Revised February 25, 2002
1: Program Selection
The Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology provides training opportunities in a variety of research areas including: cell and developmental biology, cardiovascular biology, molecular biology and genetics, molecular and cellular biophysics, neuroscience, renal biology, reproductive biology, and signal transduction and cancer biology. The student selects a research area by choosing a mentor who conducts research in one of these areas.
2: Student Advisory Committee
During the first year in the laboratory (second year for IGPBS graduate students and third year for M.D./Ph.D. students), the student and mentor select a Student Advisory Committee (SAC). This committee normally will consist of the mentor and four other faculty members whose interests are within the chosen research area. At least one member must be from outside the department but holding a University of Kansas Graduate Faculty appointment with either Regular or Dissertation status. The committee may consist of more than 5 members if there is a reasonable justification. The composition of the SAC is subject to approval by the Director of the Graduate Program and the departmental Graduate Student Advisory Committee (GSAC).
The student is responsible for convening a regular meeting with the SAC twice a year, typically once during each of the Fall and Spring semesters. Meetings can be scheduled more than twice a year if desired. The student, mentor, and SAC shall evaluate progress and address concerns at each meeting. Relevant information concerning the meeting shall be recorded on the Graduate Student Progress Report Forms (Word Document). A copy of the completed forms should be sent to the Director of the Graduate Program. Usually the FLORS (foreign language or research skills) requirement, which is described in the graduate school catalog, is fulfilled by IGPBS or medical school coursework.
The first meeting of the student, mentor and SAC should address the following issues:
a. Review completed course work
b. Plan additional course work
c. Discuss the contemplated area of research, including background and planned experiments
d. Discuss time table for the Qualifying Examination (see Graduate Student Progress Report).
3: The Qualifying Exam
The Qualifying Examination should be taken no later than the end of the Fall semester of the third Year for graduate students and no later than the end of the 3rd semester in the laboratory for M.D./Ph.D. Students (exceptions with approval of SAC). The Qualifying Examination consists of two parts: a written proposal and an oral examination.
WRITTEN PROPOSAL:
The purpose of the written portion of the examination is to formulate appropriate scientific approaches to the research problem at hand and to clearly express these ideas in writing. This will be accomplished by the submission of an NIH-style research proposal, which describes the dissertation research project.
The scientific problem and general research approaches will be identified, developed, clarified and refined by frequent discussions with the mentor and the student's SAC, discussions with other faculty and students, and reading of relevant literature. Once the scientific problem and general research approaches have been approved by the SAC, the student should arrange for the following requirements to be fulfilled:
a. Abstract submission: An abstract 1-2 pages in length, double spaced, must be submitted to the Director of the Graduate Program and to the Student's Advisory Committee. The abstract should describe an original research problem, the experimental hypotheses to be tested, and a brief description of the planned approach to test the hypotheses, without going into excessive experimental detail. The abstract must be approved by all members of the SAC. Students will be asked to explain their abstract at a meeting of the SAC. Upon acceptance of the abstract by the SAC, the student may proceed with the written proposal.
b. Written NIH-style Grant Proposal: The student must expand the approved abstract into an NIH-style grant proposal. The proposal can be no more than 22 pages, double spaced, excluding title page, abstract, figures, figure legends, and references. The student should not feel compelled to use the full 22 pages permitted; conciseness and clarity carry far more value than length in judging these proposals. Examples of written proposals that were successfully defended by students are available from the Director of Graduate Studies. As with an NIH (PHS 398) grant application, the proposal should contain the following sections:
Specific Aims: This should state concisely: 1. The broad, long-term research objectives, 2. What the research in this application is intended to accomplish, and 3. hypotheses to be tested. Limit 1-2 pages.
Background and significance: Briefly sketch the background to the present proposal, critically evaluate existing knowledge, and specifically identify gaps which the project is intended to fill. State concisely the importance of the research described in this application by relating the specific aims to the broad long-term objectives and to health relevance. Limit 3-6 pages.
Preliminary results (optional): Depending on progress with your project, you may want to include the relevant data you have generated in this section. Alternatively if the data shows your ability to perform specific protocols/experiments, you may want to include it in the Experimental design and methods section.
Experimental design and methods: Describe the research design and the procedures to be used to accomplish the specific aims of the project. Include the means by which the data will be collected, analyzed, and interpreted. Describe any new methodology and its advantage over existing procedures and alternative approaches to achieve the aims. Your own experimental results, if any, may be included in this section. For each specific aim, the aim should be restated and subsections concerning rationale, experiments, predicted results, and interpretations added.
References: Include complete references to all cited literature, including titles of relevant papers.
The written proposal must be the student's own work, though clearly the direction of the research will be determined in conjunction with the mentor. The student can and should seek feedback from faculty and other students regarding the written proposal. Learning to write a clear proposal is an important component of preparation for a research career. The process of preparing the research proposal is designed to: 1. mimic the process of writing and rewriting an NIH grant, and 2. keep the committee apprised of the student's progress. The student shall submit the proposal to each member of the SAC. The mentor shall convene a meeting of the SAC to critique the proposal in the absence of the student. Then, the mentor shall use a composite NIH-style critique (combining input from each SAC member) to aid the student in improving the proposal and to provide feedback from the SAC, but shall not rewrite any portion of the proposal. Based upon the critique, the student will revise the written proposal to address the comments. The revision shall include a preface (2-3 pgs.) with replies to each of the comments in the critique. A copy of the composite critique from the SAC and the original and revised versions of the proposal given to the SAC shall be given to the Director of Graduate Studies. If the revised proposal is satisfactory, the student will proceed to defend the proposal on a specified date without a second composite critique. If the revised proposal is unsatisfactory, another round of revision will occur.
4: The Oral Examination
The comprehensive oral examination is a requirement of the University of Kansas for the Ph.D. degree as described in the graduate catalog:
http://www.ur.ku.edu/Acadpub/gradcat/03GRGeneralInfo01.pdf
The purpose of the oral examination is to test the student's ability to defend their research proposal and their knowledge of appropriate background material, including IGPBS and/or medical school course work, and advanced graduate courses. A block of time of no less than 3 hours should be reserved for the examination in order to allow for an adequate question and answer period (though the examination need not last that long).
Examining Committee and Chair: The Examining Committee will consist of the SAC and an Examining Committee Chair. The Chair is selected by the student from among the faculty members of the GSAC. During the examination, the Examining Committee Chair replaces the student's mentor, acting as an impartial mediator (though he or she may ask questions) and voting only if the regular members of the Committee find themselves in a tied vote. The Chair will provide feedback directly to the student and mentor as to any deficiencies or areas of strength demonstrated by the student, as perceived by the Examining Committee.
Prior to the start of the oral examination, the Examination Committee meets in executive session (i.e., the student waits outside) with the student's mentor, who reviews the academic history and laboratory experience of the student. After this report, the mentor will be absent during the remainder of the examination.
At the beginning of the exam, the Chairman of the Examination Committee instructs the student as to the manner in which the examination is to be conducted. The student should be prepared to give an oral presentation in which the essence of the proposal is presented to the examining committee; audiovisual aids are encouraged. The objective of the examination shall be to ascertain the student's facility with the chosen area of research and the ability to defend the rationale and scientific approach of the proposed research. It is fully appropriate for the examining committee to explore the depths of the student's knowledge of basic science relevant to the research proposal. The examination is not public.
At the conclusion of examination, the student is excused. The examination committee then evaluates the student's performance with respect to the following components: the written proposal, the formal presentation, the defense of the proposed research, and the general knowledge of science exhibited by the student during the examination period. After this discussion, votes will be cast to determine the student's performance. The Chairman will vote only in the case of a tied vote. One of three grades will be assigned: honors, satisfactory or unsatisfactory. The student will be informed of the decision, preferably immediately following this executive session. The student will not be informed of the distribution of voting. Any concern about the student's performance will be communicated by the Chairman to the student and advisor as soon as possible after the examination. A form called Oral Examination Report will be completed by the Committee immediately after a decision has been reached. The Chairman will make copies for the student and the faculty mentor, and will forward the original form to the Director of the Graduate Program for permanent inclusion in the student's file. It is the responsibility of the student and the faculty advisor to address any concerns in the report.
In the case of a grade of unsatisfactory, the student may apply for reexamination on a date to be set no less than 90 days or more than 180 days from the date of the previous examination. The Qualifying Examination Committee determines the nature of the reexamination. In the event of a second failure, the student will not be allowed to continue in the Ph.D. program.
It is the student's responsibility to consult with the Director of the Graduate Program to ensure that a Request for Approval for Examination (Do-All form) is submitted at least 2 weeks prior to the oral examination.
5: Candidacy for Ph.D. Degree
Upon successful completion of the qualifying examination and submission of the completed Do-All form to the Office of Student Admissions and Records, a student is admitted to doctoral candidacy. The student must maintain continuous full time enrollment until completion of all requirements for the Ph.D. degree as outlined in the current edition of the University of Kansas Graduate School Catalog.
6: Progress Toward Completion of the Degree
After the student joins the Department and selects a thesis project, the mentor, thesis committee, and the student will jointly agree on a reasonable time frame and rate of progress for the completion of the student's research program. Within this context, the Department encourages participation of graduate students in student activities as long as the student's expected performance is not jeopardized.
GRADUATE STUDENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
updated 01/06
Thomas Imig, Ph.D., Director of the Graduate Program
Lane Christenson, Ph.D.
Paige Geiger, Ph.D.
Leslie Heckert, Ph.D.
Emily McDonald, Student, President of the Physiology Society
John Stanford, Ph.D.
©
The University of Kansas Medical Center