Tips, guidelines, and expectations for PhD candidacy exams

Pompano Lab, University of Virginia Department of Chemistry

What is the goal of the candidacy exam process?

The goal of the candidacy exam is for you to demonstrate that you have the potential to become a successful PhD-level researcher.  A PhD is an “earned degree,” meaning that people who receive it have truly earned the designation according to a set of standards.  At the PhD Candidacy stage, you are not yet expected to be operating at a PhD level.  However, you need to demonstrate that you have the skills, knowledge, and motivation to get there in the next 3 – 4 years.

The candidacy exam is your chance to demonstrate that you:

• Have a firm grasp of the fundamental concepts underlying your specific project
• Can clearly explain the what, why, and how of your project, in writing and verbally
• Are able to produce, analyze, and interpret high-quality data in the lab at a pace appropriate to a 2nd-year PhD student
• Are beginning to grasp the bigger context and literature of your research field and how your project fits within it
• Are beginning to be familiar with the literature and the forefront of your field (e.g. bioanalytical chemistry) in general
• Have a firm grasp of the fundamental concepts expected of any PhD student in Chemistry (i.e. stuff you should know from undergraduate chemistry courses and the relevant graduate courses)
• Are learning to present yourself in a professional manner

Specific requirements and guidelines are found in the Chemistry Department Grad Student handbook.  The comments below are meant to supplement, not supersede, those guidelines.

Structure of the exam

Candidacy exams in our department consist of a Research Statement and a Literature Critique.  You will submit a written paper and make a 10-minute oral presentation for each of these.

Specific comments:

1. Becoming knowledgeable:  fundamentals and big picture

1. You should be familiar with all fundamental ideas related to your project.  This includes both basic information from undergraduate and graduate coursework, as well as more specialized concepts that you learned specifically for your research.
2. You should make yourself familiar with any new techniques or concepts that are featured in your assigned literature paper.  
3. Make yourself aware of what each other person in your lab is working on.  For each of your lab mates, you should be able to summarize the goal of their main project(s) in a sentence or two, and be able to summarize their major results in a few sentences.  This helps you be aware of other work in your lab, which is likely related to your own!
4. You should be actively reading the literature that surrounds your project. Both current and historical literature are useful.  

1. Maintain an attitude of curiosity!  :)  If you see something mentioned in one paper that you don’t understand, find a textbook, book chapter, review, or another paper that explains it.  Keep digging and digging until you find an answer.

5. Just Googling a topic is almost always insufficient to learn a new technical subject well.  Many scientific concepts and techniques are explained poorly on public websites.  Instead, find a textbook, a subject-specific book from the library, or a comprehensive review article.

2. Preparing and writing your Research Paper

1. Look carefully at well-written publications in your field.  How do they start?  Usually with a broad view of the field, that then narrows down to a specific problem/hypothesis/question, which is then discussed in some detail.  You should follow the same “funnel” strategy when writing your paper.
2. Include a conceptual figure early on, to make it clear what the goal of your project is.  Many published papers have such a figure as Figure 1.
3. Do not just parrot the language that you have heard others in the lab use or have seen in other papers/grants from your lab.  Write in your own words.
4. Each factual statement you make, aside from general knowledge, needs to be supported by appropriate references.  

1. Broader statements should be supported by reviews;
2. Very specific statements should be supported by primary papers that focused on that topic.  

5. When you cite a reference, make sure you have read it, either in its entirety or the relevant parts.  Do not just copy citations from other papers without reading them first.
6. All the figures should add something to the story and should be as high quality as they can be.
7. See more tips for clear science writing here. [public link]

3. Preparing your Literature Critique paper

1. Figures

1. Do include figures in your literature critique.  It is okay and in fact encouraged to reproduce the relevant parts of the figures from the original paper, in order to have a visual aid for your writing.
2. Drawing your own figures in addition to the ones in the paper, to strengthen your discussion, is viewed favorably. You can show a figure of your own to support your critiques of how the authors presented their data.

2. Novel extension

1. The novel extension is viewed by some faculty as the most important part of the literature critique.  You want to make some suggestions that show that you have thought deeply about the technique/research findings and how they might be extended.  If you were these researchers, what new research would you want to do over the next few years?
2. An extension can be an application of a tool or method, creative additional tests of a hypothesis, a pursuit of an interesting observation from the article, or a fresh take on some of the ideas of the article.  Have fun and be creative.
3. If you can, think of more than one application and write about both.  The first can be a simple extension, but at least one should involve more detail and thought on your part.  The more thought you put into the future extension the better.
4. The novel extension does not have to be relevant to your project or to our specific field.  In fact, it may be viewed as lack of creativity if your proposed extension is too closely aligned with your own project’s goals.  Think about how the paper you read could be applied in other circumstances or in the field as well.

3. Critiquing the paper

1. Critiques should highlight both the strengths of the paper (significance, novelty, design of experiments, etc) and any major weaknesses.
2. Don’t be discouraged if at first glance your paper seems to have few negative critiques (it got published for a reason).  Think critically about how you would have run a similar experiment or what piece of information could have strengthened their argument.
3. Do point out any exceptional points that you felt added to the paper or how the paper fits into the current state of understanding.

4. See more tips for clear science writing here. [public link]

4. The presentations

1. Make sure you have practiced!  It is very obvious and frustrating for all involved if a presentation is unrehearsed.

1. Practice by yourself, out loud, with a timer.  Just thinking internally about what you will say is not the same.
2. Then, practice in front of other people, with a timer.  You should practice in front of people who are in the group and outside of it, to get the best feedback.
3. Practice far enough in advance that you have time to revise your presentation based on the feedback you get.

2. Putting together your presentation

1. Follow the same “funnel” strategy as was mentioned above for the paper:  Big picture first, then background on the relevant system/technology, then goals of this paper, then their approach and data/results, then conclusions.  Then the critique and future directions.
2. See also: Presenting papers at group meeting, for some related guidance [public link]
3. Make sure you are comfortable with all information you put on the slide.  This is especially important for the paper critique.  If there is a part of a figure that you are not comfortable with, make sure to read up on the subject. Pay attention to the details of the figures. Be especially careful with figures in the Introduction; e.g., if you show a pathway, make sure you can answer questions about every protein in that pathway!
4. Someone should be able to look at your slides and understand your main point quickly.  Generally making the conclusion of the slide be the title works well.
5. Consider adding a short text blurb next to each figure stating its main conclusion in a few words. This is especially helpful for large figures that contain a lot of information.
6. General rule of thumb is you want to spend about one minute per slide. This is just a guideline, and you may spend more time on some slides than others.  If you find yourself staying on one slide for too much longer though, consider breaking up the information into multiple slides, or cutting back on what you are trying to say.
7. When putting words on your slides a good guideline to follow is the 6x6 rule.  No more than 6 lines of words with 6 words each.  You want them to listen to what you are saying rather than reading your slides.  Words on the slide should be used for emphasis rather than presenter notes.

3. Do your best to act professionally during the candidacy exam.

1. Use technical terms appropriate to your field, not just colloquial terms that we might throw around in lab.
2. Define any special terms that non-experts would not know.  Also, define terms that are standard in your subfield, but not throughout your department.  For our lab, remember that basic immunology or engineering terms are not in common use in the Chemistry department (e.g. cytokine, Peclet number).
3. When speaking, try not to let your inner monologue to burst out – no need to apologize for small things, or repeatedly comment on how nervous you are, etc.
4. Dress the part … dress like a professor or a senior scientist at a large company.  Doing so provides a visual cue that you take the exam seriously.

4. During Questions

1. Listen closely to what they are asking and take the time to answer thoughtfully.  If you sense there is an underlying misconception that caused them to ask the question, address that first.
2. Don’t be afraid to ask for clarification.
3. If you are stuck on a question, think out loud. Doing so shows your thought process and your critical thinking skills.  You will get much more “credit” for showing how you work through a difficult question than for just guessing.

Getting help:  Like any scientific endeavor, you should not work in isolation.  After drafting your papers, request proofreading and advice from your peers.  Allow enough time that they can read the paper and provide feedback without disrupting their own productivity.

Please note that your PI cannot read your papers, nor offer feedback on the content of your presentations (UVA Chemistry policy).  However you will have opportunities to practice presenting your work at group meeting, as well as opportunities to practice presenting a literature critique.  The exam is your opportunity to show that you are an independent scientist.  Work hard and you will impress your committee!