You are too young, baby

While thinking of a topic for this Sunday, I would like to share a memory of mine regarding the lucky academics who became associate professors without having to take an oral exam.

I call them lucky academics because they became associate professors without being subjected to an exam that violates basic human rights.

How was the old exam?

You were subjected to an exam lasting 2-3 hours in front of a five-person jury appointed by the Interuniversity Board.

This exam, which was much harder than a final judgment, not only damaged the mental health of many associate professor candidates but also led to serious polarization among jury members.

Now, the candidate's associate professorship is decided solely based on their file.

This simple evaluation process has made academics a bit lax. They do not put in the effort they used to. The idea that there is no oral exam anyway has paved the way for fake and predatory publications.

The place is full of fake associate professors.

Just like the "overlockers have arrived, ma'am" street vendors, "publishers have arrived, professor" types have emerged, visiting us to turn our work into publications.

Anyway, it is said that the old exam system will return.

Let it return, of course, but they should read this memory of mine before it does.

When I first took the "associate professorship oral exam," the jury members conducted a lengthy evaluation. The exam lasted nearly 3 hours.

I struggled quite a bit. I must have given appropriate answers to the questions as best as I could, which is why the exam lasted so long.

I know the answer to whatever they ask.

The more I know, the longer the exam lasts.

They continue until I cannot answer.

As time goes on and the duration increases, the questions become absurd.

Although three of the five jury members implied that I had performed very well, the jury president, by virtue of being the oldest member and the doctoral advisor of another jury member, laid down the law and stated that I had failed.

He clearly stated that even though the publications I had produced were published in the world's best scientific journals, it did not mean they were of high quality.

He added that I failed because I did not publish in domestic journals where peer review is conducted through a system of friends, acquaintances, and relatives.

I took the oral exam I failed the first time again eight months later.

Another long 3-hour exam.

I am giving logical answers to the questions again.

As the duration extends, the questions become absurd.

The jury members start to have polemics over the absurdity of the questions.

The "perfect passes" from a jury member who supported my associate professorship both softened the atmosphere and caused me to release plenty of adrenaline.

The member who had a problem with my doctoral advisor was asking about medieval algorithm details that even Google would error on.

Anyway, when the exam ended, they took me outside and held a brief evaluation.

I took the exam in the attic of the Technical University's Taşkışla Campus, which was divided by partitions and had no insulation.

In other words, I could hear what was being said inside very clearly from the outside.

I understood from the conversations I heard that my exam had gone quite successfully.

Just as I was believing that I would become an associate professor this time, a member who had a problem with my doctoral advisor suggested that I was too young, that I should fail this time as well, and recommended that I pass in the next exam, and he was persistent about it.

He tried to expand his sphere of influence.

He managed to pull the professor who was the jury president by virtue of being the oldest member to his side.

The jury member who helped me by throwing "perfect passes" during the exam stated that I had given an extremely successful exam, and then, noting that the "too young" candidate would only be six months older in the next exam, I became an associate professor by "majority vote" with the support of the other three members.

Exams whose framework and duration are not clearly defined turn into exams involving pushing, shoving, and political prejudices among academics.

On the other hand, the fact that the recent "lucky associate professors" who did not enter an oral jury will serve as jury members in the "associate professorship oral exam" that is said to be returning should also be discussed.

Announced to the Interuniversity Board.