Hi all,
The question has come up, and I thought I might ask a wider audience.
Is a PhD devalued if it is completed in the same institution as the
person's pre-doctoral degrees were achieved?
The purpose for the question is that I have encountered an underlying
perception that this is so, but no one has been able to offer anything
that rationalises that perception. So I figure, given the audience on
this list, maybe there are those who have considered this issue before
and could offer their insights.
I have spoken to a number of people and their attitudes have varied,
with comments like
- 'It makes no difference to me personally, but...',
- 'I can see no reason why it should make any difference, but...',
- 'This institution probably wouldn't differentiate, but it matters to
me',
- 'I have never heard of it making any difference in an employment
negotiation.'
And yet I have spoken to others who have told of how they were strongly
encouraged to get their doctorate in another institution and even in
another country. So there appears to be a general acceptance of the
attitude, and a general reluctance to admit that such an attitude
exists.
The only reason that seems to make any sense is one of institutional
bias, that the person can develop methodologies or ways of thinking
that are skewed if they do all their study under one roof. But is that
necessarily wrong if that is what the person wants?
With more and more institutions offering post graduate qualifications
then the amount of competition for those who wish to do them will
increase. In light of this, how does this attitude fit?
Thank you,
Alan T Litchfield
|