Page 6 of 6

Re: Michael Cherniavsky

Posted: Fri May 26, 2017 9:55 am
by michael scuffil
Our Chern reported that the standard at the university in Canada was nowhere near as high as the History Grecians at Christ's Hospital. (That is to say, Chern reported it to X, and X reported it to me. I forget who X was, it could have been one of three or four people.)

In those days, you didn't need a postgrad degree for an academic job (at least, not outside the US) and even when I did my PhD in the late 1970s, my supervisor (who didn't have one) was a bit sniffy about the whole business, saying 'It's your union card [for an academic post] I'm afraid.'

Re: Michael Cherniavsky

Posted: Sun May 28, 2017 8:28 am
by Oliver
I’m pleased, Katharine, your software could understand the three dots and got straight to the correct web page. I presume this is true for all other forum readers, for there have been no further comments. However I have tried many times, always with the same result. Using the abbreviated (3 dots) version, I cannot arrive at the correct page and end up with an error message. My software is very old and that has to be the reason.

Re: Michael Cherniavsky

Posted: Sun May 28, 2017 5:46 pm
by LongGone
michael scuffil wrote:
Fri May 26, 2017 9:55 am

In those days, you didn't need a postgrad degree for an academic job (at least, not outside the US) and even when I did my PhD in the late 1970s, my supervisor (who didn't have one) was a bit sniffy about the whole business, saying 'It's your union card [for an academic post] I'm afraid.'
That certainly was not true in the sciences. I started graduate school in Canada in 1970 and every one needed a minimum of a PhD to even be considered for a job. In fact there wasn't anyone from any era, going back to the 40s without one.

Re: Michael Cherniavsky

Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 12:29 pm
by alterblau
Whatever the Canadian practice, elsewhere there have been university teachers of science without a PhD, but very few.

One such was Mr Carl Collie a senior lecturer at Oxford who retired in 1971. (He spent two years in the University of Peshawar, Pakistan, where we was called a visiting professor, but returned to Oxford again as Mr Collie.) However he was given a consolation prize just before he retired, an honorary DSc. Oxford showed its broadmindedness by appointing him as a physicist, when his BA was in chemistry. That was the only non-honorary degree he had, though later it became a MA. Mr Collie supervised many PhDs and his most famous pupil is Richard Wilson, a professor still at Harvard after over 60 years with about 1000 publications and he’s still publishing.

Re: Michael Cherniavsky

Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 6:44 pm
by michael scuffil
One might note the case of our own dear David Newsome. For almost all of his time at Cambridge, including when he was my Director of Studies, and Senior Tutor of Emmanuel College, he was plain Mr Newsome. He got his Litt.D on the strength of his published work at quite a late stage (as is usual) and never had a Ph.D.

Re: Michael Cherniavsky

Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 7:05 pm
by sejintenej
Going back to the question of equivalents, in the late 1950's it was reckoned that a pass at Alevel (at least in the sciences) was the same standard as after a year and a half at Harvard or Yale.
That said there is a major difference between UK education at this level and that in the USA. Wespecialised in the two / three subjects forgetting all others; itseems that in the US you have to do courses in non-specialist subjects as well as your speciality - they should have a wider knowledge base. However, when I was in New York I was amazed at the level of ignorance exhibited by very senior bank officers even about thier own professional specialities.

Re: Michael Cherniavsky

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:58 pm
by Roper
michael scuffil wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:11 pm
As for the elections for the Chancellor of Oxford, certainly Oliver Franks was the establishment candidate; he was, to use a phrase of John Le Carré's,one of nature's prefects. His election was considered a foregone conclusion until Hugh Trevor-Roper started a campaign for Harold Macmillan. This was controversial in itself because HM was the incumbent Prime Minister and many thought the two jobs were incompatible. (It would be barely conceivable today). As a supporter of the Labour Party, Chern would not have liked Macmillan. On principle, he would not have wanted the incumbent PM. And like most historians, he would have detested Hugh Trevor-Roper. So he had three reasons to vote against Macmillan, even though Franks was hardly his candidate.

Hugh Trevor-Roper in due course became Regius Professor (a post in the gift of, guess who?).

[Slightly inaccurate account of the sequence of events regarding Hugh Trevor-Roper (no relation):
Trevor-Roper was awarded the Oxford Regius chair of history - over the just claims of AJP Taylor - in 1957; he put Macmillan up for Chancellor in 1960, so it can only be seen as a thankyou to his patron]

Re: Michael Cherniavsky

Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:39 am
by Fitzsadou
Since the election of Harold Macmillan as Chancellor of the University of Oxford has been mentioned again, there is an important additional comment that has also been made previously. Macmillan was chosen purposely not because of who he was (although there was some degree of ‘payback’), but as a protest against the method of selection of Sir Oliver Franks, universally agreed as an excellent candidate. But he was chosen after no consultation at all with senior professors. So the latter, who in fact mainly agreed that Sir Oliver was the better candidate, chose someone else, as a matter of principle and whom they knew would win. It worked, although his majority was only 90 votes. Thereafter, however appropriate the ‘official’ candidate s/he was finally nominated after widespread consultation The previously posted comment follows.
In one sense it is not clear that for the election for Chancellor of Oxford University in 1960 MTC would have voted for Sir Oliver Franks, although superficially he was not the establishment candidate. Sir OF was chosen as a candidate by a very small group of senior professors, because he was rightly thought to be a most excellent choice. (He had proved himself as a most effective Provost [Head] of Worcester College, Oxford, Ambassador and Civil Servant.) Another group of equally senior members of the university objected, not because of Sir OF, whom they readily acknowledged was clearly the best candidate, but because of the lack of any consultation process in selecting him. This they felt was so undemocratic that the only way they could make their point was to find another candidate who would clearly win the election, although he would be a lesser Chancellor. This is why Harold Macmillan was chosen by them. However MTC would possibly (though it’s unlikely) have been swayed by this matter of principle. So he may therefore have wished to prevent a candidate (however worthy) from being foisted on all, without any wide consultation. But MTC’s deep antipathy to the Tory Party most probably would have been the stronger influence. Although Sir OF lost the election it was by a very small margin.