It looks like Epstein's recent request that Jill Biden drop the "Dr." has drawn the ire of many, including his former employer Northwestern University.
There are many reasons to take a jab at education programs, but that's not even what he does. Very bizarre article simply implying the title should be reserved for those with an M.D. I guess you could go this route without even disparaging academic or professional degrees by claiming that the public is going to be confused, especially if the person in question is running their mouth publicly about health issues such as Covid-19.
The idiots on the view already recommended that she be considered for surgeon general in a recent flub on the show. Considering that they are 5-10 IQ points higher than the average American and 20 points above their own viewers, I think a legit critique (aside from education programs are fraudulent to begin with...) could be made about the decision to keep this title as first lady.
Her title is legit. She gets to use it. For various reasons, it's likely not to be used at every function she attends. But the "it's confusing" argument is weak and is just an attempt to strip opposition of achievements. What's funny is some long time conservatives like Newt have insisted on not being called Dr. for decades. That's likely more for populist reasons than "it's confusing."
Personally, I wouldn't ever use my Dr. title outside of academia, and I always tell anybody who addresses me as Dr other than students at school to please call me by my first name. However, that comes from a certain amount of comfort with other's perceptions of me and my social status that lets me feel like it would be gauche to use the title in other areas of my life. I'm not really in much danger of being treated like crap as Mr. Caracal.
Me too, though I don't stress this as much as I used to because it feeds into inconsistent usage at my school, and especially for women.
Northwestern have apparently distanced themselves from Epstein, removing him from their emeritus list
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jill-biden-wall-street-journal-northwestern-university-b1772915.html
random thoughts:
If she ever want to run for president, she needs to drop the 'Dr.' right now. It's a liability. Maybe if voters distrust a woman for being too educated it will mean women have parity.
Joyce Brothers got everyone to call her 'Doctor' without a diversity and inclusion office to explain to us why we should.
Several decades ago there was controversy in NYC area because a prominent on-air weatherman called himself "Dr." and he was a medical doctor, not a meteorologist. He dropped the "Doc" and was close to retirement anyway.
I propose that Doctor Who just be changed to Who because nobody knows what degree she has (or even what gender she has going back or forward in time). Then again, to borrow a bit from "Big Bang Theory", maybe it should just be changed to "Who Cares?" considering how long its been since there's been a new one, or a good one.
OK, I'm just rambling now. Bye!
Epstein actually wrote "that a wise man once said you shouldn't call yourself 'Doctor' unless you've delivered a baby", which doesn't actually sound that wise to moi.
Quote from: mahagonny on December 14, 2020, 05:56:27 AM
random thoughts:
If she ever want to run for president, she needs to drop the 'Dr.' right now. It's a liability. Maybe if voters distrust a woman for being too educated it will mean women have parity.
She doesn't have any interest in running for office. I think that's actually part of why she does want to use the title. It is a way of staking out an identity and qualifications separate from her husband. "I'm married to this guy who is going to be president, but that isn't my full time job" is the message.
I actually thought she was a physician until recently, when I discovered she's a community college instructor.
The public use of the title is a bit meh, and it seems a bit meh for someone with an EdD. But it's not a hill I'm interested in dying on. It doesn't matter, and at least it's not an honorary degree.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on December 14, 2020, 06:47:15 AM
Epstein actually wrote "that a wise man once said you shouldn't call yourself 'Doctor' unless you've delivered a baby", which doesn't actually sound that wise to moi.
Do you consider citing "a wise man once said" as an attribution violation in grading? I think the phrase is understood to mean "I saw a bumper sticker that said..."
The author made a jackass of himself up and down the article. Here's a quote that I found especially cringe-inducing:
"Dr. Jill Biden " sounds and feels fraudulent, not to say a touch comic. Your degree is, I believe, an Ed.D., a doctor of education, earned at the University of Delaware through a dissertation with the unpromising title "Student Retention at the Community College Level: Meeting Students' Needs."
Apparently a degree from a public university is a touch comic, as is helping community college students.
Yeah, that "wise" quote sounds like something someone would have said on an episode of "The Virginian" or "Bonanza" 50 years ago (which harkened back to an even earlier era).
Very few MD docs these days have much to do with birthin' babies. They might have done something like this on rotation in med school, but that's about it for most of them.
Quote from: Ruralguy on December 14, 2020, 06:43:04 AM
Several decades ago there was controversy in NYC area because a prominent on-air weatherman called himself "Dr." and he was a medical doctor, not a meteorologist. He dropped the "Doc" and was close to retirement anyway.
And yet Mike Emrick was known as "Doc" throughout his hockey broadcasting career, on the basis of a PhD in communications from Bowling Green: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Emrick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Emrick).
Its all a bit of a sexist tempest in a teapot.
Quote from: Ruralguy on December 14, 2020, 08:01:16 AM
Yeah, that "wise" quote sounds like something someone would have said on an episode of "The Virginian" or "Bonanza" 50 years ago (which harkened back to an even earlier era).
Very few MD docs these days have much to do with birthin' babies. They might have done something like this on rotation in med school, but that's about it for most of them.
Not to mention the fact that she did deliver a baby.
I liked the reply Chasten Buttigieg (Pete's husband) made on Twitter.
The tweet, which has over 87,000 "likes," now, reads,
"The author could've used fewer words to just say, "ya know in my day we didn't have to respect women."
You go, guy...
M.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 14, 2020, 07:26:37 AM
The author made a jackass of himself up and down the article. Here's a quote that I found especially cringe-inducing:
"Dr. Jill Biden " sounds and feels fraudulent, not to say a touch comic. Your degree is, I believe, an Ed.D., a doctor of education, earned at the University of Delaware through a dissertation with the unpromising title "Student Retention at the Community College Level: Meeting Students' Needs."
Apparently a degree from a public university is a touch comic, as is helping community college students.
This.
If I have time later I'm going to go search the old fora for the pages upon pages of ire shown to those with Ed.D's, and indeed to anyone with anything but a residential PhD, earned in over 5 years full time study and quote some of it here.
Suddenly criticism of someone with an Ed.D who obtained it with a very non-challenging sounding "dissertation," (likely not equal to a PhD dissertation in length or rigror) reaks of sexism.
I guess the good that comes out of this is that all those maligned before will now be respected by their colleagues at colleges and universities .... Right?
Quote from: Descartes on December 14, 2020, 11:04:20 AM
If I have time later I'm going to go search the old fora for the pages upon pages of ire shown to those with Ed.D's, and indeed to anyone with anything but a residential PhD, earned in over 5 years full time study and quote some of it here.
Suddenly criticism of someone with an Ed.D who obtained it with a very non-challenging sounding "dissertation," (likely not equal to a PhD dissertation in length or rigror) reaks of sexism.
I guess the good that comes out of this is that all those maligned before will now be respected by their colleagues at colleges and universities .... Right?
An EdD is a perfectly legitimate degree, but it's not a PhD. Neither is a JD. And yes, it's entirely possible to go overboard in dismissing the degree.
But saying that in general is pretty different from saying that this specific person shouldn't use the title 'doctor', or that 'doctor' is a title reserved for people who deliver babies, etc. It's the
OpEd's content that reeks of misogyny (among other things), and it's pretty clear that in this case the criticism of the EdD is piggybacking on that.
Come on, in the opening sentence he addresses the first lady elect of the US ... who is also a professor, an EdD, and who was the first second lady to hold a paying position outside of government ... as "kiddo". There is nothing on point or redeemable in the entire essay.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 14, 2020, 11:09:36 AM
Quote from: Descartes on December 14, 2020, 11:04:20 AM
If I have time later I'm going to go search the old fora for the pages upon pages of ire shown to those with Ed.D's, and indeed to anyone with anything but a residential PhD, earned in over 5 years full time study and quote some of it here.
Suddenly criticism of someone with an Ed.D who obtained it with a very non-challenging sounding "dissertation," (likely not equal to a PhD dissertation in length or rigror) reaks of sexism.
I guess the good that comes out of this is that all those maligned before will now be respected by their colleagues at colleges and universities .... Right?
An EdD is a perfectly legitimate degree, but it's not a PhD. Neither is a JD. And yes, it's entirely possible to go overboard in dismissing the degree.
But saying that in general is pretty different from saying that this specific person shouldn't use the title 'doctor', or that 'doctor' is a title reserved for people who deliver babies, etc. It's the OpEd's content that reeks of misogyny (among other things), and it's pretty clear that in this case the criticism of the EdD is piggybacking on that.
Fair enough and for what it's worth I think you and I actually agree. However, many of the comments here over the years were scorn for Ed.D's referring to themselves with the title "Dr." or asking that others do so. In fact there was a whole thread probably towards the end of the last forum's life in which multiple people went on about a forumites college president referring to Ed.D's there as "doctor" on par with the PhD's and how ridiculous it was, etc.
FWIW - my own standard has always been "You earned something called a doctorate from any institution that is not an outright non-accredited degree mill, you get to be called "Dr."
Quote from: Descartes on December 14, 2020, 11:04:20 AM
If I have time later I'm going to go search the old fora for the pages upon pages of ire shown to those with Ed.D's, and indeed to anyone with anything but a residential PhD, earned in over 5 years full time study and quote some of it here.
Suddenly criticism of someone with an Ed.D who obtained it with a very non-challenging sounding "dissertation," (likely not equal to a PhD dissertation in length or rigror) reaks of sexism.
I guess the good that comes out of this is that all those maligned before will now be respected by their colleagues at colleges and universities .... Right?
Sadly, unless you can rationally concoct a reincarnated old forum out of the CHE embers, it's not available anymore.
I recall those discussions, and some here, along those lines, as well. But the larger point is, in fact, that the degree certificate validates the use of the honorific.
I, too, miss the Old Forum...
We all need to write to them...
M.
Something may be factually correct and still render one a douche bag for insisting on its use. Insisting on Mr. or Ms. rather than first name in many instances falls into this category, though the title implies no accomplishment at all.
I actually don't think it's unreasonable to expect whoever is married to the president to focus on whatever those duties are rather than seeing themselves as a freelance individual, especially if we give the first lady a staff of 20 or 30 people (!) which seems insane to me. We need to decide if that role is a job or if it isn't. Either is fine, but if we're spending two or three million a year on your staff (assuming 100k or so each) then I think we have a right to assume the holder of the role is dedicated to that function, not "establishing your own identity."
She's under no obligation to do very much with the role of First Lady. Most take up a cause or two and give speeches on that. I imagine she'll take up something related to higher ed that doesn't step on toes of the new Sec. Ed. Yeah, there's a staff, but there's a Chief of Staff for the FLOTUS who can manage that (and keep spending low if Dr. Jill doesn't want to do much with the role).
A tempest in a tea pot.
Use of the honorific for individuals and groups is a social convention, nothing more. And even conventions can change.
It doesn't matter, either way.
Quote from: financeguy on December 14, 2020, 12:34:36 PM
Something may be factually correct and still render one a douche bag for insisting on its use. Insisting on Mr. or Ms. rather than first name in many instances falls into this category, though the title implies no accomplishment at all.
I actually don't think it's unreasonable to expect whoever is married to the president to focus on whatever those duties are rather than seeing themselves as a freelance individual, especially if we give the first lady a staff of 20 or 30 people (!) which seems insane to me. We need to decide if that role is a job or if it isn't. Either is fine, but if we're spending two or three million a year on your staff (assuming 100k or so each) then I think we have a right to assume the holder of the role is dedicated to that function, not "establishing your own identity."
FTR, I have always supported the right of an Ed.D. to be referred to as Doctor. As a Ph.D. I don't use my honorific except in university or school settings where appropriate.
However, I want to stress that this is my personal opinion.
You, financeguy, are a douche bag.
When entering the reception area of the program of the venerable institution I used to work for, I was typically greeted with: Hello, Dr. Dismalist. I always protested vehemently: What, is this a hospital? :-)
In contradistinction, ages ago a distinguished professor I had said, upon being asked: Call me doctor, please. Professor is a job description. Doctor is something I earned.
It's a convention and doesn't matter.
I guess I should clarify my larger issue about deciding if the first lady is a job or not. What I think is a better idea than "winging it" after someone is elected is that the public be aware of what the first lady would like to do (if anything) with the position during the election. This could range from simply "I'm there to support my spouse exclusively" to "I will maintain my current role of x" to "I will advocate for cause y" or something else. The public may decide the want a "twofer" in the Bill/Hill variety or not, but they generally don't like an individual who is not elected springing an agenda on them after the fact.
Some voters might dislike the idea of a first spouse continuing to work at all. I can understand someone saying "If you can't convince your own spouse to be on board with your agenda in a support role, you don't get my support." If it's so important to you to "maintain your identity as the regional manger of Applebees for the Virginia/DC territory" that you continue to do so once spouse is in office, I may vote for someone whose significant other is with the program and doesn't see a support capacity for the benefit of the country as demeaning to them.
It's a tempest in a teapot. It's a status game born of the petty ressentiment of academicians.
I recall on the old forum people who thought one should be embarrassed to have yourself called 'Dr.' with an Ed Degree, people who thought you should be embarrassed to have gotten one, even without calling yourself 'Dr.' and people who were annoyed at anyone taking either of those positions, including one or two who thought certain Ed degree programs outdid some PhD programs. Old stuff.
Quote from: Anon1787 on December 14, 2020, 02:01:58 PM
It's a tempest in a teapot. It's a status game born of the petty ressentiment of academicians.
And the status is imagined! :-)
Um, I'm trying to align my memories of Jackie Kennedy with this characterization....
Quote"maintain your identity as the regional manger of Applebees for the Virginia/DC territory"
Who did or does that?
And how in any way is it equivalent (as is implied by the usage) to holding a teaching position of any kind in a community college?
For the record, two very well-recognized and appreciated individuals in areas I work in, including music education and such, have Ed.Ds because they wanted to focus on pedagogy and the advanced music degrees available to them were either in composition and theory, or musicology.
A couple of other (impossibly intrusive) Educational Designers also had Ed.Ds and no-one trusted them to design a paper bag that would hold a flea inside once closed.
And I'd want to read her thesis before decrying it out of hand, just by title; some good work has been done on retention in community colleges and their function as feeders to four-year schools in various subjects as well.
It's what you do to earn the degree and how you use it that matters most.
M.
Quote from: mahagonny on December 14, 2020, 02:27:39 PM
I recall on the old forum people who thought one should be embarrassed to have yourself called 'Dr.' with an Ed Degree, people who thought you should be embarrassed to have gotten one, even without calling yourself 'Dr.' and people who were annoyed at anyone taking either of those positions, including one or two who thought certain Ed degree programs outdid some PhD programs.
^Accurate summary.
Quote from: mamselle on December 14, 2020, 02:43:49 PM
Um, I'm trying to align my memories of Jackie Kennedy with this characterization....
Quote"maintain your identity as the regional manger of Applebees for the Virginia/DC territory"
Who did or does that?
And how in any way is it equivalent (as is implied by the usage) to holding a teaching position of any kind in a community college?
For the record, two very well-recognized and appreciated individuals in areas I work in, including music education and such, have Ed.Ds because they wanted to focus on pedagogy and the advanced music degrees available to them were either in composition and theory, or musicology.
A couple of other (impossibly intrusive) Educational Designers also had Ed.Ds and no-one trusted them to design a paper bag that would hold a flea inside once closed.
And I'd want to read her thesis before decrying it out of hand, just by title; some good work has been done on retention in community colleges and their function as feeders to four-year schools in various subjects as well.
It's what you do to earn the degree and how you use it that matters most.
M.
I don't mean to imply that someone has or will continue with such as position as the one I described, only using the logical extension of the first lady "retaining her identity" to an absurd degree.
Also, people don't get an Ed.D. because they "wanted to focus on pedagogy" but because they
didn't want to meet the time, language, research, residency, admission or other requirements of a Ph.D. No one has ever said a Ph.D. "can't focus on pedagogy."
This is like the woman married to the Roto-Rooter guy who would never say "I wanted but couldn't nab a lawyer or ceo" but instead says "I'm attracted to guys who work with their hands." This is called turning a necessity into a positive.
Hmm...a lawyer or a CEO is a catch?
Who knew?
The former dean of one local theological college was married to a plumber.
Happily.
...for decades, now.
M.
Full disclosure: I'm going to dislike her no matter what she does.
But also: The problem is that she clearly thinks that an Ed.D. means something, whereas we know that anyone who has $15,000 and can sit in class one night a week for thirteen months can get one.
Note that the editorial did not argue "An EdD is not a PhD and therefore Jill Biden does not deserve to be called 'Doctor.'" It argued that all advanced degrees that are not medical degrees should not entitle the holder to be called "Doctor." Also, that the University of Delaware is not Harvard, and therefore an advanced degree from the University of Delaware is not worthy of respect.
For us to declare that "EdDs are often/sometimes not rigorous and therefore not the equivalent of a PhD" is beside the point. (I am not making that argument myself, but some here appear to be making it.)
The part that most irks me is that Epstein only brings up the matter when a high-profile woman from a political party he doesn't like calls herself, or is called, "Doctor." If the matter is so trivial, as some here are arguing, why is he writing an editorial in the Wall Street Journal about it? Sounds like he actually thinks it's important. That's what editorials are for. If it's the equivalent of whether you should use a semi-colon or a full stop, you don't bother with an editorial. She's not even in an elected position; her use of "Dr." means absolutely nothing to the public welfare or lack thereof. And yet he cares. And when he calls her "kiddo," the argument looks a lot like "Women getting uppity again, must be quashed." If he cares so much, I hope he's been lobbying against academics using "Dr." for the past fifty years. Or does it really only start to bug him when he sees a woman sporting a fancy title? And not even an elite woman, really — a woman who got a degree from a public university! Demanding some kind of respect just because it's traditional! When women start doing it, it's time to demand a stop to it.
Obviously Epstein's argument was sexist, esp the 'kiddo' part, and obviously anyone with a legit earned terminal degree doctorate (i.e., not things like a J.D., where the L.L.M. is terminal) ought to be able to use the title 'doctor', provided it is not an online and/or unaccredited diploma mill.
That said, there is a difference between an Ed.D. and a Ph.D., and it will not do to suggest their equivalence, esp since many holders of the former did in fact do more or less what writingprof suggests, often explicitly in order to do these things: 1) get an automatic pay raise 2) be able to get certain professional admin jobs in education where some sort of doctorate is effectively required, and 3) get people to/ require them to, call them 'doctor'.
Quote from: financeguy on December 14, 2020, 03:06:06 AM
There are many reasons to take a jab at education programs, but that's not even what he does. Very bizarre article simply implying the title should be reserved for those with an M.D. I guess you could go this route without even disparaging academic or professional degrees by claiming that the public is going to be confused, especially if the person in question is running their mouth publicly about health issues such as Covid-19.
Isn't he calculating that his target audience doesn't know or care if an EdD is not a PhD, so instead tell them something that will strike a chord while hoping to exploit a supposed fault line between academics who got PhD and those who didn't; therefore the pushback was hoped to be a bit less. yeah, I get it. A Roger Ailes kind of a trick.
Quote from: dismalist on December 14, 2020, 01:29:45 PM
It's a convention and doesn't matter.
It's a convention, yes, but it
does matter, for these reasons:
Quote from: Hegemony on December 14, 2020, 07:02:01 PM
The part that most irks me is that Epstein only brings up the matter when a high-profile woman from a political party he doesn't like calls herself, or is called, "Doctor." If the matter is so trivial, as some here are arguing, why is he writing an editorial in the Wall Street Journal about it? Sounds like he actually thinks it's important. That's what editorials are for. If it's the equivalent of whether you should use a semi-colon or a full stop, you don't bother with an editorial. She's not even in an elected position; her use of "Dr." means absolutely nothing to the public welfare or lack thereof. And yet he cares. And when he calls her "kiddo," the argument looks a lot like "Women getting uppity again, must be quashed." If he cares so much, I hope he's been lobbying against academics using "Dr." for the past fifty years. Or does it really only start to bug him when he sees a woman sporting a fancy title? And not even an elite woman, really — a woman who got a degree from a public university! Demanding some kind of respect just because it's traditional! When women start doing it, it's time to demand a stop to it.
If Epstein had written a similar piece denigrating JillBiden!Prime's interest in stamp collecting, we'd be having the exact same conversation about whether it's appropriate for a first lady to be a philatelist. It's not about the title. It's about using the title as an excuse to be a misogynistic ass, and getting the signal boost of a respected and highly visible public platform to do it.
Quote...a respected and highly visible public platform to do it....
Dunno about "respected," at least for some....its audience probably skews towards those who resonate with anti-feminist rhetoric to begin with.
Of course, others well may need to read it for the business stats, and just hold their noses when riffling past the opinion articles and op-ed pages...
M.
The statement "she's not even in an elected position" is not a reason why something doesn't matter if the public has begun to assume first ladies will affect decisions within an administration beyond being a sounding board for their spouse's dinner table conversation at day end. I lived in the South when Clinton was elected and had already seen what the rest of the nation saw once. Hillary decided to dip into the frame in a manner inconsistent with previous holders of the position, the public said, "Hey, no one elected you." Some agreed, some considered it misogyny.
There are many people who have disliked the degree to which Hillary and subsequently Michelle Obama tried to step out of their places as spouses who were elected by no one and attempt to speak out about issues/advance agendas of their own. Of course any citizen has the right to say whatever they want, but voters don't necessarily react positively to this. One does not have to "hate women" or "be intimidated by them" to say "It's great that Hill, Michelle and Jill have two law degrees and an Ed.D. between them. Let them take those qualifications on the campaign trail if they'd like any more influence over policy than some other citizen."
Excuse me?
Quotetried to step out of their places as spouses
Do you really want to go there?
Being espoused is a process, not a place.
M.
Whether spouses should or are qualified to participate in policy decisions is completely distinct from whether people with an EdD should cease to be addressed as "Dr." You can feel that spouses (or daughters, or sons-in-law, or sons) should stay entirely out of policy matters, while still acknowledging their traditional titles. Completely separate arguments. The debate about "Dr." has nothing to do with Hillary or the actions or inactions of any other relative or spouse.
Definitely separate issues that can be addressed independently. Only overlap if the qualification of the spouse is used to "justify" their desire to dip into the frame. It doesn't have to even be a spouse. If Hunter Biden suddenly starts speaking publicly about some aspect of criminal justice reform and someone says, "Pipe down, no one elected you." the statement that "Hey, he has a Yale Law degree!" will not change that fact.
It will be interesting to see how our new second gentleman is treated by the media/public if he says something controversial publicly that his wife or the administration doesn't agree with. If (theoretically, I seriously doubt he holds ANY of these positions) he were to say he believes gender is a biological fact, that Islam is not "a religion of peace" or that the UN is an ineffective organization, would anyone really accept his statement that he's "Just Doug, a citizen like all of us entitled to his beliefs." I suspect the most ardent feminist would say he should refrain from making those statements not just because they disagree, but for the benefit of his wife's career.
Quote from: financeguy on December 15, 2020, 03:40:32 AM
Definitely separate issues that can be addressed independently. Only overlap if the qualification of the spouse is used to "justify" their desire to dip into the frame. It doesn't have to even be a spouse. If Hunter Biden suddenly starts speaking publicly about some aspect of criminal justice reform and someone says, "Pipe down, no one elected you." the statement that "Hey, he has a Yale Law degree!" will not change that fact.
It will be interesting to see how our new second gentleman is treated by the media/public if he says something controversial publicly that his wife or the administration doesn't agree with. If (theoretically, I seriously doubt he holds ANY of these positions) he were to say he believes gender is a biological fact, that Islam is not "a religion of peace" or that the UN is an ineffective organization, would anyone really accept his statement that he's "Just Doug, a citizen like all of us entitled to his beliefs." I suspect the most ardent feminist would say he should refrain from making those statements not just because they disagree, but for the benefit of his wife's career.
I think you've introduce a third, separate issue here: Namely, we should probably separate the role of the first/second spouse as a policy maker from the role of first/second spouse as a public figure with an elevated platform.
I agree that initial spice* probably should not be setting policy, as unelected officials. However, that's different from public messaging. Melania Trump's embrace of anti-bullying initiatives, however ironic and ineffective, is a good example of the sort of thing that initial spice can do.
Once you have that kind of enloudened influence on public debate, it's disingenuous to pretend that you're just a private individual with a right to voice your own opinion. By virtue of your (unelected) position, you're much more than 'just' a private individual. Some of the influential scifi writers I follow on twitter have explicitly addressed the question of what they should and should not tweet about, given that they have 20k, 50k, 100k followers ready to descend upon anyone they call out. They have learned their lesson from Spiderman and taken it to heart. I think it is not unreasonable to expect first and second spouses to pay the same attention to their public statements as people who make their living thinking about how dinosaurs would build spaceships.
It's rather reminiscent of that knotty question that comes up on Reddit's 'Am I the Asshole' page: You might have the legal
right to do something, but that doesn't mean you're not an asshole if you exercise that right.
*Sorry, couldn't resist
Quote from: Hegemony on December 15, 2020, 03:19:44 AM
Whether spouses should or are qualified to participate in policy decisions is completely distinct from whether people with an EdD should cease to be addressed as "Dr." You can feel that spouses (or daughters, or sons-in-law, or sons) should stay entirely out of policy matters, while still acknowledging their traditional titles. Completely separate arguments. The debate about "Dr." has nothing to do with Hillary or the actions or inactions of any other relative or spouse.
Agreed.
Also, to the other point:
Kushner? Ivanka?
Daughters and sons and sons-in-law all over the place in the past four years, all of whom barely have any competencies (or relevant degrees) to bring to the tasks they shoo others along into doing.
Except for the shared DNA, of course...
M.
In the new Doctor scheme, can we call dentists "doctor?" It would appear not because they don't meet the baby criterion (usually).
I propose a solution: "Dentor." Audiologists and chiropractors are also tricky.
What about Dr. J? Doc Rivers? Doc McStuffins? What about a Vet?
Have any of them delivered a baby?
And I HAVE, so is my PhD good enough for Epstein?
Epstein, let us not forget, is the author of a bestseller called "Snobbery", American style. Clearly he's demonstrating that here. He also knows that Joe Biden often calls his wife "kiddo," which Epstein somehow feels entitled to use despite not being her spouse. So his article is a mashup of misogyny and snobbery (and of course he himself has no doctorate, so he feels comfortable begrudging her hers).
In the UK, top senior medical doctors go by the title "Mister." Not sure how he'd respond to that.
Did he say it needed to be a baby human? If not, then most vets have probably delivered more babies than most MD's.
He's not even listening to the current FLOTUS that he presumably likes, he should #BeBest
Quote from: Ruralguy on December 15, 2020, 07:00:03 AM
In the new Doctor scheme, can we call dentists "doctor?" It would appear not because they don't meet the baby criterion (usually).
I propose a solution: "Dentor."
You anti-dentite bastard.
Interestingly, none of major news outlets appear to consistently refer to Angela Merkel as "Dr." despite her ticking most boxes in the Epstein's opinion piece:
- Her dissertation is in Physical Chemistry (not "in the social sciences and humanities" decried in the article)
- It has very promising title:
Untersuchung des Mechanismus von Zerfallsreaktionen mit einfachem Bindungsbruch und Berechnung ihrer Geschwindigkeitskonstanten auf der Grundlage quantenchemischer und statistischer Methoden
- I expect any thesis defence in DDR being an "arduous proceeding" enough
The New York Times has a standing policy that they do not refer to PhDs as Doctor.
Quote from: mythbuster on December 15, 2020, 12:13:15 PM
The New York Times has a standing policy that they do not refer to PhDs as Doctor.
Not quite. From this article (http://"https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/12/us/jill-biden-doctor-wsj.html"):
QuoteThe New York Times's house style allows for anyone with an earned doctorate, such as a Ph.D. or Ed.D., to be identified by the title on subsequent references, provided it is "germane to the holder's primary current occupation.
This would also explain why they wouldn't refer to Merkel as 'Dr': She is only ever in the news in the context of her occupation as Chancellor, not in the context of her expertise as a chemist.
Kyle Smith, possibly the funniest conservative writer alive, has an excellent take, which no one here will read or like. (Yet I try.)
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/jill-bidens-doctorate-is-garbage-because-her-dissertation-is-garbage/
The only low blow is when he quotes her RateMyProfessor page to prove that her students are illiterate, and thus she is a bad teacher. Which of us could pass that test?
Quote from: writingprof on December 16, 2020, 04:21:20 PM
Kyle Smith, possibly the funniest conservative writer alive, has an excellent take, which no one here will read or like. (Yet I try.)
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/jill-bidens-doctorate-is-garbage-because-her-dissertation-is-garbage/
The only low blow is when he quotes her RateMyProfessor page to prove that her students are illiterate, and thus she is a bad teacher. Which of us could pass that test?
No, that's a misinterpretation. The Rate My Professor comment proves that Dr. Biden is a an education leader [Fuehrer]: ...
it is hard to pass class.RMP is not without information. Interpreting its contents is like interpreting
Pravda. :-)
How to get Jill Biden to stop calling herself 'Dr. Biden:' Give her a position on the tenure track.
I had a look back through time a bit, and found that some time ago, the media was covering 'Dr. Jill Biden"'s pandemic takes (and also, before that, her response to her husband's views on healthcare). So I guess that's why I thought she was a medical doctor.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 16, 2020, 07:21:17 PM
I had a look back through time a bit, and found that some time ago, the media was covering 'Dr. Jill Biden"'s pandemic takes (and also, before that, her response to her husband's views on healthcare). So I guess that's why I thought she was a medical doctor.
I made a mistake too. I thought she was still teaching off the tenure track. It turns out she is now associate professor. And, mysteriously perhaps, paid well more than most associate profs at her institution.
"Since Ms. Biden's husband became vice president, several part-time faculty organizations and unions have reached out to her in hopes that she would push for improvements in adjunct working conditions." And, apparently, she has not, or Audrey Williams June would have reported it. Which makes her just a typical tenure track professor, because you're not supposed to seriously try to change the role of the gig economy in helping to keep the bunch of you in business at that type of college. I will be absolutely amazed if we hear the word 'adjunct' from her in the next four years.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/adjunct-no-longer-jill-biden-earned-82-022-as-a-community-college-professor-in-2011/?cid2=gen_login_refresh&cid=gen_sign_in
Where I might be more sympathetic to her: If she, as Kyle Smith writes, only got her Doctor Ed degree for the chance to be addressed as 'doctor' without a universally recognized legitimate reason to be called one, then she was doing it (at the time an adjunct) to compensate for a loss of self esteem that happens to some because they have been an adjunct extendedly. Which isn't legitimate either.
"I don't deserve this award, but then again, I have arthritis, and I don't deserve that either.' - Jack Benny
Hmmm... it is somewhat hard for me to consider chiropractors as 'doctors' of anything, being as how their whole profession is based on junk pseudoscience. There has to be a limit.
I didn't think about Biden's connection to the University of Delaware. This brings up another degree of irritation but reminded me of a secondary plot line in Barbarians at the Gate.
This book (one of the best business books ever written) goes over what was at the time the greatest LBO (leveraged buyout or what we'd call "private equity" today) deal when RJR Nabisco was taken over. One of the secondary minor plot lines is that Nabisco CEO Ross Johnson's wife was seen as kind of a bimbo by those at the company and since he had already bought a new gym for Barry University in FL for an honorary doctorate for himself, he also sweetened the deal to get his wife one as well! Employees apparently began referring to the wife as "Dr. Cupcake," a derisive variation of a previous term...
Oddly enough, I looked up the above paragraph to make sure I remembered Johnson's first name and the name of the University. It sounded familiar and then I remembered this was also the alma matter of Dr. Shaquille O'Neal. Apparently his Ed.D. was earned with a "capstone" entitled "The Duality of Humor and Aggression in Leadership Styles." This led to an Ed.D. concentration in Human Resource Management. (?!?)
In all seriousness, if programs are going to issue nonsense degrees for cash, why not make them a Ph.D? Certainly this would be easier to market to prospective students, right? Considering some of the questionable accredited Ph.D. programs that are available, I can't imagine the accreditation is the reason, or is it? What's in it for the school to call the program an Ed.D?
Side note totally unrelated: The HBO film versions of Barbarians at the Gate as well as And the Band Played On (about the early days of the AIDs epidemic) are the first two made for HBO films and both are extremely high quality. Either would make a great lock down viewing selection.
Quote from: financeguy on December 17, 2020, 02:16:13 AM
if programs are going to issue nonsense degrees for cash, why not make them a Ph.D?
They do. Look at what honorary degree is given to a celebrity in exchange for them showing up at commencement.
And Barbarians at the Gate is a good movie, I remember watching it years ago: I'd forgotten the doctorate thing.
Increase Mather's doctorate, like many others of the day, was purchased (from the Univ. of Edinburgh).
Qualifications were, I believe, also a consideration, and since he read and wrote in Latin and read Greek, he was no theological slouch.
But the exchange of money for an advanced degree is not a new thing...
M.
Quote from: mamselle on December 17, 2020, 05:07:07 AM
Increase Mather's doctorate, like many others of the day, was purchased (from the Univ. of Edinburgh).
Qualifications were, I believe, also a consideration, and since he read and wrote in Latin and read Greek, he was no theological slouch.
But the exchange of money for an advanced degree is not a new thing...
M.
So . . . a compromise? Increase Mather gets to be First Lady?
Quote from: bacardiandlime on December 17, 2020, 03:24:21 AM
Quote from: financeguy on December 17, 2020, 02:16:13 AM
if programs are going to issue nonsense degrees for cash, why not make them a Ph.D?
They do. Look at what honorary degree is given to a celebrity in exchange for them showing up at commencement.
And Barbarians at the Gate is a good movie, I remember watching it years ago: I'd forgotten the doctorate thing.
How about a college that awards the honorary doctorate that doesn't even have an earned doctoral program? You can do that too.
Sure, we've done it. They are almost all awarded with the descriptor "Honoris Causa" (honorary), so they aren't intended to be academic degrees.
Quote from: Ruralguy on December 17, 2020, 07:55:57 AM
Sure, we've done it. They are almost all awarded with the descriptor "Honoris Causa" (honorary), so they aren't intended to be academic degrees.
I seem to recall that in the 80's some place gave Lionel Richie an honoray degree and he had "Dr." added to his driver's licence. Anybody know if that's an urban myth?
The way that works out for everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXdc2L3QH9U
Anybody remember that Mike Tyson holds an honorary doctorate? He got it back when I was in grad school, and we all chuckled that Dr. Iron Mike got the title before any of us did.
Quote from: financeguy on December 17, 2020, 02:16:13 AM
In all seriousness, if programs are going to issue nonsense degrees for cash, why not make them a Ph.D? Certainly this would be easier to market to prospective students, right? Considering some of the questionable accredited Ph.D. programs that are available, I can't imagine the accreditation is the reason, or is it? What's in it for the school to call the program an Ed.D?
I believe an Ed.D is more of a professional degree whereas a Ph.D follows the traditional scholar-practitioner model. Whether or not the dissertations are rigorous is a bit of a herring- the main point is to learn leadership and administration, like an MBA, not publish research.
Edit: And before anyone claims the lack of a 'valid' dissertation means a terminal degree is subpar, I'll remind you that MDs don't do a dissertation at all.
I know what the explanation is for the existence of the Ed.D., but given the fact that the Ph.D. (for whatever reason) is more valued, why not call your program's doctorate a Ph.D. even if not heavy on research? I know several Ph.D. programs that have a "capstone" or other alternative to a dissertation such as allowing three separate papers or something else relative to the field such as a written computer program or a piece of music composed. The idea that a "dissertation" is a research project at all I don't think can necessarily be assumed in some fields.
If Dr. Jill Biden was a man, I doubt this author would have written this op-ed. Even if you feel that the Ed.D. doesn't deserve the Dr. title, this article's basis is sexist. Personally, I believe that someone with an Ed.D. can be called a doctor if they wish.
Quote from: writingprof on December 17, 2020, 05:25:36 AM
Quote from: mamselle on December 17, 2020, 05:07:07 AM
Increase Mather's doctorate, like many others of the day, was purchased (from the Univ. of Edinburgh).
Qualifications were, I believe, also a consideration, and since he read and wrote in Latin and read Greek, he was no theological slouch.
But the exchange of money for an advanced degree is not a new thing...
M.
So . . . a compromise? Increase Mather gets to be First Lady?
If you want to exhume him from Copp's Hill Burying Grounds' frozen soil, and try to talk him out of a fairly heteronormative stance on gender, and his own in particular, have at it.
However, having been a president of Harvard College for a time, and leaving it because he chose not to commute by horseback from Boston to Cambridge every day, you might have some trouble convincing him that the position was worth the bother.
M.
Quote from: financeguy on December 18, 2020, 04:58:28 AM
I know what the explanation is for the existence of the Ed.D., but given the fact that the Ph.D. (for whatever reason) is more valued, why not call your program's doctorate a Ph.D. even if not heavy on research? I know several Ph.D. programs that have a "capstone" or other alternative to a dissertation such as allowing three separate papers or something else relative to the field such as a written computer program or a piece of music composed. The idea that a "dissertation" is a research project at all I don't think can necessarily be assumed in some fields.
A PhD is a research-oriented degree and can be entered from a Bachelor's program. The student starts from the very beginning of the graduate study process.
And EdD is a practitioner's degree, and students are expected to have a Master's degree before entering. It is shorter because the student is expected to have a number of foundational skills.
There is also a thing called a DBA which stands for Doctor of Business Administration and is like an MBA on steroids. Some people with Master's in other subjects decide to do the DBA for various reasons. Doesn't do much for someone with an MBA already, IMHO.
Quote from: lillipat on December 17, 2020, 07:31:44 PM
Anybody remember that Mike Tyson holds an honorary doctorate? He got it back when I was in grad school, and we all chuckled that Dr. Iron Mike got the title before any of us did.
My Community College gives out Honorary Associate's Degrees.
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 18, 2020, 09:16:07 AM
Quote from: lillipat on December 17, 2020, 07:31:44 PM
Anybody remember that Mike Tyson holds an honorary doctorate? He got it back when I was in grad school, and we all chuckled that Dr. Iron Mike got the title before any of us did.
My Community College gives out Honorary Associate's Degrees.
I find that equal parts beautiful and sad.
There is irony regarding many academics championing her degree and her job on Twitter who would also be against hiring her for a TT job teaching writing at their own institutions because she has an Ed.D.
Quote from: Mobius on December 19, 2020, 05:18:53 PM
There is irony regarding many academics championing her degree and her job on Twitter who would also be against hiring her for a TT job teaching writing at their own institutions because she has an Ed.D.
Different job, different degree.
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 19, 2020, 06:30:13 PM
Quote from: Mobius on December 19, 2020, 05:18:53 PM
There is irony regarding many academics championing her degree and her job on Twitter who would also be against hiring her for a TT job teaching writing at their own institutions because she has an Ed.D.
Different job, different degree.
Nothing is ironic where the tenure track's behavior is concerned. There is no second guessing the stewards of truth and the advancement of humankind.
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 19, 2020, 06:30:13 PM
Quote from: Mobius on December 19, 2020, 05:18:53 PM
There is irony regarding many academics championing her degree and her job on Twitter who would also be against hiring her for a TT job teaching writing at their own institutions because she has an Ed.D.
Different job, different degree.
Come on, there are plenty of people virtue signaling and considering her their academic equal when we all know they'd scoff at a random person with the same degree and job.
Quote from: Mobius on December 19, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 19, 2020, 06:30:13 PM
Quote from: Mobius on December 19, 2020, 05:18:53 PM
There is irony regarding many academics championing her degree and her job on Twitter who would also be against hiring her for a TT job teaching writing at their own institutions because she has an Ed.D.
Different job, different degree.
Come on, there are plenty of people virtue signaling and considering her their academic equal when we all know they'd scoff at a random person with the same degree and job.
More than that, they'd say or at least think most of what the op-ed writer said.
And they would not be thinking this for no reason. Ed schools are questionable to say the least for a number of reasons. The field itself is about protecting the incompetent through teacher unions rather than educating children. Their own course work is laughable, up to and including what is needed for their doctoral level degree. The fact that she had a job teaching writing at a community college at all is a testament to the fact that these basic skills are routinely not instilled at the k-12 level.
Quote from: financeguy on December 19, 2020, 09:26:04 PM
And they would not be thinking this for no reason. Ed schools are questionable to say the least for a number of reasons. The field itself is about protecting the incompetent through teacher unions rather than educating children. Their own course work is laughable, up to and including what is needed for their doctoral level degree. The fact that she had a job teaching writing at a community college at all is a testament to the fact that these basic skills are routinely not instilled at the k-12 level.
Says
financeguy.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 19, 2020, 11:40:36 PM
Quote from: financeguy on December 19, 2020, 09:26:04 PM
And they would not be thinking this for no reason. Ed schools are questionable to say the least for a number of reasons. The field itself is about protecting the incompetent through teacher unions rather than educating children. Their own course work is laughable, up to and including what is needed for their doctoral level degree. The fact that she had a job teaching writing at a community college at all is a testament to the fact that these basic skills are routinely not instilled at the k-12 level.
Says financeguy.
Does someone maintain that she isn't qualified to perform her current teaching job competently, now that she's been doing it for many years. I haven't seen it. Other than Kyle Smith, who's probably looking for a way to smear, well guess I should say, put-down the Bidens to rain on their parade. I doubt that he complained about her getting the appointment when it first happened.
Old Man Yells At Cloud:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/joseph-epstein-is-not-a-fan-of-the-modern-university (https://www.chronicle.com/article/joseph-epstein-is-not-a-fan-of-the-modern-university).
Things have been going to hell in a handbasket since the 19th Amendment was ratified.
Quote from: spork on December 20, 2020, 10:36:53 AM
Old Man Yells At Cloud:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/joseph-epstein-is-not-a-fan-of-the-modern-university (https://www.chronicle.com/article/joseph-epstein-is-not-a-fan-of-the-modern-university).
Things have been going to hell in a handbasket since the 19th Amendment was ratified.
Thanks for that longer explanation and context. Clearly the very idea of an EdD is an abomination in his world, never mind the modern execution that's being discussed in this thread.
Apparently Epstein would find Goethe too progressive, "Das Leben gehört den Lebenden an, und wer lebt, muss auf Wechsel gefasst sein." [Rendered here in the original, since Epstein appears not to abide the academic decay evident by needing translation.]
It's still funny to me that if Jill Biden had shown up on the old board, under a pseudonym of course, and listed her credentials, position, and experience while asking if it was appropriate to take the title "doctor," she would have been roundly mocked and condemned.
It's also possible that some Ed.D.'s have shown value added in the recent need for online education.
Perhaps it's a time whose idea has come.
M.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, mamselle? Are you implying that somehow more online Ed.D.s would be a useful and worthwhile objective?
No, just observing that, with the increased need for online ed. over the past several months, those in Ed.D. for whom online teaching was a significant part of their training may have been able to make contributions in places that were less well-prepared or had fewer support people in place for such teaching modalities.
A friend/parent of one of my students with a dctoral degree in material science also did an Ed.D. to be able to oversee the online ed. offerings at her R1. Her emails blew up to 500 a day on March 17th, and have yet to abate,, really..
The whole school was essentially at her doorstep, and the fact that the need for her expertise was tied, not to her highly respected science background, but her familiarty with educational design for online teaching, seems to have shifted several more curmudgeonly faculty who originally decried the Ed.D program to a grudging respect (fawning, synchophantic need) for her services when it became clear that classroom teaching as they knew it would not suffice.
Not all Ed.D.s have this expertise and not all online instructors need an Ed.D. to do their work well, obviously.
But there may have been a functional intersect between those that do and those that do...and that may contribute to a "value-added" perception that didn't exist in the same way before.
M.
Quote from: mamselle on December 28, 2020, 04:04:13 AM
Not all Ed.D.s have this expertise and not all online instructors need an Ed.D. to do their work well, obviously.
But there may have been a functional intersect between those that do and those that do...and that may contribute to a "value-added" perception that didn't exist in the same way before.
M.
It may vary by location, but around here they're mostly for people who want to become education bureaucrats; most of the courses and program options are about education policy, management, etc., with very little about actual pedagogy.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 28, 2020, 06:29:06 AM
Quote from: mamselle on December 28, 2020, 04:04:13 AM
Not all Ed.D.s have this expertise and not all online instructors need an Ed.D. to do their work well, obviously.
But there may have been a functional intersect between those that do and those that do...and that may contribute to a "value-added" perception that didn't exist in the same way before.
M.
It may vary by location, but around here they're mostly for people who want to become education bureaucrats; most of the courses and program options are about education policy, management, etc., with very little about actual pedagogy.
Same here. If you're a secretary who would like to become provost, the EdD is your ticket.
Quote from: writingprof on December 28, 2020, 01:56:40 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 28, 2020, 06:29:06 AM
Quote from: mamselle on December 28, 2020, 04:04:13 AM
Not all Ed.D.s have this expertise and not all online instructors need an Ed.D. to do their work well, obviously.
But there may have been a functional intersect between those that do and those that do...and that may contribute to a "value-added" perception that didn't exist in the same way before.
M.
There are some very good discipline based programs, Teachers College at Columbia being one of the premier programs. Many excellent researchers I know actually have Ed.D.s. I'm pretty confident most of you have experience with central administrators who have degrees in educational leadership or administration.
It may vary by location, but around here they're mostly for people who want to become education bureaucrats; most of the courses and program options are about education policy, management, etc., with very little about actual pedagogy.
Same here. If you're a secretary who would like to become provost, the EdD is your ticket.
I adjuncted and/or was an EA for a couple of schools that took Ed.Ds very seriously, in different areas--one was the one in online learning, the other more policy-like, but with international policy in the mix.
Both had strong research interests, also: the first in rehabilitative learning for specialists in a variety of differential abilities and diagnoses, the second in the policy areas mentioned. (I had to create/format/produce self-published booklets for US-AID programs for the second).
So, yes, there's a bit of variance.
M.
ETA: Yes, jimbogumbo, along the lines of what you're saying, if this line (which got buried in the dread quote function) was your intended post:
QuoteThere are some very good discipline based programs, Teachers College at Columbia being one of the premier programs. Many excellent researchers I know actually have Ed.D.s. I'm pretty confident most of you have experience with central administrators who have degrees in educational leadership or administration.
Sigh. Indeed, it was.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on December 28, 2020, 02:59:47 PM
There are some very good discipline based programs, Teachers College at Columbia being one of the premier programs. Many excellent researchers I know actually have Ed.D.s. I'm pretty confident most of you have experience with central administrators who have degrees in educational leadership or administration.
This is true. It is also true that small, insular colleges use the Ed.D. to keep the outside world at bay. Here's the scam, in four easy steps:
1) Graduate a pliable "C" student.
2) Give him a starter job in admissions or (internal) marketing.
3) Send him to a thirteen-month, tuition-free, one-night-a-week Ed.D. program on campus.
4) Promote him to a serious administrative position with real power over faculty.
It isn't enough to say that I've seen this happen. Rather, it describes the career of literally every administrator I work for.
I generally believe that managing something is a different skill set than a specialist has so the argument that someone "doesn't have the training in my specialty and therefore can't mange me" is anathema to the entire big-picture nature of managing anything. That said, I'm not prepared to accept that an Ed.D. provides someone with alternate skills to function in that management or administrative capacity rather than giving an option for those that didn't want to put in the work or time for a Ph.D.