Posted by Kenneth Sloan on May 05, 2003 at 11:09:41:
In Reply to: Re: too many ? posted by Dave Zerkel on May 04, 2003 at 21:49:44:
It's all about goals and values (and job responsibilities).
Dave Zerkel is undoubtedly correct that "the DMA in performance areas is flawed horribly". From my point of view (an amateur in music but a pro at what Universities do and what they look for in tenured faculty), the DMA is often a fake credential, invented to satisfy the letter, but not the spirit, of University regulations.
Universities want to believe that their tenured faculty is exploring the bleeding edge. Tenure gives the freedom to break all the rules. But, surely any accomplished musician will understand that before you are given a license to break the rules you must first demonstrate that you know the rules and can follow them, if you choose.
Joe, for example, knows that you must master your 48 scales before standing up in public and offering your musical interpretation of a classic (or brand new0 piece of music.
Universities want to see a DMA because the Chemists and Philosophers on the tenure and promotion committee have been told by the music establishment that the DMA is a "terminal degree" in music - there's no where to go from there - the DMA is evidence that you have travelled *to* the bleeding edge (and perhaps received a few minor cuts and bruises). It is advertised as being similar to a Ph.D., or an Sc.D, or an Ed.D., or...any number of other "terminal degrees". Such a degree is shorthand for "been there, done that, have the T-shirt".
For bean-counters who do not understand Chemistry, or Philosophy, or French Literature, or Music, or Tuba (whatever that might be) - it's desirable to have an easy benchmark - and the "terminal degree" serves that purpose.
But, the real topic of discussion here is "tenure". Tenure might well be considered as a meta-degree; certification that goes beyond the "terminal degree". There are certain requirements, and certain benefits once you meet the requirements. Remember that most people coming up for tenure have already received the "terminal degree" - which should be a hint that something *more* is required.
At most places, there is a tripod of "Teaching, Research, and Service". You must be above threshold on all 3 to get tenure. The second most important issue is "publish or perish". The *most* important issue is often "indirect costs".
Teaching is the leg of the tripod that everyone understands.
Research is a tricky one for musicians. Just as with the DMA (a fake Ph.D.), there are several "unorthodox" ways for a musician to satisfy this leg of the tripod. Performance and recordings are often treated as equivalent to scholarly publications. This brings to my mind ancient discussions of whether FORTRAN satisfied the "foreign language" requirement. I think this can work - but musicians should feel a special burden to understand what "scholarly publication" means and to develop reasonable standards (and reasonable explanations understandable by a chemist) to allow "performance" to substitute for "publication". The real bottom line in "research" is "are you creating anything new, and is it making you famous?" Another is "is it bringing grants and contracts to the University?"
Service is a catchall for "committee work - and other administrativce tasks". Most faculty hate to do administration - but they shudder at the thought of a University administered by non-faculty. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it - and if you want a life-long committment from the University, you had better demonstrate that you are able and willing to sit through interminable committee meetings on such topics as "how many hours of practice is equivalent to how many hours of chem lab"?
A Ph.D. is typically certified as being *ready* to handle the Teaching and Research side of things. Someone without a Ph.D. who jumps in and starts behaving like an Asistant Professor *should* meet all of the requirments for a Ph.D. in the first year - so it's *possible* to hire someone without the degree and let them demonstrate that they can do the job anyway; it's just a bit strange.
By analogy, a DMA ought to be *ready* to teach and perform "on the bleeding edge". Many people can do this who do *not* have the DMA - so that's not really the problem.
Theh problem is tenure. Tenure requires performance above and beyond the Ph.D. (or the DMA). If you take a "teaching job" at a University and you are *not* doing everything that a DMA has to do to get the degree *and more* - then you are not on the "tenure track" - no matter what your job description says. At the end of 7 years, someone will look at your performance over the past 7 years and ask "are we comfortable offering this person a job for life, and giving them a license to break all the rules while representing the University to the outside world".
It's *supposed* to be hard.
I always tell grad students "if you don't like being a graduate student, you will *hate* being an Assistant Professor". By the same token, I have noticed over the years that if you don't like the pre-tenure job situation, you will either despise (or be very bad at) the post-tenure job.
I strongly recommend consideration of the "tripod". If you think that the job is "all teaching" or "all performing", then you will be very bitter and disappointed when the 7-year clock runs out (no one has ever thought the job was "all service"...)