Current perspectives on the Ed.D as a viable credential

I recently had a conversation with several colleagues, all of whom are Ph.Ds and they related that the Ed.D has lost its clout within academia as well as as a marketable degree in the job market, with the exception of application within school systems.

Traditional and distance learning graduate schools continue to offer these degrees but there does appear to be a trend moving towards the Ph.D. In fact is the Ed.D of limited utilizability by prospective students? Generally is it looked upon as an archaic degree with low status that is no longer a viable credential within the context of the business world, academia or consulting?

 

Simon,

I asked a related question awhile ago...I had noticed what seems to be a general discounting of Education degrees in general throughout the academy. There's nothing official, but the attitude seems to be out there, or so it seemed to me, anyway.

My question was whether my impression is correct and if so, is it actually justified. The answers were gloomy but inconclusive.

Is it possible that the Ph.D. in Education carries more weight than the Ed.D (if in fact it does) because the Ph.D. is relatively anonymous? The Ed.D. SAYS "education" but the Ph.D. by itself does not?

 

Some time ago, there was a thread about an article claiminfg that the EdD was a lightweight degree; however, the article was run by a lightweight newspaper.

 

My opinion is that the ED.D is as valid as a PH.D. Both require a high level of achievement (courses, dissertation etc) It is a Doctor of Education so it's application is in the field of Education-just as a Psy.D is in Psychology -a D.B.A is in business etc. Several Psychology Depts, in fact, still award a ED.D (Counseling Psychology) and they get licensed just like PH.D s and Psy.Ds.
An ED.D in academia I would believe is the preferred or at least equal credential in University Education Depts. It's use in the business world is limited by the fact it doesn't prepare one for this-but neither would a Ph.D in areas of the Humanities. But I would bet the skills learned in a Ed.D program in Educational leadership training school administrators could be valuable in business. I think this statement from Answer.com sums this up well:
"Doctor of Education
The Doctor of Education degree (Ed.D.) is an undifferentiated terminal doctoral degree that prepares the student for advanced professional proficiency in education, and for scholarly study of professional problems. Like other doctorates, the Ed.D. is an academic degree of the highest level.
Since the Ph.D. is the most popular and common of the research doctorates among university professors in the United States, there is often a perceived bias in favor of the Ph.D. over other doctoral degrees, though the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) recognize numerous other doctoral degrees as equivalent and do not discriminate between them. A list can be found at: doctorate."
http://www.answers.com/topic/doctorate

 

I believe that Anthony Pina had some insights regarding this distinction but I was unable to locate the thread that discussed this matter.

It does appear that the Ed.D still has a fairly high level of acceptability in school systems but appears to be perceived as below par in other professional domains. However, it still is a doctorate and can probably be used as a viable credential as an independent consultant.

 

There is an Ed.D in Organizational leadership that is offered by a number of universities that does have transferability from the field of education to business and organizational consultation and coaching.

Whether the Ed.D is on par with the Ph.D remains an open question although I recall Anthony Pena mentioning something to the effect that the degree is being supplanted by the Ph.D. Perhaps Anthony can elaborate on this issue.

 

Wasn't there some supposedly prestigious education prof who said that EdDs are a dive straight for the bottom?

 

The difference between the Ed.D and the Ph.D resonates in the distinction between the Psy. D and Ph.D in Psychology in relation to level of diifficulty as well as the significant research requirement to obtain the latter credential. The same holds for the DBA compared to the Ph.D.

In general, The Ed. D appears to be losing ground in relation to its marketability and level of acceptability within the context of diverse professional realms. However, for certain individuals with specific professional goals it appears to be a means to acquire a doctorate to enhance their professional identity and presentation and possibly for promotional opportunities.

 

I looked at the EdD option, but only very briefly. It reminded me of the MEd restrictions I had placed on me - X% of coursework in areas that held no relevance to me, X% of dissertation on a topic of choice which is what I really wanted to do. Under the UK model PhD, you can write 100% on a topic you love and enjoy. And that is exactly what I am doing.

Cheers,

George

 

I suppose my first point is that the idea of "clout" is fairly fuzzy. Beyond that I'd like to say that I've never met a PsyD (and I know quite a few) who earned their degree hoping to teach or do research as their major endeavor. They chose the PsyD program because it is a degree designed to train Clinicians and that is what they wanted to do. Along the same lines, the effectiveness of an EdD might depend on your goals. Like a PsyD, an EdD might not be the best route to certain specific career objectives but this does not mean that it has "lost its clout" in the sense that it is universally useless or generally not worth obtaining. I think it just depends on what you might want it to do for you.
Jack

 

I love this topic!!

I happen to be preparing a journal article on this very topic, having collected every research study done comparing the Ph.D. in education versus the Ed.D. since the early 80s. I have also been a student in both a Ph.D. and an Ed.D. program.

The development of the Psy.D. came out of a conference of psychologist at Vail, CO in 1973, as a practitioner alternative to the 1949 Boulder, CO research/clinical Ph.D. model. You can read more about it here:http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_171.asp

The Ed.D. was developed at Harvard in 1920 as a degree that could be issued (and controlled) by the College of Education, rather than the graduate college. The idea was to have a professional/practitioner degree, along the lines of medicine, which replaced the Ph.D. with its own degree (M.D.). Law (J.D.), Dentistry (D.D.S./D.M.D.), Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.) and other professions have successfully replaced the research doctorate (Ph.D.) with their own professional degrees.

Unfortunately, the field of education "wimped out" when it came to the Ed.D. Instead of creating a truly applied professional/practitioner degree, Ed.D. programs looked exactly like the education Ph.D. programs that they were intended to replace. The research requirements were the same, the required statistics courses were the same and the final culmintating project remained a research dissertation.

Research over the past two decades has looked at entrance requirements, required course work, acceptance for jobs and comparisons of dissertations for Ed.D. vs. Ph.D. programs. The results? Well, the requirements to get an Ed.D. or a Ph.D. in education are pretty much the same, the required coursework is pretty much the same, plenty of Ed.D.s get hired as college and university faculty and administrators and an analysis of some 1,900 dissertations found that those undertaken by Ph.D.s were no more rigorous than those done by Ed.D.s.

Recently, an administrator at Columbia University-Teachers College made some remarks to the effect that the Ed.D. was a "watered down" degree. Interestingly, Teachers College is one of the highest suppliers of Ed.D.s in the country. Also, his remarks were aimed at programs in educational administration, rather than the many other areas where Ed.D.s are awarded (e.g. educational psychology, physical education, instructional technology, school counseling, curriculum & instruction, science & technology education, educational computing, etc.). I read the article...the man failed miserably to do his homework. Is the Ph.D. considered by many to somehow be superior to the Ed.D.? Most certainly. Is this view based on any research, study or actual practice? No.

For many years, the Ed.D. was the most common degree offered by schools and colleges of education. As stated earlier, Ph.D.s used to be controlled mainly by the university's graduate college. It is now common for the schools and departments within a university to control their Ph.D. programs, so many schools of education are converting their Ed.D. programs into Ph.D. programs. It is telling that no adjustment to curriculum needs to be done to convert an Ed.D. to a Ph.D.

In my own case, I completed three years of study in a Ph.D. at a state university, then got a wonderful job offer in another state, that necessitated a leave of absence from my Ph.D. program. when it became apparent that I was not moving back to my former state, I searched for a doctoral program and was accepted into three. The program that best met my professional needs was an Ed.D. program (this school did not offer a Ph.D. in that field). The Ed.D. was just as challenging as my Ph.D. had been and actually required more coursework.

Has my Ed.D. crippled me? Hardly. I beat out 41 candidates for my current full-time admininstrative postion at a state university. I also am on the faculty at two universities (teaching graduate courses via DL), am on the board of an educational foundation, am associate editor of a scholarly journal and on the board of several professional associations.

In short, the discipline of education should really come to a concesus regarding its doctoral degree. Having two virtually identical degrees is rather absurd. Perhaps education should do what law did some years ago, when they wanted to promote the new Juris Doctor degree by retoractively converting all LL.B. (bachelor of law) degrees into J.D.s. Surely it would not be as complicated to retroactively convert all Ed.D. degrees into Ph.D.s in education.

As it stands, my degree serves me just fine.

 

Great post Tony. Tell me, did any of the studies you read cover the 'signalling' or 'sheepskin effect' of the difference between the EdD and PhD? Did anyone determine that one of the degrees was seen more superior than the other, simply because of the title?

Cheers,

George

 

As usual you are misconstruing and misinterpreting the point of my post.

First of all if the "idea of clout" is fairly fuzzy" to YOU then why don't you ask for clarification rather than present it as a "first point" that leads to increased fuzziness with no elucidation.

Secondly, the point of my post was not to compare the rationale as to why individuals "choose" a Psy. D in Psychology versus a Ph.D in Psychology but that the level of coursework in a traditional Ph.D is more difficult due to a heavier concentration of research/statistics/methodology culminating in a substantive doctoral dissertation of original knowledge versus the Psy.D culminating "project" which is more pragmatic and applied in nature. Morevoer, amongst many psychologists the Ph.D is also generally perceived as being the more prestigious degree, especially within the context of academia.

Furthermore, Your attempt to draw parallels between the effectiveness of the Ed.D with the Psy. D also does not "fly". First of all the Psy.D is being offered by many graduate schools, and has gained a very strong position within many clinical realms as an appoprriate and standard degree of practice. In fact it appears that there are more Psy.Ds graduating than there are Ph.Ds in psychology. This contrasts with the Ed.D that has declined in its presence in work environments other than in school systems and as previously noted is losing favor in graduate programs to the Ph. D in education.

 

No, not really. There really was no "man on the street" kind of study. The research having to do with hiring, looked at employment trends of Ed.D./Ph.D. graduates and opinions of university supervisors. Ph.D.s did not show significant advantage over Ed.D.s.

 

Re: I love this topic!!

Thanks for the excellent feedback. I am looking forward to reading your journal article and would appreciate if you would let us know when and where to obtain a copy. Regards, Simon

 

Originally posted by simon
Secondly, the point of my post was not to compare the rationale as to why individuals "choose" a Psy. D in Psychology versus a Ph.D in Psychology but that the level of coursework in a traditional Ph.D is more difficult due to a heavier concentration of research/statistics/methodology culminating in a substantive doctoral dissertation of original knowledge versus the Psy.D culminating "project" which is more pragmatic and applied in nature. Morevoer, amongst many psychologists the Ph.D is also generally perceived as being the more prestigious degree, especially within the context of academia.

Interesting post. The difference here is, of course, that the level of coursework for a Ph.D. in education is NOT more difficult than that for an Ed.D. The concentration of research, statistics, methodology and dissertation tend to be equivalent for the two degrees as a whole (of course, individual programs in universities can vary).

Furthermore, Your attempt to draw parallels between the effectiveness of the Ed.D with the Psy. D also does not "fly". First of all the Psy.D is being offered by many graduate schools, and has gained a very strong position within many clinical realms as an appoprriate and standard degree of practice. In fact it appears that there are more Psy.Ds graduating than there are Ph.Ds in psychology. This contrasts with the Ed.D that has declined in its presence in work environments other than in school systems and as previously noted is losing favor in graduate programs to the Ph. D in education.

Just some clarification: The Ed.D. has not really "declined in its presence in work environments other than school systems". There is no research to back up this statement. One thing that I did not mention is that even though some colleges of education (such as my alma maters BYU and Arizona State) have converted Ed.D. programs into Ph.D.s, there are universities that have developed new Ed.D. programs, such as Chicago State University. So at best, one ca state the the Ed.D. is "losing favor in SOME graduate programs to the Ph.D. in education".

If the California State University system is allowed to offer Ed.D.s, then there are 23 new universities that could be developing programs in the next several years. My own university is working on an Ed.D. proposal for a global leadership degree that will be marketed to industry. The Ed.D. is far from dead and is still being awarded at much higher rates that the Psy.D. (not that I have anything at all against the Psy.D.)

 

I am not trying to pick a fight, I am simply expressing an opinion. If you disagree then that's OK with me. However, your response to me is unnecessarily harsh. This is not the first time someone has said this to you. Are we all wrong? Are you really incapable of listening to another opinion without becoming defensive?
We have crossed swords in the past but this is not my intention now. I'm out of this thread.
Jack

 

I appreciate your clarifying the facts. This is the level of information I was seeking in initiating this thread and the basis for my requesting your objective input. Thanks again, Simon

 

Jack I do not want to derail this excellent thread with another nonsensical round with you but YOU have to examine the provocative nature of the responses you have made to my posts that sets the stage for my responses to your posts. Not including your extremely "harsh" and grossly inappropriate remarks that initiated this flaming but even when you are in agreement with me, you have prefaced your posts with such sarcastic remarks as "I hate to admit it but I agree with Simon" or something to the effect of "I am gritting my teeth but I agree with Simon Again". Its getting a little, little tiresome and trying and I would suggest that you take some time to cut lose with your sarastic remarks, stick to the issues or not respond to my posts at all. I will do the same. (BTW, if you have need to continue this nonsence please do not do it here and once again derail this excellent thread as was done in the past relating to NCU).

 

One additional relevant piece of information can be the awarding school. Would you rather have an Ed.D. from Columbia University or a Ph.D. from Kennebunkport State University*?

If I were going to earn a doctorate (and that ship has already sailed), I would probably earn an Ed.D. Why? Because they have two very good vaguely nontraditional programs locally. Alliant University offers an Ed.D. in TESOL and California State University, Fresno/University of California offers in Ed.D. in Educational Leadership.

Also, and importantly, I would not use it in search of a tenure-track teaching position. So, in effect, the nomenclature would have little meaning. To be honest, at this late date, my only reason would be to be able to put it on the back cover of books. Not the best reason (although I understand why folks do it. Tends to lend a certain cachet that an M.A. does not).



Tom Nixon

*Yes, a completely made up university. I've learned not to pick on Southeast Missouri State University.