Hacker News Reader

Comment by pg | Hacker News Reader

I never called myself the CEO of Viaweb. I just used my actual job title, which was president. It seemed silly to talk about someone being Chief Executive Officer of a company with 20 people. But that was over 10 years ago; fashions may have changed.

View on HN

Don't top academics avoid titles in the US? See for example how many top academics have "Dr." or "Prof." in the title of their home page.

I suppose the impression is that an academic would only fall back on his/her title because he/she is not particularly well known and needs some way to impress others. It looks bad.

Why is this different in industry?

Someone commented on the site about this.

The difference between academics and business is that "Dr." and "Prof." are appointed titles, while CEO is self-given without having to meet any prerequisites or requirements.

But the point is that the use of any title looks bad. It's better to impress with achievements than titles.

Every friend of mine training to be a doctor resents the implication that becoming a doctor isn't an achievement. They're sacrificing more for their title than most entrepreneurs sacrifice for theirs.

It's different for academics because getting a PhD is just the beginning. A top academic would probably not consider it the most important achievement of his/her career.

A top academic is well known and everyone will automatically assume that he/she has a PhD and a respectable position at his/her university, so mentioning the title is redundant.

In general, when you find an academic type without a PhD, it's even more impressive. Read about Google Eliezer Yudkowsky, and tell me you aren't even more impressed when you find out his educational background.

Read about Google Eliezer Yudkowsky

Thanks for making me hunt, asshole. Anyway, he didn't go to high school and is an "autodidact."

Truly, my heart bleeds for the M.D. aspirants of the world. Point taken for real doctorates though.

The impression I've gotten from the PhDs in my dept. is that the title is something they expect and appreciate as a nod to their years of work, but, by the same token, anyone you might compare with them based on merit probably is also a Dr making it useless to brag.

Anyone can technically become a CEO for $89. It only has meaning when attached the success of companies.

/nods

These self-appointed titles formulated as acronyms, C[insert domain]O, is the quintessential cue that capitalists are self-important militarists. Of course I mean militarists only in the lightest (and perhaps hyperbolic) terms for how a large corporation organizes their positions (occupations) of power internally and behave or affect some group(s) of society.

Internally, most notable positions of power are denoted by their domain of command then rank (or title), highest obviously being an 'officer.' Externally the company as a whole will only act on its interests while engaging a so-called 'threat' in a 'fight or flight' fashion. I often forget how young capitalism really is, and while this characteristic is certainly less apparent in smaller organizations it is the 'de facto' operative standard in how larger corporations conduct their-self in the market.

Miss Manners writes that in academia, Ph.D.s are like noses. You only notice if someone doesn't have one.

This might not be true in the humanities. I've had quite a few students repeat the idea that they must call be "Dr.", since the title "Professor" is reserved for lowly grad students. They tend to hear this from literature professors, so non-science fields might have different customs.

If someone is calling grad students "Professor," then they are abusing the term. A grad student who is teaching is an instructor.

Something that I didn't appreciate until I was in grad school was that not all professors are even "Professor." Becoming a full professor is a big deal. An "Assistant Professor" is generally someone who has a tenure-track position, but does not have tenure yet. "Associate Professor" is for someone who has tenure. "Professor" is for someone who has tenure, and has contributed enough to the school through research and teaching to earn being a full professor.

The person teaching the class can be legitimately called "professor". It signifies their position as "that guy teaching the class", not their academic rank.

Similarly, "that guy commanding the ship" is called "captain" regardless of actual rank [1].

I just checked the dictionary and Wikipedia. While both allow for "that guy teaching the class" to be considered a professor, that doesn't seem to be the standard custom. Both stressed the formality of the title, which is the custom I'm familiar with.

I believe it's because of the sales process: a salesperson wants to know if they're talking to a person that can make a purchasing decision, and also wants to give the customer they're dealing with the impression that they're more influential than the actually are. So there's a natural tendency for both sides to overstate their roles.

But then once the guys in sales get more impressive sounding title, everybody wants one and thus, title inflation.

Fashions have definitely changed. Unfortunately, for the worse.

Define "worse" in this case. It's an irritation at worst, and it indicates that being an entrepreneur is starting to become something kids are interested in. I'd deem that a good change, however obnoxious we cool hands might find it.

Worse in that people are falling into illusions of grandeur. I'd say it's more about being honest with yourself, and others, about your work and accomplishments. Embellishing is fine, but you do have to admit that it's gotten to a pretty ridiculous point these days, especially in the web world.

I'd also say that being more realistic and grounded will drive you more to achieve that level of success people often believe they've reached in their illusions. If you're a CEO of a revolutionary web 2.0 company operating in stealth mode, and you don't see any traction, you'll be more likely to give up because reality isn't falling inline with the ridiculous expectations you've set in place.

I will admit, I am guilty of this at times.

Worse in the sense that its diminishing the value of being an entrepreneur and CEO. For example, if PHD's were being handed out to kids a 40 year old's MBA is now depreciated. Same goes for the status and worth of the word and title CEO / Entrepreneur.

Was there ever an inherent value in either? Entrepreneur shouldn't be a term thrown around to sound impressive, like doctor is, because calling yourself an entrepreneur requires a lot less. Similarly, CEO should be a term that's no more impressive than your company. So somebody calling themselves the CEO of a two-man company doesn't make Steve Jobs any less impressive, because it's not two CEOs, it's Apple and Smallfry.

Using the title CEO is largely meaningless, but for the right audience is a real-world hack.

I cringe at the "hack" usage, but I agree. It's amazingly pathetic how many people are instantly impressed when they hear the word CEO.

I'm borrowing pg's phrase "hack a real world system" from yc applications.

If you cringe at that, watch this funny bit http://www.kungfugrippe.com/post/218485518/merlinlabs

Great video. Wow, he's exactly like Jim Carrey in The Cable Guy. I wish he'd say "scramby eggs"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com