Old folks getting PhDs

We can't really say, one way or the other, what makes for the "publishing undergrad." While it is true that there are some pretty old school academics whose undergraduate programs matched a modern masters degree in terms of rigor, I also know of at least a handful of people who published while they were undergrads from my own class at Scranton.

Scranton had (has?) a program at the time I was there where you could get a "transcript notation" if you assisted a professor with research. I have no idea if this notation ever actually helped anyone in any appreciable way. I imagine it couldn't hurt in graduate and some professional school applications. But, practically speaking, it was a way for chronic overachievers to justify yet more overachieving.

I heard of a few people who tried it out only to find that they were basically running books (and coffee) to their professor from the campus library. Others, including three people known to me in the early 2000s, had a much more fruitful experience. One received a co-author credit. The other two received no such credit for their assistance with the professor's work but received, more or less, private tutoring in academic publishing. Both published articles before they graduated. All three went on to pursue doctoral studies in their respective fields of study and all three are presently employed.

Scranton, while certainly a good Jesuit school, is also hardly top tier. And yet, despite the fact that at the time the university did not offer a single doctoral program (now they have a Doctor of Physical Therapy program) had essentially worked out a mentorship program that accomplished what you are talking about thus making it not a feature unique to doctoral studies.

Besides, there are plenty of people who publish with a Masters degrees. There are academics with impressive publication credits to their names who were never even enrolled in a doctoral program.

I have made my opinion know, that largely being that a person can do whatever they want but that they might consider whether they primarily want a title over that level of academic rigor. But let's not pretend that you need to be in a PhD program to be prepared to produce publication worthy research.

 

A PhD isn't a hobby sport? Hmm.

 

Note well what you said in the third paragraph.

 

The PhD by publication is a degree designed for scholars in the academic community who have, over many years, built up a strong and coherent portfolio of work. It mainly targets those who are already part of the institution, giving them an alternate track to the doctorate (which serves both their and the university's purposes). It's an after-the-fact thing, not a let's-start-out-on-that-path thing.

It is not designed for an outside person to begin building a publications record and then, at some future date, apply for the PhD. I guess it could be done, theoretically, but it shouldn't be a goal for a new scholar. The PhD should be that goal, not the PhD by publication.

I'm guessing most are awarded to people already working and teaching on faculty somewhere, normally at the institution in question. Finally, it is an obscure approach that seems to get out-sized attention by a bunch of people who haven't done it. (I don't recall any poster here having done it, but perhaps I'm mistaken.)

 

Wait, am I missing a post? Who brought up PhD by publication?

While I've mentioned it recently in another thread for a person who already had a body of research and now wanted a doctorate, I don't see it being relevant to the topic at hand.

My point with seniors engaging in academic research was not that a PhD by publication is a viable or preferable pathway to a PhD but that, if one's interest in their respective field is so genuine, that they might engage in academic research to further that field without a PhD knowing that they may never get one.

Publish your heart out. Conduct research. Contribute to your field. These are entirely possible without a PhD. If you needed the graduate level coursework to help level you up.

I mean, I suppose you could consider a PhD by publication if you just lit the world on fire. But what I'm suggesting is not that a person find alternate paths to a PhD. It's to consider doing all of the work (research and publication) without the title and the funny sleeves.

 

Wow! And how many have been caught up in that grind since around age 25? Scary! :shock:

J.

 

From the first page of this thread...

 

A co-authorship credit isn't really functioning as an independent scholar. Neither is publishing in the kind of venues that undergrads usually publish in. People on the outside of academic pursuits usually lump together trade periodicals, undergraduate journals, unranked online journals, etc. with serious academic journals as "published!" People do publish there, and it's encouraging at the time, but they are usually counseled to leave that sort of stuff off their c.v. once they're on the job market. If (and it's a big if) your acquaintances were actually producing independent, peer-reviewed, high-level scholarly research articles as undergraduates, that's very impressive, although it still makes them outliers and not examples that readers here can reliably follow. I'd wager their present employment, which your post implies is in academia, relates to the PhD's they eventually attained.

In my above post, I had in mind some people of yesteryear who graduated from Oxford with their undergraduate degree, were immediately hired by the university as lecturers, and began publishing original research in the top journals in their fields.

I think we're talking about different scenarios here, so I'll stick with the transaction vs. transformation framework I used above (thanks to Rich for that phrase, which is superior to the way I'd tried to explain it in the past.) Other routes to that transformation into an scholar capable of independent research exist, but based upon my own experience and observations of peers, one wanting to make original and lasting contributions to a field they care about will find the most reliable route is still a research doctoral program.

 

My grandmother was a delightful woman. But she also had this tendency to cut down peoples' achievements without even realizing she was doing it.

I recall one occasion where, toward the end of her life, she encountered a young woman wearing a National Guard uniform manning a recruiting table. She said something to the effect of:

"Oh, how nice! Are you a WAC? I didn't know they still did that." It was incomprehensible for her that a young woman would be serving in the military in a "normal" role. She stopped updating her knowledge after a certain age.

Since you evidently feel that any undergrad must be publishing in an "undergrad journal" or some sort of sham publication that is best left off of their C.V. it appears you have fallen prey to a similar complacency.

Three people. Three publications in respected journals (which remain on those CVs to present because they were not "unranked online journals). And three tenure track positions which eventually followed. If you really cannot handle the fact that, with appropriate mentorship, someone not enrolled in a doctoral program might be doing "real" research and publication then I have no further desire to continue this conversation with you. And if you're going to just write off the accomplishments of others as being "less than" because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions then I might suggest any number of personal growth opportunities before I'd recommend a PhD program.

 

I think Robert McGee, the prof with over 10 doctorates, posted here a couple years ago, I think at least some of his PhDs are by publication. He's the only one I can remember.

 

C.S. Lewis

 

I should have been more clear. I was referring more to people who post here about getting a PhD, then doing it in that way. I think that's still no one. Also, while I think your example--if accurate--is pretty cool, I wonder if that person did one or more by publication after having earned a PhD traditionally. That would be a huge distinction.

My point is, simply, that the subject gets outsized attention compared to the actual reality of doing it.

 

And, at least in the context of this thread, it wasn't intended as a serious path it was more of an off-handed, "do the work even if it means no reward" sort of thing.

But, at the end of the day, any way a person chooses to spend their retirement that is harmless to others is an OK thing in my book. I would clearly not make the same choice. If someone came to me asking my advice on the matter I might express the sentiment I expressed here. But I'm not about to start lobbying my state assemblyman to set an age cap on doctoral programs or anything like that. I would hope that schools, in making admissions decisions, would give first priority to students who are intending to dedicate their professional careers to their discipline over a retiree. But, even then, I can also imagine that there would be people whose interest, commitment and existing knowledge would be so exceptional that it might be beneficial for all to admit them.

 

"How to get a Ph.D. in a year and still keep the day job." No - it's not an ad for Belford or Almeda. I think you could do it there in about 7 days. Anyway, you know I wouldn't do that to you!

I've read somewhere (here?) that the Ph.D. by publication is usually reserved for alumni or those teaching / researching at the awarding University. Apparently, Oxford Brookes in the UK is an exception. Here's a rather refreshing account of the process by Dr. Duncan Green, who has been through it and successfully exited on the correct side. There's a link to a full copy of the work that he wrote to earn his degree. Among his comments: "I found the exercise incredibly useful – it’s hard for us old farts to find time to reflect and look back..."

Yeah, Duncan, it is! I like his style! :smile:

https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/how-to-get-a-phd-in-a-year-and-still-do-the-day-job/

J.

 

Fair enough. Bye.

I'm not convinced that name-free anecdotes from someone whose greatest passion displayed here is winning arguments offer the basis for a viable option. As I told Neuhaus above, even if proven true, it's impressive, but not a reliable route for people to follow. If you're retired and have seriously considered the effort involved in taking a PhD, then go for it.

 

Don't think anyone has done that who posts here, so you're right. Met Dr. McGee at a conference years ago and saw him present research (he introduced himself in about a half dozen languages, evidently he's conversant in all of them), and yes, his first PhD was more or less conventional (UK model, by research) and from an elite university, Warwick (which you probably know would be at home in our Ivy League). I don't think any of his early doctorates were by publication, though I don't know his academic history well enough to say for sure. I think after earning several, including at least one from Union, he started submitting groups of research for publication-based PhDs.

 

Yep, that's right, only doctoral candidates and people with PhDs publish. To hell with the countless peer reviewed articles published by people with Masters degrees. What do they know? All just hacks, I suppose.

But, you're right, being nameless does indeed undercut credibility quite a bit.

 

Indeed, all of us here are posting largely unverifiable things on an internet discussion board. Readers have to judge between posters based on the case they make, not their personal authority. You don't know if I really do have a PhD, but those who do may well find that what I offer from my experience sounds congruent with theirs. Neuhaus, you've made some claims about human resource practices that sounded unusual, but since my experience was coming from the workforce outside of the HR enclave, I left it to the other HR professionals to argue with you. You, on the other hand, regularly hold forth on academia beyond the scope of your expertise in HR, continually trotting out anecdotes from your residential AA in Scranton. When you toss out what sounds to me like bad advice on doctoral programs which you have never experienced, I will try to help those considering doctorates by offering a different perspective.

Glad to see that you changed your mind about continuing the conversation.

 

When one's real name and identity is used, others may take those into account when weighing the veracity of that person's posts. It's okay to accept expert opinion as preponderance. True, that's often not enough. But it's a heckuva lot more than provided by anonymous posters. Sure, they can also post persuasive comments, but their own experiences do not count since they cannot be verified.

When you're anonymous, you can post credible things. But your own experiences do not create credibility.