Neuroscience Program Candidacy Exam

Overview

The second year is an important milestone in preparation for a doctorate in Neuroscience. You are probably finished with most of your course requirements and should have a definite idea of an area of specialization for your thesis research. Unlike objective multiple-choice exams that you have taken in the past, the qualifying exam is designed to test your ability to think as a scientist. It is modeled after a fellowship or grant application to the National Institutes of Health. The entire process of preparing for the exam, including writing the proposal, should not take longer than 4-6 weeks. The goal of the exam is to develop an original research proposal and defend it before a small committee of faculty members. The exam thus consists of two parts, a written proposal and an oral defense. The subject area is open to the diverse breadth of modern Neuroscience. However, students should not choose a topic that is too closely related to a rotation project, a thesis project or ongoing research in the department (see below).

In order to advance to candidacy for a Ph.D. degree, you must pass a NEUROSCIENCE PROGRAM candidacy exam consisting of a written proposal, and an oral exam testing your ability to defend the original research proposal.

Time Line (entire process)

The time line for submission of the abstract though your oral exam is as follows:

  1. The abstract is submitted to Dr. Bean who sends it to program faculty.
  2. Within a week (7-10 days) you receive comments on the abstract.
  3. Within four weeks from receiving the abstract comments your full proposal is due.
    A memo with the critiques of your written proposal will be sent to you generally within a week of your submission of the full proposal.
  4. Within one month from the date of the memo containing the comments on your full proposal you must take your oral exam.

A GSBS-approved advisory/examining committee will oversee the process and determine if you passed the exam. This committee will be required to be broad in scope and serve as both your advisory and examining committee. M.D./Ph.D. students and D.D.S./Ph.D. students in the NEUROSCIENCE PROGRAM must take the NEUROSCIENCE PROGRAM candidacy exam.

back to top

Petition for the Ph.D. Candidacy Exam

You must petition the GSBS Academic Standards Committee (ASC) for approval to take the Candidacy Exam. Information on all forms must be typed.

The petition includes the following forms that are posted under the link called “Petition for the Ph.D. Candidacy Examination” on the GSBS website:

back to top

Advisory/Examining Committees

You will need to form advisory and examining Committees before taking your exam. These committees must be approved by the GSBS Academic Standards Committee. Paperwork should be initiated early to avoid unnecessary delays in forming this committee. Please keep in mind the following requirements when selecting your members:

  • Your committees must include five faculty members and be broad in its composition (multiple research areas and techniques represented).
  • The chair of your examining committee must be a member of the NEUROSCIENCE PROGRAM faculty.
  • At least three of the five must be NEUROSCIENCE PROGRAM faculty members (this is a NEUROSCIENCE PROGRAM requirement). For consistency in exams, at least one of the NEUROSCIENCE PROGRAM faculty members must come from the following list (oversight members):
    • Andrew Bean
    • Michael Galko
    • Ray Grill
    • Steve Mills
    • Neal Waxham
    • Jack Waymire
    The current members of the oversight committee are selected by the Program Director. After a term of 3 years the members will be asked whether they want to continue. If they do not want to continue they will be replaced with current Program Faculty by invitation of the Program Director.
  • All of the members may not come from the same department or the same GSBS program.
  • Individuals outside the GSBS faculty may serve on a student's committee when their particular areas of expertise are not represented on the GSBS faculty, but there may be no more than two such members on the committee.
  • If four of the members are from the same Department/Program, the fifth member outside the Department/Program must be a GSBS faculty member.
  • Your Ph.D. advisor IS allowed to be a member of your advisory committee. When forming your examining committee you MUST replace your advisor with another faculty member and the oversight member with a different oversight member. Your advisor is NOT allowed to be involved in your examination.

back to top

Exam Timeline

The NEUROSCIENCE PROGRAM recommends that students take the NEUROSCIENCE PROGRAM candidacy exam in the Spring/Summer of their second Year (by the end of the sixth semester for those not entering in the Fall) so that it is complete prior to beginning the third year.

The written proposal is submitted to the Examining Committee. Within five weeks of submission of the proposal, the oral exam is taken. The entire candidacy exam should be completed by the end of the second year (August). According to the Requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree section on the GSBS website, you “must petition for Ph.D. candidacy before the end of the first semester of the third year of admission to the Ph.D. program”.

Exam Preparation Timetable

  • Before your second year (once you have selected a laboratory): Submit paperwork to GSBS for forming advisory and examining committees. The Academic Standards Committee must approve your committees. Paperwork must be submitted before their meeting on the second Wednesday of each month.
  • Before January of your second year: Meet with your advisor and the advisory committee and request permission to take the exam.
  • Before the Exam Date: Schedule your oral exam with your examining committee. It must be taken within five weeks of being notified that your written proposal has been approved for defense.

back to top

Written Proposal

Prior to the written proposal an abstract must be submitted to Dr. Bean who will send it out to faculty in the Neuroscience Program for review. In addition to the abstract the student must provide a statement justifying how the proposal is “off-topic”. After the abstract has been reviewed the student will receive written feedback on the abstract and, if the abstract is acceptable, the student can begin writing the full proposal.

The written proposal consists of a research proposal that should be no longer than 15 pages (double spaced, Ariel font, 11pt, 0.5 inch margins left/right top/bottom, J. Neuroscience reference citation format) in the style of an NIH proposal. The topic of the proposal MUST use techniques AND be on a topic that is not used in the laboratory where the student will perform their thesis research. For example, if the student is doing their thesis research in a laboratory that uses monkey physiology to examine visual learning, they could write a proposal using biochemical or molecular techniques to understand the role of protein X on AMPA receptor trafficking.

The best way to design a successful proposal is to first go to the library and research a field of interest by reading current reviews and the most exciting recent articles (e.g. news articles in Science, Nature, etc.). A computerized search is essential to avoid missing key papers. Read the literature critically. Do not assume that every conclusion stated in a paper that you read is correct. Next outline the key questions in the field. Refine one or more of these questions into a testable hypothesis. Formulation of a good hypothesis is perhaps the most difficult part of research. Further refine the goals of your project by writing a list of specific aims that could be NEUROSCIENCE PROGRAM Candidacy Exam accomplished during a 2-3 year period. Now carefully design a line of controlled experiments that will accomplish your aims and test your hypothesis. Choose the most appropriate methods to address your question. Become thoroughly familiar with the theory behind the methodology and potential artifacts that may be encountered. Be sure that you know how to analyze and quantitate the results of your experiments. Finally consider alternative strategies that can be taken if the results do not meet your expectations.

The proposal will be submitted to the examination committee as well as Dr. Bean. The examining committee will read the proposal and determine whether it is okay to proceed with the examination. Additionally, as recommended by the GSBS, the proposal will be submitted to "turnitin", a search engine designed to detect plagiarism. After the proposal has been reviewed the student will receive written feedback on the proposal and, if the proposal is acceptable, the student can schedule their qualifying exam defense.

back to top

What is “off-topic”?

The topic of each abstract and the main proposal should be different from the students planned dissertation work. The goal is to allow the student to devise their own original research plan and to learn about other areas, including areas completely unrelated to their mentor’s scientific objectives.

The topic may be related to the student’s dissertation project but is subject to the limitations below. The central hypothesis and specific aims should NOT:

  • Include work the student has already done or is planned in the dissertation project.
  • Overlap projects the student completed as part of a previous thesis or dissertation (if you have another degree).
  • Overlap projects that are being worked on by others in the mentor’s lab, or overlap projects known to be planned by the mentor.
  • Be based on trivial variations of published work or of the student’s dissertation project (i.e. the same experiments in another organism or the exact same approach applied to a different gene).
  • Simply repeat experiments that have already been published or presented publicly by others.

If an abstract or proposal is deemed by the committee to be “not off-topic” the student will be required to submit another one. If students have questions about whether a particular idea for a summary is “off-topic” they can ask the Program Director and/or members of the oversight committee before starting on it. Remember that with your abstract you will submit a statement justifying how the proposal is off-topic (see above).

The proposal should include ALL of the following: Title, Abstract, Specific Aims, Background NEUROSCIENCE PROGRAM Candidacy Exam and Significance, Research Design and Methods, Predictions and Interpretations of experiments, and References cited. The proposal should be converted to a pdf file and submitted electronically to the Program Director and each member of the Examining Committee who will determine whether it meets the proposal criteria.

The format of the proposal follows GSBS guidelines, but it is essentially a shortened version of an NIH R01 Research Plan. While you are not required to produce preliminary data in support of your proposal, you are expected to provide evidence (from the literature) that the approach to be used is feasible.

The proposal should be prepared by the student without assistance from any faculty member. Proposals generated from any coursework are inelegible to be submitted for a qualifying exam. However, after you have prepared your first draft, you may seek comments from senior students and/or postdocs from your lab and/or other labs. It is suggested that you give them a copy of your proposal to review 2-3 weeks before you plan to submit the proposal. This will give you enough time to get their comments back, make your changes and then, if you wish, ask them to read it again. The Program Director and selected committee members will read the proposal and the student will be notified as to whether the proposal is acceptable for defense. If the proposal does not follow guidelines and is not accepted a new written proposal must be submitted.

back to top

Oral Exam

After being notified by the committee that your proposal is acceptable for oral defense, you will defend the proposal in an oral exam with your committee. The student should schedule this meeting when the proposal is submitted. If the written proposal is not acceptable a new written proposal must be submitted. During the exam the student will be expected to make a presentation of about 30 mins that will consist of an Introduction, Background, Aims, Experimental detail, and Summary after which the committee will ask questions.

Prepare for the oral exam by thinking of criticisms that external reviewers might raise and decide how to overcome them. Remember the kinds of questions that are asked after rotation talks. These are examples of the types of questions that you may be asked. Be prepared to present the possible outcomes of your experiments and how they may be interpreted. An effective way to organize your summary talk is to introduce a list of specific questions to be answered and then present lines of experimentation that will address each question. It is a good idea (nearly essential) to practice before a group of experienced graduate students. Be sure to review areas of Neuroscience that you will need to know in order to defend your experiments.

back to top

Exam Day Guidelines

This is a “closed book” oral exam. During the exam, students will not be allowed to refer to any notes or reference materials. No computers, cell phones or other electronic devices are allowed in the exam room.

Results

The Examining Committee will inform you individually regarding the results of your exam. If you do not pass the exam, you can retake it (see next section).

back to top

Retaking the Exam

  1. Students failing the oral exam the first time are allowed to retake the exam only once.
  2. Any students failing the exam will retake it by the end of the Fall semester of the third year.
  3. Students will re-defend the same proposal as previously submitted unless fatal flaws are found in the experiments proposed that necessitate a new selection of experiments.
  4. The retaken exam will be graded on a pass/fail basis. Students failing the retake exam will not advance to candidacy.

Sample Proposals

We recommend that you look at past NIH grant proposals to help you prepare as well as example abstracts and proposals that are stored in the Neuroscience Program Office. These proposals will be posted in the “Current Students” section on the NEUROSCIENCE PROGRAM site.

Proposal Writing Tips

A number of grant writing books are available for checkout from the Neuroscience Program office. Additionally, there is an online proposal-writing resource called “Writing Effective Grant Proposals”, that is available from the M.D. Anderson Scientific Publications office.

back to top

The following tips are from the GSBS website

The research proposal should include Title, Abstract (350 words or less), Specific Aims, Background and Significance, Research Design and Methods, Predictions and Interpretations, and References as described below:

  • Specific Aims: State concisely and realistically what the research is intended to accomplish and/or what hypothesis is to be tested. Using single sentences, enumerate the Specific Aims. For each aim, use no more than a few sentences to describe how it relates to the hypothesis. For each aim describe the approach, the rationale for doing the experiment, and the anticipated results. Do not exceed one page.
  • Background and Significance: Briefly sketch the background to the present proposal, critically evaluate existing knowledge, and specifically identify gaps, which the research is intended to NEUROSCIENCE PROGRAM Candidacy Exam fill. State concisely the importance of the research by relating the specific aims to longer term objectives. Do not exceed five pages.
  • Research Design and Methods: Describe the research design and the procedures to be used to accomplish the specific aims of the project. Include how the data will be collected, analyzed, and interpreted. Describe the methodology in enough detail to allow a knowledgeable reviewer to understand what you will do (don't list buffer compositions, PCR temperatures, oligonucleotide sequences, etc.!). Discuss the potential difficulties. Include a description AND examples of the types of data to be obtained and how they will be analyzed to accomplish the specific aims.
  • Predictions and Interpretations: Summarize the predicted outcomes of experiments and your interpretation of these data. Discuss alternative experiments or strategies that might be utilized. This section should be completed for each Aim and be included as part of the discussion of that Aim.
  • Literature Cited: Each reference must include the title, names of all authors, book or journal, volume number, page numbers, and year of publication for all cited works. The reference should be limited to relevant and current literature. There is no page limit, but it is important to be concise and to select only those literature references pertinent to the proposed research.

The entire proposal should not exceed 15 pages (excluding references).
Evidence of plagiarism is cause for failure and dismissal.

back to top

Oral Defense of Research Proposal

At the oral exam, you are expected to give a 30 minute slide presentation summarizing the background and proposed studies. You should be able to defend the significance, logic, and feasibility of your proposed work, to describe any important related studies in the literature, and to discuss various possible outcomes and how they could be interpreted. This is followed by a question and answer session. Your Ph.D. advisor is not present at the oral exam.

While this session is generally focused on your proposal, if the committee observes deficiencies in your basic knowledge in other areas, you may be questioned about these topics as well. You should practice giving your oral presentation to other students and/or postdocs.

Specific Areas you should be prepared to address at your oral defense

  • The existing body of knowledge on the subject of your proposal.
  • Details of the experimental techniques to be used for the proposed research. If a technique is cited in the proposal, you should be able to explain it in detail, and draw a diagram of the expected results.
  • A clear statement of the central hypothesis of the proposal.
  • Likely outcomes of the proposed experiments and their interpretation.
  • Difficulties and limitations of the proposed procedures.
  • Alternative approaches to achieve the specific aims.
  • The biological significance of the project.
  • Relevant details of any literature cited in the proposal.
  • Future directions of the proposed research beyond the specific aims.

Reserving a Room

You will need to schedule a room for a four-hour block of time for your oral exam.

Grading of Oral Exam

After the question session, your committee will elect to give you one of four possible grades for your oral exam – Unconditional Pass, Conditional Pass, Retake, Fail. Conditional and Unconditional Passes are the most common outcomes. Conditions attached to a Conditional Pass usually involve rewriting part or all of the proposal, writing a literature report on an area of deficiency or enrolling in a course specified by the committee that will benefit the student’s education. In a typical year a few students may be required to retake the exam. These students always perform much better on the second try. However, the retaken exam is graded on a pass/fail basis (see “retaking the exam” above)

back to top

M.S. Bypass

Once you successfully pass your candidacy exam, your Examining Committee may recommend that you bypass the M.S. degree. If the committee recommends such a bypass and this recommendation is approved by the Academic Standards Committee, you will proceed directly on to your post-candidacy Ph.D. studies without writing and defending an M.S. thesis. (see the GSBS document ‘Requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree” for more information).

Guidelines for critique of the qualifying exam (for faculty)

At the conclusion of the meeting please provide the Chair of the exam committee with a brief overall evaluation of his/her written proposal. Some points that you may want to include in your summary are listed below. Not every point need be addressed with each student, and you may want to discuss other areas not listed here pertinent to the individual exam. Try to focus on those areas where the student showed real strengths or weaknesses.

  1. Project Aims
    1. Was the hypothesis and/or model to be tested made clear?
    2. Were the basic approaches to be used logical choices?
  2. Background
    1. Was sufficient background given to assure you that the student has a firm grasp of the literature and reasoning behind the proposed project?
  3. Research Design
    1. Is the rationale for undertaking each Specific Aim or set of experiments clearly stated? Does each Specific Aim or set of experiments seem logical?
    2. Are the proposed experiments described sufficiently? Were appropriate controls included? Do you feel that the student understands the methods well enough?
    3. Are expected results stated? Were sufficient reasons given to expect these results?
    4. Are potential pitfalls and alternative approaches stated in a logical way?
  4. Innovation
    1. Do you believe that this proposal was written by the student without plagiarism?
    2. Is this an innovative proposal? Do you think there are new ideas presented or tested, new methods or ways to use existing ones?

back to top