Paul,

I don't know about your institution, but mine has a clear demarcation
between the Masters and the PhD. It is original contribution to
knowledge. While it is clear that this may be interpreted broadly, it
would seem a useful construct to begin with rather than the 'weighty'
metaphor, as I think you suggest by introducing the musical metaphor.

Perhaps an issue to consider here is what I have come to think of as a
difference of perception between the British and the American university
systems. [Note: the following may be offensive to some. It is based on
observation, not on empirically collected data.]

The British system tends to give an MPhil as a kind of consolation prize
for work not quite deemed up to the standard of a PhD. I have heard this
degree referred to as a 'terminal degree' in the UK. The Masters degree
does not seem to carry this 'baggage'. In the US, there is no MPhil as
such, and the Masters has often been not the consolation prize or the
terminal degree but a degree one achieved either along the way to a PhD
or as a degree that provides an amount of credibility in certain
professional circles.

Some years back (fifteen or twenty) some US institutions started
'fast-tracking' some students by awarding the Masters as a matter of
course for completing what are called 'core' units while they were
working toward the PhD. In some cases, the Masters was given and some
students were called into offices to be told by their supervior or
committee chair that this was the highest degree that they would be
awarded at that particular institution (shades of the British 'terminal'
degree); however, I know of several instances in which students went on
to other institutions where they completed their PhDs and remained quite
happily in academia. In some US institutions, the Masters degree was
dispensed with entirely and students emerged from a BA program directly
into a PhD program without mention of a Masters along the way. My
recollection is that this was somewhat unusual twenty years ago, but
there may be other observations out there as well.

As our global world has shrunk, different expectations from different
sides of the 'pond' have conflated into a real hash of expectations by
both individuals and institutions. In the US, there are many PhDs and
many professors, in part because there is usually more than one
professor per department (as is typical in the UK). In the highly
competitive market for academic positions in the US, where,
incidentally, the pay has been a bit better than the pay in the UK, it
is not usually possible to obtain a 'tenure track' position (a position
with the possibility of being made a professor -- or the usual kind of
position one would want and expect in the US) without a PhD. This has
become particularly true in the last twenty years at smaller
institutions, but it has for much longer been the case at larger and
more prestigious institutions. In effect (and this is quite
oversimplified), the individual in the US earns a PhD with the
expectation that the US institution will reward him or her with a
combination of tenure and a professorship. This has not been an
individual's expectation in the UK, historically; however, it seems to
me that there are more individuals seeking broader choices in the world
today and the PhD is arguably becoming a 'ticket to ride' a number of
academic trains.

I currently live in Australia, which up until relatively recently
appeared to be more in the mould of UK institutions in its expectations
of its academics. By that, I mean that whether an individual elected to
pursue a Masters or a PhD was largely up to the individual. Universities
hired as teachers competent individuals sometimes directly out of their
Honours program, and perhaps hoped rather than required that these
individuals would go on to get higher degrees. In the last three years I
have seen this changing with institutions requiring not just Masters
degrees but PhDs for entry level jobs. While this is not the case in all
disciplines, it is on the rise in most of the position advertisements
that I have seen recently.

All of these observations leave unaddressed quite a few matters of
concern. Other than job flexibility, why would one want a PhD? Should a
PhD be an entry card to a teaching postion at the university level? (I
am less convinced of that than I once was, but not for the reasons one
might reasonably expect.)

What constitutes an original contribution to knowledge? Can we agree
quantitatively and qualitatively on an answer or on the many answers to
that question?

And while we're at it (here's the really offensive part), should we be
concerned that a PhD degree has become commodified in today's academic
climate? Is the contribution to knowledge a contribution or a due to be
paid to the union membership?

Respects to all,

E. Young
School of Design
Curtin University of Technology





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%