Talk:Doctor of Philosophy

Archives

Archive 1 - Page creation through December 2006.

Archive 2 - January 2007 - December 2007.

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)

Several of the countries on the 'PhD Graduates in the workforce' graph (x-axis) are incorrect.

Several of the countries on the 'PhD Graduates in the workforce' graph (x-axis) are incorrect.

e.g. UK and US are indistinguishable, New Zealand is just 'New'. One label states 'Slovak'.

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., [1] 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)

Fully protected edit request on 27 January 2024

A protected redirect, PhD, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

• from this:

#REDIRECT [[Doctor of Philosophy]]
{{R from initialism}}

• to this:

#REDIRECT [[Doctor of Philosophy]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from initialism}}
{{R mentioned in hatnote}}
{{R printworthy}}
}}

• WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, * Pppery *! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

New Image

I changed the image at the top of the article. On 13 Feb 2023, the lead image was changed from McGill graduates wearing doctoral robes to an image of a 1973 PhD diploma from the University at Buffalo. The imagine seemed entirely arbitrary, as U.Buffalo was not the first university to offer a PhD, nor was U.Buffalo mentioned anywhere in the article. The year 1973 is also not noted as an important year in the development of the PhD. The individual listed on the 1973 degree is an active wikipedia editor, so I suspect whomever made the change did so as a thoughtful mark of respect. A better image would be a scan of a PhD diploma from an early 19th century German university, but being unable to find one I instead used an 1861 Yale Diploma, as it was the first university in North America to award PhDs. An image of a ~1800 diploma from Berlin or Bonn would be even better, if a user can find one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:3D00:1EF:8CA3:F342:D8E4:A8F8 (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

None of those factors really apply here. An antiquated diploma is better left in the body, but its less relevant to readers than a more recent PhD diploma. GuardianH (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I completely disagree - I think our unregistered colleague has it right. Unfortunately, the specific image they added is a particularly terrible one even if the subject of the image is much, much more appropriate. I think it's completely okay for us to not have an image in the infobox at all until we can find a better one. ElKevbo (talk) 02:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@ElKevbo What makes the image so bad in your view? GuardianH (talk) 06:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

If you're referring to the "new" image added by the unregistered editor, my objections are simply to the image quality. I imagine that someone proficient with image editing and restoration could clean up some of that. I also think that it's not ideal to use an image with a watermark (or whatever we should call the metadata that is included in the image by the organization who holds the physical artifact). For what it's worth, I also agree with our colleague that a photo of an older German diploma would be better both because it would be more historically important but also because it would be good to not continue to overrepresent the U.S. in Wikipedia. ElKevbo (talk) 12:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)