近日, 在美國也在讀PhD的友人偶爾看見了我在夾縫中帖得自勉的話,詫異地問:
你怎麽又退回去寫’Master’s thesis’ ?
我愣了一下，明白他的‘誤解’了。
英聯邦碩博三大階段：
碩士學位：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)
以研究性質為主的學位
OR
通常是Potential PhD學生在第一年答辯後的Upgrade ——PhD
PhD (Philosophy of Doctor)
DSc (Doctor of Science),
1. 英.美學科大致分為四大類:
社會科學 Social Science, such as Finance, Economics, etc.
人文科學 Humanities, such as History, Philosophy, etc.
自然科學 Nature Science, such as Math, Physics, etc.
應用科學 Technologies, such as engineering, etc.
在四個分類中, 又以理論 (pure, i.e. 數學原理) 和應用(applied, i.e. 人工智能) 作為兩大學術取向與將來的就業取向貫穿。
2．英。美 碩博論文
英：碩士論文(UK)
----Dissertation
博士論文
-----------Thesis
美：碩士論文 (USA)
----------------------Thesis
博士論文
------------------Dissertation
字數（UK—SOCIAL SCIENCE）
碩士論文：18，000-25，000字（不含引文，References）
博士論文： 100，000字（10萬）
研究方法(Social Science methodology，)
定性分析 ( Qualitative data)
+
定量分析 (Quantitative data)
***************
下麵內容節選自我的論文,學科選擇是其中一個重要變量, 放進兩段
大家可看一看亞洲學生中心---邊緣學科的選擇分布
（偶肯定是那個沒人要邊緣裏的：（，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.
