Comprehensive Examination for Ph.D. candidacy (2003 and later)
The Department of Pharmaceutics and Pharmaceutical Chemistry administers two major exams required of all Ph.D. students.
I. Requirements and Scheduling
All students are required to take the department's written comprehensive examination within six months of completing their department core courses. This deadline is generally not flexible but can be changed under extenuating circumstances with Department chair's approval. This exam will be offered twice yearly: summer and spring semesters. Students planning to take the exam should notify the department comprehensive exam coordinator at least one month before the end of the semester preceding the semester in which they plan to take the exam.
II. Comprehensive Exam Topics
Students will be evaluated for their written performance and demonstrated advanced
Physical chemistry, physical pharmacy and dosage forms, including solvent theory, equilibria, thermodynamics, mass transport, colloids and surface science
Physical organic and polymer chemistry, chemical kinetics and reaction mechanisms
Drug delivery, including targeting, internalization and intracellular trafficking
Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics
Appropriate pharmaceutical characterization and analytical methods
Appropriate data handling,
statstical methodsand experimental design
III. Comprehensive Exam Procedures
Each student will receives five questions that test the student's knowledge of the program's core curriculum. Particularly, there will be one question for each of the core Pharmaceutics courses (PHCEU 7010, 7011, 7020 & 7960 (currently 5125 2nd 7 weeks only), 7030 & 7040). Questions will be written and graded by Department faculty members selected by the Chair or exam coordinator. Students are required to submit their own independently worked electronic file responses to the exam questions separate, clearly identified .pdf file answers to each exam question. These would best come from computer-generated (text-typed, equation-edited, but not hand-written and scanned) documents within ten days from the date of exam distribution to the exam coordinator in the department. A student-named electronic folder containing all 5 .pdf-generated answer files with
IV. Comprehensive Exam Grading
Faculty will have two weeks from the date the exam answers are received to grade them. Grading of each of the five questions will be on a scale of 0-100, with a score of 80 considered to be a minimum passing score for each question. Results will be conveyed to the student in writing by the Graduate Program Advisor or to the Chair and be filed in the student's
Students passing all written questions will receive an unconditional pass for the comprehensive exam.
Students failing to pass one or two of five written questions will receive a conditional pass for the comprehensive exam and will have one month to submit correct answer(s). The faculty will then have one month from the date that the revised answers were submitted to re-evaluate them. Failure to answer one or two questions correctly in the resubmission, or missing any deadlines, will require the student to repeat the entire comprehensive exam at the next scheduled date. The second comprehensive exam will be the final opportunity to pass this requirement.
Students failing to pass three questions will fail the comprehensive exam. These students will be required to repeat the entire comprehensive exam at the next scheduled exam date. The second comprehensive exam will be final.
Students who fail the second exam are no longer eligible to continue in the doctoral program.
V. Preliminary Exam Procedures
To advance to Ph.D. candidacy, all students must pass a preliminary examination that consists of both an original written research proposal and an oral examination by their supervisory committee. This must be completed within one year of passing the comprehensive exam. This deadline is generally not flexible but can be changed under extenuating circumstances with Department chair's approval. Circumstances including a sudden radical change of research support or project theme could justify such a change. The student should consult first with his/her research advisor to confirm a suitable topic for their research proposal. The research proposal topic may be based on either (1) their own research but with new aims not proposed by or originating from their advisor (see below), or (2) new original pharmaceutically relevant research (not previously submitted for funding by anyone) that falls within the broad categories listed above (under comprehensive exam topics).
The written research proposal will be evaluated for content, significance, accuracy, technical proficiency and maturity by a preliminary exam committee comprising four faculty from the student's supervisory committee, but not the student's research advisor. The supervisory committee shall select one of these four as the chair of the preliminary exam committee at the time of the oral examination. Committee member substitutions are allowed at the discretion of the department chair. To satisfy this requirement, the student's research proposal follows the new NIH R01 shortproposal format effective January, 2010 (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/index.htm# inst for complete instructions for combining the PHS form 398 components with newer grants.nih.gov NIH submission formats from the SF424 form). The following sections are required: proposal abstract, table of contents, detailed first-year budget, budget for entire project period, biographical sketches for student as PI and advisor as consultant or co-I, other research support, resources and facilities, specific aims, full research strategy section per the new NIH proposal format, vertebrate animals justification section ifappropriate, and complete references.
The complete research component shall consist of these sub-sections from a typical NH R01 proposal format: specific aims, significance, innovation, and approach, and preliminary data (typically from relevant literature, but could be student's own, or a mix). Preliminary data should be clearly designated as taken from cited literature, work from others in the lab, or the student's own work. A well-designed, detailed, scientifically credible experimental design with appropriate modern procedures is essential. Expected technical deliverables and brief alternative approaches are also encouraged. Timeline table and NIH-style budget and justification components are required. A vertebrate animal section and co-personnel vitae are to be supplied when necessary. Proposals not following the prescribed formats or page limits for the R01 format will be returned. Students may use proposals developed for a grant writing class, but all written research proposals submitted for the exam will contain at most, one (1) currently existing technical aim taken from a currently existing research proposal. Remaining aims (at least one or more) must be distinctly new with sufficient original research plan development to support them and address their technical requirements.
Importantly, all students must receive pre-approval from their supervisory committee for all aims and their working hypothesis in the written proposal before proceeding to independently write their research proposal. Student-drafted aims and hypothesis must be submitted to their committee at least 10 days prior to a scheduled supervisory committee meeting seeking full committee approval to proceed to writing the proposal. The student must attempt to convene the entire committee for consensus and recommendations on hypothesis and aims for approval before writing their own original research proposal.
Any data or text material taken from another existing proposal or any other source must be clearly cited as such to avoid plagiarism issues. Proposals should be written for a 3-year timeline with the student as principal investigator (PI). A budget considering expected personnel, equipment, services, supplied and expendables, and other necessary items for research should be included. This budget can be itemized or modular but should be clear, accurate and descriptive of the proposed work. The student's advisor (or other committee members) may read the written proposal and provide limited and general recommendations and feedback once without explicitly altering or substantially re-writing the proposal for the student. However, the student must develop the entire proposal on their own without appropriating substantially from an existing proposal, as well as their original technical aims (as stated above) or the original research (as stated above on his/her own). Philosophically, the entire proposal should represent the student's own original writing, technical analysis and ideas, not that of a faculty mentor. Copying text or materials from other proposals without formal citation or attribution is considered plagiarism and punishable under University guidelines.
The complete written research proposal is assembled according to the order of the required pieces specified in the NIH table of contents document and in electronic format as a single .pdf file. This research proposal in electronic (single .pdf file) and (optional, by faculty agreement only) hard copy (printed) format should be distributed to the supervisory committee members at least one week before the scheduled oral exam meeting.
Oral exam on the written research proposal. The student must orally defend their research proposal within a year from the date that the student was informed of his/her comprehensive exam grade. In the case of a conditional comprehensive exam pass, the oral exam deadline will not be extended to one year beyond the time required to comply with the comprehensive exam conditions. Students who do not comply with the deadline will have only one chance to pass their exam. The student should arrange a mutually acceptable exam date for the oral proposal defense with their committee and distribute the written proposal in hard copy (printed) format to the committee members at least one week before the scheduled oral exam meeting. An announcement of the exam should be posted to the department's electronic seminar mailing list at least one week before the proposal defense. Please contact the department's graduate coordinator about preparing this announcement with these timelines.
On the day of the oral proposal defense, the student will first provide a detailed oral technical presentation (approximately 45 minutes duration) of the proposal. This presentation is open to the public. Following the presentation, the exam committee conducts the oral examination in a closed session with the student. Each committee member will question the student about the proposal and/or other scientific concepts and topics related to the broad categories listed above. The student's research advisor may not attend the closed portion of the oral examination. There is no strict time limit on the exam, but a duration of 90 minutes in the closed session is often appropriate. Immediately after the oral examination, the committee will meet and evaluate the student's performance. Three outcomes are possible - pass, conditional pass and fail. These outcomes are described below. The student must provide the official University of Utah form (Report of the Qualifying Examination for the Ph.D., Ed.D, or M.Phil. Degree and Recommendation for Admission to Candidacy) to the committee to report the outcome of the preliminary examination. The chair of the preliminary examination committee will write a letter summarizing the consensus of the committee's critique and informing the student of the outcome, and what revisions (if any) are required for any conditional pass. This letter will also document specific reasons for a conditional pass or failure. The letter will be sent within one week of the examination to the student, advisor and department chair, and be filed in the student's official dossier.
Students who receive a pass will advance to Ph.D. candidacy. No further work will be required - the student has completed the exam in full. The committee must unanimously agree upon a pass.
Students judged to be deficient in certain areas of the proposal and/or the oral examination committee will receive a conditional pass and will have 4 weeks from the date of issue of their committee's proposal defense evaluation letter to correct deficiencies in the proposal and/or fulfill other requirements as stipulated by the committee. Students may solicit feedback from their committee members and advisor while revising their proposal. The revised proposal should include an introduction section that details specific changes made in the revised proposal (see PHS form 398 for detailed instructions). The revised proposal should be submitted to both committee members and the department office on or before the 4-week deadline. This submission will be final (i.e., subsequent revisions will not be considered). Committee members will then have 3 weeks to review and judge the revised proposal. Un-reviewed proposals will automatically receive a pass. The final decision (pass or fail) will be decided by a majority of the committee. In case of a split vote, the committee chair will make the final decision. In the event of failure, or if the student's 4-week resubmission deadline is missed, the student will have one more opportunity to retake the exam.
Students who fail the preliminary exam will be required to submit and defend a new research proposal. The second submission will be final. The due date of the second submission is at the discretion of the committee, but no longer than 6 months from the date of the original proposal examination date.