Updated 8/24/2023

Formation of Thesis Committee

Students will assemble a Thesis Advisory Committee consisting of the Thesis Advisor and three members of the MCB Graduate Program training faculty during the fall semester of the second year. The purpose of the committee is to provide the student with diverse perspectives on the thesis work, and the composition of the committee should be developed in consultation with the thesis advisor. When contacting prospective members, the student should be prepared to briefly discuss his or her proposed thesis work along with a rationale for including the faculty member on the committee.

The First Committee Meeting

By the end of February in the second year, the student will convene a first meeting with the Thesis Advisory Committee. The committee will set a date for the qualifying examination and designate a committee Chair. All MCBGP trainers are eligible to serve as committee Chair. The Chair will be in charge of running meetings and reporting on meeting outcomes through electronic forms.  

After the Chair is determined, the student will briefly present an outline of the proposed thesis research with a 10-20 minute slideshow and identify additional topics to study at an advanced level for the qualifying examination. These topics should cover broad areas related to the proposed thesis work with the goal of complementing and strengthening the development of the thesis. One topic should be proposed for each faculty member on the committee. After the meeting, each committee member will work with the student to develop a reading list of journal articles relevant to the topic in preparation for the qualifying examination (typically, 10 - 20 articles). During the first committee meeting, the Chair of the committee will complete the First Committee Meeting Report. The First Committee Meeting Report form includes information about the composition of the Thesis Advisory Committee, the reading topic for each committee member, and the date of the Qualifying Examination. The Report should be signed by all participants and the student and submitted electronically immediately after the meeting.

MCBGP Database - The First Committee Meeting Report

The Chair of the committee will complete the First Committee Meeting Report within two days of the meeting in the MCBGP Database following these steps:

• Login here

• You will need to use Brown’s VPN, or be on campus to access the database

• Only one person can edit the form at one time 

• Find the student’s name on the list of current students

• Click on the ‘1st Com Mtg Report’ tab

• Enter the name of the chair and two other committee members - the advisor should already be noted

• Record reading list topics for each committee member

• Record a qualifying exam date

• Faculty members need to sign the form 

• Submit the form

• Submitting the form sends a copy by email to the MCBGP Director, Assistant Director, and all committee members.

Goals of the Qualifying Examination

1. To determine whether the student is in a position to carry out the proposed thesis research. 

2. To evaluate the student’s comprehension of the scientific literature in the area of the thesis research and in related areas identified at the first thesis committee meeting.

3. To evaluate the student’s ability to define scientific questions and to develop experimental strategies to answer them.

Structure of the Examination

1. Students must complete the qualifying examination by June 1 of the second year.

2. The student will develop a reading list on each topic in consultation with each member of the Thesis Advisory Committee, including the Thesis Advisor (see First committee meeting, above).

3. The student will develop a written research proposal (see guidelines below)

4. At least two weeks before the scheduled examination, the student will submit the proposal to all members of the Thesis Advisory Committee.

5. The examination committee will be composed of all of the members of the Thesis Advisory Committee excluding the Thesis Advisor. The thesis advisor should be present for the examination and is there to take notes and help provide feedback to the student. The advisor is a silent observer and will not participate unless asked for a contribution by the other members of the committee.

6. At the examination, the student will answer questions on the reading topics (concepts and experimental approaches) and defend the thesis proposal. For the defense of the proposal, students will prepare an oral presentation, not to exceed 25 minutes (without interruption) to serve as a summary of the experimental aspects of the proposal with only a brief introduction and statement of hypotheses and specific aims. 

7. At the conclusion of the examination, the student and advisor will leave the room in order for the committee to freely discuss the outcome of the examination. If the committee members unanimously agree to do so, they may invite the advisor to join them for part or all of the discussion.

Qualifying Examination Evaluation Criteria

The overall goal of the Qualifying Examination is to evaluate the student’s intellectual ownership and preparation to take on the proposed thesis project. The Thesis Advisory Committee will assesses intellectual ownership in three areas:

1. Written proposal. The Committee evaluates the overall logic, rigor, and clarity of the written proposal. Key elements that demonstrate intellectual ownership in the written proposal include:

• Explanation and citation of foundational concepts from the literature to frame the gap in knowledge that the project will address

• Explanation of a rigorous experimental design, with justified priorities for the experimental approaches

• Thorough discussion of data interpretation, possible outcomes, and possible future directions

2. Oral defense: depth of knowledge. During the oral defense the Committee asks questions to evaluate to what extent the student has developed the experimental ideas for the thesis project. Key elements that demonstrate depth of knowledge during the oral defense include:

• Explanation of the rationale underlying each experimental aim

• Explanation of priorities, experimental rigor,  and scope for the proposed approaches

• Explanation of scenarios for different possible experimental outcomes 

3. Oral defense: breadth of knowledge. During the oral defense the Committee asks questions about the broader field relating to the thesis project to evaluate to what extent the student understands the relevant methods, literature, and significance of the project. Key elements that demonstrate breath of knowledge during the oral defense include: 

• Explanation of the molecular basis of key experimental approaches

• Explanation of foundational experiments in the field, particularly from the reading list journal articles

• Explanation of how the proposed project will move the field forward

Evaluation of student performance on the examination

The student will be evaluated on 1) the written proposal, 2) oral demonstration of the depth of knowledge relating to the thesis project, and 3) oral demonstration of the breadth of knowledge relating to the thesis project, using the criteria listed above.  Each of the three areas will be given a rating of pass or revision required. A pass rating in all three areas constitutes an overall pass for the examination, meaning that the student has satisfactorily completed the examination requirements and is admitted to candidacy for the PhD degree. 

A revision required rating in any of the three areas constitutes an overall revision required outcome for the examination, meaning that the student will need to fulfill additional requirements to proceed to candidacy for the PhD degree. In the case of a revision required outcome, the Thesis Advisory Committee will specify additional requirements designed to make up deficiencies revealed by the initial examination and a deadline for completion of these additional requirements, usually within a month of the initial examination and before August 31.

Additional requirements for a revision required evaluation from the initial examination could include re-writing the proposal, repeating the oral examination, or making written or oral presentations on specific topics. Until completion of the revision required activities, the student will be in a warning status in the MCBGP. Satisfactory completion of the additional requirements by the deadline will result in a new evaluation of pass, admission to candidacy for the PhD degree, and return to good standing in the MCBGP. Failure to satisfactorily complete the additional requirements by the deadline could result in declined candidacy for the PhD degree and dismissal from the MCBGP upon review by the MCBGP Executive Committee.

The Chair will inform the student of the committee’s decision at the end of the initial examination meeting. In addition, the Chair of the committee will complete the Qualifying Exam Report (see below), noting the strengths and weaknesses of the student’s performance as assessed by the committee members, and explaining any additional requirements and deadlines for a revision required outcome. The Chair will collect signatures from the committee members and the student indicating agreement with the information in the report at the end of the initial examination. The completed form will be submitted electronically within two days of the examination to inform MCBGP leadership of the outcome. For revision required outcomes, the Chair of the committee will electronically submit a second version of the Qualifying Examination Report form indicating the final examination outcome, after the additional requirements have been evaluated (see below).

Equitable Feedback on student research proposals  

We have complete confidence that all MCBGP students can succeed in writing a research proposal. Moreover, all of our students receive significant training that prepares them to write a research proposal. We (students, faculty, committee members, staff, etc.) will keep these principles in mind when we provide feedback on a student’s proposal. While it may be appropriate to discuss strengths and weaknesses in a student’s writing process, we will take a growth mindset aimed at improving student writing, critical thinking, analysis, and experimental design throughout their graduate careers. 

MCBGP Database - Qualifying Exam

The Chair of the committee will complete the Qualifying Exam Evaluation in the MCBGP Database within two days of the meeting, following these steps:

• Login here

• You will need to use Brown’s VPN, or be on campus to access the database

• Only one person can edit the form at one time 

• Find the student’s name on the list of current students

• Click on the ‘Qual Exam Evaluation’ tab

• Indicate whether the outcome was Pass, Conditional Pass, or Fail by clicking the appropriate square

• Enter a written evaluation with feedback for the Written Proposal, Oral Defense, and Breadth of Knowledge components of the exam.

• In the event of a conditional pass in one more components of the exam, the chair will enter all requirements and deadlines for any steps the student needs to take to complete the exam

• Sign the form and have each committee member and student sign

• Submit the form

• Submitting the form sends a copy by email to the MCBGP Director, Assistant Director, and all committee members.

In the event of a revision required on one or more components of the qualifying exam, the Chair will evaluate the student’s work to complete the exam and will enter the outcome in the MCBGP database within two days of completion, following these steps:

• Login here

• You will need to use Brown’s VPN, or be on campus to access the database

• Only one person can edit the form at one time 

• Find the student’s name on the list of current students

• Click on the ‘Qual Exam Evaluation’ tab

• Click on the ‘Makeup Exam Evaluation’ tab

• Indicate whether the outcome was Pass, or Revision Required by clicking the appropriate square

• Enter a written evaluation with feedback for on the student’s completion of the exam

• Sign the form and have each committee member and student sign

• Submit the form

• Submitting the form sends a copy by email to the MCBGP Director, Assistant Director, and all committee members.

Written Proposal Guidelines

Two weeks before the scheduled oral examination, the student will submit a written research proposal to each member of the committee. The proposal will be prepared in the NIH F31 fellowship proposal format: a specific aims page (one-page limit), a six-page proposal (text and figures included in six-page limit), and literature citations (no page limit). The proposal will be written in Arial 11 point font, single-spaced, with 0.5 inch margins. The thesis advisor should work closely with the student to develop the ideas in the proposal through discussions, and may make general comments on proposal drafts, but may not edit proposal drafts.

The written proposal will consist of the following sections:

Title page

Specific Aims Page (one page limit)

1. Project abstract with the structure of 2-3 paragraphs explaining the significance and rationale for the project

2. A statement of the overall hypothesis or goal of the project

3. Brief explanations of the major experimental aims (typically two aims)

4. A final paragraph explaining how the project could move the field forward.

Research Strategy (six page limit)

1. Background and Significance (~1.5 pages): Introduction of the key concepts from the literature that motivate the proposed project, using both text and figures. 

2. Preliminary Studies (~1 page): A brief presentation of the data collected by the student directly relevant to the proposed experiments, using both text and figures. Preliminary experiments supporting the feasibility of the research plan can be included but are not required for a pass assessment on the examination.

3. Hypothesis/Goal (1 paragraph): A summary of the key observations that frame the thesis project, concluding with a statement of the overall hypothesis or goal for the experimental aims.

4. Experimental Approach (~3.5 pages): An explanation of the experimental plan using both text and figures, organized for each aim as: i) a brief statement of the Aim, ii) an explanation of the key observations that underlie the Rationale for the aim, iii) an explanation of the Approach including methods, rigor of design, and data analysis plan, iv) a discussion of Possible Outcomes including data interpretations and possible future directions in different scenarios, and v) a discussion of Possible Pitfalls and Alternate Approaches anticipating ways that the plan might need to be adjusted to achieve greater power (for example, greater sensitivity or yield).

5. Conclusion (1-2 paragraphs): A brief statement of the importance of the proposed work for the field.

Literature Cited (no page limit)

Citations can be in any of the standard biology journal formats that include all authors and title of article/chapter.