adrian is rad


mr. ny times

Filed under: — adrian @ 5:17 am

Does the NY Times‘ stylebook actually include calling people with PhD’s “Mr.”?

“Attention is the holy grail,” Mr. Strayer says.

Among the bright academic lights in the group, Mr. Kramer is the most prominent.

[Links added by me.]

That’s strange. Well, the Times repeatedly messes up cardinal’s titles so who knows.

3 Responses to “mr. ny times”

  1. Colin Says:

    Here’s what it says (page 111):

    “Dr. should be reserved for those with earned doctorates. Physicians’ or dentists’ titles should be used in all references: Dr. Alex E. Baranek; Dr. Baranek; the doctor. Others with earned doctorates, like Ph.D. degrees, may choose to use the title or not; follow their preference. Do not use the title for someone whose doctorate is honorary.”

    So, it would appear that the doctors misters in question preferred not to use their titles.

  2. adrian Says:

    Hmm. Thanks for that.

    I find it hard to believe that all five doctors wanted to be called “Mr.” but I may be wrong.

  3. Colin Says:

    I agree – it does seem strange that all 5 would choose “Mr.” That said, it seems like there is a cultural trend in which people who have earned research-based doctorates are perceived as pretentious if they use their title, while medical doctors and dentists are almost regarded as the only “real” doctors.

    I think that the pervasiveness and visibility of medical doctors has led the term “doctor” to become effectively synonymous with “medical doctor”. Perhaps we need a new title to designate those who have earned research-based doctorates. Any suggestions?

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free

Powered by WordPress