This handbook has been prepared by the Department of Chemistry's Graduate Committee (GC) with the intent of providing each graduate student with the necessary information in the pursuance of his/her graduate degree. The handbook is divided into two sections. The first section gives the general and specific requirements leading to the Ph.D. and M.S. degrees. Here you will find the learning outcomes for the PhD and MS programs. Here you will find the various courses, exams and annual reviews required to complete your graduate degree.
Additional regulations, requirements and procedures may be found in the Graduate Bulletin.
Should you have any questions regarding any of the items given herein, please consult with the Chairperson of the Chemistry Department or the Director of Graduate Studies (DGS).
Research achievement is the heart of the Ph.D. and M.S. programs. Progress in research is entirely dependent upon the honesty of the worker. Any form of falsification of data is counterproductive to progress and victimizes all who depend upon that data.
The crucial nature of the role played by honesty in the research enterprise cannot be overstated. For that reason, any evidence of dishonesty in any aspect of our program must be regarded as a grave violation of our tenets. One should expect, therefore, that any incident of cheating in a course or any other part of our program will be grounds for dismissal.
The trust that will develop between you and your research advisor is a great treasure. Many such relationships grow into lifelong friendships and are mutually rewarding to both parties. The establishment and maintenance of this trust is an honorable goal for both the faculty advisor and the graduate student.
Masters Program - Expected Program-level Student Learning Outcomes (L.O.)
L.O. #1: The student will be able to communicate literature research results via oral presentation to a scientific audience.
L.O. #2: The student will be able to solve problems on advanced topics in chemistry sub-disciplines relevant to their field of study.
L.O.#3: The student will make a substantial intellectual contribution to an original research project that contributes to knowledge in the discipline.
PhD - Aspirational Program-level outcome:
A graduate student in the PhD program with be guided to perform exceptional research and acquire significant skills to be a (inter)nationally recognized as a leader in their field. The student will apply and receive awards or fellowships from internationally recognized funding agencies or other scientific organizations.
PhD - Expected Program-level Student Learning Outcomes (L.O.):
When students graduate from the Chemistry Ph.D. program at Marquette, they have developed a new set of high-level skills and abilities through active participation with our program. Although there are innumerable ways in which the experiences in our program help students develop, the program strives to help students be able to:
L.O. #1: Communicate literature research results via oral presentation to a scientific audience.
L.O. #2: Solve problems on advanced topics in chemistry sub-disciplines relevant to their field of study.
L.O. #3: Perform, with substantial independent intellectual contribution, an original research project that contributes to knowledge in the discipline.
L.O. #4: Demonstrate independent scientific thinking in communicating own research results orally via presentations and in written form suitable for publication in scientific journals.
All students must complete the general requirements in the time allotted. These requirements are as follows.
Proficiency exams are given at the time the student enters the program. Exams will normally be the ACS exam in each subject area (Analytical, Inorganic, Organic and Physical Chemistry) with a minimum passing grade to be in the 65th percentile rank. The student must pass three out of the four proficiency exams.
Students enrolled in the Chemical Physics program must pass three exams: Physical Chemistry, Chemical Physics (parts A: Electricity & Magnetism; B: Classical Mechanics) and Quantum Mechanics.
To prepare for the proficiency examinations in a given subject, the student should study from the following texts:
Inorganic Chemistry: Shriver, Atkins, “Inorganic Chemistry" 3rd edition (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco).
Physical Chemistry: Engel and Reid, "Thermodynamics and Chemical Kinetics" 3rd ed. (Pearson, 2013). Emphases on thermodynamics, kinetics and dynamics.
Analytical Chemistry: Daniel C. Harris, "Quantitative Chemical Analysis," 6th ed. (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco). This examination emphasizes chemical equilibrium, volumetric methods, and basic concepts of electrochemical and spectroscopic methods.
Organic Chemistry: Carey, "Organic Chemistry," 6th ed. (McGraw-Hill).
Quantum Mechanics: Engel and Reid, "Quantum Chemistry and Spectroscopy" 3rd ed. (Pearson, 2013). This examination emphasizes Quantum mechanics, spectroscopy and statistical mechanics.
Each deficiency can be made up by either:
If option 2 is chosen, the student must take and pass the course at the "B-" or better grade level. NOTE: All deficiencies must be removed by the end of the student's 2nd semester in the program.
New graduate students should select their courses in consultation with the GC. Usually, this is done in August, right after the proficiency tests. After students have been placed into a research group, students should consult their research advisor regarding course selection. Note that specific course requirements are different in the M.S. degree (30 hours) and Ph.D. degree (36 hours) programs.
To aid in choosing a research director, faculty research seminars will be given early in the fall semesterl First-year students must attend all faculty seminars. Each student is required to discuss research opportunities with all faculty listed on the Advisor Selection Process form, which will be distributed early in the fall semester. It is a list of all faculty members who are accepting new graduate students into their group. Further private discussions with faculty is strongly encouraged. Part-time students are required to interview only three faculty members. For an overview of faculty research interests, please consult the faculty website.
The Advisor Selection Process form must be returned by the date specified before the student begins his/her research activities. Please have at least two faculty with whom you have had extensive discussion sign the form. Indicate on this form your first and second choices for research director. The first and second choices will be forwarded to the faculty listed, so they can make their choices of students. Problems will be resolved by convening the DGS, GRAC Chair and department Chair. NOTE: It is the right of each faculty member not to accept any given student into her/his research group.
Under certain very specific circumstances, it may be possible to bypass the normal selection procedure. Please consult with the Director of Graduate Studies for details.
The GC reviews the progress of each student at the end of each semester, and gives each student a written evaluation of his/her progress. The GC will consider course work, advisor's comments, teaching evaluation, seminar, and all other requirements of the program in its review. Continuation in the program is contingent upon a satisfactory evaluation by GC. Particular attention will be paid to 3rd semester students, to ensure their success in reaching the GPA = 3.0 (or better) in 15 hours of the formal (non-CHEM 6995) course work by the end of the 4th semester.
The student will present a literature seminar to the department, you will need to enroll in CHEM6953. The literature seminar should be given during the 4th semester of study, and must be completed by the end of the 5th semester of graduate study. The topic must be drawn from the recent literature and can be given on any subject, including the exhaustive literature background regarding the research the student is planning to carry out for his/her Master’s thesis or Doctoral dissertation. In the latter case, explicit connections between their research and the seminar must be given, and the seminar will be graded by the dissertation/thesis committee. Each committee member will use the Seminar Scoring Rubric. A pass or fail grade for the seminar will be assigned based on these scores and the discussion between the committee members. Presentation and scoring details can be found in the Literature Seminar section of the handbook.
NOTE: All graduate students must register for CHEM 6960 (Seminar) for each semester in which they are in residence. Attendance at all Tuesday/Thursday, Friday and specially announced seminars is mandatory and will be monitored.
A total of six (6) credit hours of course work may be transferred from another institution. Students wishing to transfer a course from another institution should submit a course description to the DGS. This might be lecture notes, a page from the course catalog of the other institution, a letter from the instructor at the institution, or other reasonable evidence.
The GC will examine the evidence submitted by the student and will, after consulting with other faculty members as appropriate, make a decision. If the decision is favorable, then the following actions can be taken:
M.S. students: A memo describing the course and its Marquette equivalent will be attached to the planning form.
Ph.D. students: The equivalent MU course(s) will be entered on the Doctoral Program Planning Form (at the end of the 2nd semester), and a course description of the course(s) taken at the other institution will be attached to the planning form.
The transferred courses will replace credit hours of independent study (CHEM6995) - if you transfer six credits into the program, then one cannot register for 6995 under normal circumstances. The student is still required to take 18 credits of formal coursework at Marquette University or its partner institutions.
The Graduate Bulletin must be consulted for more information.
It is the responsibility of the student and his/her advisor to make sure that all graduate school requirements are satisfied for the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees. Additional regulations, requirements, and procedures are found in the Graduate Bulletin.
In addition to the general requirements listed in the previous section, the following specific requirements must be met for M.S. students:
Plan A - (Thesis)
A total of twenty four (24) hours of course work are required, of which at least
6, but not more than 9 credit hours may be CHEM 6995 (Independent Study).
In addition, six (6) hours of CHEM 6999 are required.
Plan B - (Essay)
A total of twenty four (24) hours of course work are required, of which six (6) are CHEM 6995 (Independent Study). In addition, six (6) hours of CHEM 6999 are required.
Departmental Policy on the Plan B Option
Research is at the heart of graduate education in chemistry. Therefore, the Plan B option is not normally permitted, except for secondary school teachers seeking to advance their standing in their school districts. Those wishing to pursue this program should apply for permission to the GC.
The Chair of the GC may choose one of the three members of the Thesis or Essay Committee, in consultation with the student's advisor. The committee will be selected by the end of the 2nd semester. The Committee will consist of three members of the scientific faculty of Marquette University, two of whom must be members of the Chemistry Department. The committee may also consist of one more member outside of the Marquette Faculty, at the discretion of the advisor and GC. NOTE: The Thesis Outline should be filed with the Graduate School by the end of the 3rd semester of graduate study.
Some evidence of research progress must be demonstrated to his/her thesis committee by the end of the 3rd semester. A concise written report should be prepared and a copy given to each committee member, and placed in the student's file. The research director will also place a copy of the committee's report in the student's file.
An Essay Committee (usually the chair of the committee) will ask the student for a literature review of some area in chemistry. The essay must include not only a review of the literature but also a section on how the student will propose an extension of some problem or initiation of some research pertinent to the essay's content.
The student will defend his/her thesis or essay in public. A successful defense is equivalent to passing the comprehensive examination discussed in the graduate bulletin. Copies of the thesis must be filed with the Graduate School. Each committee member will fill out the Thesis/Dissertation Scoring Rubric, evaluating separately the written document, the presentation, and the closed examination. In addition, the advisor will submit prior to the defense a formal (one-page) written assessment of the student.
All M.S. degree students who wish to be considered for admission to the Ph.D. degree program must: (1) have completed the General Requirements; (2) petition, in writing, the GC by the end of the student's 4th semester of graduate study, the reasons why admission into the Ph.D. program should be attained. The GC will consider the student's overall progress and he/she must show the potential for independent research, which is characteristic of the Ph.D. student.
In addition to the general requirements listed in the previous section, the following specific requirements must be met for Ph.D. students:
The PhD program requires a total of thirty-six (36) credits, divided into twenty-four (24) credits of formal coursework and twelve (12) credits of CHEM8999 (these are not regular courses, but are meant to represent research hours). These credits must be obtained over the student's first four (4) semesters. Each semester will contain exactly nine (9) credits, comprising three (3) credits of CHEM8999, and six (6) of formal coursework.
As CHEM8999 and all graduate courses are three (3) credits each, every semester a student will register for one instance of CHEM8999, and two other courses in the graduate program, which all begin with CHEM6xxx. These may include up to six (6) credits (two instances) of CHEM6995 (Independent Study, again accounting for research hours).
Therefore over the first two years, a typical student will take a total of four (4) instances of CHEM8999 (one per semester); two (2) instances of CHEM6995; and six (6) other courses in the graduate program, which begin with CHEM6xxx. The timing of the CHEM6995 research courses will be determined in consultation with the student's research advisor.
During their entire time in the program, students must register for CHEM6960 (Departmental Seminar) every semester; this is a zero-credit hour course, and completion requires that students attend department seminars.
In their 4th semester, students will register for CHEM6953 (Literature Seminar), and in their 5th semester, they will register for CHEM8953 (Research Seminar). These courses are zero-credit courses and do not replace any formal coursework; rather, they are a formal way to account for these program requirements.
At the end of the student's 2nd semester of study, it is necessary to complete and file a Doctoral Program Planning Form. This includes formation of the Dissertation Committee. When planning form is completed and signed, please send to gradrecords@marquette.edu and muchem@marquette.edu.
The dissertation committee will normally consist of four faculty members, including the advisor as Committee Chairperson. Student and advisor will select two of the members, one of which can be external (this is encouraged). One more committee member will be assigned by the GC.
In the 5th semester, a public research meeting will be conducted by the Dissertation Committee, usually held in TWC 121. Students should register for CHEM8953 (Research Seminar) for this semester.
Following successful completion of the Research Meeting, a student is considered to be "advanced to candidacy" upon completion of the following requirements:
When these requirements are satisfied, the department will file the appropriate form ("Doctoral Qualifying Examination Committee Chairperson's Summary") with the graduate school. The student will then become a Ph.D. candidate.
Annual reviews of research progress with the Dissertation Committee must be held during the 7th semester before the beginning of finals week. The format of the student's report to the committee will be at the discretion of the Dissertation Committee Chairperson (examples include: slides of the oral presentation, preliminary version of the thesis, or a shorter document outlying new developments and/or publications). The Dissertation Committee shall evaluate the student's progress using the Annual Review Report form, which shall be forwarded to the Chairperson of the GC. A copy of each review report should be sent to muchem@marquette.edu to be added to the student's file.
Upon completion of research, the student shall present the results to the Dissertation Committee in a public defense, followed by a nonpublic oral examination. Each committee member will fill out the Thesis/Dissertation Scoring Rubric, evaluating separately the written document, the presentation, and the closed examination. In addition, the advisor will submit prior to the defense a formal (one-page) written assessment of the student.
Below are directions for the preparation and presentation of the seminar. The basis for grading the seminar is also set forth.
Please read these carefully.
| Graduate Seminar Scoring Sheet Department of Chemistry |
||||
| Area of Scoring |
Does not meet expectations |
Meets Expectations | Exceeds Expectations | Area Score |
| Organization | □ Main idea is not focused or developed, talk is poorly organized □ Introduction is poorly developed □ Main points are difficult to identify □ Conclusions unclear |
□ Main idea is evident, organization needs to be strengthened □ Introduction is adequately developed □ Main points can be identified, perhaps not fully developed □ Conclusions are clearly stated |
□ Main idea is well developed, talk is well organized □ Introduction states purpose clearly □ Main points are clear and fully developed □ Conclusions are clearly stated and tie back to introduction |
|
| Score = 0-5 | Score = 6-8 | Score = 9-10 | ||
| Topic Knowledge | □ Poor grasp of subject □ Questions cannot be answered □ Few sources cited; inappropriate supporting material □ Over dependence on notes |
□ Adequate grasp of subject □ Questions are answered, but student may fail to elaborate □ Citations are mostly appropriate and accurate □ Student may depend too heavily on notes |
□ Firm grasp of subject □ Questions are answered clearly with explanations and elaboration □ Citations are introduced appropriately and accurately □ Notes used for reference only |
|
| Score = 0-5 | Score = 6-8 | Score = 9-10 | ||
| Presentation | □ Language choices are limited, too complex, or too dull □ Audience has difficulty hearing □ Number of and/or content of slides inappropriate, detracts from talk □ Delivery detracts from message, is hesitant |
□ Language used is mostly respectful and appropriate □ Most audience members can hear □ Number of and content of slides is adequate □ Delivery is generally effective, little hesitation |
□ Language is familiar to audience and appropriate □ All audience members can hear □ Number of and content of slides is appropriate and enhances talk □ Delivery is natural and confident, no hesitation |
|
| Score = 0-5 | Score = 6-8 | Score = 9-10 | ||
| TOTAL SCORE (0-30) | ||||
| Overall Scoring Breakdown: | ||||
| 26-30 | Exceeds Expectations (PASS) | |||
| 16-25 | Meets Expectations (PASS) | |||
| 0-15 | Does Not Meet Expectations (FAIL) | |||
Below are directions for the preparation and presentation of the meeting. The basis for grading the meeting is also set forth. Please read these carefully.
Procedures: The student should be directed to give a 40 minute oral presentation, followed by 10 min for questions; questions from the public may precede those by the committee members. The examination by the committee will follow the oral presentation and will normally be carried out in a closed meeting. The advisor is not required to be present during the post-presentation meeting with the committee. If the advisor chooses to remain, he/she is not permitted to answer any question for the student or to ask leading questions thereby facilitating the student responses. The advisor has the right to discuss the evaluation of the student after the student has been dismissed from the room and any Committee member will have the right to direct questions about the student to the advisor.
Written Document: The 3rd year research report that is distributed to your advisor, your committee members, and the departmental administrative assistant, one week prior to the seminar shall contain at most 25 pages (double-spaced, 12 pt Times New Roman, Arial, or similar font, 1-inch margins), including all sections below (references and optional appendices are not included in the page count):
1. Title and abstract (1 page)
2. Introduction – background on the field, a brief summary of pertinent literature, and statement of problem/motivation for the project (3 pages)
3. Scientific objectives – the central research question(s) for the work (1 page)
4. Results (5-10 pages)
5. Future plans – including objectives, experimental or theoretical plans, and a discussion of contingency plans (3 pages)
6. Summary and conclusions (1-3 pages)
7. References (not included in the page count)
8. Appendices – at the advisor’s discretion, the student may add one or more appendices, as separate files, providing further details of experimental procedure, data (g., spectra, crystallographic or other tables), mathematical derivations, and so on. The main document must be understandable without relying on the appendices. Appendices are not included in the page count.
Evaluation: Each committee member will fill out the Research Meeting Scoring Rubric, evaluating separately the written document, the presentation, and the closed examination. In addition, the advisor will submit prior to the research meeting a formal (one-page) written assessment of the student. In an attempt to define reasonable expectations for student performance at this meeting, the following performance parameters are most important. (1) The student must demonstrate a reasonable grasp of the general field of knowledge, being able to clarify the significance of their ongoing and planned research projects. (2) The student must provide evidence that they are making good progress in mastering the research methodologies that are needed to conduct their planned research. (3) The student must provide evidence that they have completed a significant amount of experimental or computational work that has generated new knowledge.
Paperwork: A report of the meeting, including the Committee’s recommendation regarding continuation in the Ph.D. program must be completed by the Dissertation Committee Chairperson as soon as possible, certainly within one week of the Research Meeting and submitted to the DGS, who will immediately relay the decision to the student. Copies of these documents, along with the student’s written report, will be placed in his/her file.
| Third-Year Seminar Review Rubric - Committee Member | ||||
| Area of Scoring |
Does Not Meet Expectations Score = 0-5 |
Meet Expectations Score = 6-8 |
Exceeds Expectations Score = 9-10 |
Area Score |
| Written Document | □ Significant areas of the literature were missing □ Experimental procedures or methodology were missing or hard to follow □ Data poorly presented □ Results are unclear □ Conclusions not supported by data |
□ Current literature was summarized □ Experimental procedures or methodology was described in sufficient detail □ Data presented in an organized manner □ Results are described in an understandable manner □ Conclusions supported by data |
□ Current literature summarized well □ Well written experimental procedures or methodology □ Data very clearly organized □ Details analysis of results □ Very clear connections between the data and conclusions |
|
| Oral Presentation | □ Presentation was not organized □ Had difficulty answering questions at the expected level □ Does not understand the propose of the research |
□ Presentation was organized □ Questions were answered at a level expected □ Purpose of research was described |
□ Very clear presentation □ Detailed and very knowledgeable answers to questions □ Understands well the purpose of the research |
|
| Research Productivity | □ Student is not mastered the essential techniques, procedures and/or methodology needed to do original research □ Student has not shown consistent research effort □ Little or no original research has been obtained |
□ Student has mastered the required techniques, procedures and/or methodology needs in his/her research □ Student has shown consistent research effort □ Student has begun to obtain original research |
□ Student has gone beyond mastering required techniques, procedures and/or methodology □ Student’s research effort exceeds expectations □ Student has presented significant amount of original research |
|
| Understanding of Future Plans | □ Student’s plan has little detail or is impractical □ Plan lacks the originality required for a doctoral dissertation □ Significant unaddressed barriers are present in the design or resources are present in the plan |
□ Student has a plan to complete his/her project □ This plan has sufficient originality to constitute a doctoral dissertation □ The projected plan is achievable given the resources available to the student |
□ Student’s plan to complete his/her project is detailed and practical □ This plan is quite original, and represents significant student input □ The student has considered in reasonable detail the barriers to completing his/her research |
|
| Failed to Meet Expectations: 1-23 | ||||
| Met Expectations: 24-35 | TOTAL SCORE: | |||
| Exceeded Expectations: 36-40 | ||||
Below are directions for the submission and defense of the Master's thesis. The basis for grading is also set forth. Please read these carefully.
| Must be filled in before the defense. | ||||
| Area of Scoring |
Does not meet expectations Score = 0-5 |
Meets expectations Score = 6-8 |
Exceeds expectations Score = 9-10 |
Area Score |
| General Structure |
❑ Chapters are too large or too small. Hard to navigate through the document. ❑ Introduction is poorly developed. The background is not appropriately explained. ❑ Few sources cited, inappropriate supporting material. ❑ Conclusions are not clear. |
❑ Chapters are mostly appropriate. Some merging or splitting is suggested. ❑ Introduction could benefit from some expansion, or ❑ Introduction is somewhat too detailed, hard to understand to non-experts. ❑ Citations are mostly appropriate. ❑ Conclusions are mostly appropriate. |
❑ Subdivision onto Chapters is used efficiently; helps to understand the material. ❑ Both the length and level of the Introduction are appropriate. The purpose of work is clear. ❑ Citations are used extensively and efficiently. ❑ Conclusions are clearly stated for each Chapter and for the thesis as a whole. ❑ Future research directions are discussed. |
|
| Equations, Illustrations and Tables |
❑ Equations are poorly formatted, hard to understand. ❑ Figures are too messy, too much information. ❑ Poor resolution in figures. ❑ Excessive use of color. ❑ Too many data are presented without Tables. |
❑ Formatting of equations is mostly appropriate. ❑ Figures are appropriately composed, but some figures can be combined. ❑ Resolution and color are mostly appropriate. ❑ Tables are used, but some of them are too bulky. |
❑ All equations are easy to read, same style is used through the entire thesis. ❑ Figures are both effective and easy to understand. ❑ Excellent use of color, resolution and computer graphics. ❑ Data tables are used efficiently and are easy to read. |
|
| Scientific Language |
❑ Too many problems with grammar, spelling and punctuation. ❑ Ineffective use of words and sentences. ❑ Paragraphs should be used more frequently. |
❑ Grammar, spelling and punctuation are mostly appropriate. ❑ Words and sentences are mostly appropriate. ❑ Adequate paragraphs. |
❑ No problems with grammar, spelling and punctuation. The text is easy to read. ❑ Effective use of words and sentences. ❑ Effective paragraphs. |
|
| Score = 0-5 | Score = 6-8 | Score = 9-10 | ||
| Recommendation: | Total Score (0-30): | |||
| ❑ (26-30) No further editing is needed. The thesis can be submitted to the Graduate School as is. | ||||
| ❑ (16-25) Only minor editing is needed, which can be done by the student and the research advisor. | ||||
| ❑ (0 -15) Major changes are needed. The thesis document should be re-evaluated by the committee. | ||||
| Must be filled in at the defense. | ||||
| Area of Scoring | Does not meet expectations Score = 0-5 |
Meets expectations Score = 6-8 |
Exceeds expectations Store = 9-10 |
Area Score |
| Organization | ❑ Main idea is not focused or developed, talk is poorly organized. ❑ Introduction is poorly developed. ❑ Main points are difficult to identify. ❑ Conclusions unclear. |
❑ Main idea is evident, organization could be strengthened. ❑ Introduction is adequately developed. ❑ Main points can be identified, perhaps not fully developed. ❑ Conclusions are clearly stated. |
❑ Main idea is well developed, talk is well organized. ❑ Introduction states purpose clearly. ❑ Main points are clear and fully developed. ❑ Conclusions are clearly stated and tie back to introduction. |
|
| Presentation | ❑ Language choices are limited, too complex, or too dull. ❑ Audience has difficulty hearing. ❑ Number of and/or content of slides inappropriate, detracts from talk. ❑ Delivery detracts from message, is hesitant. |
❑ Language used is mostly respectful and appropriate. ❑ Most audience members can hear. ❑ Number of and content of sides is adequate. ❑ Delivery is generally effective, little hesitation. |
❑ Language is familiar to audience and appropriate. ❑ All audience members can hear. ❑ Number of and content of slides is appropriate and enhances talk. ❑ Delivery is natural and confident, no hesitation. |
|
| Score = 0-5 | Score = 6-8 | Score = 9-10 | ||
| Total Score (0-20): | ||||
| Area of Scoring | Does not meet expectations Score = 0-5 |
Meets expectations for M.S. Score = 6-8 |
Meets expectations for Ph.D. Score = 9-10 |
Area Score |
| Originality of the contribution, importance of results, and maturity of the candidate | ❑ The knowledge is weak, questions of the committee cannot be answered. ❑ The work is an incremental, straightforward extension of what was done by others. ❑ The results are relatively easy to achieve. ❑ The work is not yet publishable. |
❑ Questions are answered, but student may fail to elaborate. ❑ The work is original but still relies heavily on advisor or collaborators. ❑ Some of results are interesting, but the project could be better developed. ❑ The work is publishable or has already been published. |
❑ Questions are answered clearly with explanations and elaboration. ❑ The work represents an original and independent research project. ❑ The results represent a significant contribution to the field. ❑ Quality and quantity of publications is convincing. |
|
| Score = 0-5 | Score = 6-8 | Score = 9-10 | ||
| Total Score (0-10): | ||||
| Raw Score | Weighting Factor | Weighted Score | |
| Dissertation Document | X 1 | Score = 0-30 | |
| Oral Presentation | x 1 | Score = 0-20 | |
| Scientific Contribution | x 5 | Score = 0-50 | |
| Overall Score: | Score = 0-100 | ||
| Recommendation at the M.S. Thesis Defense: | |||
| ❑ (36-100) Grant the MS degree. | |||
| ❑ (0-35) Don't grant the MS degree now. Re-evaluate next semester. | |||
| Recommendation at the Ph.D. Dissertation Defense: | |||
| ❑ (91-100) Grant the PhD degree and recommend for an award. | |||
| ❑ (61-90) Grant the PhD degree. | |||
| ❑ (0-60) Don't grant the PhD degree now. Re-evaluate next semester. | |||
Below are directions for the submission and defense of the doctoral dissertation. The basis for grading is also set forth. Please read these carefully.
| Must be filled in before the defense. | ||||
| Area of Scoring |
Does not meet expectations Score = 0-5 |
Meets expectations Score = 6-8 |
Exceeds expectations Score = 9-10 |
Area Score |
| General Structure |
❑ Chapters are too large or too small. Hard to navigate through the document. ❑ Introduction is poorly developed. The background is not appropriately explained. ❑ Few sources cited, inappropriate supporting material. ❑ Conclusions are not clear. |
❑ Chapters are mostly appropriate. Some merging or splitting is suggested. ❑ Introduction could benefit from some expansion, or ❑ Introduction is somewhat too detailed, hard to understand to non-experts. ❑ Citations are mostly appropriate. ❑ Conclusions are mostly appropriate. |
❑ Subdivision onto Chapters is used efficiently; helps to understand the material. ❑ Both the length and level of the Introduction are appropriate. The purpose of work is clear. ❑ Citations are used extensively and efficiently. ❑ Conclusions are clearly stated for each Chapter and for the thesis as a whole. ❑ Future research directions are discussed. |
|
| Equations, Illustrations and Tables |
❑ Equations are poorly formatted, hard to understand. ❑ Figures are too messy, too much information. ❑ Poor resolution in figures. ❑ Excessive use of color. ❑ Too many data are presented without Tables. |
❑ Formatting of equations is mostly appropriate. ❑ Figures are appropriately composed, but some figures can be combined. ❑ Resolution and color are mostly appropriate. ❑ Tables are used, but some of them are too bulky. |
❑ All equations are easy to read, same style is used through the entire thesis. ❑ Figures are both effective and easy to understand. ❑ Excellent use of color, resolution and computer graphics. ❑ Data tables are used efficiently and are easy to read. |
|
| Scientific Language |
❑ Too many problems with grammar, spelling and punctuation. ❑ Ineffective use of words and sentences. ❑ Paragraphs should be used more frequently. |
❑ Grammar, spelling and punctuation are mostly appropriate. ❑ Words and sentences are mostly appropriate. ❑ Adequate paragraphs. |
❑ No problems with grammar, spelling and punctuation. The text is easy to read. ❑ Effective use of words and sentences. ❑ Effective paragraphs. |
|
| Score = 0-5 | Score = 6-8 | Score = 9-10 | ||
| Recommendation: | Total Score (0-30): | |||
| ❑ (26-30) No further editing is needed. The thesis can be submitted to the Graduate School as is. | ||||
| ❑ (16-25) Only minor editing is needed, which can be done by the student and the research advisor. | ||||
| ❑ (0 -15) Major changes are needed. The thesis document should be re-evaluated by the committee. | ||||
| Must be filled in at the defense. | ||||
| Area of Scoring | Does not meet expectations Score = 0-5 |
Meets expectations Score = 6-8 |
Exceeds expectations Store = 9-10 |
Area Score |
| Organization | ❑ Main idea is not focused or developed, talk is poorly organized. ❑ Introduction is poorly developed. ❑ Main points are difficult to identify. ❑ Conclusions unclear. |
❑ Main idea is evident, organization could be strengthened. ❑ Introduction is adequately developed. ❑ Main points can be identified, perhaps not fully developed. ❑ Conclusions are clearly stated. |
❑ Main idea is well developed, talk is well organized. ❑ Introduction states purpose clearly. ❑ Main points are clear and fully developed. ❑ Conclusions are clearly stated and tie back to introduction. |
|
| Presentation | ❑ Language choices are limited, too complex, or too dull. ❑ Audience has difficulty hearing. ❑ Number of and/or content of slides inappropriate, detracts from talk. ❑ Delivery detracts from message, is hesitant. |
❑ Language used is mostly respectful and appropriate. ❑ Most audience members can hear. ❑ Number of and content of sides is adequate. ❑ Delivery is generally effective, little hesitation. |
❑ Language is familiar to audience and appropriate. ❑ All audience members can hear. ❑ Number of and content of slides is appropriate and enhances talk. ❑ Delivery is natural and confident, no hesitation. |
|
| Score = 0-5 | Score = 6-8 | Score = 9-10 | ||
| Total Score (0-20): | ||||
| Area of Scoring | Does not meet expectations Score = 0-5 |
Meets expectations for M.S. Score = 6-8 |
Meets expectations for Ph.D. Score = 9-10 |
Area Score |
| Originality of the contribution, importance of results, and maturity of the candidate | ❑ The knowledge is weak, questions of the committee cannot be answered. ❑ The work is an incremental, straightforward extension of what was done by others. ❑ The results are relatively easy to achieve. ❑ The work is not yet publishable. |
❑ Questions are answered, but student may fail to elaborate. ❑ The work is original but still relies heavily on advisor or collaborators. ❑ Some of results are interesting, but the project could be better developed. ❑ The work is publishable or has already been published. |
❑ Questions are answered clearly with explanations and elaboration. ❑ The work represents an original and independent research project. ❑ The results represent a significant contribution to the field. ❑ Quality and quantity of publications is convincing. |
|
| Score = 0-5 | Score = 6-8 | Score = 9-10 | ||
| Total Score (0-10): | ||||
| Raw Score | Weighting Factor | Weighted Score | |
| Dissertation Document | X 1 | Score = 0-30 | |
| Oral Presentation | x 1 | Score = 0-20 | |
| Scientific Contribution | x 5 | Score = 0-50 | |
| Overall Score: | Score = 0-100 | ||
| Recommendation at the M.S. Thesis Defense: | |||
| ❑ (36-100) Grant the MS degree. | |||
| ❑ (0-35) Don't grant the MS degree now. Re-evaluate next semester. | |||
| Recommendation at the Ph.D. Dissertation Defense: | |||
| ❑ (91-100) Grant the PhD degree and recommend for an award. | |||
| ❑ (61-90) Grant the PhD degree. | |||
| ❑ (0-60) Don't grant the PhD degree now. Re-evaluate next semester. | |||
This appendix outlines the responsibilities of graduate students who are paid by the University to be teaching assistants. Most teaching assistants work in teaching laboratories and in lecture sections when examinations are being given and graded. In General Chemistry your immediate supervisor for your laboratory duties is the General Chemistry Coordinator. Your supervisor for assisting with examinations (proctoring and grading) is the lecturer.
REMEMBER: You are there to establish a safe environment and to teach chemistry. You are not there to use harsh discipline or entertain. Do not hesitate to seek help from your supervisor if something unexpected happens which you don't know how to deal with during a laboratory period.
The following procedures are set forth for dealing with TAs who are negligent in performing the requirements of their assistantship. Such issues of an important nature should normally be dealt with at the time of offense.
| First Offense: | Verbal Warning (from lab director) |
| Second Offense: | Warning letter (from lab director), copied to student file, GC, advisor |
| Third Offense: | Meeting with student, lab director, GC chair (and Dept. Chair, as required) to discuss the issue. A second letter is written from the GC chair, copied to student file, department chair, and advisor. This letter should stipulate the action that will be taken following another offense. |
| Fourth Offense: | Action taken. |
The action above usually means suspension of TA assistantship, including the stipend. After 2nd and 3rd offense student can submit a letter to GC, outlining how he/she is intended to improve in order to remove the issue.
Department of Chemistry
Todd Wehr Chemistry, 101
1414 W Clybourn St.
Milwaukee, WI 53233
(414) 288-3515
Report an accessibility problem
If you see an issue with this website, please contact muchem@marquette.edu.
Privacy Policy Legal Disclaimer Non-Discrimination Policy Accessible Technology
© 2024 Marquette University
