defense committee phd

Defense and Dissertation Overview

Once a student’s box is checked, the BPH student should set up a one-on-one “Defense Packet Meeting” with the BPH Associate Director to review the Defense and Dissertation Process, which includes reviewing all required materials, logistics, timing, FAS/Harvard Griffin GSAS Form of the Dissertation, sample forms, and to answer student questions related to these processes.

• Defense Committee Chair: One member of the student’s DAC, often the DAC chair, is required to chair the oral defense. This required holdover from the DAC serves the purpose of providing insight to the examiners regarding the path the student has taken in completing the dissertation research. Their primary role is to assess committee satisfaction with the written dissertation, administer the exam, arbitrate any problems that may arise, and make final recommendations for completion of necessary corrections and additions to the dissertation. No other DAC members can serve on the defense committee .
• At least one member must be a BPH faculty member, often from the same academic department.
• One member of the examination committee must be from outside of Harvard University.
• The fourth member may be from either BPH or another Harvard-affiliated program.
• Co-authors and collaborators cannot be members of the Defense committee

DEFENSE TIMING AND FORMAT

• Students should notify the BPH Program as far in advance as possible with the details of the exam. 
• The student is required to notify the BPH office no later than 3 weeks in advance of the defense with the final dissertation title.
• At least two weeks before the date of exam, defense members should be sent copies of the dissertation for review. A copy of the dissertation should also be sent to the BPH program.
• If any defense committee member foresees problems with the exam, they should contact the chair of the defense committee in advance of the meeting. If major problems are found with the written document, the Committee can decide to postpone the oral defense until satisfactory changes are made. While rare in our program, these occasions can involve the insufficient or improper use of statistical methods, grossly overstated conclusions, insufficient background or discussion, or evidence of plagiarism.
• More details about the timing and format are provided in the “Defense Packet Meeting” held with each student.

STIPEND GUIDELINES

If a student successfully defends the dissertation before the 15th of the month, the stipend will be terminated at the end of that month. If the student successfully defends on or after the 15th, the next month’s stipend will be the final month the student is paid, at the discretion of their advisor.

Students are encouraged to speak to their advisors directly about how they should be paid as they complete their graduate work. If an advisor wishes to pay the student for one additional month, beyond what has been explained above, the advisor must notify the department’s financial administrator. For administrative reasons, a stipend cannot be issued to a student after their graduation/degree conferral date.

ORAL DEFENSE PROCEDURES

Part 1: Public Seminar As part of the exam, the PhD candidate will present a public seminar followed by a private oral examination.  The public presentation lasts no longer than 1 hour, which includes time for the advisor’s introduction, the student’s oral presentation and acknowledgements, and time for audience questions and answers.  The Defense Committee is required to attend the public seminar; however, it is customary for members of the defense committee to hold their questions until the private oral exam.

Part 2: Private Oral Examination A private oral examination follows the public seminar.  Initially, the student will be asked to leave the room for several minutes, along with the dissertation advisor if the dissertation advisor has decided to remain for the private exam.  During this time, the committee will discuss the merits of the dissertation, any issues with the dissertation, and areas they may want to focus on during the oral exam.  The student (and advisor if present) is then asked back into the room for the exam.

Each member of the defense committee will direct questions to the candidate based on their review of the dissertation and presentation of the seminar. The Defense Chair will moderate the discussion between the panel and the student.  The closed defense takes up to two hours and involves detailed technical questions as well as broader questions on the conclusions, impact, and limitations of the research.  Dissertation advisors may be present, but they must not participate in the exam (e.g., answer questions posed by the committee).

At the end of the examination, the student (and advisor if present) is once again asked to step out of the room for several minutes.  The Committee will discuss any revisions needed for the thesis and whether these revisions need to be reviewed and by whom.  Once the committee determines the outcomes, the student will be asked back into the room and the Committee provides the student with any [minor] changes needed to the dissertation. While it is extremely rare for the student to fail at this stage, the committee will provide recommendations to the student on their research, communication skills, and development as a scientist, as well as delineating the required changes to the dissertation.

PREPARING FOR THE DEFENSE/WRITING THE DISSERTATION

Students preparing to write and defend their dissertation must review University requirements as outlined in “ Dissertations ” with guidelines published at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.

Students are also welcome to visit the BPH Student Lounge (Building 2, Room 113) to look at copies of previous BPH bound dissertations.

Writing the Dissertation Each student must write a comprehensive PhD dissertation on their research topic and the original results of their research. There are a variety of ways a dissertation can be composed, but the core elements described below must be included. The dissertation must show original treatment of the subject, contain a scholarly review of the pertinent literature, provide evidence of independent research of publishable quality, and be clearly, logically, and carefully written. In addition to a compendium of the student’s research, including detailed methods and results, the dissertation must contain a thoughtful discussion of the conclusions, impact, and limitations of the research. The completed work should be critically reviewed by the dissertation advisor before being submitted to the Dissertation Defense Committee.

In some cases, the student has done all of the work in the dissertation; more often portions of the dissertation result from collaborative research. In all dissertations containing collaborative results, the dissertation should indicate concisely who contributed to the work and how.  For example, a chapter containing multi-authored, published work must include a complete reference of the publication and a brief description of the candidate’s and the colleagues’ contributions. For work that is not published but which resulted from multiple researchers, the contributors must be named and respective attributions made clear. This policy allows stylistic flexibility; depending on the amount of collaborative work in the dissertation and the status of publication(s), the attributions can be, preferably, on or accompanying the cover page for each chapter or within an extended acknowledgements section at the end of each chapter. It is recommended that if figures or figure panels are included that are the work of others that the figure panels be clearly identified and the work properly attributed. It is permissible for more than one student to include work from the same collaboration or publication as long as the required attributions are clear, justified, and complete.

Individual chapters can be that of published articles as long as there are also comprehensive Introduction and Conclusion chapters written by the student. While the text can be the same, use of journal reprints as a chapter is not permissible. A word document of the published article must be used, and the pages in the dissertation must be consecutively numbered. Furthermore, the figures and accompanying figure legends must be integrated into the main body of each chapter, preferably following the first mention of the given figure, not clustered at the end of the chapter. Any dissertation that varies significantly from the Graduate School or FAS guidelines, or is not neat and readable, is subject to required stylistic revision before acceptance by the University. (For further information, please visit https://gsas.harvard.edu/academics/dissertations ).

DEFENSE FORMS AND PAPERWORK

Dissertation Acceptance Certificate Before the examination, the BPH Program Office will provide the Defense Committee Chair with a copy of the official Dissertation Acceptance Certificate. This certificate must be signed by all readers of the dissertation at the end of the examination and returned to the BPH Program Office. This certificate will be scanned and sent to the student so it can be inserted as page one of the dissertation prior to the online submission. The student must submit the one original, official copy to the Registrar’s in Cambridge by the appropriate deadline.

If extensive corrections are to be made, the BPH Program Office will hold the certificate until the Defense Committee Chair, and/or assigned reviewer(s) provide a written notification to the BPH Program to confirm that the corrected work has been reviewed and approved.

Dissertation Defense Exam Report The Dissertation Defense Exam Report is completed by the members of the Dissertation Defense Committee to provide a record of any comments or recommendations they may have. The report must be signed by all members immediately after the private exam. The completed report must be submitted to the BPH Program Office at the same time as the Dissertation Acceptance Certificate.

Sample Dissertation Title Page Please click here to see a sample BPH Dissertation Title Page.  Again, please refer to the Dissertation website for guidelines about how to format your dissertation.

News from the School

From public servant to public health student

Exploring the intersection of health, mindfulness, and climate change

Conference aims to help experts foster health equity

Building solidarity to face global injustice

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

PhD Defence Process: A Comprehensive Guide

Embarking on the journey toward a PhD is an intellectual odyssey marked by tireless research, countless hours of contemplation, and a fervent commitment to contributing to the body of knowledge in one’s field. As the culmination of this formidable journey, the PhD defence stands as the final frontier, the proverbial bridge between student and scholar.

In this comprehensive guide, we unravel the intricacies of the PhD defence—a momentous occasion that is both a celebration of scholarly achievement and a rigorous evaluation of academic prowess. Join us as we explore the nuances of the defence process, addressing questions about its duration, contemplating the possibility of failure, and delving into the subtle distinctions of language that surround it.

Beyond the formalities, we aim to shed light on the significance of this rite of passage, dispelling misconceptions about its nature. Moreover, we’ll consider the impact of one’s attire on this critical day and share personal experiences and practical tips from those who have successfully navigated the defence journey.

Whether you are on the precipice of your own defence or are simply curious about the process, this guide seeks to demystify the PhD defence, providing a roadmap for success and a nuanced understanding of the pivotal event that marks the transition from student to scholar.

Introduction

A. definition and purpose:, b. overview of the oral examination:, a. general duration of a typical defense, b. factors influencing the duration:, c. preparation and flexibility:, a. preparation and thorough understanding of the research:, b. handling questions effectively:, c. confidence and composure during the presentation:, d. posture of continuous improvement:, a. exploring the possibility of failure:, b. common reasons for failure:, c. steps to mitigate the risk of failure:, d. post-failure resilience:, a. addressing the language variation:, b. conforming to regional preferences:, c. consistency in usage:, d. flexibility and adaptability:, e. navigating language in a globalized academic landscape:, a. debunking myths around the formality of the defense:, b. significance in validating research contributions:, c. post-defense impact:, a. appropriate attire for different settings:, b. professionalism and the impact of appearance:, c. practical tips for dressing success:, b. practical tips for a successful defense:, c. post-defense reflections:, career options after phd.

Embarking on the doctoral journey is a formidable undertaking, where aspiring scholars immerse themselves in the pursuit of knowledge, contributing new insights to their respective fields. At the pinnacle of this academic odyssey lies the PhD defence—a culmination that transcends the boundaries of a mere formality, symbolizing the transformation from a student of a discipline to a recognized contributor to the academic tapestry.

The PhD defence, also known as the viva voce or oral examination, is a pivotal moment in the life of a doctoral candidate.

PhD defence is not merely a ritualistic ceremony; rather, it serves as a platform for scholars to present, defend, and elucidate the findings and implications of their research. The defence is the crucible where ideas are tested, hypotheses scrutinized, and the depth of scholarly understanding is laid bare.

The importance of the PhD defence reverberates throughout the academic landscape. It is not just a capstone event; it is the juncture where academic rigour meets real-world application. The defence is the litmus test of a researcher’s ability to articulate, defend, and contextualize their work—an evaluation that extends beyond the pages of a dissertation.

Beyond its evaluative nature, the defence serves as a rite of passage, validating the years of dedication, perseverance, and intellectual rigour invested in the research endeavour. Success in the defence is a testament to the candidate’s mastery of their subject matter and the originality and impact of their contributions to the academic community.

Furthermore, a successful defence paves the way for future contributions, positioning the scholar as a recognized authority in their field. The defence is not just an endpoint; it is a launchpad, propelling researchers into the next phase of their academic journey as they continue to shape and redefine the boundaries of knowledge.

In essence, the PhD defence is more than a ceremonial checkpoint—it is a transformative experience that validates the intellectual journey, underscores the significance of scholarly contributions, and sets the stage for a continued legacy of academic excellence. As we navigate the intricacies of this process, we invite you to explore the multifaceted dimensions that make the PhD defence an indispensable chapter in the narrative of academic achievement.

What is a PhD Defence?

At its core, a PhD defence is a rigorous and comprehensive examination that marks the culmination of a doctoral candidate’s research journey. It is an essential component of the doctoral process in which the candidate is required to defend their dissertation before a committee of experts in the field. The defence serves multiple purposes, acting as both a showcase of the candidate’s work and an evaluative measure of their understanding, critical thinking, and contributions to the academic domain.

The primary goals of a PhD defence include:

• Presentation of Research: The candidate presents the key findings, methodology, and significance of their research.
• Demonstration of Mastery: The defence assesses the candidate’s depth of understanding, mastery of the subject matter, and ability to engage in scholarly discourse.
• Critical Examination: Committee members rigorously question the candidate, challenging assumptions, testing methodologies, and probing the boundaries of the research.
• Validation of Originality: The defence validates the originality and contribution of the candidate’s work to the existing body of knowledge.

The PhD defence often takes the form of an oral examination, commonly referred to as the viva voce. This oral component adds a dynamic and interactive dimension to the evaluation process. Key elements of the oral examination include:

• Presentation: The candidate typically begins with a formal presentation, summarizing the dissertation’s main components, methodology, and findings. This presentation is an opportunity to showcase the significance and novelty of the research.
• Questioning and Discussion: Following the presentation, the candidate engages in a thorough questioning session with the examination committee. Committee members explore various aspects of the research, challenging the candidates to articulate their rationale, defend their conclusions, and respond to critiques.
• Defence of Methodology: The candidate is often required to defend the chosen research methodology, demonstrating its appropriateness, rigour, and contribution to the field.
• Evaluation of Contributions: Committee members assess the originality and impact of the candidate’s contributions to the academic discipline, seeking to understand how the research advances existing knowledge.

The oral examination is not a mere formality; it is a dynamic exchange that tests the candidate’s intellectual acumen, research skills, and capacity to contribute meaningfully to the scholarly community.

In essence, the PhD defence is a comprehensive and interactive evaluation that encapsulates the essence of a candidate’s research journey, demanding a synthesis of knowledge, clarity of expression, and the ability to navigate the complexities of academic inquiry. As we delve into the specifics of the defence process, we will unravel the layers of preparation and skill required to navigate this transformative academic milestone.

How Long is a PhD Defence?

The duration of a PhD defence can vary widely, but it typically ranges from two to three hours. This time frame encompasses the candidate’s presentation of their research, questioning and discussions with the examination committee, and any additional deliberations or decisions by the committee. However, it’s essential to note that this is a general guideline, and actual defence durations may vary based on numerous factors.

• Sciences and Engineering: Defenses in these fields might lean towards the shorter end of the spectrum, often around two hours. The focus is often on the methodology, results, and technical aspects.
• Humanities and Social Sciences: Given the theoretical and interpretive nature of research in these fields, defences might extend closer to three hours or more. Discussions may delve into philosophical underpinnings and nuanced interpretations.
• Simple vs. Complex Studies: The complexity of the research itself plays a role. Elaborate experiments, extensive datasets, or intricate theoretical frameworks may necessitate a more extended defence.
• Number of Committee Members: A larger committee or one with diverse expertise may lead to more extensive discussions and varied perspectives, potentially elongating the defence.
• Committee Engagement: The level of engagement and probing by committee members can influence the overall duration. In-depth discussions or debates may extend the defence time.
• Cultural Norms: In some countries, the oral defence might be more ceremonial, with less emphasis on intense questioning. In others, a rigorous and extended defence might be the norm.
• Evaluation Practices: Different academic systems have varying evaluation criteria, which can impact the duration of the defence.
• Institutional Guidelines: Some institutions may have specific guidelines on defence durations, influencing the overall time allotted for the process.

Candidates should be well-prepared for a defence of any duration. Adequate preparation not only involves a concise presentation of the research but also anticipates potential questions and engages in thoughtful discussions. Additionally, candidates should be flexible and responsive to the dynamics of the defense, adapting to the pace set by the committee.

Success Factors in a PhD Defence

• Successful defence begins with a deep and comprehensive understanding of the research. Candidates should be well-versed in every aspect of their study, from the theoretical framework to the methodology and findings.
• Thorough preparation involves anticipating potential questions from the examination committee. Candidates should consider the strengths and limitations of their research and be ready to address queries related to methodology, data analysis, and theoretical underpinnings.
• Conducting mock defences with peers or mentors can be invaluable. It helps refine the presentation, exposes potential areas of weakness, and provides an opportunity to practice responding to challenging questions.
• Actively listen to questions without interruption. Understanding the nuances of each question is crucial for providing precise and relevant responses.
• Responses should be clear, concise, and directly address the question. Avoid unnecessary jargon, and strive to convey complex concepts in a manner that is accessible to the entire committee.
• It’s acceptable not to have all the answers. If faced with a question that stumps you, acknowledge it honestly. Expressing a willingness to explore the topic further demonstrates intellectual humility.
• Use questions as opportunities to reinforce key messages from the research. Skillfully link responses back to the core contributions of the study, emphasizing its significance.
• Rehearse the presentation multiple times to build familiarity with the material. This enhances confidence, reduces nervousness, and ensures a smooth and engaging delivery.
• Maintain confident and open body language. Stand tall, make eye contact, and use gestures judiciously. A composed demeanour contributes to a positive impression.
• Acknowledge and manage nervousness. It’s natural to feel some anxiety, but channelling that energy into enthusiasm for presenting your research can turn nervousness into a positive force.
• Engage with the committee through a dynamic and interactive presentation. Invite questions during the presentation to create a more conversational atmosphere.
• Utilize visual aids effectively. Slides or other visual elements should complement the spoken presentation, reinforcing key points without overwhelming the audience.
• View the defence not only as an evaluation but also as an opportunity for continuous improvement. Feedback received during the defence can inform future research endeavours and scholarly pursuits.

In essence, success in a PhD defence hinges on meticulous preparation, adept handling of questions, and projecting confidence and composure during the presentation. A well-prepared and resilient candidate is better positioned to navigate the challenges of the defence, transforming it from a moment of evaluation into an affirmation of scholarly achievement.

Failure in PhD Defence

• While the prospect of failing a PhD defence is relatively rare, it’s essential for candidates to acknowledge that the possibility exists. Understanding this reality can motivate diligent preparation and a proactive approach to mitigate potential risks.
• Failure, if it occurs, should be seen as a learning opportunity rather than a definitive endpoint. It may highlight areas for improvement and offer insights into refining the research and presentation.
• Lack of thorough preparation, including a weak grasp of the research content, inadequate rehearsal, and failure to anticipate potential questions, can contribute to failure.
• Inability to effectively defend the chosen research methodology, including justifying its appropriateness and demonstrating its rigour, can be a critical factor.
• Failing to clearly articulate the original contributions of the research and its significance to the field may lead to a negative assessment.
• Responding defensively to questions, exhibiting a lack of openness to critique, or being unwilling to acknowledge limitations can impact the overall impression.
• Inability to address committee concerns or incorporate constructive feedback received during the defense may contribute to a negative outcome.
• Comprehensive preparation is the cornerstone of success. Candidates should dedicate ample time to understanding every facet of their research, conducting mock defences, and seeking feedback.
• Identify potential weaknesses in the research and address them proactively. Being aware of limitations and articulating plans for addressing them in future work demonstrates foresight.
• Engage with mentors, peers, or advisors before the defence. Solicit constructive feedback on both the content and delivery of the presentation to refine and strengthen the defence.
• Develop strategies to manage stress and nervousness. Techniques such as mindfulness, deep breathing, or visualization can be effective in maintaining composure during the defence.
• Conduct a pre-defense review of all materials, ensuring that the presentation aligns with the dissertation and that visual aids are clear and supportive.
• Approach the defence with an open and reflective attitude. Embrace critique as an opportunity for improvement rather than as a personal affront.
• Clarify expectations with the examination committee beforehand. Understanding the committee’s focus areas and preferences can guide preparation efforts.
• In the event of failure, candidates should approach the situation with resilience. Seek feedback from the committee, understand the reasons for the outcome, and use the experience as a springboard for improvement.

In summary, while the prospect of failing a PhD defence is uncommon, acknowledging its possibility and taking proactive steps to mitigate risks are crucial elements of a well-rounded defence strategy. By addressing common failure factors through thorough preparation, openness to critique, and a resilient attitude, candidates can increase their chances of a successful defence outcome.

PhD Defense or Defence?

• The choice between “defense” and “defence” is primarily a matter of British English versus American English spelling conventions. “Defense” is the preferred spelling in American English, while “defence” is the British English spelling.
• In the global academic community, both spellings are generally understood and accepted. However, the choice of spelling may be influenced by the academic institution’s language conventions or the preferences of individual scholars.
• Academic institutions may have specific guidelines regarding language conventions, and candidates are often expected to adhere to the institution’s preferred spelling.
• Candidates may also consider the preferences of their advisors or committee members. If there is a consistent spelling convention used within the academic department, it is advisable to align with those preferences.
• Consideration should be given to the spelling conventions of scholarly journals in the candidate’s field. If intending to publish research stemming from the dissertation, aligning with the conventions of target journals is prudent.
• If the defense presentation or dissertation will be shared with an international audience, using a more universally recognized spelling (such as “defense”) may be preferred to ensure clarity and accessibility.
• Regardless of the chosen spelling, it’s crucial to maintain consistency throughout the document. Mixing spellings can distract from the content and may be perceived as an oversight.
• In oral presentations and written correspondence related to the defence, including emails, it’s advisable to maintain consistency with the chosen spelling to present a professional and polished image.
• Recognizing that language conventions can vary, candidates should approach the choice of spelling with flexibility. Being adaptable to the preferences of the academic context and demonstrating an awareness of regional variations reflects a nuanced understanding of language usage.
• With the increasing globalization of academia, an awareness of language variations becomes essential. Scholars often collaborate across borders, and an inclusive approach to language conventions contributes to effective communication and collaboration.

In summary, the choice between “PhD defense” and “PhD defence” boils down to regional language conventions and institutional preferences. Maintaining consistency, being mindful of the target audience, and adapting to the expectations of the academic community contribute to a polished and professional presentation, whether in written documents or oral defences.

Is PhD Defense a Formality?

• While the PhD defence is a structured and ritualistic event, it is far from being a mere formality. It is a critical and substantive part of the doctoral journey, designed to rigorously evaluate the candidate’s research contributions, understanding of the field, and ability to engage in scholarly discourse.
• The defence is not a checkbox to be marked but rather a dynamic process where the candidate’s research is evaluated for its scholarly merit. The committee scrutinizes the originality, significance, and methodology of the research, aiming to ensure it meets the standards of advanced academic work.
• Far from a passive or purely ceremonial event, the defence involves active engagement between the candidate and the examination committee. Questions, discussions, and debates are integral components that enrich the scholarly exchange during the defence.
• The defence serves as a platform for the candidate to demonstrate the originality of their research. Committee members assess the novelty of the contributions, ensuring that the work adds value to the existing body of knowledge.
• Beyond the content, the defence evaluates the methodological rigour of the research. Committee members assess whether the chosen methodology is appropriate, well-executed, and contributes to the validity of the findings.
• Successful completion of the defence affirms the candidate’s ability to contribute meaningfully to the academic discourse in their field. It is an endorsement of the candidate’s position as a knowledgeable and respected scholar.
• The defence process acts as a quality assurance mechanism in academia. It ensures that individuals awarded a doctoral degree have undergone a thorough and rigorous evaluation, upholding the standards of excellence in research and scholarly inquiry.
• Institutions have specific criteria and standards for awarding a PhD. The defence process aligns with these institutional and academic standards, providing a consistent and transparent mechanism for evaluating candidates.
• Successful completion of the defence is a pivotal moment that marks the transition from a doctoral candidate to a recognized scholar. It opens doors to further contributions, collaborations, and opportunities within the academic community.
• Research presented during the defence often forms the basis for future publications. The validation received in the defence enhances the credibility of the research, facilitating its dissemination and impact within the academic community.
• Beyond the academic realm, a successfully defended PhD is a key credential for professional advancement. It enhances one’s standing in the broader professional landscape, opening doors to research positions, teaching opportunities, and leadership roles.

In essence, the PhD defence is a rigorous and meaningful process that goes beyond formalities, playing a crucial role in affirming the academic merit of a candidate’s research and marking the culmination of their journey toward scholarly recognition.

Dressing for Success: PhD Defense Outfit

• For Men: A well-fitted suit in neutral colours (black, navy, grey), a collared dress shirt, a tie, and formal dress shoes.
• For Women: A tailored suit, a blouse or button-down shirt, and closed-toe dress shoes.
• Dress codes can vary based on cultural expectations. It’s advisable to be aware of any cultural nuances within the academic institution and to adapt attire accordingly.
• With the rise of virtual defenses, considerations for attire remain relevant. Even in online settings, dressing professionally contributes to a polished and serious demeanor. Virtual attire can mirror what one would wear in-person, focusing on the upper body visible on camera.
• The attire chosen for a PhD defense contributes to the first impression that a candidate makes on the examination committee. A professional and polished appearance sets a positive tone for the defense.
• Dressing appropriately reflects respect for the gravity of the occasion. It acknowledges the significance of the defense as a formal evaluation of one’s scholarly contributions.
• Wearing professional attire can contribute to a boost in confidence. When individuals feel well-dressed and put-together, it can positively impact their mindset and overall presentation.
• The PhD defense is a serious academic event, and dressing professionally fosters an atmosphere of seriousness and commitment to the scholarly process. It aligns with the respect one accords to academic traditions.
• Institutional norms may influence dress expectations. Some academic institutions may have specific guidelines regarding attire for formal events, and candidates should be aware of and adhere to these norms.
• While adhering to the formality expected in academic settings, individuals can also express their personal style within the bounds of professionalism. It’s about finding a balance between institutional expectations and personal comfort.
• Select and prepare the outfit well in advance to avoid last-minute stress. Ensure that the attire is clean, well-ironed, and in good condition.
• Accessories such as ties, scarves, or jewelry should complement the outfit. However, it’s advisable to keep accessories subtle to maintain a professional appearance.
• While dressing professionally, prioritize comfort. PhD defenses can be mentally demanding, and comfortable attire can contribute to a more confident and composed demeanor.
• Pay attention to grooming, including personal hygiene and haircare. A well-groomed appearance contributes to an overall polished look.
• Start preparation well in advance of the defense date. Know your research inside out, anticipate potential questions, and be ready to discuss the nuances of your methodology, findings, and contributions.
• Conduct mock defenses with peers, mentors, or colleagues. Mock defenses provide an opportunity to receive constructive feedback, practice responses to potential questions, and refine your presentation.
• Strike a balance between confidence and humility. Confidence in presenting your research is essential, but being open to acknowledging limitations and areas for improvement demonstrates intellectual honesty.
• Actively engage with the examination committee during the defense. Listen carefully to questions, respond thoughtfully, and view the defense as a scholarly exchange rather than a mere formality.
• Understand the expertise and backgrounds of the committee members. Tailor your presentation and responses to align with the interests and expectations of your specific audience.
• Practice time management during your presentation. Ensure that you allocate sufficient time to cover key aspects of your research, leaving ample time for questions and discussions.
• It’s normal to feel nervous, but practicing mindfulness and staying calm under pressure is crucial. Take deep breaths, maintain eye contact, and focus on delivering a clear and composed presentation.
• Have a plan for post-defense activities. Whether it’s revisions to the dissertation, publications, or future research endeavors, having a roadmap for what comes next demonstrates foresight and commitment to ongoing scholarly contributions.
• After successfully defending, individuals often emphasize the importance of taking time to reflect on the entire doctoral journey. Acknowledge personal and academic growth, celebrate achievements, and use the experience to inform future scholarly pursuits.

In summary, learning from the experiences of others who have successfully defended offers a wealth of practical wisdom. These insights, combined with thoughtful preparation and a proactive approach, contribute to a successful and fulfilling defense experience.

You have plenty of career options after completing a PhD. For more details, visit my blog posts:

7 Essential Steps for Building a Robust Research Portfolio

Exciting Career Opportunities for PhD Researchers and Research Scholars

Freelance Writing or Editing Opportunities for Researchers A Comprehensive Guide

Research Consultancy: An Alternate Career for Researchers

The Insider’s Guide to Becoming a Patent Agent: Opportunities, Requirements, and Challenges

The journey from a curious researcher to a recognized scholar culminates in the PhD defence—an intellectual odyssey marked by dedication, resilience, and a relentless pursuit of knowledge. As we navigate the intricacies of this pivotal event, it becomes evident that the PhD defence is far more than a ceremonial rite; it is a substantive evaluation that validates the contributions of a researcher to the academic landscape.

Upcoming Events

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

Recent Posts

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

Copyright © 2024 Research Voyage

Design by ThemesDNA.com

PhD Thesis Guide

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

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

Deadlines & Requirements

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

Years 1 - 2

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

Year 4 

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

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

Getting Started

Check out these resources  for finding a research lab.

The Thesis Committee: Roles and Responsibilities

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

Research Advisor

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

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

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

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

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

Thesis Committee Chair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thesis Committee Meetings

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

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

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

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

Letters of Intent

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

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

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

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

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

Thesis Proposal and Proposal Presentation

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

Proposal Document

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

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

Proposal Presentation

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

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

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

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

Submission of Proposal Package

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

The proposal package includes the following: 

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

Thesis Proposal Forms

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

Thesis Defense and Final Thesis Document

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

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

Before the Thesis Defense 

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

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

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

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

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

Thesis Defense Guidelines

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

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

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

Submitting the Final Thesis Document

Please refer to the MIT libraries  thesis formatting guidelines .

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

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

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

The Academic Office will obtain Professor Stultz's signature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links to All Forms in This Guide

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

Final Thesis

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

Let your curiosity lead the way:

Apply Today

• Arts & Sciences
• Graduate Studies in A&S

Defense of the Dissertation

The committee before which the student is examined consists of at least five members, who normally meet two independent criteria:

• Four of the five must be tenured or tenure-track Washington University faculty; one of these four may be a member of the Emeritus faculty. The fifth member must have a doctoral degree and an active research program, whether at Washington University, at another university, in government, or in industry.
• Three of the five must come from the student's degree program; at least one of the five must not.

All committees must be approved by the Dean of the Graduate School or by his or her designee, regardless of whether they meet the normal criteria.

Attendance by a minimum of four members of the Dissertation Defense Committee, including the committee chair and an outside member, is required for the defense to take place. This provision is designed to permit your defense to proceed in case of a situation that unexpectedly prevents one of the five members from attending. Do not plan in advance to have only four members in attendance; if one of those four cannot attend, your defense must be rescheduled. Note that the absence of all outside members or of the committee chair would necessitate rescheduling the defense.

Members of the Dissertation Defense Committee normally attend in person, but one of the five (or, in case of an emergency, one of the four) members may attend virtually instead.

Dissertation Defense Committee

The committee is appointed by the Dean of the Graduate School upon the request of the degree program. The student is responsible for making the full text of the dissertation accessible to his or her committee members for their review in advance of the defense. Faculty and graduate students who are interested in the subject of the dissertation are normally welcome to attend all or part of the defense but may ask questions only at the discretion of the committee members. Though there is some variation among degree programs, the defense ordinarily focuses on the dissertation itself and its relation to the student’s field of expertise.

Defending Your Dissertation: A Guide

Written by Luke Wink-Moran | Photo by insta_photos

Dissertation defenses are daunting, and no wonder; it’s not a “dissertation discussion,” or a “dissertation dialogue.” The name alone implies that the dissertation you’ve spent the last x number of years working on is subject to attack. And if you don’t feel trepidation for semantic reasons, you might be nervous because you don’t know what to expect. Our imaginations are great at making The Unknown scarier than reality. The good news is that you’ll find in this newsletter article experts who can shed light on what dissertations defenses are really like, and what you can do to prepare for them.

The first thing you should know is that your defense has already begun. It started the minute you began working on your dissertation— maybe even in some of the classes you took beforehand that helped you formulate your ideas. This, according to Dr. Celeste Atkins, is why it’s so important to identify a good mentor early in graduate school.

“To me,” noted Dr. Atkins, who wrote her dissertation on how sociology faculty from traditionally marginalized backgrounds teach about privilege and inequality, “the most important part of the doctoral journey was finding an advisor who understood and supported what I wanted from my education and who was willing to challenge me and push me, while not delaying me.  I would encourage future PhDs to really take the time to get to know the faculty before choosing an advisor and to make sure that the members of their committee work well together.”

Your advisor will be the one who helps you refine arguments and strengthen your work so that by the time it reaches your dissertation committee, it’s ready. Next comes the writing process, which many students have said was the hardest part of their PhD. I’ve included this section on the writing process because this is where you’ll create all the material you’ll present during your defense, so it’s important to navigate it successfully. The writing process is intellectually grueling, it eats time and energy, and it’s where many students find themselves paddling frantically to avoid languishing in the “All-But-Dissertation” doldrums. The writing process is also likely to encroach on other parts of your life. For instance, Dr. Cynthia Trejo wrote her dissertation on college preparation for Latin American students while caring for a twelve-year-old, two adult children, and her aging parents—in the middle of a pandemic. When I asked Dr. Trejo how she did this, she replied:

“I don’t take the privilege of education for granted. My son knew I got up at 4:00 a.m. every morning, even on weekends, even on holidays; and it’s a blessing that he’s seen that work ethic and that dedication and the end result.”

Importantly, Dr. Trejo also exercised regularly and joined several online writing groups at UArizona. She mobilized her support network— her partner, parents, and even friends from high school to help care for her son.

The challenges you face during the writing process can vary by discipline. Jessika Iwanski is an MD/PhD student who in 2022 defended her dissertation on genetic mutations in sarcomeric proteins that lead to severe, neonatal dilated cardiomyopathy. She described her writing experience as “an intricate process of balancing many things at once with a deadline (defense day) that seems to be creeping up faster and faster— finishing up experiments, drafting the dissertation, preparing your presentation, filling out all the necessary documents for your defense and also, for MD/PhD students, beginning to reintegrate into the clinical world (reviewing your clinical knowledge and skill sets)!”

But no matter what your unique challenges are, writing a dissertation can take a toll on your mental health. Almost every student I spoke with said they saw a therapist and found their sessions enormously helpful. They also looked to the people in their lives for support. Dr. Betsy Labiner, who wrote her dissertation on Interiority, Truth, and Violence in Early Modern Drama, recommended, “Keep your loved ones close! This is so hard – the dissertation lends itself to isolation, especially in the final stages. Plus, a huge number of your family and friends simply won’t understand what you’re going through. But they love you and want to help and are great for getting you out of your head and into a space where you can enjoy life even when you feel like your dissertation is a flaming heap of trash.”

While you might sometimes feel like your dissertation is a flaming heap of trash, remember: a) no it’s not, you brilliant scholar, and b) the best dissertations aren’t necessarily perfect dissertations. According to Dr. Trejo, “The best dissertation is a done dissertation.” So don’t get hung up on perfecting every detail of your work. Think of your dissertation as a long-form assignment that you need to finish in order to move onto the next stage of your career. Many students continue revising after graduation and submit their work for publication or other professional objectives.

When you do finish writing your dissertation, it’s time to schedule your defense and invite friends and family to the part of the exam that’s open to the public. When that moment comes, how do you prepare to present your work and field questions about it?

“I reread my dissertation in full in one sitting,” said Dr. Labiner. “During all my time writing it, I’d never read more than one complete chapter at a time! It was a huge confidence boost to read my work in full and realize that I had produced a compelling, engaging, original argument.”

There are many other ways to prepare: create presentation slides and practice presenting them to friends or alone; think of questions you might be asked and answer them; think about what you want to wear or where you might want to sit (if you’re presenting on Zoom) that might give you a confidence boost. Iwanksi practiced presenting with her mentor and reviewed current papers to anticipate what questions her committee might ask.  If you want to really get in the zone, you can emulate Dr. Labiner and do a full dress rehearsal on Zoom the day before your defense.

But no matter what you do, you’ll still be nervous:

“I had a sense of the logistics, the timing, and so on, but I didn’t really have clear expectations outside of the structure. It was a sort of nebulous three hours in which I expected to be nauseatingly terrified,” recalled Dr. Labiner.

“I expected it to be terrifying, with lots of difficult questions and constructive criticism/comments given,” agreed Iwanski.

“I expected it to be very scary,” said Dr. Trejo.

“I expected it to be like I was on trial, and I’d have to defend myself and prove I deserved a PhD,” said Dr Atkins.

And, eventually, inexorably, it will be time to present.  

“It was actually very enjoyable” said Iwanski. “It was more of a celebration of years of work put into this project—not only by me but by my mentor, colleagues, lab members and collaborators! I felt very supported by all my committee members and, rather than it being a rapid fire of questions, it was more of a scientific discussion amongst colleagues who are passionate about heart disease and muscle biology.”

“I was anxious right when I logged on to the Zoom call for it,” said Dr. Labiner, “but I was blown away by the number of family and friends that showed up to support me. I had invited a lot of people who I didn’t at all think would come, but every single person I invited was there! Having about 40 guests – many of them joining from different states and several from different countries! – made me feel so loved and celebrated that my nerves were steadied very quickly. It also helped me go into ‘teaching mode’ about my work, so it felt like getting to lead a seminar on my most favorite literature.”

“In reality, my dissertation defense was similar to presenting at an academic conference,” said Dr. Atkins. “I went over my research in a practiced and organized way, and I fielded questions from the audience.

“It was a celebration and an important benchmark for me,” said Dr. Trejo. “It was a pretty happy day. Like the punctuation at the end of your sentence: this sentence is done; this journey is done. You can start the next sentence.”

If you want to learn more about dissertations in your own discipline, don’t hesitate to reach out to graduates from your program and ask them about their experiences. If you’d like to avail yourself of some of the resources that helped students in this article while they wrote and defended their dissertations, check out these links:

The Graduate Writing Lab

https://thinktank.arizona.edu/writing-center/graduate-writing-lab

The Writing Skills Improvement Program

https://wsip.arizona.edu

Campus Health Counseling and Psych Services

https://caps.arizona.edu

https://www.scribbr.com/

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER COLUMN
• 30 March 2020

How to defend a PhD remotely

• Alyssa Frederick 0

Alyssa Frederick is a postdoctoral scholar at the Bodega Marine Laboratory in Bodega Bay, California, part of the University of California, Davis.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

In November 2019, I conducted my PhD defence using the videoconferencing software Zoom.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00971-z

This is an article from the Nature Careers Community, a place for Nature readers to share their professional experiences and advice. Guest posts are encouraged .

Related Articles

• Peer review
• Conferences and meetings

Want to make a difference? Try working at an environmental non-profit organization

Career Feature 26 APR 24

Scientists urged to collect royalties from the ‘magic money tree’

Career Feature 25 APR 24

NIH pay rise for postdocs and PhD students could have US ripple effect

News 25 APR 24

Algorithm ranks peer reviewers by reputation — but critics warn of bias

Nature Index 25 APR 24

Structure peer review to make it more robust

World View 16 APR 24

Is ChatGPT corrupting peer review? Telltale words hint at AI use

News 10 APR 24

China promises more money for science in 2024

News 08 MAR 24

One-third of Indian STEM conferences have no women

News 15 NOV 23

How remote conferencing broadened my horizons and opened career paths

Career Column 04 AUG 23

Associate or Senior Editor, Communications Medicine

Job Title: Associate or Senior Editor, Communications Medicine Location: Philadelphia, New York, Jersey City, Washington DC (Hybrid Working) Closin...

Jersey City, New Jersey

Springer Nature Ltd

Associate or Senior Editor, BMC Psychology and BMC Psychiatry

Job Title: Associate Editor or Senior Editor, BMC Psychology and BMC Psychiatry Location(s): New York or Shanghai  Deadline: May 21st, 2024   You w...

New York (US)

W2 Professorship with tenure track to W3 in Animal Husbandry (f/m/d)

The Faculty of Agricultural Sciences at the University of Göttingen invites applications for a temporary professorship with civil servant status (g...

Göttingen (Stadt), Niedersachsen (DE)

Georg-August-Universität Göttingen

W1 professorship for „Tissue Aspects of Immunity and Inflammation“

Kiel University (CAU) and the University of Lübeck (UzL) are striving to increase the proportion of qualified female scientists in research and tea...

University of Luebeck

W1 professorship for "Bioinformatics and artificial intelligence that preserve privacy"

Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein (DE)

Universität Kiel - Medizinische Fakultät

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

13 Tips to Prepare for Your PhD Dissertation Defense

How well do you know your project? Years of experiments, analysis of results, and tons of literature study, leads you to how well you know your research study. And, PhD dissertation defense is a finale to your PhD years. Often, researchers question how to excel at their thesis defense and spend countless hours on it. Days, weeks, months, and probably years of practice to complete your doctorate, needs to surpass the dissertation defense hurdle.

In this article, we will discuss details of how to excel at PhD dissertation defense and list down some interesting tips to prepare for your thesis defense.

Table of Contents

What Is Dissertation Defense?

Dissertation defense or Thesis defense is an opportunity to defend your research study amidst the academic professionals who will evaluate of your academic work. While a thesis defense can sometimes be like a cross-examination session, but in reality you need not fear the thesis defense process and be well prepared.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/c/JamesHaytonPhDacademy

What are the expectations of committee members.

Choosing the dissertation committee is one of the most important decision for a research student. However, putting your dissertation committee becomes easier once you understand the expectations of committee members.

The basic function of your dissertation committee is to guide you through the process of proposing, writing, and revising your dissertation. Moreover, the committee members serve as mentors, giving constructive feedback on your writing and research, also guiding your revision efforts.

The dissertation committee is usually formed once the academic coursework is completed. Furthermore, by the time you begin your dissertation research, you get acquainted to the faculty members who will serve on your dissertation committee. Ultimately, who serves on your dissertation committee depends upon you.

Some universities allow an outside expert (a former professor or academic mentor) to serve on your committee. It is advisable to choose a faculty member who knows you and your research work.

How to Choose a Dissertation Committee Member?

• Avoid popular and eminent faculty member
• Choose the one you know very well and can approach whenever you need them
• A faculty member whom you can learn from is apt.
• Members of the committee can be your future mentors, co-authors, and research collaborators. Choose them keeping your future in mind.

How to Prepare for Dissertation Defense?

1. Start Your Preparations Early

Thesis defense is not a 3 or 6 months’ exercise. Don’t wait until you have completed all your research objectives. Start your preparation well in advance, and make sure you know all the intricacies of your thesis and reasons to all the research experiments you conducted.

2. Attend Presentations by Other Candidates

Look out for open dissertation presentations at your university. In fact, you can attend open dissertation presentations at other universities too. Firstly, this will help you realize how thesis defense is not a scary process. Secondly, you will get the tricks and hacks on how other researchers are defending their thesis. Finally, you will understand why dissertation defense is necessary for the university, as well as the scientific community.

3. Take Enough Time to Prepare the Slides

Dissertation defense process harder than submitting your thesis well before the deadline. Ideally, you could start preparing the slides after finalizing your thesis. Spend more time in preparing the slides. Make sure you got the right data on the slides and rephrase your inferences, to create a logical flow to your presentation.

4. Structure the Presentation

Do not be haphazard in designing your presentation. Take time to create a good structured presentation. Furthermore, create high-quality slides which impresses the committee members. Make slides that hold your audience’s attention. Keep the presentation thorough and accurate, and use smart art to create better slides.

5. Practice Breathing Techniques

Watch a few TED talk videos and you will notice that speakers and orators are very fluent at their speech. In fact, you will not notice them taking a breath or falling short of breath. The only reason behind such effortless oratory skill is practice — practice in breathing technique.

Moreover, every speaker knows how to control their breath. Long and steady breaths are crucial. Pay attention to your breathing and slow it down. All you need I some practice prior to this moment.

6. Create an Impactful Introduction

The audience expects a lot from you. So your opening statement should enthrall the audience. Furthermore, your thesis should create an impact on the members; they should be thrilled by your thesis and the way you expose it.

The introduction answers most important questions, and most important of all “Is this presentation worth the time?” Therefore, it is important to make a good first impression , because the first few minutes sets the tone for your entire presentation.

7. Maintain Your Own List of Questions

While preparing for the presentation, make a note of all the questions that you ask yourself. Try to approach all the questions from a reader’s point of view. You could pretend like you do not know the topic and think of questions that could help you know the topic much better.

The list of questions will prepare you for the questions the members may pose while trying to understand your research. Attending other candidates’ open discussion will also help you assume the dissertation defense questions.

8. Practice Speech and Body Language

After successfully preparing your slides and practicing, you could start focusing on how you look while presenting your thesis. This exercise is not for your appearance but to know your body language and relax if need be.

Pay attention to your body language. Stand with your back straight, but relax your shoulders. The correct posture will give you the feel of self-confidence. So, observe yourself in the mirror and pay attention to movements you make.

9. Give Mock Presentation

Giving a trial defense in advance is a good practice. The most important factor for the mock defense is its similarity to your real defense, so that you get the experience that prepares for the actual defense.

10. Learn How to Handle Mistakes

Everyone makes mistakes. However, it is important to carry on. Do not let the mistakes affect your thesis defense. Take a deep breath and move on to the next point.

11. Do Not Run Through the Presentation

If you are nervous, you would want to end the presentation as soon as possible. However, this situation will give rise to anxiety and you will speak too fast, skipping the essential details. Eventually, creating a fiasco of your dissertation defense .

12. Get Plenty of Rest

Out of the dissertation defense preparation points, this one is extremely important. Obviously, sleeping a day before your big event is hard, but you have to focus and go to bed early, with the clear intentions of getting the rest you deserve.

13. Visualize Yourself Defending Your Thesis

This simple exercise creates an immense impact on your self-confidence. All you have to do is visualize yourself giving a successful presentation each evening before going to sleep. Everyday till the day of your thesis defense, see yourself standing in front of the audience and going from one point to another.

This exercise takes a lot of commitment and persistence, but the results in the end are worth it. Visualization makes you see yourself doing the scary thing of defending your thesis.

If you have taken all these points into consideration, you are ready for your big day. You have worked relentlessly for your PhD degree , and you will definitely give your best in this final step.

Have you completed your thesis defense? How did you prepare for it and how was your experience throughout your dissertation defense ? Do write to us or comment below.

The tips are very useful.I will recomend it to our students.

Excellent. As a therapist trying to help a parent of a candidate, I am very impressed and thankful your concise, clear, action-oriented article. Thank you.

Thanks for your sharing. It is so good. I can learn a lot from your ideas. Hope that in my dissertation defense next time I can pass

The tips are effective. Will definitely apply them in my dissertation.

My dissertation defense is coming up in less than two weeks from now, I find this tips quite instructive, I’ll definitely apply them. Thank you so much.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for data interpretation

In research, choosing the right approach to understand data is crucial for deriving meaningful insights.…

Comparing Cross Sectional and Longitudinal Studies: 5 steps for choosing the right approach

The process of choosing the right research design can put ourselves at the crossroads of…

• Career Corner

Unlocking the Power of Networking in Academic Conferences

Embarking on your first academic conference experience? Fear not, we got you covered! Academic conferences…

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

Research recommendations play a crucial role in guiding scholars and researchers toward fruitful avenues of…

• AI in Academia

Disclosing the Use of Generative AI: Best practices for authors in manuscript preparation

The rapid proliferation of generative and other AI-based tools in research writing has ignited an…

Setting Rationale in Research: Cracking the code for excelling at research

Mitigating Survivorship Bias in Scholarly Research: 10 tips to enhance data integrity

The Power of Proofreading: Taking your academic work to the next level

Facing Difficulty Writing an Academic Essay? — Here is your one-stop solution!

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

Preparing for your PhD thesis defence

As you start thinking about the end stages of your PhD, it’s important to understand the processes and timelines related to the thesis defence so that your degree completion is not delayed. Even if your thesis defence seems far away, there are several planning considerations you can consider early on to help the end stages of your PhD go smoothly.

On this page you will find videos, tools, and information about what the PhD thesis defence is , timelines for the PhD thesis defence , and tips for a successful PhD thesis defence .

All PhD students should also ensure that they read the PhD thesis examination regulations and review the thesis preparation guidelines prior to their oral defence. If your thesis defence will be conducted remotely, you should also review the process for a remote thesis defence .

What is the PhD defence?

Understanding the purpose, processes and possible outcomes of the thesis defence can help you feel more prepared for the defence itself. In this video, you’ll learn about what the defence is, who’s there, what happens, and the deliberation and range of possible outcomes.

Transcript - Demystifying the thesis defence at University of Waterloo (PDF)

You may wish to learn more about some of the topics discussed in this video. Here are some helpful links to learn more:

Examination committee members (including the external examiner): Visit the PhD thesis examination regulations section on the  PhD thesis examining committee for more information about the committee members, including information about the external examiner and conflicts of interest.

• Closed thesis defences and non-disclosure agreements: Visit the PhD thesis examination regulations section on guidelines for thesis examination without public disclosure for more information about closed thesis examinations.
• Thesis defence decisions and outcomes: Visit the PhD thesis examination regulations section on  decisions for additional information about decisions and outcomes.
• Thesis submission: Visit the thesis submission webpage for information about the thesis submission process, including approvals that must be obtained before submitting your thesis.
• UWSpace: Visit the Library’s UWSpace webpage for information about what UWSpace is and how to submit, or deposit, your thesis to UWSpace.

Timeline to defence

Early planning considerations.

Well before your defence date, there are several considerations to think about that can help make the end stages of your degree go smoothly and ensure your defence date and degree completion are not delayed:

• Being aware of formatting requirements will save you time on revisions later on – the last thing you want to be doing before submitting your thesis to UWSpace is updating page numbers or your table of contents! Consider using the Microsoft Word or LaTeX thesis template produced by Information Systems & Technology. 
• The Dissertation Boot Camp can help you develop effective writing practices and strategies for completing your thesis, while the three-part Rock Your Thesis workshop series will provide practical guidance for planning, writing, revising, and submitting your thesis project. You can also book an individual appointment to do backwards planning with an advisor. They can help you utilize the planning tools most effectively, while providing hands-on guidance and feedback.  
• If you are using third-party content, including your own previously published work in your thesis, or seeking intellectual property protection (for yourself or another involved party), there may be implications for your thesis or defence. Learn more about copyright for your thesis , and email [email protected] for help with copyright questions related to your thesis.
• Depending on your departmental or discipline’s norms, you may require approval from your entire committee, or just your supervisor. Ensure you talk with your supervisor and/or committee early on to confirm processes and timelines, so you’re not surprised later.
• Depending on your departmental or discipline’s norms, your supervisor may select an external examiner themselves, or they may seek your input. Talk to your supervisor early on about this process, as in some faculties the external examiner may need to be vetted and approved as early as the term before you wish to defend. Remember that there are conflict of interest guidelines around the appointment of the external examiner , and the PhD candidate should not be in communication with the external examiner prior to the defence.
• A PhD thesis must be on display for a minimum of 4 weeks prior to the defence date. To accommodate, you may need to submit your thesis as early as 6-8 weeks prior to your defence. Review your faculty specific backwards planning tool for the thesis submission deadline in your faculty and learn more about the display period in the PhD thesis examination regulations.
• After your successful thesis defence, you will likely have some required revisions to your thesis. It’s important to understand revision timelines , especially if you’re hoping to become “degree complete” before a tuition refund or convocation deadline. Find tuition refund and convocation deadlines in the important dates calendar .
• Following your thesis defence, there are several steps to be taken before your final, approved thesis is accepted in UWSpace. Ensure that you’re aware of these thesis submission steps and timelines in advance.

Backwards planning tools

Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs, in collaboration with the Faculties, have prepared faculty specific backwards planning tools to help PhD candidates map out the timelines related to their thesis defence and degree completion.

Select your faculty below to download a PDF copy of the backwards planning tool. We encourage you to discuss your ideal timelines with your supervisor(s) and your department graduate program co-ordinator.

• Faculty of Health backwards planning tool (PDF)
• Faculty of Arts backwards planning tool (PDF)
• Faculty of Engineering backwards planning tool (PDF)
• Faculty of Environment backwards planning tool (PDF)
• Faculty of Mathematics backwards planning tool (PDF)
• Faculty of Science backwards planning tool (PDF)

Tips for success

The PhD thesis defence is the culmination of years of hard work! The tips outlined in this video, compiled from recent PhD graduates and experienced thesis defence chairs, cover tips for preparing for your defence, day-of logistics, and defending successfully.

Transcript - Your Thesis Defence: Tips for Success (PDF)

Will your PhD thesis defence be held remotely? We’ve compiled additional tips for success specifically related to the remote defence.

Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs (GSPA)

Needles Hall, second floor, room 2201

Graduate Studies Academic Calendar

Website feedback

• Contact Waterloo
• Maps & Directions
• Accessibility

The University of Waterloo acknowledges that much of our work takes place on the traditional territory of the Neutral, Anishinaabeg and Haudenosaunee peoples. Our main campus is situated on the Haldimand Tract, the land granted to the Six Nations that includes six miles on each side of the Grand River. Our active work toward reconciliation takes place across our campuses through research, learning, teaching, and community building, and is co-ordinated within the Office of Indigenous Relations .

PhD Dissertation Defense Slides Design: Start

• Tips for designing the slides
• Presentation checklist
• Example slides
• Additional Resources

Purpose of the Guide

This guide was created to help ph.d. students in engineering fields to design dissertation defense presentations. the guide provides 1) tips on how to effectively communicate research, and 2) full presentation examples from ph.d. graduates. the tips on designing effective slides are not restricted to dissertation defense presentations; they can be used in designing other types of presentations such as conference talks, qualification and proposal exams, and technical seminars., the tips and examples are used to help students to design effective presentation. the technical contents in all examples are subject to copyright, please do not replicate. , if you need help in designing your presentation, please contact julie chen ([email protected]) for individual consultation. .

• Example Slides Repository
• Defense slides examples Link to examples dissertation defense slides.

Useful Links

• CIT Thesis and dissertation standards
• Dissertations and Theses @ Carnegie Mellon This link opens in a new window Covers 1920-present. Full text of some dissertations may be available 1997-present. Citations and abstracts of dissertations and theses CMU graduate students have published through UMI Dissertation Publishing. In addition to citations and abstracts, the service provides free access to 24 page previews and the full text in PDF format, when available. In most cases, this will be works published in 1997 forward.
• Communicate your research data Data visualization is very important in communicating your data effectively. Check out these do's and don'ts for designing figures.

Power Point Template and other Resources

• CEE Powerpoint Slide Presentation Template 1
• CEE Powerpoint Slide Presentation Template 2

Source: CEE Department Resources https://www.cmu.edu/cee/resources/index.html

• CMU Powerpoint Slide Template

Source: CMU Marketing and Communications

https://www.cmu.edu/marcom/brand-standards/downloads/index.html

• Use of CMU logos, marks, and Unitmarks

Email me for questions and schedule an appointment

Top 7 tips for your defense presentation

1. show why your study is important, remember, your audience is your committee members, researchers in other fields, and even the general public. you want to convince all of them why you deserve a ph.d. degree. you need to talk about why your study is important to the world. in the engineering field, you also need to talk about how your study is useful. try to discuss why current practice is problematic or not good enough, what needs to be solved, and what the potential benefits will be. , see how dr. posen and dr. malings explained the importance of their studies..

• Carl Malings Defense Slides with Notes
• I. Daniel Posen Defense Slides with Notes

2. Emphasize YOUR contribution 

Having a ph.d. means that you have made some novel contributions to the grand field. this is about you and your research. you need to keep emphasizing your contributions throughout your presentation. after talking about what needs to be solved, try to focus on emphasizing the novelty of your work. what problems can be solved using your research outcomes what breakthroughs have you made to the field why are your methods and outcomes outstanding you need to incorporate answers to these questions in your presentation. , be clear what your contributions are in the introduction section; separate what was done by others and what was done by you. , 3. connect your projects into a whole piece of work, you might have been doing multiple projects that are not strongly connected. to figure out how to connect them into a whole piece, use visualizations such as flow charts to convince your audience. the two slides below are two examples. in the first slide, which was presented in the introduction section, the presenter used a flow diagram to show the connection between the three projects. in the second slide, the presenter used key figures and a unique color for each project to show the connection..

• Xiaoju Chen Defense Slides with Notes

4. Tell a good story 

The committee members do not necessarily have the same background knowledge as you. plus, there could be researchers from other fields and even the general public in the room. you want to make sure all of your audience can understand as much as possible. focus on the big picture rather than technical details; make sure you use simple language to explain your methods and results. your committee has read your dissertation before your defense, but others have not. , dr. cook and dr. velibeyoglu did a good job explaining their research to everyone. the introduction sessions in their presentations are well designed for this purpose. .

• Laren M. Cook Defense Slides with Notes
• Irem Velibeyoglu Defense with Notes

5. Transition, transition, transition

Use transition slides to connect projects , it's a long presentation with different research projects. you want to use some sort of transition to remind your audience what you have been talking about and what is next. you may use a slide that is designed for this purpose throughout your presentation. , below are two examples. these slides were presented after the introduction section. the presenters used the same slides and highlighted the items for project one to indicate that they were moving on to the first project. throughout the presentation, they used these slides and highlighted different sections to indicate how these projects fit into the whole dissertation. .

You can also use some other indications on your slides, but remember not to make your slides too busy.  Below are two examples. In the first example, the presenter used chapter numbers to indicate what he was talking about. In the second example, the presenter used a progress bar with keywords for each chapter as the indicator. 

Use transition sentences to connect slides 

Remember transition sentences are also important; use them to summarize what you have said and tell your audience what they will expect next. if you keep forgetting the transition sentence, write a note on your presentation. you can either write down a full sentence of what you want to say or some keywords., 6. be brief, put details in backup slides , you won't have time to explain all of the details. if your defense presentation is scheduled for 45 minutes, you can only spend around 10 minutes for each project - that's shorter than a normal research conference presentation focus on the big picture and leave details behind. you can put the details in your backup slides, so you might find them useful when your committee (and other members of the audience) ask questions regarding these details., 7. show your presentation to your advisor and colleagues, make sure to ask your advisor(s) for their comments. they might have a different view on what should be emphasized and what should be elaborated. , you also want to practice at least once in front of your colleagues. they can be your lab mates, people who work in your research group, and/or your friends. they do not have to be experts in your field. ask them to give you some feedback - their comments can be extremely helpful to improve your presentation. , below are some other tips and resources to design your defense presentation. .

• Tips for designing your defense presentation

How important is your presentation, and cookies?

• Next: Tips for designing the slides >>
• Last Updated: Jan 9, 2024 11:18 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.cmu.edu/c.php?g=883178

Oral Examinations

If you have questions about oral examinations, contact us at [email protected] .

Once your dissertation is nearing completion, it’s time to schedule your defense—your final oral examination.

You should begin making arrangements for your defense at the beginning of the semester (especially during the summer) in order to accommodate the schedules of your committee members.

Students must be currently enrolled in the dissertation course for the semester in which the defense is scheduled and held.

Committee Changes

Any changes to your dissertation committee must be approved by the Dean of the Graduate School. Changes should be approved at least 30 days prior to the date of the oral examination so that all new members have ample time to become familiar with your dissertation.

Defense Attendance

You, the student, and your supervisor, in negotiation with the dissertation committee members, should determine a time and date for the defense. Each member of your committee must receive a copy of your dissertation at least four weeks prior to your dissertation defense date. A defense cannot be held within two weeks of the last class day of the semester, unless the committee has consented to hold the defense within those last 2 weeks.

Request for Final Oral Examination Form

You must schedule the dissertation defense with the Graduate School at least two weeks prior to the defense date by completing the Request for Final Oral Examination form. All members of your committee must sign your request form indicating their intent to be present at your final oral. Your graduate adviser must also sign this form to indicate you have been approved to defend.

It is expected that all members of the committee attend the defense. The Graduate School does not distinguish between physical attendance or electronic/virtual attendance of the defense. One non-supervisory committee member may be absent from the defense in if necessary, but all members must read the dissertation and, when satisfied, sign the Report of Dissertation Committee form.

Contact for Questions

Email the Graduate School at the link above with any questions concerning defense attendance.

Format Check Requirements

When you submit the Request for Final Oral Examination form to the Graduate School, you should include one copy each of the dissertation abstract, title page and the committee membership page for a format check in separate PDF. You do not need to include the instructions page.

After the Defense

The official recommendation of your committee and your program is communicated to the Graduate School on the Report of Dissertation Committee. The Dean of the Graduate School depends on this document to determine your eligibility to receive the doctoral degree so it is essential that it be completed and returned in a timely fashion. A passing report signifies that your committee unanimously agrees that you have completed a dissertation that is an independent investigation in your major field.

In the event that revisions to your dissertation are necessary before your committee members approve your dissertation, the report will be retained by your supervisor until all revisions have been completed. After successful completion of your defense and any required revisions to your dissertation, the Report of Dissertation Committee should also be signed by all members of your committee and must be submitted to the Graduate School.

After you’ve made required or requested revisions to your dissertation, if any, check it carefully for grammar, spelling, punctuation, content and format, then convert it to the required PDF format and upload it.

Do not submit your report/thesis/dissertation via email . Final reports, theses and dissertations MUST be uploaded to the Texas Digital Library before your final paperwork and pages will be reviewed. After submission, no revisions or corrections will be allowed except for those required by the dean of the Graduate School.

Upcoming Oral Examinations

Doctoral students’ final oral examinations are open to all members of the University community and the public unless attendance is restricted by the Graduate Studies Committee. Scheduled oral examinations are published on the UT Grad School website.

Prospective Students

• Current Students
• Staff Directory

My UNC Charlotte

Campus events.

• About UNC Charlotte
• Campus Life
• Graduate Admissions

Faculty and Staff

• Human Resources
• Auxiliary Services
• Inside UNC Charlotte
• Academic Affairs
• Financial Aid
• Student Health Center

Alumni and Friends

• Alumni Association
• Advancement
• Make a Gift
• Thesis and Dissertation

Forming Your Committee

Students should not schedule the proposal defense prior to their committee being finalized and their appointment form being approved by the Graduate School.

It is necessary to have the form approved in advance of the proposal defense, as there are instances in which committee members are not approved (for example, if someone is listed as the Graduate Faculty Representative who the Graduate School does not deem  qualified to serve in this capacity).

The Graduate School's requirements for everything from committee formation to graduation clearance can be found under the Current Students tab on the Graduate School website. 

Composition of the Doctoral Committee: Roles and Responsibilities

The Graduate School requires that doctoral committees consist of no less than four members. These four members must be regular members of the Graduate Faculty or must be granted an exception by the Dean of the Graduate School.  All committees must include a chair and a Graduate Faculty Representative. Assistant Professors are usually not approved to serve as chair unless they have served as a committee member first. Exceptions are granted on a case-by-case basis. 

Graduate Faculty Representative

The primary role of the Graduate Faculty Representative is to ensure that the student is treated fairly and that Graduate School policies are upheld. Expertise in the student's area of research is not a requirement. The Graduate Faculty Representative's responsibilities are explained in greater detail here . Assistant Professors are not eligible to serve as Graduate Faculty Representative. 

The requirement to include an outside member on all dissertation committees is not uncommon among institutions of higher education and is in keeping with best practices in doctoral support. 

Committee Members

Committee members are often chosen to provide topic or methodological expertise. Even without contributing their expertise, committee members may be chosen based on faculty with whom the student has a good professional relationship or who could offer a helpful outside perspective. Committee members are generally not as involved as the committee chair in the everyday progression of the dissertation.  Typically, they read the dissertation only in its final form before the defense, although they should be available for consultation throughout the process and may be more closely involved in sections or chapters in which they have particular expertise. 

The committee members and Graduate Faculty Representative will:

• Approve of the subject matter and methodology of the thesis or dissertation research
• Review and comment on drafts of the thesis or dissertation prior to submission to The Graduate School
• Verify, to the best of their ability, the quality of the data collection and evidence, data analysis, and logical reasoning or interpretation in light of the proposal aims
• Evaluate whether the student’s thesis or dissertation fulfills the requirements of the degree

Hints for PhD Defenses

At Columbia, PhD defenses are generally not public, although CS usually allows a student audience. Defenses consist of four parts: first, the candidate introduces themselves, then presents a summary of their work, interrupted and followed by questions from the committee. Finally, the committee meets in private to discuss the presentation and dissertation.

While most of the committee will have read most of your thesis, you cannot assume that everyone has read every chapter.

The committee needs to be able to assess impact and depth. Usually, the committee has some idea of this before the defense, but whatever the student can say to make this assessment easier, perhaps just through emphasis, is likely to make the defense go much more smoothly.

Generally, the whole defense will not take more than two hours, but should take considerably less time. Part of the challenge of a defense is to convince the committee that you can summarize the important points of your work in a very limited time.

• What is the problem you are studying?
• Why is it important ?
• What results have you achieved?
• Some committee members will want to know if the works has been published and where and how it was received. For example, if you have written software, indicate where it is being used, either for follow-on work or in some production or test environment.
• Have a list of your thesis-related publications as a slide. Indicate any awards that a paper may have received. For most people, it's easier to list some honor than "brag" about it in person.
• If you have presented your work in a conference or at job talks, be sure to anticipate and address the most common questions asked there.
• The committee should be handed a copy of your slides.
• Be prepared to briefly summarize your background (undergraduate degree, how long at the university, etc.)
• No more than 30 slides, plus "back up" slides with additional material in case of questions. The most effective way of making your committee members mad is to come unprepared with a stack of 80 slides and then madly skip through them.
• Number your slides, particularly if one of your committee members is linked in via speakerphone. Consider using some kind of remote presentation software.
• List your contributions early.
• When presenting your contributions, be sure to use "I" and not "we" so that the committee will know what aspects of the work where yours, and which were group projects.
• Keep discussions of related work very brief, but be prepared to answer questions of the "how does this differ from so-and-so's work" succinctly.
• You will not be asked to prove results again.
• Be prepared to back up any comparative statement with facts, in particular statements like "works better", "faster", "scalable" or "optimal". If you are presenting a protocol, how do you know that it works correctly?
• If you have multiple parts in your dissertation, consult with the committee ahead of time as to whether it makes sense to omit some of them for the presentation.

Hints for Dissertations

• It is better to focus deeply on a single area then to work on several topics, each of which is pursued to a moderate depth.
• Systems work must be coupled with implementation and some kind of numerical comparitive analysis to demonstrate the improvements from existing or alternate approaches.
• Your thesis needs a one page executive summary that a layperson should be able to understand. Test: give it to a relative of yours that does not have an engineering degree...

Miscellaneous Hints

• You are likely only to defend a PhD thesis only once; your defense is a special occasion, so consider dressing appropriately, at least business casual, but a suit is not inappropriate.
• It is customary to provide refreshments for the audience, such as coffee, bagels, cookies and fruit, depending on the time of day.

The Role of PhD Committee Members

• Committee members (should) read the draft thesis (and provide feedback). Obviously, students appreciate an in-depth reading, but it is common for committee members to focus on chapters closest to their expertise. Reading depths varies - some provide line edits, others just suggest larger issues that should be addressed ("Your related work section in Chapter 10 is a bit sparse and ends in 2005."). While this is probably not the place to suggest "do another year of research", filling in gaps is ok and I'd rather postpone a defense by a month if needed. Before the committee gets the thesis, I've done a first or sometimes second reading, but the whole point of the committee is to keep the advisor honest (and complement his or her knowledge or taste).
• Committee members attend the PhD defense, usually in person. Typically, this lasts about 90 minutes. Take notes on any editorial improvements (e.g., "make clear that the throughput graph is measured in gallons/minute"). Vote on the outcome and sign the form.
• If the student is given a set of changes to implement, the advisor asks students to detail on how they implemented the changes, similar to how an author may respond to reviewer comments for a journal. The committee informally signs off, or not, on these changes. There is no need to re-read the thesis.

Checklist for Dissertation

• Spell check;
• Check for missing chapter or figure references;
• Section, Chapter, Figure are capitalized;
• All references converted from [1][2][3] to [1,2,3];
• Consistent capitalization in captions;
• Verify expansion of all abbreviations at first instance;
• Avoid "tremendous", "huge" and other similar adjectives;
• End to end -> end-to-end;
• Check references for capitalization of abbreviations and missing data such as page numbers.

(Contributions by Ed Coffman, Jonathan Rosenberg and Sal Stolfo.)

Translations: Polish

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

Progress to Degree

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

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

Appointment of the Doctoral Committee

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

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

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

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

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

• Minimum of 4 members with UC San Diego faculty appointments
• At least 1 member must have a primary appointment in a different department than the chair's primary department
• At least 2 members must be from the student's home department or program
• At least 1 member must be tenured or emeritus

Senate Regulation 715 states in full :

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

Additional committee members beyond the required four members can be requested to serve, including from another UC campus, non-UC academic institutions and industry. Appointment of such external members who will participate in Doctoral Committee decisions must be justified with a written explanation at the time of requesting committee constitution and must be approved by Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Affairs (GEPA) .

Willingness of external members to serve on the committee must be verified prior to nomination and efforts should be made to maintain continuity of service on the committee for the duration of candidacy.

GEPA will not consider any exceptions to the four UC San Diego committee members.

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

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

Academic Senate regulations: 

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

Appointment of the Master's Thesis Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appointment of the Joint Doctoral Program Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doctoral [and Master's] Committee Membership Table

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

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

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

Applicable to committees constituted as of Fall 2021  

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

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

Joint Doctoral Committee Membership Table

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

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

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

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

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

Printable JDP committee table

Submission and Reconstitution of a Doctoral or Master's Committee

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

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

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

Rules for Conducting Master's and Doctoral Examinations

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

Effective Fall 2022:

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

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

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

Graduate Council Actions

  Graduate Council Action 4/8/93

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience. Thanks!

• Message from the Chair
• Birth of MRI
• External Advisory Board
• Honoring Leaders in Chemistry
• Interdisciplinary Research Partners
• Training Programs
• Newsletters
• Current News & Archives
• Photo Galleries
• Commencement
• Chemistry Research Day
• How to Apply
• PhD Handbook
• NIH T32: CBTP
• NSF NRT: QuADS
• Master's Program
• Undergraduate Program
• Opportunities
• Research Areas
• Seminar Schedules
• Named Lecture Series
• PUI Lecture Series
• Diversity & Inclusion
• UG American Chemical Society

10. DISSERTATION AND FINAL ORAL EXAMINATION

In this Section, “dissertation” is used to cover both the Ph.D. dissertation and the M.S. thesis.

10.1. University and Department Regulations

• The Graduate Bulletin specifies those regulations pertaining to dissertations which have been set forth by the Graduate School. The dissertation must be prepared in accordance with the guidelines presented in the most recent version of the document entitled, Guide to the Preparation of Theses and Dissertations , available from the Graduate School. The style of referencing should adhere to the specifications in either the American Chemical Society Style Guide or the American Institute of Physics Style Manual , or another style guide if agreed upon by the student’s ACC.
• Time Limit. It is Graduate School policy that a candidate must satisfy all requirements for the Ph.D. degree within seven years after completing 24 credits in the Chemistry Graduate Program. In rare instances, the Dean of the Graduate School will entertain a petition to extend this time limit, provided it bears the endorsement of the GPD.

10.2. Reprints in Lieu of Manuscript

In lieu of a manuscript, the candidate may submit one or more reprints of published papers in journals which are acceptable to the dissertation committee provided that such papers are written exclusively by the candidate or the candidate’s contributions are clearly described for each manuscript. The candidate must obtain written permission from the publisher and from all co-authors to include the work in the dissertation. The format and instructions relating to published materials given in the Guide to the Preparation of Theses and Dissertations must be followed. Additional documentation for each manuscript should set forth:

• The candidate’s contributions to the published work;
• Purpose of the research, if not included in the original document;
• Historical setting, if not included in the original document;
• Additional details of archival interest (tables of data, etc.).

10.3. Oral Defense

As part of the procedure by which a dissertation is approved, the Chemistry Department requires a departmental colloquium followed by a formal oral defense before the candidate's examination committee.

• Composition of the examination committee: Three members (typically a student's ACC), with at least two members internal to the Chemistry program ( Faculty  or Affiliated Faculty ), with an additional member from outside the Department (the "Outside Member") are required for the Ph.D. Dissertation Defense. The student and research advisor will identify a qualified candidate to serve as the outside member of the committee, and establish that person’s availability. The external member of the committee should be an independent voice, and therefore should not be a collaborator on the research described in the dissertation. The names of committee members should be submitted to the GPC and the GPD and the Graduate School must approve the final composition of the examination committee. Faculty affiliates of the Chemistry Department and Graduate Program may not serve as outside members of doctoral defense committees in Chemistry. The University regulations governing the structure of the committee are described in the Graduate Bulletin .
• The student, in consultation with the examination committee, arranges the time and place for the defense and notifies the Department through the GPC. For a Ph.D. defense, the student must notify the GPD and GPC at least 4 weeks in advance of the scheduled date by submitting an electronic dissertation announcement form using the most recent template provided on the Graduate School website . The GPD then submits this form to the Graduate School for approval. Approval must be requested from the Graduate School at least 3 weeks before the intended defense date. Dissertation examination announcements must be posted in the Department. A copy of the notice is put into the student's file.
• Copies of the dissertation must be delivered to the examination committee at least two weeks in advance of the planned examination. Failure to meet this deadline may result in postponement of the defense.

10.4. Actions of the Examination Committee

The Dissertation Examination Committee can return the following judgments on the dissertation as a result of the Oral Defense:

• Acceptance.
• Acceptance with minor changes: This category requires the candidate and the Research Advisor to incorporate the minor changes, and explicitly calls for the signature (appendix) of all committee members at the conclusion of the defense.
• Acceptance with major changes: This category requires a reexamination of the corrected dissertation by the committee, but no repetition of the oral examination.
• Rejection: This category requires the student to prepare a new dissertation, and will generally involve further scientific work.

10.5. Deadlines

The initiative for the appointment of the Dissertation Examination Committee rests with the student in consultation with their Research Advisor. The Graduate School establishes a deadline each term (see the "Important Deadlines" section on the Graduation Information webpage ) for submission of the Examination Committee form, and it is the student’s responsibility to make sure this deadline is met.

The student who desires to receive a degree at a particular commencement must take the responsibility for learning about the deadlines for the various stages in the completion of the work and for informing the Research Advisor and the Chair of the Dissertation Committee of these matters.

Further restraints may be imposed by absences of members of the Dissertation Examination Committee. This should be taken into account in the process of nominating and screening potential members for the committee.

• Ch 1: Introduction
• Ch 2: Professional Conduct
• Ch 3: Safety
• Ch 4: Teaching Responsibilities and Evaluation
• Ch 5: Starting the PhD Program (pre-candidacy)
• Ch 6: Qualification and Advancement to Candidacy
• Ch 7: Third Meeting and Proposal Defense
• Ch 8: Course Requirements
• Ch 9: Seminars
• Ch 10: Dissertation
• Ch 11: Financial Support
• Ch 12: Good Standing
• Ch 13: Academic Honesty
• Ch 14: Appeals

Graduate Education

Office of graduate and postdoctoral education, phd defense by michael johnson, may 1, 2024.

Title:  Exploring Computing Tools by Modality and Materiality

Date:  Wednesday, May 1st

Time: 1pm - 3pm EST

Location: In-Person: TSRB - IC Café (formerly GVU Café), Virtual: Zoom Link  (Meeting Code: 970 7481 2501)

Michael J. Johnson

Ph.D. Computer Science Candidate

School of Interactive Computing

Georgia Institute of Technology

Dr. Betsy DiSalvo (Advisor) - School of Interactive Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology

Dr. Jessica Roberts- School of Interactive Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology

Dr. Judith Uchidiuno - School of Interactive Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology

Dr. Kayla DesPortes - Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, New York University

Dr. Mark Guzdial - Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department, University of Michigan

Designing innovative methods for introducing computer science to young populations remains a prominent area of CS education research. Educators must harmoniously shape the curriculum, materials, classroom environment, and more to provide an engaging and meaningful learning experience. One important consideration is the choice of computing tools students will interact with. Computing tools are materials designed to support learners in exploring computer science and developing CS expertise. These tools range from online code-learning platforms to maker programs to tangible devices, and can even include non-computing materials. When an educator selects computing tools for students to work with, such as a video, a game, crafting materials, a computer, or even a pencil and paper, they influence the outcomes of how students learn, retain, and are evaluated on computational principles. How those influences occur depends upon a tool's modality —how the user interacts with the tool—and materiality —the material properties of the tool.

Computing tools have the potential for many diverse interactions brought by their modalities and materialities, yet CS education research has given little consideration to these differences when assessing if a tool is useful in developing learners' CS expertise. The work presented in this defense explores using computing tools in two informal learning environments for high school students: BridgeUP STEM and CWP 2.0. I theorize that isolating and comparing these properties will yield key information on how each tool mediates relationships between learners, their objectives, and other actors in the learning environment. A deeper understanding of these relationships will contribute to more effective uses of computing tools in CS education.

Accessibility Information

Download Microsoft Products   >      Download Adobe Reader   >

« All Events

Graduate Defense: Terra Miller-Cassman

May 14 @ 9:30 am - 11:30 am mdt, event navigation.

• « Graduate Defense: Jilane Richardson
• Graduate Defense: Brent Wilder »

Dissertation Information

Title: Development of Recyclable Materials for Industry Using Non-Petroleum Feedstocks

Program: Doctor of Philosophy in Materials Science and Engineering

Advisor: Dr. Amy Moll, Materials Science and Engineering

Committee Members: Dr. Kathy Araújo, School of Public Service; Dr. Eric Jankowski, Materials Science and Engineering; and Dr. Aaron Smith, Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering

Plastics have been an essential material for over 80 years, yet we have been unable to manage the accumulation of plastic waste. The available solutions for recycling or replacing plastics are complex and costly, and thus have not kept pace with the increasing quantity of plastic waste. This dissertation describes the design and development of recyclable materials using commercial feedstocks to reduce barriers for industry adoption. In one approach, unsorted municipal solid waste is compressed at a low temperature and pressure to form rigid composite boards with properties similar to particleboard. In another approach, a copolymer with ethyl cyanoacrylate (i.e., Super Glue) is used as a sacrificial tie layer to facilitate the separation and recycling of poly(ethylene terephthalate) in commercial label release liners. Finally, composite materials, composed primarily of low molecular weight sugars, are prepared as a degradable and recyclable alternative to rigid, persistent plastics for short-term-use applications. Processing of the materials, in each of these systems, uses techniques that are compatible with existing infrastructure. Thus, the materials are designed to be scalable and low-cost.

• Google Calendar
• Outlook 365
• Outlook Live

Graduate College

• Calendar Policies
• Virtual Events
• Other Calendars
• Submit an Event
• Directories

Quick Links

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

Dissertation Defense: Andrea Fink-Armold

Recurring dates.

• May. 9, 2024, 12pm to 2pm

Office/Remote Location

Description.

Andrea Fink-Armold, Ph.D. Candidate

Department of Psychology

Gender Stereotyping in an Agricultural Sample

Advisory Committee Members:

• Murray Millar, Ph.D., Advisory Committee Chair
• Rachael Robnett, Ph.D., Advisory Committee Member
• Renato (Rainier) Liboro, Ph.D., Advisory Committee Member
• Lisa Bendixen, Ph.D., Graduate College Representative

Admission Information

This event is open to the public. 

Join via Zoom

Contact Information

External sponsor.

School of Electrical and Computer Engineering

College of engineering, ph.d. dissertation defense - yash-yee logan.

Title:   Data-Centric Approaches for Exploiting Meta-Information and Mitigating Model Regression to Aid Neural Networks Committee: Dr. Aaron Lanterman, ECE, Chair, Advisor Dr. Vince Calhoun, ECE Dr. May Wang, BME Dr. David Anderson, ECE Dr. Pamela Bhatti, ECE