Taft DBA

Would you provide an example or two of this? Because I really disagree. From what I've seen, like at NCU's (or CTU's, too, I believe ) DBA, students are still required to do doctoral-level, original research. But instead of theory building/testing, they're allowed to conduct a project and measure its results. The only difference--again, at NCU--is that the project doesn't make an original contribution to the literature. In other words, it doesn't contribute to theory. But it still has to be original and significant.

I just don't see a watering down. I see a change of emphasis from theory to practicality. It is then up to the reader to determine if the lessons learned from the project are transferable to other situations.

The only DBA I've seen that I really objected to was CCU's, prior to DETC accreditation. That was "DBA Lite," with a series of coursework leading to the degree. There was a capstone course with a project, but it smacked of MBA capstone. But from an accredited school, I haven't seen it.

If you have examples, please explain how they do not rise to the doctoral level.

 

Rich, I really do want to believe that DETC-doctorates have value outside of academic settings, because they certainly don't have any value in academic settings. The market for students who want so succumb to narcissism / vanity and hand vast sums of money over to eager merchant-scholars seems unlimited. The reality for most students is that these doctorates are expensive, difficult to obtain, and (almost) useless. However, IMHO, the "no utility" message needs to be delivered in due course to maintain some level of ethical standards of disclosure.

 

Perhaps this was the exact reason why the CHEA mandated the DETC doctorates to be called as professional doctorates similar to a JD degree. For example, a JD requires approximately 90 semester units. The amount of work needed for a MBA with waiver (30 units) plus a DBA (60 units) is almost the same as a JD’s.

 

Dave,

Why would a DETC doctorate have no value in the workplace where an RA one would, especially in places where no no takes notice of the type of accreditation?

 

I really do believe there is a dichotomy at work here, and it is due to awareness. According to my research, employers often do not know about accreditation. Even fewer understand the difference between NA and RA. I think that if they did, acceptance of DETC-accredited schools' doctorates would drop.

As Bill Dayson so accurately points out, the proof will be in their contributions to their respective fields. Because of the non-theoretical approach most of these doctorates take, however, those contributions will be limited largely to the workplace, rather than the literature. This will cause these programs to remain at the margin, mostly the bottom margin.

 

This isn't true, and confuses the term "professional doctorate." The DBA is an academic doctorate. The JD is a "first professional doctorate." The difference is the JD does not have a thesis/dissertation requirement and it is the first credential obtained to enter one's profession (the law, in this case).

The DBA, EdD, etc. are not "professional doctorates." They're academic doctorates. Some have different (not lower, just different) expectations for the final dissertation project, but most are identical to the Ph.D.

Because there are are "DETC-ish" RA schools awarding the Ph.D., along with the fact that the DBA, EdD and others are equivalent to the Ph.D., I have to wonder if this limitation isn't about academic snobbery.

 

Just take a look at the TAFT DBA. The program requires a "Project" that only counts for 12 units out the 60 units of the program (Only 20%). This is rather unusual for an Academic degree that should put emphasis in research rather than a "Work place project". If this is not watering down a program, I really don't know what else can be done to make it easier for students to get one. With this approach, it looks like I can take my sales project from work as a DBA project and become a doctor by just editing what I already do for a living.

I agree that few would know or care if your DBA is DETC, AACSB or RA accredited in the work place. But for the same reason few would care that you have a doctorate in business to begin with. I honestly don't see how a DBA (DETC or RA) can really make much of a difference in the workplace. I rather an MBA from Harvard at anytime than a DBA from Taft, CCU, NCU or any other school that has little brand recognition.






BUS703 Major Practical Project (12 Units)
The Major Practical Project (MPP) is an option for those who prefer to do a project related to their professional life. MPPs are no less structured or time consuming than a dissertation. Dissertations generally focus on significant research while the MPP deals with some specific problem or challenge the student’s business is dealing with.
Prerequisites: Approval of Proposal (BUS701).

 

I agree, but it looks like the DETC schools are selling DBAs as a super MBAs programs that just requires you to take a bunch of courses and then submit a report for a work project. This is hardly the type of program that would prepare academics in my opinion. It looks to me just as a stream of cash revenue for the schools and "almost vanity" degrees for students that feel that might be better to get an DBA just to be called "Dr" in business meetings and conferences.

 

12 s.h. isn't unusual. As for your speculation regarding your work, I would respectfully disagree. And I do have experience in this area.

Looks fine to me. The work and the research skills required are comparable. It is the focus, as I explained in an earlier post, that differs. That doesn't make it any less a doctorate.

 

Okay, but you've already expressed that opinion. (Nothing wrong with doing it again, of course. But it doesn't advance the argument.)

Your description of the doctoral project, "submit a report for a work project," is not consistent with Taft's own description. What tells us Taft is lying?

 

It's highly questionable as to whether any doctorate has value in any workplace outside of academia*. Therefore, why get a doctorate that has absolutely no (or exceptionally less) value in academia?

*exceptions being consulting and publishing.

Yes, I know, I'm not Dave. We seem to make the same arguments in most of our threads and interleave each other, so please allow me to be the "other Dave" (no disrespect meant to Dave) for the purposes of this counter question.

 

Isn't it possible that a student will gain something from the 60 hours of graduate coursework? Vanity is a facelift or a BMW, but all that coursework is labor and not very glamorous.

 

Hasn't the dissertation or equivalent for the regionally accredited Ph.D. at the Union Institute & University been called the "Project Demonstrating Excellence," approximately forever?

Edited to add: Oh; for students admitted since a redesign, they're calling it a dissertation now. But approximately forever, until then.

 

There are doctorates in countless charities, religious organizations, government offices, think-tanks, other NGOs and anywhere they need experts.

 

I just don't see this. Research professionals are employed all over the place. I would guess that there are more Ph.D.'s working outside of academia than are working inside.

Invariably, the "doctorates are no good outside academia" arguments are offered by people who don't hold one. (This isn't directed at the poster, since I have no idea about his/her academic background.)

 

And your point?

About 90% of Union learners did a traditional dissertation. Of the remaining ones, their final work products were nontraditional, but they still had to bracket them in research and the frameworks presented by their fields of study.

 

It was a counterpoint to the argument above that because the Taft DBA requires what it calls a "project" rather than a dissertation it seemed 'watered down.' I disagree with this, and love the Union program.

 

In my view the excellence and reputation of the university would mean more than the distinction between Ph.D., D.B.A. or the Ed.D.. If one is seeking a doctorate in business, personally I would give more attention to the quality /recognition of the university than to the degree designation (e.g., a Ph.D. from a low-tier recognition /accredited school would be less in demand than a D.B.A. from a solid institution). And as Rich has already pointed out, there are probably far more doctorial degree holders who are contributing in their area of expertise external of academia.

Of course the jury is still "officially" out on DETC doctorate utility, however, no matter which DETC school (e.g., Taft's D.B.A. or Ed.D., Columbia Southern's D.B.A., or Harrison Middleton's D.A.) ends up granting the degree, it will still be a doctorate awarded from a low-tier institution and will furthermore be accredited by a second tier accrediting agency.

 

BTW Pacific States University (founded in 1928), Los Angeles, CA (ACICS) also offers the D.B.A. Does anyone have knowledge of /information on this university? http://www.psuca.edu/node/30/

 

But again, why a DBA and not another Master's? The school is selling a Doctoral degree that is in fact at the master's level. Doctoral work is hard and dissertations require a considerable amount of work and require students capable of developing new ideas and concepts applied to business. Very few are capable of working at this level, in fact most doctoral programs accept very few students.

The way I see it is that DETC schools are having a hard time selling MBAs in a world where RA MBAs are dime a dozen so they are going after the DBAs as they are still very few schools offering these programs. However, the fact that DETC schools are making it easy to get one will just devalue more doctoral degrees in the long term.

Honestly, I wouldn't bother. I'm seeing a huge amount of people with PhDs from schools like Walden, TUI that are having a hard time selling their degrees so I really don't see how a DETC DBA can be sold for anything but a nice diploma on the wall and the right to put Dr. in a business card.