Talk:Doctor of Education

Unjustified Biased and Negative Angle on the EdD

As a person currently doing an EdD at the third best (and third oldest) university in the UK, I find this article to be woefully biased and misleading. It is clear that many people editing this article do not have a lot of experience or knowledge about the topic.

Overall, my general impression is that this article paints the EdD as inferior the PhD. This is not fair, accurate, or helpful to the general readership that uses Wikipedia as a source of information. There needs to be less emphasis on comparing the degree to the PhD. Writers also need to understand that America is not the world. Education systems in other countries approach the EdD and PhD differently. Also, many universities have different requirements for the EdD (just like the PhD). I get the general impression that the people editing this page are not really education scholars. I can say that I am a specialist in this field.PaterEst (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• I would gently advise restraint in criticizing other eds here. I think what you are experiencing is emotional reaction to efforts that are trying to give a neutral description of the EdD. The section for the UK seems now to be the most detailed. The section for the US is still grossly misleading in that it omits important facts related to the questionable future of the degree itself (of which there is much WP:RS), the fact that it is primarily a career-advancement tool in the US secondary school system, e.g. for teachers to transition to administrative positions, and the fact that, even though the "Ed.D. is recognized for appointment as a lecturer or professor in a university", the overwhelming majority of faculty in the US higher education system are PhD holders, not EdD holders. My observation from periodic reviews over the history of this article has been that there have been many efforts to push/promote the status/prestige of the EdD (which resulted in comparisons to the PhD to which you referred) by eds having a vested interest in this cause. Agricola44 (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• • I agree, moreover, now the whole article except for the history borders on, if not wholly is, WP:OR or is just a list of dissertation requirements at different institutions; and all cited material in the USA section is gone. The problem is most discussion of the Ed.D. that i have found has been relative to the Ph.D., because there has been problems distinguishing the two from the day the Ed.D. was birthed. In other words, aside from individual institutional admissions and dissertation requirements, most WP:RS can't talk about what an Ed.D. is without also talking about a Ph.D. in education, because both are doctorates in education, and because most scholarship on it tries to clarify the distinction between it and a PhD; and that says a lot in itself. No one questions the fact that one can earn a Ph.D. in any number of areas. However, when one can earn a Ph.D. in education, the question naturally arises, "then what is an Ed.D. and how is it different?"--Lhakthong (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• • • This is PaterEst. May I please ask you have blocked me? This makes no sense at all. I am not sure how to appeal because I do not have time to figure out the intricacies of Wikipedia. Some people have to work and study for a living. I have not done anything wrong. It is disappointing that instead of reasoned debate, I am subjected to infantile behavior that just shuts people up. It is ironic that this is taking place in on a topic related to education. Why are the people so hell bent on making the EdD sound controversial. It is not controversial in the UK, yet you paint it the whole degree with an American brush stroke. Then even when the discussion of controversy is raised for the American context, the research is decontexualized since the article being referred to was with regard to EdDs in Educational Administration (a specific case). It is obvious that the people who dominate this article do not have an EdD and they probably do not personally know anybody who has gone through this type of doctoral program. Now because of some knowledge fascist I am now unable to edit in a way that responsibly links edit to a specific user. What has been accomplished here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.204.233.110 (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ed.D. vs. Ph.D.

I am going to write this again. Why is there such a big emphasis on (1) the US perspective on the EdD and (2) comparing the EdD to the PhD? This article started out dealing with the EdD strictly from a US perspective. Is this Ameripedia? I also think that there is way too much comparison with the PhD. It is completely obvious that the people writing this crap do not have an EdD. It looks like a lot of PhD graduate with a lot of bias. PhD-lite? Is this a joke? This article is still very poor in quality. A little disappointing. I have made some edits to remedy these problems. Can we be more responsible?PaterEst (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't edit this page.--PaterEst (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it interesting how my comments were pushed down.--PaterEst (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There is much confusion here concerning the Ed.D. designation, so much so that this article is highly biased.

As college professor in the United States, the Ed.D. is primarily awarded as an honorary degree. Those who receive the title honorarily are, as a matter of custom, not entitled to the title of "doctor".

Beyond honorary appointments, some colleges do award the Ed.D. as a professional alternative to the Ph.D. in education (similar to the DBA vs. Ph.D. in business). The difference is that the professional degree is more applied science, where as the Ph.D. is more theoretical. Typically, the top research universities only hire Ph.D.s as professors, since those universities are primarily focused on research. Teaching schools hire a mix with the Ph.D. graduates as preferred. The reason is that theoretical research typically nets more NSF and other grant money as well as increases the likelihood of publication in an A-list journal. For similar reasons, consulting firms tend to prefer the professional degree graduates.

Because the Ph.D. is more theoretical, it is often the more difficult of the two programs; however, this depends on the specific school and program. In the doctoral heirarchy, however, the Ph.D. is held in higher regard.

It is also worth noting that the Ed.D. degree is the primary "doctorate" granted by many online diploma mills and online universities.

I agree with what you've written save the bit about the Ed.D. being primarily awarded as an honorary degree in the U.S. To the contrary, I think that's relatively rare. JJL 03:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? The College of William and Mary has an Ed.D. in their School of Education. Is W&M a diploma mill? Sometimes it is not really clear (see here) why two degrees exist. I think this is a bit more complex and peculiar to an institute than you might think. For instance, their PhD and EdD programs in Counselar Education contain the exact same courses. Quite frankly I think in many cases it's a matter of politics.--The Founders Intent 18:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably best not to defend something's intellectual rigor by making a fallacy. 64.111.151.124 (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

He said that if it's a diploma mill, then it usually grants an Ed.D. He didn't say that if it grants the Ed.D., then it's usually a diploma mill. I believe the point is that weaker colleges offer the weaker degree; stronger colleges may offer either (or both), and as you note the reasons are often somewhat quirky. JJL 21:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have several problems with this entry. Firstly, I am earning my EdD from Durham University. Durham University was recently ranked the third best university in the UK -- hardly a diploma mill. I think most people who have earned an EdD from a good university would be very offended to read someone suggest that the EdD is granted mainly by diploma mills. Diploma mills also give out PhDs with the same frequency. These types of comments are absurd. Secondly, the EdD, just like the PhD, means different things in different countries. This article is very biased toward framing the EdD within the American context, and thus a very distorted view of the EdD is presented here. Thirdly, it is difficult to understand why this article starts with distinguishing the EdD from the PhD. I think more sophistication is needed when defining the EdD. Fourthly, arguing that the PhD is more theoretical than the EdD is not true. EdD dissertations can be very theoretical, just as PhD dissertations can be also be very practical depending on the discipline. Fifthly, it is obvious that many of the commentators below have no idea what they are talking about. The EdD is hardly an honorary degree. Columbia University's Teachers College, for example, awards the EdD for most of its programs. In fact, as mentioned in the complete article, Harvard University only awards an EdD for a terminal degree in Education. Sixthly, it is disturbing to read the intellectual snobbery that claims that the EdD is a weaker degree. On what grounds? Empirical evidence in peer reviewed research does not support that view. I guess Wikipedia has a way to go before it can provide reliable information on this topic.--PaterEst (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This article very biased and it does a diservice to people who are earning or graduated with an EdD. People usually come first to Wikipedia for initial information. I would like to see more objectivity. I do not have time to do a rewrite. Hopefully, someone who really understands this issue can do it--PaterEst (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

At Durham University the EdD and PhD have "exact parity of degree status" and they clearly say that:

"The EdD thus moves from a broad base to a specific thesis which, though shorter and more focused than a PhD thesis, has to reach the same level and be judged by the same criteria as the PhD thesis. The EdD and PhD have exact parity of degree status."(http://www.dur.ac.uk/education/postgraduate/edd/learning_objectives/)

The EdD thesis is shorter than the PhD thesis at Durham University due to the fact that the EdD has coursework which required research papers whereas the PhD is earned by a single thesis with no coursework. In the end, the word count is virtually the same. This is the case at Durham University and many other universities in the UK.

Interestingly, just to make a point, the EdD at Durham University is also expected to make an original contribution to knowledge:

"On completion of the programme students will be able to demonstrate, through assignments and the thesis:

1. A critical and broad contextual knowledge and understanding of a range of significant educational issues.
2. A critically evaluative understanding of research methodology and its application to the field of education.
3. A sophisticated level of critical analysis, reflection, evaluation and other related skills, drawing appropriate connections in independent study; the ability to work autonomously.
4. An ability to analyse, test and criticise ideas in an independent study of educational literature related to a specific theme.
5. Understanding of the relationship of the special theme of their thesis to a wider field of knowledge, to demonstrate mastery of that special theme and the ability to evaluate ideas within it.
6. An ability to produce an original contribution to knowledge and matter worthy of publication." (http://www.dur.ac.uk/education/postgraduate/edd/aims/)

I wish I had time to clean this entry up. I will depend on others to do so. --PaterEst (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

PaterEst, I agree that the article could use more work making the distinction between the degree in the UK and the degree in the US. Unfortunately, I'm on the US and cannot edit as intelligently on the status of the degree in the UK. One of the greatest difficulties we've had with the US description is the wide range of ways in which people earn Ed.D.'s, depending on the institution. Sometimes it's a traditional academic research degree, sometimes it's a practitioner's professional degree. Hopefully someone can fill out the UK section. I did find this video by a faculty members at U of Liverpool pretty informative on the general distinction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rXThipMaME--Lhakthong (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lhakthong, That video is good in that is points out that the EdD in the UK is moderated by very clear standards that are equally rigorous to the PhD. This is indisputable. However, its weakness is that it only describes what an EdD at Liverpool is all about. Durham University, where I am a student, is very different in its focus. People have done all kinds of interesting innovative research that is not on higher education.--PaterEst (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Lhakthong, I think many of the issues people raise in this article are exactly the same for the PhD. PhDs are not the same at every university, and there are a wide range of programs. The EdD is like any other degree. You have look at the university and program. The problem with this article is not only the inaccuracy of the British EdD and EdD in general, but the entire way this article frames the EdD as inferior the PhD. It is just nonsense. It is very clear to me that several people feel like they need to demote the EdD as much as they can. However, very little of all of these negative opinions can be backed up by any evidence.--PaterEst (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

First, a lot of what's on this page is old. Second, for the record, I don't agree with a lot of it. To the article: once the claims in the article are well sourced and cited, I think we readers have to work to separate out what the article is stating and how we feel about it. For example, I imagine people might be upset at how the article talks about the birth of the Ed.D. as a professional doctorate, because they, the reader feel that a professional doctorate is inferior. Nonetheless, that's how the Ed.D. was started, and the claims are cited to a verifiable, reliable source. So, as far as the article goes, we have to just focus on finding claims that are cited to verifiable, reliable sources. Regarding the varied admissions and dissertation requirements, I think the current organization structure allows for those to be hashed out in the regional sections (UK, USA, etc.). The UK section of the article does state that the rigors are equal but the aims different between the degrees and is cited to a research article (not just making the argument through listing individual Uni examples). I think the problem with this article is that it had at one point a lot of editing that tried to make the Ed.D. sounds as though it's the same degree as a Ph.D. and that although both are rigorous, that the rigors are the same (is the rigor of a PhD the same kind of rigor as an MD?). The task for editors ultimately is to describe the Ed.D. well without undue and overdrawn comparisons between the Ed.D. and Ph.D. Would we make such comparisons on the MD, JD, Eng.D or MBA pages?--Lhakthong (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Lhakthong, the problem with this article is multifaceted. Just from personal experience, I can tell you that the PhD holders in education are not any more or less qualified to do research or teach than EdD holders. As far as I am concerned, the distinction between EdD and PhD must be made on a case by case basis. Just as the PhD in Education has different requirements at different universities, so does the EdD. The research article that is being used to argue for the difference between EdD and PhD is contested research. It hardly represents a consensus in the field. Furthermore, it is "research" that is must be read in context -- that is to say the American context. In fact, I think citing it as a fact shows poor research skills and misrepresents the subject. The EdD is not the subject of controversy. Many people have it, and many of those people have made significant contributions to the academic literature and professional practice. The EdD is here to stay. There is no sense trying to compare it to a PhD. Need I remind you that the PhD is a rather new innovation from the German educational system? I think the real problem is that PhD holder want to protect status that is being displaced by innovation and change in higher education. The PhD space is being contested and problematized by a wider recognition of what constitutes knowledge, rigor, and power to control educational bureaucracy. This argument is about hegemony and control. It is pathetic. Perhaps my interruption of the hegemonic snooty discourse in this article will cause people to think for a moment what the purpose of the academy is -- to create knowledge. This is not the exclusive preserve of three magical letters known as P-H-D. PaterEst (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Another ed with a vested interest shows their teeth. Agricola44 (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC).

Title of Doctor

So, if you have an Ed. D, would you be bestowed the title of "Dr. ...."?

Yes, it is a full doctorate that tends to be issued by the school of education within univeristies. No difference, at all, from a PHD

Yes, you get to be called Dr. But, see footnote 2 here: [1]. JJL 06:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The footnote you reference is confusing. It states that Ed.Ds are only considered "Doctorally Prepared" in the field of education. Duh! Is that not true of PhDs also? One is only "Doctorally Prepared" in their field of study. Also, the cited source for this information is meaningless. The AACSB means nothing outside Schools of Business; thus the AACSB has no standing in the debate surrounding Ed.D credentials.

The comment above is very strange. Doctorally prepared? The EdD is a full doctorate.--PaterEst (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed.D. vs. Ph.D.

I do feel that an Ed.D. requires less research than a Ph.D., although I am aware that some Ed.D. students do perform an equivalent amount of research nonetheless. Looking here [2], for example, the degrees are at different levels ("Each refers to a different level of achievement"), and the Ed.D. is a professional doctorate for practitioners. Another very specific example, from a dept. offering both the Ed.D. and Ph.D. in the same subject, is here [3]: "Both a proposal and a dissertation are required by all doctoral students. PhD students must defend their dissertation during an oral examination." Apparently, Ed.D. students need not defend their dissertation. From NYU again, this program [4] requires 6 more points (credits) of dissertation research and 6 more points of research courses for the Ph.D. than the Ed.D. This is exactly what I am talking about! The Ed.D. often requires a more project-sized investigation. Look here [5] for another example: An Ed.D. requires "the preparation and defense of a dissertation" whereas the Ph.D. requires "preparation and defense of a research dissertation" (emphasis added). These are on the same web page, contrasting the degrees. Look also here [6] and here [7] (same program, Ed.D. vs. Ph.D.); for the Ed.D., "The dissertation may involve research and evaluation and/or development of theory-based curriculum and staff development programs." (i.e., evaluation and development of programs are viable options). Here's a 3-year Ed.D. from the same school [8], showing the clear professional focus. I think it's clear that the Ed.D. requires, asa rule, less research, and allows a more project-based appraoch. I'm sure there are exceptions. JJL 15:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The comment above is not accurate. My EdD requires a oral defense in addition to being subjected to an external examiner. It also depends what country you are in (just like the PhD). These comments ridiculous!PaterEst (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

   The comment that Ed.D. candidates are not required to defend their dissertations is incorrect (see Ed.D. Inaccuracies, below).

The comments above are very difficult for me to understand. I am currently doing my EdD at a British University. We have to submit our dissertation to an examination commitee and undergo an oral defense with internal and external examiners. The quality of our academic work is also to the same standard as PhD students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.204.233.81 (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed.D. Inaccuracies

Ed.D. Inaccuracies

The statement that Ed.D. candidates are not required to defend their dissertations is incorrect. I have an Ed.D. and work in an environment with many Ph.D.s and Ed.D.s. I also sit on a comprehensive exam committee of an Ed.D. program. I don't think I have ever met an Ed.D. (including myself) that was not required to orally defend his or her dissertation. In a study of Ph.D. and Ed.D. dissertations (Content Analysis of the Ph.D. Versus Ed.D. Dissertation,Winter 1994 issue of Journal of Experimental Education (vol. 62, no. 2), 158-68.) significant differences were not found between dissertations published by the two and the authors concluded that there is little or no difference in academic rigor.

With respect to the footnote indicating that Ed.D.s are only considered doctorally prepared in education, I would consider that inaccurate as Ed.D. programs in psychology are recognized as meeting the licensing requirements for a practicing psychologist in the U.S. (see Pyschology Education in the United States - http://www.ccla.pt/infocenter/estrutura/Psychology.pdf). Thus, Ed.D.s in Psychology are clearly recognized as being doctorally trained in the field of counseling psychology and not education. Other Ed.D. programs focus on competencies in organizational behavior, institution administration, organizational leadership, and educational technology as well as many other areas of focus.

Comment about Ed.D. inaccuracies

As someone who will hopefully be pursuing a Ph.D. program (Fall 2007 – Higher Education Leadership), I would like to acknowledge a statement that was made by a previous person.

The 'Ed.D. Inaccuracies' author wrote, "Thus, Ed.D.s in Psychology are clearly recognized as being doctorally trained in the field of counseling psychology and not education." Technically - this is a true statement. However, I don’t care for it because most people pursuing that type of program generally end up working in an educational institution upon completion of the degree. That is why it is an Ed.D. in Psychology. An Ed.D. program in educational psychology focuses on how psychology works within the context of education, or its application within an educational institution.

For the past two years, I have spent MANY hours researching Ed.D. and Ph.D. degree programs; primarily looking at the difference between their approaches to, and their application of research. In my experience, I found that most Ed.D. websites in counseling psychology stress the importance of obtaining a job within the field of education (or educational related setting) when they finish their program.

[Counseling Psychology] and [Psychology] are are not the same at Virginia Commonwealth University. Although psychology has become a catchall for various subsets, it is generally associated with clinical psychology. Regarding Ed.D., see my comments above.--The Founders Intent 19:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact, most university websites are careful to point out that those interested in obtaining a terminal degree in psychology (outside of an educational setting) should pursue either a Ph.D. or Psy.D. I think it is inaccurate to lead readers in believing that one who goes for an Ed.D. in Psychology (with the goal of being a counselor) will be pursuing jobs in the private sector when finished with their degree. Yes, they’ll be certified. No, that’s not generally the degree that one would pursue when leaning towards the private sector.

what type of literacy skills do doctors need??????????????????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.113.132.57 (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

    Mad ones. --192.154.91.225 (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

EdD vs PhD

Do EdD and PhD graduates have the same status when they are applying for the professor post in the university? Will PhD graduates always have a higher priority? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.126.253.120 (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

NPOV

From the second paragraph onwards the article reads like a piece of propoganda. Don't compare PhD and EdD so much - it seems like this article is more of a defense of the legitimacy of an EdD in the face of claims that PhDs are more glorious, or whatever. If you want to compare the two, find some sources and put this argument in a section of its own. The freddinator 02:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The article doth protest too much, methinks.--Lhakthong (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Citations missing

This article needs to be cited throughout. Please add citations as possible, where possible; otherwise, feel free to remove uncited POV. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 13:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

List of schools

This is unusual in an article like this (compare other articles) and seems to conflict with WP:LIST. I think it should be removed. JJL (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Still Problematic

The WP:NPOV problems do not seem to have resolved very much. The article immediately assumes an offensive posture relative to the PhD and maintains this theme in various places. It also makes statements that, while not outright false, are grossly misleading. For example, "the Ed.D. and Ph.D. are both recognized for appointment as a lecturer or professor in a university" omits the fact that the overwhelming majority in academia hold a PhD. The most glaring omission is the long-established and still ongoing debate about the degree's continued existence, which is well-documented in the literature e.g. Rethinking the EdD, Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates, the ESL report, Deering's 1998 paper (Eliminating the doctor of education degree: It’s the right thing to do. Educational Forum, 62(3), 243–248), various articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education, among many such articles. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC).

Agreed. JJL (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Lhakthong (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction in first paragraph

"Like other doctorates, (e.g., the Ph.D., D.A., D.Sc., and so on), the Ed.D./D.Ed. is a terminal degree and is not recognized by the National Science Foundation (NSF) "as equivalent to the Ph.D.""

The way this reads is that the NSF does not consider a Ph.D. to be equivalent to a Ph.D. I would suggest making the change that I indicated with a strike-through. 96.241.24.246 (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

More on the First Paragraph

IP 108 has language in the first paragraph that misrepresents the citations. The lanugage is, "The EdD...is recognized by the National Science Foundation as equivalent to the PhD." Following this are two citations. The first is from the NSF and states that the EdD is a research degree. The second is not from the NSF, but from the Department of Education and says that the NSF claims that the EdD is equivalent to a PhD. This second citation is second-hand information and cannot be used to support the sentence. Further, IP 108 keeps deleting sourced material claiming that the EdD is not equivalent to the PhD. Wikiant (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikiant continually uses information from a few discrete university programs as evidence that the EdD is not equivalent to a PhD. There are numerous empirical studies that show otherwise. The evidence cited in the first paragraph is directly from the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation and is there for descriptive purposes. The National Science Foundation makes very clear that the EdD is a research degree equivalent to a PhD on its Survey of Earned Doctorates. Any discussion from individuals or specific programs is best addressed in the "Differences between an Ed.D. and a Ph.D. in Education" section, where Wikiant previously added "Others claim that the Ed.D. emphasizes a broad scope of knowledge and skills related to the practice of education, whereas the Ph.D. emphasizes more breadth and depth in theory and research methodology than does the Ed.D." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.244.202 (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If the NSF does say that the EdD is equivalent to the PhD, then provide the citation. What you have provided is a citation of what the DoE *claims* the NSF says. Further, universities in the US do not obtain authority to grant degrees from the government, and so the DoE and NSF claims carry as much weight (I would argue less weight) than claims by the universities themselves. The "Others claim..." sentence cites actual universities that grant the EdD and PhD degrees. These cites are at least as relevant as the DoE and NSF cites. Wikiant (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The NSF National Opinion Research Center does consider the Ed.D a "Research Doctoral Degree" in its survey of earned doctorates, the most recent version I could find. In contradistinction, it does not consider the M.D., Psych.D, or D.D.S., research doctoral degrees, but rather professional doctoral degrees, as seen here.--Lhakthong (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems the several federal agencies that sponsor the survey (like the NSF and DoE) are just that: sponsors. The survey is actually headed by the National Opinion Research Center, a social research organization at the [University of Chicago]]. Certainly you aren't going to say that a research group at U of C has no authority to comment on the issue, are you?--Lhakthong (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Survey of Earned Doctorates, on the first page, says "Type of Research Doctoral Degree (e.g., Ph.D, Ed.D, etc.)". Proof enough. It also gives a description of the survey, which supports much of the other claims as well.--Lhakthong (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Going back to the older and more balanced description.

A couple of users keep deleting sourced and referenced material without explanation. I'm happy to discuss the pros and cons of the deletion, but simply deleting material isn't acceptable -- particularly when the deletions all involve counter claims to claims being made elsewhere in the paragraph. What you end up with is POV. Wikiant (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I just posted a warning on User_talk:Onemoreforyou. You might want to seek a WP:3PO. However, if there is just more unexplained reverting of the same content, a WP:3PO would likely be useless, and you can report it here--Lhakthong (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be just one editor using multiple accounts. One account has already been blocked but he or she has just started using another one. This editor is going to end up banned if he or she continues to edit war without discussion. He or she has been warned multiple times so it's in his or her hands at this point. ElKevbo (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume you are also just one person using multiple accounts. (If you deny this, I can play as you do using different accounts and acting schizophrenic.) All I am trying to do is to return the old version, the one that was there before you added unjustified bias and disdainful comments. The academic status of any degree holders is not evaluated by the degree name but by the capacity to produce a good research. No one in education field will look down upon you at any conference, for instance, only because you have a certain degree. Especially in the education field, as educational studies itself is an applied social science, there is no difference between an Ed.D. and a Ph.D. Also I have seen a number of Ph.D. holders incapable of conducting a good research. The difference in academic status does not lie in the degree appellations, but in actual research works that can really demonstrate a degree holder's capacity. Simply citing others' views is not enough. If you want to spread such a misleading bias, come up with actual data to show the difference in academic status. Goodwillforyou

The persistent edit-warring by Goodwillforyou and his/her multiple accounts are sock puppetry, plain and simple. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onemoreforyou. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And for good measure the article has been edit-protected for two weeks in what is hopefully a reasonable state so no amount of new sockpuppet account creation will have an effect - during which time perhaps this person will get bored and move on to something else. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Setting aside your ad hominem attacks, I appreciate your personal opinion. But it's a bit idealistic and it's definitely not shared by everyone. If you read some of the sources you have tried to move around in this article you'll quickly see that many people do not believe that the EdD and PhD are equivalent. ElKevbo (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't wandered by in quite a while, but I see that matters haven't improved much since my last visit. While I understand that emotions can run high on this issue, Goodwill's points are all testimonial. The article still doesn't really reflect reality in that the EdD is, in fact, a beleaguered degree, whose elimination is frequently discussed within academic circles (see my above refs), and the fact that the overwhelming majority of academics hold a PhD or MD (in medical schools). It would help balance the article to add, for example, the Jacobson paper from the The Chronicle of Higher Education. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC).

The Jacobson article about Levine's view you mentioned above is mainly about the doctorate in majors called "educational leadership" and "educational administration." You should also be reminded of the fact that there are some universities that offer 3-year 'PhD' programs in educational leadership or educational administration, all of which fall under Levine's criticism that such practial doctorates must be eliminated. At the same time, there are very rigorous research-focused EdD programs in academic subjects such as educational sociology, educational neuroscience or second language acquisition. At Teachers College, there are many research-oriented EdD programs in academic concentrations, and Levine (and also the article itself) continuously clarifies that his attack is on the doctorate in administration and leadership. Thus, the names of the degree, either the Ed.D. or the Ph.D., do not well clear out the target of Levine's attack, though he points to only one of them. Most Ed.D.s are not similar to the internship-based M.D. in any aspect. I agree with Levine and all the others that any doctoral degrees earned with credits and internship must be gone, but such an argument does not directly translate into an attack on a particular degree, as both the Ed.D. and the Ph.D. are installed in such practical concentrations depending on the universities. If there is anyone who wants to point this out, make sure to make it clear that 'both EdDs and PhDs in educational administration and leadership are under certain criticism' instead of the so far attempted inconsiderate blanket rejection of one particular degree regardless of its awarding institutions and/or majors. Exactbird (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Another SPA jumps in. Let's not get bogged-down in minutiae. The point is that this article is a POV piece that strains to give an overly-rosy assessment of the EdD degree. It purposely excludes numerous sources that discuss the degree's beleaguered status and the fact that there are somewhat frequent debates within academia whether to eliminate it altogether. Until that side of the story is included (perhaps in a "criticisms" section, as is conventional in WP), the article will remain a POV-ish mess. Agricola44 (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC).

Agreed. If anything is for certain, it's that there is no clear consensus on how an Ed.D compares to a Ph.D., because there is no categorical uniformity on what an Ed.D is. In some programs it is a research degree (sometimes equivalent to a PhD and other times not), in others it is altogether different: a terminal professional practice degree.--Lhakthong (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. {{sofixit}} :) ElKevbo (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The Redden Article

1) The Redden article says, "A new project to re-envision the education doctorate, or the Ed.D., at 21 universities nationwide grows out of the basic premise that there’s no clear distinction between the Ed.D., in theory the professional practice degree, and the more research-oriented Ph.D. in education." I read that as the project to re-envision the degree grows out of a premise, in part, of the theoretical distinction. That does not mean the project is posing the premise as the theoretical distinction. That would be a misread. The project arises out of the fact that although in theory the two degrees should be different, in practice research has shown they are not; and so they argue we need to re-envision what the Ed.D is so that it can be what it is: different than the PhD. What was in the WP article was not disingenuous. It's what was in the article and is evidenced by their research. From research published in Educational Researcher by Schulman, et.al:

"In theory, these two degrees are expected to occupy overlapping yet distinct categories. The Ed.D., intended as preparation for managerial and administrative leadership in education, focuses on preparing practitioners—from principals to curriculum specialists, to teacher–educators, to evaluators—who can use existing knowledge to solve educational problems. A Ph.D. in education, on the other hand, is assumed to be a traditional academic degree that prepares researchers, university faculty, and scholars in education, often from the perspective of a particular discipline. Research questions, techniques, and thesis requirements for the Ph.D. are expected to be more theoretical than for the Ed.D. and are similar to those in other academic disciplines (Anderson, 1983; Dill & Morrison, 1985)."

2) Saying "Some have argued" is using weasel words and should be avoided.

3) I'm not sure why you are including some parts of the article and deleting the rest. Whether we like it or not, whether justified or not, the Ed.D is not as respected as the Ph.D. in the United States. It is considered--rightly or wrongly--"Ph.D. lite". From the same published research by Schulman et.al: "This threat forced the faculty to answer questions of purpose that challenged existing structures, including implicit biases that treated the Ed.D. as a 'low-end Ph.D.'" Regardless, the writing was verifiable and should not have been deleted. If you want to balance it out with other research/authoritative sources arguing that ion fact the Ed.D is just as respected as the Ph.D., then add balance, don't just delete verifiable information.--Lhakthong (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ed.D is a research degree, prof. practice degree, or both?

This has to do with the opening lede statement. The Ed.D. seems to be both. The NSF survey considers it a research degree, but research itself shows that it is a professional practice degree that emphasis research (or just type Ed.D professional degree into Google). To be clear, the NSF survey also considers a Doctorate in Business Administration & Management to be a research degree. This would clearly be different than, say, a Ph.D. in Economics. In practice, research shoes the Ed.D. often varies little from the Ph.D. in education (but it does vary in the way it is advertised: research shows the Ed.D. most often couched in terms of career advancement). This places the Ed.D. somewhere in between the realm of Ph.D. and J.D. Moreover, although in the U.S. there is this seeming ambiguity, in the U.K. the Ed.D. seems to clearly be a professional practice degree that is research-oriented. So, somehow the lede statement needs to reflect all of this, and not just be thrown in one direction (research) or the other (professional practice).--Lhakthong (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"both the Ed.D. and the Ph.D. are research-oriented, and the difference in designation originates from whether the university departments in the liberal arts and sciences can coordinate particular sub-fields of educational studies (e.g., a Ph.D. in the economics of education or history of education as opposed to an Ed.D. in second language education)" -- This applies only to Teachers College Columbia University, not to the London Institute of Education. Your inconsiderate scrambling and removing of important information has made the whole page unintelligible and incorrect. Also your edits are unjust and practically wrong in describing Ed.D. as an originally practical degree, because there are "purely research-oriented Ed.D. programs" at Harvard, Columbia, Boston University and Rutgers University, and also because the first Ed.D. degree which was created at Harvard started as a research degree and still is so there. Please return this page to the earlier one, the one we used to have several months ago. Please do not bother with this issue if you have never experienced any Ed.D. program yourself, as you seem to know nothing about the program and nothing about the difference between the Ed.D. and the Ph.D. Your edit is full of outsiders' misinformed bias, which is an origin of all sorts of social vice and discrimination. Please do not spread such unsupported and misinformed basis of discrimination. Zealander1 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about creating as complete a picture about an article's subject through verifiable information, not about keeping only verifiable information we agree with to create a partial picture. Yes, there are Ed.D.s programs that are research-based. But there are also ones that clearly are not. Both have to be included. Deleting information on one side because we don't like it or personally disagree with it violates WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a place make the Ed.D what any person(s) want(s) to make of it or thinks it should be. It's not a place for ideological WP:Battle. For whatever it's worth, I did not write the substance in the line you reference. I just tried recently to tweak it to clarify it. I am also the one who tagged it for needing a citation (a possible precursor for deletion). So, I don't know who "you" is in your statement. Finally, just a point to consider: contrary to the picture you're trying to paint, the reason Harvard created an Ed.D is because when a Ph.D. in education was floated as an idea, there were enough faculty members who did not want those studying such a low status subject like education to be able to earn a Harvard Ph.D. So, the institution created a new doctorate for education students, the Ed.D.; which, it follows, had lower status than the Ph.D. Here's how David Labaree, Stanford historian of education, puts it: "Harvard's education school is tolerated but it is not allowed to offer Ph.D.'s." (The Trouble with Ed Schools, p. 121). I say again, "Not allowed".--Lhakthong (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Education is not the only field of study that does not have a PhD program installed for on Harvard campus (though I am sure you must be ignorant about this, as you are about the EdD as well.). There are law, medicine, dental medicine, business, public health, and theology that do not have PhD programs at Harvard, all of which you would invariably regard as "low status subjects." The main criterion Harvard uses in installing PhD programs is, as the old page of the EdD wikipedia used to have regarding Columbia University, whether arts and science departments can coordinate the graduate study or not. Each school within Harvard, including FAS, have all the different histories with all the different starting points of their degree programs. In 'allowing' each school to install degree programs, Harvard has used the only criterion, whether these fields (again, law, medicine, etc.) are purely academic so that arts and science departments can coordinate or not. If the study is about an applied field like education, law and business, Harvard 'allowed' each school to have their own research doctoral programs. Even in the business field, the concentrations closely associated with statistics and economics have PhD programs available, but purely business areas such as management strategies or marketing have only the DBA program installed. The situation is all the same with all the non-PhD doctoral programs at Harvard (to name a few, because I am sure you would be ignorant of this as well, DBA, JSD, EdD, DSc, and ThD). Harvard Law School's JSD program also clarifies that their doctoral program is equivalent to the other universities' PhD in law programs, but they simply do not have it due to the reason I describe here (not your reason above, which would regard law as a low status field as well and you will have hard time finding anyone agreeing with you there). And the situation is also the same with the master's degrees, which has caused Harvard to create many names of non-AM(MA) master's degrees such as MBA, MPP, MSc, etc. One historian's uninformed, narrow, and skewed interpretation toward a rival institution (Harvard) with his own (Stanford) is not an objective source worth a public reference. And Labaree source does say what you exaggerate he does. Likewise, your distorted, uninformed, narrow and skewed view is spreading misleading misconception (and even discriminatory bias) of the degree, with which some people are doing serious and meaningful works for the betterment of the nation's educational practice and research. You have no right whatsoever to disparage them with your narrow-sighted, ignorant, and discriminatory gibberish. You are simply wrong, okay? Zealander1 (talk • contribs) 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, this isn't about who's right and who's wrong. It's about providing verifiable information from reliable sources to provide as complete a picture as possible about the subject. In other words, whether or not you agree with Labaree or any other source is irrelevant. Labaree is a reliable source by any measure; at least, he's more reliable than a random editor with an ax to grind who is evading a block. If there are sources that would show a different angle, then those can be added to balance the view. But deleting material you (or anyone) personally disagrees with is a violation of WP:NPOV; and assaulting me with personal attacks is also inappropriate. I was willing to engage you even though you are evading a block through sockpuupetry by assuming good faith. But not any more.--Lhakthong (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This is about what is right and what is wrong, and you are wrong in all aspects. Furthermore, your comments have demonstrated that you are full of discriminatory misunderstanding about the field of education and the degree itself.

1. It is you who deleted the former original referenced materials and mixed up the information not knowing anything about the degree. The edit you did, for instance, implies London Institute has arts and science departments else where, but, as I continuously point out, it is an information about Columbia University, not about London school. You ignorantly took out Columbia there, and attached the wrong piece of information to a wrong school. It is you who have neither expertise nor experience about the degree but who delete, add and move anything as you are pleased.

2. Where does Labaree says that education is a low status field? He himself is a scholar in educational studies as you noted. It is you who distorted the source and who does his/her best to spread unsupported bias and discrimination. It is only you here who has such a low regard for the education field. What is your basis for such a bias? Have you not been educated? Aren't you concerned about the educational effects of the websites such as Wikipedia, for which reason you might be perhaps so obsessed with degrading this degree with all your time and power? What or who determines high and low status of a field? What is a high status field? Your edits are full of discrimination, all sorts of immaturity and vice, as you clearly showed. You have such a low regard for the education field without any reason. That disqualifies you as an editor of this page. If you have such a low regard for the field, why do you hang out here? Go somewhere else and mind your own high level business, whatever it may be.

3. Who are you, as you block others' contributions? Are you a tyrant or emperor of information who dubs the page with wrong information at his/her own will? I keep creating ids because you somehow block my id. The only advantage you have beyond me is that you are so adept at Wikipedia skills and terms, but I am not, so I keep being blocked. As you could see, even if you keep blocking me, you cannot keep me from talking. Is this the spirit of Wikipedia? Is blocking others but spreading your own distorted and evil view the right way to play at Wikipedia?

4. I have explained the origin and background of the diversity of degrees at Harvard. You have no response to it, because you seem to admit it is evidently shown that your discriminatory misunderstanding is proven to be wrong.

Please delete all the distorted and wrong information on the page by returning to the old page (the one that was there about a year ago). Otherwise I will take this to a 'higher' level.

I'm not blocking you. I'm bringing to the attention of administrators your continual violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Then they are blocking you when they check and see that in fact you are. I encourage you to read through the guidelines (perhaps starting here), because you obviously are not listening to my explanations of them; and you are unwilling to see how in the course of edits I've made, I've sustained some of your contributions as well as the contributions of editors who disagreed with you, because neutrality through balance is how things are done around here. If you read the guidelines, you would clearly understand why you keep getting blocked and your edits reverted (edit wars, sockpuppets, personal attacks, ideological battles, editing for point of view, etc.) and why whether you or any editor dis/agrees with Labaree is irrelevant; just like if you read the Labaree, you would know he thoroughly discusses the low status of education schools in the university. Finally, I looked at this page from last February, and it varies little in content from what we have now. If you want to follow through on your threats, go ahead. I've been around here long enough to know I'm not violating the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines.--Lhakthong (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 21 November 2011

Ph.D.s are not only *social science* degrees. Many fields grant Ph.D.s. This should be deleted.

Jim (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless I missed it, the article does not claim that it's only a social science degree. ElKevbo (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

History of the EdD

I think that this history section is relatively good. This is much better than what I first read. We need to head away from comparing the EdD to the PhD and presenting the EdD with an inferior-to-the-PhD spin. I removed the biased language. Can we stick to facts without biased commentary?— Preceding unsigned comment added by PaterEst (talk • PaterEst (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the line discussing the first PhD in Education. This article is about the EdD, not the PhD. As I mentioned in other places, less emphasis should be put on comparing the EdD to the PhD. This is part of the bias elimination that needs to happen with this article. PaterEst (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources for the article

Sources for this article are very weak.PaterEst (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Biased Language

I removed the section in the introduction that used the word "controversy" because that is clearly unqualified biased language. There is no real controversy. Many people have an EdD. Those people have written doctoral dissertation, published articles in scholarly journals, occupy faculty positions at major universities, and there is absolutely no sign that the EdD will be discontinued. In fact, higher education statistics point to the fact that more universities are offering this degree worldwide. I think mention of "controversy" can only be justified in the section on the EdD in America, and that bit should be clearly referenced and discussed to accurately portray Levine's comments that were directed to EdD in educational administration. On this point, it is important to point out that EdDs in the UK, for example, are not used as a stepping stone to administrative positions in the way that it is often the case in America. It is also important to point out that many EdDs have nothing to do with Educational Administration. For example, at Columbia many EdDs are in areas such as TESOL/Applied Linguistics, History of Education, and many other sub-areas in education. Definitely in the UK, if you were to scan the thesis databases from EdD students, one would find that topics are pretty much identical to what you would find in an American PhD thesis. Even when a PhD and EdD are offered by the same faculty in the UK, the only difference would be that the EdD thesis is shorter because prior work has been done in the coursework phase whereas the PhD student would only write a thesis without coursework. Clearly, the people who dominate here are not aware of the differences in the education systems worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.204.233.110 (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Off Topic

I don't understand why so much effort has been put into comparing the PhD and the EdD. This page should be written in a similar format to that of other Wikipedia articles on similar doctoral degrees (such as the Doctor of Arts or the Doctor of Modern Languages). Those articles do not contain entire sections trashing those degrees. It is not necessary to quote everyone who has ever spoken out against the Ed.D. The DML degree page, for example, only mentions the PhD once: "It is similar to the Ph.D. and the Doctor of Arts degree in Foreign Languages." The D.A. has a similar introduction: "Like other doctorates, the D.A. is an academic degree of the highest level." It's unnecessary and most likely snobbery to have such a lengthy article on this scary, "controversial" degree. Furthermore, all other articles on specific doctoral degrees list in the introduction that it is a "terminal degree." Why does the Ed.D. not present it as such?

It is also absurd to make such broad generalizations about the Ed.D. This is in no way a "PhD-lite" and just because there are more PhDs in higher education does not mean that an EdD candidate isn't just as qualified or prepared to take on a job in higher learning. In my field of Applied Linguistics, Columbia University offers an excellent EdD program in that field that has produced even department chairs and many other prestigious professors within the United States. I find this article offensive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.225.6 (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see the discussions above that have previously occurred on this topic. There is disagreement about the value of the EdD, particularly compared to the PhD, so this disagreement should be appropriately addressed in this article. To ignore it would be violation of POV. ElKevbo (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This supposed "disagreement" is only happening amongst PhDs who want to seem superior to everyone else. This "disagreement" is nowhere on the sites on DAs and DMLs. There are no journal articles backing up the claim that EdDs are lesser in quality; in fact, there ARE journal articles suggesting that they are very similar in quality. Also, as the Wikipedia page on DA degrees states, "While the Ph.D. is the most common doctoral degree in the United States, the U.S. Department of Education and the National Science Foundation recognize numerous research-oriented doctoral degrees such as the D.A. as "equivalent",[1][2] and do not discriminate between them." The list that was cited also includes the EdD. Are they not the final authority on this matter? Furthermore, why does the EdD introduction not mention that it is a terminal degree? (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If there wasn't disagreement then why would there be so many sources on the topic? In any case, it doesn't matter what your opinion is on the topic. It's doesn't matter why my opinion is on the topic. It only matters what is documented in reliable sources.

On a different topic: If there are inaccuracies or other things missing from the article such as this degree being a terminal degree, please edit the article to improve it! While we disagree about the topic above, surely there are many areas where we do agree and where your edits would be uncontroversial and welcome! ElKevbo (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If the anonymous editor read the United States section, s/he would see that the there is reference to the DoE considering the Ed.D. a research degree. If the editor also wants to add that the degree is a terminal degree in the lede, I doubt that would be disputed. And to put my two cent into the distraction, I think the fact that Harvard, the first institution to provide the Ed.D., is now abandoning it is indicative of the controvertial nature of the Ed.D. degree. In part what makes it controvertial is that there is no consistency in programs. Alhtough clearly not the case where the anonymous editor is, there are plenty of Ed.D. programs in the U.S. that prepare people to be school principals and superintendents and do not require the same level of research (if any at all) that a Ph.D. does.

I reverted the recent edits, because in general practice, internationally, the Ed.D. is sometimes a research adgree and sometimes a professional degree. It therefore makes no sense to put in the lede the US specific information that the Ed.D. is a research degree on the survey of doctorates because (a) that is only one measure of what the degree is (especially in light of the fact that in practice it is not always a research degree), and (b) different countries impliment the degree differently, and the lede cannot just be a reprudocution of the all the country-specific information in the rest of the article. All of that said, as far as I can tell, the Ed.D. is a terminal degree in every country it is granted, so that makes sense to have in the lede.--Lhakthong (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

American University that offers Only Ed.D

The is a line in the USA section that states some universities offer only the Ed.D and then lists Harvard as an example. However, Harvard is discontinuing their Ed.D. program (see cited claim in History section). Is there another university we can put in its place in that line? For now, I will just put a tag there.--Lhakthong (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This debate is a tremendous disappointment. You would believe that there would be harmony among academics (PhDs and EdDs) who "lived through" the difficult process of completing a doctorate. As a person who completed an EdD, defended a nearly 500 page dissertation complete with foundational theoretical context, involving both quantitative and qualitative research with data collected over a 3 year time period, I can comfortably say - My doctorate was EARNED and compares easily to any PhD program. To belittle and dismiss the EdD as something obtained in a diploma-mill, compared to an honorary doctorate or MBA, more practical and not scholarly research oriented...displays tremendous ignorance and short-mindedness to the many academic programs available. Oh - and by the way...when I finished my EdD, I spent the next 8 monthns helping my father finish his PhD!

As a doctor, I am sure you can appreciate the guideline that Wikipedia editors verify claims by reliable sources. If you have any that examine the comparability of the Ed.D. to the Ph.D., please add them to the article!--Lhakthong (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ed.D. vs. EdD

The lead section does not even mention Ed.D. as an abbreviation for Doctor of Education, but Harvard Graduate School of Education uses Ed.D., as do many of the reference sources. Ed.D. is used in about four times as many WP articles as EdD, so I think the lead should list Ed.D. before EdD as possible abbreviations. Also, why not use Ed.D. throughout the article? Chris the speller ^yack 16:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Repeated removals of Bill Cosby

Dmc213 has repeatedly removed Bill Cosby from the "Notable doctors of education" section of this article without any discussion or explanation. They recently wrote that "Cosby's EdD was rescinded when he was convicted, therefore he no longer belongs on the page. Many of Cosby's honorary degrees have been revoked but I cannot find any evidence that his EdD - earned, not honorary - from University of Massachusetts Amherst was also revoked. Am I missing something? If his doctorate has not been revoked, and arguably even if it has, Cosby is indisputably a notable holder of this degree. ElKevbo (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I am acquiescing to the inclusion of Dr. Cosby on the page of notable Doctors of Education. After conversations with a more experienced user, I agree that the content entry on Dr. Cosby should remain. I thank the user for their assistance. Since, I agree with your assessments, would you consider removing this comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmc213 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC) Dmc213 (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

No. It's already in the history of this Talk page (like nearly every other edit made in Wikipedia). And it's not a personal attack. It's a totally normal interaction between editors - someone made some edits that another editor didn't understand, a discussion was opened asking about those edits, and we've come to a resolution. It's really no big deal at all. ElKevbo (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I am updating my user as the former no longer points to anything, including signed comments. No content changes. Dmc213 (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)