Ph.D. or Ed.D. Program- Need Some Advice

How could you say that "sometimes things are just true..." when you yourself just said that you don't know much about what the guys above are talking about?

 

But I know more academics who did not make it to Harvard's EdD but made it to top-tier PhD programs. So where does that take the EdD now?

 

This is not entirely true. I have been looking a quite a few schools (online and B&M that offer online programs) and it is about a 50/50 split some will take a masters while others require a PhD/DBA.

 

Good question, Randell. Age is a factor, because they will probably fail to earn the degree (for various and sundry reasons) and even if they do, they have far fewer years to recoup the expense.

 

Why were the statements not ridiculous? Are the statements true? Did the poster have an ulterior motive?

 

The doctorate is generally not needed and not required in government, as evidenced by the very few (or any?) job requisitions that name it...

 

Understood but if you get tuition assistance (which someone pointed out a great way to have someone else pay for the degree) that takes the recoup aspect out. It really depends on what you want the degree for and maybe the money is not an issue. If someone is older I think it would be a benefit. Maybe the kids are grown, you are settled in to a career, have a more mature approach, etc. That is just my view.

 

Because a number of people have done research on the topic of the Ph.D. in education vs. the Ed.D. and none have been able to find a significant or consistent difference between the two degrees-other than people's opinions of them. As we all know, opinions tend not to be concerned about trivialities like research and facts.

Yes, the field of education (like other disciplines) has some silly jargon.

 

You are likely correct about this particular poster. Over the years, I have had many similar discussions on Degreeinfo about the Ed.D. vs. Ph.D. with both ignorant and the intelligent (but ill-informed). One of the more intelligent challenged me to produce studies supporting my view of equivalence of the two degrees. Since I possess about two dozen studies on the topic, I referenced six of them and asked him to produce ANY studies showing that the Ed.D. and the Ph.D. in education were significantly different. I never heard from him after that.

I am currently conducting a study of doctoral programs in instructional/educational technology. So far, I not found an Ed.D. program that does not require a research dissertation. I have also not found an Ed.D. that could be designated at a "practice degree" without a research component. The J.D. is a different kind of degree altogether (a first professional degree without a dissertation). I am also doing one on the Ph.D. in business versus the D.B.A. and haven't found differences between those, either.

 

Age is a factor in admissions to brick and mortar PhD programs because of spots and politics.

1. Foreign students get sent to the US with full foreign funding that will not draw from the universities' funding pool. In many cases if not all cases, those students are younger, have better overall educations, especially in statistics and higher level mathematics useful for research purposes. So better educated, lower cost and younger = better candidate.

2. The politics of age and presumed effort: PhD students become research professors. Research professors get tenure track positions at good schools and if the professors do well it does a lot to improve the standing of the programs and advisors they came out of.

It takes 10 years to pull your research together from the time of start of program to likely gaining tenure if you're lucky and don't have to take multiple contracts to get tenure. Say you get a position at a school that is really prestigious and you'd do your home program good. If you succeed, awesome. If you don't (and that's statistically likely) you're likely never getting another tenure track position at the same level university and will need to take another track position at a lower tier school. Contracts are between 3 and 5 years in length and it's not uncommon to go through 3 of them before finally getting tenure.

So if you're a star student you'll get tenure 10 years in. If you're normative it might be 15-20 years. Say you're 35-40 when you get your PhD. You'll get tenure on average when you're 50-55. The 27 year old PhD will be 37-42 and there's an outside chance that you'll get the star performer with tenure at 32 if you did your job right. Comparing 32 to the best possible option for a 35-40 year old learner getting tenure at 50. That's a lot of time spent on a candidate for very little gain in comparison to the advisor and the home program.

The fact that you can get a PhD at 40 or 50 is not a sign that you'll have much time to do research considering the peer review process is not a quick thing. The profession does age discriminate indirectly due to the structures that support the profession. The image of the old professor doing research in his lab forgets to advise that he wasn't old when he started learning.

The above is said assuming you're headed to research. The "teaching" career is still valid, but if that's your goal you can pretty much forget getting into a program if you're open about that being your primary goal.

Of course the sundried reasons mentioned in the quote are equally valid, but academic record and other factors determinable through an interview process can qualify or disqualify general human drive and appropriateness for a program. As with most things, money factors in for the university if there's a stipend and academic politics and reputation gains factor in.

 

While these may be some valid points and you have laid them out very well, would most of these really apply to someone seeking a PhD through a DL route? I would assume that most people that pursue a PhD/DBA online, or a non-traditional route, are mid-career individuals and not looking for a tenure track position at a university.

 

I have no desire to be a university tenure track professor.....

A doctorate is a personal goal and would put me a cut above my peers. It would substantially add to my knowledge in the area of oranizational leadership and I do think I would be successful in completing an applied dissertation.

Many of the points laid out here are valid and I agree there are many factors to be considered in pursing a doctorate; especially time, money and effort. Your comments will certaintly help me weigh my decision carefully.

 

This is likely true. I'd caution anyone at mid-career looking for a PhD though for the following reasons.

1. The PhD is not a turbo-charged masters degree. The time and effort required to undertake the degree takes away significantly from family and other life commitments at a time when people start declining in health and need to be with their kids and in the gym.

2. The PhD if done online at mid-career is never going to pay itself back in real dollars over the course of someone's career when inflation is taken into account unless the person already has an excellent job and the promotion gained is equally excellent. You can forget about a return on investment at all if you're planning on being an adjunct as a career unless you work well past retirement.

You can get past the second point if you're in a full time program on stipend but then you lose 3-5 years of mid career income and you really should be looking at research tenure track jobs in disciplines that make more than 50,000 a year (ergo, forget about liberal arts PhDs).

So the point is, if you want a PhD mid career you better have a really good idea of what you're going to do with it and understand the field you're going into. A lot of people say "the PhD will help me in my retirement". Truth is yes, it'll allow you to work longer and open doors.

But if you took that 100,000 and put it into an annuity or mutual fund now, when compounded over the next 30 or so years, would it allow you to draw that adjunct salary without doing work? I don't know. I'm getting 14% yield right now over the last year. That's worth 14000 or 5-7 classes as an adjunct over the last year with a PhD from a local CC.

Your mileage may vary and I'm still plotting my course. If you really want it for personal reasons, what anyone does with their money is their business.

 

But that's not the point. It may not be a stated requirement for most jobs, but it can be a helluva distinguishing factor during the selection process, especially in certain fields.

In government, it's not just about meeting the requirements for a job. Just like the private sector, it's really about beating all of the other applicants.

 

While it is true it is not a turbo-charged masters, this is an odd statement. What if you don't have kids (or don't like them)? Why it is a choice of one or the other? Why can't you exercise and study?

This is a crock - again a blanket statement. My PhD has cost me...well, the cost of books so far plus a $1500 dissertation fee. The rest is covered by tuition assistance from my employer. I think I will make that money back pretty easily. As far as adjuncting how would you know with any level of certainty it will not pay back? How much did you make adjuncting over the past 3 years?

 

ITJD-

Wow, I always knew that I would probably never do a Doctorate, you just rang it home for me. This is a great post and I would actually expect it to be available to those undergraduate and master's students who think a Doctorate of any kind is something they need for money.

I have ZERO interest in publishing anything, you answered my ultimate question of "why would someone get a Doctorate if they have no interest in teaching or publishing work?" If you have more to add I would be very interested.

Neil

 

You are correct that those who seek online doctoral degrees are, by and large, not looking for a tenure-track position at a university (at least not if they have done their homework). Many already have tenure-track positions at K-12 schools, community colleges or universities and are looking for advancement while they continue to work. Others are administrators in these areas.

So often on Degreeinfo, we see comments that the only reason to pursue a Ph.D. is for a tenure-track university faculty position. This is a fallacy, as many of the people who receive PhDs never work in academia. When I was at Intel Corporation, there were a large number of doctoral degree holders. Of the dozen or so doctorate holders in my church congregation, only half of us work in academia--the rest are in industry.

Regarding the age factor for doctoral programs--it varies widely by discipline. According to the annual Survey of Earned Doctorates, those in the natural sciences tend to be younger and complete their degrees in less time than those in the social sciences and education (many of whom are mid-career adult learners).