Top Law Schools

Patriot1208 wrote: Things just got really confusing. You made a flawed argument, I pointed it out, you then pwned me by saying I went to devry, and I'm the one who is supposed to be mad?

I don't see any significant flaws in my argument (we are not in court). You misunderstood my point and now keep nit-picking for some reason. Let me rephrase the sentence that seems to be bugging you - only pricks would call PhDs irrelevant since they (PhD holders) are responsible for most discoveries. Better wording now?

History:

1. You - "Being called a Doctor as a Phd is something pretentious academics do to feel validation for their largely irrelevant lives."
2. Me - "should I even bother reminding you that PhDs are primarily responsible for most discoveries?""
3. You - "Your post implied that demanding to be called a doctor is ok because people with PhD's are responsible for a lot of discoveries."

You seem to have misunderstood my point, which is evident in #3 (I implied that it is wrong to call PhDs irrelevant, I never implied that they should be called Doctors since they made a lot of discoveries). Do you see it now, Esquire? Sir? Doctor of Law?

bk187 wrote:Well this settles it. When someone yells "I need a doctor!" I'm running to find the nearest PhD to help them.

Rather, you should calmly ask them to clarify and educate them as to the confusing and vague nature of their demand. Verily, that is the time for the edification of the ignorant on the meaning of an academic doctorate.

This is ridiculous.
Pretentious people are everywhere, PhD, JD, whatever degree.
You'd treat them as pretentious people no matter what their qualifications.

But in a professional setting, you should treat people with respect.
Thus, PhD's get called Dr.

It's not that difficult...

geoduck wrote:

bk187 wrote:Well this settles it. When someone yells "I need a doctor!" I'm running to find the nearest PhD to help them.

Rather, you should calmly ask them to clarify and educate them as to the confusing and vague nature of their demand. Verily, that is the time for the edification of the ignorant on the meaning of an academic doctorate.

I am still waiting for the day someone asks if there is a doctor in the house and I can call out "I have a Ph.D. in composition and music theory!" I am sure this will be exactly what they're looking for.

TBH you really shouldn't call yourself doctor with only a JD. Even people who actually have earned it (PhD, SJD) often find it overly pretentious.

I know I'm late to the party here, but I love how the fake online degree website will allow you to get a degree with "Professor" on it.

Corwin wrote:TBH you really shouldn't call yourself doctor with only a JD. Even people who actually have earned it (PhD, SJD) often find it overly pretentious.

Big asterix equals in The USA. In many other countries that JD makes you a doctor. Stupid English cultural heritage.

DocHawkeye wrote:

geoduck wrote:

bk187 wrote:Well this settles it. When someone yells "I need a doctor!" I'm running to find the nearest PhD to help them.

Rather, you should calmly ask them to clarify and educate them as to the confusing and vague nature of their demand. Verily, that is the time for the edification of the ignorant on the meaning of an academic doctorate.

I am still waiting for the day someone asks if there is a doctor in the house and I can call out "I have a Ph.D. in composition and music theory!" I am sure this will be exactly what they're looking for.

Even better would be if that actually fulfilled their need!

geoduck wrote:

Corwin wrote:TBH you really shouldn't call yourself doctor with only a JD. Even people who actually have earned it (PhD, SJD) often find it overly pretentious.

Big asterix equals in The USA. In many other countries that JD makes you a doctor. Stupid English cultural heritage.

Well of course. Titles like doctor are inherently cultural, even within individual countries. Perhaps I was amiss in assuming a US centric view.

lmfao wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote: Things just got really confusing. You made a flawed argument, I pointed it out, you then pwned me by saying I went to devry, and I'm the one who is supposed to be mad?

I don't see any significant flaws in my argument (we are not in court). You misunderstood my point and now keep nit-picking for some reason. Let me rephrase the sentence that seems to be bugging you - only pricks would call PhDs irrelevant since they (PhD holders) are responsible for most discoveries. Better wording now?

History:

1. You - "Being called a Doctor as a Phd is something pretentious academics do to feel validation for their largely irrelevant lives."
2. Me - "should I even bother reminding you that PhDs are primarily responsible for most discoveries?""
3. You - "Your post implied that demanding to be called a doctor is ok because people with PhD's are responsible for a lot of discoveries."

You seem to have misunderstood my point, which is evident in #3 (I implied that it is wrong to call PhDs irrelevant, I never implied that they should be called Doctors since they made a lot of discoveries). Do you see it now, Esquire? Sir? Doctor of Law?

Ok, let me see if you understand the flaw (btw, this is pretty basic)

"PhDs are not irrelevent because a FEW people who have PhDs have been responsible for relevant discoveries"

Seriously, look long and hard at that sentence.

Patriot1208 wrote:

lmfao wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote: Things just got really confusing. You made a flawed argument, I pointed it out, you then pwned me by saying I went to devry, and I'm the one who is supposed to be mad?

I don't see any significant flaws in my argument (we are not in court). You misunderstood my point and now keep nit-picking for some reason. Let me rephrase the sentence that seems to be bugging you - only pricks would call PhDs irrelevant since they (PhD holders) are responsible for most discoveries. Better wording now?

History:

1. You - "Being called a Doctor as a Phd is something pretentious academics do to feel validation for their largely irrelevant lives."
2. Me - "should I even bother reminding you that PhDs are primarily responsible for most discoveries?""
3. You - "Your post implied that demanding to be called a doctor is ok because people with PhD's are responsible for a lot of discoveries."

You seem to have misunderstood my point, which is evident in #3 (I implied that it is wrong to call PhDs irrelevant, I never implied that they should be called Doctors since they made a lot of discoveries). Do you see it now, Esquire? Sir? Doctor of Law?

Ok, let me see if you understand the flaw (btw, this is pretty basic)

"PhDs are not irrelevent because a FEW people who have PhDs have been responsible for relevant discoveries"

Seriously, look long and hard at that sentence.

Hilarious. Are you seriously that ignorant and narrow-minded? You know, I was joking about the Devry before... I am actually scared now...

Please, DO NOT rephrase my sentences. You generalized all PhDs in the academia and said that they are irrelevant (which is not true). I countered it by saying that there are a lot of PhDs (most of whom are in the Academia) who are responsible for many discoveries and scientific breakthroughs (which, obviously, suggests that one should never say that all PhDs in the academia are irrelevant). Do you get it now, Esquire?

Now, a nuclear physicist is likely to be more "relevant" than someone with a Doctorate degree in Arts. However, they both contribute to the society in one way or another and calling either of them "irrelevant" is downright wrong. Do you get it now, Doctor of Law?

Reading comprehension & logic FAIL

I need to say something here, but I'll be back. I need to go buy some lemonlime gatorade.

It is getting way too hot in here.

This should clear things up. Found this in an etiquette manual at my library.



Looks like J.D.'s only get recognition on envelopes.

Momentum wrote:This should clear things up. Found this in an etiquette manual at my library.



Looks like J.D.'s only get recognition on envelopes.

Thanks for image spamming us with something we already know.

coldshoulder wrote:It is getting way too hot in here.

So take off all your clothes.

geoduck wrote:Thanks for image spamming us with something we already know.

Aside from the offshoot discussion about the relevancy of academia, the appropriate use of 'Doctor' when addressing people with various degrees is indeed the primary topic of discussion ITT. The image spam contains relevant information.

Momentum wrote:This should clear things up. Found this in an etiquette manual at my library.

[images]

Looks like J.D.'s only get recognition on envelopes.

Thank you for taking the time to scan and post these pages!

I will repeat myself once again - it does not matter that the 'general population' believes that only MDs should be called "Dr." Anyone who has earned a PhD has all the rights in the world to be called "Doctor" (just look at the scanned pages guys ><). It is simply the right/correct/polite way to address someone who holds a Doctorate degree.

lmfao wrote: Anyone who has earned a PhD has all the rights in the world to be called "Doctor" (just look at the scanned pages guys ><).

Not to be a pedant, but the posted images don't address that question at all.

Bildungsroman wrote:

lmfao wrote: Anyone who has earned a PhD has all the rights in the world to be called "Doctor" (just look at the scanned pages guys ><).

Not to be a pedant, but the posted images don't address that question at all.

He also outted himself as an FIU student.

Don't call yourself a Dr. unless you're near a pretentious arts-and-flowers PhD who insists on being called Doctor. In that case calling yourself Dr. is totally OK.

Bildungsroman wrote:

lmfao wrote: Anyone who has earned a PhD has all the rights in the world to be called "Doctor" (just look at the scanned pages guys ><).

Not to be a pedant, but the posted images don't address that question at all.

That's fair, the book didn't have a separate delineation for Ph. D.'s not related to a University, only as low as Associate Professors.

ResolutePear wrote:He also outted himself as an FIU student.

Nah, FSU. My avatar should give that away - it's the entranceway to one of our more ornate buildings.

Momentum wrote:

Bildungsroman wrote:

lmfao wrote: Anyone who has earned a PhD has all the rights in the world to be called "Doctor" (just look at the scanned pages guys ><).

Not to be a pedant, but the posted images don't address that question at all.

That's fair, the book didn't have a separate delineation for Ph. D.'s not related to a University, only as low as Associate Professors.

ResolutePear wrote:He also outted himself as an FIU student.

Nah, FSU.

Just wanted you to say it

dr123 wrote:Just because they earned the right to demand being called doctor, doesn't mean they're not a douche for doing so. Just sayin'.

I feel like Ive said this at least ten times in this thread, yet you guys keep skirting this

Corwin wrote:TBH you really shouldn't call yourself doctor with only a JD. Even people who actually have earned it a (PhD, SJD) often find it overly annoying when other people are also pretentiously concerned about their title or they feel like they had to work harder to earn their degree.

Fixed according to IMO.

JD is a doctorate degree. But it is true as a matter of social custom lawyers haven't been addressed as doctors. And it is true that some PhD programs are probably considerably more demanding (at least in time commitment) than a JD. Yet it is also true that you can get a PhD online these days from schools like U of PHX.