Ed.D. vs PhD?

[dcdaria]

Hi all,

New here! I assumed this topic would've been well-tread, but I couldn't seem to find much with my search, so hopefully this will be useful for the next person too.

 

I've been struggling for a while now with whether to go for an Ed.D. or a PhD. I have 10 years of experience in higher ed (records and registration), but I'd like to be more involved eventually at the curricular level (e.g., program director or assistant provost). I'm happy to do research, but it's just not my ultimate goal. However, the PhD seems appealing over the Ed.D. for a few reasons - primarily that tuition would be covered and it seems like it'd be a better credential to go the academic administrator route.

 

I guess my primary questions are:

1) I know I have a *chance* with an Ed.D., but will job hunting on the academic side be a big struggle without a PhD?

2) Would an Ed.D. from a top school and/or my experience be enough to overcome that or is the credential just going to be viewed as inferior no matter what? and

3) would schools frown upon me applying to both programs?

 

Stats for reference:

V 168, Q 157, AW 4.5

UGPA 3.25, Grad GPA 3.89 (MS in Higher Ed)

 

Thanks for your help all! I hope I can reciprocate in the rest of the forum about Master's degrees and working in higher ed!

*edited for clarity

Edited October 18, 2013 by dcdaria

[ZeChocMoose]

There are a bunch of these discussions on the Chronicle forum.  Generally, consensus seems to be that an EdD is not as valued as much as the PhD.  Not sure if this sentiment changes depending on the education subfield, but I would say that this is generally true in the field of higher ed.  

 

But more important than if you pursue a PhD or an EdD - I notice that you never discuss what you specifically want to study.  Is it higher ed?  Is it educ leadership? Is it another education subfield?  This is arguable the most important item in selecting which schools that you are going to apply to.  If the program doesn't have professors teaching and researching on topics that you want to pursue, it is not going to matter whether their program is a PhD or a EdD.

 

Once you narrow your set of schools depending on your interest areas AND if these schools are a mix of PhD and EdDs programs, then I would start doing the PhD v. EdD comparison.  Right now, you are asking the questions out of order and it is too difficult to compare theoretical nebulous PhD program v. theoretical nebulous EdD program. 

[dcdaria]

Thanks! Sorry, I thought that studying Higher Ed was implied but maybe not. I'm actually less concerned with the title of the major and more with learning about how to teach, HE finance, curriculum planning, gender, and adult education. I seem to be able to get that mostly in HE programs. I can't tell you what I'd like to research, because I don't know.

I've only really looked at PhD programs at this point but I really like Michigan State and Ohio State, and would obviously consider Penn and Harvard if I could get in. Temple was up there because it's very convenient for me in terms of arranging my life, but not sure the program is for me.

I'll check out the Chronicle forums too, thanks!

Edited October 18, 2013 by dcdaria

[iphi]

Many people who are already administrators go for EdD, since their experience "makes up" for the focus they would have in a PhD. If you don't want to do research (and you should really WANT to do research if you go for a PhD) an EdD sounds like a better choice for you. Also something to consider is that PhD programs are usually full-time, meaning you can not keep another job while you get your degree, whereas EdD is usually geared toward educators and can fit around a teacher/administrator schedule (evening and weekend classes).

 

All in all based on the brief description you gave us I would say go for an EdD. Can you give more information about your ultimate career goals? A position title, for example? Also, is your current employer willing to pay for your education - or is that not a factor that you're considering at all?

[dcdaria]

Thanks for the response! As I said, I'm thinking of going more of the academic affairs route in terms of a lower provost or program director. My understanding of these positions is that they require faculty experience, and that takes, seemingly, a PhD. Ideally I'd like to gain my faculty experience through non-tenure track, partially administrative positions, but I'm still doing some research into whether being "lite faculty" will even count on that sort of career path.

 

I can only get tuition remission if I do the programs at my school, which I don't feel are a good fit for me.

 

I definitely understand the differences involved in getting the degrees, and their intended focus, I guess at this point I'm trying to nail down what I'll be shut out of with "only" an Ed.D.

[iphi]

Hm, I'm not sure I know enough about it. It seems strange that one could be a faculty member while performing administrative duties, but I really don't know much about higher ed other than what I've observed as a student!

 

Can you talk to one of your coworkers/people who have attained these positions already to get their take on it? Or look around online at different institutions to see what their credentials are? I know that EdD graduates can and do get faculty positions, if that helps. Just not at the same rate because their goals going in are usually different.

[ZeChocMoose]

I can't tell you what I'd like to research, because I don't know.

 

I wouldn't apply to programs until I could answer this question.  It is essential and basically determines your fit with the program and who you would like to advise you. The areas that you cited - HE finance, gender, curriculum planning, adult education are really all over the map.  I would at first start reading recent journal articles in these subareas to see whether you are truly interested in them.  I honestly don't know how you would really tackle all these subfields in one program as finance would require you to learn economics - maybe some political science and policy whereas curriculum planning would require you to learn more about learning and development, organizational structures (perhaps), and pedagogy.  That is a tall order - and we haven't tackled gender or adult education yet.  

 

It's okay to be sorta unsure now while you are in exploring stages - but in order to write a convincing SOP you need to present a more narrow, coherent focus on what you want to research and how this meets your career goals.

 

As I said, I'm thinking of going more of the academic affairs route in terms of a lower provost or program director. My understanding of these positions is that they require faculty experience, and that takes, seemingly, a PhD. Ideally I'd like to gain my faculty experience through non-tenure track, partially administrative positions, but I'm still doing some research into whether being "lite faculty" will even count on that sort of career path.

 

This path seems extremely unusual to me.  Non tenured track faculty generally do not have the option to be academic administrators (i.e. deans, provosts, etc).  Usually, you need to gain tenure and then you work your way up from dept chair to dean to perhaps a VP or a provost title - but you need to be a tenured faculty member first.  

 

The only exception to this that I have seen is there are some administrative positions such as the director of undergraduate academic advising of either a college (within a university) or maybe a specific department if it is large enough.  Those individuals didn't start as faculty members though.  They worked their way up by being professional academic advisors and then over a decade or so of gaining more and more supervisory experience they might land that type of position.  Is this what you are thinking about?

Edited October 18, 2013 by ZeChocMoose

[dcdaria]

I'm probably being confusing - likely because I'm confused myself! The areas I mentioned are not necessarily research areas for me, just areas I'd like the program I choose to have some coursework in. A basic understanding of departmental budgeting is a huge gap in my qualifications right now. I am trying to find others to speak to (emailed the associate provost for a meeting) - a partial roadblock with that is that I work in a professional school, where the credentials needed are very different, so they can't tell me much. Also, I've looked at job descriptions in the past, but I had been looking with the assumption that a doctorate was a doctorate and had no idea (until the last few months, when I've not had as much time to research) the Ed.D. had such a stigma. And they won't distinguish between tenured and non-tenured teaching experience really in most job descriptions.

 

Anyhow, enough excuses! I agree I need to figure out what to research to be able to apply, and my plan is to look over some journals when I can to put together my disconnected ideas. I guess what I need to start doing when I ask for advice is strip out the confusion and just say:

"I'm a college-level registrar with no teaching experience. I want to be an academic provost. What do I need to do?"

 

Thanks so much for your help so far!

[hesadork]

I'm in agreement with ZeChocMoose on this thread but would add a few other thoughts.

 

In general, people with PhDs in Higher Education go on to teach graduate students in schools of education and/or to conduct research/engage in policy work on higher ed subjects.  In general, people with EdDs in Higher Education are career administrators, who may conduct research but usually only as a part of their day jobs.  (Major caveat:  some of the most elite institutions -- like Columbia/TC, or Harvard prior to this cycle -- only award the EdD in higher ed.  At these institutions the question of PhD vs EdD is can be pretty meaningless.)

 

While you're correct that people in senior positions within the academic affairs hierarchy (e.g., Presidents, Provosts, deans) have PhDs, these folks tend to come out of faculty roles in 'traditional' academic disciplines (like English or Biology or Political Science).  Their PhDs generally are NOT in an education related field.  That's more commonly the case as you ascend the hierarchy of an institution.  (Again, caveat:  leadership/senior administration in schools of education are much likelier to have doctorates in ed.)

 

All of that said, I have a close friend who has an EdD in ed policy (from a grad school of education that only grants EdDs) who is a full-time researcher at a major think tank.  And I have a close colleague who has a PhD in higher ed (from a grad school of education that grants both degrees) who is a mid-level academic affairs administrator.  So none of the above generalizations are hard and fast rules.

 

For me it comes down to this -- the PhD is the right choice if and only if you have a burning desire to conduct original research at a very high level.  If what you really want to do is be an administrator, focus on pursuing an EdD.  Plenty of universities have tuition remission programs for their employees that could make an EdD very affordable (if not free).

Edited October 20, 2013 by hesadork

[ZeChocMoose]

For me it comes down to this -- the PhD is the right choice if and only if you have a burning desire to conduct original research at a very high level.  

 

This x 100.  This cannot be stressed enough.  PhDs are not useful degrees unless you are going to conduct research.  In general, PhDs are not set up to train you in practical administrative skills such as managing direct reports or balancing a budget or coming up with long term goals for your department.  You might be able to gain these skills in your assistantship depending on where you work, but a PhD curriculum focuses on being able to consume and conduct research.   

 

It does sound like you are more interested in learning administrative skills - so an EdD would probably be aligned better with your career goals. 

[AdjunctOverload]

Nowadays there is less distinction between the coursework of a Ph.D. and an Ed.D. in higher education. (However, there is still the perception that the Ph.D. is more valuable -- as others have mentioned, this depends on your goals).

 

If you want to teach higher education administration (or leadership or some closely related subfield), get a Ph.D. in higher ed.

 

If you want to be an administrator (president, VP, provost, dean, director, etc.), get either a Ph.D. or an Ed.D.

 

I know of some faculty teaching in the higher education field with an Ed.D.; however, getting a teaching position with an Ed.D. appears to be more difficult (even with extensive prior postsecondary teaching experience).  Please note that very few higher education field teaching positions become available each year, so there's quite a bit of competition.  Recently, many of those postings are part time or contract/contingent positions, which makes earning a living or having much job security difficult.

 

I'm pursuing an Ed.D. right now because of location restraints (otherwise, I'd probably be going for a Ph.D.).  Some states have very few Ph.D. programs in higher ed -- my state has only one school with a Ph.D. program but several with Ed.D. programs.

 

Please note that many Ed.D. programs expect/require you to already have experience working in higher education.  My program does, so all students are either already gainfully employed faculty members, directors, or deans at various institutions. The only exceptions are four Fulbright scholars who are employed as graduate assistants in other areas of the university--MBA office, registration, etc.

 

You also mentioned a desire to teach part time (adjuncts and contingent faculty are the only "faculty lite" positions that I know of).  Most administrators don't teach on a regular basis (for the schools that employ them as administrators) unless they are department chairs.  Some adjunct on the side at other institutions, some pick up a course at their institutions if they can and the schools allow it, but most just work as administrators -- there's enough stress, expectations, and time crunching as it is.

 

Also, depending on the Ed.D. program, you may be doing the same level of research as Ph.D.s (as is my case -- but I wouldn't have it any other way).  Some Ed.D. programs have less emphasis on original research, allowing students to complete case studies on specific institutions rather than a full blown qualitative or quantitative dissertation.

[Vincient]

I am currently in an Ed.D. Program with an emphasis in adult education. Like me, many of the students in my class are in medical or clinical occupations (nursing, dietetics, physical therapy, etc.). The Ed.D. has helped me be a better patient educator and manager. It's not just a degree for people in education, it's a degree to help people in all fields be better educators. Patient education is a vital constituent of any medical therapy. There are many intelligent people in the medical center where I work who know nothing about learning theories or teaching methods. Their patients suffer because of that lack of knowledge on the part of their providers.

The following US government website list degrees which are equivalent to a Ph.D :

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/doctorate.doc

This shows the Ed.D. as an equivalent degree to the Ph.D. The website also shows many others which are Ph.D equivalents.