MMI Qualifying Exam
I. Preparatory course
This course will be required and given without academic credit. It is part of the exam process. One term, 1 time/week x 6-8 weeks (2 hrs). The course will encompass the following:
1. The goal is to instruct by example in the following areas: formulation of hypotheses and development of specific aims. Students could be given examples of good grant proposals.
2. Instruction on the formulation of hypotheses and specific aims will be based on a specific paper (s) selected by the course instructor(s). In class, as an example, one “mock topic” will be developed to the two-page description stage that defines the topic, the general questions that would be addressed and a brief outline of experimental approaches.
II. Development and Final Selection of Exam Topics
1.Three topics will be developed independently by the student, according to the format above (2 page description for each topic).
2. Topics are submitted to the Qualifying Exam Committee by July 1st.
3. The committee will approve which of the topics may be developed according to the NRSA format (July 15th), and the student will be notified. (An NRSA is a postdoctoral proposal that is much reduced in scope compared to an RO1 research proposal; see below for details. ) The student will respond with their choice of topic within 2 days.
III. Proposal Development & Examination
1. The proposal will be prepared in NRSA format; 10-page limit, single-spaced (Item 30b. Research Training Proposal; PHS 416 instructions).
2. Proposals will be submitted to the Qualifying Exam Committee near the end of August. Each exam will be evaluated by three primary reviewers and two readers from the Qualifying Exam Committee.
3. The oral exam for each student will be given around the first or second week of September.
4. The Qualifying Exam Committee will consist of 5 faculty members and 2 additional ad hoc faculty members. Ad hoc members of the committee will substitute for regular members in cases of conflict of interest, or for additional expertise when needed. A single Qualifying Exam Committee (with substitution by ad hoc members for some students) will evaluate the written proposal and examine each student in a given year to ensure consistency in the process. Each of the five members (including ad hoc members for some students) will vote on the outcome.
IV. Outcomes
The outcome will be decided by majority vote of the Qualifying Exam Committee.
Students will be informed of the outcome following the oral exam. The chair of the subcommittee will provide a written critique of the proposal to the student, as well as a memo of recommendation to the head of the graduate program.
Pass: The student passes the written and oral exam. In certain circumstances there may be recommendations from the Committee, communicated to the student and his/her mentor by the director of the graduate program, as to specific areas of weakness the student should continue to work on during the thesis work.
Fail: If the student presents an unacceptable written proposal, there will be no oral exam. The student may have an acceptable proposal but fail the oral exam. In either case, the student will have the option of taking the exam again the subsequent year or resigning from the program. If the decision is to re-take the exam, the student will be expected to re-take the preparatory class. Three topics will be developed on the second attempt. It will be the student’s decision whether to include any of the same topics as before, or develop new ones. Failure after two attempts precludes a third attempt.
Conditional: A conditional pass will be given only when a student is required to correct a perceived deficit by enrolling in a particular course that addresses the deficit. A satisfactory completion of the recommended course will result in a Pass.
TIME LINE FOR 2008:
Spring Term –preparatory class (~6 weeks; 1 session/week)
Early July–submit 3 developed topics (2 pages max for each topic) to the committee.
Mid July—one to three acceptable topics chosen by the Qualifying Exam Committee.
two days later-final topic chosen by student.
Late August–submit completed NRSA type proposal to the committee
Second week in September– Begin oral examinations.
Please see the PMCB qualifying examination guidelines.
Basic Guidelines
1. Choice of Topic
Topics may be in the student’s general area of specialization (e.g. immunology or virology or pathogenesis), but must be distinct from the student's thesis research and from ongoing projects in the thesis advisor's laboratory.
For example, a student whose thesis work involves T-cell immunity against a virus would not be allowed to choose a qualifying exam topic concerning T-cell immunity to a different virus, or even a bacterium, but may consider topics that involve viral evasion of the immune system or NK/innate immunity to microorganisms.
Topics should be broad enough to have some depth and significance, but narrow enough to allow a realistic, three-year research plan. The topics should include both a question or hypothesis and an experimental approach to answer the question or test the hypothesis.
2. Format
Written Proposal
The proposal should be in the NRSA format; 10-page limit, single-spaced (see pages 9/10 of PHS 416 instructions). The written proposal should include a focused set of proposed experiments bearing directly on the question or hypothesis, with a discussion of probable outcomes, interpretations and alternative approaches.
Oral Exam
The oral exam will probe the depth of the student's understanding of his/her research proposal. Students may also expect questions on background in their areas of specialization as well as more general background for biomedical research. Students will be asked to give a short presentation giving an overview of the proposal (15 min).
3. Consultations/Discussions
Students may discuss topics and appropriate experiments with all sources (fellow students, postdocs, faculty, and visiting scientists), with the exception of their thesis research advisors, who should not be involved in their student's exam process.
However, the written proposal is an examination, and must represent the student's own work in developing the topic and describing a convincing connection between an idea and a set of experiments to test it. Drafts of the written proposal should not be reviewed by anyone.