This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Academic degrees template. |
|
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
This template was considered for deletion on 2019 July 24. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
About a quarter of the degrees listed use periods (US style) and the remaining three-quarters do not (UK style). Unless there is a compelling reason, one style or the other should be used consistently; as it is, this display looks sloppy and indecisive. It's also missing a number of comtemporary forms, including S.M. and the entire class of Engineer's Degrees (E.E., C.E., et alia, given out by some Engineering schools as a slightly more advanced version of a Master's). Many first-professional degrees are also missing, including D.D.S., D.M.D., D.V.M., and D.O. Finally, many of the links point only to a disambiguation page from which the correct expansion may not be at all obvious. 121a0012 06:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It needs to be split up, first and foremost. There are more links on this template than the Cold War, and that one is sprawling. I propse a small box between higher-level articles linking only the top-level headers: Bachelor's, Master's, etc., and then templates for each of those pages with all of the specific distinctions. (BA, BLA, BBA...) Thoughts? ALTON .ıl 08:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Now that the new template has been up for a while, I would like to try and introduce the degrees with articles back in as ALTON has suggested above. I do think it is convenient to have links to jump between related degrees without going through a list page. How about creating 8 templates (one for each type of degree) to go within this one. By default, they can all be collapsed, so it would not take up much space. I'll try to make an example in the next few days. -- Scott Alter 06:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
How about this for a new design?
I just took the lists of degrees from the previous version of the template. Those without articles could be taken out, if desired. -- Scott Alter 00:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is another possible design if anyone is interested:
-- scottalter 06:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Should the degrees be alphabetized within their respective subject groupings? - Draeco 23:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
There are a large number of red-linked degrees in this template, many of which I can't even identify. I suggest moving links to non-existent pages here, to the talk page, until pages can be created describing the degree in question. -- DrGaellon ( talk | contribs) 01:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The former french degree of DEA is mentionned in this template. Maybe it is a bit useless to mention a former degree used by only a handful of countries directly on the template. A simple reference in master's degree should be enough, I think. 88.178.189.194 ( talk) 11:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The list should make clear that these are degrees awarded by Anglophone universities. Most of Europe have their own academic traditions which do not fit into the UK/US Bachelor/Master/Doctor model (see Germany, Russia for a striking difference). 118.90.74.32 ( talk) 04:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added Tenure to the template. The reason I've done this is that Tenure is awarded after a review an professor's publishing record, curriculum, teaching abilities, contribution to the field, and contributions to society. Tenure is granted as certification of academic effort. It is the equivalent to the Habilitation that has previously been put in the Fifth Tier. Because the template mixes several styles of higher education credentialing it should be recognized that Tenure is not awarded to just any academic. It is a lengthy process that requires significant academic contributions that by comparison should be viewed in equity. Randomeditor1000 ( talk) 21:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello I am Attempting to come up with a universal classification system that is based on the general categories for each of degree types. It seems in the last several months users have de-added a number of different types underneath the template to signify they don't belong. With this goal in mind I have reverted back to the last version that seems to fit all basic categories. Blanksamurai ( talk) 22:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The recent edit by User:Xaosflux moved these from second tier to third tier. This is not incorrect, as in some places these are third tier qualifications according to their pages, but in others they are explicitly second tier (e.g. the UK). The question, then, is where should they go? Looking at the articles, the actual citations mainly point to tier 2. But that's partly because I added citations to the UK sections a few months back and other sections are not so well referenced, it's quite possible that someone who knows where to look could find suitable citations for countries where these are tier 3. However, until this actually happens (and it will be good for Wikipedia if it does), I would suggest that we should follow the verifiable information from ghe citations we have and place them in the second tier. What do others think? Robminchin ( talk) 07:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
How does that correspond to the Bologna Process standards? Are we going change this template to whatever design anyone likes? Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 17:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
A proposed restructuring based on the discussion above. This would tie the template explicitly to the international ISCED classification, thus getting around the two problems that the current tiers are open to accusations of regional bias and lack a basis in a definitive source.
The restructuring also moves higher qualifications not covered by the ISCED to "Other" and subdivides this section to make it more explicit why qualifications are included there rather than anywhere else.
What do other editors think?
Robminchin ( talk) 02:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
There are the higher doctorates of which doktor nauk and the German Habilitation are examples. Then there is the habilitation and the docentship, which are somehow less formal, as they do not require a thesis nor a defence. Should there be some distinction? Should tenure be there as it is a type of employment?-- Per W ( talk) 16:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello @ Robminchin and UU: I noticed you're having some back and forth on including some pages here. In general for navigation templates such as this, if there is a stand alone article - and the article will include this navigation template - that is sufficient grounds to include the article in the template. — xaosflux Talk 16:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
The template lists an ad eundem degree as unearned, but the article states:
Which is correct? I think the template and article should be consistent. Nine hundred ninety-nine ( talk) 18:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Academic degrees template. |
|
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
This template was considered for deletion on 2019 July 24. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
About a quarter of the degrees listed use periods (US style) and the remaining three-quarters do not (UK style). Unless there is a compelling reason, one style or the other should be used consistently; as it is, this display looks sloppy and indecisive. It's also missing a number of comtemporary forms, including S.M. and the entire class of Engineer's Degrees (E.E., C.E., et alia, given out by some Engineering schools as a slightly more advanced version of a Master's). Many first-professional degrees are also missing, including D.D.S., D.M.D., D.V.M., and D.O. Finally, many of the links point only to a disambiguation page from which the correct expansion may not be at all obvious. 121a0012 06:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It needs to be split up, first and foremost. There are more links on this template than the Cold War, and that one is sprawling. I propse a small box between higher-level articles linking only the top-level headers: Bachelor's, Master's, etc., and then templates for each of those pages with all of the specific distinctions. (BA, BLA, BBA...) Thoughts? ALTON .ıl 08:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Now that the new template has been up for a while, I would like to try and introduce the degrees with articles back in as ALTON has suggested above. I do think it is convenient to have links to jump between related degrees without going through a list page. How about creating 8 templates (one for each type of degree) to go within this one. By default, they can all be collapsed, so it would not take up much space. I'll try to make an example in the next few days. -- Scott Alter 06:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
How about this for a new design?
I just took the lists of degrees from the previous version of the template. Those without articles could be taken out, if desired. -- Scott Alter 00:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is another possible design if anyone is interested:
-- scottalter 06:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Should the degrees be alphabetized within their respective subject groupings? - Draeco 23:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
There are a large number of red-linked degrees in this template, many of which I can't even identify. I suggest moving links to non-existent pages here, to the talk page, until pages can be created describing the degree in question. -- DrGaellon ( talk | contribs) 01:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The former french degree of DEA is mentionned in this template. Maybe it is a bit useless to mention a former degree used by only a handful of countries directly on the template. A simple reference in master's degree should be enough, I think. 88.178.189.194 ( talk) 11:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The list should make clear that these are degrees awarded by Anglophone universities. Most of Europe have their own academic traditions which do not fit into the UK/US Bachelor/Master/Doctor model (see Germany, Russia for a striking difference). 118.90.74.32 ( talk) 04:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added Tenure to the template. The reason I've done this is that Tenure is awarded after a review an professor's publishing record, curriculum, teaching abilities, contribution to the field, and contributions to society. Tenure is granted as certification of academic effort. It is the equivalent to the Habilitation that has previously been put in the Fifth Tier. Because the template mixes several styles of higher education credentialing it should be recognized that Tenure is not awarded to just any academic. It is a lengthy process that requires significant academic contributions that by comparison should be viewed in equity. Randomeditor1000 ( talk) 21:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello I am Attempting to come up with a universal classification system that is based on the general categories for each of degree types. It seems in the last several months users have de-added a number of different types underneath the template to signify they don't belong. With this goal in mind I have reverted back to the last version that seems to fit all basic categories. Blanksamurai ( talk) 22:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The recent edit by User:Xaosflux moved these from second tier to third tier. This is not incorrect, as in some places these are third tier qualifications according to their pages, but in others they are explicitly second tier (e.g. the UK). The question, then, is where should they go? Looking at the articles, the actual citations mainly point to tier 2. But that's partly because I added citations to the UK sections a few months back and other sections are not so well referenced, it's quite possible that someone who knows where to look could find suitable citations for countries where these are tier 3. However, until this actually happens (and it will be good for Wikipedia if it does), I would suggest that we should follow the verifiable information from ghe citations we have and place them in the second tier. What do others think? Robminchin ( talk) 07:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
How does that correspond to the Bologna Process standards? Are we going change this template to whatever design anyone likes? Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 17:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
A proposed restructuring based on the discussion above. This would tie the template explicitly to the international ISCED classification, thus getting around the two problems that the current tiers are open to accusations of regional bias and lack a basis in a definitive source.
The restructuring also moves higher qualifications not covered by the ISCED to "Other" and subdivides this section to make it more explicit why qualifications are included there rather than anywhere else.
What do other editors think?
Robminchin ( talk) 02:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
There are the higher doctorates of which doktor nauk and the German Habilitation are examples. Then there is the habilitation and the docentship, which are somehow less formal, as they do not require a thesis nor a defence. Should there be some distinction? Should tenure be there as it is a type of employment?-- Per W ( talk) 16:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello @ Robminchin and UU: I noticed you're having some back and forth on including some pages here. In general for navigation templates such as this, if there is a stand alone article - and the article will include this navigation template - that is sufficient grounds to include the article in the template. — xaosflux Talk 16:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
The template lists an ad eundem degree as unearned, but the article states:
Which is correct? I think the template and article should be consistent. Nine hundred ninety-nine ( talk) 18:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)