Just want to add that,
We all know that statistics can be very deceiving (and a well manipulated) tool. We know that an institution which completes Ph.Ds 100%, is not necessarily 'better' than one with 50% completion rates.
90% dropout does sound a bit questionable, but to me, 30-50% dropout sounds not unreasonable, given the nature of the beast and the now very complex societies in which the beast opereates.
I am concerned that with the good intention to remove obstacles (for better completion rates, or shorter time frame, or better job prospects, etc), we risk removing the very elements that make Ph.D. , Ph.D. Thus, Ranulph's remarks on supervision and taught doctorates are particuarly relevant.
I suggest that (unlike the article) we don't approach attrition and its hidden dimensions as problems to solve, but rather as conditions to be taken into account in the design of Ph.D.s. In other words, we might ask, given inexperienced institutions/supervisors, diverse students' motiviations and life conditions,
sometimes hostile/unsupportive community, poor job prospects, etc; what can we do better?
Rosan
|