European Doctorates

There is the issue of accessibility to higher education. I have no stats whasoever, but I have the perception that there is be less access to the terminal degree here than the U.S. One of the reasons for this is that the Australian govt funds PhDs on scholarship and the universities get paid for each degree that gets completed, although at present the government are going to rip billions out of this program. This basically excludes "student paid for" PhDs.

There is also a strong competition for PhD places and scholarships. The fact that the university picks up money on the finished product makes the university more discerning about the allocation of PhD places. The student who wishes to pay for his/her education is more likely to pursue a professional Doctorate which is full fee paying. Maybe Europe is similar to this?

The determination of whether Europeans are more or less orientated to PhDs than the US has to bring in factors governing admissions and the opportunities for ROI after completion. The opportunity to gain admission and to get ROI on the PhD seeks volumes for the US in terms of opportunity. It also builds substantial capacity for economic growth that invariably follows research. Perhaps the correct direction is to measure educational opportunity, not cultural predispositions.

 

Access in terms of costs, perhaps. (Although that could be debated given the financing options U.S. students have.) But for a very long time, one's best options to pursue a doctorate while still working were outside the U.S. (particularly, Australia, the UK, and South Africa). When I first applied to enter my PhD program, there were exactly 5 programs in the U.S. with accreditation (or candidates) where one could pursue a limited residency doctorate. (Fielding, Union, Nova Southeastern, Saybrook, and the International Graduate School). Stalwarts like Walden and Sarasota (now Argosy) weren't even candidates yet, and the others we know now either didn't offer the doctorate or didn't even exist. Then there's the whole DETC scene, where we even have former diploma mills now accredited and awarding the doctorate.

A lot has changed.

 

No - of course they don't. As I said, the data showed doctorate-holders in ALL DISCIPLINES. Science and engineering holders were broken out of the totals separately. The blue bars (second set of graphs) showed every doctorate-holder - US and Spain. There was a separate orangy-red marker that denoted the extent of the science-and engineering component within the total. Significantly, almost all of the Ph.Ds in Spain are in science-and-engineering, while about half of the US doctoral degrees are in this area.

C'mon! Surely I don't have to teach people on this forum to read a simple bar graph! :sad:

Johann

 

Now we're in sync with the graph - here's my take.

I think it mostly boils down to the economy. A smaller segment can study at the doctoral level in Spain, as available economic resources don't permit more. Spanish concentration of doctoral study is overwhelmingly in the science-tech area. As I see it, science-tech study is more likely than other fields to be financed/supported by industry, in Spain's troubled economy. US produces about the same proportion of sci-tech doctorates per 100,000 as Spain does, but unlike Spain, there's an equally large US component of Ph.Ds in other disciplines. (It appears from the graph that Spain has relatively very few non-science-or-engineering Ph.Ds.)

My conclusions: US produces far more non-science doctorate-holders than Spain. Reason: US economy is performing better. Accordingly, a much larger proportion US students on can better afford - or access funding/support for - non-science doctorates. Ability (and apparent willingness) to go into massive everlasting debt in the US may have something to do with it, too. :sad:

Would Spanish students be more/less likely than their US counterparts to undertake doctoral studies for "love of learning" alone? Can't say. I daresay many more Spaniards might undertake doctoral studies, if they could. But the numbers (almost all sci-tech) demonstrate that many can't - and I presume that money - or access to it - is the primary factor that holds them back.

Johann

 

Maybe just me.

 

Just realized: 60% of University grads (incl. Master's degrees) under 30 in Spain are unemployed.

Yes - 6 out of 10 completely jobless..

General unemployment rate - 26%
Uni. Grads under 30 - 60%.

Why the Spanish aren’t entrepreneurs | SmartPlanet

We're talking economic Armageddon, here. Don't think there's much use philosophizing about how many would pursue "love of learning." It's just not possible.

Johann

 

Despite my apparent inability to read a bar graph we've come to the same conclusion. In the end it IS about ROI. It is about disposable income, it's about local economy. So, is it safe to say that success breeds success?

 

Thank you Kizmet and Johann. I agree with Johann’s reading of the bar graphs and Kizmet’s final summary concerning ROI.

The first paragraph from the article, “Technology Trends in Latin America” that Johann posted says:

“Education is a key component of technology growth in developing economies. The foundations of innovation in scientific communities lie in the academic strength of those within them. When a country as a whole lacks scientific, numerical, and literary skills, it will make technological progress at a slower rate than other country.”

Productivity is a standard concept taught in principles of macroeconomic courses in college. Productivity increases if technology improves. It didn’t dawn on me that something I normally teach could answer my question in part. Thank you for the graph Johann.

One way to measure a country’s productivity is by having a significant number of college graduates in all disciplines. As the above paragraph states, numerical and literary skills are just as important for a country’s technological progress. This is good news for people majoring in the social sciences and humanities, but then again, there is the ROI bugaboo to think about.

The article then focuses on the number of PhD graduates a country produces in all disciplines and specifically in science and engineering. The implication here is that PhDs in science and engineering are directly tied to the technological progress of a country. I believe this is the case, but HOW? PhDs in science and engineering have a very important role to play in the technological progress of a country but not always as knowledge producers. Often times, they take other people’s original ideas and help make them reality. Where do these original ideas come from? Not necessarily from people who have PhDs in science and engineering, or from PhD’s in other disciplines (although I am not denying that there have been a few knowledge producers such as the likes of Albert Einstein, etc.. When was the last time a PhD in Science and/or Engineering had a breakthrough in Western thought anyway?). They come from people with interests in the fields where today’s notion of ROI is terrible, such as the social sciences, humanities, and fine arts. Western culture didn’t flourish because all of its knowledge contributors were scientists and engineers, even though they did play a role in helping to turn ideas into reality.

Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg were college dropouts. Steve Jobs took a calligraphy course at Reed College in Portland, Oregon. Later in life, Steve’s lessons in calligraphy helped him develop the typefaces and fonts for the Mac computer. I know, I know! These are just but a very, very tiny sample of lucky entrepreneurs, but their ideas catapulted the world by quantum leap, and I’m sure they HIRED many PhDs in science and engineering to help their dreams become a realities.
___
The second set of graphs show that the USA produces almost twice as much of PhDs overall as Spain; however, we produce nearly the same amount of PhDs in science and engineering as Spain. This is a bit puzzling. The graph does not indicate how many science and engineering PhDs produced in the US (and elsewhere) are in fact foreign students that take their training and doctoral degrees back to their countries. Consequently, technological progress in developing nations is increasing at an increasing rate in comparison to the USA (although the USA is at a much higher level overall).

Also, the US does not produce as many Bachelor degrees in science and engineering as in other countries like China for example. This situation poses a problem the USA's future with respect to technological progress. I’m sure this problem is one of the elements behind the globalization of part of our labor market; for a fraction of a US salaries, we outsource our science and engineering jobs to brilliant people in India and elsewhere, but I digress.

Kizmet, thank you for summing it up on the ROI.

 

Very true. And that only happens when those who want to learn - and ultimately contribute in these areas - can get the resources/money to study -- and the schools can get the resourdces/money to teach the relevant disciplines. Circumstances are better in the US than in Spain, so 50% of American Ph.Ds are non-science/engineering, vs. practically none in Spain.

It's the same as in Ancient Greece. Great thought came about once people didn't worry about ROI - when they had plenty to eat. etc., without constant toil every day. At last, there was time to think, discuss, write, etc. 3 days' work a week could provide for a family, on average. It can't now, of course, but still many American students can enrol for non-science/tech Ph.D. programs. Then again, a number of them wind up on food stamps...

Hundreds of thousands of Master's degree holders, PhDs on food stamps

Spain's current disaster is a little like the Middle Ages, when the Black Death settled in and thinned the herd at Oxford University. Learning pretty well stopped for a while, at least. :sad:

Oh well, perhaps we can pray for two things:

(a) Some sort of Euro-Economic panacea, so Spanish students can enrol for non-sci/tech Ph.Ds
(b) That the Economic Black Death doesn't strike HERE...just as we run out of food stamps!

Johann

 

Pretty easy info to get hold of. Less than 60 seconds, in fact. Here's a 47-pager called "The Production of Ph.Ds in the United States and Canada." http://ftp.iza.org/dp5367.pdf I skimmed it and got this quote (Page 4) :

"Since the 1980s, around 50% of the growth of Ph.D. production in the United States is attributed to temporary residents earning Ph.Ds, primarily in the fields of mathematics, science and engineering."

I think that amply supports our earlier conclusions.

"The truth is out there." David Duchovny, as Fox Mulder - the X-files. :smile:

Johann