Person-Centered Graduate Education--The Roots of Union

That may be so but my lack of interest is more about the fact that I don't care much about the ancient history of what Union used to be "back in the good ol' days." If you want to talk about actual current day examples then I might be able to conjure up a little more enthusiasm.

 

This sounds a lot like the independent studies courses I took at traditional schools. I chose the topic and picked what kind of assignment I wanted to complete. The professor signed off on the plan, and I was left alone for the semester. Of course, my entire degree didn't consist of independent studies courses, but this format exists at other schools.

I think the working definition of curriculum is broader than some might believe. From what you described, Union students had to plan their learning. I found this interesting webpage with quotes from various educators defining the word "curriculum."

http://www1.udel.edu/educ/whitson/897s05/files/definitions_of_curriculum.htm

 

About half of my doctoral courses were in this format. The professor didn't stand in front of the classroom and lecture. We sat around a table and discussed topics and weekly readings. I learned about green criminology from one student, and I wouldn't have heard about it from any of my professors. We had a few attorneys in the class who provided valuable information. I liked hearing the probation professionals talk because this was before I worked in parole. I talked about law enforcement hiring practices because very few students and professors were exposed to them.

 

While the overall title is "Interdisciplinary Studies," learners declared a concentration and a specialization when I graduated. No one studied "interdisciplinary studies" just as most PhD students do not actually study philosophy

When Steve graduated, however, the degree was in your declared major. So you would graduate with a PhD in ___________.

Perhaps those are the reasons he doesn't have anything to say about it, because it's not a thing as you're portraying it to be.

 

Sounds very andragogical.

 

Yes. If you were able to define what the course was about, how and what you would study, and then define how you would demonstrate that you learned it, then that's kinda what I'm talking about.

 

Yet you're posting in this thread. I'm glad.

Andagogy is a very "now" subject, not an "ancient" one. It's popping up all over the place.

"Ancient"? I graduated in 2003.

 

Yeah, I post in a lot of threads. You might have noticed. As I said, I'd be more interested in the subject of andagogy in the context of something current day and not the Union of a million years ago. After all, the program you're describing doesn't even exist anymore. Sorry, but to me it does seem like a lot of romanticizing about the good old days and, after all, you did title the thread "the roots of union". As for 2003, that was half a lifetime ago for a large portion of our members so yeah, just a little ancient. It's unreasonable to expect equal enthusiasm from everyone. Classic hits radio is ok but don't you get a little tired of listening to Stairway To Heaven after a few decades?

 

The reason I have never spoken about this is that no one has ever asked me about it.

Nonetheless, Chris, perhaps you forget that all three of my degrees are interdisciplinary: My B.A is in broad area humanities, my M.A. is in theology and law (fully integrating both areas, and then some), and my Ph.D. is in religion and law (fully integrating both areas, and then some). My concentration was in church-state issues and pastoral law, with focused studies in apologetic, counseling, and medical ethics. I would end up teaching all of these areas at the grad school level, and two of my books would fully integrate religion and law.

All that said, would I want a Ph.D. that was titled as being in Interdisciplinary Studies? For purely aesthetic reasons, nope.

 

Thanks for the clarity, Steve.

 

I posted the thread to help people understand a program, Union, that is much discussed but little understood.

"Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it." -- Attributed to Georges Santayana, but it's hard to tell.

Current examples? Any online program that uses the instructor as a facilitator instead of a teacher. Any competency-based program. Every Fielding Graduate University program. And so on.

 

Hmmm, ok. Here's something

https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/story/6380985/the-university-degree-where-you-decide-what-how-and-when-you-learn/

 

I responded to this more briefly on page 2 of this thread, but I had previously drafted a lengthier response which appears below. I was about to delete the draft (I draft my lengthier posts on MS Word), but figured I'd post it here before I did so. Just for the fun of it. And potentially to piss a few of you off. Seriously, I thought it ended up a bit wordy, but I decided that it would be morally and ethically wrong of me to deprive y'all of my brilliance.

Well, the simple truth is that no one has ever asked me what I think of a doctorate in interdisciplinary studies. Before I answer, keep in mind that there are exceptions to every rule, and there are times that majoring in leadership is justified. My objection to that field as a doctoral major is based on the cookie cutter one-size-fits-all doctorate du jour nature of such programs. In my student days, leadership programs were geared toward specific positions and professions, and Union was one of the best at pulling off such programs.

Now, when you get right down to it, all three of my own degrees are interdisciplinary in nature. I did a broad area concentration in humanities for my undergrad, my masters was in theology and law, and my doctorate was in religion and law. In my grad work, both subjects were fully integrated to focus on church-state issues and pastoral law, and took in additional subject areas that included apologetics, counseling, and medical ethics, all of which I would end up teaching at the grad school level.

So I’ve always been in favor of interdisciplinary studies. But having said that, would I have ever earned a degree titled Interdisciplinary Studies? Hell, no.

Limiting the discussion to Union, since that’s what this thread is about, after their well-known OBR scandal Union restructured its newly named Ph.D. in Interdisciplinary Studies to have four focus areas: Educational Studies, Ethical & Creative Leadership, Humanities & Culture, and Public Policy & Social Change. As Kevin Costner said in American Flyers, “Sounds like bull Shinto to me.”

Why do I feel that way? Because I do, period. It’s an opinion, no more, no less. And it’s something that I don’t give a flying fart about, which is probably why I never mention it in the first place.

I’m with Rich insofar as I fully support the old Union Graduate School model, and feel that they went down the tubes by selling their soul to OBR. (All of that occurred a decade or more after I graduated.) Union got itself into the OBR mess in the first place, but they did not deal with it well.

How might they have done things differently? I have no interest in discussing that whatsoever. Seriously. I just don’t give a shit. Besides, when things like that happen (as they have with Antioch, Goddard, and all of the little schools in Vermont that have gone belly up, among others) I prefer to kick back, have a cup of coffee, and laugh my ass off.

Beginning with my master’s program, which had a critical thinking focus, I leaned to structure things by asking questions. As simplistic as it sounds, the single basic question that guided me was: What should I know about the subjects I am studying? Answer: I should know the answers to any questions that my students are likely to ask me when I teach those subjects. That was my guiding principle, and it never failed me.

For a short time, I was a preceptor (advisor) in a MHS program at Lincoln University, an HBCU in Pennsylvania that met each week at a non-profit for which I worked at the time. I found the program highly theoretical and, therefore, highly boring. The quality of the student discussions was high, but I never could have completed the program had I taken it myself. That’s how I look at Union’s four reconstituted doctoral focus areas. Highly theoretical, and highly boring.

So what is great interdisciplinary learning? Well, Chris, you are in a program that lends itself to interdisciplinary learning. At one time, “criminal justice” as a major simply meant cop studies. Today it enters a plethora of areas that include juvenile justice, restorative justice, rehabilitation studies, ad infinitum… There can and should be an interdisciplinary aspect to everything.

But having a Ph.D. in Interdisciplinary Studies per se, especially as a degree title? That’s a concept with which I can’t be bothered.

On the other hand, since I’m now retired, I also can’t be bothered debating it. So y’all have had my last word on it. Remember, I have spoken. And I have a non-profit RA Ph.D., and y’all don’t. (One exception at this point is Stanislav with his traditionally earned Ph.D., so let’s assume that you’ve already sent your barbs my way, Stan. And, of course, our resident double doc, and I’ve established my full agreement with Rich on what he has said about Union.) The rest of you are wanna-bes, some of whom are making solid progress toward earning a doctorate, and some of whom are screw-ups who will likely never earn a doctorate. And if any of you are taking me more seriously than I would like, that’s your neurosis. Have a great evening.

 

There was a period in between Steve's era and the newest one, and that's where I graduated. The school had moved to the PhD in Interdisciplinary Studies, but still let learners declare their unique concentrations and specializations. Steve's era didn't have the "Interdisciplinary Studies" nomenclature and just had learners declare their major(s). So he has a "PhD in...." while I have a PhD in Interdisciplinary Studies with a Concentration in.....and a Specialization in..... I defy anyone to demonstrate where that distinction makes an actual difference, though.

The problem with the new design forced upon them by the OBR wasn't just that it was limiting--ooh, it sure was. But it also took away a significant element of person-centered graduate education. Remember, all degree programs have three aspects:

• What is to be studied
• How it is to be learned
• How that learning is to be demonstrated

Union took away the first. They were forced to, but it changed forever the unique foundational point: design your own learning experience.

Perhaps. But the OBR--dominated by Ohio State--had it in for Union for a very long time. But Union gave the OBR an opening by allowing some sub-par work to pass. The OBR, in turn, jumped on this and insisted that Union could not possibly supervise all of those degrees in all of those areas with the faculty they had--ignoring the vital role of the adjucts on the committee. That's why Union (a) limited its doctoral offerings to a few areas and (b) purged almost all of their doctoral faculty. It was a mess. The criticisms about the marginal work were fair, but they ignored the really outstanding work that was being done in this unique paradigm. They didn't care. It didn't fit their eye of what doctoral work was, so it was deemed unworthy. Luddites.

I graduated while the OBR stuff was going on. I entered under the model Steve followed, so I was "grandfathered in" on most stuff (except degree title). But I avoided the post-OBR destruction of the doctoral program.

Well, the purpose of a scholarly doctorate (like the PhD) is to advance scholarship--either creating theory or testing it. There is a plethora of professional doctoral titles available for programs that advance practice (and practitioners).

 

I think that while they aren't precisely the same format, the formats can be compared.

American-style PhD programs typically have breadth requirements and comprehensive exams. Imagine a PhD program in biology. In the US, these aren't just laser-focused projects in some exceedingly arcane research problem. Along with that project, the doctoral program is also trying to prepare scientists who have some advanced familiarity with the breadth of their science. That not only advances the graduate's ability to teach the undergraduate Biology syllabus, it also improves them as scientists, since it facilitates flexibility of thought and the ability to employ relevant ideas and concepts from one specialty area in other areas.

That's the idea anyway. (And I like it.) Though in practice, I'm not sure how much difference it really makes. Graduates of British PhD programs can still be good undergraduate teachers and fine scientists, while American dissertations are typically just as good as British dissertations.

 

I agree with this. The original design of my PhD program mostly focused on research methods and stats. I brought to the program coordinator's attention that many of the students would be unprepared to teach undergraduate courses, especially if they didn't have master's degrees in criminal justice. I directed them to UT Dallas' program, which is highly-regarded. Eventually, they accepted that their doctoral teaching assistants were struggling to teach subjects they weren't familiar with, so they changed the curriculum to include courses in corrections and policing.