Talked to the PLuS program director today about the next steps. We discussed how it was the right thing to do to not pursue having my adviser go over my first test. I said that I thought that my adviser was somehow wounded from the request to go over the first test again. He concurred that he also thought as I did. He continued to talk about what we could do for the test. He talked about getting the test un-timed and getting a reader for me. We discussed how my action item would be to get him the test registration deadline and test date. He said he would announce his request near to the test time.

Had the flu last week and spent most of the time sleeping when I wasn't at work. As you remember I went to my adviser to see my past exams. He only had one of them. I contacted the head of graduate advising after the meeting and he said that he had given both exams to my adviser. I sent mail saying that I still wanted to see the other exam. My adviser refused. This is what he wrote after saying that it was to long since my other exam. "First, the other test was a quite long time ago, and second I believe we have reviewed that test before your second try. Furthermore, I have covered all the major deficiencies of you answers while reviewing your second test last Friday. I am afraid I have very little to add. So another review will not be productive. So as far as reviewing you previous tests is concerned, I believe we are done." I know that we have never reviewed any tests. The last time I went to see him he ask "Do you have the test with you." He very well knew he had to get the test from the head of advising. So after the message above I sent a mail saying that I still wanted to see the exam and that my adviser did not have to be the one showing it to me. At some later time I just passed on the review. My adviser seemed wounded in the process. I need not put that much anxiety in his life. That would not be the right thing to do. So I sent a message to the PLuS program directory to have a call today to discuss further directions. That is where we stand at this moment.

Yesterday I visited my adviser to go over my past exams. I wanted to go over both of them. I said that we could meet at a later date in case we did not have time during the current meeting. He said that it had been to long since my first exam and they no longer had it. This would be the only exam we could go over. I ask him how we should start. He said any way I wanted. So we started at number one. The first problem was one where I had to draw a class diagram using patterns to solve a particular problem described. Because I missed the word why in the question to cause me to explain why I chose the patterns I did I lost credit. I believe that the language I used in the description was good enough to explain the why. I talked about how one of the patterns was a creational pattern. I talked about how a creational pattern worked. In a different part of the same question I was ask about how I would analyze my design against a functional requirement to succeed in 3 seconds. I described how I would use some timed analysis to analysis my design and gave a pseudo code to gain information about the run time. He said that I was supposed to describe the different ways of analysis and not a specific one. The question was not specific as I could see in this regard. I saw that this was a subpart of the first problem and that they wanted to know if I could do any kind of formal analysis over my design. In my interpretation of the first question I passed this question. It was poorly written and did not attempt to draw anything out of the student. It relies on the trickery of well placed interrogative adjectives to cause the student to stumble on a timed test with stress. This was a trivial question but made difficult by the manner in which the question was asked. This is s central theme of the exam. The next question was on different types of testing. I am personally confused by the wording of the names of types of testing so this kind of recall I get wrong some times. There were three of them. I thought for sure that I had at least two of them. I am pretty sure that I did but because I described how a test would be carried out rather than the selection of testing questions in that technique I did not get the question correct. Again, this sound like a poorly stated question. I think I had at list 2 kinds of the testing correct. I just talked about them in the wrong way per what the test writers wanted....subjectivity. The third question that I selected to do was on formal methods. I don't remember why I chose this question. The question was on the language OCL. OCL is used in UML diagram notes boxed to describe pre and post conditions as well as parameters. OCL is actually a language though in real life it is never used that way. I new that there was more to it but had decided that this has a small chance of a significant part of the test and didn't go deep enough in my study. I had a handle on the syntax but was unable to put it together on the test. My answers ended up making no sense. I wouldn't say that I was completely wrong but certainly you could ague it that way. The last questions were questions like "What is Deadlock?" I had this very same question on the Operating Systems exam of which I passed. I wrote the definition directly from the book. In fact for every question in this section I wrote the definition directly from the book. I was not given full credit because they said I had not demonstrated that I fully understood what each question was about. My adviser and I argued about these questions for some time. I argued that a definition should be sufficient. He argued that a PhD is not about amassing knowledge....his words not mine. He wanted pseudo code to explain my answers further. I said that that does not demonstrate anything. If a person memorized the definition he or she could memorize pseudo code also. This is a slippery slop to define the correct answer by something that you could not memorize. He said that the large body of knowledge needed for the test would prohibit that. I don't think that a large body of knowledge prohibits anything. Sounds like the Turing test to me. I think that I should be allowed to continue on the basis of the last test, in my mind I passed. I know that when I am in a stressful situation like a timed test there are certain things like definitions that get me through. If they want me to elaborate on every question a timed test is not the way to test me. I also find a definition somehow definitive. To explain more puts me into a thrash that is hard to dig myself out. I continue to want to go back to a question and never finish. I find myself being repetitive and making the answer hard to read. On a test where there is one place to put your thoughts down on paper a thrashing situation means that organization is out the window because my organization in my head is nonlinear. My organization is more like a 3d web. To draw knowledge and link to the place where the true answer is means a depth or breadth search of disjointed data translated into linear answers which often times don't make sense because of the peppering of irrelevant digressions. I am really tired of tring to explain. Having an untimed test may help but if the test is completely subjective how can I ever get a fair outcome. It seems that the subjectivity has to be removed. Answers need to be concrete and above reproach. This technique didn't seem to work in my last test. I thought that a definition would be sufficient. I see now that if the test is subjective even a definition can be said to be wrong on grounds that memorization of a definition does not demonstrate understanding. I remember reading about Gauss and how he often had short terse answers. His notebook, published after his death, was only 19 pages long. Would he have passed one of these tests? Does short terse answers not constitute understanding? Why does an answer of a definition, yes obtained from a book, not be the answer? It seems that the technique of denying a student the attribute of understanding, the burden of proof should lie in the test and not on the student. Should a student make the assumption that every grader has no prior knowledge and teach them about their answer. It seems that the audience for any test is the tester. If the tester is inadequate in their understanding of the answer and the answer is correct they are then a researcher learning themselves. So, the student does become the master. If the tester with their limited understanding, but in the position of authority, cannot adequately grade the test then they should be removed or the test be made so that anyone could grade the test with the correct key. Thus, subjectivity should be the last tool lest they believe that they are smarter than all who may take the test. Objectivity is the only true test, not just because of the lack of influence of personal feelings or opinions but because of the possible lack of understanding on the part of the tester. This lack of understanding could be either in the answer or in the test and what the test is supposed to show. I believe that the test is flawed. I don't believe that the professors (tester) are so arrogant that they believe that they are smarter than all who take their tests. My last point that I will make is that I have taken 3 candidacy exams. Each given on a different subject: Operating Systems, Database, and now Software Engineering. There is not any consistency among how the tests are written and how they are graded. Some have concrete questions some questions some don't. Some have essay some don't. I have gone to see the exams in the past for other tests and they way they are handled is differently. Some have the test marked up and some don't. The software engineering test had no marks on it. My adviser had to interpret what was wrong with the test. I understand that it is graded by multiple people. If this is the case, lets see what they all have to say. Lets not rely on what my adviser has to say about each answer. This process of reviewing the software engineering exam could have been done better. The student goes to get understanding. I think that I could have gotten more out of it if I had seen all of the other graders remarks. After all, I am trying to please each and every one of them.

I sent a reminder to my adviser today reminding him that we have plans to meet tomorrow the 20th to review my exams. He has as of today has been very successful at foiling plans for me to see the exams. The PLuS program director has sent email and tried to contact him by phone. My adviser has not made any reply yet. We have no acknowledgment yet that he will even be there tomorrow. He presented the time and date and it is during his office hours. I said that I would attend as soon as he offered the time and date. He has yet to acknowledge the appointment. I have taken the day off. I am supposed to be in the Lucent Lab from midnight on Thursday to noon on Friday. I have ask to cut that short and go down to school. I will also attend a meeting to try and get a class to teach during the winter quarter at 10am..need the money and a way to finance any more classes I may have to take in my program of study.

I am preparing to visit my adviser this Friday to review my past exams. He doesn't seem like he wants this to happen. The PLuS program director tried to contact my adviser to see if he had any questions or wanted someone from PLuS to sit in on the meeting. My adviser did not reply. Also in looking back over my emails again to make sure I had not missed any action items for this Friday's meeting I noticed that the PLuS program director had said at one point whom had said that the usual route for reviewing the tests would be used and I had no other alternative. Today I ask him for that persons name. In parallel I continue the monumental task of learning things for the test that were never taught in the classroom. Because of the variability of this endeavor it seems impossible to cover all that could be ask. I do have some clues in the study guide but for the Software engineering test it is nothing but a long reading list of books. It has not been effective to just read every book. I have done that for the last couple of tests. I have other clues like some of the past tests but I feel that the granularity of the large data points makes knowing everything impossible. So I do my best to be well rounded at as deep a level as I can. Since it has not been effective in the past unless the test changes I have low hopes. But I wont' quit. They will have to make me quit.

On the 10th of October the DePaul PLuS program director sent an email to my adviser telling of my visit on September 12th and how we discussed getting access and review of my test. He mentioned to him that it was his idea for review and that he would expect that my adviser should follow through on October 20th during our meeting that day with the review. It looks like it will take more than a month to get the ball rolling. Considering how long it has taken since my test I believe that the time frame required for the PhD program must be irrelevant in my case. I am not really worried about the length of time as long as I will not be disqualified and ask to leave because of and extended time frame. From past experience I would expect that reviewing my test will be just another set of roadblocks. It remains to be seen. I continue to review. Yesterday I made some break through in the Lucent lab with my work. It seems to have put pressure on our competitors. We have some ideas that this happening from some negative emails we received on the same day. My work takes me into areas where there are only a few other companies in the world that have access or even have early intentions. We get to work with the bleeding edge wireless gear and handsets. Our research and development is exactly what I would have wanted to do with a PhD. I am already there. I really want to finish my PhD but if I don't I have already achieved even more than some of my professors. I just wish I could be treated better by them. I wish I didn't have to resort to working through the PLuS program and twisting arms to get better tests. It should be built into the test to not discriminate. Essays can be so subjective. Just a quick note. I was so excited to see that GOOGLE picked up my blog on Tuesday, October 10th. It is now searchable.

The PLuS program director must have been unsuccessful in getting a different method for me to review my past exams. I contacted him on Friday about progress. He responded yesterday that I should confirm that I have made an appointment with my adviser to see the exams. We must have had a miscommunication. I made the request to my adviser yesterday. After 4 emails my adviser agreed to see me on the 20th. He also left open the 29th. He said I would have to request the time ahead of time so I responded yesterday with an affirmative. I copied the PLuS program director on every message. My adviser responded each time without the copy list. It really should not be this difficult. The coordination between departments is bad. I am sure that the PLuS program director has long since notified the Advising director but somehow the advising director never notified my adviser. It was evident in my advisers email that nobody knows who is in charge. He is so difficult to work with. This will be an uphill battle, but I knew that. I am still reviewing Zed. I reviewed the chapters at the beginning of the book on set theory. It always helps me to review that stuff. You know classical logic vs. formal logic stuff. I have also started reviewing UML. I did a brief overview of class diagrams and looked again at OCL. UML books all suck. This kind of stuff is always done with a tool. Syntax is so difficult to be precise. Think about it. If complexity in software engineering is a driver in just about everything we do why aren't tools pervasive. Diagrams are for communication and internal understanding. Building architects use CAD tools they don't use pencil and paper any more. Storage and retrieval are important to being able to organize the complexity. To skip over to math...It was said that if Archimedes had had Gausses notation he would have achieved better mathematics. At the same time it was said that Einstein developed his own mathematical notation for the Theory of Relativity. The best measure of the usefulness of a notation is its use. I have worked on large systems and small intricate ones. UML has never been the language of choice to meet the needs of communications or understanding. It doesn't aid in design. Reverse engineering of a system into diagrams does help with understanding systems already built. Software engineers don't use tools for storing designs. I struggle to understand the analogies used for why UML is good in the real world. At any rate I am reviewing it.

I was happy to learn today that the PLuS program director ask on my behalf for an alternative to the usual previous test review process. In the past I have had trouble getting access to reviewing tests I have taken. I have always been steered towards my adviser. For various reasons he has never given me access to the tests. On one occasion I setup an appointment as prescribed for reviewing the test. Upon the visitation he ask me if I had brought the test with me. He knows very well that he is supposed to retrieve the test from the director of advising. It could have been a mistake but I continued to have roadblocks put in my way. Eventually I gave up. Waiting weeks to hear results and then weeks for an appointment to review the test and then being shutdown kind of hurts.

Today after an email and a voice mail to the DePaul PLuS program director I got an email reply that he sent a message to the Director of Advising to announce that I had contacted him. He let me know that he had sent the message today. This is one week since he responded to my email containing passed exams and the syllabus to the class that was supposed to teach Zed but didn't. The director of the PLuS program said he had not had time to review the information I sent him but would soon. His excuse was that it is midterm week and he had to work with several others in the program. It sounded like a plausable excuse. I continue to work through the zed examples from a book that was not on the Software Engineering reading list. It has some answers and it is the best way I have found to get some validation. Even though this is probably the 4th time I have done this review I still re-learn things every time. I am reviewing some set theory right now. Sometimes I feel like I am trying to learn things to win a game of trival persuit. Classical logic vs Formal Logic always gets me every time. I tend to hate the difference. You never see what way you should do your analysis you have to know that by context. I have such a hard time with recognizing context. Set theory...a large part of zed. ....chapter 2 of several. I know that it will help me. I just have to do this for the 4th time.