Choosing a committee--HELP!

[ArthChauc]

I don't want to get too specific here because a) it's unnecessary and b.) it would be nice to have some anonymity. 

I'm at the point where I need to start thinking about the people who will issue the exams I will take in order to become a doctoral candidate. I have two of them worked out securely and am very happy. The last member is the bit that's throwing me. Here's the deal: one professor is older, more well-known, and of Oxbridge pedigree; let's call him professor A. This professor seems to be the "default" for most people in my field as he is well known and very knowledgable. His interests are close to mine but not the exact same. The other professor is younger (pre-tenure) and we have more shared interests but he is often critiqued by people in my cohort as being too brash--some have even made comments that he "doesn't know what he's talking about" even though they have not personally had classes with him; from the courses I have had with him, I have found him plenty knowledgable and don't exactly see claims about him as holding water. He is from a very strong (~`15) program in my field and I find that I get along with him and have a better rapport with him than professor A. 

At this point, I'm at a loss for what to do. I know I need to decide whether to use professor A or professor B for my exam, but I'm not sure who is the better choice. Another thing that I've been thinking about is whether or not the university where these professors were educated matters. Will a letter from an Oxbridge graduate say more to a hiring committee than a strong American institution if they are both teaching at the same university (i.e.: the one I attend)? I'm hoping to find a position in the UK when the time comes, if that makes any difference

Sorry for keeping things vague i.e.: the Oxbridge thing. I don't know if anybody from my department uses this site and think I ought to be safe than sorry. 

Thanks in advance for your feedback--I truly appreciate it! 

[TakeruK]

I think it's a little weird that members of your cohort (i.e. pre-candidacy doctoral students) are criticizing Professor B on his knowledge?? I mean, what are the basis of these claims? How can they know more these things? I think you are right to use your own interactions and judgement of him as a suitable member of your committee instead of these (seemingly) unfounded claims.

I have a quick question though: Is this committee the same committee that will be your thesis committee for your final defense? 

In my opinion, I think you should not simply choose committee members based on their worldwide scholarly reputation or what school they came from. But maybe this is a difference in field (not sure which one you're in). In my field, no one remembers who each PhD's committee are--only the supervisor. You are not limited to only asking for letters from people on your committee.

When I chose my exam committee members (I have 5 members), there were three that are for-sure members (people I'm collaborating with). I picked the other two in order to "balance out" the first three members. For example, I wanted to have a good mix of theoretical workers and data-driven scientists. I went for a mix of young (pre-tenure) professors and those who have been here for longer. The pre-tenure professors can relate more to my job-search-anxieties and the senior people can provide advice that comes from experience that the younger ones do not have yet. I picked people who would firstly be supportive of me but also those that would provide useful constructive criticism which will improve my work. And part of the "supportive" criteria was my rapport with the professor. It's no use having someone very wise or experienced on your committee if you don't get along with them well enough for them to be willing to take the time mentor you and impart their wisdom. 

That is, I would (and did!) pick my committee members not based on who they are (or their background) but whether or not I felt that they would actually be able to mentor me and support me.

[rising_star]

I don't even know where all of my PhD committees did their graduate work, to be quite honest. It isn't something I care about and I doubt hiring committees care either. There's one big question that you haven't addressed here: Do all of these people get along and work well with one another? Quite frankly, you could and should be asking your supervisor whether you should choose Prof A or Prof B. For all you know, your supervisor has had a bad experience on a PhD student's committee with either or both of those people. 

[ArthChauc]

Thank you both for your feedback. Here are a few answers to some questions/concerns you've both brought forth. 

Typically, the committee you choose for exams tends to be your dissertation committee; I say "tends to" because I know of only one exception to this at my university. Typically to the three will be added one outside reader who is from a different university. I like the idea that you mentioned, TakeruK, about having younger members on the committee that would understand job anxieties--that's a really good point. In my field, prestige is somewhat prevalent and I also thought having someone on my committee who has done the whole UK hiring thing might know a good deal more about getting into schools in the UK; that's just a hunch, not anything I know for sure. 

Rising_Star, both scholars have worked successfully with the two current members of my committee in the past. I have spoken to my advisor and she has said that both a good options and that I should choose who I think would be most helpful to me; the only problem with this is that I think they both would be helpful! I obviously would not have brought this question forth without having those kinds of conversations; at this point, my only problem is making a selection. 

Thanks again you two!

[TakeruK]

It's great that they are both going to be helpful to you! Actually...is there a maximum limit to the number of people on your committee? My school actually only requires 4 but I chose to put 5 on my committee because after picking the first 3 I felt that I needed both of the remaining 2 choices in order to have a balanced committee. 

The big disadvantage is that it's far harder to find a time where 5 faculty members can meet together than a time for just 4. So adding another person is a big logistical challenge. Luckily, like your program, the committee for my annual thesis committee review does not have to be exactly as the examination committee at the defense. So, I might just pick 4 out of the 5 faculty members for the defense itself, if scheduling becomes an issue.

[bhr]

I'm just a lowly MA at the moment, but I put an extra person on my committee because I felt like it added something I was missing. I think most places let you "flex" your committee either temporarily or permanently.

[rising_star]

Let me ask another question. Does the pre-tenure faculty member have anything to gain from being on your committee or will it distract them from doing what they need to do to meet pre-tenure and tenure expectations? I ask because some schools don't count being on an exams committee as service, so the pre-tenure faculty member may not want to say no even if they probably should so that they can focus on things that do count.