21–30 of 150 posts
A Turing Award winner (keeping it anonymous) related a similar story to me about his phd qualifier exam (when I was taking mine). This winner is a theoretical computer scientist who skipped most of his computer hardware courses. Near the time of his graduation, he was informed that he needed to pass a hardware course because it was required for graduation. He worried; his advisor begged the hw professor to give him a…
Really puts Heisenberg in context. No wonder he seems so bitter.
"oral exam" sounds funny. I can't help but imagine a person (whom I visualize as Bryan Cranston for obvious reason) examining someone with their mouth or having their mouth examined :-]
It's how it's described in the UK system, so you get people taking their "French orals" which always sounded funny to me.
"oral exam" sounds funny. I can't help but imagine a person (whom I visualize as Bryan Cranston for obvious reason) examining someone with their mouth or having their mouth examined :-]
It's how it's described in the UK system, so you get people taking their "French orals" which always sounded funny to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think Heisenberg was necessarily a narrow specialist, trained for just one job. He was one of the inventors of a whole new theory of mechanics.
Why would that imply he wasn't a narrow specialist?
TIL that a brilliant physicist nearly failed his physics exam (sort of). What is revealing is the broad-based knowledge that was expected of any student of those times. Unlike the super-specialities of today. A career in such fields (rather in any field) in those days required total dedication to academics. Also the importance of oral arguments and oral debate.
To become a PhD candidate at a non-top-tier Physics university, I had to derive similar trivia over a wide variety of physics topics in a sort of entry exam. I think it is quite normal. What I doubt is typical anymore is for this to be individual and oral. Also, it was quite typical to fail on your first few go rounds.
There is always a professor of distinguished, but long forgotten and superseded past-expertise on the orals.
They will insist on nuanced competence in an area no longer necessary to forge ahead. They become petty and claw with every breath to maintain relevance, despite all the others on the panel fully aware of the opposite.
Academia is a cesspool of barely-mediocrity, envy, and jealousy with pockets of brilliance flashing up time to time.
In my opinion.