Joseph Epstein/Jill Biden Controversy over Ed.D.

[mahagonny]

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.

[dismalist]

It's a tempest in a teapot. It's a status game born of the petty ressentiment of academicians.

And the status is imagined! :-)

[mamselle]

Um, I'm trying to align my memories of Jackie Kennedy with this characterization....

   

"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.

[namazu]

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.

[financeguy]

Um, I'm trying to align my memories of Jackie Kennedy with this characterization....

   

"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.

[mamselle]

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.

[writingprof]

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.

[Hegemony]

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.

[kaysixteen]

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'.

[mahagonny]

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.

[ergative]

It's a convention and doesn't matter.

It's a convention, yes, but it does matter, for these reasons:

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.

[mamselle]

   

...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.

[financeguy]

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."

[mamselle]

Excuse me?

   

tried to step out of their places as spouses

Do you really want to go there?

Being espoused is a process, not a place.

M.

[Hegemony]

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.