The question “What Kind Of Doctor Is Jill Biden” surged into public discourse, sparked by a mix of admiration and skepticism surrounding Dr. Jill Biden’s use of the honorific. It began with an on-air proposition from Whoopi Goldberg, co-host of The View, who enthusiastically suggested, “I’m hoping Dr. Jill becomes the surgeon general, his wife. Joe Biden’s wife…she’s a hell of a doctor. She’s an amazing doctor.” This public endorsement, however well-intentioned, quickly revealed a common misconception about the nature of Dr. Biden’s doctorate.
Dr. Jill Biden speaking, highlighting the public interest in understanding her doctoral degree.
Goldberg, later corrected on air, apologized for assuming Dr. Biden held a medical degree. This initial misunderstanding was just the opening act in a wider debate. Later in the year, Joseph Epstein’s Wall Street Journal op-ed reignited the discussion, pointedly asking Dr. Biden to “drop the doc.” Epstein’s piece, while criticized for its tone, tapped into a pre-existing undercurrent of questions about who rightfully earns and uses the “Dr.” title, especially in an era where advanced degrees are increasingly common.
This controversy surrounding Jill Biden’s title wasn’t entirely new. As far back as 2009, during the early years of the Obama-Biden administration, concerns were raised about the consistent and prominent use of “Dr. Jill Biden.” Robin Abcarian, then an opinion columnist for the Los Angeles Times, noted the frequent use of the title in campaign materials and White House announcements. She sought opinions from journalists and academics, revealing a range of views from amusement to outright disapproval.
Robin Abcarian, journalist who questioned the consistent use of the “Dr.” title for Jill Biden early in her public life.
Joel Goldstein, a law professor at St. Louis University, reportedly found the emphasis on the title “mildly amused.” Amy Sullivan, a writer for Time magazine, expressed a common sentiment, stating it felt “a little bit obnoxious” when someone with a PhD, rather than an MD, insisted on being called doctor in everyday contexts. Bill Walsh, a desk chief at The Washington Post, offered a more direct perspective: “if you can’t heal the sick, we don’t call you doctor.” Even the AP Stylebook, a guide for journalistic writing, stipulates using “Dr.” primarily for those holding medical degrees (MDs), alongside dentists, optometrists, and veterinarians.
Despite this early scrutiny and established style guidelines, the Biden camp continued to use the title, and many media outlets followed suit. However, the landscape of public discourse shifted dramatically by 2021. Epstein’s more recent essay triggered a swift and intense backlash. Accusations of sexism and other forms of prejudice were leveled against him, and Northwestern University, where Epstein had once taught, distanced itself from him completely.
Yet, beneath the immediate outrage, Epstein’s piece touched upon a more profound issue: the value and perception of doctoral education itself, particularly the Doctor of Education (EdD) degree that Dr. Jill Biden holds.
So, to directly answer the core question: Dr. Jill Biden is a Doctor of Education. She earned her EdD from the University of Delaware. This degree is distinct from a Doctor of Medicine (MD) or a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). Understanding this distinction requires delving into the history and purpose of the EdD.
The EdD degree emerged from the evolving landscape of American higher education in the 19th century. This period saw the rise of formal teacher training programs, the professionalization of fields like law and medicine with advanced degrees, and the adoption of the research university model. The EdD was conceived to establish education as a legitimate, scientific, and independent field of study. Interestingly, this occurred even as the field of education was still developing its own established body of knowledge. Columbia University’s Teacher’s College launched the first Doctor of Philosophy program in education in 1893, followed by Harvard University establishing the first Doctor of Education program in 1920.
Harvard’s creation of the EdD was a deliberate move to differentiate it from the PhD, typically awarded in arts and sciences disciplines. This separation aimed to appease academics who questioned the rigor of education studies and to empower education departments seeking autonomy. The EdD, in practice, became focused on the practical training of educators and administrators, rather than the more research-intensive focus of a PhD. As Frank Freeman noted in his 1931 book, the EdD seemed designed to “organize existing knowledge instead of discovering new truths.”
Book cover referencing a historical perspective on the purpose and practice of EdD degrees in American universities. (Note: Replace “no_image_available.jpg” with an actual image URL if found)
The University of Virginia School of Education and Human Development, the author’s alma mater, clearly distinguishes between the PhD and EdD programs even today. Their PhD program is described as developing “academic scholars” focused on research, while the EdD is a “professional degree” for “practitioner-scholars” solving practical problems in their work settings. EdD candidates often conduct dissertation research within their own workplaces, utilizing convenient samples.
While credit hour requirements might be similar, the rigor and focus differ significantly. PhD programs typically involve years of full-time study, coursework across arts and sciences disciplines, and a demanding dissertation defense. Many EdD programs, conversely, can be completed part-time, with coursework concentrated within the education school, often considered less rigorous. Some EdD programs even substitute a capstone project for a traditional dissertation. Dr. Jill Biden’s own 120-page dissertation, focusing on community college student retention, has been described as more akin to a capstone project or an extended term paper in its scope and depth.
This structure creates a mutually beneficial system between EdD programs and school districts. Aspiring administrators pursue EdDs to climb the pay scale, as public school salaries are often tied to credentials. This influx of students provides revenue for EdD programs, subsidized in part by taxpayers. Despite this system, evidence supporting the claim that these “dollars-for-doctorates” translate to improved outcomes for students remains scarce.
Throughout the history of doctoral programs in education, there have been calls for reform. Some proposals have suggested eliminating the PhD in education to focus EdD programs on teacher training. Others have advocated for eliminating the EdD to avoid confusion with the PhD and maintain the PhD as the primary research doctorate. Arthur Levine, former president of Columbia University’s Teachers College, even proposed transforming the EdD into a master’s-level professional degree, similar to an MBA.
Harvard Graduate School of Education’s decision to transition from the EdD to the PhD in 2014 reflects a move toward emphasizing research and strengthening ties with broader academic disciplines. This interdisciplinary approach, mirroring the author’s own PhD experience at the University of Virginia, is presented as a potential path to elevate the quality and rigor of doctoral studies in education.
In conclusion, the debate surrounding “Dr.” Jill Biden’s title highlights broader questions about the meaning and value of different doctoral degrees. While the honorific itself may be a matter of personal preference, as etiquette expert Steven Petrow suggested, the underlying discussion about the rigor and purpose of the EdD degree is significant. Ultimately, understanding “what kind of doctor is Jill Biden” requires recognizing the Doctor of Education for what it is: a professional doctorate with a distinct history, purpose, and set of strengths and weaknesses within the landscape of higher education. Perhaps, as Terry Stoops humorously suggests, we should all simply be called what we wish, while reserving “Dr.” for those who truly heal the sick – a sentiment that underscores the ongoing, and often complex, conversation about academic titles and their perceived value.
Terry Stoops, the author, offering his perspective as an expert in education studies. (Note: Replace “no_image_available.jpg” with an actual image URL if found)
