8 April 2010 Times Higher Education 3130 Times Higher Education 8 April 2010

Par forthecourse

In pursuing excellence,whether in golf or inresearch, the time investedin training and preparationis vital. So how long shoulda master’s degree be?asks Don Olcott Jr

In some circles, “masters” means only onething, and it certainly is not higher educa-tion, especially at this time of year. For

early April is when the year’s first major golfcompetition, the Masters Tournament, getsunder way in Georgia.

The Masters, its rich history and traditionsand the majestic setting of Augusta NationalGolf Club would make for an excellent tale.It is, however, a story better suited for a jour-nalist hoping for a magical storyline thatenters Masters folklore, or perhaps to seeTiger Woods “take it to the limit” one moretime (a story best left out of bounds here).

My story here is about another tradition, themaster’s degree. Today, there is growing inter-est, debate, reflection and concern about whatconstitutes a sound, high-quality master’sdegree. But there seems to be little movement.Universities seldom go out of their way to calla penalty on themselves, unlike genuine golferswho embrace the rules that govern their sportas sacred literature. Whether it is admissionsdebacles, suspect practices on athletics pro-grammes or diploma-mill marketing, it is oftenleft to those outside the academy to add up thepenalty strokes on the ethical scorecard.

In discussing the master’s, academics argueover quality parameters, content, researchrequirements and other intricacies of thedegree, but perhaps the issue that causes mostargument is that of course length. Here againis an analogy to the golfer, for whom theability to get length or distance on a drive is atactical and strategic advantage. In theuniversity, however, the issue is simply what isthe optimal length of time in which tocomplete a 21st-century master’s degree.

The range of viewpoints on this question isdiverse. Across the globe, master’s degreesrange from nine months to more than twoyears in length. Many academics do not see aproblem with this variety: it’s our degree andit’s accredited, they argue, so we decide, period(mix academic freedom with a dose of paroch-ialism and the similarities between a graduatedegree and a 300-yard drive begin to diverge).

Golfers who desire greater length on thecourse must make physical changes to theirswing, work on their timing and put in hoursof practice to improve. As rules governing thedesign of golf clubs and balls are regularlyrevised to ensure that equipment does notprovide an unfair competitive advantage, thisfacet of the game is the same for all players.The individual decides to make changes andchoices with the goal of hitting the ball farther.

It’s a different story for the graduate stu-dent. The length of time required to completea master’s is never a student’s decision. Thestudent’s only control is selecting a course. Ofcourse, given a choice between a one-yearmaster’s and a two-year master’s, the studentwill always take the longer degree to perfecttheir expertise and skills, right? Wrong – two-stroke penalty and no frequent-flyer miles.

It’s time to hit into the rough and look atthe real behind-the-tree issues.

The central issue in this debate about theoptimal length is competition, not quality, asmany academics would argue.

A programme that allows students thechoice of a shorter degree timeframe gains a

DAVIDCANNON/GETTY

8 April 2010 Times Higher Education 33

competitive advantage over those of rivalinstitutions. Of course, students assess aprogramme on more factors than length alone:reputation, quality, cost, available graduateassistantships, financial assistance, compatibil-ity with work and family obligations and ahost of other considerations all come into play.

And for institutions, longer master’s degreesmust mean more revenue for the programme.If so, why move towards shorter master’sdegrees? The answer is competitive advantage– or, more precisely, perceptions of competitiveadvantage.

Today’s global higher education landscapeis one in which providers are competing forstudents amid unprecedented financialchallenges. This terrain is further complicatedby the fact that higher education systemsacross the world have different traditions,funding patterns and philosophical tenets.

In Europe, there is a long history of freeuniversity education at the undergraduate andpostgraduate levels for the masses, althoughmost graduate programmes charge minimaltuition fees. Why would degree length be anissue? The funding comes in and the studentsdon’t pay exponential increases from theirpersonal income regardless of course length.

In other nations, most notably the US, themoney issue is paramount. Tuition fees arealready high at all levels of higher education,and they continue to rise. The length of adegree is a crucial consideration for studentsand for institutions running graduateprogrammes. Students love shorter coursesbecause they are cheaper, although the issuesfor students are not exclusively about cost.Institutions, on the other hand, see that thelonger they can keep students in their clutches,the more money there is for the programmeand the university.

In America, the key factor making degreeslonger is a “more is better” strategy that hasresulted from the push for assessment andstudent learning outcomes over the pastdecade – rather an ironic strategy for enhanc-ing academic quality and student performanceconsidering that it is not uncommon for a USundergraduate to take five to six years to finisha first degree. Don’t expect to see three-yearbachelor’s or one-year master’s from USuniversities anytime soon. A few institutionsmay experiment with these, but mass adoptionis not on the cards given the amount of moneygenerated from tuition and fees and also somevery powerful philosophical tenets aboutgraduate education.

Variations in traditions and history amongglobal higher education systems create myriadperceptions of the experience and the ideal.

Many Europeans are astounded by the amountof money that US students pay for highereducation. They find it inconceivable that therichest country on the planet does not provideits citizens with free higher education. But thepoint is that different systems have evolved indifferent countries and that making directcomparisons is often complex, enigmatic andforeign to many outside a particular system.

Clearly the length of a master’s degree isdetermined by several factors – nationaland cultural variations, competition and

the search for market advantage, financialconcerns and quality considerations. Somewould argue that the differences betweeninstitutions are primarily self-serving ratherthan motivatedby desire to provide a qualitatively superiorgraduate experience for the student. So, whatclub do we hit on this academic course?

Having pondered the conditions, I offer thefollowing premise to consider: the length of amaster’s degree is inextricably tied to coursequality, and shorter master’s degrees detractdisproportionately from the quality of theprogramme, the academic experience andskills mastered by students, and the long-termsustainability and reputation of theprogramme.

Do I have your attention? Good. Now, youmay ask, how am I going to defend thispremise.

Let’s start with the basic philosophicaltenets of graduate education. Again, there isconsiderable variation across higher educationsystems, and I plead guilty to having receivedmy graduate degrees in America. As such, I’lluse this as the baseline for my arguments toengage those outside the US in constructivedialogue, not as a strategy to win the match.Moreover, my obligation as an educator is toprovide an objective, fair assessment of thisissue devoid of an Anglo-American justifica-tion for my points. I will make every effort toarticulate my commentary in simple languagethat is clear and comprehensible to even thenovice golfer and academic.

At its core, a master’s degree is an empiricaland scholarly degree. This means that despitea student’s participation and engagement ingraduate seminars, internships, specialprojects, collaborative learning and small-group analysis, the purpose is to teach thefundamental aspects of scholarly and empiricalresearch, critical analysis and synthesis, andobjective interpretation of the researchprocess, methodology, results and conclusions.

Moreover, these essential skills areprerequisites for analysing and interpreting

32 Times Higher Education 8 April 2010

If the aim is student mastery at thegraduate level of research knowledgeand skills to a specific discipline, thisgoal will be difficult for even the mosttalented students to meet in one year

Can students reach the top when weexpect them to master the basics ofresearch in the briefest time while theyalso learn about their discipline andthe interdisciplinarity of knowledge?

Mention a “master’sdegree” in the UK andyou could be talkingabout a nine- or 12-month postgraduatedegree, a taught orresearch postgraduatedegree, an under-graduate degree in ascience ormathematical subject,or an honorary titlebought by Oxbridgegraduates.

And the picture is notmuch clearer in the rest ofEurope despite the driveto harmonise educationsystems through theBologna Process andcreate a commonbachelor’s, master’s,doctorate cycle.

But overall, the UK isdifferent from continentalEurope in terms ofmaster’s provision.Whilea master’s has generallybecome a two-yearpostgraduate course inthe rest of Europe underthe Bologna Process, theUK has been able topersist with its one-year

postgraduate master’s,arguing that the greaterintensity of such coursesgives them equivalentvalue to longer ones.

So what does a UKmaster’s degree meanto students, universitiesand employers?

In September 2009,the Quality AssuranceAgency (QAA) launched aconsultation on a draftdocument called Master’sDegree Characteristics,which is intended to offer“a framework that highereducation providers canuse in describing thenature of the master’sdegrees they offer”.

On the purpose ofmaster’s programmes, thedocument says univer-sities may offer thecourses to allow studentsto focus on a particulararea of study they havepreviously encountered,to learn how to conductresearch, to undertakea particular researchproject, or to becomespecialised in a field of

knowledge related to aprofession.

The document goeson to say that master’sdegrees may be one yearor two years in length;they may be modular;they may be deliveredpartly through an employ-ment setting; they may bedelivered as part of afour-year course thatincludes a bachelor’sdegree; they may even bedelivered through a four-year integratedprogramme that includesa doctorate.

If that leaves youconfused, the UK Councilfor Graduate Education(UKCGE) sympathises.

In a submission to theDepartment for Business,Innovation and Skills’review of postgraduateprovision, the UKCGEsays: “The use of the title‘master’s’ across thesector is currently in aconfused and confusingstate.”

It outlines three broaduses of the term: post-

graduate (taught andresearch), undergraduate,and honorary (at theuniversities of Oxford andCambridge, graduates canconvert their bachelor’sdegrees into master’s fora small fee).

Malcolm McCrae, chairof the UKCGE, says: “It isconfusing for employers. Itis confusing for studentscoming from outside theUK.What is it they arebuying into?”

The UKCGE suggestsadding prefixes to denotewhether a master’s isundergraduate, post-graduate or honorary.

But does the UK’ssystem of one-yearcourses mean lower-quality qualifications?

McCrae says there is astrong argument that “theintensity is at a higherlevel for a shorter periodof time, and that theoverall amount of time oflearning is roughly equal[to that of longercourses]. You have to becareful about equating

length with quality if youdon’t take any account ofintensity.”

Comparing the UK withthe US, he says longermaster’s may be the normacross the Atlanticbecause students “comeoff the back of under-graduate degrees that areless specialised than isthe case in the UK”.

When the BolognaProcess began, somefeared that the UK wouldbe forced to adopt thetwo-year postgraduatemaster’s courses commonin the rest of Europe. Butthe UK HE Europe Unit,funded by Universities UK,the QAA and the fundingcouncils, was amongthose to argue success-fully that one-yearcourses could beaccommodated.

Paul Dowling, policyofficer at the unit, says: “Itis probably true that thetwo-year master’s degreeis more popular andwidespread across Euro-pean institutions. There

would have been somenervousness in the UK,asking whether we aremore lightweight. But thatdebate has eased withthe recognition thatmaster’s can be designedfor different things.”

A master’s degreemust have between 90and 120 credits underthe European CreditTransfer System, with theUK’s one-year coursesvalued at 90 credits.

He adds that theemphasis is on learningoutcomes under thissystem. “It is not aboutthe time studied; it isabout what a studentcan do at the end of it.”

Sir Howard Davies,director of the LondonSchool of Economics,wrote Survey of MasterDegrees in Europe forthe European UniversityAssociation in 2009.

He argues that themaster’s is still not“readable” across all 46countries involved in theBologna Process. To make

MANY MASTER’S CAUSE CONFUSION: HOW THE UK MATCHES UP WITH THE REST OF EUROPE, OR NOT

it easier for studentsand others to see whata master’s offers, hebelieves that at-a-glance markers shouldbe developed to identifyfactors such asduration, credit value,any professionalaccreditation andwhether workplacements wereincluded.

He also notes “theproblem of nomen-clature”, meaningthere is “only limitedpan-Europeanunderstanding of howdifferent master’s standin relation to eachother”. And distinctionsmade to clarify mattersat national level couldfurther hindertransparency atEuropean level, hewarns.

Davies identifiesthree types of master’sprovision: taughtcourses with profes-sional developmentapplication; research-

intensive courses oftenfunctioning as pre-doctoral courses; andcourses deliveredmainly to returninglearners.

He says in the reportthat master’s courseshave “a crucial role toplay in the knowledgesociety”, offering afoundation for doctoralresearch and thedevelopment of “humancapital in many fields”.All of which means thecourses should beaccessible “by as manypersons as possible”.

But Davies adds thatof the three Bolognacycles, the master’s isthe most “marketised”,with fees for the coursesoften very high.

To assume thatmaster’s courses “willthrive on competitionalone is incautious”,he says, urging that itis “time to considerissues of studentfinance and equalopportunity of access”.

8 April 2010 Times Higher Education 35

In considering what we want graduatestudents to gain, we cannot ignore academicpreparation. Many graduate disciplines admitstudents who were not required to major inthat discipline as an undergraduate. Becausesuch students enter a graduate programmewith minimal knowledge and contentexpertise, they must simultaneously learn thediscipline and the research process. Onceagain, this is not a criticism but is framedwithin the context of awarding a one-yearmaster’s degree. If the aim is student masteryat the graduate level of research knowledgeand skills to a specific discipline, this goal willbe difficult for even the most talented studentsto meet in one year.

On a master’s programme, students arelearning their scholarly craft, and as we allknow practice makes perfect (actually if itwere possible, perfect practice makes perfect,but these notable quotes make good folklore).However, if we subscribe to the premise thatmastery of the fundamentals is essential tohigh-quality performance over the long term,then the research and golf analogy returns.The best golfers all have sound fundamentals,spend endless time and effort returning tothese first principles when their game is introuble, and will tell you that when they firstlearned the game (the right way), they spentyears honing these basic skills.

We want graduate students to reach the toplevel, but can this happen when we expectthem to master the fundamentals of theresearch process in the briefest time possiblewhile they are also learning about theirdiscipline and the interdisciplinary connected-ness of knowledge?

Those seeking mastery of a skill or craft willknow that practice improves quality, which inturn means improved performance. If we pro-vide the graduate student with the time tomaster research skills, integrate discipline andinterdisciplinary knowledge, reflect on practiceand research within and outside the discipline,collaborate with peers and faculty, we willproduce a graduate with a sound set of skillsand knowledge that will enhance long-termperformance in their profession.

At this point, the reader may be tempted toconclude that I must believe that the onlyreasonable thing to do is to banish one-yearmaster’s degrees from the face of highereducation for eternity. This, however, is notmy aim. Why? Because good graduateeducation also provides students with onemore important life-essential lesson – there arefew either/or answers to important questions.As H.L. Mencken stated: “There is always aneasy solution to every human problem – neat,

plausible, and wrong.”What I argue is that the most appropriate

length for modern master’s degrees isinextricably tied to the philosophical basis ofgraduate education and the primacy of theempirical and scholarly research process. If forany unknown reason I missed the memoannouncing that we have dispensed with theessential components of graduate education,I apologise and will calmly take a two-strokepenalty and become an advocate for six-monthmaster’s degrees. Moreover, if we can cut theundergraduate degree to two years anddoctoral study to one year, then we couldbegin producing PhDs in three-and-a-halfyears. Indeed, this would certainly serve thehigher education sector and planet moreeffectively for the duration…or would it?Illusions of progress are often our greatestbarrier to true advancement.

In the final analysis, I have great confidencethat the global higher education communityunderstands the complexity of these issues

and will respond with prudence, humility,insight, innovation and with a greaterawareness of the competitive advantage argu-ment in concert with the tenets that contributeto high-quality graduate education.

Given the absence of either/or answers atour local clubhouse, I suspect that the opti-mum length of the master’s degree probablyfalls somewhere between 15 and 24 months.That’s a rather short period of time consider-ing that the world’s best golfers spend yearssimply learning the fundamentals of theirprofession. There will, of course, be extremepressures for universities to offer acceleratedprogrammes at all levels in response to finan-cial necessity and to the competitive forcesimpinging on higher education. For now, I’mgoing to presume that the aforementionedmemo dispensing with the historical tenetsthat underpin high-quality graduate education,while perhaps written, has not been sent.

What is certain is that the next player to topthe leader board after navigating the course atAugusta National Golf Club and emerge as theMasters champion will undoubtedly be onewith sound fundamentals that hold up underthe most extreme pressures of his sport.Indeed, successful golfers are inherently betterresearchers than researchers are golfers.Perhaps this will not go unnoticed by graduateeducators across the globe next April – eventhough they won’t get to slip on a green jacketat the end of the day. l

Don Olcott Jr is chief executive, theObservatory on Borderless Higher Education.

34 Times Higher Education 8 April 2010

other scholarly research as a member of one’sprofession. Without the fundamentals, onecannot objectively assess, comment on andlearn from other research. As such, this soundslike golf, in which poor fundamentals equalpoor results (don’t just take my word, greatssuch as Jack Nicklaus, Annika Sorenstam,Nancy Lopez, Phil Mickelson, Sir Nick Faldoand Tony Jacklin all say the same).

Most graduates do not follow researchcareers. Recognising this fact, US universitiesduring the past 15 years have increasinglyadded a “research project” option as analternative to the traditional master’s thesis(research). (In the US, the term “dissertation”is reserved solely for the doctoral researchcomponent.) The research project at themaster’s level, although grounded in basicresearch methodology, tends to be morefocused on practical applications and looksmore like applied research than a typicalmaster’s thesis model.

It is important to recognise that the focuson research is designed to enhance rather than

minimise the other components of a master’sdegree. The rationale is that participation inseminars, collaborative presentations,constructive dialogue with faculty and studentpeers, internship experiences and so on aremore meaningful when coupled with andinformed by the acquisition of research skills,knowledge and expertise.

Another essential component of themaster’s degree is “enlightenment”.Golfers may be acquainted with this from

the axiom that most amateurs hit the ballfarther when they swing easier. Unfortunately,they usually have to hit their first ball out ofbounds to discover this eternal truth whenhitting their second ball (third stroke) off thetee. Why? It is not because velocity is notrelated to distance, of course it is. It is becausemost amateurs can maintain a more consistentand effective motion by swinging the golfclub slower.

The enlightenment aspect of the master’sdegree is helping students to see the inter-

connected and multidisciplinary nature ofknowledge. When I was an undergraduate, myEuropean history mentor would seldomdiscuss the more intricate political aspects ofhistorical events and trends. When I asked himif he could do this, he suggested that I enrolwith another professor for her Europeanpolitical systems course.

I offer this anecdote not as a criticism ofundergraduate education, but rather to showthat the organisational principle of pre-21stcentury universities was to segregate know-ledge in academic departments and disciplines.I call this the “everyone’s an expert complex”.

We are starting to see more interdisciplinaryapproaches at the undergraduate and graduatelevels, which are benefiting staff as well asstudents in their research and teaching.

This philosophical basis of graduate educa-tion plays out in a number of important waysthat bring us back to the “length” controversy.I would like to explore them in the context ofcomparing a one-year versus a two-yearmaster’s degree.

Subject line here please

Copy for upcoming featuresor books here please thankyou very much

Subject line here please

Copy for upcoming featuresor books here please thankyou very much

Character forming

Sunil Manghani meditateson a tranquil brush withcalligraphy

Book of the week

Copy for upcoming featuresor books here please thankyou very much

www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

NEXT WEEK

Master minds course quality is paramount

Given a choice between a one-yearmaster’s and a two-year master’s, thestudent will always take the longer oneto perfect their expertise and skills,right? Wrong – two-stroke penalty