Qualifying Examination

Qualifying Examination Overview: The qualifying examination is an integral part of the Molecular and Translational Medicine (MTM) Program, aligning with its core educational objectives. MTM emphasizes comprehensive training in the foundational scientific principles underlying biomedical research, as well as the processes of translational science. The qualifying exam is designed to assess a student’s ability to formulate scientific hypotheses, develop research strategies, and analyze outcomes that help bridge basic science with applications to human health and disease.

Qualifying Exam Timeline: Students are expected to complete the qualifying exam by the end of the Spring semester or early Summer of their second year. In special circumstances, the exam may be postponed but must be completed no later than the end of the Fall semester of the third year. The exam must be successfully passed before the student’s first Dissertation Advisory Committee (DAC) meeting, and it may serve as the foundation for the first dissertation committee report.

Research Grant Proposal

The qualifying exam is designed to evaluate a student’s ability to develop a scientific hypothesis and design critical experiments to test this hypothesis. In order to examine these abilities, students will be required to write a research proposal in the area of study that they have chosen for their dissertation research. The qualifying exam will be evaluated on both the quality of the written document and the oral presentation of the proposal.

Role of the Research Mentor (Primary Thesis Advisor): The student’s advisor may provide guidance in development of the overall hypothesis and specific aims of the proposal as well as technical advice in the design of experimental approaches.

Example grants from the mentor are also allowed. The Program will provide additional examples of prior successful F31 grants. The Mentor may not contribute to the writing or editing of the proposal. The mentor is also not allowed to provide answers or any other guidance (e.g., leading questions) during the oral portion of the exam.

1. At least six weeks prior to when students intend to take their exam they must submit the proposal to the Qualifying Exam Chair, Dr. Louis Gerstenfeld (email: lgersten@bu.ed, ph: 617-358-3653) and the MTM administrator Marika Groussis (marikagr@bu.edu). They must also submit their student ID and the name of their mentor. Students can expect to proceed through the following steps in review of their proposals:

a. 1st submission to Dr. Louis Gerstenfeld (2 week turnaround)
b. 1st feedback review meeting

c. Select an examination committee and schedule an actual exam date with all members
d. 2nd submission to Dr. Louis Gerstenfeld (2 week turnaround)
e. 2nd feedback review meeting
f. Review of presentation slides with MTM program director Dr. Valerie Gouon-Evans

2. Once approved by the Qualifying Exam Chair, students must contact 2 other Qualifying Exam committee members who can participate in their exam (see list below) and then establish a day and time for the committee members to convene to administer the exam. The MTM program Administrator can help with scheduling the room and any required AV equipment.

3. Advice on potential formatting or proposal problems will be addressed by the Chair directly after his first review of the exam which is directly submitted to them four-six weeks before distributing the exam to the committee. If needed, students will be advised on major proposal corrections that are needed at that time.

4. The written proposal for exam should be distributed no later than two weeks before the exam to the committee members. The committee will examine the document to determine whether the content meets the criteria for a thoughtfully designed and clearly written proposal. Please see the grading section below for specific criteria. If the committee determines that the document is inadequate they will let the Chair of the committee know what areas of the proposal need to be revised. Meeting with the Chair or the MTM director may be arranged to discuss the needed changes and to decide on the timeframe for a new exam. Students receive two attempts to pass the exam.

Requirements and assessment criteria for the written element of the proposal:

The exam is in the format of a NIH-style pre-doctoral grant proposal, and should be formatted using single spacing, 11 size Arial font, with 0.5 inch margins and include the following elements:

1. Title page: including a Title, Student name, Name of the Mentors

2. Abstract no more than 30 lines (1 page)

3. Specific aims page stating the hypothesis and specific aims (1 page) 4. Research Proposal including Figures and Figure legends (6 pages).

It should be formatted as an NIH F31 pre-doctoral proposal. (Significance and Approach). Documents failing to adhere to page limits and formatting restrictions are ineligible for submission.

4. References (no page limits)

5. All preliminary data and figures are ascribed to a source. If it’s from the student’s lab indicate courtesy of “lab members name”. If it’s from the literature they need to reference the figure. If it is adapted from the literature students also need to reference the source material. Any results generated by that student can be indicated as such.

Specific elements of the proposal (written and oral) which are assessed:

1. State a defined hypothesis

The student should indicate the central question of their proposal in the form of a hypothetic statement.

2. Defining Specific Aims

The aims should be independent, identifying any elements of the hypothesis that are being tested. They should be included an abbreviated description of the experimental design and outcome variables.

3. Background significance and innovation

Students need to provide context for how the proposed studies address a biological problem. This context may be from the published literature or from their own lab’s data. Students provide a section that describes what is novel and innovative about these studies. This section describes how the proposed studies move the field forward, how they apply existent methodology in a unique way, or how they develop new methodology that is applied in the studies.

4. Experimental design or Approach

Students must present experimental methods with enough detail so that the study is clearly understood. Students should present what the controls are for a given experiment and describe anticipated results. Students may use preliminary data as examples to the methods they are proposing to present the approach.

5. Potential experimental pitfalls, unanticipated results and alternatives

Students must present what they anticipate as results, as well as how unanticipated findings will influence the design and interpretation of the study as a whole.

6. The proposed experiments must be robust and reproducible

This means students clearly state the numbers of replicates (technical and biological) for a given method that is standard to their field. Students may reference studies from the field to show what’s standard. If they are using animal studies students need to present either a power analysis or an explanation of numbers of specimens and/or animals used to obtain meaningful results. Similarly, if students are using human materials, they must provide either a power analysis for their numbers or a reference of a comparable study from the field.

7. The written elements must be presented in a professional, grammatically correct manner without spelling errors and use of common lab lingo

Requirements and grading criteria for the oral presentation of the proposal:

Students should prepare a presentation of their proposal that can be delivered in no more than 30-40 minutes. Students may contact the Chair to review their slides prior to the presentation.

Committee members will interrupt with multiple general knowledge questions, proposal-specific questions, and clarification comments throughout the exam.

a. During the oral exam questions will be asked that are related to specific elements of the proposal as well as questions that test general knowledge of the medical science concepts and techniques.

b. The student needs to be able to accurately convey their proposal, including the general knowledge of their selected field of research, the reasoning and background for the development of the hypothesis and the methodology that will allow them to test their hypothesis.

c. Importantly, the exam is not designed to be an assessment of the preliminary data or quality of the experiments performed to date that support the stated hypothesis. The preliminary data can be derived from the literature, prior work in the mentor’s laboratory as well as any experiments that are completed by the date of the exam. All work that is not generated by the student must be appropriately referenced.

Outcome:

1) Pass. Students form and convene their first dissertation committee advisory (DAC) meetings.

2) Pass with remediation. Students may proceed to their first DAC. A detailed remediation plan intended to address identified areas of encouragement will be delivered to the student, mentor and DAC Chair to assess progress and completion.

3) Fail. Students can fail both parts and one part of the exam and will be required to address either based on the recommendation of the Qualifying Exam Committee.