Policies

(1) Supervisory Committee

A Supervisory Committee must be formed upon initial registration in the M.Sc. or Ph.D. 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 defense.

(2) Progress, Reports, Meetings

Students Meeting At The End Of Their First Year In The Program

A student must meet with the Supervisory Committee before or at the end of the third term following the student's initial registration in the M.Sc. or Ph.D. program so that the student's research progress status (satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory) is known before the registration date for the fourth term.

For the Supervisory Committee meeting, the student will prepare a progress report (maximum 3 pages + figures) and submit it to the Committee members and Chemistry Graduate Office at five working days prior to the meeting. The Supervisory Committee meeting will begin with a short (ca. 20 minute) oral presentation by the student, after which the report (written and oral) will be discussed. Copies of all progress reports will be placed in the student's file.

After the meeting, the Supervisory Committee must file a report with the Chemistry Graduate Office summarizing the student's research progress and plans for the future. Committee reports must be signed by all members of the Supervisory Committee and must conclude with a definite assessment of the student's research progress as Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory. The student will be provided with a copy of each Committee report at the time it is filed with the Chemistry Graduate Office.

Students Meeting In Subsequent Years In The Program

In each subsequent year in the program, students will prepare a progress report (maximum 3 pages + figures) and submit it to the Committee members and Chemistry Graduate Office, who will deem the progress as Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory. Within five working days of receiving the report, The Committee is to file a report with the Chemistry Graduate Office summarizing the student's research progress and plans for the future. Committee reports must be signed by all members of the Supervisory Committee and must conclude with a definitive assessment of the student's research progress as Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory. The student will be provided with a copy of each Committee report at the time it is filed with the Chemistry Graduate Office. It is the supervisor's responsibility to ensure that reports are filed on an annual basis.

In cases where the progress is deemed satisfactory, there is no requirement for the student to meet with the Committee. In cases where the student's progress is deemed marginal or unsatisfactory, a meeting must occur to fully assess the student's status. The format of the meetings is the same as that described above for students at the end of their first year in a program. Note that a meeting can be held at the request of the student, supervisor, or any committee member regardless of the student's program if they desire.

(3) Committee reports.  After each meeting and/or progress report, the Supervisory Committee must file a report with the Chemistry Graduate Office, summarizing the student's research progress and plans for the future.  Committee reports must be signed by all members of the supervisory committee and must conclude with a definitive assessment of the student's research progress as Satisfactory, Marginal or Unsatisfactory.  The student will be provided with a copy of each Committee report at the time it is filed with the Chemistry Graduate Office.

An assessment of Marginal is normally made in cases where the student's understanding of fundamental material related to his/her research is lacking OR where research progress has not been sufficient to complete the degree in the expected timeframe. The reason for an assessment of Marginal will be indicated on the Committee report. An assessment of Unsatisfactory is normally made in cases where the student's understanding of fundamental material related to his/her research is lacking AND where research progress has not been sufficient to complete the degree in the expected timeframe. The reasons for an assessment of Unsatisfactory will be stated clearly on the Committee report.

If the assessment of the student's progress is Marginal, the Coordinator of Graduate Studies will meet with the student within one week of filing the report to explain the implications of Marginal status. There will be two Supervisory Committee meetings in the four month period following a Marginal assessment: one after 2 months and the second after 4 months. Each meeting will follow the format described in Sec. 2. After that second meeting (at the 4 month point), the Supervisory Committee will provide an assessment of the student's progress as Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory. A re-assessment of marginal is not permitted. If an assessment of Unsatisfactory is made at the second meeting (at the 4 month point), the student will be asked to withdraw from the program.

If the assessment of the student's progress is Unsatisfactory, a follow-up meeting of the Supervisory Committee with the student will be called by the Coordinator of Graduate Studies within two weeks of receipt of the report.  During this meeting, which will be chaired by a member of the Graduate Committee, the Supervisory Committee will impose a four 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 terms and possible outcomes of this probationary period (vide infra) will be issued in writing by the Coordinator of Graduate Studies to the student, with copies to the Supervisory Committee and with a copy placed in the student’s file.  During the probationary period, the Supervisory Committee, will meet with the student on a regular basis. A Committee meeting will be held at the end of the four month probationary period. If the progress is deemed Satisfactory at this meeting, the student continues in the program as usual. If the progress is deemed Unsatisfactory at this meeting, the student will be asked to withdraw from the program. If the progress is deemed Marginal at this meeting, the student is given another two month probationary period during which the student is supposed to address his/her remaining deficiencies in research progress or understanding. A Committee meeting is held at the end of this second probationary period. The student's progress is deemed as Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory at this meeting. If the assessment is Satisfactory, the student continues in the program as usual. If the assessment is Unsatisfactory, the student will be asked to withdraw from the program.

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 (see Section 5).  It is the responsibility of the student to communicate to the Supervisory Committee any special circumstances that should be considered by the Supervisory Committee in reaching its recommendations

(4) Internal Appeal of Finding of Unsatisfactory Progress.

(a) Appeal Process: If the assessment of research progress remains Unsatisfactory at the end of the probationary period, the Coordinator of Graduate Studies will so inform the Head and provide the Head with a complete copy of the student’s graduate file.  After reviewing the student’s file in timely fashion, the Head shall then proceed in one of two ways.  If the Head supports the Supervisory Committee’s finding of Unsatisfactory progress, the Head will inform the student in writing that he/she may be asked to withdraw from the program.  The Head will also inform the student in writing of his/her right to a formal Departmental Appeal to be requested in writing within two weeks.  Alternatively, the Head may immediately appoint a Review Committee (vide infra) and refer the case to it.  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.

       Upon receiving a written request for a formal Departmental Appeal from the student, or on his/her own initiative, the Head will appoint a Review Committee consisting of three faculty members who are at arm’s length and the Coordinator of Graduate Studies acting as Chair.  If the Coordinator is not at arm’s length, a designated faculty member will act as Chair.  The Review Committee will report to the Head within two weeks on whether or not the previous decision of the Supervisory Committee should be upheld.  The Review Committee will interview the student and may interview the supervisor(s) and other members of the department in reaching its decision.  Upon receiving the advice of the Review Committee, the Head (or designate) will advise the student in writing on whether the recommendation for dismissal on the grounds of unsatisfactory research progress will be upheld and forwarded to the appropriate Division of the School of Graduate Studies & Research.  If the decision is upheld, the Head will notify the Chair of the Division in writing and inform the student in writing of his/her right to appeal the Division according to Sections 8.8c and 8.9 of the Regulations of the School of Graduate Studies and Research.

(b) Financial support during appeals process.  In the event that a student is asked to withdraw from the program, it is the responsibility of the supervisor(s) to ensure that the student continues to receive the guaranteed minimum stipend (provided that he/she is still eligible) until all channels of appeal or grievance have been exhausted.  According to Article 41 of the Queen's University Senate Statement on Grievance, Discipline and Related Matters:

“No sanction or penalty other than a reprimand or a warning may be put into effect until the person affected has either exhausted all channels of appeal or grievance, or has allowed the time for appeal to lapse. The university administration retains the power, where necessary, to relieve a staff member of his/her duties or to suspend a student from all or some of the student's courses or programs pending the outcome of his or her appeal, provided that any salary or other benefit shall continue.”

(5) Change of supervisor(s) due to breakdown of supervisory relationship.  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 (see Sections 3-4).  Termination of a supervisory relationship without mutual consent is highly undesirable for the student and the supervisor. Nevertheless such breakdowns, although rare, do occur from time to time.

(a)    Procedure for changing supervisor in event of breakdown of supervisory relationship. If the working relationship (or lack thereof) between student and supervisor(s) hinders satisfactory research progress, a request to change supervisor(s) may be made by the student in writing to the Coordinator of Graduate Studies.  In all cases, it is recommended that the student discuss any proposed change with members of his/her Supervisory Committee and with the Coordinator of Graduate Studies before a formal request for change is made. Submission of a change-in-supervisor request should be made in timely fashion and not delayed beyond the time required for the consultations mentioned immediately above. If necessary, the Coordinator and/or the Head will assist the student by facilitating the search for, and acquisition of, a new supervisor or co-supervisors.

(b)    Financial support during changeover to a new supervisor in event of breakdown of supervisory relationship.

i.            Cessation of supervisory relationship not associated with probationary periods, request to withdraw, or appeals

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

ii.           Cessation of supervisory relationship associated with probationary periods, request to withdraw, or appeals

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. As per Sec.(4), the supervisor is obligated to continue financial support during the request-to-withdraw period and during any associated appeals. In the event that a student 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.

(6)  Student grievance.  A student who is dissatisfied with his/her progress, and/or feels that the commitments made by the supervisor(s) are not being fulfilled, should call a meeting of the Supervisory Committee or meet individually with members of the Supervisory Committee to discuss the problem.  A student who is dissatisfied with a Supervisory Committee member should first discuss the situation with his/her supervisor.  If this process is unsatisfactory or inappropriate, the student should meet with the Coordinator of Graduate Studies who will recommend an appropriate course of action.  In some circumstances, a student may be advised to meet with a University grievance officer so that an official documentation of complaint(s) is recorded by an impartial party.

Graduate students enrolled in a Ph.D. program in Chemistry at Queen's University are required to pass a Comprehensive Examination as part of their degree program (General Regulations < Queen's University (queensu.ca), see Comprehensive/Qualifying Examination Requirement). In the Department of Chemistry, the Comprehensive Examination will be known as the Candidacy Exam.  This examination is aimed at assessing the student's research ability, academic appreciation of his or her field of research and his or her scholarly qualifications for the degree.

Graduate students enrolled in a M.Sc. program, normally 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 M.Sc. degree (see Doctoral Program under Academic Qualifications for Admission (b; promotion from a Masters's program to a doctoral program) of the Calendar).  One of the requirements for transferring from a M.Sc. program to a Ph.D. program in the Department of Chemistry is the successful completion of the Ph.D. Candidacy Examination.

1A.      Eligibility (Registered Ph.D. students)

All Ph.D. students must take the candidacy exam within 18 months of first registration in the program.  In order to attempt the exam, the candidate must first meet the following minimum criteria:

(a)   They must have completed a minimum of one research progress meeting with their Supervisory Committee. The student’s status, as assessed at the last meeting before applying for the Candidacy Exam must be “satisfactory” (”unsatisfactory” or “marginal” disqualifies a student for the candidacy exam).

1B.      Eligibility (Registered M.Sc. students wishing to transfer to the Ph.D. program)

All M.Sc. students who wish to transfer to the Ph.D. program must first attempt the candidacy exam.  In order to attempt the exam, the candidate must first meet the following minimum criteria:

(a)   They will normally have a first class overall average on at least 4 graduate modules or equivalent, plus CHEM 803 (Principles of Scientific Communication) with a majority of A's in these courses.

(b)   They must have completed a minimum of one research progress meeting with their Supervisory Committee. The student’s status, as assessed at the last meeting before applying for the Candidacy Exam must be “satisfactory” (”unsatisfactory” or “marginal” disqualifies a student for the candidacy exam).  In addition, the committee must certify that the student is exhibiting exceptional promise in their research.

(c)   They must have normally completed at least 16, but normally no more than 20, months of their M.Sc. program, from date of first registration.

2.         The Examining Committee

The examining committee will consist of four voting members and a Chair.  The four voting members shall consist of the student’s supervisor, one member of the student’s supervisory committee and two other chemistry faculty members suggested by the supervisor and approved by Graduate Coordinator.  The supervisor will also choose a chemistry faculty member to act as impartial Chair to be approved by the Graduate Coordinator.  The chair will have no vote.  In cases where 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 examining committee.  If the student has more than one supervisor, only one of the supervisors will be a member of the examining committee, while the other is permitted to attend the examination as an observer.  He or she will have no vote.

3.         Components of the exam

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

(a) 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 candidate’s research topic.  The intention is that this section will serve as a template for the Introduction of the candidate’s eventual Ph.D. 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 candidate’s research project and expected overall significance of the results. The written report should demonstrate the high quality scientific writing expected in a M.Sc. or Ph.D. thesis (see tips and checklist for writing Candidacy reports) (163 KB).

(b)  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 candidate feels to be most significant.

(c) The candidate will answer questions posed by the examiners at a formal candidacy examination (see section 4, below).  The examiners may ask questions which allow them to judge the candidate’s mastery of their thesis topic, to assess the candidate’s ability to undertake independent and original research, and to determine the comprehension of the candidate in chemistry in his or her research area.

 4.         Examination Procedure

(a)   The student shall initiate the examination procedure by having their supervisor complete the application form and submitting it to the Graduate Assistant at least five weeks prior to the requested oral examination date.  The Graduate Coordinator will confirm the student’s eligibility for the candidacy examination, approve the examining committee and have the Graduate Assistant schedule the oral examination for the date requested.

PhD Candidacy Examination Scheduling Form (174KB, PDF)

(b)   Two weeks before the scheduled date of the oral examination, the student shall submit copies of their written report to the examiners and the Chair.  Within 10 days after receiving the written report, the examiners shall indicate to the Chair whether they believe the written report is of sufficient quality for the oral portion of the candidacy examination to proceed by completing the evaluation form on the written report and returning it to the Graduate Assistant.  Should their opinion be negative, they must submit an explanation of their concerns.  If any two of the examiners recommend that the oral not proceed, the candidate, the supervisor and the Chair of Graduate Studies (or designate) should be consulted by the Chair of the Examining Committee to see if they wish to proceed with the oral defence. The onus is on the candidate to make the decision to proceed or not. If the candidate agrees that the oral be postponed, the Chair of the Examining Committee must convey to the candidate, through the supervisor, the nature of the revisions to the written report that are advised, and the candidate has the right to present the written report at an agreed upon later date, but normally within two weeks. At the subsequent submission of the written report, the oral defence must be held.

Students are reminded that plagiarism (see 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 may be found on the School of Graduate Studies web page Academic Integrity Policy.

Academic dishonesty: 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: 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.

(c)   The oral examination 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.

(d)   The candidate will then return to the room and the chair will outline the examination 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.

(e)   Following the second round of questioning, the candidate will be asked to leave the examination room.  The candidate, the examiners and the chair will be given a confidential assessment form on the conduct of the Candidacy Exam.  The candidate should fill out this form (in private), as will all the examiners and chair.  The examiners will then discuss and vote on the outcome of the examination.  The candidate will be informed of the exam outcome after the vote by the examiners and following receipt of his/her assessment form by the Chair.

5.         Mode of Assessment

The charge to the examining committee will be to judge the candidate’s mastery of their thesis topic, to assess the candidate’s ability to undertake independent and original research, to judge the ability of the candidate to defend their report, to determine the comprehension of the candidate in chemistry in his or her sub-discipline, and to recommend whether or not the candidate should be allowed to proceed on the Ph.D. 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 examination, 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 of the examining committee 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.  Discussion on the quality of the student’s examination performance will take place amongst the examiners.  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 shall record this determination on a grading sheet, and may also record their written assessment of any or all of the components of the examination.  Two or more votes to fail by any of the committee members will result in the student failing the candidacy examination.  The Chair will collect the assessments and announce the overall result – pass or fail. The Chair's notes, along with the grading sheets from each of the examiners, will be retained in the General Office for a period of twelve months after the examination.  A failure of the candidacy exam will result in the student being required to withdraw from the Ph.D. program or, if attempting transfer from the M.Sc. program, require them to continue in the M.Sc. program.

6.         Appeal of the Outcome of the Examination

(a)   If a student wishes to appeal the outcome of the candidacy examination on procedural and/or academic grounds, the appeal must be lodged formally with the Head of the Department (Section 8.8 of the Calendar), setting forth in writing the reasons why the student believes the academic decision is unjust. This should be done as early as possible after the decision is announced and, normally not more than ten working days thereafter.

(b)   If the matter has not been resolved by the Head, and the student continues to believe that the academic decision is unjust, a formal request may be lodged for a review of the appeal by the faculty members of the Graduate Committee, less any faculty members who were among the four examiners on the student's candidacy examination committee.

(c)   After reviewing the appeal, including interviewing the student and the members of the examination committee, the Graduate Committee may find that:

(i)   The decision is academically and procedurally sound.

(ii)  An error in procedure or academic judgement has been made. In this case the Graduate Committee will proceed to rectify the error.

(d)   If the Head and Graduate Committee find that the decision of the Candidacy Examination Committee was academically and procedurally sound, and recommend to the appropriate Division of the School of Graduate Studies that the student be required to withdraw, the student may appeal the recommendation for withdrawal by following the procedures outlined in Section 8.9(c) of the Graduate School Calendar.

(e)   The appeal may be based not on academic or procedural matters, but rather be based on a Grievance. In this case, the Head will recommend to the student that he or she directly address the Senate Statement on Grievance, Discipline and Related Matters and the University's Grievance and Appeal Procedures.

Seminar Committee - Chair: Graeme Howe

POLICY ON PhD DEPARTMENTAL SEMINARS

All PhD students must present a departmental seminar on their research work (15 minutes, plus 5 minutes questions).

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

All seminars will take place as part of the regular seminar program, 11:30 on Friday mornings throughout the fall and winter terms.   Three seminars will be scheduled in each slot.
Senior PhD students should contact the Coordinator, Graeme Howe by email to schedule seminar times.

Once approved by the Seminar Coordinator, it is the student's responsibility to contact the Office Assistant with seminar information (seminar title, abstract).  The student's seminar will be announced to faculty and graduate students and posted on the Chemistry Seminar Series web site.

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.