If you are a regular reader to this blog you may already know my position on this. It's a bit of a sore spot for me, not in the sense you might think. I've even tweeted and probably blogged a recent comment when I first ran across a piece in the National Review mocking Jill's use of the title on her Twitter account. Why this rant? Because over the past 24 hours I've heard Chris Wallace and at least 2-3 others refer to Jill's degree as a "PhD"; no, you idiots, she has an EdD. There's a difference. A PhD, like I earned, is an ACADEMIC/research doctorate; it's meant to require an original contribution to human knowledge and is the prerequisite for an academic career as a professor.
Other degrees, like an EdD, MD and a DBA (not to be confused with my IT profession, but think of it as more of an extension to an MBA), are PROFESSIONAL degrees. That's right; your medical doctor is actually lower on the academic food chain. As per Wikipedia:
In the United States, the M.D. awarded by medical schools is a "Professional Doctorate" (as opposed to the Doctor of Philosophy degree which requires a focus on research)...in the United Kingdom, Ireland and other countries, the M.D. is a research doctorate, higher doctorate, honorary doctorate or applied clinical degree restricted to those who already hold a professional degree in medicine; in those countries, the equivalent professional to the North American and some others use of M.D. is still typically titled Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (M.B.B.S.)Wallace tried to make it sound like a professor is trying to attain a higher status by using 'Dr.'. And then he was dismissive of the kerfuffle pointing out Martin Luther King used the title, etc.