Way back in my high school days (class of 1967) there was just one teacher with a doctorate, in mathematics. Doctor Rockwood, a fabulous teacher, was absolutely cool with being known and addressed by students as “Doc Rock”.
Ha, 100% correct! Dates from the time when surgeons were barbers with very big knives. Certainly not university educated. They wear the ‘Mr’ title with a badge of pride.
Not just surgeons - any medical consultants. They work hard to be called Dr and then work harder to be called Mr again.
Female medical doctors don’t necessarily fare any better than PhDs in the “people being willing to use their titles” stakes.
And by ‘people’ I guess I really mean ‘men’
Female dyads utilized formal titles during the first form of address 97.8% (45/46) compared with male dyads who utilized a formal title 72.4% (110/152) of the time ( p = 0.007). In mixed-gender dyads, where the introducer was female and speaker male, formal titles were used 95.0% (57/60) of the time. Male introducers of female speakers utilized professional titles 49.2% (31/63) of the time ( p < 0.001).
Lawyers with a JD shouldn’t be addressed as “doctor” because they don’t have a doctoral degree. The have a degree with the word “doctor” in it, but calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it so.
When I was an undergrad, my department was sufficiently informal that we would have referred to the professors by first name… except that it happened that three of the professors all had the same first name, so it would have been confusing. So we had to refer to them by last name, and the way to refer to them by last name was “Dr. Lastname”.
I would not say 99% outside of academia but it’s probably around 80% people assume it’s a MD or Dentist or Vet. there are MD/PhD people and also vets who also have PhD with DVM.
Specialist dentists like root canal guys and orthodontists typically get a MS degree after they get their DDS. Also some lawyers get a LLM masters degree after their JD.
There are MDs who don’t do internship/residency so they can’t legally treat patients. They typically work in research. I met a guy who did that.
I’ve told this elsewhere, but it doesn’t hurt to repeat it. When one of our grad students finished his PhD and his family held a reception, the student’s father, an MD and a professor in a medical school, said to me, “Now we have a real doctor in the family.”
Wow. Tucker claims if theyre not a physical doctor, its pretentious to use the title Dr. He even made a reference to Dr. Pepper, as if that’s what hes equating her with. Glad I’ve been switching to CNN
This reasoning should then apply to physicians with M.D. or D.O. degrees.
The American Bar Association has ruled that lawyers with J.D. degrees may use the title “doctor” so long as it isn’t connected with any attempt to mislead anyone with respect to their qualifications. What they’re concerned about is any implication of medical expertise. Otherwise, it’s fine.
I had a great-aunt who went to medical school in the '30s and later served in the Army Medical Corps. She never married and would get really offended if address as Miss or Ms, especially in writing. Unless of course used Major.
In the opinion piece referenced, Epstein says “no one should call himself Dr. unless he has delivered a child”
I get that he is trying to say “medical doctor” here, but lots of medical doctors, I would actually guess MOST don’t deliver babies. Is your neurosurgeon not a medical doctor because they don’t deliver babies?
Epstein is a troll, just a highly public one.
From the Epstein article:
two things jumped out at me: the gender specific terms in this admonition, and the patronising Dr. “Jill”.
Not a problem. Dr. Biden has delivered a child. Daughter, Ashley, born 1981.
Yes, except the maxim quoted by Mr Epstein assumes that doctors who deliver babies are male, so by his test I don’t think Dr Biden’s efforts qualify. 
To Epstein: pfft.
I think that’s a summary of this entire thread. 
What do you think of the M.D.?
What surprised me most about the article is how unserious it is. I know WSJ opinion articles have a right wing bias, but overall it seems like a serious publication with some reputation and gravitas. Why would they publish such an article? Whether the target was a man or a woman, what possible purpose does it have? Very strange.
Maybe the author is indeed a huge misogynist and he just had to find a way to belittle Jill Biden, and this is the only thing he could hold against her. But his blanket statement that only MDs should go by doctor affects thousands of both men and women, i.e. it’s not just a swipe at non-MD women doctors, it’s a swipe at all non-MD doctors.
Such a weird article to write and such a weird article for the WSJ to decide to publish.
Well, 4 years ago the liberals were criticizing the future First Lady of the alleged party of morals and family values over the fact that she had posed for naked photos that showed her fondling her own genitalia and stimulating an oral sex act with another woman…so both sides.
Almost, but clearly not at all, worse than planting kale in the Whitehouse garden.