I look back on my classical studies with some concern, as at the time I believed that there were only certain intellectual qualities being assessed. My lecturers for example knew nothing about psychology, sociology, science, etc, and seemed to view these disciplines as in some way alien. Thereby, synthesis was not expected, neither imagination, nor genuine insight. Classicists please take me to task if necessary, I taught MBAs but depth was again not expected from a student.
Is it possible that expectations and levels achieved are different for each discipline? Are all PhDs the same?
There are some common qualities but there are other intellectual qualities that are field dependent.
Can you say more, Amir? The problem as I saw/see it. if there is one, is that different fields do not assess the same supposed qualities. Originality is favoured and rewarded in some but not others, for example. When I taught vocational courses briefly, I had a list of criterion that were not accorded in classics where conformity was the key to success.
Ok. What I'm asking here is I think slightly different.
Putting aside clearly different fields, computer studies, mathematics, isn't it possible that achieving high qualifications in one subject is simply much easier than achieving high qualifications in another?
I think I still need to clarify as my above statement appears too hierarchical.
As a marker of papers from GCSE (16 year olds) to Masters I have to scrutinise each paper thoroughly looking for selected outcomes. I had a look at some Phd papers, or rather those written by a Phd holder, recently on Academia.edu and thought that the assessment criterion was, putting aside elements of erudition, closer to A level.
I looked at work by others within the same discipline, and thought the same. Why the contrast?
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Chemistry, Organic
- Synthesis