• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Do you have a PhD/JD/MD?

doc?

  • Total voters
    138
The nursing PhDs I know are nursing professors.
 
Someone else pointed it out already, but in many states the bar has concluded that it's unethical for lawyers to advertise themselves as "doctors."

I think we can all agree that medical docs are at the top of the heap in terms of training/rigor/stature/professional demands. PhDs are somewhere after them, depending on the discipline. I've known plenty of PhDs who were dumb as stumps. It's not that hard to land a PhD in certain fields. To my continual amazement there are programs out there that don't even require a major piece of scholarship to get the degree.
 
DeacinBama said:
I realize you're semi-trolling, but to answer your question - not at all. Some of the best physicians I know are DOs. While it's fair to speak in generalizations, I'm not on board with degrading the degree.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

I also know some pretty crappy MD's
 
Interesting about what folks should call you. It's a little more clear cut maybe because I'm an MD, but it's not always clear.

I've been in practice for about a year and I generally introduce myself to my patients by my full name, as in Hi Mr Smith I'm: First Name, Last Name. I see it as a respectful way to call them Mr/Mrs and downplay myself in the process. It's clear I'm the doctor, my name is on the office sign and I wear a white coat. But the doctor patient interaction can be intimidating for folks and I try and cut through that. It's tempting to say I'm Doctor Last Name because I am so new that I want to make it clear that I am qualified to do this. But I hope that comes across after we spend some time together.
 
inspectah said:
Someone else pointed it out already, but in many states the bar has concluded that it's unethical for lawyers to advertise themselves as "doctors."

I think we can all agree that medical docs are at the top of the heap in terms of training/rigor/stature/professional demands. PhDs are somewhere after them, depending on the discipline. I've known plenty of PhDs who were dumb as stumps. It's not that hard to land a PhD in certain fields. To my continual amazement there are programs out there that don't even require a major piece of scholarship to get the degree.
Click to expand...

That really depends on the field of Ph.D. you are talking about. I have mine in Pathology and got it at a medical school. This included 3 years of solid classwork plus 40+ hours in lab, then after classes just a lot of time in lab. Our department required two first author publications in "important" peer reviewed journals (they had a list of approved ones). When it was all said and done, most Ph.D.s took about 5.5 years. Then it is followed by another 4-6 years (getting a bit longer these days with poor funding) as a postdoctoral fellow before one can realistically build up the C.V. to apply for a research professorship. So no, I disagree. I know M.D.s, Ph.D.s, and M.D./Ph.D.s and, at least in the biomedical sciences, many would agree the Ph.D./faculty route is just as difficult as an M.D. Some of my research colleagues with M.D./Ph.D.s talk about how they found the Ph.D. portion harder and they look forward to their clinical time because they find it less stressful to work with patients than reading scientific articles and writing grants. In any case, I do not think it is near a universal rule that an M.D. is always a harder degree than Ph.D.
 
The MD/PhD distinction is that I don't save lives.
 
PhDeac said:
The MD/PhD distinction is that I don't save lives.
Click to expand...

Depends on the field. A Ph.D. who devotes their life to research in a field such as Pathology, Microbiology, Biochemisty, or Genetics (to name a few) absolutely saves lives. They just don't get the instant gratification of stepping up and doing so in a life or death situation. At the same time, the likely never have to go to bed wondering if they did enough to save someone's life that particular day.
 
BigTreeDeac said:
That really depends on the field of Ph.D. you are talking about. I have mine in Pathology and got it at a medical school. This included 3 years of solid classwork plus 40+ hours in lab, then after classes just a lot of time in lab. Our department required two first author publications in "important" peer reviewed journals (they had a list of approved ones). When it was all said and done, most Ph.D.s took about 5.5 years. Then it is followed by another 4-6 years (getting a bit longer these days with poor funding) as a postdoctoral fellow before one can realistically build up the C.V. to apply for a research professorship. So no, I disagree. I know M.D.s, Ph.D.s, and M.D./Ph.D.s and, at least in the biomedical sciences, many would agree the Ph.D./faculty route is just as difficult as an M.D. Some of my research colleagues with M.D./Ph.D.s talk about how they found the Ph.D. portion harder and they look forward to their clinical time because they find it less stressful to work with patients than reading scientific articles and writing grants. In any case, I do not think it is near a universal rule that an M.D. is always a harder degree than Ph.D.
Click to expand...

I'm married to such a person. It's damn near impossible to get and maintain research funding. At WFUBMC in particular anybody who does not have grant funding for 100% of their research efforts is being forced out, and quickly.
 
that's a shame given all the loot WFUBMC has. you'd think they could cover some of the costs of research.
 
BigTreeDeac said:
That really depends on the field of Ph.D. you are talking about. I have mine in Pathology and got it at a medical school. This included 3 years of solid classwork plus 40+ hours in lab, then after classes just a lot of time in lab. Our department required two first author publications in "important" peer reviewed journals (they had a list of approved ones). When it was all said and done, most Ph.D.s took about 5.5 years. Then it is followed by another 4-6 years (getting a bit longer these days with poor funding) as a postdoctoral fellow before one can realistically build up the C.V. to apply for a research professorship. So no, I disagree. I know M.D.s, Ph.D.s, and M.D./Ph.D.s and, at least in the biomedical sciences, many would agree the Ph.D./faculty route is just as difficult as an M.D. Some of my research colleagues with M.D./Ph.D.s talk about how they found the Ph.D. portion harder and they look forward to their clinical time because they find it less stressful to work with patients than reading scientific articles and writing grants. In any case, I do not think it is near a universal rule that an M.D. is always a harder degree than Ph.D.
Click to expand...

In my (sub)field, in the humanities, doctoral candidates typically take 7-8 years for the PhD. We will typically have two-three peer reviewed articles before finishing and at least one monograph before consideration for tenure. The research is very different in nature, but no less intellectually exhausting as it is in the hard sciences.

However, in reference to this particular poll, I'd never request to be referred to as "doctor". Nor do I find the title "professor" appropriate, because that is an earned title, and I am (at present) far lower down the academic ladder.

I can say for certain that one day I am going to write a hell of a lot of doctor's notes.
 
TownieDeac said:
You just seem downright stupid, Knight.
Click to expand...

Name-calling is the lowest form of logical discourse. Townie used to have the ability to present facts and defend his positions, but I guess hes just gotten intellectually lazy.
 
Knight said:
You and I have diametrically opposed world views.

I hope that they are due to experience, but I surmise they are due to a combination of experience and education.
Click to expand...

RicoSuave said:
Name-calling is the lowest form of logical discourse. Townie used to have the ability to present facts and defend his positions, but I guess hes just gotten intellectually lazy.
Click to expand...

I'm very comfortable with both of these posts. In lieu of presenting facts and defending my position, I'll let both of your collective post histories speak for themselves. Also, saying someone seems stupid is just an inference, not name-calling. If I said, "Knight is an idiot" or "boogity is an unintentional racist," that would be name-calling.

For the record, I think Knight is trolling most of the time and also has misplaced anger issues. I think boogity is a strange, middle-aged, over-privileged fellow with a sense of humor that is only really funny to himself, except unintentionally.

That I'd have differing views on nearly everything from either Knight or Boogity only comforts me further, though I'd gladly have an actual debate with either on of you on any given topic.

/arrogant townie talk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top