Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6687

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

hurrrr durrr PhD's are 700 year old grade inflations for medieval guild slackers

herp derp the viva voce is a dumbification and bypassing of research, a free job interview

snarf snarf should have become an engineer
it's ironic that his professors probably had a PhD.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4225

Dilbert_X wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


This is new, I've not seen that definition anywhere before.
well that's because you're a fucking idiot, and don't know what you're talking about. fancy that? surprising.

Literally, "viva voce" means by or with the living voice - i.e., by word of mouth as opposed to writing. So the viva examination is where you will give a verbal defence of your thesis.

Put simply, you should think of it as a verbal counterpart to your written thesis. Your thesis demonstrates your skill at presenting your research in writing. In the viva examination, you will demonstrate your ability to participate in academic discussion with research colleagues.
Purpose of the Exam

The purpose of the viva examination is to:

    demonstrate that the thesis is your own work
    confirm that you understand what you have written and can defend it verbally
    investigate your awareness of where your original work sits in relation to the wider research field
    establish whether the thesis is of sufficiently high standard to merit the award of the degree for which it is submitted
    allow you to clarify and develop the written thesis in response to the examiners' questions
that's from a university website, fyi. how about you brush up on what you rant against? that way you won't look quite so fucking dumb.
So where does it say or imply "'professional license' of the academic career"?

It seems you are the one who 'looks fucking dumb'.
it's simple. the professional career of academia requires a research degree. you can't teach in the university or lecture or get a job doing research unless you have the PhD. the PhD is the piece of paper/qualification that 'proves' you are capable of 'professional' academic work. thus it is analogous to a 'professional license'. the thesis submitting and viva voce oral exam could be seen as the equivalent to the driving test: it's the practical, lets-see-you-in-action test. you can't get a job in academia without a PhD. thus it is the equivalent of a 'professional license'. i put it in those words so you'd understand it a little better, from your perspective, and then perhaps stop ranting against something you are clearly clueless about.

feeling a little slow today?
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4225

Cybargs wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

hurrrr durrr PhD's are 700 year old grade inflations for medieval guild slackers

herp derp the viva voce is a dumbification and bypassing of research, a free job interview

snarf snarf should have become an engineer
it's ironic that his professors probably had a PhD.
his professors DEFINITELY  had a PhD. you CANNOT get a job in a university lecturing post without one. not in hard academic subjects, anyway. lecturers on a law course may be professional practicing lawyers. ditto economics/business. but you're not going to go and take physics at university and be lectured by someone who doesn't have a research degree. why? because the PhD is something they had to PROVE they could do to prove their competence in that job role.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-26 03:55:11)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6077|eXtreme to the maX
you CANNOT get a job in a university lecturing post without one
Its not the purpose of a PhD, nor is it a 'license' simply because its the status quo that lecturers generally have them, it hasn't historically been a mandatory requirement.

Saying its first and foremost 'your final interview before a job in academia' is missing the point completely.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4225
i actually specifically said it is not a job interview. i said it is a final interview-style oral examination to be granted the qualification. you're the one that turned it into a "pah, a corruption! a mere conversation before being given a job". read my post again. i said "there is no job". most people get a doctorate for the achievement in-itself.
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4225

Dilbert_X wrote:

you CANNOT get a job in a university lecturing post without one
Its not the purpose of a PhD, nor is it a 'license' simply because its the status quo that lecturers generally have them, it hasn't historically been a mandatory requirement.
the doctorate has been a qualification for scholarship/universities since the medieval period. since universities became professional institutions in the 20th century, and since they have shifted emphasis towards the production of knowledge/research, the PhD has always been a requirement for entry. it's the standard. it has been the standard for at least a 100 years. all of your full-time teachers at imperial had a PhD. why does it upset you so much?

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-26 04:23:22)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6077|eXtreme to the maX
It doesn't upset me at all, you seem to be confusing what a PhD is, that is all.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4225
please expand? i think i have been very clear on what a PhD is. after all, i'm about to take one.

of course you know better. a viva is a "corruption", right? a corruption as old as the actual qualification. right.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6077|eXtreme to the maX
Saying a viva is the final test of a licence to be an academic is a corruption, derp.

I'll stick my neck out and say the majority of people who do PhDs don't have the slightest intention of becoming an academic - their purpose is to contribute to human knowledge, not have wide-eyed teenagers suck their dicks.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4225
sure, the majority of people getting £60,000 in debt (and it is the majority, for the very fact that people who secure funding are a notably tiny MINORITY) and spending 5-6 years of their 20's and 30's skipping out on a career-ladder are just doing it "to contribute to human knowledge". very realistic, dilbert. and what's this... you having something good, or in defense, to say about people who just stay in academia "just because"? this seems like a rare sentiment from you. could it possibly be that it's just because you want to say something contrary to me? could you even imagine!!!!

and a viva is the final test before you are granted your PhD. it is an oral EXAMINATION. after the writing is DONE. thus it is a "final" "test". in a literal sense. and a PhD is effectively analogous to a 'professional license' for the academic career, because you cannot apply to any starting positions in a university without one. know what the first-step of university careers is called? it's called "post-doc". post-doctoral. post. doctorate. after. you. get. a. phd.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-26 05:07:24)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6077|eXtreme to the maX
Just because you see a PhD from only one angle - a ticket to board the academic gravy train - doesn't mean your perspective is the only valid one.

That isn't the purpose of a PhD or why they are thoroughly examined.

Sucks having to go into debt to get one though, bring back Thatcher I say

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-03-26 05:08:56)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4225
i have funding. i'm in the 1% who are distinguished enough to have won awards and started the snowball process of good faith and funding allocation. it would suck to be you today, though, yes, probably.

where did i say the "purpose" of a PhD was to go into a career in academia? i said they are the effective entry-standard, if you so wish to enter that profession. the financial and personal commitment involved in a PhD normally means most people want to end up getting paid for it, in a roundabout way, sure, but i've never argued that a PhD is merely utilitarian or functional. i'm the last person on this forum who will present education and research as something functional or 'for profit'. that's normally your or jay's schtick. it's hilarious to me that now, just to argue against me, you're sitting on the camp that are all about 'knowledge for knowledge's sake'. 2 pages ago, before i schooled you on how the PhD works today, you were calling PhD candidates "slackers". okay. sounds like you are a little personally confused.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-26 05:19:59)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6077|eXtreme to the maX
You didn't school me in anything, thanks.

People who seek out a 'career' in academia are slackers, yes.
Its clear your "purpose" in pursuing a PhD is precisely that - you've said so enough times now.

Expanding human knowledge is a laudable aim, Lit PhDs don't demonstrably do that - do we need to list last years RoHo Lit PhD subjects again?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4225
i think you may like to recapitulate the development of this argument:

i said to term someone an 'astrophysicist', as in the professional title or appellation, that means they are effectively going to have a PhD. this is because you said the stupid guitarist from queen was an 'astrophysicist before a rockstar'. i said, no, he only had his undergraduate degree whilst in queen. having a first degree in a subject, in this modern world, does not make you a research professional in it (by that logic, the other rockstar scientist you were hating on was an 'astrophysicist' before being in his stupid band as well, because he had his first degree, duh; and yet you say he was a rockstar before becoming a scientist. ok. consistent). astrophysicists have PhD's. it's part of the professional requirements and structure of science research today. for some reason you found this difficult, because you put high praise in someone being an "astrophysicist", but can't seem to accept the fact that a PhD is the necessary and effective entry-qualification into this profession. you can't square your high esteem of astrophysicists with the realities of such a career in research. academics and PHD candidates to you are "slackers", but then astrophysicists... ? aaah they mostly all have PhD's! cognitive dissonance! time to argue against whatever uzique says for 2 pages, and adopt the opposite stance, because my original sentiment was founded on a paradox! aaaaaaaaah

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-26 05:31:43)

Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4225

Dilbert_X wrote:

Expanding human knowledge is a laudable aim, Lit PhDs don't demonstrably do that - do we need to list last years RoHo Lit PhD subjects again?
My DPhil will be at oxford, but sure, go ahead. i like the part where you claim research into the life cycles of moss 'furthers human knowledge', but a philosophical monograph or analytical work is somehow "fluff". that part makes me feel all warm inside.

and yes, thanks for telling me why i am motivated to spend 4 years of my life doing something. good to hear. i wasn't aware. now i am alert and wizened.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-26 05:29:44)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6077|eXtreme to the maX
I'd say someone with a degree in astrophysics would be an astrophysicist.

Maybe not a research astrophysicist - probably unemployed actually - but still an astrophysicist, and not, say, a hairdresser.

Your stuck-up view that only people in academia with a PhD can give themselves a title is the strange one here.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4225
well if that's your definition, both of the rockstar celebrities in question were astrophysicists before they joined a rock band.

and yet you said one went "rockstar -> astrophysicist", whilst brian from queen (more meritoriously) went "astrophysicist -> rockstar".

so your original distinction fails.

either that or you're willfully contradicting yourself, to argue against me.

hmmmmmmm what could it be.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6077|eXtreme to the maX

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Expanding human knowledge is a laudable aim, Lit PhDs don't demonstrably do that - do we need to list last years RoHo Lit PhD subjects again?
My DPhil will be at oxford, but sure, go ahead. i like the part where you claim research into the life cycles of moss 'furthers human knowledge', but a philosophical monograph or analytical work is somehow "fluff". that part makes me feel all warm inside.
You didn't have an answer last time, if I can find the thread I will.

In the meantime, prithee explain how any of this is anything other than an excuse to stay in the warm and not sweep poo off the street for four years.

http://www.rhul.ac.uk/english/research/ … udies.aspx

Or anything at all here really.
http://www.rhul.ac.uk/english/informati … /home.aspx

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-03-26 05:39:36)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6687
yeah I guess anyone who does classical studies is just finding an excuse for a job amirite? shit those romans and greeks did aren't important
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6077|eXtreme to the maX
The Romans and Greeks have been fairly well studied already haven't they?
Is there anything new to learn?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4225
oh dilbert you've got me. your 4 hours of blind ranting has really put me in a quandary. yes, let's descend this argument down to a level where we start dissing people's research topics. i'm really going to partake in that. let me just waste some time finding a science department's website so i can laugh at some of their esoteric theoretical research too. no. i have always, on the topic of academia, treated humanities and science equally. knowledge for knowledge's sake - the position you just adopted for a split-second there, when it suited your argumentative stance against me. you can't turn it around and expect me to play this game now. i don't make a distinction between science and humanities research. i don't pin it to 'functionality'. for the last page you've been arguing a PhD is "lauded" when it's not about mere career function. now you're on your typical rant about english PhD's being useless. a confusing show.
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4225
and yeah, i agree, let's just stop looking at the past beyond a certain point. medieval studies? that was aaaaages ago. yawn. let's leave that one.

according to the wise sage dilbert, let's only study things in the last 100 years. let's retain a cultural memory no longer than a century. let's not teach or research anything older than that - previous generations have covered it. so bothersome! all that tradition and all those cultural roots. what's the point. let's only research 1950-> onwards. you can go and ask the actual real living people questions then. surely it's better.
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4225

Dilbert_X wrote:

The Romans and Greeks have been fairly well studied already haven't they?
Is there anything new to learn?
totally man. there have been no breakthroughs in our understanding of romans or greeks since 1750.
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4225
can you clarify why one of the rockstar brians was an astrophysicist first and then a rockstar, and the other was a hipster rockstar before becoming an astrophysicist? if your point all along has been that you don't need a PhD to be an astrophysicist. i'm a little confused. why is one deserving more merit? why does one curry more favour from you? because there's no consistency in your thought. maybe it's just the fact you think queen are a decent band, and the younger and more fashionable brian is just a "hipster" based on your silly judgements, alone? because it looks like we've wasted 2 pages clarifying what a PhD is, when really the basis of your original statement was an inane whim. like most things, really.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-26 06:04:45)

Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6645|Canberra, AUS

Dilbert_X wrote:

herp derp the viva voce is a dumbification and bypassing of research, a free job interview
You said it, not sure what point you're  making now.

My point is a PhD is the gold standard of academic research, an indication you've advanced human knowledge - not the final test before you get a nice desk in a wood panelled office and a line of teenage asians to molest.
no, it really isn't.

uzique wrote:

it's simple. the professional career of academia requires a research degree. you can't teach in the university or lecture or get a job doing research unless you have the PhD. the PhD is the piece of paper/qualification that 'proves' you are capable of 'professional' academic work. thus it is analogous to a 'professional license'. the thesis submitting and viva voce oral exam could be seen as the equivalent to the driving test: it's the practical, lets-see-you-in-action test. you can't get a job in academia without a PhD. thus it is the equivalent of a 'professional license'. i put it in those words so you'd understand it a little better, from your perspective, and then perhaps stop ranting against something you are clearly clueless about.
quite. i have no idea what idea of 'research' dilbert has here, but it bears no relation to reality in any field i'm aware of.

getting a PhD is just the entry point into actual serious research.

uzique wrote:

his professors DEFINITELY  had a PhD. you CANNOT get a job in a university lecturing post without one. not in hard academic subjects, anyway. lecturers on a law course may be professional practicing lawyers. ditto economics/business. but you're not going to go and take physics at university and be lectured by someone who doesn't have a research degree. why? because the PhD is something they had to PROVE they could do to prove their competence in that job role.
i don't even bother referring to my lecturers with "dr..." any more, because it's basically implied.

dilbert wrote:

The Romans and Greeks have been fairly well studied already haven't they?
Is there anything new to learn?
I don't claim to know anything about modern literary theory at all, but really, I personally would find reading about reader-response theory/new criticism etc far more interesting than being an engineer. Appalling, I know, but that's just me.

now stop shitting up my thread.

Last edited by Spark (2013-03-26 07:23:32)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard