The title confusion of British universities

　　The British university where I work recently asked all the teachers for advice on an old question: in the current globalization, should the traditional British professional title in the university be transformed into a North American system that is almost universal? The well-known North American system divides scholars into three levels: assistant professors, associate professors and professors. In Britain, scholars are traditionally divided into four levels: lecturers, senior lecturers, associate professors literally translated as "Reader" and professors. Associate professors, also known as waiting professors, refer to scholars who waited for the retirement of old professors when there were restrictions on the number of professors in the past. Senior lecturers and associate professors are basically equivalent to associate professors under the North American system. However, different job titles often lead to misunderstandings in international communication. For example, under the North American system, "lecturer" refers to graduate teaching assistants.

　　This is an old problem that puzzles almost all British universities. At present, only a few schools in Britain, such as Oxford University, London School of Economics and Political Science and Warwick University, have chosen to replace the British system. In 2009, my university discussed whether to convert the British system into the North American system, but at that time, the proposal was voted down by the university board.

　　As a foreigner, I think this is simply unexpected! Because international scientific research cooperation is so frequent now, why should we stick to tradition? Isn’t it a matter of course to "connect with the international community"? But after reading my colleagues’ replies to the school’s advice, I found that those stubbornness is not unreasonable.

　　The first person who opposed the transition to the North American system was Roger Sr., who said, "British appellation more accurately expresses the nature of these scholars’ work. Because the lecturer is not an’ assistant’ of any professor, and the senior lecturer is not an’ assistant’ of any professor. The title of North America sounds decent, but it actually implies a paternalistic style and does not respect the independence of scholars at different levels. "

　　Another voice of opposition came from Joe, who said, "Isn’t the basic premise of learning to be able to cross the barriers of different contexts and languages? Isn’t the subtext of replacing the British system that foreign scholars can’t even distinguish the differences of a simple title system? "

　　Of course, the problems encountered by prospective professors are the most realistic. If they are replaced by "associate professors" in the North American system, their status is equivalent to being discounted, because although they are the same as senior lecturers in salary level, this title has a little extra honor and is closer to "senior associate professors". Therefore, some colleagues pointed out that the two systems will inevitably bring losses and all kinds of unhappiness to some employees in the process of integration.

　　Although these reasons have some truth, they are not very convincing. For example, who will really think that an assistant professor is a professor’s assistant? Is it right to regard the title system as a thinking question for foreign scholars? And should "lessons from the past" be used as a reason to stick to the rules or as a source of experience? Interestingly, older scholars tend to advocate maintaining the status quo, while younger scholars tend to favor system reform. This is not surprising, after all, young scholars need more international cooperation, and they need to explain their professional titles to each other before talking about the project content. Such an opening statement is not a good way to carry out a period of international cooperation anyway.