Yet Another Thought on Rigor

Fed wrote:

Quite interesting to see that the number of graduates from certain disciplines has remained steady (mathematics, social sciences and history, English) from 1971-2001. Others have exploded (psychology) and some continue to be incredibly popular (Education). So far it seems that Education doctorates continue to outnumber those of any other field according to these statistics, followed by Engineering, psychology and biological sciences.

I'm surprised to see a bit of a drop in the number of doctorate graduates (PhDs) in business since the mid 90s.

Anyways, thanks for providing us with this information!

-S

 

Sulla,

You're welcome, anytime.

 

Bill - A reply...

Yet I said "I'm all for accessibility. Qualified students should be able to complete degree programs, even if they can't attend a traditional program. "

The trick here is what constitutes "qualified students". Can everyone qualify for graduate, especially doctoral, study at DL institutions?

For DL programs to be credible, I think the answer is "no", at least in "taught programs" at the doctoral level. The presence of students in a classroom with weak qualifications lowers the level of learning for all involved.

I disagree. As an example, in a race to scoop up students and tuition, I believe that MBA curriculums have been diluted. What I see happening in MBA programs, for example, is the removal of most quantitative study - because many students that want to earn an MBA are extremely weak in quantitative area. I've seen schools drop "managerial accounting" and "quantitative methods" (both legit course topics) because there students are afraid of math. At one school I know of, students had the choice of "managerial accounting" or "ethics". What a choice!

There are lots of ways to learn. Formal degree programs are only one. I'm in favor of "qualified individuals" getting a chance.

But in the case of doctoral study in business, what is a "qualified individual"? Last time I looked at B&M institutions, even weaker state programs, they were looking for folks with GMATs in the top 50% (e.g. 500 and above) and many were looking for 600 or higher. Most of the DL programs we talk about here don't require the GMAT at all. Why not? If you want to be credible, why not measure entering students using a nationally normed exam that has been statistically correlated with first year grades? Or, following Professor Kennedy, why not administer rigorous, proctored exams early in the program?

Giving qualified individuals a chance is one thing. Admitting students into a DL program that could never gain admission to a B&M school leads to one thing - weak DL graduates and an on-going perception that DL schools are inadequate.

Yet when they do, charges of snobbery float around this NG. It is as if we want it both ways - give me accessible degree programs with no entrance requirements and make them flexible. But then when I finish, why won't you hire me into a selective school?

I'm reluctant to name any names here. I've had involvement with nearly a dozen DL and part-time business programs over the years. I really don't want to get personal about this.

I see doctoral programs as a growing segment - and the pinnacle of a pyramid of questionable structural integrity. As time goes on, DL doctoral grads will continue to fill in faculty roles and influence yet another generation of learners.

Adding rigorous, proctored exams and nationally normed testing (either at the intake or graduation point) would be a great way to make sure that DL programs aren't cutting out quality.

Regards - Andy

 

RFValve:

Again, you and others think that we all are business students and paint us all with the same brush. Maybe many business students look around for easy RA doctorates, whine a lot about prestige, I don't know. But business doctorates are not the only ones around and should not be used as barometers to determine the quality of an entire school. There are other disciplines, and DL institutions that pursue professional accreditations in them ARE attempting to create credible doctorate programs as in disciplines like psychology, human resources, mental health, education, etc. Pursuing these accreditations is a VERY rigurous process but if a DL school pulls through with it, then it has achieved its objective and proved to be a credible program.

Programs that lack proctored examinations are required to demand more scholarly work from their students than traditional ones. And that is often the case with schools pursuing professional accreditations like APA and CACREP (DL and not). And that work is hard and requires discipline and dedication. We can go on and on as to whether proctored exams are necessary or not. I don't think that in this case the debate is so much about rigor but as to which system is more effective. I personally think they definitely help, but it is no coincidence that in most graduate schools, their scores only account for a small percentage of the final grade of the entire course. Large projects that require months often are awarded more points.

-S

 

I like the idea of extending some kind of educational opportunity to everyone who meets the necessary prerequisites, and extending opportunities to work to meet the prerequisites to those that don't meet them. My ideal is that that everyone have a viable route available to improve themselves, to follow their dream, and to progress as far as they are able.

I find any possible downside inherent in that policy to be far less damaging, both socially and individually, than the preemptive exclusion of entire classes of people from the opportunity to learn.

Again, I am NOT arguing aginst elite, highly selective programs. They definitely have their place. I welcome them. I'm just pleading that there be educational options for the rest of us too, for those of us that might not fit the image of the young academic careerist that the top graduate schools favor so strongly.

I have never seen any evidence that students are admitted to DL programs who could never gain admission to a B&M school. I do think that many DL programs are relatively non-selective. But many B&M programs are relatively non-selective as well. I'll agree though that the distributions may be different, with fewer highly-selective elite DL programs. I would welcome some.

THERE ARE NO DL DOCTORAL PROGRAMS AT ALL IN MOST SUBJECTS. Even in education, psychology or business, where the small number of DL doctoral programs are concentrated, most of them are mid-career practitioner-oriented and aren't really aimed at training young academic careerists.

Most of the relative handful of DL doctoral students have no intention of crashing the faculty club. They will probably keep their day jobs. (If they were unwilling to give them up to be a graduate student, why would they give them up to teach?) If they teach at all, they will join those adjuncts that you hate so passionately. Their day jobs will be a large part of why they are hired in the first place.

It's already personal.

I certainly hope so.

But I'm not holding my breath for them to arrive. DL doctors threaten no one. They displace no one. They influence no one. In most fields they don't even exist.

 

Rigor ---- a different perspective

We have been inundated hitherto with numerous opinions that center on rigor. What is rigor and what exactly constitutes a rigorous academic program? A common construal of the word ‘rigor’ certainly exists but it isn’t so for academic rigor because responses would vary remarkably from person to person and from institution to institution. The answer to the latter depends on whom you ask and ultimately on individual perception. Another person may see what one person perceives as rigorous as a piece of cake. For example, my undergraduate mathematics and statistics in an electrical engineering program may be too tough for a doctoral student in business or theology.

Much argument has been made about quality of entrants of DL schools but what we often forget is that most DL learners are not your average students. They are people that have spent several years in industries and business enterprises. Most are above 25 years but a greater majority of these students are 40 years and up. If I have the choice of hiring a DL graduate who is an accomplished programmer with several years of programming experience and a fresh computer science graduate from Rutgers (The State University of New Jersey) or Columbia University, I will hire the accomplished programmer in a second. In fact, most DL graduates are ready for the job upon graduation but most B&M students, on the other hand, are only trainable.

I agree that given a good input, one is in a much better position to predict that the output would as well be good but things aren’t always like that. Yes, a good input does not always lead to a good output and I have a short story to buttress my point. The story is about a California vintner. Generally most vintners use good grapes to produce their wine but this California maverick thought that he could do it differently. He was absolutely convinced that if he uses (free) rotten grapes, he would also produce good wine. When he finally put his idea into practice, he did not only produce good wine, he in fact produced one of the best wines in the world. His product sells for about $5 per bottle. Several connoisseurs of fine wines who have tasted his product suggest that it tastes like other wines that sell for more than $100 per bottle. His product is so inexpensive and very good that you can hardly find any in liquor stores. If you really want to buy his product, you have to leave a deposit beforehand. Other vintners are grouchy about this particular California vintner and his practices but that’s a different story. The point I am trying to make with this short (true) story is that good inputs do not always lead to good outputs and that an imperfect input can lead to a perfect output. I sincerely think that the most effective yardstick that can be used to measure academic rigor is outcome (or output).

In as much as I comprehend fully the imperativeness of rigor toward the realization of the much-sought respect for credentials earned through DL, I see no rationale for throwing the word 'rigor' indiscriminately on the air as if to suggest that all DL programs are guilty of the same sin. One poster has even used the discussion on rigor to vent his/her ill-conceived and jealousy-driven anger at some degreeinfo.com contributors. The poster even went further to call these people academic frauds despite the fact that knows little or nothing about doctoral programs.

Methinks that rigor has been over flogged here. Some people are using rigor or lack thereof to indistinguishably discredit all innovative DL programs. (my two cents)

 

Hi Andy
Yes, I am talking about individual courses that together make up the DL degree. This reflects the differences between a DL degree progrmame and a campus taught one (CT). In CT there is a space premium and taking on a student requires allocating that student to a fixed space. The way CT works is for the student to progress through the degree programme to a chort driven time table. Hence to take her on at week one, means reserving her space for 30 -50 weeks (perhaps 4 years).

In DL, the student is off campus and not limited by scarce or rationed space. And it is possible to think in terms of scalable intakes that are not competitive between the number of students and the resources that serve them.

In DT, however, usually organised on a cohort basis, the same problem of scarce resources emerge - the faculty conducting their classes is limited by time, hence they undertake a full programme or at least an annual programme.

DL is a different mode altogether. Take a DBA programme within a fully DL mode. It to can be organised into component parts and examined course by course. If students fail a course exam they quit the programme, or at least cannot proceed to the next course until they pass the failed course (at EBS we limit a student to two attempts only). It does not take 'courage' to fail students because they know the rules before the start ('pass or perish').

Following the North American doctoral mode, in our DBA students must pass 11 courses before they proceed to their doctoral dissertation, each course is examined inidvidually (pass or fail). After the 11 courses there are three Research Modules, each must be passed by examination. If they pass 11 courses but fail any of the 3 Research methods modules, they do not proceed (though they may be awarded an MSc for the 11 they have passed).

Nobody gets through who is 'substandard' in the sense that worries you about DL (though, I suspect you mean CT or DT). It does not matter if they have a PhD already, they still have to pass our Research Modules!

Once through the Research Modules, they go onto their dissertation, and are supervised at a distance by carefully selected supervisors. Of our 100 current DBA students none has yet reached the dissertation stage, hence the supervisors we are recruiting after careful vetting are not yet at work. The MSc part is scalable as per normal EBS methods. I will report on progress in early 2005 when the first doctoral students enter that stream.

We are not a subsidised Business School - a charity in fact - and we will not lower academic standards for money. We will not pass anybody who does not reach our standards.

 

A general reply

Professor Kennedy and Bill - I appreciate your posts. In hindsight I realize that what I wrote about here is in large part motivated by the circumstances I am familiar with - distance based taught programs in business at the masters and doctoral level. Further, I'm focused on some of the schools talked about here and not places like Case Western or the UK/Austalian schools. While this arena is of significant interest to many readers of this NG, it isn't the only topic that folks care about around here.

Bill notes that there are lots of other areas of study besides business. There certainly are. As for providing options for all students - I don't have a problem with this - but doesn't there need to be a minimum level of standards for formal degree programs? Shouldn't a "PhD" imply some level of competence? Shouldn't there be an implied fitness of purpose - such that a person who holds a PhD needs to be able to read and write some level of scholarly work?

I suspect that Case Western provides a good example here. They have a research PhD in business - and they've graduated some great researchers. They have a Doctor of Management (EDM) degree for practitioners. The difference in labels makes clear what the two programs offer. If folks want "practitioner" degrees that aren't research focused, why not earn an "XXX" degree instead of a PhD?

Bill is in favor of inclusion - and I'm not against it. Folks should be able to learn, regardless of their skill level. But having opportunities to learn doesn't mean that PhD programs need to be "open admission". Limiting enrollment to students with demonstrated ability to do doctoral work makes a lot of sense. Whether schools use GMAT/GRE or impose rigorous tests early in the program (ala EBS), doctoral study isn't for everyone. Non-degree programs certainly provide an outlet for folks to learn without the intensity and potential to fail that comes with a formal doctoral program of study.

Professor Kennedy's points are also well taken. The EBS model is certainly a viable one. The idea of providing objective feedback early in the program is a great idea that needs to be replicated. One concern I do have, however, is his comment that DL programs don't need to be limited in enrollment. For courses in the EBS approach I agree. But what about dissertation supervision? My observation is that dissertation support for students is a labor intensive process.

The discussion here has been thought provoking. Thanks for discussing this topic.

Regards - Andy

 

Based on what evidence?? Again, its these kind of myths and false statements that continue to continue to hurt DL. I have not seen any evidence of this since most students entering DL are graduates from B&M schools with me included. And guess what, most have already taken GRES and other admission tests before.
Students that can't get into a BM school will look for another B&M that is less selective, open admissions colleges and schools like FMU (Florida Metropolitan University). And there are plenty of those. DL is aimed at full time working professionals instead. Would it be fair if I said that graduates from Nova or USQ are those doctorate-wannabes who would never be admitted to B&M doctorate programs? After all, they are pretty much considered open admission schools.

Seriously, Andy, I think that your statements are doing more harm to the DL community than good. You might have some that will back you up but your posts are generally poorly balanced and vindictive. You have already been given enough information from other DL schools to form a more balanced opinion rather than use DL as a scapegoat for the all the things that you don't like about traditional schools (which are many). B&M schools that are open admissions clearly outnumber DL schools and don't think that everyone is enamoured with the rigor of taking schools online without face to face interaction with fellow students and promptness from an instructor.

-S

 

Ike wrote:

I agree with everything you said, Ike. DL is a small community of people, and it is wiser if we all stick together rather than make exagerated accusations against DL.

Keep up the good work.

-S

 

Sulla,

My comments were never personal and I think that you always have the idea that they are in defense or pro USQ.

As a matter of fact, rigour debate is also a hot issue at USQ. Some academics at USQ argue that is not possible to do an academic PhD totally off campus and that the DBA is the only viable solution for distance learning. At USQ the PhD can only be completed on campus and the DBA is the only DL option. The argument is that PhD is more academic oriented and requires very close supervision and rigorous study that could not be done on a part-time off campus mode. As for the open admissions policy that USQ had in the past, it created a lot problems since the program was experimenting very high drop outs at the dissertation level and this created a lot of disatisfied customers. The other problem was supervisors availability, some of us had a very hard time getting supervisors and USQ decided to stop admissions for a full year in order to catch up. The new program only accepts few candidates and allocates supervisors in advance to eliminate problems at the dissertation stage. So yes, open admissions is a problem, both the University and the student suffer at the end.


As for snobbery and "my degree is better than yours" kind of attitude, Andy and me are aware that our DBAs are not exactly from top schools, We all both know their limitations, their advantages and disadvantes. I personally like Capella's program more than the USQ, but my budget is not to pay Capella's fees.

However, some academics have the "my degree is better" kind of mentality even in the same institution, at USQ I had a supervisor (my previous one) that told me that the DBA was a lot less prestigious than the PhD because it was not a full time program. He also argued that the DBA was not as strong as the PhD and it was more like a super
MBA.

Lack of rigour in some programs is a real problem as I experienced it my self at USQ, USQ took measures about this and also Capella is doing it. There is nothing wrong to signal problems and it has nothing to do with "My degree is better than yours". Criticism is for better and not for worst.



cheers

 

The only issue I have with academic one upmanship is that of accreditation.

If we hold to the value of accreditation then any degree whether DL or B&M should be a minimal standard. (otherwise the accreditors and their standards are suspect) To argue otherwise seems contrary to having accreditation. Following that thought the significance in the school is by reputation or additional program accreditation.

I agree with Andy that practioner based degrees make more sense from a DL perspective, especially when coincidental with employment. However, I believe the lines are becoming increasingly blurred between these two types of degrees, at least in the U.S. Even the NCES lumps the EdD degree in with the PhD for statistics.

 

PERFECTLY said.

 

It depends on your definition of "open admission. I would say Nova has no open admission policy. See the admission requirements:

"To be considered for admission, applicants must submit:

1. A completed doctoral application form with a nonrefundable application fee
2. An earned master's degree (preferably in business or public administration as appropriate)
3. Specific prerequisite courses with a B or better at the master's level
4. A career essay dealing with professional development goals and objectives as well as demonstrating the ability to express your reasons for entering the doctoral program
5. A resume or curriculum vitae with detailed explanation of previous and present employment responsibilities that demonstrates at least seven years of professional-level experience in business, industry, government, military service, education, or consulting
6. Official transcripts in English from all undergraduate and graduate institutions attended, received directly from each institution. If transcripts were issued under a previous name, please attach a note to your application indicating this. Transcripts and all information concerning admission to the program should be sent to: Nova Southeastern University, Doctoral Programs, Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314.
7. Own or have unrestricted access to a personal computer and modem that can be used to complete course work, and have a fundamental understanding of computers.
8. An official GMAT or GRE taken within the past five years of program application.
"


As for USQ, the admission requirements are here.

http://www.usq.edu.au/resources/dba+selection+05.pdf

 

RFValve wrote:

Open admissions means that students who meet the minimum requirements for admission are automatically in. Most if not all of the schools mentioned require all of the requirements you posted with the exception of the GMAT. We can say Nova is a bit more picky at the doctoral program as opposed to its masters (which requires no GMAT). If you want to make the case that they are not open admissions because of the GMAT, then fine. Still, if you meet the minimum GMAT scores for admission you're in.

USQ is very much open admissions. Unless you consider the submission of a letter of intent, vita/resume, transcripts, and work experience as proof of a selective process. Most DL programs require GPAs, transcripts, resume, three years of work history, goal statements, and some like Capella require letters of recommendation.


-S

 

To RFValve,

Here are the entrance admissions of three popular DL schools:

Capella University

Entrance Requirements
Criteria used by the University to admit individuals to a specialization leading to Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree are:

• Master's degree from a regionally accredited institution.
• Graduate G.P.A. of at least 3.0 (on a 4.0 scale)
• Appropriate educational and professional experience for admission to the specialization.

Criteria used by the University to admit individuals to a specialization leading to Doctor of Psychology (PsyD) degree are:

• Master's degree from a regionally accredited institution.
• Master's degree in Psychology or a master's degree in a related field with a bachelor's degree in Psychology.
• Minimum of three years of paid or volunteer work experience in a mental health-related setting.

Admissions Process


Complete an e-Admission application. E-Admissions takes you step-by-step through the application process.


There is a $50 non-refundable application fee. For international applicants there is a $150 fee; the additional fee of $100 is used for the evaluation of international academic credentials.


You will be asked to provide on the application your academic history, professional history and a statement of your goals.


You will be asked to submit two letters or recommendation, a signed licensure eligibility acknowledgment form and transcripts. (Capella will pay your transcript request fees. See your e-Admissions application for details.)


When the e-Admissions application has been submitted and all supporting documentation has been received, your application will be forwarded to the admissions committee. You will be notified directly when an admissions decision has been made.

*Applicants to the PsyD in Clinical and Counseling Psychology programs will be contacted to complete a phone interview with a School of Psychology faculty member after the application has been submitted. The purpose of the interview is to assess the applicant's fit with desired specialization and readiness for graduate school. The Admission Committee will review the e-Admission application along with the interview and recommend admission or denial to the specialization.


Note: You may track the status of your admissions process at any time—for example, check if your transcripts have been received—by going to the Application Status page of your e-Admissions application.

Pending Admission
Pending Admission
Applications that are not complete, usually missing some portion of the application such as an official transcript or a letter of recommendation, may be granted pending admission. In order for pending admission to be granted, however, there must be some evidence that the academic requirements have been met. (Example: Pending admission may be granted on the strength of a student copy of a transcript or a letter from an institutional registrar indicating that a degree has been earned.) Applicants admitted in this category are typically permitted one quarter to complete their applications. Failure to do so may result in withdrawal of the offer of admission.

Transfer of Credit
PhD applicants with previous graduate coursework with a grade of B or better from a regionally accredited or internationally recognized school may transfer up to 50 quarter credits (10 courses) toward the PhD degree. Some courses that are over 10 years old may not be accepted for transfer credit.

PsyD applicants with previous graduate coursework with a grade of B or better from a regionally accredited or internationally recognized school may transfer up to 15 quarter credits (3 courses) toward the PsyD degree. Some courses that are over 10 years old may not be accepted for transfer credit.

The following criteria apply to courses completed at another institution for which transfer credit is under consideration:


The Union Institute

Admissions criteria

To be considered for Union's doctoral programs, you must have a baccalaureate and master's degree. Because our programs are self-directed, the Graduate College Admissions Committee asks two critical questions as they review applications:

Does this applicant have the ability and preparation to conceive, direct, and complete a doctoral program in his/her field(s)?
Will Union’s educational process and resources support the program envisioned by this applicant?
Application materials

Union’s Graduate College application requires:

The usual credentials (degrees earned, transcripts, letters of recommendation)
The more unique credentials (autobiography, current personal/intellectual and professional interests, and plans for doctoral study.

California Institute of Integral Studies

Doctor of Psychology
Psy.D.

Admission to the Psychology Doctoral Program

Application to the Psy.D. program requires the following:

1) Completion of a B.S. or B.A. in psychology or a B.S. or B.A. in another area with a minimum of 18 quarter units or 12 semester units of psychology coursework, including introductory psychology, statistics, abnormal psychology, and developmental psychology. Applicants not meeting these criteria but otherwise able to demonstrate appropriate preparedness will be considered on an individual basis.

2) Academic grade-point minimum average of 3.1 for the regular program and 3.3 for the Advanced Standing program.

3) Written work sample of a recent academic paper, article, or report that reflects scholarly abilities.

4) Graduate Record Examination (GRE).

5) Two letters of recommendation: one from the academic advisor or someone very familiar with the applicant's graduate academic work, and one from the supervisor in the most recent professional work or volunteer setting.

6) A professional goals statement and an autobiographical statement.

Special requirements for students admitted with Advanced Standing (M.A. level)
Admission with Advanced Standing is available to students who have completed a Master's degree or a minimum of 60 graduate units in psychology, counseling, or social work. Students with Advanced Standing may transfer up to 30 units of the curriculum based on having taken comparable coursework as part of their Master's degree. Students must also complete the predoctoral internship and the dissertation. Students must meet with the academic advisor to go over their transcripts to determine which units may be subtracted from their course of studies.

Coursework from M.A. studies must have included five hundred (500) hours of supervised clinical or counseling experience in a professional work setting (practicum experience). Experience must include substantial one-to-one counseling, and written documentation of the nature, duration, and number of hours of work experience must be provided by a former supervisor. Applicants for admission with Advanced Standing who have not met the 500 hours of supervised clinical or counseling experience are required to complete an additional year of practicum training (for a total of two years) as part of their program plan.

Transfer of Credit
Applicants who have been active students during the past two years in another doctoral program in clinical psychology, but who do not qualify for admission with Advanced Standing, may transfer in a maximum of 15 units in the program, and decrease the total number of units required to complete the Doctoral degree at CIIS by that amount. In all other cases, transfer credits do not reduce the total number of units required to complete the Doctoral degree. Rather, transfer credits are used so that the student does not have to repeat a course in which he or she is already competent; an elective course is substituted instead. Approval of transfer credits is at the discretion of the student's advisor.

 

This is what I'm talking about. "competitive admissions," to me, means that a program says, "We have resources for 10 doctoral admissions per year. We will take the ten best applicants." You can argue over what the proper criteria might be for determining the top ten applicants but I'd bet that by adopting such standards these DL programs would begin to develop better better reputations with the B&M crowd.
Jack

 

Sulla - Obviously we don't see things alike. That's ok - the purpose of forums like this is to generate healthy discussion.

I have been involved in the startup and/or operation of part-time doctoral programs at multiple institutions. I don't think I'm necessarily an expert - but I have some experience.

Many students in DL graduates are highly qualified and could attend a B&M school - but they need DL for accessiblity. Others have weak qualifications and would struggle to find admission to a B&M school.

The problem is that IMHO the DL programs we discuss here (U.S. taught doctoral programs at for-profit or aggressive non-profits) don't do enough to filter students. The end result, as I see it, is that there is highly variable quality. Some great graduates come out - and some weak ones graduate as well. How do I know? Among other things I review dissertations, grade student papers and read conference publications and I see the results. I have a number of close peers that are currently operating admission processes at these schools.

Is there variation in B&M schools? Of course. But then this forum isn't devoted to B&M schools. Further, the DL world (or at least some of the students of DL students) are hunting for credibility. So, I chose to express myself on a topic that I think is of some interest.

Note my original concern - that students can enter the college world at a DL school and go all the way to earning a doctorate - all without ever having their performance evaluated with rigorous, proctored exams (ala EBS) or nationally normed exams such as the GMAT/GRE/Major Field Exam.

The concern I see is real. I'm aware of institutions currently developing (or already operating) doctoral programs that are highly inbreed with graduates from the same institution.

If my comments cause anyone to think twice about the question of rigor in DL doctoral programs, I'm not sure how this harms the DL community.
As for being balanced and vindictive - I imagine there will be a variety of view on this. Frankly, what people think of me isn't the question. What they think needs to happen in DL edcuation to insure quality is what matters.

Finally, DL isn't the scapegoat. DL is simply a medium. The real issue comes down to the institutions that choose to use DL. There are excellent examples in the UK/Australian world. In the US, however, the schools we talk about most here are, IMHO, less than stellar.

Regards - Andy

 

Guess you did not bother to read the requirements. In any case, good luck in your PhD and hope you do well.

 

Yeah, that's what 'competitive admissions' means to me, too.

I remember looking in one of those Peterson's humanities graduate student guides. For most departments, it listed the percentage of applicants that were admitted. I still have some notes I made on that.

Among philosophy doctoral departments, acceptance percentage ranged from the most competitive: Cornell- 4%, Northwestern- 5%, Harvard- 6%, Princeton- 6%, Stanford- 7%, Berkeley- 7%, McGill- 11% etc., to less competitive New School U.- 85% or CIIS- 89%.

The least selective American philosophy doctoral department? The University of Nebraska at Lincoln, which apparently accepted 100% of its applicants. Nevertheless, it came in number 51 on the 1998-2000 philosophical gourmet report, right behind #50 USC (accepted 50%) and ahead of #58 Emory, which only accepted 7% of its applicants!

I suspect that a more complete analysis of this kind of data would show that the most important variable is probably strength of faculty. A lot depends on who is teaching where. If a student hopes to do original research, it helps to work with the professors who are recognized by their peers for thinking (and publishing) original ideas themselves.

You are probably right. But at what cost, if it excludes 90% of applicants?

The whole purpose of universities is to educate people, not to prevent people from being educated. If not-educating people were the goal, then it would be far more cost-effective just to close the universities and to fire the professors.

So not-educating 90% of applicants would have to be justified by some significant improvement in the education of the remaining 10%. That's a difficult trade-off and it's not nearly as obvious as some would have it.

While I agree that making education more exclusive would probably make it more acceptable to titled academics, who already imagine themselves to be an intellectual aristocracy, I think that improvements in perception could be obtained in other, more productive ways.

My belief is that DL doctoral programs won't truly arrive until they produce scholarship that simply can't be ignored. When the day comes that the Baron of the Faculty Club can't stay current in his specialty unless he reads papers that come from a DL program, he's gotta recognize DL, no matter how grudging and embittered that recognition is. He will simply have no choice.

So my prescription would be to make some DL doctoral programs research intensive. Encourage faculty to publish (or perish, perhaps). Provide them research funding. Compete for grants. Join research collaborations. Start institutes and research units. And find as many ways as possible to involve their remote students in all of this stuff. In fact, find ways to make that geographical dispersion into a strength.

The problem with a weak doctoral program isn't really a lack of GMATs, proctors, or the presence of student riff raff. The problem is that these places are just... dull. There's nothing exciting happening, no sense of intellectual adventure, no sense of pushing the leading edge of knowledge. That's the faculty's and the administration's fault as much as it is the students'. Probably more so.