American graduate school: professional training vs. research originality

Shigeru Nakayama　
Delivered at Hiroshima University History of University Society Annual Meeting, November 24, 2001

In 1957 when I was a Harvard graduate student, I saw Professor Robert Ulich and asked him how to prepare for oral general examination (It is called comprehensive examination in other institutes. It is basically the examination for Ph.D. candidacy.) on the subject of the history of university he was in charge. He used to be a education minister of Bavaria government and expelled by Hitler out of Nazi Germany to come to Harvard to teach the subject like "history and present status of Western universities."

He was not in good mood. He told me "there was no freedom on the part of student here in the USA. What about Japanese universities?" I got a long reading list of the subject and then, wondered what he meant to say by that?

It is an established opinion among the scholars in the history of education that American graduate school was created modeling after German Ph.D. system. I think otherwise. By the time of general education, my graduate study was so much preoccupied with busy course-works, which are missing in laissez-faire European or Japanese university system. At least first two years in American graduate school, we have to pass course-works with good grades. My concept out of Japanese graduate study was just solely devoted to individual research. American graduate school treated us in a little humiliated way by imposing course-words and common competitive written examinations. If the grade is inferior to B, a student will be expelled from the school. If we renew full fellowship, we have to get all A grades. Accordingly, I had to work hard for fulfilling course-works.

What is, then, the origin of hard training of course-works in American graduate school? It is not possible to originate in the tradition of akademische Freiheit in the philosophical faculty of German universities. Otherwise, Professor Ulrich should not complain about. After the general examination, there is a entirely different world open for the successful Ph.D. candidate. Thereafter, we are able to concentrate in preparing the dissertation. Residence at the home university may not be required. Such a big difference suggests that the system of American graduate school consists of entirely different two modes before and after general examination.

The glory of 19th century German universities is often synonymous to the rise of its philosophical faculty. The course-works in American colleges and graduate schools are nothing similar to the academic freedom of philosophical faculty of the German universities. In the USA, employing competitive written examinations they drill into students' brain the disciplined skill and knowledge. It is not the individual freedom of academic inquiry and research of German universities, which appreciates only something original individuality, not the training of common skill and knowledge.

I think the freedom of German university is laissez-faire, undisciplined, amorphous freedom in the tradition coming down from the medieval Western university. The plea for academic freedom in German university has been the outcry when it was infringed by Napoleon or the German Empire, not the carefully designed one. It was premodern, existed before the rational training and happened to attain glory
under the market mechanism operant in feudalistic pluralism, as J. Ben-David showed.

Then, what was the origin of such a rational professional training? It may eventually goes back to the 7th century Chinese civil service examination of Confucian rationalism. For the recruitment of bureaucrats, they sought fairness in competitive written examination excluding personal connection and nepotism. It invited the attention of the Jesuit rationalism who came to China in the 17th century. The system of written examination was began to be adopted in the 18th century rationalistic Western society. I presume that the written examination must have been adopted first by newly rising technical, professional schools (such as the ecole des ponts et shausses or ecole central, the predecessors of ecole polytechnique) rather than old universities, the fortress of ancienne regime. Then, the West Point imported the harsh training method of ecole polytechnique in mathematics and highly theoretical subjects. There is also an established opinion of the history of American education that Harvard college followed the practice of Cambridge gentlemen education but recitation of classics might have not been the predecessor of professional training. But President Eliot of Harvard adopted into college and graduate school elective courses that had been the practice of philosophical faculty of German universities. (At this point, I would like to seek the opinion of oversea scholars as to the origin of written examination and course-works in old educational institutions, as I had no opportunity to document my conjecture with the sources available in Western libraries.)

The immediate predecessors of course-works in present American universities must have been German Technische Hochschule, following the practice of ecole polytechnique, and American land-grant A& M colleges. The tradition is now taken over by contemporary professional schools, where highly appreciated is not necessarily individual originality but solid skill and knowledge commonly required as a professional practice. Normally, Master's degree is given to such a practical qualification but because of the length of training MD is conferred at medical schools.

For the training of common skill and knowledge, textbooks are compiled. Written examinations will be accompanied with textbooks. The American graduate school aims at training of researchers with individual originality but along the use of textbooks and written examinations,
it requires course-works as the common skill and knowledge of research professionals and as the prerequisites of future individual research.

I notice that there are certain difference of research style between American researchers with course-work trainings and European and Japanese scholars without them. From the former view point, the latters appear to be amateuristic, while the latters view the former as being too much professionalized. In American graduate school, the paradigm common in a disciplinary group is thoroughly mastered, while professional skills drilled in. Only after that, with the premise of common knowledge at their research front, they could discuss the esoteric topics not to be understood by those outside of the discipline. In my specialty of the history of science, for example, graduate students were required reading all of the classical paradigms of science appeared on the history of science, starting with Aristotle and they discuss with the premise that all of professional discussants are familiar with these classics, while they get familiar with disciplinary tools, such as standard reference works and current interpretations of the subject. In such a field as the history of science, which is not as yet professionalized in Japan, there are often difficulty to distinguish between an amateur and a professional. Some people appoint themselves as professionals by reproducing text-book knowledge, who are not regarded as professional in American history of science society, where now professionals with graduate training dominates. Whether the merit of professionalization is still arguable, most of the field in natural science are already professionalized, while in social science and humanities the difference of professionals and amateurs are, or should, not clearly visible.

Within such a professionalization trend of science, the oral debating tradition of medieval university is still preserved in general and defense examinations before and after writing an individual dissertation, at least as a matter of formality. It is the formality of public debate, in which the qualification of degree candidates is assessed by their individual originality. Such a debating scholarship is running into modern academic science but missing in the Eastern tradition.

A written examination of the Eastern tradition cannot be applicable to the qualification test of general and defense examinations, as candidates are required to possess specialized knowledge to be tested only individually. Even before the general examination, graduate students are required to present individual papers of laboratory work and seminar.

On the other hand, modern rationalistic training in professional schools of newly rising bourgeois class evaluate the practicability of science rather than individual originality. Especially modern technology is appreciated for its interchangeability. Among practical professionals, the creative individuality is not necessarily esteemed. Technical acme of talented individual often means the retreat from modern professional skill to pre-modern craftsmanship. In medicine too, American medical schools train their MD candidates only in professional skill, without requiring individual dissertations.

Bifurcational development of American graduate and professional schools has proved to be rational. In such a fast moving frontier of science and technology, however, research-mindedness should be required for high-tech high professionals. On the other hand, in Japanese graduate school, such a bifurcation has not been attained yet. Before the eventual merging graduate and professional schools in frontier science and technology, bifurcational way of thinking must be once thoroughly considered.