<p>I see the EdD dissertation as more of an in-depth case study where you apply existing theory and knowledge vs. a PhD where you create new theory and knowledge.</p>
<p>I think that if you don't want to be a professor or the president of a Ivy plus institution, but are intersted in administration then the EdD is a good route. But I can only speak for higher education - not sure about EdD's for other areas of education.</p>
<p>When I first started out in education, I was an assistant in a unit that was filled with persons with Ed.Ds. At first, I was impressed to be working with the likes of Doctor A and Doctor B, some of whom had degrees from highly prestigious schools. However, I quickly learned that many of my colleagues lacked both analytic and writing skills. In fact, some of them rarely produced anything more than incoherent gibberish. In that unit, there was actually an inverse correlation between ability and credentials. The fewer degrees a person had in education, the more competent the person generally was. I have learned over the years that a Ed.d signifies that a person has perseverance and ambition in terms of wanting to move up to administrative or leadership positions in education. The degree may also mean that the person has core competency and is highly skilled and knowledgeable about some aspect of the discipline of education, but I dont take that as a given based on the degree.</p>
<p>There are some Ed.D.s that are the same as other Ph.D.s in education.</p>
<p>Harvard University Ed.D.
Boston University Ed.D.
Rutgers University Ed.D.
Columbia Teachers College Ed.D.</p>
<p>These Ed.D.s should be regarded as equivalent to other schools’ Ph.D.s (or even better in cases of Harvard and Columbia). Their Ed.D.s are research oriented degrees, and so the Ed.D. holders from those universities are well qualified to take an academic position.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not equipped to comment on the changing expectations of the Ed.D. degree since l977. I do recall Bill Cosby on the campus. He handed out cigars to every student walking through the UMass campus center to celebrate his successful defense of his dissertation. Great fun.</p>
<p>I have an intense prejudice against the Ed.D after watching, for years, the antics of people with that degree who are running and sometimes ruining our public school. It bothers me that they insist on being called “Dr.” but will turn around and refer to Ph.Ds in other areas as “Mr.” or “Mrs.” My prejudice is fueled by the couple of superintendents that were brought in, found to be less than adequate, paid off to leave the district and then go on to collect six figure salaries from other districts. And then there was the one who was caught plagiarizing. I can only assume he was never instructed on academic honesty in the courses he took to earn his degree. All of the Ed.Ds we’ve had in our schools earned their degrees part time. I do think it matters where and how the degree was earned. Can you imagine a research scientist earning her degree while she held down a full time job, even if she had summers off?</p>
<p>I think the sentiments are clear, basically if you have an option get the PhD.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I imagine the Harvard Graduate School of Education would be pleased to offer a PhD in education, but they are not allowed to do so. Harvard’s policy is that only the Graduate School of Arts and Science (GSAS) may grant PhDs. The law school gives out JD’s, the business school gives DBAs, the medical school MDs, the dental school DDS’s, the school of public health DPH’s, the divinity school gives Doctors of Divinity, and the Kennedy School gives Doctors of Public Administration, but only GSAS can grant PhDs at Harvard. (The Kennedy School is also involved with the PhD in Public Policy, and offers the first two years of training towards that degree, but students must transfer to GSAS in their third year in order to get a PhD in public policy–this is in accord with Harvard’s general rule that GSAS has a monopoly on PhDs. Similarly, students in the MD/PhD program at Harvard Medical School are jointly enrolled at GSAS for the PhD and HMS for the MD.)</p>
<p>Not sure why this thread was revived after 3 years. And I have to wonder why a Rutgers Ed.D., or even a BU Ed.D. should be considered “equivalent” to a Ph.D. Those that want a Ph.D should, IMO, pursue one.</p>
<p>Celgin, I was just curious as to how you know that the specific Ed.D.s (i.e., Harvard and Columbia) you mentioned are regarded as equivalent to other schools’ Ph.D.s? I only ask b/c I am considering both an Ed.D program at Columbia and a PhD program at the Univ of IL that I was accepted to. Thanks!</p>
<p>using my alter ego to remain a bit more anonymous…</p>
<p>I have far more respect for a Ph.D than a Ed.D, based on folks I know in education who have the various degrees. There’s a masters in educational leadership that doesn’t wow me, either.
(tempering my words here)</p>
<p>The technical distinction between the two is, as stated aboved, usually a course or two fewer in a foreign language and research methology for the Ed.D., in favor for a few more practitioner-related courses. I have an Ed.D. and I’ve been a Student Affairs professional for 30 years, the last 16 as a Vice President for Student Affairs. I have never served as techning faculty nor sought a teaching position. Since the day I completed the Ed.D. 20 years ago, not a single person has ever mentioned the distinction between an Ed.D. or a Ph.D., nor asked me which one I have. If I were to pursue a faculty position it might become more relevant, but of course I would pursue a faculty position in a School of Education, where the Ed.D. would be just fine.</p>
<p>^^^ One minor point-- if a person with an Ed.D. is considering pursuing work in the clinical arena and wants to consider applying as a provider on a managed healthcare plan, many managed healthcare plans will not credential an Ed.D. However, if one plans to stay in academia, this would not be an issue.</p>
<p>Very interesting entries. I’m currently in an Ed.D program in Organizational Leadership. It seems that everyone feels that an Ed.D is only for if someone is planning on going into or staying in the field of education or an Ed.D would only be applicable to the field of education when that simply isn’t the case.</p>
<p>In the field of Organizational Leadership one is not limited to education in an administrative or pedagogical capacity. One can pursue a career in a consulting, human resources, for non-profit, management or analyst capacity and beyond.</p>
<p>No disrespect to current and/or future holders of Ph.Ds from various institutions but I’m in post grad to get more bang for my buck rather than prestige. I would not want to stop working just to enter a Ph.D program and I do not feel that I am ‘less than’ to that effect.</p>
<p>In today’s economy what matters is being marketable and being as financially secure as possible not whether one program is more rigorous than the other. Besides, anyone that has experience executing the skills they’ve learned from whatever degree they’ve obtained knows the degree doesn’t make you. There are plenty people out there that may be academically strong with undergrad, grad and post grad degrees yet have about as much common sense as a paper weight. </p>
<p>My point is the credentials doesn’t make the person. And the bottom line is, more often than not, people continue their education in order to advance in their careers or move into an entirely different career not so they can brag and boast about which program is more rigorous than the other. In that effect you can call me a “light weight” all you want. I’ll be a “light weight” while the “heavy weights”, the Ph.ds, are making about the same salary or less.</p>
<p>Wow. Dig up the thread from a year ago. Curious, <em>new poster</em>… if… all things being equal, you could have chosen a PhD or EdD degree (again-- assuming everything else was equal) , which would you have chosen?</p>
<p>I may be “new” but I found this thread a little over a year ago before I made the final decision to go the Ed.D route. I only recently joined to post an opinion.</p>
<p>Again–it’s about the MONEY not the prestige.</p>
<p>I’ve researched programs on the M.A., Ed.D., and Ph.D level from Art Therapy to Industrial Organizational Psychology to Language, Literacy and Culture over the last two years. </p>
<p>Everything points to the same conclusion: More time and money is wasted obtaining a Ph.D as opposed to an Ed.D. Again–this is looking at the issue from the perspective of a person that is already in a career and looking to make a seamless, uninterrupted advancement.</p>
<p>^^^ The question was, ALL THINGS being equal (time, cost, etc) would you pick an EdD or a PhD program?</p>
<p>If you read closely your question was more than answered. </p>
<p>If you read my answer you would understand, first of all, that my picking an Ed.D program wasn’t a snap decision.</p>
<p>Once I complete this program I have no desire to stay in the classroom–period–in a public school or college capacity.</p>
<p>At the very least I may entertain opportunities to work on in an administrative capacity on the college level. But my goal is to go beyond the educational arena.</p>
<p>The previous discussion, from last year, was focused largely on clinical and academic positions. Credentials don’t make the person, but in some cases they do make the job. Not sure whose graduate programs you think make as much common sense as a paper weight. Just seemed like an odd reason to resurrect a long dead thread.</p>
<p>I didn’t know one had to have permission to resurrect a thread. If I’m new to a discussion board and I find a topic to be interesting a person should have the right to comment in that thread no matter how old it is.</p>
<p>Apparently, you must still be interested or you would have ignored my comment in such an old thread.</p>
<p>And my comment about the paper weight was in reference to the INDIVIDUAL not the PROGRAM.</p>
<p>But more importantly, I felt the need to resurrect the thread because I felt the comments in reference to Ed.D were rather limited. </p>
<p>I found this thread over a year ago by doing some extensive internet research. When I first came across this thread I felt the Ph.D was the way to go. But now that I’ve actually been in an Ed.D program and gained more of a clear perspective of the true difference between the Ph.D. and the Ed.D, which is MONEY, where the rubber hits the road, I felt it was time to give a broader response.</p>
<p>Anyone that comes across this thread during their search for enlightenment should recieve a broader scope than the one that has been presented. </p>
<p>So, to that effect, pursuing an Ed.D program is not limited to teaching in a classroom or being a principal.</p>
<p>Wow. Chill.</p>
<p>If you are new to cc, you are probably not aware that the settings can be set (I believe it is a default setting) such that when someone posts in a thread that others posted in, that new post shows up in the other posters email. So, <em>poof</em> your post showed up in my e mail. So I read it. And it sounded critical of Ph.D.s. Maybe you didn’t mean it to sound that way, but thats how it sounded to me- saying many were a waste of time and money, that you were in it to get more bang for your buck than prestige (no disrespect intended by you…) Some programs make as much sense as a paper weight to you. Ouch. Not nice. Maybe no disrespect was intended, but it came across as disrespectful nonetheless. The implication about Ph.Ds was harsh, IMO. I responded, wondering if you truly preferred the EdD degree. If your comment about the paperweight was in reference to the person, not the degree, that was confusing. Even with your explanation, it sounds like you are saying some people with advanced degrees may be total flakes. Ouch again.</p>
<p>In the political forum in particular, there are a lot of posters who register under a new name to post an unkind or controversial comment in a thread about a politically sensitive topic. Seems to happen a lot over there. Also happens when someone wants to resurrect a very old thread (which takes some searching… though it also happened last year with this particular thread too-- someone pulled it up after several years). </p>
<p>In some cases pursuing an Ed.D. may make fiscal sense. In others it does not. Good luck to you in your endeavors.</p>
<p>And no, you don’t need anyone’s permission to resurrect an old thread. It just takes skill to find the thread in order to post in it, (unless you happen to remember the name of the thread) and thats not something new posters are often savvy at doing.</p>