A reader, Henry Lara (Edinburgh), has drawn my attention to a new interview up at Inside Higher Ed entitled, "Manifesto for the Humanities." The subject of the interview, Sidonie A. Smith (Mary Fair Croushore Professor of the Humanities at the University of Michigan), has some interesting things to say against a proposal that has recently been pushed on a number of philosophy blogs–namely, reducing the number of PhD programs and PhD candidates, in response to consistently horrible academic job-markets:

I refuse arguments calling for fewer doctoral programs for several reasons. The strength of doctoral education in the humanities in the United States is the diversity of schools offering doctoral training: public, private, religious, secular, urban, regional, gigantic, small. The strength is in the diversity of emphases, constellations of faculty and cross-disciplinary filiations. The more the diversity, from my point of view, the more energy and impetus for innovation, for risk taking, for experimentation, for recognizing and achieving excellence. And here’s a second reason, about another kind of diversity. It comes via Dolan Hubbard, who argues that “the quiet consensus to limit access to graduate programs is an ethnically and socially irresponsible position when viewed from the perspective of the underproduction of African-American Ph.D.s.” Humanities departments also underproduce doctorates coming from Hispanic communities, from indigenous communities, [from those] who are the first in their families to go to university.

My reasons are personal as well. I am the product of a second-tier, less-elite doctoral program at Case Western Reserve University. I was the beneficiary of the program’s modest size, its small doctoral cohort and its openness to women graduate students back in the late 1960s. I was the beneficiary of faculty who maintained high expectations of their female students at a time when larger flagship state universities and the elite privates tolerated a woman or two but failed to mentor them adequately or with grace and generosity. I knew I would never have the bona fides of my many colleagues with Ph.D.s from the Ivies. But I have always taken pride in my pedigree from Case. This is exactly the kind of doctoral program that could be seen as expendable when those trained at the elite privates and publics make the case for downsizing doctoral education in the United States.

Thoughts? 

Posted in

4 responses to “IHE Interview: “Manifesto for the Humanities”, and Against Scaling Back Humanities PhD programs”

  1. Restricting Phd programs to a few elite institutions is about the worse thing any profession can do. It would, effectively, restrict the profession’s pool of talent to the point it may even in usher an era where philosophy becomes so esoteric and cut off from everything else that it becomes irrelevant, even among academics. Outside of the “too many Phd’s” discussion, the trend is for philosophy to engage with not just other disciplines like the sciences, but society at large. I would point to my own institution’s (Edinburgh) success with its “Introduction to Philosophy” MOCC and the launch of a distance/online Master’s program, as a sign that the trend is for universities to try to reach even more students, particularly non-traditional students and those that, as discussed in the article, would not be given the chance at the elites. I think that it would be to the benefit of the profession, and what’s more, society at large, to have more, not less, options to study philosophy at the graduate level.

  2. Derek Bowman

    I guess I would find these defenses more appealing if we heard them coming from PhDs who didn’t end up in academic positions. This is especially true when it comes to PhDs from traditionally excluded and disadvantaged groups. Those are precisely the candidates who are less likely to have access to the kind of financial and social needed to weather the challenges of multiple years of applications, underemployment, and frequent moves.
    I’m sure it would have been a mistake to close Case Western Reserve’s PhD program in the 1960s. I just don’t think that tells us much about how PhD programs ought to operate now. Intellectual diversity in graduate education will not translate into diversity in the profession if candidates must (as Alan Wood has recently claimed) “brand” themselves in familiar ways to have any hope of market success.

  3. Derek Bowman

    Henry – those initiatives sound great. But notice that they are ways of reaching out and expanding access to philosophy education WITHOUT requiring people to take on the burdens and risks associated with pursuing a PhD.

  4. Derek – good point. Given that part of the problem seems to stem from the fact that a phil phd takes 5-10 years of hard, full-time study at the end of which a candidate seems to (or so it is assumed) to have acquired few, if any, transferable skills I am tempted to ask why not then offer the option of pursuing the phd on a part-time basis? That way someone can gain industry skills and experience while studying for the phd. That said, I know that attrition is very harsh on full-time programs, so that it may make part-time phd study non-feasible. (The option, at least on paper, does seem to exist in the UK and other countries though, so perhaps we are missing something?) Which leads back to the way phd training is structured: 5 – 10 years of grad student life, with few, very, very few opportunities for gainful employment afterwards. Some may say “well, those are the risks” and “no one is making you study philosophy” but given how often we discuss this here and elsewhere, it seems that something, or plenty, is just not right.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading