Revisiting the Doctor of Arts

The truth is, teaching colleges and community colleges didn't value doctoral-trained candidates prepared for teaching their disciplines. They wanted the PhD. This killed the DA.

That's why I proposed in my hypothetical thought exercise that it could be repurposed to prepare people--inside and outside the academy--for teaching adults. Not subject-matter experts who'd gone through some "train the trainer program" (and I've conducted those both inside and outside the university setting), but someone who's truly masterful at facilitating adult learning and has doctoral-level expertise in the discipline.

Anyone who's been through a lousy training session can appreciate that!

In my field, talent development, I hold both the highest professional credential (the CPTD) and the highest academic award in it (the doctorate). I know both what that field can do and could do. So I thought I'd share it here. Perhaps after the "yeahbutts" wear off, we can discuss how something like this can be of use and be brought about?

 

Well, that could go either way.

 

Uh...no. Please, no.

 

Yes and no.

Yes, because that's a large part of it. No, because it's not all of it, nor was that its design and purpose. The DA is a mix of pedagogy (I'm suggesting andragogy instead), one's academic discipline, and original research.

But it was...spiffy!

 

I am aware of its significance. My point is that it breaks from an otherwise clear pattern.

Also comes off as a bit needlessly elitist in light of other degrees. "Oh, you have a doctorate in science? That's nice. My doctorate is in wisdom."

 

Your post betrayed that.

As it should

No, that's not what it says. Philosophy, in this sense is the love of wisdom, not the possession of it.

But it is a distinction without a difference, a word in a title that no longer evokes any meaning. There are plenty of cultures where the term isn't even used to describe the doctorate.

So, there are two perspectives here: assertions and assessments. I've countered the errant assertions. The assessments I'll leave alone.

 

That's really my point, it's a word that has lost meaning. There's a reason why we see so many people with non-PhD doctorates referring to their doctorate as a PhD (aside from the ones that are outright fraud). In many circles doctorate and PhD are synonymous. This isn't really meant to be a point of disagreement unless we delve too far into the nitty gritty. My point is that 30 years ago the Doctor of Arts might not have been well tolerated due to its lack of familiarity and not overwhelmingly impressive post-nominal abbreviation.

Nowadays, many people seem unaware that there is a different between an EdD and a PhD, for example, or that not all doctorates are PhDs, in general. You have the JD that the ABA is saying is equivalent to a PhD (it's not). You have super specialized professional doctorates the likes of which we never would have seen in years past, like the Doctor of Information Assurance.

Seems like if ever there was a time for the Doctor of Arts to stake its claim it would be now.

 

If King Canute were successful in his efforts, I would say that the stupid renaming of first professional degrees as "Doctor of" this or that should be reversed. He wasn't and neither should I be.

 

Fine, but it isn't the title per se. It's the concept re-imagined in two ways:
1. Andragogy instead of pedagogy for the teaching element
2. Focused on preparing adults to facilitate adult learning wherever it occurs, not just at the undergraduate level (the original purpose of the DA).

 

Higher Ed is going through some growing pains right now.

Why not re-brand / recover the D.A. and offer it at a very accessible price?

 

Or how about admitting that a "Doctorate" really isn't necessary in most cases?

 

Because the reasons for its short life and demise have not changed.

 

I have wondered whether these doctorate programs don't exist primarily as cash cows. That's not to say the degrees are substandard or in any way lack legitimacy!

Moo!

 

Well, universities are not immune to the laws of supply and demand, no? But that alone doesn't make the degree programs any less legitimate, vital, etc.

I remember when night schooling exploded in the late 1970s. I mean, kaboom. You couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting one. And what did they all have in common? The MBA. The MBA was the "It" degree. Entire schools (see National University's origins) were started to deliver the degree. Schools that ignored working professionals (See San Diego State University) suddenly got into the game. And the diploma mill scene in California (and others) grew like a fungus, with the MBA being the most popular. Why? Why did all of this happens so suddenly? Because business management and leadership skills became all the vogue. (At the same time, and for the same reasons, The One Minute Manager established the managerial book genre.)

Why? Supply and demand. These universities would not be offering all of these doctorates if (a) there wasn't a demand for them and (b) they weren't so easily (and cheaply) delivered.

 

Yes, true, but where did the demand come from?

 

Subsidize whatever you want to see more of? Very true. Someone pointed out years ago that law school is free as long as you are in it. The soul crushing cost comes only after you're out. Kinda Faustian!

 

From the consumer.

For some students, they're the consumer. They want the degree for what could be myriad reasons. It could also be employers, either by favoring (or even demanding) them in applicants or through sponsoring (paying for) students to take them.

Some 54 years ago, David Hapgood described this creeping credentialing, calling it Diplomaism.

 

Back in the early 1970s they even turned a train car on the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) into an MBA classroom for commuters:

https://www.nytimes.com/1972/10/03/archives/commuterschool-mba-given.html