PROPOSAL CLASS (HBH560) AND QUALIFYING EXAMS
HBH 560 “Proposal Preparation in Regulatory Biology.”
Time: Mondays and Wednesdays from 9 – 10:30 AM
Place: Department of Pharmacology Executive Conference Room
Course directors: Dr. Bruce Demple and Dr. Jessica Seeliger.
Office location
(BD): BST 8-???, contact info: 63?-???, email Dr. Demple
(JS): CMM ???, contact info: 63?-???, email Dr. Seeliger
Office hours – by appointment
The objectives of this course are two fold. First, we will focus on the development of basic professional skills necessary to conceptualize, construct and communicate a research proposal. Second, we will demystify the Qualifying Exam process. We will try to accomplish this by providing guided instruction in areas of professional development that are particularly relevant (but not limited to) the Qualifying Exam. In order for you to successfully navigate the Qualifying exam, you will need to succeed in three key tasks:
1) Identify and develop research questions that can be addressed using a rational experimental approach
2) Communicate, in writing, what your questions are, how you intend to answer them, and why anyone should care.
3) Communicate, orally with minimal visual aids, your question and experimental approach while fielding pointed and challenging questions.
We will utilize a number of approaches to accomplishing our goals including homework assignments, in class group exercises and quizzes. Grading: You receive credit and a grade for this course. You will be evaluated on your performance throughout. I will grade you based on the final version of each assignment and on your participation throughout the process. Your grades will therefore depend heavily on the extent to which you show up prepared for each session and the extent to which you participate. Clearly this means attendance is critical (as is punctuality).
The course will be divided into roughly three segments. During the first two, you will engage in two parallel tasks: the identification and development, as a group, of a research question and outline of a proposal. We will utilize various methods to guide you in the process of identifying viable proposal questions, generating hypotheses and key experimental approaches to test you hypothesis. The second task will be to apply this information to the identification of your own research topic on which you will base your qualifying exam proposal. Along the way you will engage in short writing assignments, short verbal communication assignments and be introduced to the process of reviewing and being reviewed by your peers. During the last section of the course we (Markus and I, AND your classmates) will work on selected aspects of your qualifying exam proposals. My experience has been that there will be key common concerns and roadblocks, some that recur every year and some that are unique to each class. As a result, we will discuss as a group what areas to focus on during this phase.
There will be a “text book” with assigned readings and in class quizzes. The book has been ordered (and must be returned at the end of the semester) and we will get it to you when it arrives.
The University Senate Undergraduate and Graduate Councils have authorized that the following required statements appear in all teaching syllabi (graduate and undergraduate courses) on the Stony Brook Campus.
Americans with Disabilities Act:
If you have a physical, psychological, medical or learning disability that may impact your course work, please contact Disability Support Services, ECC (Educational Communications Center) Building, room128, (631) 632-6748. They will determine with you what accommodations, if any, are necessary and appropriate. All information and documentation is confidential.
Academic Integrity:
Each student must pursue his or her academic goals honestly and be personally accountable for all submitted work. Representing another person's work as your own is always wrong. Faculty are required to report any suspected instances of academic dishonesty to the Academic Judiciary. Faculty in the Health Sciences Center (School of Health Technology & Management, Nursing, Social Welfare, Dental Medicine) and School of Medicine are required to follow their school-specific procedures. For more comprehensive information on academic integrity, including categories of academic dishonesty, please refer to the academic judiciary website at http://www.stonybrook.edu/uaa/academicjudiciary/
Critical Incident Management:
Stony Brook University expects students to respect the rights, privileges, and property of other people. Faculty are required to report to the Office of Judicial Affairs any disruptive behavior that interrupts their ability to teach, compromises the safety of the learning environment, or inhibits students' ability to learn. Faculty in the HSC Schools and the School of Medicine are required to follow their school-specific procedures.
GUIDELINES FOR HBH QUALIFYING EXAMS
The purpose of the Qualifying Exam is to determine if students have the knowledge base and problem solving ability necessary to successfully carry out independent dissertation research leading to a Ph.D. degree. The Qualifying Exam and Dissertation constitute the last requirements for the Ph. D. degree. Satisfactory progress in course work is a prerequisite to taking this exam. An un-remediated grade of C or below, or an outstanding “incomplete”, will disqualify a student from taking it. Preparation for the exam is part of an organized course HBH 560 “Proposal Preparation in Regulatory Biology.” The course directors are Drs. Bruce Demple and Jessica Seeliger. The intents of the course are to provide focused instructions that will be useful for future grant proposal applications and are particularly relevant (but not limited to) the Qualifying Exam, and to demystify the Qualifying Exam process.
(NOTE: you are not to discuss your written proposal, or prepare for your oral defense with any faculty members outside of HBH560)
The process of the Qualifying Exam is:
Identify a research topic on which to write a proposal. The research topic explored in the proposal must be distinct from topics that you have worked on previously, either prior to joining the program or during rotations, and must be distinct from your current research. The choice of topic and the development of a research plan designed to test a specific hypothesis will be covered in depth in HBH 560. The basis for most proposals is the primary literature (e.g., a journal club article), a seminar or a meeting presentation. It is essential that all sources are properly referenced in the proposal.
Proposals should be organized as follows (this mirrors the structure of the Research Proposal component of the NIH doctoral NRSA application – note that the format of NIH grants in general, including the NRSA, has changed over the last several years):
Summary (with clearly defined hypothesis) 1 page
Specific Aims 2 pages
Research Strategy 12 pages
This section will include subsections addressing: Significance, Innovation, and Approach (these will be discussed in HBH560 in more detail).
Literature cited no page limit
(12-pt. font, double-spaced, 1-in. margins).
Your proposal should convince the committee that you have identified a significant and novel problem to investigate using reasonable laboratory methods likely to advance our understanding of the system. The page limit will be strictly enforced.
The proposal will be read and evaluated by three program faculty. You will receive a short critique of your proposal and scores in a number of defined areas (significance, innovation, approach, overall impact), following the format used for reviewing NIH grants. If your proposal is found to be inadequate, you will have to re-write / edit it to make it acceptable prior to the oral defense. Only one rewrite of the proposal will be allowed.
After your written proposal is evaluated, you will be assigned an examination committee consisting of three members of the Training Program Faculty. The identity of your Exam committee will NOT be known to you in advance of the exam. Your thesis advisor cannot be a member of your committee. Each committee will have a Chair designated in advance. The committee does not compare one student to another, but will evaluate each student’s performance on an individual basis.
In the oral defense, you should present the proposal in an introductory talk of about 20 minutes. In this presentation you should clearly and succinctly describe the problem and outline the proposed experimental approach, using Power Point or overheads with illustrations from papers or experimental summaries as necessary.
During the initial presentation, questioning by faculty members should be limited to points of clarification necessary to understand the presentation. After the prepared presentation, faculty will begin asking questions directly related to the proposal, but will ask more fundamental or general questions as the exam progresses. Since the exam is open to questions in several broad fields, including pharmacology, molecular biology, chemistry, and others, it is expected that students will allocate a substantial amount of time to reviewing general information, especially in areas in which they feel they are weak. The exam should be concluded within about two hours.
The standing committee of chairs will meet at the conclusion of the exams to discuss the outcomes. Since the Qualifying exam consists of a written and an oral part, students are expected to pass both parts. Failure to perform satisfactorily in one of the two parts may result in “conditional pass”, which would require rewriting the written part or re-defending the oral part. If a student fails both parts of the Qualifying Exam, whether the student is allowed to retake the exam remains at the discretion of the Steering Committee. Students are maximally given two chances to re-defend their Qualifying Exam.
The final copy of the Qualifying exam proposal should be emailed by the student to the Graduate Office to be kept in the student’s file.