This OpEd piece from the NY Times has appeared on several sites I view. I think it is a little off-target. The notion that grad/professional programs are mostly preparing clones of the professoriate is likely untrue.
In other words, young people enroll in graduate programs, work hard for subsistence pay and assume huge debt burdens, all because of the illusory promise of faculty appointments. But their economical presence, coupled with the intransigence of tenure, ensures that there will always be too many candidates for too few openings.
Faculty members cultivate those students whose futures they envision as identical to their own pasts, even though their tenures will stand in the way of these students having futures as full professors.
Such arguments take an extreme view I am guessing is not true for the majority of graduate students. Positions in higher education are difficult to come by and very competitive. This is a reality. Think of the system as similar to professional sports without the high salaries. The notion that many graduates do not get an academic postition is legit – the notions that there are few options or that most graduate students assume they are headed in this direction are ridiculous. In bad economic times, most occupations become more restricted.
This assumption that we are training future academics is certainly not true for the department in which I work. It also is not true for two of my children. Many professionals require advanced training – clinical psychologists (my department), health professions (physical and occupational therapy – my daughters), educational administration and many teachers, etc. These programs may or may not involve research experience. Our clinical program follows what is called a “research/practitioner” model (an American Psychological Association training option). These students have research experience appropriate to their area, but most do not expect to become researchers. The idea is that practitioners should be prepared in a way that engages them with the data-based arguments supporting practice and should be open to future advances based on this same perspective. In other words, APA believes in the development of “domain specific critical thinking” skills and one of the more effective way to do this is through modeling and small group practice (doing it). The approach in the case of my department can be differentiated from programs (psy-doc) programs most of which prepare sizeable groups of practitioners in mass or from programs that place a priority of training future academics. Just what kind of background does the public want health care providers to have?
As far as low pay and a research focus goes. The American public gets a cheap deal on research activity through higher ed institutions. Research that is considered basic research (not tied to product development) would be very sparse without the type of thing that goes on in most research oriented institutions.
BTW – my daughter the physical therapist is a practitioner who also does research. She works on the physical needs of young children who must be involved in long term chemotherapy. This is her practice, but she works with researchers from the university who are interested in her techniques. The work would not go on without this collaboration and I am guessing if your kids were participants you would not be that concerned with whether the university folks involved were making enough money or whether any graduate students involved were able to acquire a position in a year or so. This is how research happens.
So, I think the issue is really how much of this type of experience can our society afford. Is it too costly? I don’t know – make the decision for your own kids.
