Qualifying Examination

• Assess the dissertation project being proposed and the student's preparation to carry it out.
• Students should propose what they actually want to do for their dissertation, not a 'hypothetical project'.
• The proposal should not be a wish-list of everything one might hope to accomplish, but a focused inquiry --- the core of the dissertation, which might lead to (roughly speaking) 2 or 3 significant papers if all goes well.
• Further guidance for orals preparation is provided to students near the beginning of the second year.

End of the second year, effectively the end of August. Exceptions are only granted in unusual cases (e.g., a leave of absence).

Four faculty, who cannot include the thesis advisor or co-advisor. By university policy, the faculty must be 'members of the Academic Senate', but all members of our graduate programs satisfy this requirement; other faculty, e.g., adjunct faculty or even faculty from other universities, can be approved on a case-by-case basis.

At least two of the faculty should be members of Biophysics; again, exceptions can be granted if there is a compelling reason. The chair of the committee has a few additional responsibilities, including deciding when to end the exam; the chair is also asked to provide feedback to the student's primary advisor, and to communicate with the program manager, especially in cases where the exam results in a 'conditional pass' or 'fail'.

Once your committee is formed, apply for your Qualifying Exam in the Student Portal.

• Concept – The proposal is developed by the student in collaboration with their advisor(s), generally starting early in the 2nd year. This process should be synergistic with actually starting on the research. Although extensive preliminary results are not expected, students who have started on the project are generally able to discuss the project in a more sophisticated manner because they have a clearer understanding of what is realistic, what the challenges may be, etc.
• Written proposal – The written proposal itself should be approximately 3-5 pages, with the first page providing a succinct overview. Figures can be helpful and need not count against the page ‘limit’.
• Committee – The student should start forming the committee, i.e., by asking faculty members to serve on it, well in advance of the anticipated exam date, at least 3 months. Simply scheduling the exam can be challenging. Generally, when first meeting with the committee members, the student should bring a short summary of the project including the draft aims, to get high-level feedback before writing the full proposal. This should be at least one month before the exam, so feedback can be incorporated into the proposal.
• Practice – While not a formal requirement, the best way to prepare is to hold practice exams, e.g., with senior students.

1. The full written proposal should be provided to the committee members at least 3 weeks prior to the exam, to allow them to read it and provide feedback (preferably in person). The student should bring copies of the final proposal to the exam itself for the committee members, who may forget to print it out.
2. The oral examination takes place with only the qualifying examination committee present and must not include the research advisor.
3. Before the start of the exam, students may write an outline of their proposal on the board to guide the initial discussion. Slide presentations are not allowed.
4. The student will be asked to leave the room for a few minutes before starting the exam, to allow the committee members to confer (the student should have met with all of the committee members at least once prior to the exam, but the committee members have likely not discussed the proposal with each other).
5. The student is then called back into the room and asked to first provide an overview of the major goals/hypothesis/questions of the project and the aims proposed to address these. Five to ten minutes is typical for the overview, and faculty are asked to refrain from asking questions during this introduction.
6. Traditionally, the qualifying examination consists of two parts:
   1. The student is given 20-30 minutes to present the research proposal, during which time the student may be interrupted with questions.
   2. The committee continues to ask the student questions that are relevant to the proposal, which may include knowledge that would be necessary for the student to address the stated problem.
7. Typically exams last 90 minutes to two hours, sometimes with a short break. After questioning is over (approximately 1.5 hours including the project presentation time) the student is asked to leave the room so that the committee can discuss the student’s performance and take one of the following actions:
   1. Pass the student without further questioning
   2. Fail the student without further questioning
   3. Ask the student to return for further questioning
8. The third option is the most common. During this second phase of the examination, the committee members ask questions pertaining to subjects relevant to the student’s area of interest or questions related to material covered in the first-year courses. The student is again asked to leave, and the committee votes on the outcome. It is the responsibility of the chair of the committee to file the appropriate form indicating the outcome with GEPA.

• Full Pass: Congratulations! Now get back to the lab … just kidding, enjoy your party. A student who passes the examination is eligible for advancement to candidacy and thesis progression.
• Conditional pass: Just as it sounds …A student who passes the examination but demonstrates weaknesses in specific fields may be asked to prepare further oral or written materials or take an additional course. For example, if the committee feels that the student is generally well prepared to undertake the project but has some critical gap in knowledge, the committee can stipulate that the student take an additional course to fill that gap. Or, if the proposal was viewed as mostly solid except for one of the aims, the committee can require that aim to be rewritten. Also very common is a requirement to hold the initial thesis committee meeting earlier than would normally be expected (e.g., within 3 months), generally when the student is considered well-prepared but the committee believes that she or he could benefit from additional discussion of study design, prioritization of experiments, or other issues that are more the purview of thesis committees than oral exam. The committee chair will send a letter stating the requirements to be met and a deadline date, with copies to the program director and the student’s research advisor. The chair is generally responsible for evaluating whether/when the conditions have been met, and then signing the 'pass' at that time. Upon timely completion of these tasks, the student will be eligible to advance to candidacy.
• Fail: Generally occurs when the proposal is considered to be fatally flawed or unacceptably sloppy, or when the student is judged to have insufficiently demonstrated their ability to carry out the proposed research. Per university policy, the student can take the oral exam a second time, within six months, with the same committee. The committee chair will send notification in writing of subjects for re-examination and a suggested date for the second examination. A copy of the letter to the student is sent to the program director, program manager, and the student’s research advisor. The committee chair and the research advisor will assist in planning for the second examination. Your committee members must remain the same for the second examination. A student is provided two opportunities to pass the qualifying examination. Failure to pass the second examination will result in expulsion from the program.