The Smiley Smile Message Board

I'm having an O/T discussion in another thread about linguistic change and thought I'd move it to the sandbox. If anyone wants to discuss the changing language, you can do it here.

You had no need to explain to me what lawyers mean when they use the term 'work product'. Can you respond to my linguistic point?

Emily - whether you like or find distasteful the fact that language evolves, as a result of television or internet or other sociological and commercial factors, language does evolve and people do talk about "work product."

We didn't have trials on television until the last 20 years or so when cameras were allowed in the courtroom so it is falling in the domain of everyday spoken language.

As far as linguistics, which I took several courses on, to become certified to teach English as a Second Language, to non-English speakers in my class, and in that context,  I am not sure I understand your point. I won't be "dumbing down" what I post. 

Moving this discussion, is not necessary.

Maybe you can explain why you consider a very basic concept of "work product" offensive.   It is certainly simpler than Intellectual Property.

I do not find the fact of the evolution of language distasteful; often it's necessary and often it's beneficial. However, sometimes it dilutes the meaning of formerly useful words, creates ambiguity where once there was precision, creates redundancies. For example: dictionaries have started entering a secondary definition of 'literally' that is the antonym of the primary definition. If it was always clear by context what the speaker intends, that would be OK. But sometimes someone will say something like 'I literally crossed the street' and, to understand their meaning, you have to stop them and ask, "by literally, do you mean actually or figuratively?" Previous to the recent evolution, that would be unnecessary.
'Work product' is an unnecessary redundancy. There was already a perfectly good, unambiguous term for the same thing: 'by-product'. 'Work product' is ambiguous: do you mean the product generated by work, or do you mean the by-product? This is an unnecessary evolution that renders language less useful. Lawyers love jargon and creating unnecessary words, but it hurts the ability to communicate effectively.
Regarding 'dumbing-down', I would ask no-one to do that. Quite the opposite.

Emily - that is a slap at one occupation.  It is a stereotypical generalization.  

Every occupation contributes to the addition of language to the word bank.  Sociologists, the computer industry, doctors, teachers, legislators and activist groups.  Everyone speaks in their own language - environmentalists speak in enviro-speak and talk about ambient temperature, meteorologists speak about relative humidity.  Relative to what? When I didn't understand something as a child my parents would encourage me to "look it up." Then we would talk about what I researched. If I got it wrong, or out of context, we could work through that new concept. Work product is relevant in that discussion in my opinion.


In the Welcome to the Smiley Board, the 3rd post down, Jason's post,"Those who post nonsense, threads that are one or two posts only, etc... You are all on notice.  The other mods and i are going to be watching the board a bit more closely from now on.  If new threads with little to no substance, rehashed topics, or simple questions are being posted, we're going to reserve the right to merge those threads with related threads on the same topic, or in ...'insignificant questions thread.  Just in case anyone's thread mysteriously disappears, you'll know why."

So, I like to play by the rules here. I waited decades for a group of people to discuss the Beach Boys music, and consider it a privilege.  But, I realize you have not been here for years on end and might not know this info.  Starting threads for this type sub-discussion has been sort-of frowned upon.  Just sayin.'  ;)

If it turns out no one is interested in discussing language, so be it. I often find myself thinking about language when I read, whether a book or a message board, but on a board, my thoughts are usually off-topic to the thread, so I waffle about whether to put them there. Having a thread in the sandbox for that seems handy to me.
Regarding lawyers generating unnecessary jargon, it may be stereotypical, but I also think it's true. And yes, it's a generalization, which is not necessarily bad. It's mistakenly extrapolating from a small sample to the general, or from the general to the individual that makes generalizing faulty.
Your examples, relative humidity and ambient temperatures, fill voids for the members of those professions. They provide specific terms for things that previously lacked specific terms. 'Work product' does not fulfill that function. A specific term already existed.

I'm glad your parents encouraged you to look things up.

I think it's interesting. Just not sure I'm ready to join this discussion in earnest.


I think most professions--at least many--generate unnecessary jargon. Sometimes it's helpful in-house to get things done for reasons probably resembling natural evolution, but often (in my opinion) it's generated mostly to sell consulting services, industry books, and the like. Nobody says

• anymore, now we say [y]: it shows we're on top of innovative trends! (No, it doesn't...but it impresses idiots.)

People in bizness, which I don't really think is a profession, are the kings of unnecessary jargon. IT is really bad too.
I agree that sometimes, often, maybe usually, it's necessary as actual new concepts or things are developed, but often, as you point out, it's salesmanship or professional braggadocio.

First, sorry for the bullet point! That was intended as a bracketed letter x, just indicating "whatever." Didn't realize it was code.

Agreed, more or less. Except that every profession has within it "bizness." Within it and surrounding it. Nothing gets done otherwise. (And nothing gets done anyway.)

I'm thinking for instance that professional anthropologists don't deal much with business. The admins take care of it for them and they don't usually worry their pretty little heads about it. For Drs and lawyers are professionals who come in to a lot of contact with the business side of things, but the academic professions are pretty well sheltered. But that's an aside. Me, I work in bizness, so while I sneer at some aspects, I don't consider myself above.

As a marketing director for a firm that sells (mostly) legal services primarily to law firms, but also government agencies and companies themselves, I have no room whatsoever to judge.

But I think all those professions still DO have bizness. If a person works in an academic institution, at some level (usually closer than further), it is increasingly dealing with that nonsense. Departments and activities are profit centers. Healthcare, I feel little need to explain. And so on. So sure, some individuals may try to avoid it all, but overall, the industries are the same. Huzzah. Ain't 'mericuh grand?

I am not a fan.  I am also not pretending to be a language expert of any kind and I am so poorly read on the subject I am embarrassed.  Nevertheless, here are my thoughts:

Not being a fan does not mean that I practice what I "preach".  However, I cannot recommend highly enough that those concerned with language, specifically the English language, purchase a copy of the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary (affectionately referred to as the OED) on CD.  It will cost you around $200 but saves you paying a $1000 or more for the multi-volume set that is really tough to lug around with you wherever you go - and even requires that you turn the pages to look up the definitions.  The dictionary is worth the weight of the physical version in gold.  Why?  Two reasons:

1. It orders the words according to their primary meanings
2. It provides dated examples of historical usage

Why do these things matter?  Suppose you are reading an old book, whether fiction or non-fiction, or an historical document, and you come across a word  that is either (a) unfamiliar or (b) has changed its meaning over the years.  How are you to know the meaning at the time it was used in the particular book you are reading?  By going to the primary definition and then verifying whether or not the definition was even in use at the time the book was written will go a long way in helping you choose the author's intended meaning. 

Along the same line of thought, there are instances where the prior meaning of a word is the opposite of the present meaning.  An example: in the 17th century the word "let" meant to prevent.  Today the word means to permit.  I do not need to point out the confusion this can cause in the mind of a reader.

And finally, the further back you go in the history of a given language the more likely it is that a writer is using the primary definition (poetry may be an exception, though not always).  Given the average word has over 25 definitions, you've got a better shot at finding the intended meaning quickly if you scan the primary meaning(s) first.  The subsequent meanings under the primary meaning are shades of the primary meaning.

I cannot recommend the OED highly enough.  You cannot live without this tool if you have any interest at all in historical documents/books in the English language.

EoL

I'm the sort of language dork who looks up the etymology of some word that makes me curious a few times a week. The OED is certainly the resource to end all resources on that topic.

In regards to the making of the OED, have you read The Professor and the Madman?  If not, at least read the description at Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0060839783/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1460126623&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=professor+madman&dpPl=1&dpID=51QJD70tAUL&ref=plSrch

EoL

I have, and it's fascinating and would be not only for people interested in language but anyone interested in a good story. Highly recommended!

Great!  Maybe it is, or was, a popular book, but I've not run into anyone else who has heard of the book, much less read it, other than the person who recommended it to me.  Are you in the UK?  I assume both the dictionary and book are more popular there versus the US.

EoL

Emily -  yes, my parents were involved in education, both in classroom teaching and administration. They encouraged self-help, always with support.  Kids just generally look on their phones or other devices, now.  

If one profession has language that has largely not evolved, it is the legal profession, because many of the motions and language come directly from Latin and one cannot get much older than that.  It helps make it more universal  It saved me that if nothing else, I had Latin in high school while in law school. Medicine has many common terms from Latin as well. It is their common language.

For the last 15 years or so, the law schools have been working with improving the profession to make it more user-friendly.  

Most lawyers function as teachers to break down difficult testimony to the jury to arrive at a just outcome.  

But, by-product is more the secondary product such as ash in your wood stove or fireplace is a by-product of burning wood or coal and not the primary.  And the discussion "upstairs" centered around copyright issues.    

I'm in the US. But, though I studied history in school, I think I actually took more classes in literature, and the history of literature has been sort of an avocation.

When writing a song, the song would be the product; the notes and records made while writing would be by-product. But both, now, ambiguously, could also be called 'work product.' It's the ambiguity and redundancy created though the language already provided sufficient means of communicating the subject that bothers me.  
Of course the law has standard fixed terms, like any field, and as the law as we manage it is many centuries old, many of those terms are long-standing. But 'by-product' existed, with its existing meaning, before 'work product'. I do find a tendency within the law to generate redundant language. It seems to me that it's because there's a desire in the law to imply that they have 'special knowledge' beyond research, writing, argumentation, and manipulation, which are really all the skills needed.

Emily - it is the "sum of the parts" to show the authenticity of the process.  It is why I love the sessions of the BB albums.  It shows the creative process in progress. Or the out-takes in a movie.  It is unambiguous.     

Lawyers have a language that they learned alongside legal concepts, which can often be hair-splitting, but essential to arrive at a just result.  Learning the law is a privilege and the crushing amount of work can be a very humbling experience.  Lawyers take the law and apply it to the facts in front of them.  That is all. 

It is never too late to have that experience.  You might enjoy the process.    ;)

The 'product' is the end result; the 'by-product' is the non-product output generated in production; the  'work product' is the by-product, which lawyers use to 'show the authenticity of the process'.
Lawyers don't have 'a language that they learned', calling it a language is another means to make it sound like special knowledge. Lawyers use the language of the country in which they work. The do learn some terms specific to their profession. In the example we are discussing, the term was not a necessary addition to the language.
Learning the law is not a privilege beyond the degree that, in the US, some of us are privileged to be given a decent education from the start and some are not, which then affects the ability to get in to law school.
I'm sure I would enjoy law school, but I'm sure I would not enjoy practicing. Were I to go back to school, I would finish my all-but-dissertation history Ph.D or become a veterinarian. I would then set about designing a career that is as abstracted as possible from US commerce.

And, Captain, while of course the University and its departments are commercial enterprises, many of the professionals within them are not required to pay any attention to the commercial aspects, other than producing.

Emily - Lawyers have a language that is generally referenced by Black's Law Dictionary.  It is the language of the profession in the context of the law.  While lawyers use the language of the country to be admitted and practice, they can still communicate in a commonality with the legal terms in Latin, for many purposes, that don't include court appearances.  They can be working on any number of issues and much of our law comes from English common law and other forms of law, such as the Napoleonic Code from France, which has ended up in civil and tort law in Louisiana. It comes from various sources.

And, you might be surprised that you have skill sets that are needed by military veterans who desperately need representation or in human rights.  Many lawyers come to law school with only experience as students with summer jobs in their backgrounds.  You have real experience in areas where other people who go into law have none.

You may have some very transferrable skills.  Law students all read the same books and all take the same bar exams, whether they are state schools or in the ivory tower.   

Yes, it is a privilege. One of my grand aunts became a lawyer when few women were permitted to study the law. So, I have to respectfully disagree.    ;)

This is the sort of thing about the use of language that bothers me: you are using the word 'language' to mean 'English with specific professional terminology'. To me, that's an incorrect use of the word 'language'.
And I'm not sure what definition you are applying to 'privilege'. It sounds like you are intending to say that the law is really awesome to study. For your aunt, it may have been a privilege as, as you say, women at that time often didn't have access. But here's the Webster's definition of privilege:


1:  a right or benefit that is given to some people and not to others
2:  a special opportunity to do something that makes you proud
3:  the advantage that wealthy and powerful people have over other people in a society
 
Studying the law is, as I said above, an aspect of number 3, as some people are denied decent elementary and secondary education in the US, so don't have access to the opportunities provided by those. It is certainly not, otherwise, number 1. Number 2 is recently evolved... so perhaps you are saying that, but I'm not sure it's a 'special' opportunity, other than the caveat, again, of number 3.
eta: I'm sure I have skills that would apply well to practicing law. As I said above, practicing law is basically "research, writing, argumentation, and manipulation" all of which I can do, though my argumentation skills are obviously failing me.
But as I also said above, I'm sure I would not enjoy practicing law. Everyone in my dad's family, including my siblings, have been lawyers, teachers or professors for 5 generations (why else would I be so pedantic and argumentative?), including the women. I've seen 'em and I do see the appeal of being a professor; a lawyer or a non-university teacher, not so much.

Emily - When I look around, and see others who did not have the opportunity to go to college and grad school, I feel it was a great gift, that I did not take lightly - #1.  (My grand aunt went to law school when it was only for the "boys.")

And, I felt "privileged" to be a classroom teacher - #2.  Most of the kids I taught were very poor and whose families had less than mine.  And, I felt privileged to study law; it is a different lens and filter.  An education is a gift.  It is the equalizer in life for that #3.

You might enjoy being a professor and a doctorate in history is the ticket, but we don't have to have the same occupation, our whole lives.   

The academic calendar is convenient for parents raising children.   ;) 

How so?

If you teach from September to June, in grades Pre-K-12, your children, when in school are on the same schedule. In higher ed, classes generally finish in May.  Generally you are on similar vacation schedules, as well. 

That's not my experience but maybe things are different here. For one, the school that I work at which is a fairly major institution, has classes all year long. But at schools that I have worked at that don't have that structure, the professors are still required to spend two terms teaching while spending a third term doing research, which means working the whole year.

Are they on a trimester schedule? 

Most US schools are September to June, with a week for Christmas, and week-long breaks in February and April.  The academic calendar is usually 185 days for PreK to 12. 

I am talking about the schedule for professors. Your wording made me think that that's who you were talking about when you mentioned being a professor and the "academic calendar."

Most professors depending on their status, follow the student calendar.  Depending on where they teach, will take sabbaticals to work on research or work on a book. 

If you are teaching Pre-K12, many take professional development in a college or a university to maintain credentials, so that schedule is generally concurrent to the school systems.

We have many colleges and universities that run summer programs for high school students and will use the dorms and facilities when the college students leave for the summer.  And most will also offer summer programs for grad and undergrad but not always taught by regular faculty but by adjuncts.  Regular faculty sometimes want to augment their salaries and teach a summer course or two.   

I'd be curious to hear from others in academia because, again, that's not my experience. Yes, there will be the occasional sabbatical, but that's not enough time for the amount of publishing required from tenure-track professors.

While I consider an education a right that is denied some, rather than a gift that is given others, and for middle class people it's not a special opportunity, so among the middle class it doesn't really meet the definition of 'privilege', I laud you for your education and your work in education.

My father, aunt, uncle, brother and sister-in-law, all professors, work/ed year-round and very long hours. One benefit is they had slightly more flexible schedules than office work, but there's no leaving your work at the office. I've never known any of them to have a non-working vacation.

Thanks Emily. That's the experience that I'm aware of as well.

Just in case the above has caused some confusion, I do want to make it clear that when I am discussing my experiences, I'm not referring to my own personal experiences as a professor, but rather my experiences in academia talking to many professors about their own experiences and job requirements. While I have worked for several years as a course instructor, I cannot call myself a professor until I actually get a tenure-track position. I just wanted to put that out there lest anyone think that I'm getting too big for my britches. Particularly since I don't even know what britches are.

Breeches, pronounced 'britches', are horse riding pants. Lay off the doughnuts and you won't have a problem.

Good Lord, I didn't even get the spelling of the word right? No wonder I haven't got that tenure-track position yet...

I only know because I'm a horse person. it's not book larnin.

Emily - that is not what the students see when the individual professors offices close after the Spring semester exams.  They are gone until the Fall unless they are teaching  summer course and their snail mail piles up until they physically get back to collect it.  Some do work at home on books which is a continual work-in-progress and some go abroad for research or study.  Their offices are locked.  What the student sees is different from what the aspiring professor or adjunct or even full professor does.  One of mine would take a year off to write. 

A cousin who just retired, as a professor, would take a semester off, teach ESL abroad to "earn her keep" at whatever university she was at and work on her book.  So from the student perspective they area unavailable after fall and spring.  I did undergrad differently.  I did a trimester which ran all year and professors for required course would alternate summers off and get a spring semester or fall semester off.  That is long gone.  People can still cobble a "trimester" schedule for themselves so long as they meet the required courses in their discipline and take their electives in the summer with either visiting professors or part-time faculty or the full-time, if they were choosing to moonlight (as many did for the extra dough.) Now with online teaching and learning things might be more flexible with a brick-and-mortar setting not always necessary. 

It is not black and white but it is rare to see a full-professor or even an associate professor hanging around the campus after the traditional academic calendar has finished in the spring. (They might be working hard, but we don't see that.) 

It worked out wonderfully well, for me to be free over Christmas, February and April vacations to get my highly-scheduled kids off-the-grid and go to Disneyworld or some other fun place to de-stress ourselves and unplug for some fun sibling time so they could reconnect without distractions.  Teaching in a school system (if you really love kids) is a great gig.  ;)

I agree the students don't see it the majority of their work.  The majority of their time is research, not teaching. My Dad took one out of every 3 years sabbatical. When he was on sabbatical he'd be consulting at an economic institution in whatever country he was doing research in (he worked on international economics and currency exchange so he had to do research in different places) and/or teaching at a university in that country, and researching and writing. When we were at home, he was teaching and researching and writing. The teaching part of his job was perhaps 15% of what he actually did. But he didn't usually do his research or writing in his office, so the students wouldn't see it.
Now, that's not always the case. Top tier research institutions will expect their professors to be mainly researchers and writers and secondarily teachers. Community colleges usually have no requirement or expectation for research and publication. And there's everything in between. Usually colleges focus a lot more on teaching than universities, for obvious reasons.

Emily - that insistence on a year of research out of three years on the faculty is a rip-off for the parents and students.  They are deprived of the real-time teaching of these highly prized professor,  When parents are paying $65,000 for a Ivy or little-Ivy, losing 1/3 of that professors skill-set is akin to fraud on the part of the university system.  They get a faculty list for a department major and rely on having those professors available to them.  If anything, with online research more available, they could teach part-time and work on their research while not being absent and unavailable to the students. Community colleges are a rarely recognized gem where many of the name-brand faculty moonlight.  I have availed myself of the resources of all of those menus.  There is such a level of school-snobbery in this country (US) that I find utterly sickening.   

Those schools should allow their advertised faculty to remain on campus for the students, even part-time and have them do their research in the summer or part time during the academic year and reduce the teaching load but make them available to the students and other faculty whom they mentor.  JMHO.   ;)

You misunderstand. The research was done all the time; 1/3 years was in other locations because much of his research had to be done in other locations. My brother, for instance, is researching medieval math history. Much of his research, for obvious reasons, has to be done in Italy. It's the nature of the job: you have to be where the resources are. No one is going to scan the medieval documents into an online library; they are much too delicate. And much of what my dad did was field research. He was getting the information that can be compiled and put on line. But if he wants to know the impact of a new treaty on workers in Java, he needs to go to Java. The 'highly-prized' aspect to of the 'highly-prized' professor is that s/he is doing great original research. Take that away, and s/he is a not-particularly prized teacher. The difference being that a teacher teaches what the teacher has learned. A professor practices his or her profession and may teach about it as well.
But, regardless, wherever they are, whether home or away, research is their primary job definition, teaching is secondary. I know parents and students like to think that teaching is the main purpose, but it's not. They aren't losing 1/3 of the skill set because the skill of a professor is primarily doing original research.  If they feel ripped off, it's because they misunderstand the priorities of a research institution. The point of these institutions as that that's where the people who are doing the actual work of learning -the original research to find out new things - are. If students want to learn from true scholars, they can pay a fee and the scholars will take some time out of their work to teach the students. A professor is not a teacher. A professor's main job is to practice their profession. Sometimes they also teach. I agree that many people misunderstand this and that parents and kids think it's all about the parents and kids, but it's not.
Community Colleges have a primary agenda of teaching. They are entirely different from research universities. It's not snobbery, it's just fact.
What you describe in your final paragraph is fine for a college. Not for a university.

I guess the gist is: if the professors weren't supported in practicing their profession, there wouldn't be much for teachers to teach.
Sorry this has some redundancies. I'm on my phone and can't see the whole text at once which makes editing for flow really difficult.

Emily - I do not misunderstand. I understand that research is an ongoing process.  Some research is by necessity done onsite, on location, abroad.  But, when you advertise your list of professors and one is absent for one year out of three, in terms of a consumer value in education it is a rip off. 

Teachers are above all else, "communicators." One of mine, was pressured by her university (a little Ivy, although she moonlighted at an Ivy, where I took one class with her) to do research.  She was the go-to person for the students.  And she minded the pressure to leave and not be available to the students in real-time.  Your father's field research to support a treaty, I would place in a different category.  It is not the same as a foreign language literature professor.  That research should not require a long absence and long unavailability.  Your father's research was not based on past writings retrospectively but work for prospective policies so that needs to be distinguished and not painted with a broad brush. 

When the list of professors is published and which a family seeks out for real-time teaching, and pays big money for, a disclaimer should be made that certain of these professors are absent on the third year.  Sorry, I think there should be transparency in higher ed. So many students end up with a TA instead of the real deal. 

But, I am noting the context from a consumer context because a TA (teaching assistant) picks up the slack in their absence.  A professor who is worth his or her salt is a teacher.  Yes it is academic snobbery in my opinion.  (snob comes from the French- "sans noblesse" or without title or nobility status from ancestry) That connotes a lack of worth imposed.  Many community colleges are webbed-in to the state universities as a path for admission.

In higher ed, Harvard was started as a college in 1636.  Johns Hopkins was established as the 1st US university.  College in Europe can mean a 2 year school.  So globally there are different connotations.   

 

I'm going to add that colleges usually provide better educations for students who do not plan to be professionals. It's a common mistake to think that a big-name university will give a better education to non-professionals n

Your friend should have moved to a college. Traditionally and usually, universities are primarily about research. Yes, Harvard was originally a college but it became a university and when it did, its mandate changed.
It's not snobbery. One is a teaching institution; one is a research institution. They are different. 

Emily -  I would never suggest that this professor move to a college. The humanities departments have a different mission from many others.  I find them more retrospective than the prospective nature of what your father was involved in working prospectively towards policies for treaties. 

Many colleges take on university status when they offer a PhD program. They differ little in quality, offer similar degrees, at the Bachelor's and Master's level. It is merely a change in name.  One state with which I am familiar recently renamed all the colleges to universities.  And the main difference is the doctoral track. and the link backwards to the community colleges, as a sort of feeder system, so they are all part of one university system. When the students finish their 60 credits, they are guaranteed the state university admission, as well as other private ones in their feeder track. 

Having been in both systems, the difference I saw was that the public university/college was not spoon-feeding anyone.  You had to sink or swim on your own determination and work. The private ones tended to hold-your-hand and provide student support for students who were academically on the fringe.  The public colleges/universities could learn from them in that respect.

Responding on a phone is not necessary. That is more dedicated than I am. Enjoy your day.  It can wait.   ;)   

Harvard College was the feeder school for the Boston Latin School.  BLS was in existence a year before Harvard. 

I'm sorry but that is a dramatically false characterization of the humanities. Of course every department differs from one another and they all have different goals and explore different areas of knowledge. But the humanities are very much engaged with the process of expanding knowledge, pushing knowledge further, etc. Maybe I'm unclear on what you mean by "retrospective" but I don't personally see it that way.

Also it does seem to me that since your friend has no interest in research then she wouldn't want to be a researcher for a living, which is what a professor is. I have no doubt that your friend is a great teacher, but he or she seems not to be particularly interested in being a professor. Which, of course, is a perfectly reasonable position to take - I say the same thing to myself almost every day.

CSM - I was thinking about old literature from the MIddle Ages changing less than recent stuff.  ;)

FdP, the difference between a BA or an MA, and a Ph.D. is that the former two are meant to be about learning the existing body of knowledge and the latter is about adding to that body of knowledge.  They are not only different in level, they are different in kind. It is not just a different name. It's a wholly different purpose. Perhaps that's why you think this is snobbery, because you think that Ph.D.s are the same as the other degrees but more advanced. They are not the same. They are not better or worse, they are different.
That a Ph.D. Is about research applies to any field, including the humanities.
I'm aware of Harvard's history. It's my Alma Mater.

Not so, but has a family and prefers to be away from her beloved students any more than necessary.

She has written several books. 

People are still discovering texts from that era and, essentially, all eras. New texts are being unearthed all the time and that's thanks to the dedicated research efforts of literary scholars. Furthermore, the more we learn about an era like, say, the Middle Age (thanks to the dedicated research efforts of, say, historians or political theorists or religion scholars) the more our understanding of those texts changes or deepens. Again, knowledge is always being pushed further and forward - this is the point of academia and it is what is always going on in scholarly research institutions.

CSM, I understand you're in Canada and I'm unfamiliar with the Canadian model, so I don't know if what I've written applies.

Well, again, it may be different here but here once you have tenure, there is not as much pressure to publish as there is when you are on track for tenure. Does she have tenure?

Emily - I've been involved for many decades and am well aware of the differences among the degrees.  

There is an absolute element of snobbery among the schools as among them.

Yes, for decades.

So far it seems completely the same.

The only difference which I think comes up from Filledeplage's point is that, here, students do not pay the kind of money to go to post-secondary institutions that they pay in the United States because these institutions get a lot of public funding. In my view the amount that students pay to go to university in the US is scandalous, but not because the main focus of a professor is research.

In that case, I am surprised that she feels that kind of pressure.

On that, I certainly agree.

Sorry. There are a few phrases in this passage, as well as others, that don't recognize or even outright deny the distinction:

"Many colleges take on university status when they offer a PhD program. They differ little in quality, offer similar degrees, at the Bachelor's and Master's level. It is merely a change in name.  One state with which I am familiar recently renamed all the colleges to universities.  And the main difference is the doctoral track. and the link backwards to the community colleges, as a sort of feeder system, so they are all part of one university system. When the students finish their 60 credits, they are guaranteed the state university admission, as well as other private ones in their feeder track. 

Having been in both systems, the difference I saw was that the public university/college was not spoon-feeding anyone.  You had to sink or swim on your own determination and work. The private ones tended to hold-your-hand and provide student support for students who were academically on the fringe.  The public colleges/universities could learn from them in that respect."

I've not witnessed that the expectation of publication lessens with tenure. Just emeritus.

Oh, yes, the expectation is definitely there. My assumption though is that you are relatively protected job-wise when it comes to tenure. I may just be thinking somewhat narrow-mindedly though when I'm thinking about the term pressure in this case.