Current perspectives on the Ed.D as a viable credential

As usual Dr. Pina, you have done a wonderful job of providing insight on the Ph.D. versus Ed.D. discussion.

I thought I would throw in some points as a practitioner with an Ed.D..

It has been my profressional experience the only question that I am asked is whether or not I hold a doctorate. I have held jobs where I was a political appointee in government (i.e. ran a major organization with a $110 budget), have held a number of nationally recognized organizational offices, testified in front of the Senate, won national professional awards, served as a clinical professor in a major medical school, and now serve as an associate professor with two appointments (special education and rehabilitation counseling and I am the director of the masters degree in rehabiltiation counseling) all with an Ed.D..

The argument of whether to have an Ed.D. or a Ph.D. is tiring. If you hold an earned doctorate from and RA institution, quality work exists. What really matters is your professional contributions (i.e. publications, presentations, and other work). I recently left a major governmental director position to accept an academic position in a small university. Before anyone starts saying "well its just a small university," please note I applied to 4 positions, including a major medical school, and was a fianlist at all four and offered three of the postions. Most people in academia get that docs are are docs are docs! Its what you have done with it that matters. I chose an Ed.D. because of who I could study with and the particular university. It has never slowed me down or affected my opportunities.

All that ultimately matters is whether or not you got to study what you wanted and then whether you will do something with it.

 

Recently, I have been making some added emphasis in my attempt to be civil in my postings on this forum. In general I believe that I have succeeded. If, as simon has suggested, I have not succeeded in my attempts in this thread then I am explicitly asking other members to say so. I do not believe that I have said anything offensive or otherwise deserving of the harshness of simons responses. I am sincerely asking for feedback. Thanks,
Jack

 

TAKE THIS issue SOMEWHERE ELSE, NOT HERE! If you wish to take a poll about your civility do so but do not rerail this thread. Its enough already!

 

Unfortunately the feedback I and many others receive, specifically from Ph.Ds., regarding which degree to obtain leans heavily towards obtaining the Ph.D. That is why this topic is so relevent and the feedback from you and Anthony really help in providing a more objective and insightful understanding of the continued relevance of the Ed.D as well as clarifies misunderstandings regarding its level of usefulness in the job market. Thanks, Simon

 

I'm sorry simon, but I don't think that I raised this issue. I simply and respectfully expressed my opinion on a subject directly related to the subject of this thread and you decided to take a shot at me. I'm just following through on a line of discussion that you, yourself, created.
Jack

 

Thanks for the response Simon. First let me say oops, I meant to say $110 million budget not $110 budget.

Second, notice it is the Ph.D.'s saying that an Ed.D. is not as good (smile). The reality just does not bare this out.

 

My, my! Aren't we being a bit touchy, Simon?

 

My lawyer's instincts are aroused!

Dr. Pina,

AHA! So NOW the real reason for the Ed.D. comes out! The Schools of Education wanted control over their own doctorate programs instead of leaving them in the hands of the University gradute schools!

Yes, yes. When I completed my exhaustive study of Australian J.S.D. and Ph.D. programs (AT LEAST 90 minutes online; how's THAT for rigorous?), the one thing I noticed and did not understand is that the J.S.D. degrees were supervised entirely through the Law Faculties whereas the University as a whole supervised and examined for the Ph.D. in Law. The schools describe the degrees as being of equal stature but with different emphasis; the J.S.D. was a dissertation doctorate oriented toward PRACTICE whereas the Ph.D. was a dissertation doctorate oriented toward academic research...sound familiar?

So at bottom, it was POLITICS!

 

Y tambien...

Few indeed would be the practicing lawyers, even in Australia, that actually NEED a dissertation doctorate.

Try, maybe, "none"?

 

Originally posted by tcnixon
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*?

All other things being equal, Columbia.

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.

For those living in the Fresno area, both would be good choices. When I left Arizona (and the third year of my Ph.D. program) and decided that I was not moving back, I had the option of a few different Ph.D. programs, all of which accepted me. The best program for me happened to be an Ed.D. at a little known university.

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).

Actually, Tom, there is little evidence that earning an Ed.D., rather than a Ph.D. in the same field, lessens your chance for a tenure-track teaching position. Many of my university colleagues have Ed.D.s.

 

Re: My lawyer's instincts are aroused!

Yes, that was definitely one of the major reasons for the establishment of the Ed.D...quite possibly THE major reason.

 

A very interesting and valuable discussion.

It is good to learn that the Ed.D remains a viable credential. It is also clear that the primary determinant of career and professional success resides in the individual and not in whether they possess an Ed.D or a Ph.D. The school where one obtains an Ed.D does appear to have relevance in terms of the degrees perceived quality and level of acceptability. In this regard, how would an Ed.D from a distance learning program such as NCU be viewed versus one from a brick and mortar graduate school? Would it be advantageous or preferable to obtain a Ph.D rather than an Ed.D in education from a school such as NCU?

What I find particularly interesting is that many education departments are moving towards the Ph.D.. Does this imply an acknowledgement by many schools of education that many of the perceived and stereotyped perspectives regarding the Ed.D are having a negative impact on the utilization and prestige of this credential?

 

Looking more viable than ever in California

I just checked the status of SB 724, the bill that would give the California State University system the authority to offer the Doctor of Education degree. It passed the State Senate (33 to3) and State Assembly (73 to 3) and is now on the "Governator's " desk waiting for a signature. There seems to be no indication that he will veto it.

With the 23 CSU campuses able to develop Ed.D. programs (13 CSUs are currently offering doctoral programs in tandem with other universities), it appears that the Ed.D. can echo Mark Twain's famous saying:

"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated".

I can see why they chose to go with the Ed.D., but it is rather foolish. If they are letting the CSUs award doctorates, just let 'em award Ph.D.s...it will happen eventually.

I think that I'll start a new thread on the Senate bill.

 

Anthony, am I "reading" you correctly that although the Ed.D continues to thrive at the current time that ultimately many graduate schools will replace it with the Ph.D? If this is the case does the stereotyped and erroneous perception of the Ed.D that it may not be commensurate in rigor and scope with the Ph.D have anything to do with this trend? Simon

 

When Osguthorpe surveyed colleges of education about 15 years ago, there were more Ed.d. programs than Ph.D. programs. I do not knwo if that is true today, but it still might be. Some programs have changed their Ed.D. programs to Ph.D., although it would certainly be incorrect to state that "most" or even "many" have done it. It would be more precise to say that a few have done it, while the vast majority have kept their Ed.D. programs. I should have been more precise in my wording in the above posts.

In fact, what has occurred more often than changing Ed.D.s to Ph.D.s is for a program that offers both a Ph.D. and an Ed.D. option to drop the Ed.D. The primary reasons for doing this are 1) the programs are far more similar than they are different and 2) the Ph.D. programs enroll more students than the Ed.D. I am confident that the reason that you cite (the Ph.D. being the more recognized degree) accounts for students choosing the Ph.D. over the Ed.D. I would have done the same.