phd thesis mentor

Meet Your Guardian Angel

Get hands-on help from your own dedicated Dissertation Coach, whenever you need it. It’s like having a professor in your pocket.

Students Helped

Client pass rate, trustpilot score, facebook rating, what is dissertation coaching .

Here’s a quick explainer…

Why Grad Coach ?

It's all about you

We take the time to understand your unique challenges and work with you to achieve your specific academic goals . Whether you're aiming to earn top marks or just need to cross the finish line, we're here to help.

An insider advantage

Our award-winning Dissertation Coaches all hold doctoral-level degrees and share 100+ years of combined academic experience. Having worked on "the inside", we know exactly what markers want .

Any time, anywhere

Getting help from your dedicated Dissertation Coach is simple. Book a live video /voice call, chat via email or send your document to us for an in-depth review and critique . We're here when you need us. 

A track record you can trust

8,000,000+ students have enjoyed our public lessons and online courses, while 3000+ students have benefited from 1:1 Dissertation Coaching. The plethora of glowing reviews reflects our commitment.

Chat With A Friendly Coach, Today

Prefer email? No problem - you c an  email us here .

Have a question ?

Below are some of the most popular coaching-related questions we're asked.

Dissertation Coaching

How does coaching work.

Working with Grad Coach means you get a dedicated, highly-qualified research specialist to help you through any stage of your research.

Whether you just want a little initial guidance to make sure you're headed in the right direction, or you want hands-on, ongoing support throughout your entire research journey, your coach will be there for you whenever you need help.

Your dedicated coach will work with you using three channels: live sessions, content reviews and email support.

Live Coaching Sessions

A live coaching session is a real-time online meeting (audio or video) with your coach. In these sessions, you can discuss anything you need assistance with. For example, you might discuss topic ideas, how to structure your next chapter, how to undertake a specific analysis, etc.

Content Reviews

A content review is an offline review, where you send your document to your coach and they’ll meticulously review it at the scheduled time. They will provide extensive commentary within the document (including what’s wrong, why it’s problematic and how to correct it), and then email it back to you (see an example here ). If you want to have a call in addition to the content review, you can do that too.

Email Support

In addition to these two options, you can also email your coach at any time to ask any questions you have, so you'll never be left feeling unsure.

How is coaching different from a university-allocated supervisor?

There are a few key differences:

On-demand access

A university-allocated supervisor can only spend a limited amount of time with each student and their support is usually limited to a certain amount of time per section of content. Also, support is often limited to one or two formats (e.g., email).

Conversely, we provide unlimited , multi-channel, on-demand support . You can book a live coaching session anytime you need to, get your work reviewed as many times as you like (see an example here ) and drop us an email whenever you have a question or concern.

Plain-language advice

Supervisors often communicate in complex “ivory tower academic-speak” that is difficult to understand and not particularly actionable. Students often struggle to make sense of their supervisor’s advice and feedback, due to this language barrier and experience gap.

Conversely, we provide you with plain language, actionable advice and feedback, with lots of examples and analogies to help you grasp concepts as quickly and easily as possible.

A safe, confidential space

The supervisor-student relationship is a tricky one to navigate, as the supervisor is often the first/primary marker or will be assessing you in some way. This creates an awkward dynamic, where it can feel somewhat risky to ask certain questions or propose ideas.

Conversely, your dedicated coach is your “partner in research” and there are no power dynamics. We create a 100% safe, comfortable space for you to ask questions, learn and grow. No question is a "stupid question".

Combined research expertise

Your supervisor will generally be allocated based on your area of research (your topic), not your methodology. This means that oftentimes (not always) they are not methodology experts and cannot provide the best possible guidance regarding your research design.

Conversely, the Grad Coach team consists of methodology experts across the spectrum of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. While you'll usually only work with one dedicated coach, you'll have access to the combined knowledge pool, which means you'll get the best possible advice.

How is coaching different from editing and proofreading?

Editing and proofreading services focus purely on language, formatting and technical presentation requirements, such as referencing. In other words, the focus is on the language , not the content itself. As a result, a dissertation can be perfectly edited and proofread but still fail, as the content itself is poor.

With coaching, on the other hand, the focus is on content . In other words, we focus on the quality of the research itself. For example, we look at things like:

• Is the research topic well-defined and justified?
• Are the research aims, objectives and research questions well-articulated and aligned?
• Is the literature review comprehensive, integrative and well-structured?
• Is the methodology well-considered and executed?
• Is the analysis sound and do the conclusions make sense?

Simply put – coaching focuses on the things that earn the majority of the marks . Additionally, we do offer a separate editing and proofreading service to polish the document, once the content is finalised.

Is coaching allowed by universities?

Yes . In fact, many universities refer students to us and some institutions even use our content (articles and videos) as part of their curriculum.

We provide dissertation coaching to help you improve the quality of your work. Importantly, all work must be your own – we do not write for you . While there are organisations that will cross this ethical boundary, we refuse to engage in any activity which may be considered as academic misconduct.

WARNING - If you are considering any academic writing service, please be aware that the use of such services can lead to expulsion or even revocation of your degree years after the fact. Many websites offering such services provide extremely low-quality work that is unlikely to pass and some websites are outright scams preying on desperate students.

What's included in the (free) initial consultation?

The purpose of the initial consultation is for us to assess your specific situation , needs and wants, and then e xplain how we can help you .

Please note that the initial consultation is not a coaching session. Naturally, we cannot provide accurate guidance without first having a sound understanding of your project, and we need to charge for such services.

Why should I work with Grad Coach specifically?

There are a few factors that distinguish Grad Coach from the alternatives:

On-demand, online service

Grad Coach was built to give you the help you need, whenever you need it, wherever you are. You can book live audio/video sessions, get your written work reviewed and sent back to you, or just drop your coach an email whenever you have a question. 1-on-1, hands-on help is always just a click away.

Friendly, plain-language coaches

At Grad Coach, our goal is to bring academia "back down to earth". While our coaches have over 100 years of combined experience within academia (including dissertation supervision, marking and lecturing), we always aim to simplify the content as much as possible, using plain language, actionable advice and feedback. You can download a sample content review here to see this in practice.

More than just coaching - a one-stop-shop

In addition to our flagship dissertation coaching service, we also provide a suite of time-saving services such as interview transcription, qualitative coding, survey design, statistical testing, and editing and proofreading. This means you get everything you need under one trusted roof. You can visit the services page to learn more about our full offering.

An accredited, award-winning operation

We take our work seriously, which is why we're accredited by the Tutors' Association UK and subscribe to their extensive code of ethics. We've also won multiple awards, including " Best Dissertation Coaching Service 2021 " (AI International), " Best Dissertation & Thesis Coaching Specialists 2020 " (MEA) and " Top 50 Student Blog " (Feedspot). To date, we've supported over 3000 students with private dissertation coaching and approximately 7 million students with video lessons.

To learn more about Grad Coach and the team behind it, visit the “About Us” page .

Which universities and degrees do you support?

We can provide coaching for a wide range of dissertations, theses and research projects/assignments at Bachelors , Honours , Master's and Doctoral -level degrees, especially (but not limited to) those within the social sciences.

Importantly, our expertise lies in the research process itself , especially research design, methodologies and academic writing – rather than specific research areas/topics (e.g. psychology, management, etc.). In other words, the support we provide is topic-agnostic , which allows us to support students across a very broad range of research topics.

If you’re unsure about whether we’re the right fit, feel free to drop us an email or book a free initial consultation .

Can I get a coach that specialises in psychology/marketing/etc.?

As we mentioned previously, our expertise lies in the research process itself , especially research design, methodologies and academic writing – rather than specific research areas/topics (e.g., psychology, management, etc.).

Simply put, the support we provide is topic-agnostic , which allows us to support students across a very broad range of research topics. That said, if there is a coach on our team that has experience in your area of research, as well as your chosen methodology, we can allocate them to your project (depending on availability).

Can I work with multiple coaches at once?

No. We work on a 1-on-1 basis, where each client has a dedicated coach assigned to their project, to ensure that they receive the highest possible quality of service.

How much does coaching cost?

Since our coaching services are completely custom-tailored for each student, they are billed on a time basis (as opposed to a project basis). This allows you to engage as much or as little as you want, with no long-term commitments or tie-downs.

The hourly rate itself depends on whether you purchase single hours or a discounted package. Please visit the pricing page for more information.

Do you have any testimonials or reviews?

Yes - you can view our Facebook and Trustpilot reviews here . You can also read about our accreditations and awards here .

Will my work be treated confidentially?

Absolutely. Your work will be treated completely confidentially and will not be shared with any third parties, nor published anywhere. We can sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) if you wish. Once you have completed your project, we can delete all content from our servers.

Do you offer other services?

Yes, in addition to dissertation coaching, we provide a suite of time-saving services , including:

• Interview transcription
• Qualitative data coding
• Survey design and hosting
• Statistical testing (SPSS & R)
• Editing and proofreading

If you have any other requirements, feel free to contact us to discuss them.

Can you write (or rewrite) sections for me?

No - all writing must be your own. We can hold your hand throughout the research process, but we cannot write for you as that would constitute academic misconduct.

WARNING - If you are considering any academic writing service, please be aware that the use of such services can lead to expulsion or even revocation of your degree years after the fact. Many websites offering such services provide extremely low-quality work that is unlikely to pass, and some websites are outright scams preying on desperate students.

English is not my first language (ESL student). Can you help me?

Yes , we can. In fact, many of our students are international ESL students. We can assist both with the academic aspects (e.g., coaching) and the English communication aspects (e.g., editing and proofreading).

My work is due in the next few days. Can you help me?

It’s not ideal, but we will do our best to help. Please email us or book an initial consultation as soon as possible.

Can you help me apply for a degree programme?

If your application requires a research topic or proposal (as is common for Master's and PhD applications), we can assist with that aspect of the application. However, if you require admissions-specific advice and guidance, that is not our area of expertise.

Please book a free initial consultation with us to discuss.

I still have questions…

No problem. Feel free to email us or book an initial consultation to discuss.

What our clients say

David's depth of knowledge in research methodology was truly impressive. He demonstrated a profound understanding of the nuances and complexities of my research area, offering insights that I hadn't even considered. His ability to synthesize information, identify key research gaps, and suggest research topics was truly inspiring. I felt like I had a true expert by my side, guiding me through the complexities of the proposal. 

Cyntia Sacani (US)

I had been struggling with the first 3 chapters of my dissertation for over a year. I finally decided to give GradCoach a try and it made a huge difference. Alexandra provided helpful suggestions along with edits that transformed my paper. My advisor was very impressed.

Tracy Shelton (US)

Working with Kerryn has been brilliant. She has guided me through that pesky academic language that makes us all scratch our heads. I can't recommend Grad Coach highly enough; they are very professional, humble, and fun to work with. If like me, you know your subject matter but you're getting lost in the academic language, look no further, give them a go.

Tony Fogarty (UK)

So helpful! Amy assisted me with an outline for my literature review and with organizing the results for my MBA applied research project. Having a road map helped enormously and saved a lot of time. Definitely worth it.

Jennifer Hagedorn (Canada)

Everything about my experience was great, from Dr. Shaeffer’s expertise, to her patience and flexibility. I reached out to GradCoach after receiving a 78 on a midterm paper. Not only did I get a 100 on my final paper in the same class, but I haven’t received a mark less than A+ since. I recommend GradCoach for everyone who needs help with academic research.

Antonia Singleton (Qatar)

I started using Grad Coach for my dissertation and I can honestly say that if it wasn’t for them, I would have really struggled. I would strongly recommend them – worth every penny!

Richard Egenreider (South Africa)

Not convinced? Read more reviews and testimonials here .

Kickstart Your Dissertation, Today

Enter your details below, pop us an email, or book an introductory consultation .

Make This Your Last Round of Dissertation Revision.

Learn How to Get Your Dissertation Accepted .

Discover the 5-Step Process in this Free Webinar .

Almost there!

Please verify your email address by clicking the link in the email message we just sent to your address.

If you don't see the message within the next five minutes, be sure to check your spam folder :).

Coaching and Editing Services for Doctoral Students

Dissertation coaching.

Whether you need help deciding on your topic, crafting your proposal, collecting and analyzing your data, or preparing for your defense, our coaching services can help you overcome challenges and finish sooner. We customize our coaching to your needs, and use proven methods of accountability and support to help you reach the finish line.

Dissertation Editing

We know what your committee wants to see and edit with that in mind. We don’t just correct for spelling, grammar, and APA style. We also do a deep dive into the content of your paper, leaving comments to help ensure your paper is in proper alignment and matches your university’s specific requirements. All within strict ethical guidelines.

Academic Career Coaching

Coaching for postdoctoral graduates. We will help you publish articles from your dissertation, create a viable research trajectory, and land an academic position in which you’ll thrive. We have also helped many students get jobs outside academia, consulting or using their skills within a corporation or institution.

What Our Clients Say

I successfully defended my dissertation..

The dissertation committee approved my work, and I successfully defended my dissertation, mainly due to the support of coach Steve.

With just one month of coaching from the Beyond PhD Coaching program, I was able to make significant progress.

I struggled for over two years in my Ph.D. program and was barely making any progress. With just one month of coaching from the Beyond PhD Coaching program, I was able to make significant progress. The rates are extremely affordable, and the information and coaching are invaluable. I highly recommend Beyond PhD Coaching to anyone who is working on their dissertation.

Meet Our Coaches

Work with the best. Achieve the best results.

Steve Tippins, PhD

Founder and Chief Coach

Mentoring doctoral students has shown him the missing link in educating PhD students: preparing them for the working world. He founded Beyond PhD Coaching to give students the leg-up they need to find their niche in academia. Learn more…

Dr. Courtney Watson

Coach & Dissertation Editor

Skilled at coaching clients through the phases of dissertation development, Dr. Courtney Watson also offers thoughtful and thorough academic job market preparation and higher education career advice. Learn more…

Branford McAllister, PhD

Coach & Statistics Expert

With technical and management experience in the military and private sector, Brandford McAllister is an expert in advanced quantitative analysis techniques. He is passionately committed to mentoring students in post-secondary educational programs. Learn more…

Dr. David Banner

David Banner is a widely published author on the subject of transformational leadership, but mentoring PhD students gives him the most joy and satisfaction. He offers his services to help people complete their PhDs, find good academic jobs, get published in peer-reviewed journals, and find their place in the academic environment. Learn more…

Dr. Marissa Ericson

Psychology and Quantitative Specialist Dissertation Mentor

While her early research focused on the electrocortical, neuropsychological, and psychophysiological etiology of several psychopathologies, Dr. Ericson now focuses on well-being, positive psychological outcomes, resilience, and mindfulness-meditation interventions. Learn more…

Your family is relying on you to get your doctorate.

You can rely on us to get you to graduation., watch the free webinar, learn how to make this your last round of dissertation revision., learn how to get your dissertation accepted., hot off the press.

Statistical Analysis

Design of experiments.

Research: Approach, Method, and Design

Definitions Related to Variables

Get in touch.

Contact us to discuss your project, or request a free consultation with one of our coaches.

Get the Newsletter

For the latest news and promotions, sign-up to receive the Beyond PhD Coaching Newsletter.

Tell Us About Your Project*

Please subscribe me to your newsletter.

Hack Your Dissertation

5-Day Mini Course: How to Finish Faster With Less Stress

Interested in more helpful tips about improving your dissertation experience? Join our 5-day mini course by email!

• The Graduate School >
• Beyond the Classroom >
• Graduate Professional Development >
• Graduate Professional Development for PhD Students >

Teaching and Mentoring Resources for PhD Students

As you embark on your doctoral journey, it is crucial to recognize that your expertise and impact extend beyond your research. As future academics, you will play a pivotal role in shaping the next generation of scholars.

UB has the tools to enhance your mentoring skills, hone your teaching abilities, and cultivate a foundation for successful academic careers. Through the exploration of mentoring techniques, teaching skill development and strategies for effective instruction, these resources will empower you to excel both inside and outside the classroom.

• Teaching Assistantships (TA) are typically assigned by departments to current graduate students in their department, primarily to doctoral students. Being a TA allows you to develop teaching skills while being responsible for a lab, recitation or teaching a course by yourself. Discuss teaching opportunities with your faculty mentor or director of graduate studies. Even if you don't intend to enter an academic career path, teaching is an important professional skill to develop.
• The  Preparing for Academic Careers Seminar Series  is held during the spring semester and is offered to postdoctoral scholars and graduate students on various topics in teaching and learning. This series covers topics on engaging and motivating students, developing a teaching philosophy statement for academic job applications, and more.
• TA Orientation is a free virtual event for teaching assistants, held virtually every August by the Office of Curriculum, Assessment and Teaching Transformation (CATT). This orientation helps prepare graduate teaching assistants for success in their teaching roles at UB and in the future. Whether you are a new TA or have previous instructional role experience, this orientation is for you! 
• Fall Into Teaching is an annual teaching support series hosted by the Office of Curriculum, Assessment and Teaching Transformation (CATT). Each year the series covers important teaching topics and strategies. These sessions are free and virtual.
• The Office of Inclusive Excellence offers tips, resources and events for Inclusive Pedagogy . Find recordings of past events, and view upcoming webinars and self-paced online courses. 

The Office of Curriculum, Assessment and Teaching Transformation (CATT) provides leadership and support for delivery and assessment of 21st century instruction across physical and digital learning environments.

Offered by the Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI), the Effective Teaching micro-credential will prepare participants to be more effective educators. This micro-credential is free and open to graduate students and postdoctoral scholars.

• The Network for Enriched Academic Relationships (NEAR) is a transdisciplinary online mentoring directory for students to find faculty mentors and allies beyond their substantive research areas. Students can connect with current faculty members in various departments to receive guidance and support around many topics and issues of importance.
• The  National Center for Faculty Development and Diversity (NCFDD) is an independent professional development, training and mentoring community dedicated to supporting academics in making successful transitions throughout their careers. UB's institutional membership offers an array of resources to you.
• The National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) is a national network platform that offers professional development programs designed to hone your practices and deepen your connection to the diverse scientific community.
• School of Social Work Mentor Program  links current students with alumni.
• Finding a Career Mentor (in Addition to an Academic One)  is a useful article on Inside Higher Ed.
• One mentor isn't enough. Here's how I built a network of mentors  article on Science.org.

Stay Informed

The graduate brief.

Every Wednesday during the semester, the Graduate School emails the "Graduate Brief" to all graduate and professional students, which is a weekly selection of news and happenings within the Graduate School and its partnering offices. If you would like to be added to the mailing list, please contact [email protected] .

Upcoming Events

• Sep 21, 2020

Choosing Your Fate: Finding the right PhD mentor

Updated: Sep 24, 2020

By Michael Whaby

Undoubtedly one of the biggest decisions for a graduate student—especially PhD students—is choosing a mentor. Indeed, they come in all shapes and sizes. But unfortunately, the choice is not as simple as finding a mentor that does research that interests you. As this decision largely determines the direction of your graduate work, I figured it's worth discussing.

A graduate mentor—often referred to as a principle investigator (PI) in the sciences—is a professor that one does research under to complete a thesis or dissertation. These mentors are the graduate students’ guides, “bosses”, wisdom-providers—the list goes on; you name it. Mentors, along with other sub -mentors that make up a committee, not only help students finish their graduate work, but also help them prepare for their next steps in their careers. Accordingly, they also determine whether said graduate students are ready to defend their theses and graduate. They’re important.

Below, we’ll walk through some questions you may want to consider when choosing a graduate mentor. I will surely bias this in the perception of a STEM-related graduate student, as I am a biomedical PhD student. However, these questions should be of use to graduate students in other fields, too. Throughout this post, keep in mind what your intentions and goals are in pursuing a graduate degree.

Shall we begin?

Where to begin?

Simple answer: Begin well before you start the program. You should know of potential mentors for each program that you will be applying to (see post on PhD applications ). Reach out to these mentors ahead of time (via email) and succinctly tell them of your interest in the program itself and their research. Then, try to set up a call or meeting—which could easily be virtual, especially given the current state of the world. Make sure to do your research on the potential mentor and the program before meeting with them. This will make the meeting much more efficient.

These are the initial stages that will not only help you decide which program is best for you, but also help you find the right mentor and make connections before even starting the program. But still, just based off of these initial connections and conversations, do not yet put all of your eggs into one basket.

Use me as an example, I came to the Medical University of South Carolina to pursue a PhD in biomedicine. During the first year, we had to complete 3 lab rotations with 3 different mentors and labs. I came here with a good idea of which labs I would rotate with. When I got here, however, I ended up rotating in 3 labs different than those I had anticipated. Thankfully, I still fared well—as I still utilized the proceeding questions—but it’s best to try avoiding situations that make you improvise.

Tip: Even after talking with potential mentors, talk with the Dean of the graduate school and ask of any restrictions that might prevent you from having a certain mentor (we will learn more about this issue below).

What is the funding situation?

Something that is especially important for PhD students: You have to find a mentor who can afford you —or a school that funds you even if the mentor can’t. Some programs will provide funding for their students in the case that the PI does not have sufficient funding; however, the majority of programs do not offer this luxury. You will often have to be wary of the funding status of a potential mentor.

Tip: I used NIH RePORTER to “investigate” the funding status (from the NIH, at least) of potential mentors.

I talked with potential mentors before starting my PhD program that, by the time I started, were no longer able to take students because they lacked funding. This is why I added the side note above: Talk to the Dean, too. Know exactly which professors are most likely suited to take on graduate students.

Who do you learn well from?

As a graduate student, you must learn to think independently about your research and topics in your field. Your mentor will play a major role in helping you gather the tools necessary to do this. A quality that I searched for in a mentor was the level of communication they had with me. When we talked about research, I asked myself: 1) Did I learn well from this mentor? 2) How did they act if I didn’t understand something? 3) Were my ideas considered and not just tossed away?

To that last point, you want to be able to learn well from your mentor, but it is also important that your mentor can learn from you as well . As you grow as an academic and professional, you will bring more and more ideas to the table. Having these ideas heard, and not just in a passive manner, will add even more value to your training, your professional confidence, and your voice.

What is the rest of the lab like?

Labs can be very diverse environments. There can be other grad students, undergrads, postdocs, staff scientists, lab technicians, etc. You have to figure out which type of environment is most fitting for you. Maybe it’s a larger lab with multiple people at many stages in their career. A larger lab might indicate that you’ll have less one-on-one time with your mentor. And some people actually enjoy this “freedom”. In smaller labs, however, you tend to get more attention from the mentor.

The lab that I work in, for instance, consists of 3 staff scientists and 1 postdoc. I am the only graduate student. At first, this was kind of intimidating because everyone had so much experience on me. But the benefits to this were that I had tons of experienced people all around me. Most of the help I continue to receive comes from the other lab members, and yet I still have the luxury of being able to meet one-on-one with my mentor.

Tip: A good way to get a sense of what the lab and mentor are like is to join in on a few lab meetings. Here, you will get insights on how the lab functions and communicates with one another, and also will see some of the expectations that the mentor has of the lab.

Lastly, Talk to current and former graduate students of the lab. They will have the best, and hopefully unbiased, insights about the mentor and lab. You will never know exactly what a mentor is like through just a couple interactions with them, so it couldn’t hurt to hear another’s perspective.

What are their values vs yours?

As a graduate student, you will always encounter the dilemma of a work-life balance. Between self-guilt and pressure from peers or even your mentor, striking a good work-life balance is one of the hardest feats of graduate school.

Everyone’s ideal work-life balance is unique to them, but too much of either is risky. Again, with just a straightforward approach, ask potential mentors what they do to encourage a healthy work-life balance.

This plays into what mentors expect of their graduate students. Different mentors will have different expectations of their students and other lab members. Some mentors are more relaxed and flexible, while others are strict and more upfront about their expectations. It is best to openly ask them this question. No beating around the bush here; these are the conversations that need to happen early on.

Yet again, sadly, there are no “right" answers here; there are no single answers to the questions above that would be fitting for everyone. It would be wrong of me, though, to downplay the importance of this decision. So, I’ll leave you with this: If you’re lucky, you will have a hard time choosing between a few different great mentors. Good luck!

Recent Posts

The Tale of Public Speaking (and its Conquerors)

Chronicles of Giving and Receiving Criticism (Efficiently and Respectfully)

The “Little” Guys: Making the most of smaller universities

Michael, I nice topic and some good advice. I also liked the Chronicles of Giving and Receiving Criticism. You are doing a great job of staying on track with the blogging schedule.

Mentor the Researcher, Not the Research: An Essay on PhD Mentoring

• February 28, 2017
• vol 63 issue 25
• Talk About Teaching & Learning

by George J. Pappas

During my Penn career, I have mentored more than 30 students and postdocs and almost all of them have become professors, matching their professional aspirations before joining Penn. While there are many approaches to PhD mentoring, I would like to offer three fundamental aspects of my mentoring philosophy.

Student-Centric Mentoring

There are two primary models of PhD student mentoring: project-centric mentoring and student-centric mentoring. In project-centric mentoring, the professor has a research project from a sponsor and then recruits graduate students specifically for that project. The project is well defined, has clear scientific objectives and deliverables (depending on sponsor), and the PhD student performs research toward realizing the goals of the project. This model serves many PhD students and their mentors extremely well and may be ideal for mentoring undergraduate research.

For my PhD students, however, I have always chosen student-centric mentoring, where the primary mentoring emphasis moves from the research project to the doctoral student, from the research to the researcher. While the project-centric approach emphasizes the research project and meeting deliverables and deadlines, which are critical to the sponsor and research supervisor, the student-centric approach focuses on reaching the maximum potential of every individual PhD student.

I have adopted a student-centric mentoring philosophy for two reasons. First, every doctoral student is different. Some are more theoretical, some more experimental, some more creative, some more organized and some more collaborative. Hence, getting the most out of every PhD student requires finding the right project for the student, not the right student for the project. This approach has worked particularly well for my group, which has about 15 members and is well funded from various agencies. Having a variety of qualitatively different projects is perfect for student-centric mentoring as I can focus on which research area (or combination of areas) can best develop the unique strengths of every student.

Second, while project-based mentoring focuses on producing great research, student-based mentoring focuses on educating great researchers, with great research being almost a byproduct. This approach ensures that the student will be producing great research after their doctoral thesis. Student-centric PhD mentoring is the ideal integration of education and research, which should be our focus in premier research universities.

Of course, it is entirely appropriate to consider more hybrid models in which a mentor begins with a more project-centric approach before transitioning to a more student-centric approach as the mentor comes to know more about the student’s technical strengths and intellectual interests.

Promote Research Independence

Promoting research independence for PhD students is related to the previous point but it deserves to be explicitly discussed. It is possible for mentors to present their student with a research problem and allow the student to work toward a solution and present that solution to their mentor who can then set new goals for the student until enough progress results in a doctoral dissertation.

While this process may result in great research, the student has not learned to set their own research goals or to choose or formulate novel problems on their own. This inability may prevent students from becoming future research leaders. In my view, PhD students should graduate not when they can solve their mentors’ research problems but when they can define (and solve) their own novel research problems. 

Independence is a critical aspect of my mentoring philosophy because many members of my group want to pursue an academic career. Therefore my mentoring objective is to prepare them to think like leading academics after they graduate. To take on the role of research leader, they must learn to define their own research problems and chart their own research agenda.

Problem formulation is a difficult skill. Younger PhD students tend to quickly skip problem formulation so that they can proudly present their latest brilliant solution. Students are surprised to find out that most of my questions focus on problem formulation, model justification, relationship to existing literature, changing assumptions, or connections to more distant fields. Then I frequently ask, “Who cares?” so that students develop a sense of how to choose a direction that will have impact. Once I am convinced about problem formulation, novelty and importance, then I am more than happy to discuss technical approach and results. Over time this style results in the student inheriting a taste for research problems from their advisor. This is one of the finest and most gratifying moments of PhD mentoring.

Faculty are not just mentors of doctoral students, they are also researchers themselves. Frequently, these two sides of every faculty member can be in conflict. In many meetings with doctoral students, faculty discuss a research problem and, because they are experienced researchers, already have a good idea of how to proceed. While giving students a research problem and roadmap will be great for the research to progress, it would not be the best mentoring strategy for the students’ career. Allowing PhD students to find their own answers can be frustrating for faculty if the research is time-critical, or needs to meet tight conference deadlines or program deliverables, or if the idea is so exciting that the faculty is personally eager to complete the research. In this conflict, I have always chosen in favor of the doctoral student and being patient, even if this means missing a conference deadline. I have always mentored the researcher, not the research.

Create an Intellectual Environment

While one-on-one meetings between the doctoral student and the faculty advisor are important, they should not be the only source of mentoring. Mentoring also happens when the advisor creates a vibrant intellectual environment. Doctoral students learn a lot from senior PhD students, postdocs, peers, collaborators, program managers, and visitors. Hence, frequent group meetings, seminars, social gatherings, conferences, collaborations with other faculty and students, and discussions with industry and government leaders all shape the research personality of every PhD student.

My group is predominantly theoretical but we collaborate closely with experimentalists, industrial researchers and other theorists. Given the nature of our research, I am a strong believer in research centers with shared space where many students across many groups constantly collaborate. I have been very fortunate that the GRASP (General Robotics, Automation, Sensing & Perception) lab, one of the premier robotics labs in the world, has provided such an intellectually nurturing environment for my research group.

Many great research ideas have originated in the GRASP lab corridors where students and faculty meet face-to-face for intellectual exchange. The best part of my day is when, after a corridor discussion, two or three group members have a fantastic idea and demand to see me immediately and discuss it. All my former students are now trying to recreate the magic of such space in their institutions.

It is important to acknowledge that there is no single mentoring philosophy that is ideal across different research areas, group sizes, funding profiles, or academic age. What I have described has worked very well for me, and more importantly, for my students. What pleases me most is when I see my former students approaching PhD mentoring in a similar manner as academics themselves. This is, after all, the biggest influence my PhD advisor had on me.

George J. Pappas is the Joseph Moore Professor and chair of the department of electrical and systems engineering in the  School of Engineering and Applied Science. He also holds secondary appointments in the School’s departments of  computer & information sciences and mechanical engineering & applied mechanics.

______________________________________________

This essay continues the series that began in the fall of 1994 as the joint creation of the College of Arts and Sciences, the Center for Teaching and Learning and the Lindback Society for Distinguished Teaching. See  https://almanac.upenn.edu/talk-about-teaching-and-learning-archive​​​​​​​  for the previous essays.

Department of English College of Liberal Arts

English Department Statement on Graduate Mentoring: Ratified 18 February 2020

This document is intended as an articulation of best practices for facilitating the graduate mentoring relationship. In it, we recognize two main principles:

• Humanities careers are deeply dependent on the advice, mentoring, and opinions of others. Because of this, students and other early career researchers are in a vulnerable situation. Even the most nurturing mentor relationship necessarily involves a substantial imbalance of power.
• Both mentor and student enter their relationship with rights and responsibilities, and it is in the best interest of all parties that they remain cognizant of both at all times. This document is intended to assist mentors and students in maintaining an ethical and positive relationship by making clear and explicit the norms that should govern such relationships.

Further, we endorse and affirm our commitment to the principles laid out in the Graduate Student Bill of Rights and Responsibilities and the Graduate School’s statement on Work Loads and Graduate Staff Appointments .

We recognize that, particularly in our age of precarity, it is not enough for graduate mentors to “do no harm”—i.e., to hold good intentions and refrain from obviously harmful actions. Ethical mentoring must include ongoing self-education as to the state of the field and its evolving norms. Mentors need to concern themselves with more than the thesis project and the defense stage. Mentors must talk with their students about next steps for the thesis project post-defense, and about students’ plans and aspirations post-graduation. Mentors must be tactful, but above all firm and proactive, when a student isn’t living up to their end of the mentoring relationship.

On-going communication between parties is essential, and is the responsibility of both student and mentor to maintain.

Committee, Thesis, & Defense issues

Independent study (590) and similar courses

Letters of recommendation

Labor issues

Personal relationships

If there is a problem

Committee, Thesis, and Defense Issues

The most common area of questions and uncertainty in the mentoring relationship involves the thesis committee, and its responsibilities during the thesis writing & defense process. To help clarify, we affirm that:

• As per Graduate School and departmental policy, major professors must meet with any student who will register for research hours no later than the first two weeks of the semester. At this meeting, the student and professor will agree upon a plan for the rest of the term that includes a specific articulation of what work is to be done by the student, and how often the student and professor will meet. The results of this meeting must be recorded in writing.
• Students and faculty should know when to expect communication and who is responsible for its initiation during the thesis process. Students and faculty should know when to expect distribution of drafts, and when feedback is expected. The role of committee members and the division of labor within the committee, as well as protocols for communication, should be clearly established for all parties no later than the prospectus defense for doctoral theses. For MA and MFA theses, these elements must be established within the first two weeks of the student’s final semester.
• The doctoral prospectus should include a detailed timetable for completion of the thesis.
• In general, no more than four weeks should elapse between draft and feedback. In cases where more time is necessary, the faculty member should still communicate with the student to give what feedback is possible and to make sure the student is acting on other aspects of drafting and revision.
• Major professors should expect to meet with the student regularly throughout the thesis process. Ahead of the defense, such meetings should discuss preparation, format, and some of the questions that may come up. The mentor should help the student develop a full vocabulary on what their intervention or creative innovation is; this cannot happen in the final week before defense.
• Students are never expected to cater defenses. In fact, as many faculty and students prefer to avoid the distraction of eating and drinking during the intellectually demanding space of the defense, we strongly suggest all parties hold off on festive consumption until after the defense.
• The major professor must be physically present for the defense. Committee members must likewise make every effort to be physically present for the defense. We recognize that travel schedules may present a challenge, particularly during sabbaticals and summers; in such cases clear, early communication is required of both mentors and their students to agree upon a solution and schedule that will work for all parties. Should emergency circumstances arise to make physical presence impossible, the faculty member will consult with the DGS and Department Head to explore solutions.

Any course of study that will be recorded on the transcript requires an agreement in writing about outcomes or “deliverables”—what, exactly, is to be accomplished in the course—and an understanding between professor and student regarding their mutual responsibilities.

Students are always welcome to propose such courses. They should understand that such courses are taken on by professors as unremunerated service. Professors who agree to the responsibility of these courses should make their expectations for meetings, readings, deliverables, etc. clear from the outset.

Letters of Recommendation

In agreeing to join a thesis committee, a faculty member takes on the role of potential recommender / referee for the student. Letters of recommendation are demanding and require significant labor. They are also, however, an integral part of the work of graduate faculty, and not one that may be ethically avoided except in very unusual circumstances.

• Letters of recommendation must be confidential, both so that they may be honest, and so that they will be regarded as forthright by search, fellowship, or award committees, which will almost never weigh seriously a recommendation that is not marked confidential.
• Students who need letters of recommendation must give adequate notice—ideally, at least four weeks , and more time if at all possible.
• Faculty must be open about their willingness and ability to write the strongest recommendation possible, and should communicate clearly what their needs might be in terms of supporting materials.

Labor Issues

• Hiring student for non-academic work should be done with extreme care. Students may welcome the extra income, particularly if their relationship to the faculty employer is fairly distant and such labor is unlikely to have an impact on their mentoring relationships. Yet asking students to do non-academic labor, even if fairly and promptly remunerated, is ethically tricky. The student may not feel they are able to decline services, or to negotiate employment terms. Any perceived shortcomings in non-academic labor may create tension in the academic relationship and/or community.
• Asking students to guest lecture or substitute teach in the absence of the professor is fraught for similar reasons. The student may benefit from, and may well enjoy, the opportunity to lead a class session, but the power imbalance between professor and student remains, and the student’s true state of mind may be difficult to know. In such cases, the professor should always apprise the DGS office and Dept. Head prior to the class meeting, and should record both the reason for absence and the student’s name and relationship to the teacher. This caution does not apply to cases in which a graduate student is teaching for reasons of professionalization or observation in the presence of a supervising professor.

Personal Relationships

In general, ethical and productive mentoring relationships include strong interpersonal boundaries, and respect for both the student and faculty member’s space and time.

Purdue University prohibits Amorous Relationships between a student and any University employee who has educational responsibility over the student, and supervisors and subordinates where there is a supervisory or evaluative relationship between the parties.

Given the inherent power imbalance between faculty and students, as well as the potential damage to the departmental community caused by such relationships when they become known, and particularly when they end, faculty and graduate students should avoid all amorous contact.

• Should such contact nonetheless occur even once, the department head should be informed immediately.
• The mentoring relationship, if one existed, must end permanently.
• In such cases, the professor shall not be on the student’s committee, be the student’s classroom or mentoring instructor, nor work in any supervisory capacity over the student.

If There Is a Problem

As suggested by the Graduate School’s statement on “ Guiding Principles for Mentoring ,” we remind students that if they experience mentoring relationships that are not aligned with the best-practice principles outlined here, they may report these behaviors to their program director, the Director of Graduate Studies, the head of the department—or they may anonymously report contradictory behaviors to the University Hotline at 1-866-818-2620 or via the web at https://www.purdue.edu/hotline/ .

List of Contacts (updated 6/2022):

Director of Graduate Studies: John Duvall

Director of Writing: Bradley Dilger

Office of Graduate Assistance (OGA):  https://www.purdue.edu/gradschool/student/oga/index.html  

Graduate Hotline—1-866-818-2620 or https://www.purdue.edu/hotline/

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)

• Share on twitter
• Share on facebook

Of monsters and mentors: PhD disasters, and how to avoid them

Despite all that’s been done to improve doctoral study, horror stories keep coming. here three students relate phd nightmares while two academics advise on how to ensure a successful supervision.

• Share on linkedin
• Share on mail

For all the efforts in recent years to improve the doctoral experience for students, Times Higher Education still receives a steady supply of horror stories from PhD candidates. To the authors of such submissions, the system appears, at best, indifferent to them and, at worst, outright exploitative. Here, we present three such examples – all of whose writers, tellingly, feel the need to remain anonymous, given the power dynamics involved.

Perhaps such tales are inevitable. Perhaps, even with the best will in the world, there will always be supervisor-supervisee relationships that just don’t function; expectations that, however heartfelt, just aren’t realistic; supervisors who just can’t find the time to give the kind of detailed supervision that they would like to give, and that students feel they need.

But perhaps there is still more that could be done to ensure that this most intense and crucial of academic relationships doesn’t end up on the rocks. In that spirit, two academics with strong views on the matter – one from science and one from the humanities – set out how they think the supervisory task should best be approached. Their guidance may not amount to a stake through the heart of the PhD horror franchise: as B-movie history amply demonstrates, good advice is not always heeded. But the exposure of the problems to further sunlight may at least slow the drip-drip of blood on to the doctoral carpet.

I had never felt so helpless in my life. The university wholly and blindly supported my supervisors, ignored my concerns and suggested, again, that I was making things up

When I was offered a fully funded doctorate in a UK environmental science laboratory, I was delighted and accepted instantly. I assumed that the experience of working in an international environment and the many transferable skills that I would learn would be a stepping stone to an exciting career beyond the academy. Little did I know that what I had signed up for would destroy not only my career plans but also my passion for the subject, my ambition and my self-confidence.

My supervisors turned out to have limited knowledge of the topic that they had so glamorously advertised, and the university lacked the facilities and machinery that I needed. Left with precious little guidance, I was obliged to work with methods that would do very little to enhance my career. An obvious solution was to set up an external collaboration, but my supervisors were reluctant to sanction it. They didn’t seem to want to share the glory with anyone else, but the environment that they created meant that there was never likely to be much glory to share anyway.

It didn’t help, either, that I am female. My male supervisors, in a male-dominated field, constantly made belittling remarks that they would never have made to a male student, remarks that led me to doubt my own capabilities. My doctorate became a living nightmare, and, after a year of ineffectively trying to solve the issues directly with my supervisors, I decided to take things further.

Because the head of my department had just resigned, I sought help from the university’s students’ union. But joint meetings with a union representative and my supervisors seemed to go nowhere, culminating in accusations that I was “making up” the issues. The union subsequently managed to arrange a meeting with the head of the graduate school, but, nearly six weeks after our meeting, he deemed my case too complex and I was ultimately told to solve my issues with my supervisors directly!

I had never felt so helpless in my life, and I was amazed at how unconcerned the university apparently was about student well-being. After months of more meetings with my supervisors and the union, I was contacted by the departmental postgraduate tutor, who expressed “concern” about my progress. This offered me a ray of hope. However, as usual, things got worse rather than better. The university wholly and blindly supported my supervisors, ignored my concerns and suggested, again, that I was making things up. I was offered an additional female supervisor, but, while welcome, that would have done little to solve the other issues.

I was given an ultimatum. I had two weeks to decide if I wanted to continue with my PhD and “accept” things as they were. The alternative was to leave – without any form of diploma or certificate for my two years of work (which included the publication of a first-author paper).

My last throw of the dice was to contact my funding body. However, my entire funding had already been transferred to my university, so there was little that it could do to help me. Thus I had no other choice but to quit and to watch as the university swept my case under the carpet, documenting my withdrawal as the result of “personal and health issues”.

Although the experience has cost me a lot, it also taught me a considerable amount. I learned to be wary of offers that seem too good to be true. I learned not to take my rights for granted. I learned the value of having expectations, commitments and offers put down in writing. I learned to trust no one.

I also learned a lot about how higher education institutions function. I discovered that they will do whatever it takes to cover up their own mishaps to save their reputation, even if it comes at the cost of destroying a young person’s career.

Anecdotally, cases similar to mine are becoming increasingly common. In recent months, there have been multiple ongoing cases at my former university, including more withdrawals. However, the university just recruits more students to make up for the losses.

It is well known that PhD students are widely seen by academics as a cheap workforce. But to be treated with such little respect by the people who are supposed to foster your career and help you to succeed is just not right in any workplace.

The author prefers to remain anonymous.

If you want to supervise and mentor with integrity and thoughtfulness, it is ultimately up to you to decide to do so, and to make the rules. You cannot assume good ethics on the part of your department

The power that you as a supervisor have over a student or postdoc is immense. Your actions, whether they are kindnesses, temper tantrums or intimacies, have the potential to shake up trainees to a much greater degree than their actions can affect you. And, most of the time, trainees have no way to solve conflicts with you if you won’t negotiate. Hence, it is your responsibility not to abuse your power.

But it takes integrity and clarity not to do so. Doctoral supervision is challenging. Your first difficulty is in acknowledging and getting beyond unrealistic expectations of your students that you might not even know you have. In science, new supervisors often imagine a lab filled with idealised workers: miniature versions of themselves, who churn out data and submit manuscripts. So when their charges don’t do exactly what they expect, they feel frustrated.

You might also observe that other supervisors allow their people to flounder, or even to fail. And even though you don’t want that, you have never had the lessons in personnel management that might ensure it doesn’t happen. Academic departments and institutions may or may not provide support to guide supervisors and students in building effective relationships.

If you want to supervise and mentor students with integrity and thoughtfulness, it is ultimately up to you to decide to do so, and to make the rules. You cannot assume good ethics on the part of your department. Nor can you assume, as a scientist, that your research group will passively absorb your good intentions. You must consider what you haven’t been trained in graduate school to consider: your own ethics, morals and sense of justice. Accept what institutional help exists, but if the policies at your institution render trainees expendable, you must develop the courage to stand up to power.

And then you build a framework for your students in which your ethics, rules and expectations are clear. For example, if you want your people to know that you are concerned with their professional futures, don’t let them drift without guidance. Evaluate each person regularly, and give feedback and compassionate criticism – not just on results but also on communication skills, presentation skills, time management and other characteristics of a successful professional. Keep notes on your meetings and follow up on what you and the trainee have discussed. Check in frequently and provide multiple opportunities for discussion and interaction. Be present.

Authorship and project choice are other vital areas where your policies can reflect your intentions to have a collaborative rather than a competitive climate. How are projects chosen? Do you actively foster collaboration, putting new people to work with more established lab members in a way that both parties benefit from, and will you continue to guide and monitor those collaborations? Do you intend to compete with your own trainees when they leave, or will you allow them to take their projects with them? Who writes the papers? How is authorship decided? Will you protect your people in authorship disputes with collaborating groups, or will you sacrifice a trainee to keep last authorship for yourself?

Create a group manual, with protocols, policy and helpful information, being specific about whatever you consider to be important for students to know. Include information about where trainees can find help if they have a personal or project issue – including problems with you.

You also need to be prepared to deal with the inevitable conflicts between lab members. Learn not to fear it, as that fear can mould you into a little dictator and keep you from understanding what people need. Have a process to work through conflicts (look up “interest-based conflict resolution”), as fair process often carries more weight with people even than achieving the outcome they wanted. Explain that process to your students, too: conflict resolution is one of the most valuable skills you can pass on. Don’t run from emotions – research is an emotional business – but learn to control your own emotional responses so that they don’t interfere with your communications.

Talk about ethical behaviour, and model that behaviour. If you expect your people to meet deadlines, you should be on time for meetings and return manuscripts and phone calls predictably. If you hear someone making a racist or sexist remark, correct the person: doing nothing will send the message that such behaviour is OK by you.

It is also important not to let yourself, or anyone else, become isolated. Make a point of introducing your students to your former students and postdocs – as well as to experts in their fields – when they visit or when you encounter them at meetings. Model the value of mentors by having mentors yourself, for personal and professional advice. Have the confidence to encourage trainees to have other role models and mentors, especially if they move into a project area in which you aren’t expert: having mentors is the start of building a web of relationships that will support trainees all through their lives.

But students must also be activists. Some supervisors eat their young, and some institutions allow it. As a student, you have the greatest level of control before you accept a position, so look for a place where you are respected and can do the work that you believe in. Ask other students questions about the scholarship and mentorship of particular supervisors before you make the decision to sign on. Once there, find role models, and get to know your community. The more you are integrated with others, the more people there are to help should your relationship with your supervisor or your project go badly.

It is unfortunate and unfair that students are not always protected, and that leaving might be the only solution to a toxic situation, but that is the harsh reality. So, as a student, doing all that you can to ensure that you will be appreciated and fulfilled in the position you accept is worth the effort.

Kathleen Barker is clinical assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Public Health. She is the author of At the Helm: Leading Your Laboratory (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press).

PhD students are often made to feel like they are a huge burden on their supervisors, and they are frequently ignored and unsupported

Tom sent his supervisor a chapter of his PhD thesis to read six weeks ago. He can’t start on the next chapter until he receives feedback on what he has already done. But he has had no response despite chasing up his supervisor – with whom he gets on well personally – several times. Indeed, he has not even received an acknowledgement of his email. And he knows that when he does finally receive a reply, there will be no mention of the delay, let alone an apology. He knows that because this has all happened before.

But this time the situation plays out even more egregiously. After Tom has waited for two more weeks, he finally hears back – a full two months after his initial email. But his supervisor has checked only the first two pages and the last page of his chapter, ignoring everything between.

Tom is frustrated, but he thanks his supervisor for the feedback and does not challenge her over the delay. How can he when he is entirely dependent on her to get him through the PhD submission process and to supply a good reference for subsequent job applications? Besides, sustaining a complaint would come down to his word against hers – and she is senior and well respected in the department and the university. No one would believe him. And even if they did, would it really be worth the hassle of getting another supervisor allocated to him in his final year – and, in the process, acquiring a bad reputation in the department for being the one who “made a fuss”?

So Tom soldiers on. Eventually, after much delay, he finishes his thesis. But is it ready for submission? He points out to his supervisor that he does not believe that the thesis has been checked properly, but she tells him to stop worrying, to take responsibility for his work and to be confident in its quality and in his ability to defend it. So he takes the plunge and submits. But he spends the next two months worrying that he might fail, rendering the past four years of hard work a complete waste of time.

This is a true story. And it takes only a few cursory searches of online PhD forums to see how common such scenarios are. PhD students are often made to feel like they are a huge burden on their supervisors, and they are frequently ignored and unsupported. Hence, even the most toxic student-supervisor relationships often persist long beyond the point of dysfunctionality, sometimes leaving the student with mental health problems.

I believe that this happens primarily because supervisors’ responsibilities are rarely clearly defined and because supervisors are not accountable to anyone for carrying them out. So I make the following recommendations:

• Training for supervisors must be compulsory
• Supervisors must be held accountable to someone senior in the department, and PhD students should be made aware of who that is
• Supervisors must be required to respond to their PhD students’ emails within three days, barring any type of leave
• Supervisors’ responsibilities need to be outlined clearly in a handbook that is available to both supervisors and students. It should also be made clear to students how much of their supervisors’ time each week or month is allocated to giving them feedback so that they are not made to feel like a burden
• Students must be assigned a mentor who is not close to their supervisor or in the same research team – ideally in another department altogether. This person can help to alleviate concerns and act as an intermediary when necessary
• There should be an anonymous procedure within each department that PhD students can use to complain or give feedback about their supervisor
• Supervisors should be formally encouraged to ask their students annually how they could better support them. This should be part of supervisors’ yearly appraisals.

In the absence of such steps, such stories as the one above will continue to write themselves over and over again.

If a relationship works well, it can be life-changing for the student and deeply rewarding for the supervisor. Supervising PhDs, I have been directed along paths that I would not have discovered otherwise

There is no doubt in my mind that the best part of being an academic over the years has been supervising PhD students. I cannot remember how many I have supervised, but the number runs to well over 80, and I have examined even more than that.

I am still in touch with many former students and examinees, and have been delighted to follow their careers wherever they are in the world. If a relationship between supervisor and postgraduate works well, it can be life-changing for the student and deeply rewarding for the supervisor. I have learned so much from supervising PhDs, and have been directed along new paths that I would not have discovered otherwise. There have been occasions when a student would arrive in my office with a bag full of books that he or she felt I should read: a living demonstration of the fact that it is not always the supervisor who provides all the bibliographical information.

I always start by telling students three things: that I will read every word they write in draft and then in final copy; that if they can get me to approve the thesis, given how tough I am going to be with them, then they have a very good chance of getting it past the examiners; and that they should not be discouraged if they find that their work is shifting direction after a few months. Writing a humanities PhD is an organic process, and if ideas have not started to develop by the end of the first year, then something is going wrong. Supervisors are particularly important at this stage, to provide reassurance and to help the student move forward.

Supervising PhDs is rewarding because you can see the process of intellectual development unfolding before your eyes. But it is also an intensely time-consuming task. All the various calculations of hourly allocation for supervision are absurd: if you are going to supervise properly, then you have to be prepared to spend hours reading drafts and then talking to the student.

There are some supervisors who do not write anything on drafts, preferring to correct only a final version. I find this ridiculously unhelpful. The whole point of reading drafts is to give proper feedback, and in the case of international students this kind of detailed reading is essential. Academic writing courses help, but careful editing by a supervisor is vital.

Nor should a supervisor’s detailed corrections focus on content alone. They also need to address spelling, punctuation, style and structure. Sometimes I have proposed radical structural changes, such as moving material from a conclusion into the introduction and vice versa. Such suggestions can be responsibly made only after you do a final read-through of the whole thesis – and that final reading is essential because although you may have read individual chapters or sections over several years, only the student will have a clear idea of how they want it to fit together.

It is also important to provide a written summary of general points after reading each draft. I learned early on that trying to do this verbally does not work because a student is often anxious and so does not take everything in. An email with bullet points works best. It is also important to balance criticism with praise, so the summary should start out with something positive before moving on to the “however” part. But all criticism, however negative, should be presented in such a way as to offer solutions and to help the student with the next stage in writing.

One of the problems facing supervisors in the UK is that the hours they put in are never adequately acknowledged by university management. This is because the UK has had to try to catch up with the kind of structure for doctorates that operates in US universities, and often PhD students have been tagged on as extras to someone’s academic workload. In the humanities, there have also been (and remain) some curious ideas about the need for a supervisor to be a “specialist” in exactly the same area as the student. Not only can this impose undue pressures on specialists in popular fields, it is also conceptually misconceived. Supervision should take both student and supervisor down relatively unexplored paths.

When it comes to choosing an examiner, practices vary widely. I have heard colleagues state firmly that the student should have no input, but I consult with mine because it is important to find out whether they have been in contact with any potential examiners. Also, despite clear guidelines, some universities still do not appoint anyone to chair the viva, which means that if a student feels hard done by, there is no independent witness. That only makes the choice of examiner even more important.

I don’t understand why supervising PhDs should be seen as a chore, rather than as a unique opportunity to engage with the brightest minds of younger generations. My research would be so much poorer without the help that I have received, directly and indirectly, from my doctoral students.

Susan Bassnett is professor of comparative literature at the universities of Warwick and Glasgow.

The degree was not awarded. Yet years later I discovered evidence that the viva had been deliberately biased. It’s a serious matter – so how would the university respond?

Some students cheat. That’s clear from numerous articles in the press. But is this a one-sided view? How often is the examiner’s performance questioned or subjected to independent scrutiny? For postgraduates in particular, this is no trivial matter: any bias or lack of honesty in an examiner can waste years of the candidate’s life and can degrade trust in the system.

My experience may not be typical, but it’s certainly an eye-opener for any postgraduate who assumes that the viva examination will be automatically fair and above board.

After an MSc, I completed four years of doctoral research at a major UK university. The results were formally approved by the relevant research council and were published as a series of seven papers in major, peer-reviewed journals.

Before the viva, I’d queried the choice of examiners, owing to perceived bias, but was overruled.

The degree was not awarded: the examiners claimed that none of my seven papers had deserved publication – even though they had satisfied a total of 14 independent referees. The examiners had decided all 14 were wrong.

So what did I do? I got on with my life. Years later, though, I discovered that my papers are cited in the examiners’ own publications: that is, the examiners had used them as valid references to support their own work. Incredibly, some of these papers had been referenced before my viva. Clearly, this was perverse, dishonest and highly unprofessional conduct: the viva had been deliberately biased. It’s a serious matter – so how would the university respond?

I sent it five of the examiners’ publications that cite my papers, together with a copy of the examiners’ signed report. I asked for acknowledgement that the viva had been biased. But the university declined to comment; it said the complaint was “out of time”.

Where there is evidence of malpractice, it should not matter when the viva was held: bias was deliberate and obvious, and the university could have followed up. Hiding behind process is a deeply inadequate response to such a blatant and egregious case. Nowadays, so-called historic cases of injustice and abuse, some from many decades ago, are being recognised and investigated. So why is corruption in education treated differently?

Examinations might be more equitable if, before the viva, candidates were officially entitled to raise concerns about their examiners – any concerns being addressed independently of the college or university. Such adjudication might seldom be needed, but it should still be in place. Examiners, after all, are people. And people – from students to presidents – do not always possess the levels of integrity and honesty that we naively expect of them.

Candidates should not be expected to accept a particular examiner if they can offer valid reasons for not doing so. And any university that seeks to impose a disputed examiner should be asked to reconsider its definition of fair play. 

Register to continue

Why register?

• Registration is free and only takes a moment
• Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
• Sign up for our newsletter

Or subscribe for unlimited access to:

• Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
• Digital editions
• Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis

Already registered or a current subscriber? Login

Related articles

PhDs: ‘toxic’ supervisors and ‘students from hell’

How should universities handle breakdowns in PhD student-supervisor relationships?

Reader's comments (11)

You might also like.

Academic careers recommended by just one in six postdocs: survey

Teachers fret about workloads and researchers about job security in ‘rare sport’ of academia

Scientists oppose retractions for racism, sexism and fraud

Poll of researchers finds little support for pulling scholarly papers of those found guilty of objectionable personal behaviour

Report estimates cost of payments for social work placements

Cost of not reimbursing mandatory placements could be higher, advocates warn

Featured jobs

• Share on Twitter

Address | Directions +1 (617) 632-3012 [email protected] Twitter | YouTube

© 2024 All Rights Reserved Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

NINA KOUPRIANOVA

Graphics and geopolitics in moscow, russia.

There comes the time in every lady's life when she must put up a serious(ly boring) bio. Nina Kouprianova...errr...Why am I talking in the third person? I spend my time between graphics and photography ( ninakouprianova.com ), on the one hand, and independent scholarship and translation (Russia), on the other.

ACADEMIC (selected):

PhD Dissertation (History, University of Toronto): "Revolution, Tradition, and Modernity: Russian Consumer Advertising in the Era of NEP" (2012)

Publications

"Modernity and Natalism in Russia: Historic Perspectives" in the European Journal of Government and Economics (2013): http://www.ejge.org/index.php/ejge/article/view/31

Conferences

“From Heroic Mothers to Maternal Capital: A Brief Overview of Russia’s Natalism,” video presentation and conference, “The Future of the EU 2: Demographics, Education, and Sustainability," University of A Coruña, Spain, (2012): http://www.economicas.udc.es/varela/?q=node/300

“The Birth of a Rock Subculture in the Soviet Union,” conference paper, The Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies convention, Philadelphia, U.S. (2008)

TRANSLATION:

Alexander Dugin, Martin Heidegger: the Philosophy of Another Beginning (2014)

Alexander Dugin, The Fourth Political Theory (2012), selected chapters

Contemporary Russian thought at my personal blog: https://ninabyzantina.com/

History of Espionage: https://espionagehistoryarchive.com/author/ninabyzantina/

Historic and contemporary Russia at the Soul of the East: http://souloftheeast.org/author/ninabyzantina/

MUSIC JOURNALISM (JAPAN): http://metropolis.co.jp/author/?auth=Nina%20Kouprianova

• Graphics, translation, independent scholarship.
• PhD (History): modern Russia, culture, U.S. foreign policy
• MA (History of Art): modern, medieval
• BFA (Hon): graphic design, photography, medieval studies