I am presently developing my dissertation proposal, and am while selecting my committee people. I’ve heard that certain should carefully choose their committee people, given that they ultimately judge assuming your PhD jobs are done. So far as I will tell, a committee member should a minimum of possess some knowledge of my research subject. I am sure there’s more into it than that, but I wish to understand what other characteristics must i consider? What characteristics inside a committee member must i avoid? I imagine other characteristics are subtle and hard to evaluate initially. Nevertheless, how do you know if they’re a great fit for the prosperity of my PhD?

requested March 13 ’12 at 3:34

First, ask your advisor. He/she likely knows much more about much of your department faculty than you need to do. It’s not necessary to just do as you are told. However if you simply don’t, this ought to be a deliberate choice from you, and you ought to have a very good reason behind that choice. Beyond that, I see a minimum of 3 broad areas to think about. You would like committee people who’ll

1. strengthen your professional network. expose you to potential collaborators, and perhaps assist with your look for a postdoc or tenure track position and/or write instructions of recommendation for you personally
2. give valuable feedback in your work. you believe they’ll really read your thesis (you may be surprised how uncommon this really is), and can have something constructive to state
3. be easy to utilize within the defense process: apt to be flexible around the date of the defense, and sure to sign off in your dissertation without demanding plenty of changes (fitting into 4 schedules besides your personal could be a nightmare it’s nice to possess a couple of committee people who are simple to use about this)

Which of those contributions you value most is determined by what you are wishing to complete after your PhD.

If you are searching to maneuver into industry, a lot of your professors’ contacts might be less valuable for you than should you hope in which to stay academia. Are you planning to remain research active? In the area of your dissertation? Practically, you might have limited options. At the minimum, you need to weigh 1, 2, and three, and estimate the way you think each candidate will lead in every area.

clarified March 13 ’12 at 5:18

Just one factor I’d add excellent answer: A minumum of one committee member must take you from your professional safe place. Don’t choose committee people only out of your subfield, your department, or perhaps your college. A part of protecting your quest, particularly if you are ongoing into academia, is having the ability to explain your projects and defend its importance to individuals outdoors your narrow academic circles. JeffE March 13 ’12 at 16:00

@JeffE: One caveat towards the suggestion of the exterior reviewer—try to prevent somebody that’s geographically a long way away. Scheduling committee conferences is difficult enough because it is it’s tremendously harder if you need to get them organized round the schedule of somebody who must fly set for the conferences! aeismail &#9830 Sep 11 ’14 at 8:08

This is really an essential question. This is actually the constitute of my committee and it is pitfalls. This is not the very best committee but has its own advantages. You can easily extrapolate from the experience:

Advisor/Committee member 1:

1. I’ve got a fantastic advisor who always stands by me and supports my work. He basically fights for me personally if things go wrong.
2. He’s even the PI from the project I’m focusing on so my effective graduation and publications do interest him.

Co-advisor/Collaborator/Committee member 2/Extradepartmental committee member:

1. He champions the the minds behind my research and it has done this during the last 20+ years. So there’s not a problem that I’ll get support from him

Committee member 3:

1. Does not have anything committed to my research but as it is generally associated with his work, he’s aboard.
2. He’s sitting undecided so far as critique goes.

Committee member 4:

1. He does not like my work since his advisor did not such as this work and it is implications.
2. However, since I’ve got a generally pro-me committee, I ought to be okay although not having to break a sweat.
3. Basically convince him from the merit of my work, I’ll don’t have any issue in the future convincing every other detractors See comment by JeffE .

clarified March 13 ’12 at 19:19