<p>^^^^ The PhD is a “higher degree” although I don’t think anyone contests the prestige of an MD. In terms of academic qualifications research doctorates are higher than professional doctorates. This is reflected in the fact that someone who completes an MD/PhD program lists the PhD last after their name as degrees are always listed in ascending order of rank. Professional doctorates are more akin to apprenticeship training where one learns a set of knowledge and then is examined to show proficiency in that knowledge where a research doctorate must complete and defend the production of a signifigant amount of new knowledge (hence also the distinction between MD and MD/PhD programs). This is also reflected in the fact that, as someone else mentioned, in many parts of the world becoming a medical doctor does not involved post-undergraduate education but is something one does as their university level training in the first instance. I don’t really think PhDs walk around with their noses up at the MDs, but it is a higher degree.</p>
<p>yuiop,</p>
<p>Again, I think you’re mistaking “higher” for “different.” It’s like saying that apples are a higher order of fruit from oranges.</p>
<p>And really, “academic qualifications” count for a bucket of spit in most of the real world. It’s not fair, but it’s true. A PhD in sociology will not get hired at many firms before the MBA, despite the fact that the PhD in sociology is probably more qualified to do critical analysis.</p>
<p>Also comparing the MD/PhD with the MD is a bit disingenuous. Let’s talk MD vs. PhD alone. Otherwise, you have very serious issues with confounding variables.</p>
<p>I’m not suggesting that ‘higher’ means better or should get paid more or hired over someone else ;-). My point about the MD/PhD program was purely to highlight the fact that someone who has both degrees lists the PhD last as, in the pedantic world of academic degrees, it is the higher degree.</p>
<p>I don’t even know that that’s necessarily the case. It may even be something as silly as tradition or even how it rolls off the tongue.</p>
<p>You’d be amazed (well, probably not) how many things in academia are just… arbitrary.</p>
<p>Just to back up my case here is an example of what I am talking about… this is quoted from a European Union document regarding legal guidelines for the awarding of research funding:</p>
<p>Regarding professional degrees in general:
" The ERC Work Programme clearly states that the eligible Principal Investigator must be a holder of a PhD degree or equivalent. First professional degrees will not be considered in themselves as PhD-equivalent, even if recipients carry the title “Doctor”. "</p>
<p>A specific note regarding American MDs:
"For medical doctors, an MD will not be accepted by itself as equivalent to a PhD award. The ERC Scientific Council has decided to accept as eligible applications from medical doctors who have concluded both basic studies (MD) and a research doctorate or clinical specialty training. Candidates must also provide information on their research experience in order to further substantiate the equivalence of their overall training to a PhD. "</p>
<p>So yes the PhD is ‘higher’ but yes, outside of academia nobody really cares ;-).</p>
<p>Europe and the US have different rules. Furthermore, not equivalent does not mean lesser.</p>
<p>The discussion seems to be getting a bit off topic, but re: the recent back and forth yuiop is correct. The MD is one of the First Professional Degrees. Other such degrees include the JD (law), MBA (buisness), Pharm.D. (pharmacy). In terms of academic degrees they are all considered to be the same (although yes some take longer than others) as they all serve to prepare one to enter a particular profession vs. traditional academic study. Originally US medical schools issued MB degrees (bachelor of medcine) although the custom is now to issue MD (doctor of medcine). The curriculum, however, did not change (apart from obvious updates in technology). A PhD is distinguished from a first professional degree on the basis of both demonstrating proficiency in an advanced subject AND demonstrating the ability to perform original research in that subject (the latter not required to obtain a professional degree). Although as also mentioned some MDs do go on to also get a PhD after also demonstrating the ability to perform original research (generally medical based research). I think it’s quite well established that the PhD is a higher degree than one of the professional degrees although clearly UCLAri begs to differ.</p>
<p>The only thing I disagree with is the usage of the word “higher.” I think it’s fallacious, and like I said before, it’s like calling an orange a higher order of fruit than an apple.</p>
<p>UCLA, your argument about apples and oranges would make sense if someone was suggesting that a bachelors in chemistry was ‘higher’ than a bachelors in english. However, do you not accept that to get a PhD you must not only demonstrate extensive proficiency in a subject but ALSO generate original new knowledge in that subject? Do you not then recognize that academically this represents a higher level of achievement than just demonstrating proficiency without generating new knowledge? This is what sets PhDs apart from traditional ‘professional degrees’ and why they are considered a ‘higher’ level of achievement in terms of academic degrees.</p>
<p>Again, I think this really depends on what you think is the goal of a degree. I mean, I do plenty of research and have produced new knowledge with my piddling master’s, but it’s hard for me to argue that my degree is of a higher order than a master’s of finance.</p>
<p>But again, my problem isn’t that the MD is lower in an order of “academic” degrees. It’s not EVEN an academic degree. It’s in a different category altogether, and should be evaluated separately.</p>
<p>Personally, I think the ‘generation of signifigant new knowledge’ requirement does set them apart, but you are also correct in pointing out that professional degrees aren’t, strictly speaking, academic degrees. The previous decision by the medical and law schools in the US to upgrade (in name but not substance) and award ‘doctor’ degrees was really a poor decision as it dosen’t meet the normal requirements for a doctorate degree and is inconsistent with practices elsewhere in the world. </p>
<p>Looks like we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one ;-).</p>
<p>Many of the professors at law schools are only JDs though, so I suppose that’s somewhat justifiable.</p>
<p>We call our professors by first name…</p>
<p>Unless they say otherwise, I use Dr. (a few want to be more informal and use their first name only but this is quite rare in my experience).</p>
<p>To some of the previous people suggesting that only medical doctors should be addressed as Dr. you really need to get your facts straight. Such ignorance generally comes from the fact that there are two different words at work here. Doctor has over time become interchangible with physician in terms of describing a profession. However the same word also describes one who holds a doctorate degree. The title Dr is an honorific (replacing Mr or Ms) and is reserved as the form of address for anyone that holds a doctorate degree. Historically, physicians did not recieve a doctorate following their training. Although the profession was often refered to as a ‘doctor’ as they didn’t have a doctorate degree they would be formally called Mr (insert name). The medical profession then had a bit of an inferiority complex and wanted to use the honorific so medical schools started granting doctorates, MDs, to justify the use of the title Dr with ones name. Law schools then followed suit and started issuing doctorates too in the form of JDs; however most lawyers use some other title other than Dr like Esq. Esq is a postnominal and postnominals are never used along with honorifics so very few lawyers would call themselves Dr as most choose the postnominal. However, both the JD and MD are professional doctorates and both are entitled to use the formal title of Dr… it’s just that the medical doctors make a bigger deal out of using the title than other professional doctorates do! </p>
<p>When you know all these facts, then it’s no surpise that a PhD will quietly laugh at any MD who suggests that a PhD shouldn’t use the title of Dr when in fact if anyone has grounds to complain it’s the PhD complaining about the use of professional doctorates to boost social status by allowing such professions use of the honorific title of Dr!</p>
<p>If you want to know how a professor might advise you, this article posted on Inside Higher Ed is instructive: <a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/tyro/essay_for_grad_students_on_how_to_address_senior_colleagues_and_how_to_be_addressed#sthash.nUuBcs3r.dpbs”>http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/tyro/essay_for_grad_students_on_how_to_address_senior_colleagues_and_how_to_be_addressed#sthash.nUuBcs3r.dpbs</a></p>
<p>The comments are also worth reading.</p>
<p>Thank you for reviving a 7 year old thread. 8-| </p>