Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Academics fear PhD quality is slipping
8 January 2009
Staff say that pressures to get more students through quickly are harming standards. Phil Baty reports
Concerns that PhD standards are under threat have been raised by academics.
A vox pop of Times Higher Education readers found that although most of those questioned believed that the standard of scholarship required to obtain a PhD remained high, many spoke out about threats to the future of the prestigious qualification as a mark of original research.
Readers cited concerns about mounting pressure to accept students who were not capable of doctoral-level work, problems with the level of support available to PhD students, concerns about overseas students' language difficulties and the bureaucratic difficulties of failing PhD candidates.
"It is inevitable that a push for quantity of PhD students leads to diminution of quality because resources never match the increases, leading to poor supervision, disappointed students and lower-quality work, inadequately challenged," said Roger Cowell of the University of Leeds Centre for Innovation in Health Management.
"Some PhD work is a marker of original scholarship, but it is the exception. This is sad for the students concerned; but, ironically, this number-crunching approach may well prepare them better than rigorous scholarship for the realities of publication-driven standards in modern academic life."
Vivienne Brunsden, senior lecturer in psychology at Nottingham Trent University, said that increasing numbers of PhD students were not, in themselves, a problem because "there have always been many more people capable of PhD-level work than there were opportunities".
But she said the "marketisation of education and the drive to attract more PhD students who pay full fees" was damaging. "In this case, the PhD student becomes a 'customer' who expects to get something at the end of four years of financial, emotional and time investment, regardless of the quality of the work - which is, of course, problematic."
She said the problem was exacerbated by universities "targeting foreign PhD students who are prepared to pay full-cost fees but whose level of English is not necessarily at an appropriate level to undertake PhD-level study".
One academic who asked not to be named said that he had examined about 15 PhD theses in his career. "Certainly failing a student has become more bureaucratic, and there seems to be a belief that the failure is that of the institution rather than the student."
Morgan Meyer, a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Sheffield, obtained his PhD two years ago. He said that although his supervision was excellent, supervisors in general tended to have "just too many students to supervise", which meant students were not getting enough support.
He added that language problems among overseas students were a growing concern. "Unfortunately, UK universities seem more interested in the money they get from overseas student fees and the benefits of attracting lots of students than making sure the students they enrol have enough language skills to be able to embark on a PhD without too much suffering," he said.
Gillian Ania, a reader in Italian at the University of Salford, said that while the quality of the candidates and the quality of their theses were different issues, both elements "can be compromised in a scenario in which an institution's completion figures are deemed more important than the individual student and his or her thesis".
She said that too much pressure from managers, driven by league tables, "can lead to poorly articulated or inadequately developed theses - and all because of the emphasis on quantity (number of completions) rather than quality (an intellectually developed, original investigation)".
Pressure on students to complete "before they are ready" was a particular concern for international students because they "may need additional time to develop their writing style and awareness of the finer points of English expression", she said.
She compared the situation in higher education to road safety, where the proliferation of road signs had made roads less safe because "the signs stifle individual driver judgments".
"Individual responsibility and judgment are continuously being undermined and eroded," she said.
phil.baty@tsleducation.com
IS THE QUALIFICATION STILL WHAT IT WAS?
One thing I am sure of is that in the 1950s and 1960s, there were plenty of "time-server" PhDs who did what they were told for three or four years, with little understanding, and a lot of help in writing up from their supervisors. Since failure is extremely rare, I suspect that PhDs have always covered the full range of ability from the brilliant to the bovine. It is not a badge of competence now, and it never was.
David Colquhoun, Professor of pharmacology, University College London
I find the most effective way of screening out the unprepared is to ask "why on earth do you want a PhD?" and only continuing to entertain those who give a realistic answer. The expansion that is taking place is in the recruitment of overseas candidates. A colleague recently received from outside the UK a PhD proposal that she recognised as entirely plagiarised. When confronted, the applicant replied by email: "Yes its true may god forgive me (sic)."
John Ellis, Professor, department of media arts, Royal Holloway, University of London
In my experience, the increased focus on "other" skills training has taken time away from the core thesis work at the same time as overall time frames are being more stringently policed. You cannot have wider training and reduced time to completion (while still) maintaining quality.
Ben Anderson, Director, Technology and Social Change Research Centre, University of Essex
For students in research-intensive universities, who are usually externally funded, I would say that the expectations and therefore the quality required to pass are higher than they used to be. Most are expected to produce peer-reviewed journal papers during their PhD as well as to produce a traditional thesis. It is much more competitive to get postdoc jobs without any publications. Also, the jobs postdocs get are very insecure, so the pressure to publish off the PhD continues.
Clare Bambra, Lecturer, department of geography, Durham University
Doctoral study should mean "an original contribution to knowledge". I am less concerned by increased numbers of PhD students than I am by the failure of some disciplines to engage with creativity, innovation and originality.
Graeme Harper, Director, National Institute for Excellence in the Creative Industries, Bangor University
I was asked to consider doing a PhD after my MA in international relations and decided that I couldn't really delay my career for another three years with a low salary unless I was committed to becoming an academic. I think that people should never decide to do a PhD just because they can't think of anything better to do and they like the student lifestyle - delaying "proper" work for a few more years.
Tim Scott, Departmental operations administrator, Imperial College London
As someone with experience of assessing/examining more than 20 doctoral theses, I think that standards are still being maintained. The threshold for award is still held. In my experience, modern universities are more formally firm about that than more traditional institutions. Modern universities have to be seen to be equal and so strive to be better.
Ian McNay, Professor emeritus, higher education and management, University of Greenwich
I've never been put under any pressure to admit someone "not up to the task". In fact, in most cases they are better prepared in terms of research skills, use of information technology and the like than I was when I embarked on mine at the University of Bristol in 1979. PhDs are still rigorously examined and referral or failure still enforced by examiners who are not, in my experience, open to corruption.
Gillian Grant, Darlington College
One cannot help but be suspicious of claims that current PhDs are generally lacking in quality when these claims are not backed by any evidence comparing samples of recently submitted PhD theses to appropriate samples of past ones - from whatever alleged "golden age" we are supposed to be nostalgic about.
Constantine Sandis, Senior lecturer in philosophy, Oxford Brookes University
Research is treated as a commodity on a production line at all levels, and the PhD is not immune. Nevertheless, the advice I give to students regarding a PhD is the same that I was given when I was an undergraduate. You should embark on a PhD for what I describe as "the mountain-climbing reason" - namely because it is there. To commence a PhD for general employability or market advantage reasons is somewhat naive, at least in the UK.
Mark S. Leeson, Associate professor, School of Engineering, University of Warwick.
Readers' comments
In the three and a bit years since I started my PhD at a Russell group uni, the number of PhD students in my department has more than doubled to nearly 100, academic staff numbers have stayed the same, whilst we have gone from having one full time PhD administrator to having one part time PhD administrator, shared with three other departments. The number of desks has increased but the number of computers has drastically been cut. It has become a much less productive and much more depressing place to work. Yet the faculty management look on it as a success because their targets to vastly increase PhD quantity have been met. Of course, the uni has no metric or target for measuring PhD quality.
There are many ways in which a person can gain a PhD. If these ways could be tabulated and a list compiled of the PhD person's publications between starting the PhD and three years after completion of the PhD could be listed, then perhaps the quality of the PhDs could be quantified
We all know that universities are becoming more and more commercialized and with that in mind entry requirements are lowered to admit more and more candidates who are often made to prolong their candidature in order to satisfy the revenue requirements of the institution. The longer the better as the cash flow streams are guaranteed.
I don't understand how exactly 'publications between starting the PhD and three years after completion' can be taken as a measure of the quality of the PhD. Did Dr John Bull even read the article? As one commentator (Roger Cowell) said, "[the] number-crunching approach may well prepare them better than rigorous scholarship for the realities of publication-driven standards in modern academic life." - This view makes an explicit link between a reduction in the rigour of the PhD process and preparation for a career getting journal articles published. It is entirely possible for someone to have completed an excellent, scholarly and original thesis and to have published nothing from it, especially when this is accompanied by failure to secure suitable postdoctoral employment. It is also entirely possible for a poor quality PhD to lead to a string of publications, especially if producing a high quality thesis is identified early on as a subordinate goal to getting published. Therefore, I think publications are a poor guide to the quality of the PhD thesis and the student who produced it. The further removed proxy measures are from the thing they are taken to be indicators of, the less they really tell you about that thing.
How many of the comments in the article are from people without PhDs? How many of the comments in the article are from people who have not been successful in their pursuit of a PhD? How many of the comments in this article are from people with very little experience supervising PhDs? How many of the comments are from people with very little experience in supervising international PhDs? Perhaps THE might want to ensure that comments are secured from those who, I don't know, actually have a PhD and have some experience of supervising PhD candidates? From my extensive experience in both UK and US universities (and examining PhDs worldwide) I would suggest that a bigger issue is that many academics in this country are engaged in supervising PhD candidates when they themselves do not have PhD. Or worse, are 'failed' PhDs - not exactly the ideal people for the job.
Agreed standards are slipping - and not just with the current cohort of students, as Prof. Mindboggle points out. Surely we need to restrict competitive PhD scholarships to students who hold first class degrees, given that we now award an upper second or better to the vast majority of our undergraduates? A 2:1 is no longer a discriminating index of academic potential. If we continue to treat it as such, a PhD will no longer be an index of academic achievement.
I agree with Anon about restricting entry to first class students (who also should meet other requirements, such as giving a good reason for wanting to undertake doctoral research). I dare to wonder the sense in a recent case I met, where a student with a third and two subsequent MSc degrees, all in similar disciplines, was offered a PhD studentship. Yes, that was studentship, i.e. a grant! Was this at the expense of a first class student who couldn't be drummed up quickly enough? I hope the (substantial) risk is going to be worth it. Or maybe the supervisor will have their work cut out to get this one through. As my own supervisor, many years ago, said of a dubious student, "This one's for export."
With regards to the comments of Anon and Doctored, I think that it is perfectly sensible to take into account undergraduate results, but this cannot be the only criterion. The skills necessary to obtain a first in many undergraduate degrees are not necessarily the skills needed to be a good researcher at PhD level - I know some students who excelled at undergraduate but struggled with the different type of working needed even at a Masters level. Is there perhaps a disparity between humanties and the sciences here? The AHRC, for example, normally require people to have either first at undergraduate or a distinction at Masters to have a good chance at recieving funding; I'm not sure about the other funding bodies. Of course, most humanities PhD's will have a Masters degree before starting a PhD, at least in the Russell Group. However, I am aware of a Chemistry PhD who was given funding after obtaining a third and without even having a Masters. The grant actually involved her PhD mainly consisting of doing the lab experiments for the project leader and it was her opinion that PhD funding is often just a source of cheap labour in many laboratory-based sciences for the universities.
"...it was her opinion that PhD funding is often just a source of cheap labour in many laboratory-based sciences for the universities." See my comments reported on p.7 of the issue of THE dated 8-14 January 2009. There is most certainly a disparity in undergraduate attainment between humanities and science/engineering PhD candidates. Humanities and social science PhDs are about collecting data to facilitate original thinking, and topics are typically chosen by the student. Science and engineering PhDs are more often about a professor getting work done on an ongoing project, and the topic is more often advertised along with the studentship.
The reasons for slippage in Phd quality in the UK are: 1) No adequate funding. In particular, they don't even provide sufficient funding to international students - in general, there's no stipend for living and their so-called "scholarships" provide money only to cover the difference between overseas and local fees. 2) Universities want students to finish everything quickly (3 years) many without any courses. Yes, every student needs to be independent, but formal training is also required, especially in hard fields such as physics and mathematics.
I can't agree with the idea of restricting access to those with Firsts at undergraduate level. A First is very often achieved by ensuring one writes what the marker wants to read and that it is technically competent with plenty of references to journal articles. What is needed at PhD is originality and doggedness as much as anything - the ability to do your own thing, rather than just being a "good girl/boy". I can think of a number of fine scholars who successfully completed PhDs, some of whom are professors and a couple of whom are FBAs. The 2.1 is a broad church, covering those who simply slog and do what is needed to get it and who therefore manage to rise above the 2.2s, and those who tend to plough their own furrow and consequently lose out on Firsts, often by quite some way. I would, however, never encourage someone with a 2.2 or less to launch themselves on a Ph.D.
Good sense as always from Richard Austen-Baker. Although I can see what people are saying: that a 2.1 is not what it was even 10 years ago. But to limit PhD entry to those with a first is akin to writing off the university chances of any schoolkid who fails the 11-plus, passes all their GCSEs without an 'A' grade, or doesn't get their desired 'A'-level grades first time around. The 2:1 is indeed a broad church. Even moreso now that universities are increasingly grading against narrowly-defined 'learning outcomes'. As Richard says, a first is no guarantee of talent or original thinking. In my final year as an undergraduate, three of my friends finished with first-class honours. An anthropologist and a biologist who showed original thinking and read extensively around their subject, and a physicist who never showed any sign of being particularly clever outside the classroom, and didn't know which way to slice a grapefruit, but had a superb understanding of his subject, worked extremely hard, and deserved his final grade every bit as much as the other two. All three went on to PhD study. But they all had peers who were every bit as suited to PhD study as they were, despite 'only' getting a 2:1. Admittedly, that was the early 1990s and things were a bit different then; but I wouldn't go writing off the suitability of all 21st century 2:1s for doctoral research. Furthermore, restricting PhD access to those with a first would be a recipe for even further grade inflation, as lecturers would become guilt-ridden about restricting their students' chances of further scholarship!
I earned my PHD from an ancient British University, and have argued on what should constitute a PHD with my American-trained colleagues. American PHDs are course-work heavy. I believe, however, that the PhD degree should only be awarded for an original(novel) contribution to knowledge or innovation, that has been presented to a conference of experts or published in a peer-reviewed journal of good impact. The PHD awardee must be able to claim that " I discovered this little bit" or "solved this problem" or was "the first to assert this". This should be the minimum standard for the pursuit of veritas. My university required PhD candidates to list the publications and presentations (or video) arising from your workon the first page of the thesis, after table of contents. i hope this still the case.
What is most apparent from the article and comments above, is how ignorant and pompous people in academia remain. To talk of this grade and that grade, this subject and that subject, slipping standards and useless foreigners just shows how small-minded, reactionary and xenophobic that world can be. Surely academics should be encouraging students of all backgrounds and abilities to do further research. To think they still harbour these childish and outdated views and at the same time believe they have a monopoly on what equates to truth, knowledge and quality is quite shameful.
Anon, do you have a specific point to make? Your criticism is so broad and general that it is in danger of missing its target altogether. You seem to be saying little more than "I disagree with all of the previous contributors." I would take issue with one of your comments in particular, which is that "academics should be encouraging students of all backgrounds and abilities to do further research." That is plainly nonsense. To do so would be extremely dishonest of them. There is limited capacity in all university departments, which determines how many research students they can support with office space, laboratory space and supervision. Added to which, there is stiff competition for research funding, so it makes sense to try to get research students of the highest calibre where possible. The only way to encourage people of "all abilities" to undertake doctoral research would be to get the weakest candidates to pay their own costs, which would be academically disingenuous, exploitative, and corrupting of the whole enterprise. Departments would be under even greater pressure to get in as many fee-paying Phd students as possible, regardless of academic ability and research skills. Furthermore, if we accept the principle that 'everyone should be allowed to have a go', limited capacity would mean that bright and academically able students might lose out in the competition for resources to academically weak candidates who are clinging onto student life because they have poor employment prospects and nothing better to do. To take issue with another of your comments, academics do not claim to "have a monopoly on what equates to truth, knowledge and quality", but it is consistent with their professional role to be able to identify the qualities that are desirable in a candidate for doctoral study. As such, to propose a particular undergraduate grade as a cut-off point is just silly and undermines the role of professional judgement in assessing a candidate's worth; however, it should be obvious that the candidate with the better grade of first degree is already nudging ahead of the field.
Prof Adesuyi Ajayi, you are right US phd's are course-work heavy but they are still required to publish original findings (that's why it takes longer to complete a phd in the US). Course-work heavy doesn't mean lack of quality or originality, just that they also focus on the "breadth" part.
The truth is we simply have too many people doing PhDs, at least in the physical sciences - far more than can be adequately supervised, let alone be adequately employed in research after graduation, and this appears to be true worldwide. In these circumstances, 'encouraging students of all backgrounds and abilities to do further research' is at best misguided and naive at the students' expense. Throwing money at the problem won't solve employment issues. Frankly, I see no obvious alternative solution to having a rigid cap (5, maybe) on the number of postgraduate students any member of staff is allowed to have at any given time (regardless of funding or anything else - if more labour is needed, technicians and postdocs can be employed instead). This would keep PhD-holders to realistic numbers, and would help alleviate the problem of scarce facilities, funding, supervisors' time and patience, etc. PS There's a difference between having good coursework and having 'jumping through hoops' coursework - my personal experience of the latter in the US has thoroughly convinced me that years of coursework can easily be a complete and utter waste of everybody's time - breadth is one thing, solving a deluge of arcane analytical problems from a textbook serving no purpose other than passing an exam is quite another.
My comment is about the suggestion by Anon that PhD students ought to be required to have a First. I am reading for a PhD at a Russell Group institution, having gained two master's degrees with distinction. I had previously got a 2.1 from Oxford, having suffered from mental health problems as an undergraduate. One of my friends from Oxford suffered from mental health problems much worse than my own and got a 2.2. She was unable to gain a place on an MPhil or MA course and thus unable to embark on the academic career that had been her ambition. She is one of the most intelligent people I know, and certainly far more intelligent than almost anybody I knew who got a First. However, academia seems to be organized in such a way that anybody who encounters any difficulties will find it very difficult (like me), if not completely impossible (like my friend), to get on in it. Perhaps Anon ought to consider this before damning the academic ambitions of extremely intelligent people who did not obtain first-class degrees. (Needless to say, I do not consider myself to be extremely intelligent, but my friend with a 2.2 certainly is.)
Surely the influence of the changing nature of PhD expectations has had an influence? Holding a PhD has become synonymous with lecturing or assessing within a Univertisiy - which, of course, was never the original aim. A PhD should be an exercise in research which adds to the sum of human knowledge, proving the author to be capable of independent academic research. It is not a teaching qualification, nor is it necessarily a guarantee of academic brilliance.
There was an interesting post regarding the differences between a Ph.D. in the sciences and one in the humanities: "Humanities and social science PhDs are about collecting data to facilitate original thinking, and topics are typically chosen by the student. Science and engineering PhDs are more often about a professor getting work done on an ongoing project, and the topic is more often advertised along with the studentship". Wow, what a cliche. Like most of my peers, I chose and developed my own project, developed an international network to get it done and had minimal direction from my supervisor. There was quite some "original thinking" and the thesis ended up being highly cited. During this time I knew various students in the humanities who spent 4 years doing precious little (by their own admission) and left behind theses which just collected dust in the university library. I didn't encounter much "original thinking" when talking to them. Were I prone to generalising I'd say that all humanity Ph.D.s were weak. However, I don't generalise and I'm sure that many humanity Ph.D.s are extremely rigorous - its just that I haven't read them.
Now, Iam scared. Iam two courses away from my first Masters degree and trying to figure out if I should continue on and pursue my PhD. Here is how I look in the big scheme of things, 10+ years of experience in IT/Communications Technologies from Commercial, Government and Private Sector; Bachelor of Business Administration In Information Technology from Bryant & Stratton College (Summa Cum Laude); and now holding a firm 3.4 GPA at Strayer University Master of Business Administration in Contract Acquisition and Management Program. How Do I stack up? Am I ready for a PhD.? The comments and discussion here only tell me im going to have to do substantial research into the program that I want to go with and the academic discipline that I want to pursue as there seem to be numerous balances that have to be played with regards to money and quality of the PhD. correlated with the Availability and resources from any potential PhD. supervisor.
I can see a pompous ass!
Gosh - the personal insults even turn up here. However, its actually rather flattering to have a forum stalker(s).
"Surely we need to restrict competitive PhD scholarships to students who hold first class degrees." I think that's a naive suggestion. To complete a PhD requires much more than academic brilliance. I've supervised PhD students with the full spectrum of Honours and Masters grades. What I have noticed is that those with first class degrees, although full of new ideas tend to be short tempered, losing interest in their work quickly when experiments fail to work. Interestingly, out of the 12 PhD studentships I have had, the two that quit both had first class degrees. Both went into different careers. Competitive PhD scholarships should be given to those who would make the most out of it and I don't think a first class degree itself is a good indicator. I examined a PhD recently before my retirement where the candidate (who had a 2:I) had spent 6 years on it as a part-time endeavour paying for it himself whilst working in a different area. It was one of the most thorough pieces of work in terms of originality, quality and sheer volume of work I had examined. It is such students that should be awarded scholarships.