Fil:

I too consider the PhD years as the best time of my life! Partly I  
think because I was in the first cohort of a PhD program in the  
Architecture school of a great University.
The responsible faculty had no bureaucratic  PhD criteria. As a result  
every single one of us in the cohort did masterful work charting the  
potentials of the degree. All of us may not have qualified as  
"researchers" but we sure did contribute to the knowledge in the  
field. Architectural philosophy, systems methodology, information  
systems to support design, the measurement of meaning in  
architecture,  and other subjects were the dissertation topics. At  
least three books resulted from our efforts and all dissertations are  
available through University Microfilms. Three deans and at least two  
department heads came from the cohort of about seven candidates. (I  
had a position as a research associate, received a federal grant and  
hired my colleagues so research wasn't a foreign practice. We learned  
on the job, together.) I think times have changed, but not the  
adventure of acquiring knowledge to answer questions that matter to  
you. To me that is the most important thing about a PhD. That  
opportunity was what motivated us. Quality lies in the student as much  
as in the faculty and hardly at all in hard and fast criteria. Get the  
right people and give them room to learn and work together. Expect a  
lot and you will get it. Or so I believe.

Chuck

Dr. Charles Burnette, FAIA
[log in to unmask]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:37 PM, Filippo A. Salustri wrote:

> Jeremy et al,
> Just for the record, my time as a doctoral student was the best time  
> of my
> life.  But, then again, I know I'm weird. :) This may bias my  
> beliefs as
> much as the experiences of others that you've recounted below.
>
> Besides that, I agree with everything you wrote, except "The work  
> can be
> anything the the committee accepts."  And while the cmte must accept  
> it, I
> believe that there must be certain standards that are known to  
> anyone able
> to sit on such a committee, and that there be some way to ensure  
> that the
> work was recognized as fulfilling those standards.  The standards  
> can vary
> between disciplines.  What extent of variation should be allowed goes
> well-beyond this discussion, and I certainly wouldn't be qualified  
> to pass
> judgment on any proposed description of variations.  I believe this  
> because,
> in the absence of such standards, there is no way to guarantee that
> recipients of a doctorate have "measured up."
>
> This is entirely disjoint from the problem of "miraculous  
> transformations."
> I'm not sure where that comes from; I've not really noticed it  
> anywhere I've
> worked, but that doesn't mean anything except I have no direct  
> experience of
> it.  I agree that it would be good to dispel this notion, though.
>
> Cheers.
> Fil
>
> 2009/12/8 jeremy hunsinger <[log in to unmask]>
>
>> I don't think there will be a 'new degree'  there is in some  
>> countries a
>> degree above the ph.d.  The existence of that degree in Australia  
>> granted
>> sort of honorarily, and in the Nordic countries after completing  
>> other work
>> after the dissertations.   There is also the M.Phil. which is the  
>> degree
>> some universities offer if you do not produce a dissertation but  
>> complete
>> all the work necessary for that.
>>
>> the ph.d. signifies its minimum standard.   It currently means you  
>> have
>> produced unique research that your committee thinks meets the level  
>> of a
>> doctorate.   It does not mean you've produced a manuscript of a  
>> certain
>> length, as for the last 30 years many universities around the world  
>> have
>> allowed dissertations by compilation of published materials.  It  
>> does not
>> mean that you are capable of managing a research project of any  
>> size because
>> many doctoral dissertations are managed by the supervisors as part  
>> of a
>> research group.  It does not mean you have defended the research in  
>> any way,
>> as several universities do not require oral or written defenses.    
>> It does
>> not necessarily mean anything else other than the production of  
>> research
>> approved by a committee. People have indicated that the doctoral
>> dissertation means a person has performed a mental  
>> transformation.... and it
>> doesn't mean that either.  Anything else is likely reflected in  
>> one's vita.
>>
>> As I said, there is no necessary magic here, there is nothing  
>> special to a
>> dissertation, it is a person performing work to a level that can pass
>> review.  The work can be anything the the committee accepts.  This  
>> is not to
>> say that some people do not have miraculous transformations,  but  
>> I've never
>> seen a good one, though i've seen many people have breakdowns or  
>> other
>> problems because, i'd argue, they were buying into the ideology or  
>> magical
>> transformation mindset, that tells them everything will be  
>> different.  At my
>> Uni, we have  had jr professors commit suicide before because of this
>> ideology of transformation, etc.  Post-dissertation depression is  
>> actually
>> quite well known as a problem.  I think academics need to really  
>> critically
>> reflect on it and see what harm it is doing by posing the  
>> dissertation as
>> something transformative, it is academic labour in pursuit of a  
>> goal, which
>> is attainable by many people.  There is no special transformation  
>> that
>> occurs, anymore than the transformation of any other knowledge  
>> gained, a car
>> mechanic has the exact same thing.
>>
>> That should reduce the doctoral experience sufficiently to what it  
>> really
>> has become, a qualification.  Nothing special to it other than it  
>> qualifies
>> you to perform some jobs in some people's eyes.
>>
>> My statement below was to indicate that for many universities in  
>> the U.S.
>> there is a graduate faculty.  Admission to the graduate faculty is  
>> usually
>> granted after a period of years in which one serves on graduate  
>> student
>> committees and performs related tasks, etc.  This I'd argue is the
>> apprenticeship in supervision that seems to be required and missing  
>> from
>> doctoral programs.   Many universities have recognized that  
>> performing as a
>> doctoral student is insufficient to supervise doctoral students.   
>> Some
>> people might be able to, but some will not, so they have this other
>> institution to try to ensure that students are supervised well.   
>> (note it
>> also aids in making sure doctoral students are not supervised by  
>> people
>> without tenure, thus limiting the obvious problems there for both  
>> supervisor
>> and student)
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> --
> Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
> Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
> Ryerson University
> 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
> M5B 2K3, Canada
> Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
> Fax: 416/979-5265
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/