Educating Scholars: Doctoral Education in the Humanities Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)So how can it be both? This is an account of the Mellon Foundation's effort to help top humanities departments streamline their Ph.D. programs. Fifty-four departments at ten top universities were urged to reduce their attrition rates and reduce the average time-to-degree of their students. In return Mellon would help them accomplish this through the awarding of $85,000,000 in support. The book is an account of how they did this and the degrees of success which they enjoyed. Since the measures are all quantitative, however, the book is largely a dense account of the statistical methods used to assess the program's success. There are charts and graphs galore. The problem is that most humanists will be interested in the qualitative issues surrounding humanities graduate programs rather than the statistical analysis of quantitative data. The book is not unreadable in the sense that it is unintelligible; it is unreadable in the sense that it is more or less a study of statistics applied to complex phenomena rather than an account of humanities doctoral programs. The fascinating part comes with a few statistical conclusions and with the simple facts of the case.
In general, the $85M accomplished comparatively little and virtually nothing that was counterintuitive. If you give students grants to help them complete their dissertations and summer awards to help them proceed with their studies rather than seek other summer employment, you will reduce the time-to-degree. These reductions were relatively modest, however, and (one counterintuitive point) long-term commitments of funding sometimes led to students languishing in their programs or hanging around longer than they had to. This was not entirely counterintuitive, since the bad job market played a role in `encouraging' students to stay in grad school, where they had financial support, health insurance and, in some cases, subsidized housing.
The interesting things are, as I said, in the simple facts of the case and in a few details. The average time to degree for top, Mellon-subsidized students in the top programs in the country will strike readers as very, very long. The targeted average length for completion of degrees (6 years) was achieved by a tiny handful of departments. (When I got my first job I was hired with two other individuals. One had completed his Princeton Ph.D. in three years; the other had completed his Chicago Ph.D. in five; I had completed my Illinois Ph.D. in four. My best friend in college, who graduated the year behind me, completed his Yale Ph.D. in three and a half. The requirements for those degrees [40+ years ago] were all, I believe, substantially higher than current ones.)
The statistical analysis also includes information with regard to funding, hiring and research productivity by race and gender. This information is quite interesting. For qualitative information, however, one must read between the lines. For example, some departments attempted to reduce time-to-degree by `removing hurdles', i.e. reducing requirements. Some altered preliminary (i.e. comprehensive) exams by aligning them with dissertation research. In other words, students could be tested on material which bore on their dissertations. This represents a reduction in requirements, in that students could spend a greater portion of their `test prep' time in preparing to write their dissertations, rather than in preparing to be tested on `unrelated' material. The bottom line here is that students were better positioned to complete their dissertations but less well positioned to teach, in that the requirement for them to be tested on a broader range of material was reduced. This is not an inconsiderable matter, particularly in light of the job market. For many of the humanities programs in America the attrition rate is approximately 50%. Of those that finish most will teach in universities or colleges that are not research institutions, places where teaching is paramount. To the extent that individual departments across the country mimic the top programs and alter their doctoral requirements to reduce time-to-degree by reducing examination requirements, the current, often lamented, situation will be exacerbated: students will be trained to do research rather than teach. Certainly there is a balance to be achieved here, but the ten universities funded by Mellon in this initiative are often imitated by second and third tier institutions which, in some ways and in some cases, have different `missions'.
Other devices used to help students complete their degrees were somewhat therapeutic: instituting programs to help reduce their feeling of `isolation', for example. An ongoing problem was that (prior to the Mellon grants) the students often had little sense of departmental expectations and less faculty advice and guidance than they felt they needed. (Obviously, this would vary greatly from department to department.) In fairness to the departments, one should not leap to the conclusion that they consist of disinterested, selfish laggards who are indifferent to the needs of their students. Many consider their students to be adults who should take responsibility for their lives and careers. Program requirements are described in graduate catalogues and the faculty and other students are there to answer questions. My department (40+ years ago) made past preliminary examinations available to all students, so that you knew the kinds of exams you would be expected to pass the first day you arrived on campus.
While the statistical material is thick and much of it is repeated it strikes me as reliable and done in a highly competent manner. Reading between the lines and between the graphs yields very interesting information.

Click Here to see more reviews about: Educating Scholars: Doctoral Education in the Humanities


Despite the worldwide prestige of America's doctoral programs in the humanities, all is not well in this area of higher education and hasn't been for some time. The content of graduate programs has undergone major changes, while high rates of student attrition, long times to degree, and financial burdens prevail. In response, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation in 1991 launched the Graduate Education Initiative (GEI), the largest effort ever undertaken to improve doctoral programs in the humanities and related social sciences. The only book to focus exclusively on the current state of doctoral education in the humanities, Educating Scholars reports on the GEI's success in reducing attrition and times to degree, the positive changes implemented by specific graduate programs, and the many challenges still to be addressed.

Over a ten-year period, the Foundation devoted almost eighty-five million dollars through the GEI to provide support for doctoral programs and student aid in fifty-four departments at ten leading universities. The authors examine data that tracked the students in these departments and in control departments, as well as information gathered from a retrospective survey of students. They reveal that completion and attrition rates depend upon financial support, the quality of advising, clarity of program requirements, and each department's expectations regarding the dissertation. The authors consider who earns doctoral degrees, what affects students' chances of finishing their programs, and how successful they are at finding academic jobs.

Answering some of the most important questions being raised about American doctoral programs today, Educating Scholars will interest all those concerned about our nation's intellectual future.

Click here for more information about Educating Scholars: Doctoral Education in the Humanities