This post was recently made at Academici, and thought viewers would find it interesting. Cheers, George Undergraduate dissertations and MA dissertations have many things in common. Both are pieces of sustained research of up to and around 10-15,000 words. It is often said that the best undergraduate essay gets near to or attains Masters’ level of work. At the Masters’ level, students are expected to be far more independent in their choice and execution of research projects. Also, a Masters would usually contain an empirical case study, unless of course its key concern was of a more theoretical nature. Such an empirical study usually means a sustained amount of time spent on fieldwork, something only a minority of undergraduates would have the time or resources to do. Nonetheless, a solid undergraduate dissertation should exhibit some similar characteristics to an MA dissertation: a clear presentation of the problem; clear research questions or hypotheses; a discussion of the methods, methodology and sources employed in the project; a section which attempts to address the research questions posed and a clear evaluation of the findings. Each of these sections are logically interlinked. The distance between a solid MA (Master of Arts; Magister Artium) dissertation and a PhD is less great than that between BA (Bachelor of Arts; Baccalaureus Artium) and PhD (Doctor of Philosophy; Philosophea Doctor), as the Master’s student will already have had to contend with many issues confronting a doctoral candidate. The leap from a BA to a PhD is great, but not unbridgeable. The most obvious unique aspect of doctoral research is the emphasis it places on the individual. There are few taught elements of the degree, except for research training, and the student is expected to have a high level of self-discipline in order to be able to cope with only minimal guidance and structure – in comparison to what students at BA or MA level are used to. Self-discipline, of course, is needed for all types of sustained research and is easier to produce if you have a keen interest in a subject in the first place. This makes the choice of topic important for undergraduates, essential for an MA and crucial for a PhD. The nature of the doctoral process The PhD process can be shrouded in mystery. Yet it can be successfully completed by anyone who has a certain amount of intelligence, and, importantly, the degree of commitment necessary. This is not to suggest that obtaining a doctorate is easy. Commitment and steely determination are essential, but of little use if not accompanied by an open and enquiring mind and a willingness to take criticism and advice and to listen and learn from others. Herein lies the first difficulty: to complete a higher degree successfully, you will have to reassess and recalibrate your often deeply held opinions in the light of the new material, arguments and debates you will encounter on your learning journey. The first thing to note about a PhD is what it is not. It is rarely a ‘magnum opus’, the study of all studies ever on a specific topic (many educational systems cater for this by offering a higher doctorate option, for example, Germany). There is plenty of time to produce this afterwards, as most great thinkers in fact did. For example, Albert Einstein and Karl Marx made relatively modest contributions to their fields of research in their doctoral theses, but they spent that time learning the tools of their trade whilst ‘demonstrating their fully professional mastery of the established paradigms’ in their field (Phillips and Pugh, 1994, 35). Undertaking a PhD should be seen as a learning process, an apprenticeship in the art of research in which you will learn to reflect on the origins of theories and concepts, how to theorise, how to mesh theory with practice, and how to prioritise and organise a vast quantity of material into a readable text within a restricted period of time. The discipline necessary for successfully completing a doctorate will benefit the student far beyond the walls of academia. There is no doubt that a solid formal education will help you undertake a doctorate, but other factors such as mental agility, inquisitiveness, motivation and discipline, which can be acquired outside the school gates, are also beneficial."
It's an interesting assessment, George. What discipline was the author referring to? I think it's somewhat different in science. An MS may be the minimum level to actually function as a scientist -- and increasingly so because undergraduate programs barely scratch the surface. The PhD demonstrates that someone can do independent research of significance to his/her field. But, as your author notes, you don't necessarily need to be smart to earn the degree. But you do need to be persistent and thick-skinned! So there are plenty of stubborn idiots with PhDs around! (Mostly driving cabs.)
What I find interesting is the choice of great thinkers: one a democratic socialist, and the other the father of communism. Don't read me wrong, Albert and Karl were great thinking, talented, intelligent men, however I'm so thoroughly bored and apathetic towards communist academicians. What an old and tired stereotype. Why are so many afraid of capitalism?
Um. Albert Einstein and Karl Marx both caused major, permanent shifts in human thought. I really don't think that their personal views are very relevant. Einstein may have been naive but he wasn't, so far as I know, a communist. Oddly, neither was Karl Marx.
As one of my professors from my graduate program put it, “Earning a PhD takes the words I don’t know out of your vocabulary.” Judging from the two classes I had with him; I believe him.
Actually, Marx and Einstein were ALSO both non religious Jews. Ashkenazim. Speakers, one would assume, of Yiddish (though Einstein would probably deny it). I saw an article the other day that suggested that there might be a genetic reason for the over representation of Ashkenazim among the brilliant; the author said that inbreeding and selection for brilliance resulted in brilliance but at a terrible genetic cost in the form of otherwise rare diseases. I have NO idea whether there is anything to it.
I used to say that when you are working on your undergraduate, you learn how to find an answer. When you work on your Masters, you learn there can be more than one answer, and more than one optimum one. When you do your doctorate, you learn how to ask questions. It seems the more skuling I had, the more I realized I didn't know. I stopped before I forgot how to breathe.
Funny, Russ. When I was going through my doctoral program, I remember distinctly two cartoons. One was a classroom full of students, where one was raising his hand and asking, "Can I be excused? My brain's full!" The second one is of a student alone in a library, studying. The books are haunting him, saying things like "You'll never know everything in us, Larry. It's too much for you. You can study for the rest of your life...." As a doctoral student, you learn to let all that go. I know what I know, and I'm an expert in a very narrow niche in my field. For anything else, you'll have to ask the next guy.
I kind of look at it this way: Bachelor's-- like a bachelor in the marriage sense: on your own. This level indicates that somebody has the basics down and is equipped to study independently. They can judge what's important and what isn't and self-assign their own readings. They are generally prepared to understand the technical literature. Masters-- suggests that a graduate is familiar with advanced material and with cutting edge issues. Can talk intelligently about the state of the art, even if he or she hasn't contributed to it. Doctorate-- At least theoretically, this indicates that somebody has contributed something of value to their discipline and has advanced the conversation a little.
This is my source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein And, Karl Marx did co-write the Communist Manifesto. However, my point wasn't about Albert Einstein or Karl Marx, it was about the original author's choice of "heros". If he had chosen 1 capitalist and 1 communist, I'd have said nothing.
I certainly never suggested that Marx didn't write Das Kapital. I was referring to the famous anecdote that, at or near his death, Marx exclaimed,"I am not a communist!" I really don't think he was, though of course, who knows? Marx observed what he thought was a pattern in the development of Industrial Revolution capitalism that was new in human history. So far, so good. He then made some predictions about the future of humanity based upon what he believed to be fundamental and irreconcilable conflicts between the capitalists and the working classes. These predictions turned out to be largely untrue because (now this is just MY opinion) the working classes are content to be paid for their labor so long as they get a fair shake and a decent living. Resentment under those circumstances is insufficient to fuel a revolution. (Otherwise, how to explain the income tax??) Another reason Marx was incorrect was that he assumed that liberal democracy would end up entirely the tool of the capitalists. Now, to be sure, there have been times in our history when it sure SEEMED that way, but it never really was, not even in the Guilded Age or during the Presidency of George W. Bush. In the end, as I have said elsewhere, sovereignty rests in the people as a matter of actual fact and not merely national myth. (little fauss might disagree here) Finally, I don't think Marx took into account the social and economic mobility available to Americans and, even in his day, to an increasing degree in Europe. A revolution requires men and women of superior intellect, vision and drive to lead it. Here, such persons are not frustrated by being held down to menial lives. That promise keeps Americans capitalist in outlook. And I think, again, that Americans are objectively correct in that belief. Das Kapital is worth reading. The social movements Marx describes were real. The tensions he describes are real today. But the business of prediction is dangerous for any social scientist!
When I finished my bachelor's, I tried that on my better half, explaining that I was a bachelor again. She replied, "Great, I can start dating again." Short lived bachelorhood.....
nosborne48: .... Hmmm. I'll admit my weakness is history, but I'm am getting more interested in history. I think it teaches us just how great we have it today, despite the problems of the 21st century. If I were given 100 lifetimes, I'd choose year 2005 every time. It's just difficult to study those who you have fundamental differences with.
