Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Advice from Catholics

Oh, the old Ph.D./ M.D. debate, I can't help myself.
First point that hasn't been addressed specifically: the objective for the training programs is completely different. An M.D. program is to teach one to cure people; sometimes in a hurry because they've shown up at the emergency room and their guts are on the floor.
A Ph.D. program is SUPPOSED to teach one how to go about original research-- designing experiments that that can test a hypothesis and give meaningful results.
Learning how to save the life of someone standing right in front of you bleeding is a completely different mindset than making original contributions to the store of human knowledge.

Second point not yet addressed:
M.D. programs are subject to stringent nation-wide standards.
Ph.D. programs vary WIDELY in difficulty. Most are longer than an M.D. Some are much harder, physically, emotionally, and mentally, than M.D. programs. Some are a cakewalk.

Combined M.D./ Ph.D. programs were first introduced in a big way by the NIH during the 80's in an attempt to improve the quality of clinical research. It was certainly needed. The perception was that many clinical experiments are flawed in that they failed to test any hypothesis, and only provided anecdotal evidence if they came out the way the clinician hoped. If they didn't provide the results predicted, they were inconclusive. However, you needed the clinician viewpoint to at least ask those clinical questions.

That said, I agree with Todd that if I need a procedure done, I want the person who does it in her sleep without a hitch-- no Ph.D. or even M.D./Ph.D. is getting near me!

No, I don't think so. Let me check. . .

Nope. That's not what this thread was about.

But, there has been lots of beneficial info on topic, much appreciated.

:rolleyes:

C'mon, rvaga - you should know by now that we NEVER stay on topic!

And hey, Kathleen! The neighborhood was all abuzz a few weeks ago about a handsome guy on a bright red motorcycle... Jodi

Oh, the old Ph.D./ M.D. debate, I can't help myself.
First point that hasn't been addressed specifically: the objective for the training programs is completely different. An M.D. program is to teach one to cure people; sometimes in a hurry because they've shown up at the emergency room and their guts are on the floor.
A Ph.D. program is SUPPOSED to teach one how to go about original research-- designing experiments that that can test a hypothesis and give meaningful results.
Learning how to save the life of someone standing right in front of you bleeding is a completely different mindset than making original contributions to the store of human knowledge.

Duh girlfriend, Subject covered in my post on the subject. <<Learning how to shut off the valve of a drain in front of you that's dripping is a completely different mindset than making original contributions to the store of human knowledge.>> Or did I miss quote?

Second point not yet addressed:
M.D. programs are subject to stringent nation-wide standards.
Ph.D. programs vary WIDELY in difficulty. Most are longer than an M.D. Some are much harder, physically, emotionally, and mentally, than M.D. programs. Some are a cakewalk.

Also covered girlfriend. MD programs are different and so are requirements--why else would malpractice insurance premimiun be so high?

Combined M.D./ Ph.D. programs were first introduced in a big way by the NIH during the 80's in an attempt to improve the quality of clinical research. It was certainly needed. The perception was that many clinical experiments are flawed in that they failed to test any hypothesis, and only provided anecdotal evidence if they came out the way the clinician hoped. If they didn't provide the results predicted, they were inconclusive. However, you needed the clinician viewpoint to at least ask those clinical questions.

That said, I agree with Todd that if I need a procedure done, I want the person who does it in her sleep without a hitch-- no Ph.D. or even M.D./Ph.D. is getting near me!

And that said, no Ph.D. or even M.D./Ph.D. is getting near me when I need my toilet changed.

And your point in all this?

Geeze, boyfriend - lighten up. :rolleyes: Jodi

For a time I taught at a Jesuit college -though I'm not Catholic. All the clerics were referred to as "Father" and I don't recall coming across the title "Reverend" anywhere except in print during my time there.

As for the Ph.D., when I was younger and thought such things were of grave importance I was very eager to be referred to as "Doctor". Nowadays, I find that I think of the Ph.D. as just one more piece of baggage I've acquired over the years. In my experience, "professor" is the the title I've most commonly heard --I suppose owing to the fact that a number of faculty members of various academic rank do not hold a doctorate. All the same, faculty with the JD are not regarded as as "Doctors". I remember some faculty squabling back when I started teaching concerning faculty with JD's being classed as having the equivalent of an MA (for step/placement on the state pay, the JD being treated as occupational degree, which is how I suppose MD's and such are handled). All of it, imo, really silly stuff.

-N

Sorry, but girlfriend Kathleen began a-preaching without having read what was written on the subject in the thread. She begins by saying:

First point that hasn't been addressed specifically:

but, it had been, as well as her second point. Seems she didn't do her homework--a little like the surgeon down here in Florida that amputated the wrong leg on some poor guy. (Better yet, they just caught a neurologist down here with a whole collection of human brains in his freezer!)

Anyway, "girlfriend" needed a spanking. And "boyfriend" is jut the man for the job.

netizen, I know what you mean. Personally, I prefer students to call me Dr. in academic settings, and professor is equally used (I do not like to be called by my first name, though some adult students do this -- I don't mind, it's just that I have a weird first name!!). Outside of school, it's totally irrelevant. Point about the distinctions you mention -- yes, we went through that here and it comes up now and again. Degrees, ranking, and of course how it reflects in pay scale.

Now, back to religion, here's what I've learned. . .

All Catholic ordained priests are reverends in title, yet it is inappropriate to address them as reverend. The correct spoken salutation is "Father." Written salutation would be "Reverend," and not "Father." Written acknowledgement would be to "The Reverend" or could equally be "Father."

"The Most Reverend" is a Bishop (not sure of this one). "The Very Reverend" is a potential candidate to be a Bishop (hmmmm, not sure).
Correct spoken salutation for a Bishop is indeed "Bishop" and not "Father." Same is true in written correspondence.

In all cases, outside of Mass, there is no way to necessarily tell what rank a person is, except that a Bishop may wear a gold cross or gold cross on a chain across the heart.

The religious title supersedes the academic, although the ecclesiastical and academic ranks can be appropriately combined in written form, e.g., "The Most Reverend Dr. XXX" or "The Most Reverend Professor XXX." The latter sounds wrong though. In Europe, the combination of titles is common, we are less formal in the U.S. (and probably not as sensitive to incorrect address?)

All Nuns are addressed as "Sister" in both spoken and written address. A "Mother" is more of an administrative head of a group of Nuns, appointed by the regional Bishop, and the correct title is "Mother" in spoken and written address.

Regardless of whether a person is Catholic or not, there is no distinction in how a person addresses Catholic clergy (you see, I originally thought "Father" was only from a Catholic to their priest).

OK you Catholics, grade my paper above <grin!>.

Personally, I give myself a "C" since I suspect there are a couple of misconceptions (now THERE'S a religious word that gives secular visions. . .) above.

TomK

Your personality pool is really shallow.

lb

Hey Jodi, he made it home eventually, thanks for feeding him! I've been out on my little red number (scaring the living daylights out of myself).

And TomK, what is your problem??? Why do you so easily switch between abject apology and name-calling? This is only an internet forum, not the WWF.

If you want to stay on topic, it was Catholic schools and the proper way to address persons. I note that you stated you had spent your entire academic career in Catholic schools, but what did you learn besides "the proper way to address" a nun or father (I put that in quotes because I was going to use a different phrase- just fill in whatever you wish).

And TomK, what is your problem??? Why do you so easily switch between abject apology and name-calling? This is only an internet forum, not the WWF.

Kathleen,

Nice of you to address me personally.

You had the really bad manners of launching into you ta-da without having actually read anything that was written in this PARTICULAR discussion. You seemed to be resurrecting ghosts of previous post from the forums of Christmas past.

All well and good, except one of my pet peeves in life is the dislike of that ugly little perversity of people talking AT one another not TO one another. You did that, and granted, I took a rather rugged voice with you for it, and at rereading I regret my harshness; yet while my posts may be somewhat uncalled for in scope, they are not so in tone.

And this: you delved further into this morass by bringing up questions of my Catholic education. Never did that with who you were--I was topical not personal. (Not unless you actually thought you were my girlfriend!)

With your personal invective you take the matter to another level, don't you? But, I'm willing to forgive and forget. Hope you will, too. Lets be friends.

Somehow we never hit it off did we? You seem to be (please correct me if I'm wrong,) a conservative when it comes to pianos, chat forums, music, etc.

Like all conservatives you seem to condone the ebbing away of standards and values, so long as it doesn't offend the delicate sensibilities your friends.

Me, I'm a reactionary and an idealist. I think some things are right and some are wrong. Period. I don't pretend to be vaguely politically correct. (Just view my correspondence with the matrons of the Great Northwest.) I'll argue my point in bad taste and good. I may be be sometimes decent, rude, nasty, hopeful and happy--but above all honest. But in the end, I won't wallow in the hopelessness of the in-between.

Am I shallow, or is the city on the hill that I see the undiminished version of the one you'll never see, and maybe that angers you? Am I shallow or is your head swimming with the truth of it all?

lb, I'll give this to you--you're a true gentleman, in the full 20th Century use of the term.

Sure TomK, I can forgive and forget. I do believe my last post went a bit further than I wanted it to go, but when I am attacked I will attack back. I did not think your personal attack and the comments on spanking and girlfriends were appropriate, and while I thank my friends for defending me, I felt the urge to speak up for myself and, so to speak, spank you back.

I am also a product of the Catholic schools (dropped out of Catholic HS after 2 weeks). So I know a bit about where you are coming from. As for whether we can be friends, we're acquaintances, leave it at that.

Dear Kathleen,

Thank's for making everything so nice. I "spank you," you "spank me back," : your words! So. we're different?

And you never address the issues of your screed: why preach without reading?

but when I am attacked I will attack back.

Why. For some moral purpose, or just revenge. Like to know,
My Dearest Aquaintance.

Why are you so bummed out that Kathleen expanded on what you originally said? You don't feel she gave you any credit for it? You think maybe she said it better than you did? You've been reading this forum for how long, and haven't figured out that sometimes people post the same idea over again? So she made a mistake when she said the point hadn't been covered. Your "duh, girlfriend" comment came off as pretty rude, whether you meant it that way or not. Of course, maybe these reactions you get are really what makes your day? :p Jodi

NO! I'm objecting to her lack of discussion. I'm objecting to her preaching. I'm objecting to her not saying, "hey, here's what I think." I'm objecting to her I, I, I, I, I, I, I , with nothing to counterbalance.

And then in end Kathleen attacked me. Personally. Maybe the same, maybe worse. Maybe you should write her a nasty note, too.

She was shrill, and I called her on it. I was shrill too, no question about it. Maybe a lesson to be learned for us all!

This is a thread about religion. God reads threads about religion, I'm darn close to being positive about that.

So. . .

. . . behave, or duck when you see a thundercloud! :p

BTW - for you literal types, the above is a joke. God does not talk to me, especially on holidays. You do not need to duck when you see a thundercloud, simply duckwalking will do.

and, so to speak, spank you back.

So,I consider myself appropriately spanked by Kathleen (all I really wanted anyway,) and from this discussion I will retire.

TomK, I can't figure you out. You slam, then you make nice, you make nice and then *whammo*. You must be one heck-of-a dinner guest. Jodi (walking like a duck, and looking at the sky...)

TomK

No, we have never hit it off, and we go back so far. You keep returning but you never get any better.

lb