The Meaning of the Ph.D. Degree: A Tribute to an Ideal
rT HE article by Ralph P. Rosenberg in a recent issue of this journal gives us an excellent picture of the beginnings of doctoral work at Yale University in i86i.1 A detailed analysis of what has happened since that date is to be found in the comprehensive volume by Bernard Berelson, Graduate Education in the United States.2 Mr. Berelson has written with such insight and understanding and has expressed himself so effectively that any attempt to repeat this story seems quite superfluous. Rather, in this short article I will discuss the meaning of the Ph.D. degree as it is now and may be in the future. By so doing, I hope to give the reader a better understanding of some of the issues in the debate with regard to the character of the program leading to this degree. Often the participants in the discussion suspect that they are misunderstood, or are suspicious that their words are not even heard, and the result is a stalemate. The explanation of this frustration is that graduate schools, and especially deans of graduate schools, have one ideaoften a rather definite one-concerning the meaning of a Ph.D. program, whereas those who wish to change the program have quite different objectives and frequently are unaware of the basic assumptions that motivate the administration of graduate work. We may expect that these arguments will increase in frequency and sharpness as the number of students in graduate schools becomes greater and as the types of employment undertaken by those with a Doctor's degree grow more varied. Suggestions for change come not only from college presidents who employ degree-holders for purely teaching purposes, but also from faculty members in universities, students, government agencies, and industry. Another reason for stressing the meaning of a doctoral program is to help us remember its important and vital features as we attempt to adapt our universities to a rapidly changing society. I will not attempt in this brief article to analyze in detail the arguments for changing the Ph.D. degree or the criticisms of it. Any one of these could well be the subject of an entire paper. Rather, it would seem