Template talk:Academic degrees

message: 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)
thread_title: Possible redesigns

message: Should the degrees be alphabetized within their respective subject groupings? - Draeco 23:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree that they should. Cmcnicoll 11:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alphabetizing

message: 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)
thread_title: What are they?

message: 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)
thread_title:  DEA ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  UK/US centric 

message: 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)
thread_title: Addition of Tenure (US/Canada) to the Template

message: 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)
replies: text: The article for Graduate certificate shows that these are post-undergraduate credentials in Canada and the United States; and the article for Graduate diploma says this is a post-graduate credential as well.  A quick review shows that in most of the world these are post-graduate, with the notable exception you mentioned of the United Kingdom. — xaosflux Talk 11:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm the one who added this to the template in 2014 - originally listing in both "tiers".  — xaosflux Talk 11:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:   I just did a quick check of a few qualifications frameworks via Google. The graduate diploma is at honours/bachelor's degree level in the UK, Australia, New Zeeland and Malaysia at least. There is clearly no consensus internationally on the level of this qualification, so having the template reflect North American usage seems wrong, as would ignoring North American usage. The best solution would probably be to put it in "other" along with postgraduate diploma. Robminchin (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm fine with either listing it in both, or putting it in other - the articles explain it. — xaosflux Talk 11:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it to 'other', which seems more consistent with pgcert/pgdip.Robminchin (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Position of graduate certificate/diploma

message: 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)
replies: text: Postgraduate diploma is listed twice. — xaosflux Talk 17:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  That reflected the current template I copied the content from. I have edited the proposed design to place it only at ISCED level 7.Robminchin (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible modification

message: 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)
thread_title:  Postdoctoral degrees 

message: Hello  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)
replies: text: I agree. Higher diploma should certainly b included, but we may need to discuss the best placement. My feeling is that, following it's Wikipedia article, it fits best in the "no overall classification" category. Robminchin (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes the 'level' can be a little tricky - the template is currently using ISCED "levels" so if there would be no where to fit it there, unclassified would be fine.  If it is 'midway' between levels, these things normally 'round down'. — xaosflux Talk 18:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion criteria 

message: The template lists an ad eundem degree as unearned, but the article states:
:The ad eundem degree is an earned degree, not an honorary one, because it recognises formal learning. As it is a separate substantive degree, it is also acceptable to list both the original degree(s) and the incorporated ("ad eundem") degree when listing post-nominals.
Which is correct? I think the template and article should be consistent. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  the article should be the primary source of content, not a template.  I suggest moving this to the 'no dominant section - the article does suggest that some forms of this degree are unearned (the faculty part) but that they generally represent actual learning (though they don't seem to represent "new" learning). — xaosflux Talk 20:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  An ad eundem degree is not earned as most people would understand it, as there is no further work or leaning involved in being granted the degree – that has all been recognised previously by the award of an earned degree. Merriam-Webster defines ad eundem as meaning "to, in, or of the same rank —used especially of the honorary granting of academic standing or a degree by a university to one whose actual work was done elsewhere", which makes it quite clear it is honorary, not earned. This paper in the AAUP Bulletin similarly states that "by the last quarter of the nineteenth century most colleges abandoned the ad eundem gradum and substituted only the 'earned' degree". The reference in the Wiki article for ad eundem degrees for the paragraph you wrote supports only their use in post-nominals (in the Oxford University Calendar), not that they are earned degrees. It would appear that the template is correct, I have thus updated the article. Robminchin (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad eundem degree