With the new energy within the Graduate School in evaluating and launching new programs, we’re talking more about both Masters’-level and PhD-level education.
Our discussions have surfaced interesting alternative rationales for the PhD.
Some believe that the reason for a university to offer a PhD is to provide to the world the next generation of research talent. The PhD is often distinguished from other graduate degrees by the responsibility for adding new knowledge to humanity. Professional and Masters degrees in contrast are based on communicating the then-current knowledge of the field and skills to consume the literature in years following graduation. In this view, the university’s mounting of a PhD program is part of a formation process of the next generation, specifically those who expand knowledge and human understanding in a particular field.
Others believe that the utility of PhD students is as assistance to the teaching mission of the university. They provide talent for instruction of undergraduates within their field. Indeed, mentored teaching experience is useful training for a career in the professoriate. A difficult balancing decision is related to how much teaching experience is important for skill development of an academic PhD, and how much teaching is solely filling the needs of the unit in which the PhD is based. If we are training PhD’s for positions in teaching colleges, should heavy-teaching loads as students be part of the program design?
Still others believe that PhD students gain their value by assisting in the research work of the current faculty. It is common to note that ongoing interactions with pre-doctoral students sharpen the thinking of current faculty through the dialectic of critique and revision. Doctoral students can offer original contributions to research projects. In experimental sciences it is common that senior faculty assign individual data collections to different graduate students. In essence, each doctoral student is working on a different potential discovery, partly productive of a new article or research product. In that sense, doctoral students can act as multipliers to faculty productivity.
Finally, there are some perspectives on PhD programs that assert that the deep inquiry required in PhD studies and dissertations have value as “knowledge for knowledge” sake. If students want to engage in these efforts and the years of personal sacrifice they entail, then we should welcome them into programs. This position is in sharp contrast to the perspective that says we should educate PhD students only if there is a future job related to their field of expertise. If there is no job market for the PhD (because of oversupply of PhD’s in the area and no job growth), that perspective says it is not proper to educate them.
These different perspectives on the “why” of a PhD come to the fore when discussions are held about whether university funds should be given to PhD students in the form of stipends and tuition support. At that point, higher level goals of the institution are relevant. How sensitive should our support be to the availability of academic tenure-line positions in the field? If we have large undergraduate teaching needs for a unit, what limits are appropriate for using PhD students as instructors? What weight should be given to available research support for graduate student costs versus academic job availability? How do we assess the availability of non-academic jobs, relevant to the PhD field (e.g., research scientist positions for computer scientists in tech companies)? How do we evaluate the availability of other jobs, not directly relevant to the field, but eligible for PhD’s from the program (e.g., quantitative modeling skills on Wall Street for physicists)? In short, what is the appropriate balance of faculty-centered versus student-centered characteristics of PhD programs?
These are tough questions, but they need our attention.
Whether I should go for PhD or plunge it directly. More of us thought of doing a PhD will enhance your career options or secure a promotion or it may be an imperative requirement in your work. PhD is an incredibly rigorous thing– both regarding the time it consumes and hard work involved in its pursuit. On the fence about whether doing a PhD is right for you? Or perhaps now you have the opportunity to pursue something you’ve always been interested in, or you’re ready to take up a new challenge.
PHD is more difficult as comapre to MS degree, but I think Phd have more benefits as compare to all other degrees, so I will must complete my Phd.
I strongly second Professor Ambrosio’s comments about Graduate Liberal Studies. That particular program is something this University does which is truly–and I don’t think this is too strong a word–magnificent.
President DeGioia has identified the three core missions of our University to be formation (education of the whole person), scholarship and advancement of the public good. The purpose of GLS is to pursue the third by extending the first and second into the Washington DC political, governmental, diplomatic, military, media and professional communities–Jesuit lifelong learning for our nation’s capital, and sorely needed right now.
Among our peers, only Georgetown can do a thing like this, because only Georgetown is in Washington. This program sets us apart.
And GLS has delivered on its function, well, magnificently. Its alumni include former Presidential Press Secretary Mike McCurry, Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, CBS News Anchor Norah O’Donnell, Marine Lieutenant General Bob Schmidle, CNN Foreign Affairs Correspondent Jill Doherty–and 2000 other federal administrators, Congressional staffers, political operatives, military officers, diplomats, embassy workers, NGO personnel, journalists, lawyers, lobbyists, PR professionals, educators, clergy, social workers and authors.
The graduate program evaluation Provost Groves describes should include fresh look at GLS. Georgetown has let GLS slip in recent years as it has, understandably, focused on other priorities. Yet this is a program by which Georgetown does great good, and which does great good for Georgetown. It is time to give it more attention. We should consider revitalizing and upgrading it–perhaps reworking it into a program of what we might call “Healy Scholars” drawn from the aforesaid communities both to pursue with us Jesuit learning and scholarship for use in their endeavors, and to engage with our undergraduates and regular graduate students through mentoring and similar programs for the benefit of our educational community.
When you have something magnificent, you should capitalize upon it. Patrick Francis Healy would agree.
Bill Kuncik
Georgetown MALS
Well said Bill (and Frank).
Best
Paul
Without wishing to distract from the well-focused and important questions posed here, I would like to call attention to an important element of Georgetown’s efforts in graduate education that have received regrettably little attention in the larger conversation about innovation in the area of Graduate education and its relation to the University’s broader educational mission. I refer to the Master and Doctor of Liberal Studies degrees that Georgetown has been offering for more than 40 years in the case of the former, more than 10 in the latter.
There are two salient characteristics that distinguish both these programs from existing graduate degrees currently offered (with the exception of one or two valuable intiviatives recently launched): first, they are fully interdisciplinary in conception, design and execution; second, they are overtly values-oriented in a way that robustly engages many of the most distinctive features of Georgetown’s Jesuit mission.
While acknowledging that there are many elements that must be considered in shaping the future goals of the University in regard to Graduate education, I believe I am not alone in expressing disappointment that the public discussion of these topics at GU has for the most part neglected the limited but arguably uniquely valuable role the Graduate Liberal Studies programs might play in such a future.
Very interesting comments in the Graduate programs in Liberal Studies. Maybe it seems to highlight a basic question to be addressed by ALL. What is the goal of graduate programs? Simple question but a very complicated and not so simple inquiry.
Informative article. I would be interested in your opinions on the scholar-practioner model being used in some EdD programs, and if you feel this has advantages over focusing soley on scholarly research based PhD programs.
Thanks!
Interesting comment on EdD programs which might address the balance between research and practice which is a big issue in Medical School. Faculty.
Sorry for lots of typos above. I pressed done before I could correct ! Computer dumb!
Howdy! A great laying out of all the issues around Phd’s. Sounds like universities need to address these issues and figure out a balance of all these forces. My personal feeling from being on the Medical School side is that universities even when their emphasis is undergraduate education tend to not reward the TEACHING by faculty compared to other endeavors. Counseling students, working on committee don student life etc. at the medical school level frequently the teaching may tend to be an add on which has in sone schools not been as appreciated or compensated as other endeavors. Just some thoughts knowing some undergrad Phd faculty and having dealt with Ned faculty for some over forty years. So am interesting and difficult issue. Good luck in gathering the troops to look at these complex issues. Glad you opened up the discussion. Where to now? Interesting journey.