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 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 -
-
-
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Even in medical fields, Dr is increasing a title for non-physicians as well. PharmD pharmacists and dentists are also Dr. I find the whole discussion confusing as to objective.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
The concept of "medical doctors" goes back a long way, though, insofar as medicine was one of the subjects that was taught at early universities (along with law and theology). There's a "Doctor of Physic" in the Canterbury Tales.
-
The term 'doctor' meaning 'learned teacher' dates back to antiquity (Lat. doctus) though and was standardized by the Lateran III in 1179. About two centuries before Chaucer. While medicine was one of those fields, a doctor of medicine was a teacher of it, not a practitioner.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.