Recently, a lot of master's dissertations have been reviewed. At the end of the review paper, the reviewers are required to choose whether they can participate in the defense or not

Review the results (Please tick in the box)

1. This thesis has reached the level of master's thesis, and can participate in the oral defense

2. This thesis basically meets the requirements of master's degree thesis, and can participate in the oral defense after modification

3. This thesis basically meets the requirements of master's degree thesis level, but it needs to be further modified according to the modification opinions. It is suggested that the thesis be submitted for examination again after modification, and the defense should be postponed

4. This thesis does not meet the requirements of master's degree thesis level, so it cannot be defended

There are four options in the review result, which is considered and perfect. Let the reviewer choose from the four. But the consequences of the actual operation are worth reflecting. Let's analyze:

First of all, 1 and 4 are clear and clear.

There are many controversies on the three items. Because there's a big logic problem.

We know that only after the assessment can we be qualified for the defense. Therefore, the key is to reach the level of dissertation. The answer should be yes or no.

Now the word "basic" has been added to the second and third items before they are reached, making the original clear answer a gray area. What is basic achievement? Everyone understands it differently. Is it close to or not? It's ambiguous and confusing. A student's score of pass or fail in the examination is 60 points. 60 points is passed. A score of 59 is a failure, which means failing the exam. According to this reasoning, there should be two results when a master's thesis is submitted for examination, one is allowed to reply, the other is not allowed to reply. 1 and 2 are defensible; 3 and 4 are non defensible. Some people say that there is a difference between 3 and 4, but I don't think it makes much sense. Because it takes less than a month from the review to the defense, and the external review of the appraisal book needs to be transmitted, there is not much time for the students to revise it. In fact, they can't reply. There is no point in deferring. Although Article 2 and Article 3 need to be revised, their fate is different after revision. 2 can reply, 3 need to be submitted for trial. Do you need minor repairs and major repairs? What's the logic of the postponement of defense? If it can be submitted and approved before the answer, and it reaches the level of postgraduate thesis after modification, it should be allowed to reply. Why delay? The premise "basic" and "modification" of items 2 and 3 are the same, but the results are quite different.

Ironically, the word "suggestion" has been added to 3. Can it be understood that suggestions are not orders and can be adopted or not? Does not adoption mean the same as 2? Then why is it not allowed to reply on time? In addition, it is suggested that the reviewer should return to the original reviewer or replace him with a new one? If another new assessment, and then give a 3 how to do?

Is it logical confusion for the people who made article 3 to come up with such a nondescript clause? We have to turn a simple thing into a complicated one. I thought I was thoughtful. Do you play cat and mouse?

After reading article 3, my feeling is: basically achieved, there is hope; revised, there is hope; re submitted for trial; there is still hope; delay = unable to reply on schedule, despair! Clauses that drive people crazy step by step. Why do people fear death? Beheading is better than lingchi!

In order to reflect the "justice", after the introduction of the student appeal procedure. It means that if you don't agree, you can appeal. I give you the right. You know, it's impossible for rule makers to make too many successful appeals. Isn't that to prove that the rules are wrong? Let the students state that the probability of success is almost zero. Instead of wasting time and effort to appeal, it is better to seize the time to revise the paper. For students, thesis defense is the first. What time and energy to argue?

This kind of evaluation results make the teacher very difficult. 2 and 3 are similar, but the results are quite different. The difference between one choice and the other is the same for students. Suspension and impossibility are actually the same outcome. Because both of them (3,4) have to miss the normal reply and wait for the retrial half a year later. "Postponement" is a gentle trap for judges. 3 is really a redundant option. Strictly speaking, 2 is not necessary. It's better to combine 1 and 2, and the reviewer can make a choice in asking students to reply.

Dissertations are related to the vital interests of every graduate, so it is suggested that colleges and universities should take them seriously. Student oriented, strict and humanized management tests the ability and level of managers.

Teachers must be very careful when they come to a conclusion. We should stand the test of academic and conscience. I'm afraid the students who stand for three can only admit bad luck.