|
The preliminary examination is a qualifying examination given
to all second year Ph.D students and all third year MD/Ph.D
students in the Cell and Molecular Biology Graduate Group
who have completed all Graduate Group and program course requirements.
The exam is given to all qualified students in late May or
the beginning of June. The intent of the preliminary exam
is to determine whether the student is capable of Ph.D. level
research. The student must pass this exam in order to be advanced
to dissertation status and to remain in the program.
Proposal
| Timetable | Examining
Committee | Exam Procedure
| Possible Outcomes
In the Preliminary Examination, the Student proposes and
defends a plan for his/her thesis project or any other project/problem
relevant to work in their thesis lab if the student does not
yet have a well developed thesis project by the time he/she
takes the exam. The Preliminary Examination consists of 2
parts: the written Proposal and the oral Defense. The proposal
should be typed in 12 point font, with one inch margins and
1.5 spacing. The total length of the proposal (not including
references) should not exceed 16 pages and should have the
same structure as an NIH grant. The proposal can be shorter
than 16 pages. The organization of the written proposal, along
with suggested page lengths, is as follows:
- Specific Aims (1 page): State the specific purposes
of the research proposal and the hypothesis to be tested.
- Background/Significance (2 pages): A brief overview
of the significant background to the proposal. State concisely
the importance of the research described in your proposal
by relating the specific aims to broader, long term objectives.
- Preliminary Data (2-3 pages): Preliminary data,
if available, should be presented, described and interpreted.
The preliminary data need not have been produced by the
student, but the source of all data (i.e., self or another
lab member) should be indicated.
- Research Design and Methods (10 pages): The research
design and procedures to be used to accomplish the specific
aims should be outlined. A tentative sequence for the investigation,
the statistical procedures by which the data will be analyzed,
and any procedures, situations, or materials that may be
hazardous to personnel and the precautions to be exercised
should be included. The expected outcome and interpretation
of results should be discussed. Potential experimental difficulties
should be discussed together with alternative approaches
that could achieve desired aims.
- Human subjects and Animals: Provide the rationale
for the choice of any human subjects or experimental animals.
- Literature Citations: Each citation (numbered in
the body of the proposal) must include the names of all
authors, name of the book or journal, title of article,
volume number, page numbers, and year of publication. The
literature section does not count against the page limit
of the proposal.
The emphasis of the proposal should not be on a review of
the literature but on dealing creatively with the problem
selected. The Proposal should be "hypothesis-driven". That
is, it should aim explicitly to address a working hypothesis
regarding an unresolved issue in Cell and Molecular Biology.
It is important to remember that the proposal should describe
work that can reasonably be done by one person in 3-4 years,
not what an entire lab of people could accomplish in 3-4 years.
In this respect, the written Proposal will be more focused
than a typical NIH R01 application. It is expected that the
proposal will include at least 2 but no more than 3 Specific
Aims. This document is only a starting point for the actual
thesis work. The approach and experiments can reasonably be
expected to change over time with input from the Thesis Advisor
and eventual Thesis Committee.
There is an expectation of substantial depth of knowledge
in the thesis area, broadly defined. Thus, it will not be
sufficient to defend only the particulars of the proposed
experiments. A key element of the Proposal Defense will be
to explain and defend the importance of the questions to be
addressed and to place these questions in the broader context
of the field. Thus, in both the Significance section of the
written Proposal and in the subsequent oral Defense, the student
should be able to marshal knowledge from the relevant literature
and from broader areas of Cell and Molecular Biology. Each
student's performance will be evaluated on: 1) quality of
the written proposal; 2) quality of the oral presentation;
3) defense of the proposal; and 4) general knowledge of Cell
and Molecular biology.
There is no expectation that extensive preliminary data should
exist, but whatever preliminary data is available should be
included as part of the written document. As noted previously,
the source of all preliminary data (i.e., self or another
lab member) should be explicitly indicated.
In preparing the proposal, it would be helpful to look at
the instructions for the Research Plan section of a Public
Health Service grant application (PHS 398) available from
the Office of Extramural Research of the National Institutes
of Health. To view prior preliminary exam proposals, click
below:
Proposal
| Timetable | Examining
Committee | Exam Procedure
| Possible Outcomes
- Mid-February: Meeting with CAMB director to outline
requirements for preliminary proposals and answer any questions
about procedures associated with the exam. Examples of written
proposals will be provided and discussed.
- April 1: Each student will submit the title and
specific aims of their proposal to their program leader
for approval and also provide a copy to the graduate group
office. The specific aims should be no more than one page.
The program leader and other members of your program will
evaluate the specific aims and get back to the student with
approval or suggestions for revisions. If the aims need
to be revised the student will return the revised aims to
the program leader until they are approved.
- April 14: Each student will submit a final detailed
outline of the proposal to the program leader and the graduate
group office. This does not have to be formally approved
by the program leader. However, if significant problems
are found the program leader will notify the student. At
this point the student should be well prepared to write
the final proposal.
- Early May: Each student will be informed of the
composition of his/her examination committees and date/time
of the examination.
- One week before scheduled exam: Each student will
deliver a copy of their proposal to: the graduate group
office, their program leader and each member of their examination
committee.
- Two weeks of May preceeding Memorial Day: Preliminary
examinations are administered.
Requests to delay or defer the exam:
Requests to delay or defer taking the preliminary examination
are strongly discouraged; however such requests will be considered
by the Graduate Group Chair in consultation with the student's
program leader.
Proposal
| Timetable | Examining
Committee | Exam Procedure
| Possible Outcomes
The student is encouraged to consult with his/her Thesis
Advisor during preparation for the Preliminary Examination.
The student is also free to consult with any other faculty,
students or postdocs as they develop their ideas. Thesis advisors
should not give copies of current or former grant applications
to students nor should they edit the student's written proposal.
It is the Thesis Advisor's responsibility to ensure that the
overall objectives of the proposal are worthwhile. The student
can discuss potential experimental approaches with his/her
advisor or others.
The Program Leader, or his/her designate. Optimally,
the program chair should be present at all exams given for
his/her program. If the number of students in a program makes
that impractical, the responsibility should be shared among
one or two senior faculty members of the program. The purpose
of the Program Leader's or designate's presence on the committee
is to be able to compare all the exams with respect to rigor
and the decision making processes of the different exam committees.
With this information, uniformity in decisions can be established.
The final decision for each exam (pass or fail) will be made
by the program chair, and then made known to the student by
the program chair, either at the end of each day of examinations,
or after all exams for his/her program are completed. In making
these final decisions the Program Leader, or designate, will
consider the committee's recommendations along with the comparative
rigor of all the exams. The program leader or designate will
be responsible for the evaluation forms (see below) that constitutes
the written record for the exam.
Experts: The remainder of the committee will be chosen
by the Program Leader and will consist of three faculty members
with a reasonable degree of expertise in the area of the proposal.
They should be selected to provide a balance between junior
and senior faculty.
Thesis Advisor: The Thesis Advisor is explicitly excluded
from being on the Preliminary Examination committee for his/her
own student and has no role in determining the composition
of the committee.
Proposal
| Timetable | Examining
Committee | Exam Procedure
| Possible Outcomes
Prior to the day of the exam: As indicated in the
students' timetable for preparation of the preliminary exam
proposal, each student will provide each member of his/her
committee with a copy of the proposal. In addition, the CAMB
office will provide a copy of the student's file to each examiner.
Faculty should read and review both of these documents prior
to the exam. If any deficiencies are noted that would indicate
that the student has not fulfilled all of the requirements
necessary to take the exam, the CAMB office should be notified
immediately. Any problems with the submitted proposal should
be held for discussion at the committee meeting.
On the day of the exam: The program leader, or designate,
will serve as the chair of each examining committee or should
ask one of the other members to take on this role. Examinations
will be scheduled to allow 1.5 hours for each exam. When the
committee has gathered and the members have been introduced
to the student, the chair should ask the student to leave
the room briefly. The topics to be discussed in the student's
absence are:
- The student's overall record. Any deficiencies that might
need special attention in the oral questioning should be
identified.
- The quality of the written proposal. If the quality is
so poor as to be unacceptable, the student can be given
a "fail" at this point.
- If the proposal is generally acceptable, any specific
deficiencies revealed in the written proposal should be
identified and pursued in the oral questioning.
- The "ground rules" for the examination should
be agreed upon. The student should prepare a 15 minute presentation.
The committee members should decide in advance if they plan
to let the student do the presentation uninterrupted or
if they plan to interrupt the presentation with questions
as they come up. Either format is acceptable, but the student
needs to know which will be followed. When the "interrupt"
mode is chosen, the discussion might proceed in a direction
that does not allow the student to actually complete his/her
prepared talk. The student should be assured ahead of time
that this might happen and that he/she should not be concerned
about getting back to the prepared talk.
The student will then be invited to return to the room. The
chair should explain the ground rules to the student and ask
the student to begin the presentation. The student may prepare
handouts for members of the committee that show results from
preliminary experiments. These can be up to three pages in
length. With the exception of these, the student will be expected
to use the white board if needed. If questioning is slow in
getting started, the committee chair should lead off by asking
a question. The chair should then turn over the questioning
to one of the other examiners. In a rotating fashion the other
examiners should question the student.
Exam questions should be designed to probe the student's
depth of knowledge on the subject of the proposal, both theoretical
and technical. In addition, exam questions should determine
the student's general knowledge of cell and molecular biology
especially as it relates to lecture and seminar courses taken
and independent study and rotations completed. Special emphasis
should be placed on questions designed to elicit the ability
of a student to describe how an experiment was or will be
done and to interpret it appropriately. When the chairman
feels that the student has been examined sufficiently, he/she
will ask the student to leave the room while the committee
discusses the performance. Each student's performance should
be evaluated in four areas: 1) quality of the written proposal,
2) quality of the oral presentation, 3) defense of the proposal,
and 4) general knowledge. Each faculty examiner will be asked
to fill out a form (see Appendix) providing a numerical assessment
of the performance in the four areas on a 1 to 5 scale (1
= outstanding to 5 = unacceptable). Additional narrative comments
can also be added. These should include an assessment of the
student's perceived strengths and weaknesses. These signed
forms are returned to the program chair at the end of the
exam. They become part of the student's file. These forms
have often been collected in haste after the exam; this should
be avoided so that the examiners have time to discuss the
exam and thoughtfully prepare their evaluations. The student
will be told that the outcome of the exams will be made known
at the end of the exams for the program. In most cases this
is little more than a day.
Proposal
| Timetable | Examining
Committee | Exam Procedure
| Possible Outcomes
Pass: This is the outcome for most students. It can
represent a range from absolutely stellar performance to a
good, generally solid one. It is appropriate to give a pass
when the performance is good, but not perfect, and perhaps
was not all that the examiners think the student might be
capable of doing. All four aspects listed above should come
into play in the discussion, and a very strong performance
in one area may serve to offset a weak performance in another
area.
Conditional Pass: This is meant to be used for students
who do well, but perhaps exhibit a significant weakness in
a specific, single area. For example, an excellent presentation,
oral defense and impressive fund of general knowledge in the
setting of a written proposal that is significantly below
average could lead to the recommendation of a Conditional
Pass. In the event of a "conditional pass" recommendation,
the committee must suggest to the Program Chair what the student
should be required to do to clear the deficiency (such as
rewrite the proposal, do an independent study, etc.) If the
student is expected to consult with the committee members
individually, this should be stated, and a time frame for
completing the remediation should be established. This should
typically take less than one month. It is important for the
committee chair to put this in writing so that there is no
ambiguity about what is being asked of the student. At the
end of all the exams the program chair will evaluate and compare
all conditional passes to make sure they are fair decisions
and to assure that the proposed remedial action is equitable
from student to student. When the program chair, or designate,
communicates the outcome of the exams, he/she will discuss
the conditions of a conditional pass with the student involved.
Failure: This is the outcome when the written proposal
is completely unacceptable or performance on multiple aspects
of the exam is unacceptable. If the overall performance of
the student was weak, or if there were significant deficiencies
in more than one of the areas being evaluated, the student
should fail the exam. A student who fails will automatically
get a chance to rewrite the proposal and defend it at another
oral examination. A student who fails the exam twice must
leave the program and has the option of obtaining a Terminal
Master's Degree.
|
