Divisions among doctorates

I understand that there are academic doctorates (Ph.D. & often Ed.D.) and professional doctorates (often Ed.D., M.D., D.B.A., D.Min.).

Do the J.D. & D.Pharm belong to category of professional doctorates or something lesser like simply a first professional degree. The reason I ask is that with the Ed.D., D.B.A., and D.Min. you are dealing with the highest professional credential in that field (exluding possible academic degrees like Ph.D. or Th.D.). In the case of the J.D. the next highest degree is a Masters degree and today someone told me this is also the case for the D.Pharm. This goes along with my experience in Canada where the J.D. and D.Pharm are actually undergraduate professional credentials (ie LLB). I also know that at a local community college the J.D. is equated with a Masters degree.

Where do these degrees fit. I know that J.D.'s and D.Pharm's are not referred to as "Dr.". The D.Pharm for more obvious reasons of confusion.

North

 

M.D. degree is also a first professional doctorate. In countries where universities award MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine/Bachelor of Surgery) in medicine and LLB in law, the next level of study is M.S for medical doctors and LLM for lawyers. For instance, if a medical doctor completes a masters degree program in surgery, he will be awarded M.S. in surgery. It is not unusual for doctors to revert from "Dr" to "Mr." after earning a masters degree. Thus in some countries, a surgeon with M.S. in surgery is addressed as "Mr."

Ike Okonkwo

 

I'm not so sure the differences are as set in stone as one might think. It used to be that the Ph.D. was considered higher (or more "doctoral") than other doctorates with a research component (Ed.D., D.B.A., etc.). But with so many alternatives now available--and so many pragmatic reasons for having them--I think this may have diminished somewhat. (Of course, don't tell that to "old school" Ph.D.'s!

The term "doctor" is originally an academic, not professional, one. Bear notes that it appears in some versions of Deurteronomy in the Bible.

The J.D. is a particular case, and a recent phenomenom. Until about 30 or 4 years ago, law school graduates received a Bachelor of Laws. Again, Bear describes the switching over from a second bachelor's to a first professional degree. While they tend not to use the title "doctor," I guess they could. National University used to list all their lawers on faculty as "Dr." So-and-so. I haven't checked to see if they still do. But a case can be made that changing the title of the degree awarded doesn't change the fact that it is a second bachelor's degree. And why is it one goes for a (higher) Master of Laws after the J.D.?

While you could see the potential confusion for the doctorate-holding pharmacists, this may not last long. There are already nurses with Ph.D.'s using the title, and now there are clinical Doctor of Nursing programs cropping up. And it never stopped psychologists; many people don't know the difference between a psychiatrist (who holds an M.D.) and a Ph.D.-weilding psychologist.

My personal peeve: the Doctor of Optometry. If ever there was a case for down-grading a degree, this would be it.

I guess the academic vs. professional vs. first professional line up is as good as any, but I would resist not putting the Ed.D., D.B.A., and the like in with the Ph.D.

Rich Douglas

 

In the USAF, the Pharm D. is considered a first professional degree. About half of pharmacists exit with this degree I am told. Most of the others get a MS as their first degree. There are a few others that offer a BS.

j nate

 

If somebody can be a bigshot lawfirm partner, teach in law school, be an appellate judge, write influential legal opinions and publish theoretical papers in prestigious legal journals with a J.D., then it's cool with me.

They are clearly legal scholars and are at the top of their game.

The fact that a J.D. can get further specialized training in something like taxation that may result in a subsequent LLM is just an artifact of how the field developed.

A physicist with a Ph.D. goes on to do post-doctoral work and doesn't get no stinkin' degrees at all for it.

So the question I would ask is: Does the degree allow you to function at the top level of your profession? Or are some professional roles closed to you without a "higher" degree?

An M.D. can practice general medicine, practice arcane medical specialties, teach in medical school or conduct medical research. It's hard to think of anything that somebody in medicine couldn't do with an M.D. that they could do with a 'higher' medical degree.

So, if your degree will get you to the top of your profession, I'm not sure that your degree is any higher or lower than whatever degree will get somebody else to the top of another profession. You could argue that some professions are "higher" than others, but that's another issue I guess.

 

I've noticed several new distance and "flex" Pharm. D. programs.

Here's what the University of Washington and Washington State University say about their joint program:

So, it looks like in pharmacy at least, the Pharm. D. is becoming the entry into the profession.

------------------
Kristin Evenson Hirst
DistanceLearn.About.com

 

From what I understand, this was originally an issue of trying to get parity with the MDs they deal with.

One question--I wonder what will happen if a state education department balks at approving a doctorate that, as far as I know, is one or two years more than a doctorate. Would the Universities in that state now be unable to offer pharm degrees?

 

That should, of course, read

"one or two years more than a BS"

-me

 

My understanding regarding the JD (Juris Doctor) degree is that it is a first professional degree--subsequent "graduate" law degrees include the LLM (Master of Laws) in a particular speciality, like taxation or patent law, and are generally earned by those folks who actively practice in those fields; or the JSD (Doctor of Jurispredencial Science)or something like that, which is generally earned by legal scholars--teachers, primarily.

According to my personal legal counsel, there are only a few schools that have graduate work in law (Yale, Harvard, Stanford and a few others) that would lead to a JSD, and those who earn it are primarily teachers/law professors, so you don't run into them too often.

I have been led to understand that the JSD is to law what a PhD is to other academic disciplines.

Scott

 

JSD seems to be what wannabe law profs do whilst teaching legal writing/baby bib to 1Ls. My assessment is that a JSD is a specialised professional doctorate, NOT equivalent to a PhD. I would be interested to read David Yamada's opinion.

jmbp
----
not a lawyer


------------------
J. M. B. Porter, PhD
Lecturer in World History

 

The J.D. is both a professional degree in law that typically qualifies one to take a state bar exam and, interestingly, a terminal degree in terms of serving as a credential for a full-time tenure-track law teaching position.

The LL.M. is pursued to gain specialized training and credentials for specific practice areas (e.g., tax law) and/or to enhance the holder's chances of hooking a full-time teaching position.

The S.J.D. is the rarely seen doctorate in law. Very few people pursue the degree, even among those who are gunning for law teaching positions. If someone has the ability to earn an S.J.D. at an elite law school, then they've probably got the credentials to land a teaching job without having to go for yet another degree. Most law schools aren't looking for S.J.D. holders when they're evaluating faculty candidates.

 

I can testify from experience that only a very few pharmacy schools in the USA still offer a BS in pharmacy. Starting back in the early 80's, most of them switched from a four or five year BS program to a six year PharmD.

I was two years into my pre-pharmacy requirements at the U of Washington when the school switched to a six year degree only. The heck with that, says I, and I promptly switched my major to chemistry.

Regards,

Michael Lloyd

 

I forgot to point out that many schools, including the U of Washington, suffered a dramatic drop in applications with the advent of the six year PharmD. Most such schools have 'revamped' the degree program to a four or five year PharmD.

Regards,

Michael Lloyd

 

Thanks for the interesting historical information.

I am waiting for someone to decide to turn the MBA into a DBA. It seems that everyone wants a doctorate these days. Whether that means changing the names of degrees or for some getting cheap and fast ones from mills.

I am surprised that the clergy did not simply to decide to change their 90 credit hour Masters of Divinity degree into a doctorate (similar to lawyers and pharmacists).

At the rate it is going I would not be surprised if the idea of a higher degree than the Ph.D./doctorate (Chancellorate) kicked around in Bear's Guide does not come to pass.

North

 

It's human nature, I guess. People always want to increase their relative status. Some guys pick fights in bars, others earn doctorates.

I've always found academics to be paradoxical in that regard. On one hand most of them lean way to the political left, and pose as champions of the people against the established elites. But on the other hand, there is nobody on earth except perhaps a faded European aristocrat that is more obsessed with the relative rank of their titles.

It's probably inevitable, and that's sad in my opinion.

At some point it has to stop, or this title-prestige arms-race will result in people spending their entire lives as students. After they earn their Chancellorate, they will stay in graduate school for another decade to earn their Pontificate with Oak Leaf Cluster, and graduate when they are seventy.

In my opinion, people with doctorates should do their subsequent posturing the old-fashioned way: by comparing their professional positions, comparing their publications and other contributions and by comparing their reputations in their field.

My skepticism about the Doctor of Creative Arts on another thread was motivated by the same thought. An MFA would be better advised to go out and make a name for his or her-self as a practicing artist than to stay in graduate school and add still another studio art degree.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

 

C

Caballero: Respectfully yours,


Karlos Al "Caballero" Lacaye
[email protected]

 

Hi, Karlos. I'm glad that you responded to my little attempt at provocation on an education newsgroup.

I agree with you that education need not only be for vocational purposes. I personally have a BA in Philosophy and Religion, and an MA in Humanities. For me, education speaks to a deeper part of the soul or something... perhaps I'm looking for that ancient ideal of "gnosis".

But that wasn't exactly what I was addressing. I was reacting to the use of academic titles for social prestige as if they were a form of aristocratic title, and to the fear that if a rarified title becomes too common then a new and more exalted title is called for. So the heirarchical distinction is maintained and the riff-raff will want that higher title too.

As I said, that is human nature and it happens all through society. Style is dominated by it. I'm not expressing some pious hope that it can all be changed, because it can't. But I am expressing an opinion about how this universal desire for relative distinction can best be channeled in the academic world.

At least theoretically, monks are supposed to be selfless, aren't they? I realize that the history of monasticism around the world does not bear that out in actuality, but it is the ideal. There is an element of renunciation involved, and people aren't supposed to pursue a monastic vocation for personal aggrandizement.

So to extend your analogy to the university world, I have no problem with people pursuing an academic vocation. I admire lifelong scholars, and I share their passion.

But I am skeptical of tying that together with the idea of earning ever-higher degrees. If there were a degree higher than a doctorate, then all the "top" universities would want to fill their staffs with them, because universities are driven by relative prestige just as individuals are. Top levels of one's profession would gradually become closed to all but holders of the new exalted title. It would slowly become the professional norm, and as it did, demand for a still higher degree (the "Pontificate") would surely develop. That's why I referred to it as an "arms race".

That 1903 Harvard address by William James was revealing. At that time, Ph.D.s were much more unusual than they are today. Many if not most universities were filled with faculties holding Masters degrees. If you read old academic writings from he first half of the twentieth century, they are often written by MAs that held high professorships at famous universities. But gradually the MA was replaced by the doctorate as the "union-card" degree. Introduction of the "Chancellorate" a century later would only replicate the process once again.

There's obviously a market for it, so it will happen. And I find that sad.

If the MD in Costa Rica had occupied one of a limited number of medical school spots and had received a government subsidized education, I can understand the criticism.

But in general, I have no problem with remaining a student all of one's life, so long as that student isn't taking up a place that would have gone to another person and isn't being supported by the tax-payers.

But scholarship is ultimately more than a lifetime in graduate school. It is contributing something of value to one's field. It is accomplishing something, even if it is an academic something, that is accomplished in a cloister. That's where I think that life-long scholars should concentrate their competition. Which of them has the "highest" degree is ultimately masturbatory. The real focus should be who has demonstrated a mastery of, and creativity in, one's field.

A Ph.D. has theoretically demonstrated the ability to make original contributions to his or her field. So at that point, I think that there is a lot more value in accrueing subsequent prestige by actually making some contributions than in earning a superfluous "Chancellorate".

The problem I see is that the person who stayed in school and earned the "higher" degree will ultimately pull rank, and the "best" sort of jobs will begin to specify that higher degree as a condition of employment. And as that happens, the new degree will become the new "union card". At which point an even higher "higher" degree would have to be invented.

I say: Lets have degrees up to the level at which one is expected to make independent contributions, then let the contributions themselves speak from that point on. Earning degrees is not the final goal of scholarship.

Not only am I not against them, I'm one of them. I'm 52, and my interest in higher education at this point is largely avocational and is motivated by my interests.

 

Just a note: the idea of a "Chancellorate" degree was just the briefest of notions brought up more than two decades ago. Nothing's ever been done about it, and it probably wouldn't be discussed today if it didn't appear in Bear's guide. (I first read about the Chancellorate in the 6th edition, 1980.)

Rich Douglas

 

Rich,

Any idea when CEU is going to get approval for Federal Student Loans. When they first appeared I asked and apparently they were waiting for word on approval. They need this approval before the V.A. will approve them. This is the V.A.'s way of dealing with the new phenomenon of DE foreign schools (I know U of London has been around a long time). VA approved Berne because of the Federal Student Loan recognition.

What I have noticed is this process seems to take a while. UNEM has had on their web site for some time that they are waiting of the US Dept of Education code for the Student Loans.

Any insight.

North

 

AAAAWWWWW Maaaaannnn! I wuz a wantin one of them there chancellorate's! If a feller had him about 50 years of life experience credit, he could probably get one from Trinity College and University. I could write my disserrtattion about the time me an ole Blue got after them rabbits and hemmed em in. Hey, that was some kind of experience, an original contributeon to the field of knowledge.