Interesting conversation I had on the plane today

Bottom line:

Make sure that the program meets your foreseeable needs. Don't do Phoenix if you really need Stanford.

 

There's lots of interesting ideas in this thread.

I'm wondering whether that's equally true across the disciplines.

It seems to me that in the sciences it's relatively easy for specialists to recognize important work. If work is perceived as significant, and if it is verified in other researcher's work, even unknown researchers from obscure institutions can jump into prominence.

An example of that is San Francisco State. One graduate student (this guy) wrote a master's thesis outlining a new way to get unprecedented accuracy out of an astronomical spectroscope. Then he joined with one of his professors to look for extrasolar planets using the Doppler method, with notable success. The SFSU astrophysics program (one that doesn't even offer a doctorate) suddenly seized the whole world's attention.

Burt Rutan, with his bachelors degree from Cal Poly, can walk into a gathering of aeronautical engineers anywhere on earth and immediately be the star. Why? Maybe (this).

But the humanities and perhaps the social sciences seem to be different. There's a lot less consensus on what is and what isn't important work. Everybody (in the research programs at least) publishes something, but things like subject matter trendiness and personal and institutional name recognition seem to be more influential in these fields than in the sciences. In the humanities, the stars seem to be a lot more concentrated at a few name schools than is the case with the paleontologists or vulcanologists.

Is work discussed more because it's better, or does it seem better because its discussed more?

I think that's routine in the sciences. A departmental, or more often a research group's, website will include a whole list of group publications and graduate student's names will be all over them. (Science papers almost always have multiple authors. Often different papers have the same people listed in different orders.) Students will sometimes be sent out to deliver talks on what the group's doing.

Employers read the literature and they try to stay current. They know where significant work is coming from and they recognize who is associated with what. So when they are looking for somebody with expertise in X, somebody who can increase their department's research profile in X, they have a pretty good idea where to look and whose recommendations to listen to.

That's one of the things that motivates my Googling of suspect schools, why I look for publications and presentations. It's also why I think that new DETC and ACICS doctoral programs can't just whine their way to acceptance, waving their dept. of education recognition around madly. They need to seize the moment by producing work that's simply too interesting to ignore.

I suppose that individuals who are "already established" might already have impressive accomplishments. But then the question is: What did the DL doctorate add to that?

And more troublingly: If a student doesn't already have the impressive accomplishments, then can a cool title really substitute?

There's this earn a degree and get a job vocational mindset in DL, even in DL doctoral programs, that might not exactly correspond to how hiring works in the research areas. (Universities, biotech firms, government labs...) More than a degree is required and sometimes the degree might not even be the most important thing.

I strongly agree. If laboratory work isn't required that makes a student's physical presence necessary, I don't see why a DL program can't emulate a top-tier research program as closely as it wants to.

The fact that few of them do is a business decision. It's not a necessary defect of the medium.

In your field, as a DL professional, I can imagine that earning one of your degrees by DL might be a distinct advantage. It would represent significant experience with the medium from a student's perspective.

 

Lots of interesting points. The business decision is critical. By and large, PhD research at traditional universities is a money-loser for the university. PhD students usually get direct support for a certain number of years. The Berkeleys and Stanfords can afford to be selective and then work their doctoral students like slaves. Each side gets a payoff. The student gets the marquee name, and probably works under a world class or national class professor. The university/department gets the very best students who are the most likely to win research grants and write important papers, and then go onto prestigious research positions at other universities, and ultimately hatch their own PhD students.

This kind of dynamic is most prominent in the sciences (as Bill notes), where there's a high premium on youth and solving problems/making original discoveries etc., while you're still "under the hill." For those kinds of students, often the PhD is not the point. A PhD without the prestigious appointment that's supposed to follow is a disappointment for many.

What DL PhD schools offer is really a different product (at least in some ways). First, there really isn't such an animal in the sciences. Second, the DL/PhD disciplines require a new take on research, not necessarily groundbreaking work. I think that students from the traditional PhD programs think of DL PhDs (if they think of them at all) as being awarded for pure perseverance, and so they’re not the same thing. I'm not sure if this is valid or not, but clearly the environments and modes of study are fairly dissimilar, so the question naturally arises about whether the degrees really represent the same thing.

That said, I certainly don't think that the traditional PhD environment is necessarily the best for producing researchers - just as the traditional MD program may not be the best for producing doctors. Nevertheless, they are the standard. Anything that’s different is going to be viewed (at first) as inferior.

The DBA is an interesting example. It is supposed to be more of a practical, "real world application" research degree, which some traditional PhD's might view as an oxymoron.

As others have said, in theory, there's no reason why DL can't gain legitimacy by becoming more traditional-PhD-like, but that depends on DL schools producing researchers (and hiring professors) that can operate in that world, so that the emphasis is not really on the degree itself.

What you often hear when people talk about a PhD via DL is something like, "I've always dreamed of getting a PhD." Certainly, that's still true in traditional programs, but I think, generally (very generally), the students who have that as their prime objective are the ones who don't make it through. The one's who do make it are the ones who say, "I've always wanted to do physics research." The PhD is a required part of the trip, but it is not the main focus during the ride, or the end of the trip.

 

The motivation MUST come from a passionate interest in the subject matter. Earning the degree will likely not be enough motivation for finishing. I'm finding that out the hard way myself.

And it will take as long as it takes.

A graduate degree marks a level of expertise in the subject; it really can't be pursued like a "B.A. but harder."

 

Can we forgive these attrocities?

This is an interesting worldview. It appears you are saying that the advisors are stopping up the process of degree granting, because they want the prestige of more student papers written by more-experienced students.

I always thought that the students chose to go more slowly and enjoy the academic life. I myself have always enjoyed the academic life but have been blocked from full-time permanent student-hood by financial issues. I still do not know how long it will take to pay off the loans I already have.

I have come across a study done in Canada about the completion rates and times to completion for PhDs there. Average completion rates are less than 50% and times are between 6 and 9 years studying only for the PhD.

I am left with the following considerations:
Is the DL environment producing higher completion rates and lower times-til-completion?
The completion time at Canadian Universities has increased compared to 30 years ago. Is this evidence that university students are graduating with more and more useful knowledge and skills? Or is it that the Universities are milking the students for fees longer?
I found that it took me an extra year to complete my undergrad. How many full time grad students complete at the rate of 12 credit hours per semester (my un-remarkable completion rate) and what percentage is that of the whole?

So is it "academic fraud" to want to complete a PhD in 2 years, or is the academic fraud perpetrated by the advisors who seem to be gaining prestige by how much hell they put their students through.

Considering that, even after the hell they go through to GET the PhD, the new students often still cannot spell, and their worldview is heavily stamped with the kill or be killed mentality the environment fostered. in my opinion the busywork aspects of the process are not producing better academicians but are producing people with SuperMax-Prison-survivor mentalities, and the hyper-competitiveness such an environment produces.

As the product of such an educational pressure-cooker Masters program, I realized the hazard of the philosophy at the end of a software design deathmarch last year. After 6 months of unpaid overtime, I watched half the team crumble before my eyes and the marketing people jump ship and finally the funding got pulled.

We had remarkable tenacity so far beyond what was useful that we were the walking dead by the end of it. We didn't even have the wan joy of being paid handsomely for our efforts or being acclaimed for our sticking power.

80% and more software projects go like this, and they go this way because we tacitly agree to play it out like this.

This is a symptom of the hypercompetitive, "publish or die" philosophy that has been foisted upon us, and we have accepted. Anybody who opts out of that game is called a sissy and left by the side of the road.

Can we allow our students the chance to be excellent and insightful without training them to accept 9-year student tenures (even though lots of us had to do it that way) Can we give our students a fair shake even though we were abused, exploited and abased?

[P.S. You didn't think I could bring this rant back around to something remotely on-topic, did you?]

Reference:
Elgar, F: 2003, PHD COMPLETION IN CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES: , WWWDocument, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

 

Something people often forget....

It is difficult to compare the time limits for completion of a doctorate full time or part time. Indeed, the full time student will generally complete the classwork portion of their program quicker as they will probably take more classes than a part time student. However, at most this could add a year to time to complete the coursework when compared to a diligent part-time effort as the full-time student will be expected to work on campus at least part time. However, once the coursework portion is done, their proposal has been accepted and the candidate has completed the mnimum campus residency required (as low as 2 years in programs I have seen) they are free to go elsewhere to work on their dissertation. Often, or even most often, this means they go get a job of some sort. This leaves them in no different a position than the part time candidate for time to finish.

The HOD of the business department where I adjunct was only on campus for 3 of the 7 years he took to complete his PhD. He had a family by the time he completed his coursework and had to work. He submitted his first draft at 5 years and had to do 3 total to finish.

All of this is why I personally believe the doctorate is actually the degree most fitting for DL learning. It is already primarily an independent study effort.....

 

Yes, I can see that, but the Ph.D. student at a major research university is placed in an environment where he absorbs his understanding of his field through constant personal interaction (seminars, classes, projects, symposia, teaching undergrads...)

Once this phase is over and he begins to research and write his dissertation, he IS on his own but at least he has ongoing contact with his department.

Can a D/L program, let alone a DETC program, provide that kind of exposure and support? Maybe; I don't deny it, but it does seem to me that any doctoral program requires some genuine research university establishment.

 

So is a distant learner....

So does a distant learner. I have been to 2 conferences presented at one and will do more. I know full time students who never presented....

 

Yes, and that's my point. But does a DETC school actually HAVE a "department" where research in his field is going on?

Are you working on a doctorate? From where?

 

What??????

I was not referring to NA schools. I was referring to larger RA schools with ample professor's on staff.

You have not seen my numerous postings on my doctorate pursuit? How could you have missed them?

See the Quit or Transfer and the University of Newcastle DBA threads....

 

Ah, of course. Sorry about that. Anyway, I'd guess that you are doubtful about DETC doctorates as well.