Doctoral programs (also known as PhD programs in the arts) in both the performing arts and creative writing have an even longer history than the fine arts, suggesting that the fit of artists (of any medium or discipline) within the academy has not been an easy one and may be currently undergoing one of its periodic reevaluations. There are 10-15 programs in the US which sometimes sit between several departments or might be housed as floating interdisciplinary programs. Some have argued that the PjD devalues the MFA. Yet the MFA in other social science fields has always been a degree for in depth study of existing knowledge, the PhD a degree of new knowledge and original new research. "No one wants to see degree inflation," said Kathryn Rentz, associate professor at the University of Cincinnati, which offers a doctoral program in creative writing (called a "creative dissertation"), "but our students feel they're getting a materially different experience than they received in MFA programs. If the creative dissertation were eliminated, it would consign these students to unemployment. What is the point of that?"
For many artists, teaching has been their fallback and, sometimes, their primary source of income. Studio art faculty at schools large and small regularly complain about all the committee meetings, occasional departmental politics and even having to teach, but they are hired as artists (often given studios in which to pursue their own artwork) who teach rather than as teachers who happen to make art. Certainly, many artists who at one time sought recognition by their creations today are better recalled as teachers and mentors, but that is a judgment drawn from subsequent history rather than made consciously by the artists themselves. The PhD says to the university, "I am committing myself to academia," whereas the MFA primarily reflects a commitment to developing one's skills as an artist. Art schools and university art departments promote their faculty to prospective students in terms of these artists-teachers' strong presence in the art world but, on a day-to-day level, some administrators seem quite uncomfortable with this dual role. As a result, one sees on the horizon that the price of being a teaching artist may be going up. With an emphasis on conceptual art, many universities now require in depth knowledge of other social sciecne fielfs such as anthropology, history and philosophy, yet few require artists to write, as practitioners in other fields all do, because the main requirement (even if it is under the aegis of the word research) is to exhibit art. Yet universities are increassingly contending with artists who have these degrees and are able to both make art and exhibit and present alongside art historians scholarly papers and even publish peer reviewed books - no university can deny original scholarship such as this and so - change is occurring even if it is simply by artists with PhD's existing out there in academia in studio art programs. Some have called this a double threat -t hey are armed with extra "weapons" to be hired for the few tenure track positions that are still available.
The resistance Bobick had found to accepting MFAs as on a par with PhDs may be nothing compared to the unwillingness of other schools and artists to make the doctorate the standard for university studio art teaching. "What I think we're seeing is credentialism creep," said William Barrett, executive director of the San Francisco-based Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design, "and it's not a healthy sign. There seem to be a number of universities, state universities for the most part, which are very credential-conscious, focusing on the credential rather than what the credential is supposed to signify." Barrett strongly opposes any "devaluing of the MFA" or "switch in terminology that would make the doctorate the fine art world's terminal degree," claiming that some university administrators lack an understanding of the Master's of Fine Arts degree. Providing these administrators with more information is a better solution than making wholesale changes in the training of artists, he stated.
The University of Cincinnati's vice provost for academic planning, Kristi Nelson, supported that view by noting that the MFA curriculum provides a "good balance between art history, criticism, and theory, as well as studio practice." Indeed, both George Bauer and Catherine Jennings largely put aside their artmaking during the years they devoted to their research-oriented doctoral programs. "Studying for a PhD, my production went nearly to zero," Bauer said. "Looking for a job takes up a lot of time, too, so I haven't been doing much art since getting my degree, either." That may be the overall experience of many graduates of doctoral arts programs. Keith Harris, a (nonartist) art historian at Ohio University's School of Interdisciplinary Arts, said that the "PhD can enhance studio production, but many students have found that getting a PhD takes away from work in the studio. Some leave the field of fine arts entirely as practitioners, becoming theoreticians, historians and fine arts scholars instead." Perhaps, an example of that phenomenon is Norma Humphreys, assistant dean at the College of Fine Arts at Ohio University, who had received music degrees as an oboist prior to earning a doctorate there in 1994, and now claims that "I don't play anymore. The pressure of the doctoral program, all the reading and writing, got me out of playing, and I don't think I have the talent for it anymore."
Perhaps, the largest problem with the MFA, according to these and other artists, is that the degree is not understood or respected at some colleges and universities (there does not appear to be any such problem at degree-granting art schools), limiting the opportunities for artists to be promoted or earn the same salaries as PhDs. The MFA quality and rigor varies greatly in the USA with some universities handing students a studio key and asking them to take a general course in the larger university, with monthly studio visits by professors, to rigorous programs with with theory courses and dissertation requirements. Sadly in many cases the faculty are poorly qualified to correct writing since few write or publish themselves (nor did they have to in their MFA programs).
The concept of the MFA as a "terminal degree" is unfamiliar to many administrators and scholars whose fields do not have an equivalent structure; they see a Master's degree as no more than that. "As chairman of an art department, I've seen different tracks for doctorates and nondoctorates," said Bruce Bobick, who is the head of West Georgia State University's art department who himself holds an MFA in painting. "Every school I've been at, I've had to educate someone -- a dean, a provost -- on what the MFA means. And then the old dean retires or leaves and a new person is hired, and you have to start the process all over again: It's time that could be used for something more productive." Obtaining a doctorate, he noted, is perhaps the best way to obviate that time-consuming and sometimes insurmountable problem. It seems that a PhD will perhaps also help artists who are professors become more efficient and swift administrators, due to the PhD’s rigorous requirements. Certainly a trickle down effect has been noted by some, in which the PhD seems to affect the MFA below it, where MFA programs get beefed up to include instruction on citations, research, peer review and the like.
Another benefit of a doctoral degree, artists and university administrators claim, is the ability to teach a wider variety of courses, such as classes in art theory and history, which solely had been the province of art historians. Catherine Jennings, who received an MFA in painting from the University of Pennsylvania in 1987 and a PhD from Texas Tech 10 years later, stated that "teaching upper-level art history is a lot of fun." That teaching takes place at Chico State University in California, where she has been a part-time lecturer for seven years ("I'd much prefer a full-time, tenured position, but I'm doing better than a lot of other people"). She also teaches beginning drawing and an art history survey course. "I have a lot more options with both degrees," Jennings said.
For now the debate has died down with many art schools closing an funding drying up. Yet, with new books such as “yoru Brain on Art” and new neuroscience research that studies the brains of artists, one might anticipate a resurgence of interest as outside fields realize that with art training the human Brian might make easier connections and be better at “thinking outside the box” especially with further academic training.