Reinventing Education - About PhDs and Specialization

Both can be overrated and abused.

In arguments over things woke, there is a common pattern.  Many of you have seen it before, but it can be seen again in several responses to an observation by Matt Kennedy on twitter this week. The woke side uses two tactics in attempting to discredit opposition:

1. Using academic credentials, especially those PhDs the woke so love to put after their names, to dismiss those who do not possess said academic credentials in wokeness, and…

2. Dismissing those who have not read all the woke canon books.  This is often seen in the loaded question, “Have you read xxx?”

The first is abuse of the original purpose of PhDs and of other academic credentials — to recognize superior scholarship.  A PhD should never be used to suppress scholarship and discussion.  It does not give license to in effect say, “How dare you openly disagree with me, you person of less credentials. Begone!”

And let’s be frank about PhDs — their value has become less and less through the years.  It only takes a degree of common sense to see this.  It has been said that to become certifiably stupid, one must get a PhD.  Thanks to the state of academia today, there is much truth in this.

By the way, the PhD is really something of a novelty.  It did not exist before the 19th century.  One would be hard pressed to argue that it was ever needed.  Oxford did not introduce its equivalent DPhil until 1919.  (Yes, change always seems to happen a bit slower in Oxford.)  So it is hardly a necessity in recognizing superior scholarship.

Those of us who revere the scholarship of Edward Pusey of the Oxford Movement often call him “Doctor Pusey.”  But, to my knowledge, he never received a doctorate as the Oxford DPhil came decades after him.  Nonetheless, he was widely recognized as a scholarly great at Oxford during his lifetime.  A DPhil or PhD was utterly not needed so to do.  His scholarship spoke for itself.

I should say here that I have read and benefited from at least three PhD/DPhil theses I can remember, those of Mark Philpott, George Westhaver, and (if memory serves me right) of Christopher De Hamel among other works of all three (not to mention the friendship and personal guidance of the first two). So I freely concede that, used aright, the PhD is a boon to learning.  But all too often today, it is debased and abused. The manner in which the woke wave around their letters is part of that.

The second tactic speaks to issues of specialization. Certainly specialization, focusing on virtually all research in a particular area, is often necessary and helpful.  But unwisely wielded specialization can cause someone not to see the forest for the trees and can indoctrinate more than educate.

Allow me to illustrate with hypothetical Flat Earth Studies.  Those who write and lecture for Flat Earth Studies all think the Earth is flat, mainly because more sensible people are not going to waste their time on this area. Of course, those involved in broader areas of research, such as astronomy, or who just have common sense, know very well the Earth is not flat, but those don’t count in Flat Earth Studies.  So those active in Flat Earth Studies are very convinced the Earth is flat.  All the Flat Earth Studies books and research say so!

And if you have the temerity to oppose Flat Earthism and even to say it is bonkers, they will ask, “Have you read this or that Flat Earth book?” with the assumption that a “no” answer will discredit your opinion.  Of course, the reason you do not read Flat Earth books is because you have far better things to do.  You already know that Flat Earth books are helpful only in trying to understand the Flat Earth mindset and in having some good laughs, and not much else.

Now I do not think Critical Theory and various Woke Studies are quite as detached from reality as Flat Earth Studies.  But I think my analogy applies all too well.  One does not have to “do the work” and read all the woke books to know wokeness is rubbish. (For the record, I have read some woke stuff so you don’t have to. For example, I have read and reviewed Tisby’s How to Fight Racism.) Further, reading all the woke books may be more liable to deceive and indoctrinate rather than educate.  Someone with a broader, less specialized education with a dash of common sense is better equipped to evaluate wokeness.

So don’t let anyone silence you from stating the obvious about wokeness or any other area of interest by waving around their degrees or asking, “Have you read . . . ?”

A broader question is how education needs to change and respond to the abuse of degrees and of specialization.  But I will have to put that question aside for now.

———

Often wokeness more directly suppresses discussion by attacking free speech.  To further free speech and discussion, I have just joined GETTR.  I would appreciate you following me there: https://gettr.com/user/mark_marshall .