MR. SHULMAN: David, I thought it was called the muenster study, and you were just the big cheese.

Let me begin by saying that exactly a week ago I was in Madison, Wisconsin, at a meeting talking about the reform and the improvement of the doctorate in the stem disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, a major priority of the National Science Foundation.

Between that meeting and this one, I feel a little bit like I used to feel when I would meet with Japanese educators, who were talking about the need to make the Japanese curriculum more American, at the very same time that American educators were trying to figure out how to make it more Japanese.

What is so fascinating is the ways in which some of the things that we take for granted as strengths of the education doctorate, even as we quite appropriately bemoan some of the weaknesses, the folks on the other side of the river -- here I am speaking in the geographical terms of my Michigan State days, some of you may notice Stanford doesn't have a river on purpose, anyway -- and this notion that only we, the exceptionalism problem that Felice was making reference to, have these problems, is one that just isn't the case.

One of the things that I think is important about the Carnegie initiative on the doctorate that has been mentioned here several times is, indeed, that on most of the campuses where there is an initiative on the doctorate in education, there is at least one other field that is simultaneously working on their doctoral programs, and there are folks at the provostial level, graduate deans, trying to help them work together and learn from, and teach, one another.

For example, at Colorado, we have not only education but chemistry and, even though it is not part of the initiative on the doctorate, enormous momentum coming out of physics and engineering in these areas.

At ASU, we have got English, math -- I mean, there is a whole set. The national project that we have is one that is about the doctorate in general, and we are post holing in six fields.

Those fields are mathematics, English, chemistry, history, education and neuroscience. It is an attempt to sample the universe of doctoral education and, as soon as I say that, you know very well we could have picked six totally different areas and still sampled the universe.

There is, as in most cases, a narrative associated with those choices which I will spare you, and yet part of the narrative is that chemistry is a doctoral field, two thirds of whose recipients do not remain in the academy. Two thirds of the PhDs in chemistry go outside the academy to industry, very different from other fields.

We know the picture of education. Felice gave us part of that picture and others have added to it. Neuroscience, again, this emergent interdisciplinary space that is fascinating in its embryogenesis, if you will.

Yet, there are certain fascinating commonalities across these fields, and it is part of what I mean by saying, what we take for granted in education is frequently what they are trying to accomplish in some of the other fields. Let me give a couple of examples.

We are beset with the problem of not being able to figure out where the boundaries are between the disciplines of educational research and the profession or professions of education. We keep on returning to it. It is a big problem.

Well, in this set of essays that Charles made reference to, where we have commissioned leaders in each of these disciplines to talk about the essential tensions in doctoral education and their disciplines, the essayist in mathematics -- someone many of you know, Hyman Bass, professor of mathematics, also professor of education, when he wrote the essay, president of the American Mathematical Society -- begins by making the distinction between mathematics as a discipline and mathematics as a profession.

He says, we in the field of mathematics are really very, very good at preparing people for the discipline of mathematics. We just haven't begun to respond to the challenge of preparing people for the profession of mathematician, and that is equally important in the field of mathematics.

So, in some ways, just as we are trying to disentangle the discipline from the profession, some of the leading people in the professions and the disciplines are trying to figure out how to re-introduce the notion that somebody getting a PhD is getting prepared to profess their discipline.

In the language of the Carnegie initiative, they are to become someone who is a steward of the discipline, someone who is capable of engaging in the discovery, the intervention and generation of new ideas, the conservation and critique of ideas that claim to have truth value, and to be usable as evidence for action, and to transform those ideas through teaching, through work in the public sphere, through application.

All those are part of what it means to be responsible for the integrity of a discipline as it plays itself out in society.

These are features that the folks in the other disciplines are often eager to see encompassed in their doctoral education, and I haven't had the heart to tell them that, once you encompass it, that will be a problem, too.

Tom Kuhn collected this wonderful book of essays called The Essential Tension. These are tensions that you don't solve. As Dewey said about problems, we don't solve them, we get over them for a while.

This is the nature of it. So, as we look at these other disciplines in the initiative on the doctorate, there are certain recurring problems. One is the distinction between the discipline and the profession.

How does that play out? One of the prevailing problems in the other disciplines is how do you, on the one hand, get people to become deeply specialized quickly, by starting to engage in authentic research from the very beginning, and yet not lose their sense of breadth in the discipline.

They recognize that, once they finish that dissertation 17 years later -- well, that is only English -- but once they finish that thesis, their first position is going to ask them, by and large, to become a generalist again.

The best work, often, is done by people who never lose sight of the big questions that can ever be studied in small ways at a time, but without losing sight of the big ones.

One of their major questions is that. What they have come to recognize is that you can't always solve these problems by tinkering.

I said to the people in the sciences, mathematics and engineering last week, I am really sick of all you wimps and wusses, who think you are going to solve these problems by kind of sanding around the edges.

Some of these are challenges that require the kind of courage that Colorado is showing, that USC is showing in our field -- to take two -- which is essentially to say, let's go back and redesign from scratch.

This is a big risk, but in deference to my colleagues, Tyack and Cuban(?), who wrote Tinkering Toward Utopia, I think we are tinkering toward dystopia. We are not going to get there from here with those kinds of tinkering.

Another kind of tension in all of these doctoral programs is occurring because, in nearly every one of the disciplines, the sociology of the science -- and I use science now here broadly -- the sociology of the discipline, or it is really the topology of the discipline is centrifugal.

The discipline, which may have had a very clear core, is beginning to spin more and more toward what was once its periphery.

So, you talk to the mathematicians, and one of the things they are wrestling with is the growing fact that the most interesting problems in mathematics no longer are the monopoly of the core mathematical subdisciplines.

Mathematical modeling in the biological and medical sciences, computer science and computer kinds of algorithms, a whole bunch of things are happening that were frowned upon as foci a generation ago and now are where the action is.

As the chair of one mathematics department said to me, what do you do when the best and brightest young students in mathematics sneak away to engineering. Would that he had said education. It is going to happen, slowly.

So, there is the sense that there are what Peter Gallagher calls the trading zones, the interstices among the disciplines where we live in education, that are increasingly becoming the hot, exciting, seductive areas in the classical disciplines.

In fact, when somebody asked me why there is the sense that you use the discipline as the focal point for your studies of the doctorate, and not interdisciplinary domains.

One of the responses is, the disciplines no longer exist as walled communities. They don't. They just don't. I mean, I look at the members of the core committee, who once were respectable members of disciplines.

I mean, special ed? That wasn't what you were trained for. David, I am surprised they still let you back in the psych department at Carnegie Mellon. I know you got tenure first, but that may be part of it. These are very, I think, important things to recognize.

Let me kind of move to a set of observations that I put on the table, and I put them on the table, not in any way as even the preliminary conclusions of the Carnegie initiative on the doctorate.

The Carnegie initiative on the doctorate is so young, that we just announced the programs that we have selected in the neurosciences and in history, and they won't even convene for the first time until January in Palo Alto.

So, in no way are some of the outrageous statements that I am going to make in the next 15 minutes made as conclusions of this initiative. They are not even made -- well, I will just stop it at that.

They are intuitions that grow out of nearly 40 years of wrestling with the angels of doctoral education in our field. They are inspired, I think, by our initiative on the doctorate.

They are also inspired by one other thing. I think that the field of education at all levels sits at the intersection of the education of scholars and the education of professionals.

It is both professional education and classically doctoral education. To ignore that intersection is to make a serious error.

We are also, at Carnegie, doing a set of studies of preparation for the professions. I sometimes call this on the shoulders of Flexner, since Abraham did the Flexner report at Carnegie, how many years ago at Carnegie, Ellen, in 1910. So, you do the math. Ninety-three years ago.

We are studying preparation in law, engineering, the clergy, teaching and about to begin nursing and medicine.

Much of what I am going to say this afternoon grows out of sitting and deliberating about the similarities as well as the dissimilarities between educating what we might call learned professionals, people in the learned professions, and educating people whose work, in large measure, is supposed to inform, guide, influence and enrich the quality of professional practice of people in such professions. That is the intersection.

So, let me begin with a set of observations. The first is, I don't think we can ignore the EdD. Put another way -- and here, Karen, maybe you can hold forth on this because you are the one who has really taken that bull by the horns or by the tail or whichever appendage you would care to think about here.

I am not talking about the Harvard EdD, although it has got many of the same problems. Until we, as a community, can invent a rigorous, legitimate, respectable, powerful doctorate of educational practice, we will never be able to address the problems of the doctorate for educational scholarship.

The fact is that people don't have to apologize for having an MD, instead of a PhD in one of the biomedical sciences.

They don't have to apologize for a JD. The fact is, they don't even apologize for an MSW, and they certainly don't apologize for an MDiv, a master's of divinity, in theological seminaries.

The reason they don't is that everybody knows that these are rigorous degrees with a curriculum -- this is very important, folks.

If I dropped you into a first year course on contracts, blind folded, in some law school in America, you wouldn't know which law school you were in, because the course on contracts is the course on contracts.

There is, across legal education, a sense that the first year of law school is there to prepare people to think like a lawyer, and it means something.

You may not like what it means. When we completed our study of legal education -- this is something we are still about a year from publishing -- I was much more impressed than I thought I would be with the extraordinary power of the pedagogy of law school.

All of the things we talk about as disadvantages of graduate training in education -- people don't come from sharing the same major -- duh, look at law school.

There is no such thing really as a pre-law curriculum. It is not like pre-med. People come from all walks of life, second careers, first careers, no careers, they do it all, and yet, by the end of the first year of law school there is a set of habits of thought of analytical reasoning, of reasoning from cases, about cases, et cetera, that are common. That is what I would say is the good news.

The bad news is the last two years of law school are a waste of time. They drop the ball at that point. They just do.

They then become almost more like graduate school, in the sense that you all come and whatever you want -- and they completely punt on clinical practice, completely.

Part of what we have to do in graduate education is not use either medicine or biology or something as our model.

We have got to be prepared to build our own frankenstein from available parts, and then invent some parts as well.

The quality of that kind of legal education was very, very impressive to me, which is why one of the things that I am absolutely convinced of is that, even though we are not here to solve the problems of the EdD, if we don't solve the problem of the EdD, the PhD challenge will never be addressed, and it is for all the reasons that people have mentioned.

The expectation that people in positions of educational leadership and leaders in educational practice have a doctorate, is as ubiquitous as the expectation that physicians are doctors of medicine. I mean, it is just there.

I don't see, frankly, the possibility of somehow making, in our own lifetimes, the master's degree a respectable alternative for school superintendents again. It is just not going to happen.

I think we could design a superb professional doctorate in education, and I think it ought to be a priority for many of us.

As I say, Karen and her colleagues at USC are addressing this. I think there are lots of complicated problems to address.

One of them is, for example, that in all the other professional schools I have mentioned students are, for all practical purposes, full time.

The exception is those who go to law school at night, but even they finish in four years instead of three, so it might just as well be full time, even when they are mid-career.

I found it very interesting that there are so many 40 year olds beginning divinity school, beginning preparation for careers as clergy. They don't get a single credit for experience, even if they have got a PhD in counseling psychology or they have been a school teacher or a physician.

You have the same privilege of beginning theology one, and at the end of three years they finish divinity school and then, if their denominations approve -- I am speaking of the protestant denominations now -- they get ordained.

So, the notion that this is very serious work, and that it requires membership in a professional community, which I think, by the way, even though what Margaret talked about was the courses, I think the subtext at Colorado is not that you learn what you have to learn by completing a set of courses, but by being in an intellectual and professional community where those courses are embedded as experiences.

So, my first admonition is the thought that, unless and until we have a powerful EdD, that won't be considered a PhD lite, we are going to have a lot of trouble getting our hands around the PhD.

The second observation is kind of based on one of the first classes I had when I was doing graduate work as an educational psychologist.

It was a course in what we then called learning. One of the first things we learned about was something called the serial position effect.

Remember the serial position effect? It was that, if you are given a long list of things, you remember the first and the last thing much more readily than the stuff in the middle. It is true. I mean, go shopping.

I have a similar position with regard to the PhD which is, if you have got to figure out where to tackle this monster, the first place I would look is at the beginning and at the end.

We have seen some examples of this here, with the emphasis on the first year. I would look at the first year, or the first year plus of doctoral education very, very seriously.

In the initiative on the doctorate, we see a number of places that are trying to do this. We are not asking that one size fits all at the beginning. In fact, these are naturally occurring experiments.

They have got to talk to one another and, if we are successful, in 10 years there will be much more of a common sense of what the first year of doctoral preparation for educational researchers looks like.

Will they be isomorphic? No, but you will be able to say something, just as you do with lawyers, about what does somebody at the end of their first year, or their first year plus, of doctoral education look like.

How will we handle the problem of research experience? What is the alternative between, on the one hand, immersing them in a single project that pays for their education for the next four or five years and, therefore, that is what they end up knowing about, and not giving them any research support at all, so they wind up spending their time TA-ing one quarter, supervising students teachers another quarter.

By the way, supervising student teachers, which is probably the largest source of graduate funding for doctoral students in education, is not research education.

It is a lovely example of what has to be at the heart of the apprenticeship of a new EdD, because knowing how to do this is extraordinarily difficult anyway.

The first year is an extraordinarily important opportunity. Law gives us some examples. There are some fascinating examples in engineering. Even though it is an undergraduate professional education, the way in which notions of design get introduced in the first year to set the stage for learning the basic sciences in the lab, fascinating, the notion of design as a metaphor for preparation for educational research.

The ways in which medicine has turned the Flexner curriculum on its head, by introducing early clinical experience, not instead of depth in basic disciplines, but is setting a psychological and social context for learning and integrating the basic disciplines.

We have to give up the illusion that, in the world of education, you are not good unless you are distinctive. That is just balderdash. That somehow every program has to look different from every other program is one of our problems.

Let's look at the end, the dissertation. More and more disciplines are asking, does the dissertation really have to look the way it has always looked.

Does it always have to be a monograph, a single investigation written by a single person over often an endlessly long period of time -- well, less in some fields than in others -- at the end of which you are ordained, which is, of course, what the doctoral hooding ceremony is all about, the ordination meaning that you are now entitled to practice the profession of professor.

Many of our brother and sister disciplines are concluding, no, that that isn't the necessary condition. I would say for us, in particular, no.

I, again, challenge our field to think about not the dissertation, but the defining accomplishments of someone who earns the doctorate.

Those defining accomplishments might, at one level, look more like a design portfolio like an architect. You wouldn't graduate someone as an architect who had demonstrated that, over four years, they had been able to design one hospital. You would expect, you know, a set of designs.

I could imagine, as is happening in some fields, a piece of work that demonstrates their ability to do scholarship of discovery, of application, and -- fascinating my friends -- do you know what the people in doctoral programs in many of the other disciplines are worrying about? They are worrying about the fact that people are getting PhDs in chemistry or mathematics and don't know enough about education, meaning both the design and teaching of courses, but also their role, given that PhD, of educators.

So, the whole notion of the dissertation has to be redone. Let me end up with one other last -- I promise, Ellen -- observation.

The funding patterns in our field, in an ironic way, actually contribute to the difficulties that we have. I spent 10 years on the Spencer Foundation board. For two of them, Ellen was president. It was just two, wasn't it? It seemed longer. I don't know, you were having so much fun.

Here was the Spencer Foundation. We were doing grants in education, and we never explicitly used as a criterion for grant making, how will the way in which this grant is designed and staffed going to contribute intentionally and proactively to the graduate education of researchers, and to make that a strong principle of grant making.

NSF is now doing that, for goodness sake, at least with some of their programs. Conversely, when we did the Spencer post docs, we gave post-doctoral fellowships exclusively to support research, and we didn't ask for any evidence that this was going to impact the quality of teaching that the Spencer post-docs did, because they were all, essentially, members of faculties.

I mean, even at an institution like Spencer, for me defines a high quality support for educational scholarship, there was this bifurcation and this non-recognition.

One of the things I think we need is not only post-doctoral programs in educational research. I think we need maybe some combination of -- NSF and Spencer can lead this -- the equivalent of what we called in NSF the VIGRE program in mathematics, the vertical integration of graduate research in education, which was a selective, high powered program to support real experimentation and integration of doctoral education in mathematics.

So, where do we go? Well, I would -- if you have the guts, I might even go the USC route. Declare a moratorium on your PhD. That would be easy for you, Ellen.

Really, if you really want to use the PhD to educate educational researchers, stop giving it for a while and sit down and design a program that will actually do that, and will not try to be all things to all people.

Make it full time, at least for three years. Make sure it isn't going to take any longer than four years. It is time that we defined the PhDs in terms of time.

Yes, I know my old mentor, Benjamin Blum, would turn in his grave, but you ought to be able to do it in a shorter amount of time. Then, I want to see 100 first rate post-docs a year available in the field of educational research.

As long as I have got the platform, I wouldn't do it the way we have done it at Spencer, and give them to individuals to use often at their own place.

I would do it the way they have done it in the sciences, and you get post docs in programs like the one that David and Deborah and Brian are running, in major research programs, where you spend a couple of years really engaged in high powered research.

I know that nobody knows how to finance this stuff but, quite frankly, unless we set our goals really high, we will be back 20 years from now -- well, some of you will be -- and saying that we have got to do something about doctoral education in education. Thank you.

[Applause.]