Joseph Epstein/Jill Biden Controversy over Ed.D.

[Charlotte]

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.

[mamselle]

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.

[simpleSimon]

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.

[Descartes]

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?

[Parasaurolophus]

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.

[onthefringe]

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.

[Descartes]

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."

[mamselle]

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.

[financeguy]

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."

[Ruralguy]

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).

[dismalist]

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.

[jimbogumbo]

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.

[dismalist]

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.

[financeguy]

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.

[Anon1787]

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