Terminal Degrees in a Timely Manner

Thanks for this timely report—and I wish I had attended the conference. The “convenience/content” tension of graduate programs is real. Many discussions seem to equate the length with quality, but these educators seemed to be open-minded about the question: a refreshing twist. My friend recently graduated with a Ph.D. from Univ. of Penn., and the program was two years from start to finish. No kidding—from the first class to defense of his dissertation (in Education). And what’s more, participants keep their full-time jobs and fly in for occasional meetings. Nova, Walden, U.Phoenix and others have been criticized for their sprint programs, but a school the ilk of UP? I’m reasonably confident that they’ve done numerous assessments on the content and outcomes. The one catch, and it’s a biggy—$100,000 price tag. Perhaps I’m a rare breed that absolutely loved my graduate years (at Miami University, OH). It’s the typical (or what once was) program in ancient history with various language competencies to pass, at least two years of courses, the dreaded writtens and orals, diss., and the wonderful chance to serve as a fellow. I cannot imagine trying to grasp the languages and content in a shorter period—nor work an additional full-time job other than the fellowship. However, I’m also aware of the serious financial burden and lack of access many face, and the need to craft programs accordingly. I was fortunate and could not have done it without funding — that simply is not available to most in this new economy. We (senior and/or full profs) cannot forget this. This week’s Chronicle of Higher Ed’s piece “Reinvigorating Burned-Out Professors” hits at some of the same issues of imbalance (A38). Though a different topic, the comments reflect different entrances not just to graduate school, but afterwards into reaching students (see comments on SLACs, small liberal arts colleges). Though these are usually wonderful programs (like many graduate schools) I realize only 10 percent can attend them; also that great initiatives like those coming out of Lumina and Lilly are helping to address access issues at various levels. Two cautions in this access and completion discussion of graduate school: 1) The seemingly abysmal completion rates of terminal degrees cannot be considered in the same vein as undergraduate rates. Passing the highest level of learning exams is indeed more difficult. 2) We need to listen to Cliff Adelman before comparing our educational obtainment levels to other countries’ (oftentimes, the data is recording different types of learning & outcomes) and within our own. However, other programs (like Bologna) are worth a look. Again, thanks for your article. JP

Jerry Pattengale, AVP for Scholarship & Grants at Indiana Wesleyan University, at 8:00 am EDT on April 1, 2008

Change is needed.

I enrolled in a doctoral program with the expectation of it being 4-5 years from start to finish, something I engaged in while working full time in the corporate sector. There were times that courses I needed were not offered until the next semester or two semesters, but I managed to complete my coursework/exams within 3 years. However, the dissertation took an additional 3 years to complete and was a nightmare. My chair left the school, there was a lack of faculty with expertise/interest to lead my study, there was bickering between committee members, inconsistent guidance, my chair’s leadership was overrun by a more prominent outside member, and there was hazing. This cost me dearly; I had to continue to enroll in dissertation research until I completed the dissertation, which ballooned my student loan amount, and my health was impacted from the stress. I completed the degree with almost a perfect GPA. However, I was bitter for some time and dumbfounded that I was subjected to such treatment at the hands of educators.

Caring Doc—, at 10:05 am EDT on April 1, 2008

It’s a disgrace that doctoral attrition is so high, especially after the students complete so many years of study. Unfortunately, professors and advisers have little incentive to help students finish in a timely manner. We need to implement incentives and punishments for professors and schools, so they will be sufficiently motivated to help students finish. Studies have shown that there are no differences in ability between students who finish and students who don’t — the only difference is in the level of assistance provided by their schools. Where’s the outrage? ABDs Unite!

Author, No Sucker Left Behind, at 10:15 am EDT on April 1, 2008

Can we do some math (without a Ph.D.)?

In 1970 about 32,000 doctorates were conferred. In 2004, over 48,000 doctorates were conferred. That is a significant jump in the production of Ph.D.s Meanwhile, the number of tenure-line faculty positions declined dramatically. Today, only about 450,000 thousand faculty have tenure-line or tenured jobs. So, in 2004, colleges and universities created new Ph.D holders equal to over 10 percent of the currently employed tenure-line and tenured faculty within the whole of higher education.

“We’re losing our Ph.D. candidates....” sounds a lot like “The sky is falling. The sky is falling.” Not to be unkind, but those Ph.D. candidates are not needed in higher education at the moment. There weren’t jobs for the 46,000 who graduated in 2003, or the 44,000 who graduated in 2002. In four years, that’s 150,000 people with doctorates, the majority of whom found no tenure-line job in the Academy waiting for them.

Unfortunately, within higher education, Ph.D. candidates in many disciplines are not prepared for work outside of the Academy. It’s an insidious system. Without Ph.D. candidates, who is there for tenure-line and tenure-track faculty to advise, mentor and get to grade their papers in large lecture courses? The existence of graduate students and graduate programs justifies the employment of tenured and tenure-line faculty.

The best thing that could happen to faculty salaries in some disciplines, and solve the issue of the exploitation of part-time faculty would be for colleges and universities to be required to cut in half the number of graduate degrees granted over the next decade. Colleges should be rewarded with additional funding to focus on undergraduate education and to raise the graduation rate for undergraduates in the United States up to 90 percent.

In this case, attrition of Ph.D.s is good for the industry even if it is a terrible initial blow to the individual.

P.D. Lesko, at 10:50 am EDT on April 1, 2008

The nature of the problem is actually rather subtle

I did my Ph.D. work in a research group that tended to graduate people slowly (I took 7 years, just at the outer edge of university-defined “normative time"), and a significant number didn’t finish. I can point to lots of things that my advisor did wrong, and lots of things that the ABD students did wrong. At the same time, the things that he did wrong also had huge upsides for me: He was hands-off, which means that I learned how to come up with my own research topics and make them work. OTOH, he had high standards for whatever I brought to him, which served me well when I moved on to a postdoc position in a group where standards were, well, complicated. In some cases his standards were probably slightly too high (not so much with me as with some other students) but I’d rather err on the high side than the low side (without erring so much that good students get screwed over by impossible requests, of course).

The plural of my anecdote is certainly not data, but it does point out that the completion times don’t tell the full story. For every person who gets screwed around by the committee there’s a person who is allowed to figure it out on his own and learns a lot from it. Perhaps some gentle nudging would have enabled me to move past some mistakes more quickly and solve some problems faster. OTOH, any nudging beyond “gentle” might have denied me the chance to gain real independence.

I’d be interested in seeing whether students who take a long to finish later go on to perform well in measures of independent research. It may be that the person who does what he’s assigned to do and finishes in 5 years is no more independent than the person who has to redefine his project on his own and finishes in 7 years. OTOH, I could be wrong on this.

Alex, Asst. Prof, at 12:45 pm EDT on April 1, 2008

ABD’s and more

First, I am reminded by Alex or Harry Truman’s request for a one-armed economist. It seems that whenever he asked for advice what he received was followed by, “OTOH...” Anyhow, I do agree with Alex about the complexity of the problem. Many of the ABD’s at my old institution (these were many of the adjuncts) were unable to complete their dissertations for the simple reason they had difficulty with the open-endedness the task. They needed more structure and guidance. I, like Alex, was only mildly guided, but it may have paid off.

When I got my first appointment, it was at a “teaching institution,” and my expectations for publication were zilch. I reached that goal when I first applied for promotion and was told, “We don’t expect much, but there has to be ’something’ in the research category.” So, I went about the new task with even less guidance than I had while writing my dissertation. I did what I thought was wise, and collapsed my 300 page dissertation into a 15 page article with what anyone might guess is the expected results. In “reviewing” my paper the editor “accidentally” enclosed a personal letter from one of the reviewers who made a comment becoming a “confirmed alcoholic” if he sent her any more papers like mine. Hmm, clearly an evaluative comment, but not much guidance. Anyhow, I was left with the daunting task of trying to figure out what I needed to do to get published. I managed to do so many times over, including a few grants (those were easier because NSF and others tend to give stringent guidelines in their RFPs.) Essentially, I believe (and of course, this is merely my opinion) that not having much support during my dissertation was actually a benefit. It gave me a bit more independence that I needed to somehow survive in the “publish or perish” environment of academia. If I didn’t work it out, at least to the expectation of my institution, I suspect I would have had to go through a series of 6 year cycles (if I could find them) at various institutions. So, there is something about “whatever doesn’t kill us makes us stronger.”

Fred Flener, Retired, at 1:40 pm EDT on April 1, 2008

Is the US PhD still relevant?

With the high attrition rates and the bureaucratic and administrative efficiencies noted in this article one wonders whether the American PhD degree itself really has much worth. In other enlightened countries the PhD can be completed in 3 years by most candidates. There is no teaching requirement and 7 years would seen as a very long time to completion for a full time student.

Teaching per se has little benefit in the knowledge and skill uptake needed for a PhD, so why persist? Oops I forgot, the US system works by having PhD students and adjuncts teaching undergraduate students, with the professors whiling their time away playing departmental politics and granting tenure to the chosen few to share their comfortable sinecures. In other countries professors teach students as well as doing research and often teach the all important cornerstone 101 programs.

The advent of the Internet with course material and podcasts being published free online (by MIT, Open University, Stanford to name a few) autodidacts can teach themselves. The archaic way of gaining knowledge encapsulated in the US PhD programs is wasteful, outdated and inefficient.

Learning by actually doing is efficient, time thrifty and can be focused on the real needs of the workplace. Educational institutions will change irrevocably in the future and the university as we know it and the degrees awarded may well become anachronistic as the true educational liberation promised by the Internet and modern technologies is realized.

I have to say that I am pleased that I got a Master’s degree with excellent grades and decided to exit the academic rat race after being accepted for a PhD and not taking up the so called opportunity.

Grant Goodman, at 9:30 pm EDT on April 1, 2008

Always about the money

There is no incentive for faculty or administration to ensure PhD students are treated decently. So they abuse students, treat them like serfs, then wonder why so many leave angry.

I had a friend who decided to document how she was treated — poor pedagogy, unreadable guidelines, refusals to clarify matters. Then she went to the trustees with the documents.

Suddenly — her department’s graduation rate doubled. Hmm .. how did that happen?

UFR, at 8:10 pm EDT on April 3, 2008

Completion Rates

The PhD Completion Project is a seven year study. That’s right, seven years. A full cycle of PhD’s.

If a company was losing its top scientists, do you think it would take seven years to come to grips with what is going on? This should be a two-year crash project bringing in some of the top consulting companies in the world for an independent look at this mess.

Herb B, at 7:20 pm EDT on July 15, 2008