Uneducated Opining: Is it Genetic or a Lifestyle Choice

As soon as I saw this thread I wondered how long it would be before someone took the bait. All that it's accomplished is getting someone banned and that's really a shame.

How bout a spinoff of this website, "Wizard of vegas Lite" by invitation only?

Quote: Doc

Do you know the background of the title "Doctor" and how it got applied to academic degrees?

No. I vaguely recall it's related to a latin term for "learned." And I know that surgeons in Britain are addressed as "Mister" rather than "Doctor."

Quote: 1BB

As soon as I saw this thread I wondered how long it would be before someone took the bait. All that it's accomplished is getting someone banned and that's really a shame.

The poll's biased, yes. But the track to take is not "If I posted something like this I'd get banned" and then criticize the site's owner and admins.

Quote: Nareed

No. I vaguely recall it's related to a latin term for "learned." And I know that surgeons in Britain are addressed as "Mister" rather than "Doctor."

Wiki actually has a pretty good article on it that doesn't differ too far from what I was taught. I believe it was originally a religious title meaning something like master, keeper, or teacher of the doctrine. I haven't been able to find a reference, but I think an early Italian university, seeking to recognize the most eminent members of their faculty, called them the four doctors of the university. (Searching on that leads only to discussions about a much later event.) Later, there were academic efforts to establish what was necessary for someone to earn the title of "Doctor".

The Wiki article indicates that law and medicine were two of the early fields in which universities awarded doctorates, but it seems to skip a key point. Universities long ago taught the field of "physic" and awarded the bachelor degree. Graduates were called "physicians" and were to develop their skills through the "practice of medicine". After that, they might return to the university, study and research further, and eventually be awarded the degree Doctor of Medicine. Basically the same was true for lawyers who might "practice" law and return for more study to become a Doctor of Law.

Unfortunately, just as with engineers, mathematicians, and historians, most practitioners of law and medicine never returned to the university to conduct research. The universities began awarding the M.D. degree for studies that had previously led to a Bachelor of Physic, and the physicians took a liking to being called "Doctor". Society seemed to accept that, no matter how ridiculous it seems. Universities consider the J.D. and M.D. degrees as first professional degrees rather than academic doctorates.

Outside of law, religion, and medicine, the fields we now know as science and humanities were called "Philosophy". Those fields still require the full additional study before awarding a Doctor of Philosophy degree, though different universities and different disciplines have their own requirements. The basics are still that a student should complete enough formal training that they are considered a Master of their field. Then, they must pass a Qualifying Examination to determine whether they should be allowed to pursue the doctorate. If they pass, they continue to study and conduct research through which they advance their field by discovering new or better understandings compared to existing knowledge. They prepare, present, and publicly defend a dissertation on their findings before a board (committee) of authorities in that field. Only if they can convince that committee that they have advanced the field sufficiently are they considered a "Doctor" and qualified to teach the discipline.

Any degree that involves the word "Doctor" but does not require research and defense of such a dissertation is not considered an academic doctorate. Lawyers and physicians almost never perform such research or write dissertations. If a physician does, then he/she typically earns both an M.D. and a PhD. Those folks are sometimes called "Mudd-Fudds".

"Society seemed to accept that, no matter how ridiculous it seems. "

Physician, heal thyself.

Don't medical degrees generally have higher on average gpa minimums to even get into medical school as opposed to PhD route?

Quote: Doc

Wiki actually has a pretty good article on it that doesn't differ too far from what I was taught.

That was very informative. Thanks for posting it.

Quote: rxwine

Don't medical degrees generally have higher on average gpa minimums to even get into medical school as opposed to PhD route?

In the U.S., medical schools have very high admission standards, and the programs of study are rigorous. My comment was not intended to reflect negatively on the people who enter or complete med school programs. I'm just pointing out that the "doctorate" programs in medicine, law, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, and some other fields do not require the students to conduct research, further their own field's knowledge base or meet the basic elements of the academic doctorate programs. The discussion began with a question about who is the "real" doctor, while the history of the title is based on who is qualified to be the authority and teacher in a field, not who is qualified to go out and ply the trade.

Nothing wrong at all with an M.D. -- it's a very good education, but it's not on the same level as getting a PhD in Pharmacology or a Doctor of Public Health.

Also to your point, there are some really shoddy PhD programs. Are you aware that there is no accrediting process for PhD programs? They are all rated based on how they are perceived by people in that field.

Quote: Doc

Also to your point, there are some really shoddy PhD programs. Are you aware that there is no accrediting process for PhD programs? They are all rated based on how they are perceived by people in that field.

Why does this tidbit of information not shock me in the least?!? <rolling my eyes> Thanks for the knowledge Doc!!! (the eye rolling was not directed at you brother)

Quote: avargov

<rolling my eyes>

Here's a little tale I may have related here before. It was told to me by an administrator in one of the engineering schools at Georgia Tech.

They had a graduate student in the master's program who wasn't cutting it. The faculty members and administrators agreed that he did not have the skills or background and was performing unsatisfactorily. He was dropped from the program for poor academic performance.

A few years later, he applied to be reinstated in that master's program. His justification was that he had received his PhD in the same engineering field from another university (name withheld to protect the guilty).

The Georgia Tech administrator said they were in a bit of a quandary. The faculty and administrators felt that the student was probably still as unlikely to complete their master's program as he was when they had him enrolled before. They knew a bit about the other university's not-so-well-established engineering program and figured that school was trying to build its reputation simply by having a larger number of PhD graduates. As I said before, there are some shoddy PhD programs.

Apparently, the student considered that his "PhD" credentials were inadequate and that he needed a master's in the field from Georgia Tech.
So should they admit the student they thought would fail again, or should they just roll their eyes about the other university and their "PhD program" and say "No"?