The question “Is Jill Biden A Doctor?” sparked a national debate, fueled by a mix of political commentary, academic snobbery, and genuine confusion about the nature of doctoral degrees. It began with a seemingly innocuous on-air remark from Whoopi Goldberg, co-host of The View, who suggested Dr. Jill Biden for Surgeon General, praising her as an “amazing doctor.” Goldberg later apologized, clarifying that she had been mistaken about the type of doctorate held by the then-future First Lady. This incident, followed by a controversial Wall Street Journal op-ed by Joseph Epstein urging Dr. Biden to “drop the doc,” ignited a broader conversation about the use of the “Dr.” honorific, particularly in the context of non-medical doctoral degrees like the Doctor of Education (EdD).
This renewed scrutiny arrived as Jill Biden stepped onto the national stage during the 2020 presidential election, heralding back to earlier, quieter discussions about her title. Back in 2009, Los Angeles Times columnist Robin Abcarian noted the consistent use of “Dr. Jill Biden” in campaign materials and White House announcements, prompting journalists and academics to question its appropriateness. Even then, opinions were divided, ranging from amusement to outright disapproval. Yet, the Biden team persisted, and many media outlets followed suit, despite style guides like the AP Stylebook reserving “Dr.” primarily for medical professionals.
The recent uproar, however, transcended simple style debates. Epstein’s piece triggered a wave of criticism, largely accusing him of sexism and elitism. Northwestern University, where Epstein once taught, swiftly distanced itself, emphasizing its commitment to diversity and inclusion. But amidst the furor, the core issue raised by Epstein, and indeed inherent in the initial confusion, risks being overshadowed: the evolving meaning of the “Dr.” title in an era of expanding higher education and varying doctoral degrees, particularly the Doctor of Education. It’s less about whether Jill Biden should be called “Dr.” and more about understanding what an EdD signifies, its history, and its place within the broader academic landscape.
Understanding the Doctor of Education (EdD) Degree
To understand the crux of the “Dr. Jill Biden” debate, it’s essential to delve into the origins and purpose of the Doctor of Education, or EdD, degree. Its emergence in American academia is rooted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a period marked by significant shifts in higher education. This era witnessed the rise of formal teacher training programs, integrating pedagogy with the burgeoning field of psychology. Simultaneously, universities were establishing advanced professional degrees in fields like law and medicine, alongside embracing the research university model pioneered by Johns Hopkins University.
The EdD was conceived within this dynamic environment, intended to establish education as a legitimate, scientific, and professional discipline. Interestingly, this occurred even as the field of education was still developing a robust and universally accepted body of knowledge. Columbia University’s Teachers College launched the first Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) program in education in 1893, followed by Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education, which established the first EdD program in 1920. By 1934, Teachers College also introduced its own EdD program. Today, both degrees are commonly offered by major research universities.
Harvard’s creation of the EdD was deliberate, designed to differentiate it from the PhD in Arts and Sciences. This separation served to appease academics in traditionally more research-focused disciplines who questioned the rigor of education as a field, while simultaneously granting autonomy and prestige to the burgeoning Graduate School of Education. The EdD degree, in practice, evolved to prioritize professional training for educators and administrators, contrasting with the PhD’s emphasis on research and scholarly inquiry.
As Frank Freeman noted in his 1931 study, the EdD appeared designed to “organize existing knowledge instead of discovering new truths.” This distinction is echoed by institutions like the University of Virginia School of Education and Human Development, which explicitly differentiates between its PhD program, aimed at “academic scholars who develop a line of research,” and its EdD, a “professional degree designed to support practitioner-scholars in… solving problems of practice in a work setting.” EdD candidates often focus their research on practical, workplace-related issues, sometimes utilizing their own workplaces as convenient study samples.
The Debate Over “Dr.” Jill Biden and EdD Standards
The controversy surrounding Jill Biden’s use of “Dr.” isn’t solely about the honorific itself; it taps into broader anxieties about the perceived rigor and value of EdD programs. Critics point to the often less stringent requirements of EdD programs compared to PhDs, particularly in fields outside of education. While credit hour requirements may be similar, EdD programs often entail less demanding coursework, residency expectations, and dissertation requirements.
Notably, many EdD programs are designed for part-time completion, sometimes with limited coursework outside of the education school itself. In some cases, a capstone project may substitute for a traditional dissertation. Jill Biden’s own dissertation, “Student Retention at the Community College Level: Meeting Students’ Needs,” while a substantial piece of work at 120 pages, has been characterized by some as more akin to a capstone project than a rigorous, original research dissertation expected of a PhD. One commentator even described it as having a “term-papery feel.”
This perception of a less rigorous standard is further fueled by the symbiotic relationship between EdD programs and school districts. EdD programs provide a pathway for teachers and administrators to ascend the career ladder and increase their earning potential. School districts, in turn, often incentivize doctoral degrees through salary increases. This creates a system where taxpayers effectively subsidize both EdD programs and the salary bumps associated with them, raising questions about the demonstrable benefits for students. The concern is whether this “dollars-for-doctorates” system truly enhances educational outcomes or simply inflates credentials without a corresponding increase in expertise or effectiveness.
Calls for Reform and the Future of the EdD
Concerns about the value and standards of EdD programs are not new. Throughout the history of doctoral education in education, numerous proposals for reform have emerged. Some, like Geraldine Clifford and James Guthrie, have suggested eliminating the PhD in education altogether, focusing EdD programs more directly on teacher training. Conversely, Thomas Deering argued for abolishing the EdD to prevent confusion with the PhD, advocating for the PhD as the sole terminal degree. Arthur Levine, former president of Columbia University’s Teachers College, proposed a radical transformation of the EdD into a master’s-level degree, akin to an MBA, emphasizing practical application over research.
A more moderate approach, gaining traction in some institutions, involves strengthening the EdD by re-integrating it with broader university resources and research standards. Harvard Graduate School of Education’s decision in 2014 to transition from the EdD to the PhD reflects this trend. Harvard explicitly stated that this shift was intended to “better signal the research emphasis” of the program and “strengthen ties with academic departments across Harvard University.” This move towards a more interdisciplinary approach, similar to traditional PhD programs, could potentially elevate the rigor and prestige of doctoral studies in education.
Ultimately, the “Dr. Jill Biden” episode serves as a catalyst for a crucial conversation about the evolving landscape of higher education and the meaning of doctoral titles. While etiquette expert Steven Petrow’s call to “start calling people as they wish” emphasizes personal preference and respect, the underlying questions about academic standards and the value of different doctoral degrees remain pertinent. The debate isn’t simply about whether Jill Biden has the right to be called “Dr.”; it’s about ensuring that doctoral degrees, including the EdD, maintain their integrity and continue to represent genuine expertise and significant contributions to their respective fields. Perhaps, as Terry Stoops humorously suggests, reserving “Dr.” for those who “heal the sick” might be a simplification, but it underscores the need for clarity and distinction in an increasingly credentialed world.
