 |
 |
| I've had the good fortune
to observe the doctoral program for all of its 50 years: first, as a new
faculty member (I began in September 1947); then (having resigned), as
a member of the first class and the first to complete the degree (1952);
and subsequently (rehired and promoted), as teacher and long-time program
chair.
I've had the pleasure of witnessing and participating in the extraordinary accomplishments of Columbia doctoral graduates who at an apparently unrivaled rate became deans, directors, senior faculty members, authors of major books in practice, practice research, and policy. Here are the degree awardees from 1956-1960, the first major wave. Read and marvel: 1. Muriel W. Pumphrey
Was it nature or nurture? I believe that the consensus would be that Columbia had the good fortune then, and continues to have the good fortune, to attract a very strong element from the applicant pool. Especially in the early years, there was a major backlog of faculty members elsewhere and leading practitioners who wanted further education but had not been attracted to�or did not find feasible�the offerings in the several earlier programs. Columbia offered superstar faculty, an exciting newly designed curriculum, several major fellowship programs, including the Russell Sage Grant to add social science faculty and support some students. For the initial curriculum, credit belongs to Gordon Hamilton, Lucille Austin, Florence Hollis, Phillip Klein, Nathan Cohen and the chair, Eveline Burns. They decided that for the strengthening of the profession, the School should offer a professional doctorate, not a Ph.D. And Burns, a social security expert and most recently research director of the National Resources Planning Board, was determined to meet the high criteria Columbia had set. The DSW requirements and procedures were to be approved by the committee within the Faculty Arts and Sciences that governed the University Ph.D. program, before being routed to the University Council. Then, as now, under Columbia governance only Arts and Sciences could award a Columbia Ph.D. Joint committees are set up as other faculties educate Ph.D. candidates. The strong DSW social science requirements, the examination procedure, and the dissertation defense system as set up initially in the course of Burns' negotiations all reflected Arts and Sciences standards and real participation. That is why in recent years, in a new social work educational context, when Columbia switched to a Ph.D. awarded by Arts and Sciences, there was no curriculum change involved and the structural adjustments were not difficult. We joined the Columbia Corporation in 1955. Although we were in the Carnegie Mansion until 1969 the doctoral program yielded unpredicted earlier benefits with regard to ongoing integration in the University. As advisors, we needed to know about offerings in many faculties. Given the strong social science components, doctoral students became very visible and won for us a strong reputation in social science departments and several professional schools. Leading professors from several faculties were frequently visible at doctoral orals (far more important then than now) and dissertation defenses. And our own senior faculty were increasingly drawn into University committee work and governance. The program expanded substantially in the 1960s and remains large. However, given the extraordinary expansion in the numbers of doctoral social work offerings, we no longer grant more than half the degrees nationally as we did during some of the years of my chairmanship. The constant growth and maturation of the curriculum apart, other important developments included the gradual expansion in numbers of U.S. minority candidates, initially African-American, and following one Pakistani and one Indian graduate among the first group listed above, a scattering from other parts of the world. There were East Asian "pioneers" in the late 1960s and 1970s (Hong Kong, Korea, Thailand), and several more from India, but the Columbia appeal (including Japan) reached its pace in the 80s. Now, students from Taiwan, Korea, Hong Kong, in particular, are a major component of the resident doctoral group. As I continue to teach one
required doctoral course currently, a decade after compulsory "retirement,"
I am especially aware of the younger average ages in the post 1960 cohorts,
their lesser "seniority" or experience than the pioneer classes and the
greater diversity of their backgrounds. Students reflect current
social problems and personal needs in potential client groups in their
policy, practice, and research interests. But the seriousness of
purpose, and high intelligence one saw in the "pioneers" is still very
visible. Social work will continue to be in good hands!
Alfred J. Kahn
|
|
|
|