I like instant coffee.  Or at least, I like the brand of instant coffee I drink.  Given the volumes I consume, it is not economically viable for me to brew coffee.  When I make the coffee, I put the dry mix in the cup, add the water, add the sugar, and finally add the milk.  My parents visited me this afternoon and, at some point, my mother made some coffee.  She adds the mix, milk, and sugar while she waits for the water to boil, and then adds the water.  We use roughly the same quantities but I can nevertheless tell the difference between her and my coffee.  Very strange.

The morning was devoted to evaluating two MSc students.  They made presentations (neither one did it very well), and then the staff conducted brief oral examinations.  Lastly we had a long discussion of the final marks.  A lot of effort, but nobody really pays much attention to these marks.  Nevertheless, we devote a lot of time to it.  We try to be fair.  Since we do not have many students, we know them quite well.  Almost noone approaches these meetings without some idea of the students’ abilities.  I wonder if it is at all possible to be objective.  How well can we really evaluate a student’s research skills?

Like most evaluations, the purpose is threefold.  It is, for the record, a measure of the past achievements of the student.  It is also, more importantly, a prediction of the future performance of the student.  And last, more subtly, it is a statement of our own achievements and a declaration of what we believe is “good”.

As far as MSc degrees are concerned, the measure does not matter much.  It is a binary mark (X has no MSc, or X has passed the MSc; perhaps it is ternary:  X has passed the MSc cum laude).  Perhaps our evaluations reflect more on ourselves, and perhaps our meetings are venues where we express and affirm our philosophies of science to ourselves.  Hmm.