The comprehensive exam will evaluate whether a candidate has the research knowledge and skills required to successfully complete a doctoral program, such as:

• General and project-specific scientific knowledge
• Knowledge of the scientific literature in the proposed field of study
• Ability to generate a research question and to propose an experimental plan
• Ability to use research methodologies and to interpret results (generated during the first year of studies)
• Ability to communicate science both written and orally
• Ability to put the proposed work in the context of the broader field of research
• Potential to identify limitations of their chosen approaches and make informed judgments in their specific field of research

Each of these learning objectives will be tested both at the time of the submission of the written report (the research proposal) and at the oral exam.

Writing a research proposal through the generation of a research question and an experimental plan to address it, will:

• develop scientific writing skills;
• develop critical thinking skills;
• develop scientific creativity;
• expand knowledge in the field of research.

The Comprehensive exam should be completed coincident with the second TAC meeting, normally in the 4^th term after first enrolment.

The comprehensive exam should occur within the 4^th or 5^th term of first enrolment.

In the event of re-examination, the exam must be successfully completed before the end of the 6^th term.

MD/PhD students have a different timeline:

• The Comprehensive Examination must be successfully completed by the end of Year 3 (term 5).
• Students who entered the MD/PhD Program without a Master’s degree have until the first term in Year 4 to complete the Comprehensive Exam.

The committee is composed of 3 members:

• 2 TAC members, and
• one additional examiner who will be nominated as the chair for the exam.

At least one of the committee members should be from the home graduate program.

Following submission of the written component, the members of the examination committee will be granted one week to complete its evaluation.

All examiners and supervisors are required to be present during the oral examination.

At least six weeks prior the anticipated date of the comprehensive exam, you need to inform the Graduate and Postdoctoral Office (GPSO) by service request of the date chosen by the supervisor and the evaluation committee for the examination, or of your preferred date if your supervisor and committee members haven’t yet agreed on a specific date.

To your service request, you must add the following documents:

• your research abstract (see guidelines below under Part 1: The research proposal)
• The Comprehensive Examiner Nomination Form (PDF) - names of potential examiners chosen by the supervisor.

The Program Director will approve the nomination of the committee members.

As soon as the GSPO has the approval of the director we will assist with the scheduling of the event by confirming the time and location of the exam.

At least 3 weeks prior to the exam, you must circulate your research proposal by email to the examination committee and add [email protected] in cc.

General requirements

The research proposal is a formal document that will be prepared based on your proposed research plan for the PhD.

While you will have already discussed your research direction with your supervisor and TAC, the research proposal required for the Comprehensive exam is neither a TAC report nor a re-submission of your supervisor’s grant proposal.

Rather, the research proposal will cover the direction of your work from the time of the exam through to thesis submission and its scientific rationale will be based on your knowledge of the field as well as your own results from your first year of PhD level studies.

You must, therefore, decide your topic in a very narrow scope and ensure that all of your experimental aims are sufficiently independent enough to allow you to make a significant contribution to scientific knowledge in your field by the end of your studies, a requirement for the completion of a doctoral degree.

Required sections

1. Title page

The title page should include the title of your proposal, your name and student number, your supervisor’s name, the date you began the PhD program, the date of submission of the research proposal and the following statement: Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Comprehensive Exam.

2. Abstract

A 350 word summary of the proposed research proposal. This abstract should include:

• a statement of the problem
• a rationale for the proposed research
• the hypothesis and experimental aims
• a brief description of the experimental plan
• a statement about the significance and/or implications of the proposed work

3. Introduction

The Introduction section should include the necessary information and context to understand your research question. The introduction should aim to summarize the literature in the field as well as your own research progress in a concise fashion with the objective of setting the stage for the hypothesis (next section). The Introduction should inform the reader about the important facts while also hinting at the significance of the field.

4. Rationale and hypothesis

This short section should briefly summarize the known information that serves as the foundation for your research question, followed by your specific (and testable hypothesis). This section should not be more than one paragraph.

5. Experimental aims and methods

In this section, you will typically describe 2-3 experimental aims that will test your hypothesis. These aims can be formulated as smaller research questions (eg. Is protein X necessary for process Y?). For each aim, you will develop an experimental approach that is modern and feasible, and that will answer your research question. There should be sufficient detail to allow an independent researcher to complete the work. Also, it is best to think of multiple ways to validate your findings and to test your hypothesis to demonstrate scientific rigor. Ask yourself “If I do experiment A and get result B, what else, other than a correct hypothesis, could cause this result?” Asking yourself this question will reveal important control experiments that will make your approach more comprehensive.

In this section, you should also summarize for the reader what results you expect to see based on your hypothesis and literature review. While this section will cover the experimental approach that you think is ideal for answering your question, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that you will have to find another strategy to address your hypothesis. Also use this section to briefly point out pitfalls to your approach and to suggest alternative ways to answer your research questions.

6. Significance

Use this section to convince your reader of the potential impact of your research. It should be brief, but should put your expected findings into the broader context of the field of research you work in.

7. References

Each reference should be numbered sequentially as it appears in the text. The numbers should be placed in the text as a superscript. The Reference section should follow the format for the journal Nature, as shown below:

39.  Schmidt, D., del Marmol, J. & MacKinnon, R. Mechanistic basis for low threshold mechanosensitivity in voltage-dependent K+ channels. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A109, 10352-7 (2012).

General Format

1. Page Length and Margins

The Research proposal should not exceed 15 type-written pages including figures but excluding references. Margins must be set to a minimum of 1 inch (2.54 cm).

2. Acceptable font

The document should be prepared using Times New Roman 12 pt. The document should be prepared single spaced.

3. Figures

Figures should be prepared in PowerPoint, Adobe Photoshop or Adobe Illustrator and saved as image files (jpg, tif) and inserted into the text with tight text wrapping using Arial 10 pt as a minimum font size in the final version.

Each figure should include a concise legend using the acceptable fonts in 3.2 that describes the experiment performed similar to what is appropriate for scientific publication. Figures should be formatted to take 1 full page width or a half-page width or less.

Figures can be integrated into the text or added at the end of the proposal, provided that they meet the formatting guidelines.

Assessment and Evaluation

• The comprehensive examination is evaluated as (S) Satisfactory or (NS) Not Satisfactory.
• Each component (written and oral) is evaluated by the examination committee including the Chairperson.
• The student can fail either the written (research proposal) or the oral component.

Following submission of the written component, the examination committee will be granted 1 week to complete its evaluation with two possible verdict outcomes:

• Satisfactory: the research proposal is ready to proceed to oral examination, the candidate will be asked to prepare for oral examination.
• Not Satisfactory: the research proposal must be revised if more than one examiner requires major changes.

A minimum of 2 satisfactory votes are required to successfully pass the written component of the Comprehensive Exam.

For the re-examination of the written component, corrective measures will be communicated to the student and the same Examining Committee will judge the candidate’s success in meeting the corrective measures.

Note that this will be considered as a first fail and the subsequent submission and oral exam must be passed to successfully complete the Comprehensive Exam.

For the oral exam, the PhD candidate will be asked to present a short 15 minute summary of their research topic and their proposal, followed by two rounds of questioning in which the student’s basic scientific and technical knowledge will be evaluated.

Specific questions relating directly to the research proposal will be asked.

At the end of the Oral Exam, the student will be asked to leave the room and the Supervisor will be given the opportunity to express his/her opinion of the student’s performance to the Committee.

The Supervisor will then be asked to leave the room and members of the Examining Committee will deliberate in the absence of the student and the Supervisor.

At the end of the examination, each examiner, including the Chair, will vote (satisfactory or not satisfactory).

A minimum of 2 satisfactory votes are required to successfully pass the oral exam. A student whose performance is deemed to be not satisfactory (more than one not satisfactory vote) will either be asked to repeat the exam or will be withdrawn from their program (if it is a second fail).

For the re-examination, corrective measures will be communicated to the student and the same Examining Committee will judge the candidate’s success in meeting the corrective measures.

The candidate and Supervisor will be invited back into the room and will be informed of the Committee’s decision and will, if necessary, suggest areas where the student needs to improve his/her background knowledge.

Roles of the Supervisor

The comprehensive exam is intended to be an independent learning process.

It is expected that the supervisor will be present for the exam but will only participate as an observer.

The thesis supervisor may not ask or answer questions during the exam.

The supervisor will be asked by the chair of the examining committee to comment at the end of the exam, after the student has left the room (in particular the supervisor will be requested to describe his/her involvement in the preparation of the exam).

The thesis supervisor and the candidate are not to be present during deliberation following the exam.

Assessment and Evaluation

• Each component (written and oral) is evaluated by the examination committee including the Chair.
• The evaluation forms can be found on this webpage, under the Examiner Guidelines tab.
• The comprehensive examination is evaluated as (S) Satisfactory or (NS) Not Satisfactory.
• The student can fail either the written (research proposal) or oral component.

A minimum of 2 satisfactory votes are required to successfully pass the oral exam. A student whose performance is deemed to be not satisfactory (more than one not satisfactory vote) will either be asked to repeat the exam or will be withdrawn from their program (if it is a second fail).

For the re-examination of the oral component, corrective measures will be communicated to the student and the same Examining Committee will judge the candidate’s success in meeting the corrective measures.