Honorable Forum: (Please Note: CAPITALIZATION is used in lieu of ITALICS,
since the listserv does not support the latter. It is NOT intended as
SHOUTING.)
Any generalization contains a fraction of truth and a fraction of error.
Absolutist "positions" can be taken by picking any fraction that aligns with
any bias. At any level of specificity can be found a web of relevancies that
are connected to other specifics and generalizations ("It's turtles all the
way down.") Such "cherry-picking" is a route to self-fulfilling prophesy in
terms of a chosen absolute. The key concept is "chosen."
Intellectual exploration is necessarily, crucially, especially critically,
open, "open-ended." It is the chosen, the absolute, the certainty, the
cast-in-concrete, that is the foundation of prejudice--a far different
concept from discrimination, with which it is so frequently and ironically,
incredibly confused. Either this distinction is crucial or it isn't. It that
absolutism? Is there middle ground?
With respect to the generalization that a Ph.D or an Ed.D is equal to,
lesser than, or greater than the other is an endless argument. But they are
DIFFERENT. Recognizing the difference, at any level, requires
discrimination. A generalization on any of those possibilities is prejudice.
For example, the phrase "An Ed.D is a BS in makeup" is a prejudiced
statement. It is a rhetorical device to express a conclusion based on the
author's experience, which is by definition (unless the author is a God)
based on limits. One can throw out the baby with the bathwater, or devise
almost any fallacy to fit the part of the statement that is in error, or one
can use it as a catalyst for further exploration into relevant
specifics--but that exercise also has its limits.
Looking deeper into the question of Ph.D and Ed.D, one can further
illuminate the relevant specifics through any number of ways. At one level,
a comparison of the hours required to become certified, licensed, or
sanctified is revealing. At another level, an examination of the courses
required will reveal yet more detailed differences. Within that level, one
can examine the courses, then the course content, the textbooks, their
content, the way each course is taught, ad infinitum. One should, of course,
always retain a suspension of judgment, but one can come to PROVISIONAL
conclusions based on the evidence at hand, remaining open to new evidence
and continuously revise one's provisional conclusions based on that evidence
and discarding parts of the "old" evidence that are in error and reshuffle
the relative relevance of the whole set of evidence upon which a revised,
but still provisional conclusion is based.
Both the Ed.D and the Ph.D are certifications that have their roots in the
Guild system (yea, a Guild System on steroids). They are both, to some
degree, a means of controlling (including and excluding) others. They both,
to some degree and at some level, contain, or at least profess, some
openness. Neither are a pure as the driven snow.
Finally, at long last, we come to where the wheel meets the road--the
student. It is probably that all people have different foci at different
times, not to say "abilities." Time was, not too long ago, when "autistic"
people were considered "uneducable." Whether or not that is a blessing in
disguise is a matter for another discourse, but for better or for worse,
there are now autistic people with Ph.D's who have distinguished themselves
intellectually and academically. Still another is whether or not a degree, a
grade, or other form of sanctification or their lack fosters or impedes
PERFORMANCE.
One can be taught the violin, for example, and perhaps one can earn a degree
in violin, but almost anyone can distinguish the difference between whether
or not one can play the violin, either according to the notes or beyond the
notes, and which one performs in an exemplary fashion and which one is
mediocre or deludes oneself of greatness whilst squawking most terribly.
Then there are the naked Emperors who command, by their position, the
"respect" of the masses . . .
One can be taught to operate an aircraft. But merely KNOWING how is not
enough. One must learn--and, one must go beyond even learning into being as
fully integrated with one's profession or activity as possible, regardless
of the degree level or even the instructors or teachers. Distinguishing an
exemplary ecologist from a "mediocre" one is impossible, largely because
most of the feedback loops do not return "results" very quickly, but the
feedback loops in aviation are often unmercifully short. At least a 150
people, for example, are not only glad that a guy named "Sully" had the
highest "degree" in Aviation, they should be glad that he soared beyond it.
The same pilot in an airplane with which he was unfamiliar, might not do as
well in a different context, but I would rather take my chances with him
than with a non-pilot who had been part of the design team, and so on.
So I hope someone will post comparative data (such as a course list) for the
best Ed.D program in the world, and the best Ph.D program in the world as
evidence of their differences. We will then be better able to more
specifically judge which of them deal more closely with reality and which
deal more closely with sanctification and rigidity.
WT
PS: What may distinguish humans from the other animals is that "we" have
figured out how to intentionally sell our birthright for a mess of pottage.
----- Original Message -----
From: "malcolm McCallum" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] EdD vs PhD
If there is no difference between a Ph.D. and an Ed.D. why does almost
every major university in the nation, barring Harvard, offer both
degrees?
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Mitch Cruzan <[email protected]> wrote:
Whether it sits right with you or not, it is true. Not everybody has the
same intellectual ability, the same as we are not all able to be Olympic
athletes no matter how hard we work. Otherwise, universities would not
require high scores on entrance exams for undergraduate study, and we
would
not require our applicants to our PhD programs to perform well on GREs.
This is not elitism, it is just a consequence of genetic variation in
human
populations.
Andrew D. Bailey wrote:
Mitch, your opening paragraph and premise just doesn't site right with
me.
From my observations of the folks I've seen get PhDs, I have a hard time
accepting that a PhD is "something that the majority of the population is
not capable of achieving" due to any inherent "intellectual prowess"-
that
statement absolutely smacks of the elitism that gives academics a bad
name.
It comes off as putting yourself on some pedestal of intelligence due to
a
piece of paper you received.
A PhD is definitely something that the majority of the population does
not
aspire to achieve. PhD programs obviously attract some of the best and
brightest since they are the capstone degrees in most fields- but plenty
of
average folks receive PhDs too. I have seen very few cases where a PhD is
denied to a candidate due to intellectual inferiority. I would suggest
that
the most important ingredient in achieving a PhD is determination, not
inherent intelligence.
Andrew Bailey
Mitch Cruzan wrote:
There is a deeper issue here- A PhD is not just something you get, or
that anybody can just get. The ability to earn a PhD in any discipline
is
something that the majority of the population is not capable of
achieving.
It's not just about hard work- A PhD is earned through the demonstration
of
intellectual prowess, or more specifically the ability to assimilate and
explicate information from the breadth of a field of study.
--
Mitchell B. Cruzan, Associate Professor
Department of Biology
P.O. Box 751
Portland State University
Portland, OR 97207
http://web.pdx.edu/~cruzan/
--
Malcolm L. McCallum
Associate Professor of Biology
Texas A&M University-Texarkana
Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology
http://www.herpconbio.org
Fall Teaching Schedule & Office Hours:
Ecology: M,W 1-2:40 pm
Cell Biology: M 6-9:40 pm (don't ask!)
Forensic Science: T,R 10-11:40am
Office Hours: MW 12-1, 5-6, TR 11:40-12:30,
1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert
1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
and pollution.
2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.13/1999 - Release Date: 03/13/09
05:59:00
