Talk:Candidate of Sciences

Outside of Academia

By "accredited institutions outside of Academia" I meant "otraslevye NII". I find it stricken out. I thought it's notable. Any reason of removal?

IMO one could only defend under the patronage of:

1. Educational Instituion (University, Institute)
2. any Institute of the Academy of Sciences
3. "otraslevoy NII" such as NII under "MinSredMash", "MinStroy", etc.

If it could be said better, please do. But we should say it in some way, I think. --Irpen 19:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed material

The following lines were removed from the article:

A little Comment from a Master of Arts(from FSU): the fact is that a Candidate of Science Degree is not equal to Ph.D. at all the degree which is equal is a Doctor of Science Degeree the Soviet Propagada always said that "Candidate of Science = Ph.D and Ph.D is not a true Doctor Degree" just in order to say "our Doctors are smarter" and unfortunetlly conisderable amount of people in fromer Soviet Union (FSU) Countries still believe that Ph.D. is not a true Doctoral Degree :( whoever the major difference between MSc and Candidate of Science is necessity of a Candidate Dissertation as far as I know the Soviet (as well as Tsar's Russian) educational system was made on the base of midevial German so a person graduated from a high school did not have any degree like a bachelor (the system also did not have division of schools to primary and secondary)this graduated person may continue to study in order to get a Candidate Degree

...as these claims are very disputable and doubtful. --V1adis1av 16:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an international group that decides what is equal to what when people accredited in one sphere try to move to another realm. This "roughly" should not exist. I knew of a situation in an American university where a degree (probably this one from the old Soviet Union) was challenged. An international referee who decides these things said it was not equivalent to a doctorate and the person was demoted! I think we need more than an encyclopedia from the old Soviet Union as a reference for this. I don't believe it! Student7 (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That sentence with "roughly" is not from the GSE. What makes you think it is from there? How could GSE write on "post-Soviet states"? Hence, feel free to add {{cn}} tag there. In case you don't believe, that in Soviet time Ph.D. was equal to Candidate of Science degree, I've added English reference in addition to GSE reference.86.100.231.115 (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I don't think, the part "Plagiarism" is necessary in this article and it is insulting for the Russian and Soviet Science. Plagiarism is possible, of course, as everywhere. But everyone can appeal to the VAK and ask them cancel the kandidat status of plagiator. And there were precedents of it.

"Closed defence" - is a normal common procedure for technical scients. If we did not have closed dissertations everyone was able to find the draft of the nuclear bomb in the hall of Russian State Library :))) . The defence of my kandidat dissertation is planned in this Autumn, so i have idea about all this things.

That is why I consider, the part "Plagiarism" should be deleted --D'Arahchjan 12:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, closed defence procedure is common in ourdays too (this dissertations are called "Диссертация для служебного пользования" in Russian). Here, on the official site of VAK, you can find the official Act about it (in Russian): http://vak.ed.gov.ru/norm_doc/197/ I'm not an expert, but I think, a similar procedure for secret researches should be in other systems too.--D'Arahchjan 12:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion reverted. If you know the subject, fix it. The title (deleted) was added by clueles or trollish person. The text itself is valid. The "atomic bomb" issue does not contradict the text. While you are planning "this autumn", I used to know the value of "Kandidats" from Soviet Central Asia. Photocopies from their opuses (I meant opera (no vspomnil kak Petka operu pisal)) used to be hung on message boards of our institution (the First Department, clearly din't unerstand the humor. They thought it was regular scientific announcements. Management, whenever noticed, quietly removed.) `'mikka 18:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Science in poor countries can not be leading. That is a problem of countries, not candidate status (i think thу word "Candidate" or "Candidat" is better).
  • It is problem of soviet union, not "poor countries. `'mikka 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• the "closed defence" is a very rare procedure. i dont think, that it is necessary to write about it in encyclopedy. Probably there was some corruption here, but it was not necessary . If you have such an opportunity (or even just money), you can order to write a good dissertaion to some scientist and make an open presentation of it.
  • No it was not. `'mikka 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• I reverted fiends of science.
  • I removed it again. It belongs to VAK, not here. `'mikka 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My sense of encyclopedic style differ from yours. I think, encyclopedy should avoid information, one could not check. Your information about "apparatchiks' defences" seems to be doubtful. I've looked through the "Soviet" part of English Wikipedia, and I've found, that it is very Hollywood-style. I don't have enough time and wish to fihgt against all these cliches.

In case you didn't notice, I deleted the whole section until clarification, because myself I don't want to waste time on digging to prove this. On a personal note, your naivety is not surprizing. There are still people who refuse to believe in Stalin's purges (quite "Hollywood-style" in many cases). `'mikka 17:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Do you really think the anecdote about Putin is needed here?--D'Arahchjan 22:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I do. It is not about a director of a Uryupinsk teakettle plant. It is a highly visible anecdote and sheds some picture on Soviet Kandidats. `'mikka 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed section

In Soviet era there were two forms of presentation: "open defense" and "closed defense". "Open" means that the general public is admitted to the session. "Closed" means nobody is admitted but the immediate participants. The latter is performed when the topic is declared to be a matter of national security. It is widely recognized that "closed" dissertations were often below real scientific merits and arranged for Soviet apparatchiks that were to hold an office that by statute required a scientific degree. The most featured of such cases is the recent accusation in plagiarism against current President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. According to The Washington Times, large portions of Mr. Putin's Kandidat Nauk dissertation in Economics were taken 'nearly verbatim' from other sources. However the American researchers who initially discovered plagiarism in Mr. Putin's dissertation suggested that this fact should be viewed in the context of Soviet bureaucracy, where an advanced degree was often necessary for career promotion.

The topic belongs to Higher Attestation Commission or other, because it concerns not only cnadidats. Arahchjan, please provide the proper text basing on the Russian source you quoted here. `'mikka 23:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Russian

There seems to be a lot of retention of Russian terms for names. "Aspirantura," for example. This is not exotic. Candidates could be termed "aspirants" in English as well, but seldom are. I think mostly, Russian should be dropped unless there is no exact translation. Student7 (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Cyrillic

Again, non-english terms and alphabets should be dropped from this exposition. This is not a training session for Russian nor Cyrillic! Okay for etymology of Kandidat nauk, but that's pretty much it.

As an example, go to the Russian/Cyrillc Wikipedia of some landmark in the US or UK. If you find lots of Roman alphabet or English there, please throw them out!  :) Student7 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You right, I've removed Russian titles, but common abbreviations using in documentation (such as "к. т. н.", "к. и. н.") have been left by me. They might be useful. — Al3xil ✉ 14:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

• Comment. "Kandidat nauk" seems to preserve a foreign flavor for Anglophone ears. Emphasizing that English universities have no such (interim) degree. On the other hand, previous editors have gotten so carried away as to use Cyrillic (usually in parentheses) for entries making it seem a bit more foreign than necessary. Student7 (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. However, we are not doing some language PR here. :-) Black&White (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Well, talk me into it. We may well be the only two voting! For example, why not "Doctoral candidate?" Or "Candidate of Science (Eastern Europe)" to indicate that it isn't universal? Or ...(Cyrillophone) (Russophone?)"

Taking it one step further, why have we kept "Tsar"/"Czar" and not translated it to "Caesar" or "king?" It seems possible that we are going from a name that may be "too Russian" to one that may be "too English!"

Student7 (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, just because that's not correct.

Kandidat = candidate, nauk - genitive case, plural derived from nauka = science.

Recently I've added some information about former Czechoslovakia, and it's the same:

věda > gen. pl. věd in Czech and

veda > gen. pl. vied in Slovak also stands for sciences.

...which means that the translation "Candidate of Sciences" is totally direct and easy to decipher. As far as "tsar" is concerned, it's a different kettle of fish. I would consider it a typical Russian national attribute and a very well established term. Everyone knows it was much similar to an emperor, but the thing is, that in Russia, this post is called tzar, which has been widely accepted in the rest of the world. I'd rather not compare it to an academic degree, that an approximate English speaker has no clue of. And imho "Candidate of Sciences" is more understandable and better pronunceable than a transliterated Russian term. Black&White (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Okay. I accept that. But how about the final point to distinguish it from all other Western degrees: "Candidate of Sciences (Cyrillophone)" or "...(Russophone)" or "...(former Soviet Republic)" to show that Slavic countries only offer that degree? Just trying to cover all bases here. Student7 (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Unless there is a "Candidate of Sciences" article with a different meaning, qualification is unnecessary, and a correct formulation would be cumbersome: "Candidate of Sciences (Russia and former Soviet block countries)"? The closest term in the US system is "Candidate for PhD degree", which means "student passed the comprehensive and course work and only the thesis defense remains" but that is not a "Candidate of Sciences" and not a degree but an academic status, so no source of confusion. Jmath666 (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Move. Voting a bit thin. It would be nice if previous editors would weigh in. I think they are Slavophones and feel intimidated. Can't be helped, I guess. Student7 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep racist remarks off talk pages, please. They don't help in cooperation. - 7-bubёn >t 15:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

So am I. Black&White (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed - 7-bubёn >t 15:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• I did not edit this page before I so I thought I would leave it to those involved. Anyway, move. Jmath666 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I recommend moving to Candidate of Sciences (Eastern bloc). It's correct, comprehensive and intelligible English title. Current redirect - Candidate of Sciences - is not absolutely appropriate for the "main" title of that article, however, it serves very well as redirect. --Vejvančický (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with Jmath666 (see above). At this precise moment if can't be confused with anything else. In case the term is used in another sense, then let's distinguish.. And what's more, "Eastern Bloc" tag wouldn't be appropriate in my opinion, because Russia keeps awarding it, but Eastern Bloc ceased to exist some 17-19 years ago. Black&White (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Move for what I said before. Black&White (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right Black&White, sorry for confusion. A bit surprising for me, that there is no English equivalent... Move to "Candidate of Sciences". --Vejvančický (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Move. No need to use transliteration when an adequate translation can easily be provided.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:21, April 20, 2009 (UTC)
• I agree that the most proper name for this article would be Candidate of Sciences. This degree exists in several coutries and is named in each country by its language. English translation of the name is very simple and not doubtful: "Candidate of Sciences". --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

40,000 characters?

An entry says that a printed page for submission is about 40,000 characters. Something must be lost in translation here. 40,000 characters/bytes? This seems way too many. I am obviously misunderstanding. Can someone explain? Student7 (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe, it's OK. The so-called "printed page" or, in more precise transcription, "printed sheet" is a conventional unit. It is much larger than a real page or sheet. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ph.D or Master of Science?

I believe, here it is necessary to think over carefully which degrees of Western countries are equivalent to the Candidate of Sciences degree. I always thought that Ph.D. is a proper equivalent. This information was present in this article and is still present in some other articles of the English Wikipedia. But some weeks ago a reference was found stated that (what is very strange, as for me) the Candidate of Sciences degree is equivalent to the Master of Science degree. The author of the corresponding change doesn't want even to remain a phrase that this degree is often INFORMALLY referred to as Ph.D., while this is a well-known fact which can be also seen from many internet-forums. I am not very active wikipedist and don't want to look for proper references; as for now I can point at http://www.englishelp.ru/translator/articles-for-translator/288-translating-academic-degrees.html where Ph.D.=Cand.Sc. is stated. I can also say that this article of Wikipedia is the only place where I saw this strange MS=Cand.Sc. I request those who are used working with references in the Wikipedia to think over this problem very carefully and to write in this article all essential information about the equivalence. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you are right in stating that the Kandidat Nauk is informally considered to be a PhD. However, as the reference shows, and also from experience, it very much depends on the country and the specific organization.

For example, sometimes the "specialist" degree (first degree in former SU countries) is considered a masters-level equivalent, but sometimes it is equal to a bachelors degree. The situation is somewhat similar with the Candidate of Sciences.

I for one propose that both potential equivalents be mentioned (MSc and PhD), to make sure all sides are covered.--90.192.240.191 (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not really a matter of opinion in Western (and Japanese) universities, but a matter of fine credentialing. If a good ref WP:RELY cannot be found to equate a one-to-one correspondence with a PhD. I suggest that it be omitted. Student7 (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

24.5.192.2 (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)The Candidate of Sciences degree allows you to teach in undergraduate and graduate programs in post-Soviet and East European countries. Thus, it is definitely not an equivalent to the Master of Science (SM). The Bologna Process in the European Union has recognized the Kandidat nauk as equivalent to European doctorates; it requires at least three years for its completion, it has field exams (candidate minimums), and requires a dissertation of more than 150 pages. Thus, it is clear that is equivalent to the PhD degree, and this equivalence is not just informal.

The Master of Science degree also allows holders to teach graduate students. Just not doctoral students. As mentioned, the equivalency needs to be cited as equivalent, not merely "noted" or "observed." That would violate WP:OR. Student7 (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This is absolutely incorrect article. To become a full Professor you are not required to be a Doktor Nauk, it's much more simpler to become professor for Doktor Nauk. New Zeland recognizes Kandidat Nauk as PhD, you can see it from the pdf cited. Please correct article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kutanov (talk • contribs) 09:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

From the policy: "A Masters Degree, Kandidat Nauk and a Doktor Nauk are assessed as occupying Level 9 or 10 of the Register

and will therefore qualify for 55 points, provided the holder of the qualification also obtained their undergraduate

(Bachelors) degree from an institution included on the List of Recognised Qualifications."

Where exactly does it say that the Kandidat is recognized as a PhD and not a Masters?

Also, one has to consider that in the Soviet/Russian system, Kandidat was/is the 2nd level of university education and lasts on average 3 years.

A PhD lasts at least 5 years and is often the 3rd step after a Bachelors and a Masters (the 2nd level in Western countries).

Most Masters degrees last about 2 years, and also require a dissertation. They also allow people to teach in universities at all levels, except as full professors. --Therexbanner (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

At least 5 years? You mean Span or some other country? To clear the subject. Aspirantura is education step. Only 20 percent aspirants defend thesis and become Kandidat Nauk. http://stat.edu.ru/scr/db.cgi?act=listDB&t=20_1a&ttype=2&Field=All

The procedure of thesis defence inlcude verification of autoreferat by Supreme Attestation Committee. 10-20 percent is called for meeting in its expert commision.

Also Grigori Perelman who received Fields medal is kandidat nauk not Doctor.

So i think its definitely not Master degree. People becomes Doctor in average are 40-50 years old. So it's not phD at all. Its different system, there are kandidats who are better than phD, there are worse. Nobody knows the statistics, so may be add section about recognition in different countries. But definitely not in the article's header - it's insulting for many ppl, who are kandidates.

Kandidat nauk can be a scientific supervisor of aspirant in many cases. And it's often case.

And finally in russia there are Master degrees. And only masters and specialists can enroll to aspirantura. Process of enrollment require a scientific papers published or essay about the subject of research. Now aspirantura is 4 years by the way.

About New Zealand citation from the page "A Masters Degree, Kandidat Nauk and a Doktor Nauk are assessed as occupying Level 9 or 10 of the Register"

So i thought Master - 9, Kandidat and a Doctor - 10, may be i got it wrong.

Moreover, i lurk for subject and read many forums. Ppl say that kandat nauk was recongnized for 10 points.

http://www.immigration.lt/new_zealand/category_skilled.htm

http://orfei-travel.ru/immigration-to-new-zeland.html

May be all this sources also wrong but i think better to make it clean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.66.204 (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Aspirantura is the process of getting the Kandidat. If you do not get the Kandidat degree, (i.e. do not defend the dissertation) you do not get anything. Therefore, it is a process, not a step in education. Similarly, a Bachelor's student who does not graduate, cannot be considered to have completed a step, as he/she will not receive any diploma.

Age is not relevant, as people can become PhDs at 80 years or at 20. The length depends on the topic studied, and each individual.

Regarding the New Zealand classification, if a Kandidat is granted level 10, and a Doktor Nauk is granted level 10, that would make them equal, which they are definitely not. However, Masters and Kandidats can occupy the same level as they come from different systems. I am not saying a Kandidat is equal in difficulty, it is of course harder than the average Master, but that by itself cannot make it a PhD.

Masters degrees in Russia are new, while the Kandidat is from the old system where it looked something like this:

Specialist (4-5 years, depending on subject), >>> Kandidat Nauk (3-4 years) >>> Doktor Nauk (6+ years). The Western system analogy is (it depends on the country, but lets take US as an example): Bachelor (4-5 years), >>> Masters (2 years) >>> PhD (5+ years).

I am fine with removing the headline form the header, but that cannot be done without removing the part about PhD recognition, as there is no clear un-biased source that confirms that. I propose that all information regarding recognition in the West be moved to a separate section called "Recognition" or something similar.

Finally, as I mentioned, sources are all biased and contradictory I would agree that the Kandidat is close to the PhD in terms of effort and many other things, but they are not equal in the perfect sense. Which is why the main sentence in the header states that it is generally considered to be equal to the PhD, but not always.

P.S. Those websites you listed are all related to Russia/CIS. When I was looking for information on the topic, I noticed that mainly the Russian/CIS forums and websites claim equality to the doctorate. I would still like to see several objective/official sources on the issue.--Therexbanner (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to remove the phD mention in the header and make just section about recognition in different countries. Also in natural and technical sciences there are many good kandidat nauk's works, in other fields there are many fake kandidat nauks. So recognition section can help ppl to understand the situation in Russian education system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kutanov (talk • contribs) 09:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that would be the best solution. We have to make sure all the information is included (i.e. from both sides).--Therexbanner (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Student7 (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It's definetely not the first post-graduate degree. Most xUSSR countries have both Bachelor's and Master's degrees and Candidate is the next level after Master's degree. Tovarischivanov (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• As written in the lead, this is misleading. First, this must be sourced to secondary RS, not primary documents that even difficult to understand. Second, it does not matter what UNESCO say. The degrees are recognized or not by specific institutions/Universities in the West. When they do it, they check what kind of specific institution in Russia issued such degree (i.e. Moscow University or Syktyvkar State University). Finally, this degree in humanities is not at all recognized as PhD as far as I know. My very best wishes (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources

This article needs to be resourced. E.g., link 4 is broken and link 3 says nothing about New Zealand. Indeed, statement about NZ is actually false, as can be seen here. --Oop (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Candidate of Sciences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305023836/http://db.informika.ru/cgi-bin/vak/q1.plx to http://db.informika.ru/cgi-bin/vak/q1.plx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)