Dissertation scores 0%

This below is a guy called Jack, he's a middle-aged International Politics student who scored 0% in his dissertation. In the email below he questions the observations of the markers. It's highly amusing, and has been forwarded all around this University!

Dear Hidemi,

Thank you for your comments on my dissertation. Perhaps you could also pass on my thanks to the second marker, whose name does not appear on the paper.

Whilst I would not wish to challenge your value judgement (0%), I would however like to question your observations, along with those of the second marker. As such, itemised below are (both) your sentences - and the second markers, followed by my queries and observations.

(1) A BAD CASE OF POP-PHILOSOPHY, LEADING TO SELF-INDULGENT NON-THOUGHT.

In my introduction I did make the point that I am "an engineer, not a philosopher", and that, as with Rousseau, I had no wish to be seen as such. In effect, I was working with mechanics, not morals (Emile Book IV, would be a good place to start if this causes you any difficulty). Further, please excuse my ignorance, but I am not sure what "non-thought" is - misguided, ill conceived or perhaps plain bloody stupid, that is as maybe, but surely even the most vacuous person still has thought. As for "self indulgent", I refer you to the introduction and page 15 of the dissertation, where, albeit briefly, self interest and motivation are questioned.

(2) I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO UNCONVENTIONAL STYLE OF PRESENTATION, IF THERE IS SOME INTELLECTUAL SUBSTANCE, BUT I SEE NONE.

Well, perhaps you are right, who am I to say? I was just sick of the intellectual pygmies (as I perceive them) that we were encouraged to study. After all, how can one quote from the likes of Hobbes, Waltz, Fukuyama, Huntington... when their arguments can be picked apart on every single page? Consequently, I decided to use world renowned theorists, absolutely at the top of their fields (Dawkins, Freud, Einstein, Williams, Pagels, Ritzer... (who didn't have a political position to maintain)), to justify my arguments, or, more specifically, to reinterpret Rousseau through them.

Second Marker

(3) CONTRARY TO THE ASSERTION ON P. 50, I HAD TO SPEND CONSIDERABLY LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES PLOUGHING THROUGH THIS DISSERTATION.

Well sorry! Although, if you had read the whole paragraph you should have realised this comment was not a reference to my dissertation but the McDonaldization of the whole university system.

(4) I TOO FAILED TO DISCERN ANY INTELLECTUAL MERIT IN THIS PIECE OF WORK.

Doesn't mean there isn't any though - does it? Just 'cos you failed to discern it - although, I do accept the piece was not aimed at the intellectual market and that I may have a weakness in conveying my arguments.

(5) IT IS A RAMBLING TIRADE OF MONUMENTAL SELF INDULGENCE THAT OFFERS NAIVE PLATITUDES MASQUERADING AS PROFUNDITY.

My apologies if it came across as a tirade, that was not intended. Accepted the scope was vast, but, as stated in the introduction, I had no intention of rewording and reiterating arguments put across quite plainly and satisfactorily within works readily available to the reader. As for "naive platitudes", again my apologies, nothing could have been further from my intent - but then, I am (or was) only an undergrad doing his best to interpret available information to the best of their ability. And, I would never be so arrogant as to suggest anything I produce is profound.

(6) IT CERTAINLY CASTS NO LIGHT ON ANY ASPECT OF THE DISCIPLINE OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS.

Perhaps so, but does this not beg the question: is there any light to be found in the discipline of international politics? I worked harder in this three years than I have ever done in my life - all 48 years of it. And, whilst I have learnt an enormous amount, from both fellow students and certain (albeit few) lecturers - together of course with the cornucopia of information available (generally beyond the reading lists - which appeared as more of an old boys network), I could ask: are you sure the whole discipline is not an exercise of monumental self indulgence?

(7) IT ALSO FAILS TO FULFIL THE FORMAL CRITERIA FOR THE DISSERTATION, LACKING A RESEARCH QUESTION, PROPER REFERENCING ETC.

Yup, you've got me there - no research question. Oops! But then, let's face it, you wouldn't have liked any question I'd have proposed anyway. As far as referencing goes, the dissertation was accurately and fully referenced - it just had to be done through a web page as the department moved the goal posts - you cannot blame me for that. And, like it or not, technically my referencing is correct - as stipulated within the module handbook. I'm not sure what the etc. is but if you elucidate I will attempt to address it.

(8) IT IS ALSO OVER LENGTH, AND WOULD HAVE THEREFORE INCURRED DEDUCTIONS, IF IT WERE WORTH ANY MARKS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The dissertation was 254 words over length, about 2.5% - all sounds a bit like bean counting to me - but then, as it wasn't "worth any marks in the first place", I'm surprised you mentioned it.

(9) MY ONLY REGRET IS THAT THE AUTHOR WILL PROBABLY INTERPRET THE AWARD OF A MARK OF ZERO AS CONFIRMING HIS OWN ESTIMATION OF HOW DANGEROUS AND RADICAL HIS 'THOUGHT' IS.

Only regret? Surely not - think harder, I'm sure you can come up with something else. As for interpretation of the mark, how can you say this? How well do you know me? Not at all, I would suggest (whoever you are) but in any case, this is surely arrogance in the extreme. As for "dangerous", that seems particularly ironic, given that the work was examining the structures concentrate power and that perpetuate and validate violence within our world. If you want dangerous, perhaps you should look at the likes of Huntington, whose thesis Professor Linklater suggested was dangerously irresponsible - which, despite the flimsiness of its arguments, is hawked to all students of IR - whilst, for example, the more intelligent and thoughtful, 'Clash of fundamentalisms', by Tariq Ali is largely brushed over. With regard to "radical", again I would not wish to be so presumptuous, all I was trying to do was tie together thinkers from various disciplines. Although, as radical comes from the Latin word meaning root, this is perhaps a valid comment - certainly not an accusation that can be levelled at the discipline, seeing as it is incapable of looking any further than Ancient Greece for answers, or justification.

All that being said, I did have a suspicion my presentation and arguments would perhaps not be positively received within the department, but as the cascade system allowed three 'failures', it seemed foolish not to take advantage ;-)

As a comment though, upon the comments, I would say, your response(s) do seem rather rude - a tirade in fact - and that whilst I can shrug my shoulders about them, you should perhaps be more careful when dealing with what could potentially be the fragile and emerging personality of someone barely past childhood.

Anyway, no hard feelings, I've had the most fantastic three years, learnt more than I ever thought possible and am happy to take your mark on the chin.

Take care,

Jack (Gibberd)

PS As I promised to copy a few people the comments on my diss. I have CCed them (along with a few others) - hope you don't mind - J

Full dissertation available at http://www.corianderjax.tk/dissertation.htm