“While earning 2 Masters degrees…especially elite Us may sound impressive to the average person on the street who aren’t familiar with norms within academia, to those familiar with credentialing practices within academia…earning two Masters…especially in a field in which most elite/respectable departments don’t usually have a stand-alone Masters program…the 2 MA degrees would be regarded as a red flag.”
Well, then such eggheads are overly impressed with themselves and their PhDs, which no one else in the real world particularly cares about, and they need to get over themselves. “Oooh, I’m so special that I have a PhD and you don’t.” Get a grip. Anyone with any common sense could see this man had tremendous real life experience that would have been a major asset to the Buffett Institute, but the nerds in the nerd-club didn’t want to let him play.
This is precisely why people think of academics as insular, ivory tower, and pampered.
Interesting that suddenly not having a PHD disqualifies one from working in academia. It did not seem to keep David Axlerod from serving as director of the Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago, a very similar position to what Eikenberry was appointed to. He never earned a PHD.
Regarding whether or not having Ph.D. should be disqualifying -
Here’s the Stevens quote that caught my eye -
“my Ph.D. earned me the prerogative to challenge these rules” - this statement positively oozes arrogance and insecurity. Nobody thinks of a Ph.D. degree in these terms. I’ve only seen things like this said by third raters who have to hide behind their degrees rather than their accomplishments.
It’s true that academics can be touchy about having non Ph.D.'s running academic institutions. These complaints often have merit. But this distinguished retired general sounds like a very good choice to run a global studies institute - frankly, he sounds like he’s much more qualified than and would be a much better choice than the run of the mill political science professor. I’d just want to make sure the general was able to learn and adopt to the norms of an academic rather than a military culture.
According to the article, Stevens seems to have referred to Professor Tillery as a “spousal/diversity hire”. Spousal hires happen all the time in academia, but I can’t think of anything much more insulting than referring to someone as a “diversity” hire. I wonder what all Stevens’ African-American, Hispanic, etc. colleagues think of her. Bet she’s not going to be nominated for Miss Congeniality anytime soon
There were likely academics in the Poli-sci department/university…and not just conservatives who regarded Axlerod’s appointment to that post as a “political/connections appointment” by the “corporate/non-academic oriented” admins/President at Chicago for the exact same reasons.
No different than say…law firms which suddenly attempted to hire someone without any law school/law school flunkout who never took/failed the bar exam as an equity partner at a biglaw firm.
That would definitely piss off attorneys who went to the effort to undergo and get their graduate degrees/read the law and pass the bar exam to qualify as a practicing attorney.
Or in the military…suddenly having a superior officer who never attended or worse/flunked out of officer candidate training to be a commanding officer of a military unit*…especially one who never completed a bachelor’s degree or worse…even a HS diploma/GED in a non-emergency WWII type national emergency.
Moreso if the unit is a combat arms unit where a clueless CO could easily get subordinate officers, NCOs, and soldiers killed.
From reading the Washington Post article included in the InsideHigherEd link from the OP, General Eikenberry (who deserves a jam) was to be hired to run a Global Studies Institute. This was an administrative role, running the department. Why on earth would a PhD help him do this?
ETA: @cobrat: I don’t know why you keep referencing law firms. Law firms are specific entities of licensed professionals. Universities aren’t. Further, law firms hire non-lawyers in lots of roles all the time. It’s common to find senior non-lawyers in lobbyist positions, technology, or accounting. Speaking as a lawyer who reports to non-lawyers, I can’t even begin to tell you how little that pisses me off. My firm hires these people for a reason: they have particular skills that going to law school does not magically grant.
Regarding the military, they obey the orders of someone who never served all the time. We call that person the President of the United States.
Irrelevant. Non–lawyers are currently forbidden from owning an interest in a law firm by the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
Also biglaw firms routinely hires non-lawyers for high ranking positions.
In addition to the President of the U.S., many civilians routinely order military units.
Irrelevant and insulting. Eikenberry is an educated man in addition to being a retired army general with.
There’s a gulf of difference between elected civilian leaders giving orders to military leaders on larger policy initiatives and civilians without prior training appointed as bona-fide military officers…especially at the senior levels with the responsibility to actually BE AND LEAD other professional military officers who have received such training.
For instance, I’ve no doubt military professionals would be angered and concerned that someone who never went to Officer training such as Justin Bieber, Dan Quayle, Al Gore, etc were suddenly appointed as CO of their units…especially at the regimental/brigade level or higher.
@ScultporDad: Non-lawyers are forbidden by state law from owning a stake in law firms. The ABA model rules are just something they put out to feel important. The ABA has no legal authority over anyone (except law school accreditation, and they may well be stripped of that for having done such a terrible job) and there’s no requirement that any lawyer join.
There would be those pesky Commanders in Chief who think they are in charge. Generals and Admirals take orders from people with less or no military experience. Even Kennedy and Carter were much lower ranked when they were in the military. Eisenhower and Washington being exceptions. The secretaries of defense, the Army, Navy, etc., often have no military experience.
So is your position that this woman was right to have objected to Eikenberry? Do you think it was PURELY “he doesn’t have a PhD” or do you think there is the teensiest possibility that it was because she didn’t like the fact that he was military, given her previous comments about the military complex and how she (stupidly) thinks it runs NU?
Regardless of their personal feelings, military professionals would accept the command if ordered by proper authority. For example, I don’t believe that we would have had a coup or even angered public denouncement if Al Gore were elected.
On unit levels they would also be led by non-elected non-military government agents in combat type missions as ordered.
What Stevens did was different. And I believe it was out of line.
What he’s experiencing and I wrote above is no different from say…how someone applying for positions which the minimum prereq is a credential someone does not have due to not having earned it either by not going through the process or by failing to complete it.
For instance, if a given executive position/line of work is one where a minimum credential required for being hired…whether by law or professional norms is a graduate degree whether it be a PhD, MBA, JD, MD, etc…one can’t be surprised or complain the process is not fair if one ends up getting challenged or not hired because one lacks that minimum credential.
Please clarify your position that Eikenberry was not suitable for the position based on his lack of PhD, other personal qualification or both.
If it is just for PhD, your military analogy has been already disputed.
On the other hand if you believe that a retired military general should be compared to an uneducated man for other personal qualifications, I won’t comment on that.
Irrelevant because it is not Eikenberry who is complaining.
On the other hand, Stevens’s method of challenging as described on the OP article was out of her line and that is what disturbs me.
My position is that the lack of a PhD issue is a legitimate issue among those in academia as the minimum credential needed to enter into academia or serve as administrators in academic domains…such as this Global Institute where senior Profs with PhDs are likely to be subordinates to the director.
In that context, he would be regarded as unqualified…no different than say if I applied for a position of medical doctor or hospital director in which the minimum prereq is an MD degree or corporate executive positions where the MBA is clearly the minimum prereq credential due to company policy or norms within that particular industry.
As for Steven’s challenging him because of his connections with the military…I disagree with Profs like her on that part.
