Is it proper or right to call someone “Dr.” if he/she received a doctorate degree from State-approved institution like Clayton College, CCU, etc... ???
I can tell you that the general opinion of this board is NO. For some reason, Regional Accreditaation is the magic potion that makes calling someone "doctor" OK. I think this is crazy. We are talking about an institution that has legal permission from its government to confer the degrees. If someone bothers to go through the program, I think he/she is entitled to the benefits and privileges of having done so. Why others think that the school must first go through a voluntary process before its graduates can be called "doctor" is beyond me. I have stated this before, but in Illinois there is a state approved college that grants the DN, or Doctor of Naprapathy degree. This is a health treating field, and the state requires a license to practice. Some insurance companies pay for treatments from these doctors.. I guess if some of the members of this board receive treatment, then will call their practitioner "health treating guy". I agree that taking these matters lightly belittles the accomplishment of those who go through these programs, but when I break this down to its basic level, I see an organization that tranfers information to its students, is approved to do so, and confers the title "Doctor". If it is not illegal to operate in this manner, then I think graduates of these programs are entitiled to be called "doctor" in appropriate situations.
In my opinion, it's a matter of decorum and courtesy. If I was in a formal situation where the individual was being called "doctor", and where my failing to follow that pattern would be seen as an insult or as creating a scene, I'd probably go with the flow, even if I had reservations about the degree. Examples might be in a classroom or at a professional meeting. But I can also imagine counter-instances where a person has an RA doctorate, where they clearly expect to be addressed as "doctor", but where I might not do so. That might happen if the person was trying to use the title to puff and pose, claiming unearned authority outside the field in which the degree was earned. Having a Ph.D. doesn't convey expertise in unrelated fields. A "Dr. Laura" call-in show might be an example. Bottom line for me is that calling somebody "doctor" is a matter of respect. I would have no qualms about using the title if I respected the person's work, even if their degree was not RA. (It would have to be legal and credible though, or I wouldn't have respect.) And even if I did have qualms about the individual and his/her work, I still might use the title if I was in a formal situation in which failure to use the title would just be an unnecessary disruption. In that case, going with the flow would be a sign of respect for the gathering, not the individual. Since most use of titles is in formal gatherings, this might be the most common situation. Imagine a professional meeting. If a speaker with a CA-approved doctorate was listed as "Dr.", and if other speakers were being addressed as "doctor", I'd probably adhere to the form with him too. Situation ethics. In my opinion the use of titles is more context sensitive than accreditation sensitive.
I agree. While I may feel unease at someone using the title "Dr." as a graduate from a state approved school (especially a terrible state approvided school), you do nothing to make points by being rude and attempting to tear someone down in public. James White's unaccredited credentials from Columbia Evangelical Seminary are a magnet for straw man tactics in debate. Please note I am not implying any issues with Columbia Evangelical Seminary quality. I cannot judge it and have a great deal of respect for Dr. Walston. James White is a well known Protestant (esp Reformed) apologist. His unaccredited credentials and remarks about whether to call him "Mr." or "Dr." (including using quotes) seems to come up in uncharitable ways by "religious" folks trying to defeat his arguments against mormonism or catholicism. My feeling is that people should stick to the argument itself rather than resorting to what amounts to thinly disguised personal attacks. North
Re: Re: Use of "Dr." part II Since she has been mentioned a couple of times in this context, I thought it would be interesting to post her credentials: BS, Biological Sciences, SUNY Stonybrook, Long Island, NY MS, M Phil, Ph.D. (Physiology), Columbia University (College of Physicians and Surgeons), NY Post-Doctoral Certification in Marriage, Family and Child Counseling, Human Relations Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles Licensed Marriage, Family and Child Counselor (MFCC), California, formerly in private practice for 12 years Past member of the Biological Sciences faculty of the University of Southern California (5 years) and the graduate Psychology faculty of Pepperdine University (8 years). Taught at UCLA, and UC Irvine Extension.
Re: Re: Re: Use of "Dr." part II Pretty impressive! She makes no attempt to pretend she is a psychologist and mentions frequently that her Ph.D. is in Physiology. I disagree with some of her advice, find her caustic (I am originally Canadian after all), but also like that fact that she does not let people get away with justifying and excusing behavior especially when it affects children. That is not to say I think she is always stellar in her behavior. North
Re: Re: Re: Use of "Dr." part II formerly USNY formerly USNY . . . Sorry, couldn't resist. To get back to the thread, though, it reminds me of my textbook salesman days when I first started calling on University of Wisconsin faculty. I had a hard time calling Harry Harlow "Mister" when he was one of my psychology heroes. But that was the way they did it there. OTOH my Uncle Ed, the dentist, would get all POed if someone left off the "Doctor" even if they were sitting in a bar, while in the UK (I'm told) dentists are "Misters" as a matter of course. If I ever finish my MS/CS will people start calling me "Master?" Regards. TommyK
It's totally up to the individual. I know a few medical doctors who would be very hard pressed to call anyone without a medical degree "Dr." -- no matter where the Ph.D. came from. If it isn't in medicine -- they simply don't condescend to call one "Dr." Then, there are those who use it as a political card. If someone introduces two people as "Dr. Blow and Mr. Doe" and they both have Ph.D.'s -- it's a clear indication of of what that person thinks of Doe's degrees. It's sort of like Javanese -- you know exactly what people think of you and your "position" with them based upon which words they use for such things as "chair." If you think "Dr." rules are complicated... read this: http://home.columbus.rr.com/sciences/java.htm Javanese is one of those languages that leaves no room for misunderstanding about exactly where you stand with the person speaking to you. French has a bit of this left in its use of "tu" and "vous" -- as does Farsi, with its "to" and "shomaa" (to = informal, personal, shomaa = formal) and its "man" and "bandeh" (man = I when you feel you are the listener's equal, "bandeh" when you want to show that you know your place [bandeh means "slave" or some such]). For instance, in Farsi, if one says, "Bandeh az shomaa kheili mamnun hastam" one is basically saying: "Unworthy me thanks gracious you ever so much." In informal speech, one is more likely to say "mersi" or "mamnun." There is a middle ground somewhere with "gorbanetam" -- which means something like "I am thy sacrifice." In a classless society, everyone is John or Jane Doe.
