Should Cal State campuses be allowed to award doctoral degrees,
or should that right remain reserved for the University of
California? Ultimately it’s a cost and access question, and
California must weigh its ability to pay for new programs against
the state’s needs for an educated and competitive work
force.
The 1960 California Master Plan for Higher Education prohibits
Cal State campuses from offering doctoral degrees unless the degree
is offered as a joint program with the UC.
Forty-five years later, that restriction seems unnecessary,
especially in an era where the University of Phoenix offers
doctoral degrees via the Internet.
Proponents of an expanded and independent Cal State introduced
S.B. 724, a bill that would allow Cal State campuses to award about
20 doctoral degrees in such fields as educational leadership,
audiology and physical therapy.
None of the programs would award a doctor of philosophy degree
(Ph.D), nor are they designed to train university faculty or
researchers. Instead, these degrees are meant to produce certified
professionals who will become principals, medical practitioners and
business managers. And with 23 campuses, the Cal State system could
generate a lot of these degrees.
But both Cal State and the UC Office of the President say there
are no estimates of how much S.B. 724 could cost taxpayers.
The potential costs of the new degree programs are significant.
From professorial salaries to financial aid funding, independently
offering doctoral degrees at Cal State campuses could become very
expensive as more and more students enroll.
Former UC President Clark Kerr wrote in 2001 opposing Cal State
doctoral programs. He worried that allowing Cal States to award
even a few would result in “mission creep” and
eventually lead to unnecessary competition with the UC.
“Pressure will inevitably mount to extend this authority to
other fields as well,” he wrote.
He also noted that there was “a national Ph.D. surplus in
many fields” in the years following 1960 and suggested that
more doctorates may not be necessary.
Kerr’s concerns raise important questions: For example,
are principals with a doctor of education really better than
principals with a master’s degree? And why is the
certification board of audiologists now requiring a doctor of
audiology instead of the traditional master’s degree? A
related issue is degree inflation: Everyone thinks a fancy title
will get them better jobs, higher pay, more respect. So a
master’s looks less appealing when you can have a
doctorate.
As a new breed of doctoral degrees emerges, the UC may not have
the resources or desire to maintain its authority. The landscape of
advanced degrees is certainly changing ““ but S.B. 724
isn’t the solution. It’s too narrow and abrupt of a
change for a serious problem.
A partnership between the UC and CSU is already offering 21
different doctoral degrees and expanded collaboration is a partial
solution, but a comprehensive and collective review of the Master
Plan is the only permanent fix.