Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OP: Would it be possible to conduct your investigation in stages, with each stage leading to a paper in a respectable journal?
If so, you might look for an Australian university that follows the British model of granting the PhD (sometimes called the DPhil) for a collection of published papers completed outside the university, and a viva voce. Perhaps check the policies of your undergrad school. This is, of course, a riskier way to proceed, but it might suit your purposes better than the conventional route. At the end, even if you don't receive the PhD, you will at least have a good set of papers for your cv.
A plausible argument can be made that a good publication record is a better indicator of your capability to do intellectual work than the PhD per se, although you very likely won't be able to get even an interview for a faculty position without the degree. I remember (iirc) Jacques Barzun (provost at Columbia University in New York) saying something like "if all you have is a PhD, then you don't have very much" -- meaning, I suppose, that someone who receives the PhD but never publishes is more or less a failure. Publication is the key to everything except the "union card" that is needed to teach.
A plausible argument can be made that a good publication record is a better indicator of your capability to do intellectual work than the PhD per se, although you very likely won't be able to get even an interview for a faculty position without the degree. I remember (iirc) Jacques Barzun (provost at Columbia University in New York) saying something like "if all you have is a PhD, then you don't have very much" -- meaning, I suppose, that someone who receives the PhD but never publishes is more or less a failure. Publication is the key to everything except the "union card" that is needed to teach.
Not really. Publishing something is good evidence you can publish something. Intellectual work is more than just publishing, at least in the 21st century. It is very possible for someone to publish because they've spent a long time digging in the same hole, but have absolutely no idea how what they found in that hole relates to anything else. So, they can make an intellectual contribution, but be completely unable to connect it to anything else.
The ability to see the broader field is central to teaching, which is another intellectual task. Grad school, by exposing a student to matters far beyond their narrow focus, prepare the student to be broader than they need to be to do a given research project/publish a specific work.
The ability to see the broader phenomenon is central to advising governments and non-governmental bodies. Grad school, by helping a student connect the field to matters beyond the field (at least, in some programs), prepare the student to contribute to society in this way as well.
I know we live in a time where expertise is denigrated. And, it is also true that some experts assume non-experts cannot do anything useful. BOTH positions are wrong. A person does not need a PhD to make a contribution. But making a contribution, and really doing the full extent of intellectual work, are two different things. So, no, publishing something is not evidence a person has the breadth needed to do the full extent of intellectual work. They may have that breadth, but merely published does not make a plausible argument that they have that breadth.
Not really. Publishing something is good evidence you can publish something. Intellectual work is more than just publishing, at least in the 21st century. It is very possible for someone to publish because they've spent a long time digging in the same hole, but have absolutely no idea how what they found in that hole relates to anything else. So, they can make an intellectual contribution, but be completely unable to connect it to anything else.
This, in essence, is the PhD -- digging ever deeper in the same hole (by the way, I too have a PhD, but in a stem area). An important aspect of the peer-review process is to ensure that the new contributions fit themselves carefully into the existing body of knowledge (as does a dissertation's review of the literature chapter, or a patent application's citation of prior art and classification). This is why I mentioned "respectable" journals.
Quote:
The ability to see the broader field is central to teaching, which is another intellectual task. Grad school, by exposing a student to matters far beyond their narrow focus, prepare the student to be broader than they need to be to do a given research project/publish a specific work.
The ability to see the broader phenomenon is central to advising governments and non-governmental bodies. Grad school, by helping a student connect the field to matters beyond the field (at least, in some programs), prepare the student to contribute to society in this way as well.
This is true, of course, but it's far from complete: Keep in mind that predominant outcome of grad school is specialization, not broadening, and that grad school is not by any means the only way that someone's horizon can be broadened. I believe that broadening and grad school are not mutually exclusive, but are instead independent, uncorrelated, or orthogonal, depending on your point of view.
The question for me is "Does the person have a curious mind, or not, supported by an adequate level of intelligence?" rather than "Does said person have post-graduate academic training?" A fine example of this within my memory is President John F. Kennedy. He had no educational credentials beyond prep school and a bachelor's degree (Harvard), but nevertheless had a marvelous way of integrating information.
Another way to look at this is to compare British and American graduate degrees. In the British system, a PhD (or perhaps rather a DPhil) is based completely on research and oral examination, whereas the American system depends heavily on coursework. As I mentioned above, some British schools -- including Cambridge -- will grant the DPhil for published work completed entirely outside the university. The presumption would be that a Brit's education before grad school is adequately broad.
Much the same can likely be said about American education. Consider, for example, a student who graduates with Phi Beta Kappa honors from a good school. Upon graduation, this person is likely as broad as he or she will ever be. For that student, a standard grad program in America will require the completion of numerous advanced courses in the department of specialization. This is not broadening in any meaningful sense. When I went through, at least a reading knowledge of two foreign languages was required (this is no longer the case in many PhD programs). I already had that knowledge, which I gained as an undergraduate and in high school.
Yet another point of reference is that Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Honor Society requires publication for membership, rather than any academic degree at all.
Quote:
I know we live in a time where expertise is denigrated. And, it is also true that some experts assume non-experts cannot do anything useful. BOTH positions are wrong. A person does not need a PhD to make a contribution. But making a contribution, and really doing the full extent of intellectual work, are two different things. So, no, publishing something is not evidence a person has the breadth needed to do the full extent of intellectual work. They may have that breadth, but merely published does not make a plausible argument that they have that breadth.
I suspect that we agree in general on this point, and I certainly do not denigrate expertise (I made quite a good living for many years based on deep expertise in a very narrow field). But I would disagree that the PhD per se gives any evidence of breadth. In my experience, it is a sure sign of specialization (perhaps a cynic might say "overspecialization"); that's all.
Last edited by Hamish Forbes; 11-29-2018 at 10:51 AM..
I certainly do not denigrate expertise (I made quite a good living for many years based on deep expertise in a very narrow field). But I would disagree that the PhD per se gives any evidence of breadth. In my experience, it is a sure sign of specialization (perhaps a cynic might say "overspecialization"); that's all.
You're misunderstanding what I said. I never said a graduate degree guaranteed breadth. I said that publishing does NOT guarantee breadth, and breadth is needed to do the full set of intellectual work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes
This, in essence, is the PhD -- digging ever deeper in the same hole (by the way, I too have a PhD, but in a stem area).
That may be your experience, and it may even be a common experience. But, I still say even identifying the hole's relation to the surrounding terrain is more likely in a doctoral student than someone who only published.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes
An important aspect of the peer-review process is to ensure that the new contributions fit themselves carefully into the existing body of knowledge (as does a dissertation's review of the literature chapter, or a patent application's citation of prior art and classification). This is why I mentioned "respectable" journals.
This is true, of course, but it's far from complete: Keep in mind that predominant outcome of grad school is specialization, not broadening, and that grad school is not by any means the only way that someone's horizon can be broadened. I believe that broadening and grad school are not mutually exclusive, but are instead independent, uncorrelated, or orthogonal, depending on your point of view.
We seem to agree on a lot. Which is maybe why you say the same thing I said. For example, I noted that grad school isn't the only path. You agree. Why it is stated that one needs to keep it in mind is unclear to me, because I already stated it. Oh well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes
The question for me is "Does the person have a curious mind, or not, supported by an adequate level of intelligence?" rather than "Does said person have post-graduate academic training?" A fine example of this within my memory is President John F. Kennedy. He had no educational credentials beyond prep school and a bachelor's degree (Harvard), but nevertheless had a marvelous way of integrating information.
Kennedy is a good example. But let's step back and recall why this discussion was even occurring. The OP indicated they knew exactly what they wanted to do (1--not a good sign of an open mind), just wanted the credential (2--not a good sign of an open mind), and seemed to want to get a chance to teach college students either way. I believe broad mind and open mind are correlated. Mention of Kennedy proves that one can have an open and broad mind without going to grad school. Agreed. It does not prove that when I am hiring a professor for my department I should treat candidates who did not complete grad school as if they did. Because, for all its faults, grad school completion insures that somewhere along the line they had to describe something more than just their research. And, most time people spend teaching is spent describing stuff that is not their research--unless you're talking about a total narcissist standing in front of the classroom.
In the end, we agree more than we disagree. And, of course, different national systems can vary. But I still haven't seen an argument that the personnel committee of U.S. university department X should consider people for teaching positions who have only published but never fulfilled the other graduate requirements (such as, preliminary exams or theory and/or method courses).
You're misunderstanding what I said. I never said a graduate degree guaranteed breadth. I said that publishing does NOT guarantee breadth, and breadth is needed to do the full set of intellectual work.
My thought is that neither guarantees breadth, so the question is moot. Nevertheless, methinks that real life outside the university often provides better environment for developing breadth and a well rounded person than life within a university.
Quote:
That may be your experience, and it may even be a common experience. But, I still say even identifying the hole's relation to the surrounding terrain is more likely in a doctoral student than someone who only published.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Really, there is no definitive way to know . . .
Oh, my goodness. Having reviewed numerous papers myself, I know that peer-review has its shortcomings, to say the least. I was talking theory, not practice.
Quote:
We seem to agree on a lot. Which is maybe why you say the same thing I said. For example, I noted that grad school isn't the only path. You agree. Why it is stated that one needs to keep it in mind is unclear to me, because I already stated it. Oh well.
Good!
Quote:
Kennedy is a good example. But let's step back and recall why this discussion was even occurring. The OP indicated they knew exactly what they wanted to do (1--not a good sign of an open mind), just wanted the credential (2--not a good sign of an open mind), and seemed to want to get a chance to teach college students either way. I believe broad mind and open mind are correlated. Mention of Kennedy proves that one can have an open and broad mind without going to grad school. Agreed. It does not prove that when I am hiring a professor for my department I should treat candidates who did not complete grad school as if they did. Because, for all its faults, grad school completion insures that somewhere along the line they had to describe something more than just their research. And, most time people spend teaching is spent describing stuff that is not their research--unless you're talking about a total narcissist standing in front of the classroom.
In the end, we agree more than we disagree. And, of course, different national systems can vary. But I still haven't seen an argument that the personnel committee of U.S. university department X should consider people for teaching positions who have only published but never fulfilled the other graduate requirements (such as, preliminary exams or theory and/or method courses).
I would qualify the notion by saying say that it holds only within the university, rather than outside, say in government or private-enterprise research.
But I agree completely with your thoughts on hiring faculty. At the very least, accreditation issues can arise. However, let me pose a rhetorical question: Would you balk at hiring ex-President Kennedy, or a Cambridge DPhil whose entire graduate program was research?
Sounds like you just want a PhD and not necessarily the education that goes with it. Try internet schools. Many offer quick, cheap PhDs and do not get in the way of a passion project with silly educational requirements. Plus that way, you will not have to travel. Usually it is cheaper too. Win win.
The only downside is you will not find a funded position but that is not likely anyway for the proposed project. You will not get teaching experience, but it appears you do not want that.
Sounds like you just want a PhD and not necessarily the education that goes with it. Try internet schools. Many offer quick, cheap PhDs and do not get in the way of a passion project with silly educational requirements. Plus that way, you will not have to travel. Usually it is cheaper too. Win win.
The only downside is you will not find a funded position but that is not likely anyway for the proposed project. You will not get teaching experience, but it appears you do not want that.
I think that you are just kidding. Nevertheless . . .
Evidently, OP would like the title "Doctor." A diploma mill doctorate would probably be the worst thing he could do, as it would set him up for ridicule rather than respect from educated people.
Here in the United States, however, the Union Institute and University https://myunion.edu is an alternative that does seem to be legitimate, although probably quite low in the rankings (just my guess, and I confess to not really knowing much about the place). Perhaps there is something similar in Australia.
Something unrelated that I forgot to mention earlier: Having a few good publications would make OP's application to a conventional graduate program much stronger. Would you agree, SoSciProf?
After being rejected by two universities, I've begun to question my goals and future direction. My research is in a very specialist area and could be considered a 'passion project'. I've had a great deal of trouble finding a supervisor who's interested or available enough to take me on, and I'm wondering how best to proceed.
My options are to continue along the traditional route, keep looking for a supervisor and write up my findings in a detached, academic style I find difficult and don't enjoy or rework the idea as a more personal reflection and publish independently.
If I take the latter path, I will find a larger and more receptive, albeit niche, audience and complete the work in a matter of months rather than years. I will not, however, attain the credentials that will help me secure further teaching and research work in the years ahead.
My other concern, as ridiculous as this sounds, is disappointing my father. We've talked about this idea for several years and he's been one of my biggest supporters. I don't think he'll be nearly as enthusiastic if his only son doesn't earn the title 'Doctor' at the end of it all.
Did you ever consider that maybe you're not cut out for it?
Your research cannot be so specialized that you're the only one doing it, and even if that would be true, there are others whose research is a variation of, or parallels yours.
Common sense dictates that you review professional journals to discover the identities of such persons, locate where they're teaching, and apply to those schools. And, yes, you might have to go to another country to do that, but then, what's it worth to you?
I don't know about Australia, but the autobiographical thing is not going to fly at any accredited college or university in the U.S., even if it's an online school. If you dig, you might find a fine arts program that will accept a creative project in place of dissertation or applied project. The thing with fine arts, though, is that the MFA is considered the terminal degree.
I've looked at many doctoral programs. Among the ones that don't require a dissertation, they typically require an applied research project. You're tasked with finding a solution to a real world problem. Look into doing an ethnography for your dissertation, but you're going to have to focus on others rather than yourself.
What do the advisors say when you discuss your dissertation topic? Do they have suggestions that might involve some modification that would be more acceptable to them? Something more broadly applicable perhaps?
I think sticking to your guns solely on principle in this case will only lead to your failure to get the degree. Try some flexibility.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was talking theory, not practice.
