°ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â

The Department of Biology was formed July 01, 2003 through the merger of the former Departments of Plant Sciences and Zoology, and the Biology Graduate Program was officially launched in the fall of 2003. Prior to the merger, the Departments of Plant Sciences and Zoology collectively had a total of 86 graduate students. The formation of the Department of Biology and subsequent merger of two graduate programs has resulted in the re-invigoration of graduate studies in Biology at °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â as well as unprecedented growth. Indeed, since 2003 our graduate student population has grown to its present level of about 150, making the Biology Graduate Program the largest in the Faculty of Science. And, with continued growth in the department as a whole, there is likely to be even greater growth in graduate student numbers in the years to come.

Given that the Graduate Program in Biology was derived from a merger of two existing programs, it contains elements of both, as well as unique components. Due to its size, the program is divided into three general areas or streams that reflect the basic areas of research emphasis within the Department of Biology: Cell & Molecular Biology; Ecology & Evolution; and Physiology & Biochemistry. Students are required to identify with one of these streams, primarily as an administrative convenience for the program, but also as a way to provide smaller, more intimate groupings between graduate students. Each stream, for example, conducts its own student seminar series, and some streams have required courses for students enrolled in them.

Both M.Sc. and Ph.D. programs are thesis-based and successful completion of either program requires the writing and defending of an acceptable thesis. Additional program requirements include the writing and defense of a research proposal; presentation of and attendance at stream-specific graduate research seminars,the completion of graduate courses (see course requirements in Section 2C) and successful completion of a Qualifying Exam (Ph.D. Program only).

1) Registration deadlines:

• September 30 is the last date for Fall term registration without penalty.
• January 31 is the last date for Winter term registration without penalty.
• May 31 is the last date for Summer term registration without penalty.

2) Enrollment deadlines:

• September 15 is the last date for enrolling in full courses or Fall term half courses.
• January 15 is the last date for enrolling in Winter term half-courses.

3) In the first term of enrollment an Advisory Committee must be established. In accordance with Senate regulations, only may be involved in graduate student education (supervision, advisory committee member, exam chair, course instructor, etc.). Within the first six weeks of the first term of enrollment this committee must meet to discuss course requirements (the composition of the Advisory Committee can be changed later). In addition, there must be at least one Advisory Committee meeting each year (within the period of March 1 to February 28/29) to complete and sign the appropriate progress report form, which must be returned to the Graduate Program Coordinator, but a student can request an Advisory Committee meeting at any time and for any reason. All meetings of Advisory Committees must be recorded and in the student's file in the Graduate Program Coordinator’s office.

4) New graduate students should introduce themselves to the department office staff, to the Graduate Program Coordinators, and to the Biology Graduate Education Committee Chair. Students are welcome to discuss any problems they might be having in the Department with the chairperson of the Society of Biology Graduate Students (SOBGS), the graduate student representatives to the Graduate Education Committee or any other member of the Biology Graduate Education Committee.

5) Summary of Important Dates:

Important Dates for Biology Graduate Students

Program	Assessment	Qualifying Exam	Thesis Defense	Relevant Handbook Sections
M.Sc.	Within 2 terms of admission to M.Sc. program	N/A	Within 6 terms of admission to M.Sc. program	4, 6
Ph.D.	Within 4 terms of admission to Ph.D. program	Within 6 terms plus 1 month of admission to Ph.D. program	Within 12 terms of admission to Ph.D. program	4, 5, 6
Domestic M.Sc. transferring to Ph.D.	Within 5 terms less 1 month of admission to M.Sc. program	Within 4 terms plus 1 month of transfer to Ph.D. program	Within 15 terms of admission to M.Sc. program	2.D, 4, 5, 6

6) Students and supervisors should familiarize themselves with the graduate portion of the Biology website, including the availability of forms in PDF or electronic format that demarcate a student’s progress through the Biology Graduate Program. It is the student’s responsibility to bring the appropriate forms to committee meetings, assessment and qualifying exams, and the thesis defense. Timely completion of these forms is required for progression and to ensure continued eligibility for WGRS funding.

7) Thesis requirements and deadlines are set by the School of Graduate & Post-Doctoral Studies. A Guide is available at .

1) The supervisor should make and maintain a strong commitment to devote the required time and energy needed to successfully engage in graduate student supervision. As part of this commitment, the supervisor should display the highest ethical standards of behavior at all times.

2) Potential supervisors should have sufficient familiarity with the field of research to provide appropriate guidance and supervision, or indicate a willingness to gain that familiarity before agreeing to act as supervisor.

3) The supervisor should discuss with the student, very early on, any expectations and the relevant policies concerning authorship on publications, and issues surrounding ownership of intellectual property (this may include patents/licenses). This may result in written agreements or contracts between the supervisor and student covering these issues.

4) The supervisor should make the student aware, very early on, of program requirements and deadlines, various sources of funding, policies covering the conduct of research, and any relevant safety and/or work place regulations. The nature of any financial support provided by the supervisor should be communicated clearly to the student, in writing, including such details as the amount of financial support, the length of time of such support, and any specific conditions pertaining to this financial support.

5) The supervisor should, very early on, discuss and formulate with the student a plan of study for completion of degree requirements and thesis work, with clear milestones denoting progress. This would include, for example, assisting the student in selecting and planning a suitable and manageable research project, as well as setting a viable time schedule and adhering to it for thesis progress and completion.

6) The supervisor should be available for regular consultation with the student. The supervisor and student should discuss and agree on an appropriate schedule for supervision meetings, and the supervisor should provide constructive and timely feedback to the student. More generally, the supervisor should maintain open communication and feedback with the student on all issues, including supervisory practices.

7) The supervisor should provide regular evaluations and assessments of the student’s progress and academic performance. This would include a review with the student and advisory committee, at least on an annual basis, of progress on thesis research and any other relevant degree requirements. The supervisor should then provide input to the program regarding the student’s progress.

8) The supervisor should make reasonable arrangements to ensure that adequate and appropriate research resources are available for the student’s thesis project.

9) The supervisor should help ensure that the research environment is safe, healthy, free from harassment, discrimination, and conflict. To this end, the supervisor should be aware of all pertinent regulations and policies covering these issues.

10) The supervisor should provide guidance, instruction, and encouragement regarding the research activities of student. The supervisor should help ensure that the student has access to intellectual resources and research opportunities, and should also encourage the dissemination of research results by publications and conferences.

11) The supervisor should monitor any major discrepancies in advice given to the student by members of the advisory committee and/or supervisor, and attempt to achieve resolution and consensus on the issue(s) involved.

12) The supervisor should be familiar with all program, School of Graduate & Post-Doctoral Studies, and University policies and procedures pertaining to graduate students and supervision, along with information on graduate student financial support.

13) The supervisor should make satisfactory alternative supervisory arrangements if away for a prolonged period of time.

14) The supervisor should inform the program (i.e., graduate chair or chair), in a timely fashion, of any serious difficulties which may arise in supervision. These might include major professional academic disagreements, interpersonal conflicts, or potential conflict of interest situations.

There are three types of co-supervision: (1) co-supervision in which the co-supervisor is also a collaborator on the student’s project (i.e. joint supervision); (2) co-supervision between a new faculty member who holds limited membership in the School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (SGPS) and a more senior member of the department who holds full SGPS membership (i.e. mentoring co-supervision); and (3) co-supervision between an adjunct or cross-appointed faculty member and a faculty member of the department who holds full membership. All adjunct or cross-appointed faculty wishing to supervise graduate students in Biology must do so with a co-supervisor who is a regular faculty member in the Department.

A co-supervisor has the same responsibilities as a regular supervisor with respect to all aspects of graduate student mentoring and progression, with two main differences (compared to “normal” supervision). First, the co-supervisor is not generally involved in day-to-day decision making with respect to data collection, experimental design/trouble shooting or laboratory/research group management in the lab group in which the student is primarily working. (Obviously there are degrees to which this applies, depending on whether a student's project involves work in more than one research group, including that of the co-supervisor.) Second, the co-supervisor generally does not have financial responsibility for the student's stipend.

The co-supervisor is meant, in part, to act as an overseer of student progression, making sure that committee meetings are being held regularly, proposal assessments and comprehensive exams (where applicable) are completed on time and, when necessary, provide guidance/wisdom regarding the appropriateness of student projects and theses (e.g., with respect to their level of difficulty, completeness or suitability for the target degree). Co-supervisors must be aware of and uphold the rules and regulations of the Biology Graduate Program, especially where they act in this capacity alongside adjunct colleagues who do not hold regular membership in the Department and are not involved in decision making with respect to the Graduate Program.

Finally, co-supervisors and named supervisors are not substitute supervisors. They do not represent one of two options for attendees at committee meetings, proposal assessments, comprehensive exams or thesis exams. The co-supervisor, alongside the named supervisor, shall be present for all these important milestones.

Progression through the requirements of the Graduate Program in Biology is evaluated annually via advisory committee meetings, as well as through a proposal assessment, qualifying exam (Ph.D. only) and thesis. Each of these milestones provides an opportunity for the evaluation of the suitability of candidates for the program as well as the likelihood of their successful completion of all program requirements. To assist you in determining the timeline of your program, please use the Progression Calculator for Program Completion.

Successful completion of the Graduate Program in Biology requires that students complete all requirements satisfactorily. The consequences of poor performance in proposal assessments and comprehensive exams are outlined below (Section 4 and 5 respectively). However, continuance in the program also requires satisfactory progress in research as well as a demonstrated familiarity with the subject of the research. These two criteria are evaluated by the Advisory Committee via annual committee meetings (see Section 2.A.3 above).

When, as outcome of an Advisory Committee meeting, student progress is evaluated to be “Unsatisfactory”, the student is expected to make improvements (with appropriate guidance from their supervisor(s) and advisors), as demonstrated in a follow up meeting held no later than the end of the term following the term in which the “Unsatisfactory” evaluation is made. A second evaluation of “Unsatisfactory” may result in the student being withdrawn from the program.

The Advisory Committee may recommend or require that additional courses be taken if they feel that the student lacks the required background for the student's research area. Some streams within the program have core (required) courses. Students may choose graduate courses offered by departments other than Biology, provided they are related to their field of study and provided that their supervisor(s) and advisors formally approve this request. Workshops, while encouraged as a means of enhancing graduate student learning, cannot be substituted for graduate courses. A list of graduate courses, including course outlines, is posted on the Biology Graduate Program website.

Students must maintain a cumulative average of at least 70% calculated each term over all courses taken for credit, with no grade less than 60% to remain enrolled in the graduate program.

To transfer from the MSc to the PhD program, the student must fulfill the following criteria:

• Passed MSc proposal assessment within two terms of enrollment in MSc program.
• Demonstrated sufficient progress at their first year advisory committee meeting (note: neither the initial meet-and-greet nor the MSc-PhD transfer advisory committee meetings count for this requirement).
• Completed at least one graduate course and received a grade ≥80% in all graduate courses completed.

If a student, in consultation with their supervisor, wishes to transfer from the MSc to the PhD program, they must:

1. Hold an advisory committee meeting in which they outline their MSc progress, their reasons for wishing to roll up, and a (rough) outline of what they intend to do in their PhD. The advisory committee will indicate their approval or disapproval in a specific form.
2. Submit an application form to BGEC, outlining their performance thus far in the MSc program.
3. Solicit a letter of reference from the supervisor (the principal supervisor when the student is co-supervised).

At least three members of BGEC will assess the completed application within two weeks of receipt and determine if the student meets the criteria to undertake the MSc-PhD transfer assessment. If approved, the student will arrange a PhD thesis proposal (see section 4.B, below). This assessment will place emphasis on ensuring that the student’s research productivity, aptitude, and engagement with the program are consistent with the expectations of students entering the Ph.D. program.

The advisory committee meeting to obtain approval for a change of status from the MSc program to the PhD program must be completed within four terms of the date of admission to the MSc program. The proposal assessment must be completed within five terms less one month of the date of admission to the MSc program, and the proposal must be submitted two weeks prior to the defense date. Thus, the applications for the MSc to PhD transfer must be submitted no less than Five terms less two months after admission to the MSc program (i.e. if you began in Fall 2018, you would need to obtain advisory committee approval by December 31, 2019, and submit your complete application by February 28, 2020). If the application is not received within time, or the assessment is not completed within time, the student must complete the M.Sc. program before applying for admission to the Ph.D. program.

Appeals:

If permission to transfer from the M.Sc. to the Ph.D. program is not granted, the BGEC chair (or designate) will meet with the student and supervisor(s) within one week to review the application and discuss the reasons for denial of the transfer. If the BGEC chair (or designate) is convinced that there may be grounds to admit the student to the PhD program that were not fully considered in the application review, he or she will convene an ad hoc committee consisting of one BGEC member who reviewed the application, one who did not, and the BGEC chair (or designate). They will meet to review the file, and their decision will be final.

Graduate students must maintain continuous registration in the School of Graduate & Post-Doctoral Studies, either full-time or part-time, in each successive term from initial registration until the end of the term in which all requirements for the degree are completed.

Term-activation is automatic for ALL students each and every term, even if the student is beyond their normal fundable period. Full Time Registration will continue with both full time tuition and ancillary fees charged unless the students submits an official request for a change of status and receives departmental and SGPS approval.

To apply for a leave of absence, request part time status or voluntarily withdraw from the program, the request must be submitted through the Graduate Student Web Services Portal found at the following link:

To apply for Thesis Defense Only status, the following form must be submitted to SGPS and the thesis must be uploaded as per the noted thesis submission deadline:

Information on changes of status can be found on the following website:

Normally, degree programs are completed within a period not exceeding two calendar years (six terms) from initial registration in the case of the Master’s degree (if registered full-time), and four calendar years (12 terms) from initial registration in the case of a Doctoral degree (if registered full-time). For students who transfer from a Master's program to a Doctoral program without completing the Master's program, a maximum of five calendar years (15 terms) from the initial registration in the Master's program will be given to complete the Doctoral degree (if registered full-time).

For graduate students who do not receive sufficient external funding (e.g. NSERC, OGS or other major external scholarships) the Department and the Supervisor undertake to provide financial support throughout the period of funding eligibility. This corresponds to 2 years (six terms) for M.Sc. candidates, 4 years (12 terms) for Ph.D. candidates, and 5 years (15 terms) for students that transfer from the M.Sc. to the Ph.D. program. Part of this support is provided in the form of a Graduate Teaching Assistantship. Such Teaching Assistantships are typically held during the fall and winter terms, although a few summer Assistantships are available each year. Students who maintain a minimum mark average of 70% (or as dictated by the SGPS), are eligible for a °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â Graduate Research Scholarship. Finally, students are provided with financial support during the 4 month summer term. Normally, the supervisor provides this from research funds, unless the student is receiving an external award for the term. Eligibility for funding beyond the outlined timelines for each degree is not guaranteed.

Students who require longer than the maximum registration time to complete their degree program (see Section 2.E above) do so without a guarantee of financial support from the department or their supervisor. All students must have a final committee meeting early in their final fundable term. The committee meeting report must indicate that the student is making satisfactory progress and provide a detailed timeline for completion (the latter should be done using the year x timeline form to ensure that all necessary details are provided). A separate letter of support must be provided by the supervisor that includes details of the expected financial support, if any, for the student during the period of extension.

Year x students who are not likely to finish within the timeline noted in their final committee meeting must then hold a year x progression committee meeting and submit the appropriate form along with another year x progression timeline. Year x progression meetings should take place if the previous timeline is not going to be met and at the very minimum annually. We encourage students to meet more frequently to help keep them on time and in communication with their advisory committee.

An appeal is a request for exemption from a Departmental or Senate regulation on compassionate or medical grounds or because of extenuating circumstances; or a request that a grade on a particular piece of work or a final standing in a course or program be changed.

Conflicts should be resolved at the lowest level possible. For graduate students, the successive levels for an appeal are:

• Course Instructor (if applicable)
• Graduate Chair
• Provost of the School of Graduate & Post-Doctoral Studies
• Senate Review Board Academic (SRBA)

Appeals relating to a specific course (e.g., against a mark, grade, appropriateness of assignments or examinations, or grading practices) must be initiated with the appropriate course instructor.

Appeals on other matters should be initiated in the office having immediate jurisdiction on the particular requirement or regulation in question. Students in doubt as to the appropriate level at which appeals should be initiated should consult the Departmental Graduate Chair.

The initial step of the appeals procedure should be completed as soon as possible but no later than six weeks from the date of action of the decision giving rise to the appeal. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the student to initiate an appeal at the earliest possible opportunity and for the university officer concerned to act upon the request as expeditiously as possible.

Legal counsel is not permitted below the level of the SRBA. However, the appellant does have the right to be accompanied by a colleague.

In the case of an appeal relating to a specific course:

1) A resolution of the problem should first be attempted through informal consultation with the instructor. If the instructor will not meet, or will not be physically available within a reasonable time period, the appeal may be forwarded directly to the Graduate Chair.

2) If the student is dissatisfied with the decision made by the instructor, a written statement of appeal may be made to the Graduate Chair within four weeks of the date of the previous decision. If the Graduate Chair was directly involved in the course decision, or declares a conflict of interest, then the Graduate Chair will designate one faculty member of BGEC (typically the Vice Chair) with no conflict of interest to rule on the appeal. The written request should include the following:

• the matter being appealed
• the grounds of appeal
• a clear and detailed explanation of the facts supporting the grounds of appeal
• all supporting documentation
• the desired outcome or remedy

In considering an appeal, the Chair (or designate) will review the materials submitted by the student and the program and may obtain such further information as the deemed relevant to the appeal. The Chair (or designate) will give the student a reasonable opportunity to meet with her or him and may meet with such other individuals as she or he deems necessary.

The Chair (or designate) will issue a written decision, with reasons, normally within four weeks of receipt of the appeal.

A student may have a further right of appeal to SGPS within three weeks of issuance of the Biology appeal decision. While an appeal is being considered by SGPS the Biology decision remains in full force. More information on appeals can be found here: .

3) Following an appeal to the Graduate Chair, the student, if not satisfied with the decision of the committee, may then appeal to the Provost of the School of Graduate & Post-Doctoral Studies. (See School of Graduate & Post-Doctoral Studies, General Information, Section I, Petitions and Appeals.)

The student must initiate the appeal in writing by contacting the Graduate Chair within four weeks of ruling under appeal. If the Graduate Chair was involved in the ruling, or declares any other conflict of interest, then the Graduate Chair will designate one faculty member of BGEC (typically the Vice Chair) with no conflict of interest to rule on the appeal. The written request should include the following:

• the matter being appealed
• the grounds of appeal
• a clear and detailed explanation of the facts supporting the grounds of appeal
• all supporting documentation
• the desired outcome or remedy

In considering an appeal, the Chair (or delegate) will review the materials submitted by the student, consult with at least one BGEC representative in the stream relevant to the proposal/exam/meeting, and may obtain such further information as the deemed relevant to the appeal. The Chair (or designate) will give the student a reasonable opportunity to meet with her or him and may meet with such other individuals as she or he deems necessary.

The Chair (or designate) will issue a written decision, with reasons, normally within four weeks of receipt of the appeal.

A student may have a further right of appeal to SGPS within three weeks of issuance of the Biology decision. While an appeal is being considered by SGPS the Biology decision remains in full force. More information on appeals to SGPS can be found here: .

The synopsis below outlines the similarities and differences in the research requirements for M.Sc. and Ph.D. students.

 

The M.Sc. proposal has a maximum length of 8 pages, double-spaced, excluding figures and references. Up to two pages of Figures/Tables may be appended. Additional pages (no limit) for references may be appended. The proposal should be prepared using 12 point font and a minimum of one-inch (2.54 cm) margins.

The written proposal should contain:

• The scientific background of the study.
• Clear and well-expounded question(s) to be addressed (i.e., the hypothesis to be tested).
• The methods to be used for collecting and/or analyzing data and an explanation of how these methods meet the objectives, test the hypothesis(es), or answer the research question posed, as appropriate.
• The methodology to be used for collecting and/or analyzing data.
• Preliminary results if they exist.
• A time-line for the completion of the data collection/data analysis or the experiments.
• A summary of the research proposal.

The order of presentation of these elements and the emphasis placed on these elements is dictated by the topic to be studied.

NOTE: Unless otherwise stated, all text is to be double-spaced, 12 pt font (ideally Times New Roman or equivalent), with one-inch (2.54 cm) margins all-round. Number pages consecutively. Submit the proposal as a single .pdf file.

The PhD proposal has the following components:

1. Cover page with the name of the student, the degree, the title of the project, and the supervisor and any co/joint supervisors identified.

2. Lay abstract

• 200 word summary of the proposed work aimed at a lay audience (aim for Grade 8-10 reading level).

3. Proposal

• 10 pages, double-spaced, 12-pt font, minimum of one-inch (2.54 cm) margins.
• Should (1) summarize the intellectual background of the work and the pertinent literature, (2) formulate clear objectives and/or hypotheses, (3) describe the research plan, methods, and proposed analyses, (4) detail the work completed to date, (5) explain the significance of the potential findings.
• Up to an additional three pages for figures and tables that support the proposal.
  1. 1. For both figures and tables, all text should be an appropriate size (no smaller than 10 pt), and the figures should be clear and of high quality for both screen viewing and printing.
• Additional pages (no limit) for references, which should include the authors, full titles, and appropriate bibliographic information.
  1. 1. This should be single-spaced 12 pt font.
        • It is not appropriate to include anything other than references (e.g. footnotes) in these pages.

4. Budget and Budget Justification

• One-page Budget plus one-page Budget Justification.
• This is an important part of the proposal, as it helps to demonstrate the feasibility of your project.
• Budget for all years of your PhD (including those completed), using the following headings:
  1. 1. Personnel
        • The current summer stipend payable by the supervisor is $6200, increasing to $6500 in 2017/18 and $7000 in 2019/19. The rest of the stipend is made up from institutional support and Teaching Assistantships.
        • Also include any field assistants or technicians that will be hired (not work study) to directly support your work.
     2. Equipment purchase or rental
     3. Consumables, supplies, and reagents
     4. User or facility fees
     5. Research travel/Fieldwork
     6. Conference travel
     7. Dissemination costs
        • The budget justification should provide a narrative for the budget, explaining how values were arrived at.
  5. Timeline
  • One page, showing how you plan to complete the proposed work, meet milestone requirements, and complete your PhD thesis within the fundable period. The most useful timelines will be in tabular or graphical form, rather than text-only.
  NOTE: Unless otherwise stated, all text is to be double-spaced, 12 pt font (ideally Times New Roman or equivalent), with one-inch (2.54 cm) margins all-round. Number pages consecutively. Submit the proposal as a single .pdf file.

Deadlines for completing the proposal assessment are listed in Important Information and Dates. Extensions beyond these deadlines must be approved by the Graduate Chair and normally require medical, compassionate or other severe extenuating grounds. Failure to complete the proposal assessment by the deadline will result in an automatic Failure of the assessment. In this case, if you fail the written proposal or the assessment, you will be deemed to have failed the proposal and be required to withdraw from the program.

Early in the student’s second term (M.Sc.) or fourth term (Ph.D.), the Supervisor and/or Graduate Student suggest to the Graduate Program Coordinator the names of three faculty members who have agreed to serve as assessment examiners (Assessors). This suggested committee must be provided to the Graduate Program Coordinator no later than three weeks before the scheduled assessment for approval.

For both M.Sc. and Ph.D. assessments, Assessors include three faculty members, two from within the student’s stream and one from outside the student’s stream (i.e. belonging to a different stream or from outside of Biology). Up to one Assessor may be a non-regular or joint-appointed faculty member of the Department of Biology (e.g. Adjunct, cross-appointed, or a faculty member from outside of Biology). Up to two Assessors may be chosen from the student’s advisory committee, provided the stream composition and regular or joint-appointed faculty requirements are satisfied. A list of faculty affiliated with each of the graduate streams can be found in the Faculty Affiliations page. Please consult the section in the Biology Graduate Program Faculty Handbook "Some General Rules" starting at the third major bullet point to ensure examination committee members are not in conflict of interest.

Once the proposed Assessment Committee has been approved, the student coordinates a date and time for the Assessment Exam, through consulting with all three Assessors as well as the Supervisor(s). The student reserves a suitable room and any required audio-visual equipment, then informs the Graduate Program Coordinator of the date, time and location of the Assessment. The Graduate Program Coordinator appoints an Assessment Chair based on availability at the specified time, with the goal of equal participation of all eligible faculty within the department.

Note: All Assessors and Supervisor(s) must be physically present at the assessment. In extreme circumstances, however, an Assessor may participate remotely via conference call, Skype, or similar. This arrangement must be agreed to in advance by all participants, and approved by the Graduate Chair, at the time of scheduling.

Students must submit their proposal to the Graduate Program Coordinator at least two weeks prior to the scheduled Proposal Assessment, for distribution to the Assessment Committee. Proposals must be submitted in electronic format (a single PDF). Concurrently, submit a copy of the signed by the supervisor(s) (or have them email the Graduate Program Coordinator asserting their approval). Late submissions (i.e. less than two weeks prior to the scheduled Assessment) will result in a rescheduling of the Assessment, and possibly failure of the assessment (Section 4.F).

The Graduate Chair or Graduate Coordinator will submit the proposal to turnitin.com to check for plagiarism. The proposal will not be added to the turnitin.com depository. Use of the service is subject to the licensing agreement, currently between The University of °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â Ontario and Turnitin.com ( ). The BGEC chair or designate will be responsible for checking the results of the turnitin.com plagiarism test. If plagiarism is detected, the proposal assessment will be postponed and the alleged plagiarism handled as a scholastic offense according to SGPS regulations .

In tandem with writing the proposal, the student prepares a 15-20 minute presentation describing the background of their project, a clear description of the hypothesis being tested, the experiments or methods to be used to address the hypothesis, and any preliminary data.

Each Assessor will independently read and evaluate the written proposal, and return the ‘Proposal Assessment – Written Proposal’ form to the Graduate Program Coordinator at least three days prior to the scheduled assessment date. The assessors will each determine whether the proposal content and form meet the standards of the degree, according to Table 4.1. The overall pathway of the assessment procedure is in Figure 4.1 in Section 4.F.

Graduate thesis proposal assessment

Table 4.1: Criteria by which written proposals will be assessed

PASS

The proposed work is feasible, sufficient for the degree, has appropriate context within the biological sciences, has a sufficient detail in the methods and experimental design, and is adequately written for a student pursuing this degree.

FAIL: The proposal is inadequate for the standards of the degree

One or more of the following should lead to a recommendation of ‘Fail’: The objectives or hypotheses are unclear, insufficiently stated, flawed, or absent, such that the purpose, scope, or context of the proposed work cannot be adequately assessed The proposed work will not be feasible within the scope of the normal time period for the degree. The proposed work will not be sufficient for the expectations of the degree. The proposal inadequately describes the methods or background, or the overall framework or experimental design is insufficient for the level of the degree. The level of writing, clarity, and coherence is inadequate for a student pursuing this degree.

Any identification of plagiarism will be immediately reported to the Graduate Chair who will begin an investigation. The scheduled assessment will be postponed until that investigation is completed; if the conclusion of the investigation is that the student has not committed plagiarism, the rescheduled assessment will count as the student’s first. If plagiarism has occurred, then the student will be deemed to have failed the proposal assessment, and may be subject to further penalty under the University’s .

If a majority of the assessors deem the proposal to have failed, the Graduate Program Coordinator will inform the Student, the Assessment committee, the Chair, the Supervisor(s) and the Graduate Chair by email, and the scheduled proposal assessment will be cancelled. The Student (and Supervisor(s), if they so wish) will arrange meetings with the Assessors (perhaps during the time already set aside for the assessment) to receive feedback on the aspects of the proposal that were inadequate. The student will then, with the assistance of the Supervisor(s), revise the written proposal to meet the required standards, and arrange another proposal assessment (see above) to take place no later than the end of the following term. In advance of this second proposal assessment, the Assessors will fill out the ‘Proposal Assessment – Written Proposal’ form, and a failed proposal will be treated as a failed second proposal attempt, the proposal assessment will not go ahead, and the student will be required to withdraw from the program, pending any appeal (see below).

If the inadequate proposal was submitted for an MSc-PhD transfer, then the assessment is cancelled, and although the student may choose to meet with the assessors (particularly if they plan to appeal the decision), the student remains in the MSc program.

1) The Graduate Student arrives at the room or logs into the virtual meeting, shortly before the appointed time to set up for his/her oral presentation.

2) The Graduate Program Coordinator will provide the committee with the Oral Presentation and Assessment - Assessor Report and Chair Report form froms in advance. The Graduate Program Coordinator will already have tallied the results of the Proposal assessment – Written proposal forms and provided those results to the Chair by e-mail.

The Chair, Supervisor(s) and all Assessors shall arrive/log on promptly at or before the appointed time. The Chair will make any necessary introductions.

3) The Chair shall request that the student leave the examination room. The Chair shall inform the Assessment Committee of the potential outcomes. If the examination constitutes the second assessment because of a previously failed assessment or failed written proposal, a failed assessment can require the student to withdraw from the program.

4) The Chair shall discuss the assessment process with the Assessors, if necessary, and distribute the ‘Proposal Assessment – Oral Presentation and Assessment’ forms. The Chair will then ask the Assessors how many rounds of questions they wish to ask (usually two), the time for each examiner per round of questions (usually 15 minutes in the first round and 10 in the second), and the order of questioning.

5) The Chair will invite the Graduate Student back into the room and ask the Graduate Student to give his/her presentation. The presentation should be about 15 minutes long, but no longer than 20 minutes. The Chair shall keep the Graduate Student within his/her time for the presentation.

Figure 4.1. Overview of the proposal assessment process:

6) Following the presentation, the Chair will invite the Graduate Student to sit down and will inform the Graduate Student of the number of rounds of questions, the time for each round, and the order in which the Assessors will be asking questions.

7) The Chair will ask the first Assessor to begin asking questions. The Chair shall time the question sessions and shall keep the Assessors to their allotted time. At no time during the questioning should the Supervisor(s) intervene. Similarly, no questions should be directed to the Supervisor(s).

8) Between the first and second rounds of questions, the Chair will offer the Graduate Student and Assessors a brief recess and allow a suitable time if a recess is required (generally 5-10 minutes).

9) At the end of the final round of questions, the Chair will ask the Graduate Student to leave the examination room.

10) The Chair will invite the Supervisor(s) to comment on the Graduate Student, their proposal and performance in the assessment exam. Chair: This is the only point at which the supervisor may engage in the discussion unless asked to address a specific question that arises during the subsequent discussion by the Assessors.

11) The Chair invites the Assessors to comment on the student’s proposal and performance. This shall include discussion of the written proposal, both form and content, the oral presentation, and the oral defense. Chair: This is the appropriate time to inform the assessors if the outcome of the ‘Proposal Assessment – Written Proposal’ forms submitted by the assessors indicate minor revisions, and to initiate a discussion about the requirements for revision. Note that if the assessors indicated that the proposal was acceptable at the written stage, they cannot now require minor revisions based on the oral assessment.

12) The Assessors shall each privately record their evaluation of the proposal presentation and the student’s performance in the assessment on the ‘Proposal Assessment – Oral Presentation and Assessment’ form (see Table 4.2), and return this to the Chair. The Chair will tally and transfer the results of these forms to the Chair Report form. If a majority of the assessors deem the proposal to have failed, for any reason, it will constitute a failed proposal. It is inappropriate to base this decision wholly on the basis of the written proposal, since that has previously been assessed.

13) The Chair shall enter this outcome on the Chair Report Form and inform the Assessors and Supervisor of the result. The Chair will record any comments or remarks of the committee in the appropriate place on the form, especially if the committee members have required minor revisions. In the latter case, the Assessors will also identify who among them will oversee the revised version of the proposal, and this name will be recorded on the Chair Report form. In the case of a failed proposal, the remarks section should clearly indicate the reasons for the outcome, and what the Graduate Student must do to suitably revise his/her proposal and/or improve her/his understanding of the proposed research.

14) The Chair shall invite the Graduate Student back into the room and inform him/her of the committee's decision and any subsequent procedures (e.g. necessary revisions and deadlines) associated with this outcome.

15) The Chair shall ensure that all concerned sign the Chair Report form.

16) The Chair shall return the Chair report form and the Graduate Student's file to the Graduate Program Coordinator. The Graduate Program coordinator shall arrange for a copy of the form to be circulated to the Supervisor(s) and Graduate Student.

Proposal Assessment Examination

Table 4.2: Criteria for the proposal assessment examination

PASS

The presentation adequately described the work, reflected the contents of the written proposal, and met quality standards appropriate to the degree level. I am satisfied that there are no fatal intellectual or practical flaws in the proposed work, and that the student demonstrated adequate knowledge and understanding of the background, context, methods, and design of the proposed work.

FAIL

The student’s performance in the oral assessment was inadequate for the standards of the degree. One or more of the following should lead to a recommendation of ‘Fail’: The work proposed in the presentation and oral assessment differed substantially in content, scope, objectives, hypotheses or design from that in the written proposal, such that the written proposal was not actually defended here The presentation inadequately described the work, and/or failed to meet quality standards appropriate to the degree level There are fatal intellectual or practical flaws in the proposed work, including in the written proposal, revealed by the presentation or discussion The student failed to answer the majority of the questions to an adequate level, or could not answer key questions highly pertinent to the thesis topic The student failed to display adequate knowledge and understanding of the background and context of their work The student did not display adequate knowledge of the methods and design of their proposed work.

There are four potential outcomes of the Proposal Assessment (): (i) Assessment passed; (ii) Assessment passed, Revised proposal required within two weeks of assessment date; (iii) Assessment failed; New proposal must be submitted and assessed by end of following term; (iv) Assessment failed (Second attempt); Graduate Student required to withdraw from the program.

1. 1. Assessment passed. Both the written proposal and the presentation and assessment are found to be adequate by a two-thirds majority, and the assessors do not require corrections to typographical, formatting and/or grammatical errors.
   2. Assessment passed; Revised proposal required within two weeks of assessment date. The content and form (major) of the written proposal, as well as the presentation and assessment are both found to be adequate by a two-thirds majority. However, the minor aspects of form (typographical, formatting and grammar) are inadequate. All of the assessors contribute to providing appropriate feedback and recommendations, on copies of the proposal and/or in the comments section of the form. One of the assessors is appointed to oversee these revisions, and their name is recorded on the Chair Report form. The Graduate Student then meets with that assessor, and [in consultation with the Supervisor(s)] makes appropriate changes to the proposal, and submits it electronically to the designated assessor (with a copy to the Graduate Program Coordinator) within two weeks of the assessment date (reflecting the minor nature of the changes required). If the assessor deems the changes adequate, they inform the Graduate Program Coordinator and the Graduate Student by email, and the proposal assessment is recorded as Passed. If the assessor deems the changes inadequate, then they must, with in one week, provide by email a copy of the revised proposal and an assessment of the revised proposal, including a justification for why it remains inadequate, to the other two assessors and the Graduate Program Coordinator. The other two assessors then individually inform the Graduate program Coordinator whether they agree with the assessment or not. The votes will be tallied as a two-thirds majority: if the assessors agree that it is inadequate, the assessment is failed; if they disagree, and feel it is adequate, the proposal is passed. Note that if this is the second assessment, a failed proposal at this stage will require the Graduate Student to withdraw from the program.
   3. Assessment failed; New proposal must be submitted and assessed by end of following term. If this is the first assessment, but the assessors deem (by two-thirds majority) that the presentation and/or the assessment are inadequate, the proposal is failed. The Graduate Student is required to arrange for a second assessment examination (with the same committee) by the end of the following term. The Graduate Student shall revise the written proposal (particularly the content) in light of the discussion and feedback at the assessment, in particular any major issues noted on the Chair Report form. The deadlines for submission of the revised written proposal and the assessment remain the same. Note that in exceptional circumstances (e.g. leave, sabbatical, etc.), an assessor may be unavailable for the re-assessment and may be replaced at the discretion of the graduate chair.
   4. Assessment failed (Second attempt); Graduate Student required to withdraw from the program. If this is the second attempt, because the Graduate student has previously missed the deadline for the first proposal assessment, failed at the written proposal stage, or failed a previous proposal assessment, then failure of the written proposal (content or form, major), or the presentation/assessment will constitute failure of the milestone. The Graduate Student will be required to withdraw from the program.

Successful completion of the Proposal Assessment is a requirement for remaining in the Biology graduate program.

NOTE: When working with fillable forms, download the pdf file to your computer, fill it in and save it. Check to see if the form is complete and then send it.  DO NOT fill in the forms within your web browser as the results may not be saved.

There are three potential outcomes of the Proposal Assessment (): (i) Assessment passed, (ii) Assessment passed, Revised proposal required within two weeks of assessment date; and (iii) Assessment failed.

1. 1. Assessment passed. Recommendation for admission to PhD program: This is equivalent to Passed (Section 4.G.i above): the student is permitted to change status from the M.Sc. to the Ph.D. program.
   2. Assessment passed; Revised proposal required within two weeks of assessment date.: The Graduate Student is considered to have passed the assessment and will be permitted to change status from the M.Sc. to the Ph.D program, provided that an acceptable modified proposal is submitted within two weeks of the assessment date. Procedures are identical to those described in Section 4.G.b, above.
   3. Assessment failed. Student will remain in the MSc program: The factors taken into account in arriving at this outcome are equivalent to those in Section 4.G.iii above. However, there is no option to be re-examined for change of status. (Note also that a failed written proposal ends the MSc-PhD transfer process prior to the assessment exam). In this case, the Graduate Student continues in the M.Sc. program completing his/her research and thesis for examination. Note that this outcome does not preclude subsequently applying for entry to the Biology Ph.D. program. If the Graduate Student wishes to pursue a Ph.D. degree, he/she may apply for admission to the Ph.D. program, and may be admitted as a Ph.D. student after completion of the M.Sc. degree.

If a written proposal is deemed to have failed, and the Graduate Student and/or Supervisor(s) feel (after meeting with the assessors) that the decision is unfair, they may appeal the decision in writing (see Figure. 4.2 for an overview of the process). This process will be conducted by the Graduate Chair, or a designate from BGEC (or the Department Chair, or another Associate Chair in the Department) in the case of a conflict of interest.

1. They must appeal, in writing, to the Graduate Chair, explaining their concern, and including an electronic copy of the proposal as submitted. This appeal must be submitted within one week of the originally scheduled date of the assessment.
2. The Graduate Chair meets with the assessors to determine major areas of concern.
3. The Graduate Chair and one member of BGEC (preferably from the same stream as the Graduate Student) will independently assess the proposal in light of the assessors’ concerns and the appeal.
4. The Graduate Chair and BGEC member will meet and reach a consensus about whether or not to uphold the appeal. This decision will be made within two weeks of the initial appeal date.

Appeal Upheld – The student schedules a new proposal assessment with the same assessment committee by the end of the following term, and submits a proposal according to the normal deadlines. This proposal may be revised in light of the assessors concerns. This new scheduled proposal assessment will count as the first assessment, but note that this has no effect on the timing of other milestone deadlines within the program.
Appeal Not Upheld – the assessment is considered failed, which counts as the first proposal. The student must submit a revised proposal, which automatically goes to assessment, as discussed above. This decision is final.

Figure 4.2. Overview of the appeal process in the case of a failed written proposal:

The Qualifying Examination evaluates a doctoral candidate’s breadth of scientific knowledge, extending beyond the specifics of their dissertation research. It is not an exercise in memorization, nor an extension of the proposal assessment, but instead an opportunity for the candidate to demonstrate (and examiners to assess) their autonomy and scientific maturity.

Deadlines for completing the qualifying examination are listed in Important Information and Dates. Extensions beyond these deadlines must be approved by the Graduate Chair and normally require medical, compassionate or other severe extenuating grounds. Failure to complete the Qualifying Examination by the deadline will result in an automatic outcome of “Fail-Redo”. In this case the outcome of an assessment at a later date can only be “Pass” or “Fail-Withdraw”.

Qualifying Examination Committee: In the term before the examination is to be held, and no less than three weeks before the scheduled preparatory meeting, the Supervisor and Candidate suggest to the Graduate Program Coordinator the names of three potential Examiners (see below) and the general areas each will question. The Examiners comprise three faculty members who represent different fields of expertise relevant to the Candidate’s discipline. There is no stream requirement (i.e. it is permissible for all three Examiners to belong to the same stream).

At least two of the Examiners must be regular or Joint-appointed faculty members in the Department of Biology. A maximum of one Examiner may be chosen from among the Candidate’s advisors. Lastly, a maximum of one Examiner may be one of the following provided they have membership in the School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies:

• From outside the Department
• Cross-appointed
• Adjunct Faculty Member

Please consult the section in the Biology Graduate Program Faculty Handbook "Some General Rules" starting at the third major bullet point to ensure examination committee members are not in conflict of interest. The Graduate Chair will review and approve the proposed Examination Committee to ensure that there is both breadth and relevance to the general topic area of the thesis.

Preparatory Meeting: Once the Qualifying Examiners have been approved by the Graduate Chair, and 8-10 weeks before the anticipated Qualifying Exam, the Candidate arranges and convenes a meeting with the Examiners and Supervisor(s). This purpose of this preparatory meeting is to identify the areas in which each Examiner will question the Candidate. One week before the preparatory meeting, the Candidate will provide the Examiners a one-page summary of their project and its objectives, to assist in identifying topic areas. The preparatory meeting should not take place before the student receives official approval of the suggested examiners from the Graduate Program Coordinator.

The Preparatory Meeting is chaired by the Candidate’s Supervisor, and involves establishing the areas of concentration (topics) that each Examiner will focus on during the Examination itself. The Examiners, Candidate and Supervisor(s) shall discuss the appropriateness and breadth of the topics proposed by the Examiners. These areas of concentration must be agreed to by all concerned and recorded on Form 1. Expectations and potential outcomes as outlined in Section 5.B.10 must also be discussed with the Candidate at the Preparatory Meeting. Note that the Candidate is responsible for having Form 1 in his/her possession at the Preparatory Meeting, and must submit the completed Form to the Graduate Program Coordinator within one week of this meeting.

Suggested Readings: Examiners may suggest appropriate reading material (papers, textbooks etc.) but need not assign specific readings. Any suggested or assigned readings are meant to represent a starting point and do not necessarily define the limits of the assigned topic. Since the purpose of the Qualifying Examination is to assess the Candidate’s general knowledge, autonomy, and scientific maturity, part of the evaluation may focus on the Candidate’s ability to identify the important literature for a given topic.

Following the Preparatory Meeting: Examiners are expected to make themselves available to Candidates preparing for the Qualifying Examination (within reasonable limits) and assist them in their preparation. However, Examiners are not expected to meet with students until within 8-10 weeks of the anticipated examination date (i.e. the Preparatory Meeting). Candidates are expected to make appointments with their Examiners, arrive promptly for their appointments and be prepared to discuss the assigned material.

Scheduling the Qualifying Examination: The Qualifying Examination must occur within 8-10 weeks of the Preparatory Meeting, and before the deadline noted in Important Information and Dates of this handbook. The Candidate shall arrange the date and time for the Examination in consultation with the three Examiners and the Supervisor(s), and reserve a suitable room. The Candidate shall inform the Graduate Program Coordinator of the date, time and location of the qualifying examination. The Graduate Program Coordinator will then appoint a Chair of the Qualifying Examination, based on availability at the specified time, with the goal of equal participation of all eligible faculty within the department.

Note: All Examiners and Supervisor(s) are expected to be physically present at the Qualifying Examination. In extreme circumstances, however, an Examiner may participate remotely via conference call, video chat or similar. This arrangement must be agreed to in advance by all participants, and approved by the Graduate Chair, at the time of scheduling.

The Qualifying Examination normally lasts from 2.5 to 3 hours, and proceeds as follows:

1) The Candidate, Examiners, Supervisor(s) and Chair meet promptly at the appointed time and place.

2) The Chair invites the Candidate to leave the examination room. The Chair informs the Qualifying Examination Committee of the potential outcomes of the examination. If it is the first Examination, the potential outcomes are Pass with Distinction; Pass; or Fail-Redo. If it is the second Examination, or if the Examination is being held late, the potential outcomes are Pass; or Fail-Withdraw. The Chair discusses the Qualifying Examination process with the Examiners if necessary, and asks the Examiners the order in which they wish to question the Candidate as well as the duration of the questioning (typically a single round of 30 – 45 minutes per examiner).

3) The Chair invites the Candidate back into the examination room and invites him/her to sit down. The Chair informs the Candidate the order in which the Examiners will be asking the questions and the duration of each question period.

4) The Chair invites the first Examiner to begin. Each Examiner uses his/her allotted time to ask questions of the Candidate, and develop a dialogue within their designated topic. At any time, other Examiners may ask a question about the topic under discussion. The Chair times the question sessions and ensures that the main Examiner for a topic is allowed sufficient time to question the Candidate within the allotted time for his/her topic. The Chair makes notes regarding the scope of questions.

At any appropriate time, the Chair may ask the Candidate and Examiners if they would like to take a brief recess.

5) At the end of the questions, the Chair asks the Examiners if there are any additional questions and allow a brief time (5-10 minutes) for this.

6) The Chair invites the Candidate to leave the examination room.

7) The Chair invites the Supervisor(s) to comment on the Candidate's performance.

8) The Chair invites the Examiners to comment on the Candidate's performance.

9) The choice of potential outcomes of the Qualifying Examination depends on whether it is a first, second or late examination (see Section 5.A above). The Examiners should come to a consensus (or by majority vote if necessary) on the outcome of the Qualifying Examination. The potential outcomes and summaries of their meanings are outlined below:

• Pass with Distinction: This is a rare outcome. The Candidate demonstrated an outstanding mastery of the material to the point of being as knowledgeable and clear as the Examiners or Supervisor.
• Pass: The Candidate was confident and generally correct when answering the questions. The Candidate demonstrated sufficient mastery of the material to proceed in the program and seemed confident with the assigned material and general Biology. There may be some suggestions for how the Candidate can strengthen her/his background knowledge.
• Fail-Redo: The Candidate was unable to answer the questions to a point that the Examiners believe the Candidate lacks the general knowledge of the assigned material and/or general Biology, and a second examination is required. The second exam will involve the same Examiners and topics, but be chaired by the Graduate Chair (or designate). The Examiners may provide some guidance for how the Candidate may better prepare for the second examination, but should not assign more material to be studied. The candidate will arrange for the second exam within four in-term weeks (i.e. excluding dates when the University is closed) of the original exam, with reasonable accommodation for scheduling difficulties approved by the Graduate Chair (or designate).
• Fail-Withdraw: This occurs after the second attempt (or in the case of a late first examination) if the Candidate remains unable to answer the questions, thereby demonstrating a lack of general knowledge of the assigned material and general Biology that are of general significance to the Candidate's sub-discipline.

10) The Chair indicates the outcome on Form 2 for the Qualifying Examination.

11) The Chair invites the Candidate back into the room and informs him/her of the outcome. If the outcome is Fail-Redo, the Chair communicates to the Candidate the time frame for when the next examination needs to be scheduled.

12) The Chair ensures that she/he, and the Candidate, have signed Form 2 for the Qualifying Examination, then returns this Form and the Candidate’s file to the Graduate Program Coordinator.

 

Requirements for the preparation and defense of M.Sc. and Ph.D. theses, including information on the electronic submission process and formatting, as well as the timelines required by the School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (SGPS), are outlined on the SGPS website at:
.

SGPS thesis regulations are outlined on the following website:

Theses must be free of typographical, grammatical and spelling errors prior to submission for examination. In addition, all required sections of the thesis (including dedications, acknowledgments, approvals for animal use, and curriculum vitae) must be included in the submitted copy. Incomplete theses and/or theses that are difficult to read because of poor writing are unacceptable and may be rejected and returned to the student for correction and resubmission. Students should consult SGPS guidelines () prior to preparation of the thesis. The SGPS regulations don’t provide much guidance regarding referencing format. Experience shows that it is important to be consistent (i.e. even if your data chapters were prepared for different journals, change them all into a consistent format). Please provide full information (i.e. use a full bibliographic style, with all authors, full title and journal titles etc., and the names of the authors, rather than just numbers, in-text). Even if all your chapters will be published in Nature and were written with an abbreviated format, the full information makes it easier for the examiners to understand how you have used the literature in context of your work. Most students choose a format from a journal in the discipline that meets these criteria, and use that. We also recommend visiting the Electronic Thesis Depository () and examining the format and structure of past successful theses.

Note that the thesis defense must occur at least one week before the end of term in order for a student to graduate that term, according to SGPS guidelines. adding this to the weeks required for the reader, revisions from the reader, and the examination committee, this means that a final thesis must be ready for the reader many weeks prior to the end of the term. Revisions with the supervisor would occur in advance of this, and often take 1-2 months. You are advised to plan your timeline and communicate with your supervisor and reader accordingly.

For both M.Sc. and Ph.D. theses, the supervisor and one other designated reader not involved as an Examiner (usually, but not necessarily, an advisor) must sign a Certificate of Approval Form to indicate whether the thesis is ready for examination. This form can be obtained from the Graduate Program Coordinator. For students with two supervisors (either two joint or a primary supervisor plus co-supervisor), both supervisors must sign the form but the requirement for an additional designated reader may be waived.

Importantly, the thesis examiners are not copy editors, and the supervisor(s) and designated reader should not sign the Certificate of Approval unless the thesis is acceptable in both form and content. In rare cases where the thesis is submitted without the approval of the supervisor(s) and/or designated reader, this must be indicated on the Certificate of Approval and reasons for withholding approval provided, in writing, to the Graduate Program Coordinator. Designated readers with serious concerns about the readiness of a thesis for examination should meet with the student and supervisor(s) to discuss the concerns, as well as providing written feedback, but may elect not to re-review the thesis a second time.

Students should allow a reader at least two weeks for review of a MSc thesis or at least three weeks for review of a PhD thesis (depending on the reader’s schedule, more time may be required). Readers are expected to review a thesis draft only once. At that point they should identify any necessary revisions and the approximate time frame required to make the changes, and convey this feedback to both the student and the supervisor. At this point it becomes the responsibility of the student, overseen by the supervisor, to ensure that the recommended changes are made.

1) A signed Certificate of Approval form must be submitted to the Graduate Program Coordinator before the student uploads their thesis and at least three weeks before the thesis defense. Once this form is received by the Graduate Program Coordinator, authorization can then be given to the student to submit the electronic thesis via the () site. Please note that paper submission of the thesis is no longer accepted. The defense normally will not take place in fewer than three weeks after the thesis has been submitted. Upon submission, the thesis remains open for approximately one day during which time the student can review it and make changes if needed. After that time it is locked for submission to the examiners. Students are encouraged to review it during this open period.

2) The M.Sc. supervisor (not the student as per SGPS) is to finalize the examination committee and submit the names of three proposed Examiners who agree to serve (see requirements below) to the Graduate Program Coordinator no less than five weeks before the intended date of thesis defense. Failure to complete this task on time will result in the examination date being delayed. The student and supervisor(s) can choose the examination to be open or closed; however, it is the responsibility of the student or supervisor to inform all examiners that an open examination is being requested prior to the final confirmation of the examination committee composition. An open examination must be fully-open; it is not an option to restrict it to invited participants only, nor to have only a portion of the examination (such as the research presentation) be open.

Composition of Master’s Thesis Examination Committee:
An MSc thesis exam committee in Biology will be composed of three members. Please consult the section in the Biology Graduate Program Faculty Handbook "Some General Rules" starting at the third major bullet point to ensure examination committee members are not in conflict of interest as per departmental guidelines.
Option 1:

• Two Regular or Joint-appointed faculty, Adjuncts, or Cross-appointed faculty holding SGPS membership through Biology,
  • These examiners must be in the same stream as the student.
  • Only one may be an advisory committee member
  • Only one may be adjunct or cross-appointed in Biology
• Plus one Biology SGPS member from one of the other two streams
  • This examiner may be adjunct or cross-appointed only if the other two examiners are regular or joint-appointed Biology Faculty members
  • An advisory committee member cannot serve as the out of stream examiner

Option 2:

• Two regular or joint-appointed Biology SGPS members (irrespective of stream)
  • Only one may be an advisory committee member
  • Only one may be adjunct or cross-appointed in Biology
• Plus one member of the wider University community, who has SGPS status in department(s) other than Biology, and who has no formal appointment in Biology.
• An advisory committee member cannot serve as the out of stream examiner

Examples:
MSc, student in Ecology and Evolution (E&E) stream.
Acceptable committees:

• Prof Higgins (from advisory committee, E&E), Prof Jones (E&E, not on advisory committee), Prof Brown (Cell and Molecular stream [C&M])
• Prof Schmidt (from advisory committee, E&E), Prof Jonz (E&E, not on advisory committee, adjunct at AAFC), Prof Braun (C&M)
• Prof Smythe (from advisory committee, E&E), Prof Jonas (C&M), Prof Gray (Anthropology)

Unacceptable committees:

• Prof Schmidt (E&E, adv. committee), Prof Higgins (E&E, adv committee), Prof Brown (C&M)
  • Too many advisory committee members
• Prof Schmidt (E&E, adv committee), Prof Jones (E&E), Prof Jonz (E&E, Adjunct)
  • All one stream
• Prof Jonz (E&E, Adjunct), Prof Jones (E&E), Prof Mustard (C&M, adjunct)
  • Too many adjuncts
• Prof Schmidt (E&E, Adv. Committee), Prof Brown (C&M), Prof Mustard (C&M, adjunct)
  • Not enough in-stream
• If the spouse of Prof. Schmidt serves as a reader, then Prof. Schmidt cannot serve as an examiner.

4) The M.Sc. thesis form and content must be judged acceptable by a majority of the examiners before the defense may proceed. An electronic evaluation form shall be submitted by each examiner to the School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies at least five days before the defense. If the thesis is judged unacceptable for defense, then the time period allotted for the defense will be used by the examining board, the candidate's supervisor and the Graduate Chair to recommend a course of action, which they will then discuss with the candidate. for the appropriate timelines for resubmission. A new defense, normally with the same examining board, will be scheduled when the resubmitted thesis is in hand. The candidate will be given the opportunity to defend the resubmitted thesis at an oral examination. The decision, by majority vote of the examiners, on the acceptability of the thesis content and the decision on the oral defense are then final. A resubmitted thesis found to be unacceptable cannot be revised and submitted a third time.

5) The oral examination shall consist of:

1. 1. A brief introduction of the candidate's work. This involves a 15 to 20 minute oral presentation by the student. The student is responsible for ensuring that all necessary equipment is booked and functional for their presentation.
   2. Questioning on the subject of the thesis, and/or pertinent topics arising from the thesis by the board of examiners.

6) The acceptability of the oral defense of the thesis shall be determined by a majority vote of the examiners present at the examination. If the thesis is acceptable, but the oral examination is unsatisfactory, a second oral examination (preferably with the same examining board) shall be scheduled within a time period determined by the committee (usually no earlier than 30 days from the original defense).

7) The acceptability of the form of the thesis shall be determined by a majority vote of the examiners. If the content is acceptable, but the form is unacceptable, the candidate shall be advised in what respects the thesis is deficient. The examiners must be satisfied with any amendments or changes being recommended. Normally the supervisor withholds his/her signature from the Certificate of Examination Form until all recommended changes have been completed.

8) The candidate's Supervisor(s) must attend the examination but may not answer questions during the rounds of questioning, except under rare circumstances and at the invitation of the chair of the board of examiners. Visitors may attend with prior written approval from the BGEC chair who will consult with SGPS.

9) The decision to recommend the awarding or withholding of the degree shall be rendered at the conclusion of the examination, by the board of examiners, following discussion by the board and the candidate's supervisor, but in the absence of the candidate.

Master's Defense Timeline

Master's Thesis Defense Timeline
To assist you in determining the timeline of your thesis, please use the Progression Calculator for Thesis Completion.
7 weeks prior to examination date	Student or supervisor provides Grad Program Coordinator with suggested examiners (after verifying their availability) for the Biology Graduate Education Committee approval.
6 weeks prior to examination date	Grad Program Coordinator provides the student or supervisor with either the approval of initial suggested committee or the revised approved committee.
5 weeks prior to examination date	The student or supervisor finalizes the exam date with the entire committee and provides the Grad Program Coordinator with the date, time and location of the examination, as well as thesis title and format.  The Grad Program Coordinator will secure the chair.
4 weeks prior to examination date	Grad Program Coordinator prepares the Master’s Thesis Examination Request form for submission to SGPS by the four week deadline.
3 weeks prior to examination date	Student submits the Certificate of Approval form to the Grad Program Coordinator who can then authorize the student to electronically submit their thesis via the ().
6 business days prior to examination date	The assessors report back to the School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies on whether thesis is approved to go forward to examination.
Please review the SGPS website below for details on the electronic thesis preparation process, formatting, etc.   For information on the thesis regulations, please see the following:   For SGPS term deadlines for submission of a Master’s thesis, please see the following link: The rule of thumb for revisions to be completed is two weeks, however, the School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies allows up to six weeks. You are only considered to have completed your degree after you have uploaded your final approved thesis to ()  and submitted your signed Certificate of Examination form to the School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies. Please note that if the final thesis is submitted within the two to six week deadline but that submission date falls into another term, the student is considered enrolled in that term which may incur tuition fees and will incur ancillary fees. Convocation will be based on that term.

Please refer to the for information on the Doctoral thesis regulations as they pertain to the examination committee composition, etc. on the following website:

Please consult the section in the Biology Graduate Program Faculty Handbook "Some General Rules" starting at the third major bullet point to ensure examination committee members are not in conflict of interest as per departmental guidelines.

For information on the thesis formatting, electronic submission, etc. please see the following site:

Briefly, the Ph.D. thesis defense consists of a 45 to 50 minute public lecture, followed by an oral exam which the student and supervisor(s) can choose to be open or closed. It is the responsibility of the supervisor to inform all examiners that an open examination is being requested prior to the final confirmation of the examination committee composition.

Doctoral Defense Timeline

Doctoral Thesis Defense Timeline
To assist you in determining the timeline of your thesis, please use the Progression Calculator for Thesis Completion.
11 weeks prior to examination date	Supervisor(s) provides the Grad Program Coordinator with suggested examiners (after verifying their availability) for the Biology Graduate Education Committee approval.This is done by submitting this form. If there are two supervisors the other supervisor must submit this form. Note: The Supervisor is responsible for the arrangement of and contact with the examiners.
10 weeks prior to examination date	Grad Program Coordinator provides the supervisor(s) with either the approval of initial suggested committee or the revised approved committee.
9 weeks prior to examination date	Supervisor finalizes the exam date with the entire committee and provides the Grad Program Coordinator with the date and time of the examination. (Grad Program Coordinator will assist in locating the public lecture and exam rooms). The exam is generally scheduled to start 1.5 hours after start of the lecture.
8 weeks prior to examination date	Grad Program Coordinator prepares the Doctoral Thesis Examination Request form for submission to SGPS by the 7 week deadline.
6 weeks prior to examination date	Student submits to the Grad Program Coordinator the completed Certificate of Approval form found on the departmental website.  Once the Grad Program Coordinator has the signed form with all required approvals, the student can then upload the thesis via the () site.  Paper thesis submission is no longer accepted. The thesis remains open for approximately one day during which time the student can review it and make changes if needed. After that time it is locked for submission to the examiners. Students are encouraged to review it during this open period.
6 business days prior to examination date	The assessors report back to SGPS on whether the thesis is approved to go forward to examination.
Please review the SGPS website below for details on the electronic thesis preparation process, formatting, etc. For information on the thesis regulations, please see the following: For SGPS term deadlines for submission of a Doctoral thesis, please see the following link: The rule of thumb for revisions to be completed is two weeks, however, the School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies allows up to six weeks. You are only considered to have completed your degree after you have uploaded your final approved thesis to () and submitted your signed Certificate of Examination form to the School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies. Please note that if the final thesis is submitted within the two to six week deadline but that submission date falls into another term, the student is considered enrolled in that term which may incur tuition fees and will incur ancillary fees. Convocation will be based on that term.

Composition of Doctoral Thesis Examination Committee:
Examiners for a Doctoral Thesis Defense are selected based on their research expertise rather than by stream. For details on Doctoral Thesis examiner roles and requirements, refer to section 8.4.2.1 in
A PhD thesis exam committee in Biology will be composed of four members.

• Two Biology Regular or Joint-appointed Faculty, Adjuncts, or Cross-appointed faculty holding SGPS membership through Biology (irrespective of stream),
  • Only one of may be an advisory committee member
  • Only one may be adjunct or cross-appointed in Biology
• Plus one University examiner
  • The University examiner must have SGPS status in another Department in the University
  • If neither of the Biology examiners are cross-appointed or adjunct in Biology, the University examiner may be cross-appointed in Biology provided their primary appointment and SGPS membership is in another department.
  • An advisory committee member cannot serve as the University examiner
• Plus one examiner external to the University (as per SGPS guidelines).

All examination committees are subject to the University-wide and SGPS-specific rules regarding conflicts of interest.

Program and University examiners must have membership through the School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies.

The School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies discourages students from being in contact with Doctoral thesis defense examiners, in particular the external examiner. The supervisor is to communicate with the examiners.

Examples:
PhD, student in E&E Stream.
Acceptable committees:

• Prof Higgins (E&E, adv committee), Prof Jones (E&E), Prof Gray (Anthropology), Prof Bigwig (Podunk State U)
• Prof Higgins (E&E, adv committee), Prof Jones (E&E), Prof Beige (Psychology, cross-appointed in Biology), Prof Bigwig
• Prof Higgins (E&E, adv committee), Prof Beige (Psychology, cross-appointed in Biology), Prof Scarlet (Visual Arts), Prof Bigwig

Unacceptable committee:

• Prof Higgins (E&E, adv committee), Prof Jonz (E&E, Adjunct), Prof Beige (Psychology, cross-appointed in Biology), Prof Bigwig
  • Adjunct + cross-appointed
• Prof Schmidt (E&E, adv. committee), Prof Brown (C&M), Prof Green (Psychology, cross-appointed in Biology, advisory committee member), Prof Bigwig
  • Too many advisory committee members.
• If the spouse of Prof. Schmidt serves as a reader, then Prof. Schmidt cannot serve as an examiner.

A description of the program can be found here:

More in depth information may be found here:
/enviro/graduate/collaborative_specialization/index.html

Biology requirements for M.Sc.

• M.Sc. Research in Biology milestone
  
  • Part 1 Introduction to Graduate Research in Biology required
  • Part 2 Research Communication required along with EnvrSust 9430
  • Part 3 Thesis Proposal Assessment required
• One additional course (0.5 credits) in Biology (or related field) at the graduate level
• Plus 1.5 course credits in E&S (these courses cannot include those used to meet the 0.5 course credit in Biology; this includes EnvrSust 9430 for 1.0 credits).

Biology requirements for Ph.D.

• • Ph.D. Research in Biology milestone
    
    • Part 1 Introduction to Graduate Research in Biology required
    • Part 2 Research Communication along with EnvrSust 9440
    • Part 3 Thesis Proposal Assessment required
    • Part 4 Comprehensive Examination required
  • 1.0 credits in Biology (or related field) at the graduate level for students with no prior graduate course credits, or 0.5 credits in Biology (or related field) at the graduate level for incoming PhD students who previously obtained at least one 0.5 credit (half course) at the graduate level, and
  • 1.5 course credits (including the EnvrSust 9440 seminar course for 1.0 credits) in E&S (these courses cannot include those used to meet the 1.0 or 0.5 course credits in Biology).

EnvrSust students are required to participate in the Biology stream seminar series.

A description of the program can be found here:

More in depth information may be found here:

Biology requirements for M.Sc.

• M.Sc. Research in Biology milestone
  
  • Part 1 Introduction to Graduate Research in Biology replaced with Developmental Biology 9000 (DEV9000)
  • Part 2 Research Communication replaced with Developmental Biology 9000 (DEV9000)
  • Part 3 Proposal Assessment required
• DEV9000 Topics in Developmental Biology (or equivalent)
• One additional 0.5 credits in Biology (or related field) at the graduate level

Biology requirements for Ph.D.

• • Ph.D. Research in Biology milestone
    
    • Part 1 Introduction to Graduate Research in Biology replaced with Developmental Biology 9000 (DEV9000)
    • Part 2 Research Communication replaced with Developmental Biology 9000 (DEV9000)
    • Part 3 Proposal Assessment required
    • Part 4 Qualifying Exam required
  • DEV9000 Topics in Developmental Biology (or equivalent MSc grad course in DevBio)
  • DEV9100 Topics in Developmental Biology (PhD) (1.0 credits).
  • 0.5 course credits in Biology (or related field) at the graduate level.

Developmental Biology students are not required to participate in Biology stream seminar series.

A description of the program can be found here:

More in depth information may be found here:

Biology requirements for M.Sc.

• MSc Research in Biology milestone
  • Part 1 Introduction to Graduate Research in Biology required
  • Part 2 Research Communication required
  • Part 3 Thesis Proposal Assessment required
• Two half credit courses (1.0 credits) in Biology (or related field) at the graduate level; at least 0.5 credit must be from Biology and the other 0.5 credit could be from GHS options or from Biology
• Plus 0.5 course credit in GHS through the mandatory course GHS 9010A “Foundations of Global Health in Africa”

Biology requirements for Ph.D.

• PhD Research in Biology milestone
  • Part 1 Introduction to Graduate Research in Biology required
  • Part 2 Research Communication required
  • Part 3 Thesis Proposal Assessment required
  • Part 4 Comprehensive Exam required
• Three half credit courses (1.5 credits) in Biology (or related field) at the graduate level
• Plus 1.5 course credits in GHS including the mandatory course GHS 9010A “Foundations of Global Health in Africa” 0.5 credit (these courses cannot include those used to meet the 1.5 course credits in Biology)

A description of the program can be found here:

Biology requirements for M.Sc.

• MSc Research in Biology milestone
  • Part 1 Introduction to Graduate Research in Biology required
  • Part 2 Research Communication required
  • Part 3 Thesis Proposal Assessment required
• One half course (0.5 credits) in Biology at the graduate level
• Plus two computational science graduate courses (1.0 credits)

Biology students must attend and participate in the Biology graduate seminars (stream related). This is not waived in lieu of what is required by SHARCNET, but rather in addition to.

Biology requirements for Ph.D.

• PhD Research in Biology milestone
  • Part 1 Introduction to Graduate Research in Biology required
  • Part 2 Research Communication required
  • Part 3 Thesis Proposal Assessment required
  • Part 4 Comprehensive Exam required
• Two half courses in Biology (total of 1.0 credits which can include up to 0.5 credits in related field) at the graduate level for students with no prior graduate course credits or one half course (0.5 credits) in Biology at the graduate level for incoming PhD students who previously obtained at least one half course at the graduate level with the approval of the supervisor(s) and advisors,
• Plus two computational science graduate courses (1.0 credits)

Biology students must attend and participate in the Biology graduate seminars (stream related). This is not waived in lieu of what is required by SHARCNET, but rather in addition to.

The Office of Student Support & Case Management helps students who are experiencing challenges get back to thriving by facilitating a coordinated response at both the individual and community level.

/health/student_support/index.html

• Campus map:
• Student card: °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â Student Services (Student Central Office)
• Lab keys: Support Services Building (Room 2301) instructions are found here.
• Office space: to request a desk in a shared office, complete the following form found here.

The International & Exchange Student Centre () has many resources for international students to prepare for study abroad.

• How to get study or work permits:
  • Study permit:
  • Work permit:
• International Pre-Arrival Modules:
• New Student Arrival Checklist for Graduate Students:
• Finding Housing:
• Financial Assistance:
  • /international/iesc/student_life/money_and_taxes/financial_assistance/index.html
• Health Care and Wellness
• Arrival and Settling In:

• UWO Housing Website:
  • Information for all on-campus housing options
  • Off-campus housing information and active listings:

The Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) and University Health Insurance Plan (UHIP) are the two primary health care plans available to graduate students.

• OHIP is available to graduate students who are Canadian citizens and permanent residents of Ontario.
• International students with a valid work permit longer than 6 months can apply for OHIP coverage.
• OHIP document requirements can be found , and the OHIP website .
• UHIP is provided to graduate students who are not covered by OHIP. OHIP has a mandatory three-month waiting period between registration and coverage, so UHIP will cover international students for the first three months of their degree.
• International students are automatically enrolled in UHIP. Further information about UHIP can be found .

All full-time graduate students automatically opt-in to the SOGS health plan. Information about what is included can be found on their . A brochure of health and dental plan coverage can also be found at the . If you wish to opt-out of the health care plan:

• If you are enrolled in September (fall term), you can opt-out from September 1 – 30.
• If you are first enrolled in January (winter term), you can opt-out from January 1 – 31.
• If you are first enrolled in May (summer term), you can opt-out from May 1 – 31.

Students who have been employed as a teaching assistant for at least one term in the academic year have access to the extended health plan provided by PSAC 610. This plan provides an additional $599/year of coverage.

• The SOGS Health Plan provides $500 of coverage for psychologists/psychotherapists per year.
• PSAC 610 can provide an additional $599 of mental health coverage per year for students who were teaching assistants for at least one term in the academic year.
• Campus mental health resources can be found here.
• Community mental health resources are outlined here.

Biology students are entitled to two full teaching assistantships per academic year during their fundable period unless holding a major external scholarship, in which case they are only entitled to a single teaching assistantship.

• PSAC 610 has a financial assistance fund for teaching assistants, which can cover expenses such as personal emergencies, medical emergencies, or travel expenses. Details of the financial assistance fund are outlined on the .

NSERC and OGS are major scholarships offered to graduate students that range in value from $15,000 to $35,000.

• NSERC:
  • Information about NSERC scholarships can be found :
  • NSERC applications open early in the fall term and are always worth applying to (if eligible).
  • You will receive many e-mail reminders during the term to apply, but applications take considerable time to complete so starting early is necessary
  • NSERC CGS-M awards are worth $17,500 over one year and are offered to outstanding students in a Master’s program.
  • NSERC PGS-D and CGS-D awards are worth $21,000 and $35,000 per year for 36 months respectively, and are offered to outstanding students in doctoral programs.

• OGS
  • Information about the Ontario Graduate Scholarship award can be found .
  • Ontario Graduate Scholarship awards are worth $15,000 over one year and are available to both Master’s and PhD students.
  • Applications open in December and close in early February
  • Summer donor awards are available to all students, although certain awards have preferred traits for recipients.

SOGS provides bursaries and loans to graduate students who demonstrate financial need.

• List of SOGS financial supports: .

Fill out one expense report for each trip or group of expenses within 60 days. You will need a speed code for your expenses, check with your supervisor or other appropriate person.

1. Go to Financial Services: http://www.uwo.ca/finance/. Click on ‘°ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â Financials Login’ button on right side.
2. Click ‘Employee Self-Service’ then ‘Travel and Expense Center’.
3. Click ‘Expense Report’ then ‘Create’. Note: you can save an expense report at anytime by clicking ‘Save For Later’, it can be accessed again by clicking ‘Expense Report’ then ‘Modify’ then ‘Search’.
4. Fill out the General Information. For the comment box it is important to be detailed with purpose, dates, and mention your association to your supervisor, e.g. PhD student of Dr. X. For default location, hit magnifying glass and select Canada. For Travel end date, hit the calendar button. Do not fill out reference.
5. Click ‘Accounting Default’ (under General Information box) and enter the speed code. Click OK. Note: you will not see the speed code in the rest of the expense report, you will see that there is a project number.
6. Under Details, have one line for each receipt/expense. Select the most appropriate expense type and select the date of the expense. For each line, you have to hit ‘*detail’ and fill out the new window. Click ‘Accounting Detail’ and check that the account number is correct for the expense by clicking the ‘Account’ magnifying glass icon then click ‘Advanced Lookup’. Under description, select ‘contains’ and type in “research”, “travel”, or “conf” (for conference). Select the appropriate account number. Click OK then ‘Return to Expense Report’.
7. Click ‘Check For Errors’ and address any issues
8. Click ‘Select EFT’ if you want direct deposit otherwise a cheque will be mailed (takes longer). Note: the direct deposit information must already be in the payroll system.
9. Click ‘Finish and Submit’.

 

The responsibilities of your supervisor(s) are spelled within section 1B of this handbook. If you feel that your supervisor is not providing adequate mentorship you should contact the Associate Chair (graduate) or SGPS.
For other conflicts with your supervisor you should follow the following procedures:

1. If you feel comfortable, meet one-on-one with your supervisor to discuss concerns and expectations on both sides. You may also involve members of your advisory committee at this stage.
2. If this does not resolve the issue, and you feel comfortable, you should meet with the chair to the Biology Graduate Education Committee, i.e. the Associate Graduate Chair.
3. At any point in this process you can also engage with the Faculty of Science Associate Dean of Graduate and Post Doctoral Studies or the School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies Associate Vice-Provost (typically the associate Vice-Provost). See contact information below.
   • Faculty of Science: /sci/about_science/our_people/deans_office/index.html
   • SPGS:

With TA-course supervisor
The procedure for resolving conflicts is as follows:

1. Informal discussion with the course supervisor to resolve the issue. This should be done with any relevant documents (e.g. tracked hours log, TA contract, etc.). Any TA is eligible for union representation at this or any other meeting.
2. If the issue remains unresolved, informal discussion can continue with the Biology Chair, Dean of Science, or SGPS, at the request of the TA.
3. If informal discussion is unsuccessful, a formal grievance form can be filed with the Dean of Science (). Timelines for response and resolution are specified in the link.
4. If the formal discussion of the grievance is not resolved with the Dean of Science, the issue can be resolved with SGPS.
5. If the formal discussion of the grievance is not resolved with SGPS, the issue will then move into arbitration, where a final decision will be made.
   • Detailed instructions for both Grievance Handling and Collective Agreements can be found at . A TA is eligible for union representation at any stage in the dispute.