Talk:Doctor of Philosophy/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Articles in THE

I don't know if there is somebody else with more time on their hands than I have and who also reads the Times Higher Education. If there is, you may like to include something about the debate that has gone on recently in the UK about (1) the relative merits of the PhD and the professional doctorate (the general thrust of argument being the professional doctorates do not match the standards for a PhD, a claim vehemently opposed by departments offering professional doctorates), and (2) Kevin Sharpe's article in which he argues that the standard of the UK PhD is falling and no longer represents what it used to represent.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As Kevin Sharpe indicates, the main source of controversy seems to be the relatively short time required to earn a PhD in the UK (typically, four years beyond a bachelor's degree) compared to continental Europe (five years) and the U.S (six years or more). Having said that, talking from my own experience as someone who got a PhD degree from a top 10 US university in my field, I still believe that the specialized nature of the undergraduate degrees in the UK means that, in practice, a British BA/BSc is still equivalent to an American M.S/M.A in terms of the amount of specific training one receives in his/her major field of study. Therefore, it makes sense that it should be possible to proceed to doctoral research in Britain faster than in the US, with comparatively fewer requirements in terms of coursework and/or comprehensive qualifying exams.
I do agree however with Kevin Sharpe that the decision by the Research Councils in the UK to punish late thesis submissions is counter-productive. Most PhD students who fail to submit a thesis in 3 years don't do so because they are, to use an American English term, "slacking off", but rather because the difficulty of the topic they have chosen to address and the standards demanded by their supervisors (e.g. in terms of peer-reviewed publications) make it impossible to finish in such a short period of time, even if they work full-time (as most students do).
A good thing in my opinion about the (top) U.S research universities is that, because they are much better funded than their UK counterparts, there are really no rigid deadlines to submit your dissertation (American lingo for "thesis") after you have passed the quals and had your dissertation proposal accepted by your committee. Quite the contrary, U.S advisors are quite happy to fund you for three, four, or more years as long as you keep publishing (journal and conference) papers and are doing department work like serving as a teaching assistant for example. That gives the student the freedom to go deeper in his/her research or even explore multiple different research topics, which is often not the case in the UK. Again, having said that, the quality of PhD-level research in top UK universities (e.g. Oxbridge, Imperial, LSE) is still very high and, in many cases, comparable to what is found in top US institutions.189.46.172.133 (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
If a student can't finish their PhD in four years max full time, then either a) they've had genuine extreme misfortune (lost samples, telescope stops working, satellite blows up, precious manuscripts lost in library fire, civil war delays visit to archaeological sites etc.) or b) they're lazy. There are no other excuses and it's silly to pretend otherwise. It is perfectly correct that there be fairly stringent guidelines for the amount of time one ought to take to complete a PhD, otherwise frankly a lot of people would piddle about for 4 years, and then get a job and never finish, thus ensuring that years' of research/maintenance funding is wasted. The role of a student in the US is different - research students (in my experience) often take an active role in teaching and lecturing in a department, which is rare in the UK, so frankly it makes a lot of sense to continue paying a student wage to someone who may effectively be working (more or less) as a junior lecturer. The problem with the UK system is that it's completely arbitrary. There are no exams, there's no mandatory requirement to publish, so everything comes down to the thesis, which is examined on one day by two examiners who may or may not have read it and who can be actively chosen by the student. That is ridiculous. The UK should either move towards a more US system, where (as I understand it) exams and coursework are a reasonably important part of the scenario, or a more European system where a thesis is basically a collection of published papers bookended by an introduction and conclusion, perhaps with some sort of separate but related extended essay component to ensure that there is still a chance to pursue themes that may not necessarily be publishable. It's not about funding, it's about structural problems endemic to the UK system which really should be addressed. Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Original research is often a tricky business and I don't think one can categorically affirm "a priori" that 3 years are sufficient or, conversely, not sufficient to produce an acceptable PhD thesis. In that sense, although it is desirable to have some sort of deadline for submission, I believe some degree of flexibility is warranted, which is not the case today in the UK because of the Research Councils' policies.
Besides, another valid point in my opinion is that, even though it is definitely possible to complete acceptable PhD work in 3 years only, it is also possible to go deeper if you have more time. I guess that was the point of the second poster when he/she mentioned the American PhD's who, on average, actually do have more publications as students than their UK or European counterparts, in part because they are not so much constrained by rigid thesis submission timetables.
Finally, on Badgerpatrol's remarks, I tend to think that, in some UK universities, PhD program(me)s are already fairly structured. A few programs at the LSE and some Cambridge departments require for example that first-year PhD students take lecture courses and written exams. Furthermore, most if not all UK universities have some sort of "transfer exam" or "preliminary performance review" at the end of the first year to decide whether a student can be formally registered for a PhD degree or not (that would be equivalent to "advancement to candidacy" in the US, albeit faster). In Cambridge and Oxford, candidacy status has to be confirmed at the end of the second year following another formal performance review and students do publish before they graduate, even if that is not strictly required. Also, most coursework taken by master's or first-year PhD students in the US is actually quite basic by European standards, i.e at a level comparable to 4th-year courses in a British MEng or MSci degree. It wouldn't make sense to force UK PhD students to take classes they have already taken in most cases as undergraduates. Toeplitz (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It's always possible to go deeper if one has more time, but a PhD is a qualification, i.e. something which signifies that a student can meet a certain minimum fixed standard indicative of their ability. It's not a platform for open-ended research, which is why we have post-docs and fellowships, which do allow (to a greater extent) for e.g. PhD research to be extended and built upon. (And don't forget, research council policies only strictly apply to research council students - I doubt if these are even in the majority in the UK). Very few UK programmes, to my knowledge, have an actual exam upon which the transfer from (usually) MPhil to PhD depends. Usually it is some sort of report/interview/presentation scenario. In fact, I don't think I've ever actually heard of a transfer exam, so I have to defer to you on that one (but certainly they may exist for some areas of research, and correctly so). Students generally publish at most if not all universities, certainly not just Cambridge and Oxford, but the point is that it should be mandatory - something built in to the structure of the system. If the LSE and Cambridge have already introduced properly structured PhD programmes then that is an excellent step which should be seen as a best practice to spread throughout the whole system which, like undergraduate degrees, is far, far too arbitrary (although perhaps US universities are even worse in that regard, as one comparison). There's often a significant overlap between the end 4 year undergraduate degrees and master's degrees - I doubt if most observers would consider a 4th year/master's course to be "basic". It wouldn't make sense to force PhD students to re-take courses they've already passed, but it does make sense to enforce some metric that gives an accurate and consistent indication of a given student's ability, be it coursework or exams or whatever. Currently, everything comes down to one 2 hour verbal exam at the very end where the examined can select the examiners and thus at the very least have a very good idea a priori what the questions are going to be and how they're going to be asked and at the very most get what may amount to personal acquaintances in to ask the questions. The level of input from the supervisor/s is not properly regulated and can stretch all the way from no input whatsoever to virtually re-writing the thesis. And, on top of that, since actual failure is nigh on impossible in real terms for a completed PhD student, the options are basically no corrections, minor corrections, or major corrections. Major corrections can sometimes be extremely onerous to complete, but provided one does them and re-submits it, the long term consequences are nil and it makes absolutely no odds on your CV nor does it harm your future employment prospects in any way, unless you're silly enough to actually admit it. So basically, our highest degree could conceivably be awarded on a de facto nod n wink basis by a couple of one's chums examining a thesis that perhaps is more of a co-production and regardless of what they say it's impossible to fail anyway...that surely is not a sufficiently taxing examination and not a good basis for our system. Badgerpatrol (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


I admit that calling a 4th year/master's course "basic" is a bit of a stretch, but what I actually meant was that first-year PhD courses in the US do not really differ that much in content from what is covered in advanced papers from good Honours and master's degrees in the UK. Therefore, UK students are not at a significant disadvantage in that respect compared to their US counterparts. Second, speaking as someone who earned his PhD in the US, I can tell you that standards for doctoral education in America are not uniform either. Different universities/departments have different requirements for coursework and qualifying exams. In some programs, qualifying exams may include multiple written papers (mostly on undergraduate and first-year master's material) or, alternatively, may be an oral exam only (following a research seminar) or may be a combination of both. Although student performance is assessed on a regular basis (sometimes every semester), the quality of dissertations also vary and the dissertation committee is also picked by the student and his/her advisor. In fact, the final oral exam in the US (the so-called thesis "defense" in American spelling) is even less of a big deal than in the UK, as, unlike in Britain, it is normally an open (public) exam and failure is also usually not a realistic option. Advisors won't allow a student to defend if they think he/she will fail and, unlike in the UK, the advisor sits in the thesis committee. Moreover, PhD candidates may interact multiple times with committee members between the thesis proposal and the defense per se.
In the end, the quality of one's PhD work is ultimately judged in the US not by his/her school transcript (i.e. how many A's he/she got in the classes he/she took), but rather by the impact of the (external) publications arising from the thesis. It is also your publication record and how well-known your advisor and maybe your university are that will determine how easy it will be for you get a post-doc or a faculty position (very rare nowadays in the US fresh out of graduate school). Mutatis mutandis, I don't think things are substantially different in the UK, France or Germany; in the end, the standard is pretty much the same !
Finally, as my final word on this discussion, just as clarification for Wiki readers who might not be academics, Badgerpatrol's arguments, although essentially correct in many ways, might nevertheless suggest that earning a PhD in America, or Britain, or continental Europe is somehow an easy or trivial task. That is however not true at all. In fact, the number of people who enter graduate school in the US and fail to graduate with a PhD (because they drop out, fail their quals or simply cannot come up with research that satisfy their advisors' quality standards) is actually pretty high. Moreover, despite a lack of uniform standards, PhD-level research both in the US and Europe is on average of very high quality, sometimes including seminal results with far-reaching impact. So, I don't think we should trivialize the PhD experience. I'm not saying Badgerpatrol did that though. As a matter of fact, I actually agree with him (her?) in many of his points on the need for more structured PhD programs in the UK and elsewhere. Toeplitz (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure at all that external publication of results is mandatory for success in US PhD programmes. I suspect that it is very widespread (i.e. all but ubiquitous), just as it is in the UK. But if it is a defined requirement of the US system, then that is highly commendable. I also should have been clear with my comment regarding the localised nature of both systems - yes, the US system is extremely arbitrary in a number of ways due to the devolved nature of standards, curricula etc, and that is not a model for the UK to follow. I rather meant to say that we should cherry pick the best aspects of the US (and various European) systems - the defined, absolute requirement to publish (again deferring to your knowledge that this is actually mandated), the combination of exams, thesis and coursework etc., and convolve those with the best aspects of our system (the defined maximum timescale, the viva as something more than just an anointment, etc.). My point is not so much that completing a PhD is a trivial task, but rather than a) standards vary widely, not even between institutions, but between the experience of individual students within an institution, since the nature of the system is so subjective and individualised; b) as it stands, a PhD is basically a test of endurance, not ability - if you can write a book length thesis in four years, of more or less any quality whatsoever above absolute dredge, then you are going to be awarded a doctoral degree. That is not actually as hard as it may sound - four years (or sometimes longer) is a very long time. No metric exists to actually pick out the ones that are good from the ones that aren't. That can't be right. Thanks for the discussion, and I certainly agree that we are most definitely more or less barking up the same tree. Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Both Kevin Sharpe and the commentators responding to his article on the Times Higher Education Supplement site make good points. On one hand, I sympathize with the idea that a PhD degree should not be an open-ended research program. On the other hand, if that is the case and much of the expectations surrounding PhD-level research have now been de facto transferred to post-doctoral fellowships, then universities worldwide should acknowledge that explicitly as Dr. Sharpe suggests by formally requiring a post-doc for entry-level faculty positions . Similarly, if the standard of "significant and substantial contribution to existing knowledge" is to be enforced, then we must necessarily accept that the number of PhD's awarded each year will necessarily be small (there are only so many "significant and substantial" contributions that can be made to knowledge in each given field at any given time). Tougher standards, meaning also higher failure/dropout rates, seem to conflict however with the push by governments everywhere to increase the number of doctorates every year, when a research doctorate in fact has never been meant to be a "mass degree" like an undergraduate bachelor's or a secondary school diploma !

Perhaps the discussion on this talk page should serve to form the basis for a section on criticism of the modern PhD degree, which the Wikipedia article is lacking at the moment. What say you ? 200.168.21.198 (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that "significant and substantial" should be taken to refer to the volume of work and the level of insight, as opposed to the actual impact of a piece of research on the field, which perhaps you are suggesting. Expecting people to make significant breakthroughs during the course of a PhD is pretty unfair (depending entirely on luck and the nature of the project really, which is of the supervisor's devising rather than the student's). But yes, basically, a PhD should be a) fairly and consistently awarded, with the required standard being as close to uniform between students as possible; b) should be a test of both intellect and industry. Better standards don't necessarily mean tougher standards - the failure rate would still be fairly low for a number of reasons (although presumably higher than close to zero percent....). But we do need some enforced standards, otherwise the whole thing becomes, excuse the pun, a purely academic exercise of very little real value. Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You simply can't make pat statements about time to graduation, especially across universities and countries. For my candidacy exam, my university required four examiners at the minimum. Each examiner first gave a series of essay questions that were designed to take 8 to 12 hours to complete for each examiner. These were "closed book". I was placed in a room with a school laptop that had not internet capability and no other materials in the room. After I completed this week of 12 hours per day writing, I was then questioned by them in an oral defense that lasted 3 hours. I was always required to take 48 hours of coursework. My research component took longer than expected because I worked until my manuscripts produced work that were actually important to the field. I also designed my work myself from the ground up. Folks that walk into a lab doing groundbreaking work and simply do the leg work and write some up have it easy. By the time I was done, due to my own stubbornness in wanting my work to be very original and important, no one on my committee was qualified to properly examine me because my abilities exceeded their own. They deliberated for about 15 seconds prior to awarding me my doctorate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.19.159.87 (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Do what?

This statement seems to make no sense, especially since the "thus" does not refer to anything: "The doctorate of philosophy as it exists today thus originated as a doctorate in the liberal arts at the Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität, the buildings of which are today used by the Humboldt University of Berlin, becoming common in large parts of the world in the 20th century." Did someone just drop that in there? HullIntegrity (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Doctor of Philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Doctor of Philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Doctor of Philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Doctor of Philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Doctor of Philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Poor quality photos

What is that one woman holding? A muffin? Hard to see the gown behind that reflecting glass. Improvements could be made here. Dig deeper talk 16:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Highest academic degree

The article starts by stating a PhD is "the highest academic degree awarded by universities in most English-speaking countries". This is not true for England at any rate, as the degrees of D.Litt., D.D., D.Mus. and D.Sc. are considered higher degrees than a Ph.D. or D.Phil.

See the section about higher doctorates on another page.

In fact, a Ph.D. is the lowest doctoral degree awarded by universities.

If it is true that it is the highest academic degree awarded in most English-speaking countries then it needs some kind of evidence to back it up. The national variations section of the page only gives information about three English-speaking countries (if you include India).

Perhaps it should say "many" instead of most, and then go on to say that in some English-speaking countries higher doctorates are awarded and give a link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.169.133 (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

DPhil?

I've heard of PhD (i.e. got one), but I've never come across "DPhil"; is there any difference in usage when people use PhD and DPhil? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.212.3 (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the DPhil is mostly British. Oxford, for example, issues a DPhil rather than a PhD.[1] --JHP (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes a few British universities such as Oxford, Sussex and York call it a DPhil. The vast majority of British institutions (including Cambridge) call it a PhD.
Does Sussex still award DPhils? As looking on their website they only refer to PhDs. Dja1979 (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's only Oxford now, and even they use PhD when talking about the degree generically. Robminchin (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Do we know when Sussex changed? As I think this page should be updated but would want something concrete. In 2011 they awarded DPhil.Dja1979 (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
From digging on web.archive.org, it looks like the 2011 prospectus [2] was the last to use DPhil, with them switching to PhD from the 2012 prospectus [3]. Robminchin (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Abbreviation

There has recently been some editing about what the correct abbreviation to use is. The Manual of Style says, quite specifically, "The Manual of Style on abbreviations, above, eschews the use of periods with acronyms (M.D., Ph.D.)." The abbreviation "Ph.D." is explicitly said to be contrary to Wikipedia style, while the table that follows gives PhD as the correct abbreviation. We should follow that on this page.

As noted in the Doctor of Philosophy#Terminology section in this article, both Oxford and Merriam-Webster give PhD, with only Oxford US English giving Ph.D. However, this is not a clear-cut US/World English division, as shown by Merriam-Webster. They're is also a division between the Chicago Manual of Style, which uses PhD, and Associated Press, which prefers Ph.D.[4]

It is thus clear that 1) PhD is the standard usage in British English and 2) both PhD and Ph.D. are acceptable in US English. In addition to the above guidelines from the Manual of Style on abbreviations, the guidelines in MOS:COMMONALITY would imply that the universally-acceptable variant should be used rather than the US-specific variant.

My suggestion, therefore, is that while references to Ph.D. as an alternative abbreviation should be retained, the standard abbreviation used in the text of this article should, in keeping with the Manual of Style and usage accepted in all variants of English, be PhD throughout. Robminchin (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Ph.D. in the Russian Federation

File:2013-Renat-Yuldashev-First-PhD-SPbU.jpg
After the Ph.D. defense. Dissertant Renal Yuldashev (in the middle), scientific supervisors, and rector of St. Petersburg State University (second from the left).
Sample of the Ph.D. SPbSU diploma awarded by St. Petersburg State University in 2013

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuznetsov N.V. (talk • contribs) 15:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


On June 19, 2013, for the first time in the Russian Federation, defenses were held for the Ph.D. degree, granted by St. Petersburg University, instead of Candidate of Sciences degrees, awarded by the State Supreme Certification Commission. Renat Yuldashev, the graduate student of the Department of Applied Cybernetics of the Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics of St. Petersburg State University, was the first to defend his thesis according to new rules for the Ph.D. degree. In preparing the defense procedure, it was used the experience of a joint Russian-Finnish scientific and educational program organized in 2007 at the Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics of St. Petersburg State University and the Faculty of Information Technology of the University of Jyväskylä, and the co-chairs of the program -- N.V. Kuznetsov, G.A. Leonov, P. Neittaanmäki, acted as supervisors of the dissertation.

References:

nk (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

In Germany

For those in Germany who wish to become university professors, after the Ph.D. another major undertaking is necessary, the Habilitationsschrift. It requires a major publication and often an oral examination by a university faculty.

Recently, I understand, there has been a determination that Ph.D.'s from American universities are not permitted to use the honorific title "Dr." legally. Prof. Soandso, Ph.D. is okay. This strikes me a weird! In Germany only those with doctorates from a German or EU university are permitted this honorific. All sorts of people in Germany have doctorates, but in the university those entitled to use the honorific "Prof. Dr." before their names are the real thing. Jim Lacey (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.35.169 (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but at least some of this is sheer bollocks. And North American PhDs require a thesis and an oral exam, so the Habilitationsschrift hardly looks like an extra requirement to the rest of us. Any North American academic who fails to publish will never make it past Assistant Professor, so the effect is pretty much the same in the end. Hairhorn (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually this is (or rather used to be) true, rather than bollocks. To clarify, the Habilitationsschrift is independent of the PhD thesis or exam, and is not a requirement for obtaining a PhD. It is a separate examination that is required before a canditate can be appointed as a full member of faculty. Incidentally, having passed the exam does not equate to being appointed as a professor, it merely allows the person to apply for such a position. This has changed relatively recently though, and many German universities no longer require a habilitation. Secondly, it used to indeed be the case that only EU (or even only German) PhDs were legally permitted to use "Dr". This is however no longer the case.Rainbowwrasse (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think something should be said about Aspirantur in Germany. --evrik (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Not the "highest" degree

The lede sentence of this article states that the PhD is the "highest" academic degree. That's wrong. In the U.S., there are other degrees that are considered to be equivalent to the PhD in terms of qualifications for various positions and awards e.g., EdD, DBA, MD. In the United Kingdom and Russia, there are the higher doctorates. In Germany and Austria, there is the habilitation degree. This is all discussed in the terminal degree article that User:Robminchin dismissed as "US-specific;" the phrase may be most prevalent in the U.S. but the concept certainly isn't. In any case, that article also makes it abundantly clear that labeling this degree as the "highest" (whatever that means) is wrong and we need to find wording that is accurate. ElKevbo (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

(@Robminchin: Please participate in this discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC))

The actual description is "the highest university degree that is conferred after a course of study by universities in most countries". Neither the British higher doctorates nor the European habilitations are awarded following a course of study. While there are a few US degrees at the same level as the PhD, 98.4% of degrees in the 2019 Survey of Earned Doctorates were PhDs so the number of PhD-equivalent degrees given a different name is a very small fraction. Possibly "the highest university degree that is commonly awarded after a course of study by universities in most countries" or "the most common degree at the highest academic level awarded following a course of study" (if it wasn't for the US we could simply say "doctorate", but the US professional doctorates get in the way). "Terminal Degree" is basically meaningless outside of the US (and the article is entirely about the US except for a brief mention of higher doctorates and habilitations) so should be avoided. Robminchin (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not the case in Japan: In some countries like China and Japan, a recipient of doctorate in disciplines such as engineering and pharmacy where professional degrees (for example, EngD and PharmD) are usually awarded in the western countries, is called a PhD regardless.

In Japan, there are two distinct degrees: academic doctor and professional doctorate. The only "doctor" in professional degree in Japan is Juris Doctor.

So, a recipient of doctorate in disciplines such as engineering and pharmacy is not the person "where professional degrees are usually awarded in the western countries." We only give, say, a degree of doctor of engineering (博士（工学）) to a recipient who has trained academic skills and defended his/her dissertation in engineering fields.

Isn't the current article based on prejudice against doctors degree in non-western countries?

Doctors degree in Japan (博士): https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%9A%E5%A3%AB

Professional doctorate in Japan (専門職学位): https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B0%82%E9%96%80%E8%81%B7%E5%AD%A6%E4%BD%8D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akonno (talk • contribs) 02:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

That paragraph doesn't appear to be well supported by the references cited, which only refer to China in any case. It would seem reasonable to remove it. Robminchin (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Requirements

Over the next few weeks, who would like to work on the requirements section with me? I'd like to try and make each paragraph more exact, with citations, in order to better assist people thinking to take one on, either formally or informally. I plan to take as exact a criteria as possible over to Wikiversity, to assist independent researchers there. Regards, Leighblackall (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

+1 I'm in. It's not particularly clear right now... --Davecormier (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

People without BA/Bsc who have done a PhD

Does anyone know of a list of people who have earned or been admitted to a PhD program without having previous upper level education experience? I noticed that Jane Goodall managed this, and was wondering if there were others.

96.50.178.195 (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

often those with an honorary degree, often famous musicians or human rights activists --Hypo Mix (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the Ph.D. program. You don't need an honorary degree, and you certainly don't need to be famous. Different programs have different requirements. --TimothyDexter (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

PhD in the United States

The majority of assertions in the United States section do not have their sources cited making me think its just conjecture from a single person. Ironically you'd think a person editing an article on PhDs would know better...I added fact tags, hopefully someone can back these claims up. Random2001 (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The statement for "There are 282 universities in the United States that award the PhD degree" seems suspect. Specifically, the associated reference makes it clear that "282 is the sum of all three categories of doctoral universities". Looking at the Carnegie data sheets (https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/downloads/CCIHE2021-PublicData.xlsx) the "three categories of doctoral universities" seems to be from the Carnegie "Basic classifications", which have three categories. That, however, looks at the overwhelming emphasis of an institution, not the highest level degree they award. Thus, for example we find Bryn Mawr listed as a category 21, "Baccalaureate Colleges: Arts & Sciences Focus". Bryn Mawr, however, awards PhDs in Math, Physics, Chemistry, Social Work, among other fields (e.g., https://www.brynmawr.edu/gsas/programs/graduate-program-mathematics/degree-requirements). Instead, the " Graduate Instructional Program Classification" should be used. Per that, Bryn Mawr is category 16: "Research Doctoral: Humanities/social sciences-dominant". Note that there are 7 such categories. My quick spreadsheet work shows that there are 709 schools that are doctoral using that metric (any of the 7 categories). Note that not all of these are PhD, for example, some might be DSW or EdD only--thus I'm going to change it to "more than 282". JustAnotherNewYorker (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring to remove the EdD from this article

An unregistered editor has begun an edit war to remove the EdD from this article, claiming that "it is in no way equivalent to a Ph.D., D.M.A., or S.J.D." First, it's important to note that the specific sentence that they are edit-warring over simply says that "Universities sometimes award other types of doctorate besides the PhD, such as..." It's ridiculous to claim that the EdD is not a doctorate and is not awarded by universities. Moreover, if this person is claiming that these degrees are radically different then unfortunately our article about the EdD has several paragraphs and high quality sources that favorably compare the EdD and PhD and note that many organizations, including the National Science Foundation and other U.S. federal agencies, view the two degrees as equivalent in many ways.

I would also like to know why only the EdD is being removed from the article while other degrees mentioned in the lede are not. What's so special about the DMA and SJD that they're permitted to remain as examples of other doctorates?

In any case, it's inappropriate to edit war to remove this information and it should remain in the article while this is being discussed. ElKevbo (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

1) The Ed.D. is not a research doctorate. It is an applied, professional doctorate, similar in utility and principle to a J.D. or M.B.A. It has no business being mentioned as if it were equivalent or relevant to a Ph.D. or its analogs, the D.M.A. or S.J.D. Therefore, it has no business being mentioned in the article at all, because it has nothing to do with anything relevant in that passage. THAT is the important point here that you fail to realize and/or opt to disregard in your "simple" explanation of the language and the issue above.
2) It wasn't an "edit war" until you, "ElKevbo," decided that you were going to make it one.
3) The Ed.D. is not "favorably" compared to the Ph.D. The Ed.D. page cites several issues that the Ed.D. credential raises when compared to the Ph.D., including the real research Ph.D. in education. Beyond that glaring fact, if a discussion of the Ed.D. as somehow equivalent to the Ph.D. is limited to the field of education, it stands to reason that it is an applied, professional doctorate (e.g., a J.D.). What other field, besides education, awards the Ed.D.? In contrast, the Ph.D. is awarded in a vast range of fields across the board, and has been for quite some time.
4) The ABA also counts the J.D. as equivalent to the Ph.D. Does that make the ABA correct? If the National Science Foundation and apparently other "U.S. federal agencies" call the Ed.D. equivalent to the Ph.D., why not go ahead and feature the J.D. in the same passage above about universities awarding "other types of doctorates"? Based on ElKevbo's reasoning here, there is no logical reason to not include the J.D.
5) If you want to know what's "special" about the D.M.A. and S.J.D., you should learn about them. At that point, hopefully, you will understand why they are analogs to the Ph.D. and why the Ed.D., absolutely, is not.
66.44.62.69 (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
You made an edit to this article, another editor reverted your edit, and you made the same edit again; that is a de facto edit war. Please review WP:BRD.
Please address how the EdD is not an example of a doctorate that universities award. The sentence that you edited doesn't say that it - or other degrees mentioned in it - are research doctorates; it merely lists a few other doctorates as examples for readers so they know that the PhD is not the sole doctorate in existence. ElKevbo (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Respectfully, ElKevbo, I don't buy that explanation as grounds for an "edit war." It became an edit war when you insisted that it be one over a technicality, and threatened me with an edit war message.
The Ed.D. is not an example of a doctorate in that context for several reasons. I have already related the reasons why to you above, including that, based on your logic, there is no reason to exclude the J.D. from that quoted passage as a "doctorate." On a page specifically about the Ph.D., it seems reasonable to not include the Ed.D., J.D., or any other applied doctorate degree that doesn't pertain to the Ph.D. or its equivalents. Perhaps the language in that passage should change to specify research doctorates only, because that would make much more sense and lessen confusion. 66.44.62.69 (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
You can "not buy that explanation" as much as you'd like; it's a very straight forward definition and it clearly applies to your edits. Your refusal to accept that and revert back to the article as it was before you began the edit war does not speak favorably to your willingness to collaborate.
The JD is a bit of an edge case that isn't the best addition to that list of examples but if you want to add it then I won't complain. The MD or DNP or another degree that is unequivocally a doctorate would probably be a better example. Or you could change the sentence so that it focuses on research degrees but that's a bigger change that would require a different set of examples and is not as helpful for readers as the point is to illustrate that there are other kinds of doctorates with a diverse-but-brief list of examples. ElKevbo (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It didn't "apply" to me or my edits until your involvement. That pretty much tells me that you instigated something with me and now want to blame me for something I did not start. But it's beside the point now because we are on the talk page.

I don't consider the J.D. an edge case (it is called the "Doctor" of Jurisprudence, after all, even though it's only a glorified bachelor's or master's degree). And the M.D. and D.N.P. may be "unequivocally" APPLIED doctorates, but that isn't what this is about. The point is, all of these, along with the Ed.D., are professional doctorates. Yes, they are technically doctorates, but they don't belong in an introduction on the Ph.D., which, in the original phrase above, is clearly meant to indicate equivalents to the Ph.D. that universities may award. I don't see why you are so opposed to the difference between them. You seem to be looking for an argument where none was intended. 66.44.62.69 (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

To address the points raised:
1. The EdD is recognised as a research doctorate across the world. See, e.g., [5] This is not a US article, and even if it were you would need to cite sources.
2. It's the edits that make a edit war, not the warning for edit warring.
3. This is just a rehash of point 1. The JD is nowhere recognised as a research doctorate, so is just a red herring. Indeed, in some jurisdictions the JD is considered to be a master's or bachelor's degree (see the Wikipedia article for references), making it unsuitable as an example of a doctorate at an international level.
4. Wikipedia prefers academic definitions. The academics defining research doctorates for the purposes of the NSF study of earned doctorates do not include the JD because it's isn't a research doctorate. They include the EdD because it is a research doctorate.
5. The DMA and the SJD are listed by the NSF as research doctorates, alongside the EdD and the PhD. However, as they are more US-specific than the EdD, the EdD is actually a better example of another doctorate for Wikipedia purposes.
Robminchin (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I've said what I had to say and stand by everything I wrote, regardless of the bold stupidity and disregard evidenced in these responses. The Ed.D. is an applied, professional doctorate, in no way equivalent to the Ph.D. or its analogs, and, contextually, does not belong in this article lede for all the reasons given. Nothing said here changes that obvious fact, and having two supposed editors be wrong about something so obvious does not in any way make such incorrect opinions correct or valid.

And no, edits do not make an edit war. Incompetent, silly full-time "registered" editors who attack those who clearly know better, however, certainly do.

66.44.62.69 (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

That you cannot provide evidence to backup your assertions and have instead resorted to name-calling makes it quite clear that you have no real argument to make. You have not addressed why, if the EdD is not equivalent to the PhD, it is treated as such by the academic experts behind the NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates in the US and, independently, by the academic experts behind the UK Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education's Doctoral Degree Characteristic Statement. Instead, you have set yourself up as a higher authority than these academic experts. Even if you were to be correct, which you are not, this would be inadmissible under the Wikipedia:No original research policy. You cannot simply assert something based on your own expertise on Wikipedia, and you certainly cannot override academic experts based on your opinions. Robminchin (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, once again, for proving the complete validity and accuracy of my previous comments, and your apparent inability to read. 66.44.62.69 (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, like every other editor here, I can read the history page quite well and see that you deleted the worst of your name-calling after I had called you out for it: diff. We're still waiting to hear any evidence for your assertions or a response to the contrary evidence presented, however. Robminchin (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I could always bring it back if that's your preference. You know what you are and I've said plainly what you are, so you shouldn't equate deletion of something with a retraction, if that's what you're doing. There's no ambiguity here.

You and whoever else that is "waiting" for my participation in your stupid stunt will be waiting a lifetime. So, I'll repeat what's obvious: thank you, once again, for proving the complete validity and accuracy of my previous comments, and your apparent inability to read. 66.44.62.69 (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_of_Philosophy/Archive_3&oldid=1225480763"