u/blacksearocket

I'm not in academia myself, so I may be using some terminology incorrectly. I'm researching this for a novel set at a fictional private academic institution in the US in the 1990s, and I'm trying to make the academic structure reasonably realistic.

I know these structures vary between institutions, so I'm mainly interested in whether the following situation is broadly plausible.

There is initially a small psychology research group with three senior researchers:

- X is a neuroscientist. His contract is not renewed, so he leaves.

- Y is a psychologist specializing in experimental hypnosis/hypnosis research and leads the research (I believe he would be the PI). He dies unexpectedly.

- Z is a psychologist/researcher who is already part of the group and is also dean of the school/college.

There could also be PhD students, research assistants, etc.; by "three researchers" I mainly mean the three senior academics responsible for the project.

After Y's death, Z takes over as PI.

At around the same time, however, Z is promoted to Deputy Director of the institution.

The institution has a somewhat unusual division of authority: the President is responsible for administration, finances, and the non-academic side, while the Director is responsible for teaching, research, and academic affairs.

The Director is elderly and seriously ill. He remains formally in office and is not completely incapacitated, but he comes in less and less often and is gradually developing cognitive problems. In practice, Z therefore ends up doing most of the Director's day-to-day academic work.

Because of this workload, Z no longer has enough time to properly run the research project he inherited from Y.

My questions about the research side are:

1. Is a core research group of three senior academics plausible in psychology, including a neuroscientist and a psychologist specializing in experimental hypnosis?

2. If the PI dies, could another senior researcher who was already part of the project take over as PI?

3. If the new PI then becomes too overloaded with administrative work to continue the project properly, could the research be put on hold for a period of time and later formally terminated if no replacement is found? How long could such a project realistically remain on hold?

4. If the project is terminated, could the data and work already completed still be retained, analyzed, or published later?

There is also a problem with Z's position as dean.

The institution intends to replace him as dean after his promotion, but has trouble finding anyone willing to take the job. This particular school/college carries considerably more administrative and research responsibility than some of the institution's other schools, but the dean's position is not compensated much better than, for example, the deanships of drama, music, or art.

Several professors therefore feel that the responsibility is not worth the compensation.

The President's temporary solution is to divide much of the dean's day-to-day work among the heads of the individual departments/institutes. They prepare decisions and handle much of the operational work, while Z formally remains dean, retains ultimate responsibility, makes major decisions, and signs off on matters requiring the dean's approval.

The department heads are unhappy with this because they feel they are being given additional dean-level responsibilities without corresponding additional compensation. At the same time, none of them wants to take on the entire dean position.

The search for a permanent new dean ultimately takes about three years.

5. Could Z realistically remain the official dean during those three years while most of the day-to-day work is delegated, or would an institution normally have to appoint an Acting/Interim Dean much sooner?

6. Is the overall situation believable: a three-year struggle to find a replacement, department heads objecting to unpaid additional responsibilities, and Z remaining formally responsible while also functioning in practice as the almost-full-time academic head of the institution?

And more generally, is there anything in this setup that would immediately strike someone who works or has worked in US academia as unrealistic?

I'm particularly interested in how this might have worked in the late 1990s, rather than only under current university policies.

Thank you! I'm mainly trying to avoid creating an academic structure that would obviously make no sense to people who actually work in this field.

Hi! English isn't my first language, so I apologize if anything is unclear.

I'm researching a character for a story set in the late 1980s/early 1990s, and I'm trying to understand how studying law in Italy worked at that time.

My character graduates from high school in Chicago, Illinois, in 1989 at the age of 18 and then moves to Milan. His girlfriend lives there and he wants to live with her, although he gives his father a different reason for moving to Italy.

He already speaks Italian fairly well, but not at a native level.

My main questions are:

Would an American with an Illinois high school diploma have been able to enroll in a law degree in Milan in 1989? Would the high school diploma alone have been sufficient, or would he have needed additional qualifications, exams, or some college education in the US first?

From what I understand, law was a single four-year degree at the time, the Laurea in Giurisprudenza, rather than a Bachelor's and Master's degree. Is that correct for 1989?

I would like him to fail a few different exams during his studies, at different points, so that it takes him somewhat longer than four years to graduate. Would graduating at around 24 after starting at 18 be realistic?

The important part is that he does complete his law degree, but he never becomes a licensed lawyer in Italy. After graduating, he decides not to pursue the additional professional qualifications required to practice law. He eventually breaks up with his girlfriend and returns to Chicago at around 24 or 25.

Would this have been a realistic educational path in Milan beginning in 1989?

I'm especially interested in how foreign students with American high school diplomas were admitted to Italian universities at that time, since I know today's requirements may be different.

Thank you!

Hi! I hope it's okay to post this in English. English isn't my first language.

I'm doing some research for a fictional character and I'm trying to understand how studying law in Italy worked under the old university system.

My character is from Chicago and graduates from high school in Illinois in 1989 at the age of 18. He then moves to Milan, mainly because his girlfriend lives there and he wants to be with her.

He already speaks Italian fairly well, but he's obviously not a native speaker.

What I'm trying to figure out is:

- Could an 18-year-old American with an Illinois High School Diploma enroll in Giurisprudenza at a university in Milan in 1989?

- Would the American high school diploma have been enough, or would he have needed additional exams, qualifications, or perhaps some college education in the US first?

- Am I right that Giurisprudenza at the time was one single four-year degree (Laurea in Giurisprudenza), rather than a Bachelor's + Master's system?

- How did failing exams work under the vecchio ordinamento? Could a student fail several different exams at different points, retake them later, and simply take longer to graduate?

Ideally, I'd like him to start at 18 and graduate at around 24 because he failed a few exams along the way.

He does complete his law degree, but he never becomes a practicing lawyer in Italy. After university, he decides not to pursue the additional professional training/exams required to qualify as a lawyer and eventually returns to Chicago at around 24 or 25.

I'm especially interested in how things actually worked around 1989, since I know today's admission rules for foreign students may be completely different.

If anyone studied under the old system, studied law around that time, or knows how foreign students were admitted to Italian universities in the late 1980s, I'd really appreciate any insight.

Thank you!

I have a question about how arrests and temporary detention worked in the United States in the 1990s. English isn’t my first language, so I apologize for any mistakes.

My story is set in the late 1990s in a fictional U.S. state, but I want the laws and procedures to be roughly comparable to those in Illinois/Chicago or New York.

One of the characters is the deputy director of an academy and a French citizen. He is arrested because he is suspected of murder. The suspicion is based on the fact that he had a possible motive and no alibi—or rather, the person who could have provided his alibi has been killed—and he was the last known person to have seen the victim alive.

However, due to a lack of evidence, he is released three days later. He is actually innocent. My questions are:

- What would the arrest and detention process have looked like in the 1990s?

- Would the police have said something like, “You are under arrest,” or was there a different phrase they would have used in this situation?

- Would uniformed police officers have arrested him, or would detectives have done it?

- Would he have been required to go with them immediately? Would he have been handcuffed?

- Where would they have taken him?

- As mentioned, he is not a U.S. citizen but a French citizen. Would the police have been required to notify the French embassy or consulate in some way?

- How would the situation change if the police also received an anonymous tip claiming that he had a motive for the murder?

Thanks in advance! I really appreciate any help.