Thesis Reading: MS vs PhD

Recently I was reading thesis/dissertation chapters from both my own MS candidates and a PhD candidate from a local RO1.  The RO1 thesis chapter had previously been approved by the PhD mentor and the candidate was asking me to proofread and make sure the science was clear.  The differences between the two readings may say more about the individuals involved than the general differences between MCU's and RO1's, but they may be worth exploring.

The most striking thing I noted was a general tendency in masters thesis to place emphasis on how the study fits into the larger picture of the science, while the PhD dissertation writing assumed that the context within the field need not the elaborated upon and that the relevance would be clear to the reader.

Being in the midst of inviting speakers for the Fall seminar series on my campus this dichotomy in presentation style reminded me of the differences in presentations given by RO1 faculty and MCU and PUI faculty who come through my department.  Many RO1 faculty, including those coming through specifically on graduate student recruiting trips, blow the undergraduate and masters students away early in their presentations by not making the contextual issues clear or by coming back to the context during the lecture.  MCU and PUI folks generally show less of this tendency.  One could make the case that such differences owe something to the much greater focus on undergraduates that MCU and PUI faculty have in their day-to-day work.  These faculty have a better knowledge of were the audience is intellectually coming from.

I wonder if the difference may also owe something to the stage of science most MCU and PUI faculty are forced to practice by the resources at their disposal.  Given the difficulty in competing at the basis research level we tend to move toward application to justify our work in grants and to attract students into the lab.  Once indoctrinated into this way of thinking about our scholarship it begins to color all our output from how we present our own work to how we train our students to present their thesis.  I suppose that in a sense we are back to the hammer problem where our thinking becomes focused by the environment we are in, for good or ill.

As we extend and accept seminar invitations to/from our colleagues it would be good to keep in mind the environment in which the talk will be presented and the our goals in hearing or giving the talk.

T.S. Hall