Talk:Doctorate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of Universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2004 press source article for details.

The citation is in: "Guns and Roses...", Pakistan Christian Post, April 25, 2004.

Contents


[edit] Query from Doctor_(title) page

Academically, Law is a doctoral subject only in certain countries, the United States and all European countries among them. (from the article Doctor_(title))

Perhaps this is American terminology, since I have never heard of a "doctoral subject", nor of what I imagine is its corollary, a "non-doctoral subject".

Does it mean a professional discipline in which the basic qualification is a doctorate (such as the American JD)? In this case, the statement that "Law is a doctoral subject...in...all European countries" would be wrong, since England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales are four European countries in which the basic qualification is either a BA in Jurisprudence/Law or the bachelor of laws (LLB) degree, or alternatively a postgraduate diploma ("conversion course") in law. (To pedants: yes, I wrote that on the basis that Ireland is one country).

People do get academic doctorates in law in these countries: both the DPhil/PhD in law and doctoral degrees in the "faculty" of Civil Law or of Laws (DCL or LLD - these are Higher Doctorates).

Finally, does it mean a "doctoral faculty" in the perhaps archaic sense of "faculty" as the faculty in which one takes one's degree? - the faculty of Arts has bachelors and masters ("Doctor of Arts" does not exist in the Atlantic Archipelago, or if it does it is very new), the faculty of Civil Law has bachelors and doctors (I've never heard of a "MCL"), the faculty of Laws has bachelors, masters, and doctors (LLB, LLM, LLD).--AlexanderLondon 20:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it is meant in the sense of an area of subject matter in which a doctoral-level degree can be earned. At least at one time, in the field of education at least, the Ed. S. degree was the terminal degree in some areas; there were no doctrates awarded in, say, reading instruction, so it could have been said that when this was the case that "reading education" was a non-doctral subject. My understanding is that the number of subjects in which a recognized doctrate is available for award has traditionally grown very slowly in that one needs a faculty made up largely of persons with a doctorate in the field to off accredited doctoral studies, and if a field has no one with earned doctorates it is hard to become the first institution to offer such a degree. (There used to be a long-running joke about this with regard to computer science and how the better students almost always knew more about the field than their professors did.) By the way, I had an instructor when I was in college who had earned the Doctor of Arts degree; it was from a (different) state school which had been denied the right by the state legislature and the educational-oversight bodies to offer the Ph. D. and decided to do this as an admittedly-inferior substitute so that it could at least truthfully represent that it offered studies at the doctoral level. Rlquall 21:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


In the US, a doctoral degree by research in Law (equivalent to a PhD) is normally referred to, for example at Harvard or Yale, as a S.J.D. or J.S.D. (Doctor of Juridical Sciences) degree, whereas the LL.D. (Doctor of Laws) properly is mostly an honorary degree. The standard American J.D. (Doctor of Law) is on the other hand an initial professional degree which, despite its misleading name, is not considered to be a doctoral qualification.
In the UK on the other hand, the initial Law degree (which does NOT qualify one to practice) is the standard 3-year undergraduate bachelor's degree, sometimes referred to as an LL.B. (Bachelor of Laws) or simply a B.A. in Cambridge. At the postgraduate level, at least in Cambridge, the highest Law degree one can get by research only is referred to as a "PhD in Law", whereas the LL.D. is a higher doctorate awarded only to very senior legal scholars based on the ensemble of their life's work. There are also several taught master's titles in the UK (e.g. Cambridge's LL.M degree) which are awarded not on the basis of research, but rather for graduate coursework assessed by final written exams (normally four or five "papers" in the British university terminology). Mbruno 19:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German doctorate

My understanding (comming mostly from contacts with German phd students in law, medecine and business administration) is that a "doctorate" in Germany is normally completed in less than a year. Some of my German lawyer friends claim to have written theirs in 6 weeks. Writing a thesis longer than 200 pages is rare, less than 100 is sometimes acceptable. My impressions was that the Habilitation is seen as the equivalent of a UK or French PhD and the "phd" as a MPhil or DEA (or any advanced degree requiring a one year thesis). Is this correct?

No, generally not. Indeed, there are some subjects where the doctorate can be achieved in a short time. But usually the doctor thesis is a comparable to the Anglo-American Ph.D.-thesis. --Kgsteffens 11:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My other understanding is that it is extremely difficult to get a prestigious job in Germany unless you hold a doctorate. Most ambitious students therefore want one, which partly explains why it comparatively easier to get one. Having a PhD is therefore seen as very prestigious, and a lot of holders insist on having the title on their credit card, passport and so forth. It is not uncommon to hold several PhDs and insist on being called Dr. Dr. John Doe. Or even Prof. Dr. Dr. Dr. John Doe.

Again, it definitely depends on the subject. --Kgsteffens 11:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Probably you got the information from medics. They are awfully exaggerating with their degrees --Kgsteffens 11:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The German Habilitation is a Degree, defined by Law. 84.185.208.128 23:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] French doctorate

In France, the higher doctorate is the doctorat d'État.

Not anymore. In France, we had two doctorates:

  • The doctorate of 3rd cycle (doctorat de troisieme cycle), which lasted 2-3 years to complete, and
  • The doctorat d'État, which required the doctorate of 3rd cycle (and maybe 10 years of research, although I'm uncertain of this requirement).

This changed in the 90's (around 1991 or 1992). The doctorat d'État was eliminated.

Also worth to notice, between the French Maitrise (MS or MA) and the doctorat there is an extra year of study awarding a Diplome d'Etudes Approfondies (DEA, or degree of advanced studies) -- in a way akin to the US Ph.D. coursework. For students seeking to get into the workforce, instead of pursuing a Ph.D., a DESS (diplome d'etudes superieures specialisees, or degree of higher-education specialized studies) is available as alternative to the DEA.

BTW, this has been changing since then again, to normalize the EU educational system, but the doctorat d'État is long gone (it was almost uniquely held by long time University professors).

The reform took place in 1984. The resulting "Doctorat" is actually somewhere in between the two, and is expected to take at least 3 years (more if you want an outstanding mark).Sprotch 15:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
A "maîtrise" is NOT considered equivalent to an M.S/M.A in the US, although a DEA (or the new "Master Recherche") might be. If you don't believe me, contact the admissions office in any top US graduate school. 161.24.19.82 17:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bachelor's degree not required

The article says that a bachelor's degree is required for professional doctorates. That is not true in the U.S., at least for law, medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine. The legal requirement is three years of undergrad coursework (about 90 s.h.). Many United States law schools belong to the American Association of Law Schools, which does require a bachelor's or higher, but the American Bar Association and the various states only require 3 years. The same goes for the American Medical Association with medicine and whoever accredits dental schools (I believe the American Dental Association). I found that out from a friend who wanted to be an orthodontist, like his father. So, he dropped out of high school after his junior year. And he dropped out of college after his junior year. He then went to dental school and graduated from his orthodontics specialty program at the same age that others were graduating with their basic DDS degree.

RickReinckens 05:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time to complete degree

The normal minimum period for completing a PhD is 3 years.

I don't know what universe you're living in. On my planet, most departments have a normative time of AT LEAST 5 years, often 6. It is VERY rare for someone to finish in 4 years or less. It is not unusual at all for someone to take 7-10 years to complete a Ph.D. Revolver
Hm. It may depend on when you start counting -- at the end of your secondary education or after you have already received a Master's degree? --KF 13:36, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Okay, normative time given a master's is about 4-5 years in my field, maybe 3 at the least, but still up to 6 or more. Normative time from bachelors (secondary education) is usually 6-7, give or take. In any case, to say 3 years is normal is a joke, masters or not. If other doctorates take 3 years or so, this should be said specifically, not said as if any generic doctorate takes 3 years. Revolver 10 Nov 2003

There is an underlying problem here of course: We cannot compare the educational systems of different countries with each other. Even if certain isolated phenomena are exactly alike they will probably be known by different terms. (Just have a look at that weird numerus clausus article.) You may find some ancient talk at Matura interesting, as in secondary education the problems seem to be analogous.

But I'm rather hopeful that one day Wikipedia will have articles on doctorate, bachelor etc. that include information from all over the world and are also intelligible to people wherever they are. --KF 23:34, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Okay, how is this. In my field, most people are between the ages of 27 and 30 when they complete their Ph.D. or doctorate, and this is when there is no period of absence from academic studies. Before 27 is not unheard of, although most mortals are at least 25. Myself, I'll be finishing next spring, and I'm 30. So you can see why "4 years past secondary" seems really off to me, if secondary is really the equivalent of K-12 in North America, then this means the minimum normative age to receive Ph.D. in math is at age 22, which is complete nonsense. Revolver

By "3 years" I mean from the time the candidate becomes a PhD student. (This is the minimum period in all UK universities.) If a person is 18 when they begin their bachelor's degree and do a 1-year master's degree afterwards, then they will be 22 or 23 (depending on whether the bachelor's was 3 or 4 years) when they start their research. A further three years minimum for their PhD pushes their age up to 26. This is the soonest point at which they are legally allowed to submit their dissertation: Please note that only a few "whizz-kids" actually achieve this. Most take at least another 2 years - making them 28 when they actually obtain the PhD. So I think, Revolver, that this pretty much agrees with what you are saying. Jamie123

Yes, that's fine, for someone who comes to the talk article, but the way it was worded before (and still to an extent now) it gives a confusing impression. It's very confusing regarding absolute legal minimum times and normative times. The normative time is much more meaningful number to give people than a "minimum" time, say an absolute legal minimum time almost never achieved (if such policies exist, I'm not sure they do everywhere). If a lot of people take twice as long or longer than the minimum time, what's the point in mentioning it? Revolver

The use of the term doctorate for the first-professional doctors is not correct in the UK and elsewhere. Is this perhaps correct for Europe or US? The term first-professional is new to me. Where does that come from? I think that those professionals do not hold doctorates and the implication in this article is that they do. This article implies that all dentists, e.g., holds a degree at the highest level. I'm unsure how to correct the article. Paul Beardsell 23:58, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But I have had a go and I have improved it but there is some way to go. One example is the implication in one part of the article that a D.Sc. is somehow not as good as a Ph.D. (in a science field) yet elsewhere the likes of the D.Sc. is recognised as being for a much more substantial contribution - so much so it is rarely awarded. The latter is my understanding. Perhaps someone who really knows this subject could be persuaded to contribute. Someone actually responsible for this at a university, e.g. Paul Beardsell 05:11, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To enter into Pharmacy school only requires an Associates degree rather than a Bachelors degree. In addition, Medical school only requires applicants to have 90 credit hours to apply. This article makes it sound like a Bachelors degree is required to enter into all professional schools, which is often not the case.

In my department, at least, the minimum time required to finish a PhD is 2 years from the date of enrollment as a PhD student. Most students take 4 or 5 years, and the maximum is 6. Any longer than that and you either require special permission to finish or are kicked out. Exploding Boy 03:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doctoral vs Doctorate

Two words derived from "doctor". The article title is "Doctorate". The use of the word doctoral is wrong in respect to a doctorate degree? There are doctoral degrees: But "doctoral" is surely being used as a synonym for "medical". Is not the adjective pertaining to "doctorate" also "doctorate". Yes? Paul Beardsell 11:15, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Doctoral" is the adjective, as in a "doctoral degree, doctoral defense, doctoral dissertation"... it is incorrect to say "doctorate degree"--- in that case one would simply say "doctorate". "Doctoral" does not simply refer to medicine. Asta2500 13:52, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Since the Doctor of Pharmacy is a first-professional doctorate, I removed it from the list of research-oriented doctorates. It appears further down, under First-professional. Asta2500 15:10, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Passage removed

I've removed this passage

However in countries where the professional degrees are awarded, the title and address of "Doctor" is in fact a courtesy and does not take presidence someone holding a doctorate.

which I can't really parse. If anyone knows what it means (and of course if it's true) please feel free to put it back, in clearer words. --Trovatore 03:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

In certain countries, addressing someone as "Doctor" does not necessary imply a doctorate degree. For instance, in Portugal any teacher is often referred as "senhor doutor" (Mr. Dr.) although they don't have a doctorate -- this is not wrong; it's a cultural sign of respect. Even elementary school teachers are referred to as "Senhor Doutor." This varies from culture to culture, but is not uncommon in other countries. I believe this is what the original sentence intended to state. In contrast, there are also more egalitarian cultures were the Doctor title is often omitted. For instance, in France, the title is often only used in addressing medical doctors.

[edit] Doctor naturae vs. Doctor naturalium

In tis article "Dr. rer. nat." is translated with (Doctor rerum naturae. In other sources it is translated with (Doctor rerum naturalium) ae->alium, which is right? Letting Google vote, naturalium wins 22.600 against 563 hits. http://www.google.de/search?q=rer+nat+naturalium http://www.google.de/search?q=rer+nat+naturae

Doctor rerum naturalium is the actual title on almost every German university! However, Doctor rerum naturae is the title on the Technical University of Munich and the University of Veterinary Medicine in Hanover. Mintaru 06:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, ``Doctor rerum naturalium translates as ``Doctor of natural things, and ``Doctor rerum naturae translates as ``Doctor of things of nature.

[edit] Talk:Doctorate

I also leave rude comments where possible, as on the Talk:Doctorate. I didn't know that in Europe most PhD programs are completed in less than 5 years.

No, I want to respond to this. This comment was left on my user page by an anonymous poster. I invite anyone reading this to go to that page, in its entirety, and judge if I was really incredibly rude. My first two sentences were out of line. Apart from this initial burst, I believe I worked in a constructive manner throughout the rest of the talk page to make a better article. Again, just go judge for yourself.

I might make the following observations: when I made my comment, the article contained the unadorned statement about "normal minimum period for completing a Ph.D." This statement was confusing itself, as whoever wrote it obviously didn't know that in the U.S., there is usually no legal minimum age to obtain a Ph.D., nor legal minimum time in program. If someone walks into a Ph.D. program in math with a masters, immediately passes all quals, secures an advisor and writes a spectacular dissertation within a span of 6 months, she's out of there. So that "normal minimum period for completing a Ph.D." would likely be interpreted by U.S. people (like myself) as meaning "normative time to completion", since "normative minimum period" is a phrase which has no meaning in the U.S. So, in this case, the original ignorance could be traced to an ignorance of American programs. (I'm not accusing anyone...just showing, there's enough ignorance to go around.)

I might also add that the current article still assigns a "minimum time for completing a Ph.D." to U.S. programs, which as I said above, is not just wrong, it's simply nonsensical. (Unless someone can explain to me what that term means in the U.S.) Also, User:Jamie123 states that in the UK, most Ph.D. students take at least 5 years to complete the degree, so the claim that "most" European students finish in "less than 5 years" is apparently not true, at least in the UK. Also note that my comment immediately below this one by Jamie has still not been completely addressed in the article, in the sense that lots of statistical terms are thrown about without being defined, and esp. "minimum time to complete" and "normative time to complete" are still confused in the article. The article could still use a lot of basic numbers with sources, and showing the exact relationship between different metrics. So, the basic reason why I was so upset originally, is basically still there. Revolver 19:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Minimal Times This talk of minimal times is misleading. The only *minium* time requirement in the UK that I am aware of (currently completing Computer Science PhD at University of Southampton) is that there must be at least 18 months between upgrading from MPhil to submitting a final thesis. (The normal course for a PhD student is you start off doing a MPhil, which is then upgraded after submission of a mini-Thesis and passing a viva). My friend completed in just under 2 and a half years. The standard sponsorship provided by the EPSRC, the principle funding body for UK engineering and Science students, is 3 years, after which time the student does not receive any maintenance and needs to pay tuition. In practice most students overun, but I beleive recent rules laid down by EPSRC disallow the award of a PhD after 5 years of full time study. This varies greatly between subjects. In Chemistry, for example, it is expected that the 3 years is spent in Lab work, and it is only possible to write the Thesis up after the 3 years are complete, meaning a shorter time is impossible. I expect arts PhDs are significantly different due to different sponsorship organisations. And of course the time requirements for part-time PhDs are completely different. In practice, I think trying to detail every possible PhD program in the world is impractical. It would be best to keep to the broad requirements required: 3-7 years full time research, publication in peer reviewed publications (or a good excuse not to have published), submission of a Thesis and passing a viva from several peers (and maybe a public viva too). I believe these are the key requirements of any PhD program. Jonathan Hallam (Sorry for not editing myself, but as you may note from this comment I'm not familiar with wikipedia's editing facility)

Ah, so maybe this one of the miscommunications!! Apparently, Europeans and UK people are measuring the "time for completion" from the obtaining of this Masters degree, so of course it's going to be much shorter than U.S. figures, which invariably measure from obtaining of BACHELOR'S degree. No wonder everyone is so confused. For example, it sounds like by the above, in Europe 3 years financial support is normal. This sounds off compared to the usual 5 (or possibly 6) years of financial support in math ph.d. programs. The confusion seems to disappear after you realise that people are starting these years at different points, after masters in Europe vs. after bachelor's in U.S. I have to contend some of the "requirements" mentioned above, though. Perhaps 3-7 years measuring from masters, I would say in U.S. 4-8 years measuring from bachelors or 2-6 years measuring from masters. Nowhere have I ever encountered that publication in a journal is a requirement for a ph.d., though. Maybe this is true in humanities, but unheard of in sciences. The dissertation and acceptance of such by committee is the only formal research requirement; no requirement is made to publish in journals, or an "excuse" for having not done so. I'm not sure what a "viva" is, that's not a common term in the U.S. Revolver

Just to add my 2 cents (sorry, pence) on timing from the UK, it is now increasingly the case that funding bodies expect the PhD to be submitted and examined within 4 years. Departments that consistently fail to achieve this will apparently be blacklisted from receiving further funding. Therefore, universities in the UK are making it clear to their new PhD students that they are expected to submit within 3 years (full time). This lead to some degree of dispute in King's College London where lots of humanities students had been "on the books" for up to 15 years. If they don't submit sharpish, they will be axed from the program. In science subjects funding is typically for 3 years already. As for other aspects of timing, it's not always necessary to do a master's before a PhD in all subjects. Age varies greatly between the US and UK way of doing things. I've got my viva next week and I'm 24. In the US this would make me either a liar or a child prodigy and I assure you I am neither... --PaulWicks 22:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I can bump the kitty up to 4p; there appears to be a lot of confusion regarding the stipulations laid down to obtain a PhD, as evidenced by the discussions above. This stems from many layers of confusion resulting from overlaid statutory, departmental, university-level, and funding-body requirements. I am a UK science PhD student, and I can only speak for my own experience (and my slightly faulty memory), BUT:
- There IS a minimum time required to gain a PhD- it is either 2 or 2.5 years from beginning the programme until submission. There is NOT a minimum age however; I know (distantly) of someone who has attained her PhD and is (I think) 22 or 23.
- Revolver has got the wrong end of the stick I think in his comment above. One does not have to complete any kind of Master's degree (or MPhil) to embark on a PhD, and the time taken is measured from when one arrives at the department to start research, not from when any lower degree is awarded. It is true that PhD students generally start on an MPhil programme and transfer over to a PhD, but I have never heard of an MPhil actually being awarded in the interim before submission of the PhD, or of having to submit a m'mini-thesis' to get it. The MPhil is basically just a name for the first 1-2 years of doctoral study, and really has very little independent existence. It is very rare for an MPhil to be awarded (in the non-Oxbridge sense) and they usually go to those who a) 'fail' their PhD; b) want to quit early/get kicked out and submit a reduced thesis (although this is not always the case and I don't mean to denigrate anybody with an MPhil!).
- The 'viva' or viva voce is an interrogatory oral examination which takes place after submission and essentially decides whether the student will either a) Pass with no corrections (v. rare); b) Pass with minor corrections (3 months worth or less; v. common); c) resubmit with major corrections (up to 18 months worth, with or without another viva; quite rare, essentially the nightmare scenario for most PhD candidates); d) be invited to resubmit as an MPhil, with or without another viva (v. rare); e) fail (virtually impossible). It is directly equivalent to the 'defence' of the thesis; however, unlike in some other systems, in the UK at least the result is by no-means pre-determined. Candidates enter the viva (which is not public) not knowing how they have gotten on; I have seen several enter the room thinking they have passed with flying colours and come out having been royally buggered. Unpleasant.
- I don't THINK there is a maximum uniform set limit for PhD completion times, but 3-4 years is by far the norm. It is extremely rare for anybody to submit in less than three years, and some do indeed go on for 10 years +. This is becoming rarer now, and new funding rules mean that most (full-time) students are strongly encouraged to submit within 4 years to avoid departmental funding penalties (in some cases those who take more than 4 years will have their registrations cancelled). My own previous funding body, the NERC (environmental, biological, ocean and earth sciences) now funds students for 3.5 years but expects them to hand in within 4. Part-time students get at least twice as long, and there are ways to get round the system in some cases. In practice, for full-time scientists, 4 years is basically the limit, unless they have an excuse, in which case extensions may be granted- this time limit may be officially stipulated for some people, but not for others. In summary, it is perfectly possible and indeed reasonably common for a student to graduate with a BSc. or similar at 21, complete their PhD, and graduate with it after 3 years at the age 24 as Dr. Whomever. In practice, many students choose to do an MSc. (but there is no FORMAL requirement to complete a Master's, as far as I know, and certainly not in my field), most over-run their 3 years, some do 4-year UG degrees etc., but again I know several people who have their PhD and are under 25. Probably the modal age is 26 or 27. In the UK at least, it is NOT true that most (science) doctorates take more than 5 years- in fact, this is very rare in the modern age. In mainland Europe, the rules are different, and that may be the case (certainly I know that many UG degrees take up to e.g. 5-6 years in Europe, because they have a radically different system).
- There is no requirement to publish as part of a PhD, except where stipulated on a more or less informal basis by an individual department (or because one's supervisor shouts at you and tells you to do it). Rather, the material must be publishable - i.e. of a quality likely to pass a peer-review and get into a journal. This is subjectively determined by the examiners on reading the thesis. Most PhD candidates publish, but they don't have to.
Note that, as I alluded to above, I know that the rules differ from place to place, and between subjects, and funding bodies. The above comments are only my own experience. It was always my understanding that US PhD's took longer because they a) had to attend taught courses and complete assessed coursework (not the case for me in the UK and certainly not a general requirement as far as I am aware); b) were in turn expected to contribute more time themselves to teaching undergrads, or acting as a research assistant etc.; c) that they had to basically complete what we would call a Master's AND THEN a PhD, but all bundled into nominally the same programme of study. Nonetheless, I know of at least 1 American (now over here) who matriculated with his PhD from a US college in well under 4-years (closer to 3 I think) and (as far as I know) does not have a master's degree. All this complexity has given me a headache. ~Cheers, Badgerpatrol
[Badgerpatrol] The Cambridge engineering department now requires that first-year PhD students attend lectures from Part II-B of the engineering tripos or, alternatively, join advanced reading groups under the supervision of a reader or professor. Coursework requirements for PhD students are also common now at LSE. I guess that's all part of the current "Americanization" trend in European universities (I hear something similar is happening also at ETH Zürich).Mbruno 17:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please allow me to add my two cents if I may. Generally speaking, I agree it takes longer to get a PhD degree in the US or, incidentally, in continental Europe than in the UK. The normal timelines are as follows:

  1. In the US: 12 years of pre-university education + 4 years of undergraduate studies to get a BA/BS + 1.5 or 2 years of graduate studies to receive an MA/MS + at least 3 or, in most cases, 4 additional years to get a PhD (depends on whether you change schools between the master's and the doctor's program or not). Total: 21 or more often 22 years of formal studies to complete a doctorate (counting from 1st grade).
  2. In the UK: 13 years of pre-university education + 3 years of undergraduate studies to get a BA + one additional year of undergraduate studies for an MEng, MSci for engineering/science students, OR normally two years of graduate studies to complete a part taught/part research MPhil or MLitt in the case of humanities and social sciences + 3 additional years to get a PhD. Total: 20 or at most 21 years.
  3. In Germany: 13 years of pre-university education + 5 years of undergraduate studies to get a Diplom (or, in the new Bologna system, 3 years for a bachelor's degree + 2 years for a master's) + 3 or 4 additional years to get a "Doktor" degree (Dr.-Ing., Dr.rer.nat., etc.). Total: 21 or 22 years.
  4. In France: 13 years of pre-university education + 3 years of undergraduate studies to get a "Licence" + 2 years for a "Master Recherche" + 3 additional years to get a Docteur degree. Total: 21 years.

BTW, I did my PhD in the US (in engineering), so the American system is the one I'm most familiar with. 161.24.19.82 17:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Professional Doctorates in Austria (Berufsdoktorat)

Quote: "There are essentially three types of doctorates: research, terminal/professional (USA only), and honorary."

USA only is not true, therefor i removed this! In Austria existing two so called Berufsdoktorate (literally: Professional Doctorates). These are the Dr. med. univ. (short for Doctor medicinae universae) in medicine and the Dr. med. dent. (short for Doctor medicinae dentalis) in dentistry. Both are first degrees after six years of study. However, a Bachelor's degree is not needed for admission! Mintaru 06:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor as a part of name

In some countries (Germany) the title Dr. can become a part of the name, in the legal sense. In other countries this is not common or not possible. This incompatability is a constant source of misunderstanding by beaurocrats. A documentation of this phenomenon in the article would be most helpful. Can somebody pick up this task? [Dan] March 6, 2006

There is a bit of confusion regarding this issue. Since doctorates can be entered in a person's passport (or id-card in Germany for that matter) in the form of "DR John Doe", many people believe that the doctorate becomes part of the legal name. This is, however, not correct this peculiarity is discussed to some extent in the German Wikipedia-article. If you can speak German I recommend this page by a German law firm. One of the accociates goes to some length to discuss the actual legal issues concerning "German name law" and "German passport law". So, after all, the doctorate is not part of the legal name. But I concurr, the fact that it can show up on official documents eg a passport is a constant source of misunderstanding and it would be good if it was documented here. --130.123.225.69 05:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the main article, the doctor's title is commonly used in Germany when addressing anyone who holds a doctorate. Not complying with that convention will commonly be considered rude and provocative. As said previously, the title will appear on official documents like passports or even credit cards but is still not a part of the legal name. It appears peculiar to Germany as well, that the title is dropped in oral communication between doctors. It is actually a source of great amusement (and considered somewhat uncouth) when (e.g. at international conferences) alien doctors address each other with their titles. This convention is related to aristocratic etiquette, where holders of an equivalent title will not address each other with that title. -- Dr. Sven Goddon, Erlangen, Germany

[edit] Statement about use of title

This bit from the article strikes me as somewhat odd:

In the past, in the United States a person with a research doctorate would use the title "Doctor" in an academic or research/development setting, and in publication. However it is becoming more common to use the title if working in a corporate setting. This is the case in most continents. In some countries the term "doctor" may be used as a title of respect even if the person being addressed has no doctoral degree.

First, the statement needs to be more specific about the regions it's making claims about: it starts with a statement about the US, then generalizes to the world.

Next, it implies but doesn't actually say that the use of 'Doctor' as a title in academia has fallen out of fashion in the U.S. I find that somewhat difficult to believe. Here in Canada, I've seen professors referred to as "Professor X" by students, but somewhat more commonly as "Dr. X". I would expect the States to be similar in usage.

Finally, I don't really buy that "it is becoming more common to use the title in corporate setting". I can see why it's common: a PhD in a corporate setting is often a pretty distinctive trait, so why not play it up? But I don't really see that's it's becoming more common, or that there's any reason to specialize the statement to the corporate world, as opposed to the non-academic world in general. --Saforrest 22:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why attorneys in the U.S. are not commonly called "Dr." John Doe, since they are awarded a "Juris Doctor" degree, a first professional degree similar to an M.D.?

I believe the resaon is that the Juris Doctor was not universally awarded until 1971. This change in degrees was not widely noticed, and so new lawyers continued to be called mister. Since their employers were also called mister, the new lawyers were in no position to ask that they be called doctor.
Because there is considerable debate as to whether or not the JD is actually a doctoral-level degree. See extensive discussion on this at Talk:Juris Doctor. Wikiant 13:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Oddly enough, there has been no such debate about the D.D.S. or D.M.D.


The conventional view in the academic world is that the J.D. is NOT a doctoral-level degree. In fact, a J.D. is even lower than a "Master of Laws" (LL.M.) degree in order of precedence. The confusion would disappear if the J.D. were replaced by the more appropriate degree of "Bachelor of Laws" (LL.B.) that used to be granted in the US, even as a post-graduate qualification. 161.24.19.82 11:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DoE and NSF positions on equivalence of degrees

Whether or not the US Department of Education and the NSF regard various doctorates as equivalent is irrelevant. Neither of these bodies is a degree-granting institution, therefore neither is competent to have an opinion on the equivalence of degrees. Further, the article is not restricted to US degrees. Hence, the fact that the DoE is an American *political* body makes the incompetence even more profound. Wikiant 14:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite see your point. This may be an example of international differences; in my country, the government (through the department for education) ultimately decides on who gets to grant degrees and what degrees they are allowed to grant, ensuring (at least in theory) consistency between institutions. Of course individual institutions have a great say, but not the ultimate power. I think that that was the intention that the editor in question was trying to make, although the situtation with the NSF is not clear to me. Perhaps in the US the individual states take on this role? As a general word of advice by the way, you might get along a bit better here on Wikipedia if you refrain from calling your fellow editors (or thier edits) incompetent. All the best, Badgerpatrol 15:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
When I said, "...makes the incompetence even more profound," I was not referring to the editor(s), but to the DoE and the NSF. Note the preceding sentence: "...neither (the DoE nor the NSF) is competent to have an opinion..." Note also that I am using the term "competent" in its true sense, "properly or sufficiently qualified." Thus, even in calling the DoE and NSF "incompetent," I am not implying that the folk there are stupid, but simply that they lack sufficient qualifications to determine what degrees are and are not equivalent.
OK...now to the topic at hand. In the US, the government does not have a say in who grants degrees. A university is chartered under the laws of a specific state, but those laws simply establish the institution as a legal entity -- the state has no overt control over the degrees, subject matter, quality, etc. (Note: Some states and the Federal government attempt to exert some control by withholding government-sponsored funding, but as government funding is only one of many sources of revenue, there are plenty of examples of institutions foregoing government funding so as to do as they will.) In addition, the US Department of Education concerns itself primarily with primary and secondary education, not colleges and universities. Wikiant 16:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
So there is no body to ensure the quality and consistency of degrees? Badgerpatrol 22:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
There is. It is the market place. Holding price constant, institutions that provide lower quality degrees lose students to those that provide higher quality degrees. The market is far better at both evaluating quality and ensuring that price is commensurate with quality than a governmental body could ever hope to be. Wikiant 02:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, one learns something new every day! Badgerpatrol 02:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Aside from the marketplace, which may decree that a doctorate from MIT or CalTech in technical fields may be more valuable than another, perfectly valid one from, say, the University of Wyomiing, degrees of any rank are only generally considered to be valid if granted by an accredited institution, but in the U.S. this is not done directly by the government but by several regional bodies approved by the U.S. Department of Education. Of course, this has not stopped many "diploma mills" frow awarding essentially bogus degrees, including doctorates, that have been "accredited" by equally-bogus accreditation bodies, which are sometimes actually controlled by the same persons as those behind the diploma mills. In recent years the USDoE has finally gotten its act together to the extent that it now publishes lists of valid and suspect accrediting agencies. Rlquall 22:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess the main difference is that, in the UK and indeed in other countries as well, there is a periodic formal evaluation of research standards in the different universities that is carried out by specialist peer review panels on behalf of the national government (Department of Education). That evaluation exercise produces a "de facto" official ranking of the different graduate programs which significantly impacts how government research money is allocated. About a decade ago, the NSF in the United States tried to do something similar, but it seems that the idea of a periodic formal assessment of national research standards has been since abandoned. Quality control is exercised indirectly though by U.S. government agencies on an individual basis, i.e. when individual professors or research groups apply for competitive research grants. 161.24.19.82 15:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of whether one, each, or either of these bodies is "competent" to make such a statement of equivalence, I do not believe the article is factual as to the list. First there is no outside source to provide acknowledgment to this fact. Second the US ED.gov website(for the Department of Education) lists fewer degrees as equivalent to the PhD(per the NSF) than are listed in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.170.128.65 (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Mediation WP:MedCab

For discussion on this Mediation, please visit J.D. Talk Page or WP:MedCab Page. --Jon Cates 01:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup candidate?

This article seems to need a thorough-going cleanup for lots of minor technical things, like conformity to style (spelling out of numbers nine and under for example), some grammar (to me, a lot of the constructions seem odd and non-idiomatic, at least to a native speaker of American English), and some other nit-picks, such as excessive linking ("PhD", for example does not need to be bluelinked four or five times in the sama paragraph). Also there is lots of inconsistency, such as "PhD" and "Ph.D.", sometimes both in the same paragraph. I realize that both are equally correct and acceptable, generally and in Wikipedia, but it is not too much to ask in a work striving to be a professional-level encyclopedia for there to be consistency within an article. This is more than I want to take on, so I am thinking about tagging it. What do other editors think? Rlquall 22:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged the article for cleanup. It has many problems. The lead says there are three kinds of doctorates (research, first professional, and honorary), but there is also a section on "practioner's doctorates" which don't fall into any of those categories. The lists in section 5 are unwieldy and the subdivisions are inconsistent, since they divide degrees both by kind and by country. The subsections on doctorates in specific countries are very disparate in depth and some of them are clearly written by non-native speakers and need basic language editing. I think someone needs to start by rethinking the scheme and layout of the article and then rewriting. -- Eb.hoop 02:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classification of doctorates

It would be useful to have something on the classification of doctorates and details of countries where this is done. In Germany and Austria it's standard practice to award doctorates 'summa cum laude' down to simply 'rite'. Is anything like this done in any other countries? Norvo 18:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Doctorates in the UK are not classified - you either pass or you don't. - Nicholas Jackson 10:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
..although one does pass with varying levels of corrections, which comes very close to a system of grades, although is hardly ever quoted or treated as such. Badgerpatrol 14:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is true, and I wondered if I should have mentioned that in my previous comment. I'd argue that it's not the same thing as a grade, though (at least not in the same sense as 'summa cum laude' or 'upper second class' etc) because it's not an attribute of the qualification itself, it's merely a condition that the examiners require before they will agree to recommend the award of the doctorate. Once the doctorate is awarded, there is no difference between a PhD that passed outright, and one that required the resubmission of a corrected thesis. My certificate says 'Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics', not 'Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics (subject to fixing that tricky bit of category theory in section 2.3)'. - Nicholas Jackson 22:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/o/c/Talk%7EDoctorate_2f54.html"