Thesis: The Subjective Rules for Approval

The following points are the result of my observation on how the thesis panel makes its decisions. As everyone well knows, the thesis puts the student's five years worth of effort to the test. Technically, to suffer a delay in graduation because of the thesis alone is valid. A well prepared student should not find it difficult to pass.

I drew up these points after studying how the thesis was conducted and how the panelists judged. There are no written rules on this area, but I am aware that the panelists (at the time of my study) are educated persons and as such, should follow a pre-conceived format on judging. They very seldom confer, but when they do, they manage to come to a consensus without much detailed explanation.

This write up is an attempt to put into writing the "pre-conceived ideas" of the jurors, which they practice by instinct. Other than the observation of their actuations, I also studied special cases which, at the surface, did not seem to follow conventions.

Because of lack of time, I decided to do away with the presentation of case studies for each scenarios presented below. I may be able to offer them upon request, but such case studies are private and sometimes confidential so I will be very selective on this point.

These points may come as a shock to many people. I am not presenting this as a result of a formal research study, but as an "educated opinion." They may shed some light in our understanding of events, but they are not meant to be presented or referred to as a guideline or a rule.

Here goes....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The person presenting the thesis is judged according to the following categories:

Category 1: On his ability to present his ideas on paper, and how accurately he does this. (This includes completeness of drawing, draftsmanship, presentation technique)

• Category 2: On his ability to explain his ideas. (This includes mastery over his work, familiarity with the data and all other aspects of it, even if the output is very conventional)

• Category 3: On his ability to arrive at a novel solution. (a possible genius in our midst?)

The person is judged according to which category he fits.

• If the person is judged to belong to category 1, he must be able to satisfy the requirements of that category to pass.

• If the person is judged to belong to category 2, he must be able to satisfy the requirements of that category. If not, he is given the chance to satisfy the requirements of category 1 to pass. But this "chance" is given if the panelists "feel" the person deserves it (because of personal knowledge of his ability, or whatever valid reason)

• If the person is judged to belong to category 3, he must be able to satisfy the requirements of that category. If not, the same rule in category 2 applies. If he still does not satisfy the requirements of category 2 a very rare opportunity will be presented to him to satisfy the requirements of category 1. The person, however, has to be truly deserving or truly special.

The determination of "deserving" or "special" students is very subjective. There are no records to prove such claim, nor any form of measurement. There can only be a testimony of a mentor. Two rules may apply to make the testimony worth considering:

• the mentor must be well-respected for his objectivity or clear judgment.

• at least one other person must concur. in this regard, a tie-breaker may be called upon if needed.

The premise seems to be this: if a person is capable only of category 1, then his success in life will depend on how good he is in this category. The same applies to those in the higher categories but if they failed in those categories, the chance given them is to give allowance to possible factors that made them fail the expectations of the jury (sickness perhaps, or some temporary trouble at the wrong time).
---------------------------------------------------------------
For me, I will only question cases that do not fall in any of the scenarios above. Other people may have different bases.

Dum dee dumm....