|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 93
PAST AS PROLOGUE
If the preparation of college teachers and the national
distribution of graduate study are the two major issues in
graduate education today, then the duration of doctoral study is
probably the third. The critics who fear that the system is
going to turn out too few doctorates in the years ahead, those
who believe that the whole emphasis on research is wrong,
those who think that the degree has fallen off from traditional
standards, even those who want things added all of them are
concerned about the lengthy period of doctoral study. There is
hardly a recent discussion of graduate education in which this
note is not played loud and strong.
(Berelson, 1960:1563
What Has Happened to Time to the Doctorate?
Total Time to the Doctorate
Despite ample evidence that t~1 l) has been increasing for years, public
attention to the question of how long it should take to complete the doctorate
has diminished. The extent of the change in TTD between 1960 and the present
is highlighted by a comparison of Berelson's data with data from this study
(Table 7.1~. If current trends persist, it will take even longer for doctorates to
complete their degrees in the future. This is an important conclusion because it
suggests that the question of whether doctoral preparation could, or should, be
expedited may again become a matter of great interest.
Unfortunately, Berelson lacked the data to study long-term changes in
RTD. His study used data from only one year and focused on the difference
between these two variables and I-lL). It found that RTD was lower than ells in
93
OCR for page 94
TABLE 7.1: Median Total Time to die Doctorate Over Time
Berelson Doctorate Records File
Aggregated Field 1936 1957 1967 1977 1987 1997
Physical Sciences 6 6 5.9 6.9 7.1 7.5
Biological Sciences 6 7 6.7 6.9 8.0 8.4
Social Sciences 8 8 7.6 7.9 10.4 11.2
NOTE: The figures for 1997 are estimated using a simple time-end model.
each of eight fields under study.l7 Of particular note, according to Berelson, was
the fact that the time differences among fields were small when actual time to the
doctorate was considered.l8 He concluded that "the problem is not how much
time a student should spend in working on his degree, but rather over how long a
period of time he should do it" (Berelson, 1960:162~.
Registered Time to the Doctorate
Because RTD data are available for both 1967 and 1986, it is possible
to look at RTD over time. In all 11 fields, it increased, sometimes by a large
-amount. In seven fields, RTD increased more than TTD between 1967 and
1986. For example, RTD rose by 49 percent in the social sciences, compared to
a 22-percent increase in TTD; in economics, the comparable figures were 37
percent and 4 percent; in earth, atmospheric, and marine sciences, 28 percent and
14 percent; and in agricultural sciences, 22 percent and 8 percent. In three fields,
RTD and TTD increased by a similar percentage: about 28 percent in
psychology; 13 percent in physics; and 29 percent in math and computer
sciences. Only in the health sciences did the change in l-l L) (27 percent) greatly
exceed the change in RID (14 percent) between 1967 and 1986. These findings
suggest that, with the exception of one field, the major source of increasing 11D
was a "stretching-out" of the time spent registered in graduate school
17 These fields are physical sciences, biosciences, social sciences, humanities,
engineering, education, arts and sciences, and professional fields.
18 The lowest median actual time was in education (2.8 years) and the highest
was in social sciences (3.7 years).
94
OCR for page 95
The differences among fields in RTD described by Berelson can be
examined for more recent years using data from the DRF. For both 1967 and
1986, the difference in median RTDs across fields is less than the difference in
median TTDs, affirming Berelson's findings.
The range in TTD between the high and low fields increased 1.9 years
from 1967 to 1986. The lowest mean TTD in 1967 was 6.4 years (for
chemistry) and the highest was 10.6 years (for the social sciences). The range
between the low and high fields, therefore, was 4.2 years. In 1986 the field with
the lowest mean (7.2 years) was again chemistry, but the field with the highest
mean was health sciences (13.3 years). In this case the difference between the
two fields was 6.1 years.
The range in RTD also grew between 1967 and 1986, but that growth
was less than that experienced by TTD. In 1967, chemistry had the low mean
RTD (5.0 years) and health sciences had the high mean (6.5 years). The range
between the two is 1.5 years. In 1986, the low field was still chemistry with a
mean RTD of 5.8 years; the high field was psychology, with a mean of 7.5
years. The difference between the two fields is 1.7 years, compared to 6.1 years
using the TTD measure, and the range between high and low fields for RTD
grew by 0.2 years from 1967 to 1986, far less than the 1.9 year growth observed
using 'l-lL).
Thus, although Berelson found that the RTD measure produced a
smaller difference across fields, he failed to see that the range was increasing over
time, suggesting the doctorate is growing relatively more costly in certain fields
in terms of lost income while in graduate school.
Variation Around the Mean
To determine whether within-field differences in the time students took
to earn the doctorate narrowed or grew larger between 1967 and 1986, coefficients
of variation (CVs~l9 were computed for each field. The results show that the
within-field variation in both RTD and TTD was at least as large as between-
field variations in some fields, raising the question of whether the type of field
comparisons offered by Berelson are useful.
In all 11 fields, the CVs for TTD decreased from 1967 to 1986.
However, the CVs for mean RTD increased in four fields, remained the same in
two, and fell in five. This indicates a larger proportion of doctorate recipients
19 The coefficient variation is the standard deviation divided by the mean. It is
used to express variation in the data relative to the mean and facilitates
comparison of variation across fields.
95
OCR for page 96
had lands closer to mean T1o in 1986-that is, mean '1-1D was representative
of a larger percentage of the cohort-than was the case in 1967 and a larger
proportion of the 1986 than 1967 doctorate cohort took longer time to complete
the doctorate (this was also true for the five fields in which the CVs for RID
fell20 ). The lengthening of time to the doctorate is affecting a larger percentage
of doctorate recipients than was true in the past.
Could Changes in TPGE and TNEU
Have Been Large Enough
To Explain the Change in TTD?
The data suggest that time prior to entry to graduate school (TPGE)
rose in all fields except EAM and agricultural sciences. The size of the increase
depended on the field studied, with three fields showing an increase of less than
10 percent, in thee a jump of 11-50 percent, and in three a rise of 60-105
percent. The largest increases in TPGE were in math and computer sciences
(105 percent) and the health sciences (100 percent), while the smallest were in
economics (5 percent) and the social sciences (S percent). Measured in absolute
terms, the increases in TPGE were fairly small. In six of the nine fields in
which TPGE grew, the increase amounted to less than three months.
Three other insights emerge from a study of TPGE. First, the low
TMEs for most fields in 1986 suggest that most doctorate recipients entered
graduate school soon after completing the baccalaureate. And, while TPGE rose
in a majority of fields, the increase was not great enough to explain more than a
small fraction of the increase in AD between 1967 and 1986.21 Three of the
four fields with large increases in 1-~D also had large increases in URGE: health
sciences, math, and psychology. However, even in these fields, the rise in TPGE
was not large enough to be the prime source of the increase in AID. Third, the
data also suggest that changes in TNEU were not responsible for the growth in
AD in most fields. TNEU decreased in eight fields, and in five of these the
decrease was greater than three months. TNEU rose by two-and-a-half months in
20 The coefficient of variation dropped by 10 percent in health sciences, by 6
percent in social sciences, by 4 percent in psychology, by 5 percent in the
biosciences, and by 1 percent in chemistry.
21 For example, the rise in TPGE represented 19 percent of the growth in
chemistry, 22 percent in math, 25 percent in psychology, and 37 percent in
health sciences.
96
OCR for page 97
math and by nearly a year in health sciences; however, only in the latter was the
combined effect of changes in TPGE and TNEU large enough to have a large
impact on AID. In fact, the decline in TNEU in many fields helped to offset the
relatively small rises in TPGE, causing RTD to become the major source of
change in I-rD. These findings suggest that the concern expressed in the 1960s
over the amount of time students spend "outside the system" is not valid at
present (Wilson, 1965~.
Possible Explanations
Six broadly based theories may explain the growth in AID. These
categories of explanation correspond to, but encompass more than, the vectors
used in the model introduced in Chapter 3. The theories-Epistemic,
Institutional, Student Preference-Based, Financial Need-Based, Demographic and
Ability-Based, and Market-Based-are not mutually exclusive but provide a
useful way of classifying the arguments made in earlier studies to justify
increasesin I-ID.
Epistemic Explanations
The underlying premise of these explanations is that an expanding
knowledge base requires that students take more time to learn, absorb, and retain
what is needed to earn the doctorate. A corollary is that more (and perhaps higher
quality) work is expected of the doctoral student now than in the past. But
measurement of an epistemic trend requires an objective measure of the
expansion of knowledge in each field. While indirect indices of this expansion
(such as counts of pages, books, journals, courses, and citations) are available,
there is no consensus on how to define the body of thought a doctoral student
must master. Similarly, it is difficult to agree on the length of time a student
should be given to master the body of knowledge required for a doctorate, since
students progress at different rates. To limit the time needed to earn the doctorate
is to run the risk of excluding potentially productive scholars. More research is
needed to pinpoint changes in the prerequisites for entry to the graduate program,
in course load, and in the standards used to judge a dissertation within each field.
Institutional Explanations
Factors in the university and/or departmental environment such as
goals and commitment, the interaction between faculty and students, and changes
in student attitudes toward themselves and their peers-can also affect TTD.
This study indirectly measures changes in the institutional environment over
97
OCR for page 98
time by looking at the quality of the doctoral department, the type of
undergraduate and graduate institution attended, and the effects of changes in
selected resources. These aggregate measures are not substitutes for the more
specific sociological and institutional variables described by Wilson (1965~.
The analysis indicates that changes in the percentage of a cohort at a
top-ranked graduate department do not affect either TTD or RTD. Interestingly,
however, increases in the percentage of a cohort whose baccalaureate was earned
at a first-tier doctorate-granting university do reduce l-l ~ and RTD, albeit in a
limited number of fields; but there is no evidence that a graduate department's
high quality rating is associated with a low mean LID.
The analysis also fails to establish a link between aggregate resource
intensity, such as the aggregate number of faculty and R&D spending, and TTD.
We cannot rule out the possibility that such evidence would have been found if
the data series for these variables had been field-specific. Given the gross
measures used and the limited number of observations available, our findings for
these variables should be viewed as suggestive rather than conclusive.
Clearly, additional work is needed to flesh out the impact on RTD of
the institutional environment. At present, it is not clear whether RTD is
increasing because students are taking more courses, because they spend more
time working while registered at the university, because more prerequisite
courses are required, or because it simply takes longer to complete the
dissertation. Additional work also is needed to develop causal models of
institutional factors. Such studies might merge institutional and departmental
data with data on average student performance and progress within the department
over several years.
Student Preference-Based Explanations
This explanation assumes students prefer to stretch out their graduate
training because they like being "perennial students," graduate school offers a
desirable environment, students prefer to allocate time in graduate school to
nondoctorate-related activities, and/or they fear they won't be able to find a job
after graduation. These preferences are not easily captured in a time-series model
because no consensus exists on which student attitudes should be measured and
on how to measure them and, at present, the Survey of Earned Doctorates, the
only yearly study of doctoral students, does not collect information on graduate
student preferences over time.
Many factors can cause students to change their reasons for attending or
for leaving graduate school. Decisions by university administrators may make
the graduate school environment less comfortable or may place limits on
financial aid. And societal mores may put pressure on those who remain outside
the labor force too long. In addition, students also may change their perceptions
98
OCR for page 99
of the benefits of a college education. Clearly, these factors can alter both RTD
and 1 1~.
This study introduces student choice into a time-series model by
looking at behavior at the margin. Of primary concern is whether changes in the
marketplace cause students to alter their choices regarding graduate school.
Financial Need-Based Explanations
The financial pressures on students may increase as a result of illness or
injury, tuition increases, marnage, family obligations, reduced loan or financial
aid packages, and/or increases in the cost of living. Because of these factors,
students may find it necessary to spend more time working and less time
studying, thereby increasing TTD through effects on TPGE, RTD, and ADIEU.
Marital status and increases in family size raise AD in a few fields but do not
provide a general explanation of why TTD has increased in all 11 fields in this
study. Changes in students' domestic situations contribute to the rise in TTD
but are not the primary cause.
An argument can also be made that TTD and RTD may have risen
because fewer students are receiving federal financial aid. Wilson's study found
that the percentage of those with financial aid was greater among those students
who finished the doctorate quickly than among those who took more time to
finish. It also reported that about one-third of the students who delayed entry to
graduate school did so for financial reasons. This, among other things, led
Wilson to recommend increases in financial aid as a way to hasten TTD. While
Wilson's evidence is suggestive, it poses a problem of causality. Did students
who are recipients of financial aid finish faster because they had such aid or
because such aid was given to the most able? This question remains to be
answered. Moreover, Wilson's study ignored the question of whether the form of
financial aid made a difference for TTD and made no attempt to quantify the
effects of financial aid on the several times to the doctorate.
A comparison of the mean TTDs of those receiving federal fellowships,
TAs, RAs, and private foundation support to the mean TTDs of those whose
primary source of support was their own earnings (Table 3.1, p. 40) revealed that
those who provided their own financial support took substantially longer to
complete the doctorate than those with other types of support. Interestingly,
mean 'folly either fell or stayed constant between 1986 and 1987 for TA holders
in seven fields and for federal fellowship holders in eight fields; it rose in seven
fields for RA holders and for those who provided their own support.
The effect of financial aid on TTD is not as apparent in the causal
models presented in Chapters 5 and 6. This is, in part, because the variables
used in the model do not focus on the primary source of support. Moreover, the
role of the financial aid variables may be obscured by their correlation with other
99
OCR for page 100
independent variables in Me model. The findings suggest that when it is a
significant factor, it has a limited effect on ICED (relative to the total time
required to complete the doctorate) and RTD. For example, using the linear
common variables model, a 10-percent increase in the number of psychology
students with TAs results in a decline of just four months in IlD. In fact, none
of the financial aid variables had a consistent effect on IBID and, in some fields,
they did not change IBID at all.
In the TPGE equations, federal support was not statistically significant
in any field; TA support had a negative effect in one field; and RA support had a
positive effect in one field. In the INEU equations, federal support had a
positive effect in one field; TA support was not statistically significant; and RA
support was positive in one field.
Recent DRF surveys have collected new data on prime source of
financial aid. These data could be used to analyze more thoroughly the effect of
financial aid on the four dependent variables.
Demographic and Ability-Based Explanations
In recent years, doctoral students are more likely to be older, female,
foreign, and minority, all factors that can increase TTD and RTD. Recent
interest in certain demographic factors probably is a response to trends in the
DRF data. For example, in 1976 women constituted just 22 percent of the
18,583 science and engineering doctorate recipients. By 1985, women
represented 27 percent of the 19,164 science and engineering doctorate recipients
(Coyle, 1986~. Likewise, the share of non-U.S. citizens with permanent or
temporary visas who received science and engineering doctorates grew from 21
percent in 1976 to 27 percent in 1985. Given the changing composition of the
doctorate-recipient group, a natural question arises as to whether these changes
were responsible for the increase in ITo.
Gender, residency status, and race do not consistently affect the
measures of time to the doctorate in the 11 fields studied. In fact, the only
demographic variable that has a large enough effect across fields to affect 1-1 D is
age at entry to graduate school. Age is important in the IlD, RTD, and TPGE
equations but does not have a statistically significant effect in most fields in the
TNEU equations. Unfortunately, the analysis does not distinguish whether age
is a proxy measure or truly reflects the effects of aging on learning.22
22 We cannot dismiss the possibility that changes in student abilities were a
major factor. The lack of student skills data, such as GRE scores, did not allow
study of this possibility, however.
100
OCR for page 101
Market-Based Explanations
Employment opportunities, the absolute salaries of doctorate holders,
relative salaries, and the rate of return to alternative careers all affect time to the
doctorate. Their impact is felt both by those in graduate school and by those
considering alternative fields of graduate study. The assumption is that when the
economic return for graduating with a doctorate falls relative to the return to
nondoctorates, TTD will rise. Economic return diminishes in a given field if the
unemployment rate of new doctorates rises relative to those without a Ph.D., if
the relative salary of nondoctorates rises relative to that of new doctorates, and if
the earnings of Ph.D.s fail to progress as rapidly over time as the earnings of
those without doctorates. The longer a student remains in graduate school, the
less economic return is expected.
The results of this study suggest that changes in the marketplace were
not large enough or pervasive enough to provide the primary explanation for the
observed increases in TTD. Increases in the unemployment rate for those with
four or more years of college education reduced RTD in four fields in one model
while increased unemployment affected TTD in only one field. Changes in the
percentage of students seeking employment and of those with definite
postgraduate plans affected TTD and RTD, but only in a few fields. TTD fell in
some fields as salaries for experienced doctorates rose, and it increased when there
was a decline in the salary of new doctorates relative to salaries of doctorates 10
years postgraduation. Additional modeling is needed to confirm these findings
and to identify the appropriate lags between market changes and changes in 'tow.
Is There A Single Explanation
for Increase in TTD?
A series of factors, rather than one explanation, appears to be
responsible for the trend of increasing TI D across fields. Part of the increase in
11D probably was due to epistemic factors, but this theory does not explain
why there was three times the growth in l-ll) in the social sciences compared to
chemistry (nine months versus 2.4 years). It seems unlikely that growth in the
knowledge base alone could explain such a large increase in 11D in one field and
a relatively small increase in another.
Institutional factors also came into play. Likewise, declining
enrollments in some institutions may have created an incentive for them to keep
students longer. Although the institutional environment may not have been
stable during the period of study, it is not clear that these factors explain the
inter-field changes described.
Among demographic variables, age is important because older students
wait longer to enter graduate school and also spend more time registered in
101
OCR for page 102
graduate school than younger students. The finding that older students take
longer to complete the doctorate warrants further study. In some fields, variables
such as residency and gender also affected TTD, as did financial need. This study
also suggests that market forces, particularly increases in the unemployment rate
and in the salaries of doctorates and nondoctorates, affect TTD.
The finding that no one class of explanations is responsible for the rise
in TTD is consistent with the initial correlations in Chapter 4 and with the set
of regressions presented in Chapters 5 and 6. It also confirms Wilson's 1965
findings of the multi-factorial aspect of any steps taken to reduce TTD:
In essence, the amount of time involved in doctoral preparation
can be reduced, our respondents indicate, only through
concerted effort on a variety of fronts. Solutions predicated on
a monistic conception of the problem will not prove to be
satisfactory and no approach to "time reduction" stressing only
one line of attack, e.g., increased financial support, . . . will
be sufficient, however necessary it may be to an overall
solution.
As has been shown, TTD is affected by a number of variables. But
aggregate models alone cannot identify steps to reduce ~l-ll,. What is needed is a
more disaggregated study of what is happening at the department level. And
additional modeling should be done using the student as the unit of analysis to
sort out the roles of ability level, past preparation, and financial aid in
elongating TTD. Existing studies do not provide sufficient guidance for
policymakers to reduce TTD.
Implications of a Continuing Rise in TTD
A More Resource-lr~tensive Doctoral Program
Changes in TTD that result from an increase in time spent in graduate
school will raise the cost (excluding opportunity costs) of obtaining a doctoral
degree. The annual cost, on average, to educate a graduate student ranges
between $21,855 and $29,235. The mid-range estimate is $25,545 per year.23
23 The U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES), Digest of Education Statistics 1988, indicates that educational and
general expenditures per Al ~ university student were $13,179 in 1985-86 (Table
243~. We have assigned weights to account for the higher cost of graduate
102
OCR for page 103
The fields with the smallest rise in RTD between 1967 and 1986 (0.8 years)
were engineering, chemistry, and physics and astronomy; the field with the
largest increase (2.9 years) was the social sciences Using 1967 as the base year,
the percentage increase in RTD was 14 percent in engineering and 49 percent in
the social sciences. Assuming the cost of programs does not vary across fields,
the cost of a doctorate rose by $20,436 ($25,545 x 0.8) in engineering and by
$74,081 ($25,545 x 2.9) in the social sciences between 1967 and 1986. Taking
all graduates into account, the increase in RTD caused an additional $35,190,792
($20,436 x 1,722) to be spent educating engineering doctorate recipients and an
additional $106,602,550 ($74,081 x 1,439) in outlays to educate social science
doctorate recipients.
Graduate students themselves pay only a small fraction of the $25,545
average yearly cost of graduate training, with the rest coming from other sources.
A Longer Gestation Period
Increases in IBID force employers to wait longer to hire new doctorates,
potentially causing a shortage of trained workers in affected fields and driving up
the salaries of those who already hold doctorates. Lengthening 'lurid can also
contribute to a public perception of shortage and thereby increase pressures for
public subsidies in fields in which trained doctorates appear to be in short
supply. Increases in AD may also cause increased demand for foreign-trained
doctorates.
Lengthening rl~lD also means the productive output of doctorates will
fall. For example, suppose the average age of graduate students in the social
sciences at time of entry to graduate school was 27 years in 1967. If Rll) in
1967 was 6 years, the average doctorate holder would graduate at age 33. If that
person had no periods of unemployment and- utilized his or her doctorate
knowledge until retirement at age 65, a total of 32 person-years of work would
have been produced. But if, in 1986, the average RTD rose to 9 years, the new
doctorate's entry into the labor force would be delayed until age 36, reducing the
average number of productive person-years to 29, a decline of 9.4 percent. If
. .
education: weight 1 for part-timers and weight 2 or 3 for full-timers. NCES
estimates that 56 percent of doctoral students were full-timers in 1986-87. Thus,
the range of expenditures is $20,559 to $27,939, with a midpoint of $24,249.
To these institutional costs are added the students' costs of doctoral education,
estimated at $2,874, derived from NCES' National Postsecondary Student Aid
Study, which found a cost of $3,126 for full-timers and $2,554 for part-timers.
103
OCR for page 104
TPGE also increased during the period, the number of productive person-years of
effort would decline even more.24
Clearly, increases in RTD and TPGE may reduce the productive
worklife of a new doctorate and reduce the overall number of high-level personnel
available to employers. More doctorates would have had to be produced in 1986
than in 1967 to obtain the same number of person-years of work as in 1967. In
fact, however, there was no increase in the number of new doctorates; DRF data
indicate the number of new doctorate recipients has remained relatively constant
since 1970 (Coyle, 1986~. Although work yield of a given cohort of new
doctorates is affected by a variety of factors, including mobility patterns
obsolescence, and economic conditions, this simple example illustrates that
changes in l ll) can affect labor supply.
Longer TTDs also slow job market response to increases in demand.
There is normally a lag when engineering and scientific labor markets adjust to
changes in demand (Tuckman, 1988~. As the length of time required to produce
a doctorate increases, so too does the length of time needed for supply to respond
to increases in demand. And sudden increases in demand were more likely in
1986 than in 1967 to cause a longer period of market disequilibrium. The long-
term effect of an increase in TTD is to reduce We responsiveness of high-level
labor markets.
Increased Attrition'
- To the extent that increases in RTD are due to factors beyond student
control such as increased financial pressures, frustration created by the length of
time required to complete the doctorate, of "better" opportunities-some students
may choose to abandon their graduate studies altogether. The literature review
uncovered no studies that looked at how changes in RTD and TTD affected
student attrition, but it seems likely that, at the margin, some students consider
cost when deciding to forego an additional year of graduate school. To the extent
that this phenomenon occurs, increases in TTD will reduce the number of people
who complete the doctorate. Such attrition will also increase the costs to
society of producing a Rained doctorate.
24 This analysis assumes no change in retirement behavior. The effect of
lengthening AD on productivity will not be as dramatic if retirement age is
nslng.
104
OCR for page 105
Lower Returns for Graduate Study
Longer TTD increases the costs of doctoral education. Even students
with fellowships incur an opportunity cost because this type of support is less
than the earnings that they would have received in a full-time job. Also, as
noted, increases in RID reduce the number of productive years during which a
student can realize a return on his or her investment.
To the extent that students view graduate study as a potential
investment, reductions in return from doctoral education are also likely to affect
the decision whether to obtain a degree at all. Some students may find changes in
l-lD have made alternatives to a doctoral degree more attractive. For example,
in many graduate schools, the Master's of Business Administration degree takes
only two years to complete; thus, if the l-lD required to obtain a doctorate in the
sciences increases, some students will opt instead to obtain an MBA. A similar
phenomenon may occur as students consider an advanced degree in medicine, law,
or other professional fields. To the extent IBID rises less slowly in these fields,
the relative return for obtaining a degree in them increases. Over time, more
students may be drawn away from fields with high l1Ds and into fields with
shorter TTDs, leading to a possible shortage of trained scientists and engineers in
certain high--D fields.
Changes in the Attractiveness
of Alternative Doctorate Careers
Students choose a major based on expected returns (Chapter That is,
the earnings they can expect to receive after earning the degree. Differences exist
in the rate at which TTD and RTD are growing among fields. Thus, a person
with an undergraduate degree and an interest in one field-physics, for example-
may nonetheless choose advanced study in another field perhaps mathematics
because the expected returns to a doctorate in the latter field are higher. To the
extent that this occurs, a shortage may eventually develop in those fields with
relatively larger l~lDs.
TTD as a Policy Instrument
This study was motivated by interest in manipulating TTD to meet
possible difficulties in producing a future supply of doctorates that will be
adequate to meet anticipated needs. It is easy to argue that the increase in l-l'L,
can be reversed by increasing the number of federal fellowships or by granting
more teaching and research assistantships, but the findings of this report suggest
we need to learn more about the effects of the venous types of financial aid
105
OCR for page 106
before assessments of the desirability of such a solution can be made. Data are
simply not available to permit policymakers to choose the best way to affect
lolls or to assess the consequences of the various alternative solutions proposed
by other studies.
106
Representative terms from entire chapter:
doctorate recipients
