Oh, I know. And I’m currently setting up audits on qualifications and alignment to our nation’s higher education standards…at a research university.
I’ve already had industry colleagues remind me of that time a major university here had a big grant puller non-chalantly say, “I never actually completed my PhD” thinking it was just gonna go down totally fine because of how much his reputation pulled research money in over the years.
Clearly a very smart human that contributed a lot, but that’s not how academia works and obviously an atomic bomb went off with fiends lined up for the scraps while the CFO weeps.
This is my big fear. If I stumble across something like this, I’m quitting for something less stressful like pest control, test piloting, or child care.
Clearly a very smart human that contributed a lot, but that’s not how academia works and obviously an atomic bomb went off with fiends lined up for the scraps while the CFO weeps.
I’m sorry, do you mind explaining this a bit further? I don’t understand what you mean. Thank you :)
The faculty member probably got nuked from orbit, sponsoring orgs would be horrified to learn that a PI (principal investigator) they funded had misrepresented their credentials that badly.
Is a PhD a required qualification in your uni? I know it’s expected, but there are quite a few well-respected academics, particularly in engineering and comp sci, who don’t have a PhD.
Here it is required for certain levels of “quality education to students” whereas those with lower tiers certainly are allowed to teach some units, especially lectures. But they’re not curating or a primary teacher in courses. If these aren’t met, your official recognition as a university is gone. It’s regulation protecting the quality of education in the nation.
Obviously research it’s entirely up to whoever’s putting the grant up. But most research journals these days are regulated by the academia version of a HoA, and such incidents as I mentioned are very dramatic.
Edit: Personally, I don’t agree with it and think it’s an archaic culture that holds back progressive and brilliant ideas. But it balances out in that a university can recognise an equivalent status. Any university or country that respects that system will recognise an “under qualified” person breaking such ground when an entire institute vouches for them. But that view isn’t shared around the world.
My personal opinion/experiences are that those that are the worst in their field are the ones that clutch onto their degrees the most and will think lowly of a mind that hasn’t amassed as much documentation; being officially recognised is more important than your hypothesis.
I certainly lean a certain way in my thinking, but it’s only because I believe the core of academia is meant to be for the advancement of knowledge and ideas. In modern academia, this no longer occurs as effectively as it once did, therefore it is failing at its core purpose. More and more younger generations are determining it’s not as valuable as it once was and are so far successfully proving that to be true.
It’s regulation protecting the quality of education in the nation.
I understand and agree with that logic (although personally I have experienced excellent teachers who had no PhD). But like you said, I don’t think it is a useful criteria in research.
My personal opinion/experiences are that those that are the worst in their field are the ones that clutch onto their degrees the most and will think lowly of a mind that hasn’t amassed as much documentation
A lot of professors are judged on how much grant money they bring in unfortunately.
Oh, I know. And I’m currently setting up audits on qualifications and alignment to our nation’s higher education standards…at a research university.
I’ve already had industry colleagues remind me of that time a major university here had a big grant puller non-chalantly say, “I never actually completed my PhD” thinking it was just gonna go down totally fine because of how much his reputation pulled research money in over the years.
Clearly a very smart human that contributed a lot, but that’s not how academia works and obviously an atomic bomb went off with fiends lined up for the scraps while the CFO weeps.
This is my big fear. If I stumble across something like this, I’m quitting for something less stressful like pest control, test piloting, or child care.
I’m sorry, do you mind explaining this a bit further? I don’t understand what you mean. Thank you :)
The faculty member probably got nuked from orbit, sponsoring orgs would be horrified to learn that a PI (principal investigator) they funded had misrepresented their credentials that badly.
My condolences. My wife is in academia as well. I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy 🤣
Is a PhD a required qualification in your uni? I know it’s expected, but there are quite a few well-respected academics, particularly in engineering and comp sci, who don’t have a PhD.
It depends on the country.
Here it is required for certain levels of “quality education to students” whereas those with lower tiers certainly are allowed to teach some units, especially lectures. But they’re not curating or a primary teacher in courses. If these aren’t met, your official recognition as a university is gone. It’s regulation protecting the quality of education in the nation.
Obviously research it’s entirely up to whoever’s putting the grant up. But most research journals these days are regulated by the academia version of a HoA, and such incidents as I mentioned are very dramatic.
Edit: Personally, I don’t agree with it and think it’s an archaic culture that holds back progressive and brilliant ideas. But it balances out in that a university can recognise an equivalent status. Any university or country that respects that system will recognise an “under qualified” person breaking such ground when an entire institute vouches for them. But that view isn’t shared around the world.
My personal opinion/experiences are that those that are the worst in their field are the ones that clutch onto their degrees the most and will think lowly of a mind that hasn’t amassed as much documentation; being officially recognised is more important than your hypothesis.
I certainly lean a certain way in my thinking, but it’s only because I believe the core of academia is meant to be for the advancement of knowledge and ideas. In modern academia, this no longer occurs as effectively as it once did, therefore it is failing at its core purpose. More and more younger generations are determining it’s not as valuable as it once was and are so far successfully proving that to be true.
I understand and agree with that logic (although personally I have experienced excellent teachers who had no PhD). But like you said, I don’t think it is a useful criteria in research.
Lol yes!