pamela wrote:

On 11:11 23 Feb 2018, Roger Hayter wrote:

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.

Ernst is clearly well paid and if he's underpaid only when compared
to what he could earn in industry then he should go and work there.

There's no point playing the violin and telling me he wasn't well
paid. What buy-to-let landlords generate in business profits has
nothing to do with it.

My point was that Ernst shouldn't tbe focussing on his pension, as
you raised, but make research his priority.

Why? Why do you suppose he should do that??


To that end he needs to
secure funding and if th euniversty won't provide that then should
either be mindful of a patron's requirements or not take the money.

Although acaedemia is on the fringes of the normal world, it is
still subject to ordinary pressures.

Which rather gets us back to the point of academic tenure.




I am not against Ernst's work and it seems worthwhile but he will
not be the only significant specialist who comes a cropper for non-
academic reasons. Look at Fermat whose proof of his Last Theorem
which was lost for posterity because he didn't have enough space on
a sheet of paper to jot it down. It happens.


--

Roger Hayter