Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 03:20:00 08/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 18:55:53, Sune Fischer wrote: >It was only a matter of time before you said that, not true of course. Yes, it is. What they do or don't do at your particular institute is completely irrelevant to the general approach to thesis validations in the rest of the country. So it can't be used to dismiss or approve the work of others. >Correcting you is getting rather tiresome, for the last time: > >Masters in: >Astronomy - 1 year (60 ETCS points) >Biophysics - 1 year (60 ETCS points) >Biochemistry - 1 year (60 ETCS points) >Biology - 1 year (60 ETCS points) >Computer Science - 1/2 to 1 year (30 or 60 ETCS points) >Geophysics - 1 year (60 ETCS points) >etc..... > >These are facts, so it's not really open for debate although you seem to think >so, this is how it's done in KU - perhaps things are different elsewhere, but >not here. If you had continued reading, the explanation was further down. The board of education recommends that the thesis is written in 1/2 a year. But that the universities usually make sure that it lasts a year. Usually by a prelimenary thesis study. I even gave Aalborg as an example. This means I agreed with the usual time used to complete a thesis. >My claim was never shown to be incorrect. *sigh* If your claim is unsubstantiated and mine is, then I'm afraid so. Just read the various rulesets. There are no requirements for original science mentioned anywhere. Whether the student has shown a sufficient degree of independence is decided by the censors, which precludes complete copy/paste work. From what I've read in this thread, that corresponds with what is done elsewhere in the World. And in Denmark. >You believed that doing a 'theoretical' study could be done by 'compendium >research', I told you it couldn't and that it had to be _original_ to some >extent. Theoretical studies can be a critical literary study, didactical study or even compendium-like work. Not just "compendium research". That's not just a belief. I know people that have done all three, from quantum mechanics to a gymnasium textbook, but that is irrelevant. >We can't decide who is right unless we phone a decan or something, however I >know the professors here better than you, and I know the work my fellow students >do, and I am telling you I have never heard of anyone not doing original >research in their masters, you simply cannot find a supervisor to support you in >such a project. You're using your institute as a general rule again, while being completely ignorant about how things are done everywhere else. Then you're in no position to evaluate the thesis in question. Neither topically, contentwise or in terms of originality. Myopia and ignorance isn't a good starting point to evaluate other people's efforts. That goes for scientific work as well. I'll just repost the first paragraphs of the ruleset for "de fysiske fag" again, since you reposted the link: "Specialestudiet omfatter - selve specialestudiet, der er et selvstændigt eksperimentelt og analytisk og/eller teoretisk studium af en eller flere problemstillinger i tilknytning til et eller flere af de fysiske fag - en skriftlig specialeafhandling, "specialet", baseret på specialestudiet eller dele heraf. Emnet for specialet skal godkendes af Fysikstudienævnet, se nedenfor - et specialekollokvium, der emnemæssigt ligger inden for specialestudiets generelle fagområde og medtager specialeafhandlingens hovedresultater. Specialestudiet kan gennemføres ved NBIfAFG eller, efter forhåndsgodkendelse i Fysikstudienævnet, ved en anden inden- eller udenlandsk forsknings- eller uddannelsesinstitution. Specialestudiet gennemføres normalt i tæt kontakt med en gruppe forskere og kan bestå i et afgrænset forskningsprojekt og/eller et kritisk litteraturstudium inden for et valgt fagområde. Studiet kan også gennemføres inden for (et af) de fysiske fags didaktik." The last paragraph remains. Excuse list: - "Thought we were discussing something else" excuse. - Diverting attention to avoid the main topic. - Incomplete quoting. - Misrepresenting views. - The "We can never settle this" excuse. - Adding exclamations to show impatience, eg. *sigh*. Quite a list already. Interesting. Regards, Mogens
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.