Those who can, get a PhD; those who can't, simply teach anyway

'IS A PHD ESSENTIAL TO A CAREER IN ACADEMIA?': The simple answer is YES if we are talking about traditional research led universities, where members of staff are research active. In that context a PhD is a period of supervised training, by an expert, in a particular research area. At the end of the period of training the student SHOULD be in a position to continue this research and in time branch out into new areas of interest. Clearly, the answer is NO if we are talking about the 'new' universities whose main interest is in teaching.

I think the key issues here concerns the nature of a university and the nature of teaching. Firstly, can I say that, as someone who completed a PhD ten years ago, after seven years of researching a thesis (part-time, while I worked to support my research), that it is more than simply 'a period of training': a PhD represents the results of a sustained period of independent research and work, culminating in what should be an original piece of research which contributes to the knowledge(s) of a particular, specialised field, and which drives further research and informs university teaching. Secondly, surely I hardly need to point out that although teaching is a specialised skill in itself , it requires (and I speak here as a formally-qualified teacher) a knowledge-base, as well as the skills to deliver it; and this leads me to my third point, which concerns the nature of a university. If a university is siimply a 'training college' which delivers a narrow set of skills, then perhaps a PhD is not a necessary qualification for the trainers who staff this kind of training college; but if a university is a place where students develop the ability to extend and deepen their knowledge, to become rounded individuals, capable of critical thinking, and to perhaps set out on the pathway to an academic career, and/or to be the next generation of academics and thinkers, then tutors with 'training skills' can provide only a narrow vision. I think the question of what we now understand as the function of a university provides the central question to this debate. Do we want our universities to represent a resource of knowledge, culture and inspiration; or do we simply want training colleges?

Having a PhD is not the only route to critical thinking if that were true no-one without a PhD could think critically, and all people with PhDs could think critically - neither of which is completely true! What is astonishing is that a PhD (a solitary, narrow piece of specific work that is academic and written up over a long period of time) is used as a automatic qualification for, say, process management at a senior level in Universities - but not in more successful organisations. I have worked many times with PhD students with no organisational experience, no team-working experience and no experience outside Universities - and that experience only as a student not a manager or worker - who have been given charge of quite critical projects and have messed them up, surprise surprise, because they had poor communication and team-work skills, poor multi-task project management, little experience and no knowledge of the effectiveness of other systems as well as an inability to act decisively on short deadlines or make decisions quickly - the fear of making decisions quickly is a direct result of training people to make decisions and acquire information slowly and evidence-base it - and that is what the HE sector pumps into its senior management - then we wonder why senior management is so slow, theoretical and ponderous!

This is very ageist. When I was a student, only about half of my lecturers had a PhD. Due to the general dumbing down of educational qualifications, the PhD has become more universal and those of us of my sort of age are much much less likely to possess a PhD. I have thought to undertake a PhD at a number of points in my career but was advised against it since this would mean that I could not then supervise other PhDs. The most worrying thing though, is the number of people who think that a PhD is the only qualification they need in order to teach.

Hero states that those with PhDs (which s/he caricatures as 'a solitary, narrow piece of specific work that is academic and written up over a long period of time' - a definition which shows little understanding of the process) suffer from '...the fear of making decisions quickly [which] is a direct result of training people to make decisions and acquire information slowly and evidence-base it'. Good gracious - heaven forbid that decisions should be based on any kind of thinking or evidence. I'm shocked, I say. Hero: you're quite right - there are a huge number of people in senior management positions who, sadly, don't possess this particular 'impediment'! Unfortunately, what HE is 'pumping into its senior management' is managers who don't understand the academic environment (that which they are putatively there to 'manage'), and are far too quick to dismiss it in just the way 'Hero' has done. Bad management is constantly critical, unsupportive and uncommunicative, and creates a hostile environment. Good management (and I've had the good fortune on a few occasions to experience this) is facilitating, communicative and ultimately far more productive.

Hero are you saying that we need 'many fewer' PhD's?

You are confusing my comments as 'dismissal'. I am not saying that a PhD is not useful, I'm saying that it attracts and depends on particular behaviours that are the antithesis of what is needed for effective management in many cases and also that he skills needed for management are not taught by a PhD exclusively - so the PhD is an ineffective selection tool for management. Amway, the notorious pyramid retailer insist that all their 'business owners' use Amway products exclusively .. on exactly the same grounds, that people can't possible sell products they don't use. If a PhD is not a narrow and specialist piece of work could someone tell me what it is since I was under the evidently naive belief that they were subject-specific research done at a higher level than UG study that must be publishable quality. That sounds pretty narrow to me.

Hero, I cannot imagine any of my grad students going into substantial management roles straight after graduating. Typically they join a multi-national and do technical work. After a few years some are selected for a management role. I would argue that a good Ph.D. has valuable transferrable skills. My grad students have presented their findings at international conferences so they can address large groups, they work as part of a team of PDRAs and PGs and discuss their problems and solutions, they can work to deadlines and they can write and prepare publication quality text and graphics. If you are going to finish a Ph.D. in 3 years then you have to have good time management skills and be able to project manage your work. Having said that I have also had the odd grad student who found the above difficult to achieve. So I suppose that I would say that the mere possession of a PhD does not mark someone out for management but then I do not know any company that would think that it would.

"So I suppose that I would say that the mere possession of a PhD does not mark someone out for management but then I do not know any company that would think that it would." Might I politely suggest that you're likely to be working in just such an organisation? How often are university managers expected to be PhD holders as if this were evidence of their ability to manage?

In academia in America a PhD is essential. Here, I have seen a number of colleagues who have PhDs , never continued research but concentrated on teaching for years. Some went to lucrative independent secondary schools. In these cases PhD is just a decoration. On the other hand, I know a number of other colleagues who had had masters degrees but developed their areas of research, built impressive research groups, and these are tended to be in engineering and computing areas. These to me are better suited teach in their areas. For management a PhD is a decoration only. I have seen excellent managers with bachelor's degrees in companies I know in this country. Again in America managers in reputable organisations are tended to be MBAs from Harvard.

I have just finished a degree at a Russell group university, where my best teacher did not have a PhD, but did have decades of teaching experience. He didn't research, but other members of the department without PhDs have published quite a bit. We should, I think, be flexible about the need for a PhD. It is neither necessary, nor sufficient for judging the quality of someone's research or teaching, but at the same time obtaining a PhD is a useful process, and the number of places should be as plentiful as possible - and this includes providing funding. Even if possible, very few adults want to rely on their family for financial support, especially when they are contributing to research for the common good.

I think the lack of PhD qualifications in UK universities reflects a deeper problem. Some of the comments here mock the very notion of sustained and rigorous research. This does not really surprise me. I work at one of the 'new' universities and I encounter anti-academic attitudes, not just from management (which is pretty commonplace), administrative and support staff, but also from other academics! This culture is developing in environments with fewer staff who have engaged in serious research activities. Combined with the trend towards all kinds of support staff in universities, a culture is developing which displays a lack of respect for academic pursuits. This is why more staff in UK universities need to do a PhD!

The appeal of a PhD qualification is an obvious one, its a badge of academia, its adds intitials to my office name plate. However it is a club which you are seen to be in or not in. Its a divisive, non inclusive business model within the university that generates significants sums of revenue. To lecture at one point you needed a degree, then an MA, then a PHD, whats next? At some point the business model will have to differentiate again to generate more revenue, to distinguish and to determine new roles and positions within the university that are directly connected to salaries, roles and responsibilities. In other words to maintain the hierarchy within the university. A PhD used to be about research, adding to the sum of human knowledge and for many this is still the case. However for many its a career move, keeping a head of the graduates and seeking the plum university job. Now for someone working in FE this may seem cynical, an ill informed outsiders perspective and if so I apologise. Though I suspect its nearer the truth than many would like to admit.

Cubist: The problem you mention is common place in 'new' universities.

To have non PhD holders in management positions would be just like having nurses lead a team of surgeons, it makes a mockery of the system. This can only happen at so called "new" universities. If a PhD is not a necessity in academia then why do we have degree requirements at all, we might as well recruit staff who have their knowledge based on life experiences.

All Russell group universities expect a new lecturer and other experienced lecturers to have PhDs as these are research-driven universities. Those who have a PhD should choose an university where research work forms a core of teaching activities. Most new universities this situation is an exception. There are two kinds of PhDs in these new universities- the staff getting it doing P/T research and new lecturers coming with a PhD from say a Russell Group universities. The former are saoked into the culture of their new environment and their PhDs got from their own universities seldom reflects change. Where as the latter should continue working and get out when opportunities arrive.

When I was thinking about signing up for a PhD the money earning potential that qualification could confer did not come into the equation. Rather it was my interest in the subject that was the driving force. However, it is clear that in some areas, such as the pharmaceutical industry, having a PhD is a clear advantage and will allow for a more speedy career progression. I have always felt this attitude was unfair to people who may not have a PhD but who have a wealth of experience. Clearly, you do not need a PhD to teach at undergraduate level, but surely a lecturers teaching is improved if that lecturer is active in some area of research. I am not talking about presentation here, but content. I know that I would prefer to be taught by someone who writes books on a subject rather than someone who mearly teaches from books others have written.

Bebe - "To have non PhD holders in management positions would be just like having nurses lead a team of surgeons, it makes a mockery of the system". By that logic, only holders of Computer PhDs should be in management positions at IBM, HP, Oracle, Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc, and only holders of PhDs in Food Science should be in management positions of Asda, Sainsburys, Tescos, Waitrose, etc. Or could it be that you are overly simplifying things to support your proposition, and confusing Services Management with Academic Management (which may have some overlap, but not, imho, to the extent you propose).

I know a fellow, Bill Gates, who dropped out of university but is now the richest man in the world. This proves that a university degree is of little value in improving one's lot. With regard to a PhD, real universities require them for academic positions and always will. Of course, they are wrong and it will take some time before they learn from the Post-92s. Also, everyone in academia without a PhD knows that a PhD is useless; it is this, rather than envy and insecurity, that makes them prickly on the issue. This too will change with time. In the meantime, however, reality is reality.

'Non PhD holder - is that like a coffee cup holder?' i guess you have missunderstood BEBE comments. I believe he ment maagment in higher education and universities. I agree with BEBE 100% . i have PhD but my boss who is the head of department doesnt. It creates lot of trouble when it comes key research and teaching decisions. It is very mcuh like Nurse managing a surgeon. only difference is i get paid 40k with Phd and his salary is 60k.

Like not all degrees are equal- the one from Oxbridge and Russel group are distinctly superior to those awarded by the Mets, Banks and the Moores, we could say the same thing to PhD. In post-92s, the ones with PhDs mostly teach and never do research as their teaching is not driven by research and the primary activity of a post-92 is to bring truck loads of bodies , no entry qualifications asked and pretend to teach them. Why does one need a PhD to teach these,most of them do not attend the lectures anyway. Even in so called research groups here nothing much done, but Brown's govt and the RAE2008 came to their rescue and branding their research as internationally excellent, an excellent example of social engineering indeed. Real universities are research focused and expect their PhDs to do research as well as teach. This will be case for a long time to come.

John - re "he meant management in higher education and universities (surely universities are a subset of HE?)" - does that not include Services Management (Estates, Finance, IT, HR, etc) in HE, and if so, why would they need PhDs?

John: "...i have PhD but my boss who is the head of department doesnt" Sounds like a post-92 university. The head will belong to a cabal which has senior management members ( there is drinking camaraderie) and in turn the head creates his/own cabal and the cabal members are paid more as they do admin work leaving the hard job of teaching to their infidel juniors, which is standing in front of the crowd who have no A levels, not bothered to listen to the lecturer's prattle. The constant struggle here is to draw the crowd's attention from the activity of text messaging during the lecture. After all Tony and Brown said we need 50% going to the universities!

Dr. Truth - Bill Gates dropped out of university and is now rich, thus proving that a university degree is of little value in improving one's lot? Why, yes of course! You're not just extrapolating an argument from one case, are you? Why, surely EVERYONE who dropped out of university is stinking rich, or at least substantially better off than those who wasted their time gaining qualifications. Thanks for opening our eyes to this phenomenon, and for showing those of us who try to improve our career prospects through education and qualifications the error of our ways.

Sigh. Why do I waste it on swine?

Is anybody at a real university arguing about the need to have a PhD in order to get an academic position? If so, then the next time I apply for a job there, I will argue that I am just as good as those PhDs. Evidence: one of my best lecturers ever did not have a PhD.

This is something that has changed over time, as I'm sure everybody knows, and as has already been pointed out by Bland Tomkinson above, but the point seems worth making more explicitly. I know very distinguished scholars at Oxford, Cambridge, Russell Group, and 1994 Group universities, including professors, fellows of the British Academy, and a former head of an Oxford college, without doctorates. However, the youngest of these was born in 1952 and the rest would average about 70 years old. These days I'd say it seems pretty much impossible to get into the academic profession (by which I suppose I mean getting a position at a Russell Group or 1994 Group institution) without a DPhil/PhD. Whether it ought to be that way I'm less sure. Certainly the old system, under which a university position might be obtained on the basis of final degree results, produced some very great scholars. That said, I don't think I'd want to launch myself into academic life without having had the opportunity to complete a major piece of research, and to teach, under supervision.

As convener for BERA's Mentoring and Coaching SIG, I am looking forward to lively debate about how doctoral students are treated at universities not only in the UK but in Japan, the USA and worldwide. Increasingly, alarm is seizing my attention that PhD support lacks a sustained, appropriate coach mentoring element in the UK. Having this week heard from the Vice Chancellor at UWE that my own DPhil by publications has failed at Appeal I have a personal investment too. Three years ago, in 2006 I submitted 20 publications and 6000 word commentary exactly according to UWE's regulations. One examiner wrote in her report that there were insufficient peer reviewed journal articles for my submission to be examined at viva voce (there were) 1) I produced evidence from the publisher they were peer reviewed. 2) It emerged that examiners were sent guidelines by UWE that gave criteria additional to all of those in the Regulations that I had followed. The VC's letter of completion of the complaints' procedure stated that UWE did not send me the same guidance & criteria as examiners as this would have amounted to 'supervision' for an unsupervised DPhil It also emphasised that my Appeal /Complaint (which has taken 18 months) was not reviewed by the examiner who made the mistake. Instead it was reviewed by a Research Degrees Board who ruled that though publications had been ignored this had no impact on the examiner's decision to fail my submission. UWE upheld a fail grade. Furthermore, I cannot challenge the fail grade since this is academic judgement. Really? The Research Board do not know my field and yet they have judged, without consulting the examiner who made an error, that her oversight made no difference to an examination grade. What does this say about how PhDs are examined and awarded? Is this an isolated incident? No... I hold the dubious experience of having had 2 PhDs by publication failed by mis-examination/error. In 2003 I submitted a PhD by publications at the University of Bath. It was expected to pass judging from a fulsome endorsement from the Academic Advisor who advised on its readiness for viva voce. Examiners were sent the wrong year's criteria and failed my PhD against criteria that I hadn't used in its construction. The university vehemently denied examiners used the wrong criteria - even at the Appeal hearing. I produced a copy of one examiner's report that I'd found in a returned volume of my submission. I won tat Appeal but - a major BUT - although I was allowed to have my work examined again 'as if for the first time' it had still not been examined 'as if for the first time' by March 2006. I decided to de-register after taking advice from my solcitor and the university ombudsman who advised me that the university's decision that I could not update my thesis in any way although my thinking had moved on since 2003 would mean another fail as examiners would not be informed why a thesis was out of date, By March 2006, I was lecturing part time at Bath Spa University. I recruited PhD students but I was not allowed to supervise them because I did not hold a PhD although I could have supervised doctoral students at the University of Bath, In order to submit a doctorate at UWE I was advised that I had to deregister at Bath. At present, I hold a PhD studentship at Hertfordshire University.... Pressured to send in my proposal although I was suffering severe disability related illness I did so lest I were judged to have made no progress. I was advised this would happen. I asked for vacation leave when told compassionate leave was not available for a PhD student even when a close relative dies (my mother died in April). Requests for vacation were rejected although I was entitled to 27 working days (having worked without a break since enrollment). A tale of woe that feeds my determination to ensure PhD students receive better support. Research coach-mentoring (skils based professional guidance as well as psychosocial support) would be enormously helpful. It could be web-based as well as one-to-one. If you feel that doctoral students need coach-mentoring and tutoring to meet the demands of PhD study how would you implement such a system? Should I continue to study for a PhD? What do you advise? Certainly having one doesn't seem to mean to matter in some HEIs but others require a PhD to allow lecturers to supervise post grads. PS Fortunately... my experiences as a PhD student have in no way dulled my passion for research or for supporting doctoral students!

@ Bebe: in the operating theatre, nurses ARE essentially in charge of surgeons. The surgeons swan in, do their thing, get all the glory, and the nurses do everything else. Hmmm, this does sound like a familiar model for academia now I think of of it.....

“The first PhD degree was awarded in Paris in 1150“ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy When something rooted in human tradition and history it surely is worth having. Yes, there are some holders of the title of Dr. do not do justice to this tradition but the appeal, power, and prestige of this qualification will be worth us for a long tome. I remember a story about Madeline Albright when she became Secretary of State complained to her department's press office because they omitted the title of Dr. from her name!!!! This also tells you what the title means and why those who obtain it should do justice to it.

I thought it was pearls that were wasted on swine, not heavy irony. Sorry, Dr Truth: I didn't see any pearls. Still don't. But I take your proper meaning. I missed it when I gave your comment cursory attention after the first line pitched me headfirst down the metaphorical rabbit hole. Perhaps you should take a leaf out of Eric Sotto's book and study how people learn; he's always saying teaching isn't a self-evident activity and that we should all teach a lot better if we understood how learning takes place. Perhaps the same is true about couching arguments in terms that are in truth the diametric opposite of what one really thinks: we cannot always presume our readers will understand our meaning when our words aren't intended to be taken at face value. I agree with your sentiments, by the way. I just don't take kindly to being referred to as swine! No hard feelings.

I want to meet Len Shackleton at present.

>>>>> "The commentator argues that PhD study is the preserve of the middle classes and that the financial costs of completing a course - along with the "loss of career progress" - are insurmountable for those from lower socio-economic groups." I'm surprised at this. Virtually all full-time PhD students in the US are funded, although the funding may take the form of a research or teaching assistantship. Aspiring British post-graduate students should consider US universities if funding is an issue. The degree takes a bit longer (course work is required as well as a dissertation) but, having experienced both systems, think the US-style program is superior.

"having experienced both systems, think the US-style program is superior" Some null and void statement!

As a lecturer at a post-92 university, aged under 35, I'm a year off completing my p-t PhD. It has, and continues to be incredibly demanding to balance heavy teaching & admin commitments with study, but I have to do it. Without it, I am incredibly limited in opportunities, with only the horror of university mangement open to me - and as someone who used to work in commerce, I can see a huge difference between commercial and university management. But I also want to do a PhD because I want to understand my topic deeper & also because I feel I will only be a 'real' lecturer with one - despite my PGCED & over 5 years teaching experience. That doesn't mean that older staff should r forced to have a phd - what is important is that students recieve a mix of experienced managers and PhD trained staff as professional educators. For me, the challenge is to continue to develop in all aspects. The problem we face is that the salary and opportunites in the UK are so limited, and increasingly so, that few commercial managers would be attracted to the role, and few PhD graduates too, except those with no other choice.

I don't need to read Sotto's book. YOU need to learn to first read completely and then think before reacting; that is a very useful sequence when it comes to learning.

I doubt that there will be any debate, let alone a lively one. My advice: get some professional counselling and have a chat with some very experienced academics.

To Part-Time PhD: If you are a post-92 university, a PhD would not provide you with much opportunities. You will be just teaching fodder who has to grapple with the students the university recruits to warm up their seats. If this PhD you are doing is in your own post-92 university it makes the stay there almost permanently. Opportunities come in the way of those who network within the post-92 universities, meeting senior managers in the waterholes ( that rules out a teetotal completely!) and get into their inner circle. This is worth more than any one with a PhD DSc ! These senior managers in conjunction with the heads of departments ( the waterholes companions of senior managers), select from their cabal. My suggestion would be if you want to get out do the PhD in a proper university and move. I know the case of a senior lecturer who did this despite joining his head in a waterhole most evenings, moved to the university where he did the PhD as a mere lecturer and after 15 years he is pro-VC now having developed his research career. There is a lesson here.

Should be "...stay there almost permanent"

helena: I don't blame you...

helena: " I want to meet Len Shackleton at present" Would that be the Dean of Business School at UEL who migrated there from the U of Westminster's Business School in Marlebone Road? This Len Shackleton made the move when his boss Martin Everett who was the Deputy VC stationed at the Marlybone Road campus became the VC at UEL. We know Martin Everett was kicked out of UEL for being a poor leader. He would still be keeping his Deputy VC job at the U of Westminster had he stayed there. These are the people who move from one Post-92 to another, and honestly they count very little in the wider academia of pre-92 or in business. UEL Len Shackleton's only glory was appearing in Channel 4 news a few years ago against an Union official and defending the movement of call centres to India. We now know what these centres do, their failures and also know some of them returned back to UK. We also see the adverts from banks and insurance companies emphasising that their call centres are in the UK. So much about this Len Shackleton's flawed contribution in that Ch 4 appearance. Well , it should not surprise any one as he is a post-92 animal for a long time.

It will damage my dear UEL

I think it's important to remember that the term 'post-1992' covers a very wide range of institutions. Oxford Brookes, for example, is a good university. It was my top choice for graduate study when I graduated from Oxford and it was only for financial reasons that I ended up doing a PhD at UCL instead. In fact, I've never stopped regretting that I didn't do what Brookes recommended: get a job and study there part time, or even move back with my parents for a year and commute, in the hope that funding would materialise later. If I were offered a lectureship at Brookes I'd be very happy indeed (not, of course, as happy as I'd be with a lectureship at Oxford or Cambridge). Other post-1992 universities are not this good. While Oxford Brookes seems to compare favourably to a 1994 Group institution such as Goldsmiths, other post-1992 universities (such as LSBU, TVU, and UEL) appear, from my perspective (Oxbridge, Russell Group, and 1994 Group), to be not really what I'd mean by the term 'university'.

Reading your postings in anothert read, one can see that you learned nothing from those two institutions Oxford Brookes has a strong interview panel where they assess the applicants, not sure about some one....

To 'To Part-Time PhD' Yes I am a post-92 lecturer doing my PhD there, but your argument that all there is is networking with senior managers seems to suggest a rather insular view of academia. I netwok widely with academics in pre- and post- 92 academics & have had a number of invitations for applying to pre-92's on completion of my PhD. It's simply a question of mindset - post-92's are interested in teaching & management potential, pre-92's in research and supervision potential - the key is to broaden horizons and keep a rounded portfolio. I should add however that I benefit from being in a relatively new, small growing field - the same may not be true for say English Lit academics.....

To the person who replied to me (better known as 'Hello, Hello'): Your English is so poor that I can hardly understand what you are trying to say. The implication seems to be that Oxford Brookes rejected me because they saw how stupid I was. There was no interview panel; I was interviewed by one very distinguished academic who thought very highly of me. Like many perfectly good applicants I failed to get funding from the AHRC. Instead, I went to an institution in the University of London (not UCL), where I gained an MA with distinction, scoring 9.25 marks above the distinction threshold, with my dissertation described by the external examiner as, 'an extremely fine piece of work'. I also hold an MA with distinction from UCL. Oxford Brookes was, unsurprisingly, in no doubt as to my abilities. What you are doing is called cyber-bullying, and it doesn't make you look clever.

I can't understand why you are dropping that name "Hello, Hello" and link that person to me and six others who disagree with you. Are you hearing voices? Your posting above where you said all about you except your home address and parents names!! You are trumpeting your qualifications, is it a cyber application? Do you have a job now? No one is forcing to read this blog. Give a miss for a few days or until you do not hear those voices ( from Hell, Hello?)

I have not said anything recently. Still a few are posting in my name!! The words used are similar. They may be my colleagues which is often the case. Hence best to ignore these and move away.

The whole discussion is moot, really. I doubt the academy is really missing much if its lecturer recruitment excludes those without PhDs. It can already recruit enough lecturers with PhDs, and there are not enough jobs to go round for everyone who could do the job of university lecturer as things are. Insisting upon lecturers having PhDs creates no additional employment opportunities for postdocs than existed when a degree or Master's was qualification enough for lecturing, because universities are more likely to encourage people already in the job to get themselves a PhD than they are to fire them and recruit more highly qualified staff in their place. The professional doctorate, by publication not by thesis, is one shortcut by which universities can hike up the credentials of their existing academic staff. Alternatively, they can just take cognisance of the fact that said non-PhD staff have done a good job hitherto and are likely to continue to do a good job in the future, and leave them be.

I am intelligent enough to realise that 'Hello, Hello' is almost certainly the same person who has posted things under other names.

To get a job as lecturer , its not what you know its who you know. Academic world is absolute corrupt. All the jobs before addvertisements are fixed. interviews are just show. international students are robbed thousands of pounds by these post 92 universities on the name of education. standards are so poor in these universities that majority of the third world countries and african countries do not recognised these qualifications anymore. Biggest damage to the reputation of the UK are these post 92 universities and the lecturers who work in them I myslef is a senior lecturer in one of the post 92 universities and it makes my blood boil when the management play games with students and their career. their focus is not on learning and teaching but on all those extra stupid things. Just to get money from the overseas student they lie to every extent. They have agents all over the world who misguide students. This is criminal. I hope these post 92 universities get exposed and get punished for the fraud and the crime they committing. Phd's are also becoming quite a scandal these days. You get a freindly superviser, do a minimum work. he chooses his freinds as examiners and there you. you are Phd. one day these post 92 universities will be exposed like the banks and i am 100% sure about it. NO OFFENCE INTENDED

Alexander: Oxford Brookes!

Muppet: Thank you that explains! But then Alexander will say Whippet , Whippet and muppet and Prof Dumbledore are one and the same person!! We can only chuckle! To JAM: I agree with you 100%. It is a shame that these "universities" are allowed to function as they do, and the way they do. Careful, there are post-92 staff are hunting for infidels!

Whippet: That is revealing indeed. Now we can see what Alexander says about Oxford Brookes "Oxford Brookes, for example, is a good university. It was my top choice for graduate study when I graduated from Oxford" well. well!!!!!!!

whippet: You may need to expand that point. Presumably you disagree with me about Brookes's reputation. Certainly in the field of history, and of history of art especially, it's a good institution. It may not be the Courtauld Institute, but it's still good. When Tom Henry was in the department he was able to boast, not unrealistically, that he offered the best graduate course on Raphael outside Italy. In the 2001 RAE Brookes History famously scored 5* while Oxford scored only 5. Now of course I'd hope to see my own children follow in my footsteps to Oxford (or to Cambridge if they preferred), but if they went to Brookes I'd feel that they were going to something resembling a proper university; if they ended up at certain other post-1992 institutions I can't say I'd feel that they were universities at all. That was the original point of my earlier comment: that post-1992 insitutions shouldn't be spoken of as if there were no difference between them.

So many post-92 academics wandering around here! A post-92 is a post-92 whether it is Met, Bank, Moores or Brookes. They were all former polys. Revert them back to their poly status so that the title of "University" remains with the proper universities, the pre-92s.

You'd have a hard time persuading some people that Bradford, Salford, Lampeter, and Bangor were better than Oxford Brookes.

Alexander: I understood your oringinal point perfectly. I am sure Oxford Brookes will welcome your generous assessment of them - 'something resembling a proper university'!

As i said Brookes is a post-92 and so it will remain, a former polytechnic and not a proper university. Revert this institution back to Oxford Polytechnic which is what it really is. Can never become a proper university.

Please stop this nonsense and go get your PhDs. That will start a process that may lead to your employers being welcomed into the fold of real universities. In the meantime, try to avoid becoming more laughable than you already are.

Oooh, that's a bit harsh! But it did make me titter as I recalled the south Wales new university that employs no lecturers, only Senior lecturers, regardless of whether they have a PhD or have held a lecturing post prior to employment there.

Having a Ph.D. has been useful for me whenever I teach the more advanced undergraduate courses. For example, I took a number of postgraduate courses as a part of my Ph.D. training and this gave me a depth of knowledge beyond that covered in the courses I teach - something which is essential for good teaching (in my opinion). Furthermore, aspects of my Ph.D. research have often cropped up in the undergraduate courses. WRT the class warrior comments about a Ph.D. somehow being the preserve of the wealthy, this is patent nonsense. My background is very working class, as was the case for many of my peers. Its certainly the case that a Ph.D. doesn't make someone an effective HE teacher. Similarly, the absence of a Ph.D. doesn't imply that the teacher is a gifted and dedicated communicator. **Note to the Times Higher Education - please upgrade this site and allow us to use paragraphs.

Some of these Post 92 institutes have gained added credibility from when they were polys, however, many of them have actually lost any pre 92 credibility they have had. I, therefore, think these universities should go back and become colleges of FE/HE and work towards achieving Poly status.

As was pointed out, the term lecturer has an elastic definition. In the former polytechnics it largely (though not exclusively) implies that someone focuses on teaching. In the older universities, it usually implies that someone does research and teaches. Its hardly a surprise therefore that a lecturer is more likely to hold a Ph.D. at an older place. I suspect this would be a far less sensitive subject if the former polytechnics went back to being polytechnics. By chasing prestige they destroyed a good brand. I had a lot of respect for polys, I have little for pretend unis.

Institutions evolve. In the eighteenth century the Scottish universities were much better than Oxford and Cambridge; today Oxford and Cambridge are among the best in the world. Most of the Russell Group universities developed out of medical colleges, technical colleges, adult education institutions, non-conformist academies, and university colleges; some once awarded degrees of the University of London; others were part of the Victoria University; Newcastle achieved independence from Durham less than fifty years ago. There is no reason why a very good post-1992 university shouldn't evolve to be just as good as a 1994 Group institution. However, I also think that it was a mistake to confer university status on so many polytechnics, colleges of higher education, university colleges, and other non-university institutions without considering whether those institutions were really ready to become universities. They should have been judged on a case-by-case basis and a very few would probably have been considered suitable candidates for university status.

I am appalled by some of the postings on here. Hysterical snobbery, strutting egos and intellectual posturing. If you made the same some sort of remarks to members of an ethnic minority as are made here about post 92s here you would rightly be seen as an ignorant racist. I work in a post 92 institution and am reasonably happy to do so. I have a Ph.d as do all my colleagues and quite a few publications. But that's not really the point.-unless you suffer from the sort of status anxiety that some do here. The most pathetic comment, from whom I can't remember-was 'I am more tolerant than you' which was made before the writer then went on to say how great /she and his/her institution were. We are in the business of education and part of that means bringing students into contact with ideas they would not normally encounter. I see us all, in one way or another, as part of the enlightenment tradition or at least I did. It would seem that though we all face the same problems, we would rather squabble about whose is better than who. The 'my research is better than your research' lot on here are a disagrace to the profession.

Getting emotional is not helpful; getting serious about being real universities is what would be helpful most post-92s. RE "research is better than your research": A lot of money is spent to establish just that, in an exercise called the RAE, and some post-92s have not been shy about making claims along that line. Fact: research at some places is better than at others. Fact: some universities are better than others. Etc. Accepting that reality and working to improve your employer's lot would be far more beneficial than getting worked up in a totally irrelevant way; it woudl also be better for your emotional and physical health (coronary, bllod pressure).

As usual Alexander's verbose arguments are no surprise. Oxford Brookes is for practical purposes a poly and these polys pestered Major Govt to give them the university title, partly because the overseas students did not want come to institutions which carry the title polytechnic. Alexander is in the Brookes, and any one surprised about his arguments? These former polys should go back to their previous poly status. i support Bebe; "I, therefore, think these universities should go back and become colleges of FE/HE and work towards achieving Poly status". As polys there were doing good work in training students with practical skills in their HNDs and BScs.

If the same sort of remarks made here had been made about bankers, or relegated football teams, or George Bush's government, or drug dealers, ...

I have no connection with Oxford Brookes apart from having once applied to do an MA there. I am a graduate of the universities of Oxford and London.

A PhD is not the only thing that qualifies you to teach or research. Being able to teach, and being able to research, seem to me to be the only evidence required. Just as I don't put my O Level results on my CV anymore, I think my years of experience demonstrate I more than meet the criteria for the jobs to which I apply. Hence my line in the above article about "backwards step" and the one about Antony Gormley. . Anyone who thinks I or other non-PhD holders are not "qualified" is clearly not basing their judgement on any form of evidence. Funnily enough that, to me, should be a basic criterion for getting a PhD. Standards today, eh?

To Henry - I'm certainly no academic snob. I have a very good impression of the work of polys through my brother who took a superb vocational course which set him up for a very lucrative career. It was therefore saddening to see polys throwing away a special brand in order to become second rate universities. If anything the snobbery is on the part of many of the post-1992's, as any quick glance at their various webpages and wikipedia pages shows. They do all they can to dissociate themselves with their polytechnic past. This is ironic because they've actually lost prestige following the rebranding exercise.

What gives the person who signs themselves "To Roger" dispensation to disparage polytechnics when he/she can't even write proper English? An infinitive without a preposition. The wrong preposition substituted elsewhere. Two verbs missing. The definite article missing in places but liberally sprinkled where it isn't needed. I'm glad we've got such a scholar in our midst to tell us what makes a good or bad university.

@Syntax error. This is not bloody essay. People use shortened versions of sentences. Go on in your post-92 scholar.

I am a humble admin staff working in a post-92 university. I come in contact with the academics frequently. None of them send their sons/daughters to post-92 universities. I also advised my daughter to go to a pre-92 university which is one of the proper universities. I do not have to be a scholar to say this- the post-92 universities are a waste of time. Don't say: Poppleton Metropolitan University, University of the North corner of Lancashire and Oxford Canal University are proper universities.

I would be reluctant to advise someone to go to a post-1992 institution if they were seeking a university experience. In the hypothetical case that such institutions had remained polys and retained the polytechnic ethos I would have no such hesitation.

The point of a university is that the people doing the research and creating the knowledge are passing it on. A PhD. is essential for that. If you want career training and don't mind learning from someone who is not much more connected to the knowledge they are teaching than any well trained High School teacher, then by all means, choose to study somewhere that does not require Ph.D. trained teachers. The idea of a research institution is to create knowledge and promote discovery. Some students would like to pay for the privilege of studying under the people doing this research. However, I would venture to guess that most undergraduates could care less and are more apt to choose a school for their sports program than the academic experts it employs.

Amazing how the PhD discussion degenerated again into a '92 war'. The argument that a PhD would not be needed to teach at a post-92 is at odds with practice throughout the EU where all HE teaching staff are required to possess a PhD, seen simply as an entry qualification, not (anymore) a qualification to carry out research (it takes a bit more than that). It also ignores that the main difference between Pre- and Post-92 tends to be now in the subjects taught: traditional subjects from Classics to Physics tend to be the preserve of Pre-92, although these show no shame in aping more 'student-oriented' subjects to boost their numbers, too. As per the -92 war, its recurrence is puzzling. If we ignore conspiracy theories of preparing for the Tories' agenda, we can venture the hypothesis that it emanates (not exclusively) from frustrated mid-career post-92 academics who need someone to look down to. The real question is that the boundary is blurred even at the level of institutions: in the middle of the league tables, what really distinguishes the highest ranked polys from the lowest ranked Old Unis? Some Pre-92 staff would be enthusiastic about returning to the Polytechnics label. What would they say however if further concentration came and only the Russel Group was allowed to award research degrees? The lower-end Pre-92 are those who criticise ex-Polys, yet need them to exist!

Don't be so silly. Whilst its convenient to believe that we all want to look down on the former poly sector, the reality is very different. Most of us just think that one good brand was lost and another one damaged when the former polys became universities. Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier, much of the snobbery in fact comes from the former polys themselves. Judging from the web info they give out, they do their utmost to dissociate themselves from their polytechnic past.

I could not agree more with Roger. I like analogies so here is another one, Post 92 universities are much like a light weight boxer who puts on Mike Tyson's shorts, Gloves ( if they fit), and boots, and then decides to step in the ring with a heavyweight, you know what happens, people (students) come to watch but the fight is never really taken seriously. Titian, I love the university titles you have come up with, do you have any more?

Post-2010. Is this the title for those universities which are in trouble and are in the news recently-UEL, the Mets, the Banks and the Moores? The post-92 universities which were former polys do " dissociate from their past" (Roger). Their HNDs were removed, the strong engineering departments which stood them in good stead for decades disappeared all but except in a very few post-92s, the science departments again which similarly did applied work very effectively were shrunk except in a very few post-92s etc.. But departments of sorts with soft subjects like Media Studies and Business Studies took their places As some one said above, partly due to overseas students' pressure and partly due to the fact that the directors of polys wanted to unshackle themselves from the tight LEA oversight ( instead opting for a governing body's light touch)and at the same time wanted to be called VCs the post-92s were declared into existence without regard to evolution. Most of them were not ready and still are not ready to be called proper universities.. Those who expressed doubts within and without, the wisdom of these institutions leaping into the dark jettisoning decades of good training ethos were either silenced or asked to move out.

When the old polytechnics became 'universities', Private Eye invented one called the University of the North Circular (formerly Neasden Polytechnic).

We are doing very well, thank you: http://www.cynicalbastards.com/ubs/

Not all post-92s are jokes. Some are doing serious work, especially in the areas of applied research and enterprise. What they have done is lift their activities as former polys to another level (i.e. university level). Kudos to them.

Leaving teaching aside, the research quality of a department can be measured by the the number of publications appearing in the top international journals (original rae). It is interesting to compare the output from departments in established universities with that from departments in the University of Poppleton and their ilk. What you find in general is that there is no comparison - the Poppletons produce conference proceedings, vanity publications and chapters in books, while the established universities produce papers in top class journals. The fact is that we have a dangerous and growing divide between the established 'proper' universities and the rest. I agree with the view expressed by many of the posts above, it would be better if the polytechnics had remained polytechnics. However, the present situation has to be resolved, my guess is that quite a few Poppletons will close, reduce in size or be merged over the next ten years.

Yawn - post/new 92 bashing again. Change the record folks, and try to debate the original question - you find it useful and emlightening exercise to listen to others rather than repeat, repeat, repeat the same old over and over again. Some of your ingnorance still makes me titter though - thank goodness I am (hopefully) not one of your colleagues!

What about actual books? Do they count? They weren't mentioned among whippet's criteria for evidence of good research. The current members of the Oxford Brookes history of art department have been published by the University Presses of Oxford, Cambridge, Princeton, and Yale, as well as by Ashgate, Continuum, Routledge, Blackwell, and the National and Tate Galleries. Their articles have appeared in many respected journals including the Architectural Review, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, (British) Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies, and Oxford Art Journal, as well as in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The National Gallery's 'Raphael: from Urbino to Rome', the most important exhibition of Raphael's works ever held outside Italy, was jointly curated by Tom Henry, at the time a member of the department at Brookes, and a frequent contributor to the Burlington Magazine. To return to the point of the article, the department members hold PhDs from Cambridge (one), UCL (two), and the Courtauld Institute (three). In what way does this department differ from that of a pre-1992 institution?

Roger, I may be silly, but you seem to be the one missing the point. The point is that even at the level of institutions there is now a fine line between the top post-92 and the bottom 1994, and in some cases, not even a line. A much better solution would be, as was suggested on another thread, to transfer the 2* staff from old Unis to Post-92 institutions and transfer the 3* staff from post-92 to old Unis. I would be really curious to see what would happen to some of the Polys-bashers here :-)

Post-2010 agai. Regarding movement of staff: I think well qualified staff from Poppleton can, if they wish, apply for jobs at established universities! However, I agree totally about the suggested movement in the opposite direction.

Alexander says he is not from Oxford Brookes but bats for Oxford Brookes even if he is not in their eleven whenever opportunity arises!! If Oxford Brookes have these galaxy of luminaries and have such record why are they still at Oxford Canal University( Titian)? Post-2010: We do not bash any polys, they were doing very good work. We do think that the post-92s who were polys should revert back to what they were before-polys. As for your wild suggestion, it should remain the product of wild imagination.

Post-2010 again, I haven't missed any point. Its rather the opposite. The fact that there are a few poor older universities which are of comparable quality with some former polys is to be expected. There will always be outliers in a data sample. Its not a big deal and nothing to shout about. I see no conceivable circunstances in which any post-1992 institution would be able to compete with a half-decent major institution in any substantial way. The "pockets of excellence" argument is something of a chimera, based as it is on a subjective RAE judgement. If indeed it is true those pockets exist then they should anyway be moved to a research-intensive environment where they can be fostered and developed. Personally, I would close down those few institutions which consistently perform very poorly over a very long period of time (i.e. several different RAEs or their equivalents). As for the post-1992's, they should all revert to polytechnic status and try to refocus on providing the core skills which they used to teach before they engaged in the meaningless drive for academic credibility.

... you would close down institutions, Lord Roger. But who are you? Are you even 2*?

So, is a PhD essential in academia or not? I do have it and think there are two dimensions to having it... One is more personal but I think it also permeates academic work... I am passionate about an area and after those three years where I (presumably) thought and scrutinised hard enough to make a contribution to knowledge, I do feel I have many things to say and issues to address. That certainly amuses me (lots!) and hopefully helps me to see knowledge differently and contribute my (crazy?) ideas with others by publishing, attending conferences and lecturing. However, I know of other people doing the same who do not have a PhD. Though my experience is those are people who already have an established career; I haven't met younger academics in that position. Having said that, the other dimension is related to university recruitment protocols and the way I see it, it has become indeed a minimum requirement that presumably gives indication of something relevant to academia, which is interest in the pursuit of knowledge. However, I do agree that the pursuit of knowledge is not exclusive to PhDs. Question for me is... is the PhD being used as an indication of good scholarship potential that includes teaching? Because as a PhD student, I hardly did any teaching so when I finished, though I felt confident in the research area, I felt quite inadequate in the teaching department. Plus, even with the PhD I had to do a teaching qualification, which I must admit, helped me lots!

"To Roger" - its hardly being arrogant to argue that an institution which performs poorly over a very long period of time should no longer receive funding from the tax payer. As for my own "qualifications"... since you ask, I work at a "prestigious" uni and my work has been consistently ranked as being internationally competitive.

Apart from having failed to take my MA and PhD at Oxford Brookes I have no connection with it at all. I just cannot understand what it benefits anybody to run down an excellent department like history of art at Brookes. I can think of academics at Oxbridge, Russell Group, and 1994 Group insitutions who have never managed to write a book, and a few who rarely seem to write so much as an article, while here you have a department in a post-1992 university whose members have been published by the most prestigious academic presses in Britain and America. Of course, if a child of mine wanted to read history of art I should urge them to consider first Oxford and Cambridge (offering the best university experience in the world), then the Courtauld Institute (for the best history of art expertise in the world), then the other major universities (York, St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Bristol, etc), because these institutions would have the better students and their degrees would be more prestigious. So I'm hardly saying that Brookes is the best department in the country. All I am saying is that it is a proper university with some outstanding scholars among its staff. It is just ridiculous to put Brookes on a level with South Bank, Thames Valley, East London, London Met, or even Roehampton (the ones I know best as a native Londoner). As I suggested before, anyone who thinks that Brookes ought to have stayed Oxford Polytechnic as a matter of principle presumably believes also that the old university colleges ought never to have gained degree-awarding powers and should have continued to prepare students for University of London degrees, or that Mansfield College, Oxford ought still to be called Spring Hill College and be located in Birmingham.

Kay O, you remind us of the only really pertinent issue here. That a PhD now appears to be a minimum requirement of many universities' recruitment protocols is chiefly a consequence of the oversupply of highly qualified graduates. This is why we see few lecturers under 40 without a PhD these days, except in some new universities. It's not really that you need to have a PhD to teach well and do research that pushes back the frontiers of knowledge. A PhD is, after all, an extended opportunity to do just that, so why shouldn't a fully-employed academic with dedicated research hours be capable of doing the same? With so many PhD-qualified applicants, universities can afford to be fussy about the qualifications of the lecturers they hire. These days only candidates with an exceptional research portfolio get hired without at least starting a PhD. Some manage to blag it by accepting a fixed-term job while ostensibly working towards completion of a PhD. Then they sort of forget to finish it once they're on a salary and the pressure a substantial teaching workload gets in the way. Whilst, as a PhD-holder myself, I am an advocate for the intellectual and academic benefits of completing a doctoral thesis, I readily accept that human resources departments' inflated requirements are purely an artifact of credentialization - simply put: the more people in society who are qualified for a job, the higher the minimum qualification for that job is raised.

Oxford Brookes is a post 92 university as are the Mets, the Banks and the Moores. Alexander is still batting for Oxford Brookes in their eleven batting line up, saying that he is not in Oxford Brookes. Using that logic Kevin Peterson is more qualified than Alexander for England team. Aussies, please note!!!

There is a connection between London Met and Oxford Brookes! Petra Wend who was at London Met was till recently at Oxford Brookes as the deputy VC. London Met= Oxford Brookes = post-92! Looking at the quality of students in post-92 , why any one needs a PhD. Most of them take the loan money and disappear any way!

@ The Weberian, I totally agree with you. Moreover, I think that as the PhD has become the minimum requirement, academic selection is past PhD. I do have a job at a research-led institution now but when applying for jobs, at interviews all applicants had the minimum credentials and it came down to who had research projects that were more bankable in terms of bringing in grant monies and who had or showed clear potential for "top" journal publications (I write "top" because I've been very disappointed with the journal world... a professor once told me that publishing is like life, who you know significantly improves your chances. He used himself as an example and also his own experience editing a highly regarded journal). It has become a bit of a dog race and the sad thing is that what you find (as I did) was people completing their PhD who were not focused on the PhD but rather were paving their way to what they were going to do in future. When I was a PhD candidate I met a fellow PhD candidate at a conference and he told me that he had decided that his PhD would be a piece decent enough to get the degree but he didn't intend it to be spectacular or out of the ordinary because he didn't have the time for it. Instead, he felt his energy should be put on networking and getting to know influential people in the field so that he could get a job easier at the end. I was outraged at the idea and thought he was full of sh*t. Now that I have a job (and after the endurance test that it was to interview several times before finally getting a job), from what I see this person was not that far off from what I see other people doing.

"I met a fellow PhD candidate at a conference and he told me that he had decided that his PhD would be a piece decent enough to get the degree but he didn't intend it to be spectacular or out of the ordinary because he didn't have the time for it. Instead, he felt his energy should be put on networking and getting to know influential people in the field so that he could get a job easier at the end. I was outraged at the idea and thought he was full of sh*t. Now that I have a job (and after the endurance test that it was to interview several times before finally getting a job), from what I see this person was not that far off from what I see other people doing" There is so much sense in what PhD student said. For the first hire, the question is always from the interview panel point of view is " are we hiring the right candidate"? This despite the CV, the references and the publications. The networking and getting to know the right people in the field answers this question rather well.

Whereas I consciously worked hard at producing the very best PhD thesis I was capable of, received congratulations upon its excellence, and am now almost unemployable as an academic as a result. C'est la vie. Self-promotion is evidently the key skill now sought by higher education employers.

knowing the right people can certainly help your academic career in the early stages, but without a reputation for conductiong quality research you will only get so far up the career ladder. However, once you get that reputation for producing top quality research others will want to get to know you.

@ The Big Foot, But doesn't this create the banalisation of the PhD? What purpose would it serve as a 'minimum requirement' when what really matters in the end to determine your employability are things which you could do without a PhD (such as publish, get grants or even jump up and down to get noticed)?

@ C'est La Vie, If you don't mind me asking, how come an excellent piece has made you unemployable? I can't see why this would be... unless, that is, you managed to alienate and discredit all leading academics in your field all in a PhD's work :)

Ah no, I just concentrated on getting the thing done properly and meticulously the first time around instead of submitting early in anticipation of major corrections and devoting my chief effort to publishing any old crap just to keep the pot boiling, which seems to be the standard practice. I had many colleagues who were in the right place at the right time and got their publications in from a thesis that came within a hair's breadth of failing, who are now permanently employed lecturers unlike me. That their publications as well as their theses were only accepted after major revisions, and that through biting off more than they can chew they have attracted over-capacity audiences to conference papers, who were then hugely disappointed with the content, are mere details, just mistakes that can be buried in the past or given a positive spin on the resume. As you no doubt know, one piss-poor journal article has more value than an excellent PhD thesis, so it's obvious the piss-poor journal article should be the next thing on my 'to do' list in order to catch up with the competition!

I am still interested in the PHD-needed debate - this still effectively means that people who can stump up £100K or so for 5 years will get jobs that pay £10K over the average salary, meaning that PhD is worth money by age 40 or so and not much earlier.

If I am taking HE is looking for money,and my father will not send me at oversea and I will not happy alone live in here.

"Many fewer"are interested!

... thanks for confirming that you were actually part of the 'tail' or Russel Group research-active staff. Your contempt for Polys has a logical explanation, it becomes a matter of identity.

THE has a policy for posting. It includes naming posters.

Roger: neither Frank Kermode nor Barbara Hardy have Phds. Terrible, isn't it? They must be so inferior to those who have turned in a mediocre piece of work and scraped through a Viva. At least in France Phds are classified, so one knows if the pass were a very near run thing.

Having the appropriate skills and knowledge is what is most important. In industry, having a PhD does not cut the mustard if you are inherently useless as a researcher. You have to be able to do the job. PS: I was a Postdoc researcher long before I had my PhD after 20yrs of research in academia, MoD and Industry.

"To Roger:" You allege that I have contempt for polys. This is what I actually wrote about polys : "I have a very good impression of the work of polys through my brother, who took a superb vocational course which set him up for a very lucrative career. It was therefore saddening to see polys throwing away a special brand in order to become second rate universities". "Dectora". You wrote nonsense which implied that I somehow think a Ph.D. is an absolute necessity and that I would make value judgements on the academic competence of a person based on whether or not he/she possessed a Ph.D. . This is what I actually wrote about the need for Ph.D.'s in higher education: " Its certainly the case that a Ph.D. doesn't make someone an effective HE teacher. Similarly, the absence of a Ph.D. doesn't imply that the teacher is a gifted and dedicated communicator.". I realise its convenient for people to ascribe opinions and positions to me which I don't hold. It is, however, an intellectually weak and dishonest way to argue.

All post-92s are second rate universities. The rich Poly ethos of training people with good vocational skills with HND disappeared the moment the directors became VCs and the LEAs were thrown overboard in preference to governing bodies which have failed so miserably in UEL and the Mets. As for PhDs, mere qualifications will not get them jobs and help to move up their career ladder. But what use is a PhD when students in the post-92 university in which I work do not attend classes and academics use it as a decoration. Looking at the latter and their behaviour, I feel that the research activities should be left to a few top universities while post-92s are busily recruiting students who should not be any universities because of their poor entry qualifications.

Agree, with the notion that pre 92 university should continue to be research leaders. Academics from post 92 institutes, with or without PhD, who are keen on carrying out research work should be given a chance by pre 92 universities to collaborate and have access to resources and projects. This way we, as a nation, do not lose any pocket of knowledge and creativity. Furthermore, students graduating from post 92 universities should not be stigmatised for having "poor entry qualifications" in terms of their employability but should rather be assessed in terms of their achievement whilst at their post 92 university, at least look at their dissertation projects for any signs of creativity and ambition. More to say but I can get become boring ......... Once someone wrote a message saying: I wanted to write a short letter but I have not got the time so I will write a long one.......

No, students shouldn't be stigmatised because they have poor entry qualifications. If a student can achieve highly at university despite a previously poor track record he or she earns nothing but my admiration. One of the biggest academic successes I know (Russell Group university, top first, every prize and scholarship available, master's with distinction, PhD, research council funding) left school only with GCSEs. I know somebody else who, after dropping out of a Russell Group university because of mental health problems, went to a polytechnic, got a first-class degree, and then took a PhD at another Russell Group university, becoming an industrial scientist. The fact is, however, that these people are very much the exceptions. In most cases the correlation between entry qualifications and academic potential is really rather close. There are a handful of courses at post-1992 universities with entry requirements as low as 140 UCAS tariff points, equivalent to DEE at A-level; 160 points (DDE) will give a student access to a wide range of courses at a number of institutions (just check the websites of Birmingham City, Greenwich, Plymouth, London Met, London South Bank, and others). On the other hand, candidates with less than AAB (340 points) generally needn't bother applying to the most popular courses at the better Russell and 1994 Group universities or for any courses at Oxford and Cambridge. Many students at these universities in fact have three, four, five, or even six A-grade A-levels. Furthermore, the points don't even have to comprise the standard three A-levels. Apparently my grade 6 clarinet with distinction would now earn me 45 points. The fact is that a student with a D, an E, and a pass in grade 7 flute is not likely to emerge from University of Wales Institute Cardiff having achieved the same academic standard as a student graduating from a traditional university. Clearly the standards being attained are not uniform across the universities. The strength of the polytechnics was, I think, partly the Council for National Academic Awards, which guaranteed that the standards maintained across the polytechnics was roughly the same, and that that standard was also roughly the same as that of a university degree. So Bebe is right that we shouldn't judge on entry qualifications alone, and yet I also think it unlikely that the vast majority of students with Ds and Es at A-level (and some with essentially non-academic qualifications in lieu of A-levels) would be capable of undertaking a degree course designed for students with As and Bs.

To use Brookes as a paradigm of post-1992 universities is like describing All Souls as a typical Oxbridge college. Brookes is an accident of geography that attracts students who wish to hang around the city of dreaming spires for 3 years. Likewise many academics find Brookes a more attractive place to build a career than say, Russell Group Sheffield or 1994 Group Loughborough. Interestingly, there seems to be no similar fenland effect and Anglia Ruskin has no particular pull on either students or staff.

No-one has mentioned law. It is still the case that many legal academics have no PhD and it is not unusual to go from "Mr" to "Professor" even at first-rate institutions. Moreover, a number of strong law departments are not research led. For example, the law department at Nottingham Trent would be ranked ahead of that at many pre-1992 universities but that strength does not come from research but from the fact that it has had, since the 1980s, taught the leading course for solicitors' finals/legal practice course.

Alexander's first example could have been him except that he does not have a PhD and works at Oxford Brookes! Heard also that many academics perhaps in history department too at Oxford Brookes assume that they can gain in some way by stressing " Oxford" and not stressing " Brookes" while in conversation. At least I know one case where an American university invited some one for an interview for an associate professor position only to discover that his experience was at Oxford Brookes and not at Oxford U! Reading Alexander's essay here one can be excused for thinking that he represents the last word in matters of university education. Some weighty chips on his shoulders!!

Hello, Hello should avoid personal attacks. It may be time for an editor to get involved.

I'm afraid personal attacks are all too common here. Its actually rather sad given that most of the posters are supposed to be academics. There is a persistent unwillingness on the part of many to engage in the argument. Attacking the person, even when they know little of him/her, is more convenient. Its a pity.

I find Hello, Hello's ragging on Alexander for his well argued and specific admiration for Oxford Brookes and the repeated sneering attacks on Hero for his grammatically correct construction 'many fewer' especially childish.

Can we really class the post to the anonymous 'Hero' mentioning the now well known phrase 'many fewer' as a personal attack? I think that if THE thought this was more than light hearted banter they would of removed the post. Some of the articles and corresponding posts are very interesting and I enjoy reading them, some posts are plain ridiculous and I treat them as such...

'light-hearted banter'. Well, when you're on the receiving end of it it's actually rather unpleasant. The comments in question have been neither light-hearted nor 'plain ridiculous'. They have been offensive and obstructive to sensible discussion.

I just find it frustrating. An argument should be met with an argument, not with a childish insult. Its very rare that informed discussion takes place.

Alexander = Roger?

Thanks "Could we say", you illustrate my point very well. Unlike many I've only ever used one name for THE discussions. However, if memory serves, I've also been accused over the past few months of being "Marcus" the infamous academic bully and some bloke called "John" who happened to agree with a subset of my arguments (and therefore "must" have been me). Now, I'm also apparently Alexander, who actually disagrees with most of what I wrote about polytechnics and post-1992's. In fact, the only thing we really agree on in this thread is that its difficult to have a discussion because of childish behaviour. This is one reason why I asked the THE to upgrade the site (see above). A consequence of this would hopefully be that we get usernames. This still leaves the potential to post under multiple identities but it will be a little bit more difficult than just typing in a random name at the top of the comment box. It may or may not bother you, but the current set-up is rubbish. I would like a site where academics can properly discuss relevant issues without disruptive and silly name calling the moment someone writes something unpopular.

@Alexander: Please re-read my post! I think you will find that I am refering to the 'many fewer' comment and 'Hero'!

The complaints are coming from people who spent a whole week calling a professor all kinds of names.

Can you please list the names I called the professor ? Perhaps you could also point out where I made a criticism and didn't provide a reason for this ? Otherwise, why not put forward some type of rational argument yourself. This is tedious.

@whippet: Sorry. At the end of your comment you seemed to be making a more general point about the nature of some of the contributions.

@Alexander: No problem. I agree with you in general, people should not post offensive messages. My points were (i) that I do not think the 'many fewer' comment can be classed as offensive and (ii) when I get ridiculous messages directed at me I generally ignore them. Anyway, it looks like changes are on the way...

Whippet, my nephew. Those like Alexander and Roger who cry "offensive "and "abusive " spent a week long hurling colourful epithets against a professor who they knew very little. They let their friends do the same. Well when the same medicine is given to them they scream" abuse". These two need rest for a few weeks. Changes would not work unless people like Alexander and Roger exercise some kind of restraint in the first place. Could we expect this from them? We all know the answer.

One more time: can you please list the names/"colourful epithets" I supposedly called the professor ? I have no recollection of them. Its surely easy to google the page and cut and paste them here if they exist. Perhaps you could also point out where I made a criticism and didn't provide a reason for this ? BTW, the reason I still respond is because posts such as above illustrates a point I want to make to THE concerning the standard of posts here. This site provides a great opportunity for informed discussion, if it is appropriately organised.

I haven't hurled a single colourful epithet at anybody. I think the strongest criticism I made was to say that the professor seemed, to me, to lack integrity. In falsely claiming to hold a doctorate in medicine she conducted herself dishonourably. That is all that I have ever asserted. It's nice to have somebody like Roger here. He may disagree with me about some things, but he is capable of understanding that my arguments are sound and my positions valid, as are his. We just happen to disagree. It's like Richard Dawkins debating with the Archbishop of Canterbury, as opposed to Richard Dawkins debating with Fred Phelps (of 'God Hates Fags' infamy). In fact, I think Roger thinks that I disagree with him more than I do. I do not think that non-universities ought to have been given blanket university status. I think that it should have been possible for each polytechnic, college of higher education, etc, to apply for university status, and I imagine that a tiny minority would have been considered suitable for university status. Essentially, I was suggesting that some of these institutions could have gained independence from the CNAA in the same way that the old university colleges gained independence from the University of London. Students at Oxford Brookes (sorry to labour the point) tend to have at least BBC at A-level, and for courses such as law, history, English, and architecture that profile rises to BBB, ABB, and even AAB. Its standards are sound. However, I think that it would be no bad thing for most of the other new universities to be returned to a revived CNAA which would restore faith in the standard of education they provide. Roger is right: a polytechnic like South Bank was once a credible educational institution.

Is there anyone who actually has a PhD who thinks it is useless or who would have preferred not to have done it? Is there anyone without one who sees the value and would dearly love to have one? It seems the argument is divided between those who do have a PhD and go on about its value, and those who don't and so can't see its value. This is just natural human behaviour - it would be more interesting to hear different points of view than those that are expected. As for the Bill Gates argument, it really doesn't hold up, because he's a freak and not representative of any group of people, just himself!

In Britain, university lecturers may get same or less salary as that of a school teacher or a nurse. The reason is that there is no minimum qualification. A lecturer in the University can have only a Bachelor's degree, although only recently most universities are demanding PhD. If the university lecturers want to fight for higher salary, it is essential that just like any other profession, accountant, lawyer, doctors, university lecturer must have a PhD or near PhD. Otherwise how can they differentiate themselves. I was in a very good university near London( pre-92) as a lecturer with a PhD. However, the VC, Dean, head of the department all have only Bachelor's degree in that university. It makes a mockery for that kind of universities to have a Graduate School, because of the example it sets for the graduates of the Graduate Schools. Appointments still in Britain depend on personal contacts. I have seen in that above mentioned universities, PhDs from Chinese universities were appointed rejecting PhD from British Universities just because the Head of the department was Chinese.

In India the situation is like... Everyone needs to have a PhD as they think that a person with a doctorate would be able to teach better. But this is not the fact as many people who are experienced, though they donot have an equivalent degree can still contribute in a manner as academicians. The Indian government, due to the shortage of the faculty is trying to recruit people with Master degrees for these posts. I see no harm in this decision. The most important thing is that the person who has a PhD is expected to do research, and teaching would be a burden for many of them, unless he/she has enough assistants working on things. And experienced person might teach in a much better manner all what has been taught be a person holding a PhD degree.

Don't talk about India where corruption is rampant in universities. It is not PhD , it is which politicians you know and whose son/daughter you are. No wonder the best brains have left that country for the West.

A good teacher can teach anything to anyone who has an interest in learning. Universities are primarily concerned with the education of people who will then go on to make a contribution to society in their chosen profession. Only a tiny minority are concerned with staying on in the academic world and forging a career there. So why should academic posts require a phd to "set an example". I can completely understand the viewpoint of some lecturers (without phds) who consider it would be taking a step backwards to get one now. After all, they have probably been teaching a subject, that they know inside out, for decades and are consequently the best people to teach it. Perhaps people who aspire to stay in the academic world look for "better qualified" candidates as their mentors, however the rest of the studentship (the vast majority - who will go on to provide all the vital services we use and take for granted everyday) would like a good teacher who can equip them with the tools that they will be able to utilise in the real world. Based on my observations; desire to gain a PhD is more about status and less about wanting to advance human understanding in a given field. Also, to the person who commented that Bill Gates is an isolated example of success, after dropping out of university. Take a look around. If wealth is your only measure of success then you will be hard pushed to find ANY academic who is 'successful' by this measure.

I think this site is brilliant it gives those of us who are excluded from any interesting gossip and conversation in our own universities a chance to listen in and sometimes comment. I am excluded from the gossip in my university because I have taken out multiple grievances for workplace bullying rather than putting my efforts into doing a doctorate. I rather foolishly believed that education is a moral enterprise.

I should of course say 'alleged' wpb.

oh stop your pompus pondering. Things are as they are.