mcgillcrestI’ve been saying this again and again, and so I might as well repeat myself here as well. A Doktorklub can only be effective (in view of its high-goals) if the organisers ensure that the participants are given the full copy of the presentation well in advance, to be read, and thus intelligently discussed. Instead, as was witnessed today, we had yet another Doktorklub presentation on euthanasia¬† (it seemed to be one of the better, more thought out papers), but still dealt in a way that was both too-specialised for first-time hearers. It’s not that no one could contribute; rather if we had the paper in advanced, many more could provide helpful criticism (and advice). But since McGill doctoral students only have to give a few scattered notes for the presentation, just before the presentation… and which are not even an outline of the presentation (because the notes do not follow the logic of the presentation), the audience is left at the mercy of its own aural (listening) skills…. which, for the most part, are not that great.

Not that everyone will read a paper if released earlier (as SAIACS Doktorklub’s often reveal). However, insofar as there needs to be rich inter-disciplinary communication at the graduate level, it must ALLOW for the possibility rich engagement with other ideas… with the time given to learn and assess the other discipline effectively.

Anyway… briefly… today’s Doctorklub by A.P. was about an anthropological basis (Catholic emphasis) for determining the difference between life and death… for an application for euthanasia. Interesting? Yes.

But as I said, I wish we all had the opportunity to engage with the topic more richly/deeply. One day, maybe one day.