Oh, surgeons "descend" from barbers, physicians from some other
intellectual strain -- medicine, maybe. Surgeons often are quite
proud of this. Remember that once someone told you about
the barbers' red and white striped pole representing their sideline
of bleeding people to remove the humours. Humours? Humour?

Maybe I should be bled to remove my humour.

Ginny


Sally said: "This discussion reminded me that in the UK
and at least NZ (maybe Aust as well) the surgeons are always referred
to in hushed tones as Mr. X Y or Z (presumably there are now some Ms
as well but in my childhood that was rare for this particular
occupation). This was in contrast to the rest of the medical
profession. It didn't seem to affect status one iota. I guess they
always knew they were great. I have no idea of the origins of this."



Kent Schenkel wrote:

> This thread exemplifies what I perceive to be one of the most
> frustating
> aspects of academia.  I would urge that the academic world often
> concerns
> itself far too much with the niceties of  "form" at the expense of its
> much
> more interesting and rewarding converse.
>
> Does it really matter whether or not a JD or LLM is called "Dr."?
> Taken out
> of the context in which most of us work, the answer is no, of course
> not.
> It seems to me that our concern with this issue arises from the
> perception
> (real or imagined) that someone with that particular title in front of
> her
> moniker is (pick one) smarter, more educated, more respected, cooler,
> less
> redolent, more redolent or  better looking than the next person.
> (Alright,
> maybe not better looking.)
>
> In any event, it's elitist, anti-egalitarian, archaic and even
> barbaric.
> Why did we in the US abandon all the old titles like baron, lord, sir,
> your
> excellence, etc., etc.?  I believe it was Monty Python that had a skit
> in
> which some laughably pompous character was repeatedly and with mock
> respect
> referred to by his underlings as "your [expletive deleted]ness."  The
> bearer
> of this title didn't seem to notice its disparaging
> connotation--presumably
> he was too absorbed with his own importance, and only knew that he was
>
> properly being referred to as "your" something or another.  Not to
> belabor a
> sophmoric point, but titles like these rail against the idea that a
> person
> should be judged on who they are and what they can do, rather than
> what we
> are required to call them.  Most of us teach in business schools, in
> which
> we are charged with training students to be better citizens of an
> increasingly democratic and capitalist world.  Yet we are ourselves
> caught
> up in a feudalistic title-grubbing.
>
> Perhaps we lawyers should be the first group of academics to insist
> that we
> be judged on what we can do, not what we're called.  It wouldn't be
> the
> first sacred cow toppled by lawyers in the interest of improving
> society.
>
> My favorite "Dr."?  Dr. Suess.
>
> Kent Schenkel
> University of North Carolina at Wilmington
> [log in to unmask]