Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 June 10

= June 10 =

Research professors in the natural and physical science sectors of academia
I know that research professors are paid by the grant. Without a grant, they have no funding and lose their laboratory and position. Sometimes, a little bit of office politics and diplomacy help in getting ahead or just staying afloat. But in case a research professor fails to receive a grant in a long time, does that mean the university will dismiss the faculty member, provided that the faculty member has no tenure (a tenured professor may receive a deduction in salary, while the salary is paid by the university)? How much time does the faculty member have to make the transition to a new job - working for someone else as a research assistant/associate/scientist, working as a teaching professor, changing career to something else? What kind of dismissal would that be called? Basically, I would like to know what happens when research professors struggle and fail to win a grant. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A research professor in the US style is paid by soft money (i.e. grants), but is still hired for a fixed period of time. If there is no money at the time the contract is due, it will not be renewed. There is not usually an official grace period. Research professors in the US do not usually have tenure. Tenured professors sometimes use grant money to "buy out" of some teaching obligations (i.e. the university will use some of the grant money to hire a temporary lecturer to stand in) to be able to concentrate on research. If they run out of money, they just have to resume teaching. I've never heard of a tenured professor's base salary being reduced for failing to win grants, but it may be the other way round - a professor may be paid a bonus out of a grant (though that is quite rare), and if the grant is gone, so is, of course, the bonus.  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. If a research professor (untenured) is dismissed from the university because the appointment is not renewed, then does that mean he has to apply to a different job position? If there is an open teaching faculty position that fits his background in whatever university, then he may apply, hopefully a couple of months beforehand so he doesn't get a gap in employment? Do tenure-track assistant and associate professors have teaching obligations too? How does a tenure-track assistant or associate professor get promoted to Professor? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between being dismissed (an active act) and not being rehired (a failure to act). If an untenured academic loses his job, then he or she is not in a substantially different situation than anybody else who has lost a job. They can apply to whatever suitable positions are available, including ones that are open at their current/former university. Indeed, as insiders they may have an easier time getting hired. However, competition for both tenured and tenure track positions is intense - having 30 applicants for one position is not unusual. So there is no guarantee. Yes, tenure track professors have teaching obligations. I've only taught in the US for one semester, but as I understand it, there are periodic evaluations on the tenure track, usually about every 2-3 years. Such evaluations look at teaching performance, research publications, and grants attracted, with increasingly higher expectations as you go on. Typically the progression is "Assistant professor, Associate Professor, Tenured Associate Professor, Full Professor", although that may depend on the university. If all your evaluations are successful, you can expect one promotion every 5-6 years or so up to tenure. After that, it's less regular. If you fail to get promotion or tenure, the university often lets you stay on for a grace period of a year or two, but there usually are very few permanent academic positions without tenure, and even less at the level of professor. If you look at the career of successful scientists, there is, of course, a lot of survivor bias. Careers in the sciences are often not quite straightforward, and, unfortunately, quite a lot do not have a happy end on a tenured position. Of course, on the positive side you get to do science for a living - and if you've made it into a stable situation, you do have a lot of freedom to tailor your work. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So, a tenure-track assistant/associate professor has to teach and do research at the same time. It's no wonder that a graduate student will often take the role of teaching assistant or research assistant, doing the grunt work, while the professor does the brainy work. A professor may also collaborate with others and share the grant money, but the collaboration probably also means the person of higher position may get more power on the use of money. Hard skills, like mathematics and computer programming, will come in handy and help the professor keep the job. Soft skills may help in collaboration. Then, there are professors who are also medical doctors (MD-PhDs) and spend most of their days analyzing clinical samples, while maintaining a research lab on the side. They derive most of their income probably from their medical expertise. Psychiatrists are medical doctors and get paid by having more clients who want prescriptions to treat their mental ailments. Psychologists are scientists and get paid by having clients who want therapy or counseling. What about work in the private sector? Outside of academia, in a company, how does the company handle its Research & Development team? Do companies publish papers too? How will the scientists be believed, even though there may be a conflict of interest as the company wants the science to validate the product? How does science work in a profitable company setting? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you seem to have some ideas and sources of knowledge I don't necessarily share. But on professors doing both teaching and research: That is the heart of the idea of a modern university. While this sometimes is forgotten, the primary aim of a university is not to provide "professional" degrees to students, but to educate them to a level where they themselves have the basics for starting a career in the sciences (or humanities). It is widely felt, at least among academics, that in order to teach well at that level you need research experience, and preferably current research experience. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

title for replica vessel
I know the Titanic II is a planned vessel. But will it have the title of MS, MV, RMS, or SS? (Please note: I'm not using Wikipedia as a crystal ball or anything like that.) 2604:2000:7113:9D00:292B:BF29:E91:CAA5 (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that there appears to be zero chance of it being built, the question seems moot Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * RMS is unlikely as Royal Mail no longer sends much post by ship (there are now only three RMS, and only one of those actually carries mail). If it a true copy, with steam engines, it would presumably be SS - MS and MV usually indicate diesel vessels. Wymspen (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The article says "For economic reasons, the steam engines and coal-fired boilers of the original Titanic were replaced with a modern diesel-electric propulsion system", so it would have been MV or MS (which apparently are interchangeable). Rojomoke (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, from Ship prefix: Civilian prefixes are often used inconsistently, and frequently not at all - and I could find no international legal framework governing prefixes for civilian ships at all. So the can probably go by whatever they want. There may be national rules, but that depends on where the ship will be (well, would have been) registered. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

England-and-Wales voting, pre-1832
Immediately before the Representation of the People Act 1832, if you owned freehold of £2 or more in a borough, and if you qualified for the franchise in that borough (but you owned no land anywhere else, were not a university graduate, and did not qualify to vote in any other way in any other constituency), could you vote only in the borough, or could you vote both in the borough and in the county in which the borough lay? Nyttend (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm certain that an individual could only vote for one, but I can't find anything which says so explicitly. Parliamentary Constituencies in the unreformed House gives a concise overview, even if it doesn't address your question. Alansplodge (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * A link was posted at 14:45 on Saturday which answers this query, but it's now available only in history.  Page 20 of the source says

"(7 & 8 Will 3 c.25). This laid down that at county elections the sheriff or his representative should 'set down the names of each freeholder and the place of his freehold and for whom he shall poll', and also required the returning officers of all constituencies to deliver a copy of the poll 'to such person or persons as shall desire the same', implying that boroughs as well as counties would have a written-up poll book."

Thus by the time of the 1702 general election the system was essentially the same as it is now. The Reform Act 1832 seems to have tightened things up. Page 250 (which Google is not letting me see) says

"No person could vote in a county in respect of a property that would confer on him a qualification to vote for a borough; but a freehold in a borough of the annual value of 40s., under 10 [pounds], entitled the owner to a vote for the county, and above 10 [pounds] if in the occupation of the tenant. If he occupied it himself he had no county vote."


 * I believe this system where people could potentially vote in both a borough and a county constituency, if they met separate criteria for each, endured longer - our article on Hallamshire (UK Parliament constituency) notes its situation with respect to Sheffield. Warofdreams talk 01:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)