I'm sure you're right - but do you know why that is? It is a doctorate isn't it? What makes some doctorates qualify and others not?
> It has not been customary in the United States to address holders of the J.D. as "doctor". It was noted in the 1920s, when the title was widely used by people with doctorates (even those that, at the time, were undergraduate qualifications) and others, that the J.D. stood out from other doctorates in this respect.
and a form of… I guess gatekeeping / elitism?
> In the late 1960s, the rising number of American law schools awarding J.D.s led to debate over whether lawyers could ethically use the title "Doctor". Initial informal ethics opinions, based on the Canons of Professional Ethics then in force, came down against this.
Apparently the 1969 Code of Professional Responsibility allows JD to call themselves Doctors but not all bars adopted it, and some adopted it without the clause.
So:
* it's customary in the US to not call JDs doctors
* it may or may not be allowed by the state bar
In 2011, Mother Jones had to amend an article where they stated that Michelle Bachmann "was misrepresenting her qualifications" by titling herself Dr. based on her JD.
But JD programs also differ significantly from academically oriented PhD programs in that the overwhelming majority of them focus on generalized practical knowledge and skills alone. Most don’t even properly prepare graduates for local licensure exams, forcing them to do yet another prep course (or at least intense self-study) prior to practicing their trade. In this regard, it’s a degree that’s more similar to an MBA than it is a PhD, and while it shares traits with MD programs, MD programs have a much deeper emphasis on theory, and a much deeper emphasis on practice and ethics than you’ll see in any JD program.
That’s not to say that there aren’t folks that do a JD but proceed along an “academic” track intended to focus on original research and prepare for legal scholarship. These people exist, but they are a tiny minority among JD candidates.
But, for that matter, maybe you think it makes sense to put PE and whatever certs you have after your name in professional emails. But it will seem odd to some and certainly would seem out of place in a personal email.
I've always thought that to be a bit weird. The only time it makes sense to me is in official communication where you are specifically asserting your expertise. My manager has MBA after his name in all the emails he sends. IMO that comes off as really pretentious.
But maybe this should be true of most titles. Should a medical doctor point out their title at all times, even when they're not representing themselves as anything other than average citizen?
PhDs is more questionable outside of academia (where people deeply care about this sort of thing). But MBA? Outside of an alumni context I'm not sure I have ever seen someone do that. (This isn't a particular poke at MBAs. I'd feel the same way about an M.Eng.)
M.D. is “Medical Doctor” other examples are D.M.A. “Doctor of Musical Arts” for music performers and Ed.D. “Doctor of Education” which is closest to the original meaning of Doctor. You also have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Arts and a few others.
PS: While the Ph.D. is the most common doctoral degree in the United States, the U.S. Department of Education and the National Science Foundation recognize numerous research-oriented doctoral degrees such as the D.A. as "equivalent",[1][2] and do not discriminate between them.
The same is true of an M.D. though with four years. They’re both doctorates.
Still, calling the MD a doctorate is questionable.
The JD itself is not meaningful for the practice of law - its passing the bar that matters. But that’s true for other professions too (doctors).
Should we also laugh at folks who graduate from MIT’s doctoral programs and want to be addressed as “Doctor” even though their degree might be a ScD?
Yes. Insisting on the use of titles is vaguely European. That’s not how we do things in America, where the title for the head of state is just “Mr. President.”
So, just like in Europe? “Mr. Prime Minister”, “M. le Président”, “Frau Bundeskanzlerin”, “Herr Bundeskanzler”, ...
Shouldn't we call her 'Professor' then, since that outranks 'Doctor'?
In practice, these are tenure track positions, and not all teaching staff have them. For example, as a postdoc, I might teach a course at a college nearby. They might refer to me as "Adjunct professor", which is a temporary non-tenure-track position.
Some students? All students.
The usage of "professor" in the US is much like the usage of "lisp" in programming. There are many lisps (scheme, elisp,...), but there is only one Lisp (that is, Common Lisp).
Similarly, "professor" does indeed mean "Full professor". But students and staff in most universities call nearly all faculty "Professor X", whether they are assistant, associate, full, emeritus, adjunct, term, or whatnot. Indeed many US institutions have since invented official titles for, for example, instructors or adjunct faculty, which explicitly include the word "professor".
I became a professor a month after I got my PhD. Thus for my whole life I had been Sean, then for one month I was Dr. Luke, and then suddenly I was Prof. Luke. It has never been comfortable. I let the undergrads and some MS students call me Professor Luke -- I can't stop them -- but the PhDs, particularly those who are coauthors with me on papers, generally call me Sean.
Students, yes; staff, no; at least this has not been my experience, and outside of some students referring to any teaching faculty as "Prof. X", I have not seen it used professionally. In a professional setting, an associate prof. would be introduced simply as "Dr. X", rather than "Associate Prof. X". I have never heard anybody short of a full professor be called "Prof. X" in a professional setting. The students I understand as them misunderstanding the nomenclature.
And yes, staff also refer to all instructional faculty as "Professor".
This goes not only for my current institution (GMU), but for several other major universities with which I have had experience, as well as major conferences and other academic gatherings. I think it is the norm.
Is it possible that you're seeing something else because of the culture stemming from a different area of academic study? I am in computer science.
I should clarify that: by "title" here I mean "a thing people are called", as in "hey, Associate Prof. X, what's up?". As opposed to an "official" job title.
“We’ve long taken the stance that, despite the technicality that a “J.D.” has the word “doctor” in it, lawyers who adopt the honorific are, well, jackasses.”
Because it's pompous, self-aggrandizing and totally deserving of ridicule for people to use highly formal titles when it is not normative.
More ridiculous are the attacks on anyone who objects to it as 'sexist and partisan'.
Profs and PhDs in the United States and elsewhere do not use such titles outside of Academia. Nobody in the US uses the term but medical doctors and dentists, or, in the most formal of situations. Profs if they are teaching - maybe.
Do we say 'Doctor' when they talk about Steven Pinker?
Neil De Grasse Tyson?
Angel Merkel?
Anyone else ?
No, of course not.
'Dr. Sanjay Gupta' on CNN - yes - of course, but not because he's a PhD, but because he's a Medical Doctor, that is the normative usage, and it's relevant to his work.
Anyone has the 'right' to use such titles can obviously use them, but you can also wear a Tuxedo to Applebee's, that doesn't make it not ridiculous.
But an EdD is a professional degree like a JD or PharmD. Demanding we call her doctor out of her professional context is bizarre unless you want your cousin with a JD demanding you do the same.