Relative Values of Degrees as Teaching Credential

I don't want to offend any of our resident PhDs and other doctorates; however, I keep wondering whether a non-PhD terminal degree from a high prestige school might be a better credential for a potential adjunct than a PhD from a lower tier school. In particular I am curious about the relative usefulness of a Professional Degree in Computer Science from Columbia University or and Engineer Degree from the University of Florida versus a PhD in Computer Science from Nova Southeastern University? Both the Professional Degree and Engineer Degree are terminal graduate degrees beyond the masters degree and both of these schools are considered better schools than NSU. So, is it possible that the cachet of these schools might make these lesser degrees turn out to be better credentials overall?

 

I think the trend is to hire adjuncts with PhDs rather with adjuncts with top tier master's or Post master's certificates. I would think that a PhD from Nova would be a better teaching credential than a Post Master's certificate, engineer degree or other from a top tier school. The reason is that schools have pressure to have the most number of PhDs in their rosters for accreditation issues.

If you are looking for an industry credential, then the Post master's certificate would be a better option.

 

Re: Re: Relative Values of Degrees as Teaching Credential

1. I wasn't aware that the accrediting agencies count adjunct degree when evaluating an institution.

2. The question was a non-PhD terminal degree - not a post masters certificate - for example, the EdS.

 

Re: Re: Relative Values of Degrees as Teaching Credential

Maybe I misunstand what a "post master's certificate" is, but the Professional Degree from Columbia and the Engineer degree from the University of Florida are both advertised as being terminal degrees for the practitioner which amount to the PhD coursework with an applied project instead of the dissertation. Given that adjuncts are not really hired to perform research, intuitively it seems that these degrees would be reasonable background for teaching the subject. When compared to the Nova PhD (which I assume doesn't give their students teaching experience) I still wonder whether these degrees might be given an edge over the Nova Phd due to the bias against DL PhDs. Am I just totally off base?

 

As someone who has been on a good number of hiring boards at higher education institutions, I offer my observations:

All other things being equal (e.g. prior teaching and other discipline experience), a doctorate holder would usually have the upper hand for an adjunct position in most departments, even if the masters came from a top level school. Now, not all disciplines require the doctorate as the terminal degree. Plenty of art professors have a MFA's, and many social work professors have MSWs as their highest degrees. Relatively few nursing professors have Ph.D.s

Hiring at colleges and universities is a very subjective endeavor and different departments at the same institution will have their own priorities and prejudices. Some disciplines (such as nursing) have greater difficulty attracting faculty than others (such as English), because those with graduate degrees in nursing can usually make much more money as a supervisor in a hospital than as college faculty. Those disciplines that have a larger pool of applicants can afford to ignore anyone without a doctorate.

 

Tony,

I think I may be missing something that is obvious to the people in the know. In my original question, I did not think I was not talking about a masters degree, but rather a post masters terminal degree that just happens not to be a doctorate. In this case it is the P.D. from Columbia University or the Engineer degree from U.F. (There seem to be a few other schools I have seen that offer the Engineer degree.) In fact, if you choose to go for an Engineer degree from U.F. you are not allowed to pursue a PhD in the same subject later. With the PD and Engineer degree having the equivalent course work as a PhD (this is not a masters degree all over again) with every thing else being equal I would think these degrees would be superior to the Nova PhD only because the student would have been taught by what most would assume are better professors. The one flaw in my logic is that neither of these degrees expect the student to conduct research or at least not to the extent that one would expect for a PhD program. However, why would an institution expect an adjunct to conduct research? Is it because adjuncts are treated like the minor leagues where they form the pool of future professors?

Could it be that the PD and Engineer degree are such unusual degrees that hiring boards might not know how to properly value them?

 

Jo Ann,

It is possible that since these are discipline specific programs to engineering, that engineering programs may give extra marks to a candidate with the Professional Degree (PD) or Engineer Degree. However, as to your original question about whether a UF Engineer degree or a Columbia PD would give you an advantage over an NSU doctorate, the answer is still likely to be "no" (unless the people on the hiring committee have a prejudice against Nova). There are a couple of reasons for this:

1) Given the descriptions from the UF and Columbia websites, these programs require 30 units of post MA coursework, so they do not require "the equivalent coursework of the PhD". Most PhD programs require more than 30 units after the masters, plus comprehensive examinations and a dissertation.

2) The closest equivalents to these degrees are the Education Specialist (EdS) and Certificate of Advanced Graduate Study (CAS or CAGS). These are also post masters programs requiring 30 units and no thesis. Neither of these is seen as equivalent to a doctorate.

3) Most colleges and universities pay their adjunct faculty according to their terminal degree (masters or doctorate). I have never seen a classification for a "mid-level" graduate degree. If you were hired with an Engineer degree or PD, you would be classified (and paid) as a non-doctorate (i.e. masters-level) adjunct faculty. This is true of those faculty with EdS and CAGS as well.

While having the extra coursework and an additional degree might be an advantage if one is competing against other candidates with only masters degrees, it would still not be seen, by most hiring committees as equivalent to someone with a doctorate. There are scores of adjuncts with doctorates from Nova Southeastern.

 

Couple things here....

At many institutions, for profit and non-profit I have never seen a "hiring board/committee" with regards to adjuncts...basically, if they need you and you have the necessary academic qualifications (diifers depending on the school) you teach...subject to getting the paperwork filled out.

Schools with unionized adjuncts (Roosevelt U for example) have a slightly more cumbersome process.

Adjuncts are never expected to do research as a part of their teaching duties - so a preferenceon having a PhD is simply a bias.

Other than as part of a ratio (FT/PT)...I have never seen adjunct qualifications (as long as they met the minimum) "weighted" by one of the six RA evaluation committees.

 

I just took a look at Columbia's PhD program and it only requires 30 course units beyond the masters. Of course you still have the comprehensives and the dissertation; however, coursewise you have to admit they appear to be equivalent.

Is the EdS considered a terminal degree? I was under the impression that it wasn't. The PD and Engineer degrees are considered terminal degrees.

Compared to a Nova PhD which doesn't give students any actual experience teaching, I still can't see how one would think that the PhD would be an advantage in this case(at least for an adjunct position.) The PD/Engineer degreed individual would have been taught by top tier professors for pretty much the same course work and (as you say) wouldn't have to be paid as much. I don't see the downside unless their is some controls imposed by accreditors that must be adhered to. I'm just trying to understand.

 

I think the main issue is that most schools have either Master's or PhD's pay and nothing in between. I have a post master's certificate but classified as master's level instructor. When competing with adjunct positions, most of the time the PhD kills anything at the lower level. Schools see you as a better asset with a PhD as you can teach Master's, PhD and Bachelor's level courses.

Yes, even adjunct level of education counts for accreditation purposes as an instructor requires a PhD to teach PhD courses and some schools even have the policy of a PhD to teach master's level courses.

The other issue is that few people understand Engineer's degrees, Post Master's, CAGS, EdS or the alike so an Engineer degree might be hard to sell given its unique nature.

So I agree with Tony that a PhD from Nova would be a better asset than a PD from a top tier when it comes to teaching.

 

I absolutely buy this point. However, one thing you might want to keep in mind is that with everything else being equal, as a student, I would rather be taught by someone who has an advanced graduate degree (a masters+) from a top tier university than a PhD from Nova Southeastern. Of course, students (even graduate students) are rarely if ever given any input into this.

I started this thread because of my inner turmoil as I ponder my future educational goals. I'm happy with my career and see advanced education as a means to make me better at what I do. I like being "in the know" when it comes to Computer Science as I think it not only makes me a better software engineer but helps me make my organization better as well. However, a PhD as a credential is a dual edged blade unless you are a researcher. Unless my stock options suddenly increase in value, I'm resigned to the fact that any degree I pursue will have to be by distance learning. In Computer Science that doesn't leave many options (NSU being the best option IMO for a PhD.) Immediately, what I'm more concerned about is the oportunities for learning advanced material and I am convinced that a PD or Engineer degree from Columbia or UF would be about the best I can do. However, as I look toward my retirement 20 years down the road or so, hopefully, I might be able to offer my experience to other students by teaching a course here or there. It would be nice if my decision which happens to be the best decision for now, might not exclude me from anything I might like to do later.

 

The bottom line is...long-term - a PhD is going to be your best general utility degree if you are thinking sabout teaching - not just now - but because in 20 years you can expect "degree inflation" to have an impact.

 

You might be right, I don't know. I have, however, had the idea that Regional and Professional accreditation standards indicate a minimum percentage of Doctoral level instructors. Is this the case? Does this include adjuncts? I've always thought so but, frankly, never checked. If I'm correct in this then it's clear why a school, any (RA) school, would prefer to hire PhD level adjuncts.
Jack

 

Typically, accreditation teams focus upon the number of full-time faculty with doctorates, since the pool of adjuncts is not stable and changes from semester to semester. jimnagrom's comment about there being a bias toward PhDs is correct--there is such a bias.

 

Originally posted by JoAnnP38


I absolutely buy this point. However, one thing you might want to keep in mind is that with everything else being equal, as a student, I would rather be taught by someone who has an advanced graduate degree (a masters+) from a top tier university than a PhD from Nova Southeastern. Of course, students (even graduate students) are rarely if ever given any input into this.

Jo Ann,
Believe me, I understand your point completely. However, having known many hundreds of faculty during my career, I can attest to the fact that the "tier" of the university in which one earned a degree does not automatically make that person a superior teacher. Relatively few college students even look at the back of the college catalogue to see where their professors graduated. You are an exception. I believe that your attention to educational quality will be a benefit to you. I have never attended Nova Southeastern, but I know people who have and others who teach there. It would be a mistake to assume that NSU provides inferior education.


I started this thread because of my inner turmoil as I ponder my future educational goals. I'm happy with my career and see advanced education as a means to make me better at what I do. I like being "in the know" when it comes to Computer Science as I think it not only makes me a better software engineer but helps me make my organization better as well. However, a PhD as a credential is a dual edged blade unless you are a researcher. Unless my stock options suddenly increase in value, I'm resigned to the fact that any degree I pursue will have to be by distance learning. In Computer Science that doesn't leave many options (NSU being the best option IMO for a PhD.) Immediately, what I'm more concerned about is the oportunities for learning advanced material and I am convinced that a PD or Engineer degree from Columbia or UF would be about the best I can do. However, as I look toward my retirement 20 years down the road or so, hopefully, I might be able to offer my experience to other students by teaching a course here or there. It would be nice if my decision which happens to be the best decision for now, might not exclude me from anything I might like to do later.

I can certainly support your desire to attend a top-flight school. Go ahead and do it. Become an active member of the major professional associations in your field, teach at the local community college, present at national conferences nd do the other things that will build up your vita (academic resume). You would then stand a better chance against that Nova PhD.

 

I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. Your input has really helped my understanding of how higher education views credentials. Of course, I'm still unsure as to what my future plans are and of course I have a couple of years before I have to decide on my next step. Right now it seems like my mind is changing quite often so, hopefully, I will have started to narrow things down in a year or two.