PhD defence ceremony in the Senate Room

Some 300 PhD defences are held every year at Leiden University. A PhD defence is always both an official and a festive occasion. Leiden University has two locations where defences can be held: the Great Auditorium and the Senate Room. The Senate Room is a more intimate venue.

[@heyyou5680]

That is one of the scariest thing I’ve seen in my life.

[@jo2421]

Really😰

[@u.v.s.5583]

The candidate says, "I am the Senate!" The committee says, "NOT YET." Now the candidate ignites his lightsaber and begins his defense.

[@matthewlo55]

IT'S TREASON THEN

[@sophelet]

All of the formidable people in the portraits make it even more imposing!

[@greggvillanueva1291]

Don't be intimated. If those people in the portraits are alive, they would be exchanging punches among themselves. Science has never solved the fundamental evils in the world. Instead, it brings us to the verge of self-destruction. There are some pragmatic advances, mainly in the areas of warfare and profiteering.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

@@greggvillanueva1291, in your own words, define "EVIL".

[@pappi8338]

​@@greggvillanueva1291Perhaps these "evils" are nothing more but a social construct

[@sophelet]

That's pretty frightening! My doctoral defense was considerably more casual, with no formal audience. I did have some friends in the room with me to perform some of the music that I had written about, because that repertoire had traditionally been sung at public defences of doctorates in Italy. Whew! I was surprised that there was no applause at the end.

[@lab.wilcox]

I’m glad my PhD defence was not as theatrical. Lol

[@o0OHermioneO0o]

Omg, I think I'd die.😱

[@chaydavis8442]

Talk about pressure...A short, but convoluted process.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

The actual doctoral defense was not shown in this video. That's another HOUR.

[@spinebuster9490]

It's not bad when you have worked hard for 3 years. It's deadly if you did not work hard on your thesis.

[@mujeeburrehmansohoo192]

Pray for your success.

[@user-rs6yg4ix6s]

Would they speak English for the international students’ defenses?

[@azizuddinabdulmanan9209]

Wow...so unique.

[@sukantasutradhar9217]

Nice information Sir

[@chadiverson9291]

I don't get it...what is the point of the assistants?

[@FKLinguista]

Moral support.

[@ryanwillis2513]

Ceremonial

[@Flexponential92]

He prevents people from killing you while presenting your controversal research results

[@levert.gomellewis.8306]

tried to push into evidence

[@IsxaaqAcademy]

My dream!

[@tesla4008]

What does the diploma look like? How does the committee produce that diploma so quickly?

[@lachieblack9234]

Bit late, but in general PhD defenses are a bit of a formality, so the diploma will already be prepared. If you make it to a defense, then you are almost certain to be admitted to the doctoral degree, if you were not expected to 'pass' the defense, you would not face it.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

@@lachieblack9234, as I had suspected.

[@pappi8338]

​@@lachieblack9234Well said

[@rambololal]

looks intense

[@TheWorldTeacher]

Looks can be deceiving. ;)

[@samhaokip9126]

Man this shit is nerve-wrecking! Which university has a private phd thesis defense?

[@georghuppertz5727]

Every Dutch university. Note that every year only hundreds of PhD-students is admitted per university. So it is pretty special.

[@aqbalsandhu1297]

Tradition have to be adhered what may be yur oppinion.

[@maunyamuflih2799]

my dream

[@ThanveerCw]

More rituals than a funeral ceremony 😮

[@vandeberg649]

NEDERLANDS GRAAG

[@marciamarquene5753]

Cg não tinha visto a mensagem e é assim que g o que g o dia que eu for aí te ver se consigo ir é assim que g o que eu faço pra vc e a transferência do meu filho e não tinha ninguém na hora do almoço eu vou aí amanhã cedo

[@Luis-xr6ec]

This is all theatrical... just give me my degree and call it a day 👏🏻

[@hansm3195]

So true. What a waste of tax money.

[@u.v.s.5583]

@@hansm3195 The older I get, the more I appreciate the living traditions in countries which are monarchies. What a fool I was in my youth when I'd laugh about such stuff.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

@@u.v.s.5583, there has not been an ACTUAL monarchy for centuries.

[@u.v.s.5583]

@@TheWorldTeacher A constitutional monarchy then.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

@@u.v.s.5583: 🐟 21. THE MONARCHY: A KING (“kṣatriyaḥ”, in Sanskrit) is a man who has a divine mandate, via his counsellor (i.e. his spiritual preceptor), to govern an area of land (and sea) and the population within its borders. He should be the head of the military, and courageously lead his army into battle if necessary (as opposed to cowardly scampering into a bomb shelter under the Pentagon building, as Presidents of the United States of America are apt to do). A king should be a natural leader among men, and be willing to sacrifice his life to protect his subjects. A good monarch will take heed of astute advice from his spiritual guide (ideally, the wisest prophet in his kingdom), as well as his ministers, in order to build a just society. A LEGITIMATE monarch will endorse holy and righteous edicts, such as absolute freedom of speech*, homeschooling of children, free markets, and private ownership of all goods and services (even such infrastructure as roads, water and sewerage systems, health care, and education). He will enforce taxation of the profits of businessmen alone (and not of any other class of society), provide material support to members of the Holy Priesthood if necessary, establish a monetary system using (or at least backed by) precious metals, and avoid interfering with the private matters of his citizens (unlike evil governments, which meddle in such things as sex, marriage, and discipline within workplaces and families). There are only two kinds of persons who would POSSIBLY object to the institution of monarchy: By far the greatest number of objectors are those who have very little idea of what constitutes a LEGITIMATE monarchy, as defined above. The usual arguments are either “I don’t want to be ruled by a tyrannical, despotic dictator” or “I don’t believe monarchy should be hereditary”. Obviously, neither of these arguments is applicable when the institution of monarchy is properly understood. Any man can call himself “King”, but if he lacks saintly (or at least noble) qualities and doesn't have the best interests of his people at heart, he is naught but a fascistic dictator. Just as a priest is, by definition, a holy man, so too should a monarch be a righteous, wise king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit). After all, a king’s primary duty is the protection of his nation (“kṣatriyaḥ”, in Sanskrit), so how could a person fulfil his duty of care if he was evil and uncaring? Just as a family must be protected by its head (the father), every nation requires a good patriarch. Unless a man has the natural proclivities to do so, he ought NOT follow his father’s occupation. Therefore, a prince isn't necessarily qualified to assume his father’s role upon the demise of his sire. The only “valid” objection to monarchy could possibly be from those miscreants who wish to destroy society via an ILLEGITIMATE system of government (see Chapter 22) or those who are simply too stupid to understand how monarchy is the most beneficial form of governance. Any form of governance OTHER than monarchy must be, by definition, controlled by either workers or by businessmen (or rarely by priests or spiritual leaders), and therefore is intrinsically evil, since they are unqualified to rule a nation. If there is no aspiring monarch extant within a nation, then the best alternative is a priest (a prophet, to be more precise), but only until a monarch arises and retakes power. Although WAR is unfortunate, it is sometimes necessary to defend oneself from aggressors. In certain circumstances, it is legitimate for a ruler or aspiring ruler to overtake another (evil and corrupt) ruler and usurp his sovereignty. Unfortunately, in the modern era, it is nigh impossible for an aspiring king to seize power, since he will be easily defeated by sheer military might, as opposed to the state of affairs in ancient times, where two opposing monarchs would fight in hand-to-hand combat (or possibly lead their respective armies into a battle for the kingdom). Being a soldier is a legitimate and necessary occupation in this wicked and perilous world, mainly for the defence of a local population or nation, but unfortunately, not all soldiers serve a good master. Not all world leaders are righteous in all their ways. In fact, you who are reading this Scripture, are almost definitely being oppressed by a corrupt, tyrannical regime. The reason why you may not realize this fact is due to either abject ignorance, or because, just like your illegitimate government, you have little desire for society to be organized according to holy and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). Just as a newborn child has absolutely no conception of what is most beneficial to its welfare, the vast majority of citizens have very little idea of what benefits society most. Hence the decadent state of contemporary culture. Whenever there is a CONFLICT in this world, whether that be a conflict between two persons, or a conflict between two groups of persons (such as political wars), it is absolutely certain that one side is more righteous than the other. Both sides can not be equally right, because equality is non-existent in this phenomenal sphere. Equality exclusively exists in abstract concepts such as mathematics, and arguably on the sub-atomic level. Unfortunately, it requires an above-average intellect to be able to comprehend such truthful concepts. “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” George Carlin, American Comedian and Actor. 1937-2008. “I believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for being a democrat. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs their advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of democracy. ... That I believe to be the true ground of democracy. I do not believe that God created an egalitarian world. I believe the authority of parent over child, husband over wife, learned over simple, to have been as much a part of the original plan as the authority of man over beast. I believe that if we had not fallen...patriarchal monarchy would be the sole lawful government.” Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, English Author, “The Weight of Glory”. *Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one's speech. For example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he or she ought to be punished for that sinful deed. A genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12). Of course, the best advisor to any monarch is his spiritual master, as defined in Chapter 19 (ideally, the most holy and wise member of the Holy Priesthood within the kingdom), so the need for him to require advice from anyone other than his guru would be scarce, at least in regards to matters of morality, which is the secure foundation of society.

[@thetopcoder]

What a wonderful waste of time

[@marylouisedistefano680]

They only do it for executing prisoners. What a waste of academic energy. How many PHDs do they produce?