just a short reaction since I have to prepare for tomorrow.
Bill: yes, you're a day early but thank you anyway. The funny thing
is that the date on which the dissertation is scheduled to be
defended has to be mentioned in the text, since it is assumed that,
if sucessfully defended, it is scientifically validated -
sanctioned even - as of that date. 'Officially' it has no 'value'
yet! :-0
As for the 'well written and researched' remark, I'm not so
sure since there's a lot of space between the ideas and an infinite
number of "arbitrary" decisions made.
[As a side issue for those interested in activity theory, it's
quite worthwhile to note these little details: the date issue looks
weird but that's how things are done.
Moreover, I found the issue of stellingen (statements) very
interesting since three or four centuries ago no dissertation had to
be written; people would simply write down a number of statements
(i.e. claims) based on their research and it was these statements
that had to be publicly defended; that was the official and
compulsory requirement for becoming a doctor; later on
the concept of the dissertation was introduced and people had to
write a few pages of text, mostly elaborating on the statements. With
the passing of time, the dissertation itself became the focal point
and the statements are not even compulsory nowadays!
Another interesting issue is the fact that traditionally only four
out of about ten statements had to be related to the dissertation;
the remaining six could be about anything else really (yes, even
about the unbearable lightness of being!); in those good old days it
was assumed that becoming a doctor did not only entail acquiring
expertise in a domain or making a theoretical or empirical
contribution to the existing body of knowledge in a domain; back
then a doctor was supposed to be a philosopher as well, a person who
could reason not only about issues within his own narrow domain
but about everything in general; it was a person who had
developed a general understanding of things.
Finally, it's worth commenting on the use of paranymphs (two people
present on the podium to support the candidate, typically friends,
relatives, or colleagues); their main function is to help the
candidate should a difficult question pop up (the candidate can
consult them for a short period of time but he/she is of course
entirely responsible for the answer given). Today, one can perceive
of the paranymphs as providing mainly psychological support (unless
you have bad luck and you get a question you know nothing about - God
forbid). In sharp contrast, in the middle ages their role was
drastically different: because of the heated and passionate debates
and arguments during the defense of dissertations, fights typically
broke out and the paranymphs had a lot of work to do! :-) This is why
they sometimes knew nothing about the topic being discussed (perhaps
even not educated at all) but were very big and muscular so that they
could definately "assist" the candidate if the defense degenerated
into a fist fight or something. Things change uh?