Because a university offers a self-directed, mentorship, degree program
doesn't mean that the student isn't getting the profession's "core."  That is
a common myth about self-directed programs. My doctoral program at The Union
Institute has all of the core components of Renaissance Studies and Public
History.  In conjunction with my committee, we've created courses that don't
exist in traditional programs, and have approached traditional courses in new
ways.  For example, in my "Children and Families in Early Modern England"
course, I'm demonstrating proficiency by writing a 20-minute film script
addressing an aspect of the plight of the Children of the Chapel Royal, and am
writing a grant to fund its development.  In a traditional university, I'd be
doing a midterm, final, and 15 page paper, spitting back whatever I was told.
With the script, I'm learning about the use of film in communicating history
as well as learning about the families of Early Modern England.  I'm also
learning more about the grant making and application process.  My proficiency
demonstration has practical applications for a budding public historian.   I
don't know of any museum professional who takes exams as part of his or her
job.
        Also, because I have an investment in what I'm doing, I am obsessed with
learning; I tend to go beyond the expected borders.  When I was in a
traditional program (master's), forced to sit in a room listening to Ph.d.'s
droning on about what I should think and then requiring me to regurgitate it,
I found myself doing only what was required of me.  This also created
competition between students.  Students were graded on comparative scales and
then given assets, such as assistantships, based on their relative abilities
to regurgitate.  This system is not a good model for collaboration and
cooperation.  It destroys community.  It creates a professional Kosovo.
        This is not what I want for myself.  It isn't what the profession should
permit.  In this type of situation, passion is robbed and we become clones.
We also end up measuring ourselves by irrelevant standards, such as where we
attend school.  We don't look at each other in terms of what we know, what we
can actually do, the level of our passion, or the ability to work
cooperatively.  The traditional approach helps insure the status quo; it is
intended to maintain traditional university control over the field's
discussion.
        I'm a tad skeptical about traditional university programs claiming to offer
student independence.  I'm in the process of researching this for a symposium
I'm directing in September on self-directed learning, and consequently haven't
passed judgment yet.  However, after studying NYU's Gallatin program, which is
really trying, I've noticed that it largely depends on students taking
traditional courses.
        End of soapbox.  Food for thought.
Mike Radice