Slice: I will still be doing that though. During my honours year I attended a conference, and I am going to another one in February as a starting PhD student. I am currently drafting a paper to publish my Honours work, and I can expect many more throughout my PhD. Yes, the supervisor you are working for obviously has a lot of research in the area you're interested in, but it is still not really beneficial to me to do research that doesn't contribute to my project while I'm doing my PhD. If I wanted to do that other research, I would have chosen that for my project. That's why here, supervisors have HEAPS of PhD students, plus Research Assistants, so they can get all the work done that they want, without making students do work unrelated to their PhDs.

Yes, it is publish or perish, but you can still publish papers doing a 3 year PhD, I'm going to have one right at the start of my PhD program! There is not a minimum requirement of years you have to have been doing the research before you can publish it, it just depends on how much work you get done, which you can do as fast or slow as you want. Here, we choose to get in and work hard and get it done in 3 years.

We also get paid here, but not as much as you would get paid as a Post Doc. Our pay is in the form of living allowance scholarships, and we don't pay for our PhD program at all.

Moonlite: Ok so there are a few different programs. Here, you do a Bachelor degree in Science, a BSc takes 3 years. Following that, domestic students will do an Honours year. That is a year long independant research program, at the end you write a thesis. So at the end of 4 years you get a BSc (Hons). From then, you can apply directly into a PhD program, which is a three year program. So no, I'm not an exception, this is the norm.

Masters does exist here, however not everyone does them. A lot of international students tend to do a Masters (which is 2 years) before doing a PhD, because they don't have the equivalent of Honours that we do. Other programs will just do a Masters, because you don't need a PhD in that field. One of my friends is doing her Masters in Editing, because you don't need a PhD in editing, and a Masters degree for her is only 1 year long. So what you do depends entirely on the field of study you're in, but for the sciences, the general rule is Bachelor degree with Honours, and then straight into PhD.

As for the 3 years thing, it is not only in Australia, it's the same in the UK and Europe. So a 5 year PhD program is actually the exception to the rule, which is why we get told to steer clear of the states for PhD programs.

This is my program:
www.aibn.uq.edu.au . . .

This really must be an international differences thing. I, too, cannot wrap my mind around the thought of finishing a PhD in 3 years. Even for students with fellowships that allow them to do NOTHING but work on their dissertation have to take ~2 years worth of graduate classes and pass qualifying exams before they can even begin work on said dissertation. I guess I don't understand how a Masters can take 2 years (roughly the same as here) but a PhD can take 3 years?

While US PhD students do have a lot of things to juggle besides their research, the majority of them certainly aren't dickering around for 7 years. It makes me wonder if there's a disparity in the depth of research between the two continents, or if a bachelors in Aus/UK is simply more in-depth than a bachelors in the US. I will say that a lot of the graduate programs at my university have TONS of international students, especially from Asia. I doubt they defend any sooner than other US-born students.

slice wrote:

This really must be an international differences thing. I, too, cannot wrap my mind around the thought of finishing a PhD in 3 years. Even for students with fellowships that allow them to do NOTHING but work on their dissertation have to take ~2 years worth of graduate classes and pass qualifying exams before they can even begin work on said disseration. I guess I don't understand how a Masters can take 2 years (roughly the same as here) but a PhD can take 3 years?

While US PhD students do have a lot of things to juggle besides their research, the majority of them certainly aren't dickering around for 7 years. It makes me wonder if there's a disparity in the depth of research between the two continents, or if a bachelors in Aus/UK is simply more in-depth than a bachelors in the US. I will say that a lot of the graduate programs at my university have TONS of international students, especially from Asia. I doubt they defend any sooner than other US-born students.

There it is! Yes, a Bachelors degree here is much more in depth than in the US, from what I've heard. We don't do electives that aren't relevant to our majors, we just do 3 years of all science courses, so I did 3 years of pure chemistry. We are allowed to do a few electives if we choose, but most people don't. I did 4 spanish classes, but apart from that it was all chemistry. So then, when we do a PhD, we don't have to do graduate classes or anything, because we've already learned all that. And what we don't already know, we learn from just doing lab work or reading papers on it or something. So that's the main difference, EVERY PhD student will be doing 3 years of only research, no classes or anything.

So no, we don't do slack PhDs here, thank you, we just do all of the learning we need to do in our Bachelor Degree, leaving PhD solely for research. We don't do any research that isn't relevant to our PhD, if you want to do something else, do it as a Post Doc.

Yeah in the US a Bachelor's degree is supposed to make you a "well rounded" person with knowledge in a lot of fields and a speciality in one. a Master's really hones in on that speciality while a PhD would make you an expert in it. For my BA I had to take 13 core classes ranging from literature to religion to science and statistics. Only 12 courses were required for my major. I chose to do a minor that was 6 courses. A BA is generally 40 courses all together so that left 9 courses that I could choose from any department (granted I had the pre-req's). I could also take more classes in my department, which I did, I took 14 classes in my major department instead of 12.

You didn't have to take English?

We don't need to do that in our Bachelors because we do that in high school. The idea of a Bachelor degree here is that you can do a degree, and are then qualified for a job in that field. So plenty of my friends did a 3 year Bachelor Degree and went straight into a job, because they were fully qualified. Some careers involve training years afterwards, but you do that through the company, so you're still qualified to get a job straight after. We don't have "grad schools" because of this. If you need/want to do a Masters or PhD, that's still done through the same University in the Post Grad department.

My boyfriend's sister is attending University in the US, and she said she likes having to take English and all that because she struggled a little in school, and feels she is much more capable now because of it, but I'd hate it. I'm glad I just did 3 years really focusing on chemistry, and now can do a PhD straight out and not have to do classes ever again! Like I said, most degrees will let you do some electives anyway if you are interested in some other areas. But the only required courses we have are those that contribute to your major.

So that's basically how our University system runs shorter than yours. Our degrees are condensed down, getting rid of all the irrelevant courses, which is why a lot of Bachelors only run for 3 years too. Some go for 4 or 5 though, such as Law and Dual Degrees.

Ha, I can quite honestly say I wouldn't like that! Especially since my major now is much much different from the one I entered with. I wouldn't call a diverse liberal arts education "irrelevant". Even science majors need to know how to write, and English majors need to know how to do quantitative reasoning. If I hadn't been exposed to English on a collegiate level (instead of just plain ole high school English) I would've never known that it was a subject of such great interest.

Anyhoo, my friend did a study abroad semester in Perth and really loved it. She currently studies Animal Sciences. I was more interested in the sight-seeing and animals and pictures but when I get a chance I'll def have to ask how the classes went.

You can change degrees very easily though if you don't like what you're studying. Or majors, I started out doing Biology and changed to Chemistry in second year. One of my friends did two years of journalism and then changed to radiography! You're still not stuck doing one thing. And if you want to take subjects from all different areas, you are more than welcome to. If you feel you need to improve your english, there are plenty of courses you can take as an elective. If you want to study some religion, go for it. You don't have to not do all that, but you also don't have to if you don't want to, which I didn't. I enjoyed taking some spanish classes, but I'm also really glad I wasn't forced to take religion or english or whatever.

Yes, scientists need to learn how to write, but that's all part of our courses. We learn how to write scientifically, and have plenty of written assignments that give feed back on how we're writing. So it's not just neglected, it's incorporated into our courses. I got 92% on my honours thesis without taking undergrad english classes, so our writing skills were definitely not neglected.

A lot of courses here have required subjects that aren't from their field, many courses required you to take a statistics course, for example. So while we don't take courses from every different faculty, all of a fields needs are still taken care of, through required subjects.

Cool, I've never been to Perth!

Ah, I see, that makes more sense then. It doesn't sound so radically different put that way. Lots of universities do it differently, but the gen-ed requirements (general education) at my university are pretty easy to fulfill in that there's a variety of classes that fit the specifications. There's a good chance that whatever your field of study is, there will be a class you can take within your major that will also fulfill a gen-ed. An engineering friend for example fulfilled her advanced composition requirement with a scientific writing class; meanwhile I fulfilled my non-western requirement with Post-Colonial literature. And then some classes satisfy more than one gen-ed. So really it's a maximum of 8 gen-ed classes to take, assuming none of these classes fulfill more than one requirement or the student came in with prior credit that satisfies a gen-ed already.

Again, it varies by school. I doubt technical colleges/universities have the type of general education requirements since they focus on a more restricted area of education. Either way, yay for college and PhDs !

Of course this has NOTHING to do with panic's very persistent question :

Does anyone have an actual reason why licensed physicians shouldn't have a unique title?

Yeah I think the main difference is just that because we aren't made to do all those different requirements, they put more of the course specific classes into the degree, so you only have to do a Bachelors degree to be fully qualified for a job in most fields. So, no, it's not radically different I agree, but I would still prefer to be able to go to University and only be made to do courses that are relevant to my major.

And no, panic, I don't, because I don't think there is a major issue with both MDs and PhDs being called Doctor.

OK, but given that a lot of medical doctors DO think it's a problem, do you see any reason why it shouldn't be changed?

And sure, it's not a major issue. It's a minor issue. But it's an issue. Why is everyone so determined NOT to correct an ambiguity?

Well seeing as you always have such an all-knowing answer to everything, why don't YOU come up with something that we all just can't dispute?

I think it is the same reason that the US doesn't want to switch to the Metric system.

The amount of effort/cost of having to educate a whole generation of people is probably not worth the effort to the majority of people. Possibly laziness to a degree, but also the logistics of having to totally change the societal definition is a lot of work.

I believe that Medical Doctor should have an "unofficial" prefix. That way we wouldn't have to revamp the whole dictionary/societal system. For example, the word "gay". Officially in my dictionary it says "having or showing a merry, lively mood". We know that throughout time, this word has changed to mean homosexual. I think the same thing would happen with the prefix "DOC".

^^I'm just asking you (any of you) to explain why you feel so strongly that it shouldn't be changed. A lot of people seem to think the titles should not be changed even though some medical doctors do think it will become a problem as more nurses get phds. If you feel attacked simply because I'm asking you to provide support for your opinion ON THE DEBATE BOARD, that might be something you want to contemplate.

^I think our reluctance to adopt the metric system is more cultural pigheaddedness than laziness. But that analogy seems fair to me. No one really knows why we don't go metric even though it costs us something like 7 Billion dollars annually. Yes, there would be an upfront cost to switch, but we would end up saving a LOT in the long run. Seems to me this issue might be similar. And I haven't heard any reason at all not to do it except tradition. What are the benefits of NOT switching? I don't think this particular tradition has any benefit whatsoever unless I'm missing something.

There is no benefit to not switching to the Metric system. It would suck to be in the science field in the US and have to learn the Metric system.

Panic, I did not feel attacked. I also do not "feel strongly" that it shouldn't be changed, I have never really given it much thought, as I never thought that it was a problem. I have already given my opinion on the Nurse with a PhD thing. I don't think that it should be an issue in a hospital, as I don't think a Nurse working in a hospital should introduce themselves as "Doctor" when their job is "Nurse". For some reason, people seem to think it's wankery for an academic to insist on being called Doctor outside of the research world, but it's not if a Nurse insists on being called Doctor in a hospital, which is also outside of research world??

. I have already given my opinion on the Nurse with a PhD thing. I don't think that it should be an issue in a hospital, as I don't think a Nurse working in a hospital should introduce themselves as "Doctor" when their job is "Nurse".

OK, here's where I'm not following you. Some medical doctors DO think it's a problem. And they believe the problem will worsen with time. Whether YOU think it's a problem isn't really relevant (although I have to wonder why you would continue to insist it's not a problem considering you haven't put any thought into it and MDs do think it's a problem). GIVEN THAT DOCTORS DO THINK IT'S A PROBLEM (how many times do I have to type this before y'all read it), why shouldn't it be changed.

The whole concept of doctor-nurses is new. And a lot of nursing programs that used to offer master's degrees are being transitioned to doctorate degrees. So in the next few years, we're going to see a lot more nurses with doctorate degrees. This is a new situation, and I really don't understand why so many people are loathe to see our language adapt.


And for the record, the AMA has expressed concern about this issue for ~5 years.

The American Medical Association (AMA) has identified use of the professional title of "Doctor" as a topic for legislative initiative on behalf of its membership. Resolution 211, passed by the AMA House of Delegates, accused nurses and other "nonphysicians" with doctoral degrees of misleading patients "to believe that they are receiving care from a doctor." The resolution states further that the AMA resolves to work with individual states to "identify and prosecute those individuals who misrepresent themselves as physicians to their patients."

Although the AMA resolution has no binding effect on individual state law, it does indicate intent to mount a campaign that challenges the abilities of nurses and other health professionals to claim the title "Doctor," even if a degree is earned and recognized by the public.

So the question is not whether or not any of us believes this to be a problem - unless you are willing to argue with the AMA about it - in which case, I would hope you could provide some kind of reasoning behind your dissent.

It would suck to be in the science field in the US and have to learn the Metric system.

It was no problem at all! There were far, far larger challenges in getting a doctorate than learning the metric system.

Back on topic... apparently there are regulations in place in the US regarding the use of the title "doctor."

So physicians and their allies are pushing legislative efforts to restrict who gets to use the title of doctor. A bill proposed in the New York State Senate would bar nurses from advertising themselves as doctors, no matter their degree. A law proposed in Congress would bar people from misrepresenting their education or license to practice. And laws already in effect in Arizona, Delaware and other states forbid nurses, pharmacists and others to use the title “doctor” unless they immediately identify their profession.

And apparently it's not just social status that's at stake:

By requiring doctorates of new entrants, leaders of the pharmacy and physical therapy professions hope their members will be able to treat patients directly and thereby get a larger share of money spent on patient care.....

Nurses with doctorates generally earn the same salaries as those with master’s degrees since insurers pay the same rates to both. Physician groups fear that the real reason behind the creation of the doctor of nursing practice degree is to persuade more state legislatures to grant nurses the right to treat patients without supervision from doctors.

From New York Times

There are many more issues going on here than I'd appreciated at first in terms of titles. While I agree that there ought to be a different title for MDs, I think there will be a lot of resistance considering the money/ privileges that are at stake. So I guess it's not just a matter of laziness, tradition, etc.

panic wrote:

Although the AMA resolution has no binding effect on individual state law, it does indicate intent to mount a campaign that challenges the abilities of nurses and other health professionals to claim the title "Doctor," even if a degree is earned and recognized by the public.

I do not support the AMA in wanting to stop everyone else in the hospital setting from using the title "Doctor." This is not JUST about nurses, though that is the reason it's coming to light now. Most of the execs in the hospital setting, at least in major teaching hospitals, have Doctorates, whether it's a MD, PsyD, DNP, PhD in Public Health, PhD in Public Policy... The AMA wants to stop EVERYONE ELSE in the hospital setting from using "their" title. Not cool. They do not own the title doctor, even in a hospital.

I can certainly see how having non-physicians say "doctor" can be confusing to the patients and public. Therefore, I think that MDs should change their title to ensure the public understands who the physician is. I am 100% in support of giving MDs/DOs a new title that sets them apart as the high and mighty physician in the hospital setting. Cool. Let's do it.

There, panic. You have one supporter. I think calling MDs the same title as PhDs is silly.

Mendel wrote:

It would suck to be in the science field in the US and have to learn the Metric system.

It was no problem at all! There were far, far larger challenges in getting a doctorate than learning the metric system.

It would be easier again to just switch to the metric system

DefyingGravity:

For some reason, people seem to think it's wankery for an academic to insist on being called Doctor outside of the research world, but it's not if a Nurse insists on being called Doctor in a hospital, which is also outside of research world??

mandakp wrote:


DefyingGravity:

For some reason, people seem to think it's wankery for an academic to insist on being called Doctor outside of the research world, but it's not if a Nurse insists on being called Doctor in a hospital, which is also outside of research world??

MD is a clinical doctorate with research side. DNP is a clinical doctorate with a research side (at least that's how it's being molded currently. DNP is still a rather new program). PhD in Nursing is more research based. Therefore, your argument is not a valid argument since the NPs are going to be required to get a DNP - clinical - in the next few years, not a PhD.

(then you look at some of the DNPs offered, such as Leadership and Management, and the line gets blurred between clinical and research. It's tough to debate this argument when the DNP program is still in its infancy.)

For the record, everyone in the US learns the metric system. And a lot of non-scientific fields use it too - especially anything involving international business. Plus, soda is sold (inexplicably) in liters, so it's not like we don't use it on a daily basis.

My phone won't let me quote at the moment but all I can say is I hope I NEVER have a nurse with Kekoa's attitude. Are you fraking kidding me?! Even when I am completely lucid, it's difficult to figure out who's who. Nurses change every few hours & refuse to explain their qualifications or degre.e i'm brighter than the average Joe, & I had no idea who was an RN & who was a CA- whatever that is. Not to mention the serious legal complications stemming from the inability to tell who's in charge of your care!

Doctors have sole authority to change your care (in my experience), it's extremely important to know who they are- I don't want to waeste myy time talking to someone who can do diddly for me.

ApologiesFor typos, phone.hates me.

Ps. I hate hospitals.

DefyingGravity wrote:

panic wrote:

Although the AMA resolution has no binding effect on individual state law, it does indicate intent to mount a campaign that challenges the abilities of nurses and other health professionals to claim the title "Doctor," even if a degree is earned and recognized by the public.

I do not support the AMA in wanting to stop everyone else in the hospital setting from using the title "Doctor." This is not JUST about nurses, though that is the reason it's coming to light now. Most of the execs in the hospital setting, at least in major teaching hospitals, have Doctorates, whether it's a MD, PsyD, DNP, PhD in Public Health, PhD in Public Policy... The AMA wants to stop EVERYONE ELSE in the hospital setting from using "their" title. Not cool. They do not own the title doctor, even in a hospital.

I can certainly see how having non-physicians say "doctor" can be confusing to the patients and public. Therefore, I think that MDs should change their title to ensure the public understands who the physician is. I am 100% in support of giving MDs/DOs a new title that sets them apart as the high and mighty physician in the hospital setting. Cool. Let's do it.

There, panic. You have one supporter. I think calling MDs the same title as PhDs is silly.

Two. I've said pages ago that I don't see any reason why to continue with the same title if it's confusing (which it is).

I only read about half of these posts so sorry if someone already said this but:

Doctor, as a title, originates from the Latin word of the same spelling and meaning. The word is originally an agentive noun of the Latin verb doctore ('to teach'). It has been used as an honored academic title for over a millennium in Europe, where it dates back to the rise of the university.
-Courtesy of Wikipedia

I'm a graduate student working on my PhD but I also went to medical school for quite a length of time. Knowing what the path is like for both degrees, I can say that the title 'doctor' is more appropriate for PhD's. MD's should call themselves Physicians. That would clear up the issue in a clinical setting.

Personally, I don't find it all that confusing either way. If my nurse says that she has her doctorate but she is serving as my nurse, then I know her role. It seems a little irrelevant to mention her 'Dr' title if she's just taking my BP and leading me to a room but, whatever. I feel like medical doctors are just being arrogant to some extent, feeling threatened that others share the 'doctor' title who aren't a part of the MD club. No one is worried about going to the hospital and being treated by a Cambridge Linguistics professor.

When I get my PhD I don't think I will walk around screaming 'I'm a DOCTOR' to everyone I casually meet. None the less, 'Doctor' means 'to teach' and in my experience, no MD has ever taught me anything unless they had a PhD as well.

One time while waiting to be seated at Chili's for lunch before a doctors appointment, the waitress called out 'Williams, party of four' a few times. After a while (her yelling, no one moving) the man sitting next to me stood up and yelled 'It's DOCTOR Williams!' and then looked around for his applause or something. That was my medical doctor who I would meet later. Arrogant jerk. I know and study with many Phd's and this topic has never come up. However in med school it was a big deal for many. Clearly, 'doctor' is a ego thing for some and they don't want to share the title. Just my experience.

I'm really kind of amazed by how many people think that if they, personally, are not confused by this issue, then is must not be a problem. I don't know whether you missed the fact that the American Medical Association does think this is a problem and a potential danger to patients. But as long as it's not confusing to you, personally, screw it. Right?