thesis examination subcommittee

Research and Research Training Committee

• Megan Kemmis
• Manager, Governance Secretariat
• E: [email protected]

Academic Senate

The University's principal academic body

Committees of Academic Senate

Assisting Academic Senate in its responsibilities

Promoting excellence in research and research training

The Committee is responsible for advising Academic Senate on research and research training matters.

The Committee replaced the previous Higher Degree Research Committee (HDRC) and commenced meeting in August 2016.

For access to historical agendas and minutes of the HDRC, please contact the Graduate Research Academy at [email protected] .

Terms of reference

The Terms of Reference for the Research and Research Training Committee are available on Policy Central .

Committee members

(As at 13 February 2023)

Ex-officio members

The Executive Dean of each Faculty

The Deputy Dean (Research and Innovation) of each Faculty

Additional members

2024 meeting dates, agendas and minutes

Research and Research Training Committee meetings have been scheduled for the following dates:

• Tuesday 5 March
• Tuesday 7 May
• Tuesday 11 June
• Tuesday 17 September
• Tuesday 5 November

Agendas and minutes for all meetings are available in Truth .

Agenda inclusions

Agenda item inclusions should be forwarded to [email protected] by the submission due date, which is two weeks prior to the meeting date. The agenda item template (including submission due dates) is available on request from [email protected] .

Members who are unable to attend should submit apologies in advance of the meeting to:

Megan Kemmis Manager, Governance Secretariat T: +61 (2) 9850 7316 E: [email protected]

Historical agendas and minutes

2023 meeting dates

• Tuesday 7 March
• Tuesday 2 May
• Tuesday 13 June
• Tuesday 19 September
• Tuesday 14 November

Research Degree Subcommittee

The Terms of Reference of the Research Degree Subcommittee (previously named the Thesis Examination Subcommittee) are available on Policy Central .

(As at 1 December 2022)

• Professor Simon Handley (Chair)
• Associate Professor Kevin Brooks
• Professor Mark Connor
• Professor Jennifer Cornish (Deputy Chair)
• Associate Professor Ajay Narendra
• Professor Tracy Rushmer
• Professor Niloufer Selvadurai
• Professor Sarah Sorial
• Professor Ralf Wilden
• Associate Professor Clara Zhou

E: Governance Services

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

How to ensure committee reads and comments on dissertation draft prior to final examination?

The constructive question is, What practices/strategies could help ensure the committee reads the dissertation?

I am wondering if those who already hold a PhD, or advanced graduate students finishing their dissertations have experience where they suspected that their committee (besides their Chair) have not read their dissertation prior to the final defense examination. I would guess this issue is far from unique, as there is a variety of reasons for this. Here are some general reasons:

• Gap in Access: Committee members become separated from the department/institution, either completely or to some significant extent. Examples include retirements, where the individual might remain tangentially involved in a part time or 'emeritus' role; leaving for another job at a different institution, etc. (both are often associated with geographic relocation).

This creates additional distance between the student and that individual, making an "office drop-in" unfeasible and communication more lopsided, as the individual may feel less press to respond to emails/calls.

Note: difficulties with communication can be a standalone category, but I thought it was too broad as it applies across the board.

Gap in Motivation: This is essentially a gap between committee member's current priorities/interests and the thesis. Committee members, who have been added to the thesis committee because their area of expertise complements the knowledge capital on the committee, might feel disinterested from the particular dissertation topic selected by the student. Because the topic does not directly tie into their work, there is little incentive for them to spend time carefully reviewing the dissertation.

Lack of time/low priority: Related to the previous reasons, although this issue might surface even if the faculty member is reasonably accessible (on campus etc.) and reasonably interested in the thesis. Despite their 'well meaning' and 'best intentions', the thesis nevertheless keeps slipping to the bottom of their to-do's and they don't get around to reading/commenting for months. The pattern may recur despite regular polite reminders by email from the student and/or the committee chair.

Whatever the underlying reason (or their combinations), the result is the same: the thesis does not receive as thorough review as it technically should. The obvious negative consequences may be summarized as:

lower overall quality of the thesis (more eyes on the writing helps spot all sorts of issues that may be visible only from the unique vantage points of highly competent readers);

lower quality of the student's learning experience (less feedback = less learning);

longer time to complete thesis (since the student has to compensate for lack of feedback by trying to work out all the kinks on his/her own, plus the time it takes to simply wait for committee members to respond to requests for feedback).

difficulties during the final examination (thesis defense), since lack of committee's familiarity with the content of the thesis directly impacts their ability to be more "plugged in" to the examination presentation and 'grilling' of the candidate. As a result the candidate might have incorrect assumptions/expectations of the committee's knowledge of what he/she is talking about, and the resulting general confusion (can anyone relate to that one? ;)

What to do. How to reduce the chances of the 'neglected thesis syndrome'?

• thesis-committee

• Which country and field? This question sounds interesting to me because the problem is very general, but I don't know what "the committee" is, so I really don't understand the exact situation here. –  JiK Commented Mar 24, 2015 at 13:51
• Social sciences in the U.S., but I suppose it could be anywhere. The "committee" in this case refers to a formal faculty group (usually 4-5 individuals including the dissertation Chair/Advisor) which is required by the Graduate School, and is expected to oversee and provide feedback for every doctoral student's dissertation/thesis. –  A.S Commented Mar 24, 2015 at 16:11

3 Answers 3

My department requires two independent reports (usually around 2 pages long) from members of the committee. The other members of the committee can get away with sloppy or non-existent reading of the thesis, but at least the two official "readers" have to study it thoroughly enough to write a respectable report.

The first reader is always the thesis adviser; the second is usually whichever other member of the committee has the most expertise in the particular area of the thesis. Also, our graduate school requires that one member of the committee be from a different department, so this member would not usually be expected to suggest improvements of the thesis.

• Requiring an independent report from someone other than the adviser is a nice idea. (Requiring someone from another department to be on the committee: not so much, IMO.) –  Pete L. Clark Commented Mar 25, 2015 at 1:42
• 1 It's pretty common to require someone from the outside. I think it's a good idea to avoid colleagues from within a single department agreeing to take it easy on your candidate if you take it easy on mine. It keeps the quality up. –  Wolfgang Bangerth Commented Mar 25, 2015 at 2:24
• 2 @PeteL.Clark: No, no, I really was talking about someone from a different department at the same university. I can't think of ever having been in a defense in a different department to which I could not contribute in any useful way, even though it wasn't my immediate field. I think as an interdisciplinary mathematician, I can contribute to pretty much anything in the engineering field. I'm not sitting on committees in philosophy, however. –  Wolfgang Bangerth Commented Mar 25, 2015 at 11:09
• 1 @Wolfgang: That makes since in applied math / engineering. It doesn't make much sense to me in many branches of pure mathematics. If the thesis is on, say, the cohomology of Shimura varieties, who are you going to bring in from another department that will contribute to it? –  Pete L. Clark Commented Mar 25, 2015 at 13:20
• 1 @PeteL.Clark: That might suggest an unhealthy dissociation between pure math and the rest of the sciences :-) But let's not go there, it's a valid point for which I have no expertise. I will need to ask my pure math colleagues how they handle this requirement. I tend to think that the example you give is an extreme case within what happens in a university. –  Wolfgang Bangerth Commented Mar 25, 2015 at 18:11

This is a real problem in practice. Basically everyone I know (and this, at times, includes me -- though I make it a point to set aside sufficient time to mark it up throughout and return the comments to the student) reads theses the day before the defense, with all of the consequences you mention. I have had more than one case where a student thought that receiving no comments meant that everyone was ok with the content of the thesis, just to find out that the defense did not go well and the committee wanted to have substantial additional work before they will approve the thesis. Not good.

I think the most common cause is that committee members simply don't have the time. To read and mark up a 150 page thesis thoroughly takes well over a day of full time work. To a committee member, this is unproductive work -- no publications will come of it, no grant funding, very little appreciation by the department. So it slips to the bottom of the todo list until it can't be pushed off any more (the day before the defense).

The second most important cause is that theses never get finished on time. I have received theses from candidates the day before the defense -- that's definitely not enough time and the candidates should have known better. I now ask that they at least send me the draft they have two weeks before the defense, but not always are they in a form that makes it worth reading through.

In the end, there is probably little you can do to affect the underlying problem, which is that committee members have little motivation to give a candidate good feedback. Your best bet is to keep them up to date with regard to what you do: make an appointment to go see them every 6 months and tell them what you have been doing; if you have drafts of individual chapters, send it to your committee members as soon as you have it; invite them to seminar talks you give; etc. Build a relationship. If a committee member is interested and feels engaged, you're more likely to get good feedback at a time when it's useful.

On the other hand, if the only time when you see your committee members is (i) when you enlist them to your committee, (ii) for your proposal defense, (iii) for your final defense, and if you give them the draft of your thesis 3 days before the defense, then don't be surprised if you get negative comments during the defense or in reply to your thesis.

• 1 Part of the reason for the perpetuation of this issue is probably the lack of oversight or enforcement of the committee members' role beyond the bare-bones formal requirements of the Graduate School. As long as they are alive and show up for the defense, and sign the exam, formally they have fulfilled their obligations...the rest of the relationship is informal. I agree that getting the draft in the committee's hands early helps, but even then chances for quality engagement are not high for the reasons discussed. What remains is relationship building. –  A.S Commented Mar 24, 2015 at 16:35
• I don't know what you expect in terms of "oversight or enforcement". It's hard to make professors in general do anything, and it's even harder to make successful and productive professors do anything. Do you expect the department head to show up in the professor's office and tell her that she needs to meet with the students for 15 minutes before the defense to go over open points in the thesis? To write at least a 2-page report? Such enforcement is simply not practical. –  Wolfgang Bangerth Commented Mar 25, 2015 at 2:29

My committee was pretty uninvolved. My department did not require a proposal, so my advisor and I got them together for a status check with about 18 months to go. I don't recall there being much in the way of useful feedback. Much of the text of my dissertation was written in the last 6 months of my degree, and my advisor and I were the only ones looking at it. I got no feedback to speak of on the draft I gave the the committee before the defense, there were no surprises at the defense, and they signed off on the spot. I don't know if there was any back-channel feedback to my advisor, but given the flow of things, I doubt it. All that being said, they had seen me in classes and giving talks at conferences over the years, so they knew what direction my research was going in and knew that I was making progress.

I don't have any illusions that my thesis was of earth-shattering importance, but we got a couple of decent papers out of it. I have a hard time seeing how having a more involved committee would have changed that much. They were all researchers in related niches of the overall field, but their interests were different enough that most of their involvement would have changed the thesis dramatically (apply their favorite method, switch to their favorite problem, etc).

My perhaps cynical view is that in the US in the fields I know something about (engineering, CS), thesis committees serve as a final check that the department and university isn't going to be embarrassed to have graduated the student. Almost everything else is gravy. In the easy cases, if the work in the thesis has already produced published papers, the committee members do not need to serve as peer reviewers because the bulk of the work has already been reviewed. In the harder cases, where the work is so far unpublished, the committee is presuming that the student and the advisor are the experts, and some level of trust is given that the work is up to the department's standards. Only truly sub-par work will be caught by the process in these cases. Advisors that allow bad work to make it to the defense stage are likely to develop a reputation for having students who have problems and end up with no students to advise, so that helps to keep the system working.

• +1 for: "If the work in the thesis has already produced published papers... the bulk of the work has already been reviewed" –  Alexandros Commented Mar 24, 2015 at 15:24
• Thanks for the honest perspective, which to seems a fairly objective assessment of the situation (at least in some departments/disciplines). This could vary by field, but in my experience the bulk of publication on the specific topic addressed by the thesis comes after the dissertation is done and the degree is granted, as follow-up "spin off" pubs from parts of the full thesis. However the opposite is not unlikely, and is probably advised as a way to put bits of the work through the peer review process. –  A.S Commented Mar 24, 2015 at 16:30
• @Aymor, I think the papers first then thesis procedure is about as common as thesis first then papers. It varies so much by field, university, department, and advisor. Mine was actually a mix. –  Bill Barth Commented Mar 24, 2015 at 16:35

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged thesis defense feedback thesis-committee ..

• Featured on Meta
• Upcoming sign-up experiments related to tags

Hot Network Questions

• What might cause an inner tube to "behave" flat in a tire?
• giving variables a default value in a spec file
• Fixing this flame protector model issue for a bic lighter
• I have an active multiple-entry C1 US visa. I also have a Canadian citizenship certificate. Need to travel (not transit) US in 20 days. My options?
• How can non-residents apply for rejsegaranti with Nordjyllands Trafikselskab?
• Is there a second-order non-linear addition to Maxwell's equations?
• How did the `long` and `short` integer types originate?
• What is the difference between Blob.valueOf and EncodeUtil.base64Decode?
• Australian citizen married to dual Australian/Italian citizen wanting to travel Europe for 6 months
• Tool Storage Corrosion Risk
• How can I keep my writing consistent?
• Why is the Newcomb problem confusing?
• Estimating effects in the presence of a mediator
• Why are heavy metals toxic? Lead and Carbon are in the same group. One is toxic, the other is not
• Using Roy's Lemma and Walras' Law shows that
• QGIS show only one label
• Formal language Concatenation is a binary operation?
• Was Croatia the first country to recognize the sovereignity of the USA? Was Croatia expecting military help from USA that didn't come?
• What if path c’ has a negative coefficient, but X - > Y share a moderate to high Spearman correlation?
• Is there a name for books in which the narrator isn't the protagonist but someone who know them well?
• How to avoid the strange line at the end of a zigzag decoration
• Why does crossfading audio files in ffmpeg produce just the last input?
• Are many figures in a paper considered bad practice?
• In "Romeo and Juliet", why is Juliet the "sun"?

Thesis examination

Review the examination process and outcomes.

After your thesis is submitted and your examiners finalised, your thesis will be sent for examination.

Each examiner is sent your thesis together with examination instructions guidelines. Your examiners are required to complete their examination and provide their report within four weeks for MRes theses and five weeks for PhD and MPhil theses. You and your supervisors should not contact examiners during the examination process.

For detailed information about the examination process, see the  HDR Thesis Preparation, Submission and Examination Policy .

Examination outcomes

• Award: The thesis meets all required standards in terms of the nature and quality of work undertaken, and the degree can be awarded without any further work by the student, other than the correction of typographical errors and small lapses of expression and presentation in the final copy.
• Award (after Corrections): The thesis meets all required standards in terms of the nature and quality of work undertaken, and the degree can be awarded without further examination once the student has made a number of corrections and clarifications in the thesis. The corrections are to be completed to the satisfaction of the Thesis Examination Subcommittee and are required to be completed within one month for MRes students and two months for MPhil/PhD students.
• Revision and re-examination: The thesis does not yet meet all required standards for the award of the degree and the student should complete a further period of research and writing. Normally, under this category, a student would re-enrol for a period of up to one-year full-time (or equivalent). The thesis will then be submitted for re-examination.
• Not award: The thesis does not meet the required standards for the award of the degree, and does not warrant a further period of research and writing.

MRes students will also be awarded a percentage score for their thesis. The maximum mark a thesis can receive after re-examination is 64%.

For further information about examination criteria and outcomes, see the  HDR Thesis Preparation, Submission and Examination Policy.

Revise and resubmit

In some cases, you may be advised to revise and resubmit your thesis for re-examination. During re-examination, examiners are requested to determine whether or not the revised thesis now meets the requirements of the degree as specified.

Re-submission must occur within one year from the date of the decision for revision for PhD and MPhil students and three months from the date of the decision for revision for MRes students.

For re-submission, you will need to submit your thesis in accordance with the relevant submission requirements. You must also include documentation that addresses the matters raised in your initial examination. This documentation must not be examiner-specific.

• Initial examiners will receive an invitation to re-examine your thesis. Re-examiners are allowed access to your unrevised thesis, along with all reports from the University and initial examiners (subject to privacy requirements).
• If your initial examiners are unavailable, there may be new examiners appointed. You should make no direct contact with your examiners – any contact you wish to make must be approved by the Research and Research Training Committee.
• If you do not complete your re-submission in the determined time-frame, you will be deemed to have failed the requirements for the award of your degree.
• If you fail to meet the requirements of the degree on re-examination, you cannot apply for further re-examination.

Note that revision of your thesis requires you to re-enrol and pay any required fees.

For further information about the resubmission process, see the  HDR Thesis Preparation, Submission and Examination Policy .

Final thesis submission

All graduate research students, including PhD, MPhil and MRes students must submit a final digital copy of their thesis for inclusion in the in  Macquarie University Theses which is Macquarie University’s open access digital collection. Access to graduate research theses is facilitated through the University Library.

Macquarie University Theses is designed to promote globally, preserve locally and provide open access to the research theses of Macquarie University's students. Records from Macquarie University Theses are also accessible from sources such as Trove Australia, Google and Google Scholar.  The Macquarie University’s open access digital  theses collection gives your research greater potential readership, ensures your research is protected from destruction and provides security through adherence to metadata standards and access rights. The Library and the GRA work together to implement, manage and oversee the submission of digital theses for inclusion in Macquarie University Theses.

Further information and FAQs can be found  Theses @ Macquarie University .

Once the thesis has been examined and passed by the Research and Research Training Committee, you have to submit  a ‘HDR Thesis Submission to Library Request’ eForm accompanied by the final digital copy of the thesis.

To submit, you must:

• Log in to  eStudent
• Click in the Forms tile
• Search for the ‘HDR Thesis Submission to Library Request’
• Complete the form

After submission of the eForm, your request will go to the Graduate Research Academy. You will receive an email notification confirming that your request has been completed.

The Library will accept your digital thesis in PDF, Word and RTF format. The final display format on  Macquarie University Theses is PDF and the Library will convert your thesis into this format as required. If you intend to submit your thesis in PDF format, security protection or password access should not be applied.

Parts of your thesis may be subject to copyright. If you are concerned about copyright issues related to your thesis, check Macquarie's  information on copyright , talk to Macquarie University's  Copyright Coordinator or speak to your Research Librarian.

The University recognises that in particular cases commercial and confidentiality issues may necessitate a moratorium on the digital version of a thesis. This needs to be addressed at the earliest point during the candidacy. Approval from the Research and Research Training Committee (RRTC), with support from the Head of Department, is required for such access restrictions to be imposed on a thesis. For further information, please email  [email protected] .

If your thesis contains material you have written and have published or is in the process of being published, you can request an embargo on your thesis. For further information about embargos, please contact the Library by emailing [email protected].

A thesis may include supplementary files, e.g. creative component or data files, that you wish to restrict from full open access. If this is the case, please email the Library at  [email protected] to discuss options for managing restrictions to supplementary files.

Hardbound guidelines

If your faculty requests a hardbound copy of your thesis, you should prepare the thesis in accordance with the following requirements:

• The spine should state the title of the thesis (abbreviated if necessary), your family name, and the date of submission or re-submission.
• The words should be in gold lettering of suitable size.
• When published papers are submitted as additional evidence, they should be bound in the back of the thesis as an appendix. When they form part of the thesis body, they should be bound into the thesis itself.

International students

If you are an international student Visa holder, your visa date will be checked by the University when your thesis examination outcome has been finalised. If your visa is found to have more than 4 weeks’ validity, the Graduate Research Academy will report the thesis submission to the  Department of Home Affairs (DIHA) . You are responsible for contacting DIHA regarding your change of visa status. If you wish to stay in Australia to wait for examination results, DIHA will need to be consulted. Contact DIHA directly for advice.

For further information about thesis preparation, submission and examination, see the  HDR Thesis Preparation, Submission and Examination Policy .

Celebrate your achievement!

We’d like to celebrate your completion with you, so after you’ve receive your final examination letter, stop by the Graduate Research Academy (GRA) and take a selfie with us to capture the moment:

Then it's time to promote yourself again by sharing your success and selfie photo on the  Graduate Research Academy Network LinkedIn group!

• Graduate Research Academy
• Level 2, 16 Wally's Walk
• Macquarie University NSW 2109
• T: +61 (2) 9850 4741
• E: [email protected]

Prepare for submission

Review the requirements for your thesis submission.

Submit your thesis

Review the steps for submitting your thesis.

Related links

• Manage your research journey
• Look after yourself

Doctoral thesis examination committee

A doctoral thesis is assessed in a public defence that consists of the doctoral candidate's presentation and defence of the research plan to the members of a specialised committee.

Appointment of the examination committee

When the academic committee of a doctoral programme authorises the deposit of a thesis, it also makes a proposal, in order of priority, of the members of the examination committee that will assess the thesis. After the thesis deposit, the Standing Committee of the Doctoral School revises the composition of and officially appoints the examination committee. 

Composition of the examination committee 

Thesis examination committees are composed of five or seven doctoral degree holders who are experts on the subject and have accredited research experience. Three or five are regular members and the other two are substitutes. A majority of members must be external to the University and to any entity involved in the programme. 

The composition of the committee is as follows: 

1 secretary

Substitutes

Functions of the examination committee

To implement measures for the substitution of members. 

To suspend meetings and set a new date. 

To establish the manner and moment of the round of questions. 

To adjourn meetings. 

To communicate verbally the mark awarded to the doctoral candidate and those in attendance at the defence. 

To convene the defence (with the approval of the academic committee of the programme).

To ensure that all the documents required to assess the thesis are filled in during the defence.

To certify the award of the International Doctorate mention.

To send the documents to committee members who have acted via video conference. 

To send the Doctoral School the documents signed by all the committee members so that it can enter the mark in the doctoral candidate's academic record and, if applicable, the count of the cum laude votes by the Standing Committee. 

• Bulletin Board
• Admin Login
• Status and Details

This page contains information about the status, approval and implementation of this document, including contact details for the relevant Responsible Officer and Enquiries Contact, and a summary of changes from the previous version.  

• Current Version
• Associated Information
• Historic Versions
• Future Versions

Higher Degree Research Thesis Preparation, Submission and Examination Policy

Summary of Changes from Previous Version

22 Dec 2021 - All references to Thesis Examination Subcommittee (TESC) replaced by Research Degree Subcommittee (RDSC).

The University launched a new policy management system in February 2021. This is the first version of this document to be published in the new system. This version is the version that was in effect at the time of the migration except that it has been reformatted, numbered, and any typographical errors have been corrected. Administrative updates have also been applied to Status and Details. Please contact [email protected] if you require earlier versions of this document.

© Macquarie University   CRICOS Provider 00002J   ABN 90 952 801 237