Hedayat Alavitabar's Article “Under the Skin of the University”

Dr. Hossein Payandeh (introducing the article): The article “Under the Skin of the University,” with the subtitle “A Pathology of Professors' Performance Regarding Theses,” written by Dr. Hedayat Alavitabar (Associate Professor of Philosophy at Allameh Tabataba'i University), was published in the journal Revayat (Issue 5, Autumn 2015). Marx has a famous statement to the effect that “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world; the point, however, is to change it.” This article, penned by a philosopher, was written with the aim of changing the existing situation in the Iranian academy. In this respect, in my opinion, it performs a thoroughly philosophical function, but it was not written in emulation of the opportunistic and complacent philosophies prevalent in the Iranian academic sphere—philosophies that turn the university into a cemetery whose most conspicuous feature is a deathly silence. This article follows a philosophical perspective that seeks to conduct a cultural anatomy of our society and expose its invisible cultural maladies. I invite all graduate students who, through hard work, have made their way to master's or doctoral programs, and all young faculty members who earned their positions based on their own research merits and still have many years of work ahead in the Iranian academy, to read this article with care and deep reflection on its details. This article serves as an implicit call to change the existing situation in the university, a call awaiting a response.

Introduction

In every country, primary and secondary education is designed to raise the general knowledge level of citizens, and higher education is designed to create the necessary specializations. Elementary and secondary schools are places where students learn to read and write and gain general knowledge about various sciences, but the university is a place established to train specialists, and the students who study there must ultimately gain expertise in a specific field and advance the country in that area. Hence, the growth and development of any society depends on the capabilities of its higher education graduates. Universities must help talents flourish, nurture elites, and deliver them to society for practical application. Today, a country is more powerful if it is more scientifically advanced, and a country has greater scientific power if it possesses stronger universities and higher education centers. Countries lacking such centers are inevitably forced to import science from advanced nations and merely consume it, and this will lead to nothing but dependency. This dependency is resolved when scientific centers, by employing appropriate methods and providing the necessary groundwork, begin to produce science and transform the country into an exporter of science.

In order to have efficient universities and higher education centers, several factors must work together. On the one hand, students must be, in the true sense of the word, seekers of knowledge, and enter the university with the motivation to learn. On the other hand, professors, apart from having the necessary expertise, must also be, in the true sense of the word, teachers, that is, imparters of knowledge. Furthermore, the educational system, both at the university level and at the ministry level, must provide the groundwork for scientific growth through appropriate policymaking. Finally, the economic, social, cultural, and political situation of the country must be such that students can easily acquire knowledge, professors can teach well, and educational administrators can, with peace of mind, organize the educational system and regulations.

Unfortunately, in our country, despite the existence of numerous higher education centers, scientific progress has not reached a desirable level, and this issue requires serious pathology. Our universities deliver graduates to society, not specialists, and for this reason, although masses of graduates enter society every year, we do not witness much scientific growth. Of course, advanced products that make life easier are increasingly made available to people every day, but these products are the result of scientific growth beyond our borders, and in reality, we are merely importers of them. As mentioned, scientific stagnation is rooted in the incapacity of higher education, and this incapacity, in turn, traces back to one of the four factors mentioned. Hence, the slow growth of science in our country can be examined from four aspects: 1) pathologies related to the student, 2) pathologies related to the professor, 3) pathologies related to the educational system, and 4) pathologies related to the economic, social, cultural, and political situation of the country. These four aspects are closely interconnected and influence one another. For this reason, discussing one without the others would be incomplete. However, given the breadth of each of these aspects, this article addresses only a part of the second aspect. The performance of professors in various fields, such as their level of knowledge and expertise, teaching methods, quality of research work, and so on, can be examined and its pathologies identified. Among these fields, the pathologies related to professors' performance in the area of the thesis have been chosen as the subject of this article.

Before entering the main topic, I deem it necessary to mention two points: first, what follows is the result of the author's many years of presence in higher education centers in the field of humanities, and I have tried to avoid conjecture and mention only cases I have directly seen or heard, or that have been recounted by trusted individuals. Therefore, in various sections of the article, I will present examples that will add to its documented and narrative aspect. Second, the pathologies addressed in this article do not apply to all professors. Alongside professors who suffer from these pathologies, there are professors who perform their duties well. On the other hand, regarding the first group of professors, the blame should not be placed entirely on them, nor should the role of external factors influencing their performance be ignored. (Further explanation on this matter will be provided at the end of the article.) Therefore, the aim of writing this article is not to paint a bleak picture and diminish the value of professors' work, but rather to examine pathologies in a specific area as a prelude to confronting them.

* * *

One of the conditions for a student's graduation is writing a thesis or dissertation. Of course, in the past, students at the undergraduate level also wrote theses, but today this is only done at the graduate level. A master's thesis has one supervisor and one advisor, and a doctoral dissertation has one supervisor and two advisors. The duty of these professors is to assist the student in writing the best possible thesis. However, for various reasons, which I will address below, some professors do not fulfill this duty well.

As our professors used to recount, in years past, university faculty members were considered part of the affluent class of society, and their salaries were sufficient for a life befitting a university professor. But for many years now, this salary has not held its former value, and for this reason, some professors compensate for the shortfall in various ways, one of which is accepting a large number of theses. These theses are not limited to the academic department where the professor teaches but include other educational centers to which they commute, and sometimes the number of theses reaches an astonishing figure. Since the number of students, especially at the doctoral level, is limited, competition inevitably occurs among the aforementioned professors, and in this competition, as in any other, conflicts sometimes arise between rivals. I have personally witnessed some of these verbal altercations and have heard that in some departments, matters have escalated to the use of profanity.

In any competition, the one who emerges victorious is the one who has employed more effective methods. Some professors have turned the academic department into a shop where, every day, new techniques must be devised to attract customers—in this case, students. This is especially true for doctoral students, because according to educational regulations, a master's thesis counts as three teaching hours for the supervisor, whereas a doctoral dissertation counts as eighteen hours. In other words, supervising one doctoral dissertation is equivalent to supervising six master's theses. If we assume the thesis supervisor is a full professor at base rank twenty-five, a simple calculation shows that a doctoral dissertation brings them an income of about thirteen million tomans. This sum is tempting for a single dissertation, particularly because professors whose motivation for supervision is purely financial usually do not devote much time to it, so they have ample opportunity to take on multiple dissertations. Thus, the money they earn in this way is easy money. In Charlie Chaplin's film The Gold Rush, one of the characters, who is starving, sees another character as a chicken and tries to catch him. By the same analogy, one could say that some professors see the student as a bag of money that must be obtained by some means. These professors view the student as prey to be trapped.

The traps or tricks employed for this purpose vary from one professor to another. Simple professors directly ask the student to write their thesis with them. Others act a bit more indirectly, suggesting various thesis topics to the student and bringing up the subject of the thesis whenever they see them. When a professor gives a student a topic, they do not mean for the student to write a thesis on that topic with another professor. One student said that when they see a certain professor from a distance, they change their path to avoid encountering them and having to explain their thesis topic. Still other professors prefer more complex and reliable methods. They exercise more patience and take precautions to ensure their arrow definitely hits the target.

One of these methods is putting the student in a position of obligation, which is done in various ways. For example, from the very first day, the professor devises a plan to befriend the student: they lure them to their office on some pretext, ask about their living situation, family problems, and plans for the future, and may even call them by their first name. Then, once they feel sufficiently close to the student, they bring up the thesis topic. Another method is for the professor to try to do something for the student in some way. For instance, they publish the student's article, give them a student job, include them in their research project, entrust them with reviewing an article, introduce them somewhere as an editor or the like, or even lend them money. Then, once they have made the student indebted to them in this way, they raise the subject of the thesis. It is clear that in the aforementioned situations, the student has no way back and is forced to submit to the professor's request.

Another method is making promises to the student. A doctoral student wishes to have a job befitting their degree after graduation. Some professors, especially those with executive positions such as management, make false promises to the student and pretend that they will support them in finding a suitable job in the future. The student, hoping for the professor's support, writes their thesis with them, both to ensure their backing and to repay their favor in advance. Such promises are also made to master's students. They know they cannot become faculty members with a master's degree, but in a society where graduates, especially in the humanities, cannot easily find a job, the support of a professor with an executive role can be a great help in securing an administrative position.

Another method is that some professors, in various ways—such as being lenient in the courses they teach and giving high grades—assure students that they will not be strict regarding the thesis either, and that if they are the supervisor, the thesis will be successfully defended with a high grade regardless of its quality. This is why, during the defense session, some supervisors and sometimes advisors go through fire and water to raise the grade as high as possible, as if they want to send a message to other students through this. These professors have no answer to the criticisms of the examining professor, yet they still give the thesis an excellent grade. One must ask: “You who could not defend the thesis, for what reason are you giving this grade?” Of course, many students whose sole aim is to graduate and for whom the quality of the thesis is unimportant prefer such professors. This group of students and professors easily find each other and coordinate with one another. One group wants money, the other wants a degree. Each gets what they want, and both are satisfied with the transaction.

One of the tricks these professors use to raise the grade is to say, regarding a thesis that has numerous flaws, that the student will later fix the flaws and submit the revised thesis. They expect other professors to ignore the thesis that is on the table during the defense session and give a grade to an imaginary, revised thesis! This is while, according to regulations, only the supervisor will sign the final version of the thesis, and the advisors and examiners have no role after the defense session. Experience has shown that in most cases, the student does not implement the requested revisions, at least not completely, and submits the thesis to the library almost in the same form it was in during the defense session. The reason for this is that revisions are usually proposed by the examiner, not the supervisor. Hence, the supervisor does not show much sensitivity regarding the implementation of revisions. Another ploy the aforementioned professors use to raise the grade is that when grading the thesis, they first ask the examiner to announce their grade, and then, considering the examiner's grade, they announce a grade whose average with the examiner's grade yields the grade they desire.

Thus, it seems that some professors do not wait for the student to knock on their door to get a thesis, but rather act proactively and somehow compel the student to knock on the door. As one such professor put it, “Someone who wants a doctoral thesis must work on the student's brain.”

What has been said concerned thesis supervision, because the supervisor is chosen by the student. But some professors, apart from supervision, also seek numerous advisory and examining roles. Since the advisor is appointed by the supervisor and the examiner by the department head, these professors sometimes offer themselves to the supervisor for the advisory role and to the department head for the examining role! Here, an important question arises: “If the law were to change and no remuneration were to be given to the supervisor, advisor, and examiner, how many professors would be willing to participate in a thesis?”

Professors who view theses merely as a source of income must, to achieve their goal, serve as supervisor or advisor for numerous theses. Since every professor teaches and researches in a few specific areas, if they were to accept theses only in those areas, they would not be assigned many. Here, such professors choose one of two paths: either they force the student to set aside their own interests and write a thesis in the professor's area of interest, or they broaden the scope of their own activity and accept theses on various subjects in which they lack expertise. In the latter case, one need only glance at the list of theses in academic departments and their supervisors, advisors, and examiners to grasp the depth of the catastrophe. For example, a professor once undertook the supervision of a thesis on Foucault, while undoubtedly, they could not even write the name of this French philosopher in Latin script. The interesting point here is that in such cases, other professors usually do not object, because they do not want the said professor to raise the same objection regarding their own theses in the future. Unfortunately, an unwritten law exists among some members of academic departments: "I won't object to your thesis, and you don't object to mine." Of course, if a member violates the law of "mutual silence," the other member will retaliate. It has happened many times that a professor has objected to a colleague regarding a thesis or another matter, but has not raised the same objection in a similar case with another colleague.

It must be accepted that some objections in academic departments are merely a form of retaliation or score-settling. This phenomenon is also seen in defense sessions. Sometimes, some supervising professors, due to a personal problem they have with the examiner, give no response to the objections they raise, and in fact, through this, they seek to belittle the examiner's objections and humiliate them. These professors sometimes also use the student as a pawn in their game. A student once told me after a defense session: "The supervisor had asked me to disregard the examiner's objections and not respond to them." It has sometimes been observed that the smoke from personal disputes among professors gets in the student's eyes. Several times in defense sessions, I have witnessed an examiner who had a score to settle with the supervisor. Instead of separating scientific and non-scientific issues, they identified the defense session as a good place to take revenge and, by criticizing the thesis and deeming it of little value, tried to strike a blow at the supervisor. It is unclear what sin the unfortunate student has committed in the midst of this, that the result of their research is deprived of a scientific evaluation and they do not receive the grade they deserve. Sometimes this ethical problem spreads to administrators as well. Some department heads consider non-scientific issues in appointing examiners and allow personal or factional biases to interfere. For example, I know a professor who, during the tenure of one department head, was not given even a single examination assignment, even though numerous theses were defended in the department during that period in which they had expertise. I also know a department head who, when they had a problem with a thesis supervisor, would appoint a strict professor to examine it.

Some professors, so that a thesis does not run into trouble and proceeds smoothly to the defense session, recommend an advisor who is lenient and, as the saying goes, does not split hairs. Such professors, who understand each other, gradually find one another and form a circle, engaging in mutual back-scratching, so that when one is the supervisor, the other is the advisor, and vice versa. One professor recounted that during the years he had been a member of his department, he was never once a thesis advisor because he did not know the rules of the game, and for that reason, the other department members did not admit him into their circle. This also holds true for the thesis examiner. Many supervisors and advisors do not want the examiner to be a strict professor, because in that case, the flaws in the thesis—and consequently their own negligence—would be exposed, and permission to defend might not even be granted. If they can, they also appoint the examiner from within their own circle and readily give an excellent grade to a thesis of poor quality. The advisor and examiner know that if they endorse the supervisor's grade for this thesis, the supervisor will reciprocate when serving as the examiner or advisor for theses they themselves supervise. A few years ago, two defense sessions were held within two weeks: in the first, I was the supervisor and a colleague was the advisor; in the second, that colleague was the supervisor and I was the advisor. In the first session, I proposed a grade, and the advisor immediately accepted it. In the second session, he proposed a grade, but I did not accept it, considering it too high. To my disbelief, he turned to me and said, "Last week I accepted your grade!"

Interestingly, in some departments, the department head appoints the examiner based on the supervisor's recommendation! It is obvious that the supervisor will suggest a professor who will not cause trouble and will ensure everything ends well and smoothly. Of course, this examiner will, in turn, later propose that same supervisor as the examiner for their own thesis. If an examiner does not raise too many objections, they have the opportunity to be proposed again next time; otherwise, they are barred from entering the circle. I know a professor who, for the sole offense of being rigorous in examination, has not been assigned a single examination for years. These are examples of mutual back-scratching that serve the interests of some but leave science and knowledge out in the cold.

As mentioned, the appointment of the thesis examiner is the responsibility of the department head. Undoubtedly, the most important criterion in appointing an examiner should be their mastery of the thesis topic. This mastery is evident from the examiner's teaching or research work in the field of the thesis topic. If this mastery does not exist, the department head has no right to assign such a person to examine the thesis; however, if they determine that the examiner possesses the necessary qualifications and, consequently, entrusts the thesis to them, they must respect their opinion. One of the problems that has sometimes occurred here is that when the examiner deems the thesis unacceptable and rejects it, the department head entrusts the thesis to another professor, and with this professor's approval, the defense session is held, as if the first examiner's opinion was of no importance and, in fact, they were merely expressing a personal view. A few years ago, I examined a thesis and deemed it indefensible for several reasons. The following week, I learned that the department head had given the thesis to a colleague, who had approved it, and it was given a grade of eighteen in the defense session! One must ask the department head: if one examiner rejects a thesis and another approves it, why should the second examiner's opinion be preferred? This is a form of disrespect to the professor. In such cases, instead of entrusting the thesis to another examiner, the student should be asked to address the thesis's flaws and satisfy the examiner's opinion. Another approach is for the supervisor, advisor, and examiner to hold a joint meeting to review the examiner's objections. This is the minimum respect that can be accorded to the examiner's opinion. Even if the thesis has been given to a second examiner and they have approved it, a third examiner should be used as the final arbiter. Professors can only expect respect from students when they themselves respect one another.

Professors who are in a hurry to secure the benefits of a thesis prefer to accept the theses of final-semester students so that the interval between the approval of the thesis topic and its defense is as short as possible. On the other hand, they pressure the student to defend as soon as possible because, in this way, they receive the money sooner and their capacity to take on a new thesis is freed up. Some of them even have waiting lists and keep students on these lists until a student defends and a slot opens up.

Professors who take on numerous theses usually also teach many hours, and sometimes they do both not only at the university where they are employed but at various universities. In addition, some of them also hold executive responsibilities. These professors do not have enough time for thesis supervision, advising, and examination, and for this reason, they do not dedicate much time to it and sometimes do not read the thesis at all. Due to lack of time, they try in every class to attract elite students to themselves, using the methods previously mentioned. This is beneficial in two ways: one, such students usually do not take up much of the professor's time, and two, the professor is assured that the student does their work properly and the thesis will have no problem in the defense. I have repeatedly witnessed in defense sessions that the supervisor has not read large parts of the thesis. For example, in one defense session, the professor told the student it would have been good to compare this topic with such-and-such a topic. The student replied that the seventh chapter of the thesis is entirely a comparison of these two topics! Some supervising professors are also unwilling to review the thesis chapter by chapter and ask the student to bring the entire thesis at once, whereas the supervisor's duty is to read the thesis gradually and point out the flaws to the student. These professors sometimes, in the defense session, by confusing scientific and non-scientific discussions, instead of enumerating the scientific merits of the thesis and defending it, focus on the student's personality and praise their moral virtues. Of course, from the perspective of such professors, the most important moral virtue of the student has been that they chose them as a supervisor, and perhaps the praise they offer is compensation for this choice.

Regarding advisors, the situation is even worse. I have rarely seen an advisor who has read the entire thesis. In contrast, in some cases, I have realized that the advisor has not read the thesis at all or has spent very little time on it. One evening I was a guest at the home of one of the professors. He said he was the advisor for a thesis and was supposed to go to Qom the next day for the defense. When I asked about the quality of the thesis, he said: "I haven't read it yet. I'll read it on the way tomorrow!" Sometimes, the advisor flips through the thesis during the defense session while the student is presenting and jots down one or two questions or objections to raise for the sake of having something to say. In some cases, the advisor speaks for a few minutes about the topic of the thesis, and not the thesis itself. Another thing some advisors do is approve the thesis without reading it, merely based on the supervisor's approval, whereas every professor should fulfill their own duty.

Some students, even when the supervisor or advisor or both have not helped with their thesis, out of fear of the professors' wrath or in the hope of getting a good grade, thank them at the beginning of the thesis! Whereas thanks are meaningful when the professor has fulfilled their duty. Students usually do not dare to object to professors who have not done their job properly. One master's student said that if we object to the professor before the defense session, he might become spiteful and give a low grade; if we object after the session, he might retaliate in the doctoral interview; if we object after getting the doctorate, he might prevent us from becoming a faculty member. Therefore, the student prefers to outwardly express thanks to avoid problems in the future. Of course, this applies to students who have done their work correctly. Some students who lack the time or literacy to write a good thesis wish that the professors also do not do their job properly and either do not read the thesis at all or at least do not read it carefully.

The situation of examiners is usually better than that of advisors because the defense session is mostly devoted to them. It is they who must find and articulate the flaws in the thesis. Therefore, it is necessary that they have at least glanced at a portion of it. But even here, ridiculous cases have sometimes been observed. One student recounted: “I called the professor who had been appointed as examiner and said the defense session is next week. The professor told me to bring the thesis to his office two hours before the session!” In another instance, I was present as an advisor at a defense session, but half an hour after the session began, there was no sign of the examiner. When he was called, he said he thought the session was on another day and that he had not read the thesis either. Nevertheless, he said he would make it. At the session, he merely asked the student a few questions and confirmed the grade given by the supervisor and me! Reading the thesis during the defense session, which was mentioned regarding the advisor, sometimes also occurs with the examiner. In some defense sessions, I have witnessed the examiner speaking for only two or three minutes, while the thesis was over two hundred pages long. How can one truly know whether this examiner has read the thesis? Sometimes I have also seen the examiner sign the thesis approval form upon receiving the thesis, and even before that, meaning without having read a single word of it. In some cases, the examiner has signed the thesis evaluation form and, during the defense session, did not object to the high grade given by the supervisor and advisor, but after the session, wherever they sat, they criticized the thesis harshly and even deemed it indefensible!

For several years now, a professor has been attending doctoral thesis defense sessions as an “observer” on behalf of the university’s research deputy, but on the one hand, it is unclear what the job description of this observer is and to what extent they can intervene in the proceedings, and on the other hand, because they are apparently not paid a fee, in practice it has been observed that they either enter late in the session, or come at the beginning, then leave and return near the end. I have so far neither seen nor heard of an observer playing a role in a defense session or raising an objection in the report they send afterward. It seems their presence is merely ceremonial.

Some supervisors, advisors, or examiners possess the art of speaking at a defense session in such a way, even when they have not read the thesis, that one imagines they have read it. If these professors are asked why they approved a thesis they had not read and whose flaws they had not addressed, they say it was to help the student move forward. It seems some professors have come to believe that their primary duty is to push the student's work through at any cost, and for this reason, they find fault with professors who show rigor and carefully observe academic regulations. When the majority do not perform their duty properly, the person who acts correctly becomes notorious. One conscientious professor said that among students, and even professors, he is known for not pushing students' work through. For it has happened many times that the supervisor approved the thesis, but he, as the advisor, did not approve it because the thesis had many flaws and asked the student to correct them. In some cases, he was the supervisor and, despite the advisor's approval, did not approve the thesis. Professors must know that the primary duty of a professor is to elevate the country's academic standing, and to achieve this goal, it is sometimes necessary that the student's work not be pushed through. Of course, pushing a student's work through is not without its vested interests. Some professors push a student's work through so that the student will not speak ill of them behind their back, or take their complaint to the department head or the education office, or seek revenge in some other way. Others push the student's work through so that the student will reciprocate in the future. One professor said that most students are recruited by news agencies or newspapers. Therefore, if we push their work through today, they will interview us or publish our articles tomorrow. In reality, such professors are gathering disciples for themselves by bribing students and using them as a ladder to fame. They pretend their goal is to serve the student, while they have no purpose other than serving themselves. This kind of approach to the thesis has caused many defense sessions to take on a clichéd form and turn into a play where the script for each character is written in advance: first, the student gives a general report and thanks the supervisor and advisor, then the supervisor and advisor praise the student, and finally, the examiner makes some general remarks and points out a few minor flaws. The grade is also predetermined and usually at least eighteen. The final act of the play is the reception and taking a commemorative photo. Now, if a professor wants to break this cliché, they face resistance from the student and the professor, and ultimately either prefer to withdraw and not enter this play at all, or they are gradually removed from the scene.

From the aforementioned points, the secret of another competition, namely the competition to teach at the doctoral level, is revealed. Of course, professors may have different motivations for teaching at this level. It is possible that a professor considers teaching a doctoral class as a sign of erudition and wants to pretend through this that they are learned. Another professor may not have the patience for teaching and prefers a doctoral class because most of the class time is usually devoted to student presentations. But it must be accepted that the main reason for some professors' desire to teach at the doctoral level is the opportunity it provides to supervise doctoral theses, which, as mentioned earlier, are not financially comparable to master's theses. A few years ago, a colleague suggested that I teach a doctoral course at the university where he taught, and when I showed reluctance, he encouraged me by saying it was a good opportunity to take on doctoral theses. It is for this reason that sometimes conflicts arise within academic departments over teaching at this level among professors or between a professor and the department head, and matters even escalate to estrangement and threats. To solve the problem and so that there are enough doctoral courses for applicants to teach, and so that, so to speak, everyone gets a share, some departments have started admitting doctoral students in various subfields, without having the necessary number of expert professors among the department members in those subfields. As a result, in recent years, we have witnessed professors who lacked the sufficient background and knowledge to teach at the doctoral level becoming engaged in teaching at this level.

What has been said brings us to the answer to the question, “Why do departments usually appoint supervisors, advisors, and examiners from among their own members and not allow a professor from outside the department to participate in a thesis?” This matter is almost absolute regarding the supervisor, and the vast majority of departments do not, under any circumstances, permit the thesis supervisor to be from outside the department. It has been observed many times that a thesis has been defended in a department while the professors involved had no expertise whatsoever in the subject area, yet there were professors outside that department who had worked specifically on that topic, but they were not even invited to serve as examiners. The reason for this practice is clear, and some professors openly state it. One professor said on this matter: “A lamp that is worthy for the home is forbidden for the mosque.” Meaning that the thesis money is better distributed among the department members rather than outside it. Of course, professors have other motivations for accepting a thesis, as theses also affect grants and promotion. A grant is an amount allocated annually to professors for educational and research activities, including participation in theses. It might be said that promotion has a scholarly aspect and professors have no financial incentive to obtain it, but the truth is that promotion means nothing other than a salary increase. Everyone knows that academic ranks such as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Full Professor only indicate the professor’s experience and the quantity of their scholarly work, not its quality, and consequently, have nothing to do with their erudition. Of course, there is a possibility that a professor might suffer from delusion and imagine that because they are a Full Professor, they are therefore erudite. Another motivation for professors to accept a thesis is that publishing a scientific-research article from the thesis is necessary for a doctoral student and a condition for defense, and for a master’s student, it increases the thesis grade. These articles are published jointly under the names of the professor and student and bring points, and consequently money, to the professor. For this reason, some professors pressure master’s students to turn a chapter of the thesis into an article, even after the defense session, and use their connections and influence to get it published. Thus, the confinement of theses within the academic department is either directly motivated by financial gain or indirectly through their role in grants and the promotion of members.

Some professors use their name and fame to earn income, because some students, in choosing a thesis supervisor, care more about the professor’s fame than their erudition or diligence. These students wish to have a famous professor’s name on their thesis and think this name can lend credibility to their thesis. Choosing a famous professor also has the advantage that the professor can use their prestige to introduce the student to a journal or publisher for publishing an article or book, and to educational centers for teaching. This is while most famous professors do not have the time or patience to read the thesis, and some fundamentally lack much erudition and their fame is spurious. Some students also prefer to choose a supervisor who can later provide them with a job. Hence, they gravitate toward professors who hold executive positions. Sometimes, holding positions related to the thesis can also influence the student. For example, a professor’s membership on the jury for selecting the best thesis might lead the student toward them in the hope of their thesis being chosen.

For several years now, the buying and selling of theses has been raised as a serious pathology at the postgraduate level. Two fundamental questions arise here: first, why do some people buy theses? Second, why do some people sell them? Regarding the first question, it must be said that although the thesis is an important tool through which the student can achieve academic growth, the staggering increase in student admissions at these levels has meant that many students are not up to the standard of postgraduate studies and, consequently, lack the literacy or motivation to write a thesis. The answer to the second question also, in a way, goes back to this same point. The increase in student admissions and the lack of a job market have led some graduates to turn to thesis-writing for students. What relates this discussion to the subject of this article is the role of professors in preventing this ugly phenomenon. If professors carry out their supervisory and advisory duties properly, they will undoubtedly realize whether the student wrote the thesis themselves or someone else did it. Professors must require the student to visit them at specified intervals and report on their progress. On these occasions, they should engage the student in discussion about the thesis topic, ask about aspects of the work, and gauge their level of interest. A student who does not visit professors to resolve problems and receive guidance and advice, and does not submit the thesis chapter by chapter but brings it all at once, is highly likely not to have written it themselves. I once had a student who had taken the translation of a book as their thesis. After the topic was approved, they disappeared and after a year came with the thesis and requested a defense date. I placed phrases from the original text that had been correctly translated in the thesis in front of them and asked them to translate. They could not do it, and it became clear they had not done the translation themselves. Therefore, part of the prevalence of thesis-selling stems from the irresponsibility of some professors. When a student sees that the professor does not give the thesis the necessary importance, does not read it properly, and is eager for the thesis to be defended as soon as possible to reap the benefits thereof, they see the path to buying a thesis as smooth and, if they lack academic spirit and motivation, they will resort to it. One student who had taken the translation of a book as a thesis with a professor at the Islamic Azad University said they had gone to the professor to resolve a problem, and the professor had said: "I don't have time. Go get someone to translate it!" For such professors, it does not matter whether the student wrote the thesis or someone else. What matters is that the thesis is written and ready for defense. Some students, instead of buying a thesis, resort to plagiarism and write the thesis based on one or a few limited sources. In this case too, the conscientiousness of professors can prevent their wrongful act.

Conclusion

The aforementioned points show that the state of theses is afflicted with fundamental pathologies in every respect, namely topic selection, approval, writing, and defense. Given the massive volume of student admissions at universities at the postgraduate level, the number of theses increases daily, but this increase does not signify the country's scientific progress. The outcome of theses is that the professor gains money and the student gains a degree. In fact, if the thesis lacks water for the advancement of science and knowledge, it has bread for improving the life of the professor and the student. Due to the low scientific level of theses, most of them are not published and gather dust in university libraries. Some of them are not even worth the paper they consumed. Of course, alongside these, there are also theses that possess scientific value, but their number is small.

The improper conduct of some professors regarding theses is one of the afflictions plaguing higher education, which was addressed in this article; however, one must not make a one-sided judgment here and ignore the role of other factors in this conduct. If we return to the aspects mentioned in the introduction, it must be said that, for example, in the student aspect, the weakness and lack of motivation of many students, even at the graduate level; in the higher education system aspect, the priority of quantity over quality and the pressure on students to finish their studies as quickly as possible on the one hand, and the pressure on professors to increase the number of written works on the other; in the aspect of the country's overall situation, economic and social problems, etc., have all been influential in the professors' conduct in this area. These factors, along with the excessive demands of some professors, have caused the professors' conduct regarding theses to be far from desirable. Although examining the factors and roots of these afflictions is necessary in its own right, the aim of writing this article is merely to state the problem and reveal the existing afflictions in this area. Without a doubt, recognizing the affliction and accepting its existence is the first step toward eliminating it.

.

---

.

PDF file of Hedayat Alavitabar's article titled “Beneath the Surface of the University”

.

---

.