Dr. -- MD, Ph.D and ED?

Jaymba: "Hello all...I am curious about the designation "Dr." I know those with medical degrees certainly deserved the right to be called Dr....but what about those with Ph.Ds and even those with a Doctorate in Management, Education or some other field? How many of you call yourselves "Dr. X" even though you do not have a medical degree? Just curious because since I have been considering a Doctorate in Education I have been noticing how people have been using the designation...mostly those without medical degrees. thanks."



Cehi: A good question, you have asked. However, I need your help. How did you get the impression that only a medical doctor can be called a doctor? I believe that the "doctor" title can be used by anyone who has earned a MD, PHD, DM, EDD, DBA, DA, PharmD, etc., degrees as the highest degree in their chosen field. The "doctor" is just a generic title.

An MD is the highest degree in medical education. A person who earned an MD degree is a physician as far as I am concerned. A person who earned a Ph.D. in sociology is a sociologist. Both earned a doctor of something. Hence, I think they should be called a doctor. A physician with an MD degree has a doctor of medicine degree. A sociologist with a Ph.D. degree has a doctor of philosophy in a subject within sociology. Thank you.

 

Re: Re: Dr. -- MD, Ph.D and ED?

Actually that was the error of the person who started a thread on Degreeinfo (an otherwise intelligence and insightful guy). The article actaully inferred that all doctors degrees in education (PhD or EdD) and particularly those in educational administraton were substandard.

Tony

 

My nephew is a radiologist in the UK and has an MB (equiv to a US MD) and is a FRCR. He is also a consultant (in other words a certified specialist in his field). He hates it when he is called "Doctor"; he is very proud that he is a "Mister".

[which leads me to the question "what are female consultants called?]

Note that in the UK some universities offer an MD (or Medicinae Doctor) which is a post grad research degree, but does not by itself allow the holder to practice medicine.

 

Re: Re: Law School

I agree. I wanted to enroll in a distance JD program, but I had to go the traditional ABA route because of the licensing issues. In the jurisdictions where I want to practice, an ABA degree is required. I think this is unfair to the distance JDs who are working just as hard.

I don't know that I would call the JD "the least of the doctorates", though. 1l at law school was complete torture. Other doctoral students don't face the things law students are forced to put up with. The JD is different from other doctorates, but certainly not inferior. That said, I don't plan on calling myself doctor.

 

I agree, Bush04, the J.D. is a completely different sort of hell than an M.D. or dissertation doctorate. I really don't think it can be compared with any other program. Certainly, the M.D. and Ph.D. in my J.D. class struggled as much as the rest of us.

But it has the advantage of being a shorter, well marked path.

 

I'm not sure how long med school takes, but law school requires approx 90 post bachelor semester hours. I always thought Ph.D. programs generally required about the same.

I guess you could call compacting 90 law school credits into 3 years a benefit. However, this probably prevents plenty of people from enrolling. Maybe law schools should get rid of the strict 3 year (sometimes 4 year) schedule?

 

Yabbut the 90 semester hours for a J.D. comprises high level coursework, some clinical exposure and a fairly substantial paper.

The Ph.D. requires original research culminating in a publishable dissertation. That can take YEARS, especially in the liberal arts and social sciences.

ABA statements notwithstanding, the two degrees really aren't comparable.

 

The degrees aren't comparable, but I don't think the accomplishments are uncomparable. I'll bet there are more J.D.s out there who could obtain a social sciences PhD than social science PhDs who could obtain the JD and then pass the Bar, just a guess.

Now NATURAL science PhDs, that's a whole nother plane of existence, none of the above compare to them.

 

My ex wife married the dean of the graduate school of a small university. Nice guy, too.

Anyway, his complaint was that too many of the top liberal arts students went to law school and too many of the top science students went to med school instead of each group seeking Ph.D.s in their respective fields.

Interesting observation, though I have no way of saying whether it's accurate or not.

 

In the early editions of Bear's Guide ... (back when he had $ signs and facial expressions to rate schools) there was a complete chapter on the history of, use and misuse of the title "Dr." It was not only informative but also quite entertaining. I'm not sure if Doc Bear has kept that chapter in the more recent editions but you can probably find an older edition somewhere within your local library system.

 

Several people on this thread have asked "Who has a right to call himself (or herself) 'doctor,'" but I would make a clear distinction between (a) using the title yourself and (b) having a reasonable expectation that other people will use the title when referring to you.

In my view, "Dr." should be used by (and in reference to) holders of earned doctorates whenever "Mr." or "Ms." would otherwise be used. Do people actually go around referring to themselves as "Mr."? Not often, in my experience, so I'd expect that it would be equally unusual to hear someone refer to himself as "Dr." In practice, I hear MDs refer to themselves as "Dr.," but that always sounds silly to me.

In reference to someone else, I'd use "Dr." for holders of earned doctorates whenever "Mr." or "Ms." would be used otherwise.

One exception: JDs seem not to like the title.

I have read that it is inappropriate to address holders of honorary doctorates as "Dr.," but I'd tend to do so nonetheless. If I knew any.

 

Even at home, with only the two of us present, my wife addresses me as "Dr."

My immediate response is Yes Dear, because I know she is wanting the garbage taken out.............

 

Heh, heh, heh....

 

I agree with Dr. Walters. "Doctor" is a substitute for "Mrs.," "Ms.," and "Mr." I wouldn't call myself "Mr. Douglas," but I would expect others to do so in some situations (until an actual conversation would take place, where then I would ask to be called by my first name.)

Yeah, I like Dr. Walters' observation.

 

Miss Manners, the ultimate authority on excrutiatingly (sp?) correct behavior, says that it is ALWAYS rude to take ANY title to oneself.

She reminds us, BTW, that "Miss" is no exception; it is her given name, not her title.

I agree except to the extent that, in professional situations, the title may help establish the identity and authority of the speaker, viz. "Nurse Smith? This is Dr. Brown. Please remove Mr. Johnson's feeding tube."

 

Just be glad we ain't in India, Dr. Singh

And may help avert catastrophe should any two of them, in your example, just happen to have the same last name!

 

Re: Re: Dr. -- MD, Ph.D and ED?

Hey there, Wild Bill!

The chapter of which you bespeak is Chapter 3: "Degrees, Degree Requirements, and Transcripts," which occurs on pages 7 through 11 of Bears' Guide, 15th edn.

 

I’ve gone back and forth on this. I never use the title in social situations; well, OK, once. The day I defended my dissertation I called my best friend who lived in another state. He, in the throes of being recently divorced, was sewing his wild oats. A lot. He wasn’t home so I left a message for him to call Dr. Williams for the results of his HIV test with the bimbo of the week. She was not amused.

I felt pretentious using the title when I began my career. Eventually, I discovered patients are usually comforted by the use of the title. At this point I introduce myself as Doctor Williams and I give the person the option of addressing me either as David or Dr. Williams. I explain I’m a doctor of psychology not medicine and I do things like testing and counseling. I like to think the reason most physicians address themselves by the title is for the purpose of comfort and reassurance.

I wonder if cultural issues have an impact. Many years ago while visiting South Wales I tracked down the school my father attended. The headmaster was thrilled to give the son of an ‘old boy’ the cook’s tour. He was just appalled to discover I don’t use the title.

 

First-Professional Degree Classification met on February 23-24, 2004. In attendance were 20 individuals, representing federal government, state government, institutions, national data users, accrediting bodies and professions. The panel considered the current reporting requirements for first-professional degree programs and proposals to either eliminate the category or to expand and redefine it.

Background:

Since the 1950s, the degree classification pertaining to the first-professional degree has remained unchanged in both its definition and in the list of included degree programs.
Defines a first-professional degree as: An award that requires completion of a program that meets all of the following criteria: (1) completion of the academic requirements to begin practice in the profession; (2) at least 2 years of college work prior to entering the program; and (3) a total of at least 6 academic years of college work to complete the degree program, including prior required college work plus the length of the professional program itself. (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Glossary 2004 at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/ ). The four discipline areas (10 fields) in which first-professional degrees are defined include law, medicine, other health fields, and theology.


Learner

 

Lerner,

Sorry? I seem not to be able to relate your post, interesting though it is, to this discussion. What are you trying to say?