This page discusses the UnPhD-person, the social context of his existence, and our encounter. I tell some anecdotes, and the "adaptations" of the people around him. The UnPhD-text, published in 1982, already reflects the person, as a ready witness, and I correlate that with his later work and behaviors.
Some may be successful, others may benefit from the results. Yet, there is also a third category, the "me too!" people. You may call them simply jealous, but it is more. They can be very willing to grab a copy of, if not the full control of what the productive, successful people earn. The page the oddities of the "me too!" people discusses such people.
A common example may be someone without much interest in research, but willing to hold a Ph.D. degree. You can read the results, for one eager case, starting with the page an Un-credible Ph.D. which discusses the finding of the plagiarism, and the lack-of-achievement in his Ph.D. dissertation. This page tells the rest of the story.
May the Ph.D. granting juries read this, to stop recidivism, in the misplaced-"benevolence" of granting degrees, which is only a cruelty to many others, who will share the same society with those false-degree-recipients, in the following decades.
Please do keep close to the objective points being expressed. This page is full of facts. And those should suffice to support the conclusions.
I also tell some later-life observations about him, along with the pointers to the UnPhD-text, for an easier noticing of the similarities. These may be thought as extras, but they are of practical relevance if you may also (have) observe(d) that person. And such later-life occurrences have been the source-of-harm for many, even if not much for myself - because I was already a critical adversary.
I had an A.S. degree in computer programming, and a B.A. degree in psycholgy. (And had not heard of something like the GRE subject tests.) As a well-read, and mostly self-made person, I would like to register my achievements with an M.S. degree, and I attended a computer-engineering department for graduate work.
I was a superior, probably the highest possible level, C programmer. e.g: What you may do with the languages with more facilities, I can probably make C do it, with grace. (Currently, I have started doing a bit of that with FIX, my inter-platform boot-strapping tool.)
I was also thinking of myself as a very well grounded operating-systems thinker, and as a "distributed"er - thinking of the world, in such terms, among others. I especially liked thinking/reading of concurrency and recovery, mostly with programming-language-primitives, and also had a taste for temporal logic.
I was not interested with Petri nets. I had only heard the name, but had not read anything. My collecting and reading of the Petri net literature was only later, for the express purpose of criticizing his Ph.D. dissertation/paper (after I had raised extensive criticisms against a C book he had written, with two assistants of his).
This brief chronology is a bit compressed. You may skip it, if the words, in the first reading, does not tell enough. Who understands a book by reading the table-of-contents, any way? When reading yourself, you have such choice. In a live presentation, this could be the review-pointers, at the end. If interested, you may read further about my presence in that department at the end of this page.
October 1993: First encounters. After bizarre pre-requisite assignments, I was touring lecturers about either for a testing-only, or permitted-absence from classes. Testing was not available, at all; the lectures stuck. The UnLecturer did not waive class-presence, either. (But he commented otherwise, later in the class, when students commented during a roll-call.) I very well knew the topics. I started my critical stance. First, against his vague presentations, then against his published material, as I came by.
February 1994: Second lecture. Again, of necessity, because this was the requisite course for one of the sequences I had to make. (Two sequences were necessary. Four were available. But I had made the other two, databases, and artificial intelligence, when I was an undergraduate at psychology.)
March/April 1994: My studies about him arrived at his Ph.D. work (the UnPaper, published in november 1983). I collected the Petri nets related material, and also corresponded with UMI (University Microfilms International); the dissertation arrived in december.
October 1994: At the start of semester, I learned that my first-semester grades for three lectures were not submitted, and I was assumed as if failed. My petition was not replied, and I lost a full term, until I went from another line, and discussed it with a vice president from the social branches (who also has his undergraduate degree from that university).
The Pattern: Some other person(s) do(es) something. And there may also be some publicized (additional) problems. The UnPhD-person, as a "me too!" person, claims he could do/solve it, and asks for the reward(s), but the "solutions" do not materialize - either because of basic incapability, laziness, whatever, or in other cases, because of the exaggerated requirements (like calling everyone in a field under a centralized dominance) being unacceptable.
The UnPhD-text as a witness: Peterson (1977) tutorial expresses some questions, and some other researchers tell their research questions, before going on to provide their solutions. The UnPhD-person grabs them (the questions, and also the answers-in-disguise), and claims he has the solutions to such-and-such. And the result is a mess - as you may expect of such a cut-and-paste monster.
The Ph.D. degree, as a result, is granted for a wish-list only (thereby, generating an award for an irrelevant person). You may read the fault-proneness (thereby, the uselessness), of the "method" and the concocted graph, and there are pointers to its plagiarism from other papers, too. It is only a merger of a few graph elements from here and there, but then being stuck at the glue.
In summary, he has picked research questions forwarded by others, claiming "He can do it, and he will do it for getting the Ph.D. degree", then he has NOT delivered it, and still has been granted the degree for the mess of degenerate, unreflecting cut-and-paste.
The Later Observations: The rest of his career, as a "me too!" person, turns out to be going on like his degree-receiving case: A succession of positions-holding, without the expected production from such a responsibility; Yet, going on to ask even for more.
I have read his trade magazine attacks, with his comrades, against some private (sector) initiatives, and calling for centralization, and "university guidance" - where it means himself and other such under-achievers, of course. Yet, it later turns out, in probably each and every case, that when the state-imposed rigidities are relaxed a bit, it is the private-initiatives, in a race for success (and profit), that brings the solutions.
In other words, the "solution" he suggests appears to be simple, if you buy it: Just assign him and his friends to the top of some centralized entity, that collects all the state and/or private initiative under its command, and they "could" save the world. But do not expect any other workable solution-suggestions.
The Pattern: He does something (or, decides and declares that he will do). That action comes with no expressed justification. He only does it (or, tells "what it is"), but the "why" is missing. Indeed, so often, the "why not" case is so strong that, he was exactly supposed not to do it that way. This pattern points to a basic lack of reflection. Usually, that may be a false-context parrotting of something, that some successful person had presented before.
The UnPhD-text as a witness: The claimed introduction of abstract-data-types into the representation is an example. He summarizes it from a tutorial paper by MIT's Guttag (1980) in a page or two, then does nothing except displaying them in a few figures. The reader of the UnPhD, does not even read a single line of such specifications as Guttag presents, let alone how they would be enmeshed with Petri nets - as it had already been a very widely expressed prblem that working multiple dissimilar abstract-representations together is not a trivial matter. It needs care. In other words, in this case, even the "what" is missing, and sends this case also to the previous subsection.
How about "why"? Given that he presents no such full-integration ideas, and the whole interaction will again be isolated within some predicates, like the previous literature had already published (Noe and Nutt (1973), Valette and Diaz (1978)), why does he mention a specific abstraction style, at all? It is only an irrelevant restricton. Even the UnPhD itself has no examples. Why should anybody else care to? Why not use any abstraction they may like, or use specialized, hand-crafted predicates? This case is also relevant to the plagiarism, indeed. Discarding such claimed-but-undelivered material leaves the UnPhD showing its unoriginality more clearly.
Another example is the "xor-input transfer" macro. It is one of the not-faulty "i/o transfer" macros, although each are trivial. Almost all of them, are like the SARA (UCLA graphs) input/output logic, and also represented the same way. The UnPhD states the behavior of the "xor-input" in several formats (text, table, figure), but does not discuss "why" it is that way.
The "xor-input" is a macro that when both of its two inputs have a token, the macro becomes deadlocked. That is, until some other process (or circuit-logic in the Petri net graph) comes and removes all the accumulated tokens, except leaving in one of the places, the macro can not function anymore. The implementation of this behavior is with using two mutually-inhibiting arcs.
As a matter of fact, that need be called "deadlock macro" because the behavior when both inputs are enabled is that. A deadlock, in programming, is not a single XOR. It is multiple mutual XORs over (different) resources. Here, by using inhibitor arcs within the macro, each of which excludes the other, the internal-transitions are those resources. As a result, he has redefined the semantics for XOR-logic. Why?
And as another matter of fact, Petri nets, even without any inhibitor-arcs, and without any explicitly declaring of some such deadlock-macros, can already identify deadlocks, in most cases. Usage of inhibitor arcs, in some cases, may be beneficial, but it is such a trivial operation that defining one of the core macros with this, is unjustified.
The programming-style that this would necessitate is already very unnatural. The programmer must identify all the potential-deadlock cases/combinations in advance, and must explicitly represent (organize the program (and/or the graph) such that) each of such combinations with a path that has the deadlock macro on it. If the activity reaches there, enabling both inputs, the deadlock macro will declare a hit. This means a lot of rewriting of the algorithms. The UnPhD does not discuss any of these. It only describes the macro, and walks away. We are left with the question: Why modify the XOR semantics to make it a deadlock-macro? Why making it such a central macro? What uses for it, with any real relevance? (You may use an empty soft-drink bottle also as a hammer, but should we credit the company for such uses? Does not getting a Ph.D. degree necessitate discussing the "why"s of what is being suggested? )
The Later Observations: In class, he likes to replace the textbook material, with details from elsewhere. Such details you may find many many of such, in any computer trade-magazine, and is no replacement for learning the concepts. If anything, attending to such details, may only confuse the unlearned-mind. Yet, it also has significance to the already well-learned. Such trap factoids, if you choose not to attend classes, and when they are asked in an exam, may cost points. And there may be practically infinite varieties of such factoids, in the operating systems field. If you think there is not enough, you may write your own operating-system, and it would contain many (probably, thousands) of such factoids of choices. It is no real demonstartion of "operating systems knowledge" to dump such details in the classroom, and may hint a confusion in sorting out what is an essential concept to be thoroughly studied, and what is an arbitrary detail.
An example is the BSD Unix versus AT&T Unix. The textbook he had chosen for the course featured the BSD and expressed in text (Silberscatz, et.al.) that many Unix users, after only getting the license from AT&T, preferred to use the BSD version. If you have some special preference, belonging to one of the so-called "warring camps" (AT&T versus BSD), you may go on to present your camp's case with comparative discussion, and that could still be of some value.
What he did instead was to refer to the AT&T Unix, as "the Unix" which could only be met with the question "In What Sense?" Let's start with the fact that "the AT&T Unix" has several vesions. (See Tanenbaum's discussion.) Which version is "the Unix" - when you are talking of details. The camps in the BSD case was well-known. In fact, the POSIX standardization effort was aiming to be called "the Unix," in its essentials. And even further, with respect to the scheduling, I remember a book I was reading then, which was telling about the varieties of Unix with respect to distributed and real-time systems. That book was also telling of some commercial Unixes available in the market, how they had modified their scheduling, etc., to meet some market demands. In summary, there was/is no such thing as "the Unix" version to prefer as being the "all-details-exclusively-important" one. It was just one of his arbitrary decisions, that came without any passable justifications.
The Pattern: You observe what he claims to be a "design," either in published work, or some presentation but some parts are very much unfounded (redundant, and/or false). The reason appears only later, when you discover the actual source of the material. In other words, he has taken it from somewhere, and only made-up maybe the first reason that came to his mind. As a well-thought reader or observer in the audience, you could only be surprised.
The UnPhD-text as a witness: The implementation of the "++-input transfer" macro is an example. It has a totally-redundant mutual-exclusion place. That made no sense, at all, when using Petri net transitions, which the UnPhD itself had already accepted as instantaneous. (The same macro is also published in the UnPaper, published the next year's november.)
The figure 4 in the paper by Valette and Diaz (1978), one of the papers the UnPhD has plagiarized from, had a similar figure. But there, any and every transition that is followed and preceded by a single place at each side, is potentially a macro transition. Hence, their putting a mutual-exclusion circuit to break overlap, very well makes sense.
In the UnPhD, that figure is exactly where it is attempting to represent the input-logic with Petri nets. Therefore, it can certainly not be a macro. No confusion. Indeed, the macro-using examples, even one that mentions a "semaphore-variable" as a "data-item" are not really that "careful" about representing mutual-exclusion in the Petri net graph. The only explanation appears to be the copycat behavior, and making arbitrary explanations on-the-fly.
The Later Observations: I had a similar observation in the "graduate level operating systems course" - where he essentially waived a full month, by making trivial reviews of undergraduate material, and tracing the rather-easy algorithms in the book(s), etc. What he claimed to be a "design" feature was just a source of "astonishment."
He was there, on the board. He was asking questions, then maybe because of little or no answers, placing the operating-systems components into their places, in the architecture. If you listened to the words, you would guess these geniuses are designing an operating-system, for themselves, and this was the architectural discussion. He was telling the reason for the "design choices" . I had quite a few objections, to his a bit of "of course"ish words.
Indeed, the varieties of architectural-design choices, starts with the outer structure being monolithic versus micro-kernel, and at each step, there could be a variety of choices. Even the variety of existing architectures could hint that. But the "wonder" I noticed was that, at the end of that "free-form design session", the architecture on the board was nothing other than the MINIX architecture, as in Tanenbaum's book, among the class material. This could tell you why those arbitrary choices were all in a specific direction. If some other combination had been taken, some other architecture could result. He had only made-up reasons to justify the figure.
The Pattern: Dumps details. Trivial, and unessential, and probably also meaningless to someone who does not understand the concepts, already. And then, when some least of sophistication is expected, the content is missing, and/or faulty. In other words, here we have a memo-gear who can dump some ultimate-triviality in a variety of representations, but cannot (or does not care to) reflect - even for very central issues. It appears, he also expects the same from others. Is that a vision for a society of memorize-only engineers/people? And this comes in the context of a repeated abuse of the word "design."
The UnPhD-text as a witness: The amount and the nature of errors in the UnPhD is a general demonstration of it, other than the filling of pages with a parade of software ideas, and terms of the 1970s, and 1960s. There are claims, and some presentation (which is not original, as already stated), but there is not any attempt to give proofs when some claim obviously calls for some justification. Indeed, I have shown counter-examples that demonstrate the falsity of the claim(s), in such cases, and even such examples are among the examples/figures in the UnPhD. In other words, if only the UnPhD figures had been used to test/reflect on the applicability of the suggested "method" of a batch-verification loop of cut-away graph parts, then the non-applicability would have been observed.
By contrast, for example, when Valette and Diaz (1978) had presented the same multi-step verifiability idea (before UnPhD), they also provide their proof for the resulting correct operation. (Their proofs may not be applicable to the UnPhD, because among other merge-clashes, the macros implementing i/o logic (like SARA's) with Petri nets uses inhibitor arcs, which V&D-78 does not use.)
The UnPhD reads like a dump of computer science terms, and software enginering ideas from 1970s, and 1960s, and a few pages from the ISO OSI literature, in the fashion of early 1980s. If the "learnedness" should imply, being able to apply, and not only memory-dumps, then look elsewhere.
The very chapter on "'design' of distributed software systems," chapter four, in the UnPhD is a case for the point. Incidentally, it happens to be the only part in the UnPhD where some formal treatment is attempted - except the usual definitions. Still, no proofs. But it attracts attention. Upon examination, though, it also turns out to be essentially of no worth. Only some very trivial part of it is in formal statements and figures. And even that bit is not correct.
The whole substance in that chapter can be stated in a few statements. It does not provide further. In my words: When you want to represent a distributed software system, either somebody gives you the design about the complete placement and interaction of the nodes, or you place them yourself. If placing yourself, because it is hard to do it in one step, you may do it by repeatedly applying four primitive ideas: Partitioning (dividing) the graph into two parts that may execute concurrently and share some data/messages, or into non-interacting parts, or into sequential parts, or joining two concurrently-executing parts with i/o logic like in SARA (UCLA graphs).
The UnPhD tells only that much (in 26 pages). And even in the telling of such a set of trivial ideas, it has ignored, for example, the possibility that the parts may need to share some global data, i.e., data that was external to the undivided/unified part. In the local data, as in Pascal's multiple levels, and local-to-level shared data, it shows some locally-shared-among-parts data. But the external data (items and also types) are shown with completely-divided rectangles. Incidentally, in the whole UnPhD, other than in this rectangle-dividing case, you cannot find even those "data-type" boxes (except, irrelevantly, in a figure, right after the figures showing how the data-type boxes should be drawn). No examples, and no treatment, otherwise.
Among the missing discussions is any proofs or formulas of when a partitioning would be a good one, and when it is bad. (It only tells that the issue is "not much understood.") Furthermore, most usually, a blind application of repeated-divisions in single steps, may only lead to the infamous local-optima, as you may know from calculus, but also applicable in optimization problems elsewhere. The resulting verification complexity may even increase, instead of decreasing, because of increased interface-complexity among the parts. (cf.Traveling Salesman Problem, simulated annealing, etc.)
The Later Observations: He keeps abusing the words "design" in the exams and elsewhere, and I have also heard him use the term "intellectual challenge." Just do not ask me how it applies there; I think it does not. It is only memorization. In a question that asked to "design" for mutual exclusion, with a "hint" referring to Tops-20 operating system, for example, you have to dump what that operating system did. If you meet the "design" question by neglecting the "hint," you get no points. Nevermind if, indeed, it is the "hint"ed solution that is not general. For example, if the MINIX had to rely on that Tops-20 strategy for its design, it would not be possible to implement it on a 8086, because it has no illegal-instruction trap (as we know from experience, and as also some hardware-person told it as an example). MINIX, incidentally, was the target of another one of his "design"-word abuses, as discussed.
By comparison, in a history lesson, you could be asked the question: "Assume you are a victorious commander. Design some statement in Latin to express your situation. Hint: Julius Caesar" And then, no other answer, but only "Veni, vidi, vici" gets the points. Is that a design question? And although history, or science may have some more need for memory, to keep in mind, the basic facts that cannot be changed, the thought-invoking questions would involve comparing and contrasting, and not mainly a rote memorization. For the case of engineering, the idea of relying (mainly or completely) on memorizing (of program listings, etc.), sounds absurd. All and only, a thorough understanding of a few general concepts should enable/suffice to build many varieties.
He appears to have a tradition of postponing the telling of exam scores, both midterms, and the finals, to the very end, maybe until after the grades are sent to the registrar. And in my case, the readings were also faulty. What others had memorized from some listing in the textbook (a producer-consumer solution with counting semaphores), I implemented with binary semaphores (the question only said "semaphore," and a solution with a binary semaphore is directly usable with counting semaphores, by making the TRUE/GoAhead an integer one, but not the vice versa). On the exam paper was written "Cannot read that" and I got no points! A student suggested, that must be the assistant who scored it, but even if so, who taught, and who chose that assistant for that task? (There are also other points-of-objection with those scorings.)
My only "fault" could have been my not memorizing the code from the listing in the textbook. If I had done it that way, it would surely be recognized by the assitant, or himself.
The Pattern: The lecturer cannot teach. Either willingly, or because he/she can do no better. Still, he/she acts in such an such gestures (mostly, self-importance), and/or speaks in such and such words that, the (ignorant) students believe, the lecturer knows the topic very well. For example, he/she may be dropping a lot of garden-variety details that any trade-magazine publishes loads of, but may not be teaching the concepts (how to make sense of the field), and as a result, being only confusing.
An Example From the National Media: In 1996, I met such an example, published in a universities-guide of a (or,the) best-selling news magazine, in that third-world nation. A student who was commenting. Her university being the exact same university as the "me-too!" person in our case study, the UnLecturer, had attended as an undergraduate and for M.S. degree. She was saying that "Our lecturers are academically high-level. But they cannot descend to our level." If we evaluate that comment, as a matter of fact, only the peer-review (SCI-cited) journals publish the research accomplishments, and the patent offices register the inventions. The resulting reference and/or use of such published material would tell the success. The student is only telling their lack-of-achievement as lecturers, thereby, and nothing else. That university, then, appears to be a source of such such incapable-but-dominant "me too!" people. Is it only recursive?
An Example from A "Student" of His It was at the times of my trying to motivate/organize the department students, against the UnLecturer and such. I was critical both in the graduate class, and also elsewhere, with the undergraduates. When I mentioned the name of the UnLecturer to an undergrad senior, the face of the student was like a sign of respect, and he said, paraphrasing, "Oh, he is knowledgeable." But right next, when I started telling some examples, he just made a u-turn and said that he indeed had not understood that lecture that much. The question is then: How can a student, who has not understood the lecture, talk in favor of his own "teacher" as being knowledgeable?! That is bizarre, and it is a recurring question in the presence of such incapable-but-dominant figures.
The case-study, upto here, already has demonstrated quite a bit about the hazards and the cruelty of assigning a (Ph.D.) title to some author/work who/which does not deserve it.
In the following subsections, I discuss how the jury may have been misled, with examples. Before that, I repeat three brief subsections from the main page on the un-credible Ph.D., to provide the glue, in this context. You may re-reflect on them, at this point, even if you have already read them, on that page.
He can not be isolated. For example, was it only magic that the jury granting the Ph.D. title, had not noticed, what I detail at this site? How many other such false-licenses exist out there?
No names are given on this page. The names of the Ph.D. recipient, the full title of the dissertation, and the university that granted the title are not pronounced. But if you are an academician (a Ph.D. granting jury member) who wants to take lessons, or someone, maybe a board member, who may be active in revoking such a Ph.D., I may tell you the names through e-mail.
The granting university is a well-known university in the U.S.A., even if little heard of in the field of computer science.
The material in this case study was collected in 1994-1995, after about a dozen years of the grant. The university of employment was/is in a third world country, at one of the universities that has one of the largest share of the successful university-entrance scorers.
But all that I could locate as the un-credible-Ph.D.-person's tangible work, was only for the demonstration of the lack of productivity, yet, there were his never-ending claims for further position holding, and authority establishing. This result was very expectable: The Ph.D. work is a precursor of what was to come. He holds positions, he wants further, submits trade-magazine attacks (to justify further claims of central-position holding), but does not produce any substantial work to justify the positions he has been already holding. I may discuss this part of the case study, later. Here, we will discuss what needs no further witness: The un-credible Ph.D. text.
The Pattern: When you read multiple articles or books in a given topic, basically three options are possible. The first two are the ones expected from a solid thinker, and a Ph.D. recipient should also be such a person (at least, in his/her field). These involve successful use of comparing and contrasting. You may, as a result, either be able to integrate the articles in your mind, or you may find them irrelevant to each other. The third option is one of confusion. The consumed materials may step on each other's feet, and lead to some degree of destructive interference. The UnPhD-person, as a reader himself as evidenced from his resulting telling/"producing," is, so often, a case for confusion.
Dancing with (or Against) the Octopussy, Watching Its Moves. A jury member, or anyone in the audience, has to watch the presentation in some critical way. One of the main problems is that of adopting a single versus multiple perspectives, to grasp and/or refute the material as self-contradicting and/or as plagiarizing.
Ordinarily, even adopting a single perspective may be fine. You may start with the first points the prresentation begins with, and attempt to integrate the later material, in your mind, with the already told. Then, if some contradiction appears, you may refute/ask. Alternatively, in such cases of contradiction, you may retrace the content to see whether you interpreted the initial content from a wrong perspective, if there are hints for such.
In my case, when I observe clashing assumptions, I keep them separate. This helps tracking the moves of the cut-and-paste monster, as it holds many chunks and patches, with its many hands, at once.
Some others, demanding full-coherence in the presentation, take the later-presented of the contradicting-material, as false. This is also a fine stance. But then, something magical may happen, and that person who refuted it, and even argumented with the UnPhD, on "second thoughts," starts to think that oneself had adopted the wrong perspective, and what the UnPhD was telling was actually another approach. NO, it is not! Re-tracing it would show that, in that case, the first part of the presentation would have to be judged as faulty.
In other words, that magical reversal, is a process of first overconcentrating into a single perspective, but then on an induced self-denial (or, "remorse"), altogether leaves of being critical. The factors that may induce such, may include the title he holds, the assuredness (self-importance) of his manners, and some other external factors.
The UnPhD-text as a witness: The UnPhD claims to be employing a single-graph for representing both the data- and control-flow aspects. This is understandable. In a visual formalism, that may (and does) clutter the figures, but, at least, we understand what it means, because the concept is familiar from Programming languages like Pascal.
A first objection may be to the redundancy of duplicating, in those extra rectangles, the names of the data-items, and data-types, when they are already shown in the program-fragments in the control-graph, and in a more precise way (as they are directly Pascal-language statements, whereas the arrows to/from data boxes only tell whether it is an read/input or write/output operation).
A first reply to that objection could be that, those data boxes also show the sharing of data among several macros. But that is only superficially true. That "single graph" at the overview level, gets torn into many chunks. And all we find, in the examples of UnPhD itself, that the internal macros have only those redundant boxes, next to them, and no hint of what other component shares them. The share-mates, in fact, will most usually be in some deeper levels of that overview level, in a many-levels graph. As a result, at a point of use, there is no such thing, as ether a "single graph," or "showing the data-sharing." It falls back to textual commentary, of necessity.
And it is worse. In that "single graph," two different graphs, the event-sequencing (Petri net, control) graph, and the data-flow graph have been merged, at points where they may be one-to-one (but not always is). The data-flow graph, in the source V&D-78 paper, and in the software-engineering field, is a more specialized diagram of abstracting operations on data. Several varieties of operators, interacting with several data-items, and the operator and event correspondences may be many-to-many. Both full-meaning is preservable, and it is also more economical, when the operator-event correspondence is not one to one. A value-increment can be some other semantics than value-decrement, if the designer chooses so, and not just two varieties of read-write). For example, in the control-graph, at several tarnsitions (events), you may be both marked as a visiting that day, decrementing from your monthly-visit rights, and also get charged some price for it. At other transitions, you may get assigned some bonus ticket(s), but also charged the visiting-price. (I guess, even better examples may be given. Let this suffice at the current stage of this document.)
If tracing with an expectancy of a single-graph, with data-sharing being visible, then the torn-apartness in the lower (internal) levels should be enough for disillusionment. But then, the Pascal-likeness takes the stage.
If tracing with an expectancy of Pascal-likeness, with that modularity, and the referring to data-items with textual-names, both the cluttering, redundant data-rectangles, and the all-around-traveling arrows to/from data-items should be points of objection. Why need them? Why not (all-and-only) list, along each data-item, which macros refer to it - when everything is so textual, and the relationships are not visible at lower levels, altogether? But, then it would be exactly like Peterson (1977). Then, the UnPhD could only have the "claim of contribution" of putting the program-fragment that corresponds to a node, into the node, in the figure. Even a kindergarten kid may move those fragments to the associated node, with essentially zero understanding of Petri nets. They already do the much more difficult, when painting a second picture, matching the crayon colors, looking at the first. That also results a further cluttering of the graph, of course. Do not assume Peterson and others did not do it for nothing - very especially when it was presentations on paper.
The different meanings of the "or", "xor", operators then you expect, as a Pascal user, and in fact, the whole difference of the input/output macros' program-execution transfer than Pascal, also are at odds against a Pascal-likeness explanation, and can confuse a Pascal user. That looks like SARA (UCLA graphs) and/or also like E-nets. But then, noticing it, and the lack of referencing-in-context is part of another problem (plagiarism).
A multi-perspective look, instead, may checkmark each similarity with other systems. When two much alike with some, and not referring to it as the source, the question is that of plagiarism. When it looks like two or more, with imported chunks, and it does not provide the glue for the integration, the chunks left stepping on each other's toes, then that may still point to the plagiarism. If the previously-published content is duefully referenced, and the new material, whether in the form of substantial integration, or as new concepts/constructs, we evaluate the coherence, and the resulting usability.
The UnPhD, then, gets refuted in every dimension. It plagiarizes (not referencing where reference is due). And it is like a house-of-cards, because what has been brought together (trivially, at those points they are one-to-one), falls into pieces, in the right next move.
These involve a merger of the Noe and Nutt's (1973) and also Valette and Diaz's (1978) styles of attaching data-dependency to a Petri-net place. And at the entrance and exit of a macro, putting the similar of input/output logic like in SARA (UCLA graphs). The expansion/shrinking of nodes are discussed in both of the referred two papers, as well as in Peterson (1977). And while doing only these trivial fusions, it carries a lot of errors in it. Even a high-schooler may not commit many of them, but he has been granted even a Ph.D. degree for the deed - in the very topic of "A method for ... design and verification ..."
Examples of multiple-sources clash (merge-clashes) abound in the UnPhD. And actually, that is where I have been able to spot quite a few lines of plagiarism. You may read the discussions, including some of the examples discussed on this page. e.g: The case about "++-input transfer" macro's redundant mutual-exclusion, the "method"-crashing usage of sticky-activation macros with a batch-verify loop, etc.
The net result, after such interferences, is that the UnPhD is left even behind the individual papers, it has plagiarized from. Several of the cut-and-pasted ideas have clashed, and omitted each other.
In other words, while you expect some proofs, at various points, from a Ph.D. work, when it claims something is doable, it does not provide it. And then, further, you (or I) find some case that actually proves the unworkableness of it - with proof-by-existence.
The Later Observations: In a discussion/lecture he can get confused even when discussing a single text. Asking questions will help no further. I observed students asking questions, in return for only being repeated the same lines before the question, and/or being altogether silenced, and called to think by oneself. Such cases happened when actually the student was right.
And the result is, unlike what you may guess, it leads to the students denying themselves. An example was a "student," who very well knew operating systems before, and pointed out a confusion in the discussion. The discussion had started with a particular assumption, and then went on with another. The latter one was the assumption in the textbook. The UnLecturer insisted, and the student, as I heard, a bit vocally said "He does not know his own topic." That was right, indeed.
Later, when I talked with the student, he said he read the book, and discovered that he was himself faulty, he thought something else. Then, when I told him "But he also told such and such. That is not the textbook's." He replied with a surprise in his face "He did say that! Didn't he?" In other words, even after observing the faults, and the insistence, in a situation of such a confusion, the not-position-holding person(s) are denying their own memories. (I could observe that there were two contradicting assumptions at once, but the other knowledgeable student, it appears, traced the algorithm only with the starting line. That is still fine for verifying code, but not enough for dealing with confusion-laden UnLecturers.)
Should we compare that with the case of the Ph.D.-degree granting jury? Does it apply? The content surely applies. The UnPhD is also a mess of confusions - a cut-and-paste, after all. It has claims but not deliveries. At that level, you simply do not expect an agely advisor, and a Ph.D. candidate really do such a thing.
In the human relations case, the case for the jury, may be more like my own situation, as a critical adversary in the class. I was just very ready to point out his mistakes. But he was so vague! You could surely point out that what he tells can have both false and true interpretations, being only at the edge of truth. You would not like to bet your coin on such a vague/probable case. i.e: I could probe, now and then, but it could appear like dealing with "unimportant" nuances - even if the whole lecture was being fuzziffied with similar points. And then he could possibly choose a correct interpretation. I did not take that risk. Yet, observed that, his style was no acceptable way of lecturing. It could only confuse the minds of the newbies. Reading the textbook alone, would teach better. I also said this to some of the students, there.
What I did not do there, in the undergraduate class case, turned out to be in the direction I expected when some of the kids asked questions, and got either repeated the presentation, or got silenced.
I asked from some of the students, to bring their lecture notes, and let me point out the errors and contradictions in them. With such a UnLecturer, you only expect the whole class to have learned the material wrong and/or like the elephant-and-the-men-in-darkness, each having some different understanding of the introductory topics of operating systems. In case of finding such errors, I would show/teach the students the correct version. In case of no errors, that would do no harm, any way. The students did not co-operate.
As a result, I concentrated only on his published material, when criticizing. This needs no other witness. First, it was the lacking "Standard C" book. Then, I asked the question "He must have produced some research before becoming a (n associate) professor, at least to get a Ph.D., mustn't he?" Surely he must, of course. But the result is that he has only cut-and-merged and messed it up, even then.
Upon my pointing at the mistakes, and to the case that those "knowledge" show-offs, (esp., without solid treatment of concepts,) are only detail-dumps, a lot of which, one could find almost in any trade magazine, the student replied that he had not understood that course so much. It appears, his self-important manners, lead others to commend him, when they do not understand what it is. How valuable would it be the value of it, if the valueing person himself has not been in any position of benefiting from it? e.g: a student who has not understood, and/or applied it in projects with success, or some consumer who has not used the software produced, or some project that has either not consulted him or has not benefited (by achieving success) with any extra input, etc.
Now that this page has gone into deciphering his Ph.D., I expect more such comments, from those who had not noticed the mistakes, upon, probably, not getting the idea what the use is, only expressed some lip-service respect, and switched to some other topic to profit.
I am a well-thought person. I said that. Let's be more direct. Our case study is a person holding some position. I certainly know that he does not deserve it. And some explicit challenging may underline it.
First: The material at this site, against the UnPhD, demonstrating the lack-of-achievement and the plagiarism in it, each one, is sufficient for his Ph.D. title to be revoked, with the relevant consequences also being due. There is no joke in this, and a few self-important gestures cannot undo the evidences.
Second: I have already mentioned his trade-magazine attacks against private initiatives, and the calling for more centralized decision-making. My suggestion, in return, is that, he and his friends should better found their own companies and become, if they can, the market leaders, in those fields he believes he has "advice to give." Calling for centralization is none of his or anybody's business. Successful companies, like Microsoft, in their fields, enjoy some dominance in their fields. That may be passable, but surely may take a bit more than sheer "me too!"ness - except in cases where there are very-well established examples abroad, and can be directly copied, with enough money. Without inventing/researching anything in the particular field, if he still claims he understands how the foreigners do it, or something like that, and that he could repeat/do something successful, the founding of a company and being successful may be that. The door is wide open for such, and anyone may try his/her chance at any time. The nuisance (indeed, it is shocking, when you already know him), is the seeking of public-presence in the attacking, and the asking for dominance.
Third: On Jan.9, 1995, I submitted a petition to that university (rector's office), for the computer engineering undergraduate graduation-projects (theses) to be open to public access. We may extend that to al engineering-faculty projects, and at all levels. Although the graduate projects are quasi-public, in the university library, nothing guarantees their continued presence. Publishing over the Internet, or setting up an independent, maybe international entity like UMI could be rather doable.
My petition stated both of two opposite views for the issue, both of which would call for the graduation-projects to be public. One view calls for publicity because of the high-expectancy, in the nation, of that university, and that those should be quality works. The opposing view was that, it is a position-abusing rigid hierarchy of laxity, with a very much lack of quality in the results. An answer to both of the camps would be to make the works public. That way, people would observe themselves, what it means to have graduated as an engineer, in that third world nation, in the better-heard-of universities.
As the third challenge, as such, I am calling for tiger-teams to evaluate the successes, by either criticizing the presented work, or by providing some superior work. I may organize a few such, with high-schoolers (and maybe even, with pre-teenagers). Such tiger-teams would have little, if at all, sympathy towards a solidarity with the diploma-and-a-department. Because I had observed no co-operation, within the department, against bad education, I find being-directly antagonistic as the only way to protect the human and intellectual potentials of the future generations (that will attend those departments), as well as for the benefit of the society. The primary needs for computer-related workers may be already met, as they require little more than basic intelligence (e.g: in accounting software, in internet companies, or in data-processing departments), but there may be few, if any, such international successes like Xerox, Intel, Sun, Apple, Sony, etc., that some bright engineers pull as locomotives, and generate jobs for many more, over many decades. Once in the department, acquiescence may be the rule.
I need not even mention that such tiger-teams would be do-it-yourself settings, that are both professionally and educationally stimulating, when providing higher-level jobs than those submitted graduation theses, and when criticizing them. As long as those department-people are willing to settle on a diploma, I find this as the only option that does not deny our humanity and our intellectual potentials - within that established, rigidly-structured system, I mean. My actual educational vision relies completely on individual motivations-and-capabilities, and on the market demands, and it does not call for rigid-structures that may only be tested and challenged by tiger-teams. This situational-solution comes out of necessity, in a setting I find both rigid and plundered.
At this site, the system of education I propose, just like the other categories, starts with the individuals, and optimizes the human-potential. What matters is the content, and the free (market) dynamics among the people.
In this context, an ongoing abuse of undeserved position-holding in academia presents itself as a flagship for just another line of argument against the broad-licensing of a person for a lifetime, and not even being so serious at quality control, for even the highest license being granted, a Ph.D. This points to the danger that, even when the job could be of some worth, some person may ruin it by not caring to be productive, at all.
Our case study, the Mr.Un-credible-Ph.D. could not be having his current job without being granted a Ph.D. degree. It is therefore like prescribing the wrong medicine. Especially so, in parts of the world where having obtained a Ph.D. may be "The End." As an academician, the person enters the classes, and also keeps social contacts active. Period. Quality of teaching, and/or further original work may not be needed at all, to achieve even the highest seats available.
Another un-credible example, in the same third-world country as the Mr.Un-credible-Ph.D. was a newspaper favorite a few years ago. The plagiarizing (or, thought so) person was the head of the nationwide "academic" management board (Y.Ö.K.), assigned by the leaders of a military coup. He had translated from a book by someone else, the book (all or portion was told to be a plagiarism?) counted as fulfilling a requirement for a title of associate professorship, or such. (Currently, even that requirement has been lifted for academic advancement. Only the Ph.D. suffices.) He kept his title, anyway. The memorable was a sentence he said during the discussions: "What original work was I supposed to produce on this topic? Everything is already known." (The topic was childbirth, or early childcare.)
As of 2007/2008, the case was still a controversy -- after more than a decade. That ex-master of Y.Ö.K. sued some people claiming that he had published before Dr. Spock. He might have won the court (of T.C.), but I know the plagiarism-accusing people whining "if thus, may we see that publication?" In any case, the issue for relating to our case, is that remark he had told to newspapers. That was certainly setting a tone of talk (& tons of talk), as that was setting the example of "so what, if similar/plagiarism?" attitude. That was what the news-consuming people understood, obviously. The latest news that he objects that he is a plagiarist, I happened to notice in some relatively obscure corner, and that old publications he tells of, is yet to be seen, as far as I'm informed. With such a case, this paragraph seems to be up for new updates -- whether he substantiates his words, or the vice versa. The case of his having set a bad example with his words to the press then, is solid, though.
In other words, for some people, the advancement of knowledge, the honesty of not plagiarizing, etc. may be only optional. The only necessity ("for the humanity"?) appears to be their rising to higher academic positions - whether it takes plagiarizing, or co-operating with (third world) oppressions. (Whether the oppression originates from military coups, police corruption, or academic mafia, etc.)
Going into a third world situation (as if Rambo), and correcting such cases may be a luxury for most U.S.-resident academicians. But keep in mind that, those jury members who grant academic degrees to undeserving candidates, may be ruining many lives out there, over the course of the upcoming decades - when those title-granted are insufficient academicians in teaching and/or research. Not to mention the range of tyrannical measures he/she would be willing to accept/apply to hold on to his/her undeserved (but-all-important) position.
The Mr.Un-credible-Ph.D. also is apparently quite social. Judging this, in part, from the observations of lack of academic work, the presence in a variety of contest juries, whereas, to my knowledge, having himself have never won any, or produced anything, to make sense as a jury member. Only one Ph.D. completed and that had sufficed for all. And other such claims for positions, without any apparent sufficient background, oh yes, except the Ph.D. degree, I mean.
This was the scene in 1994-1995 when I asked the question to myself: "What sort of PhD such a person like this might have prepared indeed?" Since that time, I have heard that the social person has even become the chair for that department. I have not checked back whether he has produced anything since 1994-1995, yet, given what he had not produced in 12 years after his Ph.D., and his lecture,etc. style, I find sufficient motivation to delve into the background of the massacres-of-bright-minds in the first decade, at least.
That is akin to someone who acts like a medical doctor, yet who does not qualify. The result is a massacre, more or less, like a wrong prescription of a drug (by a "doctor" oneself being wrongly prescribed). An arresting of the developments of some of the most succesful university-entrance scorers of the nation (some third world nation, most likely).
Does the lecturer qualify in being a lecturer? In the currently widespread educational system, this question means letting some "chosen" people to not only teach but also to evaluate the results of their own teaching themselves.
If high academic standards apply, the problem may not be obvious, but this page demonstrates a case which is otherwise.
As another point of concern, both educationally and about establishing worth, we should take care about any academicians claiming personal success out of successes of rare cases who happened to also attend their classes (or, only to exams). And probably also trying to make advantage of it in the market, e.g., as a consultant "who has taught the _successful_person(s)_."
Again, where high standards apply, the more capable students are expected to be taught by the more capable. But that need not be always the case, especially in places where academia is more "social" (fraternity-, or mafia-like) than achievement-oriented. And a case like discussed on this page, once a Ph.D. is received, may confuse even the better established, at least for some time. And I do not say the person is unintelligent. It just does not happen to be useful for the apparent consumers, i.e., the research and the students community.
A sorting of relative contributions of teaching quality versus student intelligence may be made. The rare success stories can easily be distinguished from the base rate of success. Yet, some charlatanic claims of success over the students' very-personal hardwork should not be neglected. Assigning pre-requisites to someone who is very well known to be superior, can, at the very start, hint that. A course which is only a central source of under-achievement for many highly intelligent people, then, also doubles as a base for trying to own the successes of the self-learned students.
For example, in my case, I had been, to my dismay, assigned to the Introduction-to-Operating-Systems course as a pre-requisite before I could go on with the M.S. work I was starting. Operating systems was among the topics I thought I could teach, not the vice versa. And the encounter did little to change my opinion, to say the least. To say the least, his lectures resemble in style and content, the case for his Ph.D., as we discussed on this page (which indeed gives me some comfort, because those published material being publicly accessible, I have a respectable co-witness, who would repeat what it says, in the form of a published paper, and a dissertation available from UMI).
His Operating Systems courses did not have anything to do with Petri nets. (Even the presented concurrency topics may have been memorized by many/most students, from listings of example code in the textbook, and from the older years's archived question(s) - which kept being repeated.) Classmates who attended "computer networks" and "distributed systems" courses told me that they had heard the name of Petri nets repeated a lot in the lectures. But upon questioning, that was name-only, and I was told those courses indeed do not teach writing concurrent programs.
In other words, Petri nets may not be a knowledge of many, in that department (except for a semester, once, a visiting scholar's course "protocol engineering" which I do not know how many students attended, but in its syllabus there was Petri nets listed).
My case may be an exception. I learned Petri nets myself. Against him. My motivation was to discover what sort of job such a person may have done anywhere, at all. I had been very thoroughly criticizing his lectures, and his "standard C" book (which, maybe understandably, not something original, but the "examples" in the book were open targets for my severe criticism. And I wondered, whether he may have had any valuable output, at any time. It was march-april of 1994, when I started with Petri nets, E-nets, etc.
Otherwise, my favorite was (and still, probably, is) more textual forms of pondering/verification. (Programming language improvements/design, temporal logic thinking, etc.) To summarize: All his contribution to the Petri-nets field in his long and unproductive tenure at a university crowded with some of the brightest minds in the nation, has been the being a target of my criticisms - which has led to the existence of the current page.
Feeling the heavy responsibility of having postponed the task so far, with some solace that I had been quite active in 1994-1995. 50 headcounts a year, new students have kept being attracted to the combined prestige of that university in that country, along with the attraction of the field of engineering. And little, if at all, expecting of the blockage, at least in certain subfields of the computer science, they will encounter, without even noticing that the full grasp they missed is due to a lack of quality control done elsewhere, maybe in a rare occasion of confusion yet effecting many lives. Fault, magic or whatever. The net effects are there.
A university with high ranking, even if not at the particular (computer science) field, is expected to be more serious about its reputation, as compared to a little-heard one. And may be more willing to assert its standards, and revoke the PhD once the wrongdoings are clear.
If not the department itself, then the other (more popular,etc.) departments may intervene, on behalf of their own name, by being more sensitive to keep the standards of the university, and thereby the university prestige, high.
In this context, we may state that, in the usual case, having-some-respectability suggests some willingness to carry it on. When expressed in these words, it is obviously relevant to a core-dynamics of my system: the Public Records. In a system where we are opening the ways for decentralization, and indeed, encouraging it, we should not need to cling with some outer-organization like being an established famous university, with such an such qualities. We should be able to trace these for any individual or group who is willing to deliver the particular service. That is where the public records step in.
Relevant questions are welcome. And if you are an academician, a member of some board, etc., a person who may also be active in revoking such a PhD, you may ask for the explicit names referred-to in this page with representative nicknames. Let the history observe an(other) example of how the academic system that is currently in fashion is able (or not) to handle such abuses of the current academic system.
The bitterness started with the pre-requisites I was assigned. I interpreted it as anathema, and took it as a challenge. A the end, and in the process, I was right - as these pages are demonstrating part of it. But the issue was not only a matter of who was superior academically; It went into corruption and tyranny. For example, for a full semester, even after I filed a petition, some of my grades were not sent, and the university registrar assumed the unsent grades as zero (but not as 90 or 100, which are just other grades like zero, if you are to assign a meaning to an unsent grade), and I was as if, failed and fired. Later, through others, I set that record right, but they had lost all-value for me, not worth to submit a degree-work, and I did not submit the projects, either. Instead, I went on to work on the case study, which I had already started months before my lost semester. This was in 1994-1995. It waited for a few years. Now, I am releasing on the Internet.
Before I attended the department as a graduate student, I had completed a few courses, even the pre-requisites of which, were among the assigned pre-requisites. Whereas, the hardware-lab course was not! I am still, when I find time, studying that myself. As black humor, now, I wonder, if I achieve some highest-quality understanding also in that electronics-level, would some department be willing to assign that as a "pre-requisite?".
In other words, my success in the graduate degree, would implicitly register my past accomplishments. But, their way, it would falsely appear as if they were my teachers. On the contrary, for most cases, one of my intentions was to improve that department. I had seen the lack of educational-organization, and for example, I was thinking of becoming a super-active "assistant" in a variety of areas, including C, operating systems, etc. When I was assigned some of them myself, my position was: "Let me see your teaching me. If you are not superior to me (and you are not), you lose." This was especially for the classes that did not let me not-attend (because I already knew). And you may read part of the results in this site.
And the situation only got more annoying, for example, when I asked to another lecturer, at exam, "Why is there only a figure? What should I program about it?" He said "I gave two/three weeks of mine, in the class, to that example. Shouldn't I ask?" In other words, even a guru of that (simple) topic, without memorizing the particular examples, would not get the full-points he deserved. That surely is not testing, even if a "pre-requisite" might have meant to be that.
(See also on the student's non-co-operation, even with clear arguments, discussed later, on this page.) I filed a petition for all the undergraduate (and also graduate) graduation works of that department to be made public. It is a challenge they never took. I may undermine them at any time, with a bunch of high school (maybe even, primary school) kids, whom I teach, and surpass most, if not all, of the works. (Although the graduate works are at the university library, they can always get lost. No guarantee of re-access to something, once publicly ridiculed.)
If anyone is interested, I may discuss the case for those (both graduate-, and undergraduate-level) courses I attended there, when I was a psychology student, later. Overall, some were good-settings for expressing myself (which was another motivation for attending, but having already taken the best of it, I had to face the rest of it). At other courses (the statistics-based ones), I was not the worst of the class, and doing well, with my project-crafting points.
The advisor (department chair), and the UnLecturer/UnPhD were newly introduced personalities, for me.
One meaningful point to make, for the purposes of this discussion. The only lecturer who stood as a sensible figure, all through those times was, as I later discovered, also an undergraduate of that university, in older times. The younger generation of the same university appeared a bit fine at first, but went chaotic ("adapted") after my entrance. The most problematic types were altogether from other universities, which I already did not prefer as a student, myself. Do keep in mind this chain-reaction, personality-factories..
The second course was in my 2nd term (Spring 1994). To my dismay, I also had to attend that graduate's Operating Systems course, of his. (Because it was not possible for me to make the database and artificial intelligence sequences, anymore. I had completed them, when I was an undergraduate.) We had an argument in the class.
He addressed me in the thou-language, and insisted I should use "you" in return. I demanded symmetry. He said he did not speak with "his student"s in the "you." I nullified him as a non-teacher of mine, as I had done before, in a variety of ways, but then with explicit words "Where do you happen to be my teacher/lecturer? You do not know yourself. (with examples) I only have to attend this class. That is why I am here." (I link that with the claim over the golden-egg - although, not really teaching. I had rejected that right at the start of the first semester, when the pre-requisites were assigned.) Upon my reply, he, at first said he would also use "you," but then, in no time, returned to "thou" and so did I. If you ever see us talking together, any more, just do not even start to imagine us as any friends, or such. Indeed, the other words of the talk could tell what it is. The relationship is one of mutual disrespect. He does not speak with "his students" (who are assigned to observe him, in other words) by employing the word "you." And I do not talk with him, and people like him, with "you."
On Oct.4/5, 1994, at the beginning of my "3rd semester," I submitted a petition to the institute of (engineering and) natural sciences. My grades for three pre-requisite courses had not been sent and I was assumed as "failed" by the registrar. (A lack of null value, indeed. Undelivered means undelivered. Not zero. Why would they not take it as 90 or 100 but as zero, which is another grade itself. Right? But such quirks are another issue.) I also went and told the lecturers, with a clear and dry attitude, that the grade(s) were not delivered; they needed be. Neither lecturer objected in words, or attitude. (There was a codification error at the start of the first semester but then was corrected by another petition. )
Both the tyrannical side, and the victim(s) would probably be multiple. And although the victims may be unknowing each other, systematic tyranny can only happen by the rest of the establishment keeping, at least, silent about the issue. Acquiscing, instead of objecting or rejecting, when your subordinate (or, a member) is tyrannical, can tell your stance.
In this case, I submitted the petition to the graduate institute (of engineering and science), which sent it to the department chair, and did not check again. I kept checking the results through the institute. My third term was "at large" because of that indefinite-postponoment until I submitted a few more petitions (january 9th, 10th, etc.), and also talked with a vice rector from the social branches. And only then the result was obtained. (That way, finally, I got a sign of progress. The "waiting for a reply from the advisor" turned to "waiting for the remaining two grades" even if the final result took two more weeks to decide, and it must have been two more weeks to deliver a distance of 50 meters or less.)
The vice rector from the social branches was also one with an undergraduate degree from that university - unlike the UnPhD-person and the department-chair/advisor. This pattern appears to be an important element, as I had been already rating the university as (one of) the most student-valueing universiti(es) in that third-world country. That may be because of its american heritage, and the older generation is even more relevant, than the younger lecturers, who graduated unter studentship of the "national" lecturers from other universities. The engineering-departments case may be attributable to such a root, as I am studying now.
The word "national," in the last paragraph, goes in quote-unquote, especially given that it is the Americans who value and teach valueing the students, the "national" colony masters push around - while keeping their talks of nationalism, and also keeping a low quality in academic performance. Is that a "war against some other nation"? How is oppressing someone, could be counted national-anything? Why is it "unnational" to speak against it, and press for such people being removed from such offices - whether in that nation, or wherever in the world. Let such bizarre objections be answered, hereby.
The fourth semester was only a formality, given that I was not willing to submit any graduation work, I was not willing to submit any projects either. The value of "returning" was only in the proving that I had not failed, and verifies the abuse. It does not provide solace for the case of the initial abuse like assigning a pre-requisite of "intro to data structures." In an exam, I asked the lecturer "What does this figure mean? What is the expected to be programmed?" He told me "I spent three weeks of mine with that example (from the textbook). Shouldn't I ask?" Whatever that means. Has that example become a core topic of data structures? Understandably, knowing the topic would not suffice. You would even have to memorize the examples in the textbook. A telling anecdote.
After my grades were sent (having lost a full semester by then), I left/"failed" that department by not submitting the projects. I would certainly not be willing to submit a graduation-project, there. Why bother the others, then? I went on with my writing/preparing of my arguments against that academic system, and about the plagiarism and worthlessness in his Ph.D. My pace slackened and diverted a bit after 1995. Now, I am back. This page, and the siblings of it, are the resulting (and still developing) content.
I was already valueing myself higher, at the start. One idea of mine was to raise that department's academic efficiency - as a superactive "assistant." For another motivation, If I had known there existed GRE, I may still have not entered, at all. I had considered that as a stepping stone to establish my achievement level, then. There I was assigned as pre-requisites some of the courses they should very well know I would not need, at least on a cursory testing, if not for other reasons. (But not assigned the hardware-lab course, which I am still studying myself. Once I may become a supermaster or something in embedded systems, too, may be some computer/electronics department could give me such "pre-requisites") That resulted in my antagonism, and the attitude "O.K. If you want to claim the golden egg is hatched by yourself, then show me your level of competence." It started there. Then, upon assuring that there is not much, I turned to the dissertations they published, and especially the ones in my strongholds. The current one surely had been one, for years. See this whole site, to find some of my systems-view ideas which encompass psychology and computers, to bring in seamless solutions, that conform a variety of criteria. (A tax-free world vision, with ideas in a variety of categories. Content being posted gradually, as also for this page.) Even my computer programming graduation yearbook entry points to an OS prowess. That was how I saw myself, and a good point to start from. More details, maybe elsewhere.
I did not attend many/most classes. It could be none if not for the reason of roll-call, and collecting the nitty gritty set of details he prefers to dump, instead of thoroughly teaching concepts. I could very well judge that such content was of certainly of no more use than the details one may readily find in almost any trade magazine. The operating-systems field is full of such details. No need to memorize. Concepts help understanding, not the memorize-only details (especially, the internal timings of some old-times operating systems, etc. In a point where so many versions of Unix had changed to fit, for exmaple, some real-time capability into the system, the memorizing of version x, and doing that by dumping the BSD version in the textbook only suggests being a fanatic, if not gameful (playing cat and mice) with-the-students (when especially, such details get asked in the exams).