GENERAL INFORMATION

Purpose

A formal exam of the student by the program to ensure that there are no concerns that would preclude the student from formal Admission to Candidacy for a Ph.D. at UC Denver. After successful completion of the comprehensive exam, the student focuses on the laboratory component of their thesis research.

A "teaching exercise" that exposes the student to the process of writing an "NIH-style" proposal.

Other Info

As this is a formal UC Denver exam the student must be registered for the semester in which they take the exam.

The student must complete necessary paperwork through the Graduate School AT LEAST 2 WEEKSbefore the exam.

TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION

1. By the first week of September students must submit a 1/2 page abstract describing the hypothesis and Specific Aims.

2. By mid-September a chair-person will be assigned. This is based on selection of the abstract by those faculty who have volunteered to be chair-persons. The abstracts are provided to the faculty without the students name attached.

3. After a chairperson has been assigned to the student, they should meet ASAP to decide upon a timetable for submission of the first draft (and subsequent drafts) to the chairperson. This should be done in a timely fashion so that the chair has adequate time to provide feedback on the multiple drafts such that the completed proposal can be submitted on time.

4. By mid-November the completed proposals should be submitted. At the discretion of the chair, this date can be delayed to give the student more time to further revise the proposal.

5. The formal defense of the proposal should occur before January 31.

6. The student should give a printed copy of the proposal to each committee member at least 2 weeks before the scheduled exam. Faculty are encouraged to adhere to this guideline.

7. The student should plan on spending a MAXIMUM of 6 WEEKS away from laboratory writing the proposal during the fall quarter. After 6 weeks the student should return to the lab and continue any remaining work on their proposal at nights and weekends (or times that are outside their conventional work schedule).

PROPOSALS

Eligible Topics

The intent of the exam is that material is based on an "Original" Hypothesis developed by the student. The topic of the exam will be chosen each year by the Graduate Steering Committee from previous NIH R21 request for applications (RFAs). This provides a general topic sufficiently broad such that each student should find a sub-topic suitable for developing an appropriate hypothesis to test.

Preparation of the Proposal

• The student will work with their chairperson in preparing the written portion of the comprehensive exam. The chairperson will offer suggestions about the structure of the proposal, the material covered in the Background and Significance, the feasibility and design of experiments, etc. The chair may also offer input as to the grammar and sentence construction should they feel so inclined.
• The general format is that prescribed for an NIH NRSA application. Students may read proposals from previous students however they should be aware that they must follow the format prescribed by the program for the current year.
• Students may get advice on techniques from others, but besides the chairperson no one should read the proposal without the recommendation and approval of the chairperson.
• Any issues that arise should be discussed and resolved with the chairperson.
• The particular format and page guidelines may change from year to year. In 2003 the format mandates that the written document is a MAXIMUM 15 pages (single spaced, 12 pt, Arial font, 1 inch margins) with an additional 2 pages for figures (if needed to draw a model, Constructs, experimental design etc) and an additional 1/2 page abstract. The reference list is excluded from this page calculation.
• The written document should include a 1/2 page Abstract; and 3 sections: A. Specific Aims; B. Background and Significance; C. Experimental Design. A summary is also recommended. (An outline of what each section should contain is provided below).

FORMAT AND STRUCTURE

The proposal should be organized into the following sections: Specific Aims, Background and Significance, Research Design and Methods. While page restrictions are not imposed on the specific sections, the Research Design and Methods section should constitute about 2/3 of your proposal. In addition, an Abstract (typed the same way on a separate page) must be provided. The Abstract includes an outline of the specific aims and the experiments used towards them and should be about 1/2 -2/3 of a page. Do not feel compelled to use all 15 pages. Sometimes proposals that are shorter are more focused often than proposals that utilize the entire 15 pages.

• Appearance and legibility are very important. Incorporation of figures is also very useful.
• The Specific Aims section (A) should include a testable hypothesis, based on experimental evidence already existing in the field. The specific aims are the approaches that you will adopt to address the general hypothesis. An Aim is not necessarily a single experiment, but is often a series of experiments designed to accomplish one goal. Comprehensive exam proposals typically have 2-3 specific aims.
• The Background section (B) should contain enough information to make the proposal readable and understandable by immunologists. "Significance" means you should answer the question of why this research is important. This is a very important component of the proposal as you are trying to convince the reader that they would want to know the answer to your experiments (for example they would actually want to read the paper(s) when this work is published).
• Preliminary Studies may be eliminated. It could also include very closely related research done by others, but in a real grant, this represents your recent work relevant to the experiments you have proposed.
• Research Design and Methods. We recommend that you write out the experiments you propose for each specific aim one-by-one, and for each aim, include a section that covers the following:
  
• Rationale - Why is this a logical experiment to do? Why is the approach that you have selected the best way of approaching the experiment? This may also include a discussion of your interpretations of conflicting data in the literature, or could include very specific data not given in the background section.
• Experimental Design - define exactly what experiments you would do. You may include methods here or list them after. The experimental details should be very clear: for example how many mice will you inject? What will you inject? When will you sacrifice the mice and analyze them? What will you assay for? Describing methods with which most investigators in the field would be expected to be familiar with is not necessary or desirable, but the specifics should be addressed. For instance, if you're doing a Southern blot, what is your probe? What restriction enzymes will you use? How will you interpret your results? Or, if you're doing flow cytometry, what antibodies will you use? How will they be labeled? Etc. If appropriate you should define what statistical analysis you would perform on the data?
• It is extremely important that the proposed experiments be realistic and feasible. Many experimental ideas are great in theory, but once the experimental details are described potential limitations become evident.
• Interpretations and Limitations - What will the data look like if your hypothesis is correct? How would interpret alternate outcomes? How would you interpret partial phenotypes (eg. results that are 50% of wildtype levels). What things might be expected to go wrong? Have you made any assumptions that could turn out to be pitfalls? What will you do if this happens? Can any of this be avoided? Note - in the past, some students have designed specific aims that were mutually dependent, e.g. Aim 2 could not be undertaken if Aim 1 did not turn out as expected. This should not be! Mutually dependent experiments within an aim are okay, but you must point out that this is the case, and discuss alternatives if the outcome is not what you expect it to be.

EXAMINATION

• The student has the responsibility of scheduling the exam and the room, completing the paperwork with the graduate school, and arranging any audio visual equipment.
• All members of the committee must be present for the examination. One member, but not the chairperson or the student, may participate by interactive video. Although the mentor is not required to be present, the program encourages the mentor to attend so that they may gain some valuable insight into the "strengths and weaknesses" of their student. Only the exam committee, the student and the mentor(s) are allowed to attend any part of this exam. Any exception to this must be approved by ALL members of the committee.
• The chairperson will bring the student's file to the exam. The format of the exam is the following:

• The student and the mentor (if present) are asked to leave the room and the chairperson will present to the committee a synopsis of the student's credentials (ie. their undergraduate record, interviews, rotation evaluations, performance in the core class and the Immunology courses, preliminary exams etc.). If any member of the committee has any concerns about the student's academic performance they should be raised at this time. This discussion is typically very brief (5 minutes or less). If the committee considers it appropriate, the mentor may be invited back into the room without the student for further discussion.
• After such issues are discussed, the student returns to the room and gives a brief presentation outlining the proposal. THIS SHOULD BE A MAXIMUM OF 15 MINUTES. Suggestions for this presentation could include: 1-2 slides of background, 1 slide of significance followed by (perhaps) 4 slides for each experimental Aim that: outlines the rationale for the Aim; outlines the experimental approach; outlines what the data may show (eg in a Table with + or - for expected results); outlines the limitations of this approach. It should be noted that this material should be included in the written proposal that all the members of the exam committee will have read prior to the exam, therefore this presentation is not intended to be as detailed as the proposal itself.
• Each member of the committee will then ask the student questions about the presented material. The questions should primarily focus on the proposal (rationale, significance, experimental design and interpretation of data), however the student should also be prepared to answer questions relating to background material.
• After each member of the committee has asked any questions that they may have (together with the student's presentation, the whole exam typically lasts 2-2 and 1/2 hours), the student and the mentor are asked to leave the room and to remain outside the exam room while the committee discusses the student's performance. If the committee considers it useful they may ask the mentor to return to offer additional insight about the student.
• After the committee reaches its decision about the outcome of the exam (Pass, Fail or Pass with conditions) the student and mentor are invited back into the room and advised of this decision. The examination form is signed by the committee and returned to the Graduate School Office. According to the rules of the UCD graduate school, if a student passes the examination with conditions, those conditions must be stated on the examination form and satisfied within six months. In considering any conditions attached to a conditional pass, the committee should consider and evaluate the potential learning experience of any requirements. The committee chair is responsible for monitoring the conditions and reporting their outcome to the Graduate School. Failure to satisfy these conditions will result in failure of the examination.
• A failed examination is discussed by the Graduate Steering Committee and is based on the student’s proposal and a written summary of the exam by the chair. Thus, the outcome of this meeting will be determined on a case-by-case basis. A student who fails the examination is subject to immediate dismissal from the Graduate School upon the recommendation of the program and concurrence of the Dean. However, at the discretion of the Immunology Program Steering Committee and the recommendation of the comprehensive exam committee, a student who fails the examination may retake it once. The retake will be in the form designated by the Immunology Program Steering Committee and must be completed within six months. The original examination form noting the failure is signed by the committee and returned to the Graduate School office. New examination forms will be generated when the examination is rescheduled. Students will be required to meet registration requirements and be registered during the term in which the repeated exam is taken.
• The committee is encouraged to provide written feedback to the student regarding the written proposal, the presentation and their performance in answering questions. This can be done by email communications coordinated by the chairperson. If this is done, a copy should be sent to the Program Administrator for inclusion into the student's file.