Considering the National Dialogue on Doctoral Education – Financial Support (Part 4 of 8)
by Jonathan Gehrz | June 16, 2010
May 5, 2010 I posted an initial entry related to the recent monograph issued by the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) on promising policies and practices that promote learner success. The foundation of our dialogue, while every institution has their own “flavor” or approach to doctoral education, the CGS’s Ph.D. Completion Project demonstrates that we do share common areas of concern and it only in promoting a “culture of evidence” that we’ll improve doctoral completion rates and meet society’s demands for a more relevant, globally competent PhD.
In Part 2, we extended this dialogue to reflect on policies and practices surrounding admissions, enrollment and institutional selection. In Part 3, we began reviewing the factor of mentoring/advising.
Tonight, we continue the dialogue on the policies and practices of financial support. Without a doubt, one of the single most significant and relevant conversations today centers on financing one’s education. Pick up a copy of the Washington Post, New York Times, New Yorker or latest Chronicle conversations and you would be hard pressed not to read about some facet of mounting student loan debt or expectations on forthcoming legislative reform to further monitor recruiting practices, default rates, student loan programs and the like.
Certainly, doctoral education proves no exception. Despite various forms of potential sources of support (fellowships, grants, scholarships, teaching or research assistantships); it hard to ignore that in 2008, 20% of doctorate recipients from U.S. Universities reported financing their graduate studies primarily through their own resources (SED Summary, 2008). Further, while a simple majority (53%) of recipients reported no level of graduate or undergraduate debt, 8% of all new recipients reported debt exceeding $70,000 (most commonly found in social sciences, humanities, and the field of education) (SED Summary, 2008). Interestingly, despite the current economic climate and increasingly waning opportunity to secure once commonly held academic employment, a majority of doctorate recipients (51%) continue to denote commitment to serving academe (SED Summary, 2008).
Given the changing climate, given the still predominant placement of doctorates as “academic” degrees in nature, and given the increasing financial burden post education, it does give us pause to ask, what policies and practices should, are, would be effective to meet the financial demands placed on the 21st century learner? It hard to ignore talks of “earning potential” but if we are to limit resources available on an individual basis (Pell grants, student loans), are we prepared to help fund those fields, like the humanities or education, to help offset their accrued debt relative to professional earning potential?
If we accept this as one of the most influential factors in a potential and ongoing learner’s decision to pursue their education and further contribute to the intellectual community, what practices or policies should be considered? Are there current practices or policies that should be discouraged? Is there a limit on how much we should invest in our own betterment? A reminder, the goal of the dialogue is to assess and evaluate all facets of this sacred experience, but more importantly to talk and work together as a community that shares the same desired outcome – a re-envisioned PhD experience that is responsive to our needs.
Division of Science Resources Statistics. (2008). Doctorate recipients from U.S. universities: Summary report 2007-2008. Retrieved http://nsf.gov/publications/orderpub.jsp
2 Responses to "Considering the National Dialogue on Doctoral Education – Financial Support (Part 4 of 8)"
Ryan James Reid says:
In the pursuit of furthering one’s educational background, landscape or collective erudite sets of best (possible) pathways … this Master’s/PhD Learner yearns to ask the fundamental flaw in all of this aforementionable question of equinimity, egalitarian envisionment, and forthrightfully so, – just which best governmental, institutional, and globally-localized sets of focus should cascade from such – insightfulness?
Perhaps ‘we’ need to accentuate the positivist-stark, counter-intuitive sets of notions as to which best pathways to embark upon in creating less roadblocks to truly envisionary individuals on the PhD scholarly framework…
…in order to find the why, wherefores, and ultimate progressive ‘hows’ which may lend to better socio-emotional selectivity…. (versus disengagement) to say the least?
Ryan James Reid
Jonathan Gehrz says:
Ryan,
Interesting position. May I ask, you suggest accentuating the “positivist-stark, counter-intuitive sets of notions” towards creating fewer roadblocks. Can you further elaborate? What roadblocks are you referencing and what solution do you view as being perhaps intuitive? From your response, you offer disengagement, but I’m intrigued by the concept of “socio-emotional selectivity.” As equinimity has not always been present in doctoral education, it poses an interesting point for further discussion.
Jon