Template talk:Academic degrees

Numerous problems with this template

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)

Yeah, but its rather a lot of degrees.. might it be possible to simplify by country/region or by broad subject area/level of competence? Also I don't want to click on every one of the links to find out what they are.

Given that some of the links link to disambigs, all of them should expand to the full degree title without redirecting through the acronym, then one could simply hover the mouse over the link and see what the degree stands for. 218.103.142.7 13:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with the consistancy issue: see Talk:Academic_degree#Consistancy_with_academic_degrees_template --Ec- 06:09, 30 August 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)

First, let's try to cleanup this template by getting rid of all non-links, all red links, all links to fields of study that don't really talk about the degree. Those have no navigational value, and lists like that are best left to the general articles at the left hand side. –Pomte 08:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It is easier to edit a couple small ones than this behemoth. Much talk has been done for several years and the table keeps getting bigger. I want to try something like:

And then create the appropriate smaller boxes for each one. Something should be done. Many people are upset by the current state. ALTON .ıl 05:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Great, I fully support this version. There doesn't have to be smaller boxes for each because those main articles handle them in more informative lists, but if you want to take the effort to sort out the redirects, go ahead. –Pomte 06:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As no opposition appears just yet, I'll go ahead with this, but in a while. Ironically around this time our AP tests pop up, so I'll minimize wikying for a while, doing minor edits instead of these overhauls. ALTON .ıl 06:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the change very much...it used to be so convenient to jump from one degree page to another. --HappyCamper 14:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible redesigns

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)

Alphabetizing

Should the degrees be alphabetized within their respective subject groupings? - Draeco 23:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that they should. Cmcnicoll 11:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What are they?

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)

DEA ?

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)

UK/US centric

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)

Addition of Tenure (US/Canada) to the Template

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)

Recent Revisions

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)

Blanksamurai, I don't agree with all of the template as you've shown I think that your last revision is likely the most fair based on the descriptions in the current wikipedia articles. It seems like there will never be 'one' intranational framework for qualifications so we just have to try our best to come up with something that fits. It may be appropriate to have alternative template on other Wikipedia language sites for other countries or maybe more than one template is appropriate. For I've reverted back to your revision.Randomeditor1000 (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It might be worth noting the UK NARIC band framework, which is used to compare non-UK qualifications to the UK system.[1] The equivalence to the tiers here seems to be:

First tier = NARIC bands 7 & 8

Second tier = NARIC bands 9 & 10

Third tier = NARIC bands 11 & 12

Fourth tier = NARIC band 13

Fifth tier = NARIC band 14

Sixth tier = NARIC band 15

Robminchin (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Position of graduate certificate/diploma

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)

Robminchin 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)

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)

Xaosflux 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)

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)

I've moved it to 'other', which seems more consistent with pgcert/pgdip.Robminchin (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Lunatic design

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)

Six tier education? According to the Bologna Process there are three levels of post graduate education. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Including the "short cycle", the Bologna Process actually recognises four tiers (the same as the higher education part of the European Qualifications Framework), two of which are post-graduate. However, this template is not about the Bologna Process, it's an attempt to make something that is a reasonably good fit world wide. Besides the four Bologna/EQF levels, the template includes a tier for specialist degrees and engineer's degrees which are between an ordinary master's and a doctorate and are common in some parts of the world (particularly South America). More generally, this tier could be seen as including Australian "extended master" degrees, British MPhils and US professional doctorates. In Bologna terms, these are master's degrees with higher credit values. The template also includes post-doctoral degrees, which the Bologna Process doesn't attempt to classify despite them existing in various European systems, e.g. British higher doctorates and Habilitation in various countries. The template is still far simpler than it could be – there are 9 levels covering HE on the UK NARIC bands, for example.

If you have concrete suggestions for improving the template then please open them for discussion. Robminchin (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Having thought about it overnight, a more rational, and undeniably international, approach might be too use the ISCED classifications. ISCED levels 5–8 cover higher education, essentially corresponding to the four Bologna levels. I would replace Tiers 1–5 with these (merging 3 and 4) and replace Tier 6 with "Above ISCED level 8" (or some such wording). It might also be clearer to replace "Other" with "No dominant classification" or some such, as this category mostly covers qualifications that vary significantly in level across the world (although what should be done about honourary degrees? – Possibly split "Other" as is done to the other categorisations?) Thoughts? Robminchin (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible modification

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)

Postgraduate diploma is listed twice. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

Postdoctoral degrees

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)

Inclusion criteria

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)

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)

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)

Ad eundem degree

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)

@Nine hundred ninety-nine: 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)

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.[2] 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".[3] 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)