Academic narcissism...or elitist exclusivity?
I have long been an avid proponent of both lifelong as well as distance learning, which has been nurtured indeed fostered by enrollment at Empire State College where I was graduated with an associates in arts (1997), and bachelor of science (1999).
It was simultaneously an exhilarating and liberating experience. The most memorable part of that experience stemmed from my relationship with my mentor, Dr. Rudy Cain. Cain undoubtedly helped shepherd me through an arduous process. I will never forget him once telling me that “you need a credential” then assigning readings.
Those readings would inform my perspective while resulting in reports that were grounded in critical analysis. These exercises taught me not only about the material in question but how to deconstruct it. Like persons graduating from prestigious schools such as the Ivy League universities, I am very proud of my affiliation with Empire State College, because it is the first successful American distance learning institute in America. It was founded in 1971 under the aegis of Dr. James Hall. But it was not the first “open university” in these United States.
In 1883 a correspondence school based at Cornell University was established, but was poorly managed and, as such, never got off the ground. ESC has been doing “distance education” so well with an innovative pedagogy, cutting edge technology, and state-of-the-art instructional systems, it has become an international model for effective, evidence based delivery of distance learning degree programs. ESC's program is one upon which other colleges and universities such as Thomas Edison State College in New Jersey and Charter Oak State College in Connecticut have modeled their own offerings.
Distance learning has become a mature, peer reviewed and, as such, accepted vehicle for non-traditional students to “get a credential.” But some critics in academia have been vocal opponents of extending this model to doctoral programs. Except for well known problems with unaccredited “diploma mills” cropping up in states with liberal chartering provisions, those objections make little sense unless we look at them from an exclusivity prospective.
It simply takes a long time to obtain a doctoral degree as it well ought to being the highest academic credential university faculty can confer. These programs have a notoriously high drop-out rate, which is an issue of concern in many countries, including the USA (where students need between six and nine years to complete a doctorate depending on the subject and also on the institution).
Doctoral programs take the longest in the humanities, while doctoral students in the life sciences compete their programs more rapidly. In Canada, the average time for completion of a doctorate is more than five years in all subjects (an average of 5 years and 10 months across all disciplines), with students in the humanities and social sciences requiring more than 6 years.
When I was accepted to Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine's Psy.D program after being graduated from SUNY Buffalo State in 2005 with a master of science in multidisciplinary studies, a straight A average, and a thesis, I thought I had it made until I peeked behind the curtain to speak with the wizard.
The program was 7 years in duration. It cost $20,000/year. At the end of the grueling process, if one persevered, did not become destitute, challenge egotistical instructors most of whom were barely out of graduate school themselves, while others had never published anything of import in peer reviewed journals, and fulfilled a curriculum heavy on make work, I could hope to earn between $70k to $90k in private practice, little more in academia, and slightly more than that in federal or state service.
The math just did not add up. I would be roughly $150k in debt, middle aged, only to have an earned doctorate, which is not worth $150k in student loans, to show for it. Why was an expensive 3 year professional program structured to be extended to 7? If you look at the compensation packages for full time faculty most of whom are tenured or on tenure track, a full professor at PCOM earns $150,000 in the School of Psychology.
Consequently, there is an economic incentive to extend a three year program to seven years. That incentive is an exorbitant compensation package to faculty. There is no empirical peer reviewed data suggesting PCOM Psy.D graduates perform any better or worst then their peers at local area colleges and universities on The Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP).
The experience was so negative, encountering obstructionism, racism, egotism, and elitism by trained psychologists who - simply put - ought to know better, it turned me off from pursing a career in psychology altogether. I am still interested in human behavior. And I am now enrolled in the DLitt et Phil program in anthropology at the renown University of South Africa, which is a premier international "distance learning" institute in Pretoria, which also offers "brick and mortar" undergraduate and graduate degree programs.
The "research-only" doctoral model is more traditionally found in the oldest European, Asia and African universities, then in the market driven, overly structured, paternalistic and lengthy PhD programs found in American and Canadian universities. Although there is a clear trend in Europe to give doctoral education more structure, e.g. in the form of graduate schools or doctoral programs, the traditional ‘professor-pupil’ model is still widespread.
The problems with the professor-pupil model are well known: there is a high degree of personal dependence on the supervisor, a frequent lack of quality in supervision, high drop-out rates and often there is an overly long period before the degree is completed.
In Europe, the time-to-degree varies considerably depending on the subject and on how the doctoral education and training takes place. In short, whether it is within the framework of a program or school or if it follows the traditional professor-pupil model. Like most subjective assessments it comes down the two people involved.
The professor-pupil model has served me extremely well while at Empire State and to a lesser degree when I attended graduate school at Buffalo State. It is extremely difficult for me to sit through a 1, 2, or 3 hour lecture with an egoistic instructor droning on interminably neglecting to provide audio-visual aids to illustrate his or her material utterly oblivious student engagement.
When I became a part time adjunct professor at Camden County College, I immediately ordered a series of DVDs from PBS with which to provoke debate, spark enthusiasm, and instill a sense of excitement in my students. It worked. Classes were full every semester.
The academy now is replete with people simply wanting to successfully navigate the doctoral process, which is strictly prescribed. Take this research course, that methodology course, this statistic course, that seminar, a few advanced subject area courses, some independent readings, a comprehensive examination, which no longer includes a foreign language, compile, write and present your research and after an average of 10 years if you are lucky, you will be awarded a bona fide PhD.
Those idealistic students foolish enough to have endured this grueling process at a university other than those in the top echelon of academia in North America now portentously lay claim to the mantle of elitism. These fledgling academicians believe narcissistically there are no other avenues with which to obtain an earned doctorate except though the North American model of exclusivity.
This exclusivity permeates not only academia, but its very institutions; important funding sources like the National Institutes of Health, US Department of Education, and even some private foundations. That presumption has never been based on fact, however. Original research is defined by Wikipedia (retrieved September 2010 “What is Original Research? Original research is considered a primary source. Thomas G. Carpenter Library University of North Florida”) as “research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. This material is of a primary source character. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified).”
Few approved dissertations at even the best universities in America accomplish that singular, all important objective and actually “produce new knowledge.” And I have actually taken the time to ready many. I know my doctoral “thesis” will produce "new knowledge" shaped as it is by rigorous adherence to the scientific method, careful oversight by a brilliant supervisor, and motivated by a burning desire to demonstrate that knowledge is not an abstraction, which can be relegated to the Ivory Tower, but can be of practical use in resolving pernicious issues with which society is confronted.
It was simultaneously an exhilarating and liberating experience. The most memorable part of that experience stemmed from my relationship with my mentor, Dr. Rudy Cain. Cain undoubtedly helped shepherd me through an arduous process. I will never forget him once telling me that “you need a credential” then assigning readings.
Those readings would inform my perspective while resulting in reports that were grounded in critical analysis. These exercises taught me not only about the material in question but how to deconstruct it. Like persons graduating from prestigious schools such as the Ivy League universities, I am very proud of my affiliation with Empire State College, because it is the first successful American distance learning institute in America. It was founded in 1971 under the aegis of Dr. James Hall. But it was not the first “open university” in these United States.
In 1883 a correspondence school based at Cornell University was established, but was poorly managed and, as such, never got off the ground. ESC has been doing “distance education” so well with an innovative pedagogy, cutting edge technology, and state-of-the-art instructional systems, it has become an international model for effective, evidence based delivery of distance learning degree programs. ESC's program is one upon which other colleges and universities such as Thomas Edison State College in New Jersey and Charter Oak State College in Connecticut have modeled their own offerings.
Distance learning has become a mature, peer reviewed and, as such, accepted vehicle for non-traditional students to “get a credential.” But some critics in academia have been vocal opponents of extending this model to doctoral programs. Except for well known problems with unaccredited “diploma mills” cropping up in states with liberal chartering provisions, those objections make little sense unless we look at them from an exclusivity prospective.
It simply takes a long time to obtain a doctoral degree as it well ought to being the highest academic credential university faculty can confer. These programs have a notoriously high drop-out rate, which is an issue of concern in many countries, including the USA (where students need between six and nine years to complete a doctorate depending on the subject and also on the institution).
Doctoral programs take the longest in the humanities, while doctoral students in the life sciences compete their programs more rapidly. In Canada, the average time for completion of a doctorate is more than five years in all subjects (an average of 5 years and 10 months across all disciplines), with students in the humanities and social sciences requiring more than 6 years.
When I was accepted to Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine's Psy.D program after being graduated from SUNY Buffalo State in 2005 with a master of science in multidisciplinary studies, a straight A average, and a thesis, I thought I had it made until I peeked behind the curtain to speak with the wizard.
The program was 7 years in duration. It cost $20,000/year. At the end of the grueling process, if one persevered, did not become destitute, challenge egotistical instructors most of whom were barely out of graduate school themselves, while others had never published anything of import in peer reviewed journals, and fulfilled a curriculum heavy on make work, I could hope to earn between $70k to $90k in private practice, little more in academia, and slightly more than that in federal or state service.
The math just did not add up. I would be roughly $150k in debt, middle aged, only to have an earned doctorate, which is not worth $150k in student loans, to show for it. Why was an expensive 3 year professional program structured to be extended to 7? If you look at the compensation packages for full time faculty most of whom are tenured or on tenure track, a full professor at PCOM earns $150,000 in the School of Psychology.
Consequently, there is an economic incentive to extend a three year program to seven years. That incentive is an exorbitant compensation package to faculty. There is no empirical peer reviewed data suggesting PCOM Psy.D graduates perform any better or worst then their peers at local area colleges and universities on The Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP).
The experience was so negative, encountering obstructionism, racism, egotism, and elitism by trained psychologists who - simply put - ought to know better, it turned me off from pursing a career in psychology altogether. I am still interested in human behavior. And I am now enrolled in the DLitt et Phil program in anthropology at the renown University of South Africa, which is a premier international "distance learning" institute in Pretoria, which also offers "brick and mortar" undergraduate and graduate degree programs.
The "research-only" doctoral model is more traditionally found in the oldest European, Asia and African universities, then in the market driven, overly structured, paternalistic and lengthy PhD programs found in American and Canadian universities. Although there is a clear trend in Europe to give doctoral education more structure, e.g. in the form of graduate schools or doctoral programs, the traditional ‘professor-pupil’ model is still widespread.
The problems with the professor-pupil model are well known: there is a high degree of personal dependence on the supervisor, a frequent lack of quality in supervision, high drop-out rates and often there is an overly long period before the degree is completed.
In Europe, the time-to-degree varies considerably depending on the subject and on how the doctoral education and training takes place. In short, whether it is within the framework of a program or school or if it follows the traditional professor-pupil model. Like most subjective assessments it comes down the two people involved.
The professor-pupil model has served me extremely well while at Empire State and to a lesser degree when I attended graduate school at Buffalo State. It is extremely difficult for me to sit through a 1, 2, or 3 hour lecture with an egoistic instructor droning on interminably neglecting to provide audio-visual aids to illustrate his or her material utterly oblivious student engagement.
When I became a part time adjunct professor at Camden County College, I immediately ordered a series of DVDs from PBS with which to provoke debate, spark enthusiasm, and instill a sense of excitement in my students. It worked. Classes were full every semester.
The academy now is replete with people simply wanting to successfully navigate the doctoral process, which is strictly prescribed. Take this research course, that methodology course, this statistic course, that seminar, a few advanced subject area courses, some independent readings, a comprehensive examination, which no longer includes a foreign language, compile, write and present your research and after an average of 10 years if you are lucky, you will be awarded a bona fide PhD.
Those idealistic students foolish enough to have endured this grueling process at a university other than those in the top echelon of academia in North America now portentously lay claim to the mantle of elitism. These fledgling academicians believe narcissistically there are no other avenues with which to obtain an earned doctorate except though the North American model of exclusivity.
This exclusivity permeates not only academia, but its very institutions; important funding sources like the National Institutes of Health, US Department of Education, and even some private foundations. That presumption has never been based on fact, however. Original research is defined by Wikipedia (retrieved September 2010 “What is Original Research? Original research is considered a primary source. Thomas G. Carpenter Library University of North Florida”) as “research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. This material is of a primary source character. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified).”
Few approved dissertations at even the best universities in America accomplish that singular, all important objective and actually “produce new knowledge.” And I have actually taken the time to ready many. I know my doctoral “thesis” will produce "new knowledge" shaped as it is by rigorous adherence to the scientific method, careful oversight by a brilliant supervisor, and motivated by a burning desire to demonstrate that knowledge is not an abstraction, which can be relegated to the Ivory Tower, but can be of practical use in resolving pernicious issues with which society is confronted.
Comments
Post a Comment