The Karasian grad model
- PDF / 436,486 Bytes
- 2 Pages / 585 x 783 pts Page_size
- 33 Downloads / 135 Views
The Karasian grad model:
O
An authoritative and definitive guide to graduate-level success in a materials science and engineering program
ver the past few decades, considerable efforts have been devoted to not only writing superfluous and gaudy publication abstracts, but improving graduate school success rates, generally typified by submitting even more superfluous and gaudy publication abstracts. For the study of materials science and engineering (MS&E), the quantification of success levels in graduate programs has, in recent years, become a highlight for analysts and advertisers employed by alumni association trackers, pharmacologists who manufacture psychotropic medications, and support group networks. Recently, favorable metrics have tracked the sale of optimistic self-help books as a means of attempting success quantification; however, this methodology has largely been disavowed in favor of rank categorization of individual and situational characteristics. This work, building upon recent experimental studies in predictive analyses, devises a research formalism for user-enabled autonomous classification of grad success, employing a design criteria and calculation summary of the modified hyperbeta distribution that correlates success percentage to notable, inherent lifestyle traits. Population estimates generated results that were in harmony with global graduate school matriculation rates, with an accuracy metric of η = 93.3%, which would prevent such work from being discredited in the near future. Introduction
Calculation summary
A plurality of sources, from human resources workshops to books with the title formula of “How to [positive adverb] [positive verb] [preposition] graduate school” with some subtitle that usually includes an ironic twist (not to mention an author suffix with MD or PhD in large letters), have attempted to motivate idyllic undergraduates and weary industry veterans to pursue graduate school, converging upon the following abridged hard truth: “for a less-thanminimum-wage paycheck and years of emotional abuse through a ludicrous work routine, you can justify your many addictions and join a type of fraternity of experts who’ll hire you for a lot of money based on the credentials you’ll undoubtedly earn, because you’ve earned the right to command authority.” Success rates genuinely seem to correlate with those candidates who embrace work autonomy, possible sci-fi interest, STEM-based intelligence and competence, and especially technical proficiency.1 MS&E, while requiring good aptitude in memorizing a collection of common inorganics (M.C. Escher-style tessellations written in microtype) and mineral groups, generally does not differ too much from other disciplines where advisor compatibility, commitment to a research project, and proficiency for reading and writing are essential qualitative factors that undoubtedly characterize success rates.2 However, a rediscovered work by Blackburne et al.3 provided a means to establish a quantifiable metric to capture graduate success more effectively b
Data Loading...
