Dennis said:
I don't see how you can argue this. Doctorates are doctorates -- you've got to study for them all. Having a Ph.D doesn't make you any smarter or higher than another doctorate. You're still an expert in your field. Maybe some silly socialites state that "Ph.D's are way better than being an M.D.," but those people are probably those who paid with their rich daddy's money for their degree instead of earning it.
Actually, it's more complicated than that. There is a difference between the academic and the professional doctorate because each designates a different set of responsibilities and roles.
Universities are actually themselves symbiotic organisms. You have the university proper (usually the Arts & Sciences School or the school that awards the BA, MA, PhD and like degrees), and then you have vocational schools attached to the university (School of Business, School of Law, etc). These vocational schools confer degrees that are designed for professional application and are not of the major academic disciplines emphasized in the university proper.
The university awards academic doctorates. Vocational schools attached to the university award professional doctorates. There is also a separate ranking for different types of vocational doctorates (level 1, 2, 3 -- an Ed.D. by the way, is level 3) because vocational doctoral-level degrees vary from one another.
When you have an academic doctorate, you have been awarded the degree through the university's graduate academic process, which is at the crux of the university itself. Vocational schools are on the fringes of the university. See where I'm going with this?
When you have an academic doctorate, you have gone through the core of the university and not through the ancillary programs. There are a number of limitations on the professional doctorate that do not apply to the academic doctorate.
I'll give you the most important limitation: assuming administrative
academic roles. The university president is an administrative academic role and is open to academic doctoral recipients.
There are some exceptions to the limitations of a vocational/professional doctorate, and that can actually apply to Gallaudet's situation, however. I still think that someone who has gone through the formal university process may be more qualified in understanding of the operations of the university than someone who goes through the ancillary processes.
The difference, however, is that being Gallaudet president is so much more than just being some university president. When you're the president of Gallaudet, you're also a cultural icon, and I think that's what this is about. If Ron Stern or Stephen Weiner is really the better candidate, then I'm going to to go with them.
Right now I think I'm just going to have no opinion and say whoever is best is best.
