Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
----
I have a strange idea in my head. I would like to propose this idea to you, and
the background context in which it originated, in the hope that you might advise
me. You! Whoever you are :)
By the time I graduated high school, I would rate myself at what might
traditionally be called "Journeyman" skill level: a person who has enough
experience (perhaps through apprenticeship) to work usefully in the industry, as a
professional. At the time I graduated, I had a score of '5' on the Advanced
Placement Computer Science Test "AB"; for me, the concepts were already routine.
I achieved the highest level rating, Master, in the C++ programming language test
on Brainbench.com and rated expert in many others. I had outstanding job offers
from companies based solely on my scores and resume. I did not intend on taking
them, though.
Throughout high school and college, I worked on open source projects. Some of
these were very successful. One project I started is extremely well-known, has
been distributed on CDs, and has won awards from well-known software magazines.
The project even outlived me, and continues to this day despite my retirement.
What I mean to say is that I am *good*. I know that society hates for someone to
say this about herself, but, it is true. It is demonstrably true. Empirical
evidence surrounds me, in the form of successful projects, both business and open
source. I am good at what I do, and I have no humiltiy about it. I also do not
over-estimate my own skills. So I believe.
When I got into college, I already had a strong idea of software engineering and
how it should be taught. There are many things I learned during college; one of
them being the difference between Computational Theory (CT) and Software
Engineering (SE), both of which I consider in the field of Computer Science (CS).
It is superfluous to argue about the meaning of the terms, but, to clarify to my
readers, by CT I mean the study of mathematical and abstract computer concepts;
while by SE I mean the study of how to build good, practical software. These are
very different disciplines, with different focuses.
One thing that may not be evident to lay readers is the huge difference between
good and bad software. Like many other machines in our lives, we simply never
recognize when a computer is behaving properly. This is as it should be. A
computer is a tool to accomplish a job; the tool itself is not the focus.
Accordingly, most people do not want to think about them.
The tinkerers who are interested in the workings of computers are the ones we know
of as computer scientists, or engineers. There is a big difference between an
engineer and a scientist. Both of them want to discover new things! The engineer
wants to discover how to improve the process of construction, while the scientist
wants to discover new theories.
Although I am now going to enter the professional population, and spend the
majority of my time working as an engineer, I am always interested in personal
growth. Therefore I am planning to formally continue my studies in Computational
Theory and Software Engineering. I will learn more about the latter implicitly by
working; the former will be a subject of study.
One of the things I have learned during my time in University is that politics
dominates academia. Part of this politics is the huge growth of academia is an
"industry", with large amounts of money exchanging hands. These aspects of
academia do not interest me, and I would prefer to avoid them. Most institutions
also expect a student pursuing higher level learning to work full time, and take
on other roles. I think that some of these things are not essential, or even
important, for the learning process that produces a Master or Doctorate.
It now seems that a Master's degree is something one can now just pay for. I know
many people pursuing this type of higher-level education whom I have never thought
were terribly interested in the subject in the first place. I find that as time
goes on, all of the degrees are lessening in value: Bachelor's is simply expected,
Master's is something you can pay for, and Doctorate is something you can pay for
with a few more years. Although the tier 1 institutions are roughly protecting
the Master's and Doctorate degrees, I do not think that the vast majority are.
I am sure that this line alone shocks you, for many reasons -- and it should.
What temerity of a person, to award *herself* a degree? Madness!
However, I believe that if one very deeply thinks about the issue, I believe he
will come to the same conclusion that I did, which is that a self-award system may
actually be more critical and significant. I will anticipate your objections and
address them below.
There will always be crooks who claim to be experts in things they are not. These
people can already get degrees by purchasing them online. Hell, they falsely
claim credentials on their resumes anyway. Declaring that degrees must be awarded
by large institutions only does not actually protect anything. It is like a law
that prohibits stealing: the moral people would not steal either way; the thieves
will regardless.
Most people do not consider credentials to be proof of competency; you would not
find that a PhD in computer science is enough to get a job in the field. Other
things matter much more. What really matters? I think it is the character of the
person herself.
What of people who do not know me? A stranger cannot judge my character. If I
have a PhD from Stanford U. or Rice U., he may trust me implicitly based on trust
for those names. But nevertheless, this is not trust for me, myself. This is
trust for those institutions, which is extended, as a loan of sorts, to me. If
this fellow reads my thesis and finds it or the work I perform now to be lacking
of what he considers a Master's skill, then the degree means nothing anyway.
I believe what it comes down to is a claim: I have this amount of skill and
knowledge; I have contributed this to the field. The claim and the actual
contribution are independent of any particular institution. If I make a thesis,
it is revolutionary, or it isn't. It's correct or it's not. It doesn't become
more of anything because I pursued it at Harvard U. We as scientists are beholden
to the concept that evidence just is, independent of subjectivity. A diploma for
a Master's degree, then, is evidence that the student is a Master in his field.
There are many questions about whether my work would be truly a Master's
contribution, and how I should judge this for myself. Can a person judge his own
knowledge? I think there are three possibilities for this situation, a person who
claims to be a Master:
Some might argue that I am #1. The real challenge to the idea of this document is
that I cannot, for myself, distinguish whether I am #2 or #3. In fact, I believe
I can. As a student gains knowledge gradually, he must, at some point, be able to
decide what Mastery of the field is. He can then decide whether someone has
Mastery.
I know that many people may read this document and suppose that I mean to diminish
the process of education, and lessen it by declaring myself a Master
unjustifiably. Those who know me personally know that this is not the case.
Hopefully I am known as a careful and thoughtful individual with high standards.
If this is my character, then one should agree that I will hold myself to the
highest standards, that I will study and master all relevant material, and that I
would never publish a Master's thesis as such unless it justifiably met the
standard for my field.
I often find myself my harshest critic, and I suspect that I will learn more and
contribute more this way. I will delve fully into topics and master them, instead
of just "taking a class" and contributing the minimal amount.
The process of developing my thesis would proceed much like normal. I will
consult those who know more than I do, and my peers within the Computer Science
community. From them I expect to receive feedback equivalent to the mentorship of
an advisor.
I predict that if I embark on this process and invite professors from the
community, that I will receive very harsh and thorough questions during my
defense. Contrary to a traditional thesis defense, the examiners will not be a
cohort of my colleagues who have worked with me and wish me well, to receive my
diploma. Instead, the examiners will be the most critical individuals, who may
oppose the nominal award of my diploma. If I survive the thesis defense to their
satisfaction, and my work is remarkable within the field, then I would believe
myself to have met the burden. I would request all Doctors present sign my
diploma in recognition.
Historically, many scientists have made many valuable contributions from their own
homes, often without scientific training. I firmly believe that this idea will
advance the progress of science, as individuals are permitted to progress to
Mastery without spending money and indulging in academic politics. I believe that
this process would also produce more failures, because people could not embark on
it falsely and "just finish a degree".
There will no doubt be much discussion of this, with responses suggesting that any
random person may now call himself a Doctor. This is already the case! Consider
carefully that it is always the burden of one person to judge the credentials and
honor of another. This process will not change that fact, for better or worse. I
would not expect the development of my thesis to take any less time than others'.
In fact, since I will be working only part time, it may take much more.
I will propose my thesis to the world, and ask others to judge my Mastery of the
field, independent of any institution. If my research is strong, and my ideas
developed, and my defense strong, then it will be appropriate for me to consider
myself awarded.