News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Oct. 18, 2007
San Jose State University has a major engineering program, enrolling several thousand undergrads a year and about 2,000 master’s level students. Many of those students would like a Ph.D. in engineering, and have jobs in Silicon Valley, but consider the top ranked programs in the area (those at Stanford University and the University of California at Berkeley) to be a bit of out of reach economically or academically. At many universities such a circumstance would lead to a proposal to create a Ph.D. program. But San Jose — part of the California State University System — isn’t supposed to create Ph.D. programs under the much-heralded state “master plan,” which leaves virtually all doctoral education to the University of California.
What to do? This week San Jose State announced a program in which its master’s graduates will be able to take Ph.D. courses at San Jose State, use the labs and library, meet their dissertation committee members and probably even conduct their defenses for a Ph.D. When they display their doctorates though, the seal will be from Mississippi State University, even though the students may never have stepped foot in Mississippi.
Mississippi State professors will teach the courses online and will lead dissertation committees, in most cases through teleconferencing. Technically, the students will be Mississippi State students, although these California residents will receive waivers of out-of-state tuition rates so they will be treated like Mississippi residents.
In the era of distance education, it’s of course become common for students to earn degrees from far-flung or virtual campuses. But the San Jose-Mississippi State collaboration is unusual for the way distance education is essentially creating a Ph.D. program at a specific university that would otherwise be unable to offer one. That this is taking place in a state where the master plan is supposed to clearly define (and limit) missions of institutions has raised a few eyebrows in California since The San Jose Mercury News reported on the development this week — some raised with concern and others with respect for San Jose State’s gumption.
Guna Selvaduray, associate dean at San Jose State’s engineering college, said that for his master’s students, the new program will be “like having their cake and eating it, too.” They want more education, but can’t leave their jobs in the Silicon Valley. Graduate students at Berkeley and Stanford are more likely to be full time, while his students are older, working professionals who need more flexibility and already know his campus, he said.
At Mississippi State, about 200 students are currently enrolled in engineering Ph.D. programs, a longstanding part of the land grant university’s role in the state. Mississippi State would love to see those programs grow, but frankly acknowledges that Starkville isn’t a draw for those seeking a high tech career. “We are essentially a college town in rural Mississippi, so our growth is limited,” said Peter Rabideau, the provost.
Rabideau said his faculty would be able to see programs grow (and departments most likely grow) with the additional students from San Jose. No state funds are expected to be needed. “There’s the potential for this to involve a significant number of students, which could really strengthen our programs,” he said. Mississippi State students also stand to benefit, he added, as they will have opportunities to spend a semester in San Jose, either taking courses or in internships with Silicon Valley companies.
“We really see this going both ways,” he said.
Standards for qualifying exams, dissertations and defenses will be as rigorous as they would be in person, he said, but they may take place through teleconferencing.
In terms of the program itself, people aren’t raising questions. But the question of San Jose State offering for all purposes a Ph.D. program that it couldn’t operate does have some upset (if not ready to say much in public). The master plan in California is viewed as key to the success of the state’s public universities, and flagship presidents elsewhere — many of whom face ambitious non-doctoral universities — view the master plan with envy.
By saying that only UC would develop Ph.D. and research programs, many believe, California provided enough resources (at least until recently, some would say) to make those public universities world-class. In recent years, California State won legislative approval to start offering doctorates in education — a move opposed by many in the UC system, even given Cal State’s role producing the state’s teachers.
Feelings about the issues ran so strong that it took years before Cal State could win approval and during that time, UC supporters turned to such state eminences as Clark Kerr (the former UC president, who has since died) to oppose the changes. In a letter to legislators, Kerr wrote that doctorates at Cal State would amount to “mission creep — a well-known phenomenon in American higher education in which one segment of higher education redefines its mission to include responsibilities already being performed by another.” Kerr added: “Once set in motion, mission creep is nearly impossible to reverse. It has cost taxpayer in most states millions of dollars because it has generated unproductive competition, overbuilding, and duplication of effort.”
Murray Haberman, director of the California Postsecondary Education Commission, said that the San Jose-Mississippi State agreement was unusual — and that his commission had no power over it. The commission has the power to approve or reject any joint degree program (technically this isn’t one since the degree is from Mississippi State), and the commission has the power to approve or reject any arrangement between a California State campus and a private institution. There is no authority to review a program like this, and Haberman said it was unlikely that the master plan’s authors — operating in the days before distance education — could have envisioned Mississippi State awarding doctorates in San Jose. (The master plan dates to 1960.)
“It’s a very different world today” than in the days when the master plan was created, he said.
Claudia Keith, a spokeswoman for the California State system, acknowledged that officials there were looking at more doctorates, especially in fields like nursing where there are significant shortages that have an impact on the ability of the university system to educate enough nurses. She said that San Jose State’s move and such plans for other doctorates shouldn’t be viewed as an attack on the master plan. And she noted that other policies envisioned in it (such as free tuition) have long been abandoned.
The master plan “has morphed” over time, she said, “as the demographics and work force needs of the state have morphed.”
While that morphing may yield more doctorates, she said: “I don’t think CSU has any intention of becoming a research university. We provide the work force. There’s no grand plan to become any sort of research university.”
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
I am already concerned about this program. Engineering is a very hands-on discipline. How are folks going to learn how to build bridges or hurricane-proof house on-line? I would think that not too many institutions would want to hire someone who earned a Ph.D. in this manner but I could be wrong.
Sam Jones, at 10:40 am EDT on October 18, 2007
The failure of Mr. Stocum’s comparison is fairly obvious. The campuses of the UC and CSU sytems are neither established companies nor start-ups. They are, instead, all divisions of the same corporation, the State of California. (And yes, I dislike these hackneyed and inappropriate comparisons of higher education to the corporate world as much as most of you do, but I am responding to a particular analogy here.)
It makes perfect sense for California to create a system in which campus missions are unduplicated and resources are expended in the most sensible and efficient manner possible. There is a clear link between the state’s master plan and the superiority of the University of California over almost every other public research university system in the United States, if not the world.
This MSU-SJSU partnership is a marriage of two bad ideas. San Jose State, in the service of its own ambition, wants to chip away at a master plan that has served California well for nearly 50 years. Mississippi State wants to make a few bucks by handing out Ph.D.s over which their faculty have relatively little oversight and which turn postgraduate education into little more than a correspondence course.
Unapologetically Tenured, at 10:40 am EDT on October 18, 2007
To unapologetically tenured: The analogy still holds. Any major corporation that wanted to foster maximum innovation and give maximum service to the public would allow even its divisions (which are spread across the state) to develop in ways that serve all aspects of local markets. The caste system doesn’t do this.
David Stocum, at 11:45 am EDT on October 18, 2007
If the California Master Plan is so perfect, why is Unapologetically Tenured not censuring the University of California for going against Master Plan policy by ignoring the finding/recommendation of the California Postsecondary Education Commission that California does not need another taxpayer-supported law school (at the UC Irvine campus)? Unlike the San Jose case, there is no question that public funds for the UC Irvine Law School will be diverted from activities that the public considers more worthy.
California Taxpayer, at 7:50 pm EDT on October 18, 2007
The California Stae University has worked diligently fo years to break the State’s Master Plan for Higher Education. It’s all about mission envy.
Truth Speaker, at 3:30 am EDT on October 19, 2007
I am not sure what “motives” are being assigned to me by California Taxpayer, but I can assure him/her that any connection I may have had with higher education in the Golden State is now in my distant past. In other words, I have, as the Texans say, no dog in this fight.
Having said that, it is unclear why opening a law school in Irvine is a violation of the master plan, regardless of what CPEC thinks about it. As to whether a law school is needed in the OC, I’ll leave that to policy makers in California. But considering that the state has no public law school south or east of L.A., an area with a population of at least 8-10 million (I’m too lazy to look it up), the idea doesn’t strike me as absurd.
And of course there’s nothing more tiresome than the argument that you can’t object to X unless you also object to Y. The story about the MSU/SJSU partnership really has nothing to do with the UCI Law School.
Unapologetically Tenured, at 3:35 am EDT on October 19, 2007
one devoted to excellence, the other to mediocrity. Restricting Cal State’s ability to grow in areas it has capacity to excel in seems to me a terribly short-sighted and fiscally unwise policy in this era, as presumably each campus could become more self-sustaining in the long run if each undertook more federally and privately financed research activity supporting the development of doctoral programs. As it is, the CSU is almost entirely dependent on the state, and as the state wants to slouch off its mandate to provide cheap and high quality higher education it leaves the CSUs and the UCs no choice but to “go it alone” with privately-funded research enterprises. The “master plan” was only a plan to the extent the state actually had capacity and wanted to finance two separate but unequal systems. Now that it can’t, the plan is a fossil, sort of like the Geneva Conventions, and we’re all living in a brave new world.
amerique, at 3:00 pm EST on November 18, 2007
If this co-oporation between San Jose State and MSU can happen, it will benefit both universities and also Silicon Valley. MSU has very strong EE/CS programs , expecially ERC (Engineering Research Institute), getting funds from many sources like NASA, Aerospace etc, always attracts many talents from worldwide. MSU located in a small town (Starkville), so living cost is low and people can focus on academic.I graduated 10 years back there. later worked for SUN , Apple. thanks for those programs. I just see this topic, and wish this plan went well.
Zhibin, at 4:55 am EDT on July 8, 2008
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
Irvine, CA 92697-2800 CalIT2 California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology Position: Postdoctoral ... see job
Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job
Sinclair is a comprehensive community college with an enrollment of over 24,000 students that offers career and transfer ... see job
Our People, Our Place. Mississippi State University, a land-grant and sea-grant Carnegie Research institution founded in ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Posting Description: Director: Mechanical Engineering Partnership Program between the University of Colorado ... see job
Department of Bioengineering University of California, Los Angeles FACULTY POSITIONS AVAILABLE see job
Position Summary: Our research group models the thermodynamic and economic performance of advanced energy ... see job
Adirondack Community College (ACC) is a comprehensive community college and member of the State University of New York (SUNY) ... see job
Can you imagine established companies in the business world being able to enforce a plan that prohibits other companies or start-ups from developing and marketing a product that people want? That is precisely what “flagship” universities do in implementing their notions of “mission differentiation", which is really a euphemism for “caste system". The academic world would be much more educationally and economically effective if the anachronistic notion of “flagships” were abandoned and the caste system replaced with one that fostered the development of programs, PhD or otherwise, that serve the needs and aspirations of local as well as national and international constituents, or that take advantage of new fields that need to be developed. It is time to move from the mid-20th century into the 21st century!
David Stocum, at 9:55 am EDT on October 18, 2007