<p>Do people here consider the Ed.D inferior to the Ph.D? I know that both degrees have different purposes, but I believe some folks think the Ed.D is a water-down degree with no purpose whatsoever.</p>
<p>I think a lot depends on the career goals. For careers in school, especially K-12, the EdD is more common and often more focussed on the relevant preparation. Otherwise, the PhD may be more versatile. I think it can be more valuable to focus on specific schools/programs and then do some research on what their graduates are doing. Because EdD program are (I think) less common, it might be more possible to find good funding. If the interest is in psychology, then I think the most versatile degreee (also with some good funding options in some uniiversities) is a Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology. These are often housed within a School of Education..</p>
<p>tenisghs-
How ironic-- this very question was raised on a professional listserv I am on. Hmmmmmmm, coincidence????? At any rate, let me preface it by saying most of the folks on that list are Ph.D.'s or Psy.D's (I am a Ph.D.), but the majority felt that the Ph.D. will go a lot farther, open a lot more doors, and be more widely accepted down the road. It is easier to pick up any extra courses needed to work in a schoool system, but if you want to be in private practice, the Ed.D. will be a lot more limiting. Some insurance companies will not credential psychologists with Ed.D's, only Ph.D's and Psy.D's. Hope this helps.</p>
<p>There was a president of the University of California, a couple of presidents, ago who had an Ed.D. There were articles in the paper that some profs considered him an academic lightweight, unworthy of the post because he had that degree instead of the Ph.D. But all I can say is that he was the president and they weren't.</p>
<p>There is talk in higher ed about eliminating the EdD degree.</p>
<p>Absolutely, and I will go MUCH farther to say that all degrees in "education" and ALL schools of "education" should be eliminated.</p>
<p>Period. This has been a huge scourge on the face of elementary and secondary education in our country from Horace Mann forward.</p>
<p>I agree, wyogal. Educators should receive a degree in a discipline and then, and only then, they should attain credentials. I see way too many educators who know too little about what students will need going forward since they did not have to master a discipline themselves. This is especially true with K-6 teachers in math and sciences. Too many teachers don't have a clear picture of what students will need to know or how they, as teachers, can plant seeds for the future. Just my soapbox. </p>
<p>I am interested in the EdD/PhD discussion since I am looking into programs myself, but I am leaning toward the PhD. It seems to be a more rigorous program, at least at our university.</p>
<p>My mother has a EdD, and I don't think the programs should be eliminated. Not many people have EdDs in her district, and if they do, they are most likely administrators, superintendents and principals. She uses her EdD (background in career/technical education) to full use.</p>
<p>It looks like an ED.d is from the school of education and the PH.d from the graduate school.
while you are eligible to apply for a Ph.d program after you earn a ED.d, it is recommended that you earn a M.A. first as opposed to an M.Ed, before applying to the Ph.d program.</p>
<p>I don't disagree that an Ed.d would assist you in moving up the food chain of a school district- our superintendent has a Masters degree----in industrial engineering.
The previous superintendent had a Master degree in City and regional planning- from the Kennedy school- which he liked to allude to- since it made some people think he was worth what we were paying him.( more than the governor)</p>
<p>The superintendent before him had a Masters degree in personell management and administration- which was at least more relevant than engineering- but the district recruited him because he was a modern Major general. ;)</p>
<p>So if you want to do research and be taken seriously by your peers as well as make the most of your time in grad school- go for the Ph.d. If you want to have the highest pay scale in the district & possibly more practical application- go for the ED.d</p>
<p>I think EdD is a good degree for some fields--when it comes to school principals, for example, I think you could make a very strong argument that research based on good practial application is very valuable.</p>
<p>However, I do think that within academe the PhD is regarded a little more highly. Whether or not you argue that's fair, I think it's largely the case.</p>
<p>In the interest of honesty, I do have a PhD. However, my Dad holds an EdD and my dissertation advisor and strongest research professor I ever had also had an EdD (very unusual for my department). It's not that I think ill of the degree.</p>
<p>My program (which focused on Higher and Postsecondary education--anything beyond K-12) used to allow people to get an EdD as an option but they suspended that. It's one example of it being phased out, I suppose.</p>
<p>When I asked my thesis advisor (back in my grad school days), he explained that the Ed.D. focuses more on practice and the Ph.D. focuses more on theory. That applies to only those graduate schools of education that offer both. One is not better than the other--it all depends on what you intend to do afterwards.</p>
<p>I have a Ph.D. in education. I was told over and over when deciding between a Ph.D. and an Ed.D. that the Ph.D. is more respected which is why I went for that. However, do you want to know the difference between the two degrees at my university? The Ed.D. required one language and the Ph.D. required two. For an Ed.D. statistics counts for a language and for the Ph.D. you needed stats and an additional language for which I chose spanish. The reasoning behind it is that the Ph.D. is a research degree and so you need a second language if you want to read research in another language. That was the ONLY difference in the two degrees. They were both granted by the graduate school and they had the exact same requirements independent of the language one. I went for the Ph.D. because it was not a big deal to add those few classes.</p>
<p>this from the UW- explains the differences- but it doesn't say anything about phasing out ED.d</p>
<p>
[quote]
Doctoral Degrees</p>
<p>The College awards two doctoral degrees: Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) and Doctor of Education (Ed.D.). The two degrees are equivalent in rigor but emphasize different aspects of the education profession.</p>
<p>Doctor of Philosophy
The Doctor of Philosophy program prepares students for careers of research or scholarly inquiry and teaching at the college level. The program consists of: (1) continuous research or inquiry, (2) courses in education and related fields designed to develop a comprehensive academic basis for future work in research and teaching, and (3) teaching and other related experiences tailored to individual needs and career goals. </p>
<p>Doctor of Education
The Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) is designed to prepare students for advanced professional practice directed mainly toward the application or transmission of existing knowledge. The program of study leading to the Doctor of Education, as a professional degree, focuses on the utilization of research knowledge, rather than on the production of new research knowledge. Those who aspire to leadership positions as administrators, policy analysts, curriculum designers, or learning resource specialists, for example, would appropriately seek the Doctor of Education degree. </p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you are absolutely fixed on a career in primary or secondary education, the Ed.D. will probably serve as well as a Ph.D. from a career standpoint. If you end up in the business field, though, or plan to teach at the college level, the Ph.D. will serve you better.</p>
<p>I'd say that the Ed.D. is perceived as being a lighter weight degree because of the lack of original scholarly research requirement and the general perception that any teaching-oriented degree is less rigorous than a degree in another academic discipline. Why is the latter the case? Probably because many "teachers colleges" have minimal entrance requirements and often lack a rigorous curriculum. </p>
<p>(Remember a few years ago when more than half of the newly-graduated teachers in Massachussetts failed high school-level aptitude tests? This kind of stuff is why teaching degrees carry a stigma, and why many believe that a rigorous undergrad program in science or liberal arts, for example, would produce more qualified teachers. I'm sure there are holders of teaching degrees who are brilliant academics, but they suffer from having too many less qualified peers.)</p>
<p>The school may make a difference, too - a noted program like Columbia Teachers College will carry more weight than a little-known state teachers college.</p>
<p>This is all an interesting discussion. I attended the Harvard Graduate School of Education and the doctorate degree there is an EdD. There are many professions in the field of education, beyond teaching/research at colleges. There are administrators, for example. I can tell you that the program at Harvard's Ed school is very rigorous, involves scholarly research and practice and the accomplishments and positions of its alum are far reaching in the field of education. Perhaps this is not typical but it surely was not a "lightweight" program and its degree is a well respected one in the field of education. I guess it depends on what you want to do. A PHD is more appropriate for teaching college, for instance. To specialize in education itself, an Ed.D can take you places. Most EdD candidates were not looking to necessarily teach. They had already been teachers before entering the program. The work being done at Harvard's ED school has affected many school systems in this country and its graduates are working in all facets of education. Not everyone going into education is going to teach a "subject". Some are studying education itself and how to create better schools and so forth. Much of that involves scholarly research as well. There is a study of learning as well. Students at HGSE are prepared to understand research, policy and practice and the relationship between them. Some graduates become educational leaders, policy makers, and researchers.</p>
<p>Another issue I have with PhD programs is that you can't do them part time, while you can do an EdD part time.</p>
<p>I agree with the post above - I had professors in grad school with EdD's from Harvard and was told that they are essentially considered to be PhD's. But I've only heard that with regards to Harvard GSE. </p>
<p>When I was in grad school, the PhD program and EdD program were the same in terms of coursework - the only difference was the dissertation and the need to create new knowledge with the PhD.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd say that the Ed.D. is perceived as being a lighter weight degree because of the lack of original scholarly research requirement and the general perception that any teaching-oriented degree is less rigorous than a degree in another academic discipline. Why is the latter the case? Probably because many "teachers colleges" have minimal entrance requirements and often lack a rigorous curriculum.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is true that many teachers' colleges are not as rigorous as they should be but that surely is not true of graduate schools of education?
My S had a student teacher who was pursuing an EDd from the Harvard Graduate School of Education. This young man had gone to Tufts and was doing research on literacy acquisition under the direction of Catherine Snow, a very respected scholar in this field. He first worked as a volunteer, following a group of kindergarteners as they moved up grades, learned to read and write. He then became a paid student teacher while pursuing his research. He now has an EDd, and is a full-time teacher at the elementary school. Last June, he attended the graduation ceremony of the group of students whom he had first met in Kindergarten and provided him with the data for his dissertation.
I have read Liping Ma on teaching mathematics (a study undertaken at Michigan), and she certainly conducted research, as did her mentor, Deborah Ball. There seems to be quite a bit of controversy over the methodology employed in some education research. but research does occur.</p>
<p>The Harvard Ed.D, however, is considered to be a Ph.D. by the standards of other institutions. It's one of the only schools that doesn't offer a PHD in Education - I think this can be confusing to people outside education. In short, Harvard Ed.D. = Education Ph.D. everywhere else.</p>
<p>I think it all comes down to personal goals. Ed.D's are typically paid for out of pocket whereas Ph.D's are usually sponsored by the university. Most Ed.D. programs (excluding Harvard as it is an aberration) are less selective as well since the GSE's aren't paying the bill.</p>
<p>Ok...I have a couple questions...</p>
<p>Bill Cosby got his Ed.D from UMass where his thesis was essentially the Fat Albert cartoon as a teaching aid. Now, was Cosby just unusual to complete a research thesis in association with his Ed.D degree, or is it common at some universities? Or was it just a different day (1977) with a different set of requirements for the Ed.D? If so, are Ed.D's that were issued 30 years ago worth more than Ed.D's of today?</p>
<p>Most Ed.D's do require a research dissertation - however it is typically not held to the same standards as a Ph.D. and is often a lot shorter. But yes, there is a research component to an Ed.D.</p>