Second Thoughts o n Doctoral Education
I
provocative opinion
It is not uncommon to hear serious criticisms of doctoral programs these days. There has been talk of restricting the number of PhD students, improving doctoral education. making it "relevant" to the needs of society, or even creating new types of degrees. That there is need for change seems to he agreed upon by many educators, even though suggestions differ as to what direction it should take. The purpose of this article is not to examine the merits of any of these suggestions, hut to bring up a rudimentary question regarding the necessity of doctoral programs in today's world of rapid communications. This article will be concerned specifically with doctoral programs in chemistry, even though the observations made here have a wider import. Detailed specifications of what should constitute a doctoral degree program lead to an endless debate. A hroad definition of the doctoral program in chemistry will serve the present purpose. Most faculty would agree that for a student to earn a PhD degree he must show two qualifications: (1)accomplishment of a certain amount of original research in some area of chemistry and (2) completion of a set of courses in that and related areas. The main question of this article is: granted that research and advanced learning are valuable activities which should be encouraged, can this he done as well or better without a doctoral program? Let us, in a Gednnhen experiment, keep intact all the research facilities and advanced courses in a chemistry department, but eliminate the doctoral degree. A student who enters the department with bachelor's standing will he allowed to enroll in any of these courses and also to pursue research either with a faculty member or by himself. He will be given grades in the courses and appraisal of his progress in research a t regular intervals. He will be encouraged to publish the results of his research, and to continue for as manv. vears on " as he finds useful, with no obligation his part to meet a set of prescribed requirements toward a deeree. The department supports him financially for as lo& as it finds'him useful in teaching or research (as is done a t present); otherwise, he will he given adequate time to find his own support. At any time during his stay the student may look for permanent employment elsewhere. An institution that shows interest in him will have to judge his suitability from the type of courses he took, his grades, and his published or tobe-published work. What is proposed here is keeping all the academic activities associated with a doctoral program hut eliminating the requirements for the degree and the degree itself. It is tempting to he modish and call this an "undegree" program. However, we shall refer to it as what it is-self-directed nondegree studies. I think that in the current scientific atmosphere such self-directed studies would better serve the purpose of original research and advanced learning than the present doctoral programs in chemistry. his-view can be explicitly justified, if we separate all conceivable degree programs into two groups-"professiona1" degrees and "liberal arts" degrees. This is certainly an artificial division and idealization of degrees-the quotation marks are meant to acknowledge that-hut nevertheless it will he useful. With professional degrees, such as engineering and medi220 / Journal of Chemical Education
cine. emphasis is on develouing in the student a mastery of we1l:testkd and accepted techniques. This does not imply that there is no place for imaginative approaches here, but - no amount of imagination and innovation can compensate for lack of adequate technical knowledge and know how. Liberal arts degrees are best illustrated by the example of a student doing his thesis on the literature of a certain period. No one would grant this student a degree for an accurate compilation of previous criticisms. Indeed the chances of his success in this area would he greater, if he went counter to all previously expressed views, provided he could substantiate and defend his opinions. While a degree of this sort certainly must involve some achievement in tested and accepted techniques-in this case perhaps good writing-no amount of mastery of such techniques could substitute for new thought. At its best, the current PhD program combines the desirable elements of both professional and liberal arts degrees. More often the program fails to meet even the minimum requirements of either type. Many reasons can be presented for this state of affairs, but they all point to two unique features of doctoral education in-toda;'~ scientific world. First of all no two faculty members, even of the same division, in a chemistry department wholeheartedly and ohjectively agree on what constitutes a basic core of knowledge or professional skills which a chemist (or analytical chemist, biochemist etc.) with a PhD should have. This is due to the nature of the subject-which covers such a hroad area from diverse but equally valid points of view-and not to the vacillation of faculty opinions. The second feature has to do with the character of today's scientific research, which has diverged greatly from the liberal arts ideal described above. I submit that what is often judged in a student's research is not his originality, but his ability to become part of a team where he complements others in the group. Thus the research supervisor is not concerned about lack of originality when the student accepts firm directions in the execution of research. However, if the student is not ahle to proceed from there with a minimum of supervision-or does not complement the supervisor-he, the supervisor, concludes the student is not PhD material. In this atmosphere, a successful student is often the one who, even when he does not understand the suhject, is eager to do things and readily accepts other's ideas (which are certainly valuable attributes if one considers PhD studies as an apprenticeship) rather than the one who contemplates too deeply or "hears a different drummer." This comment is not meant to he critical of research as it is carried out today, nor should it be construed to mean that the only acceptable form of research is that in which the student works alone. The mode in which research is carried on in anv area is dictated bv various constraints on that particular area, many of which are beyond the control of any one individual. Nothing can be more futile than imposing a rigid and uniform modus operand; in research. Today's research in chemistry involves, of necessity, a large amount of collaboration and borrowing of ideas and techniaues from related areas. It involves using many different kxperimental techniques and theories that no student can master in a limited amount of time. And time is
often a ruthless master in research, for research not puhlished at the critical moment may best he left unpublished. A faculty member can not afford to let a research problem drag on beyond a reasonable time with no concrete results. If he is not sufficiently anxious to get things done or do them himself, he may not be able to remain active in his field for long, unless he is an already well-established scientist. Under these conditions he cannot he expected to be an objective judge of his student's research. The present mode of research leads to eagerness on the part of the faculty member to recruit students, to reward the student for following instructions promptly, to "motivate" him, if he seems to be reluctant to delve into research, and to defend him from harsh judgement by the rest of the faculty, if he has done poorly in other areas of learning. The faculty member does not undertake this defense out of narrow-minded self-interest, even though one often comes to that conclusion. Nor do the rest of the faculty soften their judgement, (as is frequently the case with a mediocre hut conscientious student) just to appease the research supervisor. This conduct on the part of the faculty stems from their tacit unawareness of what doctoral studies are supposed to be other than research whose quality and quantity are acceptable to one of them. Such a state of affairs is far from either the liberal arts or the professional degrees, which both require detached ohservation and evaluation by the faculty. The above description of PhD studies as they transpire today leads to a nagging question, which must a t one time or another have troubled every member of the faculty who has had anything to do with doctoral programs: how honest is it to create (in this case perpetuate) a degree program,
the reauirements for which can not be aereed unon and for which &en the criteria of judgment arLhighlysubjective? Even if this dishonest" can be overlooked. the ironv of the doctoral studies is gla;ing. The anticipated usefuln&s of a PhD chemist to his prospective employer is indicated by his research work. It takes less time to get research results published, even after the referee's scrutiny, than to package them in thesis form to be "draped by a beneficient spider". Self-directed nondegree studies cannot create new or better criteria for the evaluation of the student. There is, however, a t least one strong argument that can he made on their behalf: they lead to a truthful and frank statement of what graduate studies really are. If they fail to create new values, they a t least dispel illusions. They do not pretend to he either liberal arts or professional degrees, but enable the student to strike his own unique balance between the two. He discovers his abilities in today's scientific world, with no preconceived or distorted notions about research, and without relating each step in his progress to a set of requirements that ultimately may not have any significance. He finds for himself whether, with his strengths and weaknesses and stock of knowledge, he can he a useful member of the scientific community. While the doctoral program implicitly promises the student distinction and scientific recognition, which may not actually materialize, the selfdirected studies would force him to develop his own attributes.
G. K. Vemulapalli University of Arizona Tucson. 85721
Volume 53.Number 4, April 1976 / 221
