1. DAVID CANNON/GETTY
In pursuing excellence,
whether in golf or in
research, the time invested
in training and preparation
is vital. So how long should
a master’s degree be?
asks Don Olcott Jr
Par for
the
course
30 Times Higher Education 8 April 2010
n some circles, “masters” means only one
thing, and it certainly is not higher education, especially at this time of year. For
early April is when the year’s first major golf
competition, the Masters Tournament, gets
under way in Georgia.
The Masters, its rich history and traditions
and the majestic setting of Augusta National
Golf Club would make for an excellent tale.
It is, however, a story better suited for a journalist hoping for a magical storyline that
enters Masters folklore, or perhaps to see
Tiger Woods “take it to the limit” one more
time (a story best left out of bounds here).
My story here is about another tradition, the
master’s degree. Today, there is growing interest, debate, reflection and concern about what
constitutes a sound, high-quality master’s
degree. But there seems to be little movement.
Universities seldom go out of their way to call
a penalty on themselves, unlike genuine golfers
who embrace the rules that govern their sport
as sacred literature. Whether it is admissions
debacles, suspect practices on athletics programmes or diploma-mill marketing, it is often
left to those outside the academy to add up the
penalty strokes on the ethical scorecard.
In discussing the master’s, academics argue
over quality parameters, content, research
requirements and other intricacies of the
degree, but perhaps the issue that causes most
argument is that of course length. Here again
is an analogy to the golfer, for whom the
ability to get length or distance on a drive is a
tactical and strategic advantage. In the
university, however, the issue is simply what is
the optimal length of time in which to
complete a 21st-century master’s degree.
The range of viewpoints on this question is
diverse. Across the globe, master’s degrees
range from nine months to more than two
years in length. Many academics do not see a
problem with this variety: it’s our degree and
it’s accredited, they argue, so we decide, period
(mix academic freedom with a dose of parochialism and the similarities between a graduate
degree and a 300-yard drive begin to diverge).
Golfers who desire greater length on the
course must make physical changes to their
swing, work on their timing and put in hours
of practice to improve. As rules governing the
design of golf clubs and balls are regularly
revised to ensure that equipment does not
provide an unfair competitive advantage, this
facet of the game is the same for all players.
The individual decides to make changes and
choices with the goal of hitting the ball farther.
It’s a different story for the graduate student. The length of time required to complete
a master’s is never a student’s decision. The
student’s only control is selecting a course. Of
course, given a choice between a one-year
master’s and a two-year master’s, the student
will always take the longer degree to perfect
their expertise and skills, right? Wrong – twostroke penalty and no frequent-flyer miles.
It’s time to hit into the rough and look at
the real behind-the-tree issues.
The central issue in this debate about the
optimal length is competition, not quality, as
many academics would argue.
A programme that allows students the
choice of a shorter degree timeframe gains a
I
8 April 2010 Times Higher Education 31

2. Can students reach the top when we
expect them to master the basics of
research in the briefest time while they
also learn about their discipline and
the interdisciplinarity of knowledge?
If the aim is student mastery at the
graduate level of research knowledge
and skills to a specific discipline, this
goal will be difficult for even the most
talented students to meet in one year
MANY MASTER’S CAUSE CONFUSION: HOW THE UK MATCHES UP WITH THE REST OF EUROPE, OR NOT
Mention a “master’s
degree” in the UK and
you could be talking
about a nine- or 12month postgraduate
degree, a taught or
research postgraduate
degree, an undergraduate degree in a
science or
mathematical subject,
or an honorary title
bought by Oxbridge
graduates.
postgraduate master’s,
arguing that the greater
intensity of such courses
gives them equivalent
value to longer ones.
So what does a UK
master’s degree mean
to students, universities
and employers?
In September 2009,
the Quality Assurance
Agency (QAA) launched a
consultation on a draft
document called Master’s
And the picture is not Degree Characteristics,
much clearer in the rest of which is intended to offer
Europe despite the drive
“a framework that higher
to harmonise education
education providers can
systems through the
use in describing the
Bologna Process and
nature of the master’s
create a common
degrees they offer”.
bachelor’s, master’s,
On the purpose of
doctorate cycle.
master’s programmes, the
But overall, the UK is
document says univerdifferent from continental sities may offer the
Europe in terms of
courses to allow students
master’s provision. While
to focus on a particular
a master’s has generally
area of study they have
become a two-year
previously encountered,
postgraduate course in
to learn how to conduct
the rest of Europe under
research, to undertake
the Bologna Process, the a particular research
UK has been able to
project, or to become
persist with its one-year
specialised in a field of
32 Times Higher Education 8 April 2010
knowledge related to a
profession.
The document goes
on to say that master’s
degrees may be one year
or two years in length;
they may be modular;
they may be delivered
partly through an employment setting; they may be
delivered as part of a
four-year course that
includes a bachelor’s
degree; they may even be
delivered through a fouryear integrated
programme that includes
a doctorate.
If that leaves you
confused, the UK Council
for Graduate Education
(UKCGE) sympathises.
In a submission to the
Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills’
review of postgraduate
provision, the UKCGE
says: “The use of the title
‘master’s’ across the
sector is currently in a
confused and confusing
state.”
It outlines three broad
uses of the term: post-
graduate (taught and
research), undergraduate,
and honorary (at the
universities of Oxford and
Cambridge, graduates can
convert their bachelor’s
degrees into master’s for
a small fee).
Malcolm McCrae, chair
of the UKCGE, says: “It is
confusing for employers. It
is confusing for students
coming from outside the
UK. What is it they are
buying into?”
The UKCGE suggests
adding prefixes to denote
whether a master’s is
undergraduate, postgraduate or honorary.
But does the UK’s
system of one-year
courses mean lowerquality qualifications?
McCrae says there is a
strong argument that “the
intensity is at a higher
level for a shorter period
of time, and that the
overall amount of time of
learning is roughly equal
[to that of longer
courses]. You have to be
careful about equating
length with quality if you
don’t take any account of
intensity.”
Comparing the UK with
the US, he says longer
master’s may be the norm
across the Atlantic
because students “come
off the back of undergraduate degrees that are
less specialised than is
the case in the UK”.
When the Bologna
Process began, some
feared that the UK would
be forced to adopt the
two-year postgraduate
master’s courses common
in the rest of Europe. But
the UK HE Europe Unit,
funded by Universities UK,
the QAA and the funding
councils, was among
those to argue successfully that one-year
courses could be
accommodated.
Paul Dowling, policy
officer at the unit, says: “It
is probably true that the
two-year master’s degree
is more popular and
widespread across European institutions. There
would have been some
nervousness in the UK,
asking whether we are
more lightweight. But that
debate has eased with
the recognition that
master’s can be designed
for different things.”
A master’s degree
must have between 90
and 120 credits under
the European Credit
Transfer System, with the
UK’s one-year courses
valued at 90 credits.
He adds that the
emphasis is on learning
outcomes under this
system. “It is not about
the time studied; it is
about what a student
can do at the end of it.”
Sir Howard Davies,
director of the London
School of Economics,
wrote Survey of Master
Degrees in Europe for
the European University
Association in 2009.
He argues that the
master’s is still not
“readable” across all 46
countries involved in the
Bologna Process. To make
it easier for students
and others to see what
a master’s offers, he
believes that at-aglance markers should
be developed to identify
factors such as
duration, credit value,
any professional
accreditation and
whether work
placements were
included.
He also notes “the
problem of nomenclature”, meaning
there is “only limited
pan-European
understanding of how
different master’s stand
in relation to each
other”. And distinctions
made to clarify matters
at national level could
further hinder
transparency at
European level, he
warns.
Davies identifies
three types of master’s
provision: taught
courses with professional development
application; research-
intensive courses often
functioning as predoctoral courses; and
courses delivered
mainly to returning
learners.
He says in the report
that master’s courses
have “a crucial role to
play in the knowledge
society”, offering a
foundation for doctoral
research and the
development of “human
capital in many fields”.
All of which means the
courses should be
accessible “by as many
persons as possible”.
But Davies adds that
of the three Bologna
cycles, the master’s is
the most “marketised”,
with fees for the courses
often very high.
To assume that
master’s courses “will
thrive on competition
alone is incautious”,
he says, urging that it
is “time to consider
issues of student
finance and equal
opportunity of access”.
competitive advantage over those of rival
institutions. Of course, students assess a
programme on more factors than length alone:
reputation, quality, cost, available graduate
assistantships, financial assistance, compatibility with work and family obligations and a
host of other considerations all come into play.
And for institutions, longer master’s degrees
must mean more revenue for the programme.
If so, why move towards shorter master’s
degrees? The answer is competitive advantage
– or, more precisely, perceptions of competitive
advantage.
Today’s global higher education landscape
is one in which providers are competing for
students amid unprecedented financial
challenges. This terrain is further complicated
by the fact that higher education systems
across the world have different traditions,
funding patterns and philosophical tenets.
In Europe, there is a long history of free
university education at the undergraduate and
postgraduate levels for the masses, although
most graduate programmes charge minimal
tuition fees. Why would degree length be an
issue? The funding comes in and the students
don’t pay exponential increases from their
personal income regardless of course length.
In other nations, most notably the US, the
money issue is paramount. Tuition fees are
already high at all levels of higher education,
and they continue to rise. The length of a
degree is a crucial consideration for students
and for institutions running graduate
programmes. Students love shorter courses
because they are cheaper, although the issues
for students are not exclusively about cost.
Institutions, on the other hand, see that the
longer they can keep students in their clutches,
the more money there is for the programme
and the university.
In America, the key factor making degrees
longer is a “more is better” strategy that has
resulted from the push for assessment and
student learning outcomes over the past
decade – rather an ironic strategy for enhancing academic quality and student performance
considering that it is not uncommon for a US
undergraduate to take five to six years to finish
a first degree. Don’t expect to see three-year
bachelor’s or one-year master’s from US
universities anytime soon. A few institutions
may experiment with these, but mass adoption
is not on the cards given the amount of money
generated from tuition and fees and also some
very powerful philosophical tenets about
graduate education.
Variations in traditions and history among
global higher education systems create myriad
perceptions of the experience and the ideal.
Many Europeans are astounded by the amount
of money that US students pay for higher
education. They find it inconceivable that the
richest country on the planet does not provide
its citizens with free higher education. But the
point is that different systems have evolved in
different countries and that making direct
comparisons is often complex, enigmatic and
foreign to many outside a particular system.
learly the length of a master’s degree is
determined by several factors – national
and cultural variations, competition and
the search for market advantage, financial
concerns and quality considerations. Some
would argue that the differences between
institutions are primarily self-serving rather
than motivated
by desire to provide a qualitatively superior
graduate experience for the student. So, what
club do we hit on this academic course?
Having pondered the conditions, I offer the
following premise to consider: the length of a
master’s degree is inextricably tied to course
quality, and shorter master’s degrees detract
disproportionately from the quality of the
programme, the academic experience and
skills mastered by students, and the long-term
sustainability and reputation of the
programme.
Do I have your attention? Good. Now, you
may ask, how am I going to defend this
premise.
Let’s start with the basic philosophical
tenets of graduate education. Again, there is
considerable variation across higher education
systems, and I plead guilty to having received
my graduate degrees in America. As such, I’ll
use this as the baseline for my arguments to
engage those outside the US in constructive
dialogue, not as a strategy to win the match.
Moreover, my obligation as an educator is to
provide an objective, fair assessment of this
issue devoid of an Anglo-American justification for my points. I will make every effort to
articulate my commentary in simple language
that is clear and comprehensible to even the
novice golfer and academic.
At its core, a master’s degree is an empirical
and scholarly degree. This means that despite
a student’s participation and engagement in
graduate seminars, internships, special
projects, collaborative learning and smallgroup analysis, the purpose is to teach the
fundamental aspects of scholarly and empirical
research, critical analysis and synthesis, and
objective interpretation of the research
process, methodology, results and conclusions.
Moreover, these essential skills are
prerequisites for analysing and interpreting
C
8 April 2010 Times Higher Education 33

3. NEXT WEEK
Subject line here please
Copy for upcoming features
or books here please thank
you very much
Given a choice between a one-year
master’s and a two-year master’s, the
student will always take the longer one
to perfect their expertise and skills,
right? Wrong – two-stroke penalty
Master minds course quality is paramount
other scholarly research as a member of one’s
profession. Without the fundamentals, one
cannot objectively assess, comment on and
learn from other research. As such, this sounds
like golf, in which poor fundamentals equal
poor results (don’t just take my word, greats
such as Jack Nicklaus, Annika Sorenstam,
Nancy Lopez, Phil Mickelson, Sir Nick Faldo
and Tony Jacklin all say the same).
Most graduates do not follow research
careers. Recognising this fact, US universities
during the past 15 years have increasingly
added a “research project” option as an
alternative to the traditional master’s thesis
(research). (In the US, the term “dissertation”
is reserved solely for the doctoral research
component.) The research project at the
master’s level, although grounded in basic
research methodology, tends to be more
focused on practical applications and looks
more like applied research than a typical
master’s thesis model.
It is important to recognise that the focus
on research is designed to enhance rather than
34 Times Higher Education 8 April 2010
minimise the other components of a master’s
degree. The rationale is that participation in
seminars, collaborative presentations,
constructive dialogue with faculty and student
peers, internship experiences and so on are
more meaningful when coupled with and
informed by the acquisition of research skills,
knowledge and expertise.
nother essential component of the
master’s degree is “enlightenment”.
Golfers may be acquainted with this from
the axiom that most amateurs hit the ball
farther when they swing easier. Unfortunately,
they usually have to hit their first ball out of
bounds to discover this eternal truth when
hitting their second ball (third stroke) off the
tee. Why? It is not because velocity is not
related to distance, of course it is. It is because
most amateurs can maintain a more consistent
and effective motion by swinging the golf
club slower.
The enlightenment aspect of the master’s
degree is helping students to see the inter-
A
connected and multidisciplinary nature of
knowledge. When I was an undergraduate, my
European history mentor would seldom
discuss the more intricate political aspects of
historical events and trends. When I asked him
if he could do this, he suggested that I enrol
with another professor for her European
political systems course.
I offer this anecdote not as a criticism of
undergraduate education, but rather to show
that the organisational principle of pre-21st
century universities was to segregate knowledge in academic departments and disciplines.
I call this the “everyone’s an expert complex”.
We are starting to see more interdisciplinary
approaches at the undergraduate and graduate
levels, which are benefiting staff as well as
students in their research and teaching.
This philosophical basis of graduate education plays out in a number of important ways
that bring us back to the “length” controversy.
I would like to explore them in the context of
comparing a one-year versus a two-year
master’s degree.
In considering what we want graduate
students to gain, we cannot ignore academic
preparation. Many graduate disciplines admit
students who were not required to major in
that discipline as an undergraduate. Because
such students enter a graduate programme
with minimal knowledge and content
expertise, they must simultaneously learn the
discipline and the research process. Once
again, this is not a criticism but is framed
within the context of awarding a one-year
master’s degree. If the aim is student mastery
at the graduate level of research knowledge
and skills to a specific discipline, this goal will
be difficult for even the most talented students
to meet in one year.
On a master’s programme, students are
learning their scholarly craft, and as we all
know practice makes perfect (actually if it
were possible, perfect practice makes perfect,
but these notable quotes make good folklore).
However, if we subscribe to the premise that
mastery of the fundamentals is essential to
high-quality performance over the long term,
then the research and golf analogy returns.
The best golfers all have sound fundamentals,
spend endless time and effort returning to
these first principles when their game is in
trouble, and will tell you that when they first
learned the game (the right way), they spent
years honing these basic skills.
We want graduate students to reach the top
level, but can this happen when we expect
them to master the fundamentals of the
research process in the briefest time possible
while they are also learning about their
discipline and the interdisciplinary connectedness of knowledge?
Those seeking mastery of a skill or craft will
know that practice improves quality, which in
turn means improved performance. If we provide the graduate student with the time to
master research skills, integrate discipline and
interdisciplinary knowledge, reflect on practice
and research within and outside the discipline,
collaborate with peers and faculty, we will
produce a graduate with a sound set of skills
and knowledge that will enhance long-term
performance in their profession.
At this point, the reader may be tempted to
conclude that I must believe that the only
reasonable thing to do is to banish one-year
master’s degrees from the face of higher
education for eternity. This, however, is not
my aim. Why? Because good graduate
education also provides students with one
more important life-essential lesson – there are
few either/or answers to important questions.
As H. L. Mencken stated: “There is always an
easy solution to every human problem – neat,
plausible, and wrong.”
What I argue is that the most appropriate
length for modern master’s degrees is
inextricably tied to the philosophical basis of
graduate education and the primacy of the
empirical and scholarly research process. If for
any unknown reason I missed the memo
announcing that we have dispensed with the
essential components of graduate education,
I apologise and will calmly take a two-stroke
penalty and become an advocate for six-month
master’s degrees. Moreover, if we can cut the
undergraduate degree to two years and
doctoral study to one year, then we could
begin producing PhDs in three-and-a-half
years. Indeed, this would certainly serve the
higher education sector and planet more
effectively for the duration…or would it?
Illusions of progress are often our greatest
barrier to true advancement.
n the final analysis, I have great confidence
that the global higher education community
understands the complexity of these issues
and will respond with prudence, humility,
insight, innovation and with a greater
awareness of the competitive advantage argument in concert with the tenets that contribute
to high-quality graduate education.
Given the absence of either/or answers at
our local clubhouse, I suspect that the optimum length of the master’s degree probably
falls somewhere between 15 and 24 months.
That’s a rather short period of time considering that the world’s best golfers spend years
simply learning the fundamentals of their
profession. There will, of course, be extreme
pressures for universities to offer accelerated
programmes at all levels in response to financial necessity and to the competitive forces
impinging on higher education. For now, I’m
going to presume that the aforementioned
memo dispensing with the historical tenets
that underpin high-quality graduate education,
while perhaps written, has not been sent.
What is certain is that the next player to top
the leader board after navigating the course at
Augusta National Golf Club and emerge as the
Masters champion will undoubtedly be one
with sound fundamentals that hold up under
the most extreme pressures of his sport.
Indeed, successful golfers are inherently better
researchers than researchers are golfers.
Perhaps this will not go unnoticed by graduate
educators across the globe next April – even
though they won’t get to slip on a green jacket
at the end of the day. l
I
Subject line here please
Copy for upcoming features
or books here please thank
you very much
Character forming
Sunil Manghani meditates
on a tranquil brush with
calligraphy
Book of the week
Copy for upcoming features
or books here please thank
you very much
www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
Don Olcott Jr is chief executive, the
Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.
8 April 2010 Times Higher Education 35