Some ignorant, scum-sucking, shit-weasel at the Wall Street Journal wrote an opinion piece that moronsplained to Dr. Jill Biden and I couldn’t let it stand.
Is There a Doctor in the White House? Not if You Need an M.D.
Jill Biden should think about dropping the honorific, which feels fraudulent, even comic.
Madame First Lady—Mrs. Biden—Jill—kiddo: a bit of advice on what may seem like a small but I think is a not unimportant matter. Any chance you might drop the “Dr.” before your name? “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.”
She earned a Doctorate in Education. That is an actual doctorate that required writing and defending a dissertation.
A wise man once said that no one should call himself “Dr.” unless he has delivered a child. Think about it, Dr. Jill, and forthwith drop the doc.
That is a fucking bullshit standard. That guy wasn’t a wise man.
I taught at Northwestern University for 30 years without a doctorate or any advanced degree. I have only a B.A. in absentia from the University of Chicago—in absentia because I took my final examination on a pool table at Headquarters Company, Fort Hood, Texas, while serving in the peacetime Army in the late 1950s. I do have an honorary doctorate, though I have to report that the president of the school that awarded it was fired the year after.
Everything that comes next is this dude manifesting his inferiority complex.
I was also often addressed as Dr. during the years I was editor of the American Scholar, the quarterly magazine of Phi Beta Kappa. I also received a fair amount of correspondence from people who appended the initials Ph.D. to their names atop their letterheads, and have twice seen PHD on vanity license plates, which struck me as pathetic. In contemporary universities, in the social sciences and humanities, calling oneself Dr. is thought bush league.
No, it’s not. Generally, among colleagues, people are informal. During formal correspondence, the title is still used. I don’t request that coworkers call me doctor, but I would be addressed as doctor in a formal setting such as if I were giving a deposition or testimony as an expert witness.
The Ph.D. may once have held prestige, but that has been diminished by the erosion of seriousness and the relaxation of standards in university education generally, at any rate outside the sciences.
Eat my ass. Maybe in some schools in some degree programs, but not all. Fuck you.
Getting a doctorate was then an arduous proceeding: One had to pass examinations in two foreign languages, one of them Greek or Latin, defend one’s thesis, and take an oral examination on general knowledge in one’s field. At Columbia University of an earlier day, a secretary sat outside the room where these examinations were administered, a pitcher of water and a glass on her desk. The water and glass were there for the candidates who fainted. A far cry, this, from the few doctoral examinations I sat in on during my teaching days, where candidates and teachers addressed one another by first names and the general atmosphere more resembled a kaffeeklatsch.
I don’t know about the two languages thing, but that feels like something from the liberal arts. In science, I had to stand at a whiteboard and do fucking calculus by hand while being grilled by a dozen professors. Physics, chemistry, interfacial phenomenon, thermodynamic derivations from memory.
It was traditional that once the exam was over, assuming that you passed, your professor took you out to the bar across campus to buy you a beer.
It was arduous.
Dr. Jill, I note you acquired your Ed.D. as recently as 15 years ago at age 55, or long after the terror had departed.
Fuck you, you old fucking geezer. You don’t what she went through.
As for your Ed.D., Madame First Lady, hard-earned though it may have been, please consider stowing it, at least in public, at least for now. Forget the small thrill of being Dr. Jill, and settle for the larger thrill of living for the next four years in the best public housing in the world as First Lady Jill Biden.
No.
In fact, I want Dr. Biden to go as “Doctor Biden” more because of this shit.
I do not like how in America, the medical doctor has become the only acceptable doctor. This OpEd and the attitude that goes with it only reinforces that bullshit.
The word Doctor itself comes from Latin for “teacher.” The title of Doctor dates back to the 13th Century will the beginning of the university system as we know it. To be able to teach in a Medieval University, one needed a licentia docendi, a “license to teach.” This was earned through rigorous academic effort, and where the Doctor of Philosophy took root.
The earliest licentia docendi or Ph.D.s were awarded in theology, philosophy, or the natural sciences.
Medicine was no were near that list.
Medince was mostly unscientific and bloody well into the 19th Century. You were as likely to see your barber for a minor surgery as you were a physician. Likewise, you were more likely to see your apothecary or herbalist than a physician for pharmacology.
Doctors were “sawbones” since among the most common procedures for doctors to perform were amputations. Prior to the widespread use of analgesics, most surgeries were too painful to be performed. The patient would die of shock or would thrash around and die.
The uniform of the doctor was the leather apron, same as the butcher, to keep himself from being covered in blood and bile.
Remember that as late as the mid 1800s, midwives were preferred to physicians for delivering babies, since doctors had a much higher mortality rate. When Ignaz Semmelweis suggested that physicians had “cadaverous particles” on their hands and that is what caused birthing fever, he was kicked out of medicine and repudiated with “a gentleman’s hands are always clean.”
Only with the introduction of scientific medicine in the late 1800’s, largely as a result of surgery that could be performed with anesthesia and an understanding of sterility, did the physician start to be something more professional than just a sawbones. The treatment of the injured from WWI and the introduction of antibiotics in the interwar period accelerated that.
At the same time, there was a push to use the title to separate those with M.D.s from quacks who sold elixirs and cure-alls.
The M.D., like the J.D., was considered to be a professional degree, not an academic one. In England to this day, a surgeon is still “Mr./Ms.” and is only called “Doctor” when they have a Ph.D.
In the US, the M.D. became “Doctor” as M.D.s were involved in research and publication and was considered tantamount to Ph.D.s.
I will add to this, M.D.s have board exams for licensure but do not have a dissertation defense. So if this prick thinks that modern Ph.D.s shouldn’t be called doctor because their academic finale isn’t sufficiently rigorous, M.D.s definitely don’t deserve it.
The point is, the Ph.D. has been a “doctor” since the 1200s and the physician has been a doctor since the 1800s.
The medical profession doesn’t get to take the title away from academia.
This whole OpEd is about this guy, who has spent his career in academia without a Ph.D., feeling insecure and now wanting to shit on someone else with a terminal degree because it makes him feel a little bit better.
Well done! Anyone who earns a Ph.D. EARNS it, regardless of the field. Granted some are ‘easier’ than others, but they are still EARNED!
Earning a degree in irrelevance is still irrelevant.
EdD is not a PhD. You can get an EdD online. It is an ‘executive’ degree.
He’s being canceled and accused of misogyny even though the argument made in the essay is entirely gender-neutral.
As for the argument made, it reminded me strongly of an essay by Robert Heinlein in which he describes how he got an Ed.D from an (unnamed but said to be substantial) university. In particular, the fact that the “fuzzy subjects” require scholarship, which is measured by the weight of the thesis and the number of citations in it, with extra credit for citations of the work of the thesis committee.
A wise man once said that no one should call himself “Dr.” unless he has delivered a child. Think about it, Dr. Jill, and forthwith drop the doc.
By that definition Jill Biden is entitled to call herself “Doctor” as she has delivered her daughter.
Note for a variety of reasons, including being rather sick and tired of academia after earning my B.S. degree, and the desire to get a real job and earn money, I chose not to pursue a Ph.D. However, I will always respect the effort and dedication that goes into earning one.
Point taken. However, it is still fun to point out that Dr. Jill Biden has the same degree as Dr. Bill Cosby.
https://www.who2.com/from-dropout-to-doctorate-a-bill-cosby-educational-timeline/
“Generally, among colleagues, people are informal. During formal correspondence, the title is still used. I don’t request that coworkers call me doctor, but I would be addressed as doctor in a formal setting such as if I were giving a deposition or testimony as an expert witness.”
Exactly. I have a PhD. It was non-trivial (physics). Virtually all my science colleagues and most of my engineering ones have PhDs (the rest typically have Masters). We are in a first name basis when we chat around the office and discuss things, and using titles in everyday use does seem pretentious but when we’re introduced in formal settings the title is included. Business cards always have the title.
You can bet when people from work talk to national leadership that they get addressed by their titles.
Heck, even the local purveyor of scientific equipment has a PhD and includes it on his business card because it’s an easy way to say “Look, I might be a sales guy, but I walked the walk and can advise you and understand your needs as it comes to our equipment.” without needing to actually say anything.
I tend to err on the side of modesty, and typically avoid using the title for anything other than business cards and formal addresses or correspondence. Things like email signatures don’t include it since it’s implied. But I certainly don’t begrudge anyone for using it in such cases even if I don’t.
Dr. Biden earned her degree and, if she wishes, should be addressed accordingly. Fuck anyone who thinks otherwise.
As to the essay, yes and no. Yes, if she has a doctoral degree, she’s entitled to use the “Dr.” No, because using the title in ordinary conversation or correspondence is pretentious. I spent 40 years in academia, with a Ph. D. from a highly respected program. I was a full professor at likewise respected schools. I am a Fellow of two professional associations. I never called myself “ doctor”
nor did I put Ph.D. after my name unless it was relevant to some correspondence. Graduate students called me “Professor” until they progressed to colleague status, at which time we used first names, just as my other colleagues did. People who insisted on being called “doctor” would have been mocked. Mercilessly.
Two side notes:
Spending a few weeks at a German colleague’s laboratory many years ago I found that my proper, formal title there would be “ Herr Professor Doctor Doctor.” Different system.
Nobody used that except in official correspondence.
My son and his wife are both board certified MDs I guarantee you that their educations were much more exacting and difficult than mine. People’s lives now depend on their work. I don’t give a single fuck what medical practice was like in antiquity, any more than I care that Newton was an alchemist as well as a mathematician.
I’ve read both sides of this argument and figured out what was bothering me.
When writing that title it would be written “Jill Biden, PhD.” And in verbal it would be “doctor Biden” if the honorific was called for.
When I address people that hold positions where I would use Mr or Miss or Mrs, I use doctor if the have earned a PhD.
When I see it written as Dr Biden, I assume it is a MD that is being referenced. That not only have they earned thier MD, but that they have done thier internship as well.
It feels sort of like they guy with a purple heart standing next to a guy with a silver star. They both served. I respect them both. One is somebody that went above and beyond, risking thier life for others. One was wounded in combat.
Well, I certainly agree that a PhD in a real field (engineering, physics, chemistry, biology, and the like) is to be respected. Even PhDs in many humanities fields are worthy of respect. However, I think Pluckrose, et. al. demonstrated the lack of scholarship in grievance studies fields–IMO, a PhD for which your “original contribution to the body of knowledge in your field” demonstrated “scholarship” of that order, I differ with the rest of you. Such a PhD, IMO, is worth less than a bachelor’s degree in a “real” field.
Full disclosure: I don’t have a PhD. I double-majored in biology and electrical engineering at the bachelor’s level at MIT. I completed most of an MBA and part of an MSEE in the evenings, while I was working for others as an engineer. Then, my wife and I bought a small business, so I never completed either master’s degree.
When it comes to degrees in “education,” I don’t believe the degree should exist at the bachelor’s level–you need a body of knowledge TO teach before you worry about HOW to teach. I crossed swords with too many idiots with BEd degrees among my sons’ teachers to believe otherwise.
As for advanced Ed degrees, I have trouble acknowledging “scholarship” to much of what has come out of the Ed schools for the past several decades. For example, there are too many Ed “doctors” who promote teaching reading by “whole language” methods, despite a century or so of actual data supporting phonics (the idea that letters represent sounds). A field in which “scholarship,” after a century, still insists on depriving children of something as basic as learning how to read isn’t just wrong, it’s evil. And don’t even get me started on critical grievance theory in education.
So, while there might be some holders of an EdD degree who are worthy of respect, IMO, simply holding the degree doesn’t cut it. And, again, IMO, far too many humanities “doctoral” dipolmas, including many in “education,” are worth less than an equivalent amount of toilet paper.
YMMV….
I have a J.D. I’m not a doctor, though the degree is called a “Juris Doctor.” I also have a masters in education, history & poli sci field.
The reality of a Ph.D in education was simple: I’ve been around plenty who have an Ed Ph. D. I’ve seen their work and intellect.
I’ll be blunt: I’ve seen many of those with the letters after their name. I’ve worked with them.
It can’t be that hard.
If “Dr” Jill insists on the title, in ordinary conversation, she’s covering a lack of substance with fancy letters.
On further reflection, it’s obvious that the “ignorant, scum-sucking shitweasel” you quoted from the WSJ does NOT understand academia at all. In a medical school or a medical research hospital, the MD has higher status than the PhD, because the former can treat patients, while the latter cannot. In any other academic environment, the PhD has higher status than the MD, because, in order to get the degree, the PhD had to make “an original contribution to the body of knowledge in the field,” while the MD just had no such requirement. Essentially, an MD program is technical training, while a PhD program is supposed to include advancing the state of the field of specialization.
My comments above, regarding the respect I do, or do not, accord the holders of various degrees, is entirely about whether any purported advance credited to the PhD student is, in fact, an advance in human knowledge, or if it is suitable only for enriching lawns.
Finally, it has frequently been my experience that people tend to insist on academic titles in inverse proportion to the actual value of those titles, particulary in “soft” fields.
YMMV…
Two points to be made here….A PhD in “education” is equivalent to having a doctorate in needlepoint…And Jill Biden will never be a “first lady” since the election is illegitimate.
The degree in question isn’t a Ph.D. but rather an Ed.D. And as some have pointed out, in fuzzy academic topics like grievance studies or education, it isn’t clear what a degree means other than that you spent time on campus and wrote some papers that toed enough lines to get passed.
Again, having read Heinlein’s description of how he got an Ed.D without doing much of any real work and without knowing much of anything about the field, I am sceptical about all this. Yes, of course, a Ph.D. in physics — or the one in Computer Science a co-worker of mine got — has real substance. Even so, at the time I asked my boss if I should consider getting one also. His reply “don’t bother — about all it shows is that you can do substantial individual work, and you’ve done that already”. I note that he has a Ph.D. (in math, I think), but he also had a realistic understanding of the marginal value it has in the software engineering field we worked in.
As a lowly associate of applied science holder let me put this simply, in current American usage the only people commonly called doctor are MDs. Anyone else that wants to be called doctor on a regular basis whether entitled to or not, is a narcissistic dick.