Details concerning the Comprehensive Examination are given below and should be reviewed by the Student and Research Mentor(s) in preparation for the comprehensive examination.

Eligibility

Students are eligible for the Comprehensive Examination when they have met the following requirements:

• Completed all required didactic courses in the IGPBS (PhD) or ACE (MD/PhD) curricula and in the Neuroscience Graduate Program.
• Completed the Research Skills and Ethics requirements.
• Completed their lab rotations and selected a research mentor.
• Their cumulative grade point average is 3.00 or better.

The dates listed below correspond to Year 3 (IGPBS) or 2 (MD/PhD) of graduate study. Enrollment in ANAT 831 Fellowship Grant Development during the second summer in the program will help facilitate the written component of the exam. 

Written component

The student will develop a Specific Aims page of an NIH-style proposal, with assistance from their Research Mentor(s), based on their anticipated dissertation research project. This should be submitted to the NGP Program Director by June 15. The members of the Student’s Advisory Committee (SAC) will provide feedback on the Aims page by June 30 and a final, revised Aims page will be due July 15.

The student will write an NIH-style R01 application that includes a Title page, Project Summary, Project Narrative, 1-page Specific Aims, 12-15 page Research Strategy, and References. The student is encouraged to consult with the NGP Program Director, their Research Mentor(s), and members of their SAC to aid in the development of this proposal. The Written component must be submitted to the NGP Program Director by September 1. Formalized feedback from the SAC will be due Sept 15. If the proposal is approved and/or needs only minor revisions, an oral exam will be scheduled. A final revised version will be due two weeks prior to the Oral Exam. If significant revisions are requested, a revised proposal will be due by October 15. Feedback from the SAC will be due by November 1 and, if approved, the oral exam will be scheduled. If necessary, an additional and final revised proposal must be submitted by December 1. No additional revisions will be allowed at this point and progress to the oral exam will be at the discretion of the NGP Program Director.

Specific guidelines for the Written component are listed below:

The written proposal should generally follow the format of an NIH R01 application, including document margins, font type/size, and all other specifications. The following sections are required:

1. Title page (1 page)
   • Proposal title
   • Student name
   • Department affiliation
2. Project summary (30 lines of text)
   • The project summary is a succinct and accurate description of the proposed work and should be able to stand on its own (separate from the application). This section should be informative to other persons working in the same or related fields and understandable to a scientifically literate reader.
3. Project narrative (2-3 sentences)
   • Describe the relevance of this research to public health in, at most, three sentences. Describe how the proposed research would contribute to fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and/or the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.
4. Specific aims (1 page)
   • State concisely the goals of the proposed research and summarize the expected outcome(s), including the impact that the results of the proposed research will have on the research field(s) involved.
   • List succinctly the specific objectives of the research proposed (e.g., to test a stated hypothesis, create a novel design, solve a specific problem, challenge an existing paradigm or clinical practice, address a critical barrier to progress in the field, or develop new technology).
5. Research strategy (max 15 pages)
   Must include:
   • Significance
     • Explain the importance of the problem or critical barrier to progress that the proposed project addresses.
     • Describe the strengths and weaknesses in the rigor of the prior research (both published and unpublished) that serves as the key support for the proposed project.
     • Explain how the proposed project will improve scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice in one or more broad fields.
     • Describe how the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field will be changed if the proposed aims are achieved.
   • Innovation
     • Explain how the application challenges and seeks to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms.
     • Describe any novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation or interventions to be developed or used, and any advantage over existing methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions.
     • Explain any refinements, improvements, or new applications of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions.
   • Approach
     For each specific aim:
     • Provide an introduction and rationale for the proposed aim. Include relevant literature and preliminary data (if available). Be transparent and clear in attributions to preliminary data produced by other groups or members of the laboratory.
     • Describe the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses to be used to accomplish the specific aims of the project. Describe plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project. Describe the experimental design and methods proposed and how they will achieve robust and unbiased results. Include how the data will be collected, analyzed, and interpreted.
     • Discuss anticipated results, potential problems, alternative strategies, and alternate interpretations for each proposed aim/subaim.
     • Consider sex as a biological variable.
6. Literature cited (no page limit)
   • Recommend using Vancouver or other numbered output style.
   • References should be numbered in order of appearance within the text.
   • In-text references can be included in parentheses (1-2) or as superscript numbers.^1,2
   • Addition of PMID numbers to the references is highly encouraged.
   • No page limit.
   • Reach out to Dykes Library for help with EndNote for citation management.
7. Introduction to the Revised Proposal (1 page)

• • Will accompany all revised versions of the written component.
  • Respond to issues and questions raised by the SAC.
  • Summarize substantial additions, deletions, and changes to the application.

Oral component

Approval of the Written component will lead to the University-required Oral Candidacy Examination. The Oral Examination is a test of the breadth and depth of the student’s understanding of: 1) the IGPBS or ACE core curriculum, 2) required and elective courses taken within the Neuroscience Graduate Program, and 3) their proposed research area. This exam is designed to be a rigorous evaluation of the student's knowledge base in biological sciences, general neuroscience, and their specific research topic, in accordance with advancement to Doctoral Candidate.

An Examination Committee will be chosen by the members of the Neuroscience Graduate Studies Advisory Committee (N-GSAC). The examination committee must have at least five members, including:

• 1 member of the N-GSAC who will serve as the Chair of the Examination Committee. The Chair is responsible for ensuring that all Program rules and policies are followed.
• 1 member of the N-GSAC who is also on the SAC.
• The “outside member” of the SAC who holds a primary tenure-track faculty appointment at KUMC outside of the home department/graduate faculty appointment of the Research Mentor(s). This Outside Member will ensure that the rules and policies of the Office of Graduate Studies are followed.
• Two additional members from the NGP and/or Cell Biology and Physiology (CBP) faculty.
• The Student’s Research Mentor(s) may not serve on the Examination Committee.

All faculty members of the Neuroscience Graduate Program are invited to attend the examination and ask questions; however, only the members of the Examination Committee will vote on the performance of the student. The Oral Examination generally lasts ~3 hours and consists of:

• An oral presentation of their Written proposal lasting ~45 minutes.
• Questioning by the Examination Committee and Program Faculty, lasting ~2 hours.

When the Examination Committee has concluded their questioning, the student will be asked to leave the room. The Examination Committee will discuss the performance of the student, including the quality of the written proposal, oral presentation, and questioning. Each Committee member will submit a blind ballot to the Exam Chair, who will tabulate the votes and report the result. Potential outcomes include:

• Pass with no deficiencies
• Pass with remediation
• Fail

 A majority in favor of passing must be reached for the student to pass the Comprehensive Exam and be considered a Doctoral Candidate.

If the student passes with remediation, the Examination Committee will make specific suggestions for additional coursework or activities that will address observed deficiencies. These will be relayed to the Student and Research Mentor(s) through the NGP SAC representative.

If the Student fails the Exam, the committee may:

• Allow the Student to retake the exam. The second attempt must occur between 90 and 180 days after the initial attempt. The student will be counseled by the Research Mentor(s) and the Examination Committee on the areas to be strengthened prior to the second attempt. If the Student fails the second attempt, they will be terminated from the Program.
• Not allow the student to repeat the examination. In this case, the student will be terminated from the Program. The Examination Committee may recommend to the N-GSAC that the student qualify for a Master’s Degree, so long as degree requirements are met.

General Timeline

The Comprehensive Exam must be completed by December 31^st in Year 3 (IGPBS) or 2 (MD/PhD) of graduate study. Extensions may be granted by the N-GSAC on a case-by-case basis.