44th ANNUALMEETING 
WESTERN ASSOCIATION OF GRADUATE SCHOOLS

March 2,2002
Seattle

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS

RETURN OF THE MASTERS

Moheb A. Ghali
Dean of the Graduate School
Western Washington University

INTRODUCTION:

In spite of the title, my remarks are not intended primarily for Master's focused institutions. The overwhelming majority of graduate degrees granted by Doctoral institutions are Masters degrees. In 1999 90% of the graduate degrees earned in the United States were Master's degrees. Although I will focus my discussion on the Master's degree, the real issue I am addressing is the efficiency and the costs of the Ph.D. education. The conclusion I draw and the recommendations I present are for the restructuring of graduate education, especially the doctoral education.

For the purposes of this presentation I group Master's degrees into three categories:

a. Professional Master's such as the M.Ed., MBA, MFA, MSW and the MPH.

b. Professional Science Master's, a new development initiated six years ago at Doctoral institution through a grant from the Sloan Foundation to CGS, and recently expanded to Master's Focused Institutions.

c. Research Master's that are intended as a preparation for pursuit of research careers or for enrollment in doctoral programs.

The first group is well established and accepted- these are terminal degrees that usually serve as credentials for admission to a profession. The second category, the Professional Science Master's, was discussed at the CGS Annual Meeting and will be the subject in other sessions in this meeting.

My remarks are focused on the third group, the Research Master's. The remarks consist of a series of issues that are of concern to all graduate schools. Following each issue I will present a proposition. While you may find some of the propositions obviously true needing no verification, nonetheless, the propositions I will make are empirically testable hypotheses. With each I will describe the data that would support or refute it. All propositions lead to the same conclusion: a proposal for a change in the structure of graduate education. One need not agree with all of the propositions to reach this conclusion: if only two or three of the nine propositions are valid my conclusion holds. I will not state this conclusion now, as it will become increasingly obvious, almost inescapable, as the arguments progress. What I will state at this point is that the conclusion is not new: the change I advocate was the norm in the US prior to the 1960's and is still the norm in much of Europe

THE ISSUE AND PROPOSITIONS:

1. ISSUE: Decision to Pursue Graduate Education. Information needed by undergraduate students in order to make decisions regarding whether to pursue graduate education is not adequately provided by the undergraduate education model. Advanced undergraduates may, on occasion, have glimpses of what is expected in graduate education. This occurs if they happen to work in a small research group with graduate students serving as group leaders. The probability of this occurrence is higher in the sciences. However, this tends to be the exception; there is no guarantee that such should be the normal expectations as providing the environment generating this information is costly.

PROPOSITION: Undergraduate and Doctoral education are qualitatively different. A Master's experience is qualitatively closer to Doctoral education and thus provides the student better information on the nature and the expectations of a Doctoral program. The decision to pursue a Ph.D. made by a Master's candidate is a better-informed decision.

DATA: If this proposition is to be accepted, the drop-out rate, or non-completion rate, of Ph.D. students who entered the program with an undergraduate degree should be higher than that of students who had completed a Master's degree.

2. ISSUE: Information to Potential Students. Information needed by potential students on which graduate programs best meet their needs are limited by the student's knowledge of the field. Vast amounts of information are available electronically on the various graduate programs, faculty research interests, the active projects and research groups. In small undergraduate colleges faculty members give guidance to their students narrowing the range of information to be searched. However, ultimately this information becomes useful only when the student has determined the narrow specialization she is interested in. Some undergraduates may be able to make that determination. For the majority, however, such is not the case as their knowledge of the field is limited.

PROPOSITION: Commitment to a narrow specialization and the selection of a graduate program on the basis of that choice are not as essential at the Master's level. Furthermore, the education received at the Master's level can be of great value in selecting the specialization and thus the appropriate program. Both the advanced knowledge and the closer guidance from faculty members during a Master's education increase the probability of making the right choices.

DATA: If this hypothesis is true the relative frequencies of transfers to other programs and changes in specialization or dissertation topic should be lower for students who completed Master's programs than for those who entered Ph.D. programs with undergraduate degrees.

3. ISSUE: Admission Decisions. Standardized tests do not adequately provide the information needed by Graduate Schools and Graduate Programs to make admission decisions. At best, these tests are predictors of success in the first year of graduate school. The reason for this is that the skills tested are those needed for learning existing knowledge. The tests are not designed to evaluate the potential for discovery and innovation.

PROPOSITION: A Research Master's thesis is better than a standardized test in predicting success in a doctoral program. The rationale is clear: the potential for discovery and innovation is usually evident in a thesis. In a study sponsored by the American Council on Education, Dean Snell wrote: ". in deciding whether or not to allow a student to continue graduate study beyond a first or subsequent year, graduate faculties need to base their judgement on the quality of the student's research, writing, and examinations for the master's degree."

DATA: This hypothesis can be evaluated by comparing the correlation between the standardized test scores and the Ph.D. completion rates with the correlation between the successful completion of a Master's thesis and the Ph.D. completion rates. In doing this comparison one should eliminate those cases in which the Master's degree was granted as a matter of course in the process of completing the Doctorate ( the inclusion of these cases would favor acceptance of the hypothesis). Fortunately such cases do not normally entail completion of a Master's thesis.

4. ISSUE: Access for Disadvantaged Groups. Access to graduate education is limited by economic factors. The geographical location of the program and its proximity to the student's residence affect the cost of education

PROPOSITION: Master's education is more accessible to economically disadvantaged groups than Doctoral education. This is not only because of the length of time involved in Doctoral programs, but also because the costs of the first two years of a doctoral program taken at a Master's institution are lower than at a Doctoral institution. Master's education is more geographically dispersed than Doctoral education, and is thus less costly to the student. The rationale is similar to that explaining why economically disadvantaged students tend to complete their first two years of college at a two-year institution (geographically more accessible) and then transfer to a four-year institution.

DATA: If this hypothesis is valid the distribution of graduate students by economic status at the Master's level should show larger percentage of disadvantage students than at the Ph.D. level.

5. ISSUE: Access for Minority Students. Access to graduate education to minority students and first-generation graduate students is limited by social expectations, psychological factors as well as economic conditions. The under-representation of certain minority populations and first-generation students in Doctoral programs is a long-standing issue. New approaches to increase access of these groups to Doctoral education are needed.

PROPOSITION: The influence of social expectations, psychological factors and economic conditions on the decision to pursue graduate education at the Master's level is weaker than their influence on a decision to pursue the Doctorate. Furthermore, once a Master's degree is completed, the effect of those factors on the likelihood of pursuing a Doctorate is weaker than their influence at the start of a graduate education. This proposition has two parts. First, the probability that a promising student from the target groups will pursue a Master's degree rather than a Doctorate is higher than the corresponding probability of a promising student from non-target groups. Secondly, the probability that a student from the target groups will pursue a Doctorate is higher if that student has completed a Master's degree.

DATA: The data needed to test these two hypotheses are: (a) the ratio of enrollment rates of the target groups in Master's programs to enrollment rates in Doctoral programs, compared to the same ratio for non-target groups; (b) the relative distribution of target-groups students enrolled in Doctoral programs with or without first completing a Master's.

6. ISSUE: Graduate Degrees Appropriate for Career Goals. There is a probability that bright undergraduates applying for admission to graduate schools may have not yet firmed up their career goals. Students enrolling directly in Doctoral programs who later decide that their career goals do not require completion of the Doctorate have two options. These are: withdrawing from the doctoral programs and attempting to obtain a Master's degree, or continuing in the Doctoral program because of pressure from faculty or fellow students. Choosing the first option, the student is usually looked upon by colleagues, faculty and by herself as a failure. The Master's degree earned is looked upon as a consolation prize. Choosing the second option is clearly an unwarranted expenditure of resources. The problem is that there is no natural, clearly defined and honorable exit point short of completing the Doctorate

PROPOSITION: Enrollment in a Research Master's program provides the student with a natural, well-defined and honorable exit point should she decide that her career goals are not best served by earning the Doctorate. This clear decision point may also be of value to the students considering interrupting their graduate education for family or financial reasons.

DATA: If the hypothesis is true, the relative frequency of Doctorate holders pursuing careers not requiring their training should be less for those who had completed Master's degrees (with theses) than for those who did not. In addition, the drop-out rates, or non-completion rates, of Doctoral programs that do not require a Master's degree should be higher than in those that do.

7. ISSUE: Cost of Graduate Education. Graduate education is costly, and the cost increases for each successive year of graduate education. The resources, both in terms of faculty time and in research support, increase in successive years. So does the value of income foregone by the student, which is a significant part of the cost of education. The value of resources invested in producing a Ph.D. are clearly justified if the Ph.D. is completed and if the person is then employed in a position requiring such training. The investment over successive years in, and by students who do not complete the doctorate, and those who complete it but pursue careers that do not utilize the training is not justifiable.

PROPOSITION: Considerable resources would be saved, both to the institution and to the individual student by introducing a clear decision point. This is so as the extensive investment required in the last two - three years of Doctoral education will be made in, and by only those with very high probability of completion of the Doctorate and of pursuing careers that utilize it.

DATA: Under this hypothesis the average cost of producing a Ph.D. in programs that require completion of a Research Master's should be significantly lower than the cost in programs, in the same discipline, that do not require the Master's.

8. ISSUE: Financial Support. Financial support for graduate students is limited. The number of students admitted to graduate programs is, in many institutions, determined by the institution's ability to guarantee support to admitted students for the number of years needed to complete the Ph.D. The commitments made to students who decide not to complete the degree can be re-allocated to new students. The value of this re-allocation is dependent on the timing of the student's decision not to continue, and whether he makes that decision explicit or simply fails to complete the degree.

PROPOSITION: If students are first admitted as Master's students, financial support can be guaranteed for two - three years, depending on the field. Support for the next two-three years would be conditional on successful completion of the Master's thesis and decision to continue for the Ph.D. The effect of this is to reduce the uncertainty regarding financial resources available to make new commitments, as well as to use the amounts available efficiently.

DATA: Institutional data on financial aid used to support students who did not complete the Ph.D., less the amount that was needed to support their first two-three years of graduate education would provide an estimate of the resources that could have been used to support new students. Under the hypothesis this amount is significant.

9. ISSUE: Time to Degree. It may be argued that having the Master's and the Doctorate as sequential degrees rather than simultaneous or combined degrees may affect the length of time needed to earn the Doctorate.

PROPOSITION: Clearly separating the Master's and the Ph.D. degrees and making them sequential rather than combined will not lengthen the time to degree. There may even be time savings as those who completed a thesis may be more likely to start their doctoral research without lengthy search for a dissertation topic. A Ph.D. program is usually divided into two distinct stages: the training stage and the research stage. Completion of the first stage is usually clearly demarcated by success in a series of Comprehensive examinations, and in some cases the successful defense of a research proposal. In the second stage the only requirement is the successful completion and defense of original research that makes a contribution to knowledge in the field. As such, it is hard to imagine savings in the research stage that could result from combining the two stages. Over 35 years ago Dean Snell wrote: " A carefully planned master's program need not unduly delay the progress of an able graduate student towards the Ph.D."

DATA: Data on time elapsed from admission to the graduate program to earning the Ph.D. for the two groups: those who completed a Master's thesis and those who did not, should show no significant difference.

A PROPOSAL:

In many countries completion of a Master's degree and the successful defense of a Master's thesis are required for admission to the Ph.D. program. The Master's stage is when a graduate student is trained in both the general and the more specialized state of knowledge in the field. It is the stage where the necessary research techniques are acquired. The comprehensive examinations demonstrate the student's mastery in the field, and the thesis demonstrates her ability to apply the research techniques specific to that field. Having established both, the student is ready to start the research phase, an undertaking that would require building upon what exists in order to add to knowledge. Indeed, up to the 1960's this was the structure of much of the graduate education in the United States. In a recent CGS sponsored study of the Master's education the authors write: "The number of students in master's programs in the liberal arts and sciences grew steadily after World War II, partly because the majority of the nation's doctoral programs required a master's degree for entry."

I have argued that it is possible to show empirically that a return to that structure, separating the Master's and the Ph.D. degrees and making them sequential will have a number of desirable effects. It would provide better information to both the graduate school and the student. It would increase access to minorities, disadvantaged and first-generation graduate students to Doctoral education. It would allow for a better fit between the degrees granted and those needed for career objectives. It would reduce the cost of doctoral education and increase the effectiveness of available financial aid. Even if only some, not all, of these effects can be empirically validated, the conclusion still holds: A RETURN TO THE MASTER'S as a requirement for admission to Doctoral programs is desirable.

There are three additional reasons that support the adoption of the proposed structure. First, implementation is quite easy and does not involve cost. Second, the change can be implemented by individual institutions, it need not occur universally. Thirdly, the change is easily reversible.

I would like to end by pointing out that the conclusion I have drawn, and the proposal I am advocating are identical to those made 32 years ago by Stephen Spurr, Dean of the School of Graduate Studies at the University of Michigan. Dean Spurr wrote:

"Looking at the master's degree as a whole, it is our belief that the fatal flaw in our present usage is that the master's degree may be bypassed en route to the doctorate, and that as a result, the master's degree is somehow relegated to second-class or consolation-prize status. It is the first graduate degree and represents a significantly higher stage of accomplishment than the baccalaureate. It should be highly respectable. It can be made so, however, only if it is required of everyone.Upon completion of the baccalaureate, therefore, all students should be admitted only as candidates for the master's degree. No student would be admitted at this time directly to the doctoral program.As a result the Master's degree would become a required and necessary stepping stone en route to the doctorate. The fact that all students would be admitted only as candidates for the master's and must earn this degree means that the master's degree would always mark successful forward progress. It would, therefore, provide an appropriate stopping place for those who choose not to go further."

______________________________

[1] A former Graduate Dean at the University of Michigan wrote: " It is a curious fact that the faculties on many campuses underrate the importance of the master's degree. At Michigan, for example, many of the faculty think that they are primarily concerned with the Ph.D. program even though their departments produce several times as many master's as doctor's year after year." Stephen H. Spurr, Academic Degree Structures: Innovative Approaches, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, !970, p. 67.

[2] Source: NCES data as quoted in the Communicator, November 2001, p. 7

[3] John L. Snell, "The Master's Degree" in Graduate Education Today, Everett Walters ed., American Council on Education, Washington, D.C., 1965, pp. 81-2.

[4] Clifton Conrad, Jennifer Grant Haworth, and Susan Bolyard Miller, A Silent Success: Master's Education in the United States, The johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London,1993, p. 11.

[5] Actually, this should have been the title of the talk. However, Return OF the Maters sounds more interesting!

[6] Stephen H. Spurr, Academic Degree Structures: Innovative Approaches, The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1970, p. 80.

<< WAGS home