What is wrong? Why he sent me back?Where is a mistake? And other questions about why your master sand you back with practical part of your diploma.
Lets the battle begin
Mistake 1 Wrong theories.
The mistake is common and difficult to remove, as it is usually necessary to rewrite the entire practice, to assemble in a new way information and perform calculations. Sometimes it is easier to rewrite the theory – if, of course, the topic of the work allows to do that. If you are a philologist, then in the given example, you can leave practice by reworking the theoretical chapter. But it does not always happen.
Mistake 2. Completely different from the introduction.
Remember: the practical part is written not for an idea that reviewer spends an hour of reading, studying your calculations of the typical trajectories of a sandwich fall. And then, to solve the problem posed in the introduction. For example – reducing an amount of butter when sandwich hit the ground at public establishments. For the successful defense, it is not only the research but logical thinking how to combine your theory with all research, main points, main idea.
Mistake 3. in compliance with the conclusion.
Success in writing a practical chapter, in general, is strongly tied to a competent drawing of threads to other parts of the work. The practical chapter is too often look like a diploma somehow by itself, calculations and practical conclusions – on their own. And the diploma work looks very stupid, in the conclusion of which it is cheerfully reported: the goal is achieved, the tasks are fulfilled, the hypothesis is proved.
Mistake 4. Bad calculations.
Twice two, eight? Well done, go and count. You fell so bad if the error has crept into the beginning of calculations. However, we will be frank: many students produce them so that they “come together”. There is a rule of “do not get caught,” because not all reviewers will check your “twice-two”. But it does not take place in all cases. On psychology, for example, you can be lucky but if you are mathematics – no.
Mistake 5. An absence of analysis, a generalization of practical materials.
Counted everything correctly, designed – flawlessly. And what? But nothing. The conclusions from this are zero. Well, go ahead, darling, reflect on the calculations done, analyze and generally use the brain not only as a calculator.
Everybody wants to see how it look like if you compare with another
We hope that your practical chapter will be written without these annoying mistakes. And that the whole diploma successfully passed the pre-defense and was admitted to the defense