The debate surrounding Dr. Jill Biden’s use of the honorific “Dr.” ignited a firestorm, initially perceived as mere misogyny. However, digging deeper reveals a more complex issue: a long-standing undervaluation of the field of education itself, the very discipline in which Dr. Biden earned her doctorate.
A contentious op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal sparked the initial wave of criticism, questioning the appropriateness of addressing the then-incoming First Lady as “Dr.” This piece was swiftly and widely condemned as sexist, and rightly so. The patronizing tone, exemplified by the author’s use of “kiddo” when referring to Dr. Biden, strongly suggested a gender bias that would be unlikely to surface when addressing a man with a similar degree. While the personal attack felt gendered, the underlying sentiment hinted at a deeper academic snobbery.
The author, Joseph Epstein, seemed to argue that the title “Dr.” should be reserved exclusively for medical doctors. This perspective, although echoed by style guides like AP Style which advises caution in using “Dr.” for non-medical doctorates, reflects a narrow and arguably outdated view of academic achievement. Epstein further suggested a hierarchy even within doctorates, seemingly favoring hard sciences over humanities, social sciences, and particularly, education. He pointedly mentioned that Dr. Biden holds an Ed.D.—a Doctor of Education—rather than a Ph.D., and dismissed her dissertation title, “Student Retention at the Community College: Meeting Students’ Needs,” as “unpromising.”
However, labeling research focused on community college student retention as “unpromising” seems particularly shortsighted given the well-documented challenges of dropout rates within these institutions. Instead, it suggests a preconceived notion that research in education lacks academic rigor. This assumption has unfortunately been amplified by voices on the right, with some commentators going so far as to call an Ed.D. a “joke” and Dr. Biden’s dissertation “garbage,” nitpicking typos and perceived flaws to delegitimize her academic accomplishments.
These attacks are not only unfair but also misrepresent the nature and value of Dr. Biden’s work. Her 137-page dissertation is a substantial piece of research, grounded in surveys and interviews with students, faculty, and counselors. It offers practical recommendations, such as integrating writing instruction across the curriculum. While, like many academic works, it may contain minor errors, its clarity and practical insights are commendable, especially when compared to much of academic writing.
The critique, however, inadvertently touches upon a crucial point, albeit misdirected at Dr. Biden personally. Her dissertation, while valuable, does not adhere to the strict scientific method typical of fields like physics or medicine. It’s not designed to test a specific hypothesis through randomized controlled trials. But this isn’t a deficiency in Dr. Biden’s research; it highlights a broader characteristic of education research itself.
Historically, research in education has often diverged from the scientific method, partly due to a different set of priorities within the field. Ideology has, at times, been prioritized over empirical evidence. The dismissal of phonics instruction, despite overwhelming scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness, as “your science, not my science,” exemplifies this ideological divide.
Furthermore, schools of education often exist in isolation from, or even in opposition to, other academic disciplines. Despite significant advancements in the science of learning in recent decades, this knowledge often fails to permeate teacher training programs. While education research professors may be aware of these scientific findings, instructors who train future teachers often are not, hindering the integration of evidence-based practices into classrooms.
While quantitative, experimental research is vital, there is also a significant place for qualitative and applied research like Dr. Biden’s. Case studies and practical investigations into real-world educational challenges offer valuable insights and contribute to the field. The real concern isn’t the type of doctorate Dr. Biden holds, but rather the broader gap between scientific understanding of learning and the prevailing practices in education and teacher preparation.
Dr. Biden’s dissertation highlights a persistent issue: the lack of college readiness among many incoming students. Her recommendations for enhanced writing instruction and study skills programs point to a need for better preparation in earlier education. However, the root of this problem may lie in the K-12 emphasis on general skills over specific knowledge. This prioritization, often rooted in educational theories that discourage explicit instruction and diminish the importance of factual knowledge in the age of readily available information, contradicts scientific evidence on how learning actually occurs.
Instead of questioning Dr. Biden’s well-earned title, we should celebrate her commitment to education, her years of dedication to her field, and her continued service as a community college instructor even as First Lady. The energy spent debating her honorific would be far better directed towards a critical examination of how to strengthen education research, bridge the gap between learning science and classroom practice, and ultimately, make teaching more effective and learning more accessible for all students. Let’s move beyond petty debates about titles and focus on the real work of improving education, a cause to which Dr. Jill Biden has demonstrably dedicated her career.
