I’ve lived long enough to know that the EdD lacks the gravitas (and respect) of the PhD–at least in most fields–but know little about it. While I believe the EdD does not typically require a dissertation and is not research-oriented, what are the other key differences?
How does a EdD in, say, psychology differ from a PhD in same? How do the curricula differ? Are EdD’s being supplanted by the PhD, in terms of enrollment?
The only concrete program I could find are the [url="http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/mathed/degrees.html"mathematics education degrees at the University of Virginia, and it looks like the major difference between the two programs is what letters you get to put after your name when you’re done. Other programs are undoubtedly different.
Hi, there. Future Ed.Ser checking in. I have never heard of an Ed.D, but if its similar to an Ed.S here is the main difference: teaching colleges. Only Ph.Ds can teach at a college. There is a change in pay with Ph.Ds making slightly more, but nothing Earth-shattering. There is also the difference in length of program with Ed.S being about two years shorter.
What is an Ed.Ser?
I’ve wondered the same thing about “Psy.D” vs. “Ph.D” in psychology. Holders of both degrees seem to be found in the same habitats, and do the same kind of work.
It’s not very apparent, but does the Ed.D. require substantial originality or just new observations and analyses? Many other doctorates (than the One True Doctorate) really minimize the “essentially new contribution to the field” requirement. As far as I can tell from talking with medical, and law students, M.D.s, and J.D.s really have no such requirement at all.
I know that there’s a PhD in law, and I think there might be one in medicine, so that’s what you should be comparing against.
As for the rest, I don’t know.
That’s what I’m asking. Is Ed.D. analogous to M.D. or J.D.? There’s a Ph.D. in education, so maybe the proper analogy is Ed.D. <=> J.D., Ph.D. in education <=> Ph.D. in law.
No, the Ed.D. is an academic degree. It is not like an M.D. , J.D., or D.D.S. which are professional degrees. A Ph.D. is suppose to be more research-oriented vs. an Ed.D. which might lean more towards practice and application of theory. I’ve always felt that the Ed.D. is a way for school administrators to obtain a “terminal” degree and that can mean higher compensation in some educational systems.
In law, the basic degree in the U.S. is a J.D. (Juris Doctor). Prior to the 1960s, most law schools granted the LL.B. (Bachelor of Laws) degree, but thereafter switched to the J.D., reputedly because people with doctoral level degrees would be on a higher pay scale in federal jobs. In other countries, people get a LL.B., often as an undergraduate course of study.
The first advanced law degree in law is the LL.M. (Master of Laws), usually a one year program for those with a J.D. or LL.B. degree. The highest advanced law degree is either a LL.D. (Doctor of Laws) or S.J.D. (Doctor of Juridical Science), both of which are academic research degrees which I understand to be fully equivalent to a Ph.D. in other disciplines.
As to educaton, I once knew someone with an Ed.S., which he explained was a degree that involved the coursework component of a Ph.D. program (or Ed.D., I forget), but did not have a dissertation requirement.
The PsyD is a “professional” doctoral degree of psychology. No dissertation, no industrial-grade research requirement. I think it’s typically sought by those who wish to be clinicians. Typically, holders of psychology PhDs look down upon the PsyD, believing it a watered-down version because of the research aspect mentioned above, but each has its own strengths. IIRC, holders of PsyD’s sometimes look down upon the psychology PhD, as PsyD programs can often produce stronger clinicians. Given the grind, cost and all-around rigors of a PhD program, I believe the PsyD has become very popular, although obtaining a position in many non-academic programs is still often reserved for PhDs, rather than PsyDs.
The Ph.D. is a real degree, and the Ed.D. isn’t. (My stepsister spent all summer! writing her Ed.D. thesis).
twicks, Ph.D.
What twick said. As a teacher, my observation is that a Ph. D. has to make some original contribution to the human race. An Ed. D. is a suit with a piece of paper, from which the brain has been removed. 
nivlac’s right. You really have to know that program requirements differ greatly so it is difficult to generalize, but typically an Ed.D. is a practice-oriented degree while a Ph.D. is research-centered. Some institutions (Florida State, for instance) offer both Ph.D. and Ed.D. programs. I can vouch for a certain very, very old institution near Boston that the only terminal degree in education is an Ed.D., which requires a qualifying paper, a thesis, and oral examinations - the exact structure of a Ph.D. program, and in fact, the template for many Ph.D. programs in education across the nation. (A friend is in the Ph.D. program at Boston College and I compare notes - we’re doing essentially the same thing.)
Because of plain laziness and people’s reluctance to learn what exactly people do in their programs, some Ed.D. graduates from my school (specifically, ones who are in the human development and psychology department) encounter difficulty when applying for NIH grants that say “Ph.D. only.” Typically this is resolved by a letter from prominent faculty explaining that this particular program has the same requirements of a Ph.D., or in many cases, people know that this institution only grants Ed.D. degrees.
At my institution, only the Faculty of Arts and Sciences can bestow the Ph.D. degree. For a Ph.D. to be a reality for me and my cohortmates, we would essentially have our educational careers managed by folks in other academic disciplines rather than education researcher. Most of us prefer the arrangement now, but if plans to create an Ed.D. practitioner track and a Ph.D. research track come to fruition, I hope to be very, very far away…
Ultimately, I’ve been assured that research experience, publications, and teaching trump the letters after one’s name. Good institutions will value Joe Blow, Ed.D., if Joe authors papers and presents at research conferences. Richard Roe, Ph.D., won’t be at an advantage if he just writes a thesis and heads out of town.
Despite what twicks and silenus said, it takes about 5-8 years on average to complete an Ed.D. here. At this institution, your thesis is required to be an original contribution to research and/or the literature on an item of interest. You have to go through many hoops to get to the point where you can propose a thesis topic, so you can’t just come up with something out of thin air…
Gah! Begging your forgiveness for the typos and poor grammar…
In my field, we call that a master’s degree. The difference between a master’s and a PhD is almost entirely in the research, and I can’t justify cosidering any degree which does not require a substantive contribution to the body of human knowledge a doctorate. I don’t even like the fact that medical practitioners are titled “doctor”, but I’m realistic enough to realize that that one’s not going away. But a lawyer fresh out of law school is not a doctor.
I can understand that it might be desireable to have a terminal degree in a field, but why must that degree be a doctorate? There’s nothing at all wrong with a terminal master’s degree (which is, after all, what many of these so-called doctorates actually are). Heck, depending on the field, a bachelor’s degree could be a perfectly fine terminal degree.
By definition, the terminal degree is the highest, the ultimate degree that can be bestowed in a particular field. With this definition, can you think of a field where the terminal degree is not a doctorate? Perhaps there is some obscure field that I’m not aware of, but the doctorate (even if it’s strictly in name only) is the end game.
Fine Arts. The MFA (Master of Fine Arts) is generally considered the terminal degree in Visual Arts fields.
Many fields–from radiology to physical therapy–are embracing the doctorate as the terminal degree. A lot has to do with gaining more stature. An individual with an MS is not on a level playing field with a PhD, so the argument goes.
Chronos talks about the PhD’s presumed “substantive contribution to the body of human knowledge a doctorate” but how many newly minted PhDs can really make that claim–especially in the non-sciences? When did original become synonymous with substantive?
Anyway, I’m assuming Twikster’s remark–a PhD is a real degree whereas the EdD is not–is meant to be in jest, but I’m hoping for a more substantive contribution to the body of SDMB knowledge, especially from a PhD. 
No, the teminal degree is the highest degree that a worker in the field is expected to get. Many people who go to grad school in physics, for instance, are working specifically towards a master’s degree, because that’s all that’s expected in many segments of industry which hire physicists. Those people get terminal master’s degrees. I have a master’s degree in physics, but I’m working towards a doctorate, so my master’s degree isn’t terminal.