chemistry phd decision date

How to Apply

Applications are accepted from candidates who intend to pursue the Ph.D. degree. We don't have a MS degree program. Applications are submitted online with an application fee, paid by credit card.

The electronic application can be found on the  Graduate Admissions  page. The web-based application allows applicants to save entries and return several times for edits before submitting the application. The application fee is $125 for U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and international applicants. Applicants who need financial assistance with the application fee are encouraged to apply for a fee waiver. Information on fee waivers is available on the Graduate Admissions website .

The Department of Chemistry welcomes graduate applications from individuals with a broad range of life experiences, perspectives, and backgrounds who would contribute to our community of scholars. Review of applications is holistic and individualized, considering each applicant’s academic record and accomplishments, letters of recommendation, and admissions essays in order to understand how an applicant’s life experiences have shaped their past and potential contributions to their field.

Application Requirements

A complete application includes the online application and the following supplementary materials:

• three letters of recommendation (we value letters that speak to your lab experience and scientific creativity and potential to work independently to solve research problems)
• statement of purpose (describe your research projects/skills/experience and specifically your research interests at Stanford; provide details and research group names)
• TOEFL scores, for applicants who have not studied in an English speaking country for at least two years leading to a BS or MS degree (we are looking for a score of 108 or higher)
• one uploaded unofficial transcript from each university you have attended for one year or longer (two official transcripts from each university you have attended for one year or longer, if you are admitted)
• official GRE scores including the general test and subject exam in chemistry (optional)

Test Scores

Applicants may take the general GRE exams in the autumn prior to applying, or earlier.  Per the statement above, all GREs are optional. There is also a TOEFL requirement for foreign applicants who have not studied in an English speaking country for at least two years leading to a BS or MS degree.

The on-line application deadline is December 2, 2024  for an Autumn quarter 2025 start; required supporting materials may arrive after the deadline. It is to your advantage to have your application complete as close to the deadline as possible. Therefore, we strongly recommend you ask your letter writers to submit their reference letter by the application deadline.

Application Status

To check the status/activity of your application materials, please log into your application account. There you will find the most current status of all your application materials. You will also be able to send reminders to those recommenders who have not yet submitted letters of recommendation.

Notification

Applicants will be notified of the Department's decision as soon as possible after all supporting materials have been received, and in no instance later than March 15. Applicants receiving offers of admission must notify the Department of their decision to accept or decline the offer by April 15.

Start Your Application

Quick links

• Make a Gift
• Directories

Ph.D. in Chemistry Application Instructions

Autumn 2023 application information for 2024-2025.

Thank you for your interest in pursuing doctoral studies in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Washington. Below you will find information regarding application deadlines and requirements. Please explore our website to learn more about our graduate program and areas of faculty research. We look forward to receiving your application!

Application Requirements

• Online Application Deadline: December 1, 2023.
• Applications must include all required documentation. As the Chemistry Graduate Admissions Committee will begin reviewing applications, you are strongly encouraged to submit all required documentation by the application deadline.
• The Graduate School is transitioning to a new admissions system. If you have any questions about your application or encounter any issues, please email [email protected] before you submit your application.

Educational Background Requirements

Educational background should be equivalent to that of an undergraduate major in one of the natural sciences or engineering.

Applicants will automatically be considered for Teaching or Research Assistantships in the Department of Chemistry, and there is no separate application for these positions. English language proficiency is required for graduate study at the University of Washington. Every applicant whose native language is not English must demonstrate sufficient English language proficiency through one of the accepted methods outlined in Policy 3.2:  Graduate School English Language Proficiency Requirements . Policy 3.2 also includes the minimum accepted test scores for admission to the UW Chemistry Graduate Program:

TOEFL iBT: Minimum score 92* A minimum score of 26 on the speaking section is required in order to be exempt from further English testing. Applicants with a TOEFL iBT speak score in the range of 22 – 25 are also encouraged to apply if they have an exceptionally strong academic record.

Duolingo: Minimum score of 120* Applicants who use the Duolingo test will be required to undergo further testing to meet the spoken English requirement for Teaching Assistants who are not native speakers of English.

IELTS: Minimum score 7.0* Demonstrate spoken English proficiency with a minimum score of 7.0 on the speaking section of the IELTS.

GRE: GRE scores will not be accepted and will not be used as a factor for admission into the UW Chemistry Ph.D. program for the 2024-2025 academic year.

*Please note: TOEFL iBT, IELTS and Duolingo test scores are only valid for two years and must be valid on the date that your UW application is submitted.

Application Process & Fees

Apply online for admission to the Chemistry Ph.D. program. Upload all of the required materials via the application website as early as possible and prior to the application deadline. These materials should include all of the items listed below under Required Documentation. The non-refundable $85 application fee must be paid by credit card when you submit your application. Students with demonstrated financial need are encouraged to  apply for a fee waiver . Fee waivers can be requested as part of the application process by selecting “I am eligible for a fee waiver” from the payment method drop-down menu and then answering the Waiver Eligibility Questionnaire.

International applicants expecting a J-1 or F-1 visa are not eligible for application fee waivers. Visit the UW Graduate School  admissions website  for information about the admissions process, including an  overview of the admissions process  and information specific to  international students .

Required Documentation

Submit all of the following application materials electronically via the Graduate School online application website prior to the December 1, 2023 deadline. No materials should be sent via postal mail, as the Department of Chemistry and the University of Washington Graduate School do not accept paper submissions for this program.

1. One unofficial transcript from each college and/or university attended for credit (uploaded via the online application website). NOTE: Students who accept admission must submit official transcripts, which will be compared to unofficial transcripts submitted during the application process.

2. Three letters of recommendation , coordinated through and uploaded by writers to the online application website. Hard copy letters are discouraged; if your recommender prefers to send a paper copy then they should include the recommendation cover form with the letter of recommendation.

3. Please provide a statement of purpose that includes the following elements:

(i) an introduction to yourself, your interests, and motivations related to pursuing a Ph.D. in chemistry,

(ii) a summary of your undergraduate career and other academic training experiences,

(iii) a description of your laboratory experience, research experience, outreach, leadership activities, and/or scholarly engagement outside of coursework and their impact on your current motivations, aspirations, and scientific interests, and

(iv) an explanation of why you would like to pursue a Ph.D. in Chemistry at UW. Please also include three faculty members in our department that are most aligned with your research interests and a brief explanation of your choices. All of these elements can be discussed in any order within your statement of purpose, and you are welcome to include additional information.

You will be evaluated for your potential to contribute to research at the UW (based on your research experience, relevant work experience, creativity in problem solving, aptitude for planning/organization, scholarly engagement outside of coursework) and your persistence in and commitment to educational success (based on indications of leadership, recognition of achievements, extracurricular activities, and educational/cultural/geographic background). The "Statement of Purpose" is also a good place to explain any items of concern that we may see in your application materials.  For example, if you received poor grades at some point during your academic studies due to extenuating circumstances, then providing an explanation here would be appropriate. The total length of the Statement of Purpose should be approximately 1 to 2 pages.

4. Resume or Curriculum Vitae (CV).

5. Proof of English Proficiency  for applicants whose native language is not English. Your application will not be considered complete until items 1-5 listed above have been submitted.

All application materials should be submitted electronically. The Department of Chemistry and the UW Graduate School do not accept paper submissions for this program. You will be notified of the Chemistry Graduate Admissions Committee’s decision no later than the end of March.

•   Facebook
•   Twitter
•   Newsletter
•   News Feed

• Seminars & Events -
• Directions -
• IT Support -
• Search for:
• Catalysis / Synthesis
• Chemical Biology
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Spectroscopy / Physical Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment
• Princeton Institute for Computational Science and Engineering
• Princeton Materials Institute
• Princeton Catalysis Initiative
• Research Facilities Overview
• Biophysics Core Facility
• Crystallography
• Merck Catalysis Center
• NMR Facility
• Mass Spectrometry
• Other Spectroscopy
• Small Molecule Screening Center
• Ultrafast Laser Spectroscopy
• Industrial Associates Program
• Libraries & Computing
• Frick Chemistry Laboratory
• Administration & Staff
• Business & Grants Office
• Frick Event Guidelines
• Faculty & Academic Jobs
• Seminars & Events
• Postdocs Overview
• New Postdocs
• Family-Friendly Initiatives
• Graduate Program Overview
• Academic Program
• Campus Life
• Living in Princeton
• Graduate News
• Undergraduate Overview
• Summer Undergrad Research Fellows in Chemistry
• Other Summer Research Opportunities
• Outside Course Approval
• PU Chemical Society
• Our Commitment
• Resources and Reporting
• Visiting Faculty Research Partnership
• Join the Department

Important Dates:

Application Window Opens

Application Deadline

By February

Admission Decision

Admission Requirements

Please refer to Applying to Princeton for the authoritative requirements for admission to all graduate programs at Princeton University, including the Department of Chemistry.

Specific requirements for application to the Department of Chemistry may be found on the Chemistry Field of Study page.

Ultimately, all prospective graduate student must apply through the university’s Online Graduate School Application .

Upon receiving applications from the Graduate School, the Department of Chemistry’s Admissions Review Committee reviews each application in a holistic fashion, considering all aspects of the application file including prior research and coursework, letters of recommendation and standardized test scores.

Further Details and Fine Print…

Standardized scores.

The submission of GRE general test scores is strongly recommended but not required. There are no minimum test score requirements for admission. If submitted, the standardized scores are reviewed as part of the applicant’s portfolio by the faculty review committee.

Please note that some November GRE test results might not be officially submitted by ETS until after the December 1 deadline. You may self-report the test results to our graduate program manager, Patti Wallack , by email as soon as you have them. The November results are usually received by the Graduate School by mid-December allowing sufficient time for the official report to be confirmed by the admissions committee.

The application fee is established and managed by the Graduate School. The department cannot grant a fee waiver.  More information on fee waivers.

Financial Support

All students receive full financial support for the length of their course of study funded through fellowship, teaching and advisor support. This support is not a loan and does not require repayment. Students are provided tuition, health insurance and a stipend for housing and living expenses. More information about financial support, policies and rates.

Admissions Decisions and Campus Visit

Admissions decisions are shared by February . Official campus visits for accepted students are held in February and March. An invitation to attend one of our Visiting Weekends will be sent to all accepted students.

Graduate Program Who’s Who:

Patti Wallack Manager of Educational Programs, Outreach, and Events [email protected]

Contact Patti for all graduate program and admissions questions.

Sarah Mullins Graduate Program Manager [email protected]

Contact Sarah for all graduate program and admissions questions.

Susan VanderKam Associate Director, Undergraduate Program [email protected]

You may already have met Susan at a conference. Contact Susan for questions about diversity initiatives and resources.

Erik Sorensen Arthur Allan Patchett Professor in Organic Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry Director of Graduate Studies

Department of Chemistry

Application process.

Thank you for your interest in pursuing doctoral studies in Chemistry at Yale University. Below is information regarding application deadlines and requirements.

Program Information

Please review the Chemistry section at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS) Programs and Policies . Note the graduate program at Yale Chemistry is strictly a Ph.D. program. A master’s program is not offered at this time.

Application Requirements

Please note, the  electronic application   to start graduate program for Fall 2025 will be available in mid-August of 2024. 

The application is due December 1, 2024 , along with supplemental information: transcripts, GRE and TOEFL scores, three letters of recommendation, and a personal statement of purpose.  Applicants may find the Training in Teaching information helpful as they consider their application .  Note the application can be saved and reopened multiple times before final submission.

Some Ph.D. applicants may be eligible for a  fee waiver . Please review the instructions, eligibility factors, and required documents. We recommend doing this far in advance of the December 1 application deadline.

Once you submit your fee waiver request form, you will receive an email from the GSAS admissions office ( graduate.admissions@yale.edu ) within 2-3 business days indicating if you have been granted a waiver. 

Letters of Recommendation

A minimum of three letters of recommendation is required. These letters should be from individuals who can evaluate the applicant’s academic work, intellectual ability, or academic potential for graduate work. The letters should address one’s motivation for conducting research in this field; ability to take initiative, think critically, and engage in experimental design, data acquisition and analysis (if applicable); and perseverance in working towards an academic or research goal. The most effective letters originate from faculty members of the last institution you attended as a full-time student, research advisors in laboratories, or supervisors in work environments. It is generally most beneficial to choose recommenders who know the applicant well and can speak about their performance and approach with concrete examples. For other information, please review the  FAQs on Letters of Recommendation .

Statement of Academic Purpose

This statement of 500 – 1,000 words explains the decision to apply to Yale for graduate study, research interests, and preparation for the intended field/s of study, including prior research and other relevant experiences. This statement gives the admissions committee an idea of who the applicant is, what motivates them for chemistry graduate study, and how Yale’s faculty, research, and resources would contribute to their future goals. A successful personal statement provides a substantive description of prior research, puts background into context, indicates enthusiasm for research at Yale Chemistry, and shows how the candidate would enrich the intellectual community at Yale. Concrete and specific statements are more useful than broad generalities, though, of course, one does not need to know their future career plans in detail.

Personal Narrative

We are dedicated to fostering a community where students with diverse backgrounds and experiences are included and feel they belong. In 300 words or less, tell us about the personal experiences, interests, or perspectives that you would bring to the community at Yale. This narrative should demonstrate your perspectives on diversity, why it is important, and how you have contributed to or will contribute to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

GRE (Graduate Record Examination)

For this year’s application, the GRE General is recommended but not required. Scores for these examinations must be officially released to the Yale University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (institution code 3987). These scores are used as components of a holistic evaluation of an applicant’s qualifications, with due consideration of the limitations of the GRE score. More information is available at GSAS’s FAQs . Students from the USA with financial need can apply for the  GRE Fee Reduction Program  or request a Fee Reduction Voucher from  Graduate Academic Support.

Transcripts

A record of the applicant’s academic performance is required for each institution they list in the Prior Study section of the application. This academic record (a scanned copy of a transcript from the institution’s Student Information System Portal, an “issued to student” transcript, or a certified electronic transcript in PDF form) must be uploaded to the online application.

TOEFL or IELTS Academic tests

Students whose native language is not English are required to take the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) or the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) Academic. Scores from the TOEFL examination must be officially released to Yale University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (ETS code 3987). For the IELTS Academic test, please specify Yale University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. The address in the IELTS system, is Warner House, 1 Hillhouse Avenue, room 302, New Haven, CT 06511.

The examination results must be officially released to Yale University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. Scores released to other schools of Yale University cannot be transferred to the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.

The requirement for the TOEFL can be waived only for applicants who will have received a baccalaureate degree, or its foreign equivalent, from a university or college where English is the primary language of instruction before matriculation at Yale. Applicants must have studied in residence at the baccalaureate institution for at least three years to receive the waiver.

Admissions Decisions and Campus Visit

Applicants are typically notified of decisions regarding their applications before the end of January. Official notification that a decision has been made is by email from the GSAS only. Actual decisions are posted within the online application only.

Official campus visits for accepted students are held in March. An invitation to attend one of our visiting days will be sent to all accepted students.

Department of Chemistry

• PhD Requirements
• Pathways to Your Career
• Professional Societies
• Student Groups
• Chemistry-Biology Interface Program

Johns Hopkins University was the first American institution to emphasize graduate education and to establish a PhD program in chemistry. Founding Chair Ira Remsen initiated a tradition of excellence in research and education that has continued until this day. The Hopkins graduate program is designed for students who desire a PhD in chemistry while advancing scientific knowledge for humankind.

The graduate program provides students with the background and technical expertise required to be leaders in their field and to pursue independent research.

Graduate students’ advancement is marked by entrance exams, coursework, teaching, seminars, oral examinations, and an individual research project that culminates in a thesis dissertation. The thesis research project represents an opportunity for graduate students to make a mark on the world. Working in conjunction with a faculty member or team, individually tailored thesis projects enable students to think independently about cutting-edge research areas that are of critical importance. Thesis research is the most important step toward becoming a PhD scientist, and our program provides an outstanding base with a proven track record of success.

Graduate students make up the heart of the Chemistry Department, and the department strives to support students’ individual needs. Each student is carefully advised and classes are traditionally quite small. Multidisciplinary research and course offerings that increase scientific breadth and innovation are hallmarks of the program.  In addition to academic and technical development, our department also offers several outlets for professional and social development.

For more information, contact the Director of Graduate Studies. Dr. Art Bragg Office: Remsen 221 410-516-5616 [email protected]

• Chemistry Directory
• Disability Accommodations
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee
• Major Awards
• Our Community Values
• Our History
• Quality of Life Committee
• Areas of Research
• Facilities and Centers
• Instructors
• Postdoctoral Research and Resources
• Graduate Program
• Undergraduate Programs
• Chemistry Undergraduate Teaching Laboratory
• Our Chemistry Education Office
• Elementary Schools
• High Schools
• Community Relations and Outreach
• Contact our Development Officer
• Funds to Support
• Meet Our Major Supporters

Independent. Exhilarating. Unparalleled.

Our Graduate Program

Prospective students, application process, application faqs, for admitted students, current students, phd program requirements, thesis preparation, for first year students, student organizations, chemistry student seminars, quality of life.

QS ranks MIT the world’s No. 1 university for 2022-23

Interdisciplinary programs.

Graduate Programs

Chemistry phd.

The goal of the Chemistry PhD is to prepare students for careers in science as researchers and educators by expanding their knowledge of chemistry while developing their ability for critical analysis, creativity, and independent study. A high graduation rate in an average of just over five years can be attributed to the quality of applicants admitted, the flexibility of our program of study, the opportunity for students to begin research in the first year, and the affordability of education made possible by our generous financial support policies.

Program Overview

Programs of study are tailored to the needs of individual students, based on their prior training and research interests. However, progress to a degree is generally similar for all students. During the first year, students take courses, begin their teaching apprenticeships, choose research advisors, and embark on their thesis research; students whose native language is not English must pass an English proficiency examination. Beginning the first summer, the emphasis is on research, although courses of special interest may be taken throughout a student's residency. In the second year, there is a departmental examination which includes a written research proposal and an oral defense of the research proposal. In the third year, students advance to candidacy for the doctorate by defending the topic, preliminary findings, and future research plans for their dissertation. Subsequent years focus on thesis research and writing the dissertation. Most students graduate during their fifth year.

Research Opportunities

Research opportunities for graduate students are comprehensive and interdisciplinary, spanning inorganic, organic, physical, analytical, computational, and theoretical chemistry; surface and materials chemistry; and atmospheric and environmental chemistry. Please refer to the faculty pages for full descriptions of the ongoing research in our department. State-of-the-art facilities and laboratories support these research programs.

At UCSD, chemists and biochemists are part of a thriving community that stretches across campus and out into research institutions throughout the La Jolla and San Diego area, uniting researchers in substantive interactions and collaborations.

Special Training Programs

Interdisciplinary research and collaboration at UCSD is enhanced through a variety of training grants. These programs provide financial support for exceptional graduate and postdoctoral scholars and also unite researchers from across campus and throughout the La Jolla research community in special seminars, retreats, and courses. Doctoral students are usually placed on training grants in their second year or later.

• Molecular Biophysics Training Grant
• Contemporary Approaches to Cancer Cell Signaling and CommunicationBiochemistry of Growth Regulation and Oncogenesis
• Chemistry Biology Interfaces Training Grant
• Contemporary Approaches to Cancer Cell Signaling and Communication
• Interfaces Graduate Training Program
• Molecular Pharmacology Training Program
• UC San Diego MRSEC
• Quantitative Biology (qBio) Specialization

Teaching apprenticeships are a vital and integral part of graduate student training, and four quarters of teaching are required. See the Teaching Assistants page to apply. Students can gain experience teaching both discussion and laboratory sections. Excellence in teaching is stressed, and the department provides a thorough training program covering both fundamentals and special techniques for effective instruction. Further training is provided by the Teaching and Learning Commons on campus. Performance is evaluated every quarter, and awards are bestowed quarterly for outstanding teaching performance.

• Financial Support

Students in good academic standing receive a 12-month stipend; fees and tuition are also provided. Support packages come from a variety of sources, including teaching and research assistantships, training grants, fellowships, and awards. Special fellowships are awarded to outstanding students based on their admission files. See Ph.D. Program Support Policy for more information.

Health and Dental Plan

A primary health care program, major medical plan, and dental plan are among the benefits provided by the University's registration fee (see Graduate Student Health Insurance Program, GSHIP) . Minor illnesses and injuries can usually be treated at the Student Health Center . Counseling is provided free of charge through Counseling and Psychological Services .

Creative, bright, and motivated students from diverse backgrounds are encouraged to apply. We admit for the Fall quarter entrance only. See UCSD Ph.D. Admissions FAQ page for full information.

PostGraduate Placement

Graduates typically obtain jobs in academia or in the chemical industry. Many take postdoctoral research positions in academic institutions and national laboratories that lead to future academic or industrial careers at other prestigious institutions. Our faculty and Student Affairs staff provide career advising and job placement services. The department's Industrial Relations program assists students with placement in industrial positions. UCSD's Career Services Center provides many resources for students, including the chance to videotape yourself in a mock interview!

• Biochem & MolBiophysics PhD
• Degree Requirements
• Research Tracks
• Faculty by Track
• Masters Program
• Joint Doctoral Program
• Teaching Assistants
• Student Spotlight
• Graduate Events
• Course Offerings
• Room Requests

Graduate Program

The graduate program in Chemistry & Chemical Biology at Cornell provides broad research and educational training opportunities across the chemical sciences and includes a traditional Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) program as well as a new one-year Master of Science (M.S.) program.

Graduate Program Overview

As one of the nation's most distinguished Chemistry departments, Cornell's Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology (C&CB) has been home to four Nobel Prize winners, was the founding institution for the Journal of Physical Chemistry (J. Phys. Chem.), and has been consistently ranked as a Top 10 Chemistry graduate program by U.S. News & World Report.

The Graduate Experience

Ph.D. Program

The Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology (C&CB) at Cornell University offers a top-ranked Ph.D. program designed to train students to become independent thinkers with specialized expertise in Chemical Sciences. 

Learn more about the Ph.D. Program

Apply to the Ph.D. Program

M.S. Program

The Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology (C&CB) at Cornell University has initiated a program leading to a Master of Science (M.S.) degree.

Learn more about the M.S. program

Apply to the M.S. Program

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Graduate School Admission Results

About 880,757 results

Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University

Added on June 24, 2024

Creative Writing Fiction, Drexel University The email said I was accepted and one day later I was given a Merit Scholarship!

Systems engineering, oakland university.

Added on June 23, 2024

Computer Science, Rutgers University New Brunswick I am assuming I have been rejected. My application is still under review and has been under review since Jan 1st 2024. It's been almost 7 months since I applied and I have not heard anything so I'm going to take this as a rejection and move on.

Added on June 22, 2024

Electrical And Computer Engineering, University Of Illnois, Chicago

Financial mathematics, shandong university of finance and economics.

Added on June 21, 2024

Literacy, University Of Pennsylvania

Computer science, oist, mental health counseling, queens college i interviewed at the end of march and never heard back i received no email, no app notification, nothing it is very disappointing and unprofessional to be ghosted by a grad school program you interview with and not receive an official rejection letter from. this program is cacrep accredited but given the process of applying, keep that in mind if you enroll as a student in the program. it was one of my top choices but i'm glad i didn't get in because this process was a waste. i hope admitted students in the program receive better communication than this..

Added on June 20, 2024

Physics, Bowling Green State University Error correction-Masters only. As an undergrad, had a crush on mark eriksson and he proceeded to destroy my life

Quantitative economics, university of connecticut waiting for funding..

Added on June 19, 2024

Physics, Bowling Green State University Condensed matter and/or computational physics

Electrical and computer engineering, university of california, davis i had 2 interviews with 2 pi after the deadline..

Added on June 18, 2024

Geographic Information Science, Chengdu University Of Information Technology

Added on June 17, 2024

Architecture, Carleton University Canadian student

Philosophy, university of utah, computer science, university of california, irvine.

Added on June 16, 2024

Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University

Computer science and engineering, suny buffalo #clinicaldepression.

Added on June 13, 2024

Biotechnology, University Of Oxford my IELTS band is 7.5

Results 1 - 20 of 880757

Popular Programs

The gradcafe blog.

How New Grads Research Companies to Find Jobs

Computer Science Graduate Admission Trends: Annual Results

The Best Academic Planners for 2024/2025

Experience Paradox: Entry-Level Jobs Demand Years in Field

Signup to our newsletter, got more comments.

Please let us know what you think on the Forum or Email us.

Find a problem?

Just Report a problem to us

Email notifications

Sign up to get email alerts on new admissions for this search.

• Utility Menu

gA4 tracking code

Department of chemistry and chemical biology.

• Donate to CCB

Prospective Students

Ccb is committed to enrolling students from groups underrepresented in graduate study. for advice about applying, including how to prepare a competitive application, check out the diversity at gsas page. .

Harvard’s policy is to make decisions concerning applicants on the basis of what each individual can contribute to the University’s educational objectives and institutional needs. The University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age, national origin, political beliefs, veteran status, or disability unrelated to job or course of study requirements. Immigration status does not factor into decisions about admissions and financial aid. For more information, see  Undocumented at Harvard .

Our diversity webpage  outlines the core values we rely on to guide our actions and create an inclusive departmental culture.

Our degree programs

We offer two distinct  graduate degrees  in Chemistry and Chemical Biology and Chemical Physics . Both programs take an average of 5 to 6 years to complete.

Course Requirements

Chemistry and Chemical Biology   Ph.D. candidates must pass four advanced courses in chemistry and/or related fields (e.g. biochemistry, physics, etc.).  Chemical Physics   Ph.D. candidates must pass five advanced courses in chemistry and/or related fields (e.g. biochemistry, physics, etc.).

Check out our  course requirements page  to learn more about the specific requirements for each program and take a look at the graphic below for a general timeline of what you'll need to accomplish in which year of your Ph.D.

Tuition and Fees

The department covers the cost of tuition for all PhD students. Learn more on our graduate student financial support page. CCB provides a stipend of $39,000 to all students in good standing.

Required Tests

Anyone who did not graduate from a 4 year undergraduate institution where English is the first language, must submit either the TOEFL or IELTS. 

Submission of GRE test scores is optional/not required.

Application

The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences  facilitates the application submission process for both the Chemistry and Chemical Physics PhD programs.

The application deadline is December 1st . The department announces admissions decisions in February and invites accepted students to an official visit during March. We typically host an admitted student visit in either late February or early March. 

GSAS at a Glance

• Degree candidates:  4,814 (4,521 PhD candidates; 293 master’s candidates)
• Degree programs:  59
• 47  percent of GSAS students are women
• 34  percent of GSAS students are international
• 12  percent of GSAS students are underrepresented minorities

On this page

Prospective students, current graduate students, ccb admissions contact.

Kathy Oakley

Ph.D. Requirements

Requirements Coursework Seminar Presentation Qualifying Exam Candidacy UCB Graduate Division website

Requirements

The Ph.D. program is designed towards developing within each student the ability to do creative scientific research. Accordingly, the single most important facet of the curriculum for an individual is his or her own research project. A graduate student spends a good deal of time during the first week of the first semester at Berkeley talking to various faculty members about possible research projects, studying pertinent literature references, and choosing an individual project. New graduate students meet shortly after their arrival with a faculty adviser. From the faculty adviser the student obtains a list of faculty members whose research may interest the student. After visiting these and additional faculty, if necessary, the student chooses a research director, with the consent of the faculty member and the graduate adviser. By the end of the first semester most students have made a choice and are full-fledged members of research group. Thereafter, all students become involved in library research on their projects and many begin actual experimental or theoretical work.

In keeping with the goal of fostering an atmosphere of scholarly, independent study, formal course requirements are minimal and vary among disciplines; advisor's tailor course requirements to best prepare the student for the chosen research field. For example, a student who chooses to specialize in physical chemistry is normally expected to take two courses per semester during the first year and one or two additional semesters of coursework sometimes during the second year. These may include topics such Quantum Mechanics, Statistical Mechanics, Group Theory, Interactions of Radiation with Matter, and many more. At the other extreme, a student specializing in inorganic chemistry will concentrate more heavily on special topics seminars and take fewer courses. The course offerings in the University are varied so that individual students have the opportunity to take other courses which serve their own needs. Such as, a student working on nuclear chemistry will probably elect additional graduate physics courses, while a student working on biophysical or bio-organic problems may take courses offered by the Biochemistry Department.

Seminars are an important part of the curriculum. Because of the size and diversity of the Berkeley faculty, there are many seminars on a variety of topics which students may choose to attend. There are regular weekly seminars in several major areas, including biophysical, physical, nuclear, organic, theoretical, solid state, and inorganic chemistry. These seminars are presented by members of the Berkeley faculty, as well as distinguished visitors to the campus. These seminars allow the students to become aware of the most important current research going on in the field. In addition to these regular seminars, there are several regular department seminars devoted to presentations by graduate students. One of the doctoral program requirements is that each student delivers a departmental seminar known as a graduate research conference during the second year. Individual research groups also hold regular research seminars. The format of these small, informal seminars varies. In some cases, graduate students discuss their own current research before the other members of the research group. On other occasions, the group seminars may be devoted to group discussions of recent papers which are of interest to the particular research group. In any event, small group seminars are one of the most important ways in which students learn by organizing and interpreting their own results before their peers.

Back to top

Registration requirements for Ph.D. students are relatively informal. Each student during their first year in the program must see an academic advisor during the Enrollment period each semester to work out a schedule that best suits the student's individual needs. There is flexibility in the choice of courses that a student may take, particularly after the first year. See suggested course sequences for first year students in various sub-disciplines of chemistry below. In addition to lecture courses, there are three kinds of courses you can get course credit for. These are:

Seminar (Chemistry 298- sections 1-8): Student can register for up to 3 seminars for 1 unit only, every semester. Enrollment in a seminar means regular attendance at (a) seminars given by outside speakers and Berkeley faculty appropriate to a student's area of specialization, (b) student seminars in at least one of the two divisions of the graduate program, and (c) group seminar organized by a student's research group. Enrollment is on a satisfactory/unsatisfactory (S/U) basis.

Research (Chemistry 299): Since the Ph.D. is a research degree, each student in the Ph.D. program is expected to show progress in research every semester. In the first semester each student should choose a field of interest and a research director. Since new students do not have a research director when registering for the first time, they will normally sign up for research under the Department Chair's name. (Chemistry 299-section 1). Once a research director has been chosen, students should sign up for research units under their research advisor. Research is always variable in the number of units, ranging from 1-9 and must be taken for a letter grade.

A student's load of formal classes and seminars will determine the number of research units that he/she will sign up for each semester, i.e., sign up for formal classes and seminars, then fill up your schedule with as many Chemistry 299 units are you need to bring your schedule up to 12 units. All students are required to carry a total of 12 units each semester, while in the program.

Chemistry Department Template Syllabus for Chem 299  (approved by COCI, October 2023):

• Download Template Syllabus Chem 299 (PDF)
• Download Template Syllabus Chem 299 (DOCX)

Students: Please check with the instructor of your Chem 299 section to confirm if they are using the template or a modified form of the syllabus.

Teaching (Chemistry 300): Students enroll for 2 units of Chemistry 300 during the semesters in which they serve as teaching assistants. Student must enroll for a letter grade in the Chemistry 300 section for the course they are teaching.

For a detailed list of graduate courses and their description, please see the online Berkeley Bulletin .

Seminar Presentation

All second year graduate students are required to present a short seminar at the weekly Graduate Research Seminar (GRS) or Graduate Research Conference (GRC) about two to three weeks prior to their qualifying examination. The seminar is presented to a general audience of graduate students, postdoctoral fellows and faculty. Usually each student will give a 20-25 minute talk (including time for discussion /Q&A) on their PhD research project and its general chemistry background. The seminar is presented at a level that most of first- and second- year graduate students will not have difficulty following. The faculty serving on the qualifying exam will be present and will give written assessment of the seminar. This assessment will be considered in the graduate student's final evaluation at the time of their qualifying examination.

Ph.D. Qualifying Exam

The Qualifying Examination is one of the requirements for a PhD degree mandated by the UCB Graduate Division. The following are some excerpts from a document entitled: "Policy Statement Approved by the Graduate Council Regarding Qualifying Examinations for the Doctoral Degree". The full text of this document can be found at the following UCB web address:  http://grad.berkeley.edu/policy/degrees-policy/#f26-qualifying-examination

The Purpose of the Examination: The examiners should satisfy themselves, by unanimous vote, that the student is clearly expert in those areas of the discipline that have been specified for the examination, and that he or she can in all likelihood design and produce an acceptable dissertation. The examination will ordinarily consider a number of studies and points of view and the criteria by which they may be evaluated.

The Oral Component: The oral examination of candidates for the doctorate serves important professional functions. Not only teachings, but the formal interaction with one's students and colleagues at colloquia, annual meetings of professional societies and the like, often require the ability to synthesize rapidly, organize clearly, and argue cogently in an oral setting. To fulfill his or her professional responsibility adequately, the holder of the doctorate will frequently be called upon to display these skills, and it is consequently necessary for the University to ensure that a proper examination is given incorporating them.

Consistent with these guidelines, our qualifying exams are oral. (In the Synthetic Program, a written proposal is also required.) Exams are taken in front of a four-member committee; no slides or overheads are allowed, but a chalkboard will be available. They consist of two parts (described in more detail below) in which student's knowledge of his/her major research area, and of an "outside area" in chemistry, are examined. To provide sufficient time to cover both areas, the exam is scheduled for 3 hours, but may take less.

The qualifying exam committee consists of three chemistry faculty members and one additional UCB faculty from another department who represents an area of science related to the research topic. According to the Department of Chemistry regulations, a student's research advisor cannot also be a member of that person's qualifying exam committee. Examination committees are appointed by the Vice-Chair in charge of the program (physical or synthetic) in consultation with the student. Specifically, students are asked to suggest the names of the four members of their examination committees. These suggestions should be made after consultation with the research advisor and should be guided, as much as possible, to achieve a good overlap between the suggested professors' research interests and expertise and the student's PhD research topic. This overlap is likewise the first criterion used by the Vice-Chair in considering these suggestions and appointing the qualifying exam committee.

Preparation for the qualifying exam should reinforce rather than interrupt your research. Disappearing from you research group for a long period of time to prepare for your exam is strongly discouraged.

In view of the guidelines of the Graduate Division, the goals of the qualifying exam can be summarized as follows:

• To test the student's understanding of the major scientific goals of her/his PhD project, and of the various strategies and approaches developed to achieve these goals. To this end, the student should be able to convince the committee that she/he is already in reasonable control of the major element of the PhD project.
• To test the student's understanding of the background materials at the level necessary to successfully continue her/his research. The student is expected to show good command of the material typically covered in undergraduate chemistry textbooks in the broadly defined area of their research. Naturally, the committee's expectations in regard to the quality of that command can be expected to increase with the proximity of the various background topics to the student's research area.
• To test the student's ability to discuss and debate, in a professional manner, a range of scientific issues related to his/her current and future research with the members of the committee acting in the role of professional peers. To paraphrase, the student is expected to demonstrate scientific maturity and to show his or her ability to organize, synthesize and articulate thoughts in a clear and precise manner; the student should also be able to argue and defend his or her own points of view in verbal exchanges with the committee members.

The two parts of the exam are:

(A) Candidate's Research Topic The first part of the exam focuses on the student's research as described in his or her GRC or GRS presentation. The student should come to the exam prepared to provide a five-minute summary of their research project at the beginning of the exam. Following this, the questions generally focus both on detailed aspects of the research project as well as on the related background materials as discussed above. The student should discuss these areas with the committee chair well in advance.

(B) Outside Research Topic in the Physical Chemistry Program In order to assess student's ability to critically evaluate the research literature and to encourage a broader approach to research, the students are required to present an appraisal of an outside research topic. "Outside" means that the topic should not be one that the student would not ordinarily encounter in her/his own research, although it may be in the same general research area (e.g., chemical physics, biophysical chemistry). Students generally choose a paper from a recent issue of a major journal as the centerpiece of this part of the exam. The selected paper should represent a thoughtful analysis and critique of the work. The resulting discussion during the exam can, and often does, go well beyond the specific research in the paper to examine, for example, student's background. Students are expected to be conversant with the general area of research the paper represents. It is anticipated that the outside topic appraisal will demonstrate the student's ability to think clearly and to be constructively critical. For example, students may be asked how they would improve on the research described in the paper. The choice of an appropriate outside topic must be discussed with and approved by the chair of the qualifying exam committee.

(B) Outside Research Topic in the Synthetic Chemistry Program Students in the synthetic chemistry program are required to write and defend a research proposal. The goal of this exercise is to test the student's creativity and imagination, and to assess their ability to think critically in an area of chemistry outside of their own research. The idea behind the proposal must be novel and the student should avoid suggesting ideas that are simple derivatives of known chemistry.

What constitutes an appropriate research area? As a rule, the topic should not be in the same subdivision of chemistry that the student is conducting research. It should require the student to learn new chemistry, along with the techniques and methods appropriate to its study.

A few weeks before the examination, the student should discus potential ideas for the proposal with the Chair of his or her committee. The Chair's main responsibility is to ensure that the subject area is appropriate and, in particular, that it is not too close to the student's current research topic. Some Chairs will also comment specifically on the idea itself, and may offer suggestions for improvement.

The written proposal must be given to each member of the committee at lease one week in advance of the examination. Students will be provided with written guidelines regarding the length, format, and other particulars concerning the proposal before the start of their second year. Questions regarding any general issues should be addressed to the Vice-Chair for Synthetic Chemistry.

In the qualifying examination, after discussing their research, the student will usually be given 60-90 minutes to discuss the proposal. Questions from the committee may address issues specific to the proposed chemistry, but can also cover peripheral areas of chemistry of a more general nature.

To be advanced to candidacy for the doctoral degree in chemistry, a student must:

• successfully pass the Qualifying Examination;
• have no more than two courses graded Incomplete;
• have a minimum GPA of 3.0 in all upper division and graduate course work taken in graduate standing, as required to hold a GSR or GSI appointment.

Once a student has successfully passed their qualifying examination they will be given an "Application for Advancement to Candidacy". As a part of the advancement application, the dissertation committee must be chosen. In consultation with their research advisor, student's proposes three members of the Berkeley Academic Senate as readers of their dissertation. This committee is made up of the student's research advisor, as the dissertation chair, one other member in the students department, and one member from outside the student's department.

If committee co-chairs are requested and one of the co-chairs is outside the Department, a fourth committee member must be selected from outside the Department. Approval of this committee will be granted provided the qualifications of the proposed member satisfies the requirements of the Graduate Division

The application for advancement of candidacy should be filed by the end of the semester following the one in which the student passed the examination. This form can be found at the following Graduate Division Web Site ( http://www.grad.berkeley.edu/policies/forms.shtml ) or in the Chemistry Graduate Office, 419D Latimer Hall. The Chair of the Dissertation Committee and the Head Graduate Advisor (Chair of the Chemistry Department or his appointed staff) must sign the application. The application fee is $90 and is submitted to the Graduate Division Degree Office in 318 Sproul Hall.

For more information go to the UCB Graduate Division website

Graduate Program

The Ph.D. program in the Department of Chemistry offers wide opportunity and unusual flexibility for advanced study and research and is designed to encourage individuality, independence, and excellence in students.

Create or Continue Application

Prospective Students

About the program, application information, current students, chemistry graduate program policy guide, graduate student resources, guide for teaching assistants, instrument trainings, student organizations, chemistry student seminars, ombudsperson program.

Most students select their research advisor by the winter quarter of their first year and are engaged in research by spring. The department has neither a system of cumulative examinations nor a written major examination. There are relatively few course requirements and great flexibility in the course of study. The barriers for research between departments are low. Students in the Department of Chemistry often take courses in other departments and can even earn a degree in chemistry for research that has been done under the supervision of a member of another department. Students are encouraged to fashion special programs of study under the guidance of the faculty.

Year 1: In the first year, students must satisfactorily complete six graduate-level courses in the Department of Chemistry or approved courses in other departments with a B average. The department organizes presentations from faculty during the fall and opportunities for lab rotations are available. There is also an optional rotation course in the Fall quarter of the first year, as well as a summer rotation experience for incoming student prior to the start of the program, to facilitate identifying an advisor .  Most students select their research advisor by the winter quarter of their first year and are engaged in research by spring. All candidates for the Ph.D. are required to participate in some form of teaching, typically serving as a teaching assistant for three quarters.

Year 2: Qualified students then prepare for the Ph.D. candidacy examination, which must be taken before the end of the fifth quarter in residence, normally in October. This examination is based on a student's written research proposal for their thesis work, which is due in September. Usually in October, the student presents their research proposal and progress-to-date to a committee, and discussed the background, goals, progress-to-date, and plans for future work. Based on the recommendations of the candidacy examining committee and the student's academic record, faculty vote on admission to candidacy.

Footer Links 1

• About the Department

Footer Links 2

• Seminars/Events
• Giving to Chemistry

The University of Chicago

Department of Chemistry

5735 S Ellis Ave, Chicago, IL 60637

Phone: 773-702-7250

Copyright Menu

• Accessibility

Ohio State nav bar

Ohio state navigation bar.

• BuckeyeLink
• Search Ohio State

Apply to the Chemistry and Biochemistry Ph.D Program

Application Instructions

Graduate Admissions Coordinator Nick Rodgers will be holding Zoom Office Hours every Thursday from 3-5 PM EDT to answer any questions about the program/application process. Please email [email protected] for the Zoom link.

Before beginning the application process, please note the following:

• The program only admits one time per year for the Autumn semester.
• The minimum cumulative undergraduate GPA requirement for applying is 3.0/4.0. The same requirement applies to the cumulative graduate GPA, if graduate-level courses have been completed.
• Students must have at least a 4-year Bachelor’s degree or a 5-year combined BS/MS degree in order to apply.
• The minimum total TOEFL score required in order to be eligible to apply is 79 on the Internet-based test and 550 on the paper-based test. Applicants who achieve a total score of 100 and a 20 or higher on the speaking section of the Internet-Based TOEFL will be most competitive. The minimum allowable score on the IELTS is a 7.0.
• The GRE is NOT required to be eligible to apply to the Graduate School or the Chemistry PhD Program.
• Without exception, TOEFL or scores must be officially reported to OSU by ETS. If you are submitting scores for the IELTS, those scores must be reported to OSU directly by IELTS.
• The application fee is $60 for Domestic applicants and $70 for International applicants. Application fee waivers may be granted to applicants who meet specific eligibility criteria as indicated on this web page:  http://gpadmissions.osu.edu/apply/waiver.html
• Answers to the most frequently asked questions can be found here .

December 1, 2024 is the deadline for submitting the online application and all required supplemental materials for Autumn 2025 admission. Before or on this date, all required application materials MUST be submitted ( submitted  is defined as available for committee review and not on order for or en route to OSU). Please SUBMIT the online application well in advance of the deadline so that your referees will receive their links in plenty of time to submit their letters before the December 1st deadline. Recommendation letter upload links do not get sent to referees until the application is submitted and the fee is paid. Please be certain to take the TOEFL early enough to ensure that your scores are reported to OSU by ETS before or on December 1st. Please follow the instructions below to complete your application and consult our timeline to help you navigate our application process.

You may upload scans of your transcripts on the "Academic Data" tab of the online application. Scans of original transcripts from every college or university you have ever attended are required to be submitted before your application can be reviewed. Transfer credit indicated on a transcript does not satisfy the transcript requirement for the school at which the credits were originally earned. Scans of original, official transcripts are required to be uploaded while completing the online application or submitted via the document uploader by or on the application deadline. Online advising reports or degree audits cannot be used to satisfy the transcript requirement for the application. 

The program requires submissions of your resume and personal statement on the "Final Steps/Submit" tab of the online application. If you would like to submit an updated personal statement or resume before the application deadline, please email that updated version to: [email protected]

You should address the following in your personal statement:

• Describe your research experience in some detail.  Describe research products, like oral presentations and papers related to your research experience.
• We are interested in learning about your independence, strengths and weaknesses, goals, and community involvement.  Tell us examples of times you have overcome challenges and where you got support to work through them.  Give us some examples of how you learn outside the classroom.
• Tell us about what you want to study and about your research interests.  Identify some faculty with whom you would like to work.
• Be sure to explain things in your history, academic career, or resume that might raise questions about your suitability for graduate study and research.  If you had some weaker grades or less successful terms, explain what was happening.  If you didn't have access to extensive research experiences at your institution, explain that, and what you've done to know that graduate school is right for you.

Our aim is to admit students who will be successful in our Ph.D. program.  We are obviously interested in admitting students with high academic ability and research aptitude. But it also takes self-motivation, perseverance, and teamwork to be successful in graduate school.  Don't worry about having a perfect record.  Show us how you know this is the right path for you, and why you are going to succeed.

We require the submission of three letters of recommendation. All letters of recommendation must be submitted through the online system. Applicants will enter their referees' contact information within the online application. It is only after the application is submitted that each referee will receive a link by e-mail indicating where they can submit their letter of recommendation for the applicant. For this reason, please submit the online application well in advance of the deadline so that your referees will receive their links and have ample time to submit their letters before the deadline.

The most useful letters of recommendation come from Ph.D. chemists and biochemists who can comment on your research and intellectual ability and potential. We typically want to hear from all your research advisors (such as, from capstone/thesis projects or summer/REU experiences).  Chemistry, biochemistry, or other science professors who can comment on your academic ability and potential are the next best choice.  Letters from professors in other areas, employers (unless they are for a science research position), coaches, graduate students, family, friends or peers are of more limited value to us, in general.  Be sure that at least one reference can specifically comment on your research potential, and we suggest that at least two references be scientists.

The most useful letters of recommendation will tell us about your research and academic ability and potential, as well as your independence, strengths and weaknesses, goals, community involvement, perseverance, and how you learn outside the classroom.  Your references can also help us understand anything in your record that could raise questions about your potential in graduate school.

You may check on the status of your letters and send reminders to your letter writers at: go.osu.edu/lor

If you are not an United States citizen, the Chemistry and Biochemistry Department requires the submission of official  TOEFL or IELTS scores directly to The Ohio State University before your application may be reviewed. The institution code for submission is: 1592 Only applicants who are citizens of, or who have received a bachelor’s degree or higher from, one of the following countries are exempt from the English proficiency requirement: Australia, Belize, the British Caribbean and British West Indies, Canada (except Quebec), England, Guyana, Ireland, Liberia, New Zealand, Scotland, the United States and Wales.

• Please make sure that you input your name on the online application exactly how it appears on your TOEFL score report. Doing so will ensure that your official scores can be electronically matched to your application. 
• If you are submitting scores for the IELTS, those scores must also be directly reported to OSU by IELTS.
• The Admissions Committee for the PhD Program in Chemistry does not offer conditional admission to students who either have not taken the TOEFL or IELTS or whose TOEFL or IELTS score does not meet the minimum requirement.
• If the Admissions Committee deems it necessary to further evaluate an applicant's spoken English proficiency, the applicant might be asked to participate in an oral proficiency assessment administered via Skype by a trained staff member from OSU's ESL program.

Applicants are solely responsible for ensuring the completion of their application before or on the December 1st deadline. Each applicant should review their  application status page  to ensure the receipt of required materials. Please allow several business days for submitted items to appear as completed on the application status page. If submitted items do not appear within 3 business days, please e-mail Nick Rodgers  at [email protected]. 

Get the Reddit app

This subreddit is for anyone who is going through the process of getting into graduate school, and for those who've been there and have advice to give.

Decision dates for Chemistry PhD?

What is the typical decision date for Chemistry PhD?

I also got an official acceptance from a university today, is this considered super early? If yes, is there a reason why chemistry grad schools decide to admit students this early?

Learning or legitimacy? An investigation of the graduate student milestones within a chemistry doctoral program

First published on 10th June 2024

A Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) is defined as the highest achievable degree and represents the completion of a specialized mentored project. Concerningly, graduate programs are structured in ways that can lead to inequities that exclude graduate students based on race, class, gender, ability, and additional intersecting social locations. Drawing from Yuval-Davis' framework on the politics of belonging and Porter et al. 's institutional critique methodology, the goal of the qualitative study was to examine how a chemistry graduate program fosters the professional development of its students through the graduate student milestones (admissions, preliminary exams, coursework, candidacy exam, seminar, and dissertation defense). The data comprised of documents such as the 2019 graduate student handbook and information from the departmental website, along with interviews involving faculty ( N = 5), staff ( N = 3), and administrators ( N = 2) who served as policy agents. Findings highlight how misalignment within the admissions, preliminary exam, and candidacy milestones can create boundaries for belonging. In contrast, the seminar milestone had alignment that contributed to belonging while the coursework and dissertation defense milestones had ambiguous alignment that contributed to belonging. After gathering and analyzing the data, I collaborated with a team at the university's Department of Chemistry to revise the preliminary exam and candidacy exam milestones, aiming to enhance their inclusivity. Overall, this study offers implications for structuring chemistry graduate programs and STEM programs broadly.

Introduction

Concerningly, few studies have examined doctoral training and how graduate programs are structured to support learning ( e.g. , Gardner, 2008 ; Mantai, 2022 ), and especially so for chemistry graduate programs ( Harshman, 2021 ). Posselt and Grodsky (2017) explained in their review of recruitment, admissions, and matriculation how people who hold graduate and professional degrees are increasing overrepresented among the wealthiest Americans and are less likely to be women and BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Colour) scholars. Additionally, like most structures in higher education, meritocracy underpins much of the decisions that impact graduate programs ( Warikoo, 2016 ; Posselt, 2018 ). (The myth of) meritocracy is the idea that achievement is inherently within an individual's full control and if one works hard, they can succeed ( i.e. , picking oneself up from their bootstraps). Meritocracy has since been heavily critiqued due to ignoring how race, gender, socioeconomic status, and other social locations can impact achievement and therefore success ( Warikoo, 2018 ). Ultimately, the following study highlights how themes of exclusion can be reproduced through the graduate student milestones of a chemistry doctoral program and can potentially disenfranchise graduate students from historically marginalized backgrounds.

STEM graduate requirements in the United States

The anticipatory phase begins with the doctoral program application process and ends with admissions, whereby students start to understand the graduate program and make decisions about enrolment. When graduate students enter the anticipatory phase, they are learning about the roles, procedures, and agenda of the department ( Weidman et al. , 2001 ; Gardner, 2007 ). Although the anticipatory phase lasts a few months, these few months typically set the tone for the remainder of graduate students’ doctoral training ( Gardner, 2007 ). As graduate students learn about the doctoral training program to apply and accept, they become aware of the formal and informal expectations through interactions with other incoming students and with existing graduate students, faculty, and staff of the department. Examples of formal expectations include knowing when first-year orientation begins or when one must select an advisor while informal expectations can be which advisors are strict or which advisors have the most successful students.

Following admissions, students reach the integration phase by undertaking coursework and interacting with peers, faculty, and the research community to learn about the practices of their discipline. The integration phase occurs when graduate students begin growing peer relationships in the department through coursework ( Weidman et al. , 2001 ; Gardner, 2007 ). Coursework can offer graduate students the opportunity to connect with peers with similar research interests that would then be helpful for navigating other aspects of the graduate program ( Gardner, 2007 ). Coursework serves as a mechanism to learn both disciplinary content to navigate the program since peers became a resource for graduate students to ask questions even more than their advisor ( Gardner, 2007 ). Examples of other aspects of the graduate program can include insights on advisor and committee selection. Although graduate-level coursework has been largely understudied, coursework has been viewed as a valuable tool for providing graduate students with feedback through assessments ( Keup et al. , 2023 ) and can serve as a checkpoint for graduate student progress ( Baneres et al. , 2019 ).

Finally, students enter the candidacy phase only when they have demonstrated themselves as an independent scholar to their committee and are deemed ready to embark on projects on their own. The candidacy phase occurs when graduate students create a personal identity with their research ( Weidman et al. , 2001 ; Gardner, 2007 ). Also known as the comprehensive or qualifying exam ( Furstenberg and Nichols-Casebolt, 2001 ), the doctoral candidacy exam has been a predominant milestone within the United States for over a century and was invented to transition those who pass from being PhD students into being PhD candidates ( Walker et al. , 2009 ; Guloy et al. , 2020 ). Students who become candidates are then considered to have a mastery of the field and the skills required to be successful in future projects ( Furstenberg and Nichols-Casebolt, 2001 ; McLaughlin et al. , 2023 ). Therefore, the original role of the doctoral candidacy exam has been to ensure that students are on-track to accomplish and communicate innovative scholarship for their dissertation defence ( Posselt and Liera, 2022 ).

The role of belonging in doctoral education

Studies focused on doctoral attrition have discussed this phenomenon as, “all-but-dissertation” or ABD, whereby most of the graduate students who leave graduate programs do so right before they begin writing their dissertation or before doing their formal defence ( Sowell et al. , 2015 ; Hanson et al. , 2022 ). The dissertation defence has a well-documented role in serving as the final gatekeeping mechanism within doctoral training ( Feldon et al. , 2022 ) because faculty conceptualize the dissertation less as an opportunity for graduate students to exercise agency and more of an opportunity for labour and exploitation through publications ( Smaldone et al. , 2019 ; Feldon et al. , 2022 ). Graduate students most vulnerable to ABD are women of colour, people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, people who are first-generation college students, and people who are older than the average graduate student ( Xu, 2014 ; Hanson et al. , 2022 ; Johnson, 2022 ; Wilkins-Yel et al. , 2022 ).

Chemistry doctoral training in the United States

Many studies that have examined doctoral training in chemistry have approached it by understanding the experiences of graduate students ( Nardo, 2021 ; Cui and Harshman, 2023 ). For example, Nardo (2021) performed a narrative analysis to reveal how the experiences a Latinx student had contributed to her professional development as a PhD chemist. Furthermore, Cui and Harshman (2023) found that power dynamics shape the advisor-advisee relationship and graduate students often feared upsetting their advisor close to their dissertation defence. Other studies have used a combination of faculty and graduate student experiences to motivate systemic change within chemistry departments ( Stachl et al. , 2019 ; Brauer et al. , 2022 ; Liera et al. , 2023 ). For instance, Stachl et al. (2019) employed a survey to motivate grassroots efforts to change the academic climate of their chemistry department. Brauer et al. (2022) investigated the mismatch between faculty advisors and doctoral students on academic values related to publishing academic papers. Finally, Liera et al. (2023) performed a case study with a middle-ranked chemistry program to address the format of their candidacy exam. The candidacy exam was then reimagined to conform to standards of the 15-page, National Science Foundation (NSF) proposal and 10-page, National Institutes of Health (NIH) structure. Recent work has examined the learning goals of doctoral training as highlighted by the graduate student handbook, taking a structural approach to assess the degree that chemistry graduate programs implement backwards design principles ( Donkor and Harshman, 2023 ). Drawing from participants in lab-based STEM fields, Wright (2023) offered that using methods like institutional ethnography that draw from interviews with people and analysis of policies can showcase how institutions are organized. Thus, to understand how chemistry doctoral training teaches graduate students to learn how to become PhD chemists, it's important to understand how aligned policies and faculty perspectives are within an institution.

Purpose and research question

• How do the graduate milestones in doctoral training (re)produce boundaries for belonging?

Theoretical framework: the politics of belonging

Belonging and learning.

Acknowledging competencies for belonging and opportunities to belong, Yuval-Davis (2006) offered a framework to understand belonging as the dynamic interaction of how people learn to be part of social structures, norms, contexts, and experiences. Nira Yuval-Davis’ (2006) work is situated in sociology and explores gender, nationalism, racism, citizenship, and belonging through an intersectional lens. Belonging was defined as an emotional attachment to feeling “at home” and “safe” ( 2006 , 197) whereas the politics of belonging referred to how that emotional attachment can be threatened and unrealized. The goals of the article will focus on the latter. Given that learning is understood as a process of belonging ( Gillies and Ashman, 2013 ), the politics of belonging is concerned with the boundaries of a community. Boundaries themselves define “imagined communities” ( 2006 , 204), which represent the entirety of a community and its practices. Imagined communities are preserved through boundary maintenance, which manifests as the ways in which power hegemonically reproduces boundaries through policies and policy agents ( i.e. , people who write and enact policies). The interaction between policies and policy agents can reproduce imbalances in power, creating stratification within the imagined community known as membership and citizenship.

Belonging and legitimacy

Thus, legitimization is granted when others with power in an imagined community recognize how members have assimilated the practices of that imagined community to belong. Members who do not assimilate are typically excluded from citizenship as they threaten the imagined community and are disenfranchised from resources that have power to shape the imagined community. Members are typically excluded from citizenship based on identities and ethical and political values that manifest intersectionally across race, socioeconomic status, gender, nationality, and other social locations. Ultimately, the goal of the study is to understand how the graduate program milestones in doctoral training (re)produce boundaries that privilege certain competencies and disallow opportunities for citizenship. Exploration of these boundaries can reveal how the imagined community of chemists and/or higher education in chemistry excludes groups based on intersecting social locations like race, socioeconomic status, gender, nationality, and additional intersecting social locations. Boundary maintenance of an imagined community can be realized by exploring how policies and policy agents interact through a methodology called institutional critique.

Methodology: institutional critique

Relationality statement and study context, data sources and data analysis.

I then used NVivo 10, a qualitative coding software, to organize the data by graduate student milestone and examined the misalignment between the policy and policy agents ( i.e. , writings) as dictated by institutional critique ( Porter et al. , 2000 ). The misalignments between the writings were then conceptualized as boundaries for “competencies for belonging” and “opportunities for belonging” for the imagined community of chemists holding doctoral degrees from Peony University. Finally, I mapped boundaries based on the alignment between the writings that could be exclusionary across race, socioeconomic status, gender, nationality, and other intersecting social locations using postmodern mapping ( Peeples, 1999 ). The constructs of membership and citizenship are showcased within the postmodern mapping of the graduate student milestones to indicate what resources afford membership and which afford citizenship. Fig. 1 visualises the relationship of the theoretical framework, methodology, and data sources.

Admissions milestone

Policy . On the departmental website, prospective graduate students are expected to have:

The Departmental website also has an emphasis on recruitment of historically marginalized students by building critical mass in their listed objectives from the diversity initiative plan:

The policy documents imply that all students can apply to the graduate program even if they don’t have a chemistry major as long as they have the coursework needed for the graduate program. There is no elaboration on the departmental website what the desirable math and physics courses are nor the minimum grade-point average (GPA) at the time. The diversity initiatives imply that Peony University maintains relationships with universities in Puerto Rico to foster a diverse candidate pool.

Policy agents . Andrew explains the requirements for admissions:

When asked about the admissions policies on the departmental website, Andrew offered:

Considering recruitment protocols for diversity, Amanda explained:

When asked about how diversity is maintained in the admission application process, Amanda added:

The policy agents express there is a minimum GPA that is expected of applicants as well as a major in chemistry, biology, or physics. The courses that would be most desired are from physics majors. Accordingly, diversity is maintained in the application process mostly from the graduate Students of Colour organization who recruit applicants while the faculty monitor the ratio of students from historically marginalized backgrounds and select who they consider the best from those subgroups. Finally, a fee waiver is provided for students to apply if they attend recruitment events or know to ask for them.

Boundary maintenance . Comparing writings, misalignment exists between the policies and policy agents for admissions requirements and standards for maintaining diversity. Membership is granted to graduate students who meet the minimum requirements set by the policy documents ( i.e. , having 35 hours of chemistry coursework), but the policy agents have the power to grant citizenship to graduate students who have competencies for belonging in biology and physics over fields like performing arts and anthropology despite also having the chemistry coursework. In terms of opportunities to belong , other graduate Students of Colour are mostly supporting the department to recruit historically marginalized students rather than putting the emphasis to maintain relationships with universities like in Puerto Rico on the department. The admissions committee evaluates the ratios of student groups, prioritizing the ‘very best” although many of the applicants who are from historically marginalized backgrounds are “usually better” than their counterparts, which consist of the male, white students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. Nevertheless, there is no mention of non-binary students or transgender graduate students in terms of seeking gender parity according to Amanda. The use of the fee waiver is also meant to support graduate students from low-income backgrounds to apply, but graduate students must know to ask for the fee waivers which creates a boundary for graduate students who may not have the experience to know. Based on these misalignments identified, the transition from membership to citizenship occurs by policy agents having the power to legitimize only certain graduate students. Therefore, exclusionary boundaries around historically marginalized students reinforce the imagined community of chemists and are reproduced in the admissions milestone across race, socioeconomic background, generation status, and gender ( Barber et al. , 2021 ; Cadena et al. , 2023 ).

Preliminary exam milestone

Policy . The graduate handbook specifies that the primary objectives of the preliminary exams are:

On the departmental website, graduate students are told there are three types of exams:

The departmental website also offers graduate students how to prepare for exams by reading articles, talking to peers, and taking chemistry courses:

The policy documents suggest the preliminary exam milestone is a learning experience for graduate students in that they will have opportunities to apply their fundamental knowledge of chemistry to reading articles and receive feedback on how they are performing on those skills. The objectives of the preliminary exam milestone are to evaluate critical thinking in chemistry to provide feedback opportunities on places where graduate students are underperforming. There are many resources to study for the preliminary exams that are all valuable for passing the exams such as reading articles, talking to peers, and taking chemistry courses. Graduate students have plenty of approaches to learning and refining their process.

Policy agents . Andrew explains the objectives of the preliminary exams when asked about their purpose in the department:

Fred corroborates Andrew's premise that some faculty view the purpose of the preliminary exam as a weed out process. When asked about why Peony University has the preliminary exams, Fred says:

Fiona presents a conflicting point to Fred's regarding the preliminary exams. When asked how she supports her graduate students to study for the preliminary exams, Fiona explains:

When asked how graduate students prepare for the preliminary exams, Suzy describes the process for grading:

The policy agents express that the preliminary exam milestone is viewed as a “weed out” tool by policy agent Andrew due to what is perceived as an imperfect admissions system as articulated by Fred. Although only explicitly stated by Fred, the admission system itself is imperfect as it considers additional factors like diversity. However, other policy agents like Fiona explain how the preliminary exam milestone is random in how they assess chemistry content since it would be hard to study for them without knowing who is writing the assessment. Suzy adds that the chemistry-content assessments are sometimes not returned to graduate students before the next opportunity, nor do they often have written feedback ( i.e. , writings in the margins).

Boundary maintenance . Comparing writings, misalignment exists between the policies and policy agents for the preliminary exam milestone. The policies describe that membership is granted to graduate students who are learning from and passing the preliminary exams; however, the policy agents dictate that citizenship in terms of a passing the preliminary exams is not clearly defined by faculty who write the exams. For example, Fred offers that the reason why the preliminary exams exist in the department is because the admission system is not perfect and there are considerations such as diversity that Fred does not consider to be merit-based. Here, Fred is dichotomizing competency and diversity, suggesting that diversity considerations negatively impact the admissions system based on perceived merit. Additionally, Fred mentions the purpose of curving the preliminary exams is to make sure that students are not “complacent” in learning the material but are instead motivated to score better than their peers. Although there are no specific competencies for belonging elucidated, the competencies for belonging are valued in relation to other peers. Suzy mentions that the feedback that graduate students receive for the preliminary exams they take are not usually given to them with enough time for them to prepare for the next opportunity. Suzy also says that most faculty don’t operate under the expectation that the chemistry-content assessments are very related to each other, meaning this the preliminary exams do not serve as formative or active learning opportunities since faculty rarely write feedback. In terms of opportunities for belonging , graduate students usually need to be part of a peer network as Fiona pointed out to “game the system” because the chemistry-content assessments are “random.” Based on these misalignments identified, the transition from membership to citizenship occurs by policy agents having the power to legitimize only certain graduate students. Therefore, exclusionary boundaries around historically marginalized students reinforce the imagined community of chemists and are reproduced in the preliminary exam milestone through the utilization of a curve; and the reliance on peer networks have traditionally disenfranchised women, Students of Colour, members of the LGBTQ+ community, first-generation students, and students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds ( Sowell et al. , 2015 ; Barber et al. , 2021 ; Cech and Waidzunas, 2021 ; Cadena et al. , 2023 ).

Coursework milestone

Policy . The graduate student handbook indicates that the faculty advisor and advisory committee have an involved role in devising graduate students’ “Plan of Study,” which refers mainly to the coursework graduate students take:

Additionally, the graduate student handbook also indicates that there is oversight in how courses are structured:

The policy documents suggest two key features: (1) the faculty advisor and advisory committee play major roles in developing a Plan of Study and (2) the course offerings for each semester are observed by each division and the department head. The faculty advisor and the advisory committee are responsible for actively consulting with the graduate student to make sure the courses provide the best trajectory for the graduate student. The courses themselves also have oversight from the division and the department head and approved at least one semester in advance of the course being offered.

Policy agents . When asked about the number of credits that graduate students need to complete and their Plan of Study, Andrew offers:

In contrast, Fitzgerald says the following when asked about advisory committee support for coursework:

When asked about how courses are created in the department, Fiona explains how she decides the objectives of the graduate courses she teaches:

Felipe shares a similar sentiment with Fiona and mentions how he supports graduate students taking graduate courses to read and write science when asked about how he teaches the graduate courses:

The policy agents express that although the process of selecting coursework has become more automated than in previous years for the advisory committee ( i.e. , policy agent Andrew), the advisor does play a significant role in (1) supporting students to select courses that align with research; and (2) consider coursework as an opportunity to learn about reading, writing, and sharing science. The courses themselves are largely dependent on the faculty who are teaching them.

Boundary maintenance . Comparing writings, ambiguous alignment exists between the policies and policy agents for the coursework milestone. The policies describe that membership is granted by the advisory committee (faculty advisor and participating faculty) who determine the courses that the graduate students take. Although Andrew mentioned how the coursework selection process does not usually involve the complete advisory committee, Fitzgerald, Fiona, and Felipe said they mentor their graduate students on what courses to select as well as mentor graduate students in how to engage in the culture of chemistry. Because the faculty advisor is part of the advisory committee then citizenship and membership are aligned. In terms of competencies for belonging , Fitzgerald explained how he wants to support his graduate students to select coursework that aligns with the research they plan to pursue. Fiona corroborates Fitzgerald and adds that reading, writing, and sharing science are important competencies for belonging that she imparts to her graduate students taking the graduate courses that she teaches. In accordance, Fiona noted that other faculty who teach graduate courses only value the chemistry content that can be applied for passing the preliminary exams, which she deemed to be “wasting the potential to learn about like the culture of chemistry.” In terms of opportunities for belonging , Felipe distinguished that he teaches aspects of reading and writing that he acknowledges that other faculty overlook such as the grammar, punctuation, and word choice given that he was an international student whose first language was not English. Based on these alignments identified, the transition from membership to citizenship occurs by both learning and legitimacy that support the policies and policy agents. Nevertheless, exclusionary boundaries around historically marginalized students exist in the coursework milestone reinforce the imagined community of chemists and can be reproduced in terms of English proficiency, which may disenfranchise international graduate students, graduate students whose first language is not English, graduate students who grew up with a different grammar system such as Appalachian, Spanglish, or Black/African American vernacular (AAVE), and graduate students with disabilities. Based on these misalignments identified, the acknowledgement that graduate students should read, write, and disseminate chemistry in English but the disregard in universally teaching these practices reinforces whiteness and western values in chemistry ( Sowell et al. , 2015 ; Barber et al. , 2021 ; Cech and Waidzunas, 2021 ; Cadena et al. , 2023 ).

Candidacy exam milestone

Policy . The graduate student handbook explicates the candidacy exam should have the following format for the written proposal:

The graduate student handbook also mentions how the structure of the oral presentation should go for the graduate students as well as the required attire:

Finally, the graduate student handbook describes the process following the candidacy exam whereby the graduate student can discuss with the advisory committee how they can be further supported in the graduate program by the department and/or their academic advisor:

The policy documents imply that there is a distinct outline for how to write the written proposal by having a statement of the problem, hypothesis to be tested, significance, evidenced superiority to other approaches, expected difficulties and solutions, as well as accomplishments from the proposed solutions. Additionally, the policy documents highlight how the oral presentation is a formal occasion whereby graduate students should dress professionally and serves as an opportunity for the graduate student to discuss the written proposal and general research with their advisory committee. Finally, following the oral presentation, the graduate student is meant to meet with the advisory committee excluding their academic advisor to discuss any issues about their experience in graduate school thus far.

Policy agents . When asked about how originality is determined by faculty, Frank says:

Fitzgerald supports Frank's ambivalence on how the candidacy exam is structured for the written proposal when asked to what extent the written proposal can be related to research:

In terms of the oral presentation, Fred describes some of the dynamics that exist within the advisory board to determine whether or not a graduate student passes:

These dynamics also exist between graduate students and their advisory committee. When asked about any challenges related to the candidacy exam mentioned by graduate students, Stella explains:

Accordingly, Stella adds her insights about the advisory committee meeting following the oral presentation:

When asked about how graduate students are advised to select faculty to serve on their advisory committee, Fiona shares that sometimes graduate students select advisory committee members based on a variety of factors:

The policy agents implied that there is variation in how the written proposal should be written in terms of length and in style. The length of the proposal ranges by division from 5 pages to 40 pages and have priorities regarding whether the idea for the written proposal should be problem-oriented or technique-oriented. Similarly, the idea for the written proposal has variable input from the faculty advisor according to Fitzgerald whereby some faculty try to help their graduate students by having the idea for the written proposal relate somewhat to their lab research. In terms of the oral presentation, Fred and Stella noted that aside from the graduate students’ presentation, there are dynamics such as tenure status and attire that impact whether graduate students will pass. Finally, Fiona explained that factors like gender, race, and ethnicity factor into how students select advisory committee members.

Boundary maintenance . Comparing writings, misalignment exists between the policies and the policy agents for the candidacy exam milestone. The policies describe that membership is granted to graduate students who follow the written proposal outline of having a statement of the problem, hypothesis to be tested, significance, evidenced superiority to other approaches, expected difficulties and solutions, as well as accomplishments from the proposed solutions. However, citizenship through passing the candidacy exam milestone is granted by the faculty advisors and advisory committee. Frank notes that the graduate students have their written proposals evaluated by the advisory committee from preferences between problem-oriented ideas and technique-oriented ideas. Therefore, competencies for belonging are determined by whether the graduate student can correctly anticipate what their advisory committee is looking for despite the advisory committee having inconsistent preferences. Accordingly, the policy document states that the idea for the written proposal must originate with the graduate student, but Fitzgerald explains that some faculty help their graduate students with the idea by relating it to their current research. Graduate students who have faculty advisors with this mentality have more opportunities for belonging than graduate students who don’t have these faculty advisors because the graduate student has the support of the faculty advisor. Similarly, Fred shared that he could assert his power as a full professor over non-tenured faculty to grant citizenship to graduate students by passing their candidacy exam. Concerningly, Fred also shares that some faculty will pre-determine whether or not they want a graduate student to pass candidacy regardless of the written proposal or oral presentation. Excerpts from Fred imply that competencies for belonging and opportunities for belonging are determined by the faculty advisor and advisory committee. Moreover, Stella explains that even what is considered appropriate attire is at the discretion of the advisory committee and not fully determined by the graduate student. Although the policy mentioning there is a counselling session following the oral presentation, Stella explains that the graduate students often feel “torn down” and are not able to talk about their grievances in that moment because they are scared. She finds that even if the graduate student passes the candidacy exam milestone, the actual event itself often contributes to their unhappiness and interest in leaving the graduate program. Fiona mentions that the advisory committee is a “big factor of whether or not you will pass [the candidacy exam] even if you have a good presentation and proposal,” presumably because of the dynamics among advisory committee members that Fred mentioned. As a result, Fiona acknowledges that she is asked to be on graduate students’ committees because she shares the same gender with graduate students, which she notes is similar for faculty who are from additional historically marginalized groups like first-generation scholars or BIPOC scholars. Based on these misalignments identified, the transition from membership to citizenship occurs by policy agents having the power to legitimize only certain graduate students. Therefore exclusionary boundaries around historically marginalized graduate students reinforce the imagined community and are reproduced if they cannot find advisory committee members that they are comfortable with and/or shared social location with such as gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, first-generation status, socioeconomic status, disability, LGBTQ+ community membership, and/or other systems of power especially given how much influence the advisory committee has on passing the candidacy exam milestone ( Sowell et al. , 2015 ; Barber et al. , 2021 ; Cech and Waidzunas, 2021 ; Cadena et al. , 2023 ).

Seminar milestone

Policy . The graduate student handbook explicates the following requirements:

The policy documents state the seminar requirements are entirely decided by the division and thus vary by division whereby the timing and content of the seminar must be approved by the advisory committee and the faculty member who is coordinating the divisional seminar for the semester in which the graduate student presents.

Policy agents . When asked about why the seminar requirements are different for each division, Amanda explains:

Felipe supports Amanda's claims about it being a learning experience for graduate students:

When asked about how students prepare for seminar, Fred explains how weekly group meetings are formative for graduate students to eventually work up to seminar:

The policy agents have described how the divisional differences exist because it is meant to be tailored for where the graduate student is in terms of research. The policy agents showcased how the seminar milestone is understood by faculty as a learning experience for graduate students whereby they provide opportunities to practice presentations in their group meetings. As Fred mentioned, the seminar is something that graduate students will have plenty of opportunities to either see or do.

Boundary maintenance . Comparing writings, alignment exists between the policies and policy agents for the seminar milestone. The policies describe that membership is granted to graduate students who give an oral presentation according to their division standards, which is consistent with how the policy agents conceptualize the seminar milestone. Therefore, membership and citizenship are aligned. Amanda, Felipe, and Fred explain that the seminar milestone is seen as a learning experience for graduate students given that they can practice it formatively during their group meetings. In terms of competencies for belonging , if the graduate student delivers any the presentation on their research or literature then they can equally pass the seminar requirement and receive feedback on their performances. There does not seem to be any restrictions on opportunities for belonging given that graduate students normatively receive an A for the semester they present for credit. Based on these alignments and misalignments identified, the transition from membership to citizenship occurs by learning that aligns with the policies and policy agents. Therefore, there are no explicit exclusionary boundaries around historically marginalized students in the seminar milestone that reinforce the imagined community of chemists that can be shown comparing writings. Given the presentation has to be in English, it may disenfranchise students whose first languages are not English; however, there have not been failed grades given for credit in seminar compared to the coursework milestone.

Dissertation defence milestone

Policy . The graduate student handbook describes the written thesis must have at least one published article in a peer-reviewed journal:

Accordingly, the graduate student handbook describes the oral defence in the following way:

The policy documents state that the written thesis must have at least one published, peer-reviewed article while the oral presentation describes how the graduate student will be assessed based on material from the written thesis as well as whatever topics the advisory committee is able to consider as related. The advisory committee consists of at least four faculty members but can have more that are not needed to be listed in a plan of study. Overall, there are very few details that describe what the actual written thesis and oral defence content should entail.

Policy agents . When asked about the pass rate for graduate students in their final defence, Andrew says:

Frank supports Andrew's idea that the graduate student defence is more of a rite of passage:

When asked how a faculty advisor knows when their graduate student is ready, Felipe shares:

Similarly, Fiona offers that also having a job lined up after graduation is a good indicator of readiness:

Fitzgerald has a contrasting opinion to Fiona's idea that jobs are an indicator of readiness:

Sarah describes some interactions she has had with graduate student regarding these discussions about faculty advisors determining readiness:

When asked about the written thesis and oral defence policies, Suzy provides a similar answer:

The policy agents describe the dissertation defence as a rite of passage that does not have high stakes given that rarely any graduate students fail their defence according to Andrew. Frank and Felipe explained that the faculty advisor would not allow a graduate student to reach their defence without having enough research to be successful. Fiona and Fitzgerald described factors that impact how they determine readiness for graduate students whether it be from a job lined up or finishing all research projects. Overall, Sarah and Suzy explained how the actual written thesis and oral defence are checkpoints that correspond with the graduate school but can be tailored to the graduate student at the discretion of the advisory committee.

Boundary maintenance . Comparing writings, ambiguous alignment exists between the policies and the policy agents for the dissertation defence milestone. To submit the written thesis and perform the oral defence, the policies and policy agents have aligned membership and citizenship in that if the graduate student met the requirements of having the dissertation in published form/manuscript published/in press to be published, as well as a related oral defence then the graduate student is able to pass the dissertation defence milestone. The format is in direct contrast to the candidacy exam milestone that grants citizenship based on factors not listed in the policy documents for membership. The policy agents describe independence, future job, or project completion as competencies for belonging leading up to the dissertation defence milestone with the caveat that the faculty advisor determines the criteria for those competencies. Based on these alignments and misalignments identified, the transition from membership to citizenship is not clear because in some ways the transition occurs by learning that aligns with the policies and policy agents and in other ways the transition occurs by policy agents having the power to legitimize only graduate students who do not need to consider student visas, lapses in income, family planning, healthcare coverage, etc. Therefore, opportunities for belonging are limited by the faculty advisor for the graduate student, which could disfranchise historically marginalized students. Exclusionary boundaries around historically marginalized students reinforce the imagined community of chemists and could be reproduced if the graduate student lacks compatibility with the faculty advisor, which has been highly documented in STEM for women, BIPOC students, first-generation students, students from the LGBTQ+ community, and students with disabilities ( Sowell et al. , 2015 ; Barber et al. , 2021 ; Cech and Waidzunas, 2021 ; Cadena et al. , 2023 ).

Summary of findings

Thus, the graduate milestones themselves do not serve as opportunities for socialization in the traditional sense because not all graduate students have access to the same resources. Considering the imagined community of chemists, excluding citizenship from graduate students who occupy these social locations contributes to the social stratification that exists in the professoriate and higher education broadly, whereby the wealthy elite in this country secure doctoral or terminal degrees in high-paying STEM fields ( Posselt and Grodsky, 2017 ). Although the policies describe membership, graduate students were prescribed citizenship based on how the policy agents interpreted the policies. As a result of misalignment of writings for the admissions milestone, preliminary exam milestone, candidacy exam milestone, and partly the dissertation defence milestone, exclusionary boundaries could disenfranchise historically marginalized graduate students, especially when the competencies for belonging were centred around legitimacy rather than learning. For example, the seminar milestone was conceptualized as formative opportunities for graduate students to practice being chemists by communicating their research projects through a presentation and tailored for each graduate student depending on their division and their research. Consequently, the opportunities for belonging that graduate students had were based in learning as their experiences were appropriately differentiated. Accordingly, the coursework milestone was partly based in learning given that graduate students were also given formative opportunities to practice being chemists; however, exclusionary boundaries could still be reproduced, and in the case of the research context, English proficiency.

Furthermore, the admissions milestone, preliminary exam milestone, and candidacy exam milestones were perceived by the policy agents as opportunities for belonging only when graduate students demonstrated their legitimacy. The interplay between learning and legitimacy can be seen in the dissertation defence milestone where the actual logistics are conceptualized as low-stakes and an opportunity to display their learning. However, leading up to the dissertation defence milestone, the policy agents are looking for evidence of legitimacy from the graduate student through readiness for independence, career, or completion. This evidence of legitimacy is determined by the faculty advisor and only when recognized, the graduate student can finally receive their PhD Findings are not meant to present learning and legitimacy is diametrically opposed given that other frameworks have consolidated these constructs ( e.g. , Lave and Wenger, 1991 ; Calabrese Barton and Tan, 2020 ); however, when power over graduate students is greater than the power graduate students have themselves over their learning, such a problematic dichotomy can happen. Table 3 below summarizes the milestones, alignment, and boundary maintenance.

Discussion & implications

Grit as merit: neoliberal politics.

For example, the doctoral candidacy exam has been historically abstruse and unclear for students ( Golde and Dore, 2001 ), and faculty tend to view the doctoral candidacy exam as an opportunity to implement ridiculously difficult exams to promote rigor ( Guloy et al. , 2020 ; Posselt and Liera, 2022 ). Using an ethnographic approach, Posselt ( Posselt, 2014, 2016 ) has additionally found that what constitutes as academic readiness for graduate admissions is ever fluctuating and reflective of “faculty members’ nebulous, shifting ideals about student quality; how departmental, disciplinary, and personal priorities are woven into judgements of admissibility; and the implications of it all for the equity and the health of the academy” ( Posselt, 2016 , 2). Termed the “halo effect” ( Paxton and Bollen, 2003 ; Villarreal et al. , 2024 ), faculty strive to ensure ideals of merit by upholding unevaluated markers of prestige such as former university status, disadvantaging applicants who attend Minority Serving Institutions with majority BIPOC scholars ( Villarreal et al. , 2024 ). Therefore, the role of the doctoral candidacy exam has focused less on teaching students how to become practicing professionals and more on gatekeeping students in earning doctoral degrees ( Feldon et al. , 2022 ; Posselt and Liera, 2022 ). Ultimately, the combination of ambiguous language and tricky examinations has led to increased anxiety, depression, and other mental health concerns for graduate students ( Posselt, 2021 ).

The findings highlight similar meritocratic ideas within the preliminary exam milestone whereby graduate students had to not only do well on the exam but also do better on the exam than their graduate student peers. Therefore, there is no incentive for graduate students to help each other study and prepare for the preliminary exams, creating exclusionary boundaries through false grade scarcity given that the physical chemistry division never enforced a curve ( i.e. , passing score above 50%). The findings from the preliminary exam milestone also showcase a reliance on grit and resilience, whereby graduate students should be accustomed to inconsistent and arbitrary expectations. Slater (2022) offered that normalizing resilience and grit only further contributes to social inequality because success is acknowledged only as overcoming certain barriers; however, racism, sexism, classism, and other systems of power are usually not understood as barriers because majority white, men often do not experience these barriers and discredit their role in disenfranchising historically marginalized students ( Slater, 2022 ). Ultimately, most research on graduate admissions implicitly paints merit as an individual good—a characteristic that inheres in applicants to varying degrees according to possession of specific characteristics. As an alternative to resilience and grit, milestones like the preliminary exams should be reimagined as opportunities for formative assessment in which graduate students can learn through clear expectations as opposed to trial and error.

Equity without justice: epistemic injustice

The findings highlight instances of testimonial injustices where faculty can deny if a graduate student is ready to defend their dissertation despite having readiness identifiers such as having a job lined up. Additionally, instances of hermeneutical injustice can be observed in the admissions milestone whereby the burden to recruit historically marginalized students often falls on the historically marginalized graduate students themselves to bring in students from their former institutions. Posselt (2016) shed light on the role of faculty discretion and evaluation in shaping structural inequities within disciplinary admissions processes, emphasizing the nebulous nature of faculty members' ideals about student quality, the influence of departmental, disciplinary, and personal priorities on judgments of admissibility, and the implications for equity and the academy's well-being. Finally, contributory injustice occurs when a person or an audience wilfully refuses to acknowledge or require other experiences, resources, and language to expand their own learning ( Dotson, 2014 ). From the findings, examples of contributory injustice can be observed in the candidacy exam milestone whereby professionalism is defined from the faculty's expectations that can ignore how other cultures dress for formal occasions. As an alternative, Vincent-Ruz (2020) qualified the negotiation between the culture of chemistry and a learner's culture by drawing from Gloria Anzaldúa's idea of “border crossing” in which a learner leverages their cultural resources to make sense of social problems in chemistry. Ultimately, epistemic injustice disallows the imagined community of chemists to expand beyond Eurocentric values that centre whiteness; consequently, reproducing oppressive structures that maintain boundaries around disciplinary knowledge for historically marginalized students.

Conclusion & limitations

Nevertheless, there are several limitations of the work: (1) the study took place at a R-1, public-Midwestern university that may have different faculty and graduate student priorities for research that dichotomize learning and legitimacy; (2) the study findings could not be member-checked given the nature of the study to reveal moments of exclusion; and (3) the study presented does not include the perspectives of the graduate students, which would have enhanced interpretations of learning in the graduate program milestones. Although the goal of institutional critique is not generalizability (Porter et al. , 2000), having one study context does limit how findings can be easily applied to other institutional types. Similarly, member-checking in all contexts may not be appropriate if participants would retaliate against other participants or in doing research that uncovers uncomfortable truths ( Hallett, 2013 ; Harvey, 2015 ). Typically, ethnographic approaches do not have the same measures of reliability like performing interrater reliability because the researcher develops trustworthiness by participating in the research context ( Oswald and Dainty, 2020 ). Finally, the graduate student perspectives were intentionally not included in this study given the scope of the study was to understand the structure of the graduate program milestones from the perspective of the stakeholders in response to Weidman and Stein's (2003) work. Future works will seek to centre the stories of the graduate students and illuminate their perspectives on the graduate student milestones and their own professional development in becoming PhD chemists.

Author contributions

Data availability, conflicts of interest, acknowledgements, notes and references.

• Agboka G. Y., (2021), “Subjects” in and of research: Decolonizing oppressive rhetorical practices in technical communication research, J. Tech. Writ. Commun. , 51 (2), 159–174.
• Allen K.-A., Kern M. L., Rozek C. S., McInerney D. M., and Slavich G. M., (2021), Belonging: A review of conceptual issues, an integrative framework, and directions for future research, Aust. J. Psychol. , 73 (1), 87–102.
• Baker V. L. and Pifer M. J., (2011), The role of relationships in the transition from doctoral student to independent scholar, Stud. Contin. Educ. , 33 (1), 5–17.
• Baneres D., Rodríguez-Gonzalez M. E., and Serra M., (2019), An early feedback prediction system for learners at-risk within a first-year higher education course, IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. , 12 (2), 249–263.
• Barber P. H., Shapiro C., Jacobs M. S., Avilez L., Brenner K. I., Cabral C., et al. , (2021), Disparities in remote learning faced by first-generation and underrepresented minority students during COVID-19: insights and opportunities from a remote research experience, J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. , 22 (1), ev22i1–2457.
• Baumeister R. F. and Leary M. R., (1995), The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation, Psychol. Bull. , 117 (3), 497–529  DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 .
• Bettencourt G. M., Friedensen R. E., and Bartlett M. L., (2021), Re-envisioning doctoral mentorship in the United States: A power-conscious review of the literature, Int. J. Dr Stud. , 16 , 237.
• Blockett R. A., Felder P. P., Parrish III W., and Collier J., (2016), Pathways to the professoriate: Exploring Black doctoral student socialization and the pipeline to the academic profession, West. J. Black Stud. , 40 (2), 95–110.
• Brauer D. D., Mizuno H., Stachl C. N., Gleason J. M., Bumann S., Yates B., et al. , (2022), Mismatch in Perceptions of Success: Investigating Academic Values among Faculty and Doctoral Students, J. Chem. Educ. , 99 (1), 338–345  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00429 .
• Brodin E. M., (2018), The stifling silence around scholarly creativity in doctoral education: Experiences of students and supervisors in four disciplines, High. Educ. , 75 , 655–673.
• Burt B. A., (2020), Broadening participation in the engineering professoriate: Influences on Allen's journey in developing professorial intentions, J. Eng. Educ. , 109 (4), 821–842  DOI: 10.1002/jee.20353 .
• Cadena M. A., Amaya C., Duan D., Rico C. A., García-Bayona L., Blanco A. T., et al. , (2023), Insights and strategies for improving equity in graduate school admissions, Cell , 186 (17), 3529–3547.
• Calabrese Barton A. and Tan E., (2020), Beyond equity as inclusion: A framework of “rightful presence” for guiding justice-oriented studies in teaching and learning, Educ. Res. , 49 (6), 433–440.
• Cannella G. S. and Koro-Ljungberg M., (2017), Neoliberalism in higher education: Can we understand? Can we resist and survive? Can we become without neoliberalism? Cult. Stud. Crit. Methodol. , 17 (3), 155–162.
• Cech E. A. and Waidzunas T. J., (2021), Systemic Inequalities for LGBTQ Professionals in STEM. Sci. Adv. , 7 (3), eabe0933.
• Cui Q. and Harshman J., (2023), Reforming Doctoral Education through the Lens of Professional Socialization to Train the Next Generation of Chemists, JACS Au , 3 (2), 409–418  DOI: 10.1021/jacsau.2c00561 .
• Dall’Alba G., (2009), Learning Professional Ways of Being: Ambiguities of becoming, Educ. Philos. Theory , 41 (1), 34–45  DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00475.x .
• Donkor B. and Harshman J., (2023), Learning Goals and Priorities Identified by an Examination of Chemistry Graduate Handbooks, J. Chem. Educ. , 100 (10), 3774–3783  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00062 .
• Dotson K., (2014), Conceptualizing Epistemic Oppression, Soc. Epistemol. , 28 (2), 115–138  DOI: 10.1080/02691728.2013.782585 .
• Espeland W. N. and Sauder M., (2007), Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds, Am. J. Sociol. , 113 (1), 1–40.
• Feldon D. F., Wofford A. M., and Blaney J. M., (2022), PhD Pathways to the Professoriate: Affordances and Constraints of Institutional Structures, Individual Agency, and Social Systems, Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research , Springer, vol. 38, pp. 1–91.
• Fricker M., (2007), Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing , Clarendon Press.
• Fricker M., (2017), in Kidd I. J., Medina J., and Pohlhaus Jr G. (ed.), Evolving concepts of epistemic injustice , Routledge, pp. 53–60.
• Furstenberg A.-L. and Nichols-Casebolt A., (2001), Hurdle or building block: Comprehensive examinations in social work doctoral education, J. Teach. Soc. Work , 21 (1–2), 19–37.
• Gardner S. K., (2007), “I Heard it through the Grapevine”: Doctoral Student Socialization in Chemistry and History, High. Educ. , 54 (5), 723–740  DOI: 10.1007/s10734-006-9020-x .
• Gardner S. K., (2008), “What's too much and what's too little?”: The process of becoming an independent researcher in doctoral education, J. High. Educ. , 79 (3), 326–350.
• Gillies R. M. and Ashman A. F., (2013), Socialization and learning, Coop. Learn. Soc. Intellect. Outcomes Learn. Groups , 1 , 1–9.
• Golde C. M. and Dore T. M., (2001), At cross purposes: What the experiences of today's doctoral students reveal about doctoral education .
• Goldman C. A. and Massy W. F., (2001), The PhD Factory: Training and Employment of Science and Engineering Doctorates in the United States , ERIC.
• Gonzales L. D., Pasque P. A., Farris K. D., and Hansen J. M., (2023), Epistemic Injustice and Legitimacy in US Doctoral Education: A Systematic Review of Literature, Rev. Educ. Res. , 00346543231187628.
• Grusec J. E. and Hastings P. D., (2014), Handbook of socialization: Theory and Research , Guilford Publications.
• Guloy S., Hum G., and O’Neill D. K., (2020), Voices at the gate: Faculty members’ and students’ differing perspectives on the purposes of the PhD comprehensive examination, Assess. Eval. High. Educ. , 45 (2), 279–291.
• Hallett R. E., (2013), Dangers of member checking, Role Particip. Educ. Res. Ethics Epistemol. Methods , 29–39.
• Hammer J., To A., and Principe Cruz E., (2020), Lab Counterculture, Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , ACM, pp. 1–14  DOI: 10.1145/3334480.3381824 .
• Hanson J., Loose W., and Reveles U., (2022), A qualitative case study of all-but-dissertation students at risk for dissertation noncompletion: A new model for supporting candidates to doctoral completion, J. Coll. Stud. Retent. Res. Theory Pract. , 24 (1), 234–262.
• Harshman J., (2021), Review of the Challenges that Face Doctoral Education in Chemistry, J. Chem. Educ. , 98 (2), 259–269  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00530 .
• Harvey L., (2015), Beyond member-checking: a dialogic approach to the research interview, Int. J. Res. Method Educ. , 38 (1), 23–38  DOI: 10.1080/1743727X.2014.914487 .
• Jeong S., Litson K., Blaney J., and Feldon D. F., (2020), Shifting gears: Characteristics and consequences of latent class transitions in doctoral socialization, Res. High. Educ. , 61 , 1027–1053.
• Johnson T. W., (2022), From Equity Talk to Equity Walk: Expanding Practitioner Knowledge for Racial Justice in Higher Education, J. Public Manag. Soc. Policy , 29 (1), 12.
• Keup J. R., Petschauer J. W., Groccia J. E., Hunter M. S., Garner B., Latino J. A., et al. , (2023), The first-year seminar: Designing, implementing, and assessing courses to support student learning and success , Stylus Publishing, LLC.
• Kostohryz K., (2016), The doctoral comprehensive examination in counselor education: Faculty members’ perception of its purposes, J. Couns. Prep. Superv. , 8 (3), 6.
• Kraatz M. S., Flores R., and Chandler D., (2020), The value of values for institutional analysis, Acad. Manag. Ann. , 14 (2), 474–512.
• Lave J. and Wenger E., (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , Cambridge University Press.
• Leary M. R. and Kelly K. M., (2009), Belonging motivation, Handb. Individ. Differ. Soc. Behav. , 400409.
• Levine J. M. and Moreland R. L., (1994), Group socialization: Theory and research, Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. , 5 (1), 305–336.
• Liera R., Rodgers A. J., Irwin L. N., and Posselt J. R., (2023), Rethinking doctoral qualifying exams and candidacy in the physical sciences: Learning toward scientific legitimacy, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. , 19 (2), 020110.
• Maccoby E. E., (2007), Historical overview of socialization research and theory, Handb. Soc. Theory Res. , 1 , 13–41.
• Mantai L., (2022), Social support and identity development in the journey from PhD'student’to’researcher’and beyond .
• McLaughlin J. E., Morbitzer K., Meilhac M., Poupart N., Layton R. L. and Jarstfer M. B., (2023), Standards needed? An exploration of qualifying exams from a literature review and website analysis of university-wide policies, Stud. Grad. Postdr. Educ ., 15 (1), 19–33.
• Nardo J. E., (2021), Case for Narrative Inquiry: Understanding the Experiences of Elena, A Historically Minoritized Graduate Student in Chemistry, J. Chem. Educ ., 99 (1), 113–121.
• National Academies of Sciences E. and Medicine, (2018), Graduate STEM education for the 21st century , National Academies Press.
• Nelson T., (2021), Of inclusion, belonging, and missed connection in higher education.
• Oswald D. and Dainty A., (2020), Ethnographic research in the construction industry: a critical review, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. , 146 (10), 03120003.
• Patel L., (2015), Decolonizing Educational Research: From Ownership to Answerability , 1st edn, Routledge.
• Paxton P. and Bollen K. A., (2003), Perceived quality and methodology in graduate department ratings: Sociology, political science, and economics, Sociol. Educ. , 71–88.
• Peeples T., (1999),’Seeing’the WPA with/through Postmodern Mapping, Rose Weiser , 153–167.
• Perez R. J., Robbins C. K., Harris Jr L., and Montgomery C., (2020), Exploring graduate students’ socialization to equity, diversity, and inclusion, J. Divers. High. Educ. , 13 (2), 133.
• Porter J. E., Sullivan P., Blythe S., Grabill J. T., and Miles L., (2000), Institutional critique: A rhetorical methodology for change, Coll. Compos. Commun. , 610–642.
• Posselt J. R., (2014), Toward inclusive excellence in graduate education: Constructing merit and diversity in PhD admissions, Am. J. Educ. , 120 (4), 481–514.
• Posselt J. R., (2016), Inside graduate admissions: Merit, diversity, and faculty gatekeeping , Harvard University Press.
• Posselt J. R., (2018), The diversity bargain and other dilemmas of race, admissions, and meritocracy at Elite Universities.
• Posselt J., (2021), Discrimination, competitiveness, and support in US graduate student mental health, Stud. Grad. Postdr. Educ ., 12 (1), 89–112.
• Posselt J. R. and Grodsky E., (2017), Graduate education and social stratification, Annu. Rev. Sociol. , 43 , 353–378.
• Posselt J. and Liera R., (2022), Doctoral candidacy and qualifying exams: A guide to contexts, costs for equity, and possibilities of transformation .
• Slater G. B., (2022), Terms of endurance: Resilience, grit, and the cultural politics of neoliberal education, Crit. Educ. , 13 (1), 1–16.
• Slaughter S. and Rhoades G., (2004), Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education , Jhu Press.
• Smaldone A., Heitkemper E., Jackman K., Joanne Woo K., and Kelson J., (2019), Dissemination of PhD dissertation research by dissertation format: A retrospective cohort study, J. Nurs. Scholarsh. , 51 (5), 599–607.
• Sowell R., Allum J., and Okahana H., (2015), Doctoral initiative on minority attrition and completion , Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools, ch. 3, pp. 14–31.
• Stachl C., Hartman E., Wemmer D., and Francis M., (2019), Grassroots Efforts To Quantify and Improve the Academic Climate of an R1 STEM Department: Using Evidence-Based Discussions To Foster Community, J. Chem. Educ. , 96 (10), 2149–2157.
• Twale D. J., Weidman J. C., and Bethea K., (2016), Conceptualizing socialization of graduate students of color: Revisiting the Weidman-Twale-Stein framework, West. J. Black Stud. , 40 (2), 80–94.
• Villarreal C., Posselt J. R., Hernandez T. E., and Rudolph A. L., (2024), Bridging the gap: A sequential mixed methods study of trust networks in graduate application, admissions, and enrollment, J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng. , 30  DOI: 10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2023045735 .
• Vincent-Ruz P., (2020), What Does It Mean to Think Like a Chemist? in Integrating Professional Skills into Undergraduate Chemistry Curricula , ACS Publications, pp. 57–79.
• Walker G. E., Golde C. M., Jones L., Bueschel A. C., and Hutchings P., (2009), The formation of scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first century , John Wiley & Sons.
• Walton G. M. and Brady S. T., (2017), The many questions of belonging, Handb. Competence Motiv. Theory Appl. , 2 , 272–293.
• Warikoo N. K., (2016), The diversity bargain: And other dilemmas of race, admissions, and meritocracy at elite universities , University of Chicago Press.
• Warikoo N., (2018), The diversity bargain: and other dilemmas of race, admissions, and meritocracy at elite universities, Int. Stud. Sociol. Educ. , 27 (4), 457–458.
• Weidman J. C. and Stein E. L., (2003), Socialization of doctoral students to academic norms, Res. High. Educ. , 44 , 641–656.
• Weidman J. C., Twale D. J., and Stein E. L., (2001), Socialization of Graduate and Professional Students in Higher Education: A Perilous Passage? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 28, Number 3, Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series, Jossey-Bass, Publishers, Inc.
• Wilkins-Yel K. G., Arnold A., Bekki J., Natarajan M., Bernstein B., and Randall A. K., (2022), “I can’t push off my own mental health”: Chilly STEM climates, mental health, and STEM persistence among Black, Latina, and White graduate women, Sex Roles , 86 (3–4), 208–232.
• Winkle-Wagner R., Johnson S. D., Morelon-Quainoo C., and Santiague L., (2010), A sense of belonging: Socialization factors that influence the transitions of students of color into advanced-degree programs, On becoming a scholar , Routledge, pp. 179–199.
• Wright C. E., (2023), Methods Matter: Learning From Institutional Ethnography And Intersectionality To Inform Interview Research Methods For Social Justice In Stem Education, J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng. , 29 (4), 1–27  DOI: 10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2022043390 .
• Xu Y. J., (2014), Advance to and persistence in graduate school: Identifying the influential factors and major-based differences, J. Coll. Stud. Retent. Res. Theory Pract. , 16 (3), 391–417.
• Yuval-Davis N., (2006), Belonging and the politics of belonging, Patterns Prejudice , 40 (3), 197–214.

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

FACT SHEET: President   Biden Announces New Actions to Keep Families   Together

Since his first day in office, President Biden has called on Congress to secure our border and address our broken immigration system. As Congressional Republicans have continued to put partisan politics ahead of national security – twice voting against the toughest and fairest set of reforms in decades – the President and his Administration have taken actions to secure the border, including:

• Implementing executive actions to bar migrants who cross our Southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum when encounters are high;
• Deploying record numbers of law enforcement personnel, infrastructure, and technology to the Southern border;
• Seizing record amounts of fentanyl at our ports of entry;
• Revoking the visas of CEOs and government officials outside the U.S. who profit from migrants coming to the U.S. unlawfully; and
• Expanding efforts to dismantle human smuggling networks and prosecuting individuals who violate immigration laws.

President Biden believes that securing the border is essential. He also believes in expanding lawful pathways and keeping families together, and that immigrants who have been in the United States for decades, paying taxes and contributing to their communities, are part of the social fabric of our country. The Day One immigration reform plan that the President sent to Congress reflects both the need for a secure border and protections for the long-term undocumented. While Congress has failed to act on these reforms, the Biden-Harris Administration has worked to strengthen our lawful immigration system. In addition to vigorously defending the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood arrivals) policy, the Administration has extended Affordable Care Act coverage to DACA recipients and streamlined, expanded, and instituted new reunification programs so that families can stay together while they complete the immigration process.  Still, there is more that we can do to bring peace of mind and stability to Americans living in mixed-status families as well as young people educated in this country, including Dreamers. That is why today, President Biden announced new actions for people who have been here many years to keep American families together and allow more young people to contribute to our economy.   Keeping American Families Together

• Today, President Biden is announcing that the Department of Homeland Security will take action to ensure that U.S. citizens with noncitizen spouses and children can keep their families together.
• This new process will help certain noncitizen spouses and children apply for lawful permanent residence – status that they are already eligible for – without leaving the country.
• These actions will promote family unity and strengthen our economy, providing a significant benefit to the country and helping U.S. citizens and their noncitizen family members stay together.
• In order to be eligible, noncitizens must – as of June 17, 2024 – have resided in the United States for 10 or more years and be legally married to a U.S. citizen, while satisfying all applicable legal requirements. On average, those who are eligible for this process have resided in the U.S. for 23 years.
• Those who are approved after DHS’s case-by-case assessment of their application will be afforded a three-year period to apply for permanent residency. They will be allowed to remain with their families in the United States and be eligible for work authorization for up to three years. This will apply to all married couples who are eligible.  
• This action will protect approximately half a million spouses of U.S. citizens, and approximately 50,000 noncitizen children under the age of 21 whose parent is married to a U.S. citizen.

Easing the Visa Process for U.S. College Graduates, Including Dreamers

• President Obama and then-Vice President Biden established the DACA policy to allow young people who were brought here as children to come out of the shadows and contribute to our country in significant ways. Twelve years later, DACA recipients who started as high school and college students are now building successful careers and establishing families of their own.
• Today’s announcement will allow individuals, including DACA recipients and other Dreamers, who have earned a degree at an accredited U.S. institution of higher education in the United States, and who have received an offer of employment from a U.S. employer in a field related to their degree, to more quickly receive work visas.
• Recognizing that it is in our national interest to ensure that individuals who are educated in the U.S. are able to use their skills and education to benefit our country, the Administration is taking action to facilitate the employment visa process for those who have graduated from college and have a high-skilled job offer, including DACA recipients and other Dreamers. 

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.