2023-24 Epidemiology PhD Handbook

One of the degree programs offered by Public Health Sciences at Penn State College of Medicine is the Epidemiology PhD degree. The objectives of the Epidemiology PhD program are to train students to:

• master current quantitative methods, including study designs and appropriate analytic methods in epidemiological research;
• have broad knowledge of the epidemiology of various major human diseases; and
• to become expert epidemiologists in a specific disease/health status topic.

Career opportunities are available in universities, academic medical centers, research organizations, government and private industry.

The mission of the Department of Public Health Sciences at Penn State College of Medicine is to advance health science through:

• the design, conduct and analysis of population-based biomedical research;
• the support of basic science and clinical research; and
• the education of future generations of health professionals.

The mission of the Epidemiology PhD Program in Public Health Sciences is to fulfill the third arm of the departmental mission.

Completion of the degree indicates that the student will have:

• mastered current quantitative methods in epidemiological research to perform in a professional, academic or corporate setting;
• demonstrated the ability to master current knowledge of major public health concerns and demonstrated ability to develop and conduct epidemiological research in a specific topic of major public health relevance; and
• demonstrated a work ethic that supports scholarship and promotes the highest standards of academic integrity.

Each student in the Epidemiology PhD program is assigned an academic adviser upon admission to the program. The assignment is based on matching the student’s research interest and faculty’s expertise in a specific area of research. The role of the academic adviser is as a point of contact for the student as regards to course selection and to help the student with any academic questions or concerns that might arise. Both the student and the adviser are invited to consult with the Graduate Program Director about any issues related to the student’s graduate education experience.

The Epidemiology PhD program encourages students to discuss their research interest with their academic advisors, with the goal of developing the academic adviser and advisee relationship into a PhD dissertation adviser and advisee relationship.

Students also are encouraged to discuss their research interest with other faculty to develop a PhD dissertation adviser and advisee relationship.

After the student has identified a PhD dissertation topic and established a dissertation adviser and advisee relationship, the dissertation adviser replaces the academic adviser as the primary point of contact and to provide academic guidance for the student in regards to completion of the dissertation. The Epidemiology PhD program highly encourages the student to work with their assigned academic adviser to become a dissertation adviser. The dissertation adviser should be identified soon after the student successfully completes the required courses and before the qualifying examination. The qualifying examination is administered after completion of the first three semesters of course work, often in the end of the second fall semester.

The program is designed to be completed in four years, beginning in the fall semester and concluding at the end of the spring semester of the fourth year. It is possible that a student who transfers credits from another institution may finish in less than four years. The typical course sequence is outlined elsewhere in this handbook.

Students planning to graduate in the spring must electronically file their intent to graduate with the Graduate School during January. The PhD dissertation must be written and submitted according to the deadlines outlined by the graduate school. The Graduate School, University Libraries and the graduate faculty of Penn State have established format standards that a dissertation must meet prior to receiving final approval as fulfillment of a graduate requirement. The Office of Theses and Dissertations is the unit of the Graduate School responsible for certifying that the thesis has been prepared in accordance with these established regulations.

The PhD doctoral committee consists of four or more active members of the Graduate Faculty, which includes at least two faculty members in the Division of Epidemiology and one faculty from the Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics in the Department of Public Health Sciences. The doctoral committee is chaired by the dissertation adviser. Faculty members with a primary appointment in the Division of Epidemiology are eligible to serve as the doctoral committee chair. Other faculty members who direct and teach a required course for the PhD in Epidemiology program are also eligible to serve as the chair. At least one regular member of the doctoral committee must represent a field outside the candidate’s major field of study in order to provide a broader range of disciplinary perspectives and expertise. This committee member is referred to as the “Outside Field Member.” Additionally, in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest, the primary appointment of at least one regular member of the doctoral committee must be in an administrative unit that is outside the unit in which the dissertation adviser’s primary appointment is held. This committee member is referred to as the “Outside Unit Member.”

When a PhD candidate has substantially completed all coursework and the qualifying examination, a comprehensive examination, in the form of defending the PhD dissertation proposal, is given. The student must be in good academic standing and must be registered as a full-time or part-time student for the semester in which the comprehensive examination is taken.

The Epidemiology PhD Program encourage the student to taken the comprehensive examination in the end of the second spring semester or the beginning of the third fall semester. The doctoral candidate who has satisfied all other requirements for the PhD degree will be scheduled by the Office of Graduate Enrollment Services to take a final examination. Normally the final oral examination may not be scheduled until at least six months have elapsed after the comprehensive examination was passed.

Following admittance to a degree program, the student should confer with the head of that major department or program concerning procedures and the appointment of an academic adviser. Consultation or arrangement of the details of the student’s semester-by-semester schedule is the function of the academic adviser. This person may be a member of the doctoral committee or someone else designated by the head of the major program for this specific duty. The academic adviser may be different from the dissertation adviser.

Doctoral Committee

General guidance of a doctoral candidate is the responsibility of a doctoral committee consisting of four or more active members of the Graduate Faculty, which includes at least two faculty members in the major field. The dissertation adviser must be a member of the doctoral committee. The dissertation adviser usually serves as chair, but this is not required. If the candidate is also pursuing a dual-title field of study, a co-chair representing the dual-title field must be appointed. In most cases, the same individual (e.g., dissertation adviser) is a member of the Graduate Faculty in both the major and dual-title fields, and in such cases may serve as sole chair.

At least one regular member of the doctoral committee must represent a field outside the candidate’s major field of study in order to provide a broader range of disciplinary perspectives and expertise. This committee member is referred to as the “Outside Field Member.” In cases where the candidate is also pursuing a dual-title field of study, the dual-title representative to the committee may serve as the Outside Field Member.

Additionally, at least one regular member of the doctoral committee must have a primary appointment in an administrative unit outside the primary appointment administrative home of the student’s dissertation adviser (e.g., for tenure-line faculty, the tenure home) in order to avoid the potential for conflicts of interest. This committee member is referred to as the “Outside Unit Member.” In some cases, an individual may have a primary appointment outside the administrative home of the student’s dissertation adviser and also represent a field outside the student’s major field of study; in such cases, the individual may serve as both the Outside Field Member and the Outside Unit Member.

If the candidate has a minor, that field must be represented on the committee by a “Minor Field Member.” (See also Major Program and Minor Field under DEd — Additional Specific Requirements.)

This committee is appointed by the graduate dean through the Office of Graduate Enrollment Services, upon recommendation of the head of the major program, soon after the student has passed the qualifying exam. The dean may on occasion appoint one or more members of the committee in addition to those recommended by the program chair.

A person not affiliated with Penn State who has particular expertise in the candidate’s research area may be added as a “Special Member,” upon recommendation by the head of the program and approval of the graduate dean (via the Office of Graduate Enrollment Services). A Special Member is expected to participate fully in the functions of the doctoral committee. If the Special Member is asked only to read and approve the doctoral dissertation, that person is designated a special signatory. Occasionally, special signatories may be drawn from within the Penn State faculty in particular situations.

The membership of doctoral committees should be periodically reviewed by the program chair to ensure that its members continue to qualify for service on the committee in their designated roles. For example, if appointments, employment at the University, etc., have changed since initial appointment to the committee, changes to the committee membership may be necessary. If changes are warranted, they should be made as soon as possible to prevent future problems that may delay academic progress for the student (e.g., ability to conduct the comprehensive or final examinations).

CHAIR

The chair or at least one co-chair must be a member of the graduate faculty of the specific doctoral program in which the candidate is enrolled. A retired or emeritus faculty member may chair a doctoral committee if they began chairing the committee prior to retirement and has the continuing approval of the department head or program chair. The primary duties of the chair are: (1) to maintain the academic standards of the doctoral program and the Graduate School and assure that all procedures are carried out fairly, (2) to ensure that the comprehensive and final examinations are conducted in a timely fashion, (3) to arrange and conduct all meetings, and (4) to ensure that requirements set forth by the committee are implemented in the final version of the thesis.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF DOCTORAL COMMITTEES

The doctoral committee is responsible for approving the broad outline of the student’s program and should review the program as soon as possible after the student passes the qualifying exam. Moreover, continuing communication among the student, the committee chair, the research supervisor, and the members of the committee is strongly recommended, to preclude misunderstandings and to develop a collegial relation between the candidate and the committee.

DOCTORAL EXAMINATION

The (entire) committee will prepare and administer the examination, and evaluate the candidate’s performance on the examination. If a committee member is unable to attend the final oral defense, the member may sign as a special signatory. A revised committee appointment form will need to be sent to the Office of Graduate Enrollment Services, 114 Kern Graduate Building, removing the faculty member as a regular committee member and if it is desired to designate that individual as a special signatory, a memo must accompany the revised committee form, requesting that the faculty member be moved to a special signatory. If there are then not enough members serving on the committee (i.e., four or more active members of the Graduate Faculty), another Penn State faculty member will need to replace that member to constitute a legitimate doctoral committee. (Substitutes are not permitted.) These changes and approvals shall occur before the actual examination takes place. The program administrator will notify the Office of Graduate Enrollment Services, providing two weeks’ notice, when the candidate is ready to schedule the comprehensive and the final oral examinations and will report the results of these examinations to that office.

The dissertation adviser, as well as the chair of the doctoral committee (if not the same individual as the dissertation adviser), along with additional members of the committee to total a minimum of three (3), must be physically present at the final oral examination. The graduate student must also be physically present at the exam. (Thus for a five-person committee, two could participate via distance.) No more than one member may participate via telephone; a second member could participate via interactive videoconferencing. The examination request and a request for exceptions must be submitted to the director of Graduate Enrollment Services for approval at least two weeks prior to the date of the exam. Special arrangements, i.e., requirements for meeting participation via distance, must be communicated to the student and the doctoral committee members well in advance of the examination.
A favorable vote of at least two-thirds of the members of the committee is required for passing a comprehensive or a final oral examination. If a candidate fails an examination, it is the responsibility of the doctoral committee to determine whether another examination may be taken.

The committee examines the dissertation, administers the final oral examination, and signs the approval page of the dissertation. At least two-thirds of the committee must approve the dissertation.

Each student in the Epidemiology PhD program is expected to acquire breadth of knowledge in the discipline of Epidemiology. Each student must complete:

• 16 credits of core required courses;
• At least 12 additional credits of elective substantive epidemiology or biostatistics courses as described in the coursework section, or other elective courses as recommended by the student’s primary advisor;
• Milestone examinations;
• Fulfill other requirements in this handbook; and
• An original dissertation that involves a specific research topic in an epidemiological area that is worthy of publications of at least two original research manuscripts in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Required Core Methodology courses (16 credits)

• PHS 500: Research Ethics (1 credit)
• PHS 510: Grant Writing Methods (3 credits)
• PHS 518: Scientific Communications (3 credits)
• PHS 554: Statistical Methods in Public Health I (3 credits)
• PHS 555: Statistical Methods in Public Health II (3 credits)
• PHS 560: Epidemiological Research Methods (3 credits)

Required / Elective Substantive Epidemiology courses

(Required / Elective designation depending on research area)

• PHS 503: Nutritional epidemiology (3 credits)
• PHS 556: Cancer epidemiology (3 credits)
• PHS 558: CVD epidemiology (3 credits)
• PHS 561: Chronic disease biomarkers epidemiology (3 credits)
• PHS 562: Environmental epidemiology (3 credits)
• PHS 563: Infectious disease epidemiology (3 credits)
• PHS552: Molecular & genetic epidemiology (3 credits)
• EPID 596: Individual Studies (3 credits)

Elective Biostatistics courses

(Discuss with course director first)

• PHS 523: Multivariate Analysis (3 credits)
• PHS 524: Longitudinal Data Analysis (3 credits)
• PHS 526: Categorical Data Analysis (3 credits)
• PHS 527: Survival Analysis (3 credits)

In order to fulfill the requirements of the PhD in Epidemiology, students are required to successfully pass the following milestone examinations:

1. Qualifying examination: This exam is taken after completion of the first year of course work (earned 19 credits), typically between May and June, after students completed their first full academic year. The qualifying examination takes the form of critical review and appraisal of primary literature on a topic of your choice, often in a student’s dissertation research area. Students are required to choose two recent publications of primary research from the topic of your choice and write a critique of each them. Students are required to demonstrate the understanding of limitations of published studies and be able to identify important gaps and research needs. Students are expected to then further propose an epidemiological study design and analytic approaches that overcomes current gaps in the literature on the research topic reviewed.

   The qualifying exam should be written within about 10 pages. Students will have at least 30 days to complete the qualifying exam. A favorable vote of at least two-thirds of the qualifying exam evaluation committee members is required for passing the qualifying examination. See Millstone Examination Evaluations and Rubrics elsewhere in this handbook. Also see an example of timetable for an Epidemiology PhD student flowchart.

   If a student fails the qualifying exam in the first attempt, the student is allowed to retake it once if the failure is not due to the violation of the qualifying exam rules specified above. The retake of a qualifying exam must be completed and passed by the end of the 2nd fall semester. The evaluation committee members who reviewed the first submission will serve as the reviewers for the second attempt. If a student fails the second attempt, he/she will be terminated from the program.

2. Comprehensive exam: This will be a defense of the dissertation research plan, administered by the student’s doctoral committee. The comprehensive examination must be completed and passed before the end of a student’s third year enrolled in the PhD program, preferably by the summer of the second year or early fall semester of the third year.

   The Comprehensive Exam is administered by the dissertation committee (4-5 graduate faculty members). The comprehensive examination usually takes place 6 to 12 months after the qualifying examination, and students must pass their comprehensive exam by the end of their third year with the PhD program, usually by the end of the third spring semester.  If a student is unable to complete this requirement by the end of the third year, they may petition the program for an extension by writing a formal letter to the program director explaining the reasons for not meeting this deadline.

   Right after the student passes the qualifying exam, they should work closely with their primary mentor(s) in forming a dissertation committee and in preparing the dissertation research proposal. Students are encouraged to have a diverse committee that meets the advising needs of their dissertation project. Often times, students are encouraged to focus on their dissertation research proposals in the areas of literature review to support their dissertation research hypotheses, the details of study populations, methods on study design and data collection, major preliminary data supporting the feasibility of the proposed research, major statistical methods to be used, and finally, the expected results, potential difficulties and alternative approaches. In planning for the comprehensive exam, students must prepare a written document (about 30 pages) and submit it to the members of the dissertation committee two weeks in advance of the comprehensive exam. The comprehensive exam has two parts:

   • Part One: A 45- to 60-minute public presentation of the dissertation research proposal.
   • Part Two: A closed-door meeting with the dissertation committee members.

   The Epidemiology Comprehensive Rubric is used to evaluate the comprehensive exam by the dissertation research committee members. This should be considered as a student prepares their Comprehensive Exam.  A favorable vote of at least two-thirds of the committee members is required for passing the Comprehensive Examination. See Millstone Examination Evaluations and Rubrics elsewhere in this handbook.

   If a student fails the first attempt of the comprehensive exam, the student is allowed to retake the comprehensive exam once, if at least two-thirds of the committee members voted in favor of retaking the Comprehensive Examination.  The retake of a comprehensive exam must still be completed by the end of the third year with the epidemiology PhD program (usually by the end of a student’s third year Assistantship (May 31).

   If a student failed the second attempt, he/she will be terminated from the program.

3. PhD dissertation (PHS 601) credits. Register PHS601 only after passing the Comprehensive Examination. A total of 9 credits must be taken each semester.
4. Successful final oral dissertation defense: This is administered by the entire doctoral committee when the committee feels the student is ready.  There are no deadlines for the completion of the final dissertation defense other than that imposed by Graduate Studies that all students must complete their program within 7 years.  However, graduate assistantships are only given for 4 years and the expectation is that all students will be able to complete their dissertation within 4 years.

   This final defense takes the same format as the Comprehensive Exam.  At this defense, students should be expected to display competencies equivalent to someone having a doctoral degree in epidemiology and should be able to answer all questions related to their project satisfactorily. The Epidemiology Final Dissertation Defense Rubric is used to evaluate the final defense by the dissertation committee members. A favorable vote of at least two-thirds of the members of the PhD committee is required for passing the final defense. See Millstone Examination Evaluations and Rubrics elsewhere in this handbook

The evaluation form for milestone exams includes several areas of assessment with scores of unacceptable, marginal, average, above average and superior; it also includes an overall pass or fail selection.

Below are the rubrics for assessing each area on the different types of exams.

Rubric for evaluation of the Qualifying Exam

1. Demonstrates ability to critically evaluate primary literature
   • Unacceptable to Marginal: Student demonstrates ability to gather and convey factual information from primary literature but shows limited ability to evaluate information.
   • Average: Student demonstrates some ability to critically evaluate information from primary literature.
   • Above average: Student can critically evaluate information from the literature and appropriately integrate information from multiple sources.
   • Superior: Student demonstrates a deep understanding and integration of the literature related to the research area. Demonstrated understanding of the limitation of the published literature.
2. Demonstrates ability to the key gaps in the literature
   • Unacceptable to Marginal: Student fails to identify and/or support at least one key gap in the literature.
   • Average: Student identifies a key gap and the evidence for such a gap is provided partially.
   • Above average: Student identifies a key gap in the literature and provide strong evidence for such the research gap
   • Superior: Student identifies and provides very strong evidence to support significance for a key research gap.
3. Demonstrates ability to apply epidemiological methods to support a key research needs in the research topic
   • Unacceptable to Marginal: Proposed study design and analytic methods do not appropriately address the gaps identified
   • Average: Proposed study design and analytic methods are clearly written and address the gaps identified
   • Above average: Proposed study design and analytic methods are well developed to address the gaps identified
   • Superior: Proposed study design and analytic methods are very well developed and integrated to address the gaps identified
4. Demonstrates ability to effectively write a literature review
   • Unacceptable to Marginal: Student provides convoluted or inappropriate presentation of information and evidence in support of research question.  Numerous grammar and/or spelling errors are evident.  Figures and tables are not appropriately used and/or are difficult to understand.  Citations are limited and/or inappropriate.
   • Average: Organization of document is generally clear but contains some flaws.  Writing does not readily communicate important information. There are few grammar and/or spelling errors.  Figures and tables are helpful in supporting the study findings but contain non-essential information.  Citations are appropriate.
   • Above average: Organization of document is logical and clear.  Writing clearly communicates important information.  Grammar and spelling are appropriate.  Figures and tables are helpful in supporting of the research findings.
   • Superior: Organization, writing, and grammar are publication quality.  Figures and tables demonstrate careful construction and consideration for effectively supporting the proposed study.

Rubric for evaluation of the Comprehensive Exam 

1. Demonstrates ability to critically evaluate primary literature
   • Unacceptable to Marginal: Student demonstrates ability to gather and convey factual information from primary literature but shows limited ability to evaluate information.
   • Average: Student demonstrates some ability to critically evaluate information from primary literature.
   • Above average: Student can critically evaluate information from the literature and appropriately integrate information from multiple sources.
   • Superior: Student demonstrates a deep understanding and integration of the literature related to the research area. 
2. Demonstrates ability to identify a key research question and develop the rationale to support its importance
   • Unacceptable to Marginal: Student fails to identify and/or support a key research question. A testable hypothesis is not clearly stated.  Research questions addressed are not novel.
   • Average: Student identifies and provides limited support for key research question. Hypothesis is not well presented.  Questions addressed show little originality or are a minor advance in the research area.
   • Above average: Student identifies and provides support for key research question but does not fully develop the significance of the research. Hypothesis is clearly presented.  Questions addressed shows some originality in the research area.
   • Superior: Student identifies and provides support and significance for key research question. Hypothesis is clearly presented, creative, and well supported by literature.  Question addressed is original and innovative.
3. Demonstrates ability to develop appropriate specific aims
   • Unacceptable to Marginal: Aims are poorly developed and/or do not appropriately address the overall hypothesis
   • Average: Aims clearly written and address overall hypothesis
   • Above average: Aims are well developed with a series of investigations to test each aim.
   • Superior: Aims are well developed and integrated to address the overall hypothesis.
4. Proposes appropriate study methods and study population and proposes appropriate analytic methods to test the specific hypotheses
   • Unacceptable to Marginal: Proposed study design does not take into account for the limitations of the study and/or did not appropriately test specific aims or overall hypothesis. Appropriate use of rigor to insure the study validity is limited or lacking.
   • Average: The proposed study deign is a reasonable in testing of specific aims but lacks appropriate accounting for potential biases and/or indication of alterative hypotheses for the potential lack of expected associations. Appropriate use of rigor to insure the study validity is present but there is limited discuss of the biases being well accounted for in the proposal.
   • Above average: Design is a comprehensive test of the specific aims and overall hypothesis. Accounting for biases and limitations are clear.  Rigor to insure study validity is described in some detail.
   • Superior: An integrated series of prioritized research hypotheses are tested to support the overall hypothesis. Alternative hypotheses are well presented, especially when there is a lack of expected association. Rigor to insure study validity is clearly presented. Biases are well-controlled for. The proposed applications of analytic methods are appropriate for the studies. 
5. Demonstrates ability to effectively communicate the dissertation research proposal 
   • Unacceptable to Marginal: Student provides convoluted or inappropriate presentation of information and evidence in support of research question. Numerous grammar and/or spelling errors are evident.  Figures and tables are not appropriately used and/or are difficult to understand.  Citations are limited and/or inappropriate.
   • Average: Organization of document is generally clear but contains some flaw Writing does not readily communicate important information. There are few grammar and/or spelling errors.  Figures and tables are helpful in supporting the study findings but contain non-essential information.  Citations are appropriate.
   • Above average: Organization of document is logical and c Writing clearly communicates important information.  Grammar and spelling are appropriate.  Figures and tables are helpful in supporting of the research findings.
   • Superior: Organization, writing, and grammar are publication quality. Figures and tables demonstrate careful construction and consideration for effectively supporting the proposed study.

Ruric for evaluation of the Final Defense 

1. Demonstrates ability to critically evaluate primary literature
   • Unacceptable to Marginal: Student demonstrates ability to gather and convey factual information from primary literature but shows limited ability to evaluate information.
   • Average: Student demonstrates some ability to critically evaluate information from primary literature.
   • Above average: Student can critically evaluate information from the literature and appropriately integrate information from multiple sources.
   • Superior: Student demonstrates a deep understanding and integration of the literature related to the research area.
2. Demonstrates ability to identify a key research question and develop the rationale to support its importance
   • Unacceptable to Marginal: Student fails to identify and/or support a key research question. A testable hypothesis is not clearly stated.  Research questions addressed are not novel.
   • Average: Student identifies and provides limited support for key research question. Hypothesis is not well presented.  Questions addressed show little originality or are a minor advance in the research area.
   • Above average: Student identifies and provides support for key research question but does not fully develop the significance of the research. Hypothesis is clearly presented.  Questions addressed shows some originality in the research area.
   • Superior: Student identifies and provides support and significance for key research question. Hypothesis is clearly presented, creative, and well supported by literature.  Question addressed is original and innovative.
3. Demonstrates ability to develop appropriate specific aims
   • Unacceptable to Marginal: Aims are poorly developed and/or do not appropriately address the overall hypothesis
   • Average: Aims clearly written and address overall hypothesis
   • Above average: Aims are well developed with a series of investigations to test each aim.
   • Superior: Aims are well developed and integrated to address the overall hypothesis.
4. Demonstrates ability to carry out appropriate epidemiological investigations to test the specific hypotheses
   • Unacceptable to Marginal: Research design did not take into account limitations of the study and/or did not appropriately test specific aims or overall hypothesis. Appropriate use of rigor to insure the study validity is limited or lacking.
   • Average: The study deign is a reasonable test of specific aims but lacks appropriate accounting for potential biases and/or indication of alterative hypotheses for the lack of expected associations. Appropriate use of rigor to insure the study validity is present but there is limited discuss of the biases being well accounted for.
   • Above average: Design is a comprehensive test of the specific aims and overall hypothesis. Accounting for biases and limitations are clear.  Rigor to insure study validity is described in some detail.
   • Superior: An integrated series of prioritized research hypotheses are tested to support the overall hypothesis. Alternative hypotheses are well presented, especially when there is a lack of expected association. Rigor to insure study validity is clearly presented. Biases are well-controlled for. The applications of analytic methods are appropriate for the studies.
5. Demonstrates ability to effectively communicate the dissertation research results, both orally and in written
   • Unacceptable to Marginal: Student provides convoluted or inappropriate presentation of information and evidence in support of research question. Numerous grammar and/or spelling errors are evident.  Figures and tables are not appropriately used and/or are difficult to understand.  Citations are limited and/or inappropriate.
   • Average: Organization of document is generally clear but contains some flaw Writing does not readily communicate important information. There are few grammar and/or spelling errors.  Figures and tables are helpful in supporting the study findings but contain non-essential information.  Citations are appropriate.
   • Above average: Organization of document is logical and c Writing clearly communicates important information.  Grammar and spelling are appropriate.  Figures and tables are helpful in supporting of the research findings.
   • Superior: Organization, writing, and grammar are publication quality. Figures and tables demonstrate careful construction and consideration for effectively supporting the study findings.

Example Timetable for an Epidemiology PhD Student

Fall, year 1 (9 hours):
PHS 554 (RCM)
PHS 518 (RCM)
1 RCSE or EE

Spring, year 1 (10 hours):
PHS 500 (RCM)
PHS 555 (RCM)
PHS 560 (RCM)
1 RCSE or EE

June: Qualifying Exam

• Critical review and appraisal of primary literature to identify key research questions and develop the rationale to support its importance in your dissertation topic area. Demonstrating the understanding of limitations of published studies & identifying important gaps and research needs.

Fall, year 2 (9 hours):
PHS 510 (RCM)
2 EEs or
1 EE and 1 EB

After the Fall of Year 2
Prep for the comprehensive exam

Summer Between Spring of Year 2 and Fall of Year 3
Comprehensive exam

Year 3 to Year 4:
Dissertation research and final defense.

Key to courses

RCM – Required Core Methodology courses (16 credits):
PHS554: Statistical Methods in Public Health I (3 credits)
PHS555: Statistical Methods in Public Health II (3 credits)
PHS560: Epidemiological Research Methods (3 credits)
PHS510: Grant Writing Methods (3 credits)
PHS518: Scientific communications (3 credits)
PHS500: Research Ethics (1 credit)

RE /EE – Required Epidemiology / Elective Epidemiology Substantive courses (21-27 credits):

Note: Whether a course in this list is a RCSE or EE is dependent on the dissertation research area and advisor’s recommendation.

PHS503: Nutritional epidemiology (3 credits)* or NUTR503
PHS552: Molecular & genetic epidemiology (3 credits)*
PHS556: Cancer epidemiology (3 credits)
PHS558: CVD epidemiology (3 credits)
PHS562: Environmental epidemiology (3 credits)
PHS563: Infectious disease epidemiology (3 credits)*
EPID596: Individual studies (3-9 credits) – can be used to replace the* courses

Elective Biostatistics (EB) courses (15 credits):
PHS523 Multivariate Analysis (3 credits)
PHS524 Longitudinal Data Analysis (3 credits)
PHS526 Categorical Data Analysis (3 credits)
PHS527 Survival Analysis (3 credits)

In order to fulfill the requirements of the PhD in Epidemiology, students are required to fulfill the following requirements:

1. Attendance and participation in the epidemiology seminar series: Learning from each other and guest speakers is an integral part of the work of all scientists.  Further, scientific communication and public speaking is an important competency for all graduate students.  Students are required to attend. Each student is required to present at least one seminar each year after their qualifying examination.  In the event you have to miss a seminar due to illness or unforeseen circumstances, you must notify the program director as soon as possible.
2. Teaching and Research Assistant (TA/RA) requirement:

   All Students are required to serve as teaching assistant (TA) for at least three consecutive years, with the expectation to lecture 1-2 sessions in the second and third year.

   TAs will be assigned to a class/instructor by the program director no later than the new student orientation. Individual TA duties are up to the instructor of record. All first year TAs are expected to attend all lectures and labs. Attendance at lectures and labs for second and third year TAs is at the discretion of the instructor and may vary. Typically, first-year students will perform the grading for the course. Second-year students would develop and deliver 1-2 sessions and third-year students will take on 2-3 lectures. Second- and third-year students may also help with other aspects of the course as well. Most TAs will need to commit an average of 10 hours/week over the semester. Some weeks may be less than 10 hours/week but some weeks may be more.

   All students on Penn State Assistantship are required to serve as research assistants (RAs) in all years, with the first 2 years working with their academic mentor and the last 2-3 years on their dissertation research with their academic mentor. The condition of your assistantship is to work 20 hours/week. During the semester a student is TAing, the expectation is to work on your research project in your RA assignment and average of approximately 10 hours/week during that semester, adjusting as variations with TA responsibilities happen. During all time not serving a TA, students on the assistantship should be working 20 hours a week to fulfill the requirements.

Students are allowed to transfer up to 10 credits from an external graduate program to fulfill the 28-credit course requirements for the Epidemiology PhD program. The Admissions Committee will review the syllabus for the equivalent courses to determine their eligibility for transfer.

All PhD candidates are required to demonstrate high-level competence in the use of the English language, including reading, writing, and speaking. All PhD candidates will be evaluated on their English competency (1) by their presentations in epidemiology seminar series before their qualifying exam by the program director; and (2) by the required course instructors at the time of grading their homework, class presentations, and class examinations. The program director and these course instructors will be asked to identify any potential English competency concerns based on both oral and written interactions with students. If any concerns are raised, the program director will determine subsequent steps including possibly additional testing and remediation steps. If no concerns are raised, then the student is found to have sufficient English competency per the graduate school requirement.

An original PhD dissertation is required for completion of the Epidemiology PhD. Details about the dissertation requirements are available on the Graduate School website.

The Graduate School reviews the format of the dissertation and does not provide edits to the dissertation for spelling, grammar or punctuation. A PhD dissertation must be submitted electronically. See details on electronic thesis (eTDs) submissions.

A minimum grade-point average of 3.0 for all coursework is required to fulfill the graduation requirements. One or more failing grades or a cumulative grade-point average below 3.0 may be considered evidence of unsatisfactory scholarship and be grounds for dismissal from the University (see the Graduate Programs Bulletin).

If, for reasons beyond the student’s control, a student is prevented from completing a course within the prescribed time, the grade in that course may be deferred with the concurrence of the instructor.

The period during which a grade may be deferred shall not extend, without further approval of the dean of the college, beyond the end of the sixth week of the next semester in which the University is in session. A deferred grade that is not changed to a passing grade by the instructor before the end of this period automatically becomes an F.

Academic Integrity at Penn State is defined in Faculty Senate Policy 49-20 as “the pursuit of scholarly activity in an open, honest and responsible manner.” The University’s Code of Conduct states that “all students should act with personal integrity, respect other students’ dignity, rights and property, and help create and maintain an environment in which all can succeed through the fruits of their efforts.

Academic integrity includes a commitment not to engage in or tolerate acts of falsification, misrepresentation or deception. Such acts of dishonesty violate the fundamental ethical principles of the University community and compromise the worth of work completed by others”. Academic dishonesty (including, but not limited to cheating, plagiarism, or falsification of information) will not be tolerated and can result in academic or disciplinary sanctions such as a failing (F) grade in the course.

To enable our PhD students to be excellent communicators in professional settings, we require each PhD student to give at least two presentations in our PHS Epidemiology Seminar Series.

The first presentation would be for the second-year PhD students to present the research from their first year as a PhD student. The first presentation should be 30-60 minutes per student.

If a student is in a Graduate Assistantship position (we have four such positions each year), the student is required to work with their primary mentor as a Research Assistant upon enrollment. If you are in this situation, you should work with your academic mentor to learn about your mentor’s research projects upon arrival. As a result, you should have enough material to fulfill your first presentation (given in the second year of your study) requirement.

If a student is self-pay, they are not required to work as a Research Assistant. In most cases, these students are also full-time employees of Penn State. As such, these students are involved in research projects with their job supervisor. If you are in this situation, you should present work-related research material to fulfill your first presentation (given in the second year of your study).

The second presentation would be for the third-year students after passing the qualifying examination. The second presentation can be used to fulfill a PhD candidate’s oral defense of the dissertation research proposal if the dissertation committee chair desires to do so. As such, the second presentation will be more concentrated on a PhD candidate’s dissertation research. The second presentation will be 60 minutes per student.

The Public Health Sciences (PHS) Epidemiology PhD Program has established an academic travel support fund. The primary purpose of this fund is to provide financial awards for students attending national, highly-reputable scientific meetings that focus on epidemiology.

It is expected that students applying for travel awards will present an oral or poster presentation at such meetings. The level of support is summarized below:

• Abstract submission fee up to $50 plus:
  • Travel expense reimbursement up to $400 for a poster presentation
  • Travel expense reimbursement up to $800 for an oral presentation
  • Travel expense reimbursement up to $1200 if the abstract is accepted for a presentation and the paper is submitted and selected as one of the finalists in a competitive contest.

How to apply for a Travel Award

Advance application to the program director is required. The application shall include:

1. The title of the abstract to be submitted
2. The name and location of the scientific conference
3. The list of all authors in the abstract
4. A copy of the abstract to be submitted
   • A request for financial support for a similar abstract that is currently under consideration by another conference is not allowed.
   • A request for financial support for a similar abstract that was presented at a different conference is not allowed.
   • If an Epidemiology Travel Award is received, the student must also present their research at our Epidemiology Division seminar series, preferably before attending the conference.

As soon as the applicant receives notification of the award, they should schedule a meeting with the Administrative Support Assistant for the PHS Department’s Graduate Program, who will review travel policies with them. This should be done prior to making any travel arrangements.

The student must also submit an online PHS travel request as soon as they receive notification of the award. Travel Awards will be used to reimburse the student for abstract fees and travel expenses after they attend the meeting. If actual costs will exceed the amount of the award, the student should either seek additional funding from their advisor/mentor, or pay for those costs on their own.

The Epidemiology Academic Travel Support Fund was created by the generous contributions of:

• Dr. Vernon Chinchilli, PHS Department Chair
• Dr. Duanping Liao, PhD Program Director and Epidemiology Division Chief

Fulfilling the requirements for a degree from the Epidemiology Graduate Program requires extensive time and effort. In most cases, this undertaking is incompatible with additional employment either within or outside the University. Thus, students appointed to a graduate assistantship or fellowship typically are not permitted to hold any additional employment. Per University Policy, any additional jobs (PT, wage payroll, etc.) must be officially approved before starting. These are the steps that students need to follow:

1. Written approval from PI which must include: hours per week/semester, duration of position and source of funds
2. Submit PI approval and Job Posting to Rachel Reager and Becky Yockey in Graduate Education
3. Rachel Reager/Becky Yockey review and submit all information and recommendations to Dr. Daniela Zarnescu, associate dean for graduate education and postdoctoral training, for approval

For international students: Employment for F-1 and J-1 students is limited, and working without permission is a violation of status and a deportable offense. F-1 and J-1 students may not work off-campus without permission from International Student and Scholar Advising (ISSA). On-Campus Employment is permitted with certain restrictions. Students must complete employment paperwork with ISSA in order to work on-campus. A Social Security number is required for anyone receiving payment. ISSA can assist you with this process. ISSA offers workshops every semester which explain the different types of off-campus work permission available to F-1 and J-1 s Only in very rare circumstances will exceptions be granted. Students on assistantships must receive written permissions from the research adviser, the Chair of the Program, and other individuals designated by the Graduate School prior to seeking concurrent employment.