For Students Entering Fall 2007–Present

Each student is expected to write and defend an original research proposal during the sixth semester of residence. The purpose of the proposal is to demonstrate that the student has the ability to generate ideas for original research and to defend the methods and importance of the research.

Topics

To ensure sufficient originality and promote feasibility within the desired timeline, topics must be approved by the student’s Advisory Committee and at least one member of the Graduate Program Committee who is not on the student’s advisory committee to ensure the topic is distinct from the student’s thesis work (see Timeline below). The topic need not exclude the general field of the student’s research but should use some primary sources outside his/her specific dissertation topic. In general, topics should go at least one step beyond what has been published. In addition, to the student’s knowledge, work on the same hypothesis should not have been proposed before. In order to produce work distinct from the thesis topic and to facilitate an oral exam of appropriate scope, depth and rigor, students are encouraged to propose work that could conceivably be done in their lab or group (however not restricted to the instrumentation currently available).  Students who wish to pursue work relatively distant from their field of interest are advised to ensure that faculty members with relevant expertise are available to consult and/or serve as an additional examiner.

Topic Approval

Descriptions of topics  (approximately 1-2 pages) are due the third week in November for students who are due to complete proposals in the spring semester.  The topic descriptions must include (1) a statement of the problem to be addressed and the proposed approach, (2) several key references to show that the approach is viable, and (3) a discussion of similarities and differences compared with the student’s thesis work to date and to related work reported in the literature. Written approval from the advisory committee and a member of the GPC who is not on the advisory committee is needed for final topic approval by December 15.

Each student should submit his/her proposed topics to the Advisory Committee and at least one member of the GPC at that time. If a student has not received his/her entire committee’s approval and the approval of one member of the GPC by February 15, the student will need to have an Advisory Committee meeting within the next 1-2 weeks. The purpose of this meeting is to allow faculty to resolve directly any concerns or differences of opinion about the topic, or to advise a student in focusing or choosing topic if needed. Note that typical reasons for rejecting a topic would include insufficient chemical content involved in addressing the question, lack of feasibility, or lack of sufficient distinction from the student’s dissertation research. The committee chair must clarify their concerns to the student and to the GPC, in writing, at the end of the meeting. If the student is not able to address their Advisory Committee members’ concerns successfully by February 28, the student will be put on probation. Subsequent failure to write and adequately defend the proposal by the end of the seventh semester would be grounds for termination from the program. Note that students entering in January will have their deadlines on third week of July for topic submissions and September 15 for final topic approval. All Advisory Committee members must agree that the proposed topic is acceptable. The GPC member will be a nonvoting participant present to anticipate potential concerns. Note that the GPC meeting to review petitions for extension will usually be held the 3rd week of the spring semester.

Written proposal

Like proposals submitted to a funding agency, students’ original proposals will be expected to:

1. include an abstract,
2. state the idea and motivating scientific hypothesis,
3. justify the importance of the scientific problem,
4. review the relevant theoretical and/or experimental background literature,
5. propose the specific research, including details about the theoretical and/or experimental techniques and an estimate of capital costs if nonstandard or specialized equipment is required,
6. predict results, including discussing possible outcomes and demonstrating that the approach is feasible by calculation or reference to previous literature, and
7. discuss the significance of the research.

The format should follow NSF proposal guidelines. Proposals should be 15 pages of text, including figures but excluding references, in a font no smaller than 12 point Times with 1.5 spacing. The student is free to consult with anyone, including the advisor, in developing the proposal, but the advisor’s role should be non-directive and the work should represent the student’s own creative thinking. A final version of the proposal must be distributed to Advisory Committee members at least one week before the scheduled examination date.

Oral defense

The defense comprises a public seminar (approximately 30-45 minutes in length) and a private oral examination by the student’s Advisory Committee. One more member may be added by the Graduate Program Committee if more expertise in a specific area is desirable. Attendance at the examination may be by any of the Chemistry Faculty, although they will be nonparticipating spectators. During this oral examination, the student is expected to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the literature and methods relevant to the proposal, including any material mentioned in the written proposal or oral presentation. While some of the questions may not have clear-cut answers, the Committee will evaluate the student’s ability to reason effectively and draw appropriately on a broad range of knowledge to do so.

Pursuing guidance and feedback

While the original proposal should be produced largely independently, students are expected to pursue sufficient feedback to complete the proposal in a timely way. The student is responsible for seeking feedback and guidance from his/her committee chair in week 6 after the topic is approved and for additional follow-up with his/her advisor and the GPC Co-Chairs by week 11 if progress is not on track for an oral exam within the next 3-4 weeks. A significant change in topic at any point must be approved by the student’s advisory committee and one member of the GPC. A student who does not submit a draft of a written proposal to his/her advisory by week 11 will typically be placed on probation until the proposal oral exam is completed, unless there are extenuating circumstances.

Outcomes

Should the research proposal be determined to be deficient, the outcome should be recorded as conditional pass, conditional pass with probation, or failure. In each case, the deficiencies must be communicated in writing by the Advisory Committee Chair to the student and the Graduate Program Committee, along with a new deadline for re-defending the proposal. If the deficiencies are considered significant or major, the student’s performance should be recorded as a conditional pass with probation. If the concerns are grave, the outcome should be recorded as failure and the Advisory Committee may terminate the student from his/her group or, upon agreement of the advisor and GPC Co-Chairs, may allow the student to submit and defend a revised proposal. If the deficiencies are deemed minor, the student’s performance may be recorded as a conditional pass and the student required either to revise or re-defend, again with the deficiencies, conditions for passing, and a new deadline reported in writing by the Advisory Committee Chair to the student and the Graduate Program Committee by the next day. Approximately 1-2 months would be the typical time allotted for revising and re-defending after a conditional pass, with the goal of making the time as short as is reasonable for the required work. The student may not achieve ABD status without a satisfactory performance. Failure to defend an original proposal successfully by the end of the seventh semester in residence is grounds for termination from the Ph.D. program.