Hey baby, you hear the blues a-callin’? You better pick up, because Frasier is returning to television after 20 years away — conveniently, the same amount of time needed to age a fine sherry — and trading the Space Needle for Dunkin’ and his old Boston stomping grounds. The past two decades treated Dr. Crane well, with the reboot revealing he enjoyed immense professional success in Chicago as the host of a Dr. Phil-esque talk show, although his romantic partner, Charlotte, recently dumped him for good. “It was for the best,” Frasier explains. “It’s time for George Bailey to get that old bag out of the closet and see the world.”
That world is now Harvard. After reconnecting with an old academic pal and teaching a one-off class, the chair of the school’s psychology department insists on hiring Frasier for a full-time position to draw more students and funding. Actually, the chair doesn’t insist. She begs. Frasier accepts the job at his alma mater as a means to reconnect with his firefighter son, Freddy, who lives and works in the city. But getting hired by an Ivy can’t be that easy, right? Shouldn’t Frasier have to defend his résumé with as much vigor as KACL’s ham radio drama? Our fact-finding mission led us to ask all eight Department of Psychology chairs in the Ivy League about whether this fictional man would stand a chance in higher education in 2023. They’re unanimous that Frasier and his super-ego wouldn’t come close.
Matthew Nock, Harvard University
I loved Cheers and Frasier and was delighted to see Frasier back — and was especially happy to learn he’ll join the Harvard University Department of Psychology. But would Frasier actually be hired by Harvard? The short answer is, unfortunately, no. All Harvard psychology faculty lead scientific teams that conduct research focused on questions such as, How does the visual system work? How do children learn numbers? Why does our memory sometimes fail us? Why do some people kill themselves? Brilliant as he is, Dr. Crane’s expertise isn’t in the design and conduct of research studies, but in the practice of psychotherapy and the hosting of radio and television shows. While we wouldn’t hire him to be a tenured professor, he might be a welcome addition as a clinical supervisor for some of our PhD students who are learning to administer psychological treatments for those diagnosed with psychopathology. Also, given Frasier’s love of opera, symphony, and good food, Cambridge and Boston would be a great landing spot for him. I hope he brings Niles along!
Nim Tottenham, Columbia University
I’m very familiar with Dr. Crane from his appearances in Cheers and Frasier. Dr. Crane clearly has a lot going for him, including excellent training credentials, a thriving clinical practice, and celebrity. However, I don’t believe he would be a good fit for our department. The primary reason would be his lack of scholarship. His dossier includes no evidence of scientific contributions and is lacking any evidence of grant funding. The Department of Psychology at Columbia is a research-based institution and scholarship is a priority. We also depend on faculty to provide mentorship to students to develop their own independent research. Based on his record, his chances for tenure — which are dependent on research impact, productivity, service, and teaching — would be very slim. And as a colleague, I would have serious concerns about his ego and capricious temperament. A suggestion had been made that his celebrity might draw more funding to the department; however, I don’t prioritize this potential over his lack of scholarship.
Felix Thoemmes, Cornell University
I must confess that I haven’t watched Frasier before, but I do have some awareness of its cultural significance. The prospect of the show shifting its focus to depict the life of a college professor actually makes it more enticing to watch. Frasier Crane boasts a remarkable academic pedigree, so it seems plausible that his alma mater, Harvard, would offer him a job after a long and successful career as a self-proclaimed “pop psychiatrist.” However, most psychology departments, including Cornell’s, prioritize research contributions above all else when hiring faculty members. While teaching abilities, advising a diverse student body, and engaging in outreach activities — all of which Frasier presumably excels in — are important, they simply cannot compensate for the lack of published research in peer-reviewed journals, highly cited and high-impact scientific work, and the external, often federal, funding that typically accompanies it. Would the Cornell psychology department hire Frasier? In all likelihood, no.
Kenneth Norman, Princeton University
There’s no way we would hire Frasier for a tenure-track professorship. We hire professors who have done groundbreaking scientific research that advances our knowledge of the mind, brain, and behavior, and Frasier has done none of that.
Sara Jaffee, University of Pennsylvania
A radio-turned-TV host could be an asset, but only if Frasier had first spent ten or fifteen years publishing papers on esoteric topics in dry academic journals that only a handful of other clinical psychologists and psychiatrists had read. If Frasier then decided to do a podcast or write a regular op-ed column or publish a pop psychology book, that would be okay, but only if he became really famous in the process. If he did any of those things and became only sort of well-known, his colleagues would just laugh at him. Given that Frasier doesn’t have the academic bona fides predating his career as a radio and talk show host, it’s unlikely that Penn’s psychology department would hire him. Plus, he’s a psychiatrist. Believe it or not, that MD might take him a long way in a medical school, but it won’t make him the chair of a PhD-granting department.
Jutta Joormann, Yale University
I’m afraid Frasier would stand little chance. We would certainly love to have him come for a visit and give a talk to our students or even teach a course on media and pop culture — which I’m sure would see large enrollments and may indeed attract students. But for a professorship at Yale, other qualifications would be needed and scrutinized in a thorough application and evaluation process that wouldn’t be affected much by his fame. We would first and foremost evaluate his scientific contributions to the field. As a professor, we would expect him to have made transformative, impactful scientific contributions to the field of psychology. I should also clarify that psychology is different from psychiatry, which is an applied medical subdiscipline taught in medical school — his qualifications in psychiatry wouldn’t make him competitive for a position in psychology. Given his time spent in media, I doubt Frasier would have had the time to apply for federal grants, direct a research lab, conduct the many careful and sophisticated empirical studies needed to publish in top journals, gone to conferences and networking events, and provide service to the field. Being famous and being a good talk show host alone would not get you hired.
Peter Tse, Dartmouth College
It’s possible that Frasier might be hired by Dartmouth’s psychiatry department, but it’s unlikely that he would get hired by the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, because we focus on basic research about the brain. We would want to see evidence of extensive publications on the neural basis of whatever the applicant was an expert in. The fame of a radio or TV host wouldn’t play an important role in our hiring process.
David Badre, Brown University
Frasier wouldn’t be a competitive candidate for a tenure-track professor position in our department at Brown. There’s an issue of fit. Psychology is a broad discipline with many areas and sub-disciplines. Our psychology is focused on the science of the mind, brain, and behavior; our faculty study how we perceive, learn, attend, communicate, remember, make decisions, and interact with others. Clinical psychology is a special professional area we don’t cover. Thus, we would be unlikely to have a position that Frasier would apply for in the first place. If he did apply for a position, Frasier’s scholarly credentials wouldn’t get him very far. We emphasize outstanding scientific research demonstrated, for example, in a strong record of peer-reviewed publications or other evidence of scientific activity. I didn’t see much scientific work in his background.
