I agree. In general, I'm not a fan of second-guessing what a specific dissertation committee / their University decide is criteria for a doctorate. If someone is claiming academic expertise, there should be plenty of other evidence to judge that claim on, not just that one early career project

Well put

And, running an internal academy has a lot of responsibility, but having done both corporate training and higher ed teaching, I can attest that they've very different things. So, I agree with the authors that the analogies are a huge stretch

There is so little overlap that using the analogies suggests a lack of familiarity with how universities operate, which is concerning for someone now in charge of one. It's impressive he made partner, that's really hard to do! Getting tenure is also hard, but in a very different way

The final sentence makes a very valid point (to me as an academic, at least) about why being selected for tenure and being elected as partner require very different types of skills. Likewise, being a provost at a place like UVA is a completely different job than running an internal academy.

New info: according to this comment on Reddit the abstract is consistent with Penn's dissertation formatting rules
www.reddit.com/r/UVA/commen...

hmmm, it really doesn't read that way to me at all. it reads like a particular kind of academic style of argumentation to me.

and, it sucks that GenAI has polluted discourse to that point that we're talking about how it was written instead of the validity of the points the authors put their name on

The entire structure of cumulative knowledge production in academia is built on public airing of ideas—peer-review includes post-publication scrutiny of the merits of your evidence, arguments, and conclusions

I've never heard of proprietary peer-reviewed pubs—that's just not a thing in academia. It's not an intellectual contribution to the scientific enterprise if it is a private audience in a proprietary outlet

Looking at his CV, my conclusion is, it's an impressive collection of writings for, say, a professor of practice (e.g., not tenure track), but claiming 70 peer-reviewed publications **implies** a different type of academic profile that what the actual list of publications supports

That is quite odd. This is the link I was looking at which lists it as sole authored and the advisor listed as advisor find.library.upenn.edu/catalog/9969...

As a bus. school graduate and having worked at multiple, I would not consider any internal work outlets to be equivalent to peer-reviewed. And, they certainly would not count in any way towards # of top journal papers required for tenure

I’m convinced that was a data error where it was aggregated to. I saw a link to the original online site and it is sole authored there

All good, my friend. And, I look forward to catching up some time soon

And, not all of us are wildly "gung ho on all things AI" either. There's a pretty wide range of opinions, actually, just like in many other places on grounds

Uhm, I'll request: please leave the business school I work for out of this. I'm happy to walk you through the research standards our faculty hold each other to in the P&T process...best I can tell—though I could be wrong, of course!—it's as high a standard as you'd find most places on grounds

I'm thrilled you were able to participate

done! (hopefully I got the right person on Venmo 😃)

❤️🙏🏼