Talk for Article "[Bigger Piece on how the academic hierarchy works]"

Talk about this Article

  1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    Okay so, going through the different angles on this, it seems to me that it was a bad idea that needs to be reevaluated from the ground up, so I will get rid of it and try to bring it forward again at a later date in a more useful and informative form.

  2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    Supported by the litany of comments by SM below I repeat what I have previously expressed, in differs words: Strickland essay appears to be a story looking for a reason…

  3. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    There is a number of issues I would like to see addressed before the article is published:

    * The headline doesn’t really seem to get at the core of the article, which is the (possibly) unusual situation of having a Nobel Laureate without a full professorship, and what that tells us about the hierarchy of academic professorships.
    * The article doesn’t explain the traditional (in the US, at least) system of assistant professor to associate professor to full professor, and how those ranks are differently viewed, particularly within academia.
    * The statistics about Nobel Laureates and full professors doesn’t really make the flow or the point of the article clear. Is it that the vast majority of Nobel Laureates are professors, leading us to some view of how the awards committee finds and selects recipients? Is it that Strickland is not a full professor despite her Nobel Prize because she is a woman? (That seems unlikely, given that the other laureates without full professorships are mostly men, and there are two other female professors in the department with similar achievements.)
    * On a related point, it doesn’t seem necessary to list every other laureate without a full professorship and describe what they did in detail.
    * The application process for full professorships and the concept of multiple synchronous professorships seems interesting, but the article doesn’t seem to delve into those concepts too deeply.
    * Finally, the discussion of other Donna Stricklands seems unnecessary.

    There are other minor grammatical mistakes, but those can be easily cleaned up.

    To summarize, I think it would be helpful to take a step back and get some consensus on what exactly we want to focus on – there are a number of interesting topics here, but they only seem to be tangentially related to Donna Strickland, and it’s not clear what benefit we get by only focusing on Strickland versus the concept at large throughout academia.

  4. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    You state that “In other words, she has done a lot of stuff. Enough stuff that she should probably be a full professor.”

    It is difficult not to agree with J. Clayton (see below) that this has the appearance of an opinion piece; an opinion piece of insufficient value to merit discussion.
    You use the word “stuff” as if it has a clear and concise meaning to the majority of sentient readers; I fail to find a clear and concise meaning for the term “stuff”.
    I am using the term sentient as per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

    Summary: not worthy of publication

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Changed the use of “stuff”.

  5. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    Maybe Donna Strickland’s own view is of some interest in this discussion?
    In a BBC Radio interview ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/play/p06mrmnt ) she denied any suggestion of sexism , saying “I have always been treated like an equal in my career.” When asked directly why someone with her achievements and reputation wasn’t holding a full professorship, she answered “I never applied.”

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Thank you!

  6. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    This is obviously set up to be an opinion piece about the underrepresentation of women in science. Change the headline and remove the editorialization. An article such as this detracts from the credibility you are trying to create at WikiTribune.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      The two people she is directly being compared to in the body of the article are female professors in her same faculty. Part of the question is “why do these two similarly-aged similarly-accomplished (until the nobel prize win, that is) female physicists have a full professorship, while this nobel laureate does not?”

      It’s not an inevitable opinion piece to ask “why does this person who achieved this thing not have this status associated with thing-achievers of this sort?”

  7. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    Without a lede, the article kind of begins abruptly. Many people know that Donna Strickland recently won a Nobel prize, but many do not. What about including a quick, 1-2 sentence lede introducing who she is and why she is relevant?

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      In addition, more clarification is needed on why (if at all) it is weird that she’s not a full professor. Maybe some data about university researchers, or Nobel winners?

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        Following your suggestion, I’m adding a bit more context. Feel free to do things like this yourself – you have every right to do so!

      2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        I’ll make a list of nobel laureates in physics of the past, say, 20 years, and see how many were professors.

        Edit: List added

        Edited: 2018-10-10 00:10:11 By Oriana Carciente (talk | contribs) + 24 Characters .. + 22% change.‎‎ (Note | Diff)

        1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

          Are you listing if they were professors at the time of receiving the Nobel Prize or if they currently are?

          1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

            Trying to list if they were at the time, there are question marks or notes where I think they were not professors at the time of the nobel prize reception. Most of them seem to get their professorship ~10yrs before the nobel prize.

            Edited: 2018-10-10 04:43:57 By Oriana Carciente (talk | contribs) + 34 Characters .. + 16% change.‎‎ (Note | Diff)

            1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

              Great! I looked into a couple last night that you had left blank but then realized I didn’t know the answer to that question. It could be best to simple write in parenthesis when they became a professor (if at all). I’ll try to look into more when I get the chance. And you are using bold for ones which were not professors at the time of nobel prize reception, correct?

              1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

                Yes, bold ones are those that either were not professors at the time or did not become professors at any time.

  8. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)
    DU
    Deleted User
    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Changed the article somewhat. In the time it’s taken to make this she applied and got accepted, which is interesting in and of itself (according to the professor who suggested I start writing this, the process is supposed to take quite a bit of time, but it’s reasonable to speed it up for a nobel laureate).

      I think an important part of this would be explaining how professorships work, and I’ll add more to answer the new questions in the article sometime later this weekend.

      Edit: or later this week, since apparently my workload decided to explode.

      Edited: 2018-10-24 03:48:20 By Oriana Carciente (talk | contribs) + 86 Characters .. + 17% change.‎‎ (Note | Diff)

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        Excellent – I think we should hit ‘publish’ on this pretty soon! I nearly did the other day but then I realized that there was still work going on…

Subscribe to our newsletter and be the first to collaborate on our developing articles:

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Connect with us on Discord Email us