Hi Mike,
Your new Ed.D. sounds very interesting. We have offered both the Ed.D.
and Ph.D. for years with the putative reason being that the Ed.D was to
be a practitioners degree, as it seems yours is. Those who wanted to do
"hard science" were encouraged to do a Ph.D. To this day, I think, the
Ph.D. carries more credibility in some circles than the Ed.D. The REAL
reason for offering the Ed.D., however, was that the School of Education
controls the rules for it while the Graduate School controls the Ph.D.
The Graduate School holds on to rules that many of us consider
impractical for a professional school such as a requirement for full
time residency, time limits on the courses that can count for the
degree, fellowship requirements that favor particular patterns of
scholarship and so on.
I agree with what I hear you saying that we must greatly broaden the
varieties of doctoral training we provide to accommodates the needs of
our fields of application rather than assuming that a particular form of
classical training will automatically apply.
So would it be helpful to analyze the goal of obtaining a doctorate
and/or training the next generation of doctorate level professional and
explore the tensions and contradictions?
Don Cunningham
Indiana University
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Cole [mailto:mcole@weber.ucsd.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 12:37 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: CHAT and doctoral education
Your query comes at a good time, Don, at least for me.
Here at UCSD we are, for external political reasons unfortunately,
and without a school of ed, starting an EDD in Learning and Development
that will be oriented to current practitioners with masters degrees
who will be doing individualized research for theses based on their
local practices or some problem that grows out of them. There is a
description at the ucsd/tep web-page which I can try to locate if you
can't hit it in 30 secs by starting at www.ucsd.edu.
I thought it very telling that in his discussion in recent ed researcher
that Slavin (I think) said that his ed psych text was useless to
teachers
(this was in context of new "science based evidence" debate). We have
been arguing for about 30 years now that there are deep reasons for
the irrlevance of AERA-style ed psych for teachers, so coming from
a positivistic leader this was quite a statement.
I mention this because maybe the carnegie initiative and discussion
around it is of special relevance not only here at UCSD, but perhaps
more generally.
Silence on xmca is highly correlated with the rich, generous, and
highly educational discourse on the xmca course. I am a little surprised
that this has become an either/or thing because there is only partial
overlap between participation in the two endeavors. The whole matter
is certainly grist for someone's phd thesis.
Thanks again for the interesting initiative.
mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 01 2003 - 01:00:07 PST