Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 19:45:00 -0500
From: tombrown@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Thomas F Brown)
Subject: Re: Time limits
To: socgrad@csf.colorado.edu
Message-id: <199712110045.TAA24279@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>

>If we insist on premising the question on the "given..." phrase, then I
>think we should rephrase the question along the lines of "Given how many
>sociologists the world needs, the critical mass the community of the
>department requires, upcoming teaching requirements, and the importance
>of appearing to the rest of the world to be using resources wisely lest
>we get slammed and have our funding taken away...how long..."
>
>Otherwise, it would seem to me that the appropriate policy analysis
>approach would be to separately analyze the questions of how long it
>takes to make good sociologists (and the shape of the distribution) and
>then how many sociologists we need to produce and then whether we can do
>so given budget constraints.  What's the point of being a profession or
>discipline if the answer derives solely from budget constraints with a
>little humanitarian flexibility added?

The question of "how many sociologists the world needs" seems to me just 
as instrumentally motivated and determined as any of the budgetary issues.
I'm not understanding the distinction you're making.

Your observation does raise an argument in favor of extended graduate 
residencies. If the world needs fewer sociologists, then maybe it would make 
more sense to limit admissions, and keep the people you do admit around
longer in order to develop them yet further before you admit them
into the profession. Done right, this could raise the quality of
entry-level sociologists. It's not likely to happen, though, until
budget limitations mandate it.

>Note: I actually think "timely completion" is a great thing.  I also
>think that most grad programs are a long way from having a structurally
>conducive environment in which to make it happen.  I don't mean that the
>"blame" only goes on the department, only that done well, structural
>adjustments may be a much more efficient way to achieve the goal. 
>Unfortunately, most people are rather inept about setting such things
>up. It's a genuine organizational/institutional challenge. A more or
>less Darwinist approach may "work," but it is terribly inelegant from a
>sociological point of view, IMHO.  Sort of like opening walnuts with a
>sledge hammer.

This is essentially what Amy was arguing. Stipulating that mentoring
in sociology grad education is deficient, then what should be done about
it? How can better mentoring be built into the system?

OTOH, many people sail through with few problems. How do we know, then,
that Darwinian selection isn't working efficiently to produce the
best candidates? This needs to be problematized and examined.