Inspired by some thread somewhere.
We have a post-grad system whereby a professional can do master’s level work yet recieve a doctorate because it is their field’s terminal degree. This flies in the face of our traditional three level system bachelor -> master -> doctor . . . but then again, M.D.s and D.D.S.s are technically master level degrees (but traditionally a doctorate degree just like the J.D. This is a holdover from medieval times) yet more people prefer to call them “Doctor” and not use the same title for then those with a Ph.D. or Ed.D.
And where are all of the Sc.D.s? If Ph.D. is a research degree and Ph.D. is a practicum degree in science, then shouldn’t there be a lot more programs offering Sc.D. degrees for those working in the science fields? The same could be said for the lack of D.Litt or DFA programs for practitioners of writing and performing/visual arts respectively. And how in the world does the Doctor of Arts in mathematics at Idaho State fit into all of this? Is this a symptom (or a cause) of the Ph.D. = doctor mentality in academia?
Here is a prime example of the ridiculousness of the practical degree vs. Ph.D. being a “real” academic doctor debate.
[QUOTE=Inside Higher Ed]
A new project to re-envision the education doctorate, or the Ed.D., at 21 universities nationwide grows out of the basic premise that there’s no clear distinction between the Ed.D., in theory the professional practice degree, and the more research-oriented Ph.D. in education – and, as a result, that the quality of the Ed.D. and of the education Ph.D. is not what it should or could be. In theory, the two degrees are expected to have completely different focuses, with one often designed for working educators hoping to climb the administrative chain and master the skill sets (including data analysis skills) needed for effective educational leadership, while the other, more research-oriented degree is meant to fit the traditional social science Ph.D. model. But in practice, the Ed.D., in the words of Lee S. Shulman, president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (a sponsor of the project), has come to be seen as little more than “Ph.D.-lite.” And the education Ph.D. has likewise suffered from the lack of distinction.
“You’re trying to make the degree fit for both audiences, so we’ve wound up watering down the expectations for our Ph.D. students of what they need to know,” says Catherine Emihovich, professor and dean of the University of Florida’s College of Education, a participating university in the initiative. At Florida, Emihovich says, professional educators seeking administrative jobs in the K-12 sector have traditionally pursued the Ph.D. track because the Ph.D. was perceived, essentially, as equivalent to the Ed.D. but with more prestige.
Without a clear academic distinction between the two paths, the Ph.D. students traditionally enjoy relatively lax requirements when it comes to research while, on the other hand, the Ed.D. students in many cases spend too much time on “academic” as opposed to “applied” research, and too little time learning the skills they’ll actually need to run their school or district effectively. And, then, of course there’s that pesky problem of respect…
“An Ed.D is not, or at least, should not, be viewed as a sub-standard degree; it is a practitioners degree,” says (via e-mail) Larry L. Dlugosh, professor and chair of the educational administration department at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, also a participating university. “All that being said, the Ed.D. has been maligned enough that it may be the appropriate time to construct a vibrant doctoral degree designed with professional educators (in practice) as the target audience.”
Simply put, both the Ph.D. and the Ed.D. need to be better, says David G. Imig, a professor of practice at the University of Maryland at College Park and coordinator of the three-year project to “reclaim” the educational doctorate, launched last month by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council of Academic Deans from Research Education Institutions. “And one way to make them better," he says, "is to invest the time to really look seriously at the distinction between them.”
[/QUOTE]
So if you could rebuild the post-secondary degree system, and have every school follow your blueprint, how should it be?