Nurses will be called Doctors?

[bell412]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

When nurses finsih there their DnP they will be called doctors won't they?

 

[Mike MacKinnon]

That should never happen. I support NP programs as i do PA's but i dont support either being called doctor. I dont think its appropriate.

When nurses finsih there their DnP they will be called doctors won't they?

 

[FoughtFyr]

When nurses finsih there their DnP they will be called doctors won't they?

Many hospitals are addressing this question now with specific policies, but the answer is "yes and no". Yes, they will be "doctors" when presenting scientific papers, participating in academic affairs, or getting invited to a wedding. No, they will not generally be called "doctor" in hospital based patient care settings. Neither are PharmDs, PhD researchers, or DPTs. This is to cut down on confusion in emergency situations. Keep in mind that there are nurses now actively working who hold PhDs and are not called "doctor" at work. Similarly, many non-U.S. trained physicians actually hold Masters or Bachelors degrees yet are called "doctor".

- H

 

[mx_599]

When nurses finsih there their DnP they will be called doctors won't they?

Probably in certain settings. 🙂

 

[guetzow]

😉 ..........................

 

[caroladybelle]

When nurses finsih there their DnP they will be called doctors won't they?

Of course. Along with the PharmDs and the PhDs, which use the title Doctor.

There are some PharmDs and PhdS that use "Doctor" because they have ego issues, and there are MDs that use "Doctor" because of their ego issues. And there are those that do not because they do not have those issues.

I have no doubt that the same will be true of nurses.

 

[niko327]

are you people for real. how many friggin times has this crap come up. we all know the answers.........."yes outside the hospital in academia it is acceptable to........" blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, "but never in a clinical setting because that would be really bad because somebody might get the wrong........" blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, "but during full moons on alternate tuesdays in leap years...." blah, blah, blah,blah.
Just tell me you are trying to start ****t up in here, so atleast i can understand why we are beating this to death.
blah.

 

[guetzow]

Then the skies will open up, the seas will rise, the earth will swallow us whole!!!! And monkeys will fly outta my ass 😀

 

[Katee80]

So...if NPs are called doctors...what do all the doctors want to be called to set them apart ?

Your Royal Highness? 😉

Katee/z

 

[Orchard]

So...if NPs are called doctors...what do all the doctors want to be called to set them apart ?

Your Royal Highness? 😉

Z

Hmmm.......not a bad idea!

 

[lawguil]

So...if NPs are called doctors...what do all the doctors want to be called to set them apart?

You’re Royal Highness? 😉

Z

I'm not aware of any academic institutions that recognize clinical doctorates as doctors. Perhaps if you are a DPT presenting at a conference for PT's you would be introduced as Dr. XYZ, but if you are hoping to teach at the college/university level, unless you hold an academic doctorate, the clinical doctorates are not recognized by the by the institution. With the exception of the MD/DO, if you hold a clinical doctorate (DPT,PharmD,AudD, DNP, DC ect) you are referred to as Mr. ZYX. You would not be eligible for a position as a professor unless you hold a PhD, DSc, EdD,........ Understand that clinical doctorates are simply a name change mandated by the professional organization. The academic institution is in many ways forced to go along with it simply because they already have an existing program that is accredited and wish to maintain the accreditation and lets face it, the clinical doctorates sell very well. My point, don't think you have earned a doctorate because you graduate from a so called clinical doctorate program. Be embarrassed because the academics will giggle at you, especially if you take it seriously.

 

[ockhamsRzr]

One point of interest is the difference in Europe between a "Doctor" and a "Physician". In germany for example a "med student" begins his studies at 18 years old and follows a 6 year path to become a physician. In the final year they do clinical rotations, and when they graduate they are NOT doctors, they are physicians. They see patients just like doctors, but the title "doctor" is only given to a physician after they have completed additional research or clinical (study) work. So, the title of Doctor is more senior than that which is given to one who has graduated from medical school who is a Physician.

However, if that same physican comes to the States, they are called Doctor and are credentialed with having attained an MD degree.

I know this because the research lab I work at (at a famous hospital in Boston) has a revolving door for many young european docs who want to come here and do research towards earning the title of Doctor.

-OckhamsRzr

 

[50960]

PsyD in psychology is an academic and medically recognized doctorate in psychology, and is similar to the PhD. Both are accepted because they are and have been the entry level degree for the profession, not an add on to gain legitimacy. 😉

 

[lawguil]

PsyD in psychology is an academic and medically recognized doctorate in psychology, and is similar to the PhD. Both are accepted because they are and have been the entry level degree for the profession, not an add on to gain legitimacy. 😉

If it is the same, why don't they award a PhD? Because it is not the same! one is clinical and one is academic. The clinical prepares you for practice, the academic prepares you to create original knowledge or should. I would be interested in comparing the curriculum of a PhD vs PsyD. I suspect the PhD would have the typical load of research credits that are seen in academic degrees with sophisticated dissertations and defense. Please, direct us so we can compare the programs PhD vs PsyD! The PhD is and always will be the gold standard.

I couldn't agree more with ochhamsRzr! Medical school in and of it self isn't a doctoring profession. It's another professional degree in which you learn and practice the information and knowledge created by others. L.

 

[FoughtFyr]

I couldn't agree more with ochhamsRzr! Medical school in and of it self isn't a doctoring profession. It's another professional degree in which you learn and practice the information and knowledge created by others. L.

True, but I assume we agree the title "doctor" means something very different in academia than it does in patient care settings...

- H

 

[ockhamsRzr]

FWIW, in my lab people are called:

Susan, Carolyn, Elizabeth, Manualla, Carlos, Maxwell, Gene, Christopher...etc. (names changed to protect the innocent). Of the above mentioned, some are PhD's, some are MD's and some are MD/PhD's...can you tell who is who?????

Now, with regard to making presentations, publishing articles, or making introductions, ALL folks who have acedemically acheived the title of Doctor (whether of philosophy, PhD, or of medicine, MD) are given their due and are called Doctor.

HOWEVER, a medical doctor's introduction or attribution will virtually always be followed by their specialty, such as, "This is Dr. Xy Gote, Chief of Obstetrics, attending physician, or, just Radiologist." In the case of a PhD consulting with a MD on a patient, the PhD would never be introduced as Doctor without it being stated that, "This is Dr. Hema Crit, a PhD who specializes in liver function research."

I will agree that in the day-to-day of working in a hosipital with a strong research component (say where Primary Investigator of a lab may be either a PhD or an MD) the lines are blurred to the point where no one really cares. In a sense, everyone knows what everyone else is and there is no bias one way or the other--well maybe their is: an MD always knows that for a given nugget of specialized knowledge a PhD will always know something more than the MD; and an MD will always know more about systematic interrelationships and the clinical reality.

The Doctor of NP though muddies this even more because about what does the Doctor of NP know more about given that a nurse by definition is a clinician?

So, yes Fyr, I think the context makes all the difference especially for patients as I mentioned above. Heck, I've been introduced as doctor to a patient just becasue I had my lab coat on and I was immediate in making the correction.

I think this horse is dun beat!

Ockham

True, but I assume we agree the title "doctor" means something very different in academia than it does in patient care settings...

- H

 

[50960]

Hey Law...I said similar. The PsyD/PhD argument is old....both get you the same license, both have to pass the same exams at the same threshold etc.. Much like MD/DO. FYI a PhD in the UK for example bears no resemblance to an American PhD, so this Gold Standard/across the board argument is silly. FYI, I have both degrees 😉

 

[lawguil]

Hey Law...I said similar. The PsyD/PhD argument is old....both get you the same license, both have to pass the same exams at the same threshold etc.. Much like MD/DO. FYI a PhD in the UK for example bears no resemblance to an American PhD, so this Gold Standard/across the board argument is silly. FYI, I have both degrees 😉

psisci,

I think we agree, however PhD programs among different universities within the United States and different disciplines bear no resemblance. The difference: faculty and academics within an academic institution decide what doctoral level education is and work for a PhD or MA program. The clinical doctorate isn't debated or decided by academic institutions, but are mandated by a particular Independent organization on what they will require as entry level and what course work needs to be completed. Faculty where I work don't look at the DPT or the PharmD as doctorate level work, but as a BS degree because it is bachelors level education regardless of what an organization such as the APTA say we have to call it. The MD/DO program isn't doctorate level education - in fact other professional programs such as engineering and meteorology require more intellectual ability and depth and are considered by academia far more challenging programs than professional programs in PT or Medicine, however, are bachelors level programs and should be! I'm not saying the students are smarter, but the program is more challenging as far as the complexity of the material! The PhD really is the quintessential academic degree.

Foughtfyr,

Clinical vs. Academic are obviously different. I'm just not sure there should be such a degree as a clinical doctorate. If a physician wants to be a doctor, they should be required to complete some type of formal scholarly work approved by academia. The medical science training programs are a good example. L.

 

[ProZackMI]

I'm not aware of any academic institutions that recognize clinical doctorates as doctors. Perhaps if you are a DPT presenting at a conference for PT's you would be introduced as Dr. XYZ, but if you are hoping to teach at the college/university level, unless you hold an academic doctorate, the clinical doctorates are not recognized by the by the institution. With the exception of the MD/DO, if you hold a clinical doctorate (DPT,PharmD,AudD, DNP, DC ect) you are referred to as Mr. ZYX. You would not be eligible for a position as a professor unless you hold a PhD, DSc, EdD,........ Understand that clinical doctorates are simply a name change mandated by the professional organization. The academic institution is in many ways forced to go along with it simply because they already have an existing program that is accredited and wish to maintain the accreditation and lets face it, the clinical doctorates sell very well. My point, don't think you have earned a doctorate because you graduate from a so called clinical doctorate program. Be embarrassed because the academics will giggle at you, especially if you take it seriously.

That is simply NOT true. In academia, even JDs, who in practice never are referred to as "doctor", are called doctor. A professional doctorate is still a doctorate. In academia, especially in the professional schools, PharmDs, ODs, etc., are called doctor.

What makes one a "doctor" is NOT his/her profession, but rather the degree he/she holds. Most Americans erroneously attribute the title "doctor" to physicians, but in fact, the title has nothing to do with medicine or health care, but everything to do with advanced education. If you hold a JD, MD, DO, DVM, PhD, EdD, etc., you are a doctor.

Also, in every hospital where I have worked, PharmDs, PhDs (clin psych, anatomic pathology, med physics, genetics, biomed engineering), PsyDs, DPMs, DDSs, and even DVMs (we had a vet who supervised the animal lab in the research wing) were referred to as "doctor". No patient was ever confused by this. If these professionals were in patient areas, they always clarified their role. I've done rounds several times with clinical pharmacists with PharmD/BCPP status and they have always been referred to as Dr. X. They, however, clarify that they are not physicians, psychologists, or psychiatrists, but rather clinical pharmacists.

 

[guetzow]

Nuff Said.

 

[sunnyjohn]

ProZackMI: A voice crying in the wilderness.

 

[50960]

Alot of this "who gets to be called Dr" crap is stirred up by nurses and nursing organizations. Figure that one out.... 😉

 

[ProZackMI]

Nuff Said.

Uhhh, and your sarcastic, irrelevant, and assinine point was?

 

[ProZackMI]

While I support the expansion of non-physician health professions, I don’t understand why NPs would want to obtain a clinical doctorate. To advocate for a DNP degree is essentially saying: (1) the MSN degree is insufficient and inadequate in producing competent and qualified NPs and/or (2) the DNP will give NPs more credibility and respect.

First, direct evidence has shown that ANPs render safe, competent, and professional primary care health care services to a wide range of patients in urban, suburban, and rural areas throughout the United States. NPs serve an important role in the health care system. They do a very good job and have fewer incidents of malpractice and malfeasance than physicians. In Michigan, NPs, under physician protocols, safely prescribe meds from all schedules. NPs perform detailed physical exams, order labs and specialized testing (e.g., PFTs, GXTs, ABGs, DLCOs, Dopplers, IVPs, x-rays, MRIs, CTs, MRAs, etc.), and even perform minor surgeries safely and effectively.

To me, that indicates that NPs are doing a damned good job with the MSN degree. What would more schooling in the form of the DNP gain them? The only thing I can think of is prestige.

So, if NPs convert to a 4-year post BSN DNP degree, will they be allowed to refer to themselves as “doctor”? Yes, just like the DPTs and AuDs and other professions will. However, realistically, since the extra schooling won’t produce better NPs, since the MSN is sufficient, the only thing NPs will get from the DNP is a professional title that will actually serve to confuse more patients than any PharmD, PhD, PsyD, DPT, or OD degree ever did. “You mean, you’re Dr. Jones, but you’re a Nurse Practitioner?” What’s next? A Doctor of Physician Assisting degree? I can see it now, “I’m Dr. Smith, Dr. Jones’ Physician Assistant.”

If you’re an NP and you wish to teach or do research, then getting a PhD or DNSc is proper and recipients of those degrees should use their titles appropriately. However, to practice, I don’t think the DNP degree is necessary or proper. I think it’s overkill and unnecessary. In some ways, I feel this is true about the DPT degree also. PTs don’t need to expand their scope of practice. Physical therapy is not a primary care profession and should not be one. It’s always been an ancillary profession. NPs are different, but I still think the DNP is overkill. I’m sorry to offend anyone, but I just think it won’t serve any legitimate purpose other than to boost the egos of some NPs. Most good NPs will get along just fine without the title.

In fact, most confident, competent, and secure professionals don’t need to throw around titles to stroke their egos. Also, using a title outside of the work setting is just…arrogant and…wrong.

 

[hospPA]

er?” What’s next? A Doctor of Physician Assisting degree? I can see it now, “I’m Dr. Smith, Dr. Jones’ Physician Assistant.”

No way will you see that. We don't want to be independent from physicians completely. If we did, we would do it the right way and get an M.D. I agree that NP's need more clinical training, but calling it a doctorate is the problem. They are shooting themselves in the foot.

Pat, RN, PA-C, MPAS

 

[lawguil]

No way will you see that. We don't want to be independent from physicians completely. If we did, we would do it the right way and get an M.D. I agree that NP's need more clinical training, but calling it a doctorate is the problem. They are shooting themselves in the foot.

Pat, RN, PA-C, MPAS

Right on! It's a joke to call the DNP or the DPT or the AudD or the PharmD a doctorate because it isn't one. It's a bachelors level education regardless what their respective organizations want to call it!

 

[guetzow]

Finally, some common sense outta that boy 🙂

 

[nebrfan]

Right on! It's a joke to call the DNP or the DPT or the AudD or the PharmD a doctorate because it isn't one. It's a bachelors level education regardless what their respective organizations want to call it!

But Technically, shouldn't a medical degree also be considered at the bachelors level? - 4 years of education not directly based on any previous study (like a masters or PhD would be). For example, in the U.K. graduates of medical school get a MBBS - a Bachelor of Medicine/Bachelor of Surgery.

 

[CircleTheDrain]

But Technically, shouldn't a medical degree also be considered at the bachelors level? - 4 years of education not directly based on any previous study (like a masters or PhD would be). For example, in the U.K. graduates of medical school get a MBBS - a Bachelor of Medicine/Bachelor of Surgery.

No, because in the UK there is no undergraduate degree that you need to obtain first. The MBBS is the undergraduate degree! 😎

 

[ProZackMI]

Right on! It's a joke to call the DNP or the DPT or the AudD or the PharmD a doctorate because it isn't one. It's a bachelors level education regardless what their respective organizations want to call it!

If that's true, then what about the MD, DO, DDS, DVM, OD, etc.? Would you call an MD an undergraduate level education?

 

[ProZackMI]

But Technically, shouldn't a medical degree also be considered at the bachelors level? - 4 years of education not directly based on any previous study (like a masters or PhD would be). For example, in the U.K. graduates of medical school get a MBBS - a Bachelor of Medicine/Bachelor of Surgery.

After four years of undergraduate education and four years of medical school, I find it somewhat...offensive to state that an MD is an undergraduate degree. If that were true, than some MS in audiology would be a "higher" degree than an MD. That's simply not true. A graduate degree is such due to the fact that it first requires an undergraduate degree for admission, and then the complexity/depth/breadth of the subject matter studied is beyond that of your typical undergraduate degree program. That is why, in the US, and Germany, professional degrees are granted at the graduate level, not undergraduate level as they are in the UK. Whether one needs a specific major as a prerequisite is not relevant in regards to the level of the degree.

 

[ProZackMI]

Finally, some common sense outta that boy 🙂

I'm 34. Definitely not a boy any more! Plus, I usually have good common sense...or so I thought. Maybe I'm wrong?

 

[guetzow]

But the important thing is that the Shuttle landed safely this week 🙂

 

[lawguil]

If that's true, then what about the MD, DO, DDS, DVM, OD, etc.? Would you call an MD an undergraduate level education?

I should have been more inclusive in my post. The MD, DO, DDS, DVM, OD, Ect. are all bachelors level education just like Europe. It's obvious that a competent practitioner of medicine can be molded with an undergraduate degree. Pre-medicine courses should be taken in high school! Surely this isn't a popular opinion in the United States, especially if you are currently in a so called "clinical doctorate" program.

Doesn't anybody realize that higher education has become the black market in which people can purchase a doctorate degree. Can you say BIG BUSINESS!

 

[lawguil]

After four years of undergraduate education and four years of medical school, I find it somewhat...offensive to state that an MD is an undergraduate degree. If that were true, than some MS in audiology would be a "higher" degree than an MD. That's simply not true. A graduate degree is such due to the fact that it first requires an undergraduate degree for admission, and then the complexity/depth/breadth of the subject matter studied is beyond that of your typical undergraduate degree program. That is why, in the US, and Germany, professional degrees are granted at the graduate level, not undergraduate level as they are in the UK. Whether one needs a specific major as a prerequisite is not relevant in regards to the level of the degree.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong,

WOW! The MS in audiology is a bogus MS degree. Again, it's only a bachelors level education. Furthermore, are all bachelors degree programs equal in complexity and depth? NO, NO, NO. Compare a BA in math vs. a BS in ski resort management. Duhh! Beware when you see the Master of Science degree. It's usually a non-scholarly professional degree. Meaning it's a bachelors level education and didn't require a thesis and defense. The MA is typically reflective of masters level work and education.

Lets look at where you see the MS degrees awarded,
1. Five year masters programs where you complete you undergrad in four and go the extra year to get a MS = Joke = more money for the college. In professions like OT and PT ect. it meant that the college/univ. could be complient with the organizations mandate of "entry level:.

2. Entry level masters program (MS) = joke - Person who studies something in undergraduate and desides to go back to school and study something else - Really is just a second bachelors. (but who wants two bachelors degrees.)

3. Non-thesis track masters degree = bachelors level education/work. Again, usually studying a different disipline than the persons bachelors.

4. Clinical masters - again, bachelors level education/work.

 

[ockhamsRzr]

...hasn't this thread circled the drain enough?

 

[lawguil]

A graduate degree is such due to the fact that it first requires an undergraduate degree for admission, and then the complexity/depth/breadth of the subject matter studied is beyond that of your typical undergraduate degree program.

Wrong again. There are many undergraduate degrees that are equal in complexity and depth to medical school. Try sizing it up to a BA in physics, chemistry, english, mathmatics, BS in engineering, ect.
Taking some watered down org chem. course and physics in your undergrad to prepare for medical school isn't that inspiring!

Try doing four years of physics, 3 years of chemistry, 4 years of math, 2 years of english and 2 years of biology in your undergrad, then tell me about the complexity of medical school. Oh yea, medical students don't do this!!!

Later, L.

 

[aphistis]

Wrong again. There are many undergraduate degrees that are equal in complexity and depth to medical school. Try sizing it up to a BA in physics, chemistry, english, mathmatics, BS in engineering, ect.
Taking some watered down org chem. course and physics in your undergrad to prepare for medical school isn't that inspiring!

Try doing four years of physics, 3 years of chemistry, 4 years of math, 2 years of english and 2 years of biology in your undergrad, then tell me about the complexity of medical school. Oh yea, medical students don't do this!!!

Later, L.

Wow.

4 consecutive posts dedicated to marginalizing professional degrees. That's quite a grudge you're nursing.

 

[fab4fan]

I'm 34. Definitely not a boy any more! Plus, I usually have good common sense...or so I thought. Maybe I'm wrong?

Why, oh why, can't nurses' leaders have half of your common sense? Just because the ANA came up with this idea does not mean that they speak for every nurse; most nurses I know think this is not a good idea.

Personally, I think the DNP is stupid. It's just going to confuse patients, and it doesn't really change the scope of practice. If I need a doctor, then I want to see an MD/DO.

ProZackMI: Just reading your CV made me tired. Are you some sort of overachiever, or do you just really like school? LOL!

 

[Adcadet]

I used to work in a medical specialty clinic, where one of the practitioners was a PharmD who worked in the Dept. of Medicine. He was called "Dr". Yesterday I was in surgery with a DPT who is part of the Ortho debt. He is called "Dr". I assume PsyD's are called "Dr" when they are with patients. If you have a doctoral-level degree in a clinical science that you are practicing, you should have the right to be addressed as "Dr".

I generally think NP's are a good idea, but a DNP is just stupid. From my limited experience, this sure seems like more proof that the ANA is all for confusing language to boost the ego of nurses. Check this ANA page out and note that nowhere does it mention physicians, and says that nurses are the ones to assess, diagnose, plan, impliment, and evaluate. Strange, I thought doctors were the ones to do all of that. But apparently this is now "the nursing process".

 

[fab4fan]

Well, that's really a no-brainer. Of course the ANA is going to say those things. What did you expect?

 

[BSN]

I used to work in a medical specialty clinic, where one of the practitioners was a PharmD who worked in the Dept. of Medicine. He was called "Dr". Yesterday I was in surgery with a DPT who is part of the Ortho debt. He is called "Dr". I assume PsyD's are called "Dr" when they are with patients. If you have a doctoral-level degree in a clinical science that you are practicing, you should have the right to be addressed as "Dr".

I generally think NP's are a good idea, but a DNP is just stupid. From my limited experience, this sure seems like more proof that the ANA is all for confusing language to boost the ego of nurses. Check this ANA page out and note that nowhere does it mention physicians, and says that nurses are the ones to assess, diagnose, plan, impliment, and evaluate. Strange, I thought doctors were the ones to do all of that. But apparently this is now "the nursing process".

Yes RNs carry out the nursing process in which they follow an order of steps such as mentioned. But they do these things within the scope of practice of an RN. For example the diagnosis is a nursing diagnosis not medical diagnosis. It does not mean that they are carrying out the work of a medical doctor that would not only be illegal but unethical.

 

[lawguil]

I used to work in a medical specialty clinic, where one of the practitioners was a PharmD who worked in the Dept. of Medicine. He was called "Dr". Yesterday I was in surgery with a DPT who is part of the Ortho debt. He is called "Dr". I assume PsyD's are called "Dr" when they are with patients. If you have a doctoral-level degree in a clinical science that you are practicing, you should have the right to be addressed as "Dr".

I generally think NP's are a good idea, but a DNP is just stupid. From my limited experience, this sure seems like more proof that the ANA is all for confusing language to boost the ego of nurses. Check this ANA page out and note that nowhere does it mention physicians, and says that nurses are the ones to assess, diagnose, plan, impliment, and evaluate. Strange, I thought doctors were the ones to do all of that. But apparently this is now "the nursing process".

Why do you think it's alright for DPT's and PharmD's to be called Dr.? The program is no more academic than the NP training. In fact the training that the DNP and PharmD undergo is nearly identical to the training they recieved when it was a BS program. Thats simply fact! You can't add 6 credits of coursework and additional clinicals and suddenly have a doctorate degree. I'm not a nursing advocate in any shape or form - in fact I think they are undertrained and should have education similar to a PA's, but that's not going to happen! L.

 

[ProZackMI]

Why, oh why, can't nurses' leaders have half of your common sense? Just because the ANA came up with this idea does not mean that they speak for every nurse; most nurses I know think this is not a good idea.

Personally, I think the DNP is stupid. It's just going to confuse patients, and it doesn't really change the scope of practice. If I need a doctor, then I want to see an MD/DO.

ProZackMI: Just reading your CV made me tired. Are you some sort of overachiever, or do you just really like school? LOL!

Nope, not an overachiever, just one of those people who never knew what he wanted. My advice: know what you want to do when you're young and avoid massive student loan debt. 🙁

 

[lawguil]

Nope, not an overachiever, just one of those people who never knew what he wanted. My advice: know what you want to do when you're young and avoid massive student loan debt. 🙁

The best way to eliminate the massive student loan dept is to eliminate the inflated degree programs!

 

[ProZackMI]

I have this strong hunch that you have a potent version of something I call "degree envy". According to the DSM-IV, degree envy is a condition that primarily affects holders of associates or bachelors degrees who truly, but erroneously believe that they are somehow inferior to those who hold advanced degrees. In your case, you're compensating by diminishing the status and nature of the advanced degree by making it more comparable to the degree you hold. Of course, I am joking, but it sure seems like you're bitter or envious.

ONLY someone who has gone beyond the BA/BS knows what kind of hard work and perseverance is required to earn a master's or doctorate of any kind, be it professional, clinical, or academic/research. Your analysis of degrees betrays your profound ignorance on the subject of higher education. It also shows your bitterness, anger, and jealousy of those who have actually gone beyond the BA/BS.

In law, especially in the area of constitutional law, there tend to be two types: strict literalists and liberal interpretationalists. A literalist, like Justice Scalia, believes that the Constitution is clear and says what it says without need for interpretation. An interpretationalist believes that the Constitution (or any body of codified laws such as statutes, ordinances, tax codes, etc.) are living laws and change and evolve with society. An example of this can be found in adjusting criminal laws to accommodate technological advancement (e.g., computer crimes, ATM crimes, etc.). Also, in law, there is a movement toward "plain English" judgments, decisions, decrees, and of course, statutory construction. The theory behind the plain English movement is that if a law is clearly written, and words are assigned their ordinary meanings, then there would be no need for the interpretationalist/literalist dichotomy.

I bring this point up because you seem to an academic interpretationalist and liberally construe the plain ordinary meaning of the words MASTER and DOCTOR to mean whatever it is you want it to mean in order to justify your argument. In this instance, you're focusing on the wrong things and assigning importance to these misguided and misinformed facts. Your thesis is predicated mostly on academic history, which contrary to your statements, has evolved to accommodate the times.

Historically, a graduate degree was a graduate degree in three ways: 1) it was classified as a master's or doctor's degree regardless of the letters or degree title; 2) by the scope, breadth, complexity, and depth of the subject matter studied; and 3) by integrating original research in the form of a thesis/dissertation. Times changed and academia changed with them. Over the years, professions evolved and the curricula had to change. Professional skills were coveted more in professional training, and research skills were not required or necessary. Thus, the professional master's and doctor's degrees evolved.

A professional doctorate, like the MD, JD, DDS, PharmD, etc., is a graduate degree because it is classified as a doctor's degree (the title DOCTOR is there for a reason; it's not an undergraduate degree, nor is it a master's degree); it is a degree that has a subject matter that requires a scope, breadth, complexity, and depth far beyond that of an undergraduate degree (usually in analysis, problem-solving, and application of skills as well as a copious amount of subject matter, principles, jargon, and nomenclature). In addition, a professional doctorate is also, usually, but not always, awarded after the receipt of a bachelor's degree.

A thesis is not relevant. A dissertation is not relevant. Research skills are not relevant. An "entry-level" status is irrelevant. None of those points you mention substantiate your assertions. Most professional doctorate degrees require MORE classwork, more reading, and more study time than academic doctorate degrees. A PhD requires more time for research and dissertation preparation, but in actuality, not that much coursework. An MD or JD requires a lot of coursework and a lot of preparation for licensing exams. While a 1-year MS/MA degree may seem like a joke to you, it isn't.

I did a one year MS in biomed after my BA. I worked my ass off and took classes that were far more complicated than an MA in philosophy with a thesis. My best friend was working on his 2 year MA in political psychology while I was doing my 1 year MS in biomed sciences. He had time to eat out, travel, go to parties, and have a life. I had time for nothing but spend time in labs, write papers, and attend class.

When I was in medical school, I had no life. My friend who was working on his PhD in biochemistry at MSU, was able to see all the movies that were out at the time, go to weddings and parties, get married, start a family, etc. He worked very hard, but he also had a social life. The only thing I remember about the mid to late 1990s was textbooks, labs, and exams. I had no idea what was going on in the real world. I didn't have a life. Medical school was WAY more complicated, rigourous, and demanding than any undergraduate degree, whether it is in engineering, chemistry, or astrophysics.

The same was true with law school. It's irrelevant that a law degree is three years (so is medical school actually, the last year is all clerkships). I worked my ass for my JD. I was buried in books all the time and slept, drank, and shat law for 4 years! If you think an MD or a JD is an undergrad degree, then I recommend intensive therapy and pharmacological treatment for you, because you are not only uninformed, but delusional.

The PharmD is an example of change. Back in the day, physicians didn’t prescribe that many medications, so a pharmacist’s knowledge was not as extensive. Today, there are so many medications to treat each condition that a pharmacist’s knowledge base and training grew by leaps and bounds. Thus, the PharmD more accurately reflects the type of knowledge and skill required to become a pharmacist.

 

[ProZackMI]

The best way to eliminate the massive student loan dept is to eliminate the inflated degree programs!

That would eliminate anyone from studying medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, law, chiropractic, optometry, vet med, podiatry, psychology, and uh....MANY OTHER FIELDS OF STUDY.

 

[ProZackMI]

Part of the problem with health care is that everyone wants a piece of the pie. Encroachment on medicine, which at one point in our history, was the “elite” of the health care hierarchy, is taking place on all sides.

Allopathic and osteopathic general practitioners, family practitioners, and internists are being encroached upon by NPs and PAs, who feel they are qualified to practice medicine and treat a myriad of simple to complex conditions. NPs and PAs have expanded their training programs to include graduate degrees and even residency programs even going so far as to “specialize”. They have achieved RxPs in most states, under MD/DO supervision, or through protocols. They have lobbied for, and are receiving, hospital admit/discharge privileges, surgical privileges, and are lobbying for other privileges.

Psychiatry is being encroached upon by clinical psychology, which is lobbying for RxPs. Already, in two states, NM and LA, PsyD/PhD psychologists (clinical only), with an additional graduate degree in clinical psychopharmacology, can Rx psychotropics, order labs, and admit and d/c patients from hospitals. The APA is lobbying for “medical psychology” as a subspecialty in clinical psychology, and this is to include RxPs. Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and California are seriously entertaining going the medical psychology route like in NM/LA.

Ophthalmology is being encroached upon by optometry, which is lobbying for more inclusive RxPs in all states, and surgical privileges, after additional training, in other states. Right now, in OK, specially trained ODs can perform limited laser surgeries.

Physiatry has the potential for encroachment if DPTs seek to expand their scope of practice. Chiropractic will never threaten any profession, so there is no worry there.

OB-GYN is being encroached upon by nurse midwifes. They are seeking to expand their scope of practice in all states.

CRNAs have tried for years to expand their role in the administering of anesthesia.

Pharmacy has grown from a bachelor’s level profession to a clinical doctoral profession with pharmacists becoming the drug information experts. Many clinical pharmacists undergo residencies that are longer and more extensive than MDs. Some states allow PharmDs to become clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPP), which allows them to order labs, draw blood, and perform perfunctory physical assessments.

With attempts to expand scope of practice and authority, it’s natural to expand one’s professional education. Is this right? In some cases, like in pharmacy, it is natural and logical. In other cases, like audiology, physical therapy, OT, and nursing, it is not logical and should not progress. I do not think an NP needs a doctorate, neither does a PT. Others may disagree, however.

 

[Adcadet]

Yeah, what ProZackMI said!

One clarification: an MD/DO can and is considered an "undergraduate" medidical degree by some to denote that it is the first degree to in that specific field, and to distinguish it from graduate medical work, which is completed after medical school (i.e.-a residency).

 

[Adcadet]

Yeah, what ProZackMI said!

One clarification: an MD/DO can and is considered an "undergraduate" medidical degree by some to denote that it is the first degree to in that specific field, and to distinguish it from graduate medical work, which is completed after medical school (i.e.-a residency).