Reclassification/Qualification Examination

Reclassification exams are for students who wish to transfer directly from the MSc program to the PhD program without completing an MSc thesis.

Qualification exams ensure that students who have entered the PhD program directly successfully prepare and defend an original research proposal leading to a PhD degree. It also tests a student's general scientific knowledge and technical skills. Students who have successfully defended an MSc in the Department and who have been admitted into the PhD program will generally be exempted from this exam if they continue on the same project and if they had an exemplary MSc defence (see below). 

Timeline 

Reclassification/qualification exams will be held during May of the 2nd year of studies, for students who started their program in September or during October of the 2nd year of studies, for students who started their program in January. 

All proposals will be handed in on May 1 (October 1 for January admits). These deadlines are absolute. 

To reclassify or qualify, a student who enrolled September 2021 and onwards must have: 

1. completed and received an acceptable mark in MMG1001 and MMG1003 as well as MMG1004 or equivalent* (determined by UofT, currently 70% or higher). *Note that CBMG students will need an acceptable mark in MMG1344 and MMG1345 in lieu of MMG1004. 
2.  attended and evaluated the requisite number of seminars in MMG1111 and MMG1112 in year 1 and have attended enough seminars in year 2 to still be eligible to meet the requirements for attendance and evaluations for both MMG1111 and MMG1112. 
3. completed and received an acceptable mark (determined by UofT, currently 70% or higher) in MMG1113. 
4. have completed or be scheduled to complete Graduate Student Presentation I MMG1114. 

No Topic Courses are required prior to qualification/reclassification. 

To reclassify or qualify, a student who enrolled prior to September 2021 must have: 

1. Completed and received an acceptable mark (determined by UofT, currently 70% or higher) in MMG1001 and MMG1002. 
2. Completed and received an acceptable mark in MMG1011 and be in the process of completing MMG1021. 

No Topic Courses are required prior to qualification/reclassification. 

Reclassification/Qualification Exam Procedure 

Students are required to prepare a proposal describing the research that they intend to carry out during their PhD program. The proposal text should be a maximum of 12 double-spaced (23 lines per page) pages with 2 cm margins and 12-point font. Figures, tables, and references on additional pages are allowed, and the page limit will be strictly enforced. Failure to adhere to the page limits or handing in the proposal past the due date will result in a failing mark in this part of the exam evaluation. 

Proposal Preparation 

Proposals must include some background information pertaining to the project and clearly identify the primary objectives of the work. In addition, the student must describe the experimental methods to be employed and their possible limitations. The recommended organization for the proposal is as follows: 

• Abstract: A 250-word summary of the proposal (not included within the 12-page limit). 
• Introduction (3 pages): The relevant background of the project. What is known about the system, and what is not known? What are the open questions in the field? 
• Relevant experimental progress (3-4 pages): The relevant work completed so far by the student. A brief mention of other relevant work done in the laboratory by others that has led to choosing this particular project may also be required to put the proposal into proper context. 
• Rationale (0.5-1 page): What key question(s) are being addressed? Why has the student chosen to address this question using this particular system? What is the hypothesis or hypotheses to be tested? 
• Specific aims (4-5 pages): The student describes the specific experiments they intend to carry out during their PhD studies. The purpose of the experiments with respect to the general rationale (part 2) should be made clear. The student should point out possible pitfalls in the experimental design and should suggest alternative approaches. Generally, the student should describe two to three distinct aims. Possible outcomes of the experiments, and how to proceed given these outcomes, should be discussed. Convince the Exam Committee that the experiments are feasible and will produce relevant and significant data. 
• Summary & Potential Impact on the Field (~0.5 pages). 

The student is to write the proposal. Supervisors and other members of the Supervisory Committee are advised not to provide word-by-word feedback or rewriting but only to ensure that the quality of scientific writing, data figures and legends, and referencing is suitable. 

It is strongly recommended that students spend four weeks in April to prepare the proposal and study for this exam. Supervisors should not pressure students to do experiments during this period, though students should anticipate that lab maintenance tasks (e.g., maintaining cell lines or organisms) may continue. It is also recommended that students obtain example proposals from other students in their topic area and within their lab who recently successfully completed the exam. 

Reclassification/Qualification Exam Quorum 

The composition of the exam committee is as follows (normally 6 members in total): 

1. An Exam Chair, who is assigned by the Department. 
2. Designated Examiner. Assigned by the Department based on the student’s primary research field. A Supervisory Committee Member who is also a Designated Examiner cannot fulfill this role. 
3. External Committee member (an arm’s length faculty member from outside or within the Department). Selected by the student and Supervisor. 
4. Supervisory Committee members (usually 2); quorum requires at least one Committee member aside from the Supervisor to be present. 
5. Supervisor (If there are Co-Supervisors, only one must be present.) 

A minimum of five Committee members must be present for the exam to proceed, including: 

• The Supervisor 
• The Exam Chair 
• The Designated Examiner 
• The External Committee Member 
• At least one Supervisory Committee Member who is not the Supervisor. 

The five members must have read the complete proposal before the exam begins and must be at the examination for its entirety, including the student’s oral presentation. All Supervisory Committee members should attend if possible, but if absolutely necessary due to scheduling problems, an exam may be scheduled knowing that only one regular Supervisory Committee member is able to attend. 

Note that all reclassification/qualification Exam Committee Members must have an arm’s-length relationship with the student and their work. For example, Professors with whom the student has had collaborations during their graduate studies in our Department are not allowed to serve as Designated Examiner or External Committee Member for the respective reclassification or qualification exam. 

The Examination 

1. The student may be asked to briefly leave the room. After this, the examination will commence with the student’s uninterrupted oral presentation of their proposal (no more than 20 minutes in length). 
2. The Exam Committee then uses the Socratic method to question the student on their knowledge of technical and theoretical matters related to their proposal, and to their general knowledge of the research area. This usually entails one round of questions by most of the Committee and a second, shorter round of questions. The examination, including the oral presentation, should not exceed 90 minutes, but leaves an additional 30 minutes for discussion (totaling 2 hours maximum). 
3. The Exam Committee then has a closed-door discussion and votes on the reclassification/qualification. All Committee members including the Supervisor must vote. Abstentions are not permitted. Details of the reclassification/qualification exam evaluation can be found below. 

Additional rules for the exam process: 

1. The Supervisor (and Co-Supervisor) are not allowed to ask new questions, but can ask clarifying questions, e.g., if a student did not properly understand a previous question. 
2. In cases where the Chair’s area of expertise does not overlap with that of the student being examined, the Chair is strongly encouraged to give their time over to members of the exam who are more knowledgeable in the subject area or are having an insightful conversation with the student during their first Q & A period. 
3. The Chair will determine which examiners asks questions in round 2 of the Q& A session, placing emphasis on continuing insightful lines of inquiry and allowing questions from those who require additional information to determine pass/fail judgements. 

Students are responsible for bringing enough copies of the Reclassification or Qualification Exam Evaluation Forms for all members of their Committee and a copy of the proposal to the meeting. 

Evaluation of the Reclassification/Qualification Candidate 

The exam is intended to probe the breadth and depth of the student’s knowledge. The exam committee will evaluate the student and project in three general areas: 

• Feasibility: If possible, PhD projects should be designed so that any outcome is likely to be of scientific interest and to form the basis of a thesis. In other words, if the results do not turn out as expected, the data might still have sufficient interest to be publishable and constitute the student's PhD thesis. In some cases, a student may wish to start on a risky project where only one outcome would be interesting. In this case, it is important to state why the payoff merits such a high-risk approach. The student should also state how long they will pursue this high-risk project before dropping it, and what criteria will be used to decide that the project cannot be done. In addition, feasible back-up projects should be proposed. 
• Understanding of the Project: The student is expected to understand all the concepts associated with their proposed area of research. They should also have a thorough understanding of the literature in all aspects related to their proposed area of investigation. 
• Ability to function in a Research Environment: The student must be able to collect interpretable data, understand the importance of controls, and design and execute internally consistent experiments. To this end, it is very important to include in the proposal information about the research that they have done during their time in the program. Even if this research is unrelated to what the student proposes to do for their PhD thesis, it nevertheless provides an opportunity for the Exam Committee to evaluate their competence in a research environment. 

Evaluation of students at Reclassification and Qualification examinations has both objective and subjective components. Because of the latter and because the faculty members are evaluating both the student and the project, it is difficult to state unequivocally the weight to be given to each of the above components. The best way to ensure a positive outcome is to ascertain that one's proposal is feasible and to consider as many of the potential pitfalls as possible. Related to this point, advice on the outline of the proposal from the Supervisory Committee at the Pre-Reclassification/Pre-Qualification meeting is extremely useful. Students should also know the literature relevant to the proposed area of research. The best sources of information and help are the student’s Supervisory Committee and senior students who have successfully defended a research proposal at this type of exam. It is extremely helpful to ask fellow students and post-doctoral fellows, especially those with research interests further afield from the research field of the reclassifying/qualifying student, to hold a mock exam prior to the actual exam. 

Specific Procedure for Exam Evaluation 

Prior to the exam, the Committee is likely to ask the student to briefly leave the room. Following the Oral Exam, the student will leave the room. Prior to any discussion, each examiner will evaluate the student in several different categories. The criteria for which specific marks are given and details of the exam evaluation can be found on the Reclassification or Qualification Exam Evaluation Forms. The Committee chair will collate the evaluations, present a summary to the Committee and determine the nature of the subsequent discussion. Once a decision has been reached, the student will be invited back, informed of the decision, and provided with constructive feedback. Copies of the evaluations will be made available to the student, but originals are returned by the Exam 53 

Chair to the Graduate Program Coordinator and Graduate Program Administration, and will be kept in the student’s file. 

Failure of a reclassification exam will result in one of the following five outcomes (to be determined by the Exam Committee): 

• The student is asked to retake the Oral Exam within 4 to 8 weeks without revising their proposal. 
• The student is asked to submit a revised written proposal without retaking the Oral Exam. 
• The student is asked to submit a revised written proposal and must retake the Oral Exam within 4 to 8 weeks. 
• The student is asked to complete and defend a MSc thesis. 

Failure of a qualification exam will result in one of the following five outcomes (to be determined by the Exam Committee): 

• The student is asked to retake the Oral Exam within 4 to 8 weeks without revision of the proposal. 
• The student is asked to submit a revised written proposal without retaking the Oral Exam. 
• The student is asked to submit a revised written proposal and must retake the Oral Exam within 4 to 8 weeks. 
• The Department terminates the student’s enrollment in the program. 
• In cases where the student does not have an MSc in a related field from U of T, the Committee recommends to the student that they declassify into the MSc program. 
• The Department terminates the student’s enrollment in the program. 
• In cases where the student does not have an MSc in a related field from U of T, the Committee recommends to the student that they declassify into the MSc program. 

Transferring to the PhD Program _{(For reclassifying students)} 

• The Exam chair submits the evaluation forms to the Graduate Program Coordinator to be kept in the student’s file. 
• A copy of the forms is forwarded to the student for their information. The student must bring the evaluation forms to the next Supervisory Committee Meeting. 
• If a student passes, they will be asked by the Graduate Program Coordinator to sign a “Program Transfer”, which is then forwarded to the School of Graduate Studies for approval. 
• The School of Graduate Studies notifies the student of a successful transfer in writing.