College and Grad School

[stephenhunt16]

So I'm an undergrad student looking at eventually going to grad school and hopefully getting a DMA. One thing I've noticed is that a lot of doctors of music go to a different school for each of their degrees. I happen to like my university and am considering it for graduate school, but is there some kind of stigma with going to the same college for grad school? There are benefits for staying and also going elsewhere, so what do you guys think?

[RickF]

I've heard similar opinions about going to the same university for graduate degrees. I suspect it may depend on the school's reputation for those degrees. My son went to U.F. for all three of his degrees (BS, MS and Ph.D electrical and computer engineering). It didn't hurt him at all in him getting a good job. It's just my opinion but if you feel you're getting a good education and learning what you need to succeed I'd say stay at that school.

[CEBunker]

It matters in science because departments specialize. If you remain with the same folks through each stage, you only learn their point of view and their strengths. There are many that have done that and been just fine; it sort of depends on the quality of the school you are at. Music could be the same; however, its such a personal, artistic skill set that I assume it matters much less. Your attachment to your teachers and how hard that will make you work probably means more to your overall success than a variety of styles or philosophies.

[Euphearted]

The big caveat is that colleges and universities should not hire their own graduates. That is where the problem of intellectual inbreeding arises (all one point of view), and it jeopardizes accreditation. If you hope to teach at the university you got your B.A. from, perhaps your masters and certainly your doctorate should come from someplace else.

[davewerden]

Among the very best schools in the USA, there are several with outstanding programs and records of success. You should at least consider what differences other schools might offer - maybe you would pick up new insights at another school. And each of the major artists at those schools will have different experiences and methods that shape their teaching. The same general principle applies when you are studying at schools that are not in that top-of-the heap league; each still has its advantages and specialties.

[ghmerrill]

Sorry about the length of this, but it's a topic I have some interest in and I've advised students regarding these kinds of things for a number of years. It may be worth reading.

The degree to which "diversity" has been employed in recent years to justify all kinds of things (including a thorough-going relativism to standards and goals) is appalling. Nonetheless, there are genuine (even essential or critical) benefits to diversity in pursuing excellence in any discipline.

In terms of academic study (across all disciplines), the conventional wisdom has always been that one shouldn't remain in a single department for one's entire education because that contributes to (virtually enforces) the development of constrained thought patterns, perspectives, perceptions, goals, and techniques. I think that, in general, there's no question that this is true. There are exceptions to this, of course. The ones known to me (in the areas of my own expertise) all involve students who (a) were focused on an academic career, (b) were among the best students (nationally or internationally) in their disciplines at any given point, (c) were capable of and were demonstrating independent and innovative work even at early stages of their education, and (d) were independently aware of alternative viewpoints and approaches as they proceeded in their own educations. There are a few of these people (really very few) who then stay in a program from Bachelor's degree through Ph.D. or beyond. One of these was my own dissertation director (though before he went through the entire program at UCLA he had already screwed around for several years at both Kansas State and the Sorbonne before going to vocational school in Switzerland and then finally embarking on his real study and career). Another is a very good friend who grew up in the Soviet Union and went through all of his degrees at Moscow State (including Ph.D. and D.Sc. in physics, and is internationally known as an expert in experimental design). I know others who took similar paths at Berkeley, Harvard, MIT, etc. But it's quite unusual. I have sat on hiring committees where comments have been made along the lines of "Well, she looks like a great candidate, but she's done all here work a X."

Changing educational environments (schools, programs, departments, ...) in general offers a kind of diversity that breaks acquired and rigid habitual thought patterns, broadens skills and understanding, and makes you more flexible and perceptive. At least ideally it does, if you pick the right places to go. There are other practical advantages as well -- especially if you are hoping for a career in academia. If you do all of your work at one school, then you have only one restricted set of people to serve as close contacts when you go to look for a job. If you do your work at two schools, you basically have twice as many people whom you might enlist in aiding you in the job market. An important question for you (if you're oriented towards an academic career) is "Is this department I want to stay in really capable of helping me get a university job when I complete my DMA?" And, "What is their success rate for getting their DMA students into academic positions?" Don't let them bull**** you. Every graduate department has hard statistics going back a long time on just this issue. It's one way they justify their continued funding.

Another consideration is the quality and size of the department that you might remain in for all of your degrees (assuming that they're willing to have you!). If it's a relatively small department with only one or two professors in your area of interest, it's not such a good idea (zero diversity, narrow perspective, what happens if one or two leave?, etc.). If it's a large department, then it may provide the necessary diversity and breadth within itself. Going from freshman to Ph.D. in Mathematics at Berkeley or MIT or Stanford or UCLA or ... is very different from doing it at The State University of Southwest Mississippi (if there is one).

So then what are the advantages of staying in your current department? (You can take that as a rhetorical question.) Answers to this along the lines of "I'm comfortable there", "I'm used to it and know all the people", "I won't have to move", "It will avoid a lot of stress", etc. should, in my view, be ignored -- if you really have your eye on the prize that you see the degree as getting for you.

There are some other "administrative" considerations to think about. Will you be getting a Master's degree on the way to the DMA? I don't know how this generally works in the area of music, but in other disciplines there are some departments that require you to get a Master's degree prior to the Ph.D., and some that don't. Being compelled to (or choosing to) get a separate Master's degree really just slows you down in your progress and generally costs you at least a year. Many "high-powered" departments don't even have a terminal Master's program and just off the Ph.D. as the advanced degree (except for people who crash and burn on their way to it, and those get awarded a Master's as a "nice try; 'bye now" exit prize). In my own case, there was no terminal Master's degree offered, but you got an M.A. when you finished your qualifying exams for the Ph.D. simply because the university was paid (at the time) $400 by the State of New York for every Master's degree it awarded. It was pretty much like, "Okay, here's your Ph.D. And by the way, here's your M.A." In selecting a program (or programs), think about how long it will take you to complete them -- and how long you may get support for.

And don't dawdle (or allow your department to impede your path to the degree -- golly, I just last night had a long conversation with a statistics Ph.D. student about this very topic). I had an intern in the mid-2000s who had gotten two Bachelor's degrees at NC State (Philosophy and Mechanical Engineering) and decided to go into the Ph.D. program in Philosophy at UNC. They promised him 5 years of support (more than enough to complete the Ph.D.). But he dawdled (got "comfortable" being a grad student -- it was fun). Then in 2008-2009 the economy tanked and his department said "Well, sorry, but we can't honor that stuff about the 5th year of support. It wasn't binding, you know. 'Bye, now. When you have your dissertation done, come back and we'll see about the degree." Never finished it. He's teaching English in Dubai.

Okay ... I see I'm lecturing; so I'll stop. But these are some genuine considerations in choosing a school or schools, and in focusing on what you need to do in order to get where you want to go.

[John Morgan]

Nice message, Gary. I kind of thought you might have something to say about this topic. Without going into a lot of detail, I agree that, in general, it is a good thing to switch schools for your degrees. And if your DMA has an emphasis on performance, getting training and guidance from more I think, overall, is better than getting it from one, albeit even a good one. I would, though, make it a point to pick school(s) that had the kind of teacher(s) that would challenge you and continue your growth.

[ghmerrill]

What most students don't realize is that while the public perception of an advanced degree (Ph.D., D.Ed, DMA, etc.) hasn't changed much over time, the reality and role and function of it has -- especially since so many schools have graduate programs and are generating piles of people with advanced degrees in part because so many more students can afford to attend such programs. It used to be that a Ph.D. (or similar doctoral degree) was pretty much a ticket into the exclusive club of the professional university faculty. You got your ticket, it got you into the club, your life was great for the next 30 years.

That pretty much ended in the mid to late 1960s so that by the early 1970s graduate departments were sending (were required to send by their professional associations) letters to applicants that competition for jobs was fierce and that getting the degree was nowhere near an assurance of getting the sort of job they were hoping for. And then things got even worse over time. Now with the common move of eliminating full-time positions in favor of "adjunct" and part-time faculty, the situation is worse still -- even with the huge inflation in the number of colleges and universities and the number of students attending them.

With respect to a career in academia, the Ph.D. (DMA, D.Ed., ...) is no longer a ticket into the club and into the secure tenured academic life. It's an entrance ticket into a very large room filled with thousands of people vying for dozens of jobs -- and not all those jobs are even full-time. Another of my prior interns spent six years (!!!) getting dual degrees in Philosophy and Electrical Engineering, then another six years (!!!!) to get a Ph.D. from MIT. She's teaching elementary algebra and introductory calculus in a small private school (not a college or university -- a middle/high school).

I'm not saying that anyone shouldn't pursue an advanced degree. But if you choose to do so, you should be realistic about what you want out of it and what you can reasonably expect out of it before you spend years of your life on it (when you could otherwise be earning money and having fun in various ways), or spend a lot of money on it (yours or someone else's). There are VERY few students nowadays for whom I recommend an advanced degree (if I'm asked by them), and in most of those cases I recommend a Master's degree because a Ph.D. won't be beneficial to them and they can knock out a Master's in a year or maybe two. There are exceptions. E.g., if you want to have a good position and make big bucks in industry (e.g., pharma, insurance, financial, etc.) as a statistician, then you need a Ph.D. If you want to rise to the top in public or private school administration, you will probably do best with some sort of doctoral degree. And certainly various positions in the empirical sciences (above lab tech) will require an advanced degree (and probably a post-doc as well). But otherwise, you need to do an honest and objective cost/benefit analysis in making any decision about higher education.

Then there are people like the guy who's "going away party" (from a major drug company) I attended last night. I'd hired him as an intern and then permanently, and we ended up doing some serious work (heavy-duty drug safety and drug development methodology and software with numerous publications -- I think he said last night he now has 23) together over a period of about six years until I retired. He's leaving the company, but hired back as a consultant. He has a B.S. in Computer Science, a B.S. in Mathematics, an LL.D. degree (yeah, he's officially now a "lawyer"), and is finishing a Ph.D. in Computer Science. But he did almost all of that part-time while working. And he sort of likes to collect degrees. Collecting degrees is fine -- if you can afford it in terms of time and money. It can be an interesting hobby. But it's real good to have a well-paying job while you're doing it.

[BDeisinger]

I did my graduate study at a different college because it was closer to home and the main education (conducting) professor had an excellent reputation. I would add that if you are a performance major, then there are two considerations. First is the your major instructor's reputation and performance and your comfort level with that teacher. Second is the exposure to higher level of professors and the music environment of the area. My biggest regret to my graduate degree was that in the performance area there was a lot lacking. Being a teacher, I chose what I thought would help my teaching skills rather than performance. So I have a degree with conducting emphasis.

[LargoBone]

I have classmates who wouldn't go to the school to study under the teacher they had in high school, because they wished to get a different perspective. Ultimately, it's up to you, but I've found that by sticking with one teacher you develop a relationship in which they know exactly where to take you. Unfortunately, the school I'm attending for my bachelor's has only undergraduate programs, so I'll have to transfer elsewhere to finish pharm school and my master's in music.

[ghmerrill]

I understand that sentiment, but a fundamental problem is that if you've always been "sticking with one teacher", you don't have the broader knowledge, experience and perspective to make a reliable judgment about whether he or she does in fact know exactly where to take you -- since you have only the experience and perspective that that one source has provided you. That judgment then becomes a matter of faith rather than one of experience and reason. Some people are comfortable with that. Some people are not.

[davewerden]

After dozens of lessons, any teacher will run low on "new" concepts to present, and we all have our favorite teaching concepts to present to students. A good teacher will still give good value at each lesson, as you explore new musical styles and compositions and possibly develop new techniques, etc. So I don't think there is a carved-in-stone right answer.

BUT... let me off my own personal perspective from my undergrad experience. I was a dumb kid as far as trying to understand the system, planning ahead, etc. I took a couple courses that were totally useless for my degree and took too few hours in my freshman year (I was not officially a sophomore as I started my second year). Bottom line: it took my 5 years to get my degree.

During that time, because I was a euphonium major, I did not usually get the top guy, Dr. John Hill. He was a trombone specialist (who played euphonium, too) and really only had time for trombone majors. I got him for my 4th year because that is when I did my senior recital. For the other 4 years, I had a different prof. or grad student. None were primarily euphoniumists (surprise, surprise!). Probably the best on both instruments was my freshman teacher, primarily a tuba player. I had two different bass trombone players and got one of the trumpet profs for a year.

So I experienced 5 different teaching styles, 5 different method book and solo preferences, etc. Not such a bad thing! It was actually extremely valuable in building my teaching chops. If I had had Dr. Hill for 5 years, I would probably have learned more from his musicianship, which was outstanding, and probably more in some other ways.

Which one do you think would have been best? I'm glad I had the background I did, but I can also appreciate that I missed some stuff.

Extra thoughts

I think an extra jolt of musical insight came 20 years later in my masters program, when I had a semester of study with the cello prof. - that was amazing! The other 3 semesters were with the trumpet prof. who was also excellent, and obviously could teach me stuff like how to speed up my multiple tonguing as well as some musical insights. But his were extensions of the kind of mindset I had, which hers (the cellist) came at music from a few directions that were unknown to me (but recognizable and familiar once she turned the light bulb on over my head).

I also had some independent study with Henry Charles Smith along the way. I think if I had had an extensive college program with him, I would have learned more of his great musicianship and he probably would have developed me into a good trombonist as well.

[BDeisinger]

I had somewhat similar experience to Dave. I started out with the trombone professor who had a thing for what he called full inflation where air is important between the teeth and lips. (I have since modified that for my own playing) My second instructor was a girl who played trombone in a symphony orchestra and I can't remember where. She was doing graduate work at another institution. When my original teacher became department head, I was shifted to the trumpet professor. He was my coach for my senior recital. I also was taking trombone from the new trombone teacher as part of the requirement for euphonium majors even though it only applied to me. I stayed with my last teacher on euphonium after graduation. I was drafted in the Army after being turned down by Air Force for their band leader's program. I was told I had no musical ability, ( I might add that officer was transferred because of that statement) In the Army I was never able to get transferred to a band as being wounded and then at home never got my transfer. I ended up teaching for 30 some years never performing. Now I'm involved in community bands, orchestra, wind ensembles and brass choirs. Took a long time to play again.