3 ms·
> Their contribution to advancing the state of art was zero. Those in the fields were I have a glimpse of understanding, should not have defended. The research
by hjkdsfhjkasdf 15y ago
> Their contribution to advancing the state of art was zero. Those in the fields were I have a glimpse of understanding, should not have defended.
The research committees that decided to accept these dissertations were composed of multiple experts in their respective fields of research. Every expert took months to evaluate each thesis and decide whether the contribution was sufficient to grant the degree. And yet your glimpse of knowledge is apparently enough to disqualify their judgement.
- varjag 15y agoI don't see why you have to post this from a throwaway account, as this is a legitimate question and you unlikely to suffer for it at HN. To answer though, the committees are much more inbred and affiliated than they should be in theory. It is a complicated mix of academic politics, budgetary allocations and feudal bonds that advisor-student relationships are. There is a lot of leeway in interpreting things like "novelty" and "importance", and amazingly often it is treated in the broadest way possible. As to me, yes, I'm qualified enough in certain fields to make a judgement, and have enough understanding of some others to cut through bullshit. The issue here is not the knowledge (or lack of) the judges, but rather their complacency with mediocrity due to life realities. I didn't imply they were green-lighting falsified results or outright crackpotry. Just that the amount of meh that shouldn't belong to PhD domain at all but gets through is incredible. If you throw all those dissertations out, the state of respective field wouldn't degrade a iota.