What's your educational level?

No, in fact you do not. Your degree is in Interdisciplinary Studies (requiring two or more unrelated [but synergistic] subjects to be studied). You demand strict disclosure as it relates to the credentials of others yet you willfully misrepresent your own here. In the UMUC thread you lectured others that the exact form of one's degree should be clearly stated - what happened?

You do not have a PhD in Education - do you? Well, do you? Yes or no?

At this level, being economical with the truth with respect to your credential is not acceptable, and you should know that. In fact you do know it, but you did it anyway.

Of course, it may prove to be the least of your worries.

 

Lawrie,

You are absolutely right...I would have no difficulty citing the empirical studies on this topic, since I am in the process of writing a jounral article myself on the topic and am aquainted with virtually every study that has been reported in the literature or Dissertation Abstracts on the topic between 1983 and 2006. I possess over 20 of these studies. Since you asked for four or five, how about if I provide six? Citing all 22 or so of them would be overkill:

Carnegie Foundation, (2004). Doctoral education in education: Summary of issues, recommendations, annotated bibliography. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Dill, D. D., & Morrison, J. L. (1985). Ed.D. and Ph.D. research training in the field of higher education: A survey and a proposal. The Review of Higher Education 8(2) pp. 169-186.

Kolbert, J. B., Johnston, M. B., & Gressard, C. F. (1997). Current perceptions of the Ph.D. and Ed.D. in counselor preparation. Counselor Education and Supervision, Spring, 1997.

Mason, S. C. (1998). A comparative analysis of the doctor of education and doctor of philosophy degrees in higher education: Expectations, curriculums and outcomes. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59 (03A) 0679.

Nelson, J. K., & Coorough, C. (1994). Content analysis of the Ph.D. versus Ed.D. dissertation. Journal of Experiential Education 62(2) pp. 158-169.

Osguthorpe, R. T., & Wong, M. J. (1993). The Ph.D. versus Ed.D.: Time for a decision. Innovative Higher Education. 18(1), 47-63.

Now, my friend, will you be so kind as to provide the "empirical data" that contradicts the findings of these and the other scholars and researchers that have investigated and presented/published their studies? How about four or five...you should have no difficulty doing so, I would think ;-)

The U.S. Department of Education classifies the Ed.D. as a research doctorate http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-research-doctorate.html
It maintains a separate listing for first-professional degrees
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-professional-studies.html

Honestly, Lawrie, I have read enough of your posts to know that you are an intelligent fellow and that you know full well what you are doing by labelling these as "trade degrees". In academia, a "trade school" and "trade degree" has a specific meaning, which excludes the research mission of grade education. One of the most obvious examples of this was the former "National Association of Trade and Technical Schools," which used to be the a major accrediting body for "trade degrees".

The ball is in your court, my friend...Show me the studies

 

Oh please, do not try to pull that one on me. What studies? I mentioned no studies. I related my observations that clearly indicate there is a significant difference in the requirements for the two degrees. I will look at the citations you have provided and see if you have fairy represented the findings.

Hold on though, you have offered no representation at all of the findings of the studies you cite. Precisely, for each example, what are you saying they demonstrate? Are you saying, that for each study cited, the conclusion is that the Ed.D. degree does not materially differ in terms of depth and breadth, and time to completion to that of the PhD? Is that what you are claming the studies you cite, conclude? You have not told us, and the devil is very much in the detail, here. Forget the posturing and make yourself clear.

We have had enough misrepresentation and economy with the truth here for one day, with one among our number tripping up on his ego and displaying scant respect for honest representation. Try to deal with the issue in a professional manner. Rigor, Anthony, rigor! I do think you are a fine fellow and it is not my intent to skewer you or in any sense to do you in. I do not for a moment doubt your characterization of your experience as it relates to your efforts to earn your degree. I will not, however, accept vague claims loosely tied to data.

With respect to empirical data, sure let me take time to actively document my observations.


As to my intent labeling these credentials trade degrees - you clearly have no idea. You have committed a fundamental attribution error, here. To tell you the truth, Anthony, I'm shocked at the degree of insecurity you and others have exhibited here today. You seem to have little confidence in the intrinsic worth of your degree, and your own sense of self seems to be perilously tied to that. This is not about YOU.

Now do at least minimum diligence and detail the conclusions contained in the cited material as you understand them . What precisely are you claiming for each instance?

 

Your churlish and threatening tone aside, I find your insinuations rude and boorish. If you have something to say about what I've written, then say it. But almost everything you've printed in this thread has been wrong so far, why should anyone expect you to somehow begin getting it right, especially when you're talking about something (doctoral education, The Union Institute, etc.) that you have no insight into?

You're wrong about how interdisciplinarity is used. You're wrong about the title (not "Interdisciplinary Studies"). You're wrong about the comparability of the Ph.D. and the Ed.D. Why should people go around chasing your ill-informed ghosts?

As for your insinuation regarding my dissertation and "attribution," you're full of it.

When I graduated from Union, all non-psychology learners (and many in psychology, too) earned a Ph.D. in Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, along with a concentration and a specialization. My concentration was Higher Education, and my specialization was Nontraditional Higher Education. When you earn a Ph.D., you can come back with your quibble about not saying the word "concentration." Until then, away with you.

I didn't want to make this personal, but Lawrie, you're an uninformed loudmouth. Emphasis on "uninformed."

 

Demands rigor while offering none. Convenient for him. Lawrie Miller, troll. Seen before, but not quite to this extent. I recommend a non-feeding diet.

 

Self-esteem issues?

Wow Lawrie, you're serious, aren't you?

You were simply asked where you got your doctoral degree from because you claim to be extremely knowledgeable about the dissertation process, as well as how it should be defined. However, the question remains unanswered: Where did you get your doctoral degree from? Are issues of self-esteem linked to this question? If self-esteem is linked to this issue, then there is no need for you to answer the question and please accept my apology in advance.

 

Rich originally claimed: quote “And I do have a Ph.D. in Education”

Regretfully you and the truth do not seem well acquainted. I'm looking at the cover page of your dissertation right now as I type this - and in the submission, it says, this is in " partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES" [emphasis added].

Now, presumably you wrote this, and in so doing, you were aware of the title of the degree being conferred. Even now you are simply not telling the truth, are you? I invite anyone who is prepared to spend the $40+ to have Rich's dissertation shipped to them, to inspect and verify what I am saying (he has “declined” to make it available online).

Further, here is what is stated on the Union Institute and University web site on the first page introducing the PhD program, this is an exact quote cut and pasted from the site:

“Welcome to Union Institute & University’s cohort Ph.D. in Interdisciplinary Studies Program. We invite you to explore the pages on this site to learn more about the program’s mission and history, its academic structure, and its values and goals.”
http://www.tui.edu/cohort/index.asp

Of course, I knew the nature of the degree from Levicoff’s CV, more than a decade ago. Though I have little liking for the man, I will say, in all the to-and-fro over many years, he never once misrepresented his PhD. In fact he was refreshingly transparent about all of his academic history, and scrupulous in the telling of it. I think if there is a choice of which model to follow, in terms of disclosure, his is a sterling example, while yours is totally reprehensible.

You son, were caught passing off your degree in Interdisciplinary Studies, as a PhD in Education, which it is not. You misrepresented your credential. If a job applicant came to you claiming a master’s in Computer Science, and you discovered it actually to be an MA in Interdisciplinary Studies with one of the required emphases in Computing, you would be justified in calling his representation of his degree, fraudulent, would you not?

I might have let it pass, but in the UMUC thread you were strident in your insistence that any hint of misrepresentation of a degree credential was unacceptable. Yet, here you are, lying your keister off about you own. I am happy to email a jpeg of the front page of Rich's dissertation, written by Rich himself, that clearly states his degree is in interdisciplinary Studies. Given that it is also clearly titled thus on the conferring university’s web site, there can be no excuse for Rich’s misrepresentation. None.

So all the huffing and puffing you are doing now will not change the facts. You clearly have one standard of disclosure and ethical behavior for everyone else, and another for yourself. You say one thing but do another. You have compounded your original offence with new evasions and further misrepresentations. You simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

You know, I sincerely hope you are right. I have delayed and delayed doing diligence on this because I did not want to deal with the unpleasantness of it. Indeed, the ONLY reason I am doing so is because I have been strongly urged to do so. I must say though, your inability to be honest about your initial misrepresentation of your degree does not auger well for a happy ending.

 

LAWRIE: Oh please, do not try to pull that one on me. What studies? I mentioned no studies. I related my observations that clearly indicate there is a significant difference in the requirements for the two degrees. I will look at the citations you have provided and see if you have fairy represented the findings.

TONY: Pull what on you? You asked "Could you offer citations to say 4 or five of these studies, Anthony?" I did exactly as you asked (I actually provided six of the 22 studies that I am citing in my paper). The reason that I provided the citations precisely so that you COULD look at them. Anyone with some computer/library research skills can locate and read these studies as I did.

If you re-read your post, you will find that you did, in fact mention the word "studies". I provided them and simply asked for you to do the same to provide the empirical evidence--which you value so highly--to support your position.

You set the standard: "I don't doubt your testimony as it relates to your direct experience of your program, but anecdote does not a study, make." Since you rightly point out that my observations, by themselves, do not constitute empirical research studies. When I ask you to provide similar evidence for your point of view, you offer "my observations"? Why are your observations now "empirical evidence" while mine are not?

LAWRIE: Hold on though, you have offered no representation at all of the findings of the studies you cite. Precisely, for each example, what are you saying they demonstrate? Are you saying, that for each study cited, the conclusion is that the EdD degree does not materially differ in terms of depth and breadth, and time to completion to that of the PhD? Is that what you are calming the studies you cite, conclude? You have not told us, and the devil is very much in the detail, here. Forget the posturing and make yourself clear.

TONY: Now, you are just being silly. You asked for "citations to say 4 or five of these studies," which I provided. How is this "posturing"? I saw no reason to provide 20 studies when you asked for 4-5 (which would have been posturing). You did not ask for a detailed abstract of each individual study, you asked for the citation. If you read them, you will find that the answers to your questions in the preceding paragraph are all "yes". How can that be any clearer?

LAWRIE: We have had enough misrepresentation and economy with the truth here for one day, with one among our number tripping up on his ego and displaying scant respect for honest representation. Try to deal with the issue in a professional manner. Rigor, Anthony, rigor! I do think you are a fine fellow and it is not my intent to skewer you or in any sense to do you in. I do not for a moment doubt your characterization of your experience as it relates to your efforts to earn your degree. I will not, however, accept vague claims loosely tied to data.

TONY: I have done nothing to misrepresent anything. Your beefs with Dr. Douglas have nothing to do with me. Anyone reading this post can judge who has dealt with this issue in a professional manner. I have been studying this issue for years and have amassed virtually every study done on the topic during the last 25 years. I have mentioned that fact in numerous posts and you, rightly, called upon me to provide citations for some of the studies. I gave you the full citations, so you could look them up as well.

You told me that my experience (observations) are "vague claims" and "not studies". My claims are not vague: Taken as a whole, there is no quantifiable difference between an Ed.D. and a Ph.D. in education. In those few instances where differences do exist, it is in individual programs that offer both degrees and distinguish between the two. We you try to extrapolate those differences across departments or universities, they disappear. A Ph.D. in education at one university requires the same as an Ed.D. at another. This is not vague. Every study that has look beyond a single department has come to this conclusion, whether it is requirements for the degree, rigor of the dissertation or time to degree completion, there is no significant difference between the doctor of philosophy in education and the doctor of education degree. The only difference is in many people's PERCEPTION of the two degrees because they have never read the studies. I have.

LAWRIE: With respect to empirical data, sure let me take time to actively document my observations.

TONY: Please do. I would be highly interested in real empirical data showing that all of the research studies since 1983 have been proven wrong. Russell Osguthorpe and his doctoral grad assistants investigated 660 universities to get his data (I was there when they were collecting it, but was a lowly masters student at the time). I wish you the best in your research and look forward to reading it. It would make a good article for a peer-reviewed journal.

LAWRIE: As to my intent labeling these credentials trade degrees - you clearly have no idea. You have committed a fundamental attribution error, here. To tell you the truth, Anthony, I'm shocked at the degree of insecurity you and others have exhibited here today. You seem to have little confidence in the intrinsic worth of your degree, and your own sense of self seems to be perilously tied to that. This is not about YOU.

TONY: You may be right. If I assumed that you use the term "trade degree" because you are trying to get a rise out of people (focusing on the person), rather than assuming that you do not know that this term has a definite meaning in academia and is insulting to one who has undergone the rigors of a research doctorate (focus on the situation), then I will have committed a fundamental attribution error.

You, on the other hand are committing the same error. Pop psychology musings aside, I have no insecurity whatsoever regarding my degree. With it, I was selected over 41 candidates (including PhDs) for my position at Northeastern Illinois U. and over 100 candidates (also including PhDs) for my position at Sullivan. I was elected President of the Division of Distance Learning of my major professional association (AECT) by my professional peers (most of whom are professors with PhDs and who know that I possess an EdD). I am on the editorial board of a major scholarly journal in my field, have several peer-reviewed journal publications and have delivered 100 invited presentations (including keynotes) and papers at professional conferences. I have developed a fully online (and regionally accredited) masters degree program for a university and have received 7 national awards in instructional technology. In my current position as Dean, I oversee a program that includes 18 online degree programs and 400 online courses taken by 3,000 of my university's 7,000 students. I sure am grateful for my little ol' "trade degree"--it has served me well and has plenty of intrinsic and extrinsic worth

note: This is not "posturing". If you think that it is, look up the definition.

LAWRIE: Now do at least minimum diligence and detail the conclusions contained in the cited material as you understand them . What precisely are you claiming for each instance?

TONY: I have done more than minimum diligence. Now it is your turn. You'll have to do better than "Well, the PhD in curriculum and instruction at this university requires one more research class than its EdD." That would be less than minimum diligence. You have made broad generalizations that go beyond individual degrees offered within individual programs. I have provided national-based studies and can provide more.

Will you be willing to do the "minimum diligence" to demonstrate that the hundreds of EdD degrees offered by colleges of education throughout the country are nothing more than "trade degrees" that are significantly different in requirements to PhDs in education. If so, then I will look forward eagerly to your empirical research findings.

If you would like to stop this silliness now, and not waste your time looking for data that isn't there, I would be happy to not push this issue any further and we can discuss other things of interest to distance learning.

 

Well, it may be that I have let your non sequiturs and misrepresentation go on for too long. You come across as a very amiable fellow, without malice, so I will be gentle with you.

1. Where precisely do I claim to be "extremely knowledgeable about the dissertation process". Quote it.

You can't can you. You simply made it up, did you not? No? Then provde the quote.


Unable to offer anything in the way of cogent argument it does seem you simply dissemble and display in uncertain self-regard. A pity you are not confident enough to reveal yourself - though it is possible there may be good reason not to - and I can't fault people for wanting to remain anonymous.

Come now, either engage in the substance of the debate or withdraw to the safety of the peanut gallery.

 

Self-appointed troll: "I have delayed and delayed doing diligence on this because I did not want to deal with the unpleasantness of it. Indeed, the ONLY reason I am doing so is because I have been strongly urged to do so."

Me: Oh, go ahead. (Who would urge such a thing of someone not qualified?)

Wouldn't it be funny if the non-graduate-degree-holding Mr. Miller is attending UMUC? Naw, too perfect.

 

Tony, Tony, one thing at a time, you're becoming manic. I can see you’ve put your heart into this, and it may have been there, but with all the wood I couldn't identify you concise delineation of what each cited work contributes to your argument. It is very important that YOU detail YOUR view of what the studies you quote actually conclude. One at a time. There are six. For each what is it that you think each is saying precisely? This isn’t rocket science.

You see, I've been along this yellow brick road before. Your claims ARE indeed vague as they relate to the specific citations you offer. Here we are talking about interpretation, and I want to pin down exactly what you believe each cite is saying in precise language. I can then, with economy, inspect it, parse it, and if I agree your characterization is accurate AND relevant, I will say so. However, I do need you to be clear. I realize you may have all day to do this (certainly seems that way with this voluminous post), but I have to budget my time. I would love nothing better that to spend time trading barbs, but the pressures of the day require I limit my urge to indulge you.

So, why don't you summarize what you believe to be the salient point of each work you have cherry-picked and chosen to cite? That would make it easier to get to the meat of your argument. In fact why not just quote each directly and be done with it? I can always verify the integrity of a quote by reference to the relevant citation, if I have any doubt. All the effort you have expended to date may have been put to better use delineating your evidence. Why you refuse to do so is beyond me. . . unless of course the evidence does not in fact support your assertions.

One other point. Observation and comparison of actual examples of relevant requirements (between the two degree types) IS an empirical exercise. It may not involve a randomly selected sample, but that data are real-world and relevant, nevertheless.

With respect to my use of the word "studies" I was referring to the studies YOU cite. With respect to MY observations, there is a night and day difference between the anecdote that comprises your personal experience as an Ed.D. student, and my survey of program requirements across arrange of institutions.


So, produce the evidence and your interpretation of its meaning, then we'll have a better idea of what it is that you are contending POINT BY POINT, and the relationship of that contention to the actual facts. Language is important. Precision as to your meaning is important. Clear delineation is essential, and despite your protestations to the contrary, you have provided none. It should be no great hardship for you to provide a quote and append a brief explanation detailing how the quoted citation referencing the work supports your argument.

Rigor Anthony. Rigor!

 

It is easy to find this information and more on the internet (took me about 30 seconds).

 

Lawrie: Tony, Tony, one thing at a time, you're becoming manic. I can see you’ve put your heart into this, and it may have been there, but with all the wood I couldn't identify you concise delineation of what each cited work contributes to your argument. It is very important that YOU detail YOUR view of what the studies you quote actually conclude. One at a time. There are six. For each what is it that you think each is saying precisely? This isn’t rocket science.

Tony: Please stop the condescention. It is "very important" that you read the articles and see whether they disprove my major thesis: The studies find that there is not a significant difference between the PhD in education and the EdD. What I say about the studies is less important than what the authors say. It is there any reason why you have a problem reading the studies that you aske me to cite? Go to EBSCO or other library resources and print them out. This is what I did.

Certainly any one with the talent to complete entire degrees in the remarkable way that you have would have no problem reading a few journal articles. This is not a bank-handed comment--I have recommended BA in 4 Weeks to a number of people.

You see, I've been along this yellow brick road before. Your claims ARE indeed vague as they relate to the specific citations you offer. Here we are talking about interpretation, and I want to pin down exactly what you believe each cite is saying in precise language. I can then, with economy, inspect it, parse it, and if I agree your characterization is accurate AND relevant, I will say so. However, I do need you to be clear. I realize you may have all day to do this (certainly seems that way with this voluminous post), but I have to budget my time. I would love nothing better that to spend time trading barbs, but the pressures of the day require I limit my urge to indulge you.[.b]

Oh Please. Yes, I have a demanding full-time job as well, but like you, take a few minutes to have fun with Degreeinfo. I do not have time to drive to my office, scan these articles and copy them into Degreeinfo. You will just have to read the articles yourself and prove me wrong with you own data.

By the way, we have not been "trading barbs," you have been throwing some rather unkind barbs at me. I would rather read the empircal evidence for your point of view.

So, why don't you summarize what you believe to be the salient point of each work you have cherry-picked and chosen to cite? That would make it easier to get to the meat of your argument. In fact why not just quote each directly and be done with it? I can always verify the integrity of a quote by reference to the relevant citation, if I have any doubt. All the effort you have expended to date may have been put to better use delineating your evidence. Why you refuse to do so is beyond me. . . unless of course the evidence does not in fact support your assertions.

I have already provided the "meat of my argument" and a few of the many studies to support my assertions. At least I have some studies from which to "cherry pick". And you...? You are free to verify my major thesis "by reference to the relevant citation," but you cannot do so unless you READ THEM. Just show me any stude that disproves my thesis and supports yours. I refuse nothing (other than wasting my time), but if you refuse to engage the literature unless I give you an annotated version of each study, then you are just sparring.

One other point. Observation and comparison of actual examples of relevant requirements (between the two degree types) IS an empirical exercise. It may not involve a randomly selected sample, but that data are real-world and relevant, nevertheless.

I have no problem with that. Now, if you will just provide some empirical, real-world and relevant data to support your position, I will be happy to engage with it and I will not ask you to summarize it for me. I am a big boy and can read for myself and see what the authors themselves have to say.

With respect to my use of the word "studies" I was referring to the studies YOU cite. With respect to MY observations, there is a night and day difference between the anecdote that comprises your personal experience as an Ed.D. student, and my survey of program requirements across arrange of institutions.

Yes. I see. But you have yet to produce anything like a "survey of program requirements across a range of institutions". I suggest that you start your reading with Russ Osguthorpe's study. This is precisely what he did (with over 650 programs).

So, produce the evidence and your interpretation of its meaning, then we'll have a better idea of what it is that you are contending POINT BY POINT, and the relationship of that contention to the actual facts. Language is important. Precision as to your meaning is important. Clear delineation is essential, and despite your protestations to the contrary, you have provided none. It should be no great hardship for you to provide a quote and append a brief explanation detailing how the quoted citation referencing the work supports your argument.

I have already done this. My point is simply this: no real difference between the PhD and EdD. For the past several years, I have search for every study done on the subject and have over 20 in my files. I cited six of them for you. I am not going to annotate them, nor read them for you, nor will I cite the other 15 until you are prepare to engage with what I have given you and provide something other than your opinion (supported by nothing other than your opinion). Anthing else wastes both of out time and becomes tedious reading for Degreeinfo members.

Rigor Anthony. Rigor!

Yes Lawrie. Please show some. Please provide some rigorous data of your own. Please, prove me wrong!

 

Perhaps my online research skills aren't as robust, but I can't seem to find an example of him claiming a doctorate.

 

My error - I just realized that Me Again was asking the question of someone other than who I thought.

 

Man, I have been reading my posts in this thread and am embarrassed by the number of typos. This is what I get for trying to type during meal breaks. My apologies to Degreeinfo colleagues who are enduring this exchange and our typos. Good night!

Tony

 

Oookay....I think this one has gone on for long enough.

 

Thread re-opened due to other thread created.

 

I won't let you down

PHD I won't let you down

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5prT2qiiWY

"You ask me if I'm happy here
No doubt about it
You ask me if my love is clear
Want me to shout it
Gave you the best years of my life
Woman
I know I failed to treat you right
Woman
Don't let me out of here
Don't let me out of here

I won't let you down, won't let you down again"

 

Hey Rich - I am not trying to get into this debate, I just have a question for my own understanding.

Could a graduate from say NCU who graduated with a Business PhD with a specialization in Applied Computer Science state they received a PhD in Applied Computer Science or would it require a concentration is that discipline?