PhD Thesis Proposal and Examination

The purpose of the examination is to determine the student’s ability to formulate a hypothesis based on existing evidence, and to design an experimental test of that hypothesis. The student must demonstrate a knowledge of the literature relevant to the problem to be addressed and must show an appreciation of good experimental design and the technical difficulties and pitfalls inherent in the chosen methodology. In addition, the work proposed must be of sufficient scope and originality to warrant a PhD.

At least two weeks prior to the date of the evaluation, the student will provide each member of the supervisory committee and the chair with a copy of the thesis proposal. The proposal should focus on the projected, future research that will form the basis of the PhD thesis work. It should be hypothesis driven and supported the preliminary data generated by the student. The documents must include a brief introduction to the research topic, a summary of the student’s work done to date and an outline of the research plan, including methodology and anticipated timelines for completion. Typically, the thesis proposal document should be between 10-20 double-spaced pages (not including figures or references).

The thesis proposal evaluation committee has the following composition:

• The chair, appointed by the Director of Graduate Studies from among the members of the NGPC.
• The student’s supervisory committee.

The evaluation committee will review the student’s performance in formal course work, the student’s competence as revealed by the thesis proposal itself and the student’s ability to defend the content of the proposal. Committee members will assess the feasibility of the project within the projected timeline and determine whether the project is of sufficient quality and quantity for the degree proposed. Following this review, a determination will be made on the student’s future status within the program and recommend any further courses deemed necessary to attain an acceptable level of knowledge. Committee members are encouraged to provide feedback to improve the quality of the research project and identify potential obstacles or pitfalls.

At least three weeks in advance of the exam, the supervisor will provide the Graduate Program Administrator with the date, time, and place of the exam. The administrator will then appoint the chair and notify the committee and the student.

• In the presence of the student, the chair will summarize the student’s performance in course work to date.
• The student will give a short (no longer than 20 minutes) presentation summarizing the thesis proposal.
• The student will defend the proposal in response to questions from each committee member in turn. Questions may include more general areas of relevant neuroscience so that the committee may be satisfied that the student has an appreciation of the subject adequate to pursue the proposed research.
• Discussion among the committee members concerning the outcome of the evaluation is carried out in the absence of the student.
• Following the conclusion of the exam, a Report of Supervisory Committee form must be completed, signed, and returned to the NMHI office.
• Recommendation for Change of Category form must be completed and submitted to the NMHI.

• Proceed unconditionally - Excellent performance with no or minor areas of weakness that do not require remedial action. Allows for continuation in the PhD Program.
• Proceed conditionally - Adequate performance with areas of weakness identified. Committee recommends remedial action. Allows for continuation in the PhD Program.
• Repeat evaluation - Only given if the committee feels that there are extenuating circumstances or if the performance is much poorer in one or more areas than anticipated from the student’s record. 
• Withdraw - The student is asked to withdraw from the program. The student may choose to remain in the program for the remainder of the academic year.