I don't. But I display my achievements to the world. And will continue to do so.

Ben Goldacre (a real medical doctor) on the subject of the title doctor

"Unlike “Dietitian” and “Nurse”, doctor is not a “protected title” under law. Anyone is perfectly entitled to call themselves a doctor after getting a non-accredited correspondence course PhD from abroad. Arguably you don’t even need that.

Disappointingly though - and I’ve looked into this because I was hoping we could get up to all kinds of mischief - in the UK you can’t officially confer a title like Professor, or degree like PhD, unless you’re a properly tooled up and recognised educational institution."

You are right, that within the UK you cannot confer a doctorate, but you can get one overseas. Like Dr Gillian McKeith and Dr Paul McKenna (who are still at large I believe).

Come on, Paul McKenna really wrote a thesis, he was unaware of the status of the "university abroad" and Gill didn't get very far as she is not allowed to use the title anymore.

In the UK or within Europe, nobody gets very far with this kind of scam. Of course there is the odd black sheep but with the new legislation they are likely to fall on their face sooner rather than later.

Perhaps Bourdieu is one of the reasons you need to do a PhD because despite getting good grades and being at an elite university for my undergraduate degree I and many of my peers could not understand his work. That's not so much because his ideas are complex, it's the fact that his writing is arrogantly complicated. He shows off using his writing. His ideas are ok, but are nothing special when explained by a textbook author - see for example 'Understanding Bourdieu'. I can see why people who are interested in the elite nature of a PhD might particularly like Bourdieu though as he is an elitist writer who doesn't seem to want many people to understand his ideas, by using complicated language to be evasive and hard to comprehend.

Shani - I think your definition of basic research is misleading. In natural sciences indeed there is a need to do significant basic research, some of which (we often don't know yet which parts) will lead to highly useful applied research in the future. Basic research in social sciences sounds like an excuse for academics to stick inside their ivory tower, engaging in highly abstract theoretical debates with one another to boost their own egos and leading to no useful outcomes at any point in the future. I don't mind if they do that, but they need to find private donors to fund such research, because there are far more important public spending priorities.

Paul McKenna's writing is a great example to academics that you can explain relatively complex ideas lucidly in simple language.

Sorry I had to leave yesterday. I'm with o.stoll on this.

As I said, I think the whole process of getting a PhD is quite disappointing. You soon realise that it's not going to be groundbreaking.

Many people regret having started the Phd because they don't see beyond the actual thesis.

I would be bitter if the only result of the Phd was the thesis, or a better job or a higher salary.

Being a doctor is going to be my reward, and at this stage (I'm finishing but going through hard times) is the reason I'm still working on it.

cs, you think my definition of basic research is misleading, but how do you know my definition of basic research? i don't remember giving one. i suppose you infered from some kind of other statements.

so you are saying that basic research in the sciences is good, but not in the social sciences. because in the sciences something unexpected and valuable might come from originally strange, seemingly pointless research. but not so in the social sciences, is that what you are saying? i guess so, because otherwise your argument makes no sense.
which implies that you think that SocSci only has any value when it addresses current social issues. we discussed this before and i think i remember you agreed that "some" research could be valuable even if it didn't address current issues.
you set basic SocSci research equal to "ivory tower" research. just fyi i agree with your derision of "ivory tower" research. but i do not agree that all basic SocSci research is suchlike.
which leads back to my point that scholarly independence is necessary and the value of research cannot be measured by its foreseen return on investment, and i hold this to be true for the SocSci as well, as argued.

on bourdieu - i agree that his style of writing is a weak point of his (he has many; many other scholars share this particular weakness). but that doesn't mean that what he said is wrong. it is a bit odd to argue that because someone doesn't write well the content must be rubbish.
i do not agree with everything he said, mind, but i do find some of his contributions to social science very valuable and thus found your reaction to me mentioning bourdieu to symbolize a widespread academic fallacy - speak derisively but superficially about someone else and you avoid the need to engage with their work, making yourself seem important and knowledgeable at the same time.
that's quite what you did as you did not refer at all to the concept mentioned but rather put the whole of bourdieu's work in question due to a supposed "lack of empirical research" and his complicated writing.

Shani - it was as much the point you wished to derive from Bourdieu that I disagree with as Bourdieu himself. I don't think it's right to make the PhD a more valuable qualification by letting fewer people do it. That's the point I'm mainly disagreeing with. I agree the fewer people who do it though potentially the greater benefit it gives to those people. But if we take that argument further then we put a cap on the number of undergraduates. In reality the numbers of people doing, and who have, a PhD as a proportion of the population are tiny. Give me some useful examples of basic research in the social sciences then Shani that although originally pointless have led to great discoveries?

I can not believe that an educated person would deride social science research in such a manner - how supremely elitist and arrogant of you. I research in the social sciences and I am a heavy consumer of social science research which often influences policy and practice in the world we live in. There are some significantly important issues which need addressing in our so called civilised society and as a woman I have benefited from such research, so have other disenfranchised groups. Do your homework.

I guess your name says something "Radical" Ann - I imagine you are some radical feminist or something? If you bothered to read the whole thread you'd see that I actually believe social science has a major role to play in life - though not abstract social science waffle that serves no one except the ego of the academics who wrote it. Applied social research is very important to society and the economy. I won't enter into pathetic insults with you. That's your occupation obviously. Debate the issue, not the person who says it.

strange - the way you wrote 'radical feminist' was almost, but not quite, a thinly disguised insult. I have read the whole thread and I do not believe there is any kind of research which is beneath contempt. I too do not trade in insults but I do defend my discipline - as it seems, do you.

"Applied social research is very important to society and the economy"
Again, reference to the mighty economy and its importance. What about research for the sake of building knowledge about human societies, without small contributions to which no grandiose links can be made, revised and applied to the course of human life? (e.g. Iraq.)
• Of course, good sociological research can make explicit the link between aspects such as "the economy", state-formation, civilization, changes in human behaviour e.g. violence or etiquette and manners (farting, for example), thus EXPLAINING forms of social life without serving any "higher need" that you feel, in the main, research must feed almost without pause. Your points are mostly fair but they are uncomfortably one-sided and do you a disservice, I feel.