JD as Dr. Forum

[geoduck]

Yea esquire is TTT. Do most lawyers just do John Doe, JD?

Also can I make pretentious PhD's call me Bachelor Fox?

Only if you are not yet married.

And if only bachelor were an honorific title...

Edit: Hey guys! Let's just call everyone who uses their earned title a pretentious douche and call everyone Mr. I'm sure the judge won't mind.

[AreJay711]

I still find the word 'esquire' annoying. It sounds like a medieval servant.

It is a derivation of "squire"... the assistant to a knight... if I remember correctly. I believe it indicated that one was more than a serf, but less than a lord, and generally referred to landed gentry of the lowest social class of the nobility.

Yay wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire

Yes it came out of squires. For a while, it was basically used to refer to anyone in the gentry of non-noble birth, which in a way is what it is used for in the US, just confined to those that enter gentry via law. But the age of the term is a silly thing to be concerned about. "Mister" comes from "monsieur" or "my lord/sir" and was a generic term for the non-titled gentry and/or anyone above your social status.

Look man, I'm an American. That shit can stay in Europe.

[notanumber]

If I had an MD, I'd make everybody call me "Notanumber M.D." Doogie Howser style.

[geoduck]

I still find the word 'esquire' annoying. It sounds like a medieval servant.

It is a derivation of "squire"... the assistant to a knight... if I remember correctly. I believe it indicated that one was more than a serf, but less than a lord, and generally referred to landed gentry of the lowest social class of the nobility.

Yay wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire

Yes it came out of squires. For a while, it was basically used to refer to anyone in the gentry of non-noble birth, which in a way is what it is used for in the US, just confined to those that enter gentry via law. But the age of the term is a silly thing to be concerned about. "Mister" comes from "monsieur" or "my lord/sir" and was a generic term for the non-titled gentry and/or anyone above your social status.

Look man, I'm an American. That shit can stay in Europe.

Then stop speaking such a British language and living in a country with such a British cultural base. We should ditch Mister too and just call each other "Person" or "Comrade".

[AreJay711]

Then stop speaking such a British language and living in a country with such a British cultural base. We should ditch Mister too and just call each other "Person" or "Comrade".

I speak the American language or the English language at worst, which isn't confined to Britain.

[geoduck]

Then stop speaking such a British language and living in a country with such a British cultural base. We should ditch Mister too and just call each other "Person" or "Comrade".

I speak the American language or the English language at worst, which isn't confined to Britain.

And Esquire has been a part of the "American language" for its entire history. It's not like we're importing the word fresh.

[lmfao]

1: Hello, Mr. _____
2: Oh, it's Dr. _____
1: oh sorry, what type of medicine do you practice
2: I'm a Dr. of Russian Literature

...then you're a fuckin douche.

Love this. I've always thought this was annoying

+1, Being called a Doctor as a Phd is something pretentious academics do to feel validation for their largely irrelevant lives.

Should I even bother reminding you that PhDs are primarily responsible for most discoveries? How on Earth is a Professor's life irrelevant? Are you a Devry University reject? I wouldn't be surprised...

Frankly, it does not matter what the sheep think. Everyone who has a PhD earned the title "Doctor". It is irrelevant that some portion of the population thinks that "Doctor" should only refer to someone with an MD. Those people are ignorant.

Also, it goes both ways - YOU are an ultimate douche if you call someone "Mr." when you know that they have a doctorate degree. They might inform you later that they prefer to be called John, Rob, etc., but, until they do, you should call them "Dr.", "Professor", "Sir" (if they have been knighted), etc.

Unbelievable. Some people have no respect for anything nowadays.

[lmfao]

This cracks me up since "Doctor" essentially means "teacher/academic" in Latin. In Germany, land of the famous "Herr Dokter ___", medical professionals are referred to as "Arzt". Originally, you had to be a "pretentious academic" for most of your life before being given the title of Doctor. We just associate the term with medical Doctors because in England you didn't really need to get a doctorate for any other major profession. I think that if you have completed a research degree (PhD, SJD, ScD, etc.) then you have more than earned the right to demand the title "Doctor".

+1

+1.

[Patriot1208]

Anyone who insists on being called something other than their first name is just insecure. It may be appropriate for me to use a title in some form. But if I don't, and you correct me, you are just an insecure child.

ETA i'm talking about in a non-professional setting. In the court room clearly things are different.

[Bildungsroman]

I've never used Mr. or Ms./Mrs. to address someone I was unaware had a PhD and had that person correct me to saying Dr. _____. Do people really do that?

[Patriot1208]

1: Hello, Mr. _____
2: Oh, it's Dr. _____
1: oh sorry, what type of medicine do you practice
2: I'm a Dr. of Russian Literature

...then you're a fuckin douche.

Love this. I've always thought this was annoying

+1, Being called a Doctor as a Phd is something pretentious academics do to feel validation for their largely irrelevant lives.

Should I even bother reminding you that PhDs are primarily responsible for most discoveries? How on Earth is a Professor's life irrelevant? Are you a Devry University reject? I wouldn't be surprised...

Frankly, it does not matter what the sheep think. Everyone who has a PhD earned the title "Doctor". It is irrelevant that some portion of the population thinks that "Doctor" should only refer to someone with an MD. Those people are ignorant.

Also, it goes both ways - YOU are an ultimate douche if you call someone "Mr." when you know that they have a doctorate degree. They might inform you later that they prefer to be called John, Rob, etc., but, until they do, you should call them "Dr.", "Professor", "Sir" (if they have been knighted), etc.

Unbelievable. Some people have no respect for anything nowadays.

The fact that a few PhD's have done some great things does not mean that most PhD's don't have extremely irrelevant lives.

[geoduck]

Anyone who insists on being called something other than their first name is just insecure. It may be appropriate for me to use a title in some form. But if I don't, and you correct me, you are just an insecure child.

ETA i'm talking about in a non-professional setting. In the court room clearly things are different.

It is true that context is extremely important. If I'm meeting someone in a professional setting, getting titles correct is extremely important. If we're playing basketball... not so much.

[ResolutePear]

I've never used Mr. or Ms./Mrs. to address someone I was unaware had a PhD and had that person correct me to saying Dr. _____. Do people really do that?

I hate improper etiquette more than anything else socially I think.

Introductions go a long way, and in the PhD's case.. he is supposed to introduce himself the first time you people meet. If it's a third party introducing, it's the lower ranking to the senior ranking person, in terms of perceived academia ranking and career seniority. There are a bunch of rules on this matter, but it's more or less - you should know 100% who you are addressing - like a letter.

[notanumber]

Anyone who insists on being called something other than their first name is just insecure.

This is true.

But...

The fact that a few PhD's have done some great things does not mean that most PhD's don't have extremely irrelevant lives.

WTF, exactly, does a living "relevant" life entail?

There's a missing subject in that claim - for whom is one's life supposed to be "relevant?"

Also, only a few people in any profession achieve "great things" (although the definition of that is also rather suspicious). In fact, I suspect that the percentage of the population who have achieved both "great things" and earned a Ph.D. is larger than the percentage of the general population that has achieved "great things" or the percentage of lawyers who have achieved "great things."

[Patriot1208]

Anyone who insists on being called something other than their first name is just insecure.

This is true.

But...

The fact that a few PhD's have done some great things does not mean that most PhD's don't have extremely irrelevant lives.

WTF, exactly, does a living "relevant" life entail?

There's a missing subject in that claim - for whom is one's life supposed to be "relevant?"

I was just using the term because of the previous post. But I think the point being that the work most PhD's do is irrelevant. As in, medical doctors do things that help people. PhD's largely perform useless research that resuls in absolutely nothing that is relevant to even those others in their fields and certainly not to anyone outside of those fields.

[lmfao]

The fact that a few PhD's have done some great things does not mean that most PhD's don't have extremely irrelevant lives.

Straw man logic does not work on me. I could argue that most people lead 'extremely irrelevant lives'. With that being said, you have to make an original contribution to knowledge to get a PhD, which is an accomplishment in itself. That's why "irrelevant" people like you should call "irrelevant" people with PhDs "Dr."

Also, define 'irrelevant'. Has teaching college kids become irrelevant in the US? I didn't know that.

[Patriot1208]

The fact that a few PhD's have done some great things does not mean that most PhD's don't have extremely irrelevant lives.

Straw man logic does not work on me. I could argue that most people lead 'extremely irrelevant lives'. With that being said, you have to make an original contribution to knowledge to get a PhD, which is an accomplishment in itself. That's why "irrelevant" people like you should call "irrelevant" people with PhDs "Dr."

Also, define 'irrelevant'. Has teaching college kids become irrelevant in the US? I didn't know that.

I'm not sure you understand what straw man means.

It's true that many peoples work is extremely irrelevant. Nobody said otherwise (BTW, this is the definition of straw man, not me directly responding to your argument). But your argument was that PhD's are not irrelevant because PhD's are responsible for many great discoveries. But this is ~1% of those with PhD's. And let's be clear, teaching is not these people's jobs. Research is their job. We'd be better off if more classes were taught by adjuncts with experience in their field and not some theorist who has done nothing but perform studies.

[DeeCee]

The fact that a few PhD's have done some great things does not mean that most PhD's don't have extremely irrelevant lives.

Straw man logic does not work on me. I could argue that most people lead 'extremely irrelevant lives'. With that being said, you have to make an original contribution to knowledge to get a PhD, which is an accomplishment in itself. That's why "irrelevant" people like you should call "irrelevant" people with PhDs "Dr."

Also, define 'irrelevant'. Has teaching college kids become irrelevant in the US? I didn't know that.

I'm not sure you understand what straw man means.

It's true that many peoples work is extremely irrelevant. Nobody said otherwise (BTW, this is the definition of straw man, not me directly responding to your argument). But your argument was that PhD's are not irrelevant because PhD's are responsible for many great discoveries. But this is ~1% of those with PhD's. And let's be clear, teaching is not these people's jobs. Research is their job. We'd be better off if more classes were taught by adjuncts with experience in their field and not some theorist who has done nothing but perform studies.

I think this is true, also. Most of the time people become professors because they want to do research. During my MA I was always set on a PhD until I realized how much I disliked teaching. So I finished my MA and now I am going the JD route instead of the PhD route, because I felt like I shouldn't be a professor if I don't care about teaching, even though I love academia.

You'd be surprised about what "original" contributions you can make to earn a degree. I know of a girl this semester that just finished her PhD dissertation on human hair texture and how different textures are portrayed in the media. It just depends on the PhD is how relevant or irrelevant the work is.

[notanumber]

It's true that many peoples work is extremely irrelevant. Nobody said otherwise. But your argument was that PhD's are not irrelevant because PhD's are responsible for many great discoveries. But this is ~1% of those with PhD's. And let's be clear, teaching is not these people's jobs. Research is their job. We'd be better off if more classes were taught by adjuncts with experience in their field and not some theorist who has done nothing but perform studies.

Being a good teacher and being a good practitioner are two very different skill sets. Having taught several college seminars, I see myself getting better at communicating the information with each class.

It might be good to hire more full time faculty from industry, but adjuncts, as a whole, make for shitty teachers - they just don't have the time, resources, or institutional support to cultivate productive pedagogy.

[Patriot1208]

It's true that many peoples work is extremely irrelevant. Nobody said otherwise. But your argument was that PhD's are not irrelevant because PhD's are responsible for many great discoveries. But this is ~1% of those with PhD's. And let's be clear, teaching is not these people's jobs. Research is their job. We'd be better off if more classes were taught by adjuncts with experience in their field and not some theorist who has done nothing but perform studies.

Being a good teacher and being a good practitioner are two very different skill sets. Having taught several college seminars, I see myself getting better at communicating the information with each class.

It might be good to hire more full time faculty from industry, but adjuncts, as a whole, make for shitty teachers - they just don't have the time, resources, or institutional support to cultivate productive pedagogy.

Many of the best teachers I ever had were adjuncts. I had a few great full time PhD's too, but in general I have found in my anecdotal experience that adjuncts seem to know more about what they are teaching. Coming from an economics background it's been very helpful that I have had teachers who worked for the CBO or Mckinsey. And the best full time professor i've had, who is now head of the economics department, spent years working as a full time consultant.

Of course this is anecdotal, but it's my experience.

[lmfao]

Also, only a few people in any profession achieve "great things" (although the definition of that is also rather suspicious). In fact, I suspect that the percentage of the population who have achieved both "great things" and earned a Ph.D. is larger than the percentage of the general population that has achieved "great things" or the percentage of lawyers who have achieved "great things."

Exactly.

It's true that many peoples work is extremely irrelevant. Nobody said otherwise. But your argument was that PhD's are not irrelevant because PhD's are responsible for many great discoveries. But this is ~1% of those with PhD's. And let's be clear, teaching is not these people's jobs. Research is their job. We'd be better off if more classes were taught by adjuncts with experience in their field and not some theorist who has done nothing but perform studies.

Please read notanumber's post again. He pretty much nailed it.

I honestly don't get the hate/dislike for the PhD's on this board.

[Patriot1208]

Also, only a few people in any profession achieve "great things" (although the definition of that is also rather suspicious). In fact, I suspect that the percentage of the population who have achieved both "great things" and earned a Ph.D. is larger than the percentage of the general population that has achieved "great things" or the percentage of lawyers who have achieved "great things."

Exactly.

It's true that many peoples work is extremely irrelevant. Nobody said otherwise. But your argument was that PhD's are not irrelevant because PhD's are responsible for many great discoveries. But this is ~1% of those with PhD's. And let's be clear, teaching is not these people's jobs. Research is their job. We'd be better off if more classes were taught by adjuncts with experience in their field and not some theorist who has done nothing but perform studies.

Please read notanumber's post again. He pretty much nailed it.

I honestly don't get the hate/dislike for the PhD's on this board.

I'm unsure how you can be so dense to not realize that this isn't the dispute.

The comment was that PhD's demand be called doctors to feel better about their irrelevant lives.

You countered with "should I even bother reminding you that PhDs are primarily repsonsible for most discoveries?"

Let me break this down for you since you obviously have such a hard time following the discussion. Your post implied that demanding to be called a doctor is ok because people with PhD's are responsible for a lot of discoveries. I countered with, so few people can claim to have made great discoveries that your argument is stupid. Now you still can't seem to comprehend that exchange and are accusing people of hating PhDs.

[Bildungsroman]

I honestly don't get the hate/dislike for the PhD's on this board.

People here don't hate/dislike people with PhDs, just those that demand everyone address them with a special title because of their degree.

Edit: I do think that the special title is appropriate in certain settings. Much like when I visit my medical doctor I will call them "Dr. _______" but do not refer to every MD in every setting as "Dr. ______," I think that in an academic setting (eg talking to your professor) it is right to call them "Dr. ____" or "Professor _____". But it's not right that someone with a PhD expects their mechanic, or their doctor, or their dentist, or their waitress to call them "Dr. _____".

[notanumber]

I honestly don't get the hate/dislike for the PhD's on this board.

People here don't hate/dislike people with PhDs, just those that demand everyone address them with a special title because of their degree.

Are there people who actually do that? I know a shit-ton of professors and folk who have doctorates and not a single one ever uses their title outside of a professional setting, unless it's a joke.

[DeeCee]

I honestly don't get the hate/dislike for the PhD's on this board.

People here don't hate/dislike people with PhDs, just those that demand everyone address them with a special title because of their degree.

Thank you.....seems this point got lost