A Beginning Trend: Multiple Doctorates

I had heard that the last degree mentioned is the most prominent one. In other words a Ph.D. trumps an M.D., J.D., DBA. etc and so is last. Fred Smith, M.D., Ph.D.

North

 

This is the ettiquette that I have come to understand, which is why I put them the way I did. Usually, it seems most approprate to put lowest degree first, highest degree last. Or with equivalent degrees (MD, JD...) order receieved.

But then again, this is the US. And usually one will only put down degrees after their name if it is directly related to the vocation, and then it is most often only the highest. I have a masters degree, but I have yet to put "M.A." after my name, it just seems so pretentious even after all the work it took to earn the title. Although, I imagine once I earn a doctorate, I may very well write the title on everything I own.

Jeff Welch

 

Excellent...

 

Grade inflation is real at the high school level (based on personal experience teaching at an Arizona community college). So what is a college to do? Can't use SAT or ACT tests... too biased! Good grief.

Oh well. The community colleges will weed 'em out for you.

 

Ah, but the grade inflation John refers to (grades of up to 5.0 on a 4-point scale) are directly related to these biased tests. It is honors and AP classes that earn a student one grade point higher than normal for his/her grade. Thus, one earns 5 points for what should be a 4-point "A," 4 points for a 3-point "B," etc.

I interviewed dozens of these kids for Air Force ROTC scholarships and, frankly, didn't have much use for them. Sure, they were smart, but they were often pragmatically stunted and would turn out to be horrible officer candidates. But the military insisted on taking them because of those glorious GPAs (and the equally gittery SAT scores). Neither correlated well to success in leadership training.

Rich Douglas

 

Very interesting. I taught Army officers and NCO's for years. Very good in book work but not enough sense to come out of the rain. Yes, I know the trend toward giving more than 4 points depending on the course, etc... That is a reaction to guys took shop courses who got 4.0 averages versus the person who took pre-college at got a 3.8, for instance. It happened in my high school and my wife's high school. I had no problem with it because that was the end of the line for the shop guys; let 'em have their glory. My high school was but a speedbump in my education. My wife has always been upset about it. Time to let it go.

By the way, the best officers I taught and worked with were "prior service" guys. Folks who had been enlisted, then went to OCS or ROTC or West Point.

 

Rich,

Isn't the point to get smart kids into the problem as they probably have some good decision making abilities academically. Once in ROTC they then receive the leadership training they need and must undoubtedly grow in experience. If they "wash out" of the program because they couldn't adapt then the program was doing a good job. All part of growing up and the difference between a seasoned enlisted who was also very green at one time to that of a cadet and junior officer who needs to develop into a seasoned officer.

One man's opinion,

John

 

[QUOTEsnip).

A trivia question--I'm pretty sure this applies not only to America--but also to England and Canada also. Assume all doctoral degrees only. If one earned an M.D. in 1980, a Ph.D. (in Theology) in 1984, and a J.D. in 1988, what is the most proper order for listing those credentials behind one's name?

EsqPhD[/B][/QUOTE]

The "proper" order...
J.D., Ph.D, M.D.

I have never met an M.D. that did not think THAT the M.D. was NOT the highest title in the universe (Including GOD )

Of course if he became a pastor the Ph.D would be tail end charlie.

I heard of a guy that was a certified orthotist?prosthetist, decided he could make more money as a doctor, got his M.D., did not like the liability problems and earned a J.D.

Not sure how he listed his credeitials, but he seems to be set up for malpractice cases big time!

Dan Snelson, CPO, FAAOP

 

I would say list the Ph.D. last because it is the highest credential.

So my guess is M.D., J.D., Ph.D.

I think the doctors I have seen list it after the M.D. because it is a higher credential. I have heard that there is some status to being an M.D. Ph.D.

North

The "proper" order...
J.D., Ph.D, M.D.

I have never met an M.D. that did not think THAT the M.D. was NOT the highest title in the universe (Including GOD )

Of course if he became a pastor the Ph.D would be tail end charlie.

I heard of a guy that was a certified orthotist?prosthetist, decided he could make more money as a doctor, got his M.D., did not like the liability problems and earned a J.D.

Not sure how he listed his credeitials, but he seems to be set up for malpractice cases big time!

Dan Snelson, CPO, FAAOP [/B][/QUOTE]

 

If one were not in any way religious, the degrees should be chronological--hence:
John Smith, M.D., J.D. (took out the theological degree) or
John Smith, M.D., Ph.D., J.D. (with the theological degree)

Having a degree at the forefront or end do not for etiquette sake, have to express the rigours or highest degree.

If one were religious, etiquette (this is secular protocol as well as religious) calls one to place the theological degrees before the secular degrees. The secular degrees would then be placed in chronological order--hence,
John Smith, Ph.D., M.D., J.D.

This is a matter of etiquette not which degree is harder or more impressive.

If one had honorary degrees, those would go at the end--in order of bestowment.

If one belonged to a religious or fraternal order, the order initials would go immediately after the name and before all degrees.

For example, a Jesuit priest, if he had an M.D. in 1980, was bestowed an honorary D.D. in 1988, and a earned an S.T.D. (Doctor of Sacred Theology) in 1990--he should list them (if he chooses to and assuming he knows the proper etiquette) as follows:

The Rev. Jesuit Priest, SJ, S.T.D., M.D., D.D.

In the same example, we have to take subcultures into consideration--so if the good Father practiced medicine in order to help his Jesuit Order, he would most likely list the M.D. immediately after his name while in the clinical/hospital culture and if he should choose (more likely not), other academic degrees following.

Socially (beyond the hospital/clinic), the good Father should return to general etiquette.

EsqPhD

 

My main contact regarding this topic is in the health care professions, and what I have noticed is most people put the most important at the end...or the one that is actually being used when it is written (which is why I put the PhD after the MD if he was a pastor and not practicing Medicine.)

When I present the abstract my SIG is Dan Snelson CPO, FAAOP when I complete a master's it would be MS, CPO, FAAOP the MD's I have seen have been MPH, MD or PhD, MD

I guess the consensus is there is no consensus

The most important thing I remind my Orthopedic residents is "what do they call the guy (or girl) who graduates last in medical school?

DOCTOR!


Dan

 

If they graduate last and depending on what school, they may not pass all the USMLE--hence, never really be called Doctor--or should be embarrassed to use such without the state license.

Unfortunately, there are a few percent of medical school graduates (even from good schools) that don't pass all their USMLE's.

In terms of consensus--probably not in America--however, the U.S. (Gov't) does have a protocol. One of the agencies published it on the web--the site is: http://www.ars.usda.gov/afm2/ppweb/261-2mc-6-7.htm#_1_12

EsqPhD

 

I have never met an M.D. that did not think THAT the M.D. was NOT the highest title in the universe (Including GOD )
[/QUOTE]

Q: What's the difference between God and a physician?

A: God doesn't think he's a physician.


Bruce

 

I thought He was the Great Physician?

 

You thought correctly Esq, He is indeed the Great Physician!

Russell,
A Christian since 1977.

 

Thank you, thank you very much. <taking a bow>

Rich Douglas, Captain, USAF (Retired), a former 23-year-old staff sergeant before being sent to Officer Training School.

 

I think the issue of two PhD's (note- two research degrees, not professional doctorates) is not as complicated when one considers that much of the methodology is the same. If you understand research methods, the differences are mainly literature, terminology, and tradition in each discipline. Yes, a second PhD is a significant amount of work, but I think bridging that gap is far from impossible. I'm hoping that one day the US system recognizes this and stops requiring duplicative coursework at the PhD level. I love the foreign system of thesis-only, and I believe we'll eventually get there. To the extent we do, you'll see much more of the double-doc.

 

Necromancing a 13-year-old thread. Whatever for?

A "professional" doctorate is very much a "research degree." The distinction is between academic and professional. Both are research-based.

 

In Australia and the Uk, there is a higher doctorate that is higher than a PhD. The problem that is mainly granted only to people that are either staff at the University granting the Higher doctorate or a graduate. The higher doctorate normally requires about 40 or more publications and at least 4 years of post PhD research experience.

There are quite few people that hold a higher doctorate and list it as PhD DSc.

 

When it shows up in my history as a newly updated thread, I'll reply to it, if i have to get out a chisel to carve it into a Stone Age thread. Apparently no one is willing or able to bring this up, so I will. Making yet another snide comment. Whatever for? I'll tell you.

I have had quite enough of you chasing me from thread to thread on this board with your pompous attitude. I've done my research on you my friend, and it does tell a tale. I'd recommend that the posters on this board check you out via Google. You clearly have a long history of picking fights on discussion boards, a weird hobby to say the least, and subsequently relying on others to defend you. I think you should invest future efforts into keeping some kind of muzzle on yourself. You clearly have some kind of professional Napoleon complex. I have to say I expected more for a person with a respected position in the G.

What you do here is simple: you spout a bunch of 'knowledge' to some folks on this board who can't tell the difference. You're the guy who played some high school ball trying to posture for little leaguers. Before you hijack the metaphor, what I mean is that some of us know better.

I noted a thread from another board from 2006. You used virtually the same snotty tone and prose then as you used with me last week. 'Where is the proof?' Exactly. Where is your proof? If you had any character you'd go back and delete every thread you wrote in which you didn't cite 'data.'

Bro, you need a hobby, kids, something to do besides this if that's the best you've got. You actually had me going for a bit, until I found parroted threads of yours. Not only are you petty, you self-plagiarize too.

I for one see through you. Since you like literary devices, here's one:

Rich Douglas, Poor Sport.

By the way- your thesis on non-traditional higher ed disqualifies you from speaking with authority on higher Ed. You should resign from the board on those grounds alone. You are not an authority on traditional higher Ed.

No doubt others will 'agree' with you and dislike what I've said (of course) but I wouldn't give you air in a jug, and I've never met you. That's saying something.