BETP,

I think we may be inadvertently talking past each other -- the difference between a critical dissertation and a creative dissertation with an introduction is profound (employers do not treat the critical introduction to a creative collection of poems/stories as anything like a critical dissertation; folks should understand this). Likewise, the difference between a doctorate in English (with an Internal Minor that is not a part of the degree materials and need not be disclosed by the graduate when s/he is a job applicant if they don't wish to) and a doctorate in Creative Writing, or "Literature and Creative Writing," even English With Creative Dissertation (all of which are generally treated as degrees in Creative Writing, one reason for the Madison-vs-CW PhD universities-at-top-50-schools stat I gave above) is significant. One is an academic credential in the traditional sense, the other is a credential in the same way an MFA is a credential -- e.g., a critical-dissertation Ph.D. is an academic credential in the same way an M.A. in English is and an MFA is something different, even if the MFA graduate has attended an academically rigorous program like Columbia and therefore has much of the same training as the MA graduate. In other words:

1
TRADITIONAL PHD: NO creative portfolio allowed for app + (3 years REGULAR PHD training + NO workshops) + 5-6 years CRITICAL dissertation period

2
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON: YES creative portfolio allowed for app + (3 years REGULAR PHD training + CW PHD-LIKE workshop option) + 5-6 years CRITICAL dissertation period

3
CW PHD: YES creative portfolio required for app + (3 years REGULAR PHD training + CW PHD-LIKE workshop curriculum) + 2-3 years MFA-LIKE dissertation period

The only program I know of in the country that follows track #2 is UW-M. Even traditional doctoral programs that will allow a student to take a workshop a) don't allow a creative portfolio during the application process (meaning poets and writers are at a distinct disadvantage to even get in, in the first instance); b) Only allow 1 or 2 CW courses for credit maximum, not 5 or 6; c) Involve doctoral students workshopping with undergraduates (because the university has no MFA), not workshopping at a top 5 MFA program; d) are not considered academically strong in (e.g.) Poetry Studies, as UW-M is, or contemporary postwar literature generally, as UW-M is, and therefore are not likely to attract a student population with an appreciable number of (contemporary poetry/fiction-studying) MFAs in it; e) don't have a vibrant writing community within the university, both because of the lack of an MFA and also the lack of (as there is at UW-M) ancillary CW organs like the Wisconsin Institute of Creative Writing, housed in the MFA program and the #2 post-MFA fellowship in the country (also, we could mention a huge CW undergrad program on the scale of UI, a sizable local poetry community outside the University replete with ex-pat MFAs, and so on; of course, other programs are in locales that have some of these things too, but the effect is cumulative, obviously, when all of these factors are present, as at UW-M).

But I want to emphasize that UW-M is not in competition with CW Ph.D. programs -- folks who attend those are going with eyes wide open, they know exactly what they want and are being quite smart about getting it -- no, the question, instead, is whether creative writers looking for a traditional English doctorate and critical dissertation are going to delve into a doctoral program at a university without an MFA (e.g., UCLA; Harvard; Yale; Princeton; Berkeley; Penn; Duke; Stanford; Rutgers-New Brunswick; UNC; all top 15-ish English doctorates with no MFA program) or find a different solution to how to continue to be a creative writer while simultaneously picking up other skills and a traditional English doctorate.

S.

When you graduate -- after a too-short doctorate you finished up in 4-5 years -- and are pulling a 5/5 as an adjunct with no healthcare benefits in Kearney, Nebraska, and I'm spending a solid five hours a day reading poetry by the greatest poets of the postwar era and criticism of that poetry that helps me understand both it and my own work better, and teaching a fully-funded, benefits-eligible 1/1, it will definitely be the case that, as I said above, one could say what you said if one had no fear of being absolutely, irreparably mistaken in public.

S.

GCSUMFA,

And a very strange view of the marketability of the CW Ph.D. historically -- by way of seeming to have no understanding of it at all.

Thanks for that perspective. It really added to my understanding of the debate regarding how various writers pursuing their English or CW PhDs perceive their studies and eventual goals---and with such a calm, amusing tone!

2. Fiction Studies does indeed exist -- it's called Genre Studies in Ph.D. parlance. As in, yes, it's entirely possible to spend your doctorate studying the contemporary novel and how it functions. And, um, yes, that would probably make one a better novelist.

Your view that the only way to approach poetry or fiction is "aesthetically" is quite an antique -- literally a relic of an earlier age of thought. Theory, certainly, but also the rhetorical structure-driven perspectives on poetry and fiction we find in English Literature doctorates now drive much of the most innovative poetry and fiction being written today. To say poetry or fiction is mere "aesthetics" is as good as conceding you're a Craftsman and not an Artist. I'm sure you're not saying that, of course, except when/as you are.

So yes: My track is very much an option for a fiction-writer.

That said, I wish you'd told me previously that "you've already taught full-time at a major R1, with retirement and healthcare benefits." Your situation is obviously unique, and it might help if, in the future, you framed your points about the value of a CW Ph.D. more clearly around a) your own unique situation and b) your prior employment in the very field you're now spending 4-5 years to find employment in, so that those without such experience looking to apply to Ph.D. programs don't assume that your track is an option for them, because it's not.

So I'll say it clearly: If I wanted to extend my two-year MFA experience in Iowa City by an additional five years, and had no abiding interest in scholarship but was willing to suffer through three years of academic courses and comps and orals just to get three years of studio-MFA-like dissertation time, I would definitely choose to attend a CW Ph.D. program. So you're good there.

GCSUMFA,

As a fiction-writer you will spend nearly your entire life -- until you make your first million -- trying to write a novel while doing other things. The 36 months a CW Ph.D. will allow you to focus on your novel (while also teaching) is an exception, not a rule, so every time you reference the impossibility of writing a novel while doing other things (like researching for a dissertation) you are merely arguing that to be a novelist generally is impossible. You will probably reply that having more time to focus on one's first novel can only ever be a good thing, however brief an interlude that respite represents -- and you're right. Except that the cruel world will then intrude for the next six decades and you won't have developed the multi-tasking skills (and critical--no pun intended--years of experience with same) to help you get through the rest of your writing life. When I told Cole Swensen I was worried about doing a traditional Ph.D. because I thought it would take time away from my writing, she pointed out -- to my embarrassment -- that I'd been writing poetry for nearly a decade while studying and practicing law! And that studying poetry at the doctoral level is certainly much less of a departure from writing poetry at an advanced level than is doing trials by day and writing poems (non-centered, thank you) by night. I think the 95% of novelists who write novels only in their spare time would be bemused by your implication that to not be writing one's present novel full-time is a calamity only slightly shy of the Apocalypse.

As to the alleged craft-versus-Art dichotomy (which Aaron also mentioned), let's be clear on what I said: I said that anyone who implies, as the OP did, that writing poetry or fiction is purely a matter of "aesthetics" is not likely to be a long-term, capital-A Artist. Because any poetry or fiction that is merely "aesthetics" is not likely to survive or be designed to survive, and the difference between craft and art is that one is an artifact of technical mastery and the other is an attempt at phenomenon. So it's not "craft-versus-Art," but rather "craft-only versus (Art = craft + structure/theory)"--an equation of opposition I think most writers could readily select the right side of.

S.

Well, I agree, Aaron. I don't usually do the big-A thing and not sure why I did here. I would have done better merely to say that I think part of being an ambitious writer is viewing craft as just one piece of the thing. --S.