|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
":As I am currently completing a PhD on Tech An in futures (after
:producing a Masters thesis on the same topic), I can assure you that
:when you have to really critically evaluate people's evidence - you
:realise how much in the unrefereed sphere is simply unsustainable.
There's a Ph.D. in TA? Where? Is there an undergraduate course? What
kind of criteria is used in grading? What type of things are taught in
these classes? And who is qualified to teach it or grade them? How are
these professors/teaching assistant evaluated (by their peers?)? Or even
selected?
Enquiring minds might want to know."
In reply, your email suggests (as is not uncommon) that people largely
totally misunderstand the nature of a PhD. Most universities have as a
requirement for a PhD thesis that it must (generally worded something
like) "...it must make a significant contribution to the existing body
of knowledge." This means that you do not have exams (although some US
Unis do include coursework), and have a free-reign to produce a piece of
very thorough and rigorous research. It must be something new - or else
the 'significant contribution' component is not met. Therefore, let me
address each of your questions in turn.
There's a Ph.D. in TA? Where? - You can do a PhD on almost anything at
some university somewhere in the world. What you require is a
supervisor, generally of international standing, who is willing to
supervise your work and ensure that your research is conducted to the
highest standard, eg no fudging results, ensure that adequate review of
exisiting literature is carried out (generally at least 200 works in the
field at the refereed academic journal level), testing is conducted and
reported in such a way that another researcher could pick up your work
and re-create your results etc.
Is there an undergraduate course? - To my knowledge, two universities in
Australia are running one semester courses on TA. One is UTS (University
of Technology Sydney) run every two years by the technical strategist
from Westpac, Australia's 3rd largest bank, and RMIT (Royal Melbourne
Institute of Technology) by a Mathematician/Econometrician.
What kind of criteria is used in grading? - A PhD can often only be
graded as a piece of good research or bad research. It is not so
important what is found, but how one went about finding it. Think of it
as analogous to explorers. To say you went from A to B and back again is
worthless. The researcher must report what they found, how they found
it, how many avenues from the main track they had a look down and make
notes of, what was edible and what killed the horses, what tools did you
use/need. An explorer who finds only a brick wall at the end can report
that and if it can be shown that no way could be found around it
(despite using all available means), that is valuable in itself. The
researcher can stick a signpost at the foot of the track and warn
colleagues not to go there unless you've got new tools that you think
might be able to overcome the obstacle.
What type of things are taught in these classes? - Again, they are not
classes, but a field of endeavour. Attending classes only regurgitates
existing knowledge, not create new observations.
And who is qualified to teach it or grade them? How are these
professors/teaching assistant evaluated (by their peers?)? - As a
researcher, you learn from the existing literature, obseravation of what
'is' and try to further that body of knowledge. The grading can only be
carried out by another researcher of considerable experience who can
assess whether the research was valid in its method, construction and
findings.
Also remember that a PhD is almost exclusively graded outside your home
university. It may be examined by Eugene Fama (Uni of Chicago and EMH
fame), Stephen Taylor (Lancaster Uni UK - conducted some good research
in TA) or anyone with an international scholarly reputation in that area
of research. If you do an Efficient Markets paper, Fama will know how
well you've addressed the issues in his hypothesis if he's your
examiner. If your research is crap and you have attempted do falsify EMH
with poorly constructed research that does not adderss the issues,
contains open-ended statements, displays little evidence of wide reading
on the topic, lacks logical form and importantly replicability - you'll
be eaten alive! Alas, this same standard does not apply in unrefereed
works where I can say any bollocks I like and it is published. I'm sure
we are all familiar with some works like that in the TA area...
Having addressed your questions, I hope I have adequately addressed the
issues. As you pulled a piece of my email to illustrate your questions,
I hope now you, and other newsgroup participants, will understand the
role of Uni research a little better and realise that we are not just a
bunch of no-nothings, but people who spend years (3-4 yrs u/grad, 2-3
yrs masters, 3-6yrs PhD) learning the tools of not only their chosen
field, but also the tools of the researcher. Some of us are even
familiar with the practitioner side too (having gone from the trading
floor to uni - and not the other way around).
Good hunting...
John
|