should phd be called doctor reddit

Get the Reddit app

Share your burning hot takes and unpopular opinions!

Only people with a PhD should be called "doctor" and allowed the title "Doctor [name]"

I've heard many people complain about another person who uses the title "Doctor" or "Dr." for a non-medical field, as if they are up themselves and should reserve the title/word for a physician or surgeon.

The term "Doctor" was originally only used for those who had completed a Doctorate, and then over many centuries, the only person that people would have met with the the title was their physician, and these were rare. People then started to associate the word 'doctor' with 'physician' and then it stuck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_(title)

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue

• Skip to Nav
• Skip to Main
• Skip to Footer
• Saved Articles
• Newsletters

Should All Ph.D.'s Be Called 'Doctor'? Female Academics Say Yes

Please try again

On the first day of class, Debbie Gale Mitchell, a chemistry professor at the University of Denver, introduced herself to her students, telling them about her Ph.D. and her research. She told her students they could call her either “Dr. Mitchell” or “Debbie.” A male colleague had told her that he went by his first name and that students were friendlier as a result, so Mitchell decided to try it. Many students chose to call her “Debbie.”

Then one day a student asked if she thought she’d ever get a Ph.D.

“I discovered that for me, the use of my title is VITAL to remind students that I am qualified to be their professor,” Mitchell wrote on Twitter.

Mitchell’s story was just one among hundreds shared last summer on social media calling attention to the way gender affects how professionals are addressed, especially those who hold a doctorate.

The discussion comes at a time when research studies into gender bias are increasingly confirming that how a person is addressed is linked to perceptions of their status.

The Twitter conversation branched from multiple roots. On June 7, Eric Kelderman, reporter for the Chronicle of Higher Education, sent out a critical tweet of a female academic who responded to his media inquiry by suggesting that he should have used “Professor” or “Doctor” (the tweet has since been deleted). The next day, a doctor from the U.K., David Naumann, criticized doctors, medical or otherwise, who use their title in a nonprofessional setting. And a few days later the Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper, announced revised style guidelines wherein only medical doctors would be referred to using “Dr.”, a convention that is already used most of the time by the Associated Press and news outlets that follow AP Style  (including KQED). What followed was an explosion of opinions and experiences revolving around titles, expertise, and gender and racial bias.

Many Ph.D. holders are fine with reserving the title for medical doctors in common parlance, viewing insistence on the title as arrogant and elitist, and do not use their titles even in a scholarly setting. But for women and people of color, an academic title can be a tool to remind others of their expertise in a world that often undermines it.

Some Ph.D. holders who insist on titles say that they actually prefer their first names. But given the discrepancy in usage, some women feel they must use and defend their titles, especially where the alternative is a gendered title like “Ms.”, “Mrs.”, or “Miss”. Fern Riddell, a Ph.D.-holding historian, wrote:

My title is Dr Fern Riddell, not Ms or Miss Riddell. I have it because I am an expert, and my life and career consist of being that expert in as many different ways as possible. I worked hard to earned my authority, and I will not give it up to anyone. — Dr Fern Riddell (@FernRiddell) June 13, 2018

Following backlash to the tweet, which described her as “arrogant” and “immodest,” Riddell coined the hashtag #ImmodestWomen, encouraging hundreds of women to change their Twitter handles to include “Dr.” or share experiences of bias. Riddell later wrote about the rationale behind the hashtag, saying that “we define women by their ability to be well behaved.” #ImmodestWomen was “retaliation.”

The tweets show “Dr.” is preferred by many women because it is both unrelated to marital status and gender-neutral, unlike “Mrs.”, “Miss”, or “Ms”. Several tweets described situations where a woman’s husband or colleague was referred to as “Dr.” (whether or not he actually had a doctorate) while she got “Mrs.” or a first name.

My pastor has her PhD. She was interviewed by a local newspaper along with another male member of clergy, NOT a PhD.. HE was referred to as “Reverend Smith”, SHE was called “Paula”. Seriously. — Head To Toe Organizers (@HTTOrganizers) June 11, 2018

In other anecdotes, female doctors (M.D. and Ph.D. alike) were met with utter confusion when they answered the phone to a caller looking for “Dr.”, or presented an airline ticket bearing the title. Even in 2018, with women making up 34 percent of active physicians and more than half of medical school matriculants and doctorate recipients , many people assume that “Dr.” refers to a man.

Bias in forms of address and use of titles is not limited to gender, many participants in the Twitter discussion pointed out. People of color with doctorates are also often not given the courtesy of their title, which echoes a long history of racially biased uses of titles. History professor Charles W. McKinney wrote:

Wanna know why my students will always call me “Dr. McKinney”? Because one day in 1980 I went to the store with my 75 yr old Grandmother Melida Thomas. Clerk greeted two 20 yr old, white women in front of us with “Mrs” and said “Well, hello Melida” to my Grandmother. That’s why. — Charles W. McKinney (@kmt188) June 10, 2018

The bias reflected in these stories is backed up by data. Last year, a study from the Mayo Clinic found that female doctors were introduced by their first names, rather than a professional title, much more often than male doctors. And on June 25, researchers from Cornell University published results showing that female professionals are half as likely as their male colleagues to be referred to by their last names, a practice that is associated in the study with lower status.

“The way that we speak about others influences and is influenced by the way that we think about them,” wrote Stav Atir and Melissa J. Ferguson, authors of the recent paper.

Atir and Ferguson described eight different studies, covering forms of address in professor evaluations, talk radio and under experimental conditions. Across the board, female professionals were less likely to be referred to solely by their last name. They even found that fictional researchers who were described with last name only were perceived as better known, more eminent, higher status, and more deserving of awards.

Thanks for signing up for the newsletter.

The researchers proposed several explanations for their results. It may be more culturally common to refer to men by their last names because they are thought to be more permanent, since women may change their last names when they marry. Alternatively, it could be that speakers use first names to identify a subject’s gender, and this is more common for women in male-dominated professions, where male is the assumed default. This type of bias could even result from attempts to highlight women’s participation by identifying their gender using first names.

“The consequences may be ironic,” wrote Atir and Ferguson, “leading to lower judgments of eminence, status, and deservingness.”

As Mitchell, the chemistry professor from the University of Denver, and other academics related on Twitter, one way of fighting this type of bias is to insist upon the title “Dr.”

But other Ph.D. holders question whether insisting on titles is the best strategy. Meena Kandasamy, a poet and writer with a Ph.D. in sociolinguistics, rarely uses her title and did not change her Twitter handle. She questioned the practice of elevating those who earned doctorates over those who have not had the opportunity to do so:

For every one of us who has managed to float up and breathe from that cesspool with a doctorate degree above our heads–we must remember our sisters sent home, their dreams crushed, their futures messed up, academia behaving like one petty thug-gang to have the backs of a few men — meena kandasamy (@meenakandasamy) June 14, 2018

Critics argue that titles do not necessarily reflect how hard one has worked or even level of expertise, and that the most equal solution is fewer titles, not more. But supporters say that claiming the titles is the best choice under the present circumstances. Elissa Harbert, a musicologist, wrote:

I support #ImmodestWomen . As a PhD and professor, I currently use Dr. as my title professionally. My relationships with students improved when I switched to Dr., even though in a perfect world I’d use my first name. It’s not a perfect world. — Dr. Elissa Harbert (@KyrieElissa) June 14, 2018

In some instances, women are less likely to exhibit bias in form of address. The Mayo Clinic study found female medical doctors introduced both men and women with a title more than 95 percent of the time. Men introduced their female colleagues with a title 49 percent of time, compared with 72 percent of the time for a male colleague. In the Atir and Ferguson study, male speakers on talk radio referred to women by last name less than half as often as they did for men, while female speakers did not have such a strong contrast. In other research on gender bias in academia and medicine, women were just as likely to treat men and women differently. As research epidemiologist Chelsea Polis related, implicit bias can extend to usage of titles for speakers and writers of any gender:

I was once quoted in a story where all men w/PhDs were “Dr. X” & all women w/PhDs were untitled. Writer (a woman) was mortified when I pointed it out. Claiming our titles publicly raises consciousness than women can/do have these credentials. I want young girls/women to see that. — Chelsea Polis, PhD (@cbpolis) June 10, 2018

While the evidence points to persistent bias in professional forms of address, the solution is not so clear. Highlighting women with doctorates, medical or otherwise, may provide an important reminder that woman are now earning nearly half of medical and research-based doctoral degrees. But bias in use of doctoral titles is just one example of the larger issue of gender bias, as Atir and Ferguson’s study demonstrates.

“We find evidence of a gender bias in the way that we speak about professionals in a variety of domains,” wrote Atir and Ferguson. Addressing the problem may require attention to bias in all arenas, from the classroom to the boardroom.

To learn more about how we use your information, please read our privacy policy.

Please enter a search query.

Opinion: PhD holders deserve to be called ‘doctor,’ even if they’re not physicians

Abolish the bias, keep the prestige

By Padideh Hassanpour — Published January 24, 2021

In 2013, the summer after my first year at U of T, I had the pleasure of taking a surprisingly exciting course in the English department: ENG215 — The Canadian Short Story. Coincidentally, this was also the year Alice Munro was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. 

It was a big year for feminism too: Malala Yousafzai, precocious and poignant with only 16 years behind her at the time, gave a speech at the United Nations; Wendy Davis performed a 13-hour-long filibuster for abortion rights; and Laverne Cox became the first openly racialized transgender woman to have a leading role on a major television show. 

Less notably — though by no means unimportant — is Dr. Sarah Caskey, the instructor I had for the course. Caskey, I noticed, signed her emails with “Dr.” and made a point of emphasizing in the classroom that we were to refer to her as such. I found it curious to call an English academic a ‘doctor,’ thinking in all of my first-year naïveté that the term was mostly — if not always — reserved for physicians, with the rare physics graduate being an exception. I had wondered then: why did PhD holders insist on being called “doctor” when that could very well be misleading? 

And now, I seek to answer whether people who hold PhDs should be called doctors. It’s 2021, and I’ve reckoned with these questions plenty. In short, yes, they should. And, more importantly, this is arguably a feminist issue. But first, some context.  

In early December, American writer Joseph Epstein came out with an opinion piece that could comfortably be labelled as facetious, belched out for the world to read in The Wall Street Journal . The title of his article was “ Is There a Doctor in the White House? Not if You Need an M.D. ” Epstein’s point was simple, if not tiresome: Dr. Jill Biden should consider dropping the honorific since anyone but a medical doctor is a fraudulent one. Back in his day, earning a doctorate was a hard-won feat. 

And now? He claims they’re handed out too easily — so easily that even he has one, and it wasn’t even earned the traditional way via the classroom and library. It’s easy to interpret Epstein’s exasperation at today’s lax standards — a crisis in prestige, if you will. 

If doctorates are easy to come by, and honorary ones are handed out all willy-nilly, exactly how prestigious are they? Never mind, of course, the fact that, on average, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development , only roughly one per cent of adults aged 25–64 in its 37 member countries have a PhD, with this number rising to two per cent in the United States, making it an exceptionally rare accomplishment. 

I interpret Epstein to mean that the only individuals worthy of being called doctors are those whose grit and stamina for the profession can be measured in 12-hour work days with no bathroom or food breaks, and hundreds, if not thousands, of hours spent laboriously training for an intellectual marathon. For him, this cohort only includes medical professionals. Philosophy students, on the contrary, may heartily disagree. 

Of course, whether the standards have become slipshod is secondary to whether someone like Biden, who earned her Doctorate in Education in 2007 at the age of 55, ought to be called and take pride in being a doctor. I certainly think so. 

The term ‘doctor’ comes from the Latin term ‘docere,’ meaning to teach and instruct. With medieval origins from the Renaissance period, a doctor referred to a learned person concerned with matters of spirituality and the soul. While theologians who preached doctrines from the Roman Catholic Church were the first to adopt the term, it was more broadly used by the end of the fourteenth century to refer to academics and medical professionals. The first doctorate in philosophy with a dissertation was awarded in Germany during the seventeenth century. 

With such etymological evidence in hand, calling Biden — or, indeed, anyone who participates in academia in a teaching and instructional manner — a ‘doctor’ is an entirely perfect descriptor. 

I suspect that accuracy isn’t what’s at stake, but rather whose expertise and knowledge is worthy of acknowledgement. According to Epstein, Biden’s accomplishments are a comical matter. He refers to her as “kiddo,” suggesting that she drop her vocation, title, and life’s work as an educator, and instead, “ 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. ” 

Whether tongue-in-cheek or not, the patronization isn’t a novelty. Perhaps Epstein is unaware of the fact that women are no strangers to gender bias in academia. Despite making substantial contributions to research across all fields, women’s research is often overlooked in comparison to men’s; they are less likely to gain tenured positions , remain underrepresented in senior positions , and do not win prestigious awards at the same rate as men, as most award panels are chaired by men who may be more likely to select other men as winners — a possible example of implicit bias.

Academics who are also racialized women often have their authority and teaching competency challenged and remain vastly underrepresented in full-time teaching positions. Each of these examples warrants a separate discussion, to be sure, and while I remain wary of singling out sexism and racism as the only threats to women’s experiences in higher education, they are important markers to consider. 

Asking whether PhD holders should be called doctors is answered by acknowledging that scores of women have struggled to climb the ladder and be recognized for their original contributions. Denying women the title of doctor only creates an additional barrier to recognition and inclusion. 

Sure, let us come together and admonish the sheer stupidity of honorary degrees and their symbolism; here, Epstein and I agree. Yet for those who’ve struggled for years to flesh out their chapters and add new insight to their field? The least we can do is call them ‘doctor’; denying PhD holders and the thousands of women who are granted such a degree each year their title doesn’t make their accomplishment any less real or earned.

Padideh Hassanpour graduated as a women and gender studies and equity studies student from University College in 2016. She is currently taking courses in psychology and buddhism. 

Tags: comment , doctorates , graduate students , Opinion , phd prestige

Related articles

• Tracking the 2024–2025 UTSU election candidates
• Tracking the 2024–2025 UTGSU election candidates
• Tracking the 2024–2025 UTMSU election candidates
• Neurosurgery’s glass ceiling: Addressing the gender imbalance in the field
• Temerty Medicine physicians sign open letter on their right to openly identify as Zionist
• March is endometriosis awareness month

Quick Links

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive news and updates directly from The Varsity.

We would like to acknowledge that The Varsity's office is built on the traditional territory of several First Nations, including the Huron-Wendat, the Petun First Nations, the Seneca, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit. Journalists have historically harmed Indigenous communities by overlooking their stories, contributing to stereotypes, and telling their stories without their input. Therefore, we make this acknowledgement as a starting point for our responsibility to tell those stories more accurately, critically, and in accordance with the wishes of Indigenous peoples. Copyright 2024-2025 — Varsity Publications Incorporated

• Follow Diane’s Posts
• NPE Blog Posts Of The Day
• Accountability
• Administrators, superintendents
• Alternate Route To Certification
• Arts Education
• Black Alliance for Educational Options
• Blended Learning
• Bloomberg, Michael
• Boston Consulting Group
• Broad Foundation
• Budget Cuts
• Campbell’s Law
• Catholic Schools
• Cerf, Chris
• Charter Schools
• Chiefs for Change
• Childhood, Pre-K, K
• Coleman, David
• Common Core
• Connecticut
• Corporate Reformers
• Cuomo, Andrew
• Darling-Hammond, Linda
• Democrats for Education Reform
• Duncan, Arne
• Education Industry
• Education Reform
• Emanuel, Rahm
• Federal Waiver

Should an Ed.D. or Ph.D. Be Called “Doctor?”

Essayist Joseph Epstein wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal insisting that Dr. Jill Biden should stop calling herself “Dr.” He objected to the use of the term “Dr.” for anyone who is not an M.D.

His essay set off a furor in the media. The topic “trended” on Twitter (meaning it was one of the most widely cited of the day), and it was written up in major newspapers.

Epstein wrote:

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.” 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. 

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 I received it, not, I hope, for allowing my honorary doctorate. During my years as a university teacher I was sometimes addressed, usually on the phone, as “Dr. Epstein.” On such occasions it was all I could do not to reply, “Read two chapters of Henry James and get into bed. I’ll be right over.”

I was also often addressed as Dr. during the years I was editor of the American Scholar, the quarterly magazine of Phi Beta Kappa. Let me quickly insert that I am also not a member of Phi Beta Kappa, except by marriage. Many of those who so addressed me, I noted, were scientists. 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.

Many years ago–back in the early 1960s–I worked alongside Joseph Epstein at a small magazine called The New Leader. He had a wicked sense of humor and was fast with a snappy wisecrack. Over the years, we lost touch, but I still remember the fun we had writing jazzy headlines for dull articles (“Five Minutes to Midnight in _____” [insert name of country].

I disagree with his putdown of Jill Biden. If people have earned a doctorate, they can call themselves Dr. What’s the point of working for years to earn a doctorate if you can’t use the title? As for his reference to her dissertation topic, I feel certain that he never read it and cannot judge whether it was or was not valuable. His words show how little he thinks of community colleges and their students and faculty.

Dr. Biden is not a good target for ridicule. She is a woman who radiates integrity, empathy, and intelligence. She has earned the right to call herself Dr. Biden.

The best comment I have seen on this flap appeared on Fred Klonsky’s blog , quoting Glen Brown. The gist: 70% of instructors in higher education are adjuncts, not paid a living wage. That’s a true scandal.

Share this:

166 comments post your own or leave a trackback: trackback url.

To be precise, they are all Doctors, and to be precise, medical doctors are Physicians. That is their correct designation. ________________________________

I don’t think anyone should be called the First Lady. That title belongs to Eve.

And certainly not Jill Biden. She’s Joe’s second wife.

Touche x 2.

I am so witing for the day when we have a First Gentleman.

I’m glad you’re “witing with me, Bob. Argh! cx: waiting

I’m horrified by how often I make such mistakes! It gives me comfort that others do, too. LOL.

You are a sick man! Joe’s first wife died and Jill stepped in to be the mother to his children. She is highly respected and much more intelligent than you are.

Eve’s title is “Imaginary Lady”.

Jill stepped in after leaving her devoted husband who was Joe’s friend behind. Joe smashed up Jill’s husbands corvette while driving then stole the mans wife. Jill Biden is not a role model for women.

I guess Jill’s “devoted” 1st husband suffers from the same problem as Trump; both are sore losers and both cannot get over losing to Biden.

That personal comment sucks.

I believe those “facts” are disputed.

Seems like all the education deformers are running for the dark corners like cock roaches do when the lights come on. There are a few brave cock roaches who will linger to taunt and to taint the food in the cupboard, but they eventually die a disinfectant death. Time to get out the RAID and exterminate the whole disgusting lot of them. They have been allowed to run free and forage for far too long. All of these articles on education the past few weeks are a desperate attempt to stomp out teachers unions and put a stake through the heart of public education. Dr. Jill Biden has the ability to shine a very bright spotlight on all that has been done to decimate public education and divert the funds. “They” are taunting because they know their end is likely near.

I generally find it annoying and embarrassing whenever I see people encouraging others to address them by an honorific, whether it be “Dr.,” “Lord,” “the Honorable,” or anything else.

Exceptions including but not limited to: my own personal medical physicians, Julius “Dr. J” Erving, and the late Mac “Dr. John” Rebennack.

There’s Queen Elizabeth II, referred to as Your Majesty. 🙂

I wonder if Dr. Brown’s dissertation was a treatise about Cream Soda or the more obscure Cel-Ray.

And can anyone tell me in what subject did Professor Irwin Corey earn his degree.

I forgot about Dr. Pepper.

I feel the same qbout “Sir” Michael Barber of McKinsey and Pearson, author of “Deliverology.”

I agree about the performance artist “Sir” Michael Barber of McKinsey and Pearson, author of “Deliverology.” The AERA statement is online, supporting Dr. Biden. They wasted no time.

I normally don’t get infuriated, but I am infuriated this time! Higher education is a very raw nerve for me.

The usual bit of American culture putting down intellectualism and higher learning. As Spiro Agnew once said, “We DON’T need a nation of intellectuals!” No wonder America is where it is, in part.

Keep the title, Dr. Biden. You earned it through hard work and disciplined study, and you, your students, and society are the better for it! No, I’m not crazy about your husband, but my politics have nothing to do with your educational status, which is admirable. I’d offer the same respect to any GOP member with significant higher educational status as well.

My grandparents and parents settled their lives here so that their descendants would have a better life through education. They worked hard so that their children would have a better everything as an upcoming new generation. My grandparents would not have been able to complete their public school education in Sicily as Mussolini closed many schools in order to seize the tax revenues and funnel them into the military to support the evil German axis. Mussolini deprived hundreds of thousands of Italians of an education, and in the end, he was dragged to death and got what he deserved! Fascism did not win out. You could not recognize his face literally from the death photos. What a bastard!

Nonetheless, my parents, in spite of their own issues, emphasized education to us kids since we were born, and they were not kidding. They wanted us to have the education they were never able to achieve for various reasons, most legitimate, some not so much. I am not at all saying that success should not be found without college education, because college is not for everyone; it has become inaccessible financially, an elitist move that is destructive and that should be outlawed by providing universal higher education paid for with fair taxation.

But let’s not EVER downplay the value and virtues of being educated . . . Unless you want to transform the United States into a banana republic.

It is and will remain DOCTOR Jill Biden . . .

Also, I can never hear any discussion of this issue without thinking of the Maestro from Seinfeld.

View post on imgur.com

Good ones Professor Fletp. To Drs J and John, I would add Hackenbush.

Great episode. ha!

True! I LOVED that one, especially because it was played by the Animal House Niedermeier actor. (Remember him? “Killed by his own troops in Viet Nam!:)

Funny, that occurred to me out of the blue a few months ago. “Wait, is the Maestro the ‘Pledge Pin!’ guy from Animal House?”

Somehow Joseph Epstein reminds me of this guy —

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-5mMUwahJY

It doesn’t take a Viennese coke freak to discern that Mr. Joseph Epstein is rueful about not have earned a doctorate degree. Shame on the WSJ for indulging him in this public projection of his private shame.

Excellent point Swami Rosenthal.

Dr. Wenothis also concurs with your astute diagnosis.

Thank you, Fred. Best regards to Dr. Wenothis. I use his work literally all the time. Must be why I never do any of my own.

Thanks to everyone for not pointing out that “doctorate degree” is somewhere between inartful and incorrect. Dr. P. Dan Tick pointed out that I should have written either “doctorate” or “doctoral degree.”

Dr. P Dan Tick! lol!

Doctor envy PhDesire: “Please, do send me Doc attire”

I can’t decide if it’s sad or funny watching the liberals dance in unison on cue to any and all right-wing provocation. OMG! Some random right-wing nutcase no one has ever heard of said Jill Biden shouldn’t be called doctor! Let’s all forget that there’s a pandemic and 40 million people facing eviction in winter and food bank lines stretching for miles so that we can focus on the real outrage!

Yes, yes, it takes a lot of work to get a Ph.D. and people should be recognized. But it also takes a lot of work to slave for Amazon 10 hours a day with 20 minutes for lunch and 2 minute bathroom breaks twice a day (and a half hour unpaid wait in the security line). What recognition do those people get?

This is a preview of what the post-Trump, post-pandemic news cycle will look like.

It must be a real struggle for you buy a bunch of bananas without thinking of the underpaid workers who harvest them. Or how about watching a game of kids’ soccer without thinking of the “neighborhood” games with balls made out of rags in a refugee camp? How do you managed to deal with all that angst?

Or the poor dinosaurs who died valiantly to provide us with oil!

Your point is well taken. I, for one, am prone to attend to distractions such as Epstein’s bilge.

random right-wing nutcase no one has ever heard of

Joseph Epstein? You have to be kidding, right? He is a quite famous public intellectual.

Can we assume his fame put him in the WSJ? I bet VC Royster, former editor of that newspaper in a more formal time, would never have let it pass muster.

The editor of the WSJ vigorously defends the piece and says the critics are engaged in “cancel culture.”

You are right, Bob. Joseph Epstein is a widely published public public intellectual. He was the editor of The American Scholar for many years, in its glory days.

And glorious it was. That publication was a great read!

I can’t decide if its sad or funny that YOU can’t see what Epstein and the other deformers are trying to do. Dr. Jill Biden has enormous influence in who will become the next Sec of Ed. This isn’t really about her degree….it’s about a desperate attempt to keep degrading teachers (most women!), demonizing unions and the continual bleeding of public education funds. It’s about maintaining greed and power of the rich by sucking dry public education. This “blip” will be gone by the end of the day and the Repugnicans will attack another democratic institution by weeks end….it’s their way. The only thing the Liberals are doing is pointing out the lies, desperation and hypocrisy…..Fact Checking for the masses who will listen.

You used to have valid points in discussion, but it seems that lately, you have gone to provocation as a form of entertainment. It’s really sad to see you do this. Maybe you are experiencing a mental Covid fatigue?

Thank you for this reply. It is incomprehensible to me why this person would make these posts, and I wonder if the account of a true progressive has been hacked and these are from a right wing troll.

I think a true progressive might have written something like this:

“I can’t decide if it’s sad or funny watching this temper-tantrum throwing right winger so provoked that Jill Biden is referred to as “Dr.” Let’s all forget that there’s a pandemic and 40 million people facing eviction in winter and food bank lines stretching for miles so that we can focus on the real outrage of Jill Biden being called “Dr.”.

Yes, yes, it takes a lot of work to get a medical degree and a medical doctor is not the same as a doctor of philosophy. But it also takes a lot of work to slave for Amazon 10 hours a day with 20 minutes for lunch and 2 minute bathroom breaks twice a day (and a half hour unpaid wait in the security line). What recognition do those people get?”

I can understand why this poster isn’t triggered when she reads offensive, WSJ op eds by right wingers. But since those offensive WSJ op eds don’t trigger her, why is she so powerfully triggered when someone criticizes an offensive WSJ op ed?

It makes no sense. I get that offensive or sexist or racist or xenophobic attacks on a woman by a rabid right wing Trump supporter might not trigger someone, but it is really weird that what triggers them so powerfully is that someone else criticizes those offensive or sexist or racist or xenophobic attacks!

Who is triggered only by criticism of offensive sexist op eds instead of the offensive sexist op ed itself?

I so often disagree with folks here that it is refreshing to read something that makes sense. I have often been annoyed at the constant reference as Dr. for Jill Biden. I have know many highly educated individuals who only referenced such degrees after their names and then reluctantly or modestly. She is certainly no better than the majority.

“…it is refreshing to read something that makes sense. I have often been annoyed at the constant reference as Dr. for Jill Biden.”

But you just said you thought it was refreshing to read something that makes sense, so your annoyance at the reference to Dr. is wrong because you should be annoyed — in fact you should be outraged — about the Amazon workers who work 10 hours a day with 20 minutes for lunch and 2 minute bathroom breaks twice a day. And you should be annoyed — in fact you should be outraged — about the fact that there is a pandemic and 40 million people facing eviction in winter and food bank lines stretching for miles because of President Trump’s mismanagement.

Are you outraged at that, or just at the use of “Dr.”?

By denigrating PhDs and by keeping people at a non-living wage at Amazon, it further holds down Amazon workers – and most people – from traveling the path towards a PhD, and THAT is exactly what the ruling class wants. Dots connected . . . .

I respect Dr. Biden’s title, but greater media coverage should focus on labor rights and distribution of wealth as Jeff Bezos makes his workers bend down so that he can relieve himself every day with every dollar he makes. He’s a monster. Putting Biden down for her title but exalting Bezos and enabling him is exactly how the ruling class has oriented itself towards. Not too shabby . . .

For centuries, the original “Doctors of Philosophy” (PhD) was only applied to university scholars in the classic liberal arts and sciences. They alone carried the title of Dr. Using Dr. for medical doctors is a relatively modern phenomena initiated by the medical profession in the 1800’s. When medical doctors decided they wanted the prestige associated with physician, they appropriated the title for themselves.

Mr Epstein and the WSJ have shown their ignorance about PhDs in a clumsy attempt to denigrate professional educators (mostly women) and set-up Jill Biden for right wing ridicule.

Interesting, so actually it’s the medical doctors are the ones who misuse the title!

Adam Grant, of ‘Give and Take’ fame, really surprised me with an out-of-character, but apt, searing attack on this op-ed: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/yes-women-doctorates-should-called-dr-adam-grant/

Grant’s piece made me LOL!

Wonderful rebuttal!

The topic “trended” on Twitter”

What a surprise.

I’m agnostic to the question generally, but I am pretty sure that no one who takes Twitter seriously should be address as Doctor

Dr. Twitter

Doctor Twitter and his potion Sells elixir, magic potion Urges you to buy his stuff Couched in hype and other fluff

Doctor Twitter (2)

Twending on Twitter With vacuous glitter And snake-oil and spin The “Doctor” is in

I used to call my Principal “Doc ______,” which struck the right note, I think, whimsical, but respectful.

Epstein is of what is considered to be the neoconservative school of thought. While he is an excellent writer, he overtly and sometimes surreptitiously bashes anything he considers to be leftist. Despite the fact he works in higher education, like so many conservatives, he can also be anti-intellectual and a smug sexist. In his view Dr. Jill Biden, now in the spotlight, is fair game for his criticism.

If the Wall Street Journal has had any pieces that included Dr. Henry Kissinger, then they are not being consistent. I’m assuming that Henry Kissinger never got an M.D. My memory is that many media sources referred to him as Dr. Henry Kissinger.

While we are on the subject of Kissinger,” Doctor” Strangelove was not an MD either.

But he was a nut, but I don’t think that is generally what people mean by Doctor.

“Doctor” Henry Kissinger : “Power is the great aphrodisiac”

Exactly right! Dr. Kissinger never delivered a baby.

Joseph Epstein: “no one should call himself Dr. unless he has delivered a child.”

Monica Hesse in the Washington Post: “If he wants to get technical about it, Biden did deliver a child, out of her own uterus.”

One of the Washington Post columnists noted that the Trump administration frequently refers to its Trade Advisor “Dr. Peter Navarro,” who has never delivered a baby. The WSJ never ridiculed Dr. Navarro!

Yes, Joseph Epstein has a lot of chutzpah. Clearly he never cared about white Republican men using the title “Dr.” but when he saw a chance to attack a relative of Biden, it triggered him.

Funny, the WSJ posted a link on Twitter to its editorial guidelines.

“In the newsroom, the @WSJ refers to those with doctoral degrees using the honorific “Dr.” if the person so desires.

Here’s our newsroom style-guide on the matter.

on.wsj.com/37gHiy9

This newsroom rule applies to PhDs and others, such as EdDs, for example.”

So the WSJ has no problem using Dr. for any field. Why the hypocrisy?

To belittle the soon-to-be First Lady.

Kissinger delivered bombs TO babies.

“Doctor” Kissinger, I presume?

Henry is a lobstetrician Delivers babies bombs Lobbing bombs is his position With keenness and aplomb

“Doctor” Kissinger (take 2)

Henry is a lobstetrician Delivers babies bombs Lobbing bombs from safe position With keenness and aplomb

That’s a good one re Dr Kissinger the lobstetrician.

I had a high school teacher who used to say that Kissinger’s thesis on Klemens von Metternich was all wrong. He never told us whether it was a doctoral or a master’s thesis.

A country that has gone as far as ours has down the road toward idiocracy (46.9 percent of the electorate voted for Trump in 2020) could do a lot worse than using the appellation “Dr.” to show respect for learning and the learned.

We love you, Dr. Jill!

Oh, and btw, we love you, Dr. Ravitch, as well!!!

I’m envious that you knew Joseph Epstein!!! When I was a lad, I was an avid reader of The American Scholar and LOVED reading him.

Of course, learning is a lifetime undertaking (or, has become all too obvious to me, a multi-lifetime undertaking), and someone who has assiduously applied herself to learning, throughout a life–someone like, say, our own Dr. Ravitch, will leave a lot of newly minted Ph.D.’s in the dust when it comes to learning!

And, btw, student retention in community college is an enormous and pressing problem!!! Much praise to Dr. Jill for tackling it!

Regrettably, I have been following this story and, up to now, have been able to resist commenting on it. But in this forum, well, please allow me to bloviate.

In the early 1990s, I was an undergraduate at Hampshire College shoulders deep in a concentration (my Division II, in Hampshire parlance) on Russian and Soviet Studies. One book that is de rigueur for anyone working in that field is James Billington’s magisterial “The Icon and the Axe: An Interpretive Study of Russian Culture.” Mr. Billington (1929-2018) was named the 13th Librarian of Congress in 1987, a position he held until 2015. Sometime in this period, perhaps in 1993, the Library launched a magazine called “Civilization,” which was the Library’s version of “Smithsonian” magazine, as media critics and press releases at the time characterized it. Anyway, shortly after the announcement that the magazine would begin publishing, I received a come-on to subscribe, and I did.

From the beginning, I was ambivalent. It’s important to remember that this was a fraught moment in the early-90s culture wars (which were raging fiercely not just at Hampshire, but across the Five College System, i.e. Smith, Mt. Holyoke, the University of Massachusetts, and Amherst, not to mention on campuses nationwide), and any one periodical presuming to speak about “Civilization” (which many people not entirely incorrectly assumed meant a valorization of “Western Civilization” and a trivialization of all others) was presuming a bit too much. A few months into my subscription, the magazine published an essay by Joseph Epstein called, I’m fairly certain, “Call Me Mister.” As you have probably inferred from its title, it was a defense of titles and honorifics in which Epstein outlined his reasons for insisting that his students at Northwestern address him as “Mr. Epstein” rather than by his first name–which was, incidentally, the custom at Hampshire.

I found the piece enormously off-putting. It was smug, self-aggrandizing, and really, in my view at the time and since, pretty much pointless. I have the good fortune (or misfortune, depending on your view of these things) to possess a photographic memory. But the content and nature of my memory doesn’t figure here–I remember this piece because it annoyed the hell out of me. Not to put too fine a point on it, or risk profaning the temple of this comment forum, I though Epstein was a pompous ass.

So when I saw the Wall Street Op-Ed Epstein wrote trending on Twitter and Facebook, I figured, what the hell. Generally, I try not to invest time in outrage markets, so to speak; if you’ll allow me to extend this metaphor a couple of inches further, I find outrage in social media a volatile commodity with at best meager returns on investment. Still, a sufficient number of people that I respect called attention to it that I figured I should take a look.

After I read it (up to this point, I assumed this was an unsigned editorial, as they so often are, even in papers of record), I found myself wondering, “Who wrote this tripe?” When I scrolled up, whose name did I find? Joseph Epstein! Under the circumstances, I think I can safely describe the Wall Street Journal piece, if nothing else, as rank hypocrisy.

But all of that said, I must ask: Who are you, Joseph Epstein, to call Jill Biden “kiddo”?

For the record, I really don’t have a horse in the honorific race. My father was a PhD who gently but firmly eschewed the title of doctor. So, as above (e.g. my thesis advisor, Joanna Hubbs, PhD, was “Joanna” to me), did my professors at Hampshire. But if you’ve earned the title and want to use it, good for you. You earned it–and that’s all anyone really needs to know about your or Jill Biden’s decision to go by doctor.

Just sayin’.

Ed: I thought, not “I though.” Three copyediting passes, and still I missed it.

It is so satisfying have the opportunity to read the words bloviate, smug, pompous ass, tripe, and rank hypocrisy used so well. Scrumpdillyicious, even! The only word missing was lickspittle, which Ambrose Bierce defined, appropriately in this case, “A useful functionary, not infrequently found editing a newspaper.”

You would appreciate Ruth Marcus’ opinion piece in the Washington Post today. Headline is: “Barr failed at his job. His bootlicking resignation letter made that clear.”

This sentence in her article is especially apt:

“Fawning is too mild an adjective to describe this remarkable document. The word lickspittle has been understandably overused during the Trump years, but Barr’s letter demands its redeployment.”

Hahahaha! Thanks Greg. It happens I regularly post quotes from “The Devil’s Dictionary” and “Write It Right” on my own blog. I got onto Bierce’s stories as a young teen (after seeing “Incident at Owl Creek Bridge” on a rerun of “The Twilight Zone”) and have been reading him since.

I must join with the ignorant in not knowing who Epstein is. I am sure that many people who have a jaded view of intellectual accomplishment and who eschewed association with such activity might look down on those who have completed courses that they themselves disdained. Still, I see a problem.

I wish to allude to a down-to-earth film we all have seen: Bambi. In that erstwhile piece of literature, Thumper observes a shaky Bambi as he gets to his feet for the first time:

“He ain’t very steady, is he mommy?”

“Thumper, what did your father say?”

“If ya can’t say anything good don’t say nothing at all.”

“Thank you, Thumper”

Epstein needs to listen to Thumper’s father.

Thank you, Ray. Thumper is more my speed.

First I want to make it clear that I don’t hold a Ph.D, a MD, a Doctor of Divinity, a JD or any other “Doctorate”. I do have an AB, a MA (history), and a MEd (Educational Leadership) which represent over 60 hours of post graduate education. I have always tried to follow l what I was taught at Calvin University in Grand Rapids that it is a scholar’s responsibility to live a life of “Lifelong Learning” so I actually have another 40+ graduate hours in subjects as diverse as statistics, business law, trends in higher education, etc.

I have never put the letters Dr. in front of my name, nor would I now. However when I persisted in using Mr. before my name. However, my dean and the president of the college I was an adjunct at insisted that I use Prof (Professor) before my signature and for publications. I feel fine using that honorarium as it reflects my status as an academic without denoting that I hold a PhD.

That said, I find nothing wrong with Dr Jill Biden using Dr before her name. She earned that doctorate. At least this time we have a “First Lady” who is highly educated and has spent much of her life teaching, which is not a highly paid profession, but is truly a public service to her state and our nation. She at least doesn’t have a record of past violations of our immigration laws. Being a model and a trophy wife doesn’t require an advanced degree, that just requires good genes that gave her a desirable body.

I do object to the tendency of some self appointed “leaders” using the “Dr” before their name because they have been granted a honorary doctorate form some institution of higher education. They are among the right wingers who are making a big deal out of the fact that Joe Biden’s wife is Dr Jill Biden. She earned her degree they didn’t! But they just can’t stop throwing dirt. This is a tempest in a tea pot! The easiest way to deal with this is to just let it pass. If you have to do something report people who repost this BS to the social media.

Please don’t keep this non-issue from being re-posted and re-posted. You can start by not re-posting my comments.

Exactly. There is a huge difference between earning a PhD and receiving an honorary degree because you are famous or gave a lot of money to an institution.

Honorary degrees may flow from major accomplishments, in addition to having an earned PhD.

Have you also recently checked on how many honorary degrees Dr. Diane Ravitch has?

I earned a Ph.D. in the History of American Education from Columbia University in 1975. I only want to be called “Dr.” when the guys in the same room or the guys quoted in the same article are called “Dr.” I have been in articles in the NY Times where the guys were “Dr.” and I was “Ms.” or no title at all. Pure sexism. As I get older, I don’t really care what people call me. “Diane” is good enough for me.

‘I only want to be called “Dr.” when the guys in the same room or the guys quoted in the same article are called “Dr.” ‘

…or in more common/vulgar terms when there is an implied, pissing contest going on.

See Diane Ravitch’s post above. Diane earned a PhD and the right to be called Dr. if she chooses to do so. This is not about people being awarded HONORARY degrees.

Receiving an honorary degree has no relationship to earning a PhD. I should have clarified that honorary degrees are awarded to many very admirable and accomplished people, as well as many famous ones and rich ones like Mark Zuckerberg. That STILL doesn’t make the recipients a PhD., which is something earned by academic scholarship.

Someone who receives an honorary degree has the right to be called “Dr.” not because of their honorary degree but because they ALSO earned a PhD.

If Joseph Epstein cannot point to an editorial he wrote where he publicly demanded that everyone stop calling Henry Kissinger “Dr. Kissinger” because Kissinger hadn’t delivered any babies, then he should be forced to answer as to why he didn’t care about this until a woman whose husband defeated his beloved Trump used the title “Dr.”.

Epstein must provide an answer as to why in his decades of writing he has not chided the Council on Foreign Relations for referring to Henry Kissinger as Dr. Kissinger when Kissinger hasn’t delivered babies.

From CFR website:

“Henry A. Kissinger Chair for U.S. Foreign Policy

Established in 2000, this chair is named in honor of Dr. Kissinger, the fifty-sixth secretary of state of the United States and a member of the Council’s Board of Directors from 1977 to 1981, as a tribute to his contributions to the country and the Council on Foreign Relations.”

Here is the Yale University library website for the “Henry A. Kissinger Papers”:

“Collection Contents

The papers consist of correspondence, memoranda, writings, speeches, photographs and other material that document the career of the diplomat, author and foreign policy expert and scholar Henry A. Kissinger. Dr. Kissinger served as United States secretary of state from 1973 to 1977 and as assistant to the president for national security affairs (national security advisor) from 1969 to 1975.

Part II (MS 1981) documents Dr. Kissinger’s pre-government, government, and post-government careers.”

If Epstein can’t provide any evidence that he publicly condemned Kissinger, that is evidence that he doesn’t care about this issue, but Epstein does care about attacking and demeaning anyone who is associated with the man who defeated Donald Trump.

Epstein seems to be similar to most rabid Trump supporters. They don’t care about truth or consistency — they will say and do anything that helps legitimize Trump and that helps them undermine anyone who opposes their beloved Trump.

If the use of the term “Dr.” bothered Epstein, he had 50 years of a loud bully pulpit to publicly write about this issue that he claims is so important to him. This is the height of hypocrisy for a small-minded man who is throwing a temper tantrum because his beloved Trump was defeated. Epstein is a sore loser, similar to Trump, which is probably why he admires Trump so much.

One of the most delightful guys I ever knew was a man named Hank White. He ran a company that made devices that were put out to sea to measure the temperature of the ocean and beam the data to satellites. He had been in the service, learned to scuba dive with Jacques Cousteau, run the American Oceanographic institute, and gone bankrupt several times before starting the company I mentioned above. All without much formal schooling.

There are many people who are great folks with an informal education. There are a great many others whose degrees have led them to be important to me as educators and important to society as researchers. Neither of the two groups got on each others’ nerves in the past. Why can’t we all learn to get along with each other without this snipping?

This Epstein needs to get over the election. Let us all try to get along.

A full column in the WSJ about a PH.D who is fully devoted to community college students . . . . what is Mr. Epstein afraid of? Is it scary that someone who understands the education system and the struggling middle class may have influence on education policy?

Go Dr. Biden!!

good piece.

What always bugs me is watching some hearing in Congress or other legislative body where there’s a nameplate that says, “Honorable” before the person’s name. I thought (oh, silly me!) that these people are elected, beholden to constituents &, thus, are public servants. What makes them “honorable?” Most of them are exactly the opposite.

Speaking of which, where’s lindsay graham hiding out these days?

“Speaking of which, where’s lindsay graham hiding out these days?”

Funny you should ask. I have been wondering the same thing.

He has a big walk-in closet.

I resist calling anyone in K-12 education “Doctor” mainly because of the hierarchical nature of the title. Were someone to demand that I call them Dr. So&So, I’d let them know I’ll do that when they address me as “Master Swacker”. Hell, I’m a “master” three times over in English and once in Spanish. According to the Missouri Dept of Conservation I’m a Master Trout Fisherman for having caught not one but two trout 24 inches or longer and/or that weighed 6 pounds. I’m also a master upholsterer and last and least in the English category I’m a Master Adminimal having gotten a MaEd in Adminimalism and being state certified. Now in Spanish I am considered and addressed as Maestro when I teach in my classes. So unless the PhD or EdD has four doctorates I tend to disregard their request.

You did not even mention your extensive knowledge of all the good floats in Missouri and where the fish are. Too modest, I say.

Oh, there are a lot of floats that I haven’t done as there are just so many excellent rivers to canoe. Be that as it may, some things cannot be disclosed. . . if you know what I mean. It’d be like telling someone where you got the morels. No can do!

I don’t think Ed.D should result in the title of “doctor.” The Ph. in Ph.D is a reference to “philosophy.” Education is not a cogent and coherent topic that has the ability to have a sustained philosophy to attain. It’s ridiculed from the associates degree on up on campuses. It’s a non-major major. To this day, quality teachers are haphazardly found and distributed throughout localities. There is no Ed program that produces better teachers than any other Ed program. It’s an Ed.D rather than a Ph.D because it’s not as rigorous. Any rigor is imposed not by the course of study but by the particular student. There is no there there in Education as a field of study as practiced on campuses. Ed departments are not known as bastions of the higher mind, nor are they known as hothouses of the intellect. Education programs are professional certification programs that academia took on board sometime in the last century, among other such things, as ways to find revenue. It used to be that a rigorous engagement with an actual topic and field of study at least through the MA level was what qualified one, basically, to become a teacher. That system likely produced as many actually good teachers as haphazardly as the normalization of education departments. It’s a lightweight degree. Everybody knows it. All of that is lost in the Jill Biden non-controversy.

In my master’s program, from a highly reputable college, the amount of reading, theory and papers and discussions were “rigorous” – by any standard.

My undergraduate degree was not in education – teaching was a career change. The education communities that I am involved in (including this blog) certainly could be considered “hothouses of intellect.”

Re: “A wise man once said that no one should call himself “Dr.” unless he has delivered a child. ” — I thought only females could deliver children.

Oh Dienne at it again with the bizarre virtue signaling that NYC parent rightly identifies as an odd mix of trolling and misplaced ire.

Your trademark 🙄

&… 12 hours later, it’s back to dienne, again.

You know, looking back on all the comments here, I can’t believe that this topic necessarily warranted 90 comments. (I include myself, here.)

Yes–let’s be worried about all the people who are unemployed, who are sick or who will be sickened &, perhaps, die because people won’t wear masks, follow guidelines, stay at home. Healthcare workers who have been pushed beyond the brink, more U.S. food insecurity than ever. As I’ve said here before, I know Dienne, & she is a wonderful, caring, extremely brilliant woman, & I don’t think her ire is “misplaced.” Especially not in terms of the current state of the world. (&, no, I’m the one who has always been calling 45 it {original creds to bethree–it45}, so I know Dienne is NOT an it fan.)

Finally, Left Coast said it best (hope I don’t misquote you!): “Education is wounded. Pressure must be applied.”

Yes, we must apply pressure.

Dumping on Dienne is a popular sport.

It’s a lot like Twitter.

SomeDAM Poet, why would you say “Dumping on Dienne is a popular sport”?

That sounds like something one of Joseph Epstein’s defenders would say — “Look at all these posts at Diane Ravitch’s blog dumping on Joseph Epstein (including from SomeDAM Poet). Dumping on Joseph Epstein is a popular sport.”

When someone like Joseph Epstein or Dienne go out of their way to chide or attack those who don’t meet their criteria of virtue, it is perfectly acceptable for people to respond. It isn’t “dumping on them”, to reply and point out hypocrisy. I never understood it when the far right claims that by criticizing Epstein, we are infringing on his “free speech” right to say whatever offensive thing he wants and we are not allowed to reply with criticism because we would be “dumping on him” if we did. Mischaracterizing a reasonable reply to an offensive post as “dumping on” the person is a way to silence opposition.

When someone says something intentionally provocative and condescending, they should expect a reply. There is nothing wrong with replying to an offensive remark. There is no rule that says some special people are allowed to write condescending op eds or post condescending comments and the rest of us must silently accept it because the person saying it is smarter and better than they are.

And if you decide what I just wrote is too offensive, you are free to respond to it. I won’t demand silence from you because anything other than silence makes you guilty of “dumping on” me. You are RESPONDING to me because you are offended by something I wrote above. And that is – or should be – fine, as long as you don’t use nasty names and abusive language. And I don’t believe any of the replies here – either to Joseph Epstein’s op ed or the condescending comment – do.

retiredbutmissedthekids says: “I don’t think her ire is “misplaced.'”

It is “misplaced” because instead of directing her “ire” at Joseph Epstein for his offensive comments, she directs her “ire” at those who are criticizing his comments.

Really? That’s your reply? If it makes your day a little brighter to post snarky mean girl level replies when I invited you to disagree with me, have at it. The hypocrisy speaks for itself.

I’m talking the Dienne bait because it tastes good, makes sense, and is harmless. I think it’s okay to respect the title of PhD when a Doctorate is earned and still pay attention what direly needs to be paid attention to, which is what Dienne points out. Attacking her as a troller makes no sense here, unless you do not care about those who are struggling. It hurts to hear the truth, doesn’t it? It really hurts.

The topic—whether Dr. Biden should be called “Dr.”—attracted national attention. People have the capacity to feel pain about the terrible injustices in our society and the world without forgoing the ability to think about other subjects. Are you saying we can’t laugh at a comedy or a joke because there is injustice in the world? Please.

I said the opposite. Close reading, please. I have said on this post that we can and should both recognize the importance of Dr. Biden’s title and the importance of working class issues. One does not or should not exclude the other. Personally, I’d rather spend a lot more of my efforts fighting poverty than advocating for a title, if I really had to boil it down to and calculate the allocation of time, energy, talent, and money. But certainly both issues have merit. And I won’t recognize Dienne as a troll for making her point.

Maybe look up styles of APA usage of titles. NO, Jill by virtue of simply being a woman, doesn’t become qualified to use a title. She has a Ed.D. So she is Jill Biden, Ed.D. NOT Dr Jill Biden. Look it up…APA.

Thank you! Plus, I don’t care if you’re a man or a woman, or how many degrees you have… you’re a egotistic douchebag if you feel like you need to put doctor in front of your name.

“you’re a egotistic douchebag if you feel like you need to put doctor in front of your name.”

Why would you draw such a conclusion? In some circumstances, titles are useful because as soon as you use them, a degree of respect is expressed and felt. And respect is really important sometimes: when you are in a doctor’s office, it’s important that you respect the doctor’s advice, when you are in a college classroom, it’s important to believe what the prof is claiming, etc.

In case of Jill Biden it’s seems really useful to use Dr so that people immediately have the impression, she is not “just a wife”.

Titles may also have important psychological effects on those who are addressed by them. They feel trusted and respected, and this may give them the confidence needed to give professional opinion or teach, etc.

Generic dismissal of titles is not really wise. They serve a purpose sometimes.

I agree with you, Máté. For me, it’s a basic matter of courtesy and decency to initially address any MD or PhD as Dr. I do so with people who are 30 years younger than me. They will let me know if they prefer to be addressed otherwise. I address friends by their first names in private and as Dr. in public. If my comfort level with a PhD is high, I mockingly address them as pinheads in private and none has taken offense. Some even quickly respond with, “you don’t have to call me that.”

I address the man I most admire by his first name in private as well as in conversation with his friends. But in public discourse, he will always be Dr. When I did not know Dr. Ravitch, on the few occasions I met her, I addressed her as Dr. That’s unthinkable now, but I would never be so familiar if I were to speak to or introduce her in a public forum. It seems to me that people who are not MDs or PhDs (or EdDs) who get upset up by the fact that the people who have these degrees might prefer to be called Dr. in public–after all, these degrees are not handed out like Halloween candy, they are earned–are the ones who need to reassess their own lives. Being respectful of another’s accomplishments is just proper etiquette, not a reason for being inappropriately sanctimonious.

And if we’re going to be picky, shouldn’t that be “…an egotistical…”? Didn’t even need to a doctorate in English to catch that one!

Under the Wall Street Journal’s editorial guidelines (which I posted in comments last night), anyone with an earned doctorate may be called “Dr.,” if they choose, regardless of their field.

What you should be truly agitated about is the practice of calling children “scholars,” which is common in no-excuses charter schools. How can a kindergartner be a scholar? Or for that matter, any child who has never engaged in scholarship.

That one has always made my teeth hurt

Why would APA dictate how we address each other? Personally, I think it’s silly to make reference to once profession in names, but it’s even sillier to try to distinguish between doctorates. The origin of the word doctor is teacher and teacher has also been used in the sense of being the master of something. So using doctor to address somebody with a doctorate in education is completely appropriate: she is a master of her subject.

Man having a heart attack… Quote: Is there a doctor in the house? Jill Biden… Quote: I’m a doctor

That’s your narrow understanding of the word doctor. In such situations, many professionals could be called for help besides MDs, for example nurses or even lifeguards. Jill Biden, along with everybody else, would immediately understand what a call for a doctor in case of a heart attack means.

I gather you are not a fan of homonyms either . . . .

Sorry, Flerp! I just saw your “Pledge Pin” (Is that a “ P LEDGE P IN?!”–getting spit on Flounder’s face) Niedermaier question–yes, indeed, Maestro & Niedermaier actor –Mark Metcalf. Hope you catch this.

I think Jill Biden deserves credit and recognition for completing her doctorate.

She has inspired me to start using my title. Henceforth please refer to me as ABD Smith.

Alll But Delusional?

Thanks, ABD. Are you related to ACB?

These days I’m more closely related to ADD

Fred–you’re a very funny guy! Glad you’re on the blog!

I do not understand at all what could be the problem with the dissertation topic.

Epstein was expressing his condescension for community colleges as a topic worthy of study.

Which makes him ignorant at best.

“Which makes him ignorant at best.”

…and that’s being extraordinarily kind.

Mr. (not doctor, as he readily admits) Epstein is a fine wordsmith, so perhaps he should look at the etymology of “doctor,” which, in its original and truest sense, refers to someone qualified to teach. Dr. Biden has earned a doctorate and is, accordingly, teaching, a profession she seems to be quite good at, in which women have long distinguished themselves. Mr. Epstein, you may address Jill Biden as Doctor Biden.

I don’t normally come back and read the abuse that gets heaped on me for the crime of dissenting with the holy wisdom of the august members of this site, but for whatever reason, I did this time. And in 111 other comments, not one person, even among those heaping abuse on me, was able to address my actual point.

What makes a person with a doctorate somehow worthier of recognition and honorariums than a person without? Getting a doctorate is hard, yes, but no harder than working for Amazon or on a farm or driving a truck or any of the other things that keep our country running on a daily basis (things which, incidentally, the average “Doctor” couldn’t survive a day doing). Does having the leisure and the money to pursue a life of the mind somehow make someone a better person than someone whose circumstances force them to labor with their body?

The people the Democrats claim to support and represent watch these knee-jerk reactions and they see the classicism and the condescension of their “betters” looking down at the uneducated “deplorables”. If you want their votes in the future – and if you want to keep Trump and his ilk out of the Oval Office, I’d suggest foregoing outrage over titles like a bunch of English aristocrats and instead start getting outraged that people are starving and facing eviction in winter during a pandemic and our “betters” in Congress are headed home for vacations with their families and freezers full of gourmet ice cream.

I can definitely see that, and it makes sense. There’s discrimination and denigration in higher circles, and then there is massive, widespread, ingrained oppression in the general population. More dots connected.

I will address your point “What makes a person with a doctorate somehow worthier of recognition and honorariums than a person without?” Nothing.

Now please point out where anyone said that people with doctorates are more worthy of recognition than a person without? You are more outraged about something that didn’t happen than you are that a right wing Trump-supporting op ed writer hypocritically attacked and demeaned Dr. Jill Biden for using a title that he was fine with Henry Kissinger and a host of other male right wingers using.

I am trying to understand why you would call uneducated people “deplorable” as you just did. I am trying to understand why you are pushing the same lie as the far right that democrats and progressives have said that people without education are deplorable.

In fact, EDUCATION had nothing to do with the Trump voters who were cited as deplorable. The “deplorables” were those who loved the racism and xenophobia and hate and violence. It had nothing to do with education. Why in the world are you angry that the democrats aren’t appealing to the voters who are attracted to hatred to non-whites and immigrants and are have threatened good progressives like AOC? Why are you angry that the “deplorables” who like appeals to violence against AOC aren’t supporting the democratic party? You really think the Democrats should change to appeal to those “deplorables”.

In fact, the democrat who cited the “deplorables” (which had nothing to do with their education) distinguished them from people who often did not have a lot of education and felt that the government was doing nothing for them.

The fact that you equated “deplorable” with uneducated folks reveals a lot about you. The democrats have never thought uneducated folks were deplorable. But that is certainly the narrative the right wing has pushed.

No one but you is insulting folks without education.

^^We Democrats believe that Jim Jordan is “deplorable” as are Mitch McConnell and other Republicans with “education” — from Trump’s children to Kushner to Matt Gaetz to Greg Gianfort. You seem to be suggesting that none of them are deplorable since they are all “educated”.

It would surprise those in their white bubble of “Biden is like Trump” privilege that there are people other than white folks without college education. You seem to be suggesting that democrats would consider African American voters without a college degree to be “deplorable” — and the fact that you think they are “deplorable” but college educated “Jim Jordan” is not “deplorable” is very revealing.

Sometimes it’s useful to use titles because they induce respect. If somebody talks about what’s happening in politics and she is introduced as Senator X Y, we then don’t have to think about whether what she is saying is authoritative. I also like to know that if somebody gives me an advice on Covid that that person is an MD and it spares me the time to get on google and conduct a tedious search whether what this person says is believable. If somebody talks to me about physics, …. If somebody talks to me about education in community colleges, ….

On the other hand, if Bill Gates talks about education policy, it should be a giveaway that we do not hear any titles associated with his name that would make what he is saying authoritative.

You miss the point, dienne. I can admire(or not) someone who has been awarded an academic degree for their academic pursuits and still be mighty glad that there are people who are farmers or auto mechanics. Neither has anything to do with whether I am outraged that a society like ours has so many people that are living on the edge whether through their own fault or not. That people’s preconceived notions about bootstraps and other such nonsense allow them to ignore the abysmal plight of so many is reprehensible. I did not realize that it was a requirement to spend every waking moment reflecting on the injustices of life.

My goodness, she is tiresome, isn’t she? “Heaps abuse” on our intelligence and logic for more than four years and still claims to be the victim. Just like her hero, the Idiot. And my comment above, among the 111, very clearly points out why this faux condescension and outrage is misplaced. It’s just not decent. To quote myself, “Being respectful of another’s accomplishments is just proper etiquette, not a reason for being inappropriately sanctimonious.” Decency, respect, etiquette. Quaint these days, I guess.

Since when it is forbidden for people to express outrage at sexist right wing hypocrisy because there is still poverty and many serious problems to address?

If that is the case, then is it also forbidden to express outrage at progressive critics of right wing hypocrisy because there is still poverty and many serious problems to address?

Is it also forbidden to express outrage at the underfunding of public schools if you spend your own money on private school tuition instead of donating it to a public school where most students live in poverty?

This kind of moral relativism is right wing propaganda. No one on the left can ever be perfect enough to criticize anything done by the far right – no matter how bad – because there is always some supposedly more important issue that should be talked about instead. AOC can’t talk about the Green New Deal anymore because she takes lyft or flies on an airplane. AOC can’t criticize horrible Trump policies that destroy our environment because she should be talking about kids living in horrible poverty. But if she starts talking about kids living in poverty, that isn’t allowed because she should be talking about the devastation caused by horrible environmental destruction. Change the subject, change the subject, whenever criticism of anything the far right does comes up.

This is sheer right wing propaganda used to shut down any criticism of their anti-progressive agenda. It doesn’t help the progressive movement at all, but it does normalize the far right and helps to empower it.

NYCpsp: Not to be nasty–just trying to tell you to not waste your valuable time–Dienne doesn’t read your responses, so writing 9 paragraphs to her is an effort in futility. Everyone’s opinion is valuable, but your constant scolding (& even of SDP!) and unending commentary is/are tiresome. Please do yourself (& us) a favor & stop. We are at “a site to discuss a better education for all,” not to interpret every meaning/intent of Dienne’s comments.

Thank you &, seriously, stay well, & happy holidays!

Agree . . .

retiredbutmissthekids,

Anytime someone starts out with the comment “Not to be nasty…” you can absolutely be certain that they want to be nasty.

I thought we were better than that on this blog, but I thought wrong.

I am sorry that offering up my opinion is “scolding”. I admit to writing much too long posts and I never demand anyone read them or respond. There is another person who often posts very long replies and often includes links, and I either ignore them or I read them and they are often interesting.

But, unlike retiredbutmissthekids, it never occurs to me to scold him for writing those posts.

And, unlike retiredbusmissthekids, I don’t excuse my intent to write something nasty by starting out “not to be nasty”.

I always invite anyone to reply to my posts or ignore them altogether. The idea that there are certain people whose wisdom is not allowed to be challenged (SDP) was not made to clear to me, but thank you, retiredbutmissthekids, for explaining that.

I recently had an exchange with John Merrow on his blog. I posted one of my too long replies, but he demonstrated the courtesy of reading and replying to it without needing to begin “Not to be nasty” and ignoring what I said in favor of scolding me for writing a reply that was too long or whose tone could have been better.

And I replied with my appreciation and apologized for my tone. Which he graciously accepted.

It appears that I expect too much here. Honestly, I’m just a random, unimportant parent of a kid in public school who will soon graduate. I’m starting to realize that I’m not welcome, and frankly, the more I am here and get these kinds of “Not to be nasty…” replies from teachers and retired teachers, the more I see why the public has become skeptical of unions. I have defended teachers’ unions for decades, but the more I stay on this blog, the less I support them, and I don’t want the nasty replies on this blog to influence me as I know that the teachers I meet IRL are not this way.

I will stop concerning myself with “educated” union teachers who have good benefits and instead start caring about people who are working for Amazon or on a farm or driving a truck or all of the people working in healthcare on the front lines of this pandemic instead of those who get to teach classes via zoom and know their healthcare is insured by their union membership.

As dienne77 points out, there are a lot of people who need help more than teachers or other professionals.

I can take the hint, retiredbutmissthekids, so you don’t even need to pretend not to be nasty. You neither want nor need the support of parents like me.

Hilarious comment, retired! You give a blanket pass to our sneering commentator who has, quite literally, never had a constructive comment to make (false equivalencies, whataboutism [remember the good old days of arguing Hillary/Obama/Biden are the equivalent of the Idiot], apologist for treasonous fascist authoritarianism, even attacks LeBron James for the IPromise school!). Literally not one. I suggest you go back four years and read the comments made prior to and immediately after the 2016 election as I did a few months ago. Please let me know how those fit into “a site to discuss a better education for all.” Please.

But NYPSP’s comments–which might be long for some and often, in my opinion, are too quick to apologize–are tiresome because they take the time to be clear and refute points in a categorical, thorough way. That’s a good one, retired. I don’t read them all, NYPSP, but please carry on if you choose to.

I finally shredded my diplomas a few days ago after enduring four years of anti-science, anti-expertise attitude in the US, and the constant rhetoric calling scientists’ responses “fake” or just a “hoax” or much much worse. I’d been “doxxed” about a month ago … for posting a reply to a factually inaccurate post by Dr. Scott Atlas, and had to take down my website and email for several weeks because of the sudden flood of hate mail. Then watching the whole debate with Dr. Jill Biden, feeling disgust one day (since I was never a “real doctor” and the country that we’ve made great again seems to have no need for any virologist to comment on the current pandemic, I took my diplomas to the shredder. Yes, I was depressed. Very depressed. Feeling like I wasted my life and career doing something useless to my fellow countrymen. Still reeling from it.

What does all of this say to anyone wanting to work in a STEM field?

It says that if you keep reading hate mail, you are going to get a really warped view of what a whole lot of people think. There are people out there who assume you are part of the elite crowd if you have more than a high school education, and if you went to any elite university with ivys at the top, you can’t possibly be trusted. Said but true. I for one want my virologists to know the h*** what they are talking about because they spent a whole lot of time, and still do, studying virology. Diane can probably tell you about hate mail. It’s just sad that people can be taken in by talking heads who haven’t the faintest idea what they are talking about.

I have an earned PhD from UT Austin. I completed a 300 page dissertation adding new knowledge to my field of endeavor. An EdD does not require a dissertation, therefore I do not acknowledge EdDs as a doctors even though they can legally and professionally use the honorific.

Wow, 300 pages. That’s a lot of new knowledge, Dr Pearson.

Don’t we refer to Martin Luther King as Doctor? People just like to complain 🤨

Honorary Doctorate degree is not the same as a doctorate degree, it is not a academic doctorate degree and should not call themselves doctor. Please.

Doctor means teacher, so every teacher can use Dr if they want to.

The use of the title “Dr.” for first lady Jill Biden must be placed in perspective. This title is used with several advanced degrees – most notably the M. D., for a practitioner of medicine; the Ph. D. for someone trained to perform advanced, original research, the Juris Doctor degree for practitioners of law and the Ed. D. for advanced practitioners in education. A Ph. D. may be earned in education, which prepares the recipient for research and teaching at the graduate level in the field. Mrs. Biden received an Ed.D. degree; having written a pathetic “dissertation/executive position paper” while her husband was a powerful politician in Delaware, whose state university conferred the degree on her. “Dr.” Jill’s “dissertation” is available on line at: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/jill_biden_dissertation.pdf . A review of this effort reveals many typos and math errors, demonstrating her ignorance and the carelessness of her faculty advisors, each of whom signed a statement: “I certify I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standards required by the University as a dissertation of the Doctor of Education.” For example, Mrs. Biden’s paper shows she neither understands fractions nor basic arithmetic: “Three quarters of the class will be Caucasian; one quarter of the class will be African American . . . the remaining seats will be filled with students of Asian descent or non-resident aliens.” (Page 2) Mrs. Biden also described a “quintupling” of enrollment as a 230% increase: “‘By 1963, public and private two year headcount enrollment stood at 850,361. By 1980, enrollment had grown to 4,526,287. . . approximately a 230 percent increase in student attendance.'” (Page 13) Worse yet, the so-called “scholars” who guided her — were equally careless to allow these glaring mistakes to remain in the final draft of the paper. The assumption is that because Mrs. Biden received a doctorate, her paper must have been a “dissertation.” It was merely an “executive position paper” with no original research, as is required for a true dissertation. Many attorneys receive the Juris Doctor degree, but few are presumptuous enough to misappropriate the “doctor’ title. Mrs. Biden’s degree was not the equivalent of a Ph.D, a medical degree, or even an advanced professional degree like a Juris Doctor degree in terms of its rigor. It is insufferably pretentious for Mrs. Biden to call herself “Dr.” and demonstrates the ignorance of journalists who incorrectly associate the “Dr.” title with the degree she received. Ignoring the shortcomings of her “scholarly treatise”, she should be referred to as Jill Biden, Ed.D. Even Dr. Seuss would be embarrassed — but amused because his “Dr.” title, which he conferred on himself, is as appropriate to use as “Dr. Jill’s”.

I completely disagree. Dr. Jill Biden deserves to be called Dr. Whether you agree or disagree with President Biden. President Biden will be a two term president and President Trump will be in prison. Go Dr. Jill Biden and Dr. Joe Biden!! 😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲

Using Dr. to address someone is very misleading. Attorneys do not call themselves “Dr.”, nor should someone with a degree in education. Not that those who have put in the work for advanced degrees not have a special title, however when used in misleading scenarios to portray being an MD it causes issues. I have this currently in a court case-

I just graduated 🎓 with my Doctorate degree in Education Ed.D. and l refer to myself as Dr. However, let’s be clear l’m only a virtual teacher teaching middle school students and sometimes elementary students. As a general teacher l call myself Dr. to my students and educate them as to the many types of Doctors. As it comes to other teachers without Doctorate degrees l also refer to myself as Dr. Lastly, some of my teachers or others in my profession call me Mr. and l’m okay with it because most K-12 teachers don’t have Doctorate degrees but many have advanced degrees including Doctorates and Educational Specialist degrees which is at the Doctorate level. Everyone is different. Sometimes l refer as Dr. but he wants to be called by his first name. Ultimately you must be happy 😊 with who you are no matter what others say or what title they give you.

“What’s the point of working for years to earn a doctorate if you can’t use the title?” Seriously? It’s pretentious and a sign of insecurity.

i don’t think Jill Biden is such a wonderful person as you describe her. The way she and Joe got together should have been scandalous. I saw a picture of her and Joe she was sitting on his lap. It looked she was a teenage girl sitting either her dad or grandad. She was the family babysitter for Joe and his then current wife. God I could just imagine the headlines had that been Donald Trump. Now the Bidens are being exposed for what they truly are. You can deny it all you want, but it’s true as you will soon see. The press touts Biden as he tries to interfere in his coming trials he’s just being a father. What happened to integrity in this country? The fact that Joe is now being shown as a willing participant overshadows Jill being allowed to call herself doctor. I believe doctors take an oath that says first do no harm. If the charges against them if proven shows how much she was a willing participant herself in a scheme to harm everyone in America.prrsonally I think anyone calling themselves doctor when they aren’t are just a bunch of pompous self centered assholes. Just an opinion. The reason I brought up the stuff about Jill because you were making her out to be some kind of saint. If these charges stick she is basically nothing more than a white collar criminal with the added could be treason. Pretty much negates any good she has done. I’m afraid of not now due to our DOJ being complisant in this, but when history is written the charges will be shown to be true and factual. There is just too much information that shows that. Sorry the truth hurts. Those who reply to this and your main point is “,why there are no paragraphs in his writing”can go f yourself. That attitude has gotten us where we are. Some folks may not be educated like you,but they have way more common sense and aren’t so narcissistic they can admit they were wrong.

You are ridiculous. Those with an Ed.D. are entitled to call themselves “Doctor” because an Ed.D. is a doctorate degree.

You can have your opinion of Dr. Biden, but she’s got far more intellect, compassion and class than Melania, whose nude photographs can be found all over the internet. In some she poses with a rifle; in others, she poses as a lesbian. Real classy! And don’t forget: Melania’s father was a member of the Communist party!

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Search all posts, previous posts.

• September 2024  (6)
• August 2024  (106)
• July 2024  (126)
• June 2024  (98)
• May 2024  (104)
• April 2024  (109)
• March 2024  (116)
• February 2024  (116)
• January 2024  (101)
• December 2023  (98)
• November 2023  (96)
• October 2023  (101)
• September 2023  (111)
• August 2023  (122)
• July 2023  (108)
• June 2023  (128)
• May 2023  (124)
• April 2023  (136)
• March 2023  (129)
• February 2023  (113)
• January 2023  (115)
• December 2022  (111)
• November 2022  (97)
• October 2022  (100)
• September 2022  (103)
• August 2022  (120)
• July 2022  (111)
• June 2022  (112)
• May 2022  (120)
• April 2022  (105)
• March 2022  (120)
• February 2022  (96)
• January 2022  (94)
• December 2021  (98)
• November 2021  (77)
• October 2021  (79)
• September 2021  (78)
• August 2021  (74)
• July 2021  (82)
• June 2021  (69)
• May 2021  (66)
• April 2021  (72)
• March 2021  (103)
• February 2021  (140)
• January 2021  (169)
• December 2020  (142)
• November 2020  (160)
• October 2020  (169)
• September 2020  (170)
• August 2020  (175)
• July 2020  (191)
• June 2020  (195)
• May 2020  (205)
• April 2020  (203)
• March 2020  (197)
• February 2020  (165)
• January 2020  (180)
• December 2019  (194)
• November 2019  (185)
• October 2019  (199)
• September 2019  (169)
• August 2019  (172)
• July 2019  (169)
• June 2019  (193)
• May 2019  (203)
• April 2019  (195)
• March 2019  (187)
• February 2019  (160)
• January 2019  (201)
• December 2018  (204)
• November 2018  (213)
• October 2018  (213)
• September 2018  (186)
• August 2018  (190)
• July 2018  (196)
• June 2018  (190)
• May 2018  (225)
• April 2018  (221)
• March 2018  (242)
• February 2018  (182)
• January 2018  (212)
• December 2017  (224)
• November 2017  (188)
• October 2017  (240)
• September 2017  (239)
• August 2017  (237)
• July 2017  (235)
• June 2017  (224)
• May 2017  (267)
• April 2017  (265)
• March 2017  (284)
• February 2017  (262)
• January 2017  (355)
• December 2016  (239)
• November 2016  (274)
• October 2016  (219)
• September 2016  (218)
• August 2016  (211)
• July 2016  (217)
• June 2016  (219)
• May 2016  (233)
• April 2016  (229)
• March 2016  (242)
• February 2016  (244)
• January 2016  (247)
• December 2015  (230)
• November 2015  (233)
• October 2015  (292)
• September 2015  (262)
• August 2015  (268)
• July 2015  (252)
• June 2015  (254)
• May 2015  (277)
• April 2015  (290)
• March 2015  (322)
• February 2015  (281)
• January 2015  (247)
• December 2014  (225)
• November 2014  (226)
• October 2014  (287)
• September 2014  (283)
• August 2014  (271)
• July 2014  (258)
• June 2014  (281)
• May 2014  (284)
• April 2014  (330)
• March 2014  (358)
• February 2014  (308)
• January 2014  (282)
• December 2013  (260)
• November 2013  (270)
• October 2013  (342)
• September 2013  (358)
• August 2013  (373)
• July 2013  (336)
• June 2013  (347)
• May 2013  (348)
• April 2013  (369)
• March 2013  (379)
• February 2013  (296)
• January 2013  (342)
• December 2012  (328)
• November 2012  (270)
• October 2012  (366)
• September 2012  (475)
• August 2012  (463)
• July 2012  (372)
• June 2012  (209)
• May 2012  (120)
• April 2012  (17)

Recent posts

• Bernie Sanders on the Importance of Labor Day
• Meanwhile, in Israel…A Time for Truth
• Happy Labor Day!
• Lottery Scams in Mass. and Texas: How to Beat the System, Win Millions, and (Maybe) Get Away with It
• Jennifer Rubin: Brave Republicans and Those Who Are M.I.A.

Blog Topics

• Cornell and Harvard Adopt Policy of Neutrality on Hot Issues
• Arizona: Surprise! State Board Says Parent May Not Use Voucher $$ to Buy Dune Buggies
• Mary Trump: Why Isn't the Army Prosecuting Convicted Felon Trump for Breaking the Law Again?
• Meanwhile, in Israel...A Time for Truth
• Shocking Facts About My Favorite Movie, "Singin' in the Rain"
• RFK and the Whale! Talk About Weird!

Follow blog via email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address:

Follow blog via RSS reader

• RSS - Posts
• RSS - Comments

Type your email…

• 41,571,753 hits

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Listen Live

Go behind the headlines: From the economy and healthcare to politics and the environment - and so much more - On Point talks with newsmakers and real people about the issues that matter most. On Point is produced by WBUR for NPR.

• Health Care
• Higher Education

Who gets to be called ‘doctor’?

Go to med school, earn an m.d. and the “dr.” honorific gets tacked on to your last name. some women — and ph.d.s — say they get the courtesy title, and respect, less often..

We call physicians "doctor." Should we do the same for people with PhDs? (Credit: Bigstock)

This story is from The Pulse , a weekly health and science podcast.

Subscribe on Apple Podcasts , Stitcher or wherever you get your podcasts.

Molecular biologist Adam Ruben has a Ph.D.

There was one time when he made a conscious choice to refer to himself as Dr. Ruben — when he emailed an airline to complain about a messed up flight.

“We had to spend a night in some city and I was trying to get a refund for our hotel bill, so I signed the email Dr. Ruben,” he said. “And I know that’s kind of an icky thing to do but I have heard that you get better service when you use the term doctor.”

It kind of worked: He got his refund — after three months.

“It’s not outright wrong and the world should forgive me,” he said.

Ruben has been thinking about the doctor honorific for a while. He polled his friends and acquaintances with Ph.D.s on Facebook and Twitter about whether or not they call themselves doctor.

Some said they’ve earned it. Others said it seems a little pretentious.

“A surprising number of people all had the same concern about using the term doctor: if they were going to be on an airplane when somebody needs a doctor,” Ruben said.

This sort of happened to Ruben several years ago, but when he was on the ground.

Besides being a biologist, he’s also a writer and comedian. He was at a Story Collider storytelling event, performing for an audience of mostly graduate students.

“And somebody actually had a medical emergency in the middle of the show. He fainted and needed an ambulance,” Ruben recalled.

As he described it at the time, someone asked if there was a doctor in the room and about 200 people with Ph.D.s kind of looked around at each other frantically.

Some EMTs helped the guy.   He was okay in the end and the show went on .

Subscribe to The Pulse

Stories about the people and places at the heart of health and science.

After checking in on social media, Ruben wrote about his informal poll for the journal Science. He heard from female engineers with Ph.D.s who said they are under-represented in their field, and feel like they need to put doctor in front of their names to get the same respect that male engineers get.

Epidemiologist Beth Linas also earned a Ph.D., and she wants media outlets to refer to people with Ph.D.s as doctor, especially if we’re interviewing them about their area of expertise.

“Someone comes up [to me] on the street and says hello to me, they can address me as Beth, but if I’m being called upon for my background in infectious disease, epidemiology or digital health which is the other area that I study, I think I should be recognized as Dr. Beth Linas.”

Linas has been thinking about this issue and wrote a commentary about the congressional hearings with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and research psychologist Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were in high school.

“There was a lot of chatter online and on Twitter about how in written media, she wasn’t being addressed as Doctor Ford, I started noticing it in other publications and other outlets,” said Linas.

Some NPR listeners complained about the “insidious bias” of the radio network calling Kavanaugh “Judge Kavanaugh” but not calling Ford “Dr. Ford.”

The NPR ombudsman explained that like many media outlets, NPR follows the Associated Press stylebook, which says if someone practices medicine, NPR calls them doctor. If it’s someone with a Ph.D., it’s up to the individual media outlet.

On the radio, we don’t have a lot of time, and every word counts. Saying someone is a doctor or saying they have a Ph.D. can be a little vague. Ultimately that doesn’t give the listener much information. So for clear and efficient communication, our policy at “The Pulse” is to introduce someone as an epidemiologist, or pediatrician — being specific about a person’s expertise when we can.

Linas said her concern comes from an issue of representation.

“There are a lot of women, and particularly women of color that really struggle to make their way in science and stay in science, and we face a lot of obstacles, and I think it’s important for women also to be recognized.”

There’s a study that backs her up: researchers found that male doctors introduce their male colleagues as “Dr.” around 70 percent of the time, but introduce their female colleagues as doctor a little less than half the time.

Linas says if media outlets refer to people with Ph.D.s as doctor, especially when we’re interviewing them about their area of expertise, then it shouldn’t be that hard to tell who is the kind of doctor who can help you when someone needs an ambulance — and who’s best suited to give you statistics on the next flu outbreak.

WHYY is your source for fact-based, in-depth journalism and information. As a nonprofit organization, we rely on financial support from readers like you. Please give today.

Brought to you by The Pulse

Hosted by Maiken Scott

Subscribe for free

More segments from what we call things and why it matters, for some people who stutter, fluent speech is overrated, what makes addiction a disease, should we call little girls beautiful, you may also like.

Human remains discovered at Philly construction site 8 years ago have been reburied, but issues still persist

Workers in Philly's Old City hit upon a historic cemetery with hundreds of people. It took years to study, identify and rebury them.

2 weeks ago

Advocates cheer new standards that could save horseshoe crabs from bloodletting

Up to 1 million horseshoe crabs in the U.S. are harvested for biomedical purposes. A synthetic alternative could mean less harvesting of the “living fossils.”

1 month ago

Three Pa. med schools tapped for medical marijuana research programs

The Health Department says it plans to approve five more partnerships between marijuana growers and research centers this summer.

5 years ago

About Alan Yu

Want a digest of WHYY’s programs, events & stories? Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Together we can reach 100% of WHYY’s fiscal year goal

Who Can Call Themselves 'Doctor'? The Debate Heats Up

Christine Lehmann, MA

May 05, 2021

Physicians and non-physicians clearly differ in whether or not a PhD or EdD should be able to call themselves 'doctor,' a new Medscape poll Who Should Get to Be Called 'Doctor'? shows. The topic has clearly struck a nerve, since a record number of respondents — over 12,000 — voted in the poll.

Most physicians think it's appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees such as a PhD or EdD to call themselves 'doctor,' although slightly more than half said it depends on the context.

The controversy over who gets to be called a doctor was reignited when a Wall Street Journal opinion piece criticized First Lady Jill Biden, EdD, for wanting to be called "Dr Biden." The piece also challenged the idea that having a PhD is worth the honorific of 'doctor.'

Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD,  disagreed with that viewpoint , saying the context matters. For example, he prefers to be called "professor" when he's introduced to the public rather than "doctor" to avoid any confusion about his professional status.

More than 12,000 clinicians including physicians, medical students, nurses, pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals responded to the poll. The non-MD clinicians were the most likely to say it was always appropriate to be called "doctor" while physicians were the least likely.

Context Matters

Large percentages of clinicians — 54% of doctors, 62% of medical students, and 41% of nurses — said that the context matters for being called "doctor.''

"I earned my PhD in 1995 and my MD in 2000. I think it is contextual. In a research or University setting, "Dr." seems appropriate for a PhD. That same person in public should probably not hold themselves out as "Dr." So, maybe MDs and DOs can choose, while others maintain the title in their specific setting." 

Some readers proposed that people with MDs call themselves physicians rather than doctors. Said one: "Anyone with a terminal doctorate degree has the right to use the word doctor.  As a physician when someone asks what I do, I say: 'I am a physician.' Problem solved. There can only be one physician but there are many types of doctors."

Physicians and nurses differed most in their views. Just 24% of physicians said it was always appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees to call themselves doctor whereas about an equal number (22%) thought it was never appropriate.

In contrast, 43% of nurses (including advance practice nurses) said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorates to be called doctor. Only 16% said it's never appropriate. 

This difference may reflect the growing number of nurses with doctorate degrees, either a DNP or PhD, who want to be called doctor in clinical settings.

Age made a difference too. Only 16% of physicians younger than age 45 said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorate degrees to be called doctor compared to 27% of physicians age 45 and up.

Medical students (31%) were also more likely than physicians to say it was always appropriate for non-MD doctorates to use the title "doctor" and 64% said it depends on the context. This was noteworthy because twice as many medical students as physicians (16% v 8%) said they work in academia, research, or military government settings.

Too Many "Doctors" Confuse the Public

Physicians (70%) were also more likely to say it was always or often confusing for the public to hear someone without a medical degree addressed as "doctor." Only 6% of physicians thought it was never or rarely confusing.

Nurses disagreed. Just 45% said that it was always or often confusing while 16% said it was never or rarely confusing.

Medical students were more aligned with physicians on this issue — 60% said it was always or often confusing to the public and just 10% said it was never or rarely confusing.  

One reader commented, "The problem is the confusion the 'doctor' title causes for patients, especially in a hospital setting. Is the 'doctor' a physician, a pharmacist, a psychologist, a nurse, etc., etc.? We need to think not of our own egos but if and how  the confusion about this plethora of titles may be hindering good patient care."

These concerns are not unfounded. The American Medical Association reported in its Truth in Advertising campaign that "patients mistake physicians with nonphysician providers" based on an online survey of 802 adults in 2018. The participants thought these specialists were MDs: dentists (61%), podiatrists (67%), optometrists (47%), psychologists (43%), doctors of nursing (39%), and chiropractors (27%).

The AMA has advocated that states pass the "Health Care Professional Transparency Act," which New Jersey has enacted . The law requires all healthcare professionals dealing with patients to wear a name tag that clearly identifies their licensure. Health care professionals must also display their education, training, and licensure in their office.

For more news, follow Medscape on Facebook , Twitter , Instagram , YouTube , and  LinkedIn

Medscape Medical News © 2021 

Send news tips to [email protected] .

Cite this: Who Can Call Themselves 'Doctor'? The Debate Heats Up -  Medscape  - May 05, 2021.

You have already selected for My Alerts

• Add Other Topics

Click the topic below to receive emails when new articles are available.

You've successfully added to your alerts. You will receive email when new content is published.

• Perspective
• Drugs & Diseases
• Global Coverage
• Additional Resources
• Launching an Obesity Medicine Practice? Key Considerations
• Infographic: Ideal States for Setting Up a Practice
• Ontario Considers Expanding Nurses' Scope of Practice

• 2001/viewarticle/cyclic-vomiting-syndrome-practice-update-guides-dx-mgmt-2024a1000dxt news Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome: Clinical Practice Update Guides Diagnosis, Management
• 2001/viewarticle/incorporating-ai-everyday-practice-tips-pediatric-2024a1000ery news Incorporating AI Into Everyday Practice: Tips From a Pediatric Dermatologist
• 2020/viewarticle/practice-changing-trial-guides-prostate-cancer-therapy-2024a10009f8 news 'Practice-Changing' Trial Guides Prostate Cancer Therapy
• 2001/viewarticle/launching-obesity-medicine-practice-key-considerations-2024a10008l1 news Launching an Obesity Medicine Practice? Key Considerations

• Acute Treatment of Migraine in Clinical Practice
• Cancer Survivorship in Veterans: A Unique Population
• FDA Drug Approvals Q2 2024
• Metacarpal Fractures
• Spinal Cord Stimulation

• Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome: Clinical Practice Update Guides Diagnosis, Management
• Incorporating AI Into Everyday Practice: Tips From a Pediatric Dermatologist
• 'Practice-Changing' Trial Guides Prostate Cancer Therapy
• Private Equity in Medicine: Cardiology in the Crosshairs
• Get Paid for Lifestyle Medicine With Shared Medical Visits
• 7 Metrics Oncology Practices Can Track to Be Successful

•   Contact Us

• Channels ►
• Executive Moves
• Transaction & Valuation
• Health Equity
• Patient Experience
• Care Coordination
• Legal & Regulatory
• Compensation
• Specialties ►
• Orthopedics
• Surgery Centers
• Dental / DSO
• Becker's Healthcare Websites ►
• Dental + DSO
• Behavioral Health
• Physician Leadership
• Newsletters ►
• Sign Up For Our Free E-Newsletters
• Hospital Review
• Hospital CEO Report
• Hospital CFO Report
• Health IT & CIO Report
• Clinical Leadership
• Revenue Cycle Management
• Digital Innovation Report
• Supply Chain
• Payer Issues
• Pharmacy Report
• Women's Leadership
• Laboratory Review
• Cardiology Report
• Oncology Report
• HR + Talent Review
• Post Acute Report
• Life Sciences Report
• Behavioral Health Report
• Marketing Report
• Events ►
• Upcoming Conferences and Events
• 9th Annual Health IT + Digital Health + RCM Annual Meeting: The Future of Business and Clinical Technologies
• Becker's ASC 30th Annual Meeting: The Business and Operations of ASCs
• Fall Future of Dentistry Roundtable
• Fall Payer Issues Roundtable
• 12th Annual CEO + CFO Roundtable
• Chief Pharmacy Officer Summit
• 15th Annual Meeting
• Spring Payer Issues Roundtable
• Bold Ideas + Big Takeaways from Becker's 14th Annual Meeting
• Exhibiting & Sponsoring
• Call for Speakers
• Virtual Events ►
• Upcoming Virtual Events
• Transform Hospital Operations Virtual Summit
• Infusion Center Operations Virtual Summit
• Dental + DSO Virtual Event
• Human Resources + Talent Virtual Event
• 9th Annual Health IT + Digital Health + RCM Virtual Event
• Oncology Virtual Summit
• Payer Issues Virtual Event
• 12th Annual CEO + CFO Roundtable Virtual Event
• Past Virtual Events
• Webinars ►
• Upcoming Webinars
• OnDemand Webinars
• Partner Content ►
• Current Partner Content
• Podcasts ►
• Our Podcasts
• Becker's Healthcare Podcast Episodes
• Becker’s Digital Health + Health IT Podcast
• Becker’s Payer Issues Podcast
• Podcast Summaries
• Becker's Behavioral Health Podcast
• Becker's Ambulatory Surgery Centers Podcast
• Becker's Spine and Orthopedics Podcast
• Becker's Dental + DSO Review Podcast
• Becker’s Clinical Leadership Podcast
• Becker’s Pediatric Leadership Podcast
• Becker's Cardiology + Heart Surgery Podcast
• Becker's Women's Leadership Podcast
• Lists ►
• 100 great community hospitals | 2024
• Great leaders in healthcare | 2024
• Nominations
• Sign up for list nomination updates
• Print ►
• Current Issue
• Past Issues
• Current Issue - Becker's Clinical Leadership
• Past Issues - Becker's Clinical Leadership
• Multimedia ►
• Intuitive + Becker's Content Hub
• NRC Health Content Hub
• Now is the Time
• LeanTaaS AI Solutions
• Healthcare Upside/Down Podcast Series
• Featured Content
• Career Center
• Mass General Brigham
• AMN Healthcare
• 2024 Trends: Key Challenges for Healthcare CFO’s
• Insights ►
• Spine Surgeon
• About Us ►
• About Becker's Hospital Review
• Careers at Becker's
• Request Media Kit
• Content Specifications
• Most Read ►
• From -7.9% to 14.9%: 31 systems ranked by operating margins
• 10 best, worst cities to retire
• Spotlight shines on Steward CEO Dr. Ralph de la Torre
• Patient fires police officer's gun inside Jefferson hospital ED: Reports
• Why RWJBarnabas is embracing triad leadership
• Health systems need 'inboxologists'
• CommonSpirit shuffles Dignity Health hospitals' leadership
• Why some Gen Z workers are clashing with management
• What health system leaders think of Epic's latest moves
• Ransomware gang phishes for healthcare victims
• Top 40 Articles ►
• 67 health systems with strong finances
• 150+ top places to work in healthcare | 2024
• 21 health systems dropping Medicare Advantage plans | 2024
• RN pay for all 50 states adjusted by cost of living | 2024
• Optum enacts layoffs, workers say 
• HCA to acquire Catholic system
• Tim Walz on healthcare: 8 things to know
• Healthcare buzzwords executives are tired of hearing
• 703 hospitals at risk of closure, state by state
• From -6.8% to 12.2%: 43 health systems ranked by operating margins
• UPMC to lay off around 1,000 employees
• Prime to acquire 9 Ascension hospitals: 6 things to know
• 10 best, worst states for healthcare in 2024
• Rising stars: 42 healthcare leaders under 40 | 2024
• 10 richest states in America
• Cyberattack disrupts clinical operations at Ascension
• 10 best states for healthcare: US News
• 381 hospitals with 5 stars from CMS
• Tennessee hospital misses payroll
• Hackers leak Change Healthcare contracts, patient data
• Where are Leapfrog's 15 straight-'A' hospitals?
• Optum shutting down telehealth business
• Sanders: Weight loss drugs could bankrupt healthcare system
• Kamala Harris' healthcare policy positions: 6 notes
• Emory Georgia hospital to close by end of year
• Where are Leapfrog's 10 'F' hospitals?
• Hospitals slam FTC's noncompete ban
• US News' top hospitals by state for 2024-25
• Top health system employers by state: Forbes
• Top medical schools for 2024: US News
• Steward plans sale of all hospitals, reports $9B in debt
• 48 recent hospital, health system executive moves
• 15 best, worst states for physicians in 2024
• US News' Best Hospitals 2024-25 Honor Roll
• Texas Children's to lay off 1,000
• Steward files for bankruptcy
• 276 hospitals with 1 star from CMS
• 43 health systems ranked by net income
• Why Larry Ellison thinks Oracle can surpass Epic
• California hospital dismisses CEO

Integration & Physician Issues

Should phds refer to themselves as 'doctors'.

While traditional MDs or DOs are typically referred to as "doctors," should scientists with PhDs refer to themselves in the same fashion?

Biologist Adam Ruben, PhD, told WHYY Radio he once decided to refer to himself as "doctor" after a flight mishap to hold the airline accountable and receive a refund. He said the incident got him thinking about when or if individuals with PhDs should refer to themselves as "doctors."

Dr. Ruben said he informally polled his colleagues and friends on social media to hear their thoughts on the issue.

"A surprising number of people all had the same concern about using the term doctor: if they were going to be on an airplane when somebody needs a doctor," Dr. Ruben said.

Epidemiologist Beth Linas, PhD, said scientists with doctorate degrees should be able to call themselves "doctor" if they choose to, as the moniker adds another layer of authority, especially for women and others who are underrepresented in their fields.

"[If] someone comes up [to me] on the street and says hello to me, they can address me as Beth, but if I'm being called upon for my background in infectious disease, epidemiology or digital health, which is the other area that I study, I think I should be recognized as Dr. Beth Linas," she told WHYY .

"There are a lot of women, and particularly women of color that really struggle to make their way in science and stay in science, and we face a lot of obstacles, and I think it's important for women also to be recognized," she added.

To access the full report, click here .

Copyright © 2024 Becker's Healthcare. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy . Cookie Policy . Linking and Reprinting Policy .

Featured Learning Opportunities

• Whitepapers
• Process Improvement Whitepapers  
• Health IT Whitepapers  
• Finance Whitepapers  
• Clinical Whitepapers  
• Payer Whitepapers  
• Other Learning Opportunities
• Process Improvement Webinars  
• Health IT Webinars  
• Finance Webinars  
• Clinical Webinars  
• Payer Webinars  
• Virtual Events
• ASC/Spine Whitepapers  
• Dental Whitepapers  
• ASC/Spine Webinars  
• Dental Webinars  
• Hospital Review Virtual Events  
• ASC/Spine Virtual Events  
• Dental Virtual Events  

Featured Whitepapers

Featured webinars, 10 most-read articles.

Becker's Websites

Virtual Learning

Conferences

• 9th Annual Health IT + Digital Health + RCM Meeting: The Future of Business and Clinical Technologies
• 1.800.417.2035
• [email protected]

• News and Features
• Conferences
• Clinical Tools
• Special Collections

Should the “Doctor” Title Be Reserved for Physicians?

Recent state laws restricting the use of the “doctor” title to physicians have sparked increased awareness and discussion about the decades-long debate over who should be able to use this honorific. 1-2 This article aims to promote a balanced understanding of this longstanding debate by putting current events in a historical context and providing insights from professional societies and experts. 

History of the Honorific “Doctor” Title

The English word “doctor” is directly derived from the Latin “doctor,” which means “teacher.” 3 The Latin noun comes from the verb “docere,” meaning “to show, teach, or cause to know.” 

This term’s use as an academic degree title began in the late 1100s when the University of Bologna awarded its first doctoral degree in civil law. 4 Degrees in canon law, medicine, grammar, and other fields followed shortly thereafter. Once German and English systems began applying “doctor” to more advanced degrees, other countries followed suit, and this usage became the standard. 

Medical schools started using “doctor” to describe graduates in the 1600s to denote respect. 5 The medical doctorate (MD) degree represents the first vocation-associated professional doctorate in the United States, as opposed to a doctorate based on research and academic expertise. 

Today, despite some variation among countries, the doctor title is typically given in most fields that require extensive postgraduate training, such as doctors of philosophy (PhDs), medical doctors (MDs), and Juris doctors (JD), among others. 4   

Current Events

Recent legal events in the United States represent another chapter in the history of the title “doctor.” As of 2023, several states have tried passing legislation to prevent nurses — even those with a doctorate of nursing practice (DNP) — from using the title. 6 Notably, California and Georgia have successfully passed such laws. 7-8 Florida would have joined them, but Governor Ron DeSantis vetoed the bill in July 2023. 9

Nurse practitioners who hold DNPs have pushed back against this legislation. In California, 3 DNPs are currently suing the state over their law, asking for the court to intervene and prevent its enforcement. 2 Their lawsuit comes less than a year after California ordered a DNP to pay almost $20,000 for referring to herself on social media and her professional websites as “Doctor Sarah.” 6  

California prosecutors argue that their law and its enforcement are intended to protect the public from misleading statements. 9 Jacqueline Palmer, one of the DNPs involved in the lawsuit against California, argues that she has never misrepresented herself as a physician and that her patients know which doctorate degree she holds. 9 She adds, “It’s not an ego trip; it’s not a power trip. It’s just validation that I worked hard to get where I am today.” 9  

Although other states, as previously mentioned, have similar laws to California, the attorney representing Palmer and her co-plaintiffs notes that California’s law is the most strict in the country. 9 In reading the law literally, it seems to also prohibit PhDs and university professors from using the doctor title.  

What Do Professional Societies and Experts Think? 

Where professional societies and experts land in this debate varies widely and, unsurprisingly, can depend on which profession they represent. Although professional associations agree that MDs should be able to represent themselves as “doctor,” the American Medical Association (AMA) believes this is the only group deserving of this designation. 10

AMA Favors Restrictive Doctor Title

The AMA reasons that restricting its use allows patients to make more informed health decisions based on the license of their health care professional. 10

Gary Gaddis, MD, an emergency medicine physician, shares this sentiment in an article published in 2022, stating, “Unfortunately, some [advanced nurse practitioners (ANPs)] who have achieved a DNP degree refer to themselves as ‘doctor’ in the clinical settings.” 11 He further argues that although ANPs could call themselves “doctor” in the academic setting, using this title in the clinical setting misleads patients and “defies their trust.” 11

AANP and AAPA Favor Restrictive Doctor Title

The American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP) and the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) agree with the AMA regarding patient education, stating that patients have the right to know who is caring for them. 10 However, both also support the use of the doctor title by “doctorally prepared nurses” and PAs with doctorate degrees and oppose legislation that would restrict its use to only those holding an MD.

Beth Lina, PhD, an epidemiology, infectious disease, and digital health expert, has weighed in on this debate. 12-13 In response to The Associated Press Stylebook guidelines that advise users to reserve the doctor title for people holding a doctorate in medicine, dental surgery, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatric medicine, and veterinary medicine, Lina expressed her discomfort. 

Lina argues, “By refusing to use the titles scientists have earned, news outlets contribute to the delegitimization of expertise,” adding, “‘Dr.’ is not an ‘honorifi[c] or simple job descriptio[n]’ and ‘is earned only upon demonstration of a deep independent understanding of a specific narrow topic.” 13  

Other authority figures have also shared their perspectives. Stephanie W. Edmonds, RN, PhD, MPH; Alden A. Bush, DNP, MPH, PMHNP-BC; and Ginny L. Ryan, MD, MA, collaborated on an article about this debate for STAT. 5 In their ideal scenario, all health professionals with doctoral degrees would use the doctor title in academic and professional settings, among colleagues only. They argue that the term should be removed from the clinical setting, as it sets up an unequal power dynamic between physician and patient.

Is There a Resolution?

Based on historical accuracy, it seems that the term “doctor” most accurately describes anyone with an advanced degree who teaches. In 2023, this applies broadly to many people achieving doctorate degrees, not just physicians. That said, nuances should be appreciated, and respecting the history of the “doctor” title does not negate the importance of clear communication with the public and with patients. If those holding advanced degrees in conjunction with professional societies can come together and formulate an agreement that respects the expertise of all parties while emphasizing transparency, then we may see a resolution to this decades-long debate that works for all involved.

References 

• Blake J. Who should be called a ‘doctor’? Inside Higher Ed. Published August 16, 2023. Accessed August 21, 2023. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/governance/accreditation/2023/08/16/who-should-be-called-doctor  
• Taylor M. Nurse practitioners sue California over restricted use of ‘doctor.’ Becker’s Hospital Review. Published July 18, 2023. Accessed August 21, 2023. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-physician-relationships/nurse-practitioners-sue-california-over-restricted-use-of-doctor.html  
• Doctor (n.). Online Etymology Dictionary. Updated October 13, 2021. Accessed August 21, 2023. https://www.etymonline.com/word/doctor  
• Doctor. Britannica. Updated August 21, 2023. Accessed August 21, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/topic/doctor-degree  
• Edmonds SW, Bush AA, Ryan GL. No one — M.D. or otherwise — should use the honorific ‘doctor’ with patients. STAT. Published July 17, 2023. Accessed August 21, 2023. https://www.statnews.com/2023/07/17/doctor-honorific-nurses-with-doctorates/  
• Taylor M. States take on ‘doctor’ title debate. Becker’s Clinical Leadership. Published August 21, 2023. Accessed August 21, 2023. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/nursing/states-take-on-doctor-title-debate.html  
• Cal bus & prof code § 2054. Casetext. Updated January 1, 2018. Accessed August 21, 2023. https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-business-and-professions-code/division-2-healing-arts/chapter-5-medicine/article-3-license-required-and-exemptions/section-2054-use-of-doctor-physician-dr-or-md  
• Hollowell A. Georgia blocks nonphysicians from using specialty titles. Becker’s Hospital Review. Published May 3, 2023. Accessed August 21, 2023. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/georgia-blocks-nonphysicians-from-using-specialty-titles.html  
• Wu D. Should nurses with doctorates be called doctor? Lawsuit targets Calif rule. The Washington Post. Published July 18, 2023. Accessed August 21, 2023. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/07/18/doctor-nurse-title-lawsuit-california/  
• Dean BF. Who gets to go by ‘Dr.’? 3 medical associations answer. Becker’s Clinical Leadership. Published April 14, 2023. Accessed August 21, 2023. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/quality/who-gets-to-go-by-dr-3-medical-associations-answer.html  
• Gaddis G. Nurses with a doctorate in nursing practice (DNP) should not call themselves “doctor” in a clinical setting . Mo Med . 2022;119(4):314-320.
• ‌Yu A. Who gets to be called ‘doctor’? WHYY. Published January 10, 2019. Accessed August 21, 2023. https://whyy.org/segments/who-gets-to-be-called-doctor-and-why-it-matters/  
• Who gets to be called ‘doctor?’ Why the controversial question divides journalists, academics, and more. Advisory Board. Published November 30, 2019. Republished July 18, 2023. Accessed August 21, 2023. https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2018/11/30/doctor

Picked for You

Latest News

Want to read more?

Please login or register first to view this content.

Login Register

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.190(21); 2018 May 28

Whom should we really call a “doctor”?

This is in response to the News article by Roger Collier. 1 These days many health professionals use the title “doctor.” Indeed, The Canadian Press Stylebook now decrees that the title of doctor should be reserved for physicians. Physicians, surgeons, dentists, chiropodists, university professors and, in some countries, pharmacists describe themselves as doctors. This raises the question — are they? To answer this question, one has to examine that title from both linguistic and historical standpoints.

The word doctor is derived from the Latin verb “docere,” meaning to teach, or a scholar. Only by special arrangement do any of the preceding professionals teach. Only university professors with a doctoral degree normally teach at a university. Historically speaking, the title doctor was invented in the Middle Ages to describe eminent scholars. These doctorates date back to the 1300s. Such people were accorded a lot of respect and prestige.

The PhD, or Doctor of Philosophy, is the highest graduate degree awarded by our universities.

Health professionals receive undergraduate degrees in medicine. These are professional degrees, and not really doctorates. The MD degree is not a part of graduate faculties at North American universities.

It has now become fashionable to award so-called Doctor of Law degrees to undergraduate law school graduates in the form of a Juris Doctor or JD degree, including at the University of Windsor. These, too, are merely undergraduate degrees.

Because of the respect and prestige, medical schools, particularly in Scotland, started to address their graduates as doctors in the 17th century. The argument was that graduates of such schools obtain a bachelor’s degree before joining medical school. There are problems with such logic, namely, a degree past a bachelor’s degree could potentially be a master’s degree, but not a doctoral degree.

A doctoral degree (PhD) is a degree that one earns after a master’s degree. A PhD entitles a person to use the title doctor. These are the social and physical scientists who conduct and evaluate published research. A PhD degree is normally obtained after six to eight years of hard work past the bachelor’s degree.

When we are asked in a physician’s or a dentist’s office what kind of doctor we are, we respond, “the real one.” We are the ones who teach the others.

We hope that this contribution helps in clearing up the confusion in the community about the title doctor.

The Canadian Press should change its policy and stylebook to reflect these facts and this history.

This contribution should not be construed as an attack on any professional or group of professionals. The main purpose here is to educate the public.

Competing interests: None declared.

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

How to address a doctoral candidate who is ABD (All but Dissertation)? Is "Dr" appropriate?

How does one address a doctoral candidate who completed all his/here requirements except the dissertation? Would they be referred to as Doctor? Or is there another title?

In the past, I believe I've seen "ABD" added as a postnominal in a signature. For example, "John Doe, ABD". But I don't believe I recall reading how to address such an individual.

Related discussions (thanks Nate (or is it Doctor?)):

• When can you call yourself doctor?
• Proper way to address yourself
• all-but-dissertation

• 11 I would call them John, unless they request something else. I usually ask "Do you prefer Mr. Doe, John, 'Hey you', or some other form of address?" –  Not Quite An Outsider Commented Jul 10, 2014 at 4:12
• 5 @NotQuiteAnOutsider That's going to cause a little confusion. D'you mind if we call them Bruce just to keep it clear? –  David Richerby Commented Jul 10, 2014 at 9:19
• If you're from the other half of the planet, sure @David. Works for me. –  Not Quite An Outsider Commented Jul 10, 2014 at 19:02
• 2 You may call then Master John or Mistress Karen if they got their MS/MA/MPhil in the process of advancing to candidacy. –  RoboKaren Commented Aug 24, 2015 at 22:25
• It feels good to finally get to the point where you have completed all but dissertation. But you are correct it is not a degree and can bite you in the butt if you add ABD and it stays there for more than a year or two. –  user39173 Commented Aug 26, 2015 at 18:50

5 Answers 5

Address them the same way you would address any other person without a doctorate: e.g. in many English-speaking cultures, "Mr. Smith", "Ms. Jones", "Mx. Brown", or if you are on friendly terms, by their first name.

If they have successfully defended their dissertation but not actually received the degree, this is a bit of a gray area (see When can you call yourself doctor? ) but I think "Dr. Brown" is reasonable.

• Thanks again Nate. I never commented, but I hold PhDs in awe. I only managed to get through undergrad and grad coursework. So I'm happy to give them lots of credit. –  user18370 Commented Aug 24, 2015 at 22:39
• Ad the 2nd paragraph: You can't make a mistake by calling them "Dr" in that case; they should be a bit more careful :) –  yo' Commented Aug 27, 2015 at 15:02

"ABD" is just silly, IMO, and I'd avoid using it like the plague. To me, it carries nothing but negative connotation.

First, defending a dissertation is too big to be an "all but". It's the culmination of a serious academic experience. I've seen plenty of students get to that point only to have the degree disappear.

Next, the dissertation and the defense is a big step. Not being able to get your act together to write and defend when you're at the "all but" stage is a sign to academics that something is not quite right.

Finally, even if everything is going perfectly, and you've completed the research and writing it up will take the normal amount of time, then using an artificial title makes it look like you're anxious to have a title.

Long story short, when you start, use "Ph.D. student". When you've been advanced to candidacy, use "Ph.D. candidate", because that's what you are. I'll stick my neck out and say that when you've successfully defended and dealt with any corrections and revisions your committee wants handled, but you're just waiting for a ceremony, it might be OK to use Ph.D., but I'd leave it out, and on my CV I'd list Ph.D., with the date defended and the date the degree will be conferred.

• 7 I agree. ABD sounds as silly as a Bachelor All But Exams. –  Davidmh Commented Aug 31, 2015 at 15:08
• 2 What is the difference between PhD student and candidate? I've been using those synonymously. –  mathreadler Commented Aug 24, 2018 at 13:29
• 3 They are not synonomous @mathreadler. Advancement to candidacy, at least in most US programs, is a formal step that usually occurs after formal "proposal" of your thesis topic or passing of a qualifier exam. i.e., a first year PhD student that has zero idea of the exact topic of the dissertation is most often not considered a candidate. –  Scott Seidman Commented Aug 24, 2018 at 13:32
• 1 Ok. As far as I know there is no such step of changing name or title in many places in Europe. There may be an evaluation, say after a year after having started if the PhD student is judged reasonably able to finish given the progress during the first year. –  mathreadler Commented Aug 24, 2018 at 13:35
• @mathreadler: In many places/programs the PhD is split into an initial coursework phase and then a later phase where you have proposed and are working on your dissertation. This gives rise to a distinction between a PhD "student" (earlier phase) versus "candidate" (later phase). Note that some countries/institutions/programs do not have this split, and so in those places there is no distinction between these terms (i.e., they are synonymous). –  Ben Commented Oct 16, 2020 at 13:46

Such a person is entitled to be recognized as a "PhD Candidate" , which would follow the name and probably mention the department or emphasis ("PhD Candidate in Electrical Engineering" in my case). This might be used in a signature block or a biographical sketch.

There is no special honorific to use antecedent to the name, as Nate has already told you.

Before I post my comment I strongly caution one to review the institutional policy regarding this topic. In some program and student code of conduct policies credentialing and use of titles prior to the awarding of the full degree is grounds for dismissal from the program.

Having been ABD for longer than I should have been I can tell you it is not something I wanted to advertise. It was more like an albatross when I was required to report annually on my progress.

In an earlier post the term “candidate” was discussed. This would be appropriate when presented in a vitae or resume in the educational section for degree not yet completed along with the anticipated completion date.

XYZ University City, State Ph.D. Management (Candidate, 2016)

My advice is to finish the dissertation and earn the degree. The satisfaction of being called Dr. or adding the letters in your signature is far less important than the actual work.

• 3 I appreciate your answer. There is no such degree as "ABD," so there is never a reason to add it after a name. In the academic culture I spent my time in, it was seen as foolish. –  ewormuth Commented Aug 1, 2015 at 21:27
• 3 A student was dismissed from my own doctoral program after sending out resumes with "Ph.D." after his name, but before he had defended. This was done quietly but with great finality. –  Bob Brown Commented Aug 26, 2015 at 22:00
• 1 I mostly agree with this answer, but even writing "PhD (Candidate, Year)" as a postnominal seems extremely dubious to me. You should not be listing postnominal letters for a degree that has not been conferred, even if you parenthetically note that you are merely a candidate. I would tend to read that as a heavy negative --- i.e., the writer is trying to pass himself off with credit for a degree that is not finished. –  Ben Commented Oct 16, 2020 at 13:48

in "real life" you'd refer to that person with an honorarium of "ABD" as "hey, you over there!" "yeah...you with the funny hair."

i.e. almost really really is only valid in horse shoes and hand-grenades.

• 3 This seems adequately covered by the very first comment on the question. –  Ben Voigt Commented Dec 4, 2015 at 2:00

You must log in to answer this question.

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• Lore reasons for being faithless
• How should I secure ceiling drywall with no edge backing?
• How can I write the following expression in LaTeX?
• Is it possible to omit a verb when there’s another verb right behind it?
• Best way to explain the thinking steps from x² = 9 to x=±3
• Bounding the number of policemen required to guard a city depend on how near sighted they are?
• Should you refactor when there are no tests?
• Does an airplane fly less or more efficiently after an mid-flight engine failure?
• How would humans actually colonize mars?
• Hilbert style proof systems vs Natural deductions: Some naive questions
• What should be the affiliation of PhD student who submitted thesis but yet to defend, in a conference talk slides?
• Why does each state get two Senators?
• Driveway electric run using existing service poles
• What happens to entropy during compression?
• Risks of exposing professional email accounts?
• What does "if you ever get up this way" mean?
• Can my employer require me to wear a dirty uniform and refuse to provide additional shirts?
• A story where SETI finds a signal but it's just a boring philosophical treatise
• Is loss of availability automatically a security incident?
• Replace a string in a script without modifying the file, and then to execute it
• Why did the Númenórean dissenters associate Míriel's use of a palantír with darkness or evil?
• Fill the grid with numbers to make all four equations true
• How to reconcile the effect of my time magic spell with my timeline
• Can it be acceptable to take over CTRL + F shortcut in web app

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Why are lawyers not called "doctor"?

I don't quite understand the education process for lawyers, but I do understand there are a number of different degrees, and one of them is 'JD', the juris doctor . My Latin is quite rusty, but I believe that is "Doctor of Law."

So why are they not called "doctor" in common practice, like any PhD is? Is the JD actually not similar to a doctorate program? If not, then why does it take the name doctor ?

I understand that the JD is what they call a "1st degree" and there are even higher degrees. The LLM, for example, is a "Master of Laws", which really confuses things now because "master" degrees are normally less than "doctor" degrees. So if a JD is not not called a "doctor" for some logical reason, what about the LLM, since it is a higher degree?

• legal-education

• 5 In the rest of the common law world (and in the US until the mid 20th century), the basic law degree is the LL.B., which makes far more sense. –  phoog Commented Jul 12, 2015 at 7:19
• 1 @phoog Considering the LLB is a bachelor's degree, I suppose I agree, since that follows convention. –  user608 Commented Jul 12, 2015 at 7:25
• 4 In English lawyers are (for reasons I don't understand) traditionally availed of the honorific "esquire." –  feetwet ♦ Commented Jul 12, 2015 at 16:18
• 4 In Brazil lawyers are traditionally addressed as "doctor" ("doutor" in Portuguese) even if they haven't a Doctor degree. –  Paulo Scardine Commented Jul 15, 2015 at 4:54
• 7 @feetwet It would be more accurate to say that 'esquire' is used in the United States, since it is not commonly used in any other English-speaking country. –  sjy Commented Apr 13, 2017 at 9:11

10 Answers 10

The answer isn't really legal (though some jurisdictions regulate the use of such titles through statute), but academic. It depends on specific countries. Italy, for instance, allows all graduates, including undergraduates, to use the title doctor.

However, in general the title doctor is reserved for those in medical professions, upon graduation, or holders of post-graduate doctoral degrees - the PhD, DLitt., LLD, and so on.

The purpose is, for medical graduates, to allow them to identify themselves as medical practitioners.

However, for doctoral graduates, the purpose is to recognise your contributions to the academic field. The JD is a qualifying degree - you've hardly contributed to the field.

The JD is absolutely not similar to a doctoral program. It is far more similar to the LLB, however its origins are rooted in the equalisation of professional degrees in the USA - the LLB was conferred upon those who had already completed their first degree, and so the change to a JD was merely so that they could confer a "second" degree.

• 2 Holders of master's degrees are not called "doctor" even though they are post-graduate degrees that are often terminal and a J.D. is really closer to the master's degree than a PhD. –  ohwilleke Commented May 7, 2018 at 1:44

To add to jimsung's detailed response, some U.S. state ethics panels have issued opinions regarding the usage of the title "doctor." Over the last couple decades, formal positions suggesting that JDs ought not to use the title (including the ABA's own position) have begun to erode as the various states have relaxed the strictures (albeit with cautionary guidance).

Here are a few good reads:

Lawyers are Doctors, Too ...concerning state panels

Lawyers and the title "Doctor" ...from a JD who insists on being called "Doctor"

Council Statements ...from the ABA on it's position that the JD is equivalent to the PhD for employment purposes

The last two links should be read with a grain of salt. In paragraph 2 of the third link, it's important to remember trade organizations like the ABA have incentives to promote the status of their regulated degrees ( e.g. the JD). The equivalence in paragraph 2 is based on an a subset of the PhD requirements rather than their full complement. In particular, it equates roughly a year of legal coursework (the difference between 90 and 60 credit hours) with all of the omitted PhD requirements. In many doctorate programs this omission amounts to roughly 4-7 years of teaching and original research.

At the end of the day, much comes down to culture, custom, and the importance of disambiguation. Even state ethics opinions that authorize use of the term are careful to emphasize that its use ought not to confound existing custom.

• 5 That third paper is... misleading. A PhD is more than the coursework, and to dismiss the dissertation as relevant, when it will probably consume much more time than the coursework, is just plain wrong. The second paper rests much of its arguments on the assertion that the meaning of doctor is "learned man", when it is clear that any layperson will assume medical competency, not just general education. There's a reason why there are humorous shirts that say I'm not that kind of doctor , after all - everyone gets the joke, too. –  jimsug Commented Jul 12, 2015 at 22:18
• @jimsug Just because people generally think of medical doctor first when they hear the word doctor does not mean they are ignorant of the fact that many educated persons have earned the honorific. I think most people realize that psychiatrists, veterinarians, and dentists are also called doctor, despite not being in medical practice. I agree a smaller percentage, but still most, know that all PhD's are also called doctor. –  user608 Commented Jul 12, 2015 at 22:40
• @fred Sure. But even in your examples, there's some element of medicine, whether it's surgery or some other treatment of ailments on humans or otherwise. In any case, I was merely pointing out that even if the primary definition of doctor were "learned man" (it isn't), it's just as important what someone's (particularly a layperson's) impression of you is. –  jimsug Commented Jul 12, 2015 at 22:44
• 1 In fact, I think I remember reading that it's strictly prohibited for lawyers without an MD to use the title "doctor" in cases where medical expertise is involved (like malpractice cases), because in common speech "doctor" means "physician." –  cpast Commented Jul 13, 2015 at 2:58
• 4 @fredsbend Pshychiatrists, at least in the US, go to the same medical school, take the same courses, and receive the same degree (MD or DO) as heart surgeons, pulmanologists, pediatricians, etc. do. Are you possibly thinking of psychologists? –  Sean Commented Dec 6, 2016 at 16:27

The customary honorific in the United States used to identify someone who has a J.D. (doctor of laws a.k.a. "Juris Doctor"), which is a recent invention, or an L.L.B. (bachelor of laws), the more common historical name for the same degree, if that person is also admitted to the practice of law, is to state someone's name followed by the honorific "esquire". Hence, "Andrew Oh-Willeke, Esquire" or "Andrew Oh-Willeke, Esq."

Strictly speaking "Esquire" should generally only be used by a third person referring to a lawyer, and not by the lawyer himself or herself, but sometimes lawyers use the title reflexively anyway to clarify to someone to whom the lawyer is writing that the author is a lawyer.

Esquire is a quasi-aristocratic rank in England immediately below that of a knight (the lowest aristocratic rank and not always hereditary) and above that of gentleman, that is not a true aristocrat as it is not a hereditary rank and does not have a well defined meaning other than that someone is "upper class".

This vague modern English meaning was crystalized to have a more specific meaning in the U.S. (per the previous Wikipedia link):

In the United Kingdom, Esquire historically was a title of respect accorded to men of higher social rank, above the rank of gentleman and below the rank of knight. It later came to be used as a general courtesy title for any man in a formal setting, usually as a suffix to his name, as in "John Smith, Esq.", with no precise significance. In the United Kingdom today, it is still commonly used as a written style of address in formal or professional correspondence.[4][5] In certain formal contexts, it remains an indication of a social status that is recognised in the formal Order of Precedence.[6] In the United States, Esquire is mostly used to denote a lawyer; in a departure from traditional use, it is used irrespective of gender. In letters, a lawyer is customarily addressed by adding the suffix Esquire (abbreviated Esq.), preceded by a comma, after the lawyer's full name.[7] An exception to this would be the American magazine Esquire which, as a publication for men rather than lawyers, uses the term in the original British sense.

As of 1894, when the term still had a formal definition in England, it was defined as follows:

The younger sons of peers and their eldest sons. The eldest sons of knights and their eldest sons. The chiefs of ancient families are esquires by prescription. Esquires by creation or office. Such the heralds and serjeants at arms and some others, who are constituted esquires by receiving a collar of SS. Judges and other officers of state, justices of the peace, and the higher naval and military officers are designated esquires in their patents or commissions. Doctors in the several faculties, and barristers at law, are considered as esquires, or equal to esquires. None, however, of these offices or degrees convey gentility to the posterity of their holders. The last kind of esquires are those of knights of the bath; each knight appoints two to attend upon him at his installation and at coronations.

The use of the term "Esquire" treads some fine lines, because the United States Constitution categorically forbids the creation of true titles of nobility. Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states in the petinent part: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and Article II, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution states in the pertinent part: "No state shall . . . grant any Title of Nobility."

The fact that many lawyers do not have a J.D. and instead have an L.L.B, and more importantly, that no lawyers had a J.D. at the time that customary forms of address for lawyers were formulated (the legal profession in the United States was formalized in the late 1800s and the first law school was established at Harvard in 1870), is part of the reason that the title "Dr." is not used.

The degree " Juris Doctor " was not widely used until the 1960s. The first law school to grant a J.D., the University of Chicago Law School , was founded in 1902 and wouldn't have had a graduate with a J.D. until 1905 or so. As explained in the Wikipedia article "Juris Doctor":

The University of Chicago Law School was the first to offer it.[84] While approval was still pending at Harvard, the degree was introduced at many other law schools including at the law schools at NYU, Berkeley, Michigan and Stanford. Because of tradition, and concerns about less prominent universities implementing a J.D. program, prominent eastern law schools like those of Harvard, Yale and Columbia refused to implement the degree. Indeed, pressure from them led almost every law school (except at the University of Chicago and other law schools in Illinois) to abandon the J.D. and readopt the LL.B. as the first law degree by the 1930s.[85] It was only after 1962 that a new push—this time begun at less-prominent law schools—successfully led to the universal adoption of the J.D. as the first law degree. Student and alumni support were key in the LL.B.-to-J.D. change, and even the most prominent schools were convinced to make the change: Columbia and Harvard in 1969, and Yale, last, in 1971.[86] Nonetheless, the LL.B. at Yale retained the didactical changes of the "practitioners courses" of 1826 and was very different from the LL.B. in common law countries other than Canada.[66]

As noted in the answers and comments to this question, many countries with a different historical experience do address lawyers as "Dr." and in Japan, lawyers (or at least the Japanese equivalent of barristers) are addressed "Sensei" which literally means "teacher" or perhaps "professor" but is a term of respect used for all learned professionals (including doctors).

It is improper and often considered fraudulent to use "Esquire" if you have a J.D. or L.L.B degree, but are not admitted to the practice of law. People in that position can write: "Andrew Oh-Willeke, J.D.", although even that puts you on thin ice as it might be used to give the impression that someone is admitted to the practice of law, when they are not.

I was a professor for a while, and many of my peers who were not lawyers used the title "Dr." as they had PhDs. It was not considered proper, even then, for either me or a peer who also had a J.D., to go by the title "Dr." and instead I was addressed "Professor Oh-Willeke" or "Mr. Oh-Willeke".

All of these useages are, of course, arbitrary, but they are also well established. As noted in the citations made by Pat W. in that answer, ethics opinions have not reached a consensus on the ethics of a lawyer using the title "Dr." since the J.D. came into wide use, although the "Council" statement referenced in that answer applies primarily to make clear that a J.D. is equivalent to a PhD for the narrow purpose of being qualified to be a university professor, and not for the purpose of title of address.

• 1 Great answer! You might be primed to illuminate the curious question on Titles of Nobility itself. –  feetwet ♦ Commented Dec 7, 2016 at 18:11
• Maybe. That is a hard question. I think I know the answer, but it would be hard to verify. –  ohwilleke Commented Dec 7, 2016 at 18:16
• Unverified but helpful answers are still encouraged! (And I've seen plenty of occasions where verification has been found and added by another user.) –  feetwet ♦ Commented Dec 7, 2016 at 18:20

In the US, the terminal degree in law equivalent to an academic doctorate (i.e. a Ph.D.) is not the J.D., or the L.L.M. It's the S.J.D. Here's Harvard's program. Here's UCLA's .

Hardly anyone gets them anymore. Here's a Georgetown Law Weekly blurb.

Lawyers may jokingly call each other "doctor." I do that sometimes when I run into someone from my law school class. It's affected and pretentious to insist upon it seriously, because (as above) the J.D. is not equivalent to a Ph.D.

• Thanks for the links. Why is the SJD a rare degree? Why would one seek it? –  user608 Commented Jul 17, 2015 at 16:39
• 3 I'm speculating, but it would seem to be a matter of practicality and utility. The Georgetown article suggests the degree is more or less obsolete and unnecessary as far as the legal field is concerned (including law school professorship). If the idea is to become a university academic, a Ph.D. in " Academic Discipline and Law" might be preferable both in terms of departmental hiring requirements and perceived status. Which would you bet all that time and tuition on? It would be interesting to see data on those who do get it: perhaps it's mostly already established law school profs. –  daffy Commented Jul 17, 2015 at 16:53
• @daffy, the majority of candidates here hold law degrees that aren't JDs, which seems to support the Georgetown blurb you cited –  Pat W. ♦ Commented Jul 20, 2015 at 20:14
• 1 "Hardly anyone gets them anymore." No one ever got LLM or SJD degrees with any frequency. Most are academic graduate degrees mostly offered to international student academics studying comparative law. Some LLMs are also offered as a specialization credential to practicing lawyers who have a J.D. or LLB (most commonly in tax). Most law professors have either a JD or a JD and a PhD. Very few law professors have an LLM and almost none in the U.S. have an SJD. –  ohwilleke Commented Dec 7, 2016 at 18:01

In some Eastern European countries lawyers are in fact called doctors. They use this title as physicians (medical doctors) do.

There is actually a terminal law degree. It is Doctor of Juridical Science - J.S.D. It is appropriate to use the "Doctor" honorific as it would for any PhD.

• 1 Welcome to Law.SE! Are you able to explain this in a way that's different than the other answer that says the same thing? (My guess is that's why your response was flagged.) –  Pat W. ♦ Commented Dec 13, 2020 at 13:03

National Education Association provides a good explanation and differentiates between a doctoral research degree and professional doctor's degree: A doctor's degree that is conferred upon completion of a program providing the knowledge and skills for the recognition, credential, or license required for professional practice. The degree is awarded after a period of study such that the total time to the degree, including both pre-professional and professional preparation, equals at least six full-time equivalent academic years. Some of these degrees were formerly classified as first-professionaland may include: Chiropractic (D.C. or D.C.M.); Dentistry (D.D.S. or D.M.D.); Law (J.D.); Medicine (M.D.); Optometry (O.D.); Osteopathic Medicine (D.O); Pharmacy (Pharm.D.); Podiatry (D.P.M., Pod.D., D.P.); or, Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.), and others, as designated by the awarding institution.

American lawyers adopted "Esq." some time ago to denote somebody qualified to practice law because traditionally you didn't have to go to law school to practice law in this country. Lots of American attorneys throughout history and to this day didn't earn a JD, or legal degree of any type, including guys you have heard of like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. It was, and still is, considered disrespectful, awkward, and arguably unethical to call some practicing attorneys and judges "Doctor", where other equally qualified professionals don't get the title.

You can imagine the title throwing off the egalitarian dynamics of a courtroom where one attorney appearing before the judge insists on being called "Doctor" where the opposing party's attorney, or even the judge, would be referred to differently. It also might be misleading to the public if an attorney advertised themselves as "Doctor", because it might imply that they are "more qualified" to practice law than another lawyer may be, which is not true.

• 1 This answer might be better if it cited sources for these facts. –  Ryan M Commented Dec 21, 2020 at 10:04

A JD program (applied professional practice based legal doctoral degree) has significantly evolved and developed throughout the years to become a full doctoral degree. Although some course content such as the first year may be foundational doctrinal courses that overlap an undergraduate course, law schools none the less are taught at a graduate level with the same graduate 80-90 units required after a bachelors degree resembling the same units of a formal PhD program (~90 units). The years it takes to complete a PhD should not be the variable considered, since it is a self-paced funded/not funded research endeavor that may take years to complete but the bottom line units are the same as a JD. Additionally, past the first year of law school, students are required to take advanced legal course work with practical training and applied legal research elements, that allows the lawyer to in fact be a gatekeeper in the profession. Also, mind you, 7 years is just the minimum, I myself will be in school for 12 years before earning a JD (I completed a masters along the way). A PhD and JD are both doctorate degrees but differ in application. A PhD is an entirely theoretical scholarly body of work that remains in the academic world. A professional doctorate applies theory to practical vocational applications. You don’t want a lawyer that only advises you in theory, you want a lawyer that can conduct practical research and advise you with “real world” professional advise.

A JD is a full doctoral degree.

The only professional in society that can call him/her self a "doctor" are physicians. The more appropriate address for a PhD or a JD at the university is "professor" which by definition means a teacher (doctor) of the highest rank at the university.

• 1 "The only professional in society that can call him/her self a 'doctor' are physicians." This really isn't true. Plenty of PhDs are commonly referred to as "Dr. So-and-so." –  Ryan M Commented Nov 10, 2020 at 20:55

The reason is exactly this:

A person of reason is to PhD as a lawyer is to a JD. But a person of reason isn't a PhD, nor a lawyer a JD, without some Truth or Gravitas in which to base you doctorate upon.

In either case of having a doctorate, you must be able to defend it without some institution to help you: you are standing on your own, all "grown up", as it were.

You must log in to answer this question.

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• Risks of exposing professional email accounts?
• How many ways can you make change?
• Does it make sense for the governments of my world to genetically engineer soldiers?
• Seinfeldisms in O.R
• Correctly modelling a continuous log dose-response relationship in meta-regression for small dosages
• What do pilots do if they *really* need to go to the toilet in critical parts of the flight?
• Could there be a runaway thermonuclear fusion in ocean of heavy water?
• When a star becomes a black hole do the neutrons that are squeezed together release binding energy and if so does this energy escape from the hole?
• best way to double-bend arrows smoothly
• What is Zion's depth in the Matrix?
• Nearly stalled on takeoff after just 3 hours training on a PPL. Is this normal?
• Find the radius of a circle given 2 of its coordinates and their angles.
• Word for a collection of awards, such as an Olympic athlete’s earned medals
• Proof of the principle of explosion
• Can Ontario municipal zoning by-laws prohibit site-built tiny homes?
• Sum of reciprocals of rough numbers
• Driveway electric run using existing service poles
• Replace a string in a script without modifying the file, and then to execute it
• Do you have to tell your friend if you have hate for him in your heart?
• What should be the affiliation of PhD student who submitted thesis but yet to defend, in a conference talk slides?
• When you use the subjunctive tense for events that have happened?
• Can it be acceptable to take over CTRL + F shortcut in web app
• Is it a date format of YYMMDD, MMDDYY, and/or DDMMYY?
• Do I need to validate a Genoa MET daily ticket every time?