# G3 and Above – DAC Meetings ## expand\_more At the beginning of each graduate year, MCO students are required to report their progress and plans for the following year to a Dissertation Advisory Committee (DAC) whose roles include - Monitoring students’ progress and ensuring that major objectives and standards for completion of the dissertation are being met - Determining when the student may begin writing the dissertation - Providing professional advice on all aspects of the dissertation project, from experimental paradigms to project feasibility and time management, to the scientific impact of the work - Serving as liaison between students and graduate administration as well as providing support during any personal obstacles Annual meetings with the DAC are mandatory, however the committee may require more frequent meetings depending on the student’s progress, especially toward completion of the dissertation. As with the Candidacy Exam, each student is responsible for forming his or her own Dissertation Advisory Committee. Open all sections Close all sections ### DAC Meeting Guidelines & Requirements expand\_more - [Dissertation Advisory Committee Meeting Guidelines](https://mcointranet.fas.harvard.edu/sites/g/files/omnuum7256/files/2025-09/DAC%20Meeting%20Guide%20%282025-2026%29%201.docx) **(Updated 2025)** - [**The DAC vs. The Candidacy Exam**](/files/mcointernal/files/dac_vs_candidacy_exam_-_2019_update.pdf) **Scheduling DAC Meetings** Following your PQE, your first DAC meeting must take place within 6 months. While DAC meetings must be held at least once each year, your committee may recommend more frequent meetings. **You are responsible for scheduling these meetings.** DAC meetings are 2 hours long, and while in-person meetings are preferable, Zoom or hybrid can be an option if necessary. The format should be discussed with your committee. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ **\*New\***: Once you have selected members for your committee (following the committee requirements), you must obtain approval by submitting a **DAC Formation Form** in my.harvard. Instructions to do so are [here](/file_url/322). Once the DAC meeting is scheduled, please submit a **DAC Meeting Form** in my.harvard. Once approved, we will book a room for you and send an confirmation email to you and your commitee,as well as a reminder email 1 week in advance. Please note, in order to remain in academic good standing, you must schedule and hold your DAC meetings **on time**. You should plan to begin the scheduling process no later than 2-3 months in advance when the next meeting will take place. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ **Scheduling Tips:** - Your DAC meeting report will tell you when your next meeting should take place. Put this date in your calendar! - Start early! Reach out to committee members no later than 2-3 months before your meeting will take place - Include faculty administrators/assistants in your email - often times they are in charge of faculty calendars and can help with scheduling and getting responses from the faculty - If you run into problems, contact the MCO office - we can help you troubleshoot any issues! ### IDPs expand\_more In an effort to better support students in planning their short- and long-term professional development, MCO is working to integrate the Individual Development Plan (IDP) into the DAC. What is the IDP? The IDP is a mechanism by which trainees can develop a plan of action to achieve specific goals during their training and beyond. It is currently being used by many PhD programs and in fact, several faculty in MCO are already using variations of the IDP to support trainees in their labs. Learn more about the IDP by clicking [here](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.science.org_content_article_you-2Dneed-2Dgame-2Dplan&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=IUKz4OaMtTWjVVKO-kF2VOhxMlUJlc-dU7tGXSpLXKg&m=cpz5qKcpynSDHNH39xuYI-Wll1NjErjdPa6oikWBw6NT2TbOVseTJ0CTzPZDHSYi&s=e2kIOIQWFHoqyOiBY64W3uuqWBZeU-Y6cUwxK4_cdzE&e=). As such, we have come up with some modifications to the existing DAC procedures to enable the integration of the IDP. 1. **IDP Meeting:** Students and PIs are required to schedule an IDP meeting that should take place 2-3 weeks prior to each DAC meeting, using their respective IDP forms as a discussion guide. It is recommended the IDP forms should be submitted AFTER the IDP discussion has taken place. 2. **Student IDP:** Students will complete the [MCO Student IDP form ](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__harvard.az1.qualtrics.com_jfe_form_SV-5F9AlXu6tlE4PyM3H&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=p_DWsB3svnNOJDDhAhuwwBg1X7kcyoXljr_bjSgpwIw&m=I5HJH4Jx6ez3ExLLvRcaxEMdC0PfGhxTpGBC6ZgZ0wU&s=U7z-I_gKMpDEwYILwczP5vPPDfyg0h1zpEIsaj1uOok&e=)and attach section 1 of the form at the end of their DAC research report which will be submitted (by replying all to the DAC confirmation email) one week prior to the DAC meeting. 3. **Advisor IDP:** Faculty advisors will complete the [MCO Faculty IDP form](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__harvard.az1.qualtrics.com_jfe_form_SV-5F1RKMnGLJ32JDj0O&d=DwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=IUKz4OaMtTWjVVKO-kF2VOhxMlUJlc-dU7tGXSpLXKg&m=cpz5qKcpynSDHNH39xuYI-Wll1NjErjdPa6oikWBw6NT2TbOVseTJ0CTzPZDHSYi&s=NbWNMjkwGoUWeLpXQR3WplvBR4OFM-JpG-0PeMD-zJU&e=) and send the form to the entire DAC (by replying all to the DAC confirmation email) before the DAC meeting. 1. Please note that upon completion of the IDP forms, both faculty and students will automatically receive their responses via email from Qualtrics. The MCO program will store the annual student and faculty IDP forms for aggregate program evaluation purposes only. 4. **DAC Meeting Discussion:** At the conclusion of the scientific part of the DAC meeting, the chair will formally initiate a discussion about the faculty and student’s IDP. **For your convenience, a copy of the entire IDP form can be found [here](/file_url/242).** ### G2 & G3 DAC Instructions expand\_more G2 students should complete their first post-qualifying-exam DAC meeting by June 30 of their G2 year (~ 6 months post exam). Because the qualifying exam does not require supporting experimental results, this first DAC is critical for you to get off on the right foot as you formulate your thesis projects. A successful G2 DAC completes your advancement to Candidacy and students that have not advanced to candidacy are not eligible to teach additional courses or to receive travel awards. . **G2 & G3 DAC Report Format** **Page 1 DAC report format** **Your Name,** Your Lab(s), Project Title **Expanded abstract** with subsections (Background, Approach, Results, Conclusion, Significance). This expanded abstract is a concise description of your project. It should summarize progress, challenges, and proposed plans so that your committee can provide useful near- and long-term advice. Following the expanded abstract present a set of bullet points (the details can be saved for the meeting). For example • achieved milestone description (Fig. 1) • achieved milestone description (Fig. 2A) • achieved milestone description (Table 1) • anticipated milestone description (Fig. 3, Table 2; 3-4 months) • anticipated milestone description (Fig. 4, 5; 4-6 months) Proposed next DAC February/March. **G2 and G3 DAC Page 2+ report instructions** The G2 and G3 DAC report should emphasize Questions and Approaches with limited expectations for completed data figures. The format should include the following sections: Project Summary (A 300-500-word narrative that expands on the page 1 abstract) Specific Aims Specific Aim 1: Questions and background Rationale Approach and Progress, Data (if any) Future Directions and time lines (if not complete) Specific Aim 2 (etc): ### G4 & G5 DAC Instructions expand\_more **G4 & G5 DAC Report Instructions** **Page 1 DAC report format** **Your Name,** Your Lab(s), Project Title **Expanded abstract** with subsections (Background, Approach, Results, Conclusion, Significance). This expanded abstract is a concise description of your project. It should summarize progress, challenges, and proposed plans so that your committee can provide useful near- and long-term advice. Following the expanded abstract present a set of bullet points (the details can be saved for the meeting). For example • achieved milestone description (Fig. 1) • achieved milestone description (Fig. 2A) • achieved milestone description (Table 1) • anticipated milestone description (Fig. 3, Table 2; 3-4 months) • anticipated milestone description (Fig. 4, 5; 4-6 months) **Page 2+** If you have multiple projects, prepare a “page 2+” for each, listing each title on page 1. To emphasize timely publication, we strongly encourage G4+ students to model their post-page 1 DAC report as a draft manuscript(s) that outlines an anticipated scientific story. The degree that the report will resemble a complete manuscript draft will depend on the extent of progress. That is, adjust the proportion of experimental design and data analysis vs experimental plans to reflect your progress. For each project (anticipated or completed manuscript) present a skeletal narrative that anticipates a future publication. The purpose of the narrative is to create an accessible context for each cited figure/table, illustrating the conceived narrative arc. This narrative should explicitly cite completed, partial, or conceived figures/tables. All figures should include full legends. Incomplete figures should illustrate the goal and parameters, but should not contain simulated or hoped-for data. For example, graphs with axis names but no data, an empty western blot with lanes and anticipated conditions clearly labeled, a written description of microscopic images (or just an empty/grey box with a full legend). The anticipated data figures should also include an approximate timeline for the data collection. Again, the report is a sketch of a paper(s) that you are developing. The presentation of preliminary figures is an exercise to help the committee see how you are thinking about the collection, analysis, and presentation of your data. This way, the committee can discuss whether the direction presented is the best way to answer the scientific question, as well as be specific with its advice/feedback. Published papers can be cited (provide links or PDFs), but do not need to be incorporated into the forward-looking DAC report. ### G6+ DAC Instructions expand\_more **G6+ DAC report Instructions** The format of your G6+ DAC report should be similar to your G5 DAC report, but should emphasize time lines and completion strategies, with explicit goals to submit manuscript(s) and prepare a detailed thesis outline that will precede “checking the box” (ready to write thesis). G6+ students will meet with their DAC at least every six months and a member of the MCO leadership team will attend each DAC meeting until “the box” is checked. ### Sample DAC Reports expand\_more For reference regarding the evolution of the DAC report, below are some examples of both the old and new styles of DAC reports. Old styles are no longer accepted. The copies are confidential and may be viewed, but may not circulate. Similarly, the electronic versions below are viewable, but not printable. **Please respect the confidentiality of these proposals.** **New Version** (password: MCO2020) - **[Alex McQuown](/file_url/215)** - Fall 2020 - **[Pu Zheng](/file_url/216)** - Fall 2020 - **Rockwell Anyoha** - Fall 2020 **Version 2** (password: LUCY) - **[Nico Wagner](/file_url/145)** - Fall 2018 - **[Mary Morrison](/file_url/158)** - Spring 2019 - **[Jiawei Yan](/file_url/159)** - Spring 2019 **Version 1** (password: LUCY) **Old Sample G3 Reports** - [Sandy Mattei ](/files/mcointernal/files/mattei_g3-dac_progress-report1.pdf)- Spring 2017 - [Nico Wagner](/files/mcointernal/files/wagner-g3-dac-report-copy.pdf) - Spring 2017 - [Iris Odstrcil](/files/mcointernal/files/odstrcil_iris1.pdf) – Spring 2013 - [Ryoma Hattori](/files/mcointernal/files/hattori_ryoma.pdf) – Spring 2013 - [Ezgi Hacisuleyman](/files/mcointernal/files/ezgi-hacisuleyman2.pdf) – Spring 2013 - [Hannah Shen](/files/mcointernal/files/hannah-shen.pdf) - Spring 2012 - [Laila Akhmetova](/files/mcointernal/files/laila-akhmetova.pdf) – Spring 2012 - [Aaron DeLoughery](/files/mcointernal/files/aaron-deloughery.pdf) - Spring 2012 - [Katherine Rogers](/files/mcointernal/files/katherine-rogers.pdf) – Spring 2011 **Old Sample G4 Reports** - [Ashrafi Ghazaleh](/files/mcointernal/files/ashrafi_ghazaleh.pdf) - Spring 2013 - [Sarah Douglas](/files/mcointernal/files/douglas_sarah.pdf) – Spring 2013 - [Vu Nguyen](/files/mcointernal/files/vu-nguyen.pdf) – Spring 2012 - [John McGee ](/files/mcointernal/files/john-mcgee.pdf)– Spring 2012 **Old Sample G5 Reports** - [Tessa Montague](/files/mcointernal/files/tessa_dac_report_2016-copy.pdf) - Spring 2016 - [Aaron Bozzi ](/files/mcointernal/files/aaron-bozzi-g5-dac-copy.pdf) - Fall 2017