Thousands of doctorally trained individuals have already been hired for academic and research positions. It's not tremendously difficult to observe the kind of education that employers have sought, and then make a judgement about whether particular doctoral programs are likely to provide it. That should be a major consideration in initially choosing a doctoral program, I would think. The fact that a doctoral program is new doesn't change that. New programs still need to display some intellectual vitality and scholarly engagement if their early graduates have any hope of being competitive. Here's a doctoral program, technically 'NA', that received its accredition on Nov. 17, 2009. http://rggs.amnh.org/ Here's just one of their countless research groups, chosen at random. http://scorpion.amnh.org/page1/page2/page2.html Here's the most impressive California-approved doctoral school, which isn't even a candidate with WASC yet. (That's coming soon, no doubt.) http://www.burnham.org One of its research activities, operated in collaboration with UC San Diego and funded by the National Institutes of Health. http://jcmm.burnham.org/ Some of its faculty have won prestigious prizes. http://www.japanprize.jp/en/prize_past_2005_prize02.html I probably should point out that both of these doctoral programs are not only tuition free, they actually pay their students to attend them. Of course they are extremely selective. The two examples of brand new non-RA doctoral programs that I linked to above are both strong out of the gate precisely because they were up to speed before they ever thought of awarding a doctoral degree. They were research institutions first, then degree grantors second. The DETC schools approach things from the opposite direction, awarding doctoral diplomas first, then maybe, sometime, hopefully, putting things together to support it. That's what makes them comparatively weak doctoral programs. That will continue until DETC raises its expectations and picks up its stick.