pamela wrote:

On 23:16 22 Feb 2018, Roger Hayter wrote:

pamela wrote:

On 20:53 22 Feb 2018, Roger Hayter wrote:

pamela wrote:

On 20:37 22 Feb 2018, Roger Hayter wrote:

pamela wrote:

On 19:04 22 Feb 2018, Roger Hayter wrote:

Roger Hayter wrote:

pamela wrote:

On 12:54 22 Feb 2018, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Andrew
wrote:

On 19/02/2018 18:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
Perhaps they're just worth more in pension than
you are?
Or, more likely, you are just cowed by the bosses
into
accepting considerably less than you deserve in
pension. Why should others copy you because you
don't insist on what you are worth?


-- Roger Hayter

Nobody 'deserves' anything that they have not made
any effort towards.

Public service pensions and closed-shop
jobs-for-the-boys are classic examples.

For years the unions bullied BSC into pay rises that
just exponentially increased the pension black hole.
No-one considered this back in the black years of
the 1970's when 12 million person-days were lost to
strikes. The actuaries still thought that men would
retire at 65 and be mostly dead by 73 when now the
figure is far higher. Someone has to pay for all
those extra years. Free lunches don't exist.

And everything I hear about pensions (such as this
bull**** strike by academics over pensions) further
confirms my view that *all* pensions should be
*personal* and that only pension companies should
legally be able to manage them.

If the academics want index-linked pensions (worth
£10,000 a year) and there's no more money then let's
end security of tenure and sack as many as needed to
provide pensions for those who remain.

Of course, harder work and longer hours will be
required from the rmeaining staff to provide the same
level of service.

Those were the days: https://imgur.com/a/NgHeA

The idea of security of tenure for academics was to
ensure that people capable of thinking were in a
position to develop new ideas, about society,
literature, science and politics. This is essential to
prevent totalitarianism, but also to prevent the
ossification of society and to allow science to develop
without stultification (or more likely the rapid
overtaking of our science by universities in the
far east). You may be jealous that academics are clever
than you, but we do need them. And we need them to be
able to express new ideas without being sacked by
jealous middle managers, or hounded out by Mary
Whitehouse type ladies with hats on management
committees.

P.S. a beautiful case in point occurred recently. Some
years ago the University of Exeter appointed (using a
grant from Prince Charles' foundation) a professor of
alternative medicine. There was really only one
credible candidate, a European (possibly Austrian) who
had done considerable postgraduate research assessing and
tabulating the scientific evidence for alternative
medicine. He started his career with a strong desire to
refine and promote effective alternative medicine. He
moved to the West Country and has since devoted his life
to his career and become a valued member of the local
population. However, once he used the opportunity to
develop valid research into alternative medicine he found
that every single study he did, and every single
meta-analysis using other scientifically valid studies
(of the few that have been done in the world)
demonstrated that alternative medicines generally, or at
least the various ones he has studied, simply did not
work. Not more than placebo, anyway. The result
recently was that Prince Charles got him sacked, by
threatening the University with loss of patronage if it
failed to do this. Not for being a poor academic (he is
probably still the acknowledged world expert on the
*science* of alternative medicine), but for reaching the
"wrong" conclusions as far as the Prince is concerned.

Prof Ernst didn't lose his tenure but lost funding after
falling out with his patron, Prince Charles. He was not
sacked.

If Ernst had found other sources of funds to pay for his
department then they would still be working.

There's nothing remarkable in this.

Firstly, the University should never have accepted funding
for a chair on the basis that the lay donor could interfere
in the academic programme. This is *not* the same as
funding a particular research study, and once
anti-scientiific cranks can choose medical academics at
respectable universities we are long way down the banana
republic road.

If the university didn't have money for the department's work
in its coffers then there may not have been any funding
available in any other way that what happened here.

If you offer to fund a chair you should at least fund a working
department, if no major research.

Secondly, the good professor says it was made plain that his
life would be made a misery and, topically, his pension
impaired if he insisted on staying. And that this behaviour
had been forced on the University by a "major donor".

Also topically, is Prof Ernst more committed to his work or to
his pension?

At his age, and a family to support, with no other likely
funding source, what do you think? Especially with an
employer who wants to get rid of him and is therefore likely to
be creative with disciplinary issues. There are no other
chairs up for grabs, and he is a bit old to apply anyway.
What choice does he have? Do not forget that his enemies are
immensely rich, and have a lot of patronage.

If Ernst's pension is more important to him than his work then
maybe he isn't quite as decidated an academic as he could be.

it isn't necessarily a vocation. I expect my academics to be
clever, imaginative and hard-working. I don't expect them to do
this for nothing, especially when buy-to-let landlords can make
money for nothing just by having a good credit history. In fact
too much emotional investment probably makes it hard to be
objective. I would honestly expect an academic to do something
else and earn more money if no-one is wiling to pay him for his
work, or grant him tenure. I suppose you know that academics are
not particularly well paid?

Not well paid? According to his university's pay scale, he would be
on between £66,000 to £109,000 (in today's money). Let's say
£80,000 plus exceedingly generous holidays. That's well paid.

Don't forget his index-linked pension calculated to be worth £10,000
per annum more than a regular pension.


I really don't think he is well paid compared with people of similar
abilities and initiative in industry or banking. Trouble is, everyone
thinks they could be a professor even though they have neither the
ability nor the dedication to do the job. Most people in professional
jobs spend many or most weekends and evenings studying or writing, for
instance.

--

Roger Hayter