近日, 在美国也在读PhD的友人偶尔看见了我在夹缝中帖得自勉的话,诧异地问:
你怎么又退回去写’Master’s thesis’ ?
我愣了一下，明白他的‘误解’了。
英联邦硕博三大阶段：
硕士学位：MA(Master of Arts), MS (Master of Science)
MSc
↓↓
- Master of Engineering (MEng)
- Master of Physics (MPhys)
- Master of Chemistry (MChem)
- Master of Biochemistry (MBiochem)
- Master of Mathematics (MMath)
- Master of Earth Sciences (MEarthSc)
etc.
Professional Degree: MBA
Taught-course based
MPHi( Master of Philosophy)
以研究性质为主的学位
OR
通常是Potential PhD学生在第一年答辩后的Upgrade ——PhD
PhD (Philosophy of Doctor)
DSc (Doctor of Science),
1. 英.美学科大致分为四大类:
社会科学 Social Science, such as Finance, Economics, etc.
人文科学 Humanities, such as History, Philosophy, etc.
自然科学 Nature Science, such as Math, Physics, etc.
应用科学 Technologies, such as engineering, etc.
在四个分类中, 又以理论 (pure, i.e. 数学原理) 和应用(applied, i.e. 人工智能) 作为两大学术取向与将来的就业取向贯穿。
2．英。美 硕博论文
英：硕士论文(UK)
----Dissertation
博士论文
-----------Thesis
美：硕士论文 (USA)
----------------------Thesis
博士论文
------------------Dissertation
字数（UK—SOCIAL SCIENCE）
硕士论文：18，000-25，000字（不含引文，References）
博士论文： 100，000字（10万）
研究方法(Social Science methodology，)
定性分析 ( Qualitative data)
+
定量分析 (Quantitative data)
***************
下面内容节选自我的论文,学科选择是其中一个重要变量, 放进两段
大家可看一看亞洲学生中心---边缘学科的选择分布
（偶肯定是那个没人要边缘里的：（，5555~~~~
Gail (1997) suggests that occupational aspirations and choice are determined in part by the choices of academic majors in universities. Asian may consider certain occupations and fields of specialization closed
to them, and are resigned to a restricted range of occupational choices (Dore 1976, Hirsch 1977, Collins 1979). In the past, according to one National Science Foundation report on minorities and women (1977), fields of specialization for Asian doctorates exceeded that of the total population in such fields as engineering, mathematics and physical science; Whereas, the proportion off Asian in fields such as social sciences and psychology fell far below that of the total population. In a recent report of Chronicle of Higher Education.
Table 1 Knowledge and disciplinary grouping (adapted from Becher 1994, in Becher& Trowler 2001: 36)
Pure sciences (e.g. physics): Cumulative; atomistic (crystalline/tree-like); ‘hard-pure’ concerned with universals, quantities, simplification; impersonal, value-free; clear criteria for knowledge verification and obsolescence; consensus over significant questions to address, now and in the future; results in discovery/explanation.
Humanities (e.g. history) Reiterative; holistic (organic/river-like); and pure social sciences concerned with particulars, qualities, (e.g. anthropology): complication; personal, value-laden; dispute over ‘soft-pure’ criteria for knowledge verification and obsolescence; lack of consensus over significant questions to address; results in understanding/ interpretation.
Technologies (e.g. Purposive; pragmatic (know-how via hard mechanical engineering, knowledge); concerned with mastery of physical clinical medicine): ‘hard environment; applies heuristic approaches; uses applied’ both qualitative and quantitative approaches; criteria for judgement are purposive, functional; results in products/techniques.
Applied social science Functional; utilitarian (know-how via soft (e.g. education, law, knowledge); concerned with enhancement of social administration); [semi-] professional practice; use case studies ‘soft-applied’ and case law to a large extent; results in protocols/ procedures.
|
Wilson (1999) states that the majority of first-year doctoral students in physics were foreign, and the majority of these foreign students were from Asia in the 1997-1998 academic year. Among the enrolled foreign students, 20 percent of those studying physics in the United States came from China alone. The
same trend is uncovered by Taylor & Betz (1983Taylor & Popma, 1990, in Gail H, 1997) that a general Chinese new immigrants from engineering, computer
sciences where quantitative, non linguistic skills are at a premium, and of avoiding other fields like humanities, social sciences,
and arts whose primary vehicle for professional activities is either linguistic communication or interpersonal contacts when re-entering Western tertiary classrooms and also their occupational
aspirations are influenced by their perceived deficient verbal skills, racial prejudice and social comparison. It might
be claimed that perceived domain efficacy for science is the predictor of students’ choice of such college majors.
