It is the school or university that is accredited, not the individual. It’s the school or university that confers the degree not the individual. (Sometimes it’s the board of governors, I think, but my diploma doesn’t say this; usually it’s "upon recomendation of the faculty.) If Harvard University wants to hire me to sign all their diplomas and hand tham to graduates at comencement, I’ll be happy to do it. No one will tell them they’re no longer accredited because of it. You can look at the various regional accrediting agencies’ websites to see their criteria. Regional accrediting is the highest level of accredidation in the US; regional and professional accrediting agencies are recognized by the US Dept. of Education, and are listed on their website.
Of course I doubt any accredited school would hire a president or dean who didn’t have a doctorate. Usually it will be a PhD, but for a professional school (like a medical or law school), I suppose it may not be–the president of my seminary has a D.Min. (which he got from this seminary at least partly so they would hire him as president).
The person isn’t conferring the degree, the institution is. Any individual institution might have rules regarding who must sign a degree certificate, but actually I would be surprised to learn that many of them do. Actually, I’d be surprised if there were actually a requirement that a certificate be issued. Anyone who really wants to know whether you hold a degree isn’t going to trust the certificate anyway; they’re going to ask for a transcript directly from the institution.
I beg to differ. As a psychologist, in the academy, I am “Doctor” by title; in the community, I am “Doctor” by degree and license. This is appropriate both because of my degree and academic rank, and also because I provide services in the community that are similar to those an MD provides. I assure you that insurance companies call me “Doctor,” because I have completed the training (including a doctorate) and licensing necessary to provide medically necessary services. They require me to be a doctor, and they refer to me as a doctor.
BTW, a psychologist’s education and licensing typically requires 4-7 years of education (depending on whether a master’s degree is earned along the way) beyond the bachelor’s degree, at least a 2000 hour internship, and at least a year’s postdoctoral training. In some states you cannot take the written licensing exam until you have finished those hours; in other states there are written or oral exams on state jurisprudence, case conceptualization, professional ethics, and other aspects of practice. The licensing process often adds another half year to a year to this process. The average licensed psychologist has had a lot more training than most health care professionals.
I have been successful at getting the residents of one frat house to stop shouting “Hey, Miss Bulldyke!” at me. They now shout, “Hey, Doctor Bulldyke!”
Umm…yeah, that’s an improvement there. Sounds like a fraternity that needs to be reported, and signed up for a few weekends of mandatory sensitivity training…
“The average licensed psychologist has had a lot more training than most health care professionals.”
This may be true but from what you say, the average licensed psychologist has had less training than the average MD.
In any case, the original question had to do with the use of doctor as a form of address and the educational requirements for the award of a doctoral degree, not the requirements for licensure in any field. The requirements for licensure in some fields go beyond the mere possession of a doctoral degree.
At the risk of beating a horse that’s strayed from the OP–
No, what I said was
I’m puzzled by your interpretation of my statement, since this was in part in response to your statement:
I realize that I didn’t clarify that the internship year is generally required before graduation, as an academic requirement, for APA-certified programs. Nonetheless, I described that psychologists’ required academic training is generally equivalent, in time spent, to MDs’, if not more extensive.
I entered into this elaboration not in order to abandon the OP, but to respond to Hari Seldon’s contention that
I disagreed with this contention, and gave among my reasons that psychologists perform health care services and have as much education as, if not more than, MDs. I described the additional postdoc/residency and licensing requirements in order to support my contention that “Doctor” should not be reserved for MDs only, given that one of the areas this thread has explored is about degree requirements, qualifications, and scope of practice as they relate to the term “Doctor.”
The average years of education of a practicing clinical psychologist versus the average education of a practicing medical doctor.
In the U.S., an MD typically gets a doctoral degree 4 years getting her bachelors degree. Does a PhD in psychology take longer?
You said that “a psychologist’s education and licensing typically requires 4-7 years of education” beyond the bachelor’s degree. A medical doctor in the U.S. typically gets her license after four years of medical school plus an internship (about 2800 hours). However, it is the norm for physicians do do another 2-3 years of postgraduate training for a total of 7 years. However, this is more or less a minimum, and a great many go on to do an additional 2-4 years of fellowship training. So it would probably be accurate to say that the typical practicing US physician today who graduated in between 10 and 20 years ago has 7-9 years of education beyond the bachelor’s degree.
All of the signatures on my degree were made by people who were on the Graduate Faculty. All of them happen to also be faculty members at the school, but I have also seen committee members who were from other areas (for example, there are some mosquito control superintendents here in New Jersey who also have Ph.Ds and who serve on doctoral committees in the Entomology department). They were given the right to sign off my dissertation because the department accepted them as capable of being on a graduate committee. These are things that sometimes come up in faculty meetings - so-and-so wants somebody on their committee, do we think they are qualified, yes, no, vote. (All who have come up in this situation have had Ph.Ds.) But this question isn’t raised too often because the advisor (who must be on the graduate faculty here at Rutgers to get a degree from Rutgers) will know who is acceptable and who is not. I see no reason why an M.D. could not be part of a committee (thus contributing a signature), but I could be wrong.
One of the people who signs is a Graduate Representative (at least at all the schools I’ve been associated with). This is a person who, in addition to being able to contribute to one’s scholarly development, makes sure that all the requirements are met and the rules adhered to as set by the University. I don’t know if their signature holds more “weight” but that particular signature might be required for the University to accept the dissertation.
In Australia, it quite common for university staff with PhDs to refer to themselves as “Doctor”. In an academic setting, it’s perfectly acceptable. A PhD would sign his or her papers “Doctor” and would be referred to in a formal context as “Doctor suchandsuch”.
(A small distinction: in personal conversations, Australians very seldom call teaching staff “Professor” or “Doctor”. We only use their first names, except when referring to them in the third person or in written communications.)
OTOH, it’s less common to use the title in everyday dealings. For instance, a friend of mine who holds on PhD in economics would always refer to himself as “Mr” when he drops his car in for repairs.
As in the UK, “Professors” are rare here. The overwhelming majority of university teaching staff are “Lecturers”, even if they are PhDs. Professors are those academic staff with tenure, which is uncommon.
**Yeah:
**Australian medicine students graduate with a Bachelor of Medicine/Bachelor of Surgery (“MBBS”). They may enter medical school straight out of high school and study full time for six years (and then complete a one year internship). Most don’t earn a PhD.
Incidentally, Law students in Australia graduate with a Bachelor of Laws, not a JD. This may be because Law may be studied as an undergraduate degree. (Many Law students have completed a Bachelors degree before entering law school, but some of us enter into a five year combined Bachelor of Laws course straight outta high school (I was one – I went into a Bachelor of Laws/Bachelor of Commerce). Since many high school students in my state graduate at 17, it’s entirely possible to become a qualified lawyer aged 23).
I’m not sure that that is right. When I was a student at ANU my faculty had a dean in charge of it, and was divided into four departments (economics, economic history, statisitcs, and commerce), each of which had a professor in charge of it. All the senior lecturers and some of the lecturers had tenure, but there was only one professor per department.
That’s usual but not universal. For example, the University of Newcastle issued a ‘B.Med’ rather than the MB.BS double baccalaureate. And some universities (eg. Flinders University and the University of Queensland) have a four-year postgraduate medical degree.
Huh, I never realised some senior lecturers had tenure of appointment. Sloppy wording by me, regardless. I stand corrected on both of those points. Thank you, Agback.
Things are different in America, but out here in the Commonwealth there are two kinds of doctoral degrees (1) honorary doctorates, which everyone properly ingnores, (2) doctorates awarded on research and dissertation, for making an original contribution to knowledge. If you even come across a British (or Australian) MD, he or she will have earned that degree by performing original research after qualifying to practice medicine, which is a pretty impressive accomplishment.
As a matter of custom, physicians are addressed as ‘doctor’ even though most of them don’t have doctorates. But educated persons recognise that that is merely a courtesy, and that even though ‘doctor’ is the usual word for a medical practitioner, medicos are not real doctors.
As others have pointed out, it’s not a WHO, it’s a WHAT. Here’s an example:
So in this case, Rackham Graduate School confers PhDs. However,
[quote]
A number of doctoral degrees offered by the University of Michigan, however, are not administered by the Graduate School. These include:
[ul]
[li] Doctor of Dentistry [/li] [li] Juris Doctor [/li] [li] Doctor of the Science of Law [/li] [li] Doctor of Medicine [/li] [li] Doctor of Pharmacy [/li] [li] Doctor of Public Health[/ul][/li][/quote]
Individuals are involved in the process of conferring a degree: for instance, a dissertation committee must approve one’s dissertation, and exactly who gets to serve on a dissertation committee is regulated. Who exactly can BE ON one’s committee is covered in more depth in Appendix E of this document (warning! big pdf file!). In essence, a certain number of committee members must be faculty members from one’s program. These people don’t confer the degree, but in a very real sense they have to approve the student’s work. Perhaps this answers some of your question.
My feeling about this: First, I have absolutely no qualms about someone calling me “zut”, sans honorific, in either a personal or professional setting. Furthermore, being called “Mr. zut” in a non-professional setting doesn’t particularly bother me either. However, it rankles me a little to be referred to as “Mr. zut” in a professional setting because the direct substitution of “Mr.” for “Dr.” pointedly overlooks my credentials. Actually, if we met at a professional conference, say, I’d prefer you just call me “zut”, as either “Mr. zut” and “Dr. zut” would make me feel awkward in face-to-face conversation. In professional correspondance, “zut” is fine, but if you feel you must use an honorific, I’d prefer “Dr.”
I don’t think your two examples are exactly parallel here, because in the first, “Eng.” is not a common honorific in the US, so you can’t reasonably expect someone to know that, and in the second, deleting the “P.E.” isn’t analagous to substituting “Mr.” for “Dr.”
Actually, my business card says “zut, Ph.D., P.E.” because I wanted to end-run the whole Dr. issue. Of course, now I get the occasional mail for “Mr. zut, Ph.D., P.E.”, but that just makes me giggle.
That’s very egalitarian, but at a professional conference, you’ll end up insulting people. After introductions are made, most people will use personal names. But when you’re up front presenting your brief, it’s always better to refer to others more formally (especially if your data disagrees with theirs).
I agree with zut, it’s a matter of setting. I would feel patronized if someone called me “Dr Pleonast” in an informal setting (i.e., almost always). But in professional or formal (e.g., on wedding invitations) settings, I am slightly miffed if someone addresses me as “Mr Pleonast”. I rather prefer being called by my personal name, but those who insist in using titles, should get it right.
My personal situation is even more complicated. My wife also holds a PhD. She has kept her original surname and should be formally addressed as “Dr WiseWoman” (not her real name). It’s the formal invitations to “Mr & Mrs Pleonast” that really irk me, when it should be “Drs Pleonast & Wisewoman”. Of course, that sounds like we’re a law firm or medical practice, so personal names would be better. But again, if you’re going to be formal, do it correctly.
But those amongst us who consider themselves the caretakers of traditionalism and formality (I’m not one of them) will say that in formal communications it is correct to address the wife of Mr. or Dr. Pleonast as “Mrs. Pleonast,” regardless of what her actual name is. Some extremists will even say that “Mrs. Pleonast” is the only correct way to formally address the wife of Mr. or Dr. Pleonast.
acsenray, you’re probably right about traditional formalism. I’m neither traditional nor formal, so I guess I can’t speak to that. But I find “Mrs Pleonast” insulting when she’s actually “Dr WiseWoman”. Of course, she doesn’t really care either way, so the issue is never pressed. I just look forward to the day when “traditional” is more in tune with modern values.
I don’t feel insulted when people address me as Mr. Yeah when CAPT Yeah or Dr. Yeah would be more appropriate, particularly if they are children. If they are adults, I just think they are boorish.
