DETC Doctorate

Thanks Paul!

 

There is already a large market for non R/A degrees serviced by state approved schools. The acceptance of many of these doctorates is mixed but they arequite useful to many.

There are exceptions but DETC schools tend to be cheaper and more consumer friendly. I have no doubt that there will be a ready market for doctorates if the price is right and the schools are as enthusiastic of student success as the students.

As many state approved doctorates teach at R/A schools, many DETC doctors will find employment in academia. I can't believe the door will be shut.

 

Some faculty members loose their jobs when the university finds out the unaccredited degree. Take the example of DelCorral at Tulane.

 

Dennis,

I think that you have identified what would be, perhaps, the largest potential base of DETC doctoral students: those who would otherwise pursue non-accredited state-approved doctorates. Getting a nationally accredited DETC doctorate would certainly be a step above a state-approved doctorate.

Although it is true that there are some faculty at RA schools with state-approved doctorates, the vast majority of those that I have seen teach in areas where the doctorate is not required (such as community colleges)--thus it is unclear whether the doctorate actually contributed to the hiring. In my own institutions, those hired with state-approved doctorates were always hired based on the RA masters required for the job and they were paid at masters, not doctoral, level. In a couple of sad cases, full-time faculty completed state-approved doctorates instead of RA and ended up having their degrees not recognized by the college (one was a friend of mine).

Many have assumed that DETC doctoral programs would be cheaper than RA. Can we be confident of this assumption? DETC schools tend to be private, not public. Cost of accreditation (e.g. DETC vs. NCA or WASC) is only one part of a school's budget. Can we assume that a DETC doctorate will necessarily be cheaper than a doctorate at a public state university?

Tony

 

Is the PhD required for professional positions? I would say "no" for most of the cases. However, the same thing happened to the master's degree, this degree was not originally designed for professional but for research positions. With the advent of the MBA, Universities
started to launch professional master's programs that were only some sort of continuing education for professionals. Completing a master's degree in the old
days was an achievement since most of the programs would require an original thesis that would require in most of the cases full time work and dedication contrary to the 30 credit course work new professional master's degree. Do we really need even a master's degree for most of the positions? I would say no this too, the research skills developed in a master's degree are hardly used in most of the jobs but you still have people that think that is the only way to go.

I can see that the PhD is slowly evolving from an original scholar research based degree into a more professional oriented program that is not only meant for scholars but for professionals too. Just look at the trend of some universities offering DBA, DM, D.Eng that
are meant for professionals and scholars.

 

But we are not talking about unaccredited doctorates. If DETC begins to provide doctorates, why de-list them? The RA master degree may be what filled the requirement for the position but I do not see how advertising that a faculty member has a NA doctorate hurts a school's credibility.

Would a DETC doctorate really be competing against a public university? I don't think so. Instead, it would be competing against the likes of DL programs offered by private schools such as Cappella, Walden, UoP, Northcentral, etc. With this in mind, I think that a DETC doctorate would be significantly less expensive.

 

In my experience, a bachelors degree is sufficient for most business and industrial positions that require a degree, sometimes along with a required certification. A relevant masters degree is often described as desirable. A doctorate is rarely required except in industrial research (a very small percentage of available positions). However, in those positions where a relevant doctorate is a hard requirement (such as in the physical sciences), there are few substitutes (or alternatives for that matter) for one that is RA and earned primarily through traditional methods. My point is, a SA or NA doctorate on top of a relevant RA bachelors and masters, is not a hinderance in most cases, nor an issue, often being considered additional value. After the educational minimums are met, the determinant of your professional business worth is mostly dependent on performance and experience.

 

Rich - here is a hypothetical on that idea.

You are a political science instructor at a community college in California. You have a masters degree in political science from a large state school. You have a JD from one of the DETC law schools and have passed your boards (yeah, I know, we are looking at a really small number of people on this one). Does the school list the JD in its faculty entry listing on you? In this case, I can't see why not.

 

I can. The school isn't RA and the degree isn't a qualification to teach there. Under those circumstances, it would be reasonable for the school to disallow the listing of the degree.

 

Absolutely!

But, in fairness, a D/L JD -- be it DETC or not -- may not be the best example. If a person is a licensed attorney, there isn't (or at least shouldn't be) a school on the planet that would deny him/her his/her right to list the JD after his/her name. In fact, without it, calling himself/herself an attorney would undoubtedly cause some head-scratching.

California's D/L JD is sort of in a class by itself, in my opinion, because, if nothing else, of the imprimatur conveyed by virtue of the person holding said D/L JD having passed the Bar. The Bar card is the great equalizer that settles all bets and ends all speculation. I know of no other credential obtained quite as it is which enjoys that kind of subsequent objective approval and substantiation. I don't know how to express this exactly, but somehow it's like the D/L JD is proved more valuable -- in fact, to be on-par with anyone else's JD -- simply by virtue of its subsequent use to become licensed to practice law. If so, unfortunately, then conversely my thesis suggests that if one does not subsequently pass the Bar -- especially if he/she tried and failed -- using a D/L JD, then maybe said JD is not, somehow, worthy... and that is certainly not want I mean to suggest, either.

Anyhow, a JD -- despite its formal name, "Juris Doctor" -- really isn't a "doctorate" of the type that is the subject of this thread. It's a terminal, first professional degree that's generally considered to be lower than a regular masters -- like an LLM, for example. Few, if any, attorneys call themselves "Dr." by virtue of their JD (though I've heard of it and I'm not certain that it's ethical, although I'd need to ponder it for a while).

I would argue that an MDiv is sort of in a class by itself in much the same way. It's a terminal, first professional degree that some would argue is sort of a glorified bachelors (I'm not saying I'm one of them, so please don't jump on me, you MDivs out there... I'm just sayin'); and, as such, shouldn't be requisite to anything other than a doctorate in divinity or, at best, ministry; but by no means requisite to a Ph.D or a Th.D.

Shifting focus just a bit, here: Do you folks who have been posting in this thread -- pretty much all of you, I should add -- realize how amazingly informative and useful it has become? Really, it's a sight to behold. Taking a giant step back from it for a moment, and considering all the really thoughtful viewpoints and useful information and opinion that's been proffered here, I am truly impressed. Man, you guys (and gals) are good! I sure hope some RA and DETC people are reading this. Much to think about, truly. Good work, one and all!

 

A DETC doctorate would absolutely be competing against distance learning degree programs offered by RA public universities and the RA private universities that you listed above (and the others that you did not). Why would you believe otherwise? What would keep, say University of Nebraska-Lincoln or any similar school from being a competitor?

And what is it that would make a private DETC school less expensive than a private RA school?

Tony Pina
Northeastern Illinois University

 

Having worked in the California Community College system, I could say with a certain degree of confidence that a DETC grad degree would very likely be listed in the "faculty entry listing", however, non-accredited schools are not typically recognized in this fashion.

Tony Pina
Northeastern Illinois University

 

Have we seen people with master's degrees from DETC-accredited schools teaching at RA schools? This would tell us a lot.

 

Have we seen people with master's degrees from DETC-accredited schools teaching at RA schools? This would tell us a lot.

 

All I know is this: If I were licensed to practice law in California by virtue of a JD from, oh, let's say Northwestern California University School of Law -- an unaccredited (by either the ABA or any USDoE/CHEA-approved agency such as DETC) but nevertheless authorized by both the California BPPVE and the California Committee of Bar Examiners to grant Bar-exam-requisite Juris Doctor credentials within the State of California -- and if I were then invited to teach at some community college in that state, regardless of the purpose or subject, listing my JD next to my name in any and all places would be non-negotiable -- a deal-breaker.

If it meant that I wouldn't teach at all, then so be it. Community college systems typically need good teachers such as the likes of me more than the likes of me need to teach in them. It would be their own foot to shoot. But I would caution them to make sure they understood with whom (or, more accurately, with "what") they were tangling -- and by that, I don't mean me. Rather, I mean the California Supreme Court, which says I get to put that worthless (apparently to academia), unaccredited JD next to my name at all times and in all places (at least in California), end of discussion.

Is the community college saying that it also has the power to leave out that I'm an attorney? Absolutely not... of that, I'm certain. And if I'm an attorney, then by virtue of what? The college is going to refuse to acknowledge the JD upon which the claim of being licensed to practice is based? Everyone would say, "Hey, something's missing, here." What, the JD is good enough for the Supreme Court but not good enough for Mort & Sal's Community College in Tryingtobeimportant, California? I don't think so! And, in fact, now that I'm pondering on all this for the first time, it's starting to feel at a gut level like it might just be a lucrative lawsuit if they did.

There's nothing more irritating to those of us in the real world as when academes become so full of themselves that they start throwing practicality out the window and ignoring the obvious. Some things are just true. Period. If I have a JD from an unaccredited university in California that nevertheless qualified me to become licensed to practice law in that state, then me, the degree and the license come as a package -- take it or leave it.

If I got the JD and never took the bar... well, then, maybe -- in fact, I'd say probably -- the college would have some rational basis for not listing the degree next to my name. At least that would be defensible, even in my opinion.

That's why I wrote, earlier, that the JD is the wrong example to have picked. An unaccredited JD never used to sit for the Bar? Okay, then you've got me. But once one uses it to become licensed, then the Bar card evidences its value in a way that trumps all else -- including accreditors, in my opinion (and if push came to shove, I'll bet I could get a judge to make it his opinion, too). It's a "proof is in the pudding" sort of thing, you know? No other unaccredited credential that I'm aware of is quite like it. A different unaccredited degree, in my opinion, should have been offered as an example. Leave the JD alone!

 

Gregg:

You wouldn't be invited in the first place. That's the point. At least, not based on the strength of an unaccredited JD and a law license.

There might be examples of such a thing, but I haven't seen one. Perhaps the Google mavens will come up with a few?

 

What about someone with a Psy.D. or Ph.D. in psychology from a CA BPPVE approved school that has passed the CA psyc. board license exam and been licensed in CA (there are many who have done this)? Would that be a reasonable analogy?

 

Dr. Douglas,

I'm not so sure that a licensed attorney with a non accredited J.D. would necessarily be ineligible from community college, or even University law teaching.

I have NOT seen this exact scenerio, but I have seen one or two non ABA J.D. holders teaching law at RA (but not ABA) schools. I think it matters more what one's experience and publication record looks like.

I agree with DesElms that possession of a law license would go some way toward "rehabilitating" an unaccredited degree. For one thing, even some ABA schools will consider a licensed attorney's application to their LL.M. programs though his J.D. is unaccredited. The University of London will consider such an LL.M. applicant with no first degree in law at all!

Caveat: The examples I have in mind had CalBar accredited J.D.s not D/L degrees.