Graduate Education: The New Debate

Abstract

tims in recent years of federal benign neglecthave been subjected to the scrutiny of an unprecedented series of high-powered national commissions and task forces. But one of the most striking aspects of their successive national reports is that they have been ineffectual in moving federal policy off dead center. They have argued for stability of federal research support, and support has been cut. They have argued for aid to graduate students, and federal aid has been progressively reduced. They have argued for institutional support, and federal institutional support has been all but eliminated. What then is gained, it might be asked, by a comprehensive look at a series of reports to which so little attention has been paid? Their long-term significance for the goal of a rational public policy toward graduate education lies in the fact that for the first time since the market for PhDs softened and federal support was reduced, we are now arriving at some consensus on many central elements of rationale, purpose, instrumentalities, and the desirable scale of federal support for graduate education. During the period of five years that these commissions met, we've experienced very rapid change. Both the current and prospective job market for those with advanced degrees has become markedly less favorable. General faith in the capacity of science to solve social problems has declined. Many have become skeptical about the role of universities in society. While student protest convulsed one campus after another, many state legislatures became less favorably inclined toward universities. Accordingly, the reports of 1973 are quite different in tone from those issued in 1968 and 1969. They are less expansive in tone, and often less positive. The composition of the groups that prepared the reports is also interesting. The Carnegie CommisTHIS IS A Change Report