No Longer Afforded the title of "Dr."

[Danni]

Just a snippet I heard on the news, about once retired, those afforded the title of "Dr/Doctor" will no longer be recognised by that title. They will go back to being "Mr".

Is this fair on those people?

Personally I see it as a bit of a slap in the face to those people. The majority of which will have spent the greater part of their lives 'studying' (ie Medical practitioners who spend years at uni, then futher being interns, then specialising, then simply keeping up with all the advances in their field during their careers) all to the betterment and treatment of their fellow man.

So do we now say, thanks, but hey you are over the hill, you aren't a practicing Doctor anymore, so you can't be called Doctor any more?

[sbagman]

I'm only doing this bloody PhD to be called Dr. Sbagman.

[Theoden]

I believe that titles such ar Dr. are relics from a bygone era.
I never write or refer to anyone as anything but Mr. or Mrs. (Ms. is a definate joke).
People normally think of a doctor as a medical person when in fact the title is often purely achademic.
I see no reason to put people with an achedemic doctorate on a pedestal above the rest of society purely because they have decided to (or afforded to) study ( at the publics expense) instead of getting a job.

[Theoden]

Originally posted by Danni
The majority of which will have spent the greater part of their lives 'studying' (ie Medical practitioners who spend years at uni, then futher being interns, then specialising, then simply keeping up with all the advances in their field during their careers) all to the betterment and treatment of their fellow man.


In fact "all to the betterment of their bank balances" would tend to be more correct.

[sbagman]

Theoden,

I am the son of migrant parents from the western suburbs of Melbourne. I have done my doctorate because I EARNED a scholarship and had to make a sacrifice by coming to Brisbane to get it.

[Theoden]

Originally posted by sbagman
Theoden,

I am the son of migrant parents from the western suburbs of Melbourne. I have done my doctorate because I EARNED a scholarship and had to make a sacrifice by coming to Brisbane to get it.

We could debate how you 'earned' it. ie who's pocket is the money coming from and does it cover the full cost or are the public paying and do you collect any taxpayers money whilst doing it? The probable annual cost is around $200K for the education plus whatever your living expenses are. So who pays the $220K?

But apart from that minor matter if a rich person wants to pay millions to give their child an education and they get a doctorate then good on them. How they choose to spend their money is their concern, and there are heaps of Singaporeans sending their kids here for an education for that very reason. But once they've done it and have their piece of paper I see no reason to give them a special title. What about elite sport speople, great entrepreneurs, adventurers, missionaries, top accountants, politicians etc, etc,. who have really done something for society? The title Dr. is given for a zero contribution unless honorary versus great contributors who still go by Mr. and Mrs...........as we all should...........stuff the elitist crap.

[iceman]

i dont have a problem with calling someone "Dr". i can only imagine the amount of time and effort he or she has put into getting that far in their studies

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by Theoden
People normally think of a doctor as a medical person when in fact the title is often purely achademic.
I see no reason to put people with an achedemic doctorate on a pedestal above the rest of society purely because they have decided to (or afforded to) study ( at the publics expense) instead of getting a job.

'Purely academic'? 'Decided to study instead of getting a job'?

This smacks of bitterness somewhat. What your saying is that society can do away with academics and we should all just be 'serfs' with jobs serving the 'fortunate' and 'elite' amongst society. I'm studying to better myself and add something to society while people like yourself remain bitter for whatever reason.
Higher education is not for everybody, but your reasons for putting those people down are ridiculous.
ps, perhaps if you'd continued your education you would be able to spell academic.

[Theoden]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper


'Purely academic'? 'Decided to study instead of getting a job'?

This smacks of bitterness somewhat. What your saying is that society can do away with academics and we should all just be 'serfs' with jobs serving the 'fortunate' and 'elite' amongst society. I'm studying to better myself and add something to society while people like yourself remain bitter for whatever reason.
Higher education is not for everybody, but your reasons for putting those people down are ridiculous.
ps, perhaps if you'd continued your education you would be able to spell academic.

Quite incorrect. I have a degree and a string of letters I could use after my name but I choose not to do so. I am not putting down those who aspire to higher education (although I do object to paying for it unless there is a payback to the nation), I am purely objecting to the title of Doctor being used by them or proferred to them. It is an elitist / class distinction and just as I oppose titles such as Lord and Lady, I also oppose that of Dr. or Rev. Sir. or Hon. etc.

I'm sorry if my spelling upset you. I don't have a docturship in it.

[Dr AlfAndrews]

I'm not sure where this leaves me.

How do they define "retired"?

I agree that the idea of titles is a load of elitist crap, but I use the title because it's a hoot. It's my little joke on society.

I too got a scholarship, thank you very much. And I was on Austudy before that. Again, thank you very much.

Eight and a half years of pretentious academic auto-eroticism later, society has given me the right to call myself "Doctor".

Again, I say, thank you very much.

Hey, I'm a smart guy ... smart enough to know that being a "Doctor" means nothing. It doesn't matter whether you are a doctor of medicine, a doctor of philosophy or a bloody witch doctor ... it all amounts to precisely zilch in the over-all scheme of things.

But I love the title anyway ... because it's a bloody hoot. People like Eddie McGuire ring me up and ask my opinion. Why? Herald Sun reporters ask my opinion. Why? What do I know that a guy who left school at 15 doesn't know?

If they take the title away from me when I "retire", whatever that means, it won't make any friggin' difference what THEY call me.

I'll call myself what I like ... Dr.Alf Andrews, Dr.Grouse, or Dr.Bloody Coco Pops ... I know who I am.

And sbagman ... go for it ... and have fun. Just don't take it too seriously.

But I'm sure you won't. Because no one who's intelligent enough to win one of those elusive postgraduate scholarships would be stupid enough to think that it actually means anything.

And those of you who object to having your taxes wasted on people like me ... thank you very much ... Now, go and have a big fat whinge ...

All I did was play the game ... and that's ALL it is ... a bloody game.

And those people with jobs, who pay taxes ... they're playing the same game. It's just that they're playing in the ruck ... and I'm on the left wing. Yeah. I admit, I'm a receiver.

As I said before ... it's a hoot.

And please ... don't bother me with that tired old whingeing taxpayer routine ... I've heard it ALL before ... many many times ... so save your breath and tell someone who cares.

[sbagman]

Originally posted by Theoden


We could debate how you 'earned' it. ie who's pocket is the money coming from and does it cover the full cost or are the public paying and do you collect any taxpayers money whilst doing it? The probable annual cost is around $200K for the education plus whatever your living expenses are. So who pays the $220K?


The scholarship is around $17K per year x 3.5 years, so nowhere near the $220K you quote. These scholarships are highly competitive, so I don't see how your argument has any relevance. Are you saying the government should not give any scholarships? That's a very interesting thought.

The funding of research comes from governments grants to my research group, in the form of competitive funding from the ARC and NHMRC. The research I do is to do with development of drugs for diseases which you or someone who is close to you may someday suffer. Not that I am ever going to make a difference, but according to your logic, this research should not exist, as the taxpayer pays for it. Or should researchers do it for nothing?

This "taxpayer's money" is potentially of great benefit to this country. Every country has an obligation to develop its intellect. What you are suggesting is that Australia basically becomes an intellectual third world country.

[Porthos]

Alf Andrews is testimony to the fact that higher education is bunkum :D

[Theoden]

Originally posted by sbagman


The scholarship is around $17K per year x 3.5 years, so nowhere near the $220K you quote. These scholarships are highly competitive, so I don't see how your argument has any relevance. Are you saying the government should not give any scholarships? That's a very interesting thought.

The funding of research comes from governments grants to my research group, in the form of competitive funding from the ARC and NHMRC. The research I do is to do with development of drugs for diseases which you or someone who is close to you may someday suffer. Not that I am ever going to make a difference, but according to your logic, this research should not exist, as the taxpayer pays for it. Or should researchers do it for nothing?

This "taxpayer's money" is potentially of great benefit to this country. Every country has an obligation to develop its intellect. What you are suggesting is that Australia basically becomes an intellectual third world country.

I'm not suggesting that at all.
$220K is the approximate cost to the nation of putting a student through uni each year. If the elected government chooses to pay for this then that is a democratic decision and fair enough.

I think that if the government invests the money that way the people should get a return in investment.

If you are providing that return in your resurch then fair enough.

Research may be far better accomplished by groups such as CSIRO leaving universities to 'educate', which is their prime directive.

The above is irrelevant to the main topic, which is the Dr. title, and for once Dr.Andrews has got it about right.

[Rusty Brookes]

Originally posted by Theoden

Research may be far better accomplished by groups such as CSIRO leaving universities to 'educate', which is their prime directive.



Thoeden of Rohan (couldn't resist), approximately 40% of the business conducted by universities is research related. Without research, universities would be similar to TAFEs. Furthermore, Industry provides millions upon millions of dollars to universities to conduct research.

Back to the original topic, I suppose it's up to the individual. I know some people with PhDs who hate being called Doctor while there are others that love it. It's only a label afterall.

[sbagman]

Originally posted by Theoden

Research may be far better accomplished by groups such as CSIRO leaving universities to 'educate', which is their prime directive.


Research IS education.

The ability to seek out a problem worth solving, and solving it by your own means, and in so doing thinking for yourself, is a powerful ability in ANY field, and an important part of education.

How do you suggest the CSIRO does its research if Australia does not produce researchers in its universities? Where does it get these ready-made researchers?

[Dr AlfAndrews]

Originally posted by Porthos
Alf Andrews is testimony to the fact that higher education is bunkum :D

And I love you too, Porthos.

But I wouldn't just stop at "higher" education ...

The whole education system is a crock of crap ... right down to bloody kindergarten. It's more about propaganda than "education". And institutionalised mediocrity. Anathema to the soul of any free-thinking person.

I'm a qualified high school teacher, too ... (Don't ask me why. It was a mistake, OK) ... More like a bloody baby sitter ... or a prison guard. Kids don't need that crap. No wonder they rebel.

[Theoden]

Originally posted by sbagman


Research IS education.

The ability to seek out a problem worth solving, and solving it by your own means, and in so doing thinking for yourself, is a powerful ability in ANY field, and an important part of education.

How do you suggest the CSIRO does its research if Australia does not produce researchers in its universities? Where does it get these ready-made researchers?

Learning IS education, research MAY lead to education.

The ability to seek out a problem worth solving subjective but all will agree that if it is one that benefits society it is good.

I am not advocating that we do not provide researchers, quite the contrary, I would like to see more, but the rider is that if you get the education you use the knowledge (investment) as payback to your country by being involved in research projects with people like the CSIRO rather than say decide to finish your degree and emigrate or become a truck driver.

And Rusty (you are on the Mark (King in fact)) you are right about industry, and I have a fair amount of experience here, but the main reason is cost. Research costs using Universities are much smaller than hiring your own R&D staff, however the results are often very dissappointing.

[sbagman]

Originally posted by Theoden

The ability to seek out a problem worth solving subjective but all will agree that if it is one that benefits society it is good.

I am not advocating that we do not provide researchers, quite the contrary, I would like to see more, but the rider is that if you get the education you use the knowledge (investment) as payback to your country by being involved in research projects with people like the CSIRO rather than say decide to finish your degree and emigrate or become a truck driver.


What of scientific note has the CSIRO done of late? I can't think of too many publications produced lately that have shaken the science world.

I don't think one can say to a PhD student, "you must stay in Australia and do sub-standard, undeer-funded science with the CSIRO rather than go and do world-class science that pays much more". Science is built on the exchange of ideas, and there isn't much to exchange in this country. The emigration of scientists is a problem Australia must solve, not the researchers.

Anyway, are you saying the research conducted at universities is of no benefit to anyone but the students? Publications bring reputation to the universities, departments, and professors, which enables them to be more competitive in grant applications. Basically students are providing Professors' wages. I wish I could run a business like that. Have highly skilled, hard working staff whom I don't pay. Fantastic.

[joshhem]

for the amount of study that med students have to do I'll be calling them Dr. I have a friend doing it currently at UQ. He goes to uni 8-5 everyday. And then they say that he should be doing 30 hours extended individual learing each week (i.e. extend what they taught you). This is physically not possible, to go to uni, study, SLEEP, have time to eat and how about a time to rest your mind for a few minutes. I don't think so. Not a course for me thankyou very much. My friend was excited by the fact he has a friday off in a few weeks. He plans to wake up at 6:30am and study till 10:00pm:eek:

Give them the 'Doctor' term please!

[Fat Red]

Good point Joshhem.

As for the rest, who uses these titles now anyway. I don't call anyone Mr or Mrs, I call them by their first names. Dr doesn't come into it.

Only exception is the judge i work for. i call him Judge. But I have to do that.

[Methuselah]

People who have been conferred the degree of PhD are entitled to call themselves "doctor" - it's a personal choice, and if other members of the community choose not to address them by that epithet, that is their choice.

However, the conferring of the title is a signpost to the community that indicates the person has completed a thesis - judged on its merits - that produced a significant contribution to research effort in that field. You do not get one for any other reason.

Therefore, every PhD has made a contribution to the advance of knowledge in our species, a measured, palpable contribution that in many cases underpins all of the wonderful technology and living standard we now enjoy.

A PhD also signifies that the person has demonstrated a level of skill and discipline over a protracted period of time.

The idea that sports people or adventurers, or missionaries may have made a more significant contribution to the community, is absolutely ludicrous. That sort of attitude is why Australia is a world beater at cricket, and not much else. It's also why we have a negative balance of payments most months and a country like Singapore, which values its intellectuals has a handsome balance of payments surplus every month.

[NICK THE PIE MAN]

Originally posted by Dr AlfAndrews
The whole education system is a crock of crap ... right down to bloody kindergarten. It's more about propaganda than "education".

lol good stuff Alf!

Would you mind expanding on that please mate.
(I want something to yell at my teachers tommorow! :D ;))

Cheers Alfie,
ahh i mean Doc!

[Mobbenfuhrer]

The Dr thing doesn't fuss me ... its the people out there earning a heapload who can't doctomasize ... I have never been witness to a doctor who a) knew what they were doing or if a) is satisfied then b) knew something I didn't know myself.

"You've lost a leg? There's a lot of it going around. Here take this potion my guild says is good, its caused a number of deaths but none of them serious."

[clucas91]

So I am supposed to assume that after a person is retired, he stops "doctoring" whatever it is he/she did?
I doubt that anybody with the Dr. title actually ceases to think like a Dr. after they retire.

[Dr AlfAndrews]

Originally posted by clucas91
So I am supposed to assume that after a person is retired, he stops "doctoring" whatever it is he/she did?
I doubt that anybody with the Dr. title actually ceases to think like a Dr. after they retire.

In my case, I think I "ceased thinking like a Dr." before I became a Dr. ... and thank goodness for that.

"Thinking like a Dr." .... must be some sort of psychiatric disorder.

I'm glad I found a cure.

[Asgardian]

Is this a "Who has the bigger penis?" thread?

Well for one, I'm as jealous as all hell of guys like Alf and Sbags and Santos and Macca19, and all of the rest of them in society. They all have, or are going to get something I don't have, and really want to have, .................... BADLY.

The people who have achieved higher learning by means of good fortune, circumstance, determination, right place at right time, or any other means, deserve our commendation, not our scorn, these are the people who will lead Australia into the forefront of an area in which we can excell.

Australia is ideally placed to drive itself into the position of being the area's "intelligence centre"

We cannot compete with greater Asia in a manufacturing sense due, in the main, to our wages policies. We do not value add, in the major degree, to our abundant raw materials. In short we have fallen behind and missed the bus.

That being the case, lets work up the areas in which we excell, education and higher education, put more and more money and resources into this field of endeavour, to reap greater long term benefits.

Back to my original point, look at those who have achieved, or are achieving, and praise them for their efforts, and then go out and try to emulate them.

To Alf, Rob, Craig and Frank, and all the others here who have, and are achieving, WELL DONE, I'm jealous, and I'm gonna get there one day too.

[sbagman]

Originally posted by Asgardian
Is this a "Who has the bigger penis?" thread?

Well for one, I'm as jealous as all hell of guys like Alf and Sbags and Santos and Macca19, and all of the rest of them in society. They all have, or are going to get something I don't have, and really want to have, .................... BADLY.

The people who have achieved higher learning by means of good fortune, circumstance, determination, right place at right time, or any other means, deserve our commendation, not our scorn, these are the people who will lead Australia into the forefront of an area in which we can excell.

Australia is ideally placed to drive itself into the position of being the area's "intelligence centre"

We cannot compete with greater Asia in a manufacturing sense due, in the main, to our wages policies. We do not value add, in the major degree, to our abundant raw materials. In short we have fallen behind and missed the bus.

That being the case, lets work up the areas in which we excell, education and higher education, put more and more money and resources into this field of endeavour, to reap greater long term benefits.

Back to my original point, look at those who have achieved, or are achieving, and praise them for their efforts, and then go out and try to emulate them.

To Alf, Rob, Craig and Frank, and all the others here who have, and are achieving, WELL DONE, I'm jealous, and I'm gonna get there one day too.

Chris, I hope it didn't come across that I was putting myself on a pedastal. It's just that this thing has completely dominated my life for three and a half years now, so one tends to struggle to talk about other things when one is immersed in something.

Whatever it is you want to achieve, I reckon you can do it.

Rob.

[Asgardian]

Far from it Rob, my point is that you should be as proud as punch for what you are doing.
Your field of expertise is an area in which I have not got the faintest idea, but that is irrelevant, you along with others doing higher learning, will be the future leaders in society, and that is exactly the way it should be.
I for one want societies leaders to be the smartest people available.

So to those who cannot be bothered getting off their arses, or those who want to just slag off at others who are achieving, I give you this ..http://216.40.198.77/mysmilies/s/cwm/cwm/piss2.gif

[skilts]

Contrary to what Methuselah asserts, I wonder if all Phds are really a reward for making a significant contribution to the sum of knowkledge in a society.
I seems to me that the overarching prerequisite to even begin a higher degree is originality. Not originality of thought, but originality in the choice of topic for a thesis. If nobody has wriitten a thesis about, for instance, the history of Monash University, then you will be a shoo-in to get approval to pursue that as a line of enquiry. This can come down to selecting the most boring, arcane topic, simply because no-one has done it before.
An example from my own experience, was a woman I knew, whose thesis was on the sociological aspects of Barbie Dolls.
So little of post-graduate research is original or contributes to a supposed body of knowledge. It's not about that. It's about jobs for the people who receive the qualification, and about academism.

[Methuselah]

In response to Skilts:

While some (or many) PhD topics seem obscure, and largely irrelevant to the pursuit of knowledge, one of the fascinating aspects of research is that the benefits can rarely be quantified.

All PhD students require supervisors, and those supervisors provide insight and direction into the areas of each field of study where there is a need/interest in further research.

How the results might turn out, or how they might be used by others is often not predictable.

PhD studies have two aims. The first is to gather information about a subject area, pose questions or hypotheses, or experiments and then design a study, collect new information, analyse it, and draw conclusions. PhD examiners then look for originality of thought, and significant contributions, and such things are considered important.

Also important though is the aim of determining how an individual goes through the process of research. Tackling a piece of research, defining a problem, designing experiments, running experiments/collecting data, analyses, and conclusions are part of a process that can be applied to many problems. The PhD candidate needs to demonstrate to examiners that they are capable of performing this process - and it requires discipline, dedication and stamina.

Someone once said that science is 1% inspiration, and 99% perspiration, and in my experience that's true.....and I think the same applies to other areas of research.

In closing, let me give an example of how seemingly useless primary research can provide the basis for breakthroughs in other areas of science.

A friend of mine completed a PhD on the taxonomy of marine sponges many years ago, and is recognised as one of very few people (maybe 5) on this planet that can identify most of the many thousands of species of these organisms. Getting grant funding to do further research was always difficult - after all, why would Australian society need to know so much about sponges?

That's all changed with the discovery that sponges produce many chemical compounds that inhibit the growth of other organisms around them. Now they are the subject of billions of dollars of research funding aimed at finding new chemicals to treat cancer, HIV and other diseases. My friend is contracted by global drug companies to collect and identify new species of sponges. New compounds have been found, and are now being trialed. Some of these compounds are by weight, the most valuable commodities on earth, fetching thousands of dollars per microgram. My friend now has all the research funding he can handle....provided by international corporations, and in fact is importing foreign currency into this country by exporting knowledge.

;)

[skilts]

Methuselah, thanks for your considered reply. You assert that the benefits of research can rarely be quantified, then proceed to do exactly that. You detail all of the benificiaries of the academism of which I wrote. Can't you see that the people who oversee this post-graduate research of which we speak, are also its benificiaries? They are part of the game.
If these supervisors don't publish, they are damned. Their PhD becomes as useless as the ones their students are going to get, unless they are able to get bums on seats in their faculties. If they don't get bums on seats, they won't be funded and neither will their institution. You mustn't forget we now operate in free (education) market place. Thank you John Dawkins. Or, is that an education-free market place?
A classic example of this is the notorious/famous former Monash Uni. philosopher, Peter Singer. His main claim to fame is his fame. How did he do this? He assiduously published. He made philosophy useful. Hardly unexpected, seeing he is a self-confessed utilitarian. He became known as the philosopher to whom the journalists went for a quotable quote. His thinking is so shallow and simplistic as to be risible. Does that matter to the Australian media? Not a bit of it.
He used his PhD to gain exactly what he set out to achieve. He became rich. He now has a chair in philosophy at a prestigious U.S. university. And what do the Americans demonstrate against him about? His views on euthanasia.
They see this as being preferable to examining the quality of the totality of his thought, in relation to philosophical ideas which were discounted a couple of hundred years ago. Without going into too much detail, the utilitarians believe that society should be conducted on the basis of what will provide the greatest happiness for the largest number in that society. The question they have been unable to answer is, "What is happiness?" Even if we were happy, how would we measure it? No account is taken of the exclusion in this equation of people who aren't happy with what has been constructed for them. BTW, this philosophy underpins all of the thinking of the Liberal Party in Australia. John Stuart Mill is the culprit.
You detail the benefits of research which accrue to PhD students. They are researching other people's work, usually people much smarter than them, with a view to getting a piggy-back on their subject's perceived brilliance. I am talking here mostly of the humanities.
I must admit, the scientific work you mentioned doesn't necessarily fit into this category. Have you ever thought about what scientists really do though? They do one of two things. They make things larger or they make them smaller. That the earth revolves around the sun is of no vital interest to me, in my daily life. If the reverse were true, it may be that I wouldn't be here. That wouldn't matter. Copernicus told me nothing about what it would be like for me to be human.
In conclusion, your details about the financial success of your friend and his research on sponges, re-enforces my comment about the real reason people do PhD research. The measure is in the money.
Great to talk to ya.