Envisioning a New Ed.D.

http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/04/10/education

Thought this article may help some of the forum that are considering Ed.D or PhDs. The article is fairly long with a number of interesting comments.

 

Interesting article. I have to admit I agree with Arthur Levine from TC at Columbia--it's hard to see how practitioners need a doctorate anyway versus a rigorous MBA-like master's in educational administration. Having EdD students analyze PhD students' data does not strike me as something that will improve the staure of rigor of the EdD, but in fact makes the EdD seem more like a master's degree anyway.

 

Two significant things, IMHO, distinguish the doctorate. The first is the original contribution to the field, which is a requirement of the Ph.D. The second is demonstrating one is at the pinnacle of thought and knowledge in one's field, which the doctoral project is supposed to demonstrate. Traditionally, the EdD does this.

Even without original contribution, I think the EdD has value. Not only does the successful candidate demonstrate mastery of the field, but his/her project may be an example for others to follow, even if it is narrowly based and does not represent a significant, original contribution to the canon of knowledge.

That said, it has been observed many times over the years that the lines between the EdD and the PhD in education are quite blurred. Perhaps an un-blurring will do both degrees well.

 

The reason the educational administrators need an EdD? Credentials creep, of course! Simply put, there are way too many MEds running around out there and those who want to separate themselves from the crowd need a bigger piece of paper.

 

I agree. I'm just grateful not to hear about "the chancellorate" in ages.

 

I guess the real question is, or at least should be: Do high school teachers really need master's degrees? Well, since the state legislatures are, by and large, saying that legally they do need master's degrees, it stands to reason that principals and superintendants should need doctorates ... even if only for purposes of oneupmanship!

 

Good point Ted. However, once the numbers of EdDs increase to MEds levels - what will be the next step?

 

Ultimately we will need another type of degree...

I've been thinking about this quite a bit since it has been mentioned several times on this forum about how many starving PhDs there are. Perhaps in the next 50 or 100 years society will need to develop "super" PhDs to resolve this type of conflict. If everyone has a PhD, then what is it worth?

Same thing that has been happening to Bachelors degrees over the past 10 years or so. The Bachelor is now the high school diploma and the Masters is the new Bachelor. The Doctorate is the new Masters so what's next?

Anyway, credential creep is a factor to be reckoned with but I'm not sure how. We all need the degrees to work in our chosen field (and be reasonably compensated).

Jacob

 

ChEd (Chancellorate of Education?) degrees?

 

Perhaps instead of creating "Super Degrees," the educational system will increase the admission/graduation standards for the existing set of degrees.

 

"Grand Ph.D.s". WIDU has already got it covered.

Coming back to reality, I don't see how introducing "super Ph.D.s" would resolve the "starving Ph.D." problem. Ph.D.s would still be out of work.

If the idea is that it often takes something more than simply possessing a doctoral degree to be hired, then I agree. But isn't that the situation right now? Isn't hiring usually based on both education and experience/accomplishments?

Good graduate programs don't just teach classes and award degrees. They also try to give their students the kind of things that they need to be to be competitive. They typically require that students acquire teaching experience. In the sciences especially, they embed graduate students in the work of departmental research teams. Students are typically full-time, they are on-campus and they typically receive financial support. They emerge with a bunch of publications and recommendations. Lack of that kind of research involvement is a significant deficiency in "lone-ranger" type DL doctoral programs.

Extending higher education out for more and more of a student's lifetime makes sense with geshe degree programs (which can take decades). Being a Tibetan monk is often a lifetime commitment and these guys aren't going anywhere, so being a student in a very formal educational environment is in a sense their life's work. But in a Western university, presumably the goal is to graduate eventually and then do something. So if we need to differentiate and select among those graduates, then it probably makes sense to look beyond their diplomas to what people have actually done. And I think that's how hiring is typically done right now at the doctoral level.

 

You're right of course, but...

They aren't a "real" university according to modified-GAAP standards, are they? Anyway the construction of the new "highway to heaven" lane should start now because I forsee the day when we will all have PhDs because our BS and MS degrees don't get us the economic renumeration we expect. But you're completely correct that this is a "fringe" argument and doesn't need to be seriously investigated until enough people get the same sense of concern about people with MS degrees managing a McDonald's night-shift that I have. I am NOT trying to win "converts" on degreeinfo.

It doesn't help them, but it helps establish a system more in line with the needs of industry. Again, I'm not trying to win "converts" until I publish a thesis on the subject (and understand the issues a good bit better myself) especially when this discussion is quite off topic, but historically when one graduated from high school, college, and super college (speaking now of masters and doctoral degrees) there were attendent blessings bestowed by society on the recipient including a more utilized place in the microeconomy, better access to the political ear, and of course - more money. This process has failed at least the last two generations of scholars. Starting in, I'd say the late 1970s to early 1980s, the rise of credential creep has caused a dramatic dilution of the value of each degree offered in the educational system in America at least.

Yes, and no. What I'm discovering as I continue my own personal perambulations is that industry wants both education and experience but at a net cost to them equal to hiring for only education. This means that employers tend to "buy" the highest education they can get with the lowest quantity of years of direct experience. Hiring scenerios never work 100% of the time (because of the number of variables involved) but, I'll try one.

Company A and B are each hiring an HVAC technician. Company A tries the education-experience mix and buys HVAC certified, BSEE holder with 10 years of experience. Company A pays roughly 5K per year for each year of experience plus 10K per year for education so...let's say 80K salary (this might be on the low side of reality). Company B tries the education-experience mix and buys HVAC certified, BSEE holder with 1 years of experience. Company B uses the same formula and pays 40K salary.

Which company keeps the better books? Clearly once Company A figures out that Company B has been able to muddle through with a BSEE and 1 yr of experience they will begin to question the wisdom of hiring the 80K BSEE with tenure.

So, no...While in theory we hire based on a combination of education and experience. We eliminate based on education and then are left to hire based on experience.

More PhDs and MS and BS and AS degrees will homogonize our workforce further making each employee interchangable widgets. The only thing the HR manager of the future will need to ask is "Can the person do the job?".

True, by building in an employability aspect the student can be counted "IN" because of the degree and "IN" because of his practicum.

See that's where our opinions differ. I believe we should extend higher education out for more and more of a student's life. I think we want our populus to be constantly learning and growing so that they can truly be able to work in a variety of industries according to their choosing.

You're right, we should look at the education and then the experience. But we don't. We look at how much we have to spend and then buy the most educated and experienced person we can. As a rule Western society disqualifies based on education and qualifies based on experience.

 

Hi Jacob - Can you explain what you mean by this phrase?
What are "modified" GAAP standards? When were they modified and who performed these modifications?

 

Sure...

Please read the introduction to distance learning page 3 on the degreeinfo.com domain (the domain we're currently forum'ing on).

This is the terminology used by John Bear and other fellow DL supporters on this site to refer not to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles but instead to Generally Accepted Accreditation Principles. We indicate the difference by prepending the phrase "modified", hence to speak about accounting standards we use the normative GAAP but to refer to educational standards we use mGAAP. We can do this because we have literally modified not only the acronym but also the underlying focus of the term. I believe it was Nathan Whiteside who first postulated the need for such a rapidly discernable distinction and put it into writing in his article.

This usage was substantiated when Scott Fromherz published his treatise on discovering distance learning programs published on UltimateArticleMarketer.com (presumably to gain additional exposure).

The usage must, of course, be precise in execution otherwise engendering the rage of the supporters of the Gardere report on Mexican Taxation utilizing Mexican Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (MGAAP) and the SEC who tried unsuccessfully to coin the Materially Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (MGAAP) phrase. Unfortunately, the SEC failed due not to acronym confusion but do to the fact that it was perfectly clear to everyone involved that two intransive discriminators (i.e. "Materially" and "Generally") were no good for a business built on taking all the accounting flexibility out of the American marketplace.

MGAAP by Gardere: http://www.gardere.com/Content/hubbard/tbl_s31Publications/FileUpload137/1068/Mexico_tax%20report%2005.pdf

MGAAP by the SEC: http://www.secinfo.com/dVAMm.724.2.htm

Have you read any of the versions of the Bear's guide?

I was first exposed to this concept when in one of his books, John Bear drew the parallel between GAAP in one sense and GAAP in another sense.

Ex. While we have a lack of internationally recognized rules for accounting, there are generally accepted principles that tend to "work" for all cultures and systems of government. Similarily when international accreditation of schools and universities does not exist, some basic principles can be derived from observation which support the educational system by providing generally accepted principles upon which accreditation may be based (once it is developed).

You can also use these principles in the absence of formal accreditation standards to guage the efficacy of a particular school or program set.

Of course, if you do that, you'll want to be sure to apologize to the Marymount Greek Affairs Accreditation Program members. You can find more information about the M.G.A.A.P (that's how they seperate it from the rest of the acronym soup) on the UC Santa Barbara website. You need to be part of the "in-crowd" to find the Marymount program members.

With all that said, there are some, including BakersGuide.com which hold that the use of GAAP in academic and accreditation terms was actually sparked some years ago (back in antiquity) by a meeting of the American Association of Collegiate Registrar and Admissions Officers. But they didn't use the preposition "Modified"...To bad for them...

There at least two professional groups to use mGAAP in determining program acceptance.
Washington Accord
Foundation for International Services

That's all she wrote.
Jacob

 

Hi Jacob - Since we are on a distance learning website and since the term GAAP has been in general use here and on other earlier sites) for quite a number of years, the term GAAP does not refer to generally accepted accounting principles. It is a direct reference to accreditation. I have never seen anyone, anywhere make mention of "modified GAAP." If I am wrong then you will have no problem proving your point by providing a link to such a reference. I think that you just made it up. One more thing. Please reconsider your condescending tone. It's very unbecoming and people might be tempted to come to the conclusion that you're a newbiewannabepseudoexpert. Which, of course, we know is untrue.

 

Dear Heavens...This on a Sunday!

In my culture, it is appropriate to reflect and contemplate on the Sabbath.

When you asked the first time, I provided you with hyperlinks and a thorough analysis of the concept plus any other possible acronyms that might be confusing. I did this not to be condescending, but to be thorough.

Yes, I admit that I threw some humor in because I saw the question as extremely humorous given that the link to this modified acronym is found on this very site. Plus, I got the distinct impression that kizmet didn't like me the first time I crossed his/her path in this forum.

So, let's try this again. My name is Jacob. I'm a nice guy who is a little on the overly concientious (sp?) side (but not where it counts like spelling). I am a hedge genius when it comes to little stuff like accreditation soley because of degree.com and degreeinfo.com. I am very concientious (sp?) and mostly polite except when I've been playing with Dave Wagner (a fellow genius - slightly stuck on disproving negative assertions and fighting windmills if he doesn't mind my saying so) in the forum. I apologize if I'm too abrupt via email/BBS. If it makes you feel any better, my clients have ALWAYS and without exception complained that I communicate too forcefully via email and am "too darn technical for the likes of them who will be reading".

The links you should refer to are:

1. http://www.degreeinfo.com/tutorial/article1_2.html
2. http://distancelearningtown.blogspot.com/
3. http://www.ultimatearticlemarketer.com/articles/ezinepublisher.php?ccf=193ejwe00992fwere383234322e2wedjedjw32dejdwedjwe23r3rdedfndfnfwkerdksderewef&ttc=w384382342342r&p0000292dsdlid=33064
4. http://www.aboutonlinedegrees.org/ins_outs/onlineaccreditation.php

These are articles by Nathan Whiteside and Scott Fromherz. The articles have themselves been modified for use by a number of entities in DL.

The most important one for concepts is number 2.

The most important one for humor is number 1.

Again, I hereby publically (sp?) declare that I'm not laughing at or being condescending to kizmet. I am laughing that the concept of mGAAP was published here on degreeinfo and I'm sure that few of our denizens know that this is another way (to my mind a more specific and less complicated way) to define GAAP accreditation. I didn't know it myself, until a few days ago when I was bored and decided to read the site I'm posting to.

Just a bit of further information, if ya'll don't mind...

I never manufacture data, just concepts. Anything I quote, will either be the one or the other. Let me digress...There's a difference between saying "Jefferson once said that 50 states was too much" and hinting along the lines of "I thought our founding fathers liked small government." If I say something stupid, I'll apologize. If I say something smart, I don't expect anyone to notice. I post because I'm interested in DL and am looking for the "next big thing" in my personal education. I'm sure that if it will be found anywhere, it will be here.

Anyway, thanks kizmet for keeping me on my toes. Maybe we'll actually come to figure out each other's perspectives.

Jacob

 

A Tiny URL to Fix that Nasty UltimateArticleMarketer one...

I guess that my browser (IE6) doesn't like the split line URL so I've made you a Tiny URL to go with line 3 (above). To protect yourselves against a maniacal version of Jacob, a preview is also available.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/22xhmy
http://tinyurl.com/22xhmy


Happy hunting!

Jacob

 

I would be careful to say that the Bachelors is the new high school diploma since 30% of kids are dropping out of high school and only 20-25% of the population nationwide has a bachelors. Those numbers don't indicate to me that "everyone" has a degree at all, let alone a Masters or Doctorate.

What's next might be that employers realize that there is an entire labor market that exists that really doesn't need a college degree to perform well at work. In my own industry that would be medical assistants, medical billers and coders and office administration personell as well as others. In an industry like education it is different, but to the rest of the working world experience trumps education most of the time and degrees are simply ways for HR departments to filter the amount of resumes that they must review to fill a position.