Advisory Committees

This booklet is for currently enrolled Geroscience PhD students only. Future applicants should visit the USC Leonard Davis School Admission website for the latest program information.

Advisory Committee

A key role of all Geroscience PhD faculty that is critical for student success is serving on students’ advisory committees. Participation on these committees comes with the responsibility of providing advice for a student’s education, research, and professional development. 

The PhD Qualifying Examination 

At the time of joining a lab, the student and the mentor should begin developing the foundation of the PhD dissertation (what will be formally evaluated as Aim 1 and Aim 2 of the qualifying exam). 

No later than the beginning of the Fall semester of the second year (Deadline September 1), students should choose a five-member Guidance Committee, which will also be their Qualifying Exam Committee. Students should discuss the content and format of the Qualifying Examination with their mentor and with other Qualifying Examination Committee members. The PhD Qualifying Examination consists of both a written examination and an oral examination. The Written Examination must be passed to proceed to the Oral Examination and both portions must be passed to continue in the PhD program and be advanced to candidacy. The Qualifying exams must be scheduled for completion by the end of the Spring semester (May 15) of the student’s second year in the program. Under rare circumstances, and only with the approval of the Geroscience PhD committee, students can submit a petition to request an extension to complete their qualifying exam by the end of the summer semester (August 15) of the student’s second year (before the start of their 3rd year in the program). Additional deferrals to extend the deadline beyond the Summer of the second year are unusual and require exceptional circumstances. In this unusual scenario, both the PhD student and the faculty advisor must petition and receive approval by the Geroscience PhD committee.  

 See Appendix E for forms and Appendix F for timelines 

Students that fail to schedule and pass their qualifying exam before the start of their 3rd year in the program can be dismissed from the program.

The Qualifying Examination Committee

At the end of the first year in the program (typically when a student has joined a lab), the student will assemble a qualifying exam committee. Committee selection should be done in consultation with the PhD advisor (who acts as the chair of that committee).  

The qualifying exam committee consists of five (5) tenure/tenure-track faculty members (including the chair), of whom no less than three (3) members must hold faculty appointments in the Leonard Davis School of Gerontology (includes adjunct and joint appointment); at least two (2) of the faculty members must hold primary appointments in the Leonard Davis School of Gerontology. One faculty member outside of the Leonard Davis School of Gerontology or the University of Southern California (outside member) can be included but requests for non-USC faculty must be petitioned by the student and faculty advisor and approved by the Geroscience PhD committee who follows the guidance of the USC Graduate School.  

The Qualifying Exam Committee form must be signed prior to scheduling the qualifying exam and the Request to take the PhD Qualifying Exam form must be submitted to the Student Services Office for approval by the end of the Fall semester (December 15th) of the second year. See Appendix E for forms. As part of the Request to take the PhD Qualifying Exam Form students are required to submit the following: 

1. The name, rank, and affiliation of all proposed committee members. 
2. The complete written proposal for Aim 1 and Aim 2 (see format and page limits below).  
3. Committee members sign the form (by DocuSign) after reading and determining Aim 1 and Aim 2 are satisfactory (additional editing allowed). 
4. The form is completed once the student and committee agree on a date for the exam which is filled in on the form. 

Aim 1 and Aim 2 of the written proposal must be submitted to the qualifying examination committee at the same time as the Request to take the PhD Qualifying Exam Form;  

By January 15th, after reading Aim 1 and Aim 2 of the proposal, the members of the qualifying exam committee indicate satisfactory completion by signing the Request to take the PhD Qualifying Exam Form or require the student to make significant edits to the written proposal (unsatisfactory). Revisions must be completed in two (2) weeks; due January 31st. Students are only allowed to revise Aim 1 and Aim 2 of the proposal once. Failure to pass this portion of the written exam can result in dismissal from the program. 

One week after the approval of the written Aims 1 and 2, (no later than February 7th), each faculty member on the committee (except the chair) will provide the student with one question to answer in written form (~0.5 pages, but 1 page maximum; not including references). These questions are meant to test the student’s general knowledge-base and the scientific foundation for the proposal. These questions also help the student identify areas of the proposal that require more attention before the oral examination. Answers to each question are submitted along with Aim 3, which are written without the assistance of the faculty mentor (both due two (2) weeks prior to the scheduled oral examination).  

Guidelines for the Written Qualifying Examination

The Written Qualifying Examination will consist of a research project organized as an NIH-style F31 grant proposal with three specific aims: 

• Aims 1 and 2 will encompass experiments that the student plans to undertake as the core of the PhD dissertation research (Aim 1 and 2 written section due December 15th). 

• Aim 3 must be an experimental approach or goal that is the student’s own idea. Aim 3 cannot be anything that has been previously planned or envisioned by the student’s mentor. Students can decide for themselves whether their Aim 3 will be something they try to incorporate into their dissertation research, or simply an academic exercise to demonstrate independence and experimental originality (Aim 3 written section due 2-weeks before scheduled oral examination).        

Students are strongly encouraged to use the written proposal (especially Aims 1 and 2) as a basis for an F31 or foundation grant application, thus making the exercise more relevant and increasing the potential for academic reward.

The topic, hypotheses, and experiments proposed for Aims 1 and 2 of the written qualifying examination may be related to the planned dissertation research but must not be a simple verbatim reiteration of a mentor’s grant proposals. Aim 3 of the written proposal provides an opportunity for students to demonstrate their independence and experimental originality and must explore avenues and opportunities not initially planned for the dissertation. Importantly, the qualifying exam research project must not simply reiterate investigations already planned by a student’s mentor or contained in a mentor’s grants or grant applications. In other words, for Aim 3, the student is expected to expand and extend a research topic of interest in new directions, but not to reproduce an existing topic. This exam is designed to probe the students’ depth of knowledge of their field of research, their ability to put their studies in the context of the biology of aging and geroscience (basic or translational), and to articulate the importance and innovative aspects of their proposal.  

 The written exam generally follows the format of an NIH-style F31 grant application. For general style and approach, students should be directed to the following NIH website which has a helpful and quite detailed Quick Guide for Grants.  

Aims 1 and 2 of the written exam, which will be rigorously assessed, will be no more than seven (7) pages (not including references, but including the specific aims page), single-spaced with at least 0.5-inch margins and an 11-point arial font. The introduction to the project must present a mini review of the field, corresponding to a shortened version of what will eventually become the first chapter of the student’s dissertation. An example 7-page template follows:  

• Specific Aims – (1 page only).  
• Significance and Background – (~1 pages).  
• Innovation – conceptual and methodological – (~½ page).  
• Research Plan for Aims 1 and 2 – (~4-5 pages).  
• Structured according to the Specific Aims and including Potential Difficulties & Alternative Approaches, (i.e., how will you cope with problems, and a timetable for the proposed experiments).  

References – no page limit (literature must be referenced throughout the proposal).  

Aim 3 of the written exam, on average will be three (3) pages in length with the following template: 

• Specific Aims (only Aim 3) – ~¼ page only.  
• Significance and Background – ½ page; specific to Aim 3. 
• Innovation (conceptual and methodological) – ¼ page.  
• Research Plan for Aim 3 – 2 pages.  
• Structured according to the Specific Aims and including Potential Difficulties & Alternative Approaches, (i.e., how will you cope with problems, and a timetable for the proposed experiments).  
• References–no page limit (literature must be referenced throughout the proposal).  

NOTE: Preliminary data is NOT required but can be used to support the scientific foundation of the proposal. In the absence of preliminary data, the student is expected to use relevant scientific literature as the scientific basis of each component of the proposal. 

The written research proposal is an exam and must be an independent work generated by the student. The advisor is expected to provide mentorship and guidance throughout the process and must read and approve the proposal, as are all members of the committee, but not to write or revise it. The advisor is required to assure the Qualifying Exam Committee that the students’ proposal has been generated independently by the student and not from pre-existing grant proposals written by the PI or other written exams generated by other trainees or members of the laboratory. Copying even selected parts of an advisor’s grant proposal or another student’s exam or grant proposal is considered plagiarism and can result in dismissal from the program. 

Committee members may require that minor or major revisions to the proposal are made before the oral exam can be taken. Committee members can request that the oral qualifying exam be postponed if the written proposal is deemed inadequate. Requests to postpone, must occur 72 hours before the scheduled examination. If revisions are inappropriate or insufficient, the committee may decide that a student has failed the written qualifying exam, and the student will be dismissed from the program.  

The Oral Qualifying Examination

During the Oral Qualifying Examination, committee members will assess three critical areas that each must be satisfactorily passed: 

1. General knowledge of the field. Committee members will ask students questions about any material that they deem relevant to a student’s background preparation and understanding of the field, research aptitude and preparedness, professional success, and their ability to actually complete all phases of a PhD in Geroscience. 
2. Scientific foundation, approach, potential outcomes, and alternative approaches of Aim 1 and 2 (these are core components of the PhD student’s dissertation work). 
3. Scientific foundation and general reasoning behind Aim 3 (which is written independently of the PhD advisor). 

Advisors/Mentors attend the oral exam and participate in discussions and final evaluation but are not permitted to answer questions on their students’ behalf during the exam. Advisors should largely be observers during the Oral Qualifying Examinations of their own students since they are perceived as potential advocates. Instead, they should allow the other committee members a chance to test the understanding of fundamental principles and scientific abilities of the candidate and to ensure fairness of the process. 

Students should schedule two (2) hours for the exam and faculty must not schedule any other commitments during that period. Students MUST include the Student Services Office when sending the notification of the scheduled oral exam.   

The first 10 minutes of the Oral Qualification Examination meeting should be conducted with the entire committee, while the student is temporarily excused, so the mentor can outline to the rest of the committee their assessment on (i) how much of the proposal is driven by the student, (ii) any important information regarding the scholastic performance of the student, and (iii) any concerns they believe other committee members should be made aware of before the start of the oral examination. After this discussion is concluded, the student proceeds with the examination. 

Several formats for the oral qualifying exam are acceptable if the candidate can demonstrate a mastery of core geroscience concepts and an appropriate scientific knowledgebase for the dissertation research project. The committee should assess whether a general research capacity to advance to candidacy is warranted. In general, the oral examination uses PowerPoint to assist the students in presenting material. The number of slides should be minimized so that the student can verbally demonstrate competency without reading directly from prepared material. As such, a chalk talk-type presentation would be acceptable.  

Although not required, most students will create a PowerPoint presentation to assist with the presentation of the oral examination. If a PowerPoint is used, the file must be sent to the committee 24 hours before the exam. 

Because the presentation is an oral examination, visuals are limited to ten (10) slides (not including the title slide, an acknowledgement slide, and timeline) with the following guidelines: 

1. Title slide (1 slide)
2. Background material and introduction (2-3 slides) 
3. Aim 1 (~2 slides) 
4. Aim 2 (~2 slides) 
5. Aim 3 (~2 slides) 
6. Summary (1 slide) 
7. Dissertation Timeline (1 slide) 
8. Acknowledgement (1 slide) 

The Oral Qualifying Examination begins with a deep analysis of Aims 1 and 2 of the Written Exam, with Aim 3 being examined as deemed necessary by the Qualifying Exam Committee.  

Students are expected to have extensive knowledge of the literature related to their project and the general literature in their subject area. They are also expected to have extensive understanding of the techniques used in the field, approaches, and preliminary results. They are expected to be able to discuss their research plans in great detail, including a review of potential problems and alternative strategies.  

The Report on Qualifying Exam form is sent to the student the morning of the oral exam. The form must be signed by all members, including the PhD Chair and the Dean as soon as possible, and submitted back to the Student Services Office for processing. Delays in submitting the form will cause delays in the processing of PhD Candidacy. 

The actual Qualifying Exams can take place as early as the Fall semester of the second year, especially for students who enter by direct admission, but the Written and Oral Qualifying Exam must be completed by the end of the Spring semester of the second year (See Appendix F for timeline, and discussion above). If a student’s performance during Qualifying Examinations causes concern about the potential for the student to succeed, then it is important that committee members raise those concerns and that the committee consider whether the student should continue in the program; sometimes students, their advisors, and the Geroscience PhD program, are served better by a student not passing a preliminary exam. For some students, earning a PhD may not be the right path, despite their abilities and academic record, and that they may have greater professional success taking a different path. In order to pass the qualifying exam, the committee must be unanimous. If consensus cannot be reached, the matter will be referred to the Geroscience PhD Committee for recommendation to the Deans of the School of Gerontology and the Graduate School. 

The Dissertation Committee

This dissertation committee is distinct from the qualifying exam committee but can have similar or even identical membership. In consultation with the advisor, PhD students select two to four additional faculty as members of this committee – again, a full five-member committee is preferred and is considered the norm. Faculty should note that membership on a dissertation committee is a long-term commitment, typically 3-4 years, until the student graduates from the PhD program.   

No more than 30 days after successfully passing the qualifying exam, students formalize their dissertation committee who monitor the student’s research progress and provide formal advice and direction to ensure PhD students can complete their dissertation work in a reasonable timeframe (average time to degree is 5 years).  

A PhD student’s advisor serves as the chair of the student’s dissertation committee. The dissertation committee consists of a minimum of four (4) tenure/tenure-track faculty members (including the chair), of whom no less than three (3) members must hold tenure/tenure-track faculty appointments in the Leonard Davis School of Gerontology (includes adjunct and joint appointments); at least two (2) of the faculty members must hold primary tenure/tenure-track faculty appointments in the Leonard Davis School of Gerontology. One faculty member outside of the Leonard Davis School of Gerontology or the University of Southern California (outside member) can be included but must be petitioned and approved by the director of the Geroscience PhD program and in consultation with the USC Graduate School.  

The optional fifth member of the committee can be any faculty member at USC (except RTPC faculty that are supervised by the PhD mentor) to enhance the research training of the PhD candidate (see notes below).   

Students are REQUIRED to meet with their committee at least annually to update them on their research progress, discuss technical challenges and plans to resolve them, and to present a timeline for degree completion.  

General Notes:

• All students have one primary mentor who is responsible for degree progress. 
• Co-mentoring is common when more than one area of expertise is useful for the research and degree progress of the student, however all formal academic and programmatic decisions are made by the primary mentor.  
• Faculty with actual or perceived conflicts of interest (COI) may not serve on the same committee. 
• Appointment of a faculty member from another academic unit at USC or an expert from an outside university, to encourage an interdisciplinary perspective, can be accommodated.  Be sure to review the current student handbook (School of Gerontology and the Graduate School) regarding the composition of the committee as you assemble the committee. 
• RTPC-Research faculty can serve on committees, following petition by the student to the Geroscience PhD committee, when their specific expertise adds to research guidance needed by the student. 
• At the request of the committee, advisors should be prepared to share performance assessments of each trainee: Semesterly progress reports made by the trainee; semesterly assessments made by the PI (see below). 

Students who fail to meet with their committee in the prior academic year will not be allowed to enroll in the subsequent Fall semester, which can have payroll, insurance, tax, and future academic consequences.

The academic experience is greatly enhanced if faculty members other than the direct advisor are readily and formally available for consultation and discussion with the graduate student. To provide this element of supervision, a dissertation committee should be put in place for the PhD student early in the dissertation stage, as soon after the Qualifying Examinations as possible, and be responsible for monitoring the progress of the student through the dissertation committee, as follows: 

Annual Dissertation Committee Meetings

It is required that the dissertation committee meet with the student, as an assembled committee, at least once per year to assess the student’s progress in the program and to provide advice on future work. This ensures optimal supervision and guidance. 

 To ensure optimal supervision and guidance each annual one (1) hour committee meeting has four parts: 

• FIRST – Ideally at the time of scheduling the date for the committee meeting, but no later than 24 hours prior to the meeting, the student will provide the committee with an updated and current version of their NIH-style biosketch.  
• SECOND – During the first 15min of the committee meeting, the PhD student meets with the committee but without the faculty advisor present, to discuss their biosketch, general degree progress, research and professional activities, and overall experience in the PhD program. It is fine for the PhD advisor to come 15min after the start of the committee meeting. 
• THIRD – With the advisor present, the student presents a formal update of all research progress, including a brief (less than 5min) summary of the research background (state of the field) and the importance of the topic, ~30min of research successes and failures, areas being actively researched, strategies for trouble shooting, and ~5min future directions including a dissertation timeline (limited to the students time remaining in the degree program). 
• FOURTH – The committee meets without the student present to discuss overall research and degree progress. Should any issues arise during the first 15min of the dissertation meeting with the student, these topics are discussed at this time. 
• A form that requires the signatures of all committee members must be delivered to the USC Leonard Davis School Student Services Office following the meeting (DocuSign). This form includes space for each committee member to write recommendations and comments, which are mandatory. 

Note: additional one-on-one meetings with individual faculty can also be useful (in addition to the required annual meeting of the group) and are encouraged.   

At the end of a student’s fourth year in the program (before the Fall of the 5th year), the student MUST submit a detailed plan to their dissertation committee and the Geroscience PhD committee for the completion of PhD studies (this must include a timeline for completion). Note that this form is required for continued tuition and programmatic support beyond the fifth year.  

 Since funding and support are only ensured for five years (refer to offer letter to PhD program), should a 6th year be required, an amendment to this report must be filed and approved by the dissertation committee, the Geroscience PhD committee, and the office of the Dean. This amendment must also include a source of funding for the PhD student.

In the absence of an approved leave of absence or an approved request for extension, failure to defend the dissertation at the end of six (6) years in the PhD program can result in dismissal from the program, termination of research and TA appointments, and students are responsible for tuition. 

(See Appendix E for forms)  

• Copies of the report shall be filed with the graduate office and upon request given to the student, dissertation committee, and Geroscience PhD committee.