My understanding of employment law is that an employer may not require candidates to have a skill which is not required to fulfill the job responsibilities.
A PhD is a research degree. Lecturers are not allowed to have research programs. So how can we post an ad for a lecturer and give preference to the candidate who has a PhD? For that matter, if a college or university does not support research programs of tenure and tenure track faculty, how can they require a PhD of T/TT candidates?
The course requirements for a MS and a PhD are essentially the same in the US, so if the faculty candidate is not going to engage in research, is there a difference that would hold up in court should a jilted candidate file papers?
T.S. Hall
This is definitely something many people get confused about. I don't think a PhD should be required for a lecture position at all. The requirement probably turns away a lot of very good lecturers. I think the requirement is simply there a lot of time because PhD employers want someone that also sweated blood for their PhD. The "more education is better" may also prevail. The PhD is not a good indicator of a persons ability to lecture, experience should be.
ReplyDeleteLegal problem? I don't think people really care enough to challenge it, we assume the requirement is there for a reason, no matter how ridiculous sometimes.