Students and faculty are urged to understand that the advisory system is their strongest ally in identifying and helping to resolve problems, in maintaining a realistic set of expectations for progress, and as a source of extra ideas and new approaches. Students should take the initiative in scheduling meetings. Timely meetings are imperative.
Students should recognize that their thesis advisor is usually their most important mentor, someone who can advise the student on research directions and may also provide career guidance. It is expected that thesis advisors provide opportunities for the student to develop independence, encourage the student to participate in collaborations, presentations, departmental seminars, introduce the student to colleagues, help the student to learn about writing and submitting manuscripts for publication, help the student to identify and work with their strengths and weaknesses and be committed to help the student make the next move in their career development. However, other faculty who take particular interest in the student’s growth and development as scientists may often also serve as important mentors. Students are encouraged to develop relationships with those faculty whom they feel can provide significant research, career, and personal guidance.
Formal progress reports must be filed twice annually with the Graduate School Office. To meet this requirement, students are expected to meet each semester with the full Advisory Committee. The student should review the Progress Form and correct/update as necessary. The Advisory Committee must use the last page of the Progress Form to evaluate the student’s progress, clearly identify strengths and weaknesses and indicate plans for development. All members of the Advisory Committee should then sign and date the Progress Form.
When a student fails to demonstrate satisfactory academic progress, the Advisory Committee or Program Director may mandate more frequent advisory committee meetings.
When a research mentor thinks his/her/their student is nearing a point of completion, the Advisory Committee should meet with the student and advisor to assess the student’s readiness to write a dissertation. This meeting should take place approximately 6 months before the anticipated dissertation defense. Students should update their list of publications and manuscripts in press on the Progress Report form before this meeting. At this meeting, the Advisory Committee will certify that the student is ready to write his/her/their dissertation and to schedule a defense date.
This approval should be granted and a date set only if the student has, at a minimum, achieved the following:
met all of the required program milestones,
completed all coursework and met the academic standards of the Graduate School,
demonstrated mastery of the literature, conceptual skills, analytical skills, writing and presentation skills, experimental skills, record keeping skills and work ethic meets doctoral-level standards
contributed intellectually as a lead author, or equivalent, to at least one manuscript, published, in review, or ready for submission in a peer-reviewed journal. An exception to this requirement will require the unanimous approval by the Advisory Committee.
When these criteria have been met, the student will be given a green light to enter the dissertation writing phase.
See Standards for Maintaining Satisfactory Progress
The thesis advisory committee is an essential, independent advisory panel that adds to the mentoring provided by the student’s research mentor. The membership of the committee should be determined after discussion between the mentor(s) and the mentee, and consist of at least three mentoring faculty members of the GSBS who can provide advice and support to the student. The student should declare the thesis advisory committee simultaneously with declaring the mentor(s) and laboratory, or as close as is possible to the time (not to exceed 3 months) the laboratory is declared.
The thesis advisory committee must meet with the student at least once per semester starting from the point of laboratory declaration. It is the responsibility of the student to ensure these meetings occur each semester, and that the appropriate progress reports are submitted electronically to the PhD program manager. Early meetings will focus on developing aims for a research proposal to act as the basis of the qualifying exam, as well as review initial progress and the relevant literature. At any time, the thesis advisory committee also acts to advise and support the student with their training experience, academic progress, and career development. Throughout the student’s candidacy phase, the thesis advisory committee plays an important role in working with both the mentor and mentee to refine and resolve any substantive or professional divergences.
The qualifying exam, comprising a thesis proposal (written document and oral defense) and discussion of relevant general knowledge from core classes, confirms candidacy for the Doctor of Philosophy degree. This exam is evaluated by the thesis advisory committee, plus an MTA director or their delegate (a senior faculty from their MTA). PhD students should successfully complete the qualifying exam by the end of their fourth semester (June 30th), and MD/PhD students by the end of their first year in the PhD-phase (MP1). Further details regarding registration and expectations for this exam can be found in “Thesis Proposal” to follow.
Following confirmation of candidature, the thesis advisory committee continues to advise on research directions and scope, preparations for thesis defense and publications, as well as responsible generation and handling of data arising from their research in the mentor’s laboratory. The thesis advisory committee will also advise on career development and on any other challenges or difficulties students may encounter during their PhDs. On occasions where additional help or focusing of effort is required, the thesis advisory committee may require more frequent meetings.
The committee chair: The chair is a voting member of the committee chosen by the MTA co-directors in consultation with the trainee and their Thesis Advisor. This committee member is typically an MTA co-director or a voting committee member delegated by an MTA co-director. The chair must be someone who does not directly collaborate on the student’s project, will not co-author papers or abstracts with the student, has no financial conflicts of interest with the student or project, and does not supervise the work.
The Thesis Advisor: the PhD Thesis Advisor of the trainee. The PhD Thesis Advisor is not a voting member of the committee and is a silent observer at the Thesis Proposal and the Thesis Dissertation. However, after committee meetings, the Thesis Advisor should discuss the feedback of the committee with the student and advise on how to act on their advice as the project evolves.
The voting members: There must be two voting members on the committee in addition to the chair. Both these individuals must be members of the Graduate Faculty and have no financial conflicts of interest with the student or project and cannot directly supervise the student’s work. Voting members may not be collaborators on the project; collaborators may attend committee meetings but may not vote. These committee members can be collaborators on the student’s project and co-authors on papers and abstracts with the student.
The non-voting members: One or more non-voting members can attend the committee meetings. These might include a clinical/translational (C/T) investigator, who need not be a member of the Graduate Faculty, to provide feedback about C/T impact of the research (encouraged for MD/PhD students) or others with particular expertise of value to the trainee, including collaborators. Individuals other than the Thesis Advisor who are directly involved in supervising the work (e.g., a computational mentor or co-advisor) can also attend committee meetings. In addition, experts who are not members of the training faculty of the GSBS may be invited to attend in an ad hoc manner to extend their expertise in one or more meetings.
This Advisory Committee should meet at least once per semester. In some cases, the student may be required by the Graduate School to meet with his/her/their Advisory Committee more often. To help ensure that the meeting is efficient and productive for everyone, students are encouraged to provide a project summary of progress (bullet-point style is generally sufficient) prior to each meeting. To facilitate regular check-ins, it is also suggested that students combine Advisory Committee meetings with a WIP or other formal presentation of their work.