Are All Accredited Ph.D.'s Really Equal?

While I do not have an article that will authoritatively speak to the equality of all accredited Ph.D.'s, I do not believe they are all equal according to my limited experience interacting among various Ph.D.'s in a similar subject/area matter.

Assuming all things being close to equal, in entrance requirements, caliber of institutions, caliber of the student, caliber of the supervisor/scholar overseeing the Ph.D. student, etc.--in that type of world, perhaps all Ph.D.'s would be close to equal but I do not believe we live in that type of world. I realize that no one dissertation subject will be exactly the same--at least I hope not. However, I think it is possible to compare academic work and quality without necessitating the same exactness down to the dissertation. I think most would permit a comparison of the general area.

Because of the variance between entrance prerequisites, the caliber of the institution, the caliber of the student, the caliber of the supervisor/scholar overseeing the Ph.D. student and his/her work, I, through only experience, not through emperical data, believe that not all Ph.D.'s are equal. I would probably think this applies to most other degree programs also.

I want to bring up this point for discussion because in the DL world, some want to view a DL Ph.D. or other DL degrees on the same quality as a high powered and prestigious residential program. While I would agree if all the above are close to equal, I don't think many are at this junction in the evolution of DL.

EsqPhD

 

I think it's pretty clear that Ph.D. programs, like most areas of higher ed. these days, are driven by reputational rankings and longstanding impressions of institutional prestige. It means that DL Ph.D. programs still have a long ways to go when stacked up against prestigious residential programs.

 

David,
Are you agreeing with EsqPhd or not? From personal experience, EsqPhd is right on (and it has little to do with reputation, although there is a correlation). Some schools just require sugnificantly more and better work for the PhD.

In my little subfield, there are 2 top 5 schools, School S and School B, that are located in the same urban area (guess where). School S has a better reputation in my broad field, but I've never been too impressed with school S's grads. School B's grads in my field where, almost without exception, doing really great work. There is very little difference in intake student quality between the schools, but a big difference in the work required and the expectations for the students.

 

It's more a response than agreeing/disagreeing. I don't think there's a necessary correlation between institutional prestige and the amount of work that's required for the student. In my field of law, some of the most prestigious schools are known for being pretty easy places once you get there (surviving the admissions hurdle being the hardest work of all), while some less prestigious schools work their students to death and boot out a good number along the way. The reverse holds true as well.

But as to comparing the work in residential vs. DL doctoral programs, EsqPhd's reference to the lack of empirical data, plus the lack of comparative studies generally, really hamstring this discussion. The topic has been discussed before, but I think all of us are merely speculating rather than knowing.

 

In raising this discussion, it was not my purpose to focus on institutional prestige--though that may have its place. Other factors may be even more important--like the caliber of the Ph.D. supervisor, program demands, etc.

I don't know if I have ever heard of any empirical studies done in this area. If none is done, I think the old addage by Justice Potter Stewart on pornography may apply, "It’s not easy to define, but I know it when I see it."

EsqPhD

 

I suppose one could apply traditional signposts of graduate (esp. Ph.D.) programs as a starting place: Are there qualifying exams, true dissertations/theses/final projects/etc. as opposed to previously written work getting a post facto stamp of approval, oral defenses, and so forth.

But when we get into Ph.D. supervisors, program demands, etc., boy it gets murky. I mean, for example, it's arguable that many foreign Ph.D.s by research are not even close to as demanding as the typical residential American Ph.D. program, which typically requires a considerable amount of classroom work. Or, we could also argue that given how many graduates of traditional, residential Ph.D. programs in the U.S. carry a lot of bitterness about their own program experiences, American and foreign DL options may be "better," however one chooses to define the term.

I think I get what you're saying, but it's hard to sharpen the focus.

 

But the requirement for classroom and for quals is precisely because of the unfocused nature of US undergraduate education. I had many friends at Cambridge, and I'd bet that the Tripos in most fields are as difficult and cover as much material as the quals in many or most US programs. The typical entrant to a british PhD program will have more subject hours than the typical American PhD entrant due to the different educational system. My experience with European and Asian PhDs have been overwhelmingly positive--they knew their stuff.

Even the measure of "quals" is somewhat missleading. In my field, Computer Science, when I was doing my PhD, Stanford and Berkeley required quals, Carnegie Mellon did not. Presumably CMU could get away without quals because of the quality of their students. Also when I took my PhD, a significant portion of every class failed the quals. In many programs no one fails the quals.

My best guess at quantifying PhD quality would be to look at the number of scholarly articles in peer reviewed journals 10 years out from the PhD (when the direct influence of the advisor is removed).

 

One of the issues with American Ph.D. programs is the fact that although they typically require course work and then a smaller dissertation, the actual course work is redundant. I have seen Ph.D. programs basically duplicating the course work that I did at the Masters level. The only original and possibly real learning part of the situation is the development of a dissertation. This is where the research doctorate with its larger dissertation likely becomes a more productive and genuine learning experience.

I have not ruled out doing a US doctorate simply because I do need to use up my VA benefits.

North

 

Hello, Gerstl - Rather than "unfocused", we prefer to think of it as "broad". However, compared to the British system, there's little doubt that the degree of specialization in U.S. undergraduate degrees is considerably less than the British counterparts.

I'll confess to some considerable Yank ignorance; what are "Tripos"?

True enough. It's also true that many American PhD programs (at least those in the "hard" sciences) require 4 to 6 years to achieve the degree. (Most of the British programs in my field advertise a 3-year completion time. I don't attribute that difference to less rigor, but rather, to more advanced standing on the part of the applicants.)

<SNIP>

If we're merely comparing those who move on th academia, that's certainly fair. What about the graduate programs whose graduates largely end up in industry? As an example of such a discipline, bioinformatics comes to mind. The majority of PhD-level graduates of bioinformatics programs (both in the US and the UK) will be employed by industry. Consequently, they'll have significantly less publications than other disciplines.

In any case, I enjoyed reading your perspective on the topic. I would also like to point out that my comments above are merely offered for the sake of advancing the discussion, and not to belittle your insights in any fashion. (I only write this because I have watched too many discussions on this forum degenerate into "pissing contests" when one or more individuals takes exception to a particular post.)

Mark

 

That should read

I can spell folks - honestly! (I just can't type...)


Mark

 

Keep in mind as well that, in the States at least, it's not just the school, but the *department* that often has the reputation. I know of people pursuing doctoral work who got acceptances from major, highly recognized institutions (UC Berkeley, Duke, Princeton, for example) and chose to go to much smaller, possibly less prestigious schools because the particular department of study had professors with particular recognition in their areas of research.

On the issue of all accredited Ph.D. degrees being equal, my short answer is "Of course not." Not only because of entrance requirements, but because of differences in the way the doctoral degree is pursued and completed, the quality and interest of the professors and other advisors mentoring the student, the student's own efforts, and other things.

A school like the University of the District of Columbia is not going to have the academic quality of Princeton (or even George Mason or James Madison, both Virginia state schools). But, as a regionally accredited school, we can be reasonably certain that a certain level of work was satisfactorily completed before a degree is granted. This is attested to by what is essentially a peer reviewed process administered through the regional accreditor.

And *this* is the main difference between RA schools and unaccredited schools. There is no meaningful peer review (unless one considers Cambridge State, American World, Columbus U, and Chadwick U. -- all WAUC schools -- to be a peer group for whom the responsibility for academic integrity can be entrusted. Not. )

I doubt that anyone would advance the notion that RA equals 100% quality and 100% equality... only that it is a pretty decent guarantee of a minimal level of quality.

 

Mamorse (and others)

I'm part of the "we". I'm a yank (although I did go to school abroad for part of my education) I've got an American bachelors degree (and masters, and PhD), just have lots of time abroad and spending time with foreign educated individuals [anyone with a recent science or engineering PhD probably has a good deal of exposure to people with foreign degrees]. It's generally unfocused here

In this context, the tripos are refering to the exam component--the tests that undergraduates at Cambridge take to complete the current year and advance to the next year. The final set are quite rigerous.

I had an aquantence who went to a very good foriegn school for his PhD in math after a mid-level US BA/BS. He returned a few months later and ended up doing the PhD in a mid level US school. His undergrad just hadn't prepared him for that PhD program and he was lost (admittedly, had he gone to Princeton for the PhD, he might have been just as lost).

I guess this depends on the field. I'm in Computer Science--we're mostly in industry now (as am I). Many of the CS people in industry still publish, but it depends on how applied their job is and how sensitive their company is to intelectual property rights. But I do agree--many of the "movers and shakers" in the applied portion of my field, haven't published in years.....

 

I do not think anyone should believe that accredited Ph.D.'s are equal. They certainly vary by field, department, and school. If I can put together doctoral level work in "basket weaving" I can get a Ph.D. in basket weaving from Union. This is of course much different than a Harvard Ph.D. in astrophysics.

What is common amongst accredited doctorates is that they involve real work, a real commitment of time, energy, and scholarship and must result in an original contribution to the field. As a result an accredited Ph.D. is typically considered the highest academic award that a university offers.

Because of the level of the award, Ph.D. programs are limited in the amount of transfer credits. If you are going to be earning a Ph.D. from XYZ University then XYZ University wants you to complete their curriculum.

This takes us to the next criteria on the value of the Ph.D. which can be based on the quality of the dissertation and also skewed by the perceived pedigree of the school. I think this is fostered by the fact that we make a general assumption that top tier schools generally produce higher quality dissertations.

Therefore, accredited Ph.D.s are not equal but they do have commonality in providing scholarship and being earned.

John

 

I totally agree. I do believe that all accredited Ph.D.'s have met minimal requirements in the attainment of such.

Some DL Ph.D.'s may in fact be better quality assuming the caliber of what was discussed previously (caliber of student, supervisor, program demands/expectations, etc.) is also high. What I was hoping not to see and which I did not see thus far, was someone vigorously and blindly defending a Ph.D. because it was a Ph.D. by saying something like, "a Ph.D. is a Ph.D.--doesn't matter where, what or how...."

EsqPhD

 

I think that before this thread can make any sense, there has to be some clarity about how the word "equal" is being used. 'Equal' in what particular sense? There are lots of issues being blurred together here.

*Are all the schools that grant Ph.D.s equally prestigious? Of course not.

*Are all Ph.D. candidates held to the same standard concerning the quality of their dissertation, their comprehensive examinations and so on? Almost certainly not.

*Are all dissertation advisors equally well known in their fields? Definite no.

I think that I and "EsqPhD" agree on all those.

*Are all Ph.D. dissertations equally relevant and interesting to everyone in every specialty of every field? Obviously not.

"EsqPhD" kind of dodged that one from the other thread, so I'd like to raise it again.

*If a university has a more prestigious faculty and arguably higher standards, does that justify one in saying that all Ph.D.s granted from that institution are "better" (*in every relevant sense*) than any Ph.D. granted by a "lesser" school? I believe that the answer is no, and I think "EsqPhD" would disagree strongly with me here.

*Are all Ph.D.s earned by distance education in effect "toy" degrees which should not be used professionally, should *never* be compared to "real" degrees and probably should not be listed on one's resume? "SE" suggested that on the other thread, and "EsqPhD" applauded his realism. I disagree vehemently.

 

If a dissertation involves an original contribution to one's field, then isn't each Ph.D. among the leading authorities on that tiny topic, at least for a short time?

So if your interests are closely related to that research topic, doesn't it make sense to at least take a look at people doing work in your particular area, even if they graduated from a "lesser" university?

I'm not arguing that they will always be the best candidate. I'm just suggesting that it might make sense to consider them. You took exception to even *comparing* low prestige graduates with the ivy-league, as you will recall.

If the argument is moved from the "sharp" issue of precise dissertation topic to the "blunt" issue of general subject matter preparation for undergraduate teaching, shouldn't the relatively low-prestige Doctor of Arts be considered here? DAs are intended to be teaching doctorates, emphasizing breadth over the subjects commonly taught in the undergraduate curriculum, along with teaching skills. In other words, might a DA in English from someplace like Ball State perhaps make a better teacher at a small liberal arts college than a research scholar in post-modern literary criticism from Duke?

Bottom line: If one has a "sharp" research focus, then precise research specialty is important. And if one has a "broad" teaching focus, then the prestige research doctorate might not always be the only choice.

Remember, all I'm suggesting here is that it may be rational to compare graduates of programs of varying prestige, nothing more.

If I am interested in studying the new astrological interpretations of Mithraic symbolism, then I might choose to study at CIIS with David Ulansey over the much more prestigious religious studies doctoral program at Rice which offers virtually no courses in non-Judeo-Christian religions and nothing at all that I know of in Mithraism.

I am going to commit heresy and suggest that many lower-prestige schools may be turning out good work. If I was interested in wildlife ecology in southern Idaho, I'd probably consider Idaho State. If I was interested in Navajo or Hopi linguistics, I wouldn't dismiss Northern Arizona. Michigan Tech is actively researching Costa Rican volcanoes. So if I were interested in Central American volcanism I'd give them a shot. I can think of any number of specialties where the University of Alaska might be a pretty powerful contender, perhaps even unique.

Sorry if that's offensive to the ivy league, but it's what I believe.

 

I would not disagree. For example, Harvard Divinity School is not known for the strongest faculty in missiology. Assuming a lesser known school, including DL programs have a strong department and supervisor in that area (like UNISA when David J. Bosch "Paradigm Shifts in the Theology of Mission" was alive), I would definitely think that a missiology Ph.D. from UNISA and supervised under David Bosch would be better than a general Harvard Ph.D. in Missiology.

As for employability with such Ph.D.'s (based on the degree alone and comparable theological beliefs and experience), I would still think that most schools would prefer to employ the Harvard Ph.D. in Missiology as opposed to the UNISA--but that's a different subject.

True I applauded "SE's" realism but I never wrote that I agreed with everything he wrote--as a matter of fact, if you will reread, you will find that I stated that I agreed with "many" of the things he expressed--I didn't write that I agreed with "everything" he expressed.

My view is that I would be happy to list any accredited DL Ph.D. if I have truly studied under a good department with a well known supervisor/scholar in that field. This is a higher standard than a regular residential program I thoroughly admit, because I would list my Ph.D. from any accredited residential program even if I had a not so good supervisor. With a residential program, I would be less challenged as to the integrity of my program by the present academic establishment, whereas, in a DL program, if I do not have a well known scholar for supervision, I will probably be force to defend my Ph.D. continuously, and I would prefer not to do that.

I hope this helps.

EsqPhD

 

Within a US context, I completely agree. Some do like to view US DL degrees on the level of high powered and prestigious residential programs but this is really just an exercise in wishful thinking. The fact is that, although DL courses are offered by some excellent schools, predominantly DL degrees are generally not offered by these schools as yet.
This is 1 reason why many are looking offshore... DL is more "evolved" in some other countries. Opportunities for high powered and presitigous DL degrees do exist in other countries.


I want to bring up this point for discussion because in the DL world, some want to view a DL Ph.D. or other DL degrees on the same quality as a high powered and prestigious residential program. While I would agree if all the above are close to equal, I don't think many are at this junction in the evolution of DL.

EsqPhD[/B][/QUOTE]