Advising Policy

Unless otherwise stated, all doctoral program requirements apply equally to PhD, MS/PhD and DES students.

DIRECTED RESEARCH

The primary focus of our doctoral program is research, with the philosophy that students learn best by doing – beginning as apprentices and becoming junior colleagues working with faculty on scholarly research projects.  All doctoral students are required to conduct productive research under the direction of their advisor throughout the program.  For MS/PhD and PhD students, this should be half-time until completion of the coursework, teaching and candidacy exam requirements, and thereafter full-time until distribution of the dissertation.  MS/PhD and PhD students are also expected to participate in departmental and laboratory activities throughout all fall and spring semesters of the program.  The policy on outside activities by MS/PhD and PhD students is here.   

The directed research requirement is indeed a requirement, never waived, regardless of funding source, including employer-supported DES students.  Insufficient or inadequate research progress is deemed unsatisfactory progress: the doctoral student is normally placed on probation and can be immediately dismissed from the program.  However, on appeal of the student’s advisor, one semester’s grace can be granted by the full faculty.

SEMI-ANNUAL REVIEW AND REVIEW LETTER

The full faculty holds an all-day meeting near the end of the fall and spring semesters to review the progress of every doctoral student.  A draft review letter is composed for each doctoral student during the meeting.  A student’s letter states whether they are making “satisfactory progress” or “unsatisfactory progress”, and specifies overdue or upcoming milestones and activities expected or required of the student.  The research advisor, and the departmental advisor if different, may edit the draft review letter and then approve finalizing the letter soon after the Semi-Annual Review (or within a time period determined at the Semi-Annual Review, e.g., when a milestone is scheduled to occur soon after the meeting or the student is taking courses whose final grades are not yet known).  The finalized letter is signed by the Department Chair on behalf of the full faculty and sent via email to the student, with the research advisor, the departmental advisor (if different), and the secondary advisor cc’d.  In the event that an advisor has not approved a student’s review letter in a timely fashion, then the letter may be approved by either the Doctoral Program Chair or the Department Chair.  A table depicting an overview of the department’s requirements and expectations for “satisfactory progess” is here.

Milestones		Research
		Unsatisfactory	Unsatisfactory
		Unsatisfactory	Satisfactory

MULTI-DISCIPLINARY ADVISING FOR PHD STUDENTS

Traditional doctoral student advising involves a single faculty member in the academic department, who is responsible for all aspects of a student’s progress in the degree program. However, in this era of cross-disciplinary research interests and the establishment of multi-disciplinary research centers and institutes, it is sometimes desirable for a student to be advised by a research scientist or a lecturer, by a faculty member outside the department, or in rare cases by an individual outside the university (including but not limited to a person formerly affiliated with Columbia).

Nevertheless, the Department has a particular responsibility to ensure that every student is affiliated with a tenured or tenure-track faculty member in the department who can fully and consistently represent the student in his or her interactions with the Department and the University. Thus we recognize two distinct roles, research advisor and department advisor.

RESEARCH ADVISOR

Every doctoral student must have a mutually agreed upon “research advisor” who supervises the student’s research, including but not limited to the thesis proposal and dissertation, as well as academic progress through the degree program’s other requirements. Co-advisors (two or more research advisors) are permitted and indeed encouraged, as long as both separately and jointly take full responsibility for the research and academic progress of the student.

To ensure that advising relationships are acceptable to the department, all research advisors arranged during the admissions process must be approved by the PhD Admissions Chair. All later advisor arrangements and changes must be approved by the Doctoral Program Chair.  The Department Chair reserves ultimate authority for all advisor approvals.  In all cases, the PhD Program Administrator is responsible for verifying approvals.  The PhD Program Administrator is also responsible for ensuring that any advisor changes are explicitly acknowledged in the student’s next review letter.

DEPARTMENTAL ADVISOR

Every doctoral student must also have a mutually agreed upon “departmental advisor” who is a current tenured or tenure-track faculty member in the Department of Computer Science at Columbia University. When the research advisor is indeed a current tenured or tenure-track faculty member in the department, then the research advisor is automatically the departmental advisor.

A separate departmental advisor is designated only when the research advisor is not a current tenured or tenure-track faculty member in the department (which is why this role is called the “departmental advisor”). In these cases, it is preferred (although not required) that the departmental advisor be tenured. Such a departmental advisor may optionally serve as a co-advisor with respect to research advising, but this is not required and, indeed, it is not always feasible to find a tenured or tenure-track faculty member in the department who actively participates in the student’s research area.

The departmental advisor is obligated to keep current with the academic and research progress of the student throughout each semester, and represent the student during the Semi-Annual Review meeting. It is expected that the departmental advisor maintains regular personal contact with the student, rather than just relying on email updates or electronic academic records. Further, the departmental advisor is expected to consult with the research advisor (if different) both before and after each Semi-Annual Review – although all research advisors shall be invited to all doctoral review meetings and are expected to attend.

Our main motivation in introducing the notion of a departmental advisor, in addition to the conventional research advisor – again only for those cases where the research advisor is not a current tenured or tenure-track faculty member in the department – is to ensure that every doctoral student has an advisor who satisfies three conditions:

1. The person regularly and routinely participates in the Semi-Annual Review meetings – and not just dropping in for his/her own students or sending in email notes, but is actively aware of the general way things work, what good CS students accomplish, etc.
2. The person is familiar with the general CS doctoral program and process and, at least as importantly, with some of the general reasoning as to why we do things in a certain way (“departmental culture”).
3. The person can and does participate in decisions about the doctoral program, e.g., by participating in program decisions in faculty meetings.

Further, in the case where the departmental advisor is not the same as the research advisor, the two people shall co-sponsor the thesis proposal and dissertation committees (this is a GSAS requirement).

It is important to note that faculty members who take on the responsibility of serving as departmental advisor (but are not also the student’s research advisor) are not incurring any financial responsibility for the student’s support.

SPECIAL CASES

All doctoral students are responsible for finding a mutually agreed upon research advisor. In cases where the research advisor is not a current tenured or tenure-track faculty member in the department, the student must in addition find a mutually agreed upon departmental advisor, who by definition is a current tenured or tenure-track faculty member in the department.

Doctoral students who find themselves without either a research advisor and/or a departmental advisor, for whatever reason, should discuss the situation as soon as possible with either the Doctoral Program Chair or the Department Chair. In most cases, the student will be obliged to find a mutually agreed-upon research advisor and a mutually agreed-upon departmental advisor (not necessarily the same person) within a reasonable period of time set jointly by the doctoral program chair and department chair (or if this situation occurs at or shortly prior to a Semi-Annual Review meeting, by the full faculty in attendance at that meeting). In all such cases, a nominal departmental advisor shall be appointed on a temporary basis, if there is not already one assigned.

[Passed by full faculty vote on September 22, 2004. Effective immediately.]

SECONDARY ADVISOR ADDENDUM

Doctoral students may optionally select (or change) their own “secondary advisor”, independent of the research advisor and/or departmental advisor, who must be a faculty member or lecturer who normally attends the Semi-Annual Review meeting, and who agrees to discuss the student’s review meeting results, progress through the doctoral program, and other issues as they arise. The secondary advisor serves no other purpose than as a “second opinion”, and does not incur any responsibility for the student’s financial support or research/academic supervision.

[Addendum passed by full faculty vote on February 2, 2005. Effective immediately.]

Last updated on May 31, 2026.