Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The sad story of Heisenberg's doctoral oral exam (1998)

aps.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 150 posts

Re: The sad story of Heisenberg's doctoral oral exam (1998)

#31

Post by bowsamic »

mannykannot wrote: post #28
bowsamic wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would that imply he wasn't a narrow specialist?

There is a very real sense that what he was a 'specialist' in was figuring out what's fundamental to all of physics - so not so narrow.

Well yeah but that is more of a coincidence that he happened to be a specialist in something with wide effects. QM had implications far beyond just those fundamentals, but I would imagine that he would not have known much about those fields that QM ended up having an effect on. For example, did he know much about optics, which was one of the fields most heavily affected by QM?

The widespread impact of your field and the specificity of actually working in your field are two very different things.

Re: The sad story of Heisenberg's doctoral oral exam (1998)

#34

Post by mannykannot »

macintux wrote: post #19
not_gpt4 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hes correct. It should be "verbal exam".

“verbal” can be applied to either spoken or written word, but I get the sense that people default to “verbal” over “oral” just out of discomfort.

'Oral' is also ambiguous. 'Vocal' might be better than either, though it sounds awkward, perhaps simply because it is not used.

Then there's 'interrogation', which Heisenberg might have concurred with...

Re: The sad story of Heisenberg's doctoral oral exam (1998)

#35

Post by JadeNB »

WaitWaitWha wrote: post #30

Interestingly, this type of entrenchment has not changed in my opinion. There is always a professor of distinguished, but long forgotten and superseded past-expertise on the orals.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 cesspo…

> There is always a professor of distinguished, but long forgotten and superseded past-expertise on the orals.

Wait, are you claiming that knowledge of experimental physics is "long forgotten and superseded"? As a mathematician, I'm all for recognising the importance of theoretical physics, and think that there's no reason a good theoretical physicist has also to be a good experimental physicist—but I wouldn't go so far as casting experimental physics on the dustheap! From the relatively sparse information given, the questions asked, about the operation of basic optical instruments like the telescope and the microscope, do not seem like questions that are excessively recondite; they do seem to indicate a basis lack of competence as an experimental physicist (which Heisenberg neither was nor apparently much wanted to be).

Re: The sad story of Heisenberg's doctoral oral exam (1998)

#37

Post by ortusdux »

I use to frequent a grad student bar that regularly held an open-mic night for people to practice their defense. It was brutal. A room full of drunk grad and post-grads would try and pick apart your presentation. Targeted academic heckling. It was great. The goal was to get over your fear of the whole process -no matter what, your actual defense would be a better experience.

Re: The sad story of Heisenberg's doctoral oral exam (1998)

#38

Post by nothrowaways »

abhv wrote: post #15

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…

Nice story, except the TLDR.

Re: The sad story of Heisenberg's doctoral oral exam (1998)

#39

Post by msla »

macintux wrote: post #19
not_gpt4 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hes correct. It should be "verbal exam".

“verbal” can be applied to either spoken or written word, but I get the sense that people default to “verbal” over “oral” just out of discomfort.

No, verbal contrasts with written, as in verbal instructions versus written instructions. Is English your first language?

Re: The sad story of Heisenberg's doctoral oral exam (1998)

#40

Post by watwut »

abhv wrote: post #15

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…

This is not classes getting in a way of education. It is an university breaking its own rules and making special exceptions for an individual.

Some school systems do it a lot, others rarely. But generally, the one that don't do this tend to be better overall.

Post reply on HN