Angelina Jolie’s film career has been sidelined largely by her own choice for a while now, especially in the past year. After the terrible reviews of By the Sea, Angelina has spent months focusing on her humanitarian work. Brad is currently filming a movie with Marion Cotillard in England and all over Europe, and so Angelina and the kids have been calling London home for months. It’s been a good phase for Angelina, mostly because I think she really has just been focusing completely on humanitarian work. She’s set up a new advocacy partnership focusing on sexual crimes in conflict and war. She also gave an amazing speech at the BBC last week. And now this… Dame Saint Angelina is now Professor Dame Saint Angelina.
Angelina Jolie Pitt is taking her passion for women’s rights and gender equality to the classroom. The actress, 40, is set to join the London School of Economics as a visiting professor for the new masters course on women, peace and security for the 2016-2017 school year. As a visiting professor, Jolie Pitt will deliver guest lectures, participate in workshop and public events, and continue research on projects.
“I am very encouraged by the creation of this master’s programme. I hope other academic institutions will follow this example, as it is vital that we broaden the discussion on how to advance women’s rights and end impunity for crimes that disproportionately affect women, such as sexual violence in conflict,” Jolie Pitt said in a statement. “I am looking forward to teaching and to learning from the students as well as to sharing my own experiences of working alongside governments and the United Nations.”
The course, which is the first of its kind internationally, was launched last year by Jolie Pitt and Britain’s former foreign secretary, William Hauge – who will also serve as a visiting professor.
The Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security Ambassador Melanne Verveer said they, too, are looking forward to bringing the program to the stateside campus.
“I was pleased to meet with Angelina Jolie during my recent trip to London on ways we at Georgetown University can continue the collaboration between our sister programs on both sides of the Atlantic,” said Verveer. “We look forward to welcoming Angelina and former foreign secretary Hague to Georgetown in the future.”
I would have loved to take a class with a Professor Jolie. The class seems tailored to her expertise too, and the LSE is also where Jolie and William Hague founded the Centre on Women, Peace and Security last year. My guess is that Jolie’s professorship will be part of the new center/program. Can you even imagine being a masters student and having Angelina Jolie walk into the classroom? Can you imagine having her as an adviser? Or participating in small workshops with her? Those students are so lucky.
Photos courtesy of Pacific Coast News.
Eh, I’d prefer my professors to have the education they need. She’s a great woman, she did great things, but she does not have the qualifiications for this job.
Exactly, this feels more like a publicity stunt from LSE than anything else. My lecturers at UCL may not be super rich oscar winners, but they are the best and brightest in their fields. Thats what matters, especially when you’re paying the fees that the UK’s top universities are charging these days…
When i first heard about this, i thought she was simply going to be part of LSE’s public lectures programme.
Those lectures are amazing. The speakers seem to be culled from experience as well as the usual academics.
I’ve been to quite a few of those, LAK, and I’d recommend them to anyone.
I attend them as often as i can. Love them.
Meh, we’ve had people with PhDs in an area of specialty teach in our Ed Department and they’ve never been a classroom teacher. It is important to also have exposure to a variety of perspectives.
If she was teaching the whole course I would have issue, but she will guest speak a few classes about the plight of female refugees during an economics class and she is probably one of the best people to speak to that.
+1 I can’t stand it when academic institutions have unqualified people in to speak purely for publicity. Wouldn’t students rather hear from aid workers who actually spend their lives with boots on the ground, so to speak?
I bet that ten years down the road, when Angelina is still doing her work, you will still call her unqualified. People who are doctors become politicians, people who are workers become activists every day, and that is not taken against them. People in the field say that she knows what she is talking about, more than most politicians and people who make decisions about those issues – I guess she is qualified enough for people who acctually matter.
Spending about a dozen hours (a few hours per camp, four-six camps per year maybe?) per year in refugee camps and giving well-intentioned, and well-vetted, speeches is the equivalent of neither true professional nor academic qualifications, sorry. I think it’s great that she wants to learn and wants to help, but a professor? She is qualified to people looking for publicity though.
tracking, no one knows how much time she spends in those camps. Those who are against her and her work think she does nothing. Those who think she is using her fame for good and actively participating will think she spends much more time there.
Would you bash Melinda or Bill Gates for speaking as visiting professors on something outside of computer software and business? Especially since Bill Gates, like Jolie, has no university degree? How dare they use their money and influence to work in areas outside of their trained career specifications.
Yes, the Gates go outside their area of expertise and we get saddled with the atrocity that is common core. If he showed up for a lecture on education I would throw things at him.
Notsugarhere, no one is going to bash Melinda and Bill Gates when they speak on malaria prevention. No one asks about their medical degrees.
No, tracking, Angelina has had her boots on the ground several times, she has worked alongside people who build wells, and those ‘boots on the ground’ who worked with her all said how knowledgeable, earnest and hard-working she is. But some just can’t get past their myopic view of her being an actress.
Actually, no. I’d rather hear from someone who is articulate, with a range & variety of experience in different regions.
AJ had more access to information, saw more camps, and met with more aid program directors & UN officials that the average “boots on the ground” worker. That knowledge gained is worth sharing, as she’s clearly in a unique position.
She is coming as a visiting professor so I don’t get the point about her being unqualified?
There are lots of other famous people giving lectures and I didn’t see them being called unqualified.
Usually visiting professors have at least a BA though. Especially if they are visiting at LSE, one of the best in the IR field, it is confusing.
She’s not a professor in the first place. She never achieved any academic qualification and she’s known for being an international movie star. She is simply not qualified.
And I’m only chipping in because I wanted to go to LSE because of their reputation but this seems like a publicity grab. They are very elite and this is great for them but I think it sends a wrong message.
Most professors aren’t actually taught to teach, and didn’t go to school to learn to educate. They are just very knowledgeable or an “expert” in their field. Which is why you can get such a varying degree of skill in educating, regardless of their expertise the subject.
I think she’s perfectly qualified to lecture, honestly.
Not true Wiffie. Professors have to hold a college degree in the field of what they are teaching, at the minimum, to teach at the university level. Most of the time, you have to at least a masters or a Ph.D.
Guest lecturers are a different story. Is she a guest lecturer and the university just saying visiting professor to draw more attention?
Exactly. As the article says: “Jolie Pitt will deliver *guest lectures*, participate in workshop and public events”. She is given the title of ‘Visiting Professor in Practice’ and this is the title the LSE is giving to persons “who have appropriate distinction within their area of (non-academic) practice.”
It’s a title especially for non-academic experts that can broaden the expertise of the London School of Economics. It fit perfectly for Jolie so there is exactly zero controversy.
I study for an M.A. currently and the occasional guest lecturer is the actual norm and exciting for us students. I’d love to have someone of Jolie’s or Hague’s caliber in my school.
From the press release here: http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2016/05/WPS-Visiting-Professors-in-Practice.aspx
@Schnee – Thanks for that clarification. It gives a lot more context.
It’s simple: guest speaker Yes! “visiting professor”? Ugh. No. Getting a degree is an intense process, and i’d like to know my Professors are more than just “honorary”. I’m speaking as a middle aged woman in the process of getting a degree!
@Tammy, Wiffie is talking about being an expert in teaching (pedagogy). Academics have to be experts in their field(s), but they don’t necessarily have to know anything about teaching.
This is a NEW program and those that have created the program see her 16 years of activism, creating viable foundations and schools, as HIGHLY relevant material to teach, share and groom to do the same. I love the idea of her teaching what she knows in hopes of multiplying many more individuals to step forward and become engaged as well.
Jolie’s activist record is solid. Bravo to her taking her skill sets and knowledge and sharing it with others. What a wonderful idea that will be backed by formal education.
@Wiffie and @Tammy – Wiffie is correct. Very few professors are taught to teach, especially not in adult education.
That is part of the reason you end up with researching profs and lecturing profs – some are better at lecturing and drawing students into the classes and others are better at bringing in funding for research and conducting research.
A graduate degree gives you experience doing research – which is what Angelina has been doing. I am sure she is participating in reports to the UN, she often has books on the subject in her hands and she can speak to the topic. She is getting experiential training and experience. In our B.Ed program we get a lot of requests for the ‘experts’ to come speak to the students from the students – they want the classroom teachers to come in. Even with a faculty full of professors, many of whom haven’t been in a classroom for 15 years. So she would definitely bring a valued perspective and experience to the conversation.
I don’t think she even finished high school. I like Angie but this is a slap in the face for those of us in academia.
She graduated high school at 16. She doesn’t have college degree, but many other successful people don’t have it also. She is a visiting professor that is going to talk about her work in the field that she did for 15 years. Does that mean that, for example, Mark Zuckerberg should never be a visiting professor and talk about his expertise, because he never got his degree?
Zuckerberg expertise is based on his field experience. Jolies field experience on the other hand consists of a few visits to refugee camps every year. You know who should teach this course…..the people who live there 24/7 and show her around when she arrives. Or the people who prepare her briefings for her.
Naya– all this. You hit the nail on the head.
Naya, how do you know that her experience consists of a few visits to refugee camps only? Have you been on trips with her, in talks or discussions with her? You have no idea what she does behind the scenes, who she talks to, what she influences and what she knows. You are prejudiced against her because of your opinion of her public persona.
@Diana
I think your love for her is clouding your ability to see Naya’s argument. We see paparazzi photos of Angelina on a semi-regular basis. We know when she is shooting a movie or doing publicity. Her trips to refugee camps ALWAYS get notice. We would all know if she was spending actual quality time living among refugees. She doesn’t. She does visit for a few days at a time. Does that negate the good she does? No, absolutely not. But it also does not make her as qualified for this job as someone who has the education AND the hands-on experience.
Wow, Goats on the Roof, my judgment is clouded because I “love” Jolie? Thank you for your oppinion. I am going to leave with my “clouded ” judgment so all the people who really and exactly know what Jolie is doing to freely voice their unclouded and unbiased opinions.
@DianaM-Activism doesn’t necessarily require a college degree but teaching at the university level usually does.
Unless you’re famous, apparently.
I think she’s more than qualified to give lectures, I’m just not sure about the “professor” title. At the risk of splitting hairs, that seems rather disrespectful to the profession and the people who undergo years of education to become teachers.
Those who dislike her will think she knows nothing and should not be doing this work. Those who admire her and her work will think otherwise.
There are many academic institutions who have visiting lecturers who either do not have degrees, or who have gained their knowledge through experience instead of books. In some areas, field experience is far more valuable than book learning.
@DianaM – I never said that having a college degree is the only way to be successful. BUT fi you are going to be a professor, I certainly hope that you did at least attend a higher learning institution.
I would still raise my eyebrow if Mark Zukerberg was appointed as a visiting professor. You should have a degree in academia. If you’ve never written a thesis before, I’ve no idea how on earth you are suppose to help out MA students there.
And although I like Angie and appreciate the spotllight she sheds on refugees, her field experience (which is some visits to refugee camps, not actual field experience) is not enough. I used to be in the NGO field, and that is NOT how you do field experience (it is definitely not the same as one of my friends who has been in Baghdad working in the humanitarian field or another friend of mine whose been conducting research on Yezidi sex slave escapees in Erbil.. now these people would have more insight on what happens in the field).
@Diana
I said ‘I think’ meaning that was the opinion I came to after reading several of your posts.
You speak of how everyone here is biased against Jolie, but that’s REALLY not the case. Please browse previous threads. Many of the very same people who are expressing their dismay at LSE offering this position and Angie accepting are people who have had nothing but complimentary things to say about her in the past. We aren’t all ‘haters.’ We just happen to think this is a major misstep.
With all due respect Diana, Goats made a logical and inoffensive argument. I’m not sure why you’re taking it so personally.
A little off topic, but Mark Zuckerberg isn’t really an expert…..he’s kinda famously NOT a genius coder. http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-is-not-actually-a-coding-genius-2015-1 – He may be the luckiest guy in the world, though. And was blessed with being born at the exact right time in the exact right place.
Did everyone miss the guest lectures and workshops part? They’re not hiring her to be a “real” professor. She’s not going to be involved in acedemia per say, she’s going to be essentially giving a series of lectures on her experiences and what she feels needs to happen to move forward. I’m guessing she’ll be working with one or more faculty and will have plenty of help.
How is that a slap in the face? I’d have loved to learn from someone like that. My best profs regularly brought in guest lecturers to talk about their experiences and how they view the field. This is just a more intense, structured version of that. She did found the center that’s offering the course. Those of you in acedemia should know that donors like that are treated very well, hence the title of visiting professor for what is likely actually an extended guest speaker role.
Wren – the title professor is misleading. Guest lecturer would have been a better way to describe her role because as a professor there are certain qualifications and experiences you need to have in academia. I doubt Angelia has ever written a thesis, or even a paper longer than 5 pages, and yet she is suppose to be a professor to MA students?
I was a TA for undergrads at Georgetown (ironically, on the same subject Angelina is lecturing on) and I would never let my students call me professor. I certainly don’t have the qualifications for it.
@DianaM, notsugarhere and Wren… if the title was guest lecturer then there is no issue.. but professor? No, you need a college degree, at a minimum to be a professor. Sorry.
It is the title given by LSE to people performing this work. Not specific to Jolie.
I doubt Diana has any idea what goes on behind the scenes of Jolie’s refugee visits either.
GotR and others, you made the assumption that Diana loves Angelina and therefore patronized her by dismissing her comment on that basis. I think she has every right to take offense.
She is not taking anything away from anyone. She is adding her experience, her knowledge, her insight and leveraging her access to politicians to teach what she knows. This is a new program so how is it taking from you? The Program was designed with her in mind. Do you have her experience??
Do you have the clout to get people- the international heads of state, prime ministers and presidents– to listen to you and consider your ideas for implementation? Are you on that level? If you are great! If not, I am sure you will find your niche.
If not,
@ all …
@Wren wrote: “Did everyone miss the guest lectures and workshops part? They’re not hiring her to be a “real” professor. She’s not going to be involved in acedemia per say, she’s going to be essentially giving a series of lectures on her experiences and what she feels needs to happen to move forward. I’m guessing she’ll be working with one or more faculty and will have plenty of help.”
I also work at a university and what @Wren wrote–and @DianaM wrote–is accurate. Guest Lecturers are brought in to give explicit, often personal, knowledge of a subject–via hands on experience or through research–on a related subject or the topic being taught in a regular class by a Professor.
No student will be given a grade by Angie, but they will earn credit for attending her Workshops and/or lectures from the actual Professor teaching the course. I’m assuming the reason she was given the title ‘Visiting Professor’ is because she will be ‘In Residence’ for a period of time working with a specific Professor teaching a specific course and a ‘Guest Lecture/Speaker’ is usually on campus for a day or two.
DianeM didn’t ‘attack’ anyone and implying that she is fanatically obsessed with Angelina Jolie simply because she attempted to ‘explain’ the difference between what the article states–Guest Lectures and Workshops–and what many of you are focused on–Visiting Professor–is disingenuous. DianeM, Wren, and others are trying to make the valid point of what is actually ‘said’ in the article to those who can’t seem to get past the ‘Visiting Professor’ title … and their scorn for Angelina Jolie.
Again, the university has probably given Angie the title of ‘Visiting Professor’ because she will be a Guest Lecturer/Speaker in residence for a period of time and not just one or two days. She will not be ‘teaching’ the course or assigning grades, she will only be giving lectures and participating in workshops about her personal experience.
Why does experience count for nothing these days. I would rather hear from someone who has had over ten years of experience in a job, than someone, who just graduated from college with a degree, in the same field.
Actually as an academic you do usually have a decade or close to it of experience in the field by the time you achieve your PhD, which is typically part of the qualifications to be a professor. That means your professors have both the practical, hands on experience in their field as well as the proper theoretical base and background to inform their experience.
Yeah seriously. Can’t tell you how many seminars I’ve sat through where the teacher had the degree but zero teaching experience or even solid real life experiences to draw from.
A graduate seminar is perfect. You’re not talking about introductory theory and she’s probably just going to talk about her experiences with women + conflict in a conflict management-type of setting. She’s done more “fieldwork” than a postgrad on the topic so why not?
All employers want is 10 years of experience nowadays when you’re freshly graduated. It counts too much methinks.
It’s easy for Jolie who made her money as a film star and then had access to the best resources to start her humanitarian work to be considered a visiting ‘professor’ now. How wonderful life would be for all those other people who have to do the grind instead. 99% just don’t have that opportunity. 99% are not Angelina Jolie, good looks, lots of money, power and access etc. They have to study their asses off and work in basic jobs to pay for their tuition to then be overlooked after half a decade to a decade of hard work because experience matters most.
Where to get that experience when you don’t have the money or time to volunteer (because getting experience in a paid job is damn near impossible). I actually tried to get into women’s rights fields but only could volunteer, on top of studying and having shitty paid work. Some of us do try but again, we’re not rich and famous.
Jolie at my age (26) was already flying accross the globe and meeting people on the field renowned for their expertise. HOW is that possible for most graduates? Oh it is I suppose when you’re already part of the elite (like Jolie) and your parents can afford the best education (LSE) and the best internships.
@Artemis, I think you’re reading it wrong. Jolie doesn’t need the prestige. But she is funding the center IIRC, and it is her area of fieldwork expertise, so it makes sense that she would be active in the center. I don’t know if people realize how rare a dedicated center is to women in a conflict setting…I can’t think of any other off the top of my head. She’s using her influence to create research agendas in the field.
Also, honorary doctorates are handed out all the time in recognition of expertise in a field. You can’t look at everything like: that’s not fair, I didn’t have those advantages.
Acemenic experience can be vastly different from industry experience. Yes, you’ve been in your field for several years, but research is a controlled environment. You are paid for your work on a completely different playing field, and expectations are also quite different. Many professors I’ve known have only known acedemia and that unique set of rules. They have the knowledge, yes, and the skills, but the application of these things is different in the non acemenic world.
I think there should be a balance. Acedemia tends to be very insular, and retreats into itself far too often. We should have more guest speakers (because that’s what she is) with the experience, because after a certain point it really doesn’t matter how much school you had.
@Wren at least in my field you need the practical experience to be qualified as an academic. I’m in the same field as Richard Leakey. He does not have a formal education in anthropology, or anything actually. Is he a prominent person in my field? Yes. Can he raise money and bring notoriety? Yes. But he doesn’t publish his academic papers alone and he is aware he needs a trained team working with him on details of fossils and their relationships. This in no way diminishes what he does or his expertise, just as I have not diminished AJ’s contributions to her humanitarian work. My point is that people like Richard, with vast experience, also do not diminish the field experience and training that academics have because we are also out there in the field doing the same work and we have additional academic responsibilities on top of that.
I can’t think of one single professor who publishes papers alone. Everyone has a team, even if you’re lead author, other people contribute. In large labs with prominent professors, the team is huge and there is generally a veritable army of grad students and techs involved in the actual work.
But, again, AJ is doing a guest lecturing stint, not actually being a permanent faculty member. And as Sixer pointed out below, the UK college system is different than the US one.
Yes, my field is a bit different in that there are often single authored papers and book chapters. And again, I’m not saying that non academics are not qualified to guest lecture. My point is that the experience and credentials of academics do not need to be trashed in order to praise a non academic in their role.
Wren – it depends on the field you are in, but that’s not true with a lot of professors in the IR/conflict resolution field. The bulk of the work is usually the professors and you get RAs to proof read it, do footnotes and sometimes collect info on a certain topic. But yes, a lot of the times, the bulk of the analysis is from the professor in the IR field.
@greenieweenie:
I can understand and accept that but I think it IS important to discuss this elitism, especially because the center is based in the UK. These opportunities are rare and while I find Jolie’s work inspiring, she only has the access to it due to her background. Money and visibility came before she acquired the knowledge needed to be working at different high levels in the field and in academia.
I’m in the sciences (as is my husband), and there’s no such thing as singlehanded research in these fields. Maybe a few letters, or single page summaries are single author, but every study of any note rests on the grad students and staff of the lab to complete. Sadly, the professor is often relegated to securing grant funding and doesn’t actually get to do much of the work associated with it. At least that was the way of it in my experience.
Wren – I can understand how in the sciences field it is much different than IR, as you do deal with aggregate data. IR is a bit different, and based on my experience the professors do a lot of the work. I was an RA for 2 years for IR and poli-sci professors so I can say altho there was sometimes collaboration, often it was the professor’s own work really.
I can see why she’d be good for the program but I think the title “guest lecturer” might have been a more appropriate title.
ITA, guest lecturer is a more fitting title….
She has the experience, no doubt, but not the academic education to actually teach a course—which is where the confusion lies, at least that’s what I’m seeing.
Yes agreed. Said the same above.
Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if they told Jolie that her role would be within that capacity–as a lecturer–but then for PR purposes rolled it out under the “Jolie will be visiting professor” as it’s more of a headline-grabber. She might not have even known that this is where they were going with it.
I would love to hear her speak, though!
As I’m reading these comments I was thinking the same thing. Guest lecturer is more appropriate and I can see why people are upset at giving her the title “Professor”.
Of course it would and that’s exactly what she is, but again she’s a huge donor to the program. Donors of that magnitude are given all kinds of honors and sucked up to immensely. Thus, she is given the title of visiting professor when in reality it’s an extended guest speaker position. A small price to pay, really, and I’m sure she’s happy. Keeping donors happy keeps them donating.
I agree. I think her speaking there is fine, but the title of Professor means something and shouldn’t just be handed out. I have both a family member and a friend who are PhD university professors, and I know the extreme amount of time, work, money, and everything that went into achieving that. In my own field there are titles and such that require certain achievements to use, and I feel Professor is one as well.
LSE made a misstep in using that term.
One does need a degree to be an expert. Self education or life experience works too at times. Ask Abe Lincoln. I would like to know more about her expertise, though. Who vouches for her qualifications?
–TheRealPinky
And yet people are screaming that Trump is not qualified to be president. I also had thought of Abe Lincoln when I heard that argument. Ah the irony.
To clarify: I am NOT a Trump apologist by any means.
@SilkyMalice The operatives words here, though, are experience and education. He has no foreign policy experience or political education, from what I can glean. Neither formal nor informal. So on that point, I agree with the screamers.
–TheRealPinky
also, the “not qualified” also refers to his temperament, impulse control (or lack thereof), and his views on minorities, women, immigrants, and various religions.
doofus, I totally see your point on the temperament part. I think his views on various other issues have been manufactured to an extent on soundbites that have been blown out of proportion, but that can be said about both sides.
eh, I’ve heard enough “sound bites” and extended speeches/interviews and read enough on his history that lead me to believe his stances on those things are not manufactured and that it’s not blown out of proportion, but simply accurate.
the main impression I get from him is that he’ll say whatever he needs to whatever his audience is at that particular moment in time to get their support, but he’s made it clear how he really feels.
Well if she were Abe Lincoln that would be a different story. I’m surprised her team released this, and it was calculated, but makes her look bad. People are tired of these elitist moves. I am an academic as well. I am in year three of a PhD. However it seems in Europe now you can buy a position with money send influence, but you can still get jobs there. In the US a PhD can’t get a job let alone a visiting professor position. A full professor must be tenured. If you loose your job you start over again. Associate Professors, Assistant Professors, and Adjunct, not to mention Lectures can be doing this their whole lives part time. These days people go to school and hold full time jobs. So those of you who say academics dont have work experience, don’t know anything about higher education. All of my teachers are PhD educated and part time.
She’s not an actual professor (and remember professor in the UK is different to professor in the US). She’s a “Visiting Professor in Practice”, which yes, is basically a guest speaker. I’ve a friend doing MSc Inequalities at LSE and that’s the silly, grandiose title they give their guest speakers on post-grad courses. Hang on, I’m sure they must define it somewhere…
… here you go:
“LSE confers the title of Visiting Professor in Practice on persons who have appropriate distinction within their area of (non-academic) practice. It includes individuals who have achieved prominence in public service, or who have attained distinction in their profession and through their practical experience.”
Thanks Sixer. Seems like everyone is up in arms about something that is basically a language issue. They hear Visiting Professor and are all worried about academics being devalued. And in the end, in best posh UK University tradition, its just a fancy name for Guest speaker
Thank you, Sixer. Bringing logic to the overheated argument again.
Yes I think people are struggling with the semantics. I’m an academic and I have no problem with guest lecturers. I think AJ understands her role and won’t be taking on anything like sitting on a thesis committee.
That said I do have a problem with commenters who seem to believe academics have less experience in their chosen fields than someone who has taken an interest as one of many projects in their life. That’s just silly and dismissive of the work involved in achieving a higher degree. So thank you for not doing that!
Ahh, thanks Sixer!
Also, don’t forget that what would be a professor in the US is often a lecturer in the UK. From a UK perspective, using the term lecturer would be just as misleading.
There is no doubt that LSE uses grandiose titles for reasons best known to itself but which is probably as much to do with a circle-jerk of incestuous back-slapping as publicity – it doesn’t need publicity; it is an elite UK university and everyone and their dog knows it. But they do make it very clear that these posts are non-academic and specifically vis a vis Jolie, that she will be speaking, not teaching.
@Sixer, thanks for the clarification!
I said down thread that guest speaker was apropriate based kn her experience. I didn’t know UK uses “Visiting Professor in Practice” to describe a guest speaker. In US and Brazil, this title means the person has both experience and academic credentials. Thanks again for clarifying it!
And there you have it. Outrage abated.
–TheRealPinky
I suspected this–I’m also in a UK-style system. Can I also point out that there are different kinds of graduate/postgraduate degrees. There are taught (professional) degrees and research degrees. In this area of social sciences, most degrees will be professional (e.g. Diplomacy, conflict management, and other conflict-related fields) because the opportunities for research are quite limited. Taught degrees are training/information oriented and it’s simply not that difficult. You can get a professional masters in 18 months online–no thesis, no fieldwork. There’s no reason why Angelina couldn’t have equivalent knowledge to a taught postgraduate after over a decade in the field, so idk what the big deal is.
If I were taking a course on diplomacy, she would be an ideal lecturer. Certainly for refugee issues, as well. Also for women in conflict and maybe human security–why not?
Maybe I’m not as impressed with academia as others because I’ve
sampled the systems in too many countries (spent plenty of time swimming in LSE theses, too) and let me tell you, quality and experience is HIGHLY variable.
Sixer, thanks for the clarification. That makes more sense!
@Paleokifaru, come to Asia, my friend, and I will line up the 25 year olds with PhDs, no publication record, no job experience, minimal “teaching” experience, and three months of poorly conceptualized fieldwork. Experts in information, maybe.
paleokifaru – Yeah, I don’t understand many of these comments that downplay the experience of higher education and in particular those in academia who reach post graduate degrees. In the U.S. many of these programs are based on not just classroom but actual in field experience. As I mention downthread, I don’t have a formal degree – I am a very accomplished professional who has risen through hard work and experience, but I would NEVER dismiss the value of going through academic programs. I know I missed out on a formal education.
Sixer – thanks for bringing in additional info. As I said down thread, I think the LES knew how much play this story would get and should have anticipated the issue of the “professor” title. Not everyone is going to go to the LSE site and research to get the clarification. It would have avoided Jolie getting most of the unnecessary heat for this.
@Greenieweenie I actually find that shocking. In the US you could not get a faculty position with that CV. I know the UK graduate system is a bit different from the US and far more theoretical but it also makes it very hard for those students to compete on the job market. I’m a paleontologist so it’s very difficult for me to imagine doing what I do without experience outside of the classroom being a requirement for your degree. I needed it just to get into a PhD program. I think a lot of commenters are lumping all academics into one theoretical category and I find that alarming because that has not been my experience, nor the experience of most of my peers.
I see. Thank you for shedding light on the subject. It seems a strange title to bestow on an uneducated person, but the Brits seem to love giving titles. 🙂
As an academic at a UK university (not LSE), I say meh. She’s not taking a lectureship away from anyone. That said, “Visiting Professor in Practice” is a ridiculous title that makes very little sense. But if that is what LSE wants to call it, let them. This is the university that gave Saif Gaddafi a PhD, let us remember.
Silky – we give out a lot of honorary doctorates, too. This particular honorary title is marginally amusing in Jolie’s case, because the dame thing is also honorary. We seem to love giving her pretend titles. We should give her something nice that actually IS what it says on the tin and avoid all the furore.
It’s just a shrug from me but I do have sympathy with paleokifaru’s position. Practically speaking, nobody’s given Jolie a professorship and nobody’s position has been devalued. All’s good. BUT – if I were an actual professor, I’d find it somewhat annoying that otherwise sensible institutions appropriated my hard worked-for title as a prop in their self-aggrandizing way. There are plenty of other respectful and appreciative titles they could give to the people who lend their non-academic expertise to post-grad courses without all this faux-academic nonsense.
Tina – LOL! I do remember.
@Paleokifaru, it was shocking to me too. Typically there is a very large gap between students (graduates) and faculty. Faculty are recruited from elsewhere or else local stars. But there’s just generally a lower standard of professionalism overall. Few graduates have the capacity to publish in decently ranked journals (at least in fields that are not largely data-driven). US is operating at a different level entirely.
@Greenieweenie, the UK has very similar standards to the US in terms of professionalism and publication standards. There are appalling graduates (doctoral graduates, no less) from US universities just as there are from UK universities. I really wouldn’t generalise that the US is at a much higher standard overall.
Professors of Practice exist in US Universities, too. They are not on the tenure track, and are appointed based on professional experience and not academic titles. The position is not necessarily reserved for visiting lecturers — some Professors of Practice can be full time faculty.
I seriously don’t understand what the controversy is. Every Ivy League school has some professors of practice — business and political leaders, for example, some of whom have PhDs (some in relevant fields, others in academic fields different than their professional experience) and others who do not.
I don’t think most, if any, of the people in this thread of the comments see it as a controversy. We’re simply discussing the differences in titles and qualifications at academic institutions. I attended an Ivy and there definitely were the occasional prestigious visitor who would lecture for a year, particularly in non science fields, without having a PhD. But I would consider that different from an actual faculty position. And it sounds to me like AJ isn’t even holding the Professor of Practice sort of position and instead is simply giving a few talks and participating in workshops. It sounds like a really interesting program.
@Tina, I can’t speak for UK. And actually, it’s not my sense that UK standards are lower. But I don’t think they can mobilize resources on the same scale as in the US. I think the big public research universities are operating at a scale that I’m not sure is replicated anywhere else, and the standard of professionalism is categorically higher than here in Asia.
@GreenieWeenie, it depends very much on the field. Broadly speaking, only Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial (I work at none of these) can compete with the top US research universities like Stanford, Harvard, UC Berkeley etc. The UK is a much smaller country and the systems are funded differently, so it’s difficult to compare the two. You’re right that US universities have access to greater resources, but UK universities work very efficiently with what they have.
I adore AJ and think she’s great but even some students from that college are not happy about it.
I know we have AJ fans who think she can do no wrong but in this case experience doesn’t equal education and qualification. Just because I have years of experience in something doesn’t mean I should be teaching at a college without the proper creditials. It’s a slap in the face to the professors who earned the right to teach .
On a superficial note, I wouldn’t be able to focus. I would be watching her lips move but I wouldn’t be paying attention to a word coming out of it. I would be in awe.
Or those who think she can do no right.
Jolie is an activist and not just a humanitarian. She has funded and founded several foundations that has done a lot of work that IS relevant to the program. She is not the director of the program. Her input will be invaluable to those students and her inclusion is based on influence and affluence on the subject matter.
Her depth of knowledge is real and nothing to sneeze at There is nothing superficial about her body of work– the activist side, not the humanitarian side- that has now spanned over 15 years.
The academia have already given their support and have approved the matter. There is a lot to learn from her and the students enrolled will have an opportunity to have access to her, which is really a good thing.
Absolutely agree! I actually liie Angelina, A LOT, but man, this is inappropriate, University profs NEED be educated thoroughly and no matter how much of a humanitarian she is, she is NOT a qualified scientist on this matter, she could be a consultant, but a prof? No way, she needs a PhD for that
ITA, totally inappropriate and an embarrassment to LSE. The cult of celebrity has gone a little far in this instance.
It’s a publicity stunt and it’s shameful. There are people who have both Angie’s experience (more, I’d wager) and the education credentials to back up a job like this.
As much as I like Angie and appreciate her humanitarian work, I can’t help but think of this new position as anything more than a stroke to her ego.
This program at LSE only exists in large part because of her and her influence. All of you bashing her for participating, would you rather the program not exist? I’ll bet a lot of you will answer, “Yes.”
I’m a PhD at LSE and I totally support this. She’s just a guest lecturer, nothing more, and she’s giving lectures for free.
A guest lecturer and a visiting proffesor are two completely different things in my country, so I guess misinterpreted the article and was wrong on this one.
This thread is over 300 posts long and while I have not read everyone’s thoughts, I already know that most of the comments are going to be related to some level of disbelief of Jolie’s latest accomplishments.
Listen, she is the real deal. This is not a stunt. This is who she is. She has an intense work ethic, so no one should be surprised at all about anything she does or gets accomplished. She has the energy and trailblazer mindset of 50 women … and men. Anyone who still thinks she is just a humanitarian has been sleepwalking. She is an activist. She gets things to move into action. And she is not new to this anymore.
I don’t know-I’ve had plenty of arm chair expert professors with PhDs and no real world/limited field experience. Sure, she’s got no letters after her name, but she’s been on the front lines in about 10 different humanitarian disasters and has spent years dedicated to the topic in an active, participatory way. Even if LSE is using her star power to increase enrollment and increase donations to the center, more power to them-the more students educated on these topics and the more money and attention paid to them, the better.
I agree. She does great work but visiting professor? No. Guest speaker? Fine. But professor? Did she even graduate high school? I know she didn’t graduate college.
It makes a mockery of higher education, to call her a “Professor.”
I’m glad you said this. I think they should clearly emphasize “Honorary” in her title, to be honest.
Jolie is actually, literally not qualified to be a visiting professor. In 99.9% of institutions you need to have a “terminal degree” (MD, PhD, JD) to get an academic appointment and the collegiate or graduate level. That would including a visiting professor. Not saying she’s not going to be great at it but I’m sure there’s lots fmqualified PhDs out there who LSE wouldn’t give a second look at that might have something to say about this…..
Unfortunately, the “humanitarian” efforts of her contemporaries and peers in Hollywood have made it hard for me not to be jaded about this. I do wish her well. She seems to be genuinely using her name recognition and money for good.
I love her and what she does, but is she really qualified to be a professor?
No. She obviously gave a lot of money to the school.
This is what I think. She gives them a lot of money, she gets major publicity for being “smart”. I will give her this, she really knows how to change the image perception. She is very smart at that.
Indeed.
Apparently Jolie has plans. Going into politics perhaps?
So she doesn’t chuck in the hard work and studies but she simply “buys” some academic prestige.
British universities had their funds from the tax payer cut massively under the conservative government (2nd in a row).
I hope the students do tell her quite directly what they think.
I think she either didn’t go to college or didn’t finish. So, in my mind, no. This is ridiculous. Just think of all the people who work for years to earn Masters degrees and PhDs and struggle financially while doing so. And then a person like this walks in, and it’s a cake walk to a ‘visiting professorship’. What is the world coming to?
Apparently Jolie has decided she needs the prestige of some academic fairy dust. And why would she chuck in the proper work for that?
Tell you something. There is a german politician who had a MA degree in humanities. Then came the financial crisis. She decided that she needed to know more about economics. She did the full coursework and has a degree in economics.
That is dedication!!!
Where do I sign up?
Can former LSE masters students re-sign???
This amazing woman just continues to show others that there is no limit to being one thing. You can have it all through hard work, compromise and dedication.
PS: she is still part of Hollywood – she directed First they killed my father last year, still pre production on Africa (confirmed by Richard Leakey himself), bought rights for a new Catherine the Great movie, Maleficent 2 is in the works.
There’s no limit if you are born pretty to a Hollywood actor father, that’s for sure.
There are plenty of famous Hollywood kids who have failed, been arrested, imprisoned, died young. It isn’t a magic ticket to happiness and success. She could easily have died from the self-destructive behaviors she was doing before. She made a decision to move forward with something that interested her, for which some people will never forgive her.
Oh I agree, but the position she was born in enabled her to “not have a limit”.
When you have “no limit” it means you have no limit for both positive and negative. She could have gone off the deep end like so many of her peers, and did for awhile. But she gets bashed for pulling herself out of that because she had famous parents who enabled her to fall that far in the first place? Being the kid of the rich and famous doesn’t always make life easier.
I think what Locke is saying is that she’s had the means, where 98% of the population doesn’t. She had the means to a jump started career. She had the means to start over when she fell into the negative. And she had means to make all these trips and access to people who do this for a living and not a side job to educate her.
And I’m saying that those “means” are what enabled her to fall so far, so they are nothing to praise or envy. It wasn’t her parent’s fame or money that pulled her out of the pit. It was the money she earned and the choice she made to go to humanitarian work instead of self-harming anymore.
Yes, she is gorgeous.
But she CLEARLY did not follow her father’s footsteps as it relates to her lifestyle. She cannot change who her DAD is but she clearly has political views, and a lifestyle that is uniquely hers.
Her choice to adopt, work for UNHCR, become an activist, have 6 kids and write about her activist work had absolutely nothing to do with her Dad.
You are blatantly ignoring her work ethic. She is pretty efficient. She started everything early, her film career her modeling career, and her work for the UNHCR.
Her determination and her courage to create new endeavors , time and time again, should motivate women to be all they can be. To live life to the fullest and not to limit yourself. Instead I hear hens clucking of how it can’t be done.
Welp, Jolie is proof that it CAN be done.
“PS: she is still part of Hollywood – she directed First they killed my father last year, still pre production on Africa (confirmed by Richard Leakey himself), bought rights for a new Catherine the Great movie, Maleficent 2 is in the works”.
And still no Salt 2 huh? That’s the one I want a sequel to. I still remember the last main words in that film spoken by Chiwetel Ejiofor. When Salt jumped out of the helicopter and he said “Go get’em. That gave me hopes for a sequel.
I want Salt2 as well!
Expertise? Yeah, reading briefings researched and compiled by real experts before a 2 day trip to refugee camp does not an expert make. If people who have hands on day to day experience and actually training in the field would have to fight for a spot on the LSE faculty, this lady has no business there whatsoever.
It’s a farce. This is for a graduate level course!! It’s guaranteed that some of ‘her’ students will have more practical experience and theoretical knowledge than her. I did my master’s almost straight out of undergrad and felt more than a little moronic because about half of the class were educated professionals who had been working in related industries for years. One man was a 50-something doctor from Rwanda with decades of training and experience. It’s revolting to me that Jolie could be ‘teaching’ people like him too.
Agreed. Enough with celebrities already.
At best she should have been a speaker. Not a ‘visiting professor’ or lecturer. The dumbing down continues. LSE seems greedy for publicity more than reputation.
LSE made her a “visiting professor”. Why?
How much did Jolie donate?
Who pulled some strings? I think that Jolie is on good terms with William Hague, formerly minister for foreign affairs and who has (had?) a LENGTHY political career.
I think it is embarassing for LSE to make her a visiting professor. She doesn’t even have a college degree let alone an academic degree let alone a postgraduate degree or Phd. And the latter two are usually the minimum requirement for becoming any kind of “teacher” at uni.
Naya, it has been said many times by UNHCR and others in the field that she compiles her own briefings. She has also written a book as well as many OpEds. She is an accomplished woman, even if you want to dismiss her as just some celebrity. Which would be wrong, and so unfair.
Highly doubt she’ll be doing her own grading.
I know Angelina is going to get trashed for this but I think the class is more about lecturing, being a guess speaker than being a full fledged class. She does know a lot about the subject and has been studying it for years. I just don’t think she should be dismissed about her knowledge just because she doesn’t have the formal schooling.
She is ONE of FOUR people doing this workshop. She has not taken someone’s JOB.. she is not be paid to be there. And it seems this will be something she does ONE TIME or a couple depending on her schedule. Not a full course.
but again it is clear that some people never actually read the information. Just comment on the Headline.
It’s the same old haughtiness from educated people who thinks that because they have the education – it trumps actual experience uneducated people have/gained.
Educated people think because they went to universities and have degrees, Masters and PHDs – they should be the ones to do specific roles.
I can personally say how happy I am that in UK – experience matters the most. If an educated person applies for a role and an experienced but not formally educated person also applies – the job will go to the uneducated person based on his experience.
I think both are important, but education is more important.
In my country you don’t really get to get an experiance unless you have the proper education to do it. University education is free, however, so it’s accessible to more people.
I find the dismissal of education more annoying.
I realize some of the confusion here may lie in the differences between the US and UK education systems but please don’t paint academics with such a broad brush. In the US higher degrees are not simply achieved through theoretical course work. I lived in Nairobi for 18 months working on specimens and spent every single summer since I was 20 doing field work. By the time I had my PhD I had a decade of experience AND the theoretical background that comes with a higher education. Most of us get our hands dirty in our field of choice and we do so on a regular basis.
I honestly can’t believe you’re here going on about how we should have uneducated people in places like universities…because ‘experience.’ Um, no thank you. It’s not haughtiness to expect a professor to have some credentials to back up that experience.
Some people achieve through academia, others don’t. Does that mean that anyone who doesn’t have a degree has nothing valuable to say to those in university? Queue the list of successful people who have no college degrees who ever dare to guest lecture.
She has not been handed a full professorship with tenure. She’s a guest lecturer in a program she helped found. Her credentials are life experience in the field, a field you cannot learn only from books.
I come from a family of academics and I don’t understand why there is so much fuss over this.
I can personally say how happy I am that in UK – experience matters the most. If an educated person applies for a role and an experienced but not formally educated person also applies – the job will go to the uneducated person based on his experience.
I think you need both. I lived in a UK city which has a vast array of problems in the health and social sector. I happened to work in places where there were uneducated employees (women’s refuge, care service and hostels for the homeless) and educated employees (law office and child services) during my studies so I’ve got firsthand knowledge of how problematic it is.
The uneducated people are way too biased and take things personal too quickly. I’ve seen them kick out people for no reason or behave totally unprofessional when discussing confidential information. They also have no qualms about hiding certain information from service inspectors when there is a complaint and the money is not spent very well. Lots of unhappy workers too. Overworked and underpaid because they have limited skills so they don’t ‘deserve’ a pay rise. Due to a lack of education, they got a job just to pay the bills (not because they were passionate about the job) and only a few have the common sense to study at least something to help them move on to something better or different. They also need to get in students to revise their policies or do computer work as the uneducated ones just cannot do it (and it’s not even complex). They don’t really stay on top of legislation that isn’t a direct concern to them in practice. For me the worst was when I saw basic spelling and grammar errors which is embarrassing as we had to liaise with agencies who do have higher standards. Or putting the wrong name, birth date on documents which can cause massive delays.
Educated employees tended to be more rigid with rules and I found them lacking in empathy sometimes. It was routine work. The bureaucracy is mind-numbing and definitely reserved for people who like the theory more than the practice of their job. Overall though, I found them to be harder working and more passionate. They were also multi-skilled and thus fluid in their workload. They adapted more quickly to change and were able to put their head down and focus longer on boring tasks. They were more confident (they knew they had options) and ambitious making them valuable assets . Also, they didn’t have a self-defeating outlook on life, if they want change it’s up to them to change. Uneducated people seemed to think that the system would change if they complained about it without changing their own attitude and work ethic (which is part of why the system is so bad).
One massive problem I found is some people (on both sides) were too obsessed with implementing religion into their work which made it worse rather than better.
When I worked with a refugee service, most workers there were students volunteering for the helplines and admin as they were motivated to learn and thus their combination of experience + studies would enable them to move to London for the big jobs which pay 25k at least. The other workers were uneducated and of course knowledgeable but were there for 10+ years with no exponential growth. That is a common problem: lack of growth thus lack of opportunities.
I don’t think passion is linked to education but I think you can find out quicker what you want when you had a goal to study something for 3+ years. You always have transferable skills so it’s not a loss if you go into different field either.
Uni is so much more than studying. It’s networking, being inspired by people in the field, learning professionalism, focusing, learning self-discipline and self-motivation to reach goals and employing a high standard in your work.
@Maya, I’m sorry but I have to disagree a bit. Yes,experience counts in a lot of things but I feel different when it comes to education. If I’m a student I would much prefer to trust my education on African Studies to a person with a degree who has the credentials so that I am ensured that this person is qualified to teach me. I wouldn’t put my education in the hands of the person who might have experience in African Studies only because he visited there and gained experience traveling across the continent and thinks he knows everything about Africa. By the way as you know a lot of professors gain experience through internships while they are getting their education. And let’s not forget that a lot of professors that have Dr. in the front of their names didn’t acquire that title overnight.
Who are you going to trust to fix your car the shade tree mechanic who learned a few things about cars and have experience by helping his uncle in the garage or the mechanic who works at a certified auto mechanic shop who spent years in auto mechanic school learning the operating systems of automobiles.
Nothing against AJ but let’s not frown on the qualified educators of the world just to defend her. However I do like to play devil’s advocate at times. AJ is just a visiting professor. Maybe she’s just giving a few lectures on her experience and what she has learned. Is this much different from people who are giving honorary doctorate degrees? They hand those things out to celebrities as if they were academy awards. John Legend has one, Meryl Streep and even Ben Affleck. Can Dr. Affleck now go back to Brown University and teach film because not only does he have experience in film but he has a degree, though honorary?
I have to wonder about the specialties of the academics who are upset about a non-academic teaching. I’m guessing they are in long-established fields, where there IS already a clear path of study.
This is something new. What academic background would qualify you to lecture on “Women, Peace and Security”? Women’s studies? International Relations? Politics? Law? Social Work?
Edit: BTW, V4Real, that wasn’t targeted at you (or anyone specific). It just was a general response to Maya’s comment. You hadn’t posted when I started typing. But now that I’ve read your post … what degree/s do you expect in your African Studies lecturers? That seems like a new-ish field, so your lecturers probably wouldn’t have African Studies degrees … what do they have?
Personally, I know so many people in new-ish fields (computing, genetics) without formal qualifications because they were the pioneers … there was nowhere to get qualifications, they’re all self-taught. So teaching without qualifications doesn’t seem strange to me at all.
@Lucrezia
LOL…. that made me smile for some reason. I’m not really a student of African studies, that was just a hypothetical.
@Lucrezia, exactly, that’s how I see it. I was speculating that the study of women, peace and security would involve: (critical) security studies, diplomacy, conflict management, peace studies? (Is that a thing?) possibly women’s studies. I would bet security studies would be a primary track.
The whole discipline of international relations is going through a lot of change and updates. I think this center at LSE is great–it’s filling a real void in research. Which, obviously, EXPERIENCE contributes to filling.
This is why students do FIELD work and Internships..
I guess some of you refuse medical attention from Interns because they are not full on Doctors. People need experience. and she has lots of experience to share. And not the silliness that some of the comments at talking about.
@ V4Real: Lol!
*face-palm*
I was so frantically trying to walk-back what looked like a snarky swipe at you that I didn’t properly read what you’d written. Only skimmed enough to go “Oh-oh! Now my innocent comment looks bitchy”. Totally missed that you’d said “IF”.
I guess my argument still applies. These African Studies lecturers would still have non-standard backgrounds, even if they are hypothetical. (Well, I guess you *could* technically be proposing a hypothetical time machine so the hypothetical professors can study African Studies in the future and then go back in time to teach the first African Studies students.)
P.S. Now I’ve said hypothetical so many times that it sounds wrong and lacks any meaning.
Lucrezia – I have some experience with the ‘woman, peace and security’ field as the first institute was established at my university, Georgetown, and some of my professors have worked hard on establishing this institute. The majority of them are International relations academics, with some security studies, some foreign service, and a very few conflict resolution people. The majority of the people however have either worked on the ground empowering women in conflict zones or have focused their research on that.
She has been made a “visiting professor” and not a “guest speaker” or a “guest lecturer” and the latter two would have been the proper jobs for her. You can conclude that Jolie wants some academic fairy dust for her CV.
Honestly, I’d rather have an actual professor. Maybe that’s just me, though.
Me too.
A professor knows more about the development of these topics in scientific fields. Nobody can seriously tell me that somebody who hasn’t worked in academics is as accomplished as somebody who has done so for a few decades. Jolie won’t know much about the “broader picture” of these topics nor will she know the development of these topics in the scientific fields. She lacks that education that tells you the difference between a modus ponens and a modus tollens because you hardly ever find or do such a thing outside acedemic education.
Oh yes, I wrote that in an earlier post, coincidentally it got deleted. Interesting, isn’t it. Team Jolie or just some … .?
She simply can’t have sufficient knowledge as the latter requires a lot of time and she was busy both with her family and her acting career and her directing career. The latter two involve a lot of marketing work and convincing people to do that, too.
I would be pretty upset if I was someone with an actual degree in such studies and screwed out of a job because a celebrity decided this was her new passing hobby. So disappointed in colleges that do this. Charge an arm, a leg, and the rights to your first born for the average person to attend, just to get a degree so they *might* find a decent job in their field – but just hand out honorary degree to those who never finished school & make millions.
How did she screw any body out of a job when she helped create the department in the first place. Sometimes objectivity should trump dislike
Apparently there was need for such a department or do you suggest that the department has been solemnly created due to Jolie’s interference or to please her?
As for screwing somebody out of a job: apparently there was need for “field experience”. And they brought in Jolie instead of a better educated (academically) and more experienced academic. There are many retired ambassadors and charity workers in London who could deliver a lot lot more experience than Jolie.
Let’s be honest: Jolie’s whole field experience are a few trips a year which if you add the time together probably don’t amount to half a year of field work. There are people who have worked in these fields for years an Jolie simply can’t hold a candle to them. As for her speeches (UN and such) which doesn’t mean much – she never really put down the hard work and negotiated terms and conditions of the UN’s work. She never developed programs for the UN nor did she ever evaluate such programs as that does definitely include a lot of scientific theory and data and experience how to handle such stuff academically. She has none of that.
At best she read a few books and a few articles and some expertises on the topic. She never discussed these in an academic context with people who challenged or corrected her – or does anybody have any evidence for that? She never even participated in talk show discussions with other guest about that topic.
And all of a sudden the whole world believes that Jolie does not only deserve the job and title of a “visiting professor” but is also capable of holding such a position?
The LSE has embarassed itself by giving her such a title. I am still waiting to find out how much money exactly was donated to the LSE or who pulled some strings on Jolie’s behalf.
IT is not a JOB.. she is not hired by the University and not getting a salary. She is invited to talk about her experiences in the field for 15 years.. her work with the UNHCR and what she knows and has experienced in more than 40+ visits overseas.. So yes she is more than Qualified.
She hasn’t taken a position from anyone. This is no different than Professors inviting outside people to come to their class and talk about their experience. I would rather have someone that has actually been to the places I am learning about and has actually seen what is happening in the world. You can research something all you want. But to actually have been there is a wealth of knowledge everyone needs. It is going to be interesting to read the comments today.
Being an Actor doesn’t negate you from being other things and knowing about a wide range of topics. Why people think just because you are an actor you can’t be or do anything else.
Then she shouldn’t be called a professor. That’s a guest lecturer, as someone else mentioned above, and it is a more appropriate term. I don’t think anyone would have an issue with that. But those of us that put the time, money and labor into achieving higher degrees do have a problem with the unqualified taking on the title of professor.
Then put negative response to the school that issued the release. NOT her.
I haven’t slammed her in any of my comments.
See Sixer’s clarification of the term above.
I did see it and I have zero problems with her role. What I take issue with is commenters who believe that academics don’t have actual experience in their field. This is their life’s work and I don’t know a single person with a doctorate in their field who is simply an armchair academic.
I am trying to understand your sensitivity to something that Jolie has helped funded and founded as she has done so many times in the past. She is not on the faculty. If she is not on the faculty, how is this bothering you? Her expertise will be as asset to the course because her experience is very much related to the subject AND she has a lot of experience.
Quite frankly I do not think there is any other celebrity/actress that has visited and worked on conflict resolution in 33 countries and has the same influential that Jolie has.
Perhaps I missed it, but I did not read any post dismissing the value of academic preparedness for field work, or the required length of study required by academia to be legit in the field. I think you need both. However Jolie’s body of work is quite substantial and more than adequate for her to speak on matters with which she is very familiar. She already has been speaking for some time; now, she will be speaking in front of graduate students about her work.
All of us can learn from this woman’s body of field knowledge.
Josephina I think perhaps you should look through all of my posts. I have no issues with AJ being a guest lecturer, which is essentially her position. There are differences between US and UK terminology and that’s where the problem was for some of us and it was quickly sorted out. I DO take issue with people trying to praise AJ by tearing down what academics bring to their discipline and pretending that academics have no field work. Please look through my posts.
+1
She’s as qualified to lead this course. I think it will be good for her to learn from students too. No shade. I’ve taught a bit too and it’s fantastic to feel in an environment where students can challenge you as you can others. The topic of ‘women, peace and security’ is fairly broad and as a humanitarian, public speaker and generally on of the most famous actors in the world she knows all about messaging and communication.
Wish she also do a big budget action flick like Pitt though. I could see her as acting lead in a World War Zish blockbuster etc.
She actually said on her statement that she will bring what she learned in the field her work with governments & UN & that she is looking forwards to learn from student
Totally agree Lisa2
People don’t read the full article and only reads the title these days.
which is why some of the comments sound so childish and petty. She is teaching a course based on a program she and Hague started in the UK.
That is what gets me, lisa2. The program only exists because of her high profile.
But they are Ph.D. Holders and that’s all that matter
I think this is terrific. Always working to improve herself and such a great honor. Haters will always find a reason to find something wrong with anything Angelina does. But she is smart, strong and dedicated and well deserving of this honor. Wish I could take her course. She has so much experience dealing with women in conflict issues.
how much is the course there? is one year master the norm in UK, or is it only that she’s contracted for one year?
i think because the course is new, they can use celebrity power to drive up admissions. as long as good deserving students are getting in and get good education (and not a naff one–i still like this word btw) and value for money, then… you go get them coins, i guess.
About £12k. Sometimes you can get bursaries.
Only 12K? Huh. It puts in perspective the fat hog American top tier universities are cutting with their grad programs, especially MBAs.
pleasantly surprised— that ain’t so bad at all!! and only 1 year?
and for an institution like LSE, too!
that’s really an incentive for learning. at least for me.
now i really want to go back to studying. (though i’ll still be a wreck come finals day or thesis night or something along that line).
That sounds extremely high to me.
And will only get higher, Locke. That’s £12k for a one-year taught masters.
Deb – it would be higher for a non-UK student, I think. We’ve recently extended the student loan scheme to post-grad, so I think from next year onwards, you could put about £10k of that onto a student loan account, which you pay back like a graduate tax, at a percentage of your income over a set floor. If you don’t earn, you don’t pay back.
It’s very high. My bachelor made me broke and I had a grant + not so high tuition fees!
The fees in the UK are absurd in comparison to any other European institute. Amsterdam is 2k for a 1-year Masters in Gender studies and for non-EU students as ‘high’ as 7k which is doable. My ass didn’t stay put in the UK, that’s for sure.
Masters courses are always one year unless you take them part-time (mine was two years part time). Tuition fees in the UK are standardised (well, at undergrad level they are, grad is more complex) and much more affordable than in the USA, although of course universities were all entirely free until not very long ago!
However tuition fees are far more expensive if you’re a foreign student studying in the UK. For example, to do a PhD at LSE currently costs about 4k a year if you’re a ‘home’ (ie British) student. But something like 16k a year if you’re foreign!
after reading the comments here and doing whatever limited googling i can do on my crappy phone… 12k for a masters degree that finishes after 1 year is rather steep in EU terms, but compared to the US is quite cheap. 12k is like 1 semester in a two year standard course… and even more sometimes 🙁
most need 2 full time jobs on top of full time post grad just so no one falls into a deeper debt (ie pay off undergrad debt, keep further debtors at bay). at mortgage, insurance, and shenanigans…
i am very impressed with Continental Europe now. and now i want to go to either Sweden (to stalk Crown Princess Victoria) or Finland (always one of my fairy tale places next to Bhutan and Kathmandu).
but i really appreciate affordable education, especially in the higher tiers do. and also healthcare… a whole ‘nother can of worms.
also, i have been reading about Finland’s unique education system. a country of high performing community colleges with well trained professors…
I don’t know how people can see her as not being qualified to contribute to this course. She’s been to war zones and refugee camps and so has probably spoken to hundreds if not thousands of woman about their experiences of war. Surely those personal experiences and the knowledge that she has gained on the ground makes her perfectly qualified to carry out this job.
Why not bring women frome these areas then? I know many women with PhDs in sociology, psychology, economics who have lived trough the wars in Croatia and Bosnia. Some of them have degrees from the UK. This is a publicity stunt.
I so agree with you. This is a slap in the face for educated women from actual war zones.
Maybe they bring these women but you don’t hear on the news, be objective
Locke Lamora, she actually spoke for these women from Croatia and Bosnia, formed an organization for women in conflicts and was one of the founders of this program at LSE. I am sure there are those PhDs in sociology and psihology (iz tih krajeva) who are talking and lecturing in universities around the world, I am always surprised about your comments about Jolie, because she actually cares about Bosnia and Croatia and people there, unlike 99% of the people that are discused here, on Celebitchy, who don’t know and don’t care.
I know about her efforts in Bosnia ( not so much in Croatia, at least I’m not aware of them). I don’t really see how that should translate to a teaching position at an university ( I now realise I have misinterpreted the article, considering a guest lecturerer and a visiting professor are complety different things in my country, so I was wrong).
I am usually however, skeptical of celebrities ( or foreign politicians) dealing with the situation in the Balkans because usually they don’t do too much good, but get a lot of publicity. For centuries, we’ve been left alone to deal with everything that came our way ( most of the time it wasn’t our fault) , without much help from the rest of Europe, so these kind of things get frustrating easily.
Angelina is one of the rare celebrities who actually seems to do good work.
No one who puts themselves in danger to help others, for free, is doing it as a publicity stunt. This is not a photo-op.
Keep telling yourself that, Josephina… Sooner or later you will convince yourself it is NOT one big publicity stunt.
Late to this debate, but I will simply add that travelling to war zones and speaking to refugees, while admirable, do not necessarily render her qualified to guest lecture about extremely complex topics such as sexual violence as a weapon of war, international/interregional/internal security cooperation, and expanding women’s rights and political power around the globe.
One need only look to her public statements about the Syrian refugee crisis for proof. Angelina has repeatedly taken world leaders to task for not doing enough to help Syrian refugees, but anyone who has a background in international human rights law recognizes that she does not properly differentiate between displaced victims of war, economic migrants, and true refugees/asylees. To her, any Syrian who has fled the war zone or suffered in some way as a result of the conflict is a refugee and deserving of UN protection and resettlement. Similarly, any displaced person – whether internally in their home countries or externally in a refugee camp or safe third country – is also a refugee.
Yet the reality is that very few of the Syrians who have fled to Turkey, Greece, and other countries truly meet the international law definition of “refugee,” which is “any person outside of his or her country of nationality (or in the case of a person having no nationality, his or her last habitual residence) who, because of a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion is unable or unwilling to return to that country and is unable or unwilling to avail him- or herself of the protection of that country.” Merely because a country is experiencing civil unrest or political or social upheaval does not mean its citizens automatically have refugee claims. People who seek to enter other countries for better educational and economic opportunities or a safer, more stable living environment are not refugees either. SImply because a person is housed in a refugee camp or other temporary living environment does not make him or her eligible for international protection.
I think Angelina Jolie does an excellent job as a UNHCR celebrity ambassador. I have no doubt that she has worked very hard to educate herself about a variety of international issues. But she still has a long way to go to be considered an expert in the topics about which she seems to care.
^^^THIS! +1000! A very good summation, BearcatLawyer.
Jolie took the time to specifically EXPLAIN the difference between refugee, migrant workers and displaced victims very recently. She also gave examples as you have. Perhaps you missed it.
Jolie is an activist who started off as a UNHCR ambassador, and has branched off into an activist. She has funded and created programs, foundations aimed at providing relief, access, resources and education. She also supports existing projects and programs as well. So no, she doesn’t just sit and take notes and then turn it in as if it just homework.
Your attempt to discredit a woman who has clout and already completed a number of projects OUTSIDE of the requisites as a UNHCR Ambassador is silly and untruthful. BTW, she has been moved to Special Envoy for quite some time now. She is smart enough to allow her celebrity status to bring a spotlight to international human conflicts where the average hard-working academic field staff are not able to attract attention or motivate interest from the international community. She is effective and a documented risk-taker.
Her body of work only adds to bring attention and subsequent change on how the global community can do a better job at handling the various human conflicts. There are other celebrities that try to make a difference as well but they simply have not accomplished what Jolie has accomplished.
I think that she knows very well that her usefulness for the UN really begins and ends with “bringing awareness”, something that equates to increased donations which is what allows the UNHCR to function. I also very much doubt that she herself would consider her experience anywhere near to being on par with the people who spend their whole lives doing nothing but this.
My take on her guest speaker, one time lecture spot is that this is exactly the same thing. This is a cause that she’s implicated herself in and perhaps this particular program may turn out dedicated humanitarians which I suspect is what she is hoping. Being contractually obliged to give ONE lecture is another way of using her celebrity in the hopes of drawing people into this program, enough of them that it will be renewed and she’s probably also fully aware of this as well. Sort of like those political dinners where you pay X amount to rub elbows with famous people.
@Josephina, oh, I heard her recent BBC speech. But she routinely cites anecdotal examples of people who are not true refugees/asylees when discussing the global refugee crisis.
I am not denying that she has not done excellent fundraising for and publicizing of the hard work of UNHCR and similar organizations. I never said she was not smart, and in fact I said she had worked very hard to educate herself on important issues. But I still fail to see how she is even remotely qualified to teach or advise others about, say, the logistics of avoiding ISIS attacks to deploy humanitarian relief to internally displaced persons in Syria or Iraq or enacting and/or overhauling laws governing sexual violence against women and children.
@Josephina: I don’t understand how you come up with the idea of an attempt to ‘discredit’ her. She will be there to bring more awareness to the refugee crisis/subject, and to the work of the UNHCR- no more, no less. Would I call her “visiting professor”? No, because it implies a qualification she simply doesn’t have. “Guest speaker”- what’s wrong with that?
I think it would have been better if her role had been titled slightly differently, perhaps “visiting lecturer” rather than a “visiting professor”. She’s not a professor, but I think she does have experiences she could lecture on.
I completely agree! She does have a lot of experience on the topic, but the title should be visiting speaker/ guest speaker.
The program gets to choose what titles they give this position. They choose to call it visiting professor.
Everyone who guest lectures at LSE gets the same title. There are seriously hundreds of “Guest Professors” who don’t have an academic background. She’s not receiving any kind of special treatment.
Personally I’d rather see someone like AJ being a guest professor than some pig ignorant Tory politician.
Angie also co-wrote and directed a film called First They Killed My Father in Cambodia for a few months- there are lots of pictures of her, Brad & the kids having fun there, too- so she has done some recent film work. The best, most memorable professors in my masters program were adjuncts who had real world experience, so I’m sure Angie will be a hit.
I think most of you misunderstand why she is doing this, first she is bringing attention to the course & subject & she had the experience & expertise of the subject particularly on the field she spent 15 years championed this cause she knows what she is doing & she is not going to get pay & if you read the statement she will be visiting once a year so she is not taking the place of qualify professor & like the university said there are plenty of no academic people do visiting professors but have the expertise of some subjects she is not different of this people
Visiting professors should be academics: They should have advanced degrees as well as experience. She is a guest speaker, nothing more.
She is hardly an intellectual lightweight. I don’t know if you are aware of it but some years ago Angie was admitted into the Council on Foreign Relations where membership is by invitation only. If you google the member list of the CFR you will see she’s in rather impressive company. She is able to speak intelligently on a number of subjects related to current events. If you have a problem with her academic title, or her credentials, don’t throw the shade on her, blame the school that hired her.
You don’t get to decide for LSE since that’s the name they give all their non academic visiting lecturers, so Jolie gets to be called a visiting professor , tehee.
I actually get a chuckle out of that
Visiting professor in the UK is not the same as vsiting Professor in the USA, it’s a title given in the UK to anyone giving lectures, it’s a language problem, read Sixer’s explaination upthread please.
So I have a Masters degree and I am currently pursuing a PhD and I can tell you that a seance with a visiting professor is 100 times more interesting than the regular prof. Simply because on specific subject you need a professional with years of experience that in 3 hours could give you much more than a PhD professor that speaks from a solely theoretical point of view.
I am sure that few hours with AJ speaking from 12 years experience and fields she visited are very beneficial for the students. And complementary to the courses of a professor in feminism or in International Relations.
The REAL issue is the shock from uninformed persons not knowing how extensive her body of work actually is. So they are protesting the use of the word “professor” or arguing that this is a publicity stunt.
This latest endeavor fits in nicely with her knowledge of the subject matter.
So sick of the snobbery from academics. I would take someone with life experience everytime than someone who has a degree. Whether u think Jolie is qualified or not,LSE obviously think she is capable enough so take it up with them. I have problem with my peers because I have basic education but street smarts & lots of life experiences but they feel their opinion is more important than mine.
How much time has she spent on the ground doing actual,work? You can’t compare her to a worker who has spent years on the ground.
She has spent an enormous amount of time on the ground, even the aid workers who are there every day, have said this. She has most likely spent more time on the ground doing actual work than any other celeb in history.
For someone who just received my PhD diploma yesterday, this is a slap in the face. It is so difficult to get a Professor position these days and , in many fields, you need not only a PhD but 1 or 2 postdocs. She could be a guest speaker on the topic, no problem. But a Visiting Professor?! What are her qualifications?! Does she do research? Ok…
Congratulations on your diploma.
Thanks, Jegede! 🙂
How exciting! Way to go, Miss M!
Thanks, Kitten! It is good to be back in Boston and the weather was terrific yesterday!!! 🙂
Yesterday was a 10 for sure. Are you staying here?
Congratulations! And best of luck in your job search. I know it’s tough.
Thank you, Paleokifaru! I did get a job! 🙂
How wonderful! Double congratulations! Is it a postdoc, teaching or in the private sector?
It’s a postdoc which will strengthen my research skills to transition to industry. 🙂
That’s so great! Research postdocs offer a lot of freedom.
Congrats Miss M! That is quite an achievement!
Thank you, Mia girl! Thanks for sharing the importance of experience in your career. I really dislike threads where people place academics v experience.
@tracking: thank you! 😊 For some reason i cannot reply to your comment.
Brava, Miss M! And all best wishes for success in your new position!
Thank you, tracking! 😀
A PhD and Diploma are two different things. A Diploma is an entry level or trade certificate. PhD is a degree. A Diploma is not a degree. As for LSE, the program was created by Angelina and others. It is HER program! So she/they can call her what they want. Also, ALL guest speakers there are called the same thing. This is simply overblown hysteria over nothing.
@Gummi: i was awarded my PhD degree after my PhD defense back in January. i received my PhD diploma on commencement day, which was this week. Some schools mail your diploma to tou or they give you on the day you walk.
Guys, guys come on now. UCLA made James Franco a professor. I’ll take Jolie any day of the week. 😉
JF actually has a BA and he was enrolled on a PhD program…
Exactly! Why are these people losing their minds over this? The article clearly states what she will be doing: guest lectures, workshops, etc.
These people think she’s teaching quantam physics or grading papers.
LOL. This is funny to me because I had a job as an intern for quantum mechanics.
But what is her practical experience? Flying in for a day, being briefed by field workers, having publicity shots taken and then flying out? How is this experience relevant to anyone at LSE? It may be relevant to a hollywood celeb who wants to whitewash her image though.
Fwiw, I’m a graduate of the top-ranked IR school in the States, and I’d be pissed if some celebutante came to lecture me.
But it’s part of the general celebufication of American culture. First exhibit: PRESIDENT DRUMPF.
Seriously.. I feel the opposite. I would rather have someone that has actually had an experience talk to me than a person whose only experience is from a book.
Angelina has practical hands-on experience working on the ground in the field, so please don’t dismiss her as just a celebrity. And your comment about ‘whitewash her image’ ? What image does she have, to whitewash? She’s never denied anything about her past, she seems proud of it, and she has never apologized for any of it. So what are you talking about? She has been doing humanitarian work for 13 years!! I think any fair-minded and rational person would begrudgingly acknowledge that she is genuine, after all this time. After 13 years, the arguments about image have well and truly run out of puff and become null and void.
Good God. The woman is going to be speaking about her 15 years of experience of visiting war zones and refugee camps. But by the hostility of some of the comments you would think that she’d killed somebody’s dog.
From what I can see some of this hostility appears to be based solely on personal animus towards Angelina Jolie as an individual.
I also hate the fact that some posters feel the needs to minimise and belittle the work that Jolie does just to get their point across.
Thank you for resonably summarizing what I am thinking too. I should not be surprised that she would be belittled and her work minimized – again.
No one here said – Good that she is talking about women in conflict and giving them voice and platform, that she is putting out that hard and uncomfortable topic out – she has platform that no Ph.D. can give you and she is using it!
That would be admitting, that, omg, she is doing something right! That, of, course, can’t be. So, she is just doing this to help her image. 🙁
That is exactly what it is. And of course everyone is “Offended” because they have a “degree” and she has the nerve to share her life experiences with students.. For shame.. for shame.
And that she’s doing it for a Masters program that was founded in large part because of her high-profile and influence. How dare she? Get the pitchforks.
Exactly. At my university (UK), we had a guest lecturer (Tommy Whitelaw) to speak about dementia only because he looked after his mother who had dementia for 5 years before she died. He is now expert and gets invited to a lot of universities.
So I don’t understand why people are belittling Angelina for doing the same.
I think if they had called her a “guest lecturer” the reaction would have been far different than to “visiting professor.”
Nah, Jayna. They’d just squabble over the meaning of the word ‘lecturer’. It wouldn’t matter to those who have preconceived opinions about her. Nothing would. People are too far gone in their prejudice that they seek to look for things to justify their opinions, as we can see here, splitting hairs over ‘Professor’. They would also split hairs over what a ‘lecturer’ is, the qualifications for a lecturer as opposed to a ‘guest speaker’, and probably the definition of ‘visiting’.
@Gummi, the distinctions may not mean much to you, but for those of us who’ve devoted our professional lives to academia, the titles mean a lot. I like AJ and have no objection to her taking on this role at LSE, but the title that LSE uses for her position is an unusual one in the context of higher education. I can see why people outside of academia don’t see why titles should matter, but they do matter to those of us inside it.
Agreed. I will NEVER understand the level of vitriolic hatred some have for this woman. Like you said, it’s like she killed someone’s dog or roasted a baby in public. I don’t get the dislike or hatred, I just don’t. I just don’t get it. She’s harmless. She doesn’t hurt anyone, all she does is good. She’s never hurt anyone. She’s never been on drink driving charges. She’s never assaulted anyone at a nightclub. Murdered, or raped, or abused anyone . Urinated in public. I mean, what the fuq has she ever done?!!? She is a person who obeys the laws and has never caused a public scene or a nuisance. I honestly don’t get it. It doesn’t make her perfect, but none of us are. It also doesn’t make her a demon sent from hell either.
I think with this particular issue vis her humanitarian work, people CANNOT separate the actress from the humanitarian. They don’t see her as a humanitarian, they see her as a celeb, playing at being a humanitarian. Which is unfair, considering 13 years is a long time, she has the longevity, she has nothing to prove there. I see her primarily as a humanitarian, and her acting as a side issue. But all her detractors see is a celeb playing at being a humanitarian. They cannot, or will not, separate her. They are stuck on her being an actress, a celeb, and that’s all they see. They don’t see a humanitarian, perhaps because their narrow lens stops them. They only see a Hollywood celebrity. It doesn’t matter what she does, it doesn’t matter if she ever does go to school and gets a PhD, to some she will always be ‘that Hollywood actress’, that celeb. People judge her on her prior occupation. Not on her worth or value as a humanitarian on it’s own, at that’s the shame. She is a humanitarian first and foremost. And it’s time people saw that, and forgot about her previous occupation.
Weird that people with their PHD’S can’t read what was actually put out by the spokesman. Instantly jump to conclusions and noses put out of joint saying how dare this “actress” be a part of this without the right qualifications. She will be a speaker & partake in workshops once a year so hardly taking anything away from someone else. She is not even described as academic but a visitor yet plenty of people threw their toys out of their prams.
Visiting Professor means someone with academic training and research experience.
If they had announced she would be a guest lecture, nobody would criticize the announcement, as she does have experience in the topic.
From the LSE site:
“The title of Visiting Professor in Practice on persons who have appropriate distinction within their area of (non-academic) practice. It includes individuals who have achieved prominence in public service, or who have attained distinction in their profession and through their practical experience. Visiting Professors in the Centre for Women, Peace and Security participate in the educational activities of the Centre. Visiting Professorships in the Centre for Women, Peace and Security are unpaid.”
You need to do more research Miss M!
@MLL: keep your passive-aggressive to yourself! Lol
I am in a gossip blog solely commenting on what it’s been written here and the way her role was described meant more than actually is…I just saw that Sixer who is British posted the explanation what it means in The UK. In the USA, where I live, a visiting professor has academic credentials + experience.
Thanks to Sixer for clarifying this!
* at LSE*
Weird that you had to make this about PhDs vs others.
For the record, I EQUALLY respect experience and education. In my mind (a mind, by the way, that does not have a formal degree but has made my way based on TONS of experience), one is not better than the other. And the two combined are a force.
Anyway, me and my experienced, non-PhD mind read what was posted in this article and based on this article and the title given to her of Visiting Professor, I don’t think it was wrong of some folks to draw the conclusion that this was more than a once a year lecture. Here is an expert from an article posted above:
“Angelina Jolie Pitt is taking her passion for women’s rights and gender equality to the classroom. The actress, 40, is set to join the London School of Economics as a visiting professor for the new masters course on women, peace and security for the 2016-2017 school year. As a visiting professor, Jolie Pitt will deliver guest lectures, participate in workshop and public events, and continue research on projects.
“I am very encouraged by the creation of this master’s programme. I hope other academic institutions will follow this example, as it is vital that we broaden the discussion on how to advance women’s rights and end impunity for crimes that disproportionately affect women, such as sexual violence in conflict,” Jolie Pitt said in a statement. “I am looking forward to teaching and to learning from the students as well as to sharing my own experiences of working alongside governments and the United Nations.”
There is no link I can find in the article to get more info from a spokesperson or LSE. If you are a fan of gossip and are just reading THIS article we are commenting on then inferring this position is something more is fair. Jolie herself says she looks forward to “teaching”.
I think if she can draw attention to the value of programmes like this at Universities across the world, that is a great thing. I am sure she has very valuable stories to tell and as an actress, can also deliver those stories and experiences in ways that can really make an impression on students.
But I don’t think everyone is a hater because they make valid points about how hard it is to be a professor and whether Jolie is qualified for the “title” they gave her.
The problem I see is that LSE should have given her the more appropriate title so she wouldn’t draw the fire that she is. For me, that is where the problem lies.
As stated elsewhere on this thread, they give all people in this position the same title. It isn’t special treatment for her.
Yeah, I was not implying they gave her special treatment. Only that she is almost singular in her celebrity, international recognition and appeal, so in giving her the title that has “professor” in it, she is going to get some negative reactions.
I understand based on what Sixer and others have brought into the comments that she is more like a visiting lecturer which most (with the exception of folks who just don’t like her) would not have reacted so negatively to. My point is that at first glance and based on the article, this was not clear.
The focus was on the intentions of Jolie’s current strategy to help women in conflict war-torn areas… how her journey, filled with accomplishments, has recently led her to help fund and create an innovative program for graduate students, and that she will participate in teaching.
That some individuals flogged the hell out of the word “professor” only to find that it is a NON-ISSUE is sad. This newly created did not create a new STANDARD for on-boarding professors by an elimination of academic requirements. One of the posters got into her feelings about her PhD/Diploma, feeling that her long road to the end of her requisite academic work was somehow diminished by the announcement of Jolie’s new lecturer position.
I was stunned that she felt slighted.
My Grandmother used to say that the best University is . The University of Life.
@ANA Exactly.
@Miss M I think they should change her job description. Unfair all the hate is directed at her & belittling her efforts when it is they who put out the title of professor yet Jolie as always receives all the criticism.
@Sofie: Sixer, clarified what it means Visiting Professor in Practice at LSE which is a guest speaker. It makes perfect sense now! If the title meant exactly what it means here, I would discredit the program a bit… I have had wonderful guest speakers (with and without academic credentials), but they were guest speakers invited by the Professor teaching the topic.
It is pathetic to see people so pressed & offended! Some just can’t stand AJ getting all this good press & doing good things with her time.
Even if they were not calling get professor I am sure there would be something else to complain about.
I am sure if M Streep was getting this no one would be acting all fake offended.
True.
People the visiting professor is JUST ONCE A YEAR so stop losing your mind over this she just bringing her experience & unpaid
Let’s not forget the woman is busy with 6 children, directing, actress & humanitarian but when she get a free time she is trying to promote women right so she willing to bring her experience to student & lets not forget she doesn’t has to do this after all she is an A lister & spent her time shopping & be vein as any Hollywood A listers but she wants to help & promote women right & for that I say bravo for using her platform to help the voiceless
So much foaming at the mouth over Angelina being a guest lecturer here.
Yep… but did you expect it to be anything else
I love her dress.
Seems like everyone is talking about her qualifications for a job without bothering stop and think about what the job actually entails. The end goal of the masters degree isn’t to learn about refugees, it’s about policy-setting.
It is ridiculously unfair to criticise her for not having a background in X or Y when that’s not the skill-set that is required. Being a refugee or an aid-worker gives you a deep understanding of the refugee plight, but it doesn’t give you a broad understanding of the issues and how to fix them.
Angelina will be lecturing (professing) about what it’s like to work with the UN and governments while advocating for refugees and women’s rights issues. Her co-workers are mostly lawyers who specialise in human-rights, though there’s a politician a social scientist and a couple of researchers. Angelina’s credentials are on par with her colleagues.
LSE is my university! Angie and I are going to be co-workers! Except not really, because she’s doing guest lectures (exactly the same as Malala has done), not being any kind of active professor or tutor. She is also not being paid for any of this.
This is a slap to highly qualified people who would like her job. This is a slap to those who are told to go to college, why? Angie didn’t have to. I do not understand rewarding lack of a degree because she may have comparable experience. Real life is not likethat. My working 10 years as a teacher does not pay as a teacher unless I hold a teaching certification.
Are you equally as outraged when all universities give out honorary degrees to non-students, those who have not completed any curricula??
Wow, the judgment. The title itself says it is a non-academic position, she’s nothing more than a guest speaker with experience. It doesn’t undermine the academic experience of academic professors. It’s quite incredulous that people are also questioning her level of experience. She has spent at least ten years on her philanthropic work. As for how immersed she is, nobody can judge from mere pictures. Also, seeing how private she can be, how do we even know how much time she actually spends on the field? Some even say there are actual field workers who should be more qualified. This contribution from her is not meant to undermine their work! She supports them and in fact conceiving this programme might be another avenue for these passionate people to be professors and visiting professors. It’s not a competition. Can I remind all here that she is working to further womens’ rights and equality? She is not just some celeb throwing money (which is still something good). She is a celeb who could be like any celeb just chilling by the beach in Europe and visiting glamorous film festivals. If I were a celeb, I’m not even sure if I would have the motivation to do what she’s doing. So…I’m sorry but I’m just going to applaud her. Again, this is not meant to say she is a saint or she’s doing the most! She’s not and there are numerous normal folks in the field and / or with the academic knowledge who should also be applauded. But she’s doing something I’m not doing. As for the so called privilege that she has had; being able to fly around in her 20s doing philanthropic work compared to people who are struggling with school, work and family, are you kidding me? She had the means to and guess what, she actually translated that means into giving visibility to a cause which she DID NOT have to in the first place. When has Angelina ever sounded arrogant about her work?
“she is working to further womens’ rights and equality? ”
This statement bears repeating because a lot of people seems to really be missing the point here.
But she is being called a visiting professor who cares about furthering women’s right and equality, get with the program.
I rest my case.
Add me to the list of those who think that Angie’s appointment is inappropriate. The point of learning/studying thru an academic institution of higher learning is that one receives a vetted program of foundation knowledge by those who have also been thru such programs.The foundation knowledge in a particular area is analogous to understanding the basic premises of a field…one has to understand premises in order to form correct conclusions. Although I admire Angie’s work, I took issues with her recent speech about the refugee situation because she/it omitted some causal factors. To me, this comes from folks who do not speak from the rigor of academic knowledge of a topic. Folks like her have an important role, but it is not in the academic milieu IMO.
Just to add to my post William Hague, on the other hand, does have the academic bona fides:
“Hague read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Magdalen College, Oxford, graduating with first-class honours.”
That’s an undergraduate degree. He has an MBA from INSEAD as well. He’s as qualified as she is to be a “Visiting Professor in Practice,” but neither one is qualified to be an actual academic (not that it matters in this case).
@Tina:
My point is that Hague has some academic training in the subject matter. And, economics, one of his fields of study, is definitely part of understanding and conceptualizing the migrant/refugee issue vs a vs the responses/positions of various countries in the EU. Training in philosophy,his other area of study, is extremely beneficial in developing critical thinking skills and proper reasoning. Any subject can benefit from a foundation of training in philosophy. IMO, Angie and Mr. Hague are in two different categories.
AND Angelina Jolie has Hague’s full support and blessing on this new position. He sees her as his colleague on the subject matter and has stated this on several occasions.
He works alongside her and respects her knowledge. He is aware of her work. And he is from academia. And so is Bill and Hillary Clinton, President Obama,… they’re also trained lawyers (academia) who respect her work as well.
So I respect the insiders’ point of view who have actually worked with Jolie and can speak about her depth of knowledge.
Professional degrees like the MBA are not the same as academic degrees like a PhD. The JD (the degree held by President Obama and the Clintons) is unusual because it is a professional degree and the majority of JD holders go into professional practice (or at least, they used to) but in the US, law professors often have JDs rather than PhDs. This is unusual, because in most other countries, you need a PhD to become a law professor.
The long and the short of it is that Hague and Jolie are qualified to be guest lecturers/visiting professors in practice/whatever you want to call it, but they are not qualified to be full time faculty.
Agreed 100%.
And William Hague is as shady as all out so it’ll be interesting how this project pans out.
I think some people, including myself, are turned off Angelina because some of her fans are so fanatical about anyone voicing any criticism of her. She’s not a saint, she doesn’t walk on water, and she’s not changing the world. She may be trying too but she’s not.
So you are turned off by her yet you continue to read articles about her?
OK
My point has clearly been made.
You and everyone else who have posted negative comments about this particular article are wrong and clearly did not read the post.
Why are you blaming her fans for your (you and the other negative nellies) wrongness? No one is saying that she can walk on water or is saintly. But to dismiss her and her work is elitist and petty.
She is actually helping to make the world better with her advocacy. And hopefully people who take this are a part of this series will be able to go on and improve upon what she and others have accomplished.
I clearly stated “some” of her fans and that she IS trying to accomplish good. I just don’t think she has much effect. And you are proving my point.
You are turned of the work she is doing because of her fans? Ok
I know what you mean. They are so defensive, it’s weird. It really upsets her fans when she gets even the tiniest bit of negativity, and nobody is actually criticising her, they’re just questioning whether she’s deserving of a title that suggests a level of education she doesn’t have.
It’s clearly an ego bath, and a misstep for all involved.
But unless you think she’s the future president of America, the most gifted/greatest actress of all time, People magazine’s ‘real’ Most Beautiful, and now a Professor qualified to teach/lecture a Masters programme based on a high school education and her years ‘in the field’, then you’re some sort of jealous hater.
She co-founded the Masters program. She helps fund it. She’s giving guest lectures with the same title all the other guest lecturers get. The outrage over her doing this just doesn’t make sense, whether a person is a fan of hers or not.
So what? Nobody cares. Your opinions won’t change her fans, bloop.
All I care about is when she’s gonna dump Pittstain
Constructive criticism is always refreshing to hear.
Slander, dismissal/discredit someone’s accomplishments usually will get challenged.
…blah, blah, blah to all of the above. Okay she is rich, she is stunning, she is intelligent but not “educated” as you say, but think of it this way, she is opening up doors for other women, to walk through and to put some sunlight on dark issues for women in conflict zones and war. Gritty stuff.
I admire her passion, her commitment to these critical topics. I give her respect for her work.
All the proclaimed feminists that post here, yet none has spoken out on the positive aspect of getting this course thought at LSE, we are caught up with titles and busy being offended by it. We have an opportunity to have a highly qualified woman president and what I hear from women here is ‘she is not the right woman’. We have been saddled with all kinds of unqualified men for centuries but we must have the perfect woman president, but yet, we are all self proclaimed feminists.
So supportive NOT.. but hey Women for other Women.
except if the woman is Angelina Jolie Pitt.. right.
** but the stance will be they would be all for a woman that is “educated”.. seriously how petty do these comments sound. But hey they are Girls Girls..
My favorite news anchor Peter Jennings of ABC did not have a college degree but he was one of the best. I am an advocate of college degree but also acknowledge that some life experiences trump the classroom learning.
I see a lot of people on their high horse about their qualifications and trying to minimize and negate Jolie’s 12 years of field experience. I remember a few years ago when she mentioned she was taking classes on international law, I wish she will update on that. The truth is that Jolie can find cure for cancer and some will be bent out of shape because she did study in that field and is not a pharmacist so how dare she have the temerity to come up with a cure.
I admire her and will take her brand of feminism any day over the girls girls
Peter Jennings was a white male, different standards,and that was 40 years ago. Many journalist now have ivy league degrees,but yes if you said she was a journalist that would be more fitting, than a professor.
If you don’t support every single woman on the planet you’re not a feminist? Using that logic means that all women should have supported Sarah Palin.
And Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly and Monica Crowley
LOL
You are reaching comparing either Hillary or Jolie to Ann Coulter. The difference is the former work towards uplifting women while coulter and co are just nasty human beings but don’t let that get in your way though
Exactly.
I was defending the title (non-American, I don’t have the same assumptions about what “visiting professor” means). But to defend Angelina just because she’s a woman? No, I don’t like that idea at all. Fine in this case, but you’d have to extend it to all women and … yeah … nope.
To be completely honest, I’m side-eyeing the concept behind the centre. I’m not convinced that academia is the right setting. You don’t need a degree to understand that women are treated horrifically during conflicts, and that we need to fix it. But fixing it is such a complex multidisciplinary, international problem that I don’t think it can be taught. I’d be totally behind a centre that did one-off seminars and reached a large number of students across a wide range of disciplines, but I’m not sure about focusing on a handful of students for an entire year … is that needed? Since I don’t know much about the course, I haven’t made up my mind.
@Itsnotthatserious – it might be because of comments like this lisa2 says:
May 24, 2016 at 10:30 am
So supportive NOT.. but hey Women for other Women.
except if the woman is Angelina Jolie Pitt.. right.
I don’t really see a feminist issue here and the only people who were pitting anyone against AJ were folks who wanted to build her up by trying to discredit people educated in their field. Personally, I found that unnecessary and unfair. AJ is doing a great job with what she’s doing and raising awareness. Just say that instead of attacking academics and pretending they don’t have experience, you know? That’s what I find off putting in these comments.
There is no need to build Angelina up online because she is who she is in the realWorld!!!
#TeamJoliedumpBradNow
I’am in love with this comment.
These are the “girl’s girls” that Chelsea Handler so handsomely defined in an earlier post.
Angelina is working on obtaining women’s rights access for women that are denied basic human rights.
The girl’s girls just wanna stay self self-absorbed and think about only their inner circle of friends.
Pls who are they to say she quailifed or not b/c they read her in gossip sites and have their agenda. She is actress but she has enough years of experience to teach and they believed so too for letting her. So Congrats good move and the naysayers just get over it. Earn educate yourself you may can too with the things you spent your time about and developed knowledge. K.
Put it this way. The world is a complete mess. Educated people with degrees haven’t exactly gotten far in solving it’s bigger issues. In fact all educated government officials are partly responsible for the mess. My point is she is an activist trying to further the discussion of finding solutions of a bigger issue so what’s the harm in her partaking in this discussion.
Bitch, puhleez!
A. Stop taking yourself so seriously (you’re an ACTRESS)
B. Stop the bougie starvation.
So when my professor invited homeless people to come and talk that was inappropriate. Or when others working in Social Services for children spoke and did workshops that was inappropriate; because none of them were Professors. Professors for the most part that don’t actually go to some of the places they teach about.
some of you really need to step back and get a grip. You are acting like Angelina took someone’s job or kept someone out of a course.
Sad when a woman can’t be celebrated or applauded for doing something good. And when the ugly attacks come from other women. No wonder women can’t move forward.. it is not just Men putting up road blocks. Never has been.
Did your professor call the homeless people ‘visiting professors’? Unless he did, it’s not the same at all. If she’d been called a guest lecturer, there’d be no problem.
‘some of you really need to step back and get a grip.’ You might want to take your own advice, you’ve posted like a dozen times as if defending her was your full time job.
for some, I think it is.
But that’s a terminology difference between the US and the UK. She’s a guest lecturer–or what she would be if this was a US class. I doubt she will lecture more than two or three times a year, if that. No one’s calling her a professor who has a PhD, etc.
Excellent, well deserved and will be an asset to any student with the opportunity to learn from her and share with her.
A comparative example to share of where I’m coming from; also see Stanford MedX, Harvard, and MIT for Hacking Health etc. Anyhow, here’s my two cents…
Physicians and actually medicine in entirety today value patients as partners. Few doctors are so far up their own butts with pretension about their degrees and education that they would devalue input of a patient who has valuable frontline or even better, personal experience and insights to share. In fact, it is often patients who drive research focus areas. It makes the doctors better for their future patients which by extension serves all of us.
The comments on this story are mostly embarrassing to read. This is when gossip devalues itself and runs fast to it’s lowest level of discourse.
She doesn’t have the educational qualifications, but she has tremendous experience and is very articulate and passionate about this subject. Usually I would be an intellectual snob about this, except I recently went through a Masters program myself where I had crappy instructors who were tenured and/or doing research and didn’t give a crap about their classroom duties. Angelina will be under intense scrutiny to perform, although I know she will take her teaching duties seriously anyway. I also think she will be a wonderful mentor to her students.
My mom actually JUST had a professor, who has a PhD, do nothing but read directly from the book. For the entire two hours. And (this was a medical terminology class)…..he couldn’t even pronounce all of the words right.
On the flip side, her anatomy professor was amazing and a great, EXCITED teacher…….
Oh my gosh VC that is horrible. Your poor mom. I had some bad professors too. Most US graduate programs only train you in your research area and give you time and tools to support your field studies. That means you’re not actually trained to teach. If you’re lucky you get a teaching assistant position and learn on the job…which only sometimes works if you’re a natural born teacher and you are working with a professor who cares about teaching. Basically caring about teaching is up to you and often your academic position does not depend on how well you teach but on your research and field studies. The occasional exception is if you are at a small liberal arts college.
Many professors are horrible teachers. Professors have an expertise in their of study yet they do not have expertise in teaching skills. This is also because they did not study as a teacher to become a teacher.
This is partly why I feel that some of these comments about needing a PhD or certain levels of research and field study to to teach are flawed.
I suppose I’m jaded because of my own experience. I have suffered with clinical depression for 26 yrs and had a chance 2 volunteer as a peer tutor at a college for mental health. I would be helping students with the same issues as me & help day to day with their personal struggles but got told there is no longer that position because a qualified teacher was being hired. This person had all the qualifications but no personal experience with mental health & everything was textbook from him. They completely scrapped the voluntary positions & our courses and just hired teachers instead. Why the college couldn’t have us both,volunteers & teachers I don’t know. This has happened again & again. I just feel disappointed that in some cases people do not look at the issue & see what or who would be best to help others. To me I think both academics & people with non degrees but experience can work together in the future without judgement from both sides & it is beneficial all round.
Interesting point, sofie.
Remember when Amal Clooney briefly guested–in a similar situation–at Columbia?
Interesting to see how postive (for the most part) reaction to Angelina is versus the bashing Amal got.
@Freddy Spaghetti:
Here is my thought on how Amal compares to Angie. Amal has academic training in the law and that is what she was lecturing on. The issue with her was that she apparently got her gig at Columbia thru Democratic party connections. Amal’s work at Columbia seems to consist of a few lectures. She is not teaching a full semester’s course. grading papers etc. In other settings, her lectures would be part of a speaker’s series and wouldn’t carry any title. Since the students at Columbia are prohibited from speaking to press, disclosing details of the course, not much more can be said…except, what kind of academic institution forbids students from discussing their coursework?
I think you mean how overwhelmingly positive the comments were for Amal, which they were. Yet Angelina is vilified.
I do think Angelina is well qualified to be a guest lecturer. She’s smart, she speaks well, and she has a great presence, people will pay attention to what she says.
Calling her a professor is inaccurate, she doesn’t have a BA. I’m going to assume any of the headlines mentioning “professor” were misspoken.
Oh, AJ 💗, I see you’re still pissing people off !!!! 😂😂😂😂 love it. Now if she’d only dump Brad all would be perfect in Jolie fan land. Also, don’t think she’s been in London for quiet sometime… She’s in la with her kids.
I love Angelina…. but as someone with two master’s degrees and a PhD, I find this irritating. She does so much good, but she is not qualified to be a professor or work in academia in any capacity. I”m not sure she even completed high school, to be honest. She’s am amazing and capable and incredible , but this is irksome. “Guest lecturer” I could possibly see, but “visiting professor”? NO.
You have all these degrees and you still couldn’t read the story or the explanation provided
You’re right. I didn’t read the whole story. I very quickly skimmed the story here on CB and that was it. I have a bad cold and didn’t have much energy to bother with it. If my irritation was misplaced, well…egg on my face, I guess.
Except that’s what she is. Guest lecturer= visiting professor in the UK.
Now after reading most of the comments I see that it’s different in the UK. That kind of sucks. I would hate to have put in the effort to become a teaching professor, then have someone without the credentials still be called professor.
Almost as bad as celebrities and their honorary Phd’s.
She could lecture on how to reinvent yourself.
Angelina could be set to teach at an American university too as the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security Ambassador Melanne Verveer said she has held talks with the actress.
According to PEOPLE, she said: “I was pleased to meet with Angelina Jolie during my recent trip to London on ways we at Georgetown University can continue the collaboration between our sister programs on both sides of the Atlantic. We look forward to welcoming Angelina and former foreign secretary Hague to Georgetown in the future.”
Money talks. And universities need funding. Why not get someone who has an actual degree and has lived/worked in the field minus the security and PR?
She co-founded and helps funded this program, so that’s where a lot of the money is coming from. Why discount her 12 years of field experience merely because she doesn’t have a degree?
Still you don’t understand she co-founded this program & she is helping the subject to get more attention so can other universities fellow suit the LSE example & she is promoting women right as universities dont have this kind of subject in their programs
Nota the reason I discount her field experience is because when she actually goes to these places it’s for a short period of time and she’s surrounded by security and cameras. It’s scripted. I think there are far more qualified people than her. People that have actually lived in these places and have experienced the reality of the circumstances. Money cannot buy that!! I watched her in the question and answer session after she gave her speech on refugees and it was cringeworthy. She stuttered through the whole thing and looked at the floor. I’ll give her credit for funding it but lecturing, nope.
People who work with her said she do lot of field work without the camera she only takes UNHRC camera when she wants throw attention to the causes but most people say that she do lots work behind camera
If Jolie is only going to be speaking once or twice as a guest lecturer, why would you have an objection to this? This means that there will be faculty there as professors to teach the program.
She is speaking on a subject she knows quite well… for free.
As a person from a highly educated and degreed family (including me) bfnunderstand how people feel about the lack of credentials but look at all the celebs who do commercials to get products attention. G etting attention for something like this is a good thing.
This thread has me doubling over with laughter.
She resembles her father a great deal in that top picture.
Wow. So much agita about a word, that so many are assigning meaning/requirement beyond its definition.
Straight from Merriam-Webster, I think the third def down covers AJP rather well:
“a : a faculty member of the highest academic rank at an institution of higher education
b : a teacher at a university, college, or sometimes secondary school
c : one that teaches or professes special knowledge of an art, sport, or occupation requiring skill”
And I don’t get this hangup about degrees and the job of professor. At our Uni, the big deal is whether the instructor has a PhD or not–in that case, you ABSOLUTELY address them as Doctor. “Lesser” beings are addressed as Mr., Ms, Miss, or Mrs, as they prefer.
Titles are important when you spend years working to earn them.
Professor is not a title, it’s a job. Doctor is a title.
Professor is both a title and a job. In the UK it is absolutely a title, not a job. A person is awarded the title of professor as recognition of his/her work and contribution to the field.
When you address a professor, you address them as Professor So-and-So. Do you address a receptionist as Receptionist So-and-So? Or an auto mechanic as Mechanic So-and-So?
I can’t recall if this is Southwest of Lufthansa, but when I fly with them the title on my ticket/reservation is ‘Prof.’
First, I agree that this is more about publicity than education, though I think she does have knowledge and experience. But just to clarify something: if she’s getting a temporary position at a university in the UK, she will be a visiting lecturer, not a professor in any way shape or form. Getting made a professor has strict rules in the UK and is the top of the academic ladder. As far as her not having the “credentials,” there are plenty of times that “real world” experience has a legitimate place in university classrooms. My field is archaeology and we have professional archaeologists teaching university courses all the time. Not to mention PhD candidates teach all the time before they obtain their credential. Despite what most people think, a PhD does not make you a teacher, it makes you a researcher, who happens to also teach.
Here is how the labelling works in the UK vs. US:
Lecturer = Lecturer
Senior Lecturer = Assistant Professor
Reader = Associate Professor
Professor = Full Professor
You have professional archaeologists lecturing that don’t have a PhD? When I started my undergrad in anthropology you could work for the state or city contracting teams with just a bachelors degree but you certainly couldn’t run the dig without a higher degree nor could you teach at a university. At least that I’ve seen contract archaeology and teaching at a community college have had the same trajectory in the last decade that positions you could have held with a bachelors now require a masters and those that used to require a masters now require a PhD. And in the time I’ve been in the profession you’ve always needed a PhD to teach, not just assist, at a university.
That’s really interesting. I suspect that is more the case in the US system. In the UK there are professional units attached to universities. The department where I did my graduate research worked closely with the professional unit. Practical experience is valued. Also, archaeology is its own field in the UK, not a subset of anthropology, history, classics, religious studies, etc.
I do agree with you that today it is often required to get higher level degrees in most professions than it was in the past.
Universities in the US do have graduate students teaching courses (not just as assistants). This was true when I was an undergraduate at UNC-Chapel Hill and this is true at the university that currently employs me. Intro language courses are often taught solo by graduate students.
The fact is that many (not all) undergraduate courses can easily be taught by someone without a PhD. You don’t need a PhD to teach “European Prehistory” or “Field Methods” or “Archaeological Theory” to undergraduates. Upper level courses where the topic relates to a professor’s area of expertise/research is different.
A PhD is not actually about teaching, it’s about research. The point of a PhD is to demonstrate that you are able to plan, execute, and complete a major research project that contributes new knowledge to your field.
That’s interesting. I attended a large public university and an Ivy for my degrees and graduate students didn’t fully teach a course, although they did (as I did as a grad student) teach lab sections. And at least at all of the US universities I’m familiar with the archaeologists, paleontologists, etc who have PhDs also do field work and are heavily tied to working their sites. This is true for professors and for museum curators. The contract archaeologists simply survey and dig on a need basis before construction and come up with more of a summary report of what is there than an academic paper that had a research question. That said, I agree that in getting a higher degree we are not trained to teach and the value placed on teaching varies greatly between schools, programs and individuals. I know some professors who almost make it a point of pride to not invest in their teaching because they feel it takes away from their research.
ETA
Grad students didn’t teach full courses in my major fields, anthropology and history, and they didn’t do so in any sciences. However I do recall languages being an exception.
Yes, most academic archaeologists do fieldwork. I am currently running a big survey and excavation project and I also work on other projects as an archaeological illustrator. I spend my summers in the field, but I spend the rest of my year doing a lot of teaching and service at the university. I don’t spend the same amount of time on actually “doing archaeology” as someone who is working in a professional/contract unit year round. Being a professor means that in addition to your research, you also have teaching and service work to do. The reason why the majority of US academics are on 9 month contracts is to secure some research time, because when you are on contract you get very little time to actually work on your research. Also, research-oriented projects have different conditions and goals than contract/professional jobs. Thus they operate differently and produce different kinds of knowledge.
Oh definitely. It’s somewhat similar in the US, with the exception being if you are fortunate enough to live near your site. I actually run education programs at another curator’s site and he is able to work out there more steadily because it’s located just 5 minutes away from our museum. He runs undergraduate field methods courses, etc out there so he gets to kill two birds with one stone. I work in Africa so basically no matter what position I held my field work would always be relegated to breaks. If you don’t mind my asking, what area do you work in? I’m so thrilled to meet an archaeologist on these boards! It’s not my specialization (paleoecology of early hominins is) but I often work on archaeological projects for my museum.
I also know that my friends at teaching universities/small liberal arts colleges have a very difficult time securing funding for their field work because research isn’t the focus of their position. That’s vastly different from my friends at R1 institutions who can often get a semester off plus have their summer to conduct field work if they receive a grant.
Val, you’re vastly oversimplifying. The key in US universities is getting tenure, which typically takes you from an Assistant Professor to an Associate Professor. A “Lecturer” title in the US system can mean any number of different things. In the UK, if you have a full time Lecturer position, you usually have a permanent job, which is effectively the same as tenure in the US context (given that it is very difficult to fire anyone in the UK, except for cause).
The way that UK universities get around this is by offering contract positions, usually 1-2 year “Teaching Fellow” or “Research Fellow” positions. Sometimes there will be limited term “Lecturer” positions but most Lecturer positions are full time, permanent jobs, open to PhD graduates with an excellent track record and (most importantly) REF potential. Most people go from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer and even to Reader fairly easily, if they’re good enough. Becoming a Professor is more difficult. Whereas in the US, it’s extraordinarily difficult to get an Assistant Professorship and then even more difficult to get tenure. Once you have tenure, becoming a full Professor is relatively straightforward.
I am simplifying but not “vastly” so. I was trying to make it easier to explain to people who may or may not have much experience in an academic environment. You also missed my point by focusing on a detail; my point being that AJ’s title will not include “professor” at a UK institution.
I did all my graduate work and taught at a UK university for years and am now tenured at a US university, so I understand how both systems work.
Then you’ve failed to read any of the pertinent comments above, or any relevant articles. Her title at LSE will be “Visiting Professor in Practice.”
I find it hard to believe so many people on here have Masters and PhD’s when they lack basic reading comprehension skills or they didn’t read it and just commented. Congrats to Angelina. I hope she enjoys her time as a guest lecturer.
Really? That makes total sense to me. Skim (because you are actually reading 8 different things on the same topic at once), form an argument, write. That’s what people with PhDs do. Most can’t be bothered to read all these comments.
But I do agree that AJ will be a good guest lecturer.
In my field, you have to read all the comments before commenting. Sometimes, the comments go back centuries,
And I agree, she’ll be as adequate a visiting professor in practice as all of the other visiting professors in practice.
How do you get any proper research done if you spend so much time reading comments on gossip websites in such detail?
For me, this is just a short break in my day. I save my time and energy for my work.
“In my field, you have to read all the comments before commenting. Sometimes, the comments go back centuries.” Thanks for that. It gave me a good laugh.
Um… Val. I think Tina is referring to peer review comments and the like, which she makes in the course of her work as an academic. Not comments here.
BTW – thanks for that. It gave me a good laugh.
Sixer is correct. Both of your comments gave me a good laugh, so thank you!
I don’t have a problem with her qualifications being a visiting professor on issues that she’s worked on extensively. I’m sure publicity is a part of it, but I think she could bring something very valuable to the table. As someone who *is* degreed, I can’t stand “degree snobbery.” If she’s got the knowledge to share and she’s interested in the feedback from the students as well, it sounds like a perfect mutually beneficial situation with publicity for the university being an added bonus. I will say, though, Brad Pitt has just never struck me as at her level (nor have I ever found him particularly attractive tbh lol). He must thank his stars every day, or else feel inadequate every day LOL
I completely agree with you. There is much value in practical experience in fields that have an applied aspect to them.
Academic research and professional work both produce different kinds of knowledge, all of which is important.
Yes, all of it is important, especially when applied correctly and used in collaboration.
The negative comments trend towards a narrow minded traditional approach that continues to be able to teach but doesn’t always solve real world problems. The background she offers is the actual value she brings to the table she can do anything she doesn’t have to lecture etc. The context of her knowledge of the fake Hollywood world vs the subject matter is the appealing aspect. Obviously she lacks the normal background but she is sincere in attempting do get off her butt and to do something to help and educate people about solving extremely complicated issues. So good for her.
This type of cult of celebrity disgusts me. LSE should be ashamed. Fame hos.
I’ll never understand the hatred this woman gets. She is harmless and does a lot of good.
It’s not that big of a deal, people. I’m kind of sick of celeb do-gooders considered more of an authority than the real experts too. (Like surely, there are more credible environmentalists than yacht-enjoying Leo.) But Angie has done her homework for a long time, going back to when people mocked her and didn’t believe she was sincere about it and didn’t support her humanitarian efforts at all. So, this is a genuine thing for her. So I don’t see it as anything to get too mad over.
And I see this being more London School of Economics’ fault than Angelina’s. That school is so friggin expensive and it has always been considered top-notch. They do not need the publicity so I don’t know why they’re all, Hey, let’s give Angelina Jolie a “professorship” thing and make ourselves some headline$$$. !!
I appreciate Angelina’s public remarks on humanitarian crises because she brings so much clarity and humanity to the situation. Like her recent interview where she shook her head at the mention of Donald Trump (lol! mte, Angie). I’m not sure if she is the kind of expert that grad students need. Perhaps some students will get something out of it, and others won’t. I do remember that some of the tenured professors I had in college were the worst. One day, guy actually just put in a CD of African music for his Africa/anthropology class and left us all in the auditorium and we were just supposed to sit there for an hour and “learn.” Lol! So obviously, in the world of universities, tenureship and scholarship aren’t good ways to measure a person’s knowledge or intellectually curiosity or experience either.
So, I’m just not that mad about Angie. She’s a do-gooder. This is not completely her fault. She might have something to teach anyway. It’s not a big deal.
So keep on doing good, Angie! (And please make better movies too! Please don’t make Africa, or Cleopatra, and please shelf Maleficent 2 bc that sounds awful. Thanks!!) 😀
#TeamJolieDumpBradNow
So is she jolie-pitt now? Usually people in the public eye who marry change their maiden name officially and keep their maiden name proffessionally. I wonder why she decided to change hers proffessionally as well?
Yes, let’s fight unemployment by NOT hiring qualifying professionals who will educate students who are going to class to get solid knowledge. Oh, but hey, the University will make a big profit and it’s all justified because money is all that matters, right?
Oh ffs are people just seeing the headline and running straight to comment?
*She’s not being paid, it’s a voluntary thing.
*”Visiting professor” is an honorary title the university give all their NON-ACADEMIC guest lecturers. She’s not getting special treatment.
She’s giving a lecture or two, for free. Period. She’s not going to be working as a professor and she’s not going to be getting any money and it’s not a job.
This position would greatly enrich someone’s cv. I doubt Angelina needs that, but a professor who is unemployed would get a great boost by teaching.
And a University is supposed to teach not only practical knowledge but also ethical values. The only lesson we get here is that being famous equals years of hard work to reach a higher academic position.
She’s not teaching, she’s giving a few lectures..
@Solanacea: “She’s not teaching, she’s giving a few lectures..”
With all due respect, I don’t think you realise how precious is even the slightest addition to a CV for an unemployed person.
Angelina could win the United States presidential election and the Angeloonies would try and justify her “experience” there too. Hey, I spent my whole life going on mission trips to Africa with my church. May I teach a course on the Evolution of Poverty and Famine in Sub-Saharan Africa? Please?? I’m qualified too!
I don’t love her or hate her and I do admire her humanitarian work. But as a tenured PhD who’s been a visiting professor for a few years prior to her tenure, I can say that generally speaking what we do when we want to hire someone with meaningful experience but not perhaps the degree is we hire folks them as adjuncts. That’s what adjunct work was originally meant for–not for a living wage but as a way to bring in an expert. Obviously in this case she doesn’t need the salary. And to the question posed earlier, re: imagine being her advisee. Trust me, she won’t be assigned any advisees and she sure won’t be grading any papers. Lol.
Sixer has already explained upthread that visiting professor in practice in th UK has nothing to do with academic achievements; it’s the US word for lecturer…
I’ve got a degree, a post-degree and also a masters and I have no problem with her doing lectures at a university… Hey, maybe I’ll ask her to give some for my students here in Portugal… 😀