Jump to content

Talk:Reader (academic rank): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 33: Line 33:


Really? I don't trust the reference for this. Readers are the butt-monkeys of British universities![[Special:Contributions/137.205.183.109|137.205.183.109]] ([[User talk:137.205.183.109|talk]]) 14:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Really? I don't trust the reference for this. Readers are the butt-monkeys of British universities![[Special:Contributions/137.205.183.109|137.205.183.109]] ([[User talk:137.205.183.109|talk]]) 14:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
*Certainly it was the case a few decades ago. You were only appointed a reader if you were already a Senior Lecturer and had a very good research record. Lecturer's were roughly equivalent to Assistant Professors although you had tenure and could stay a Lecturer for your whole career. I recall there was 14 annual increments in pay to the top of the scale. Senior Lecturers were roughly equivalent to Associate Professors and Readers and Professors were equivalent to the US Professor. Back then in UK there were far fewer Professors in a department (often only 1 or 2) than full Professors in a US department. I do not know what you mean by butt-monkeys, but I think you should withdraw it as it is an insult to the fine scholars who were Readers. --[[User:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''Bduke'''</span>]] [[User_talk:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''(Discussion)'''</span>]] 22:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
*Certainly it was the case a few decades ago. You were only appointed a reader if you were already a Senior Lecturer and had a very good research record. Lecturers were roughly equivalent to Assistant Professors although you had tenure and could stay a Lecturer for your whole career. I recall there was 14 annual increments in pay to the top of the scale. Senior Lecturers were roughly equivalent to Associate Professors and Readers and Professors were equivalent to the US Professor. Back then in UK there were far fewer Professors in a department (often only 1 or 2) than full Professors in a US department. I do not know what you mean by butt-monkeys, but I think you should withdraw it as it is an insult to the fine scholars who were Readers. --[[User:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''Bduke'''</span>]] [[User_talk:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''(Discussion)'''</span>]] 22:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

** Hell no, I _am_ a reader at a top UK institution so I know exactly what I am talking about![[Special:Contributions/137.205.101.185|137.205.101.185]] ([[User talk:137.205.101.185|talk]]) 11:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:29, 16 May 2017

Role of Readers

In some Universities (including mine), Reader was the title given to the administrative head of a Department whose nominal Professor was an absentee. Two of our science Departments had major SERC funding, in return for which their chairs were awarded to government appointees. The "Professors" spent most of their time on committees and at conferences (it was said they needed their University appointments to raise their standing in international academic circles, where someone no more senior than a lecturer with tenure might have the title "Professor"). So those Departments were run by a "Reader", who was in effect the Professor in all but name; this is analogous to the University itself being run by a Vice-Chancellor, while the Chancellor is just a celeb figurehead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiveler (talkcontribs) 05:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to "Docent"

The recent changes by GGV are insufficiently documented, without any citation. The statement that "Docent is Professor extraordinarius" and I guess therefore "like" a reader an utter generalisation. This might well be the case that in Norway all "Docents" became professors some twenty years ago, it seems inadequate to make such generalisation. The German case shows exactly the opposite, where eg professor is the opposite end on the scale of seniority from "Dozent". Likewise, in many other places the term is merely used generically to denote right to teach.

Please, do not change anything any more on this issue before discussing it here. Many thanks!

Mootros (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical origin

I've been wondering whether or not the term has a religious connotation e.g. as in dean (education) and deacon (unabb. form of dean (Christianity)). Hopefully someone who is informed can help! 5.151.82.56 (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Both readers and professors in the UK would correspond to full professors in the US."

Really? I don't trust the reference for this. Readers are the butt-monkeys of British universities!137.205.183.109 (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Certainly it was the case a few decades ago. You were only appointed a reader if you were already a Senior Lecturer and had a very good research record. Lecturers were roughly equivalent to Assistant Professors although you had tenure and could stay a Lecturer for your whole career. I recall there was 14 annual increments in pay to the top of the scale. Senior Lecturers were roughly equivalent to Associate Professors and Readers and Professors were equivalent to the US Professor. Back then in UK there were far fewer Professors in a department (often only 1 or 2) than full Professors in a US department. I do not know what you mean by butt-monkeys, but I think you should withdraw it as it is an insult to the fine scholars who were Readers. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]