Job security is a relatively new concept in the ancient field of teaching art. Historically artists have created, and been judged on, their own credentials--that is, their art. The master of fine-arts (M.F.A.) degree, often described as a "terminal degree," or the endpoint in an artist's formal education, has long been sufficient for artists seeking to teach at the college level. Significant change may be on the horizon, as increasing numbers of college and university administrators are urging artists to obtain doctoral degrees. M.F.A. and Ph.D. programs move in different directions. Earning an M.F.A. means spending another year or so in the studio, developing a body of work that, ideally, prepares students to enter the art market. The program is a timeout from the world of galleries and selling that helps graduates re-enter that world more successfully after graduation. Doctoral programs, on the other hand, are research-based. Pushing artists toward doctoral programs fundamentally changes their focus and goals. The Ph.D. says to the university, "I am committing myself to academe," whereas the M.F.A. primarily reflects a commitment to developing one's skills as an artist. Requiring studio artists to become researchers as well would diminish their ability to keep one foot in the exhibition world. Some might be able to do it all--teach studio art, research, publish, and exhibit--but not many. In this article, the author argues that judging artists on the basis of their academic credentials rather than of their art, and devising programs that lead them away from making art, is absurd and ahistorical. University departments of art history, the likely employers of this new hybrid group, should reconsider this focus on academic qualifications.