A Question for the DMAs

[TUBAD83]

Perhaps it would be better for you to remain silent and LISTEN to the answers given by those who *do*.

Perhaps not.

The wonderful think about "posts", Dr., is that one can simply choose to skip over them.

Specifically, a "Doctor(ate) of Musical Arts" is the one degree that I can think of where, singly, the reason people acquire them is to be employable by colleges and universities in order to sell more of them. I cannot think of another possible musical career path - no matter how lofty - where the potential employer specifically seeks those who hold this degree.

bloke "Is the tail chasing the cat, or is the cat chasing the tail?"

but, that wasn't the question. The question was: Why does James *want* to do a DMA. Why do you assume that the question is: what employers require it? If you listen, you might find that there are other reasons...

But, perhaps I am too optimistic.

That is a good question when you consider the following: DMAs, DFAs, DMEs, EdDs are really for those who not only want to teach at the college level, but also desire to be a department chair, dean, VP, or higher. If you have the money and the time to get a DMA just because you want it, fine--just so you know that its "overkill" careerwise unless you plan on being an administrator someday.

[pierso20]

Well, I mostly agree with your statement, except that being employed as an instrument professor does not only mean teaching future PHD students...many of these teachers teach theory/ear training type classes, some musicology, music-ed students, etc...So, while many colleged "require" this piece of paper, it isn't only to sell more of them...though one could argue that the university culture today has led to this.

I would also argue though, if you as a player are very very good, you will likely not need more than a masters to teach at a school.

' should have been more specific. Yes, they sell the other degrees as well. The "BME" degree, singly seems to be a "licensing" degree for band directors and other school music teachers. Most other music degrees either teach people to be performing musicians (imagine that!) or lead up to some sort of "DMA" (degree seller's degree).

I would have agreed more with your "masters" statement thirty or forty years ago, but (from what I hear from others in this industry with great consistency) the "DMA" (or, at the very least, the intention of acquiring one within a three year probation period), more-and-more and with more-and-more lockstep consistency, is "THE" ticket to an interview for a "music" job at a college or university.

...again, the "Cadillac" thing referred to quite a few posts above: A "Cadillac" salesman does NOT drive a Chevrolet, and (even though it may cost more than a Cadillac, is stronger than a Cadillac, and - outside the world of Cadillacademia - can possibly help its owner earn a living better than might a Cadillac) a Cadillac salesman CERTAINLY does NOT drive a 2-1/2 ton GMC bucket truck !

bloke "NOT-AT-ALL discounting the fact that there are musical virtuosi in this profession who - probably due to their specific desire to teach in one of these institutions - BESIDES their (should be enough to qualify them, imo) virtuosity and experience, ALSO picked up a DMA"

Well, we can all talk all we want, be when it's the system you gotta play by, then by all means we gotta play by it. If someone wants to be a college professor, looks like you need a DMA. If you wanna be a pro player, you don't need one, (any degree techincally) however the extra experience can't hurt. Either way, it's just how it is I suppose.

Makes me glad I'm not getting a tuba performance degree

[pierso20]

3. If I return to the public school setting then the MM will increase my salary base. While this is important to me and my future it is certainly not the only reason nor the mst important.

I'm not sure the $400/yr increase is worth the $20K you will pay to pursue and obtain that MM, Chad.

Ken F.

However, educators are required to further their education throughout their careers...forever. And a MM is often a great way to satisfy that. You may as well get the salary increase if you have to take classes anyway.

(plus, they don't necessarily say what you HAVE to take....get an assistantship somewhere and school won't cost as much ...because these grow on trees)

[sloan]

However, educators are required to further their education throughout their careers...forever.

More to the point - *good* educators *choose* to further their education...forever.

chicken...egg...chicken...egg.

As I tell my grad students: "if you don't like *becoming* a PhD...you'll really hate actually *being* one". For the student with the right state of mind, grad school is not a series of hurdles that they need to get over (and then relax and reap the rewards). It's just one stage in a career where they get to do (more or less) what they are driven to do - and get paid for it. The "hurdles" *are* the reward!

The whiners, trying to slip by with minimum performance on the various "hurdles", don't succeed.
Oh...they may actually get the degree - but they don't "succeed".

I was at a Patrick Sheridan masterclass the other day where he made some comments about "the practice room". He pointed out that he *loved* practice - and had to be pretty much dragged out of the practice room to do other things, such as actually performing.

Academia can be the same way - if you focus on the training as "hurdles", you are a bit like the student who complains that his teacher makes him practice too much. But, if you *love* jumping those particular hurdles...what's the saying? "If you love what you do, you never work a day in your life."

[Jonathan Fowler]

Well, we can all talk all we want, be when it's the system you gotta play by, then by all means we gotta play by it. If someone wants to be a college professor, looks like you need a DMA. If you wanna be a pro player, you don't need one, (any degree technically) however the extra experience can't hurt. Either way, it's just how it is I suppose.

Right on, in my opinion.

My experiences, in and of themselves, do not qualify me to play in an orchestra, band or other full-time gig. They do not qualify me as a good teacher. The piece of paper does not make me a good player or competent in the classroom. But the rules, being as they are, give those of us with the patience to finish the degree a good shot at making a living doing something we love to do.

I'm as much of a cynic about the DMA thing as the next guy, and I count myself extremely lucky to have a good gig.

Jon

[pierso20]

[

"if you don't like *becoming* a PhD...you'll really hate actually *being* one".

One of the best things I've read on TubeNet!

[Rick Denney]

...where the potential employer specifically seeks those who hold this degree.

What makes you think that is a necessary objective?

I just described my motivation to get a master's degree. Even in engineering, it was not because of any potential employer--I already had a job and I doubt my graduate degree did a thing to affect my chances of progressing in that or the other jobs I've had. I did it because I wanted to be a person who had tested himself successfully against that kind of rigor. It did change me in ways that did significantly enhance my career, but not because of the sheepskin. It taught me to enjoy the rigor, and that has shaped my subsequent professional character and therefore my career.

Back to James, who, despite his Tubenet trials and tribulations, has become one of us. If he can articulate, even if just to himself, what his objectives are, he might actually achieve them.

Rick "excellent employees define their own standards far beyond those of their employer, and then pursue them, with or without their employer's support" Denney

[TUBAD83]

...where the potential employer specifically seeks those who hold this degree.

What makes you think that is a necessary objective?

I just described my motivation to get a master's degree. Even in engineering, it was not because of any potential employer--I already had a job and I doubt my graduate degree did a thing to affect my chances of progressing in that or the other jobs I've had. I did it because I wanted to be a person who had tested himself successfully against that kind of rigor. It did change me in ways that did significantly enhance my career, but not because of the sheepskin. It taught me to enjoy the rigor, and that has shaped my subsequent professional character and therefore my career.

Rick, I would say you are the exception rather than the rule. I submit to you that if you take away the employer requirement and the potential economic reward of a graduate degree, most people that are currently enrolled in graduate school would not be in school at all. How many people would be willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars and invest up to several MORE years pursuing an additional degree if its not required and offers no substantial chance of advancement in one's chosen career?

[Matt G]

It taught me to enjoy the rigor, and that has shaped my subsequent professional character and therefore my career.

This is what education, in general, should be about. I have a master's degree, albeit in business, but a few good teachers got into my mind. I loved doing analysis. I wanted further tools of analysis. I started reading more and more, and went back to do things like finish the calculus series, learn programming languages, etc. I doubt very few MBA holder's can understand the importance of the Riemann hypothesis, let alone solve some PDEs, unless they already came from a technical background.

Joe does have a point with the world of music having a huge dichotomy between professional playing abilities and professional academic abilities. However, they need not be mutually exclusive. Furthermore, to prevent professional players who don't have the "credentials" from teaching is a bit silly. I remember having the discussion that (this was 15 years ago) Warren Deck would not be able to obtain "professorship" at my school and that he would be a "minus" in terms of accreditation because the board that accredits schools/colleges/departments of music looks for ratios in terms of degree holders.

I think as long as James/tubashaman goes into this experience open-minded and optimistic, he should be fine. There will be faculty and processes that are simply there to aggravate students. Fortunately, there will be plenty more that will help you deal with those issues.

[Rick Denney]

Rick, I would say you are the exception rather than the rule.

Absolutely not. About half of my colleagues in grad school were already in the working world, as I was, and didn't need the piece of paper to enhance their careers. Their objective was to enhance their minds, and they did it for the sake of that objective. But they did know that doing so would have a positive effect on the work they did, and therefore on their career.

I would agree that many seek undergraduate degrees only as a step to getting a job. Many therefore miss what is available for them to gather up while they are in college. I know I did, and I see lots of people coming out who are interested only in how their careers progress (rather than in the work that they do). Those are not the folks who are motivated to go back for a graduate degree, in my experience, unless they have a change of viewpoint, as I did.

There are many in grad schools who stay there to keep their student visas, especially in engineering, but that is a whole other topic. That describes the other half of my grad-school colleagues.

Only one of my colleagues in grad school was specifically aimed at a college teaching job, but he had already been in the working world and absolutely followed Dr. Sloan's advice of deciding who his role models were and what they did to become so. He is now a highly respected professor of civil engineering at a Texas university.

My wife got her MBA to enhance her career opportunities, but not because her employer required it. It was at least 20 years, and during a career change, when having that degree was even noted as significant on her resume.

Rick "knowing the joke about what 'DMA' stands for" Denney

[sloan]

Furthermore, to prevent professional players who don't have the "credentials" from teaching is a bit silly. I remember having the discussion that (this was 15 years ago) Warren Deck would not be able to obtain "professorship" at my school and that he would be a "minus" in terms of accreditation because the board that accredits schools/colleges/departments of music looks for ratios in terms of degree holders.

Professors do more than "teach".

That said, there's a U-shaped curve in operation here (in every field, not just music). The lower-level institutions are constantly worried that they will lose accreditation - often with good cause! They cling to the bean-counting mentality and check off the right boxes everywhere. This is easier than exercising *judgement* and *leadership*. And, it may well be that these institutions are better off NOT trying to exercise judegement and leadership.

The top institutions (in any field) largely ignore accreditation issues. After all, if an accreditation panel decides that Harvard, or MIT are "sub-standard" - it will reflect more on the accreditation panel than on Harvard or MIT!

The institutions in the middle are caught in a vise - they are tempted to behave like the big boys....but their administrations might not believe that they are justified. And...sometimes the administration is right: "I knew Harvard; I went to school at MIT; you are no Harvard!"

In other fields, there is the concept of an "adjunct Professor". Typically, this is someone with a "day job" working in the field who visits the university and contributes his knowledge and experience. Usually, these folks are not scholars, and are not necessarily particularly interested in being a "real" Professor. Usually, these folk would be bad candidates for a "tenure track Professor" position. Which is why they are called "adjuncts".

Someone with vast experience, great talent, and demonstrated accomplishment is a great asset to any college or university - that doesn't necessarily mean that they are a good fit for the job of "professor".
If what they want to do is "teach" - well, there's a perfectly good title that says that: Instructor.

Again - too many people confuse the relationship between "credentials" and "the job". If you think that "acquiring the credentials" is something completely different from the activities done "on the job", then someone is confused. It might be the college/university - or it might be you. In my experience, successful people who acquire credential in preparation for a job end up doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING on the job that they did while acquiring the credentials - just with a bit more indepencence and responsibility.

So...if what you are doing in school seems to you to be completely unrelated to the job you have in mind later - either you misunderstand what the job is actually all about, or you are wasting your time.

If you want to perform...live in the practice room.

If you want to teach...please learn something about education.

If you want a job as a "college professor"...go to grad school and pay a LOT of attention to what they ask you to do there - because you'll be doing EXACTLY the same thing for the rest of your life (unless, of course, you discover that "college professor" wasn't really what you wanted to do, after all).


Again: if you don't like the training, you will hate the life.

And: if you don't LOVE the training, you may well fail and not have the opportunity to live the life.

[Matt G]

Professors do more than "teach".

Understood. I just used that verb (perhaps incorrectly) out of habit. However, a person like Mr. Deck who, at the time, was active not only in terms of teaching/mentoring students, but also in the "lab" by pushing the envelope of performance levels in various areas. Pretty much a "real-life" PhD of sorts, and was a "professor of tuba".

The top institutions (in any field) largely ignore accreditation issues. After all, if an accreditation panel decides that Harvard, or MIT are "sub-standard" - it will reflect more on the accreditation panel than on Harvard or MIT!

IIRC, the reason why Mr. Deck's name was used (by me) in the conversation was because Juilliard was largely ignoring the accrediting society (@&&^*!# consultants) at the time anyhow.

I agree with the rest of your posts. My only problem is when the professors that are at the university level believe that they are great educators as well as researchers. Sometimes their ability to educate is thoroughly lacking (this seems to happen in every field) and quite difficult for the students to deal with. But, those same bean counters you mention push them out into a place where they are uncomfortable and do poorly. When the same professors are dealing with students one-on-one, they are quite good, but that fear of public speaking (which surpasses death) seems to be a huge issue in the educational environment.

[TMurphy]

3. If I return to the public school setting then the MM will increase my salary base. While this is important to me and my future it is certainly not the only reason nor the mst important.

I'm not sure the $400/yr increase is worth the $20K you will pay to pursue and obtain that MM, Chad.

Ken F.

Maybe in your district. Where I teach, there is a SIGNIFICANT pay increase if you get a Masters degree in your field (for me, any degree in music would apply). Let's just say that $20K degree will PAY FOR ITSELF in two years.

I know my district is atypical, but you damn sure better believe that after I get tenure, I'm going to begin seriously looking into MM programs. That's a big chunk of change.