Re: PER vs EdD (SciEd)

[John Denker <jsd@AV8N.COM>]

Quoting "Edmiston, Mike" <edmiston@BLUFFTON.EDU>:

> Notice that I said terminal degree IN THE FIELD.
>
> The Ed.D. may be a terminal degree in the field of education, but it
> is not the terminal degree in the field of physics.

There's a point to be made, and it is made properly below, but
that's not the right way to begin the discussion.

There's a difference between a _real thing_ and the _symbol_
that symbolizes the thing.  If you observe that a light switch
is in the "on" position it does not prove that the light is on.
Maybe it indicates that the light is _supposed_ to be on or is
_desired_ to be on ... but wishing doesn't make it so.

I spent a few years as a manager in a rather well-respected
research lab.  Two of the most productive (and highly paid)
researchers had no doctoral degrees at all;  they had started
as technical assistants and worked their way up through the
ranks.  (Not everyone -- not even all the managers -- were
aware of this.  They sorta assumed that all the hot-shots had
doctorates, and I didn't bother to disabuse them.)

Furthermore, many of the other hot-shots got their doctorates in
fields far afield from their current activities.


> I teach at a small college.  One of the things that prospective
> students (and parents) want to know is whether the courses will
> be taught by real "whatever."

I know of a small college that hired some guy as professor of
biology even though his PhD was not "IN THE FIELD".  As I recall,
the guy's name was Max Delbrück.
  http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1969/delbruck-bio.html

I personally have taught a few computer science courses. I have
no degrees "IN THE FIELD".  Forsooth I have never even taken a
single course "IN THE FIELD".

  Will the chemistry courses be taught by "real chemists."
> Will the history classes be taught by "real historians."  In this
> context I think "real" means that the person has done and/or is doing
> physics research

That's the right way to say it.  Somebody should get the
physics teaching job based on whether they REALLY know
their stuff and REALLY know how to teach it ... and
possessing a piece of sheepskin that says PhD on it is
neither necessary not sufficient.

> as opposed to physics education research.

I agree, based on what I've seen published in the PER literature,
that a PER degree is not reliable evidence of competence in physics,
nor in education, nor in research.

> Said another
> way, are the courses going to be taught by "practicing physicists"
> where
> practicing means doing actual physics or having done/published actual
> physics

Right.