Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 06:55:38 08/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2002 at 06:20:00, Mogens Larsen wrote: >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. I said that the standard seemed low, and it does, to me. Problem is that standards vary from low to high, so perhaps it _is_ within range at some universities. >So it can't be used to dismiss or approve the work of others. Then I guess no one is able to judge anything, really. >>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. The master project includes a thesis, that is how you pass the project, there's no seperating the work from the paper. You get the 60 ETCS when you hand in the paper (if it passes). >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. Perhaps my logic failed me, but then explanin to me the difference between independent work and original work? If a science student does independent work, then is this not research (forskning)? I'd say it is very much splitting hairs, but anything to find some support for your view of course. >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. Yes you can write you mother a 50 word letter and turn it in as your thesis, doesn't mean it will _pass_ as a thesis... >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. I'm comparing with how we do things here, that is the only basis I have for comparison as I haven't read too many masters from other places. Judge for yourself if I'm in a position to compare, I'm in the middle of the race myself, so if not I then who better - you? >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. Ahh, I love it when you get personal. >"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. -till here everthing supports what I've said. >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." Only this the last section supports your grasp on a straw, and I can't find this from the link anywhere, but I assume that you would not make it up. Still, is pasting from the net doing a 'critical literary study"? >The last paragraph remains. > >Excuse list: >- "Thought we were discussing something else" excuse. I was discussing the standard, you where discussing the form. I said you had to do _original_ work to reach the expected standard. Pasting from the net is _not_ original, that is _cheating_ and if you get caught you can get expelled. You can try and save you behind by calling it a literary study, then you would need a supervisor to say okay for that, of course. So please tell me where the "excuse" is. >- Diverting attention to avoid the main topic. That one applies to you, not me. >- Incomplete quoting. I quoted everything below the paragraph "speciale", what else did you want me to quote? >- Misrepresenting views. How so? >- The "We can never settle this" excuse. Of course we can't, the standards vary, somewhere the thesis would pass, but not in KU. If I go to my supervisor and tell him I'd like to make a thesis which is 93% copied from the net, what do you think he will say? >- Adding exclamations to show impatience, eg. *sigh*. Guilty! >Quite a list already. Interesting. Impressive, and of course you are the ultimate saint yourself: - Deliberate translation twisting to support own views - Personal accusations - Adding inappropriate smilies - Adding exclamations to show impatience, eg. *cough*. guess I'm a fast learner... Cheers, -S.
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.