Doctor of Liberal Studies

I've followed this thread without comment and now I have several thoughts/questions.
How is this degree like/unlike a Doctorate in Humanties such as is offered at several non-US schools? (Melbourne, Tasmania, Central Queensland) Just a difference of semantics?
Even if it is a "vanity degree" (please define this, will you jugador?) if the quality level is right up where it should be, what's the harm?
I know people who use their time and money to...practice martial arts, paint, gamble, play sports, build motorcycles, any number of things. Pursuing a doctoral degree is somehow worse?
Most of my academic interests are interdisciplinary in nature. Finding a way to pursue these interests has been difficult partly because of this interdisciplinary perspective. For me, the cool stuff happens at the edges. Go there and see.
Jack

 

The degree is interdisciplinary, requiring students to take not only a multitude of different courses and approaches, but to also master research methods common to several of them.

The degree is limited to those interested in studying the arts, humanities, and social sciences. Someone like me, who is interested in examining the nexus of higher education and human resources management would not be admitted.

This is a huge opportunity to earn a doctorate from a top-shelf school (Georgetown). Too bad it (a) isn't DL and (b) is outside my areas of interest. Good on them, though.

 

Since I did the CSUDH MA in interdisciplnary humanities, I guess that I should say something in behalf of 'useless' degrees.

(Actually the CSUDH MA isn't useless, since it's of considerable value to the school teachers who comprise many of its students.)

But my point is that there are a few strange and probably perverted people out here for whom education isn't just an instrument to achieve some different goal (inevitably accumulating money). There are actually people who consider education an end in itself. These are people with intellectual passions, people who actually do inexplicable things like read books.

If it weren't for these disgusting sickos, we wouldn't have to be bothered by annoying subjects like classics, art history or philosophy. Or theology, for that matter.

But having said that, I do wonder about this Georgetoewn DLS. A doctorate in general studies doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me. There's no way that somebody can possibly write a dissertation on... everything.

Interdisciplinary studies are nothing new. But these programs still demand focus. They probably demand more focus than conventional degrees, since generating research problems in a relatively uncharted domain might take more discernment than in fields where disciplinary consensus exists on what the problems are. As Nosborne said, this interdisciplinay stuff can be an invitation to "fuzzy thinking", and care needs to taken to avoid that.

Religious studies is an example of an interdisciplinary area of study, marshalling history, textual studies, philosophy, psychology, anthropology, sociology, art history, even ethnomusicology, in order to penerate into a multi-faceted aspect of human life that simply overflows all the traditional boundaries.

So I wonder how this DLS is distinguished from existing interdisciplinary PhD programs that already address all this stuff, and what Georgetown thinks is really innovative about their new DLS.

I'll speculate that the unusual DLS degree title might have less to do with new and unusual methodology or subject matter, than with a desire to distinguish regular Georgetown doctoral programs from upstart doctoral programs offered by continuing studies.

Stanford extension offers an MLS in humanities, while there's a separate MA in humanities offered to regular matriculated Stanford graduate students. In this case, the difference in title seems largely intended to differentiate the two programs, and doesn't necessarily suggest that the MLS takes a different approach or treats its subject matter any differently.

 

exactly, I was almost going to jump on your earlier post on this very point.

I'd venture and say the vast majority of DL degrees (mine included--MS Psych; MAR, counseling) are vanity degrees or to satisfy intellectual curiosity more than to qualify one for a real job.

 

On what basis? Is there any research or other evidence that shows there is a difference in the two populations (B&M and DL) regarding their purposes for pursuing degrees? If we restrict it to accredited schools, I would say there is no difference. Now, students at unaccredited DL schools? I might buy that.

My own situation isn't, in and of itself, evidence, but I got my chair's position at UoP precisely because I (a) had a Ph.D. and (b) it was in interdisciplinary studies. Go figure.

 

I'd bet that BillDayson is right on the money with this observation. Additionally, I wouldn't be suprised if they put out a DLS DL program after testing the waters with the residential program. Georgetown may be very expensive but their reputation is excellent and their degrees are highly valued by various governmental agencies. The fact that the degrees are interdisciplinary in nature wouldn't necessarily detract from the fact that it is a Georgetown doctoral degree.

 

Sorry to disagree, but I would expect the motivation for getting a DL degree not to vary much from the brick and mortar equivalent. There are so many degrees available in both modalities that are not specifically required by employers... Many DL degrees are just as expensive and require a higher level of motivation to complete because of the modality. Besides, I'm not sure how you would objectively measure the "vanity" or "lack of qualification" effects either through self-report or an observer.

Best wishes,

Dave

 

Actually, if you look at the long history of higher education, for most of that time, students tended to be the sons of the upper crust, who could expect to be parliamentarians and counsellors to kings and presidents. For such people, having sufficient cultural literacy to keep one's facts straight when mentioning in debate this, that, or the other event from ancient history, or quoting this, that, or the other ancient political philosopher was a necessity. Thus, a liberal arts education was indeed job training for those who would normally expect a career in government service. The notion that one can only call an intake of information "education" if it does not lead to employment seems to me a bit elitist. After all, who would expect to spend years of the lives on a piece of paper that is good for nothing except framing it and hanging it on the wall, unless they were among the privileged few who don't have to work?

 

I would point out that whatever sort of degree you show at Starbucks, whether a Ph.D. from Harvard or DLS from Georgetown, your $4 cup of coffee still costs $4. Do they price by degree now?

 

Now wait a minute. The D.L.S. would probably impress Starbucks enough to offer you a job sweeping up. THEN, you'd get the employee discount!

 

I'm sorry, but this is just an ad hominem argument. To say that because liberal arts education has had vocational usefulness, that that has been its only use throughout the history of education, is specious logic and historically inaccurate. If, on the other hand, you are saying that this is but one use of the liberal arts, then what is your point?

First of all, quote me correctly. I did not juxtapose job training and education, I juxtaposed job training and liberal arts education, and I did so in the context of complaints in this thread that the DLS had no utility in the job market, so why do it? I merely pointed out that there are those who enjoy learning for learning's sake.

Hardly elitist, I would say.

By your last comment, it seems you equate education to the physical credential you hang on the wall. This is a sad commentary, IMHO, on the state of perceptions of education in today's world.

marilynd

 

1. Exactly how is it ad hominem to say that education used to be limited to the elites or that liberal arts education specifically had its vocational applications for the classes that expected a career in government service? (PS - In case you have forgotten, an ad hominem argument is an argument against the man.) And speaking of misquoting people, I never said that that was its ONLY use throughout history.

2. The notion of learning for learning's sake is in fact elitist in that it says, "I can afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars on nothing more than a piece of paper to hang on the wall while you great unwashed masses actually have to expect some sort of work credential for your education."

3. True enough, there is also what's left in your gray matter - but the nicely framed piece of paper is fun to look at every once in a while too.

 

1. Good point. Poor choice of terms on my part. I meant that you were using inductive reasoning to support a deductive conclusion. There are plenty of examples of learning for learning's sake in history, people who are drawn to education chiefly by curiosity and the power of ideas. So, I repeat: what's your point?

And I didn't misquote you. Rather, I entertained the possibility of both sides ("all" or "both and"), and I simply suggested that on either side, you're argument falls apart.

2. The connection of "love of learning" with rejection of the "unwashed masses" is simply baffling to me. How you get that notion from the phrase "learning for learning's sake" suggests to me that you have an agenda beyond that merely of education. The assertion that the phrase "learning for learning's sake" is "in fact" elitist in simply insupportable. It may be your opinion, but it is not a fact. It seems to me that you are attributing your own political ideas to others. If this is the case, please don't incert your agenda where it doesn't belong.

marilynd

 

Marilynd,

Let me start this post by stating that, notwithstanding the fact that I have disagreed with you on at least a couple of posts, I do not personally dislike you; indeed, I find you to be quite an intelligent human being. Having said that:

1. a. I merely pointed out that liberal arts education can have its value as vocwational training for those going into government service, not necessarily that that is its only use.

1. b. Could you explain to me the use of inductive reasoning to support a deductive conclusion. Somehow I escaped my undergrad education without having to take Scary Gery's philosophy class, but I have a vague recollection from somewhere that betwixt and between the inductive and the deductive, one starts from the general and goes to the specific while the other starts from the specific and goes to the general.

2. Perhaps my notion of education for education's sake supposedly being indicative of an elitist attitude towards the "great unwashed masses" has something to do with my own thin-skinnedness. For starters, in discussions of education and training, "education" (presumably liberal arts education or, if you will, education for education's sake) is presented as superior to "training" (presumably education to a specific job). As for my own history, you will note that my bachelor's degree is in history while my master's degrees are in business. I'm not sure if you've seen my other posts, but I did once write, when excoriated for being a heartless MBA, that I was perhaps a bit unhappy about having prostituted my intellectual capacities to a morally bankrupt capitalist system (by getting two MBAs). So, yes, that is a sore spot with me and I wish that I had followed up the BA in History with an MA and a PhD in History, rather than having a misspent youth. I guess my perception of the elitism in education for its own sake is the perception that education that is supposed to lead to a job (e.g., my MBA degrees) is somehow lesser than education for education's sake (e.g., an MA and a PhD in History).

Peace.

 

Mr Heiks,

You still can. You are not dead...so the MA and PhD in history can still be accomplished.):

 

unwashed masses

You know, one of the major advantages to DL is that nobody cares if you bathe.

 

Ted:

Your original post concerning the vocational use of the liberal arts seemed to be in rebuttal to what I had written. If I misinterpreted it, I apologize.

I consider education--all types of education--to be THE great social equalizer. Hence, I was a bit wounded by the elitist accusation.

Peace.

marilynd

 

Re: unwashed masses

At least until someone develops smellivision.



marilynd