The committee said that from page 34 to 50, the thesis is completely identical to a paper written by German sports sociologist Klaus Heinemann, and another 180 pages are partly identical to a paper written by the Bulgarian scholar, Nikolay Georgiev.
The committee also pointed to the lack of proper citations or bibliography and other significant lapses.
The “split decision” by the committee boils down to a recognition that Schmitt’s thesis was flawed, but that the responsibility for this lies with the former Sports University rather than Schmitt.
“If not an irregularity, it was certainly a formal mistake that the thesis is generally characterized by the insufficiency and lack of referencing which the supervisor at the time and the assessors of the thesis should have pointed out during the preparatory phase and in the pre-assessment,” the report said. The Sports University made a mistake by not revealing these shortcomings and leading the writer to believe that the thesis met the requirements, it added.
Iosephus: Of the commitee, I could believe it, sometimes they get a handful of overworked external guys with only secondary specialization in the subject, and that barely manage to browse through the lengthy boring mess before deadline to issue evaluation is on them.
At least when I become a proto-dictator, smashing opposition and fanning the flames of oppression towards minority groups and anyone who just doesn't like me, I will rest easily knowing that my dissertation was really my own work
« Older Experimental novelist and critic Christine Brooke-... | Linden Gledhill is trying to g... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt