To sign up at the surgery as ‘Dr’

[Chocolatebutton43]

I got my PhD two months ago, moved to a new place and signed up to a new doctor’s surgery and dental practice.

Filling in the forms, I got a bit carried away with my new title and ticked the ‘dr’ box! I’ve been doing it a lot lately for silly little things partly ‘cause I’m just happy to have finished and passed my degree and also because I relish that I am no longer defined by my marital status.

But, I now need to visit the surgery and I feel like an idiot. The form also had occupation so the doctor will know I’m not a medical doctor. Is he/she going to think I am a total prat for using Dr outside my work and at the doctor’s surgery of all places? Cringe

@Janegrey333

That many are surplus to requirements. It’s quite simple.

Sorry, you've lost me - who do you think is surplus to which requirements?

That many are surplus to requirements. It’s quite simple.

What's your definition of 'surplus to requirement'? Of my friends who did PhDs, about half are still in academia, most of the rest of us are biologists who are using our PhDs as researchers in the private sector (many of us working on that tricky little pandemic that is going on at the moment, are we surplus to requirements?), a couple became medics, a couple are very senior managers on megabucks flying round the world running multinational companies, and one works for NASA.

Surplus to what requirements?

For clarity, I’m working in consultancy and my pay and career progression are far better than they would be in academia.

Postgraduates (which I think may include Masters which probably pushes the figures closer to graduates than if it was just PhDs) have the highest employment rates and lowest inactivity rates. Unsurprisingly. And as only ~1.5% of the U.K. population have a PhD the 'surplus' can't be a large number.

Got any data to the contrary?

https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/graduate-labour-markets

To add, this thread is scattered with references to them all being “academics”.

Most schools don’t teach about PhDs and doctorates, and many people leave school after GCSEs or A-Levels. They may not move in academic circles or have family members who’ve studied to doctorate level. That doesn’t make them less bright. If they react with surprise, confusion or an ‘ignorant’ question when you tell them you’re a doctor in a non-medical field, is it fair to judge them?

Why do you assume that someone who makes an assumption, then learns it was a false assumption, will automatically feel foolish or embarrassed? I doubt very much that your average academic who has to explain that they are not a medical doctor is going to be rolling their eyes and tutting and saying “oh for goodness sake, are you bloody stupid, not all people called doctors are medical doctors!” More likely they’ll say
“Actually no I’m not medical, I’ve got a PhD in [history][zoology][statistics]. That means I’m allowed to call myself “doctor”. Anyway, you were asking about how I know Barbara?...”

Tell me @RattleOfBars, whenever you learn something new are you embarrassed that you didn’t know it before? That must be very draining for you.

I do find academics sometimes live in little bubbles of academia, socialising only with other academics and forgetting that many people in this country haven’t had a university education.

A lot of people have seen Friends though.

A lot of people have seen Friends though.

And Big Bang Theory.

funny thing in some industries though is that PhDs are becoming less prevelent. DH works in oil industry and has one because he works in a highly technical and niche field (god that man loves his rocks). When he began about 30 years ago the place was swimming in PhDs; now there he bemoans the lack thereof, saying companies are trying to save money by employing (slightly) less qualified geologists. I wonder though whether they're just not as necessary because of improvements in modelling and computing. Anyway, he and all his contemporaries have PhDs and post docs and that's not the case now. But fossil fuel technology is hopefully on the way out anyway. Maybe the big brains are going elsewhere!

@Janegrey333

That many are surplus to requirements. It’s quite simple.

Are you suggesting that too many people now have PhDs and that they're unnecessary?

Having a more educated population benefits society as a whole. It impacts positively on physical and mental health, productivity, employment figures, average earnings, participation politics.......

Of course some people study at that level to progress their career but others do it for the love of learning. The end result is the same. They've achieved a particular qualification which affords them the right to use a specific title.

To add, this thread is scattered with references to them all being “academics”.

Well a significant proportion of PhD grads do end up in academia. Then many more in industry or elsewhere. Is that very difficult to understand?

You still haven’t explained your ‘surplus’ comment. To whose requirements?

@scentedgeranium

funny thing in some industries though is that PhDs are becoming less prevelent. DH works in oil industry and has one because he works in a highly technical and niche field (god that man loves his rocks). When he began about 30 years ago the place was swimming in PhDs; now there he bemoans the lack thereof, saying companies are trying to save money by employing (slightly) less qualified geologists. I wonder though whether they're just not as necessary because of improvements in modelling and computing. Anyway, he and all his contemporaries have PhDs and post docs and that's not the case now. But fossil fuel technology is hopefully on the way out anyway. Maybe the big brains are going elsewhere!

But OTOH there are whole new industries full of PhDs... not least, many and various varieties of computing and modelling!

Think that's what my last sentence said, Errol!

Are your arguments always so shot through with logical fallacies? It's hard to tell if you don't realise that's what they are, or you're just deliberately being goady.

What does that mean? I can assure you I’m not being ‘goady’. I’m not sure if I’m sleep deprived or if your comment genuinely makes no sense 😂

And Big Bang Theory

Yes poor Penny gets a hard time doesn’t she.

@RattleOfBars I stated my reasons for using the title 'Dr'. You inferred from this that I thought everyone with a PhD should do the same thing and that I was critical of those who do not. This is logically false. Neither statement is contained within or can logically be inferred from my statement about what I do.

What I'm not sure if is whether you're unable to work this out, or whether you're deliberately misinterpreting what I say to goad a reaction from me.

women are being castigated for using a title they earned through hard work and study. It's only really in the last 100-150 years that women have been able to achieve this level of education with any frequency and yet apparently celebrating by the simple act of picking 'Dr' on a drop-down form is now 'showing off'.

Is it my comments re this post you’re referring to? Perhaps I read too much into it, but it came across as you felt women owe it to other women to use their non-medical Dr titles.

You can’t dictate or control what other people think about the use of a title. I don’t think anyone’s saying it’s only women who suffer negative reactions when they use their academic title outside of their profession.

Nor is anyone saying you shouldn’t be using it, just expressing their views on how it comes across to them or sharing their experiences (the same way you have expressed your views and shared your experiences). If OP had no qualms about using the title she wouldn’t have started the thread!

You inferred from this that I thought everyone with a PhD should do the same thing and that I was critical of those who do not. This is logically false. Neither statement is contained within or can logically be inferred from my statement about what I do.

I can assure you I’m not trying to ‘goad a reaction’. I just find your writing style hard to interpret. For example you last sentence! I’m not sure if you’re over-complicating on purpose or writing in a clunky/waffling way by accident! Logic is subjective, how can someone’s interpretation be ‘logically false’ unless they’re analysing data?

Logic is subjective

Well, that's an, er, interesting perspective. Pity the thread doesn't have many posts yet to see what the assorted Doctors of Philosophy might make of it.
(Mine, as someone who writes scientific code would be 'good luck with that')

@ErrolTheDragon

Logic is subjective

Well, that's an, er, interesting perspective. Pity the thread doesn't have many posts yet to see what the assorted Doctors of Philosophy might make of it.
(Mine, as someone who writes scientific code would be 'good luck with that')

Yes quite.

A surprisingly great number of people don’t actually understand what logic is and how it works.

You're a proper doctor! You have a doctorate! I would do exactly the same and CONGRATULATIONS! It must feel awesome.

I need to keep out of this thread...But it’s so easy to get sucked back in!

Especially when there are things to do that one really would rather not bother with right now.

Having a more educated population benefits society as a whole. It impacts positively on physical and mental health, productivity, employment figures, average earnings, participation politics.......

I agree an educated population benefits society. But you don’t need a PhD to be ‘educated’. Are people with Masters degrees not educated? Or those with Bachelor degrees?

Does a PhD in a very specific field mean you are more or less educated than someone with more than one MSc?

Logic is subjective

Thousands of years of philosophy present a rather different case. It is rather the point of logic that it is objective. (Unless you are arguing that objectivity is male subjectivity but with 2 posts left on this thread, perhaps let's not go there).

The last word goes to me.

OP, use the title with pride!