From THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION Daily News

Tuesday, January 16, 2001

  Survey Points to Mismatch Between Ph.D. Students, Their

  Programs, and Their Potential Employers

  By SCOTT SMALLWOOD

 

  

 

  The training that  Ph.D. students receive isn't what many of

  them want, nor does it prepare them for the jobs they

  eventually take, according to a survey released today.   But

  the survey, sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts, also found

  that nearly all of the students were satisfied with their

  decision to attend graduate school, and more than half

  wouldn't change their adviser or their dissertation topic.

 

  Many of their complaints centered on the particulars of their

  education -- from a lack of career advice to unclear

  requirements. Chris  M. Golde, a researcher at the University

  of Wisconsin at Madison, directed the survey of more than

  4,000 doctoral students at 27 universities. She found a

  "three-way mismatch" among the purpose of doctoral education,

  the aspirations of students, and the realities of their

  careers.

 

  A report based on the survey's findings, "At Cross Purposes:

  What the Experiences of Today's Doctoral Students Reveal about

  Doctoral Education," is available on the Web

  (http://www.phd-survey.org).

 

  Two-thirds of the Ph.D. students surveyed said they definitely

  wanted to become full-time, tenure-track faculty members,

  while a quarter of them said they may be interested in such

  posts  -- even though in most fields no more than half of the

  students will ever realize that goal. At the same time, more

  than half of the students said they're not prepared for the

  various activities that most faculty members spend their time

  doing, especially teaching.

 

  The final part of the mismatch is that students are less able

  to learn about nonacademic careers and are often not

  encouraged to explore such options. "A lot of departments

  unwittingly participate in making faculty look like the only

  option," Ms. Golde said. "Look at their literature. It says,

  'Some of our more illustrious alumni are at Wisconsin,

  Harvard, Yale and Princeton.' Not, 'Of our last 30 graduates,

  here are the 30 things they are doing.' No wonder incoming

  students are not realistic. Of course, how much of that is

  being misinformed, and how much is being 22 and being

  invincible?"

 

  John V. Lombardi, a professor of history at the University of

  Florida, agrees that there is a mismatch between Ph.D.

  training, the expectations of doctoral students, and the

  academic job market. "We have one degree that has a purpose,

  and we have a whole bunch of jobs where people ask for the

  degree," he said.   "So you've got a mismatch in what they

  want in a credential and the skills they want to have."

 

  But Mr. Lombardi, who previously served as president of the

  University of Florida, has been an outspoken critic of turning

  faculty members into career-placement gurus. "They're not

  experts in how to place Ph.D.'s in banking, but it's not clear

  that that's the responsibility of the Ph.D. program."

  Instead, he suggested creating different types of graduate

  degrees and programs that don't focus so heavily on research.

 

  Robert Weisbuch, the president of the Woodrow Wilson National

  Fellowship Foundation, said he believes that most faculty

  members are open to change and willing to think about

  opportunities for their graduate students beyond academe. The

  survey, he said, will give them hard data to consider."I think

  it's a kind of an alert in that it provides some evidence of

  how it feels to students," Mr. Weisbuch said of the survey.

  "It's not the ultimate bottom line. It's an important

  perspective, but it's not the only perspective."

 

  The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation has been a

  strong proponent of encouraging academics, especially in the

  humanities, to consider opportunities beyond academe. Such a

  shift would help more than just graduate students, Mr.

  Weisbuch said.  "This isn't just an issue of, Isn't it too bad

  graduate students aren't given information that would help

  them?" he said.  "It's about what the culture is losing from

  not taking advantage of these graduates."

 

  Also highlighted in the survey was the widely held student

  perception that doctoral education is "unnecessarily

  mysterious," said Ms. Golde. Some are unclear about how their

  course work applies, how much time they will spend with their

  adviser, or who will pay for their dissertation work.

 

  Less than half of the students, who were all in at least their

  third year of graduate school, reported that the criteria for

  earning a doctorate were "very clear" to them. And that number

  was even lower in some disciplines. For instance, just one of

  every four chemistry students said the requirements were very

  clear to them. At the same time, Ms. Golde stresses in the

  report, students have to take responsibility for their own

  education. That means asking specific questions and demanding

  clear expectations.

 

  Debra Stewart, the president of the Council of Graduate

  Schools, said she was heartened by the report because many of

  the ideas in it are part of a "quiet revolution" in graduate

  schools across the nation. "Graduate deans recognized these

  issues, and many of them across the country are stepping up to

  that challenge," Ms. Stewart said.

 

  She pointed out that for the last decade graduate schools have

  been trying to confront worries that not enough attention was

  being given to preparing students for all the jobs faculty

  members must perform, especially teaching. Preparing Future

  Faculty, an effort sponsored in part by the Council of

  Graduate Schools, now includes 295 institutions and offers

  doctoral students a chance to observe faculty responsibilities

  at a variety of academic settings.

 

  Ana Marie Cox contributed to this article.

 

_________________________________________________________________