While the issue of the meaning of an Ed.D. is in the news right now, this is actually something I have had to explain many times.
In short, and Ed.D. — like a Ph.D. — is awarded by a graduate school of educator for a set of coursework and a relatively large formal research project written up in the most formal way. Everything else about it the Ed.D., everything that you have heard or read, varies by institution.
Are Ed.D.s merely practitioners’ degrees?
Nope. For example, until recently, the Harvard Graduate School of Education only awarded Ed.D.s, and did not award Ph.D.s. Harvard is very focused on research, sending very few doctorates back to schools and districts as administers or teachers — though it does send many many masters students back to schools, distills and other non-research institutions. Similarly, until recently, Teachers College, Columbia University — the nation’s largest graduate school of education — only awarded Ed.D.s and did not award Ph.D.s.
When I was at Teachers College, I observed this up close. If students there wanted to earn a Ph.D., they needed to officially get their degree from GSAS (i.e., the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences) of Columbia University, a different institution within Columbia University. Columbia has all the schools (i.e., law school, medical school, business school,GSAS, etc..). Teachers College students would need to find a professor in a GSAS department (e.g., political science, psychology, economics) to serve on their committee. They would also have to fulfill various graduation requirements of that department, in addition to the Teachers College requirements.
Teachers College offers economics courses, focused on the context of education. It offers political science courses, focused on the context of education. It offers psychology courses, focused on the context of education. It is a very large institution that offers a wide variety of disciplinary courses, with the courses always focused on the context of education. After all, it is Columbia University’s graduate school of education.
There was rarely a need to try to find a GSAS professor and take GSAS coursework — which was not focused on our context. Regardless of career goals, the Ed.D. was a perfectly acceptable degree.
Do Ed.D.s require less work than Ph.D.s?
At Teachers College, the Ph.D. required just 75 credits, plus an appropriate doctoral dissertation, butt the Ed.D. required 90 credits, plus an appropriate doctoral dissertation. This 75 could include the requirements of the GSAS department, or perhaps the student might need a few more credits.
So, the Ph.D. does not require more coursework.
The language of old policies of the university requires Ph.D. students to master a foreign language. However, sufficient research methods courses work counted as a foreign language.
Are Ed.D.s faster than Ph.D.s?
Many institutions that offer MBA (i.e., matters of business of administration) degrees also offer “executive MBA” programs, designed to better fit the schedules of working professionals. They focus on intensive weekend courses, and the occasional week-long full-time experience. This take the place of more traditional courses taken during the day.
Some of the programs appear — to my eyes — to demand less of this busy professionals. Less reading. Less writing. Less thinking time. But some of them appear just as demanding, and perhaps even more so.
Does this make them faster or weaker? It depends on the program, not on the degree. They all get MBA degrees.
Similarly, there are some practitioner-focused “executive” Ed.D. programs. But that is not intrinsic to the Ed.D. and their rigor varies by program.
There are also a wide variety of Ed.D. programs designed to be very fast — as fast as three or four years. Others counsel that a degree take a minimum of four years, but that students should expect more like five to seven years, if not longer. I do not think particularly well of the very fast programs, but I understand why they exist and why they are popular. But again, this is a difference between programs that has little to do with the Ed.D. degree itself.
What about J.D.s, M.D.s and Other.D.s?
J.D.s (i.e., law degrees) and M.D.s (medical degrees) are not research-based degrees. That is, they do not have a requirement of doctoral dissertation. Recipients of the professional degrees do not have to do a big research project in order to graduate.
Many aspirating medical researcher do MD/PhD programs. That’s where the research portion of the graduate work comes in, both in terms of training and in terms of experience.
Other graduate schools also offer doctoral degrees. Among research degrees are theology degrees, design degrees, library science degrees and many many more. The one that threw me for the biggest loop, when I heard about it, was nursing. D.N.Sc. Doctor of Nursing Science. There are also many many other professional degrees. Dentistry, social work, athletic training and many (mostly somehow connected to medicine) more.
Who gets to be called “Dr.”?
We know that that title should not be limited to those who have delivered babies, because it seems nonsensical to deny brain surgeons and heart surgeons the title, simply because of of the part of the body they work on. That really seems to miss the point. (Also, plenty of EMTs have delivered babies, and they are not called “doctor.”)
The question is whether the title should be preserved for medical doctors. I know that I have said many times, “Not that kind of doctor,” – almost always to be funny. In many contexts, the assumption is the the doctor in question is a medical doctor. However, the M.D. is simply a less demanding degree than a research doctorate. Perhaps the coursework is harder — depending on the program – but the M.D. lacks research and dissertation writing components of the array of research doctorates.
While there are reasonable questions to be asked about recipients of honorary doctorates using the title “Dr.”, it strikes me as simply asinine to suggest that those who have earned research doctorates should not be called “Doctor.”
Sure, I can see why some institutions might be questioned, but he degree itself? No, there is no reason to view Ed.D.s on their face as less demanding or rigorous than Ph.D.s., and certainly no reason to call them out specifically.
If you really want to be a condescending ass, question the quality of the individual dissection by actually reading it. Otherwise, is seems….well, just stupid….to challenge the well-established norm of calling holders of research based doctorates “Doctor.”