Why Such Limited PhD Access

Having gone no further than a BS, I cannot elaborate on your predicament, but I do have an idea.
IMHO, most ( if not all ) "higher learning establishments" have gone the way of state licensing boards (in general), in that they have ceased to primarily function for the caliber of a particular vocation and are mainly concerned with being self sustaining.

A few quick examples come to mind:
1 American Bar association
2 American Medical Association
3 Most labor unions

Not that any of these are totally corrupt ( maybe 'cept unions -:tongue3: ), but the original purpose of protecting the public has been lost as the # one priority.

Universities, IMHO, fit this category and if they can produce a few truly educated grads, then they are happy. They can/will now focus more on continuing their existence rather than the quality of "output".

Your desires are not in demand enough for any of them to spend the time & effort to try to meet your (general YOUR) needs, as this does not effect the status-quo of the establishment.

 

PhDs are designed to be heavily laden with research responsibilities, which become a full time job. Having undertaken PhD level work, I can attest to this. Is it workable if you have a full-time position? Sure. But don't count on much time with the family or doing silly things like naps, hobbies, recreational reading, etc. It's a full-time endeavor. I've often wondered if that isn't one of the reason professional terminal degrees (D.Min, DBA, EdD, PsyD, etc.) came about.

Plus, let's face facts. At most schools, PhD students teach....a lot. So you need free time to be able to do a lot of lecturing, grading, etc.

Now, SBTS is one seminary that is offering modular PhD programs. Others have followed suit and led the pack. And some D.Min programs are getting beefier to fill the need between the library rats and the "Here's How We do Sunday School" dissertation types (Thankfully).

Were I going to be an academic, I'd have a Master's in the area I was going to teach in, and then do an EdD in administration. That way, you can be a dean, you can be a prof, or in the best of all worlds, both. At one time, I considered an EdD after the M.Div for that very reason.

Just a thought. It served my cousin very well, as she ended up getting offers to teach and/or be an administrator on the collegiate level. She did both at one time or another before she retired. I owe her credit for this advice.

 

Honestly, I think that the lack of accessibility is a good thing.

Why? There is a glut of PhDs in the Humanities. IMO, it is questionable to pursue a PhD when you are fully funded, but it is absolutely insane to pay out of pocket for a degree that likely will not do much for you.

A part-time or modular PhD is highly unlikely to be funded because you will not be available to grade, teach, research, etc. for the faculty.

Even if it were available, it would still likely be considered "inferior" to the full time residential model because of a lack of "immersion" in the field.

If you want a doctorate, I recommend the Ed.D. It can open doors for you in the community college system.

If you pursue a PhD, it may not necessarily open any more doors for you anyhow. Tenure-track positions at universities are few and far between, and you are competing with a very large number of candidates.

The field of U.S. History is even worse. If you were planning to study Asian History, Middle Eastern History, etc. you might have a better chance, but U.S. has way too many candidates.

 

I don't entirely disagree that it should be difficult. But it shouldn't be impossible nor impractical for practicioners. Educational models change with the times, and rightly so.

 

Is there really a "practitioner" in the field of history? I suppose museum directors and curators would qualify, but that's more "public history" than history proper.

My question is this: what is the purpose of the PhD? It is not designed for practitioners. It is designed to prepare researchers and university faculty. In the humanities, these purposes generally are combined.

If a person can't afford to quit his or her job or is unable to relocate, then he or she is not the kind of person that needs to pursue a humanities PhD, IMO.

In order to get a tenure-track position, you will probably need to relocate far away for a potentially low-paying position.

I do wish that the "Doctor of Arts" degree would have caught on more. It is designed for teaching undergraduates more than for producing research. This kind of degree, IMO, would work well for those who are already teaching in community colleges or at 4 year institutions.

If we make the PhD too convenient, we are only going to flood the market further. In some fields, that's ok. For example, a PhD in theology can always be a pastor. A PhD in Biology can work in scientific research. A PhD in history outside of academia can flip hamburgers.

 

It's not a matter of creativity. They don't want you teaching to get experience. They want you to teach to take up all the general ed courses that they don't want to teach. It's a part of the trade-off. We fund you, and you teach the classes we don't want to teach.

This is irrelevant because MAT programs are designed for K-12 licensure, which requires student teaching. This is a state requirement, not a university preference. Being a grad assistant teaching or grading is not a state requirement.

 

This perception is very real. I was recently part of a Director of Missions search team. The chair and another member refused to consider anyone with a research doctorate. All PhDs and ThDs, accredited or not, went in the trash. Sad, but real.

Fade to corporate America. PhDs are just odd ducks. They don't know what to do with you. Heck, they look at you odd if you have a DBA. They might hire you, but you'll get little more than what an MBA or BBA would get for the same position.

Stefan is right. They want free (or better yet, YOU have to pay to do this) or low cost profs for 101s. Again, it's part and parcel of the model, which in my mind could always use some tweaking.

Martin, you're right in that you're about as immersed as any PhD prof would be in one of the programs you're looking into. You're on the front lines, in the trenches. It's frustrating.

 

That doesn't make you a "practitioner," though. Teaching a subject is not practicing it. Practitioner/scholar distinctions are more common in professional fields. One can practice or teach medicine, religion, psychology, etc.

How does one "practice" history, English, etc. in a way that distinguishes it from "scholarly" activities? Research and teaching doesn't make you a practitioner. It makes you a scholar.

The problem is that such programs would draw people right out of graduate school, especially in this market. "Hmm...go full-time and eat Ramen noodles 3X a day, or I could try this modular thingy....." It wouldn't be smart, but I see it happening easily.

I think that we would benefit from a research-based doctoral degree as in the European system. This approach would benefit both fresh grads and current teachers. If you have time to produce quality research, you have time to complete the program.

 

Of course, the university/community college rivalry simply expresses a difference in priorities.

At an R1 institution, teaching undergrads is something that you have adjuncts and assistant profs handle for you so you might be able to teach a grad section. You don't mind teaching the grad section as much because you can use the students to research things you plan to write about. Research is the key. Why? The tenure system rewards it. It doesn't matter how great your teaching skills are if you don't publish.

RE: the research disparities--You named two people who produced a total of three books. While the quality of the research likely is equivalent, the problem boils down to quantity. Someone teaching a 2/2 with summers off is going to have more time for research. Unless the CC lecturer is a workaholic, it's going to be extremely difficult to keep up.

It's an unfair system, but it is the way it is.

 

Good luck getting that program accredited. Columbia Evangelical, Newburgh Seminary, etc., all use the Eurpoean model to an extent, and you're toast in the eyes of American accreditors. That goes back to my point about a changing of a model. It's a hard sell right now.

 

I'll toss in as a PhD who has surveyed the modern American educational system over the past several years. The OP is a good point and it brings up some essential
issues that need to be addressed in our modern, western academic settings.

Given technology and availability of tremendous resources there is little reason to say someone must complete a 3 year residency and then go to dissertation all on campus. Its silly.

That said, for a PhD to be worth it you really need the interaction with faculty, students, and scholars to grow. With the glut of humanities PhDs out there and the strange consumer model educational process there is a mixed bag when it comes to getting the degree.

I enjoyed my PhD time though I don't use it in a very academic sense.