Art PhD's

I actually have no problem with the studio PhD. While I do not think it should replace the MFA as a required degree for teaching on a college level, I see no reason why an artist should have to just end with an MFA. I know many people who have gone on after their MFA's to get PhD's in theory, philosophy, criticism and English. The thinking that everyone should get an MFA and be done with it, it limits the cross-discipline relationships that have become so important in contemporary art. As a student, I would not want a professor who stayed in the studio for six years straight and then came out to teach me. I want them to be well versed in technique, theory, writing, public speaking and have well-defined careers. I think on a broader scale- this is not just a question of whether or not artists should have to get PhD's, but also whether or not the MFA is seen as the beginning of a career or an artists "leveling out" point. The great thing about a PhD program is that it keeps the person active in a field for longer than just two years- I often question if this is enough time to really learn anything.
Being an artist is not like being an accountant. No one piece of paper is going to get you to the next level, that next pay raise. We really are on our own to personally make the decision to expand our knowledge base, gain further skills, get the shows and write the grants. So the question of the MFA versus PhD comes down to how much you want to grow. If that is what it takes to get the same respect as the sciences then i say fine, but it should be an option open to those who want it.