Ph.D. Dissertation Defense Assessment Form

Candidate Name:

Circle Degree: Ph.D. / M.S. Thesis / M.S. Non-thesis / M.Eng.

Facilities visited during program: CUBEInC, CU Rhodes/Rhodes Annex, CU BRC, CU-MUSC, AMRL, CLIF, others (list)

Title of Thesis/Dissertation:

Defense Date:

Advisor Name:

Committee Member Names:

Do you have a committee member from an external department or field? Committee Members’ Department(s)/Field(s):

Have you been a co-author for a journal paper or conference proceeding, or co-inventor on a patent with someone from a department or field other than Bioengineering?

Collaborators Department(s)/Field(s):

Number of Papers published or currently under review:

Number of Papers in preparation:

Number of Patents applied for or approved:

Number of undergrads mentored:

Number of K-12 students or teachers mentored:

Professional Society Memberships:

Number of Awards or Fellowships received since enrolling in PhD/MS program:

Please attach your CV (see template on webpage)

Updated Address: Updated Email: Updated Position: Company: Location: Ph.D. Dissertation Defense Assessment Form

Part 1: Written Dissertation Document Assessment (This pre-defense form can be filled out by advisor before oral defense)

Excellent (5) Very Good (4) Good (3) Fair (2) Poor (1) Covers key articles in the Covers key Covers some key Covers a few articles Missing field; Uses literature to articles in the articles. but misses some key citations. Does help make points in field. Can use Uses findings from major literature not know most presentation and answer literature to help literature to help results. of the key Knowledge questions; critically make points in make points works in the of field evaluates the current state presentation and field. of literature suggest answer questions. Misrepresents follow-on studies based other’s work on a body of work. Comments:

Is in lab when expected. In lab when expected; In lab when Not always in lab; Not always in lab; Excels both in class and Finishes work on time. expected; works work gets done work is not Work ethic in the lab. Goes above Does well both in hard on project but sometimes completed as what is expected class and in the lab but sometime late expected late.

Comments:

Has distinct structure Has distinct Clearly defined Some spelling Very hard to with clearly defined structure with sections. Coherent or grammar read or follow. sections. Coherent clearly defined sentences and clear errors. Some Sections are not Writing skills sentences. Clear sections. Coherent aims/goals. Could structure but clearly defined. aims/goals. Dissertation sentences. Clear improve writing to could be is well motivated and aims/goals. Well help “sell” idea to clearer. has the potential to get motivated. reviewer. published

Comments: Ph.D. Dissertation Defense Assessment Form

Part 2: Oral Presentation Assessment Excellent (5) Very Good (4) Good (3) Fair (2) Poor (1) Remembers key articles Remembers key Remembers some Knows a few articles Missing in the field; Can use articles in the key articles. but misses some key citations. Does literature to help make field. Can use Occasionally major literature not know most points in presentation and literature to help remembers content results. of the key Knowledge answer questions; Can make points in paper but not Cannot remember works in the of field critically evaluate the presentation and author/year author/year for field. current state of literature answer questions. Uses findings from articles. Has trouble Misrepresents suggest follow-on studies literature to help remembering papers other’s work based on a body of work. make points for use in presentation. Comments:

Can think on his/her feet; Points out gaps Can point out Cannot Lacks points out gaps in in knowledge or issues in independently point fundamental Critical thinking knowledge or problems problems with tech/knowledge out gaps/problems critical thinking skills with existing technology; existing after some hints in field. However, skills when uses quantitative reasoning technology from committee understands points responding to to answer questions. made by committee committee. Comments:

Answers committee Answers Has demonstrated Weak in several Shows lack of questions by using committee solid background in key areas of fundamentals Breadth of advanced concepts questions using many areas of BioE BioE across most of knowledge from many areas of fundamentals but has some weaker fundamental to the field. bioengineering from across BioE areas from BioE the field

Comments:

Is clear and precise in oral Is clear and Presents in Lacks Presentation very Oral presentations. Is comfortable precise in oral understandable confidence / hard to follow or communication answering audience questions presentations manner. somewhat hard to understand. follow

Comments: