Discourse around the PhD in Australia seems to be heading in one direction at the moment - toward industry and 'the national agenda'. Last night there was the launch of a new federally-funded initative for PhD. According to the publicity this will be based on the US model of 'doctoral training', being a four-year, fully funded course with built-in coursework (no details given). The federal government is putting $1M - not sure if that's per year or total - into this, and it will have 25 students in it - all doing PhDs in Mathematics.
However, I'm told that the people who advise on PhD at at least one ATN university were not consulted about this initiative, and its pedagogical base looks shaky; this is the only sentence that approaches a framing of the PhD as learning for the students:
The Centre will formally embed these skills during a 4-year PhD program and will see candidates undertaking study in disciplines which complement their primary focus, producing more well-rounded graduates.
So that's all right then. 'Well-rounded graduates' can be produced by coursework. Who knew?
The federal government is really putting the squeeze on - and why wouldn't they? They've been subsidising PhDs by fees and scholarships for years; now they want some say in what comes out of them. The last paragraph is an excellent example of the kind of rhetoric that is being used:
Our universities need to be innovative and creative in their doctoral training, in order to produce the kind of 21st Century graduates that will drive Australia’s productivity. This new initiative is an innovative response to the challenges we face building Australia’s research workforce and we believe it is an idea whose time has come.
