Giving up on your dissertation is not an option

Love Your Dissertation

For the past thirty days, I have been writing a long project. My goal was 50,000 words. I’m happy to say, I exceeded my word count goal within the allotted time. While I was writing, I hit multiple walls, contemplated giving up several times, and eventually came to understand that this was a job—a 30-day temp job.

Writing at this intense pace reminded me of writing my dissertation. I don’t have any magic medicine to offer you to help you accomplish your gargantuan dissertation task. However, I can offer you some insights from my writing process. In this post, I break down the thirty days into four phases.

Phase I: Denial: Surfing the pink cloud

When I started writing on Day 1 of my 30-day writing project, I was overflowing with enthusiasm. I had a good idea (it came to me in a dream). My outline made sense. My ducks were in a row, my planets were aligned, my support team members (friends and family) were shaking their pompoms. . . . What could possibly go wrong?

Nothing! I was eager to get started, and away I went. I dove in with conviction that this project was going to be great. Not just good, but great. After all, I’d had a dream about it! You can’t go wrong when you dream about your topic, right?

For the first two weeks, I wrote like a fiend, like a maniac, like a writing machine. I hardly took time to eat or sleep. I was on fire with the zeal of the writer who has grabbed a great idea by the tail and wants to cage it before it slinks back into the wild—or wherever it is ideas come from.

When I embarked on my dissertation, I had some similar pink-cloud moments. I thought I had a great idea. I studied all the articles in my field, I read all the books. I had a vision. My support team was in place, my direction seemed clear. I figured I would be done and defending in no time. Piece of cake.

Phase II: Horror: Bashing into the wall

Somewhere around Day 15 of my 30-day writing project, I hit the first wall. I’d just read what I’d written. I had the sinking realization that the structure of the project was flawed. My outline had steered me wrong! I started frantically rearranging sections according to a new outline. My daily average word count dropped like a rock. I saw my word count goal slipping away.

After crashing into the first wall and surviving (somewhat bruised), I clawed my way back on track, recouping my average daily word count. The next wall loomed in front of me a few days later. After reading what I’d written to that point, I realized, the structure was still wrong! Oh, the horror. At that moment, I felt like abandoning the project. I couldn’t see my way through. What had seemed like such a clear path from beginning to end had led me off the cliff into some snarled undergrowth. I was tangled in confusion and indecision. Which way to go? I couldn’t climb out of the ditch.

When I was working on my dissertation, I hit my first major wall when I was writing my dissertation proposal. I had a new chair; she was less enthused about my approach compared to my previous chair. I wrote draft after draft and couldn’t seem to get it right. Nothing made sense anymore. This was my long dark night of the soul. I could have quit, but I am not a quitter. I put my head down and kept trudging forward, which means I kept reading, writing, thinking, and writing some more.

Phase III: Acceptance: Realizing the impossibility of the task

Around Day 20 in my 30-day writing project, I was back on track with an outline I hoped would work, feeling extremely battered and not at all cocky. I didn’t know if I would be able to achieve my word count goal. It felt impossible. It probably was impossible. Yet I was not willing to give up. I could still see the bones of my project underneath my fumbling cloudy writing. I could still hear it begging to be born. I kept writing.

At that point, I took the leap of faith. I didn’t know what would happen or how it would happen if I finished my project; I just knew I had to keep going—even if I couldn’t fly, even if I crashed at the foot of the cliff (metaphorically speaking). I wanted my pink cloud back but I was older, wiser, and humbler now about my chances for success.   

When I was working on my dissertation, I crossed a similar threshold of acceptance. I thought there was a real possibility I would run out of time in my program. If I ran out time, I risked being dismissed from the Ph.D. program. Everything I had worked toward would have been lost. I’d invested years in this impossible journey. I closed my ears to my fears, hunkered down, and kept writing.

Phase IV: Commitment: Showing up for the work

Finally, I came to understand that I had committed myself to a 30-day temp job. Even though I was my own employer on this project, so to speak, I was required to suit up and show up, get the work done for the day with a minimum of drama, and come back the next day to repeat the task. At that point, the glamor had evaporated. The bubbly enthusiasm of the pink cloud was gone, but so were the fears: that my idea was dumb, that my project would never work, that I wasn’t good enough to succeed.

The fears were replaced with a deep sense of satisfaction with the process itself. Regardless of the outcome, I was having a blast puzzling out the best structure for my project. I was a detective following the clues. I could have fired myself from the temp job at any time, and once or twice, I almost did. But had I quit, I would have missed the gift of working like “a digger on the railroad,” as Ralph Waldo Emerson said, to bring my project into being.

There was a point in my dissertation writing that I knew I was going to make it. My idea was solid, my approach was logical, my data were robust, my analysis was thorough, and my write-up was valid. From that moment, it was as if I had crossed the field of poppies and I was running along the yellow brick road toward the Emerald City.

The approvals unfolded quickly. The defense happened. The pdf of the final manuscript was submitted to ProQuest. Some months later, my diploma arrived in the mail. I have it around here somewhere, I think. It’s a symbol, it’s evidence that I successfully navigated the long doctoral journey. I gained so much more than a diploma. I learned how to be a writer—from writing my dissertation.

What I learned

Other dissertators have different experiences. Some move along briskly, others not so much. I was a nontraditional dissertator at an online university. I received little support from my mentors and peers. I fell in multiple ditches, bashed into many walls, clawed my way out of brambles . . . it was not easy.

Nor should it be easy.

We build character by setting goals, making commitments, and showing up to fulfill them. We can change our minds, and sometimes we should. There’s no shame in pivoting away from a project that won’t help make the world better in some way. But sometimes the way to success is to roll up our sleeves, pick up that shovel (metaphorically speaking), and get busy digging that railroad.

Today I can say I dug my own personal railroad: Eighty-thousand words in thirty days.

R.I.P., gainful employment rule

It’s a sad day for educators who want to hold for-profit colleges accountable for program quality, student debt repayment, and student employment outcomes.

This week, Betsy DeVos, U.S. Secretary of Education, officially repealed the Obama administration’s 2014 gainful employment rule. The rule has required providers of career and certificate programs (many operated by for-profit institutions) to prove their graduates could find gainful employment. If graduates’ employment rates fell below certain standards, the institutions risked losing access to federal student loan funding, the lifeblood of the for-profit sector. For the past two years, the Trump administration has refused to carry out the rule, even though it has the force of law (Kvaal & Duncan, 2019). Now the rule is repealed, effective immediately.

DeVos and others have offered several arguments for the repeal of the rule, including freedom of choice, lack of fairness, and higher education purposes and outcomes. I offer some thoughts based on responses of educators, economists, and my own experience as a former teacher at a for-profit career college and a graduate of a for-profit university.

Students should be “free to choose”

DeVos and others have claimed that students should be “free to choose” their higher education institutions (Kvaal & Duncan, 2019). DeVos has used this argument when discussing schoolchildren and school choice. “Our country needs students to be freed to pursue the education that will unlock their potential and unleash their creativity” (DeVos, Cruz, & Byrne, 2019, para. 21). However, the gainful employment rule applies to higher education institutions, specifically those that offer vocational programs.

Students who are contemplating enrolling in a college or university are presumably adults with autonomy to choose. Maybe they don’t receive or can’t find accurate guidance on differences between for-profit and nonprofit institutions, but the information is available. Nobody held a gun to my head when I enrolled in a for-profit university. I didn’t do my homework.

Thus, this argument is specious.

For-profits face an “unfair playing field”

DeVos and others have claimed the gainful employment rule “discriminates against the for-profit colleges that offer many career programs because it does not apply to all colleges” (Kvaal & Duncan, 2019, para. 3). Some have said the rule unfairly targets the for-profits, thereby creating an “uneven playing field” (Vedder, 2019, para. 4).

Critics have pointed out the absurdity of this argument. “It’s a bizarre complaint, like saying that it is unfair that there are different traffic laws for trucks than for cars. For-profit schools are structured differently, in ways that make them more hazardous” (Cao & Shireman, 2019, para. 2). Having taught at a for-profit college and earned an advanced degree at a for-profit university, I have firsthand knowledge that for-profit education is different from nonprofit education in some fundamental and disappointing ways. (See my previous contribution on the topic here.)

In place of the gainful employment rule, the Department of Education has created the “College Scorecard” to give students information on each program’s debt and earning prospects (Green, 2019). However, wading through reams of data on program outcomes is not easy. The gainful employment rule required all providers of career education (for-profit and nonprofit) to disclose program outcomes on their websites. Had that data been available to me in 2005, I might have made a different choice about applying to a for-profit university. Students need guidance. Unfortunately, nontraditional students often rely on the advice of someone they perceive as an expert, “frequently the school recruiter” (Cao & Shireman, 2019, para 40).

Some proponents of eliminating the gainful employment rule have claimed that nonprofits have their share of bad apples too (Vedder, 2019, para. 5). Further, the gainful employment rule did not account for other programs with poor employment rates and high debt, such as “some liberal arts degrees” (Green, 2019, para. 15).

However, comparing for-profits to nonprofits without drilling down to compare institutions at the program level is not helpful. In other words, comparing bad employment outcomes at “public universities” to bad employment outcomes at career colleges perpetuates misinformation.

It’s laughable to imagine comparing the my for-profit career college employer to the for-profit university I attended for my doctorate. It’s equally ridiculous to compare either one to the public universities I attended for my undergraduate degrees. We may have complaints about any institution, but when comparing institutions, we should try to compare apples to apples. It’s not about “fairness”; it’s about accuracy.

This argument is based on a faulty comparison.

There’s more to higher education than just employment

Some supporters of rescinding the gainful employment rule have claimed higher education is about more than getting job skills; good schools teach “virtue, civic responsibility, and other things” (Vedder, 2019, para. 3). The argument is that the gainful employment rule failed to account for “factors other than the quality of an education that could affect students’ earning potential” (Green, 2019, para. 15). Therefore, trying to regulate employment outcomes with the gainful employment rule misses the ostensible point and purpose of higher education, which is more than just students getting jobs and paying back their loans. Moreover, critics claim, the higher earnings of college graduates are not entirely attributable to college education; some students would have earned more without the college degree (Vedder, 2019, para. 2).

I agree, higher education is about more than just employment and loan payback outcomes. I also agree that some students will succeed and thrive no matter what type of institution they attend. However, again, comparing career and technical colleges that provide job skills (whether they are for-profits and nonprofits) with, say, research universities (whether they are for-profits and nonprofits) is a faulty basis for deciding for-profit institutions don’t require scrutiny.

The evidence seems clear. Of all the colleges that have closed since 2013, 95.5% of them were for-profit institutions (Newton, 2018, para. 9). Further, the majority of students who defaulted on their student loans three to five years after graduation went to for-profit colleges (Newton, 2018, para. 9).

In fact, students entering associates degree programs derived large, statistically significant benefits from obtaining certificates or degrees from public and nonprofit institutions but did not gain such benefits from for-profit institutions (Lang & Weinstein, 2012).

The federal government should have no role

DeVos and others have claimed the federal government should not be regulating universities at all (Vedder, 2019). The job of regulating higher education should be left to the states. However, the federal government funds the for-profit sector in the form of student loans, and these  loans come from taxpayers. The purpose of the gainful employment rule was to hold accountable the institutions that receive 90 percent of their funding from taxpayer dollars. It’s good governance to ensure taxpayer funds are spent wisely and that bad actors are invited to improve their programs.

Just because the current administration has decided to rescind the gainful employment rule does not absolve schools of their legal obligation to provide students a worthwhile education that leads to gainful employment (Scott, 2019). However, without this rule, for-profit colleges with questionable program quality are free to charge high tuition for “worthless credentials that leave students with insurmountable debt” (Scott, 2019, para. 3).

By repealing the rule, the U.S. Department of Education can no longer use its most potent accountability measure—the loss of federal aid (Green, 2019). The collapses of ITT Tech and Corinthian Colleges left thousands of students unable to pay back their loans, leaving taxpayers on the hook (NPR, 2018).

One part of the gainful employment rule already been implemented has identified hundreds of failing programs, many of which closed after they failed to meet the new standards (Green, 2019). In the Education Department’s first assessment of debt-to-earnings ratios for college graduates, “about 98 percent of programs that failed to meet standards for earning power were for-profits” (Green, 2019, para. 15).

To say the federal government should have no role seems lacking in basic stewardship.

The gainful employment rule was intended to put for-profits out of business

Finally, some have claimed the aim of the gainful employment rule was to put the for-profits out of business because of a misguided belief that “people should not profit off of learning” (Vedder, 2019, para. 4). Whether you believe education management companies are capable of providing academic quality—or not—this claim is quickly debunked with a quick review of the gainful employment rule itself. The purpose of the rule was not to put for-profit institutions out of business; it was to protect students from predatory recruiting practices, poor employment outcomes, and loss of taxpayer dollars.

Critics of the rule have suggested that all higher education institutions be held accountable for their academic and employment outcomes. In fact, the gainful employment rule was aimed at institutions with the worst outcomes: colleges that offered vocational programs. The rule applied to both for-profit and nonprofit providers.

I would call this argument once of those red herrings that we resort to occasionally in discussions about things we find uncomfortable.

Closing thought

If we could be sure that academic and employment outcomes were similar across all vocational programs, then we would have the luxury of comparing institutions by results instead of profit-making status. However, as long as the worst outcomes can be attributed to the for-profits, rules are needed to protect students and taxpayers. Unfortunately, that rule was just repealed, and with it all the protections it offered. R.I.P., gainful employment rule.

=======================

Sources

Cao, Y., & Shireman, R. (2019, July 1). Betsy DeVos’s shameful repeal of the gainful employment rule. The Century Foundation. Retrieved from https://tcf.org/content/commentary/betsy-devoss-shameful-repeal-gainful-employment-rule/?agreed=1

DeVos, B., Cruz, T., & Byrne, B. (2019, February 28). America’s students deserve freedom to choose their education options: DeVos, Cruz, Byrne (Opinion piece). USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/02/28/trump-school-choice-students-education-options-scholarships-tax-credits-column/3002868002/

Green, E. (2019, June 28). DeVos repeals Obama-era rule cracking down on for-profit colleges. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/us/politics/betsy-devos-for-profit-colleges.html

Lang, K., & Weinstein, R. (2012, June). Evaluating student outcomes at for-profit colleges (NBER Working Paper No. 18201). Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w18201

Newton, D. (2018, December 9). 20,000 more reasons to never go to a for-profit school. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereknewton/2018/12/09/20000-more-reasons-to-never-go-to-a-for-profit-school/#390daff230e5

NPR. (2018, December 14). Defeated in court, Education Dept. to cancel $150 million of student loan debt. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2018/12/14/676755770/the-education-department-is-canceling-150-million-of-student-loan-debt

Scott, B. (2019, July 2). Scott statement on final gainful employment rule (Press release). Retrieved from https://bobbyscott.house.gov/media-center/press-releases

Vedder, R. (2019, July 1). Betsy DeVos is right about gainful employment. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardvedder/2019/07/01/betsy-devos-is-right-about-gainful-employment/#2420a6d27315

Verified by MonsterInsights