I got accepted to Rutgers' Ed.D program, but what about the PhD in English?

For some, It's a life ambition, worth working for and making the monetary sacrifice. They want to be experts in what they love - and learn from what they consider the best source. That way, they have unassailable validation from a respected University that they are indeed experts. They do in fact need the credential. But not for monetary reasons. It's the learning experience they desire and an indelible mark of an ambition attained.

I don't find that ambition hard to understand at all. And I applaud and admire someone with that dedication. Mind over money. They'll find themselves well-rewarded, methinks. And we're talking the price of one new car. In a few years, that's junk. The Doctorate? You've got that for life.

 

One person's doctorate is another person's 70 acres in Virginia, Tekman. I think you'll agree, they're both long-term things. And you also pursue a Doctorate - for your reasons. Let others have theirs. You'll do you - they'll do them. Hopefully, everyone gets what they want.

 

Agreed. The breadth is ideally acquired beforehand. And nobody's an expert in everything - at least very few are. But in English Literature Doctoral studies, you'll become a true expert in something. Something you chose, for the love of it. In a literature doctoral progam, you may become an expert in the works of Ford Madox Ford, or James Joyce, for example. Or works and aspects of an entire period or genre - the Victorian Novel or The Beat Generation, perhaps. But whatever it is will be your love - something you chose and hold dear. I don't think it gets any better than that.

 

Case both='true'

Select '1';​

(1) There is an entire industry devoted to publishing texts and lectures etc. on what's needed to pass IT certifications. My point is that they don't test for literary knowledge where they test for IT certifications. They do it at Universities.

(2) Yes - many tech people are self-taught. So are many people well-versed in literature. You can document much IT learning by certification - and more at school. Do both, if you prefer. Literature - there's really only one way to document your learning. University.

Of course, you can choose to remain undocumented, in either field. Again, one size does not fit all. (I think it may be my recently completed fashion course that makes me keep harping on that!)

 

Ok, often, to set yourself apart, you have to do things that may not be the most fun in the world. At Ft. Benning, twice, I promised myself that I would never "do this again" while attending the John Wayne School for Boys and Young Men. Same with Oxford, it was a bit of a grind becasue I did not use "English" english.

On the other hand, the odds on your becoming a college professor, WADR, are right up there with a high school jock whose dream is to be in the NFL/NBA. Just sayn'.

 

Have you been in a PhD program, Johann? It is a learning experience, but you're assuming the learning experience is mostly about subject matter content. You master a subject in the master's degree program or the first half of a post-baccalaureate PhD program that leads to a master's on the way. In doctoral-level courses, you learn to contribute to the field. You should have already mastered the content in master's-level courses.

 

Computer science graduates are notorious for not being the best programmers. Good programming skills come from years of experience. Computer science graduates are sought for their theoretical and mathematical knowledge.

 

A PhD is not the only way to document academic learning. As I stated earlier, you master a subject at the master's level. Also, people often prove their knowledge in liberal arts fields by publishing peer-reviewed articles and writing books. There's a social psychologist who is considered an expert in psychopathy. Psychopathy is outside of the realm of social psychology. Normally, clinical psychologists focus on mental and developmental disorders, which is why most forensic psychologists are clinical psychologists. The social psychologist is only considered an expert because she's published multiple research articles on psychopathy. Criminal justice programs still have professors with PhDs in sociology. They proved their area expertise by their research.

Aspiring English teachers have to pass a subject matter test to become certified in addition to the general test that's required to become a licensed teacher. In my state, you don't need a specific degree to become certified in additional subjects. I, someone who does not have an English degree, can pass the English test and become qualified to teach English and language arts classes. Plus, with the advent of graded MOOCs, you can also document your learning through certificates of completion. Non-credit continuing education courses at colleges are another way to document learning. An interesting tidbit, some federal agencies are starting to accept non-collegiate courses as meeting the education requirement as long as those courses are deemed to be college-level.

 

Exactly so. But for someone who has their heart set on one -- yeah, it's probably the way for THEM. Your entire post makes good sense - and is very informative, at least to me - but (at the risk of repetition) no one path is the best for every aspiring scholar. At least I didn't say "One size ...etc." again.

 

Yes, it is for self-fulfillment, a marketing tool, or to qualify for a job. As Tekman already clarified (clarification shouldn't have been necessary because I immediately got his point), a PhD is not needed for learning. It's needed if you want the credential. I'm not even sure what's being argued. You know that a PhD program is not needed for learning, which was the only point that was being made.

 

No I haven't been in a PhD. program. Anything I've learned about PhD. studies comes from others - some from my own Uni experience in the 90s, talking to people who were walking - or had completed - that path and some from 15 years of this and other fora. I'm NO kind of authority. Now I'm privileged to be learning from you.

I agree with almost everything you say here, but I'd like to ask something: Don't the learning and acquiring new knowledge continue, throughout the research phase and even beyond? You're doing research to answer questions, prove something theorized or solve a problem. You learn to research properly and you learn from what the research shows. And I'm told further, by those who have completed Doctorates, that writing a dissertation is a learning experience of a very high order. It's not just subject matter. People (who should know) tell me the learning experience continues throughout. Of course, the type and content of learning vary as one goes along. And by the time you finish - you should be expert in .... something. What? That decision is yours.

 

OK Your point is fully made. So is mine, I think. No argument here. Some people require PhD programs to learn what they want - others don't. For some individuals, the structured approach helps "hold 'em to the road" and they don't get lost in byways or unproductive routes that impede their desired progress.

"Don't claim to be no chauffeur
But I holds it to the road." - Charley Patton, 1930

 

Yes, the learning continues. You'll learn about the nuances of conducting research in your field. You'll also delve deeper into theory because existing theories should be referenced in your research.

PhD programs in counseling and clinical psychology are one of the exceptions when it comes to gaining basic knowledge. You can enter these programs with a few prerequisites, and you'll take a long list of planned courses gaining broad knowledge to meet licensing requirements.

 

Agreed. But perhaps, by "those who went to school to shorten the experience (of self-directed learning)" Dustin meant those who are NOT CS grads - those who went to school strictly (or mostly so) to learn programming. Maybe a bootcamp or other cert., a career school diploma or an Applied Associates, perhaps - not a 4-year degree in CS. And yes - experience is the best teacher, hands down. Some kind of school instruction will help get you started. Then you get experience...

 

Excuse me. That should read: "Some kind of school instruction will start you programming and get you a "starter" credential. That credential will, hopefully, assist you in landing an entry-level coding job. Then you get real-world work experience..."

Wow. The thread has gone from Doctoral Studies in English Lit. to Programming Bootcamp. I must have had a hand in it, somewhere. It's what I do. "Guilty, Your Honour --- again."

 

Both about language!

 

Thanks, Jonathan. Come to think of it - both about learning, too. Two topics in common. Not like the thread that ended up being about Putin's '72 Zaporozhets car. I did an awful "derailleuring" job there!

 

I think this is overblown. See the following:

"With over 26,000 resident alumni, the United States is home to the largest number of Oxford University graduates outside the UK. The US is Oxford's largest source of international students and international academic staff."

They could understand Bill Clinton just fine. And an English person does not have to be an Oxford Grad to decode Americanese. I'm a Brit, officially, despite 70 years in Canada - we've been able to do that for almost 90 years, thanks to American movies. The only trouble I remember having was a one-off: I was six or seven and (I think) Humphrey Bogart was talking about "Night-Blooming Jasmine" and I thought he said "Night-Booming Jazzmen. No harm - he gave a kid some interesting images in his head.

This was in the days (ca. 1950) before you could get a hamburger or a pair of jeans in the whole UK. Now you can even get bourbon! Brits are completely bilingual. They were all raised on American entertainment. It's not unknown, however, for Americans to have trouble understanding Brits.

And if none of them had that dream - there would be no NFL/NBA. What would Americans do then?

WADR, this is what I said earlier, to the OP:

I still stand by it. And I leave it to the OP's discretion.

 

PS - I checked - Yes, it was a Bogart Movie - "Dead Reckoning" - 1947, starring Mr. Bogart and Lizabeth Scott. I'm sure I saw it with Mum and Dad at the Palmadium movie theatre in Palmers Green, North London in 1949 (age 6). The movie theatre was one block from where I and my parents lived. It's long gone, now.

I began my "American language studies" there around the same year, on Saturday mornings at the kids' matinee. I learned to understand Roy Rogers and Gene Autry, and other famous Americans e.g. Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy. Probably the most difficult for me (only at first) were Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny. We always had Disney cartoons and they helped considerably with American lingo and customs.

.... and now, back to our regular programming.

 

Oops. Fudd and the Bunny are Looney Tunes (Warner Bros.) not Disney. Sorry.