Key Features of the Compensation Model

• Milestone-Based Payments
• Paid at:
• Proposal defense
• Final dissertation defense
• Role-Based Compensation
• Compensation reflects committee responsibilities, including:
• Proposal review
• Research design guidance
• Manuscript review
• Final defense participation
• Not Time-Based
• Compensation is not tied to:
• Dissertation credit hours
• Time spent with individual students

Payment Distribution

Final distribution will be informed by the doctoral program leader's feedback.

Compensation Model

*The Methodologist role is not a separate position. The 0.40 SH is assigned to the committee member (Chair or Member) responsible for methodological guidance.

Clarification Regarding Compensation Models 

• Dissertation committee work:
• Is compensated via stipend using the payment distribution model

or

• • Counted toward teaching load, using a model that will be articulated in FP310

No Additional Summer Compensation

• Compensation is tied to milestones—not calendar timing
• Dissertation work is not eligible for summer contracts

Distinction from Coursework

• Doctoral coursework → compensated through teaching load
• Dissertation committee work → compensated through stipend

Implementation Timeline

• July 1, 2026
  • Standard model applies to all new dissertation students
• In-Process Dissertations
  • Will receive:
    • Existing (grandfathered) rate if higher, OR
    • New standard rate if current rate is lower
• Effective April 13, 2026
  • Programs below the standard rate move immediately to the new rate
  • No retroactive payments for completed milestones

FP310 - Dissertation Committee Policy

Dissertation committee participation will be guided by FP310, which establishes the institutional framework for faculty roles, responsibilities, and expectations in doctoral education.

FP310 serves as the primary policy governing:

• Compensation for each role on a dissertation committee 
• Faculty eligibility to serve on dissertation committees
• Defined roles (Chair, Committee Member, Methodologist)
• Expectations for engagement throughout the dissertation process
• Standards for dissertation oversight, review, and approval

Clarifying the Role of FP310

The standardized compensation model works in tandem with FP310:

• FP310 defines the work
• Establishes what is expected of faculty serving on dissertation committees
• Clarifies responsibilities across roles and stages of the dissertation
• The compensation model recognizes the work
• Provides a consistent, role-based stipend aligned to those expectations
• Ensures equitable compensation across programs

Consistency Across Programs

While doctoral programs may differ in structure, FP310 ensures:

• Common expectations for dissertation committee responsibilities and compensation
• Consistency in academic standards and faculty engagement
• Alignment between faculty work and institutional policy

Policy Development and Governance Process

FP310 will be developed by the University’s doctoral program leaders, ensuring that those most directly engaged in doctoral education define the roles, responsibilities, and expectations for dissertation committee work. The policy will follow the University’s established shared governance process. The Faculty Professional Standards and Compensation Committee will serve as the Senate body responsible for reviewing the policy, after which it will advance for a vote by the Faculty Senate and the Faculty Association and finally the Provost Office, President, and Board of Trustees. While FP310 will define faculty roles and expectations, the standardized compensation rate itself is an administrative decision and is not subject to shared governance approval.