Talk:Doctorate

From Academic Kids

Template:Onlinesource2004 The normal minimum period for completing a PhD is 3 years.

I don't know what universe you're living in. On my planet, most departments have a normative time of AT LEAST 5 years, often 6. It is VERY rare for someone to finish in 4 years or less. It is not unusual at all for someone to take 7-10 years to complete a Ph.D. Revolver

Hm. It may depend on when you start counting -- at the end of your secondary education or after you have already received a Master's degree? --KF 13:36, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Okay, normative time given a master's is about 4-5 years in my field, maybe 3 at the least, but still up to 6 or more. Normative time from bachelors (secondary education) is usually 6-7, give or take. In any case, to say 3 years is normal is a joke, masters or not. If other doctorates take 3 years or so, this should be said specifically, not said as if any generic doctorate takes 3 years. Revolver 10 Nov 2003

There is an underlying problem here of course: We cannot compare the educational systems of different countries with each other. Even if certain isolated phenomena are exactly alike they will probably be known by different terms. (Just have a look at that weird numerus clausus article.) You may find some ancient talk at Matura interesting, as in secondary education the problems seem to be analogous.

But I'm rather hopeful that one day Wikipedia will have articles on doctorate, bachelor etc. that include information from all over the world and are also intelligible to people wherever they are. --KF 23:34, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Okay, how is this. In my field, most people are between the ages of 27 and 30 when they complete their Ph.D. or doctorate, and this is when there is no period of absence from academic studies. Before 27 is not unheard of, although most mortals are at least 25. Myself, I'll be finishing next spring, and I'm 30. So you can see why "4 years past secondary" seems really off to me, if secondary is really the equivalent of K-12 in North America, then this means the minimum normative age to receive Ph.D. in math is at age 22, which is complete nonsense. Revolver

By "3 years" I mean from the time the candidate becomes a PhD student. (This is the minimum period in all UK universities.) If a person is 18 when they begin their bachelor's degree and do a 1-year master's degree afterwards, then they will be 22 or 23 (depending on whether the bachelor's was 3 or 4 years) when they start their research. A further three years minimum for their PhD pushes their age up to 26. This is the soonest point at which they are legally allowed to submit their dissertation: Please note that only a few "whizz-kids" actually achieve this. Most take at least another 2 years - making them 28 when they actually obtain the PhD. So I think, Revolver, that this pretty much agrees with what you are saying. Jamie123

Yes, that's fine, for someone who comes to the talk article, but the way it was worded before (and still to an extent now) it gives a confusing impression. It's very confusing regarding absolute legal minimum times and normative times. The normative time is much more meaningful number to give people than a "minimum" time, say an absolute legal minimum time almost never achieved (if such policies exist, I'm not sure they do everywhere). If a lot of people take twice as long or longer than the minimum time, what's the point in mentioning it? Revolver

The use of the term doctorate for the first-professional doctors is not correct in the UK and elsewhere. Is this perhaps correct for Europe or US? The term first-professional is new to me. Where does that come from? I think that those professionals do not hold doctorates and the implication in this article is that they do. This article implies that all dentists, e.g., holds a degree at the highest level. I'm unsure how to correct the article. Paul Beardsell 23:58, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But I have had a go and I have improved it but there is some way to go. One example is the implication in one part of the article that a D.Sc. is somehow not as good as a Ph.D. (in a science field) yet elsewhere the likes of the D.Sc. is recognised as being for a much more substantial contribution - so much so it is rarely awarded. The latter is my understanding. Perhaps someone who really knows this subject could be persuaded to contribute. Someone actually responsible for this at a university, e.g. Paul Beardsell 05:11, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To enter into Pharmacy school only requires an Associates degree rather than a Bachelors degree. In addition, Medical school only requires applicants to have 90 credit hours to apply. This article makes it sound like a Bachelors degree is required to enter into all professional schools, which is often not the case.

Doctoral vs Doctorate

Two words derived from "doctor". The article title is "Doctorate". The use of the word doctoral is wrong in respect to a doctorate degree? There are doctoral degrees: But "doctoral" is surely being used as a synonym for "medical". Is not the adjective pertaining to "doctorate" also "doctorate". Yes? Paul Beardsell 11:15, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Doctoral" is the adjective, as in a "doctoral degree, doctoral defense, doctoral dissertation"... it is incorrect to say "doctorate degree"--- in that case one would simply say "doctorate". "Doctoral" does not simply refer to medicine. Asta2500 13:52, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Since the Doctor of Pharmacy is a first-professional doctorate, I removed it from the list of research-oriented doctorates. It appears further down, under First-professional. Asta2500 15:10, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)