Can't Afford It? Maybe You Don't Deserve It.

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by defii, Jun 25, 2002.

Loading...
  1. defii

    defii New Member

    Some time last year (2001), I read a post where the poster suggested that since there is a doctoral glut in the United States, the high tuition costs for such programs work advantageously for academia in that it helps to narrow the field of applicants. The poster went on to suggest (and this was my interpretation of what was said) that those who can't afford the high costs should do other things with their lives since they don't deserve what they can't afford. I've been giving some thought to this over the past weeks. While it sounds rather elitist, isn't it in fact what actually happens?

    Take for example someone I know who graduated with a masters degree from a state university in California. He was extremely successful in his academic pursuits and is quite knowledgable in his field. He could readily qualify for just about any doctoral program. But he has a family and and can't give up his full time work and subsist on the pittance paid by graduate assistantships and the like. On the other hand, the DL doctoral programs are highly priced (and thus unaffordable) and may not even work well in getting him even into adjunt faculty positions.

    While I would never say to him, "You don't deserve it, (especially since I think there is no one more capable and deserving), I am somewhat inclined to say, "Look, you have the capacity, but life has not dealt you a silver spoon. So, just accept that your dream of teaching at a university may simply turn to ashes."

    I'm wondering if some of you can share your thoughts on this.
     
  2. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Sounds like life. I'm a pretty good golfer (currently a 7 handicap, but I've been lower). There are an awful lot of really good country clubs I will never be able to play, not to mention some of the pricier public courses (a la Pebble Beach). I don't have the means, despite my ability. Oh, well. I'll save my money and play where I can.

    The U.S. is not, despite some people's misunderstanding, a meritocracy. Wealth, position, etc., have a great deal to do with our opportunities. There are some things each of us just might not ever get to have.
     
  3. defii

    defii New Member

    Point well taken, Rich. It is unfortunate though that those with such great potential for making a difference can't because of fiscal constraints. Conversely, often those who don't have the intellectual capacity, have the the financial capacity.

    I've often marvelled at some of the garbage that comes out of the mouths of some so-called academics. But, they earned their doctorates and earned their faculty places. It's really too bad.

    ______________

    David E. Fraser
     
  4. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    First of all, don't use the word 'deserve'. To say that somebody doesn't deserve something is to insult them.

    Beyond that, I think that it depends on why this person wants to study in the first place, on his goals for his life, and on his responsibilities.

    If this just a job with him, or is it more than that? Is his subject something that he's been interested in since he was a kid? Is it something the he thinks about constantly and reads about on his own time, class or no class? Or is it just a matter of complete the material as quickly as possible and collect the diploma?

    What I'm asking is whether this is a *calling*. Being a real scholar is a little bit like being a monk, I think. (There have been times and places around the world where the two were the same thing.) You aren't going to get rich being a scholar. It isn't going to be the most comfortable of lives (unless you land tenure, the holy grail).

    Monks don't enter the cloister in order to find luxuries and success, and I think that scholars are often much the same. They simply *can't* stop thinking about all the things that fascinate them without undergoing a lobotomy. It's not just something that they do, it's what they *are*.

    Unfortunately (or fortunately), most people have responsibilities that go well beyond themselves. Householders have households to support. They *can't* just chuck their kids in order to set out on some Quixotic quest in search of self-realization.

    So the problem is: what can be done with those who are called to a life of curiosity, study and thought, but who are not able to enter the scholarly cloister as a professor-monk?

    Is post-masters-level graduate education a matter of esoteric initiations that exist *only* to reproduce the next generation of professors? If so, then who will those professors teach? There will never be enough students to justify the professors' numbers. In subjects like the humanities, where there is little demand for people with advanced degrees outside the university, this is a recipe for a cycle of downsizing that will destroy entire fields of study.

    Perhaps the rest of the world will be happy to see the philosophers, art historians and comparative literature scholars finally go and leave the world safe for MBAs, but I think that it will be a tragedy.

    But that's where we are headed, unless professors and their universities can get it into their heads that there might be value in extending educational opportunities to those who have a sincere interest but can't make the traditional sacrifices that are demanded as a rite of passage.
     
  5. Myoptimism

    Myoptimism New Member

    Sorry guys, you are wrong.

    Money does and always will make it easier to accomplish your goals. Fine.

    In the grad school example used, the person could go to if he has the desire and the talent. If he were an outstanding candidate, he would most likely pay no tuition and have some kind of paltry fellowship. And don't forget the almighty student loan. Would it hurt a little? sure, but it could be done. It is done all the time and it riles me when people whine about not being born with a spoon in their mouth, as if all successful people were :rolleyes: .

    In the golfing example used, the person could play those courses if the talent was there. I am a decent player also, and would also love to play some of the more prestigious courses (twosome Rich? :) ), but it is not in spite of my ability that I can not play them, it is because of my ability (or relative lack of it compared to the people who do play).

    Yeah, having money is a shortcut, but who wants to get somewhere without knowing how they did it?

    Tony
     
  6. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    Cost Prohibitive?

    A RA DL doctorate is going to average about 1100 dollars a month over about a four year period. I can afford that, but only because I spent the last 10 years getting out of debt (no house payment, no car payment, no alimony, no child support payments, et al).

    However, if I burden myself with those kinds of payments, I would have to forego buying a new house and a new car and investments, ect. At the end of the four or five years, would it have been worth it? In my case, probably not.
     
  7. Tom

    Tom New Member

    Where there is a well, there is a way...
     
  8. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    I agree with Bill Daysons posting above. Using the word "deserve" implies some moral hierarchy based on money.
    There are those who, being young or otherwise unencumbered with other responsibilities, choose to stay in school and get their doctoral degrees by the age of 26 or 28 (whatever) and then move on to other things like family, employment. People who take another path are not always able to drop everything and return to school full-time (thereby gaining the benefits of stipends, teaching assistantships, etc. Some may look back and feel that they made a mistake in not pursuing school further when they were younger. In that case you might say that there are some mistakes for which we never stop paying. However, to use the word "deserve" strongly suggests that a person has committed an offense for which they are being punished. What is the offense? Who has been offended? Who is the judge? Why am I babbling? :)
    Jack
    Whose interest in Philosophy remains sufficiently intact that a bit of nit-picking still seems fun.
     
  9. defii

    defii New Member

    Not My Choice of a Word

    The word "deserve" was borrowed from an old post. It is certainly not my choice. I was only referencing someone else's suggestion. I do agree with you.
     
  10. Myoptimism

    Myoptimism New Member

    Hmm..............

    I guess I am a uninformed, arrogant s.o.b. :D Without splitting hairs on "who" deserves "what" before any effort is made, it might be more enlightened to ask if a person sacrifices to achieve their goal then do they deserve it. Of course they do. Another post mentioned it wasn't worth it to them, that is honest, and true for a lot of people. However, stating the "man" is blocking your path doesn't carry much weight. If you can do it, you can do it. Enough said. If you can not, then you can not. No one can do everything they might want to do. It IS based on merit to a large part, and it SHOULD be.

    Tony

    ....fine, money can help, but would anyone consider it a prerequisite to be great?
     
  11. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    I suppose that I'd go you one better...if one achieves a goal, regardless of whether they have made sacrifices, then they deserve the rewards. But they deserve these rewards because they earned them, not simply because they could afford to pay for them. It is the fact that they did the work that makes them deserving, not their fat wallets. As to your statement, "If you can do it, you can do it..." Your use of the word "can" poses problems. If someone "can" do something, it means they are able to do that thing. It does not imply, however, that they are willing to do that thing. There are many people who are capable of returning to school and earning advanced degrees (in the sense of their intellectual capacities) but they are unwilling to do so (for any number of reasons). I am a fair weather fan of the Boston Patriots. One of their running backs (c'mon Bruce, help me with the name) was a high school star who chose not to take any of the college scholarships but to stay home and care for ailing members of his family. He was capable but made a different choice. Did that make him less deserving?
    Jack
    (who hopes he's beaten this topic to death)
     
  12. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Sure, somebody could quit their job, stop supporting their family, and either abandon them or drag them into student housing in a strange city. Unfortunately (or fortunately), people do have wider responsibilities that can't just be abandoned.

    What is at issue here is why there is so much resistance to using affordable DL as a way to simultaneously allow people to meet their social responsibilities and to pursue advanced education.

    I think that the technical means exist to offer advanced education by DL. It's already happening. The costs of doing so needn't be exorbitant. Affordable DL already exists. So I think that the resistance seems to be primarily sociological. Professors see doctoral education as representing their rite of passage, their esoteric initiation. They don't want these sacred things profaned by exposing them to the laity.

    I've already argued that by restricting doctoral-level education only to those planning a career as a university professor, there is danger of starting a destructive downsizing spiral. Fewer students mean less need for professors. Less need for professors means fewer students. Fewer students means...

    But if we accept that there are going to be more doctoral students than there are teaching positions for them to fill, then some thought has to be gven to making it possible to pursue advanced graduate education while simultaneously having a life outside the university.

    DL could easily open up a way to do that, if there were only some will and some vision among academics themselves. But they continue to see their doctorate as the title that sets them apart, and they guard access to it jealously.

    Presumably the rest of us are supposed to stay in our place like good little idiots, with a beer can in one hand and a TV remote in the other.

    But as I suggested in my last post, a few of us simply can't shut off our minds. It's impossible for us to comply.

    That's why I like the CA-approved schools. They exist to expand higher education, not to restrict it. They are often created and operated by enthusiasts. So while they may not be a very good place to earn a doctoral degree, certainly not one that will be accepted by mainstream academia, they seem one of the few options currently available to those of us with serious academic interests but without the desire to become a professor.

    If the RA doctoral programs are analogous to the Benedictine monastery on the hill, the CA-approved schools and their ilk are the friars, who make it possible combine a religious vocation with life in the world.

    There have been times in the past when intellectual leadership passed from the universities to non-traditional scholars outside their walls. Renaissance philosophy was not led by the universities of the time, who continued to champion scholasticism. It's ridiculous to compare today's non-traditional education to that, but it does illustrate what is possible.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 26, 2002
  13. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Student Loan

    Yes, the student loan option is available. However, many students have assumed massive debt in the process, much more that the hurt a little scenario. In my case, I began college at 27 and (with the exception of a one semester break) was enrolled continously through a BA, MA and D.Min. The latter two degrees were completed via the student loan option, which was paid in full in about five years. All tuition costs were paid by yours truly. No silver spoon. No cash cow from mom/dad.

    So, in pursuing a Ph.D. program (if the degree is not intended to further or enhance one's position within academe) there are some substantive non-RA options available. As Bill Dayson has stated, some of the CA-Approved schools would fall in this domain.
     
  14. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    I have a great personal desire to be a millionaire businessman. The only thing holding me back is cash. About $ 999,999.

    We all make our sacrifices to accomplish different wants. Because someone want's a doctorate instead of a new pickup truck hardly makes his quest more noble.
     
  15. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    But what if it's a really good truck? I mean, really good. You know, like all the Ph.D's drive....oh, maybe that's just Steve.:D
     
  16. irat

    irat New Member

    does a ph.d. pay for itself

    Can a ph.d. pay for itself in terms of increased earnings over one's life time? It really depends on the field and the ability of the worker to use the credential for increased publications and salary.
    I was a graduate student at Fl. State U. for several years. The tuition was an expense. But the loss of earnings by being a full time student are significant. Also, while you are a full time student people who are working are gaining experience. Experience that counts in terms of advancement, networking and credentialing.
    One peer graduate student calculated that it would take 3 to 4 years back in the workforce to make up the lost networking. Then another 5 to 6 years to make up lost wages and expenses.
    Remember that while one's income is low as a graduate student, you are probably not buying a house, a car, a dishwasher and you may put off having kids.
    I think the best situation is to figure out how to have the stamina and sticking power to both work and take classes. Get your employer to pay for the classes (because they are job related). At the end of six years you can have six years experience, job networking, the degree, the house, and maybe young children. But the key is the stamina. If you are able to take classes part time, while employed, with a family, you can expect to spend an extra 15 to 20 hours a week in classes or studying beyond the job. If it is a subject field that you love, it works out OK. If you are doing solely for a degree, it can be unfun.
    To be honest. I don't know why some people need doctorates. Why do superintendents needs doctorates? The school districts pay for the classes. Then the superintendents salary goes up with the degrees. Superintendents in the 1950's ran schools with bachelor degrees.
    All the best!
     
  17. telfax

    telfax New Member

    Irat and a PhD paying for itself

    There is no easy response to you question as to whether a PhD pays for itself. People come to doctoral programmes for all sorts of reasons. I wanted to prove to myself I was capable of doing it having been told all through school I'd end up being as clerk in an office. I can recall thinking that there was nothing wrong with being a clerk - my father was a wages office clerk (and retired as such) and one of the nicest human beings you could have wanted to meet. When he died 12 years ago aged 76 (and he had not been involved with hardly anything in the local community as such but he had worked at a 7,000 employee steel works all his life after coming out of the army and he knew everyone because in those days everyone had to go to the wages offices to colect their salary) over 200 people packed the local parish church on a Christmas Eve morning to attend his funeral. We could hardly believe it! My dad had always wanted me to be (as he saw it) 'better' than he was. There was no 'better' person. He was a true 'gentle' man who left school at 13!

    We are living in an ever increasing age of credentials. We'll eventually require some sort of super doctorate or they'll start grading them! Believe it or not, I've been in university committees where this idea has been banded around! Britain is moving towards the US notion of course work plus a shorter thesis where the course work is graded. This is being done simply to attract overseas students! This has been publicly stated. Why? Firstly, because the students they wish to attract from the countries prepared to send/pay for them don't have a culture of in-depth and detailed research leading to an 80,000-100,000 words thesis. Their culture is one of everything being teacher-centred. Secondly, these overseas students pay three times the fees of a UK or European Union student if attending on a full-time basis!

    Applications for master's degrees has risen 20% in the last 2 years at British universities. But then if the average honours classification has risen to being a 2:1 this is understandable! This 2:1 average is what has happened and is quite absurd!

    Back to do doing a PhD! I think it does add value. You end up a better writer, reader, analyser and people do give you more respect, it does open doors and your view of the world and peopel changes. That was my experience in addition to learning greater motivation, time keeping and so on! Money wise? I can now run executive training programmes where I work, having published as a result of my PhD and this work being inthe public domain and I can earn (in US money) $2,000 per day (paid by the university) which far exceeds my normal faculty member payment rate!

    'telfax'

    'telfax'
     

Share This Page