Policies

Supervisory Committee

A Supervisory Committee must be formed in the first year of the MSc or PhD program. The Supervisory Committee consists of the supervisor(s) and two faculty members with cognate research interests chosen by the supervisor(s) in consultation with the student. The responsibilities of Supervisory Committee members include participation in annual progress report meetings, internal review of the thesis, evaluation of the research seminar, and participation in the thesis defence.

Annual Progress Reports

Each year by end of October, students and supervisors must complete the Annual Progress Report form (available on the Chemistry Grad Platform). This report encourages students and supervisors to reflect on the student's general progress through their degree and to identify if there is anything impeding the student's progress.

Supervisory Committee Meetings and Research Progress Reports

A student must meet with the Supervisory Committee by the end of their first year in the MSc or PhD program so that the student's research progress status (Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory) is known before registration for the second year. A PhD student must also have a second meeting with their Supervisory Committee, by the end of their third year.

For the Supervisory Committee meeting, the student will prepare a Research Progress Report (maximum 3 pages + figures) and submit it to the Supervisory Committee members at least five working days before the meeting. The student must also submit this report to the Chemistry Grad Platform. The Supervisory Committee meeting will begin with a short (~20 minute) oral presentation by the student, after which the report (written and oral) will be discussed.

After the meeting, the Supervisory Committee will complete the Supervisory Committee Report form (available on the Chemistry Grad Platform) summarizing the student's research progress and plans for the future. This report must be signed by all members of the Supervisory Committee and must include an assessment of the student's research progress as Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory. The report should then be returned to the student, who will upload it to the Chemistry Grad Platform.

Finding of Unsatisfactory Progress

The Graduate Coordinator will call a meeting of the supervisory committee and the student within ~2 weeks of receiving the Supervisory Committee Report form. This meeting will be chaired by a member of the Graduate Committee.

Probationary Periods

The student will enter a 4-month probationary period during which the student will be asked to demonstrate satisfactory research progress and/or develop a better comprehension of background material according to a specific set of goals. The Graduate Coordinator will give the student a written statement of the terms and possible outcomes of this probationary period, and the Supervisory Committee will also get a copy. During the probationary period, the student will meet regularly with the Supervisory Committee.

After the 4-month probationary period ends, the committee will re-evaluate the student's progress:

• If Satisfactory, the student continues in the program.
• If Unsatisfactory, the student will be asked to withdraw.
• If Marginal, the student will be given an additional 2-month probationary period to address remaining deficiencies in research progress or understanding.

After the additional 2-month probationary period ends, the committee will re-evaluate the student's progress as either Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory.

• If Satisfactory, the student continues in the program.
• If Unsatisfactory, the student will be asked to withdraw.

Appeal Options

If the assessment of research progress remains Unsatisfactory at the end of the student's probationary period, the Graduate Coordinator will provide the Head with a complete copy of the student's graduate file for the Head to review. If the Head is also the supervisor or a member of the Supervisory Committee, a designated faculty member who is at arm's length will handle the case.

If the Head/designate supports the Supervisory Committee’s finding of Unsatisfactory progress, the Head/designate will inform the student in writing:

• that the student may be asked to withdraw from the program
• of the student's right to a formal Departmental Appeal to be requested by the student in writing within two weeks or, alternatively, the Head/designate may immediately appoint a Review Committee to assess the case

The Review Committee:

• consists of three faculty members who are at arm’s length and the Graduate Coordinator acting as Chair. If the Coordinator is not at arm’s length, a designated faculty member will act as Chair.
• will interview the student and may interview the supervisor(s) and other members of the department in reaching its decision
• will report to the Head within two weeks on whether the previous decision of the Supervisory Committee should be upheld
• the Head (or designate) will then advise the student in writing about whether the recommendation for dismissal on the grounds of unsatisfactory research progress will be upheld and forwarded to the SGSPA
• if the decision is upheld, the Head will notify the SGSPA in writing and also inform the student in writing of their right to appeal the decision as per the Appeal Against Academic Decisions procedures in the SGS Academic Calendar - General Regulations

Financial Support During Appeals Process

If the student is asked to withdraw from the program, it is supervisor(s)'s responsibility to ensure that the student continues to receive the guaranteed minimum stipend (if the student is still eligible) until all channels of appeal or grievance have been exhausted.

According to Article 33 of the Student Academic Appeals Policy, “Ordinarily, no sanction, penalty or requirement to withdraw shall be put into effect until the student affected has either exhausted all available channels of appeal or the time for filing an appeal has expired and no appeal has been filed. For the purpose of this provision, the University will normally consider an adverse academic decision to be a sanction.”

Change of Supervisor(s) Due to Breakdown of Supervisory Relationship

If unsatisfactory progress is caused by a breakdown in the working relationship between student and supervisor(s), the Supervisory Committee or the student may recommend that a change in supervisor(s) be considered.

The initial selection of a supervisor(s) is normally considered to be a permanent arrangement and cannot be terminated by the supervisor(s) without due process. Termination of a supervisory relationship without mutual consent is highly undesirable for the student and the supervisor. Nevertheless, such breakdowns do rarely occur.

If the working relationship between the student and the supervisor(s) hinders satisfactory research progress, the student can request in writing to change supervisor(s) to the Graduate Coordinator. The student should discuss any proposed change with members of their Supervisory Committee and with the Graduate Coordinator before making a formal request for change. Submission of a change-in-supervisor request should be made in a timely fashion and not be delayed beyond the time required for the consultations mentioned above. If necessary, the Graduate Coordinator and/or the Head will assist the student by facilitating the search for and acquisition of a new supervisor or co-supervisors.

Financial Support During Supervisor Changeover

The outgoing supervisor must ensure that the student continues to receive the guaranteed minimum stipend (if the student is still eligible) for two months after cessation of the supervisory relationship. The date of cessation is determined by the Head based on available documentation and discussions with the student, the supervisor, the Supervisory Committee, and the Graduate Coordinator. The cessation date will not necessarily coincide with the student's submission of a written request for change of supervisor and may be deemed to have occurred at an earlier date.

Breakdown of the supervisory relationship can arise in preparation for, or during, the process of a student being requested to withdraw from graduate studies or during a student appeal thereof. The supervisor is obligated to continue financial support during the request-to-withdraw period and during any associated appeals. In the event that the student's appeal of a request-to-withdraw is successful, support for the two-month changeover period will begin on the date of notification of the result of the final appeal.

Graduate students enrolled in a PhD program in Chemistry at Queen's University are required to pass a Comprehensive Examination as part of their program (General Regulations < Queen's University, check Comprehensive/Qualifying Examination Requirement). In the Department of Chemistry, the Comprehensive Examination is called the Candidacy Exam. This exam assesses the student's research ability, academic appreciation of their field of research, and their scholarly qualifications for the degree.

Graduate students enrolled in a MSc program, typically with a first-class standing and who show exceptional promise in their research, may be considered for admission to a doctoral program without completing the requirements for the MSc degree (check Doctoral Program under Academic Qualifications for Admission, b; promotion from a Master's program to a doctoral program) of the Academic Calendar). One of the requirements for transferring from a MSc program to a PhD program in the Department of Chemistry is the successful completion of the PhD Candidacy Exam.

Eligibility and Timing for the Candidacy Exam

Exam Committee

The Exam Committee consists of:

• 4 voting members
  • the supervisor
    • If the student has more than one supervisor, only one of the supervisors will be a voting member of the exam committee, while the other can attend the exam as a non-voting member.
  • 1 member of the Supervisory Committee
  • 2 other Chemistry faculty members
    • If the student is co-supervised by a faculty member from outside the Chemistry department, the supervisor may choose to select a faculty member from the co-supervisor's department to sit on the exam committee.
• 1 non-voting chair
  • a chemistry faculty member who is chosen by the supervisor

The Exam Committee's purpose is to:

• judge the student's mastery of the thesis topic and ability to defend their report
• assess the student's ability to undertake independent and original work
• determine the student's comprehension in the chemistry of their sub-discipline
• recommend whether the student's should be allowed to proceed/promote in the PhD program

Exam Components

The candidacy exam consist of three components: a written report, an oral presentation by the student to the examiners, and oral questions to the student by the examiners.

The written report will be less than 7000 words in length, single spaced, including appropriate figures, schemes, and tables (placed within the text). References and figure captions are in addition to the 7000 word limit. The report will contain three sections of approximately equal length. The first will be an introductory section consisting of a comprehensive literature review of the student's research topic: this section should serve as a template for the Introduction of the student's eventual PhD thesis. The second section will outline the techniques and methods, as well as research results obtained so far, with a description of syntheses and characterizations of novel compounds, if relevant, using a format appropriate for the sub-discipline of chemistry. The third section will discuss the future short and long-term goals of the student's research project and expected overall significance of the results. The written report should demonstrate the high quality scientific writing expected in a MSc or PhD thesis.

The oral presentation will consist of a 15–20 minute talk given to the examiners. The presentation will summarize those parts of the written report that the student considers to be most significant.

The student will answer questions posed by the examiners at a formal candidacy exam. The examiners may ask questions which allow them to judge the student's mastery of their thesis topic, to assess the student's ability to undertake independent and original research, and to determine the student's comprehension of chemistry in their research area.

Exam Procedure

The student and supervisor must complete the PhD Candidacy/Comprehensive Exam Application form (available on the Chemistry Grad Platform). The supervisor must determine the exam committee, including the chair, and the date and time of the exam. The student must then submit this application ~3 weeks before the requested exam date to the Chemistry Grad Platform. The Graduate Assistant will check the student's eligibility and then send the form to the Graduate Coordinator, who will confirm the eligibility and approve the exam committee.

Within 10 days after receiving the written report, the examiners should indicate to the Chair whether they believe the written report is of sufficient quality for the oral portion of the candidacy exam to proceed. If their opinion is negative, they must submit an explanation of their concerns. If any two of the examiners recommend that the oral exam not proceed, the student, supervisor, and Graduate Coordinator should be consulted by the Chair of the exam committee to check if they wish to proceed with the oral exam. The student must decide whether to proceed. If the student agrees that the oral exam be postponed, the Chair must convey to the student, through the supervisor, the recommended revisions to the written report. The student has the right to present the revised written report at an agreed upon later date, but normally within two weeks. After the subsequent submission of the written report, the oral exam must be held.

Plagiarism (check the definition from the Calendar of the School of Graduate Studies below) is considered academic dishonesty and can result in expulsion from the program.  Details concerning academic dishonesty are found on the page Academic Integrity Policy. Academic dishonesty includes plagiarism as well as any deliberate attempt to unfairly gain advantage academically. Dishonest practices include fabrication of data, cheating, or the uttering of false statements relating to academic work by a student. Plagiarism means presenting work done (in whole or in part) by someone else as if it were one's own.  Plagiarism should be distinguished from cooperation and collaboration. Often, students may be permitted or expected to work on assignments collectively, and to present the results either collectively or separately. This is not a problem as long as it is clearly understood whose work is being presented, for example, by way of formal acknowledgment or by footnoting.

The oral exam will have the structure of a thesis defence. Before the examination begins, the candidate will be asked to leave the room and the chair will invite the examiners to discuss their opinions on the written report. The chair will then determine the order in which the examiners will ask questions, and the examiners will outline the general form of the questions that they intend to ask the candidate. The chair will also remind the examiners that they should remain in the examination room for the duration of the examination.

The candidate will then return to the room and the chair will outline the exam procedure to the candidate. The candidate will then give their 15–20 minute oral presentation. Following the presentation, each of the four examiners will question the student, following the predetermined order, with the supervisor last. The Chair will not examine the student directly, but will moderate the questioning and record the nature of the questions posed by the examiners. There will be two rounds of questions. In the first round, each examiner will question the candidate for 15 minutes. A second round of follow-up questions may follow, with each examiner permitted 5 minutes of questioning.

Following the second round of questioning, the candidate will be asked to leave the exam room. The candidate, the examiners, and the chair will have access to a Confidential Report form on the conduct of the Candidacy Exam; this report is optional to complete. The examiners will discuss and vote on the outcome of the exam. The candidate will be informed of the exam outcome after the vote by the examiners.

Mode of Assessment

The examining committee must judge the candidate’s mastery of their thesis topic, assess the candidate’s ability to undertake independent and original research, judge the ability of the candidate to defend their report, determine the comprehension of the candidate in chemistry in their sub-discipline, and recommend whether the candidate should be allowed to proceed in the PhD program.

Each examiner will evaluate the quality of the written report before the oral examination takes place and will not communicate their opinions to other committee members before the start of the exam. During the exam, each examiner will assess the quality of the candidate’s oral presentation and the candidate's responses to the various questions from each of the examiners, including themselves. The Chair will record the nature of the questions posed by each of the examiners. Once the candidate has left the room, the examiners will begin the assessment process. The examiners will discuss the quality of the student’s exam performance. Based on their overall assessment of the written report, oral presentation, and response to the questions, each examiner will determine whether the student has passed or failed the candidacy exam. No examiner has the option of abstaining. The examiners will record this determination on a Rating Sheet (the Graduate Assistant will email this sheet to the examiners a day or two before the exam), and may also record their written assessment of any or all of the components of the exam. Two or more votes to fail by any of the committee members will result in the student failing the candidacy exam. The Chair will announce the overall result – Pass or Fail. The Chair's notes, along with the Rating Sheets from each of the examiners, will be retained in the student's records. A failure of the candidacy exam will result in the student being required to withdraw from the PhD program or, if attempting transfer from the MSc program, require them to continue in the MSc program.

Appeal of the Outcome of the Exam

An appeal must be done within 10 business days after receiving a formal letter/email on the failure of the exam from the Graduate Assistant and the Graduate Coordinator. There are several sequential appeal options.

The information below is adapted from the SGSPA Academic Calendar General Regulations: Appeal Against Academic Decisions. Go to this link to access the full regulations.

First Appeal: to the Examining Committee

The first appeal must be submitted in writing to the Examining Committee of the candidacy exam. The student must ensure that the Examining Committee is aware of all the facts that the student believes should bear upon the reconsideration of their decision. The appeal must be made on procedural grounds and/or on the basis of extenuating circumstances.

If the student is reluctant to approach the Examining Committee personally, there is another option: "the student may seek the assistance of a University Advisor, the Student Advisors of the Society for Graduate and Professional Students, or other university advisor to do so on the student’s behalf. A student may contact the Office of the University Ombudsperson for information about student rights and responsibilities and guidance on policy and procedure by visiting their website at www.queensu.ca/ombuds, or by e-mail at ombuds@queensu.ca."

The Examining Committee must respond in writing to the student's appeal within two weeks (10 business days) after receiving the written appeal.

Second Appeal: to the Department Head or Graduate Coordinator

If the student is not satisfied with the Examining Committee's decision about the appeal and wishes to appeal further, then the student must submit a written appeal to the Department Head or the Graduate Coordinator (who will inform the Head) within two weeks (10 business days) after the student has received the Examining Committee's decision.

The Head must respond in writing to the student's appeal within two weeks (10 business days) after receiving the student's written appeal.

Third Appeal: to an Associate Dean of the SGSPA

If the student is not satisfied with the Head's decision about the appeal and wishes to appeal further, then the student must submit a written appeal to an Associate Dean of the SGSPA within two weeks (10 business days) after receiving the Head's decision.

The Associate Dean will meet with the student within two weeks after receiving the appeal. The Associate Dean must provide a written response within two weeks after this meeting.

Fourth Appeal: to the SGSPA Academic Appeal Board (AAB)

If the student is not satisfied with the Associate Dean's decision and wishes to appeal further, then, within two weeks after receiving this written decision, the student must ask the Secretary of the SGSPA Academic Appeal Board (AAB) to convene the AAB to hear the appeal. Within one week after submitting this request to convene the AAB, the student must submit a written statement of appeal to the Secretary of the AAB. This written appeal must include copies of any written decisions received from all previous appeals. The Secretary of the AAB will distribute the appeal documents to the members of the AAB.

The student's written statement of appeal must clearly address:

• the policies and procedures of the graduate program/department and/or the SGSPA and/or Queen’s University that the student alleges were not followed, and/or
• any extenuating circumstances that were beyond the student's control that impacted the student's academic performance contributing to the academic decision under appeal (the student must provide appropriate documentation to support any extenuating circumstance that the student refer to in their statement, including medical documentation if applicable)
• outline what the student seeks as a remedy from the AAB

The Head of the Department or delegate is given the opportunity to provide a written response to the student's statement of appeal.

Within one week after receiving the appeal documents, the AAB will convene to review them. The student will be notified of the result and any further steps/meetings.

All PhD students must present a departmental seminar on their research (15 minutes of presentation and 5 minutes of questions).

The student’s seminar will usually be given in the fourth year of their program and before their thesis is submitted for internal review. The student must ensure that a seminar slot is scheduled before they submit their thesis.

All seminars will take place as part of the regular CHEM 802 seminar program, 11:30 on Friday mornings. Up to three seminars will be scheduled in each slot.

Students must email the Seminar Coordinator and the Office Assistant to schedule their seminar. Students must confirm possible dates with their supervisor(s) first, since their supervisor(s) will need to be available to host the student's PhD seminar.

Once the Seminar Coordinator approves, the student needs to provide the seminar title and abstract to the Office Assistant at least 5 business days before the seminar.

The student's seminar will be announced to faculty and graduate students and posted on the Chemistry Seminar Series page.

Policy for Space Allocation and Graduate Student Supervision for Emeritus Professors and Professors Approaching Retirement

The Department of Chemistry is in the favourable position of anticipating a growing number of research-active emeritus faculty. Such research activity increasingly includes the maintenance of a research group consisting of co-supervised graduate students and/or postdoctoral fellows/research associates. Emeritus faculty are a valuable resource to the Department, the University, to the wider scientific and industrial communities, and to the local community. Forms of post-retirement activity include: making research contributions, providing intellectual leadership, training highly qualified personnel, being involved in the seminar program, performing professional service work, and teaching occasionally (depending on the needs of the Department). In addition, emeritus faculty can mentor younger faculty as well as students, and provide counsel on a variety of matters inside and outside the Department.

The growth in research and graduate supervisory activity among emeritus faculty is value-added to the Department, to the University, and to the wider scientific community. On the one hand it should not be discouraged, but on the other hand it must be managed within the context of overall departmental objectives and responsibilities to all its constituencies. This growth directly impacts two central aspects of departmental operations: (1) the provision of a secure supervisory environment for graduate students co-supervised by emeritus faculty; and (2) equitable allocation of research space under the pressure generated by the concomitant expansion of the regular faculty complement and the anticipated expansion of some of their research programs. An orderly transition from pre-retirement to post-retirement is essential for the well being of graduate students and for departmental management of space. This policy therefore includes rules concerning the acceptance of new graduate students by regular faculty in the years preceding retirement, rules for co-supervision of graduate students by emeritus faculty, and a process for assigning research and office space to qualifying emeritus faculty.

This policy replaces the 1996 policy. It is more detailed and provides more departmental control over space allocation than its predecessor. The latter feature is necessitated by steady progress towards our goal of increasing graduate enrolment to circa 115-120, the addition of 5 new faculty in the period July 2003 to December 2004, and the presence of several additional research-active emeriti in the next three years.

1) Graduate Student Supervision

The graduate supervision policies are designed to ensure a secure supervisory and stable funding environment for graduate students supervised by faculty approaching retirement and by emeritus faculty. The following applies to full-time students; part-time students will be considered on a case-by-case basis by the Head and Associate Head(s), in consultation with the Graduate Committee. For purposes of a clear illustration of the timelines implied by this policy, normal retirement is assumed to occur in the spring-summer term (usually June 30 or Aug. 31). This is the usual retirement period; appropriate adjustments to the timeline will be made for retirements occurring in other terms.

1.1. Emeritus faculty may be allowed to co-supervise graduate students subject to a) rules and policies of the School of Graduate Studies and the Department; b) availability of suitable research space for such students; c) participation of a regular faculty co-supervisor not within two years of normal retirement; and d) approval of a supervisory screening committee consisting of the Head and Associate Head(s) in consultation with the Graduate Studies Committee.

(a) Co-supervision of graduate students by an emeritus faculty and a regular faculty must be genuine. This means that both supervisors participate regularly as mentors and contribute intellectually to the project; that the regular faculty member has appropriate scientific expertise; and that the regular faculty member is in a position to assume sole supervision should the emeritus faculty become unwilling or unavailable to continue.

(b) Regular faculty who co-supervise graduate students with emeriti must agree to provide sole financial support for any co-supervised students should the emeritus faculty become unwilling or unable to do provide his/her share of the support.

(c) The regular faculty co-supervisor must not be within two years of normal retirement.

1.2. Regular faculty approaching retirement may solely supervise full-time graduate students whose initial registration occurs before the registration deadline in the Fall Term commencing two years prior to the end of the academic term in which the retirement date occurs. Such supervision is subject to rules and policies of the School of Graduate Studies and the Department. The following requirements must be met during this 2- year pre-retirement period:

M.Sc. students: Successful completion of all candidacy requirements except the thesis. If the retirement occurs before completion of the thesis, a regular faculty co-supervisor must be added before the beginning of the term in which the retirement occurs. Conditions 1.1.1, 1.1.2, and 1.1.3 apply. Transfer and direct-entry Ph.D. students: successful completion of the comprehensive exam; and acquisition of a regular faculty co-supervisor not later than the 6 weeks before the scheduled date of the comprehensive exam. It is expected that the new co-supervisor will sit on the comprehensive committee. The co-supervision must be genuine (1.1.1) and the regular faculty co-supervisor is expected to continue and, if necessary, provide sole financial support (1.1.2) when his/her colleague retires. The new co-supervisor must not be within two years of normal retirement (1.1.3).

1.3. Regular faculty approaching retirement may co-supervise full-time graduate students whose initial registration occurs after the registration deadline in the Fall Term commencing two years prior to the end of the academic term in which the retirement date occurs. Such co-supervision is subject to a) rules and policies of the School of Graduate Studies and the Department; b) availability of suitable research space for such students; c) participation of a regular faculty co-supervisor; and d) approval of a supervisory screening committee consisting of the Head and Associate Head(s) in consultation with the Graduate Studies Committee. The co-supervision must be genuine (1.1.1) and the regular faculty co-supervisor is expected to continue and, if necessary, provide sole financial support (1.1.2) when his/her colleague retires. The new co-supervisor must not be within two years of normal retirement (1.1.3).

2) Space Allocation

The space allocation policies for emeriti are shaped by the philosophy that the development of research programs of regular faculty, and young faculty in particular, has priority in the process of (re) allocating research space and by the reality that there is limited physical space. Space will be allocated in a manner consistent with the Department of Chemistry's "Principles for Space Allocation" (adopted by Space Management Committee in June 2003) and subject to the explicit policies below. Emeritus faculty will qualify for office space subject to final approval of the Head in consultation with the Associate Head(s) and based on a recommendation from the Space Management Committee, subject to the availability of space for these purposes.

2.1. Emeritus faculty who remain research active as supervisors of Chemistry research personnel (graduate students, postdocs, research associates) will qualify for one regular faculty office. Emeritus faculty not engaged in research or engaged in research but not in a supervisory capacity will qualify for shared space in the west rooms on floors 4 & 5 of the administrative wing.

2.2. Qualifying emeritus faculty will be assigned a pre-determined amount of research lab space subject to availability. The unit of space will be a bench/fumehood/desk combination, or equivalent, in levels 3-5 of the research wing plus a proportionate amount of space in a shared instrument room. Exceptions to the use of this unit may occur in some areas, e.g. physical chemistry, where the vast majority or all equipment is communal. For theoretical chemistry the unit of space is one desk/cubicle. The amount of space allocated will depend on various factors including actual supervision of personnel versus solo research, existing research funding and track-record of obtaining research funding, track-record of supervisory performance. Group size must be managed so as to fit into allocated space. The initial postretirement space allocation will routinely be reduced from the pre-retirement allocation, except in cases where the retiring faculty member has already sufficiently and demonstrably reduced his/her space needs in advance of retirement. Such emeritus space allocations will be reviewed not less frequently than every two (2) years and, as a result, may be adjusted. There will be advance written notification (from the Head) on space allocation:

Emeritus space allocations, will normally be set two years in advance of the beginning of the period in which the allocation is to take effect. For faculty approaching retirement, the immediate post-retirement allocation will normally be set three years in advance of the retirement.

Examples of grad supervision policy for emeritus faculty and faculty approaching retirement

Example 1: Prof. J. Doe's normal retirement date is June 30, 2007. The end of the term in which retirement date occurs is thus Aug. 31, 2007. Sole supervision by Prof. Doe is allowed if student X registers before Fall term registration deadline in 2005. If student X is qualified for direct transfer to the PHD and decides to attempt the Comprehensive Exam on May 15, 2007, then a qualifying regular faculty co-supervisor must be found by April 1, 2007 or sooner (6 week rule). If student X decides to complete the MSc and is not finished his/her thesis by Aug. 31, 2007, then a qualifying regular faculty co-supervisor must be found on or before Aug. 31, 2007. If another student (Y) wishes to be supervised by Prof. Doe and registers after the Fall term registration deadline in 2005, then student Y must have a qualifying regular faculty co-supervisor at the time of initial registration.

Example 2: Same as example 1, except Prof. Doe has a shared grant with a retired faculty member, Prof. Emeritus, and they co-supervise students who carry out this project. Prof. Doe qualifies as the regular faculty co-supervisor if student X registers before Fall term registration deadline in 2005. If another student (Y) wishes to be supervised by Profs. Doe & Emeritus and registers after the Fall term registration deadline in 2005, then student Y must have a qualifying regular faculty (third) co-supervisor at the time of initial registration.