Talk:Professor/Archive 1

Non-professor faculty

That many faculty members at universities are not professors does not seem to have occurred to the authors of this article. In the USA, most faculty members who have tenure or have tenure-track positions are professors, but in Britain and most other parts of the English-speaking world the title is far less generously bestowed. -- Mike Hardy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.183.85.71 (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2003

If the page is incorrect, why not just change it? --Camembert —Preceding comment was added at 00:27, 11 January 2003

Agreed, you do not have to wait for a veteran to do it for you. Feel free to add caveats wherever you observe they would improve the content. --Qaz —Preceding comment was added at 00:30, 11 January 2003

Removed the list of professors

I have removed the [list of professors] from the article because I think no one will ever be able to draw up a representative list of "Some famous professors". This is not a question of NPOV though, it's just sheer arbitrariness. By the way, who is the famous Professor Jenson? --KF 17:13, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Terminologies differing

There is a massive difference in the use of a few terms in US vs. other English-speaking universities (hereinafter ROW for rest-of-world). It goes something like this:

• Professor (US) == Academic (ROW)
• Professor (ROW) == Full or Associate Professor (US)
• Faculty (US) == Academic staff (ROW)
• Academic Staff (US) == non-tenure track (?) (US) == no equivalent (assorted junior staff doing non-menial, non-administrative research or support work)
• Faculty (ROW) == a group of related departments, e.g. a Faculty of Science

Anyone who is still following should realise that there are some serious difficulties with getting the wikipedia entries for these words right.
I think that most of the material on this page (professor) should be moved to "academic", which seems the more general word. Professor should either redirect there, or be a much shorter entry that refers to that material for discussion about academics.
Comments, anyone? -- Pde 13:42, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Position and title

The article at the moment doesn't say much about titles, which don't always go hand in hand with positions. Is an assistant professor in the USA styled Professor so-and-so? Or is he/she Dr. So-and-so until attaining full professorship, as in Britain etc.? I ask partly because I have seen editors drag in Professor so-and-so on quite a few occasions to bolster an argument or provide additional evidence. In using the term, there is an inherent attempt to boost the perceived credibility/reliability of whatever points are being made (i.e. this must be right because a professor said it...). But if no distinction is made in the US in the titles of academics, then such usage is likely to mislead much of the rest of the world. Mattley 12:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Etymology

What is the origin of the word Professor? Is it from the Jesuit Order?   --sjl (at) prodigy .net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.188.169.27 (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2005

I believe I have answered this. --Rockero 04:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Rank, tenure and pay grade

I've made a few small edits. However, [the] points about assistant and associate in the US system being a pay differential is incorrect. The difference between assistant and associate professor is almost always tenure or not -- though rarely a person is hired as an untenured associate professor, and sometimes, if tenured early, an assistant professor is tenured. While some state universities have pay grades specific to assistant and associate levels, there typically is overlap between the different levels in pay, and at private universities -- at least those I know well-enough to know -- pay is usually considered separately from tenure-statues and from professorial rank.

I'm going to make some edits to reflect this. Salsb 1 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)

Salsb is mistaken. Many universities routinely promote assistant professors to associate professors without tenure, and also routinely make lateral hires of untenured associate professors. Those who go on to earn tenure may receive it while they remain associate professors or at the same time they are promoted to full professors. I'm familiar with several major research universities in the U.S., and the process I have described is the norm.

I should add that some assistant professors receive both a promotion to associate professor and tenure at the same time, as Salsb says. But far more are promoted without tenure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.232.225.57 (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2005

Salsb is not mistaken. It is certainly the case that associate professors may not have tenure, but it is a matter of how common a practice this is, and of which schools. Changing it would do more harm than good, because on the whole, one can assume that associate professors have tenure whereas assistants do not, and this is their major distinction from one another. 24.90.135.161 16:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Professor titles in other countries

I'm curious about professor titles in other countries, especially in Asian or South American countries. Do they follow a similar model akin to the U.S. or the continental Europe? I'm sure there's an article in their respective languages, but I don't speak japanese. I wonder how their system works over there? --Janarius 4 July 2005 03:52 (UTC)

Obligated vs obliged

This is such a minor point, I'm not sure why I'm writing a talk page entry, but I felt I had to explain my actions. Obligated and obliged are nearly synonymous, so I'm not sure why it was changed in the first place. However, obligated has as its first entry in Merriam-Webster "to bind legally or morally" whereas obliged is defined as "to constrain by physical, moral, or legal force". Obligated has more of a legal connotation, whereas obliged has more of a moral connotation. This is reflected in the dictionary definitions byt the order in which they refer to the types of constraints (legal or moral). Because the use in this entry refers to an obligation to perform a duty — not out of the moral drive but from rather a legal requirement of the job — obligated "seems" more correct than obliged. But they're so closely related that, if you change it back, I'm not even going to bother with it. --A314268 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Clinical professors

The article says nothing at all about the various types of clinical faculty who, at least in American universities with medical schools, often outnumber the non-clinical faculty by a substantial amount. There are titles such as "Professor of Clinical Medicine" and "Clinical Professor of Medicine", as well as the assistant, associate and visiting variants of each. In many universities these faculty have "tenure of title" rather than traditional tenure, which essentially means the university does not guarantee their salary as it does for regular tenured faculty. Hopefully someone better able to explain this system than I am will add a section to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.172.179 (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2005

"Acting" Assistant Professor?

What is an Acting Assistant Professor? It's different from an Assistant Professor. See this example: http://crypto.stanford.edu/~cao/bio.txt

Pei Cao is Acting Assistant Professor of Computer Science. She received her Ph.D. from Princeton in 1996, M.S, from Princeton in 1992, and BS from Tsinghua University (Beijing, China) in 1990, all in computer science.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.15.186 (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2005

Partial Answer: An acting assistant professor is sometimes used as a title for a person who has started as an assistant professor, but has not yet received their PhD. The "acting" is removed once that person receives their PhD. An acting asst prof usually has an allotted time in which they must obtain their PhD; otherwise they lose their position.

At least this was the case for me. However, it seems that it is different for the aforementioned case (Pei Cao). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rck289 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 5 July 2006

I've seen "Acting" used simply to mean "Visiting" at some schools. JJL 00:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel

I'm slightly confused by the text which states that Israel follows the US *except* that it has 4 tiers rather than 3... and the 4 tiers look much more like the non-US model. Can anybody clarify? Limegreen 09:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Ages

I changed the ages because they were on the low-side. The hard number I saw was 33 for average starting assistant prof in the life sciences. Also the time for promotion from associate professor varies drastically in the US, but is usually longer than the time for promotion to assistant professor. Salsb 17:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"UK and other non-US English-speaking countries"

Can anyone substantiate the statement in #Differences that the UK and Commonwealth are more like the US system than the "Continental" one? I thought most UK Professorships were Chairs as stated further down in the country-specific section. Rest of Commonwealth I'm not sure about. I'll change [the paragraph] if no one can substantiate it. JackyR 19:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost certain you're right: the UK has a chair-based system. I've changed it. garik 18:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Professor I, Professor II, (Professor III, ...)

What are these?   (rephrased original question from 165.230.46.138 17:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC) )

Factual error in article

Note that in Germany, there has been always a debate of whether Professor is a title that remains one's own for life once conferred (similar to the doctorate, which becomes part of the legal name), or whether it is linked to a function (or even the designation of a function) and ceases to belong to the holder once she or he quits or retires (except in the usual case of becoming Professor emeritus). The former view has won the day and is by now both the law and majority opinion.

I already brought up this topic a while ago, but my edit was overruled by another user who insisted on being right and that the text is correct (which it is not). Fact: In Germany "Title" is a job title and not attached to a person for a life. Therefore not the former "has won the day and is law", but the latter view. If someone chooses to give up his professorship or is expelled (both is rare), he must give up his "Professor". There are documented examples of this and this is also very clearly stated in the various laws regarding universities in the different german states (each state has it own law regarding universities, colleges etc.). It is different when a professor retires, in this case normally he is entitled to keep the title "Professor". I'm sick that the english article continues to tell people this nonsense. As said, i already changed it, but it was quickly changed back by another user which is a professor himself and seems to be unable to stand the truth. However wikipedia shall not contain factual error. I advise to have a look at the professor article in the german wikipedia, which clearly and correctly states:

In Deutschland ist die Amtsbezeichnung des Inhabers einer Professur Professor. [...] Im Fall von Ehrenprofessuren oder außerplanmäßigen Professuren handelt es sich lediglich um einen Titel (Titularprofessur), ohne dass damit ein bestimmtes Amt oder eine Stelle verbunden wäre. Der Unterschied besteht darin, dass der Titel erhalten bleibt, auch wenn der Beruf nicht mehr ausgeübt wird (man kann ihn aber aberkennen oder niederlegen), während die Amtsbezeichnung bei Aufgabe der Tätigkeit – außer im Fall der Emeritierung oder Pensionierung – nicht weiter besteht.

Translation: In Germany the Berufsbezeichnung (job title) of the owner of a professorship is professor. [...] A honorary or außerplanmäßiger professor is a Titel (title for life) which is not connected to a specific charge or job. The difference is that the Titel remains when the job is no longer executed (but the title can be returned), while the Berufsbezeichnung does no longer exist when giving up the job except in the cases of retirement or Emeritierung (becoming a professor emeritus). [Note: I kept the german terms Berufsbezeichnung (job title) and Titel (title) for the sake of clearness].

I really would appreciate if the article would be corrected and kept correct, despite the personal problems of at least one user with the truth. The german wikipedia article is correct and such wrong facts would not be kept for such a long time there. --80.139.21.202 20:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The best way to make corrections stick is usually to give a reference to an authoritative source (other Wikipedia articles don't count). up◦land 21:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Now the german wikipedia shall be considered authoritative for such a popular german topic given the large user base. However to prove what i've told i will cite from the appropriate german laws. They are in german, i will translate.

Hessisches Hochschulgesetz (law concerning academia in Hessen [german state]), to be found e.g. here:
[ §70 in HTML is here ]

§70 "Professorinnen und Professoren", Paragraph 3: Professorinnen und Professoren werden in einem Beamten- oder Angestelltenverhältnis beschäftigt. Mit der Begründung des Angestelltenverhältnisses ist die Bezeichnung "Professorin" oder "Professor" verliehen. Die Bezeichnung kann nach Beendigung der Anstellung weitergeführt werden, wenn die Dienstzeit mindestens fünf Jahre betrug. Für den Verlust der Bezeichnung gelten die beamtenrechtlichen Bestimmungen für die Amtsbezeichnung.

Translation: Professors (male and female) are employed as public servants or plain employees. With the beginning of the employment the designation "Professorin" or "Professor" is granted. Continuation of the usage of the designation after end of employment is possible when the employment lasted at least five years. For revocation of the designation the appropriate rules for public servants concerning public office designations do apply.

Comment: Now while Hessen makes it very easy to keep the designation after the end of employment (5 years is enough), this makes it very clear that the designation is not appointed for life in the first time. And of course it can be revoked for a number of reasons.

Thüringer Hochschulgesetz (law concerning academia in Thuringia), to be found e.g. here (16 May 2006):
[ In May 2007, Bezeichnung "Professor" is §81, found here. ]

§61 "Bezeichnung Professor" (Designation Professor)

Paragraph 1: Professoren im Angestelltenverhältnis können für die Dauer des Dienstverhältnisses die Amtsbezeichnung der entsprechenden Professoren im Beamtenverhältnis als Berufsbezeichnung führen. Scheiden sie wegen Erreichens der Altersgrenze oder Dienstunfähigkeit aus, dürfen sie die Bezeichnung 'Professor' als akademische Bezeichnung weiterführen. Bei Ausscheiden aus dem Dienstverhältnis aus anderen als den in Satz 2 genannten Gründen darf die akademische Bezeichnung 'Professor' weitergeführt werden, wenn das Dienstverhältnis als Professor mindestens fünf Jahre gedauert hat.

Translation: Professors who are plain employees may use the designation of public servant professors as a job title for the duration of the employment. When quitting job due to reaching the age limit or disability for service they may continue to use the designation Professor as an academic designation. When quitting job for other reasons, the academic designation might be kept if the duration of employment as professor lasted at least 5 years.

Paragraph 2: Für Professoren im Beamtenverhältnis ist ihre Amtsbezeichnung zugleich eine akademische Bezeichnung. Sie darf nach ihrem Ausscheiden aus der Hochschule weitergeführt werden, sofern das Amt zuvor mindestens fünf Jahre ausgeübt wurde.

Translation: For public servant professors the job title is as well an academic title. It may be kept after leaving academia if the employment lasted at least five years.

Paragraph 3: Der Verlust der akademischen Bezeichnung 'Professor' richtet sich nach den beamtenrechtlichen Bestimmungen für die Amtsbezeichnung.

Translation: For revocation of the academic designation 'Professor' the appropriate rules for public servants concerning public office designations do apply.

Comment: Same as above.

I could go on and on for the laws of other german states. Most states have similar rules. There is also another error in the article. The doctorate does not become a part of the legal name. This has been clearly ruled by the german federal court. However many doctors neglect the painful truth about the nature of their "title" as well as professors do. --80.139.25.71 21:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I am very grateful for the above mentioned quotations, although in the German legal system, the latest court rulings that interpret a law determine what the law of the land is and not the laws as given here. But in this case, they are actually the same. And what the quotes by User:80.139.25.71 all show is that the statement in the article is actually correct, i.e. that in Germany, professor actually becomes a title, on average after a minimum service on the job of five years (which hardly any professor does not get). Therefore, it is clearly not just the designation of the job which expires as soon as the contract ends. And it is not just a courtesy title, but the person in question may indeed have this title. That is the key fact here, and that is what should be stated in the English wikipedia, because it is different to most Anglo-American countries where, if you quit the position of professor (whatever level), that designation leaves as well. Clossius 05:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: I inserted "- although in many German Länder, there is a minimum requirement of five years of service before "Professor" may be used as a title without the respective job -" into the article itself. By that, all factual points made by 80.139.25.71 should be taken care of. Clossius 05:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Tenure

The last few sentences (and perhaps the whole section) are really awful. A claim is made that tenure is controversial. Well in my 11 years I have heard the odd politician go on about it (one time that I can think of offhand) , but really it does not come up at all. Then this flimsy claim is talked about as if there IS a controversy. Finally we get this gem, I have no idea what this means, could someone that understands what this means clean this up, or perhaps delete it? Oh here is the quote: «The controversy over the issue of tenure may therefore also encourage a fuller and deeper higher educational critique of the meanings, sometimes inchoately and inconsistently attached, to the title "professor." Especially in the future, a need will emerge eventually for an analysis of and imagined potentials to be found in the ideas of the professor and tenure, especially given economic and cultural globalization and globalism, world regional distinctions in universities, the rise of international higher educations, and the growth in somewhat peripatetic border-crossing professors.» Dbrodbeck 09:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added the "globalize" tag to this section, because it is really only talking about the US. The concept of tenure has disappeared in Australia. Certain positions are called "permanent" but that only means they have no completion date in the contract. All academic staff in Australian universities can be made redundant if the School, Department or Faculty runs out of money or no longer has a need for a particular specialism. They do not have to show good cause. I think the situation in the UK has changed in this direction too from I last worked as an academic there.

This problem is present elsewhere in the article. The term "professor" just means so many different things in different countries. For example the image described as "a Professor giving a lecture". That is fine in the US. An Australian would ask, "How do you know he is a Professor and not a Lecturer or Senior Lecturer?". --Bduke 06:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Luce Professors?

I would like something written about Luce Professors please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Doe or Jane Doe (talk • contribs) 13:25, 17 September 2006

More appropriate in the Henry Luce Foundation article. See Henry R. Luce Professorship Program at the Luce Foundation. --Fyrlander 20:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Salaries

Where does this information come from? To what type of professors does it apply? Where's the source? And how can people find out the average salaries for professors in places besides Germany, Switzerland and the US? Exploding Boy 07:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How to address an associate professor?

Generally, only full professors are addressed "Professor", and assistant professors prefer the title "Dr". How does one address an associate professor? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.200.35.31 (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

It depends on who you are. If you are an undergraduate, it is wise to call all instructors "Professor" or "Doctor" until you are told otherwise. If you are another professor and you work with the guy, you might just call him "Bob." I don't think it's right to say only full professors are addressed as Professor. The title is used informally for anyone who teaches college or is at least on the tenure track. --Aaslatten 21:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In the US, both assistant, associate and full professors are normally addressed by students and non-academic staff (e.g. secretaries, technicians, etc.) as "Professor X". In the UK, however, lecturers and readers are addressed as "Dr. X" and only professors per se (the British equivalent of a chaired/endowed professor in US) are called "Prof. X". 200.177.11.191 01:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

this section should probably be removed, because there is no consensus on this, even within the US. Professor, Doctor, or first name are all used, depending on the individual. If a rule must be given, however, in the US anyone is called professor because it's simply the designation students are using for the instructor of the class, not their official title. 24.90.135.161 17:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, in the U.S., you're a "professor" if you teach a college class, though "Dr." is often preferred by professors who have doctorates. 129.186.92.105 (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In the U.S., "Professor" is an appropriate form of address for an Asst., Assoc., or (Full) Professor, much as "Admiral" is an appropriate form of address for a Rear, Vice, or (Full) Admiral. They're all types of professors. But yes, many prefer "Dr." to "Prof.", in aprt because some professors lack a doctorate. JJL (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Can we be sure that the lecturer in the lead image is a professor? It doesn't say so on the picture so unless the uploader inserted it or can confirm this it's rather doubtful. Richard001 21:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

International Professor

This section needs a rewrite:

"International Professors": Significance or meaning differences may emerge in recognition that some professors now teach in two countries or continents, holding dual appointments. Yet others increasingly have chosen something of an "expatriate academic" career, thus gradually internationalizing professors in similar and different ways, significantly because they have spent several years or decades overseas. Motivations and various pressures to migrate may result in conventionalizing such peripatetic professors into collegial affiliations serving to forge a self-definition of "international professor" or global professor. With modest internationalization and accelerated globalization in international higher education; with the associated rising visibility of different forms of an academic "nomad;" with the increase of freer marketplaces and corresponding mounting uncertainties to personal security;including continuing challenges to the concepts of tenure and part-time university positions, we can expect more growth in the number of expatriate and migratory professors and lecturers for the foreseeable future. Given that these events and trends all evidence themselves in analysis, argument and in concrete university actions, the very idea of the professor can be expected to receive closer attention.

I'll do it, but I'm not sure where to start or how it fits into this section. It's written in an essay-like form, and i'm not sure what it is based on. yEvb0 17:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Where did that text come from? I don't even see it in the article. And it shouldn't be in the article because (1) it smells like original research and (2) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so it violates core policies WP:NOR and WP:NOT. --Coolcaesar 09:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Differences

I don't understand the last paragraph in the section entitled "Differences" (and I'm not sure what the title refers to--differences between what and what?). Anyway, it reads

At some institutions, professors may be differentiated as either "teaching professors" or "research professors" for the same body of knowledge. There are also "corporate professors" in the work place. For example, a student/professional in accounting may have to incorporate many different fields of expertise to be considered adequately trained.

What is the last sentence an example of? I.e. what is the connection between the last sentence of this paragraph and the rest of the paragraph? --Mcswell 14:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Tenure pov tag

It is not at all certain that individuals who agitate for the end of tenure are motivated by their desire for a "more businesslike" environment. They may even have political motives. Haiduc 02:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

agreed. "more businesslike" is clear POV and sloppy. 24.90.135.161 17:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Move more under national differences

It seems to be more and more apparent that after a brief introduction to the topic, almost everything else belongs under the national differences -- otherwise we'll constantly get a non-world-wide bias tag on almost everything. I think that the list of what professors do, one line saying that tenure is important in some countries, and a few lines saying that differences among levels educators are vast, are the only things I think could go in a non-disputed section. I don't think it's a problem that this change will make the North America section quite large, since I think it will also encourage editors to add further comments about issues for academics/professors in their fields. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

History

A section on the history of this position would be useful. I have heard that Newton held the first chair.

Three Cheers for Rosuna

For ongoing improvements to the Spain section of this article! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Political Ideology

This section is biased and does not belong. It only furthers arguments that professors indoctrinate students.

I don't think bias is the problem, I think relevance is. Perhaps we could work up a section on the types of pants worn by professors, it is just about as relevant. Dbrodbeck 13:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That section is too US-centric for this article and should be deleted. --Bduke 23:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It is in a section that specifically talks about profs in the U.S. The way to globalize an article is not by removing U.S. specific information and make the article less informative overall. Instead, more info on other countries should be added. Signature^brendel 18:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am still trying to figure out why the section is relevant. It seems, this article is about the job of being a prof (which is a noble one, ahem...) not about what people believe. As mentioned, why is there not a section on the types of pants profs wear? Your politics are not your job. While I imagine it is true that profs are more liberal in North America than the population I also would guess more wear glasses. (No data, just personal experience). Why would that matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrodbeck (talk • contribs)

No conensus yet. The section talks about a key demographic characteristic of professors in the U.S.: political ideology. This isn't trivia. Political ideology is as important a demographic characteristics as race or ethnicity. Why do we mention salary, race, and class in the U.S. section? Becuase they are key characteristics. That is why a lot of research has taken place in to find professor's ideology. Few studies have been conducted on "the types of pants worn by professors," yet researchers have spend a lot of time and money on finding the dominant societal viewpoint among professors. Have you seen a Washington Post article on "the types of pants profs wear?" No? Ah, but there is one on the ideology of professors. The fact that most professors are liberal should be mentioned in a text about American professors. It does not "further arguments that professors indoctrinate students" as research stating the opposite is explicitly mentioned. It is also not U.S. centric as it is in a section that talks about professors in the U.S. I vehemenly oppose removing such relevant data. And yes, in an encyclopedia it is data, not personal experience that matters. It is also not up to WP editors to decide what matters. If researchers think ideology is important to enough to warrant study after study and reputable instutions such as the Washington Post find it worth an article, than it belongs in the WP entry on professors. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly willing to go along with whatever consensus results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrodbeck (talk • contribs)

The political ideology of professors in the United States is highly relevant, and is the subject of many published articles. It should definitely not be deleted. The analogy with pants is silly, because a professor's academic work (teaching, research, service) is not effected by his pants, but is effected by his ideology. Vegasprof 12:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I imagine this depends on one's discipline. As a scientist, my politics do not ever enter my thoughts about my research, but, I can see the point say in some of the social sciences or humanities Good point. Dbrodbeck 14:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't every profession have a section solely devoted to the political beliefs of its practitioners? If a political ideology is important enough to be listed in an entry concerning professors, shouldn't it be even more important for physicians, postal workers, and the clergy?

Becuase data isn't available for all professions. I would love to add this info to more professions, and have already done so for economists. Next, I'm going to do add something for military personell. If you have data for the clergy or physicians let me know or go ahead and add it yourself. I still see political ideology as a key demographical characteristic, more so than race or ethnicity. I have nonetheless trimmed the entry a bit and merged it w/ the intro section. Giving political ideology its own section put excessive emphasis on one of a several key demographic charateristics. Regards, Signature^brendel 21:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideology section should be removed or at least significant amended. As it stands, this reads like a typical conservative attack piece. Liberal / Conservative ideology cannot be balanced in the normal way here, because while some conservative professors argue that professors are liberals and this leads to indoctrination (or irrelevance) and some liberal professors would argue the opposite, a majority of professors would not describe either their ideology or the effect of their ideology on their teaching in terms of such a loaded, reductive binary opposition. Following this kind of devisive, yellow journalism is perpetrating the shallow view that there are two kinds of people in the world, and that you fall into one camp or the other. This is not what happens in the classroom. Nor is it what the vast majority of people believe. You're selectively picking up on articles that show ideology. Fine. But you could also pick up many studies that show the vast majority of Americans, for instance, are not consistent across the board in their ideology. The Left/Right distinction is a horse-race that's perpetuated by the parties for their own benefit, and by the Washington Post because it's primary raison d'etre is to talk about the horse race. Wikipedia is perpetuating this nonsense by classifying the whole profession in this light. David Horowitz will be pleased, but the rest of us are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.135.161 (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be removed-- Although a study of the political leangings of Professors throughout history might be interesting, it has absolutely no place in an entry on the term Professor in the U.S.A. What next? Should there be a list of self-defined charachteristics for all jobs that are conducted in the U.S.A. This is politicizing the profession and there is absolutely no acdemic basis for this (probably because all the liberal professors will not allow there to be an unbiased report). The use of listing such findings is only to bolster conservative ad hominem attacks on any information coming out of universities as being politically biased and therefore flawed. There are just too many missing links in the argument for the inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weizzz (talk • contribs) 15:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Professor of Practice

At the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication in Arizona State University, there exists a class of professors that are called "Professor of Practice". While I don't know what that entails, it seems professors in that class are there because of their real world experience. Are there equivalent or similar ranks elsewhere in the US and should we include this class into this article? Arbiteroftruth 17:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of USA salaries from table.

I disagree with the edits from 18:11, 25 July 2007 (→Salary of professors (Europe) - U.S. is now mentioned in sperate section) [1] removing the USA numbers from the Europe salary comparison table. Although USA salaries are mentioned in another section, it is nice to have it in the same table as the others for ease of comparison. I'd also note that the number in the different sections are not directly comparable, as the data in the table have been adjusted for purchasing power, as well as for monetary units. Additionally, the lead-in text mentions that analysis of the USA was done, which leads one to wonder why the table does not mention it. -- 18:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will ad U.S. salaries from the U.S. College and University Professional Association currently the best source. The salaries previously mentioned in the table were quite off, contraditing data from the far more reputable U.S. College and University Professional Association for Human Resources. Signature^brendel 21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think both salaries tables reflect POV, despite their superficial objectivity. When I look first see this table, I think, wow, professors make so much money compared to others. But we could just as easily replace this with a chart of professional salaries based on years of postgraduate education and salary, and you'd find professors at the very bottom, after doctors, lawyers, and virtually everything else except social workers. You would also see that most professors, at full salary, are making less than their counterparts in, say, the auto industry. Finally, lumping the many levels of academic instructors together does a grave disservice for those attempting to understand the incredible segregation of the teaching industry. For every one full professor at an elite college making six-figures, there are several dozen adjucts making 30k. The quick little chart is easy to read, but the information it provides is skewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.135.161 (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The info isn't skewed. The chart clearly gives salaries for each level of professors' ranks. As for education, yes, professors make slightly less than the average Doctorate ($65k vs. $71k) but are among the top 15% of all earners nonetheless (largely because of their edcaution). The median salaries for all post grads. are high, adjusting for educational attainment is not an alternative to comparing a profession to the general public. Signature^brendel 18:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The redirect

I believe that erroneous behavior has occurred. Removing chair (academic) and redirecting it to professor is a mistake, I believe. Not every professor holds a chair, therefore chair (academic) and professor are not identical. Some professors hold a chair, but others do not hold a chair. Get it?SultanOfVelocicaptorXVI 11:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

............"on the basis of their research achievements as well as their success in raising no money from sources outside the"

the what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.181.135 (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)