Doctoral programs in philosophy, and in the humanities in general, have several structural issues: high attrition rates; inadequate university teaching opportunities relative to the number Ph.D.s awarded each year; a lack of diversity (gender, ethnic, socioeconomic); and unreasonably long time-to-degree (TTD) medians. In this post we discuss TTD—why it’s important, the reasons for reducing TTD, and some of the ways to do it.
The “New” Ph.D.
In an environment in which about 40 percent of philosophy Ph.D.s—and less than 30 percent of doctoral program matriculants (Beyond the Academy: The Numbers Game)—obtain permanent academic positions, TTD is especially important. TTD is important in large part because the immediate post-college years are a critical period of career development for many young adults. But because most philosophy doctoral programs do not provide non-academic career training or job experience, these programs postpone rather than advance career development for a significant percentage of their students. As a result, philosophy doctoral students often fall behind their non-academic peers in both career trajectory and salary potential.
In their recent book, The New PhD: How to Build a Better Graduate Education, authors Leonard Cassuto and Robert Weisbuch note that high attrition and low placement rates in doctoral programs make it impossible to claim that such programs are “apprenticeships” for academic careers. Indeed, according to Cassuto and Weisbuch, the apprenticeship model has not existed for close to fifty years. And yet the median TTD in doctoral programs in the US continues to hover around seven years (Survey of Earned Doctorates, Table 8-15), with very few programs taking effective steps to shorten it.
In today’s dismal market for permanent academic positions, a median TTD of seven years, together with the refusal of many doctoral programs to disclose median TTDs to prospective students, represents a moral failure. Doctoral program faculty generally accept their obligation to assist graduates in obtaining academic positions (although increasingly these positions are not tenure-track). What should be just as obvious is their obligation not to take seven or eight of their matriculants’ critical career development years with academic programs that do not, for most students, lead to permanent employment.
Though philosophy faculty sometimes assert that doctoral programs cannot be shortened, a number of initiatives have demonstrated that in fact doctoral programs can be shortened. A cursory look at TTD of Ph.D. programs in the US shows that a 7-year program is not necessary: some of the most highly regarded philosophy programs in the US—UNC, MIT, Princeton, and Yale, for example—have TTD medians about a year or more lower than the national average.
The Oxford Model
Cassuto and Weisbuch note that the DPhil program at Oxford takes three (or sometimes four) years to complete. This is not unique to Oxford—many European programs as well as programs in Canada employ shortened doctoral degree timelines. How does Oxford do it? There are several key differences between the Oxford program and US programs. First, the DPhil program does not require coursework: “You are not required to attend any taught graduate classes as part of your DPhil degree, but you are encouraged to participate in lectures, classes, seminars and other educational opportunities offered throughout the university as relevant to your topic of study.” While many DPhil students participate in graduate classes, “passing” the classes is not a prerequisite to the continuation of DPhil studies. Instead, the focus of the program is the preparation of a doctoral thesis.
Second, admission to the DPhil. program generally requires prior completion of a BPhil or similar course of study (such as the M.A. in the US and Canada). This means not only that applicants already have received some graduate training, but also that Oxford’s faculty have an additional opportunity to screen a student’s prospects for an academic career before admission to the DPhil program.
Finally, admission to the DPhil program does not guarantee faculty recommendation for a permanent academic position. According to Oxford, some students exit with an MLitt before completing the D.Phil.: “The MLitt is more often an exit award for DPhil students who fail or withdraw from the DPhil degree but meet the requirements for the MLitt.” This feature highlights an aspect of the Oxford approach that differs from many US programs: not only are there off-ramps (such as the “terminal M.A.” in US programs), but—unlike U.S. “Ph.D. only” programs—these off ramps are specifically disclosed to prospective students in the program description.
The Stick
Several methods for reducing TTD have been tried on this side of the Atlantic. Many U.S. programs use a kind of negative reinforcement as their principal means of incentivizing students to achieve program milestones in a timely fashion. For example, Brown uses a “warning” system to place students on notice that their progress in the program is unsatisfactory. Others say that financial support is only guaranteed for five years, although in practice many extend this support through a sixth year. Still others employ “milestone” deadlines with an implicit suggestion—and sometimes an explicit warning—that those who fail to achieve program milestones face probation and possible dismissal.
In the U.S. it is not uncommon for programs to dismiss students making unsatisfactory progress by awarding them a terminal master’s degree—“terminal” in the sense that the master’s degree is the end of the academic road for the dismissed student. Unfortunately, unlike Oxford, the idea that one might be asked to leave with only a master’s degree is not always stated in program materials and often exists as an unwritten rule of the department.
Regardless, the various types of negative reinforcement philosophy departments have employed for many years have not put much of a dent in the median TTD, at least in the U.S. It remains 6.9 years. And of course this figure only counts the students who actually complete the program, not the significant percentage who leave doctoral programs without completing them.
The Carrot
The TTD problem has led to the development of pilot programs intended to incentivize early (or at least timely) completion of the Ph.D. The basic idea is to increase support for graduate students as program milestones are completed, including by providing (in some cases) a one-year lectureship upon completion of the Ph.D. itself. This encourages students to more aggressively pursue the requirements of the Ph.D.—particularly completion of the doctoral dissertation—within the timeframe established by program faculty. For example, the geography department at the University of Minnesota created pay “tiers” for its graduate students. Students were paid at higher levels as they progressed through program milestones. Similarly, Brandeis University offered large dissertation completion fellowships (funded by Mellon) for the final year of its doctoral program. (The New PhD, 181–182).
Notre Dame created a 5+1 program (funded in part by Mellon) that offers one year teaching fellowships following the completion of the Ph.D. program for students who complete the program in five years. (The New PhD, 185–190). The 5+1 program requires the student to complete the degree in 10 semesters of active study. The student may then choose one of two tracks: a teaching and research (T&R) track (for students seeking careers in academia) and an internship track (for students seeking careers outside academia). The T&R students are given a 1:1 course schedule; the internships, which are competitive, are 40 hours per week.
According to Cassuto and Weisbuch, the early completion incentive model “is one of the few strategies that has shown signs of budging the stubborn time-to-degree figures.” (The New PhD, 186).
Reducing Requirements
We noted earlier that coursework is not a requirement for the Oxford DPhil. When one compares programs with differences in TTD—Michigan and Chicago, for example—one factor that stands out is the difference in coursework required by each program. Michigan requires 12–13 courses to advance to Ph.D. candidacy, while Chicago requires 16 courses (half of which may be taken pass-fail).
Cassuto and Weisbuch propose a kind of thought experiment when it comes to the requirements of a doctoral program. They challenge U.S. doctoral programs to think of their programs in the following way. Assume that the program may take only three years. What would you include in the program if that were the case? After you have identified those requirements—which, like the Oxford DPhil, would very likely focus on completing a dissertation or preparing papers for publication—then you might consider adding a few more requirements. You would of course add the most important ones first, but the ultimate goal is to add just a few requirements until the program is five years in length. Is there any reason a doctoral program cannot be structured as a five-year program using this approach?
A different approach would be to increase prerequisites for doctoral programs. As noted above, it is not uncommon for doctoral programs in the U.S. to use the M.A. as, in effect, an off-ramp for students who might not be able to complete the program. Departments might instead consider treating the M.A. as an explicit prerequisite to a shortened doctoral program. This would provide an opportunity for both sides of this equation—graduate students and departmental faculty—to assess the student’s path toward permanent academic employment before committing to enrollment in a doctoral program.
Another option is the use of alternative degree programs as a means of shepherding students not suited (or not yet suited) for doctoral studies to programs intended to provide additional background in philosophy without commitment to a research program. Oxford, for example, offers a Master of Studies (MSt) in Practical Ethics, useful primarily for those outside academia but also serving as a possible next step toward the DPhil. Similarly, Chicago offers a Master of Arts Program in the Humanities (MAPH), which might be useful for those considering the Ph.D. but might also benefit those seeking a new career or returning to the non-academic positions they held before attending the master’s program.
Transparency
We conclude with a few words about transparency, because transparency itself can perform a role in reducing TTD. Furthermore, we believe that transparency about TTD constitutes the minimum moral obligation of philosophy Ph.D. programs to their prospective graduate students. If prospective students have access to relevant program data—attrition, TTD, and placement data, for example—they are more likely to incorporate this data into their comparative assessment of doctoral programs. It’s hard enough to evaluate doctoral programs when attrition, TTD, and placement data are available. Without this information, it’s nearly impossible. And it’s not simply a matter of comparing one doctoral program with another. Students may also wish to compare philosophy doctoral programs with other programs they might be considering, such as law or medical school—programs for which transparency is the rule rather than the exception.
Doctoral programs might also think of transparency about program data as a means to improving attrition rates and TTD. If career path transparency were the rule rather than the exception in doctoral programs, programs would be incentivized to reduce attrition, reduce TTD, and clarify the career opportunities for their graduates, both academic and non-academic.
Is a Five-Year Doctoral Program Achievable?
Five-year doctoral program TTD medians are both desirable and achievable. Shorter TTD is desirable for the simple but under-appreciated reason that more than 70 percent of doctoral program matriculants will not obtain permanent (tenure track or similar) academic employment, and current trends away from university instruction in the humanities will only make this situation worse. Philosophy Ph.D. programs with long TTD medians therefore hamper the majority of their students’ career trajectories as well as their lifetime salary potential. Shorter TTD is not only desirable, it is achievable: it has already been achieved outside the U.S., and in the U.S. the doctoral programs at UNC, MIT, Princeton, and Yale have achieved a median TTD of six years or less for many of their graduating cohorts. In light of the limited job prospects for philosophy Ph.D.s in the US and Canada, sustained efforts to reduce the TTD for doctoral programs from the current 6.9 year median are, we believe, a moral imperative.
Martin Willard
Thank you for opening up this discussion. This is a well structured article.
Nonetheless, the argument doesn’t sit well with me. It proceeds from pre-professional premises rather than focusing on the educational rationale of programs. I agree that doctoral programs should continually be rethought as a way of being responsive to what could make them excellent. But the rationale for doing so should come from improving them educationally. The premise of your argument would seem to be that the main – or co-primary – education of such programs is pre-professional.
I disagree. The main education is scholarly. The question, then, is what a continual improvement of scholarly education should be. From this starting point, teaching and other ways to connect scholarship to life outside academia have a genuine place. Both enrich scholarship or are actually an ongoing part of it in various ways.
I disagree that it is on the programs to deal with the wider state of the job market beyond being totally transparent about that state and not misleading students in the least. If programs are completely honest and accurate as can be about the prospects for employment, then it is up to students to shape their lives realistically. It’s not on the programs to become strongly pre-professional. Besides, doing so will not change the structural situation in the least: it will just amp up competition between programs for short supply positions and thereby intensify pre-professionalism across the board, with all the moral and intellectual corruption that follows on hustle culture.
Re. another set of claims that you made, it needn’t be a horrible opportunity cost to enter into graduate school and to spend, say, much of one’s 20s becoming a scholar while one could have, say, been working on another career instead. There is an intrinsic good to scholarship as well as direct and indirect social goods. To participate for a time in scholarship even if one leaves it later can be a good thing for someone, an island of something fairly pure in a society that is frankly quite corrupt and socially alienated in many ways. There are reasons to choose the life of scholarship that eschew careerism or earning potential.
It is reductive of life and misguided to make the issue of growing about those things. I worry about your rationale looking at time spent in graduate school like time away from a treadmill or career development elsewhere. That reduces life to careers. Life works in indirect ways, and becoming a scholar — slowing down the career treadmill even — can be quite beneficial personally, socially, and in many other ways. Life is long, and it helps to not rush one’s way through it or to be overly streamlined. There are so many people in midlife who crash out in one way or another because they pushed things earlier and did not take the time to grow.
Full disclosure: I graduated from U Chicago at their then average TTD, which was 8 years. I earned some scholarships after year 5 and I worked my butt off as a researcher at another institution and by teaching many classes at various institutions. But I don’t regret it at all, and if I had not succeeded in academia, I would still not have regretted it. I always had an exit option ready (for me it was public education, either pre-K or high school). It seemed obvious to me that one should have an exit option when considering academia, but it was not the responsibility of my program to provide me with one. And I would have not learned as much as I did if U Chicago had not been hard core about just doing scholarship. In hindsight, I am grateful that they flaunted the four year Princeton norm at the time and actually wanted us to get lost in scholarship. And even if I went on to do something outside academia, I at least got to live the life of a scholar for a time in an environment that was totally serious about what they meant and did not sell it out in the least.
I would like to see a post about improving grad school for the sake of scholarship and another about people taking responsibility for themselves in being prudent. With all the ways to keep doing philosophy as a way of life in community, there should be no pressure to think that if grad school doesn’t work out in leading to academic employment, the life of the mind or of philosophy stops there. Moreover, we need teachers at many levels. Another part of the European system is that serious intellectuals have historically taught high school. Just a thought.
Reducing Time to Degree in Philosophy Doctoral Programs is a crucial endeavor that can benefit both students and academia as a whole. By streamlining the path to obtaining a doctoral degree in philosophy, universities can enhance the accessibility of advanced education and alleviate financial burdens on students.
Efforts to reduce time to degree can include optimizing program structures, refining coursework requirements, and providing more efficient avenues for research and dissertation completion. Emphasizing mentorship, offering comprehensive resources, and facilitating interdisciplinary collaboration can further expedite the doctoral process without compromising academic rigor.
Shortening the time to degree not only accelerates students’ entry into the workforce but also enhances the overall productivity of the academic community by ensuring that highly qualified scholars contribute to the field sooner. Moreover, it can promote diversity and inclusion by accommodating individuals with diverse backgrounds and life circumstances.