The Doctor Wars
A culture skirmish
Who gets to be called doctor? Should the term be reserved for physicians? What about those with PhDs, EdDs, and JDs? It’s a culture skirmish that one, randomly pops up every few years, and two, as the proud holder of a PhD, I have a vested interest in.
This is a common conversation in academia. Especially in today’s world, where traditional hierarchies are being broken down, if not subverted entirely, many college students are unsure what to call their instructors. A good instructor should introduce themselves the first day and tell students what title to use. Many don’t, however, and students are likely to forget, creating confusion, and at times, irritation. One common complaint is that students will often address female professors as “Mrs.” but male professors as “Doctor” or “Professor”.
I generally tell undergraduate students to address me as “Professor” and graduate students to call me my first name. I also tell my students that they can always address an instructor by the name they use when signing off emails. Thus, if an instructor signs his emails “Gregory”, students can refer to him as “Gregory”. If Gregory signs his emails as “Dr. Brown”, then students should call him “Dr. Brown,” and so on.
At least in economics, everyone I’ve interacted with professionally goes by their first name when dealing with other PhD holders. Even keynote speakers at premier conferences are generally introduced by their full name only, without any title. When emailing professors I don’t personally know, I generally address them by “Professor”, and every time they respond with their first name. The reverse is also true. Other economists will address me as “Professor” in an email, and I always respond with my first name. It’s simple enough.
I’ve always defaulted to “Professor” when interacting with undergraduates for two reasons. First, that was the norm at the University of Illinois, where I did my own undergraduate training. Almost all of my professors went by “Professor”. I had a few professors in small, upper-level classes that went by their first name, but that was it. Not a single professor went by “Doctor”. Different universities, however, have different norms. At the University of Colorado, where I did my graduate training, some faculty went by “Doctor,” a title I have never seen used before by an academic.
Second, “Professor” is a more accurate title than “Doctor”. This is now changing due to the new “professor of practice” title for teaching-based faculty at universities, but traditionally, professor was a subset of doctor. Almost all professors had doctorates, while there were many with doctorates who were not professors. By using the title “Professor”, I remove ambiguity about what I do. As one friend put it, “Doctor means you graduated. Professor means you got a job”.
I want to emphasize that I don’t use the title “Professor” (or any other title) socially, which I find to be insufferable behavior regardless of academic credentials or occupation. I don’t really consider myself a doctor either. I don’t have any patients. If there’s a medical emergency on a plane and they call for a doctor, my only contribution as an economics PhD would be to inform the crew that it appears the passenger’s demand for oxygen is exceeding the supply. Of course, flight attendants shouldn’t be asking for a doctor at all - it would make far more sense to ask for a “medical professional” as many flights will be doctor-less, but just about every plane will have at least an EMT or other person with medical training on board. It is interesting that no one ever asks for a “physician”, although that would also be a more exact term than “doctor”.
The “doctor/professor” issue stayed mostly within academia until 2020, when Joseph Epstein, a conservative writer and former editor of The American Scholar, argued in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that Jill Biden, then first lady-elect of the United States, should stop using the term “Doctor”. Jill Biden went back to graduate school while Joe Biden was a Senator from Delaware, earning an EdD (a doctorate of education) from the University of Delaware. This immediately prompted a pile-on from liberals accusing Epstein of being misogynist, defenders noting that an EdD is the widely regarded as the weakest of all doctorate degrees, and many making a tempest in a teapot. The issue has since popped up from time to time, most recently when writer Josh Barro got into a Twitter spat with a PhD and posted the following:
Many people immediately entered the debate, some vehemently defending their titles, others saying this just showed Josh was right, etc.
The community note, by the way, reads, “The word doctor comes from words meaning ‘teacher’ or ‘to teach.’” This is one of the arguments generally used by those who want to be called doctor - the term was originally used by teachers, and was later co-opted by physicians. Of course, Barro does have a good point. By and large, the people who put Dr. or PhD in their social media handles are the worst. People who win Nobel Prizes just go by “Bob”, while EdDs seem to universally insist on “Doctor”, despite not even having a research degree.
Many of those who disagreed with Barro pointed to the amount of hard work they had to put in to earn their doctorate. This, of course, is irrelevant. Yes, you worked hard for your PhD. Congratulations. Lots of people work hard. The difficulty of acquiring a credential does not literally entitle you. There are many PhDs who couldn’t get a bachelor’s from West Point, which, unlike most PhD programs, has a physical fitness component to the degree. Difficulty of work has nothing to do with titling.
Both sides of the argument also used flawed arguments regarding language. Some of the pro-Doctor crowd will mention that other languages use titles more frequently. Most famously, German academics are given the title “Herr/Frau Professor Doktor”. Which is, for one, hilarious, but also irrelevant for anyone who doesn’t live in Germany. The anti-Doctor crowd, including Barro, will claim that the language is settled, and that “Doctor” is only used in today’s America for physicians, and thus is should remain. But of course, that’s not a hard and fast grammatical rule (which also aren’t static), it’s just a cultural norm. Those change all the time. I disagree with people saying “President Obama” or “President Bush” in the present tense, when neither is president of anything. I don’t like it, but if we collectively decide to make “President” a lifelong title, then so be it.
The biggest problem is a lack of consistency from the industry that will ultimately carry the day: the media. Any reputable media outlet has style guidelines. These guidelines are often abandoned, however, based on political preference. For example, the New York Times makes it clear who should and should not be called “Doctor”:
Dr. should be used in all references for physicians, dentists and veterinarians whose practice is their primary current occupation, or who work in a closely related field, like medical writing, research or pharmaceutical manufacturing: Dr. Alex E. Baranek; Dr. Baranek; the doctor. (Those who practice only incidentally, or not at all, should be called Mr., Ms., Miss or Mrs.)
Anyone else with an earned doctorate, like a Ph.D. degree, may request the title, but only if it is germane to the holder’s primary current occupation (academic, for example, or laboratory research). Reporters should confirm the degree holder’s preference. For a Ph.D., the title should appear only in second and later references.
Do not use the title for someone whose doctorate is honorary.
Some PhDs and other degree holders would disagree with this usage, but I think most will find it reasonable. The problem is the New York Times abandons its own rules based on political preference. Jill Biden, for example, will often be called Dr. Jill Biden in an initial reference (see one example here), even though, according to the NYT rules, it should only be used in a second reference. The same goes for Martin Luther King, who is often referred to as “Doctor” in the first usage. King, of course, earned a PhD from Boston University. Media outlets need to be consistent. Always using “Dr. Martin Luther King” is fine, but then that title needs to be extended to all PhDs.
What gets lost in a lot of the debate is that while a lot of PhDs and other degree holders are annoyingly insisting on being called “Doctor”, they are simply following what intractable physicians have done for hundreds of years. These doctors are not only inconsistent, but many are complete hypocrites.
It is perfectly normal for an attending physician to insist that residents address them as “Doctor”, but that doctor in turn will address residents by their first names. This is unthinkably rude in any other field. Residents and physicians have the same degree! Any tenured professor at a university who insisted on being called “Doctor” while calling an untenured colleague by their first name would be viewed, correctly, as a complete prig. Not only that, but MDs will claim to reserve the “Doctor” mantle for (conveniently) other MDs, but will then use the title for those with doctorates in pharmacology. The PharmD, of course, which doesn’t require a bachelor’s degree and is can be obtained six years out of high school.
The point of all this is there isn’t a straightforward norm to follow. I think it’s fine for degree holders to use their title in professional settings and annoying to use a professional title in a social setting. I view professors as “Professors” and medical doctors as “Doctors”, although I agree that the PhD is the original doctorate, and they should probably get first dibs on the title. Regardless, the only wrong way to approach the topic is to take titles too seriously and make it one of the most important parts of your identity.