Dr...for a professional degree?

I think it's off-putting for a anyone other than a medical doctor to call themselves "doctor." I could see a professor having his or her students call him or her Dr. Smith, but otherwise, it's a bit much.

 

That's an individual choice. I couldn't care less how someone who's earned a doctorate wants to be addressed. But, interestingly, it's usually those without a doctorate who actually think they have an opinion or that their opinion matters.

 

Let me guess: you don't hold a doctorate, right? (People who do tend not to bother with this issue because it's so petty.)

I think it's off-putting for ANYONE to call themselves "doctor" outside of their professional setting, and only then when introducing themselves--and only if it's relevant. And I think it is entirely correct to be called "doctor" within it, regardless of the nature of your doctorate.

(To the receptionist at Jiffy Lube: "Hi, I'm Doctor Douglas and I got a call saying my oil change was done...." Ugh. As if.)

 

I was not suggesting that medical doctors announce their title to the guy at Jiffy Lube. In e-mail signatures, in formal or professional settings, and even in more formal social settings or networking events, a medical doctor announcing himself or herself as Dr. Smith is customary. Dr. Smith doesn't need to tell the guy at Burger King that he's an MD.

In e-mail signatures and academic presentations, it's reasonable to throw a Ph.D. after a title all day long.

Petty is subjective and this entire thread is about a Ph.D. calling themselves Dr. so all opinions are fair game on this thread. I doubt anyone in their daily lives is going to say "no you're not" if someone with a Ph.D. introduces themselves as Dr. Ross. lol.

 

There are also social norms to follow which vary by industry, culture, country, etc. People have the freedom to do what they wish, just as we all have the freedom to have an opinion about it... just as the author of the article posted in this forum had the right to their opinion.

 

I work in healthcare and probably will never use the title at work since it is usually reserved for MD/DO or those who undertake research. Most of my colleagues with PhDs usually add it after their name in presentations and rarely use the Dr. title. But I'm sure going to have my mom, dad, wife, and kids address me by my new title . Hey, I spent the money and did the work so I plan to use Dr. whenever I want (even at Jiffy Lube...just kidding).

It is very common for those in academic circles to use Dr. It's also very common for those theologians who have also earned doctorates to use the title as well. School administrators like principals and superintendents are also addressed with the title. But I don't really those trying to dictate as to when folks with a doctorate should use the title. I will use sparingly mostly reserving it for formal social events, networking or teaching activities (if I should pursue that path).

So if you want to pay my school bills then I'll follow your suggestion. Otherwise, I paid for it so I get to decide

 

I'm definitely not asking anyone to follow my opinion, as they're unlikely to follow any of our opinions. Most of us have opinions about a variety of topics, but I can't imagine many of us expecting anyone else to follow our opinions about any topic. We all have our own preferences, styles, freedoms, and opinions. My not thinking "Dr." is suited for either an M.D. or academia is my opinion, just like someone else could think anyone with any Ph.D. should call themselves Dr. in all circumstances. We all can call ourselves anything we would like and have any opinion we like, even if it contrasts with the opinions of anyone or everyone else we know.... which is truly the beauty of America. Freedom of opinion.

I mentioned Ph.D.s in formal settings in academia before, and that is more of a common social norm, especially with school principals, professors, etc. A professor adding Ph.D. after their name on a research paper is as common as daylight. Other cities, cultures, professions, companies, etc. might use a variety of titles on everything, while others don't. There's a few countries I've been to where rank, age/seniority, and titles are everything and it's an insult not to. The differences in what we do, like, prefer, etc. make the world interesting.

 

There is a HUGE difference between calling yourself by a title and others doing in. It would be helpful not to confuse--nor conflate--these two.

I AM "Dr Douglas." I call myself "Rich."

 

That's an interesting take considering that I've come across patients who take comfort in psychologists being differentiated from masters-level mental health professionals.

 

About the much maligned (by me) J.D...

The Juris Doctor is exactly equivalent to a U.S. or Canadian LL.B. degree. It is NOT equivalent to an English LL.B. because in general a U.S. or Canadian J.D. applicant is expected to possess a bachelor's degree. There are exceptions, more in Canada than in the U.S., but whatever the J.D. is, it isn't an undergrad qualification just as the U.S LL.B. hadn't been since the early twentieth century.

Now then. The J.D. is ALSO neither a doctorate nor a master's degree. The LL.M. is a master's degree and the J.S.D. is a doctorate but the J.D. is the professional credential to take a Bar exam in the United States.

Having said all this, the J.D. is generally treated by the U.S. universities as the "terminal degree" in law. No further credential is necessary for appointment to any faculty or administrative position and no other degree is necessary to teach law in other departments. So although it is definitely NOT a doctorate, it is functionally similar. Whether it SHOULD be is an entirely different question.

 

I've seen law faculty with a J.D. being referred to as "Dr." Laughable at best. While a J.D. is sufficient for law faculty positions, including tenure-track, it may not be enough to teach in an LL.M. or SJD/JSD program.

 

I've noticed that it's terminal for law school teaching positions, but it's no longer considered terminal for criminal justice and criminology programs. Of course, I'm not an attorney, but I would liken the LLM to a post-graduate certificate or specialist degree like a Certificate of Advanced Graduate Studies (CAGS) or an EdS. The federal government considers the JD to be a master's degree, and I can't say it's totally ridiculous for them to do so. I would compare the JD to the M.Arch, MSW, MDiv, MFA, and master's in mental health counseling. These are typically three to four-year master's programs.

 

Now that I think about it, the LLM is a lot like the ThM. It's a degree one completes after the MDiv, but it's too short to be a doctorate, and it doesn't always require a thesis.

 

The switch from the LLB to the JD was a move to get away from awarding a second bachelor's degree for graduating law school. But the JD is so inappropriate. Lawyers don't use the "doctor" title, but some universities do refer to them that way when they're on faculty. It's goofy.

 

We've also seen Bachelor of Pharmacy programs become PharmD programs. I've never run into a Pharmacist who insisted on being called doctor, though.

 

Most CJ faculty positions do not consider a J.D. to be an appropriate terminal degree. However, this is expected because while there are certain law courses in a CJ program, most of the curriculum is not law heavy. There are cases where a J.D. is preferred if you will be teaching mostly law courses in the program, e.g., law, civil liabilities, judicial processes, and courtroom procedures. There is a current tenure-track opening in WV, which is an example of such.
https://www.higheredjobs.com/faculty/details.cfm?JobCode=177613215&Title=Assistant%20Professor%20of%20Criminal%20Justice
The pay is only $47,500. What a joke!! I guess WV has a low cost of living.

 

They used to accept JDs due to the lack of PhDs in criminology or criminal justice. Departments are still hiring those with PhDs in sociology and other related fields as long as their research has been focused on criminology. I think the main issue with the JD is that it's not a research degree, which makes it inappropriate for teaching at the master's and doctoral level. I still see community colleges hiring criminal justice instructors with JDs.

 

Well, I suppose CJ faculties feel an obligation to their new Ph.D.s to hire them into academic positions. I am not sure that a non-J.D. should teach substantive law in any college level course but I rather imagine that there are plenty of C.J. Ph.D.s who also hold the law degree. Also, I don't know how "substantive" the law courses might be that are taught in C.J. programs.