Ph.D. FCSE at Texas Tech

Not sure if Texas Tech has been discussed here but I am in my second year of the Ph.D. family consumer science education program there and should be finishing coursework this year. Research focus is in financial literacy/personal finance and I plan on looking for a full time research/professor role after graduation in financial planning. I should be done with the entire program by December of 2023 is the dissertation does not take longer than a year, hoping to finish a little sooner.

Outside of Texas Tech, I work at a big 4 accounting firm in tax and adjunct accounting courses at the undergrad and grad level. My Ph.D. program is not the traditional program someone would take to get a financial planning professor role, but it is one route someone could take as FCSE touches on a lot of different disciplines. My advisor is letting me take the financial therapy grad certificate at Kansas State to transfer in as my program emphasis. I am in my last two classes of the grad cert which will be done by May. Wanted to bring it up in case someone was looking for a Ph.D. program, this is a great option. Program is fully online and you get in-state tuition no matter the state you live in. Total program is under 40k.

 

Wow. This sounds like a great program.

 

Financial education is SO important. I'm glad people inside and outside academia are realizing its importance. Glad to see real professionals in the field and universities putting together great programs - up to the very highest level. Stephen, I wish you continued success. The study and teaching of personal finance and financial literacy is incredibly valuable work; it changes lives. Indeed, a fine thing to be doing - and the programs you mention at Texas Tech and Kansas State - both great news, in a time when good news is at a steep premium.

Thanks for telling us. Please keep us posted.

 

While doing a degree nontraditionally is not a path that prepares you to enter "research/professor role," it can certainly be done. Your professional experience can be a plus, but not if you go the traditional route. As one traditional academic said to me once when I asked why there's no literature on making such a move: "We don't want you." (Not me specifically, but us in general.) So....

I recommend developing relationships with people "inside" the academy who might want to pull you through the process. I think it's safe to say schools will make exceptions for people they know and need. Not cronyism; confidence through familiarity. It might even be a good idea to do some part-time, "side gig" work at a school. I have a colleague who was a business manager at a university with zero background in academics. But the school highly valued him. He did a nonresidential PhD (at Northcentral U.) and they made him a vice president and department chair. This was an awesome example of the exception to the rule.

 

There is no such rule. You are stuck on something that may have been true a decade or more ago. I have shared many exceptions to the so-called "rule." Academia has long changed. Most faculty positions are off the tenure track. I know someone who recently secured a position at Arizona State University as a Professor of Practice. They will head three online master's programs (Master of Arts in Criminal Justice (MACJ), Master of Science in Crime Analysis (MSCA), and Master of Public Safety Leadership and Administration (MPSLA)). Those who are traditionally prepared would not have a chance at this position simply because they wouldn't meet the 10 years of practitioner experience.

I agree that research-intensive schools may not care about professional experience. However, the vast majority of hiring committees favor those who can connect theory to practice. I have had several interviews from October to the present, and they all value my practical experience. Not one made a reference to where I got my degree or how I earned it while working full-time. I learned in this process that most people do not care about where you earned your degree but focus more on your professional, teaching, and research accomplishments. I think it is why over 24 schools have invited me to interview (and beyond), several of which are designated R2 institutions. These are TT positions requiring a Ph.D., not instructor or lecturer positions.

 

They can't be exceptions if there is no rule.

When the literature on this phenomenon gets written, I'll pay attention to that. Until then, it is merely anecdotal, highly selective, and personal. I have no desire to argue with that.

 

So-called rule. Meaning there's no such rule. However, we can agree to disagree.

 

Chris:

I think the examples you bring are great. They're encouraging. But they're not proof. They're anecdotes. This doesn't diminish the value of those contributions, but it doesn't excessively elevate them into something they are not.

We do not have structured proof that the phenomenon--moving from practice to academia--even exists in any meaningful way (beyond anecdotes). And we certainly don't have theory around it to explain the phenomenon, either.

But it can be gotten at, either inductively or deductively, either quantitatively or qualitatively. Either by scholarship or practice, for that matter.

Not that this is your burden, of course, but perhaps you could be the person who writes the how-to book for doctorate-holding practitioners to enter academia. I, for one, would be fascinated by it.

 

I do not know if any of the following counts:

Making the Jump from Accounting Practice to Academia
https://www.cpajournal.com/2016/08/01/making-the-jump-from-accounting-practice-to-academia/

Reflections on the Transition from Practice to Academia … the Nuts and Bolts
https://meridian.allenpress.com/iae/article-abstract/33/3/43/137663/Reflections-on-the-Transition-from-Practice-to?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Preparing for the transition from clinical practice to academia
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30747802/

Moving from practice to academia: three perspectives
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1367886042000245987?journalCode=rhrd20

Transitioning into academia: A new pathway for practitioners
https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2016/mar/accounting-professor-pathways.html

Either way, I think I should definitely write a guide based on my experience and perhaps, incorporate any existing literature that's out there.

 

Nice links, Chris! Looks like I've got some reading to do.

It would be so cool to induct a theory from the anecdotal data. Perhaps a modification of an existing theory or even a new, grounded theory. Cool for someone else to do it, of course....

 

Well, I'd seen all of these when I did a similar search a few years ago. The first few were much more focused on their respective fields (accounting and medical) than the actual process. Good, but not generalizable.

The next one (3 perspectives) focuses on the differences between academic and non-academic work, not how to make the move.

The last one is like the first few--really focused on people in accounting. It says, essentially, "go get a doctorate so you can teach." Uh...okay, I guess. But it does have some tips, like do some teaching, know what being an academic means, consider doing a traditional doctorate to get a track in (but maybe do a nontraditional one), and get a mentor.

What I found then--and what I maintain--is that there is no general guidance on how to make this move. It's probably because it's not a thing, that there are as many ways to do it as there are people doing it. Each situation is unique.

Howard Becker (in Tricks of the Trade) suggested that a way to determine whether or not something is a "thing" to study is to examine what people are saying about it within the field and outside it. The lack of literature--both inside academia and outside--makes me think it is not a thing. Again, it's not that it isn't happening, but it isn't a cogent topic that can be described and discussed. My opinion about this has not changed, and the lack of advancement of literature on the subject is why.

 

Wow. This is one excellent post! Somehow I feel like I'm the only person correcting other people's misstatements. Glad to see another person debunking myths as well.

 

Nonsense. No misstatements were corrected. So far, all we have is a few opinions and some articles Chris offered that don't address the issue, as I posted.

Your post is both inaccurate and sanctimonious. But that's just an opinion, of course.

 

Here's the problem. The stuff that you write, I don't know if you're playing devil's advocate, you're just plain trolling, or you seriously don't know what you're talking about. So I have no idea how to respond to your posts. Honestly, I think you're trolling. And if you are, then I and others are fools by taking the bait. Here's an exercise for you:
1. Read the name of the room. Make an assessment of what the original post/room is about.
2. Next, read posts #1 through #4. Post #4 is yours.
3. Understand the tone, mood, and non-verbal cues of each of those posts.
4. Try to understand the flow. One post to the next, and follow the conversation.
5. You should be able to realize that your post (#4) fits the pattern of trolling. Opposing viewpoints are good. But this is not that. This is schoolyard bully behavior.

You basically said a Ph.D. offered through a non-traditional modality is basically garbage. That wasn't even the topic of this room. Sure you didn't use those words, but that's basically the point of your post. Why did you write post #4? Bitterness in your own life? Unaccomplished goals? So now you need to discourage others?

Now look at Chris's post in post #5. He's steering the conversation back to the original topic. This line was especially brilliant, "Not one made a reference to where I got my degree or how I earned it while working full-time. I learned in this process that most people do not care about where you earned your degree"
See how that ties in with the original post?: "Wanted to bring it up in case someone was looking for a Ph.D. program, this is a great option. Program is fully online..."
Now this is the awesome part. Chris picked apart your argument like a pro. You both offered personal anecdotal evidence. I agree with you on that. But then Chris offered documented anecdotal evidence to prove that your "rule" isn't a rule. I don't know if you have knowledge on how proofs work, but you need only a single counterexample to disprove a theory. Chris didn't offer a counterexample. He offered five. You offered none. No evidence on your original contention. No evidence supporting on your refutation to Chris's links. Zilch. Nada.
In Chris's first link it's about an accounting Ph.D. That is extremely relevant to the OP's situation, as the OP said he works for one of the Big 4. You pounced on it saying it's not generalizable. You're so far stuck on your negativity, you failed to see that the article was on point. You thought Chris found some random article to prove a point, but nope. That's further brilliance on Chris's part.

One last thing, you wrote, "It's probably because it's not a thing... a way to determine whether or not something is a "thing" to study is to examine what people are saying about it"

That's you knowing that you got torn apart in your debate, and that's you licking your wounds. Normally I don't get any satisfaction when someone gets a beat down, however, you came in here with your post #4 with that condescending remark, and your arrogance trying to minimize another person's accomplishment. Well, yes there was a huge payoff watching you get schooled.

 

So glad you received your payoff. Please understand that I do not wish to debate you.

 

I think if one reviewed my time here on DI, they would notice I steer clear of these situations. However, I do feel the need to interject to state that Rich has contributed much to this forum over many years. Whether one agrees with everything he says is a different topic but generally, he has provided great discussion. I see that you joined in 2020 and have contributed very little to this forum. I do not interject to condemn anyone but I do wish that your posts contributed to the overall wealth of knowledge that accumulates here on DI or refrain from posting if it will only be to argue on threads.

No disrespect intended, I just prefer to see this forum be utilized in a more constructive manner versus arguing, belittling, etc.

 

Dear Dr Schmoe:

What is your doctorate in, and what is its source?

Regards,

Rich Douglas, PhD, DsoSci
PhD: Union, specializing in Nontraditional Higher Education
Doctor of Social Science, University of Leicester, focused on Human Resource Development
Professional Certified Coach (ICF)
Senior Professional in Human Resources (HRCI)
Certified Professional in Talent Development (ATD)

 

Back on the subject of financial education, Kansas State offers a PhD in Financial Planning for $57K. https://online.k-state.edu/programs/personal-financial-planning-doctorate/

Officially it's hybrid because there are 10-day residencies in the summer:

 

A guy at Liberty School of Law has a Ph.D. in PFP from K-State.
https://www.liberty.edu/law/faculty/timothy-todd/