This discussion reminds me of a discussion we had a few years ago about a BS and BA degree. It seems to me that they are indeed different, but equal and it amounts to what one wants in the end. In some ways it is six of one and half a dozen of another. Both are indeed good, but different. Here at FHSU, the EdD is valued in the College of Education, but not in the College of Arts and Science unless the program involves secondary education. A couple of weeks ago I heard an administrator say a law degree is equivalent to a doctorate. I wound if he meant a PhD or an EdD? mas tarde, EJF
Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> Sent by: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news" <[email protected]> 03/13/2009 04:35 PM Please respond to Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> To [email protected] cc Subject [ECOLOG-L] Education and Learning and Performance Re: [ECOLOG-L] EdD vs PhD 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
