Opinion article: An alternative to ABD

[lewin]

Apologies if this has been posted already--I did a search but nothing was forthcoming.

 

Food for thought for graduate students since 10-year PhD completion rates are 50-65% depending on discipline: "Higher ed should create an alternative to ABD"

 

Instead of casting ABDs out into the wilderness, universities should welcome them into the fold. I propose that ABDs be granted terminal degree status (albeit a status below that of the Ph.D.). Granting a Certificate of Doctoral Completion (CDC) would formally recognize the ABD as an academic degree for those who have completed all course work up to the doctoral level. Holding a CDC would provide the opportunity for students to attain a Ph.D. if they elect to complete the full doctoral process.

 

 

Personally "certificate of doctoral completion" seems like a misnomer to me since we already have a doctoral completion degree: the PhD. This would be a consolation prize for INcompletion. I don't know about other places, but my program was direct-entry PhD and people who don't complete are often awarded an MA instead. 

 

 

No one runs the Boston Marathon with the intention of dropping out in the final mile. Similarly, no one enters a Ph.D. program with the intention of becoming ABD.

 

...but runners who drop out in the final mile also don't get an official time, nor undergraduates who lack that final course.

 

 

 

[victorydance]

There is definitely something wrong with the current attrition rates for Ph.D. students, but not sure if this is something that solves anything. Seems rather pointless actually.

[Eigen]

IMO, there is a terminal degree for someone who is ABD: a masters.

At least in my field, that which distinguishes the PhD from an MS is the dissertation. So being ABD is pretty much having an MS and some extra work experience.

[victorydance]

^ It is the same way for most field as well, depending on the program you enter.

[fuzzylogician]

A terminal degree at this stage should be a Masters. I don't see why we need a new terminal degree here. It's true that in case this degree isn't currently offered--that is, programs where you either get a PhD or you leave with nothing--maybe it should be. Even if you didn't finish the PhD dissertation, going through all of the coursework still means you earned an education and it should be recognized. At my program students who can't finish their PhD for whatever reason can get a terminal MA, if they complete a certain amount of coursework and write a thesis-length paper--which every student should already have if they are ABD (we write two such papers before the dissertation). What I'm sure many programs would hate to have happen is for students to take this as an easy route to a funded MA. That's why, at least in my program, this terminal MA option is not official but rather happens only in exceptional cases.

[Vene]

IMO, there is a terminal degree for someone who is ABD: a masters.

At least in my field, that which distinguishes the PhD from an MS is the dissertation. So being ABD is pretty much having an MS and some extra work experience.

That's kind of what I was thinking.

 

Besides, adding in a new degree level just adds more complexity to already complex system. And good luck explaining on your resume what a CDC is.

[RunnerGrad]

In Canada, a master's degree is required for admission to most (not all, but most) PhD programs, and those master's typically involve a thesis.  So what would people who end up ABD for their PhD in Canada get?  Another master's?  If that's in the same field, it seems rather, well, redundant.

 

For example, I can't apply to the PhD program at my undergraduate university in my discipline unless I complete an MSc, with thesis.  A "professional" master's degree doesn't count.  It has to be a research master's that includes a master's thesis.

Edited August 13, 2014 by RunnerGrad

[TakeruK]

I was thinking about the Canadian case too. 

But, in my field in the US, the MS degree is for completion of course requirements. "ABD" to me, means someone who has finished significant amount of the research towards their dissertation but has not written it up yet. That is, someone who finishes 5 or 6 years of grad school and would require another year to actually defend but cannot do so or chooses not to do so for whatever reasons (e.g. run out of funding, need more income to support family, lost interest in the field, etc.) If they leave at this point, they only get the MS that they received back in year 2. 

 

However, I'm not 100% certain that anything needs to be done. For people that I know in this situation (i.e. leaving the program after 5-6 years, at "ABD" status), they enter the job market with their MS/MSc and refer to the last 3-4 years of their PhD as work experience, instead of education. Sure, you still have to explain why you left the PhD program, but with proper "marketing" of your experience and skills, you can portray yourself to an employer as a MS graduate with several years of work experience. I am not sure a special degree status needs to be implemented since "MS + 3-4 years of work" sounds just fine to me.

 

Finally, I don't think attrition rates of 50%-60% are necessarily a bad thing. Again, citing Canada's example where we do a 2 years Masters then a 3-4 year PhD, I would say that almost half of graduate students choose to stop after their Masters because they find that academia/grad school/PhD is not what they want to do in life. I think this is fine and the good thing about the separate degree programs is that graduate students make the choice to do a PhD after 2 years of grad school, where they might have more information about what to do with their life. In the direct-entry PhD scheme, you commit to 5-6 or more years right after your undergrad and without sampling what grad school is like first. The people who quit might do so after 3 or 4 years, which is a waste of 1-2 years! 

[bsharpe269]

 

Finally, I don't think attrition rates of 50%-60% are necessarily a bad thing. Again, citing Canada's example where we do a 2 years Masters then a 3-4 year PhD, I would say that almost half of graduate students choose to stop after their Masters because they find that academia/grad school/PhD is not what they want to do in life. I think this is fine and the good thing about the separate degree programs is that graduate students make the choice to do a PhD after 2 years of grad school, where they might have more information about what to do with their life. In the direct-entry PhD scheme, you commit to 5-6 or more years right after your undergrad and without sampling what grad school is like first. The people who quit might do so after 3 or 4 years, which is a waste of 1-2 years! 

 

I completely agree that this is a great system. I am in US but am doing a masters first just due to timing and location (my fiance couldn't move yet) and also to make up for average/iffy undergrad grades. I have learned SO much and never would have been ready to commit to a research area before my MS. This isnt due to lack of undergrad research experience either... I had a 1.5 year project, a 1 year long project, an REU at a top school, and 5 years lab tech experience. Even after this, the amount that I have learned as a MS student is incredible and my research interests have evolved so much. I would have chosen the wrong schools and wrong advisors straight out of undergrad!