Talk:Professor

Professors "in fiction" and "non-academic" examples of use of the title of professor

Hello, I am following up on a suggestion from "Limit-theorem" to discuss the rationale for my edits here, and to seek wider evidence-based feedback and rational consensus as there seems to be some evident disparity of opinion thus far regarding what is acceptable in this regard by several independent editors. There appear to be three parts of the article that need supporting references ("citation needed"), as flagged up at the top of the page, so I supplied one that was requested with an additional recent and apparently novel example that is also backed up by supporting references (I can't help with the other two examples that I can see). What would others suggest to make the article less incongruent? Would it be better to relegate the "Fiction" or real-life "non-academic" examples to a separate article? Protestant Revival (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

What History?

There does not seem to be any discussion on the historical usage of the word 'Professor' now. This is a shame, as I wanted to know. The meaning has changed over the years; if anyone is an authority on this, I would welcome their contribution! ixo (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Professor comparison wrong

The text says: "In countries on the northern European mainland, such as Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries, usage of professor as a legal title is limited much the same way as in most Commonwealth countries, that is, it is reserved for someone who holds a chair."

This is not correct: Germany call many different teaching positions at research or non-research universities "professor". It is not reserved to a "chair" like in the UK system. The same is true for belgium, here all university postions are "professor".

Only the "netherlands" have a system where only a full professor is termed "professor".

I propose that this gets corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.174.192.144 (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

vous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.228.184.127 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

---

I do agree; the same is true in Sweden. Professor is no longer only used for so called (and old-fashioned) "chaired professors" ("ämnesföreträdare"). Since 1990 it is used for all teaching staff that are employed as professors ()and you need not be "chaired" to be what in the US would be a full professor). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.240.172.187 (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

In Scandinavia, Professor is only used for "full Professors," and they are considered to hold a professorial chair. However, generally all faculty members with the appropriate qualifications may be promoted to Professor. Those known as "Associate Professors", "Assistant Professors" and so forth in the US are not entitled to use the title. Bjerrebæk (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Reid professor - who is this?

Found one in Edinburgh International Festival: "Sidney Newman, Reid Professor of Music at Edinburgh University". What is the difference from ordinary "professor"? --Igel B TyMaHe (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/edinburgh-college-art/music/about/history Fat&Happy (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

the above link doesnt seem to answer the question. it leads to a page:"No such page. This page doesn't seem to exist. Sorry for the inconvenience. The address (URL) may have changed. There may be a typing mistake in the address bar." Also probably at the time of posting when there was such a page it probably didnt answer to the more generic question that would be relevant here: What is the meaning of professorships that are named

"Mr/Mrs X.Y. is a First name Last name professor of Scientific field name at University name". eg.:Robert Sapolsky, the John A. and Cynthia Fry Gunn Professor of biology, neurology and neurosurgery at Stanford University.

This seems to be an American way of naming of scolarly titles and i suppose it has something to do with the history of the chair at the particular university, but this would be nice to know for sure. The article about professorship seems to ignore the existence of such naming process.

to make the question more clear: given that the reader does know (in sufficient depth for their own need to know) what is a professor, what is a university, what is a scientific field, and may even know who was the person for whom the chair was named - but doesnt know/understand the reason why a professorial title at a given university includes the name of a person (other than the current holder of the professorship) this last connection would be needed to be elaborated in the answer.

there seems to be an answer (through example of one particular chair) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Vyvyan_Harmsworth_Professor_of_American_History

though it still would be nice to have this topic touched in the article about professorship in a generic fashion instead of making necessary for the reader to conduct their own research about this.

89.134.199.32 (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC).

Image of professor

[Glad to see that the images have been updated! My former comment is no longer relevant!] The current photo looks like something from the 19th century. Perhaps get something without cork-stoppered bottles of vitriol, an ancient green slate, and one formula from high school chemistry?

Come on, guys! It is time that this edit war ceases and a discussion takes place on this talk page.?

I'll kick it off. Is there any reason why we can not have two images, three images, or even no images? If two, we could have one of a male professor and one of a female professor? However, I guess having images of two US professors is not a good idea? --Bduke (Discussion) 00:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Why do we need any images at all? Do they add anything? Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Any image of a real person (living or deceased) will of necessity be rather arbitrary. I don't really see what the face of some professor or other adds to this article. At most, a photo of a procession of professors in full regalia (such as many universities have once a year) might be interesting. But none of the pictures that have been the subject of the current edit war add anything to the article, IMHO. --Randykitty (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

As a professor, I think that it is important not to rely on a stereotypical picture of a professor i.e. a middle-aged white male, with white hair. There are male and female professors, and from every race and skin colour. I suggest the two options should be no pictures, or at least a mix of professors. I believe the three pictures previously did just that. Geraint_F_Lewis —Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I too am a professor. I am 47 and I have white hair (which comes from albinism but that is neither here nor there). Those pics add absolutely nothing. They don't illustrate what I do for a living. A picture of me drinking beer is as useful. The sex, ethnicity or hair colour of the person is not an issue, the issue is do the pics illustrate anything, they don't. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Phenomenon, not word

Wikipedia articles should be about phenomena and possibly concepts, but not about words. In particular they should not be about foreign words. This is the English wikipedia and therefore this article should be limited to describing the phenomenon that is denoted by the English word "professor". But in many places it strays into trying to clarifying the meaning of non-English words. It should not. --Ettrig (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ettrig: IMO it is absolutely okay to include all aspects, including conceptual aspects as well as word-aspects. As well as all those non-English uses came from same etymology. As well etymology (word origin and their changes, a "phenomenon", too! ) and semantics (study of "meaning"), is very much conceptual thing. When our ancestors used the same word for some other usage, they did so only due to some conceptual similarity.

Now, I have the basic right to know and find all such alternative usage at 1 place. And especially when it is an Encyclopedia. It is even okay if you use a disambiguation page for that (at least) ; but please do not lose the connectivity to all other usage.

As well, being a conceptual learner, when I read anything, I always look for whose it is part of. I don't really understand if I trim-away all the surround and focus only the 1 usage and what 'inside' it (and not what 'outside' it); why it still remain conceptual. It would be a tunnel vision then. 116.203.188.158 (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

"Most" American college teachers != Professors

Corrected the mention in the Lede that Most American college teachers have the title of Professor (or Asst., Assoc. Prof.). It has not been a majority since the 1960s and currently is around 25%.

I want to gain consensus before editing the Tenure section -- having over 2/3 of the prose be about criticisms of tenure does not seem NPOV.

Thanks, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge

First, Assistant Professor has already been merged and now redirects here; now is the time for Associate Professor. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Second, although faculty (academic staff) is a useful distinction from faculty (unit), the former is already discussed in the present article (search for "faculty"), so it should just redirect. Fgnievinski (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Also please note that this article has already grown to include faculty positions other than the various ranks of professors, such as lecturer, etc. Fgnievinski (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge is perhaps OK, but then the scope of the article should be made clear in the introduction. In the US (as far as I understand), "professor" refers to all academic ranks, whereas in Norway for instance "professor" only refers to the highest academic rank ("full professor"). So it must be clear to the reader that the article is about academic ranks or faculty, and not about a specific term. So a Norwegian reader may be surprised or confused to find "førsteamanuensis" (corresponding to associate professor) under the heading professor. In the Norway the distinction is between faculty members (or academic staff, "professors") and administrative staff.

On the other hand, if all "professors" are merged into this article, in terms of scope it will overlap completely with Faculty (academic staff). Docent is also a kind of professor that should be merged according to the proposed approach. --Erik den yngre (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This page has long not being just about Full professor. All these denominations only make sense in their specific geographical context. E.g., in Brazil all Faculty (academic staff) are called "professors". Fgnievinski (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so article scope should be limited by topic (whatever names are used in various contexts). My point is that the article should include all faculty to be consistent, not just those that happen to be called "... professor" in English. Then eventually the article will be about all academic ranks, a topic covered in several existing articles. So I am afraid the article may finally become too big and again need to split. --Erik den yngre (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This page should be just a worldwide overview, then details would go into the geography-specific pages, e.g., Professors in the United States, Academic ranks (Australia and New Zealand), etc. The geographical splitting could start as soon as we agree on a prefix -- "Academic ranks" is more inclusive than just "Professors" and also shorter than "Faculty (academic staff)". This is better than having pages about full professor, adjunct professor, assistant professor, associate professor, within each of which you'd describe the geographical distinctions. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Then I'd agree with a single overview-type article titled Academic ranks (no longer a redirect to List of academic ranks) merging Professor and Faculty (academic staff). Fgnievinski (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an utterly nonsensical merge proposal. Wikipedia has vast amounts of articles on various academic ranks in various systems, from Docent, to [[Reader (academic rank), to Privatdozent. Merging all of them into one single article would be hopeless, and not in accordance with policy because of its excessive length (and scope). Merging a general article on academic employees into Professor, which is in most of the world only the most senior rank for an academic, would be totally inappropriate. We need a separate article on academic ranks or faculty positions, that could provide an overview of ranks in various systems, and we need a separate article on the (full) Professor title as it is understood in most of the world (including the English-speaking world), as the highest rank at universities. The article Professor in itself is currently, quite frankly, a mess, and needs to be reduced, not merged with the maybe 100 other articles on other academic ranks at different levels and functions. Bjerrebæk (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I basically agree with Bjerrebæk, but we must keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so articles should not be focused on the word but on the topic. And because this is Wikipedia in English we should use the English terminology, this of course creates some confusion. But again, merging all kinds of articles about faculty positions ("professors") into a single article is perhaps hopeless. A compromise might be to create an overview article pointing to articles about academic ranks in countries (or group of countries if very similar). --Erik den yngre (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I oppose the merge, and I imagine an article on Professor in the British (and countries that follow a similar system) Unversities, as well as articles giving an overview of academic ranks in diffent groups of countries. The question is really how to split the subject in to articles. I agree with Bjerrebæk that what we have here is at the moment is a mess.Billlion (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

One problem of a merge is that there must be notable similarities across countries, if not the article can be rather confusing. For instance in Norway there are two types of positions at the associate professor level, one based on research merits (PhD) and one based on teaching merits, while "assistant professor" are all those with minimum merits (no PhD) etc. To capture all such differences across countries and academic ranks is quite a task. --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

While full, associate and assistant professors are sometimes collectively and less precisely known as "professors" in American English, this is not the case in the UK or the majority of English-speaking countries. I think we should explain the American usage where appropriate, but that we should have separate articles for each of the widely used ranks Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor. We already have stand-alone articles on Readers, Docents and numerous other ranks, so there is no reason not to have separate articles on Assistant Professors and Associate Professors as well. The titles Associate Professor and Assistant Professor are also used worldwide as official translations of ranks that do not include the word "professor" in their native language (e.g. førsteamanuensis and universitetslektor in Norwegian). If a biography mentions that someone is an assistant professor, it is more helpful to be able to link to an article on that particular rank and ranks at the comparative level, than a mega article discussing anything containing the word professor. Bjerrebæk (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There are several sub-proposals, so let me split it up:

• (A) To keep articles about each type of professor: Assistant professor, etc.
• (B) To have geography-specific pages: Academic ranks in Argentina, etc.
• (C) To have a short outline/overview type page: e.g., Academic ranks.

Which of these A,B,C do you agree/disagree? Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with A,B,C. With regard to (C), notice there are currently four nearly duplicated pages: Academic ranks, Faculty (academic staff), Titles in academia, Professorship. At this point, I'm not going into flame wars concerning whether Professor should be about Full professor only, or other types of professor too, or even instructors, lecturers, etc., as understood in the non-Anglophone world. Also, academic ranks are to include teaching and research academic staff (either of the two plus both of them, e.g., lecturer, researcher, professor) but not academic administration professional staff. Does anyone have a better idea for emptying up Professor and Academic ranks other than dicing them up into their geography-specific pages? Fgnievinski (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I think (B) country/geography-specific articles make most sense because the various types/levels of professors must be understood in relation to each other. For instance in Norway there is no distinction between tenured and non-tenured positions (all are tenured), an important feature of the US system. What it means to be a full professor is not the same in Norway and Sweden, and there have been notable changes in recent history. So I think country-specific articles describing the "internal logic" among academic ranks is best. In addition there should be some kind of (c) overview article, perhaps (A) with a comparative perspective. If there are only (B) country specific pages it is very difficult to understand nuances across countries. --Erik den yngre (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we should have both overview articles for each country, and articles on commonly used ranks such as (full) Professor, Associate Professor, Reader, Assistant Professor and Docent. Bjerrebæk (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps that is a good consensus, both (A) and (B), then there will of course be some overlap (and need to coordinate across articles), but that is not a problem as long as the structure is clear. --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the proposal to split the article

A possible solution is to make this article into an article on the full professor rank and rename it Professor (highest academic rank) ("Professor, informally also known as full professor, is the highest academic rank at universities and other institutions of higher education in most of the world ..."), and have either a disambiguation page or a shorter article here addressing the history and different uses of the word "professor" (for example, it can mean simply "teacher" (at primary or secondary level) or "music teacher" in some countries/settings, but obviously this is not the same rank or position as the (full) Professor rank at universities). Bjerrebæk (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Or a brief section in the article labelled "other use" or similar.

I am also not sure about the title, as I am pretty sure that faculty deans, rectors, chancellors, etcetera hold an even higher rank.

We also need to solve the assistant/associate prof issue. These jobs give the right to use the professor title in some (eg USA) but not all (eg Netherlands) countries. In that context we should also solve title equivalent to assis/assoc professor that do not have professor in the title (e.g. lecturer, senior lecturer, reader). Arnoutf (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Deans, rectors, chancellors etc are administrative ranks and (in most countries at least) not academic ranks. In Norway for instance there are faculty ranks (assistant, associate, full professor), administrative ranks (head clerk, director etc) and faculty-managerial ranks (dept chair, dean, chancellor etc). Faculty ranks depend on research and/or teaching merits, whereas faculty-managerial ranks are appointments (or elections) where a high academic rank is recommended or expected but not required. For instance a dean may only have associate professor academic rank, and is then not qualified to serve on certain committees where full professor rank is required. So it is quite common that deans or rectors preside over processes where they are personally not qualified to take part. This is the phenomenon of the upside down pyramid of academic life. Finally, as in all civil service there are non-managerial administrative ranks. In Norwegian universities there are in effect four separate ladders: academic ranks, administrative ranks, faculty-managerial ranks, and administrative-managerial ranks. --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Also note that in some countries there are additional subdivisions. For instance in Germany and Norway (and I believe Spain) there are two classes of civil servants. In Germany the high class is called Beamter, and I thinkg professors with a chair are also Beamter. In Norway this was the case too until the 1990, up to that point all professors (along with generals, judges and other top positions) were formally appointed by the King (that is, the full cabinet meeting) rather than by their university, they then enjoyed a particular legal status according to the constitution, for instance could be fired only by vote in the cabinet and a subsequent court trial. --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

In the Netherlands Rector and Dean are always full professor and keep the professor title during their term in office. They are considered to some extent both administrative and academic functions as they have responsibility for scientific quality of education and research. So complicated. But probably too specific to keep in mind. Arnoutf (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

In Norway it is usually required to have minimum of assistant professor (universitetslektor) position to be appointed to dean. But not for elected positions, in 2013 for instance a young student ran for president (rektor) of University of Oslo, against one of the top professors, the student obtained 30 % of the votes! In Norway all faculty-managerial positions are for limited periods (3, 4 or 6 years), and they always keep their academic rank independent of service as managers. Top administrative-managerial positions are also limited periods (applies to all branches of civil service except judges). Faculty-managerial positions in Norway are responsible for student programs and research (and the university/department as a whole), whereas administrativ managers are responsible for non-scientific specialties such as accounting, student register/admissions etc., and administrative managers are in general subordinates to a rector, dean or chair. Well, better keep these managerial positions in a separate article. --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Guys/gals, I see that you're enjoying the discussion. Shall we come to a conclusion. As no one objected from the the split of full professor, I'm hijacking that existing redirect and starting a new article; please improve it as you see fit. I've also started Draft:Professor and Draft:Academics -- please help. This last one I struggled a bit about the name (academic ranks, academic positions, academic occupations, academic personnel, academic titles -- bad choice?), as I thought administrative/managerial positions in academia are better left outside the scope. Then, finally, I'm most eager to carry out the geographical splitting next; what would be a good prefix -- "Academic ranks in..."? Thanks for your thoughts. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The title of the "full professor" article should be just "Professor" with an appropriate parenthesis (e.g. "highest academic rank"), since "full professor" is just an informal term that is only used to some extent to distinguish it from other titles containing the word "professor". The formal title is simply "Professor", also in North America. Draft:Academics should be retitled "Academic ranks" and possibly merged with List of academic ranks. Draft:Professor should be broadened in scope to include all usage of the word "professor" and the history of the term, not just academic/university usage. It can retain the lead of the current professor article ("A professor is a scholarly teacher; the precise meaning of the term varies by country. Literally, professor derives from Latin as a "person who professes" being usually an expert in arts or sciences, a teacher of the highest rank) and then mention its usage in academia more specifically ("At universities and other institutions of higher education in most of the world, Professor, informally also known as "full professor", is usually the highest academic rank. The word professor is also used in other academic titles such as Associate Professor and Assistant Professor. In North America, academic employees are often collectively known as "professors," regardless of exact rank or title.") Bjerrebæk (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Done: Professor (highest academic rank), Draft:Academic ranks, Draft:Professor. Thanks for your input. Feel free to directly edit these pages. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I have started to copying some material to Professor (highest academic rank) - needed some copy edit to remove reference to lower ranks. World overview section will need much more work as that is lengthy and not very consistently written. Arnoutf (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Better keep managerial positions to a separate article, although in some countries perhaps some managerial positions are regarded as higher rank than full professor, this can be mentioned when relevant (with a link to the special article about managerial ranks). While the title "Professor (highest academic rank)" is a good solution, it appears that some countries have a further distinction within "Full professor" (Spain for instance, if I understand it correctly) - in principle also in Norway until the last of the old type retire. --Erik den yngre (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree about managerial positions. It might be an idea to discuss levels if and when needed per country. That would also allow all kind of special full professorates to be mentioned as these depend on country as well. Arnoutf (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is true that some universities have professorships that are de jure or de facto considered to be higher positions than an "ordinary" full professorship (such as an endowed chair at Harvard); for this reason I suggested the wording "At universities and other institutions of higher education in most of the world, Professor, informally also known as "full professor", is usually the highest academic rank. " We should focus on the broad picture, and leave details of higher level professorships, where they exist, to country-specific sub sections and/or articles. While the full Professor position is used in more or less the entire world, the nature of (de jure or de facto) "higher" professorships is very much country-specific and even university-specific in many cases. Managerial positions should be left out from this discussion, because they are not academic ranks in themselves. Bjerrebæk (talk) 07:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree with Bjerrebæk and Arnoutf above. What may be needed however is a short description of what "academic rank" actually means (as something very different from managerial ranks). --Erik den yngre (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Proceeding with split

I'd say let's not worry too much about the geo-specific pages -- I'd just "dump" each subsec into a separate "Academic ranks in..." page. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've done a bunch; will continue sometime later. Fgnievinski (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've done a few more. What seems to be left are smaller sections. I've also created a navigation template and a category. One thing that would be nice to have is to link each page from that country's page -- it should bring some attention (please help!). One interesting discussion to have in the overview article is in terms of language, e.g., Spanish-, German-speaking countries, etc.; not sure if that's best in either Professor or Academic ranks. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bjerrebæk, Arnoutf, and Erik den yngre: Could you please weigh in here: Talk:List of academic ranks#Request for comment: Splitting the academic rank topics. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Folks, the split has been halted since the RFC has been issued; could you please state your opinions there so that it can resume. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If we now start at new and separate article on the full professor rank, and one one overview article on academic ranks, in addition to country-specific articles on academic ranks, we will have to remove the entire "Around the world" and "Salary" sections (and possibly other sections) from this (old) Professor article in my opinion, and make it into a shorter and more general article, or possibly just a disambiguation page, on the various uses of the word or title Professor, e.g.

• Professor (highest academic rank)
• Other academic uses including Associate Professor and Assistant Professor
• Professor as the title for a music teacher
• Secondary level teacher (in some countries)

Bjerrebæk (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

In Norway there are professorships obtained on scientific merit as well as professors within the fine arts based on "outstanding artistic merits" (for instance Leif Ove Andsnes is a professor of keyboard at the Norwegian Academy of Music). --Erik den yngre (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That's correct, but in many countries, "professor" is also used to describe virtually any music teacher, and in some languages the word professor (or its cognate) means simply "teacher" regardless of level. Bjerrebæk (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The key distinction is that the professors of for instance music or painting are (in Norway at least) regarded as "real" professors, according to national law for universities and higher education (of course the type of merits required are very different from a scientific professor). So the informal use of "professor" for music teachers can easily be confused with real professors. --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess that in Norway the title is reserved for music and painting professor at institutes of higher education (like School of Arts) rather than any music teacher. It is not so exceptional as for example professor of Architecture also tend to be appointed based on their portfolio of building designs, rather than scientific publications, and the high education music and painting (and any other arts) professors would fit with that. Arnoutf (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. In Norway the use of "professor" is clearly specified in written law and reserved for higher education, the term is not used informally about any music teacher. I guess some professors of architecture are also appointed based on their portfolio, perhaps combined with scholarly work (volumes on the history of architecture for instance). --Erik den yngre (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Questioning split

• I just now become aware of this discussion and am flabbergasted. Why on Earth would you want to split off separate stub articles on assistant and associate professors? It's not like there will be much content specific to those ranks that doesn't also apply to all other professor ranks. There's also now two articles on "professor": this one and "professor (highest rank)", which also doesn't contain much info that cannot be accommodated here (or already is). All those articles should simply redirect here. I'm not saying that the current article is perfect, far from it. It's chock full of mostly unsourced trivia and also contains erroneous info (the salary table -wherever that may have come from- is really at least 20 years outdated). Instead of splitting off useless stubs, perhaps more effort could be put into getting this article up to par. --Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Splitting off "assistant professor" and "associate professor" is also complicated because these terms have different meanings in different contexts. For instance for a PhD in Norway there are only two ranks: Associate professor or (full) professor (some with a PhD are promoted to docent based on research and teaching merits combined). In Sweden, "docent" is used for the position between associate and full professor. So it is a bit difficult to describe these terms in separate articles as they can only be understood in the context of the system as whole. — Erik Jr. 14:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's keep discussion centralized at Talk:Assistant professor#Proposed merge with Professor. fgnievinski (talk) 05:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

193.251.4.222 (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Salary

Hello all,

I think some work needs to be done in the Salary section. I don't know about the rest, but the statistics for Sweden are definitely incorrect. I'm a PhD Candidate in Sweden, and I earn roughly the amount stated (about €25,000 a year) for that of a professor. This is average for a PhD candidate. Professors tend to earn around the €70,000 mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermassive 79 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I have the intuition that the table gives after taxes numbers as they seem to be incredibly low across the board. Can someone check? Arnoutf (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Salaries are difficult to compare across countries, and should in any case be very clear and specific about what is included. In Norway there are statistics (averages) regarding real salary, but also government guidelines (minimum and range). --Erik den yngre (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Same in the Netherlands. Professors are in a predefined paygrade which is the same across all Dutch universities. Years of employment (depending on satisfactory functioning) determines the level within the paygrade. Arnoutf (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The salary table is definitely incorrect in certain aspects - also the source (footnote 14) is cited incorrectly, as it does not cover all the countries that appear in the table 158.64.77.106 (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Having done some comparisons myself, I can confirm that some of the numbers in the table are dead wrong, by several factors. For instance full prof salaries in Luxembourg are presented as considerably lower than in Germany, while in fact they are notably higher. (There are known examples of researchers who had to choose between a position in Luxembourg and Germany and basically couldn't even start negociating because the basic offer in Luxembourg was so much higher.) In my opinion this table is highly misleading and should be removed until better data is found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.251.4.222 (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Research-track vs. Tenure-track

I followed a link from an article about a guy who is a Research Professor of something. To many, this indicates that a "Research Professor" is pretty much the same as a Professor. This is not the case. At least in the US, a Research Track Professor (or Assistant or Associate) is often more like an advanced post-doctoral fellow who is paid by a tenure-track faculty. If I can find a ref for this does anybody have a problem with adding a "Research Track" heading and changing the Tenure to Tenure Track? Desoto10 (talk) 05:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. I found the appropriate article explaining the differences. The link should lead to that one, I think. Desoto10 (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Please keep Research Professor and Research professor in sync. fgnievinski (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Fulll and lower professors

@OnBeyondZebrax, Bjerrebæk, Vanzylad, and Lexspoon: Please notice this article is supposed to be more general than the one about Professor (highest academic rank) -- please don't duplicate that content here! fgnievinski (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems there is ambiguity in the word "Professor", between the broader Faculty (academic staff) and the narrower Professor (highest academic rank). Maybe we should redirect Professor to either of the two articles above and leave a hatnote indicating the other article? fgnievinski (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Historical Islamic usage

The entire section was deleted because of undue weight, copied here for future use (some content may be relevant for the article):

---

In [[Islamic Golden Age|Muslim civilisation]], the chair was designated by the [[caliph]] himself. Mostly through recommendation, the caliph made appointments to a professorial chair (''Kursi'' in [[Arabic language|Arabic]]) in a ''[[Madrassah|jami’]]'' ([[university]] or congregational [[madrasah]]). Such was the case of [[Ibn 'Aqil]] (died 1119) who was appointed to a well-known chair in Jami' al-Mansur ([[Baghdad]]), becoming the main teacher of the madrasah. In other cases, a scholar could be appointed to two chairs at the same time, holding a chair in one jami’ and simultaneously holding another in another jami’ or in one of the exclusive institutions.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Nakosteen |first=M. |title=History of Islamic origins of Western Education A.D 800–1350 |publisher=University of Colorado Press |location=Boulder |year=1964 }}</ref> This is the case of particularly distinguished and popular scholars. For example, a certain Ibn al-Banna' (d. 1079) had a chair in Jami' al-Mansur (Baghdad), located in the centre of the riwaq (nave of the [[mosque]]), while simultaneously holding another in Jami' al-Qasr (also Baghdad), around the maqsura (a separate room inside the mosque). Some chairs were also known by the discipline they represented; as, for instance, the chair or study-circle of the traditionalists (''halqat ahl al-hadith''), and that of the grammarians (''halqat al-nahwiyin''). Others were known by the name of the family whose members occupied it in succession; as, for instance, the chair of the [[Barmakid]]s (''halqat al-Barâmika''). Sometimes institutions were specialised in particular study and therefore received a corresponding chair, e.g. the Nizamiya did not have a chair of [[Kalam|Islamic theology]], but only a chair of [[Sharia|Islamic law]].<ref>Al-hassani, Woodcock and Saoud: 1001 Inventions, Muslim Heritage in Our World; FSTC publication, 2007, 2nd Edition, pp.56-57</ref> As to tenure of the chair, once a professor was appointed by the caliph to a chair in one of the main madrasahs (Jamii), he ordinarily held it for the remainder of his lifetime. Cases of lengthy tenure are often reported by biographers, for example [[Ibn al-Kattani|Abu 'All al-Kattani]] (d. 1061), who was in his eighties when he died, had occupied his chair for 50 years. According to George Makdisi and Hugh Goddard, "the fact that we still talk of professors holding the 'chair' of their subject" is thought to allegedly be based on the "traditional [[Islam]]ic pattern of teaching where the professor sits on a chair and the students sit around him", and the term '[[Study circle|academic circles]]' may be derived from the way Islamic students "sat in a circle around their professor, although the ancient Greeks and Romans did this long before, and it is believed Islamic culture took this from these cultures."<ref>{{Cite book|title=A History of Christian-Muslim Relations|first=Hugh|last=Goddard|year=2000|publisher=[[Edinburgh University Press]]|isbn=0-7486-1009-X|page=100|oclc=237514956}}</ref> The term 'professor' itself is believed a translation of the Arabic term ''[[mufti]]'' by Islamic interpretations, which meant "professor of [[Fatwā|legal opinions]], however the word 'professor' was derived long before Islamic culture was formed, in the time of the Ancient Greeks and Romans."<ref name=G-Makdisi>{{Cite journal|last=Makdisi|first=George|title=Scholasticism and Humanism in Classical Islam and the Christian West|journal=Journal of the American Oriental Society|volume=109|issue=2|date=April–June 1989|pages=175–182 [175–77]|doi=10.2307/604423|jstor=604423}}</ref>

---

— Erik Jr. 17:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Changing Pictures, Which Were Reverted

I think what we noticed was that EVERY picture on the page was of a white male. The idea was to show that professors are more than just aged white men. By adding McGonagall to the fictional section, we simply acknowledged that other professors (Dumbledore and Snape) who have been on the page for a very long time textually also exist. I'm happy to mix it up--but this should not be a white men only domain. --tassieg (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree that the white western male domination is a bad thing. However, the infobox paper showed a lecturing professor - which is a professor doing his professorial job and hence a general depiction of the professorial function. The current picture is that of a non western professor (full support) that is not dressed in any formal professorial gowns, nor is showing an professorial action (teaching or researching). As such this picture might as well be that of a government minister or any other functionary. That is my main objection to that specific picture - it shows nothing of what a generic professor is, it only depicts one single individual professor. Arnoutf (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

pinging Tassie Gniady and Arnoutf I've replaced File:KanwalAmeen2.jpg with File:Kola Tubosun.jpg - I had considered File:Dickinson College 17 Computer Science Instruction.jpg, but the image info does not identify the individual. If File:Ming-sho Ho in CUHK.jpg weren't so blurry, it may have been even better. Thank you for your attention to this article. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I like the blackboard with real chalk (my personal favorite when lecturing over whiteboards and all kinds of smartboards); makes the teaching part very clear. A female professor would have been nice too, but I could not find a similar image of a female professor. Arnoutf (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The new picture showed a random, more or less completely unknown African guy who was not even a professor (according to his CV, he has never held the title "Professor" anywhere, and appears to be at instructor-level academically with a day job as a high school teacher). The picture used in the infobox should be of particularly high quality and be representative of what professors are in most of the world. This means, among other things, that the person depicted should be a "full professor", not a high school teacher or instructor, as the American oddity of referring to just about anyone who teaches as "professors" would be laughed out of court in most of the world and is certainly not representative of global usage; on the other hand a "full professor" would be called a professor both in the US and the rest of the world. File:Einstein 1921 by F Schmutzer - restoration.jpg is a much better choice; it shows the world's best known Professor, who is instantly recognizable, and who was an actual Professor at the time the picture was taken; also, the picture is a featured picture, which has been selected for the picture of the day section of the main page next year. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Einstein is in many ways iconic. But we are now back to an all male, all white page. I'd be happy to put up a picture of Angela Davis (also very well known) elsewhere on the page so that we can simply acknowledge that not all professors are male and white. tassieg (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Everyone knows all professors are not male and white. We don't need to use an article like this to push the type of political correctness apparent here which seems to demonise white men. We've now got photos of two random women just to make a political point. How stupid is that? I vote we don't have any pictures other than that of Einstein. The Roman Candle (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Term "professor" without qualification in the US

The following statement is false:

In the U.S. and Canada, when an individual states that he is a professor at a university, without any additional qualifying terms (e.g., "adjunct professor, "assistant professor" or "associate professor"), it is typically assumed to mean he is a full professor.

I am an assistant professor at an American university, so I have an idea of what I'm talking about. If someone says they're, say, "a university professor" without qualifying it with "assistant" or "associate", it is not generally assumed they mean full professor; it's simply unclear. The term "professor" in the US is used very widely to refer to any university level instructor; students frequently use the term to refer to or address instructors who don't even have "professor" as part of their job title (e.g., postdocs and lecturers). This is precisely why the term "full professor" exists.

The claim is also not supported by the source provided ([1]), which in fact uses the unqualified term "professor" to refer to professors in general, without regard to rank. All it claims is that a full professor might be called "simply Professor". And that's not the same thing. So I've removed the statement from this article. Garik (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what is true in the US and Canada (in any case we dont write opinions and personal experiences), but the source given looks like a blog and I would not regard it as a reliable source in WP terms. --— Erik Jr. 15:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Garik and Erik Jr. on this one. The meaning of the term "professor" in American English without a qualifier is ambiguous and really does depend on context as Garik has stated. I have seen instructors at community colleges (that is, with only limited or no tenure protection) put on airs, so to speak, by insisting that students call them "professor." --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe that generally, in the United States, it is incorrect for someone to say they are "professor" at a university without qualifying terms if they are actually assistant professor, especially if they are using "professor" as a title and in a formal way, such as in writing. If you are an assistant professor and tell your students you are "Professor" without a qualifying term it is at best disingenuous. In the US, there is no other (generic) title for full professors than "professor" (except the somewhat silly and informal term "full professor", but you wouldn't tell your students "I am Full Professor John Doe" because it sounds pompous, and it's never used as a formal title). The impact of globalization is also part of all this, since in pretty much the rest of the world, including the UK and most English-speaking countries, "Professor" is a title earned by the most distinguished academics after some 30 years in academia, and American assistant professors and instructors need to be very careful about using the title "professor" anywhere else in the world. In the UK some universities have adopted the titles "assistant professor" and "associate professor", but persons with these titles are expected to always use the full title with the qualification "assistant" or "associate" and never under any circumstances the title "professor" without the qualifying terms. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is quite right, though perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point. Assistant professors in the US are certainly entitled to be addressed as "Professor X", or even just as "Professor". Indeed this is standard practice. Similarly, it's standard practice to say of an assistant professor that "She's a college professor". A statement like "I'm a math professor" is also entirely unremarkable and acceptable from an assistant professor. I agree that, in certain formal circumstances, "professor" alone could be taken as misleading. One possible example is the simple statement "I'm a professor" without any qualifiers. I think that might be taken to slightly imply that the speaker is a full professor, but I don't think they'd be treated as very disingenuous if they were found not to have tenure. A more obvious example is in an email signature, or beneath one's signature in a letter. I certainly wouldn't recommend that anyone but a full professor write simply professor in such circumstances. On the other hand, addressing a letter to, say, "Professor Wotsit", when Wotsit is an assistant professor is standard. Addressing a letter to "Assistant Professor Wotsit" would be seen as inappropriately cumbersome. Garik (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I should add that the question about what people tell students they are is coloured by the issue that it's always likely to be a little on the pretentious side to give oneself a title, even if one's entitled to it. I certainly don't. Garik (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

What is a "concurrent professor"?

Looking for a definition on the web, not having much luck. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Shared between two institutions/departments? Similar to adjunct? --— Erik Jr. 15:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Junior professor listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Junior professor. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hildeoc (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate usage of Dutch Euro purchasing power?

Table of wages is expressed in terms of 2014 Dutch Euros. Is this considered appropriate per Wikipedia guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.38.251 (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Table of wages and NL comparison

Currently, the Table of wages section presents a table under the caption "NL comparison, 2014, net salaries, in NL purchasing power"; does this refer to the study mentioned two sections above (Netherlands)? I guess so, because otherwise I've got no idea what NL stands for / means. Can someone who knows for sure confirm it, and ideally edit the article appropriately (probably moving the table to a proper sub-section, and maybe also avoiding the obscure abbreviation "NL")? 95.90.235.121 (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Einstein as a scientist not much of an educator

It is nice to see the picture of Einstein. But he is not that representative of the professor: he was a genius scientist, a researcher, and did not lecture outside of conferences. He had almost no graduate students! I hate to say it but he was too good to be a professor. Feynman would be more representative as, in addition, he was a great educator. Limit-theorem (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

"Chair(professorship)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Chair(professorship) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 19#Chair(professorship) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Toni Morrison past tense?

If Toni Morisson is dead, should her tense as professor be changed to be similar to Einstein's, something like "Toni Morrison as Emeritus..."? 192.226.178.38 (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, the answer is "No". Am emeritus professor is a professor who has retired, not one who is dead. --Bduke (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

History, other usages and Socrates

There is a picture there of Socrates, as an early professor, but the article then makes out that professor is a Western Europe 14th century term.

The history and alternative usage sections are very bad. I came here to look up the possible occult usages of "professor" as one who professes, even if not right out academically teaches, as I saw a debate today with some very strange behaviour that reminds of of occult manipulative practices, from somebody calling himself professor, unaccredited. Strangely Wikipedia lacks am article on occult rankings,and neither did a page turn up in Google search, and here even the coverage of professor is cut short. This leaves no proof the usage dies not formally or in some cases informally popularly extent into the occult educational system (we are not interested in informal rare usages not attached to popular figures, and then only in as far as they were informally called such). But, this is where Wikipedia should fill in the gaps, so we know of these common formal and popular informal usages, in order to address the subject with people saying such usage, or non usage, when there is not. 49.197.228.206 (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you want to say with above post. But if you have reliable sources and can come up with a relevant, not undue suggestion we can see whether we can do something with it - although to be frank I doubt it, as your idea and inclusion of the occult may well be what Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Arnoutf (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't try to play. Nobody said anything about having to include the occult, only proper coverage, what Wikipedia is built for, not your biases. Which this article is short and bad at.

Now, if you fancy yourself a proper encyclopaedia writer you will stop asking sensible people who aren't to write, and do

o it yourself. I certainly don't expect unskilled people to do it, when I'm helping them in something skilled. That's a psychologically bad mindset. 159.196.184.30 (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Remove More Citations Needed tag

I'm requesting that an admin

review my changes and remove the additional

Frankymulls (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Taken care of. Actually, that tag was dated 2016, and maybe should have been removed before now. But thanks for doing this. — Maile (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention, im just doing my job by keeping the Wiki project a clean and neat place. Hoping to do more in the future! Cheers thanks for the help. Frankymulls (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)