Work Text:
Dearest colleagues:
We are within the window of time where doctoral candidates will be allowed to defend their dissertations in front of the examination committee, and therefore I must remind all of you that the snake fight portion of the defense must be administered according to the rules that have been set forth by the Regents of the University. Irregularities in the examination process often invites the scrutiny of accreditation bodies, costs the University money in legal fees and defenses against frivolous lawsuits, and puts the candidates' chances of successfully earning their degree at risk. The University can ill-afford such damage to our reputation as a Tier 1 University.
I have a few reminders and announcements as we enter the defense period:
- Any rumors that you hear about replacing the committee process of vetting a thesis and then choosing a snake for the snake fight with an algorithm or "artificial intelligence" are overblown and unfounded. There are no currently viable algorithms that can take into account all of the important variables of evaluating a doctoral thesis, no matter how much other schools in the state claim they're harnessing "AI" in every aspect of the thesis and dissertation process. NoStepOnSnek, the supposed "leader" in the field, thinks a giraffe is an appropriate snake to send against a doctoral candidate who hasn't done enough primary research and is presenting a subpar thesis.
- I am pleased to report that our experiment with venomous snakes and their mimics has both improved our ranking in U.S. News and World Report and resulted in significantly fewer casualties than expected. The Regents have permitted the experiment to continue into this round of defenses under tightly monitored circumstances.
- Regardless of what you may think about your colleagues or the candidates, the use of lethally venomous snakes in any situation other than substantiated violations of the academic integrity policy is itself a violation of University policy. Remember: "Red on yellow, never a fellow, red on black, get approval from Jack."
- All students attempting a defense must have signed the indemnity waiver and provided the University with proof of life insurance that will cover the costs of their funeral and burial should a most unfortunate result occur from the snake fight. Some students will claim the stipends provided are insufficient to carry any kind of life insurance, but those students almost always turn out to have spent their funds on frivolous things, like rent, food, and snake charming courses.
- The Herpetology Department requests all advisory committees communicate their chosen snake for the defense to them as soon as the choice is finalized, especially if the choice requires coordination with the nearest zoo to procure an appropriate specimen. Proper handling requires training and equipment, and we wish to continue our streak of twenty years without either a candidate or an advisory committee member being bitten during a successful defense.
- Even as a joke, please do not send your doctoral candidates the recommendations generated by an "AI" or other tool purporting to predict the snake that will be present at their thesis defense. The candidates are already one step away from a full mental breakdown. Even though it may seem obvious to you that telling them they'll have to fight a "brown recluse snake" is a joke, University Counseling Services continues to request more of our departmental budgets for treatment of candidates who are unable to determine reality from the carefully constructed theories present in their theses that have to survive long enough to get through their defenses.
- While there is some flexibility in the guidelines, facsimiles of snakes, digital snakes, lizards or insects that are commonly mistaken for snakes, wurms, ex-partners, ex-bosses, or any other human in the candidate's life, and nagas, lamias, hydras, or other multi-species hybrids are not permitted. Only live, physical, pure snakes may be used for the snake fight portion of the defense.
- Candidates requesting alternate exam methods due to ophidiophobia must have their accommodations paperwork on file, including the results of the Henry Jones, Jr. snake pit diagnostic supplement and the alternate herpetological candidate assessment, at least thirty days before the scheduled defense date. Late applications will not be accepted.
- While a plethora of engineering contraptions, digital devices, and outright flimflam is permitted during the thesis defense and the snake fight, live mongooses are strictly forbidden to be present during the snake fight portion of the defense. Any student employing a live mongoose to assist them during the snake fight is to be failed and dismissed from the university for academic dishonesty. If the students are feeling desperate enough to attempt bringing a live mongoose to the defense, remind them that extensions are available and that we care more about their physical and mental health than about arbitrary timetables for graduation. Try to deliver that advice with a straight face. If you cannot, find a colleague who can and have them do it.
- Faculty advisors are still forbidden from giving information or hints about what snake has been chosen for their candidate's defense. They may, however, make suggestions about which of the many snake fight preparation courses and workshops their candidate would gain the most benefit from attending. International students from regions that do not have snakes are required to attend at least one of these workshops and present proof of completion before being allowed to sit their defense.
- The Regents of the University have approved a pilot program to trial NoStepOnSnek in the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, with the hope that either the candidates' theses or NoStepOnSnek will emerge from the process vastly improved from their current abilities.
- University Counseling Services has advertised two new positions they claim will be funded from the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science budget in response to this trial.
- And finally, to the best of your ability, please avoid the Reviewer Two stereotype. It is poor practice to require the candidate to face a larger and more difficult snake in their defense solely because your personal papers were not cited in the dissertation as the discipline-changing wonders you believe they are. It is even poorer practice to require the candidate to face a large, difficult snake because they had the audacity to disagree with your magnum opus or to point out where there were shortcomings in your own work. We are all tenured academics here. We can act like it.
Good luck to all the candidates in this year's defense period.