What's your educational level?

DBAs are really research degrees. The difference is that a DBA does applied research while the PhD does theoretical research. Most people do a DBA to teach and consult rather than work as a business professional. Perhaps in the future this will be different, I have seen the new DBAs from the DETC schools that look more like super MBAs rather than research degrees. There are also many European schools that started marketing the DBA for executives pretty much the same way the executive MBA was marketed in the past. I don't know the future direction of the DBA but presently, this credential is mainly used for teaching and consulting.

 

Hi Matt,

It is true that there are schools that offer both degrees and differentiate between them, as you have noted (the University of Illinois is one), but the vast majority do not--especially those that offer the EdD as the highest education degrees. If I wished to get a doctorate in my discipline (instructional technology) and went to Harvard, Columbia, Northern Illinois U., U of Memphis or Pepperdine, I would be receivieng an EdD degree (the PhD is not available).

Language and cognate course requirements are rare (and becoming more so) in education doctoral programs (where the PhD and EdD are more readily compared). The largest studies looked at over 600 schools of education and nearly 2,000 doctoral dissertations and could not find anything very significant between the requirements for EdD and PhD degrees in education.

If you have the choice between the two degrees, I would recommend getting a PhD, since the perception (however incorrect) is that it is a superior degree to the PhD. Ultimately, you can get faculty and administrator positions with either degree (my EdD has never hurt me and I have beat out several PhDs for my last two positions), so select the program, school and faculty that best meets your needs.

All the best!

Tony

 

Over 48% of the respondents (so far) have a Masters degree? Wow, that's not a reflection of American society!

 

Obviously, smart people hang out here

 

Umm I have a MA degree. Woo Hoo.

 

I answered honestly as only having a BS, BUT I'm only 3 weeks from an MBA. So maybe I'll answer it differently then.

 

I have a Ph.D. and am pulling a Livingston Taylor.

 

What does "pulling a Livingston Taylor" mean?

 

I always considered the DBA and Ed.D. professional certifications - would it not help clarify things were we to dispense with the fancy-dan words and call them what they are: trade degrees?

Ed.D. is the advanced trade degree for educators; DBA is the advanced trade degree for businessmen; MD is the basic qualifying degree of physicians; JD is the base qualifying degree of lawyers; PsyD is the base qualifying degree of clinical psychologists. And yes, the PhD is the base qualifying degree of clinical psychologists, too. Few do research beyond their dissertation. Their postdoc is as practitioners (and necessarily so).

Base or advanced, these degrees are used to ply one's trade. I get the feeling that in the great scheme of things some find that characterization demeaning. Now, there is a research component to most of them (often unnecessarily so in my view), but it seldom comprises the depth and breadth of that of the PhD.

What's wrong with admitting that? The trade degree stands on its own merits.

And even the PhD for the majority of it's holders, is functionally nothing more than the base trade degree necessary for entry into the guild of academia. What percentage of PhDs are doing real full time research 10 years out, rather than teaching or operating as practitioners?

There are few more noble or socially useful pursuits than applying the best of one’s energies and skills to make a buck. Those who have endured the sacrifice and hardships of a long apprenticeship as doctoral students should not devalue that effort by recasting their degree as PhD-lite. Rather they should celebrate its worth and proudly proclaim ownership.

 

[ humour ]

< ring, ring >
< former guidance counselor > Hello. This is your kindergarten guidance counselor calling to remind you that as a drop out you would never amount to anything. I am currently conducting a survey for my doctorate and have a few questions.
< you > Oh, I recently completed a graduate degree.
< click >

[ /humour ]

 

This is wrong. Both research and observation have shown there is, for example, little or no difference between the Ph.D. in Education and the Ed.D. And the DBA is designed for academia, not business. Etc., etc., etc.

"Now, there is a research component to most of them (often unnecessarily so in my view), but it seldom comprises the depth and breadth of that of the PhD. "

Really wrong. As Tony points out on another thread, a study of 1,900 dissertations comparing those from Ph.D. and Ed.D. programs found little difference.

Degrees that fit the poster's categories (and he does name a few) are called first professional degrees. The MD, OD, DO, DC, JD, etc. The rest--Ph.D., Ed.D., Psy.D., DBA, DTech, D.Sc. D.A., etc.--are academic degrees comparable to each other. While some are used as qualifiers (like the Ph.D. in psychology) or as career enhancers, the degrees themselves are comparable--and academic. What one does with one's degree afterwards is irrelevant to that point.

 

I agree with Lawrie's basic premise, that for most education professions (e.g. school principal or superintendent) a research doctoral degree is overkill and unnecessary. Those professions, by and large do not utliize the types of research skills required for a research doctorate. Arthur Levine, the former President of Teacher's College, Columbia University, called for the creation of an MBA-type degree to replace the Ed.D. for principals & superintendents. Actually this could have been done by making the Ed.S. the accepted credential for school leaders/practitioners. Now, it is too late and Superintendent So-and-So likes to be called "Dr."

Now, as Rich says, Lawrie is mistaken about the Ed.D. What was designed as a practitioner's degree was never implemented that way, except at a few institutions. I have an Ed.D. only because my university did not offer a Ph.D. degree in education. The statement that "there is a research component to most of them" (Ed.D. programs)...but it seldom comprises the depth and breadth of that of the PhD", is not grounded in reality, since every study on the subject shows the requirements for Ed.D. and Ph.D. degrees in education to be identical. The only time that they are not is at a few schools that offer both degrees in the same department, so they lesson the number of research courses and, perhaps, allow a more applied project in place of the dissertation. These programs are the exception, rather than the norm.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I started a Ph.D. program at one university, transferred to another state and finished at another (that offered only the Ed.D. in my discipline). Both programs required me to have two courses in quantitative research methods, a course in qualitative research methods, a course in discipline-specific research, two statistics courses (I actually took three), a comprehensive examination and a research dissertation. Although I speak Spanish, neither degree required foreign language.

I agree with Levine: Harvard should never have invented the Ed.D. degree and should have created a true applied professional degree instead. Of course, most of Levine's criticisms were toward doctoral programs in school administration, rather than the Ed.D. in special ed, ed psych, instructional technology, curriculum/instruction, measurement/evaluation or the myriad of other disciplines that offer this degree. The idea that the Ed.D. is a lesser degree with lesser requirements than the Ph.D. in education exists only in the realm of opinion--rather than in empirical reality (but, as we all know, opinion can be an extremely powerful realm).

 

Lawrie, calling a doctoral degree that requires a dissertation a "trade degree" is interesting. Normally, trade schools fit within this criteria and they usually offer vocations, to include mechanics, food service and other valuable trades that people need certification in to work in those fields. Since you have a very strong opinion about what a doctorate is (and isn't), it makes me curious: Where did you get your doctorate from? Just curious.

 

Yes well, simple declarative statements like this get us nowhere. I invite you to look at the requirements of the whole of these degrees, both comps and dissertation - the whole package. Generally there is a significant difference in the amount work required to complete each of them.

 

Again, some are defensive, betraying their uncertainty about the true worth of the qualification. The Ed.D. or any other trade degree, stands on it's own merits. There is nothing inferior about it with respect to it's fitness for purpose. They exist to fit a specific niche as a practitioner credential in a specific field. If that is not the case, and they are simply a PhD by another name, why bother with the different designation? Why not a PhD in Education?

I invite you to survey the requirements of a broad selection of the offerings currently available, and then tell me there is no difference in terms of depth and breadth. Some Ed.D. programs are indistinguishable in terms of equivalency of requirements relative to PhD programs, but they are the minority. The argument to the contrary is simply not sustainable in the face of the empirical data.

 

I have no idea what this means in terms of viable distinction. The issue isn't the designation of a school, it is the nature of the occupation, of course. That is your point, is it not? I did not reference schools at all. Is the occupation a trade or is it not? One common definition of "trade" is the business or work in which one engages regularly. Another is "the trade", commonly defined as the persons engaged in an occupation, business, or industry. As noted previously, all degrees are certifications and most advanced degrees are used by the holder to punch their entry ticket into a guild, be it academia or taxidermy, the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, or the Actors Guild.

Now clearly, there is another, older, class-based definition that sought to separate occupations in terms of function. The great unwashed had trades, while really serious people, those who deemed themselves superior, had careers and professions. But all that was before the Great Leveling. Surely now in the 21st century, we have matured enough as a society to move beyond these artificial and divisive constructs? We all have to work. We all want to make a buck. We all would like to enjoy the work we do.

When I worked for a defense contractor in the UK, there were a pair of entrances no more than 9 feet apart. They led to corridors running parallel to each other, 6 yards long. They both terminated in exits to the very same main corridor, again, just 9 feet apart. One was marked "Staff Entrance", the other, "Works (i.e. workers) Entrance". This cosmic stupidity had its routes the same mindset that would conjure meaningful difference between trade , occupation and profession to impute a hierachy.

But if you prefer to use the term "profession", be my guest. Though I would caution that actors and musicians, and ladies of the night, have "professions".

Good grief, are you really that insecure?

 

Lol

Release the hounds!!!!

 

I didn't know "we" were going somewhere. But I did continue with why I took that stance.

As for your last sentence, it is wrong. (No need to repeat why.)

 

Well, I--for one--disagree with your entire premise. And I do have a Ph.D. in Education--Higher Education. I know that the Ed.D. is the academic equal to the Ph.D. in Education.

 

Could you offer citations to say 4 or five of these studies, Anthony? Since every study confirms your assertion, you should have no difficulty doing so, I would think. Again, as noted in previous posts, this seems to me to fly in the face of the empirical evidence of average requirements and time to completion for the respective degrees.

I don't doubt your testimony as it relates to your direct experience of your program, but anacdote does not a study, make.

Look, this is clearly a sensitive issue for many of you, and I seem to be poking a stick at belief systems linked to issues of self esteem. It may be that some who hold a particular credential feel defined by it, and thus respond viscerally when they think it is being challenged.

This is not a challenge. I don't think trade degrees a less worthy than the PhD. They simply have a different purpose. Some programs may be no different to some PhD programs, and I'm sure some are no different.

Rich, I have your dissertation here and on the advice of others I am looking at it very very closely - particularly attributions, and your survey of the field.