The Proposition Examination is designed to test a student’s potential for carrying out independent research. Students must pass the examination before submitting an Application to Candidacy. Students will start the process for the Proposition Examination at the end of the Spring semester of their second year (i.e., their fourth semester) in the PhD program, and complete it before the start of the Fall semester that year.

Please refer to the Proposition Examination Guidelines below. 

The Proposition Examination is designed to test PhD graduate students’ potential for carrying out independent research by demonstrating his/her ability:

1. To collect and integrate diverse scientific information on a selected topic.
2. To organize sound and creative experimental approaches in solving significant questions related to the topic;
3. To formulate original specific aims and experimental procedures in the development of the selected topic in a written document and;
4. To demonstrate the acquired knowledge and defend the proposed research program in an oral presentation.

These attributes must be clearly demonstrated for successful completion of the Proposition Examination.

The successful completion of a Proposition Exam is required for all PhD students in the Neuroscience Program regardless of route of entry (PPBS or Direct-Admission).

The Proposition Examination includes the submission of a research proposal and its subsequent oral defense. The written portion must be an original document that reflects the student’s independent thinking and is appropriately referenced. Evidence of plagiarism will constitute grounds for failure without opportunity for re-examination. Successful completion of the Proposition Examination is required for continuation in the doctoral program.

Students will typically start the process for the Proposition Examination at the end of the Spring semester of their second year (i.e., their fourth semester) in the PhD program and complete it before the beginning of the next Fall semester. Following written approval by the Thesis Advisor and NPD, the student may begin the process of the Proposition Examine at an earlier point in their second year (i.e. during either Fall or Spring semester).

Students would be eligible to file Application to Candidacy (ATC) if they have completed their proposition exam, and have fulfilled their didactic course requirements. In specific instances, exceptions can be made through a petition e-mailed to the Program Director. At the time of Application to Candidacy by the Graduate School, the student should also submit a Certification of Full-Time Student Status (separate forms are used for PhD & MS degrees) while pursuing research on their dissertation project. This permits the student to reduce the number of credit hours taken below 12 credit hours while they focus on their thesis research.

The research topic will be selected by the student, and it may either be on the work that the student expects to pursue for his/her dissertation (recommended) or be related to it.  In addition to serving the purpose mentioned in Overview, this will prepare the student for submitting a proposal for a pre-doctoral fellowship to a funding agency (e.g. NIH F31). The selected title should be of sufficient specificity to be appropriate for a major grant proposal. The Chair of the Proposition Examination Committee will decide the appropriateness of the topic. 

The Proposition Examination Committee (PEC) will consist of:

1. A member of the Neuroscience Graduate Education Committee (NGEC) or NPD. An attempt will be made to select a member who is relatively familiar with the area of the proposal topic. The appointed member will serve as the Chair of the Proposition Examination Committee.
2. The student’s Dissertation Committee. The Dissertation Committee consists of the thesis advisor as Chair of the Dissertation Committee, and at least three other Committee members selected by the Advisor and the student. All members of the Committee must have appointments in the Program in Neuroscience.

The Proposition Examination process is as follows:

1. The first step in the process will be a 45-minute long journal club-style Research Proposal Presentation by the student. In this presentation, the student should discuss:
   1. The background leading to the question/hypothesis of the proposed project.  This may include published papers, feasibility data from the student’s lab and/or his/her own data.
   2. Question(s) to be addressed
   3. Overall hypothesis
   4. An outline of the proposed Specific Aims
2. The PEC will meet with the student following the Research Proposal Presentation seminar to discuss the presentation and to make suggestions for modifying the proposed project. If this evaluation is positive, the student may continue with the proposal process. This approval may be contingent on modification of the Specific Aims of the proposed research; such changes should be made and approved within one week of the Research Proposal Presentation. If the PEC concludes that: The Thesis Research Prospectus presentation; the discussion of possible future experiments; and/or hypotheses to be tested were not adequate, the student will be given an opportunity to repeat the Presentation.
3. After the Research Proposal Presentation, the student will prepare a full written proposal. The proposal must include a discussion of the significance of the proposed research. In writing the proposal, the student may seek help from other students and faculty. However, it is emphasized that the nature of this assistance should be limited and serve only to direct the student in a general approach to the topic. The student is required to write the proposal independently. Faculty should not design experiments or help in writing or rewriting of the proposal.
4. Within five weeks of the pre-proposal presentation, the student will present the written proposal and submit both a hard copy and an electronic file (PDF, or Word document) to the PEC members. 

General Formatting Guidelines

Below are instructions adapted from the NIH Grants and Funding Website dealing with Formatting Attachments. Please follow these instructions in completing your proposal.

• Font: Use an Arial, Helvetica, Palatino Linotype, or Georgia typeface, a black font color, and a font size of 11 points or larger. Must be 11 points or larger. Smaller text in figures, graphs, diagrams and charts is acceptable, as long as it is legible when the page is viewed at 100%. Type density, including characters and spaces, must be no more than 15 characters per inch. Type may be no more than six lines per inch.
• Paper Size and Page Margins: Use standard paper size (8 1⁄2" x 11). Use at least one-half inch margins (top, bottom, left, and right) for all pages.
• Page Formatting: Since a number of reviewers will be reviewing applications as an electronic document and not a paper version, applicants are strongly encouraged to use only a standard, single-column format for the text. Avoid using a two-column format since it can cause difficulties when reviewing the document electronically.
• Page Numbering: Please number all pages. (NIH explicitly disallows this, but page numbers must be included for your NRS proposal to help your committee follow the project.) If you later send your proposal as an F31 grant application, you will need to remove the page numbers.
• Figures, Graphs, Diagrams, Charts, Tables, Figure Legends, and Footnotes: You may use a smaller type size but it must be in a black font color, readily legible, and follow the font typeface requirement. Color can be used in figures; however, all text must be in a black font color, clear and legible.
• Grantsmanship: Use English. Avoid jargon. Spell out acronyms the first time they are used in each application section/attachment and note the appropriate abbreviation in parentheses. The abbreviation may be used in the section/attachment thereafter.
• Page Limits (see details below)
  1. Specific Aims: one page
  2. Research Strategy: six pages
  3. References: no page limit
  4. Other sections required for an NIH proposal (cover page, biosketch, training plan, etc.) are not required for the Neuroscience proposal.
• Title: NIH and other PHS agencies limit title character length to 81 characters, including the spaces between words and punctuation. Titles in excess of 81 characters will be truncated. Be sure to only use standard characters in the descriptive title: A through Z, a through z, 0 through 9, and underscore (_). 

Specific Aims are limited to one page.

After a brief introductory paragraph or two, 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 exert 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. 

This item is limited to six pages.

Organize the Research Strategy in the specified order using the instructions provided below. Start each section with the appropriate section heading — Significance, Innovation, Approach. Cite published experimental details in the Research Strategy section and provide the full reference in the Bibliography and References Cited section.

You may address Significance and Approach for each Specific Aim individually, or may address Significance and Approach for all of the Specific Aims collectively.

1. Significance – Explain the importance of the problem or critical barrier to progress in the field that the proposed project addresses. 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.
   
2. Innovation – An innovation section is not required for fellowships and does not have to be a part of your Neuroscience proposal. This section is found in some other types of NIH grants, such as R01 grants.
3. Approach – this section has all the detail of how you’ll do the experiments and the preliminary data to back it up 

Include information on preliminary studies, if any. This can be preliminary data you’ve obtained while you’ve worked in the lab, preliminary data obtained by other members of your lab (or your collaborator’s labs) that supports your project or preliminary data published by other labs. You can give preliminary data separately for each aim or you can describe all the preliminary data for all the aims first and then talk about the aims.

For the aims themselves, you will:

1. Describe the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses to be used to accomplish the specific aims of the project. Include how the data will be collected, analyzed, and interpreted as well as any resource sharing plans as appropriate.
2. Discuss potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success anticipated to achieve the aims.
3. If the project is in the early stages of development, describe any strategy to establish feasibility, and address the management of any high-risk aspects of the proposed work.
4. Point out any procedures, situations, or materials that may be hazardous to personnel and precautions to be exercised.

End the approach section with a short paragraph reiterating the importance of your project and how it relates to human health or disease. 

Each reference must include the names of all authors (in the same sequence in which they appear in the publication), the article and journal title, book title, volume number, page numbers, and year of publication. Include only bibliographic citations. Applicants should be especially careful to follow scholarly practices in providing citations for source materials relied upon when preparing any section of the application. 

Within one week of the submission of the written proposal, each voting member of the Committee must grade the proposal as satisfactory (S) or unsatisfactory (U). Students will be given a written critique from the Committee Chairperson. The critique will include a summary of each committee member's comments.

If revisions are made/required, the revised written proposal will be graded within a week after submission and will again be assigned a grade of S or U by each Committee member. A copy of the written proposal will be placed in the student's file in the Program office.

Every effort will be made to adhere to this schedule; however unforeseen circumstances or unavoidable scheduling conflicts may cause a deviation from this timetable.

1. The prop exam chair may choose to meet briefly with the Thesis Advisor prior to scheduling of the final exam (without the student). This is intended to help resolve any overarching issues such as proposal feasibility and significance that remain a concern after completion of the written proposal.
2. Participants in the oral examination will include the student and the voting members of the PEC.
3. The oral examination will begin with a 15-20-minute presentation, during which the student will summarize the significance, innovation, approach and Specific Aims of the proposed work as outlined above in the section on Recommended Proposal Format. This is not intended to be a repeat of the original presentation and repetitive background information should be omitted.
4. During and following the presentation, the faculty will address questions to the student. The questions will explore all aspects of the proposal including its rationale, choice of experiments and experimental design, possible shortcomings of the experimental protocols and possible alternative, negative, or false positive results. Questions will also evaluate the student’s knowledge of the general area of the proposal, as well as of general principles of Neuroscience.
5. The objective of the Oral Examination is not simply to have the student recite orally what has been presented in writing but to examine the student’s overall grasp of the research area and of the basic principles of Neuroscience.
6. The Chair of the Committee may limit the time period for these questions to prevent the examination from becoming excessively long. 

The Committee will meet in an executive session just prior to the examination to ensure that each member understands the purpose and nature of the examination. After the examination is completed, the Committee will critically evaluate the student's performance on both the written and the oral portions of the examination and make specific recommendations to the student on the basis of the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the performance.

The Committee will establish whether or not the student has accomplished the following:

1. Developed the fundamental background to make correlations and pursue approaches which are essential to the topic;
2. Collected and interpreted the pertinent information in a clear and logical form;
3. Developed sound and critical approaches directed to the hypothesis; and
4. Understands the significance of the problem inherent in the proposal in a broad context. 

Each voting member of the Committee must grade the performance at the oral examination as satisfactory (S) or unsatisfactory (U). 

A copy of the final written proposal must be submitted to the Program office to be included in the student's file.