Mathematicians from around the world are protesting the University of Manitoba’s decision to award a Ph.D. to a student who twice failed a required examination because the student was diagnosed with so-called exam anxiety, reports the National Post. The protesters wrote a letter in support of Gabor Lukacs, a professor of mathematics at the university, who was suspended without pay for three months for his attempt to get a court injunction against the awarding of the degree. The letter, with 86 signatories from Canada, Europe, Israel, and the United States, warns the university president, David Barnard, that the contested doctorate, if awarded, will seriously affect the reputation of degrees granted by the university. Earlier this month, the university released statements concerning the controversy, in which Mr. Barnard defended the institution’s decision, saying the student in question is “fully deserving” of a Ph.D. A judge will hear Mr. Lukacs’s case on January 20.
The Global Ticker: The Chronicle's global-news blog, with updates from our correspondents around the world.
20 Responses to Mathematicians Protest Waiver of Doctoral Exam by U. of Manitoba
22228715 - November 30, 2010 at 7:15 am
“…will seriously affect the reputation of degrees granted by the university.” Too late! I’d say readership of the Chronicle is wide enough that the horse is out of the barn.
If the examination is not essential to the U. of Manitoba’s definition of “good enough,” then is should be removed as a requirement for all students, not for only one. Otherwise the primary logical conclusion is that the U. of Manitoba has a laissez-faire approach to its own standards.
jcksn - November 30, 2010 at 7:27 am
another “satisfied customer”, another blow to academic standards.
janeer1 - November 30, 2010 at 8:37 am
I wonder if he also has “teaching anxiety” or “research and writing anxiety.” What a great way to bypass standards to which others must be accountable. Sign up for his classes! There will be no exams!
If this exam was oral and he is not able to think and respond to challenge on his feet and under stress, he should not pass. That is a requirement for an expert of any kind in any professional field.
dr_redrum - November 30, 2010 at 9:00 am
I am so sorry Mr. Barnard, but I was diagnosed with big-bozo-anxiety and cannot work with you. Chow!
cwinton - November 30, 2010 at 9:19 am
The examination in question was 1 of a series of 3 written examinations. Apparently the student was given a retake and did even worse the second time than the first.
impossible_exchange - November 30, 2010 at 10:21 am
That’s called a FAIL!
df1995 - November 30, 2010 at 2:00 pm
At my university, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, a student who fail the English-language writing exam (which is on about the same level as a 9th grade essay) three times, have the requirement waived and are granted a degree regardless (or, irregardless as they say here). English language anxiety disorder.
chandrak - December 2, 2010 at 11:12 am
The University of Manitoba’s decision to award a Ph.D. to a student who twice failed a required examination because the student was diagnosed with so-called exam anxiety,is ludicrous. They have violated their own requirements. Now, students can come up with all kinds of so called “anxiety disorders” to get what they want. The degree is a joke!
michael_panrimo - January 3, 2012 at 5:17 pm
Thanks for including your own sources and related readings to provide context, avoiding an editorial paradox (urging the use of citation while disregarding it, or providing the illusion of new content when corroborative content exists as well).
It’s nice to read articles that are meta-conscious and suggest further inspection of the topic. Thanks!
Michael
Panrimo Customized Study and Intern Abroad Programs
Michael@panrimo.com
TMWyatt - January 3, 2012 at 5:41 pm
Can we ensure bite-size’dness while also ensuring the proper synthesis of science? Is it possible to have it all in one?
ksledge - January 3, 2012 at 6:17 pm
This is the same problem we have with journals like Science and Nature. They favor surprising, novel results (which might not be replicable) and the format is always short. Though at least the sample sizes are usually good.
Socratease2 - January 3, 2012 at 7:09 pm
Looks like Tom’s “bite-size” blog was about ready to replicate the problem he was describing. But at the 11th hour he realized he was sinking in his own irony and deftly pulled out two citations to show that at least he has only partial amnesia.
joycehewittbailey - January 3, 2012 at 7:24 pm
What an comic irony! That this latest paper – on the problems of “short” papers - is itself a short paper (see para. 2, line 1) ! But thanks, anyway, for the informative update. (from Helen Bayly, Troy NY).
Socratease2 - January 3, 2012 at 8:22 pm
Sorry, forgot an important point, why is anything published in high quality journal if it isn’t reliable or yet proved to be reliable? Reproducibility is one of the the key requirements for a study to be scientific so isn’t publishing a first time claim or set of results putting the cart before the horse in the world of science reporting?
MarjoryMunson - January 4, 2012 at 9:28 am
“Short” and “incomplete” or “unreliable” are not synonyms. Journals must accept responsibility for setting and maintaining high standards or lose their credibility.
renellin - January 4, 2012 at 11:19 am
There is a reason for ‘short’, and that is the target audience and attention span. Often, to include enough information to really do research justice, there are space constraints that prevent a full posting. Hence the importance of referencing. I can see a lot of benefit from being able to pick up a journal or publication of short articles in hopes of gleaning enough information to determine whether to follow it further. I often do follow it. If the article does not allow the reader to access the background or supporting information, it is useless. If I can access the information I require to adequately benefit from the posting of the article, great.
chriskox - January 4, 2012 at 2:07 pm
No.
Sanjay Srivastava - January 4, 2012 at 3:04 pm
We can have papers that are groundbreaking and papers that are definitive — and there is a place for both — but it is incompatible to try to have it all in one.
http://spsptalks.wordpress.com/2011/12/31/groundbreaking-or-definitive-journals-need-to-pick-one/
dobe2434 - January 9, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Temple University biologist, Tonia Hsieh, who studied with Professor Full at Berkeley, analyzes lizards’ movement in hopes of finding clues to better prevent falls among the elderly. She’s profiled in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer: http://www.philly.com/philly/health/20120109_Learning_from_lizards.html
Marco Bertamini - January 20, 2012 at 6:29 am
Nice seeing lots of comments on my short opinion piece on bite-size science. Thanks. Pity the paper is not available to everybody online. We clearly say that we are not the first to raise the issue (though of course we may have missed some citations). Also, about the irony of this being a short paper, the issue we discuss is very much about how to interpret small chunks of “data” and the risks of false positives. Papers that are about ideas or models do not include data so that is not really what we were talking about. One famous example that has been raised of an excellent “short” paper is Francis and Crick model of the DNA. That was indeed very short but it was about a specific proposal, not empirical data.