I am extraordinarily confused by the number of non-PhD-havers in certain media outlets who proclaim with absolute certainty that among the PhD-having-intelligentsia, using the title 'Dr.' for PhDs (and Ed.Ds) is somehow gauche. It's not, that's stupid. 1/8
-
-
And let's not play pretend here - as a balding white guy, I am taken seriously regardless of my achievements or credentials because I look the part. Many female scholars and scholars of color far more accomplished than I are not offered that benefit of the doubt. 4/8
Näytä tämä ketju -
And to be clear, that's not just a vague sense of the matter - it's actually been studied in a careful, rigorous way: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/jwh.2016.6044 … I have seen *far* better academics than me get 'Ms.'-ed at on this very birdsite in cases where i would *never* have been 'Mr'-ed. 5/8
Näytä tämä ketju -
And of course we ought to note that the idea that Dr. should be reserved for medical doctors is dumb, that the title was the province of academic educators (indicating qualifications to teach at a university) first and extended to medical doctors only later. 6/8
Näytä tämä ketju -
And yes, an Ed.D does count! (professional doctorates also mostly get Dr.; JDs are the traditional exception and I bow to the practice in the field. Lawyers may present briefs on the JD on the 12th of Never. Honorary doctorates in any field generally do not count). 7/8
Näytä tämä ketju -
Finally, I hear anyone talking s*** about someone's dissertation who hasn't written one, I will slap them with my diss. - it is 788 overwritten pages and in hardcover for the purpose. Talking s*** about state school degrees will also earn diss-slaps. So ends the lesson. 8/8
Näytä tämä ketju
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.