پروفسور ها و دانشجویان بادکنکی همدیگر را تقویت می کنند

M.A. Jalali | سه شنبه, ۲۳ مهر ۱۳۸۷

وظیفه استاد دانشگاه یا هر موسسه تحقیقاتی دیگر پیشبرد پروژه های تحقیقاتی در زمینه تخصصی یا مورد علاقه اش است. اگر فرض بر این است که پژوهش در مرزهای دانش انجام می شود، هر پژوهشگری باید بداند که چه کسی در کجای دنیا (در زمینه مورد علاقه اش) کار می کند. اگر نداند، پس نمی داند که چه مسئله ای قبلا حل شده و چه مسئله ای حل نشده است. پس نمی تواند مسئله جدید هم تعریف کند. امروز هم با 30 سال پیش خیلی فرق دارد و با وجود اینترنت هیچ پوزشی در خصوص عدم اطلاع از کارهای دیگران قبول نیست! حتی اگر 30 سال پیش بود و مثلا رقابت بین بلوک شرق و غرب مطرح بود، حتی با وجود تدابیر امنیتی شدید، بسیاری از کارهای دانشمندان دو قطب جهان به روشهای مختلف به اطلاع رقیبان آنها می رسید. در مواردی هم که دو طرف از هم خبر نداشتند و واقعا یک نظریه یا آزمایش بصورت مستقل توسط دو نفر و در زمانهای مختلف مطرح می شد، نام این افراد مشترکا روی آن نظریه یا یافته جدید گذاشته می شد.

پس اگر در جهان امروز پژوهشگری مقاله ای چاپ کند که قبلا توسط دیگرن انجام شده، دو نتیجه سریع می توان گرفت:

. فرد به اندازه کافی به ادبیات رشته خود تسلط ندارد و تصادفا ویراستار علمی و داور ژورنال (یا کتاب) هم چنین تسلطی را نداشته اند

محتوی مقاله (یا کتاب) کار فرد مدعی نیست

در هر دو صورت پژوهشگر یاد شده حتما نیاز به سرپرست علمی رده بالایی دارد و نمی تواند نام استاد یا پژوهشگر مستقل را یدک بکشد. حال چگونه تشخیص می دهیم که فردی در آینده ممکن است مقاله ای یا کتابی بنویسد که ماحصل فکر خودش نیست؟

علاوه بر ارائه سمینار تخصصی چند ساعته و یا کارگاه آموزشی که متاسفانه بسیاری از اساتید ما از زیر آن در می روند (چون توان آن را ندارند)، یکی از راه های آزمودن تسلط فرد نحوه ارائه پیشنهاد پژوهشی توسط وی به دانشجویان است. وقتی می گوییم فردی پژوهشگر است یعنی می خواهد ماه ها یا سال ها روی موضوعی کار کند و از آن نتیجه بگیرد (یا نشان دهد که نتیجه نمی دهد!). چنین فردی نمی تواند بصورت تصادفی موضوع پژوهشی تعریف کند چون پس از حدود یک دهه جز چند کار پراکنده نتیجه ای از عمرش به جا نمی گذارد. ظاهرا تمام حرفهای من تا به اینجا مورد قبول شماست.

مشکل از لحظه ای شروع می شود که دانشجویی در اتاق شما را می زند و برای مشورت در مورد انجام پروژه وارد می شود. این روزها هم کاملا عادی است که دانشجو بگوید به موضوع داغی نیاز دارد تا در طول دوره تحصیلش مقاله شود و او بتواند به یک دانشگاه خارجی تقاضای ادامه تحصیل دهد. من در این شرایط خودم را کنترل می کنم و یواش یواش به او توضیح می دهم که پروژه هایی که دارم ممکن است در طول عمر تحصیل شما جواب ندهند و نیاز به چندین رساله پی در پی داشته باشند و لذا تضمینی برای چاپ زود هنگام نیست. اما اگر روزی چاپ شد، حتما نقش شما در آن کار نمایان خواهد بود (یا به عنوان نویسنده یا در تقدیر و تشکر). اما دانشجوی متقاضی ناگهان موضوع را به این سمت می کشاند که او می خواهد در اینترنت جستجو کند، کارهای داغ در حال انجام در دانشگاههای خارجی را مرور و از بین آنها موضوعی را برای کار انتخاب کند. در این لحظه است که من دیگر علاقه ای برای صحبت با چنین دانشجویی ندارم. اما درصد بالایی از همکاران چنین دانشجویی را نعمت می دانند و با پروژه ای که دانشجو روی میز آنها می گذارد کار با او را شروع می کنند. نطفه تقلب، کپی زنی و هزاران مشکل دیگر از جمله بی سواد ماندن استاد مربوطه در سالهای آینده، همین لحظه بسته می شود.

نتیجه صحبت طولانی من کوتاه است: انجام کارهای پراکنده با گشتن موسمی در وب سایت و مقالات دیگران نتیجه ای جز تربیت استادان بادکنکی و دانشجویان همنوع شان به دست نمی دهد. آقایان و خانم های عزیز: استاد باید بداند روی چه موضوعی کار می کند و باید در مطالعه مداوم باشد. یعنی باید مکتب پژوهشی برای خود داشته باشد. در اینصورت به هر ژورنالی مقاله نمی فرستد، ارزش عمر خود را می داند و به همین دلیل به حریم دیگران تجاوز نمی کند.

اما ممکن است مواردی باشد که نام فرد بدون اطلاع او جزو نویسندگان یک مقاله تقلبی قرار گرفته باشد (این اتفاق چند بار گزارش شده است). در اینصورت براحتی می توان با تماس با ویراستاران علمی، عکس العمل معقول نشان داد و افراد خطا کار را به همه شناساند.

۰ ۸۷/۰۷/۲۳

M.A. Jalali

۲۵ مهر ۸۷ ، ۲۱:۱۹

Dear Sia:

I think the present situation of evaluating M.Sc. theses is ridiculous. It should change but needs a lot of pressure on those who support 2 grades for having a journal publication. I had a student who wrote a paper and got that 2 scores. I also had a student who did not, though the thesis was impressive. I still believe that giving A or A+ scores to all dissertations is meaningless. Out of 120 M.Sc. theses submitted last year, only 30 of them had solved tough and useful problems.

۲۵ مهر ۸۷ ، ۲۰:۴۸

sia

جناب آقای دکتر جلالی!
با نظر شما در مورد سطح پایین دانش هیئت داوری در موضوع تز موافقم. ولی دو نکته به نظرم رسید. انجام عملیات آماری بر روی نمرات تز کار درستی نیست. چون موضوع تز و درجه سختی و یا آسانی برای همه یکسان نیست. با نمره یک درس فرق دارد که همه دانشجویان به صورت یکسان در امتحان آزموده می شوند. بنابراین باید هر تز فقط با خود آن مقایسه شود. با این حرف شما که چون نمرات بین 19 و 20 بوده تصمیم به انجام آن کار گرفته شده کاملا مخالفم. به نظر من ارزیابی کیفی راه حل بسیار بهتری است. البه شاید این راه در شرایط فعلی قابل انجامم نباشد. به نظرم با توجه به مسائلی که تا کنون مطرح شد می توان حداقل یک تصمیم گرفت و آن اینکه نمره تز در معدل کوچکترین اثری نداشته باشد. فقط به صورت جداگانه ثبت شود. بعدا می توان کمک کمک به سمت ارزیابی کیفی حرکت کرد.

۲۵ مهر ۸۷ ، ۲۰:۴۷

۲۵ مهر ۸۷ ، ۱۹:۰۸

Dear Reza:

In industrialized countries, the (federal) government and society have priorities and those priorities drive most engineering projects as well as health-related issues. In our country, which is not an industrialized country by definition, most engineering problems (if not all) are low-level (the problems that have already been solved elsewhere), and therefore, bright faculties/students do not show much appetite to attack such local problems. The only thing that may attract their attention is a high respect from the society, which lacks at the present time.

So, people gradually begin to solve problems of interest for international community. When you, as a student, see that you are in Iran, but solve problems of others, you decide to move. This is natural. But who should reverse the flow and how? The answer is not trivial and depends on the behavior of the whole nation.

۲۵ مهر ۸۷ ، ۱۴:۴۳

Reza

Hello all,
My only concern is how professors define their research interes and field!?
How much is it close to the standards?
Because, I knew someone with the same idea as you have (long-term projects) and he was always planning to collect all the projects in one or two high standard papers, but up to now, the his methodology has not been successful! Why?
The answer is the infrastructures are not like first world countries, but we like to work on the fields that they already defined!
Regards,
Reza

۲۵ مهر ۸۷ ، ۱۳:۰۲

Dear Reza:

I did not blame students if you carefully read my post.

I don't think that the next generation is usually smarter, because the next generation usually has access to better supporting technologies. For example, 20 years ago there was no internet, no email, etc. and researchers pursued their work and pioneered the 3rd millennium science long before the present generation shows up.

Or if you want to compare Newton with his successors, you will confess about his superiority for over 4 centuries!

Please also note that education in Iran is still free. When a student says s/he is not receiving salary for what s/he is doing, s/he must recall that there is no tuition. Therefore, I don't agree with the idea that "since a student is not paid, s/he has the right to overlook professors' research ideas". Yes, Iranian graduate students do not receive a generous RA or TA-ship, but they don't pay tuition either. They are paid by the government.

۲۵ مهر ۸۷ ، ۱۰:۳۲

salam
matlabi khoobi bood, har chand moghasser jelve dadane daneshjoo dar babe entekhabe proje tahghighati dorost be nazar nemirese!
moshkele asli dar injast ke in asatid chegoone movzoo'ate va fielde tahghighatiye khodeshoon ra ta'een mikonan!?
Aya dar keshvere ma saz o kar-haye anjame yek proje ke kamelan az san'at avarde shode (shabihe keshvar-haye jahane aval) vojjod darad?
Dar injast ke aksare asatid dar daneshgah-ha fielde tahghighatiyte khodeshoon ra be yeki az halat-haye zir entekhab mikonan:
1- fielde PhD khodeshoon ra ke dar kharej keshver kar kardan, edame midan, ghafel az inke in movzoo momkene hich estefadeye san'ati baraye keshvare khodemoon dar in magh'ta nadashte bashe!
2- khodeshoon ham too internet migardan, va mibinan movzooate dagh dar doniya chi hast, va adam-haye sar-shenas roo chi kar mionan...bad hamoon movzoo ra be onvane field entekhab mikonan
3- negah mikoan bebinan too hamoon daneshkade ya keshvar che proje-hayi ke tavasote baghiye kar mishe, daraye idea khoobi hast va oon ra entekhab mikonan (mesle fielde nano ke alan too iran tabdil be tabe nano shode)

pas khorde gereftan be daneshjoo dorost nist, chon:
1- daneshjoo pooli babate proje'i ke anjam mide, daryaft nemikone ta majboor beshe zamine'i ke ostad pishnahad mikone ra kar kone. chon midoone ostad ham be toroghe bala movzoo ra be dast avorde
2- mamoolan har nasl az nasle ghabl ba-hooshtar hast, va ya daneshjoo be keyfiyate elmiye ostad 100% mot'maen nist...pas baz ham az oon ete'at nemikone

pas khod be khod hame chi badkonaki hast, va taghviyat mishe, faghat sheddat o za'f dare!

Ba tashakkor

۲۵ مهر ۸۷ ، ۰۸:۵۰

Dear Maryam:

Why do you weight and judge everything by applying?! A scientist's life must be science. Sometimes she decides to move and sometimes no. She must move when all conditions are prepared. This is different from having THIS or THAT requirement by a given date, let us say M.Sc. graduation! And if someone thinks she is not going to have a science-dominated life, why should she bother herself to get a PhD after M.Sc.?

Moreover, I think have not mentioned puting the name of a pioneering researcher only in acknowledgments. Depending on the type of contribution, that person can also be the first author of a future paper (see my earlier posts).

۲۵ مهر ۸۷ ، ۰۰:۳۱

Dear Professor Jalali,

Just some relatively brief remarks concerning the pre-WWII Göttingen school and the Leiden school.

Regarding the pre-WWII Göttingen school, I refer you to the very serious controversy that arose between Albert Einstein and David Hilbert around 1915. In some texts the Einstein field equations of General Relativity are referred to as Einstein-Hilbert, or even Hilbert-Einstein, equations. This by the fact that soon after Einstein had delivered a series of six lectures in Göttingen on the subject matter of GR (at which lectures Hilbert had been present), Hilbert published these equations, which he had obtained through using the calculus of variations, in Proceedings of the Göttingen Academy. For details please consult:

J. Mehra, Einstein, Hilbert, and the Theory of Relativity (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1974).

For this, Einstein openly declared Hilbert a charlatan (Abraham Pais relates that Einstein has told him that he had later received a letter of apology from David Hilbert, but Pais points out that he has not been able to locate this letter, or a draft of it, in any archive).

If this controversy is not sufficient, please consult the account of the efforts that e.g. Leopold Kronecker undertook for preventing Georg Cantor from being appointed to a Chair in Berlin (and Cantor died in 1918, far in advance of the chaos that overtook Germany in the decade preceding the WWII). It is an undisputed fact that contributions of Canter to mathematics are considerably more significant than those of Kronecker.

Now the Leiden school. Hendrik Antoon Lorentz was in a very bad position in Leiden, with his "boss", the then future Nobel Laureate Heike Kamerlingh Onnes, showing no or very little sympathy towards him. Lorentz was obliged to teach numerous courses to medical and law students, in addition to physics students, leaving him little time to work on his theoretical problems. The University consistently declined to hire an assistant for him, no doubt by the fact that Kamerlingh Onnes had not been supportive of the idea. Be it as it may, Lorentz remained in his sorry position until a solid offer for a university professorship in Germany (I think to remember in Hamburg) arrived at his doorstep in Leiden. It was only after Kamerlingh Onnes became convinced that Leiden would lose Lorentz that he undertook to alleviate the miserable condition of Lorentz. Historians of science are divided as to the reason why Kamerlingh Onnes was so insensitive to the plight of Lorentz. Some argue that it was a case of pure jealousy on the part of Kamerlingh Onnes, who was fully aware of the fact that Lorentz was intellectually a superior scientist.

As for "tradition", Kamerlingh Onnes was a person who deeply believed in the class system. When a low-ranking employee in his laboratory told him that his son wanted to pursue an academic education, Kamerlingh Onnes is known to have done his best to dissuade this person’s son from pursuing this ambition; he had firmly believed that this person’s son had to remain in his own social class. Luckily, this son did not heed to Kamerlingh Onnes’ advice and later became a very prominent judge in The Netherlands.

Two more relevant historical facts. Firstly, when Albert Einstein applied to Kamerlingh Onnes for an assistantship in his laboratory, the latter did not even care to respond to Einstein’s application; the self-addressed envelope that Einstein had sent to Kamerlingh Onnes, which was never posted, is on display in, if I am not mistaken, Boerhave Museum in Leiden. Einstein is said to have never forgiven Kamerlingh Onnes for this slight.

Secondly, another person who applied for an assistantship with Kamerlingh Onnes and obtained it, was Giles Holst (interestingly, the career trajectories of Holst and Einstein seem to have crossed at more than one location, with Einstein the failed applicant and Holst the successful one). Giles Holst was the person who was in charge of the low-temperature experiments that led to the discovery of superconductivity in Mercury in 1911, for which Kamerlingh Onnes was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1913. It is a historical fact that Kamerlingh Onnes published the paper on this discovery as the sole author, mentioning the name of Holst only in the acknowledgement section of the paper.

The original paper of Kamerlingh Onnes, published in Comm. Phys. Lab. Univ. Leiden (1911), is not publicly available, however the following related paper, published in Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, of 1911, is publicly available:

http://www.digitallibrary.nl/proceedings/search/detail.cfm?pubid=1233&view=image&startrow=1

There is clearly no mention of the name of Holst in this paper. Hendrik Casimir relates in his autobiography that Holts never forgave Kamerlingh Onnes for the way he behaved in this context.

In view of the above details, I maintain that no matter where one looks, there are always problems in sight when one decides to look at issues closely and critically.

I close this Comment by a relevant anecdote. Those who happen to remember the American television series Perry Mason, will recall that Perry Mason won all his court cases. When Raymond Burr, who played the role of Perry Mason in this series, was asked by a female journalist why he won all his court cases, Raymond Burr is said to have answered:

"But madam, you only see the cases I try on Saturdays."

For completeness, at the time the Perry Mason series was being broadcast in America on Saturday nights.

Yours sincerely,

BF.

۲۴ مهر ۸۷ ، ۱۹:۳۶

Dear BF: I agree with you. Dedication. That is the point. However, let us remind ourselves that Leiden school and its very distinguished tradition, or pre-world-war-II Gottingen school are very exceptional. They are exceptional not only because of the collection of their faculties, but because of their progressive societies. In any case, I admit that we need more force to overwhelm the existing inertia! I shall think for a way and implement this semester before long.

۲۴ مهر ۸۷ ، ۱۹:۲۵

Maryam

What are the chances of getting admitted when you apply at a university overseas with a degree from Iran? It all depends on your resume. And the list of your international publications is the beacon of your resume. From the point of view of someone overseas that is looking at your resume, all that she can verify is your international publications in conferences or even better, in journals.
Now, a Master’s student is asked to work on an open-ended research work that may someday result in a major paper. And when that major paper is published the student’s name may appears in the acknowledgment part of the paper. This is a bit far fetched.
On the other hand, if you are a professor and you want to reward the students and keep them in your lab, you got to get engaged in simulation oriented research work with short turnaround. These types of “research!” would certainly never result in iconic works.
What is the answer to this catch-22? Same thing as is done in most successful labs all around the world: Work on a major project with your PhD students and have your MS students work on minor aspects of the project. A conference paper can be resulted from 10 months of efficient research work that a master’s student does and journal papers are produced from the longer works of the PhD students.

۲۴ مهر ۸۷ ، ۱۹:۲۴

Dear Sia: I add one point: the other solution is to give that 2 scores to those papers that get acceptance. In this case, only 1 or two students will be qualified for 20, but all other M.Sc. theses grades will be saturated at 18! this is my prediction for the next two years, showing that such measures that neglect the expertise and authority of referees, are USELESS.

۲۴ مهر ۸۷ ، ۱۹:۱۶

Dear Sia: I do know why that 2 scores for published papers. During the years of 1378-1384 the thesis grades of almost all M.Sc. students ranged between 19 and 20. From statistical point of view, this means nothing! In other words, it was impossible to say who is better and who is not. The reason was that professors assigned very high grades to their students to attract them, and they were right! because most students usually go and work with easy graders. In 1385, the department decided to put a tough measure just to create a gap in the grades and make the scoring data meaningful. That measure was publication.

However, the main aim of policy makers was not to encourage students/faculties to publish quick and trash papers. The main aim was to give 20 only to very exceptional students who can manage to carry out their research on time, and publicize their findings. But unfortunately, this new method of grading led to enormous low-quality submissions. The reason was that the higher education office assigns that 2 scores only for submission. I personally do believe that:

1. Just give a Pass or Fail for a thesis . A good work will show itself in future and a bad work will never survive. But this is not the way that we can solve all of our problems. Just pass or fail will end us in a situation similar to internship (KaarAmoozi), which is a big question mark in our academia.

2. Still use grading system for M.Sc. theses but define a variance of at least 5 scores (out of 20). In this way, we must distribute the scores between 10 and 20, which makes sense. However, supervisors usually push the jury members for higher grades just because they want to take more and more students! To prevent the existing inflation in the grading system, we must return to the QUALITY issue. However, quality can be controlled by high-quality jury members. Our jury members are usually weak. Otherwise, they could bravely say THIS work is GOOD and THAT work is BAD regardless of student's feeling.

Our problems will continue until the faculty body becomes VERY VERY QUALIFIED.

۲۴ مهر ۸۷ ، ۱۸:۱۴

Dear Professor Jalali,

Inertia is natural and its consequences can be observed everywhere. What you describe is not a peculiarity of the groups that you happen to know or are in close contact with, but a universal phenomenon arising from inertia. To get a journal-club going, one needs a small core of dedicated individuals "fighting" for its existence and subsequent survival.

Although I am not an elitist in the negative sense of the world (at least I think I am not), experience tells me that e.g. journal-club seminars can survive only when there is an elitist air about them: people in one's research group should come to view participating in these seminars as a matter of prestige and honour. This may seem a sad commentary on the nature of human beings, but we have to be realistic and act in manners that befit the humans as they are and not the humans as idealised by our perceptions. This fact has to be taken into account when one intends to get something done and done well.

To counter inertia, one needs dedication (on the part of a small band of dedicated people, which can even consist of a single individual). We should take our cue from history. If one reads Hendrik Casimir's scientific biography,

H.B.G. Casimir, The Haphazard Reality: Half a century of Science (Harper & Row, New York, 1983),

then one will realise how Paul Ehrenfest created a band of world-class scientists in Leiden through a number of very simple measures. For instance, he had a series of seminars to which only "good" students were allowed to participate, thus making participation of students in these seminars a badge of honour for students [Note 1]. Hendrik Casimir was one of the students who was admitted to these seminars. Ehrenfest organised another series of seminars which continues to this date under the grand name of Colloquium Ehrenfestii:

http://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/ce/

Please just consider the list of the speakers to this Colloquium. During the time of Ehrenfest, this Colloquium was held in a homely environment where Ms Ehrenfest played the host and served the tea (interestingly, one encounters a similar setting at Landau Seminars held at Landau Institute in Moscow, where a boiling Samavar was an integral part of each seminar [Note 2]). This tradition is maintained in a somewhat different form: participants to this Colloquium dine together.

Pyotr Kapitza (also known as Peter Kapitza) organised a kind of journal-club seminars at Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, UK, which came to be known as Kapitza Club. The book pertaining to this Club, in which the speakers used to write a short abstract of their talks and the participants used to write their commentaries on the seminars (very much like the proceedings of some learned societies where questions and the corresponding answers are recorded), is presently held at FitzWilliam Museum, Cambridge, UK. Courtesy of a friend and colleague (now sadly deceased), I am in possession of copies of some pages of the Kapitza Club book where Werner Heisenberg describes his matrix theory of Quantum Mechanics and Paul Dirac describes his theory of Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (leading to the Dirac equation for electrons with spin). The feeling arising from the realisation of how monumental science was created by a group of highly gifted young people, labouring in often damp and dark offices, is just indescribable [Note 3].

If one reads the history of the invention (or discovery) of Wave Mechanics, leading to the Schrödinger equation, then one realises that Erwin Schrödinger's discovery was not a coincidence: on request of Peter Debye, Schrödinger undertook to deliver a series of seminars on classical mechanics and statistical mechanics. It was while he was pondering on Maxwell equations that he discovered what we now know as the Schrödinger equation --- not surprisingly (from the perspective of the Lorentz invariance of the Maxwell equations) Schrödinger first arrived at what has become known as the Klein-Gordon (or Klein-Fock-Gordon) equation. Walter J. Moore in his excellent biography of Erwin Schrödinger describes the intellectual journey that led Schrödinger to his discovery [Note 4]. The details of the book (which I warmly recommend to all --- one of the best biographies known to me of a scientist) are as follows:

Walter Moore, Schrödinger: Life and Thought, 528 p. (Cambridge University Press, 1989).

"Geniuses cannot be ordered on demand" (these are the exact words of a former Dean of MIT, USA), but one can create conditions under which the talents of our young people can develop to their utmost. And this most important issue must not be jeopardized by the inertia of our less dedicated colleagues. The examples that I recounted above are just the tip of an iceberg; the science has advanced only in those places where a band of dedicated people have offered their students the very best [Note 5].

To summarise, we should be aware of the omnipresence of inertia in all realms, including the intellectual one. Without the concerted and dedicated efforts on the part of a small group of like-minded individuals, nothing can be moved forward (recall Newton's celebrated law F = m*a, where m is the inertial mass); inactivity only breeds a community of cynical individuals who, if necessary, take their recourse to plagiarising other people's works.

Yours sincerely,

BF.

Notes:

[Note 1]. Personally, I do not subscribe to some methods employed by Ehrenfest; frankly, some of them, which were the consequences of his Prussian upbringing, are utterly outdated. For instance, I am even unable to contemplate barring a student from a seminar, for whatever reason.

[Note 2]. Incidentally, some people may not be aware of it, but Lev Landau being from Baku, his ancestors where Iranians. For details, please consult maps of Iran prior to the Golestan Treaty. Here is a map depicting the 1801 border of Iran with Russia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gulistan-Treaty.jpg

[Note 3]. Many people may not be aware that Paul Dirac wrote his renown papers at a time when University of Cambridge had no department of theoretical physics; he wrote these papers in an office in Department of Divinity, just opposite to his College, St. John's College, Cambridge. One may compare the condition with one of writing papers on, say, String Theory in an office in a seminary in Qom.

[Note 4]. For the dedicated: the Eikonal approximation in Quantum Mechanics has its root in the Eikonal equation that one encounters in the treatment of Maxwell's equations; the whole thing can be followed up to the quantisation of light and description of it in terms of a coherent state of photons.

[Note 5]. As I wrote in an earlier Comment, almost all people who contributed to the creation of Quantum Mechanics came from the school of Arnold Sommerfeld who above all was a dedicated teacher.

۲۴ مهر ۸۷ ، ۱۲:۵۸

با یوسف کاملا مولفقم. متاسفانه اوضاع ما در دانشگاه شریف بسیار بدتر است. چون ما اگر تا پایان ترم پنجم بدون مقاله بخواهیم دفاع کنیم2 نمره از ما کم می شود. و بعد زا آن یعنی اگر 6 ترمه بخواهیم دفاع کنیم. حالا چه اول ترم 6 و یا چه آخرش، چه با مقاله و چه بی مقالهنمره برای ما منظور نمی شود و فقط قبول یا رد درج می شود. جالب این است که یکی که با یک کار بی کیفیت تا آخر ترم چهار دفاع کند با هیچ مشکلی روبرو نمی شود ولی اگر شما بخواهید که کار با کیفیت انجام دهید و مثلا تا آخر ترم پنج دفاع کنید اگر مقاله نداشته باشید نمره تان از آن کار بی کیفیت هم کمتر می شود. متاسفانه با پی گیری هایی که کردیم متوجه شدیم اساتید محترم دانشگاه شریف که خود در این وبلاگ حضور دارند. این قوانین را بر پا کرده اند. حالا پیدا کنید پرتغال فروش را

۲۴ مهر ۸۷ ، ۱۱:۵۸

Dear Youness: nowhere on the globe M.Sc. students are supposed to write technical papers. They just learn how to carry out independent and group research. However, if a bright student shows up, s/he may finish her/his work well in advance and publish! Such a student is exceptional. But the reason for that some examiners in the entrance exams of PhD programs ask for published papers is that they are not distinguished scientists. Since they cannot judge the quality of the applicant's previous work, they just ask for published papers! Yes, this kind of jury members dominate our present academia. The situation must change but not through publishing low quality and quick papers.

۲۴ مهر ۸۷ ، ۱۱:۴۴

Dear BF: your idea in smaller scales would be holding coffee hours when the group members discuss the recent papers of interest to them. For example, in our astronomy coffee hours we used to discuss the astro-ph posts of past few days. But this idea worked only in a couple Iranian institutes. Once (a year ago), I wanted to bring up the idea of weekly colloquia and gave the first talk to pioneer the event. Some students attended my talk plus two faculty members from other institutes. Not a single member of our 40-faculty-member department bothered himself/herself to come! Anyhow, we should try it again for our engineering schools though I am personally happy with what we do in the school of astronomy.

۲۴ مهر ۸۷ ، ۰۴:۱۰

Youness

آقای دکتر جلالی تمامی حرف های شما صحیح است و شکی در آن نیست. ولی اگر از جانب دانشجو هم اگر به این مساله نگاه کنید قضیه شکل دیگری می یابد. یک دانشجو ارشد 4 ترم وقت دارد از پروژه خود دفاع کند و فارغ التحصیل شود در غیر این صورت مشمول سنوات و کسر نمره و غیره می شود. اگر این دانشجو خیلی زرنگ باشد در 2 ترم باید تمام وقت درس ها را پاس کند (معمولا اکثرا 3 ترم پاس کردن درس ها طول میکشد ولی ما فرض کنیم دانشجو خیلی فعال وزرنگ باشد
)
ترم سوم درگیر سمینار می باشد و اگر زرنگ باشد از اواسط ترم 3 باید روی پروژه کار کند و در نهایت 1 ترم و نیم وقت خواهد داشت تا زمان دفاع ومطمئنا باید حدود 2 یا 3 ماه قبل از دفاع هم مطالب خود را جمع کرده به استاد بدهد تا برای دفاع آماده شود. پس میبینیم که کلا یک دانشجو 1 ترم وقت دارد برای انجام پروژه.
حالا اگر این دانشجو خود را درگیر یک پروژه سخت و پیچیده نماید چه تضمینی وجود دارد که ایشان در یک ترم به جواب برسد؟ آیا در این صورت خود شمای استاد از این دانشجو حمایت می کنید و یا اینکه او را زیر فشار می گذارید که سریع تر پروژه را انجام دهد؟ قبلا دانشجویان ارشد حداقل سه سال زمان برای انجام پروژه داشتند ومن کسانی را می شناختم که کارهای خوبی انجام می دادند و حتی بی هیچ مشکلی چهار ساله فارغ التحصیل می شدند که در این صورت درگیر شدن در پروژه های پیچیده مشکلی نداشت.
حالا دانشجو به چه امیدی در یک پروژه پیچیده در گیر شود؟ شما هم که می گویید از این گونه پروژه ها مقاله به این زودی ها در نمی آید.بنده خودم درگیر پروژه سخت کردم ودر نهایت در ابتدای ترم شش دفاع کردم و بابت جبران تاخیر 5 ماهه ام اگر مقاله نداشتم 1.25 نمره از من کم میشد که داشتن مقاله این تاخیر را جبران کرد (اگر مقاله نداشتم هم کلی زمان صرف انجام پروژه کرده بودم و هم نمره از من کسر می شد). حالا شما دانشجویی را در نظر بگیرید که روی پروژه مورد نظر شما کار کرده و به دلیل سختی کار در ترم 5 یا 6 قرار است دفاع کند. مقاله هم که نداشته.در این صورت غیر از کسر نمره چه چیزی عاید او شده است؟ آیا ساز و کاری وجود دارد تا شما از این دانشجو حمایت کنید؟
ار امتحان آزمون دکتری داخل هم که خبر دارید. چند نفر از کاری که شما در زمان ارشد انجام دادید سوال می کند؟ همه اساتید ممتحن فقط از تعداد مقالات سوال می کنند. (واقعا امکان سنجش ارزش کار انجام شده در زمان ارشد در نیم ساعت مصاحبه دکتری وجود ندارد و در نتیجه به مقالات به عنوان یک معیار نگاه می کنند.
)
قبول کنید که مشکل در جای دیگری است. این وسط دانشجویان هم تقصیری ندارند.

۲۴ مهر ۸۷ ، ۰۰:۳۵

ista

ظاهرا مسئله سرقت علمی و ادبی محدود به مقالات علوم تجربی و مهندسی نیست.
در خبری که لینککش در زیر می اید آقای سید شهاب الدین طاهری مدعی است که داستان فیلم یوسف پیامبر که توسط آقای سلحشور ساخته شده است بر اساس فیلمنامه تحریف شده ایشان و بدون مجوز ساخته شده است: http://www.tabnak.ir/pages/?cid=21440

۲۴ مهر ۸۷ ، ۰۰:۲۱

I subscribe to your statements without reservation.

I take this opportunity and make the following constructive proposal:

All academic and industrial [Note 1] research institutes must accommodate "journal clubs". This amounts to holding regular (say, weekly, bi-weekly or even monthly) seminars on the publications by researchers outside one's own research group; in a journal-club seminar, no individual is permitted to present a work on which he or she is conducting active research at the time of the presentation. The aim of having regular journal-club seminars is remaining collectively up-to-date with the works by others, i.e. those with whom one is not in direct contact. These seminars further infuse new thoughts and ideas into the intellectual domain of the groups that hold them regularly.

I should emphasise that all members of research groups holding journal-club seminars must participate in the life of these seminars, notably the junior members of these groups. In contrast to normal seminars, where one expects that speakers be in full command of the subject matters of their seminars, in journal-club seminars speakers need not be all-knowing; in fact, the speakers in these seminars should be encouraged to be explicit about the issues that they have failed fully to comprehend; these issues are to be discussed by all those who are present at these seminars.

In order to maximise the intellectual benefits of journal-club seminars, speakers (or the organiser on their behalf) should publicise the publication(s) to be dealt with by them some days in advance of their seminars; this gives the participants (i.e. the other members of the research group) the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the relevant publications, so that they are able to participate in the ensuing discussions from informed positions.

The structure of journal-club seminars need not be rigid; at times, or even regularly, one can have sessions where for instance two separate speakers present seminars on relatively short publications.

A practical hint: the person in charge of organising journal-club seminars should enjoy a high degree of authority within the group, so that his/her requests from members of the group for presenting journal-club seminars are not ignored. Needless to say, organisers should set a good example for others by regularly presenting journal-club seminars themselves; otherwise, they are likely to be looked upon unkindly by the members of the group (experience shows that "bullies" are seldom liked, and to keep journal-club seminars going requires a certain amount of "bullying" on the part of the organiser --- generally, people are inclined to contrive all types of reasons for why they should be exempted from presenting a journal-club seminar).

BF.

Notes:

[Note 1]. The following excellent book recounts how researchers in one of the world's best research laboratories kept abreast of the latest scientific developments:

Jeremey Bernstein, Three degrees above zero: Bell Laboratories in the information age, xiii, 241 p. (Cambridge University Press, 1987).

استادان علیه تقلب

این بلاگ به همت تعدادی از استادان دانشگاه‌های کشور ایجاد شده و هدف آن مبارزه با تخلف یا تقلب علمی در دانشگاه است

مقدمه

استادان موسس (الفبا)

استادان یا پژوهشگران حامی

حمایت

فهرست برخی از مجلات کم اعتبار

پیوندهای مفید

خلاصه آمار

بایگانی مطالب

آخرین مطالب

پربیننده ترین مطالب

محبوب ترین مطالب

مطالب پربحث‌تر

آخرین نظرات

پروفسور ها و دانشجویان بادکنکی همدیگر را تقویت می کنند

نظرات (۲۱)

ارسال نظر

استادان علیه تقلب