Written Preliminary Exam

A. Overview of Written Preliminary Exam (WPE)

The written preliminary examination is required by the Graduate School and is submitted during the Fall term of the second year in residence. In addition, all students will be pursuing a M.S. Plan B degree concurrent with the written and oral preliminary exams. The written preliminary examination in Chemistry is in the form of a written research dossier prepared by the student in consultation (as defined in section D) with the research advisor(s). The purpose of the research dossier is to demonstrate that the student has attained a good understanding of the thesis project including the fundamental background and current literature. Specific projects described in this preliminary research dossier may differ from those ultimately reported in the student’s Ph.D. thesis.

The following topics should be discussed in a succinct and relatively balanced fashion:  

• • the specific objective, including a discussion of the motivation for and the potential impact of the research project(s) (part of M.S. Plan B Project I)

  • a critical assessment of previous work found in the scientific literature relevant to the proposed thesis research (part of M.S. Plan B Project I)

  • the thesis research plan (synthesis, characterization, analysis and/or computational methods that will be developed/employed), including a discussion of existing practical and/or fundamental problems and how initial experiments to be conducted may influence the direction of subsequent research (part of M.S. Plan B Project II)

  • the research progress made to date (part of M.S. Plan B Project II)

The student should consult with their research advisor(s) for recommendations on the relative proportions of each section given the unique aspects of their project.

STRUCTURE AND FORMAT

• • The research dossier should also include an abstract (less than 300 words), a table of contents, a list of abbreviations, and relevant references (complete with title and inclusive pagination – see ACS style guide). The latter four items do not count toward the word count limit. 

  • The student should indicate on the cover page of the research dossier the names of the preliminary exam committee members (with the chair underlined) and the due date for the committee.

  • The main text of the WPE dossier must be a minimum of 5000 words and a maximum of 7000 words (including figure captions, scheme titles, and table titles). As a point of reference, a single-spaced document with 7000 words and no figures, tables, charts, or schemes (text only) should be approximately 14 pages long.

  • The dossier should use 12 point font and have 1” page margins. 

  • The student should confer with their advisor about line spacing and figure formatting for the dossier. 

  • All figures, tables, charts, and schemes should be embedded directly into the document near the point of first mention in the text. 

  • Figures, charts, and schemes are a component of scientific writing and, as such, should be clear, high quality, and informative. 

  • Appendices or Supplemental Information sections are not permitted.

  • The pages of the dossier must be numbered.

  • For guidance on appropriate usage of AI text generating tools, students are referred to the "Use of AI Tools in Scientific Writing" section in this Handbook.

B. Schedule for the Written Preliminary Examination

Third Monday of August (second year in residence): The candidate submits a one-page Abstract of the dossier to http://z.umn.edu/abstract and includes the names of three chemistry faculty members (not including the advisor(s)) who the candidate (in consultation with the advisor(s)) feels would be well suited to serve on the written and oral preliminary exam committees.  

Two weeks after Abstract submission: The Graduate Operations Office informs the candidate of the names of the three faculty members who will comprise the candidate’s written preliminary exam committee and who will also be members of the candidate’s oral preliminary exam committee. The committee assignment will be made in a joint meeting of the Graduate Curriculum Committee and the DGS. The candidate’s advisor will be the chair of the written preliminary exam committee. If a candidate has two advisors, then the second advisor will serve as an extra (internal) member on the candidate’s written and oral prelim exam committees.

Monday of third week, fall semester: The candidate submits the Ph.D. and M.S. Plan B GPAS and the External Committee Member Form (signed by the proposed external oral preliminary exam committee member).

Monday of sixth week, fall semester: The candidate submits the research dossier electronically as a PDF to the members of the written preliminary exam committee via email. Committee members should provide feedback on the written dossier to the candidate at any time after the initial submission.

Monday of 9th week, fall semester: The chair of the written preliminary exam committee informs the candidate about the outcome of the initial submission.

Monday of 10th week, fall semester: If minor revisions are needed, the candidate submits an electronic copy of the revised dossier and a cover letter describing the changes to the members of the written preliminary exam committee via email.

Monday of 12th week, fall semester: If major revisions are needed, the candidate submits the revised dossier and a cover letter describing the changes to the members of the written preliminary exam committee.

Monday of 14th week, fall semester: In cases of minor or major revisions, the chair of the written preliminary exam committee informs the candidate about the outcome of the revised submission.

Students starting the program in the Spring semester should follow the Spring Entrance Schedule.

C. Outcomes of the Written Preliminary Exam

Possible outcomes of the initial submission:

• • Pass

  • Pass with minor revisions (It is expected that the candidate will be able to address these revisions within 1 week)

  • Major revisions required (It is expected that the candidate will be able to address these revisions within 3 weeks)

Possible outcomes of a revised submission following major revisions:

• • Pass

  • Pass with reservations (The committee must specify the nature of the reservations, the revisions that need to be made to the written dossier to remove them, and the timeline within which they should be completed; the reservations must be lifted by email notification to that effect to the student from the committee chair prior to taking the oral preliminary exam)

  • Fail (The revised research dossier is substantially deficient; the student can not take the oral preliminary exam)

In all cases, a majority vote of the committee members determines the outcome. In case of a tie vote (i.e. for a student with two co-advisors), the more restrictive outcome is applied. For example, when two members vote “pass” and two vote “pass with reservation”, the outcome is the latter.

If revisions are required (minor or major), revised or newly added text should be highlighted in color or by underlining. Moreover, students should submit along with the revised dossier a cover letter outlining the changes.

A “Fail” on the revised written preliminary exam does not necessarily constitute a grade of “F” for the M.S. Plan B projects. In case of a “Fail” on the revised written preliminary exam, the written preliminary exam committee may decide that the research dossier while lacking in important aspects is still satisfactory for a passing grade for the M.S. Plan B projects or the committee may ask the candidate for further revision to yield a passing grade for the M.S. Plan B projects. The written preliminary committee decides independently on the grades for the two M.S. Plan B projects (Chem 8081 and 8082). An “incomplete” on one or both of the M.S. Plan B projects should only be assigned in extenuating circumstances.

The decisions of the written preliminary exam committee need to be communicated to the candidate in written form (email is preferred) with a copy to the Graduate Operations Office.

D. Additional Information

The advisor’s role in the preparation of the initial research dossier is to advise the student’s research in all possible ways with one exception: the advisor is not to participate in the writing or editing of the research dossier. The advisor may provide the candidate with copies of grant proposals related to the student's research, but the student needs to understand that issues relating to plagiarism also apply to the use of these grant proposals in writing the research dossier. The advisor is not allowed to directly read and comment on the research dossier prior to submission. After the student has received the outcome of the initial submission, they can discuss all concerns raised by the committee with any of the committee members (including the advisor).

Careful attention should be paid to organization, grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Unnecessary jargon and undefined terms should be avoided. The student is responsible for careful proofreading of the research dossier. An unusually large number of mistakes that makes it hard for the committee to follow the research dossier may result in a “Major Revisions” outcome on the initial submission.

The student is encouraged to consult with other graduate students or postdoctoral associates on the writing of the research dossier, keeping in mind that issues relating to plagiarism also apply to the use of prior research dossiers and M.S. or Ph.D. dissertations from other students in writing the research dossier. Cases of plagiarism can differ in severity, but the student should realize that in all cases of plagiarism the most probable outcome is a “Fail” on the revised written preliminary exam with automatic removal from the Ph.D. program. Severe cases of plagiarism can lead to expulsion from the Graduate School.