, see "Grandfathering." Effective July 1, 2024: The graduate thesis for the PhD shall be accepted, and the Thesis Acceptance Certificate signed, by at least three advisors, who will form the Dissertation Advisory Committee (DAC). At least ...
Studying counterterrorism Strategy: From Madrid to London
Roaming the halls of the Palace of Westminster en route to a parliamentary committee meeting. Cora Vulin '24 is a political science major with a minor in European studies. During the winter break of 2024, she traveled to London, UK, to complete research for her senior thesis on European and British counterterrorism strategy.
Volume 70 Number 34
From the Senate Office: Faculty Senate Executive Committee Special Meeting Actions; From the Senate Office: May 15, 2024 Faculty Senate Executive Meeting Agenda; Supplements. Faculty Senate Reports; Honors. Arielle Xena Alterwaite and Katherine Scahill: 2024 Newcombe Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship; Sharon Y. Irving: Vice President of ASPEN
English Graduate Policy Committee, 05/16/2024
English Graduate Policy Committee CRT 368, 01:01 pm Purpose of Meeting: Approves admission of graduate students; Approves dissertation proposals and preliminary exam proposals; Oversight of process for screening and selection of teaching assistants and graduate school fellowship nominees by TA and Fellowship Subcommittee(s); Nominates candidates for graduate fellowships (TA and Fellowship ...
Academic Council meeting focuses on building capacity for civil
Mudgett said the senate managed a heavy agenda this year, and its Steering Committee worked to ensure timely consideration of important topics, such as adjustments in academic planning following ...
Publications
Committee; Council; Chief Architect; Articles; ... Meeting the challenges of global megapolises ; PR Newswire. PR Newswire. 12 July 2017 . Moscow Urban Forum: By 2025 the Population of the Largest Urban Agglomerations Will Reach 2 Bln People Who Will Produce 60% of Global GDP; Construction.ru.
Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery and Museum
Zvenigorod's most famous sight is the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery, which was founded in 1398 by the monk Savva from the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, at the invitation and with the support of Prince Yury Dmitrievich of Zvenigorod. Savva was later canonised as St Sabbas (Savva) of Storozhev. The monastery late flourished under the reign of Tsar ...
Elektrostal
Elektrostal. Elektrostal ( Russian: Электроста́ль) is a city in Moscow Oblast, Russia. It is 58 kilometers (36 mi) east of Moscow. As of 2010, 155,196 people lived there.
The Unique Burial of a Child of Early Scythian Time at the Cemetery of
Burial 5 was the most unique, it was found in a coffin made of a larch trunk, with a tightly closed lid. Due to the preservative properties of larch and lack of air access, the coffin contained a well-preserved mummy of a child with an accompanying set of grave goods. The interred individual retained the skin on his face and had a leather ...

All about Ph.D. committee meetings

What is a committee?

What is the point of a committee meeting?

Are committee meetings exams?

Do they judge my progress?

How do I choose who should be on my committee?

Anything else?

Enjoy reading ASBMB Today?

Related articles

Get the latest from ASBMB Today

Latest in Careers

Grad students: Get to know your program coordinator

Upcoming opportunities

Consider an undergraduate summer research internship in government

Retiring a research lab

Calendar of events, awards and opportunities

Dissertation Committee: Roles, Functions, and How to Choose

Dissertation Committee Questions

What Does a Dissertation Committee Do?

Who Serves on Your Dissertation Committee?

How to Choose Dissertation Committee Members

Forming Your Dissertation Committee

Expectations

Related posts:

Courtney Watson, Ph.D.

How to Finish Your Dissertation in Half the Time

Dr. Courtney Watson In the News

First Ph.D. Committee Meeting

2. Criteria for Success

4. Analyze Your Audience

5. Best Practices

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

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

5.4. Answer questions surrounding your work

Resources and Annotated Examples

Henley-Putnam's Doctor of Strategic Security Subject Guide

Committee Member

Subject Matter Expert (SME)

Preparing, leading and recording thesis committee meetings

Preparing a meeting

Technical preparations:

Preparing the meeting agenda:

Preparing your presentation:

Leading a meeting

Recording a meeting / writing minutes

Good luck with your next meeting :-)

The Dissertation Committee

Advising on Embargo Options

Print Options

Dissertation Committee and Meetings Policy

Committee Structure

Dissertation Committee Meetings

Documentation of Committee Meetings

Responsibilities of Student

Responsibilities of Advisor(s)

Responsibilities of Dissertation Committee Chairs

Responsibilities of Other Dissertation Committee Members

Thesis Committee

Thesis Committee Meetings

Masters of Science Degree

Make a Gift

Dissertation Committee Structure and Meetings

Thesis Committee

Forming the Committee

Changing the Committee

Thesis Committee Meetings

Committee Meeting Requirements

Additional Graduate Program Requirements

Dissertation Advisory Committee; Thesis Acceptance Certificate

Please note:

Grandfathering

Thesis Acceptance Certificate

Studying counterterrorism Strategy: From Madrid to London

From research to thesis

May 14, 2024 Volume 70 Issue 34

Faculty Senate Reports

Faculty Senate Executive Committee Special Meeting Actions

Fitness & Learning

Special Events

Division of Public Safety University of Pennsylvania Police Department Crime Report