News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:16 Year Old CEOs, What Has The World Come To? by cj on Monday November 02, 2009 @11:23PM (#918579)
Someone commented on the site about this.

The difference between academics and business is that "Dr." and "Prof." are appointed titles, while CEO is self-given without having to meet any prerequisites or requirements.

Re:16 Year Old CEOs, What Has The World Come To? by bravura on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @02:34AM (#918833)
Miss Manners writes that in academia, Ph.D.s are like noses. You only notice if someone doesn't have one.
Re:16 Year Old CEOs, What Has The World Come To? by yummyfajitas on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @08:48AM (#919230)
This might not be true in the humanities. I've had quite a few students repeat the idea that they must call be "Dr.", since the title "Professor" is reserved for lowly grad students. They tend to hear this from literature professors, so non-science fields might have different customs.
Re:16 Year Old CEOs, What Has The World Come To? by scott_s on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @10:19AM (#919424)
If someone is calling grad students "Professor," then they are abusing the term. A grad student who is teaching is an instructor.

Something that I didn't appreciate until I was in grad school was that not all professors are even "Professor." Becoming a full professor is a big deal. An "Assistant Professor" is generally someone who has a tenure-track position, but does not have tenure yet. "Associate Professor" is for someone who has tenure. "Professor" is for someone who has tenure, and has contributed enough to the school through research and teaching to earn being a full professor.

Re:16 Year Old CEOs, What Has The World Come To? by yummyfajitas on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @12:54PM (#919833)
The person teaching the class can be legitimately called "professor". It signifies their position as "that guy teaching the class", not their academic rank.

Similarly, "that guy commanding the ship" is called "captain" regardless of actual rank [1].

Re:16 Year Old CEOs, What Has The World Come To? by scott_s on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @01:18PM (#919887)
I just checked the dictionary and Wikipedia. While both allow for "that guy teaching the class" to be considered a professor, that doesn't seem to be the standard custom. Both stressed the formality of the title, which is the custom I'm familiar with.
Re:16 Year Old CEOs, What Has The World Come To? by mlLK on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @02:25AM (#918823)
/nods

These self-appointed titles formulated as acronyms, C[insert domain]O, is the quintessential cue that capitalists are self-important militarists. Of course I mean militarists only in the lightest (and perhaps hyperbolic) terms for how a large corporation organizes their positions (occupations) of power internally and behave or affect some group(s) of society.

Internally, most notable positions of power are denoted by their domain of command then rank (or title), highest obviously being an 'officer.' Externally the company as a whole will only act on its interests while engaging a so-called 'threat' in a 'fight or flight' fashion. I often forget how young capitalism really is, and while this characteristic is certainly less apparent in smaller organizations it is the 'de facto' operative standard in how larger corporations conduct their-self in the market.

Re:16 Year Old CEOs, What Has The World Come To? by amichail on Monday November 02, 2009 @11:25PM (#918583)
But the point is that the use of any title looks bad. It's better to impress with achievements than titles.
Re:16 Year Old CEOs, What Has The World Come To? by unalone on Monday November 02, 2009 @11:26PM (#918588)
Every friend of mine training to be a doctor resents the implication that becoming a doctor isn't an achievement. They're sacrificing more for their title than most entrepreneurs sacrifice for theirs.
Re:16 Year Old CEOs, What Has The World Come To? by tel on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @01:52AM (#918778)
The impression I've gotten from the PhDs in my dept. is that the title is something they expect and appreciate as a nod to their years of work, but, by the same token, anyone you might compare with them based on merit probably is also a Dr making it useless to brag.

Anyone can technically become a CEO for $89. It only has meaning when attached the success of companies.

Re:16 Year Old CEOs, What Has The World Come To? by amichail on Monday November 02, 2009 @11:33PM (#918604)
It's different for academics because getting a PhD is just the beginning. A top academic would probably not consider it the most important achievement of his/her career.

A top academic is well known and everyone will automatically assume that he/she has a PhD and a respectable position at his/her university, so mentioning the title is redundant.

Re:16 Year Old CEOs, What Has The World Come To? by yummyfajitas on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @08:35AM (#919196)
In general, when you find an academic type without a PhD, it's even more impressive. Read about Google Eliezer Yudkowsky, and tell me you aren't even more impressed when you find out his educational background.
Re:16 Year Old CEOs, What Has The World Come To? by zackattack on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @09:26AM (#919324)
Read about Google Eliezer Yudkowsky

Thanks for making me hunt, asshole. Anyway, he didn't go to high school and is an "autodidact."

Re:16 Year Old CEOs, What Has The World Come To? by barry-cotter on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @12:08AM (#918653)
Truly, my heart bleeds for the M.D. aspirants of the world. Point taken for real doctorates though.