The news two days ago reported that an American scientist working in Germany got into some legal bother, all because he was apparently misusing his 'Dr' title!
The law behind this incident dates back to the 1930s, when a law stipulates that the use of the Dr title was authorised only if the relevant degree was awarded by an 'approved' university. Originally only German universities were in the approved list, but in 2001 the list was expanded to cover other EU states. Holders of degrees from other countries are allowed to use the title only after submitting their qualifications for review by the appropriate authority. The correct use of titles is no small matter in Germany; even on my rental contract, the landlord addressed himself as 'Dipl. Ing.' (more or less equivalent to Masters in Engineering). The misuse of titles is liable to prosecution and a jail sentence.
I can appreciate that the original purpose of the law is to prevent people from engaging in inappropriate activities by forging their titles, but there are a few problems when it comes to practice, as far as I can see.
The first problem is that one is still allowed to list the highest degree obtained even when not allowed to use the Dr title. That means PhD for those having completed a Doctor of Philosophy research degree, or MBBS, MBChB etc. from medical courses. There is functionally no difference, to most people, whether the Dr title is used or the degree is spelt out. After all, listing a degree that someone does not hold or is not entitled to amounts to deception and will constitute a criminal offence in many countries. I wonder why the use of the Dr title has to be vetted while the listing of the highest degree is not.
(When my Hungarian colleague registered for her new address, as required in Germany and many other European countries, she wrote 'Dr' for her qualifications. Then two days ago she received a letter requesting her to submit relevant documents to prove her case. But when I did my registration some time ago, I filled in 'PhD' and no questions were asked. Why the difference?)
For medical doctors, this government vetting is probably a tautology. Even when the Dr title is recognised, it is most likely that the local medical association(s) will require re-accreditation in the form of extra training and examination, before a foreign doctor is allowed to register and practise. The Dr title is actually somewhat meaningless when the right of practice is not granted. A proper re-accreditation scheme should be the most effective way of preventing unqualified or under-qualified persons from practising in any professional field, with or without additional involvement by the government.
(In the end, a professional association is actually the one who decides whether someone is allowed to work in a particular field, not the government.)
What puzzled me the most is that other people are stilled allowed to address a particular person 'Dr' even when the person concerned is not entitled to use that. I don't know how the Germans came up with this quaint practice, but I wonder: if someone is forbidden to declare him-/herself as a Dr, the others should generally have no way of finding it out, and they need not and in fact should not use it on that person. If the others choose to use it, doesn't it mean that they do not approve of the government review itself or its outcome?
(The American in the centre of this saga indeed thought that he is entitled to use his title since his employer used it on his employment contract.)
A law shrouded with inconsistencies is going to generate trouble for many foreigners and even Germans who study abroad. If this law is to stay, I wonder if its implementation could be improved. For instance, foreigners with a Dr title should be required to submit documents supporting their qualification when applying for certain classes of visas. This would save the need of an extra process later on. It also sounds illogical that others are allowed to address someone else as Dr when the person concerned is not entitled to it. The Germans should probably scrap this absurd practice, or at least be consistent in the use of this 'important' title. At the end of the day, it should be the employers and professional bodies who should be taking responsibility in judging and evaluating qualifications whether the government is involved in it nor not. I'm sure they are taking greater care these days when it's easier than ever to fake or buy academic degrees.
It is no easy matter to obtain a Dr title; it's a more precarious matter to use it properly, at least in Germany.
前日看到一則新聞（英文），說有名在德國工作多年的美國科學家，被人告發擅自使用「博士」頭銜而掉進法律泥沼！
事緣是德國自1930年代有法令，規定如要使用Dr（適用於醫科及博士畢業生）的頭銜，必須從認可的大學先領取相關學位，原本祇有德國的大學才算認可，到2001年放寬到歐盟其他地方的大學。從其他國家取得有關學位的人，必須把其資歷送給有關當局審查，方可使用Dr此頭銜。在德國這個對頭銜極度認真看待的國度裡（連我的租約上，房東也把自己寫成「某某工程學碩士」），誤用頭銜可非等閒事！
我想，法令原意是要杜絕有人拿着假頭銜招遙撞騙，但執行起來，我就覺得有些令人不解的地方。
第一，就算不可用Dr頭銜，仍可於自己的名字後列明學位，例如PhD（博士）和MBBS/MBChB（醫生）等，對一般人來說，使用Dr頭銜和列明學位名稱功能上是相等的，學位名稱可不能隨便列寫，不然會觸犯虛報學歷或訛騙罪，在不少國家是刑事罪行。使用Dr要審查，但寫自己是PhD便不用，又是否有邏輯？
（我的匈牙利同事登記新住址時——在德國和不少歐洲國家有登記住址的制度——在「學歷」一欄填寫了Dr，前日便收到信要求提呈學歷證明，我當年填了PhD卻毫無問題，何解？）
第二，外地畢業的醫生，就算掛了Dr頭銜，一般也得通過本地醫學會或其他機構的考核方可在本地註冊，然後重新執業，一個頭銜，不能執業基本上是沒意思的。所以就算沒有政府當局的認可程序，也會有專業公會把關，招遙撞騙實在難以得逞。
（其實政府認可了也沒用，過得了公會那一關才最重要。）
最令我不解的是，根據德國約定俗成的規矩，就算某人不能自稱Dr時，其他人是可以仍然如此稱呼之，我實在不明白，如不能主動使用頭銜，別人一般根本無法得知，亦無必要、甚至不應該這樣稱呼，用了則不是不承認政府的做法或審查結果嗎？
（那個涉案的美國人，便是因為其研究所在其合約上稱呼他為Dr，便以為自己照用Dr頭銜可也。）
一道實際上充滿矛盾法令，會為外國人甚至負笈外國的德國人帶來如此麻煩，如要保留，是否可改善執行的辦法？例如要求所有Dr人士申請特定簽證類別時提交學歷證明，一了百了。我在最後一點談到的怪規矩，更是不合邏輯，根本就應摒棄。其實今時今日，假學歷和用錢購買學歷愈見普遍的年頭兒，就算沒政府介入，一般僱主和機構都會提高警惕，更注重資歷的審核。
Dr的學問，原來是可以搞得如斯複雜！
The law behind this incident dates back to the 1930s, when a law stipulates that the use of the Dr title was authorised only if the relevant degree was awarded by an 'approved' university. Originally only German universities were in the approved list, but in 2001 the list was expanded to cover other EU states. Holders of degrees from other countries are allowed to use the title only after submitting their qualifications for review by the appropriate authority. The correct use of titles is no small matter in Germany; even on my rental contract, the landlord addressed himself as 'Dipl. Ing.' (more or less equivalent to Masters in Engineering). The misuse of titles is liable to prosecution and a jail sentence.
I can appreciate that the original purpose of the law is to prevent people from engaging in inappropriate activities by forging their titles, but there are a few problems when it comes to practice, as far as I can see.
The first problem is that one is still allowed to list the highest degree obtained even when not allowed to use the Dr title. That means PhD for those having completed a Doctor of Philosophy research degree, or MBBS, MBChB etc. from medical courses. There is functionally no difference, to most people, whether the Dr title is used or the degree is spelt out. After all, listing a degree that someone does not hold or is not entitled to amounts to deception and will constitute a criminal offence in many countries. I wonder why the use of the Dr title has to be vetted while the listing of the highest degree is not.
(When my Hungarian colleague registered for her new address, as required in Germany and many other European countries, she wrote 'Dr' for her qualifications. Then two days ago she received a letter requesting her to submit relevant documents to prove her case. But when I did my registration some time ago, I filled in 'PhD' and no questions were asked. Why the difference?)
For medical doctors, this government vetting is probably a tautology. Even when the Dr title is recognised, it is most likely that the local medical association(s) will require re-accreditation in the form of extra training and examination, before a foreign doctor is allowed to register and practise. The Dr title is actually somewhat meaningless when the right of practice is not granted. A proper re-accreditation scheme should be the most effective way of preventing unqualified or under-qualified persons from practising in any professional field, with or without additional involvement by the government.
(In the end, a professional association is actually the one who decides whether someone is allowed to work in a particular field, not the government.)
What puzzled me the most is that other people are stilled allowed to address a particular person 'Dr' even when the person concerned is not entitled to use that. I don't know how the Germans came up with this quaint practice, but I wonder: if someone is forbidden to declare him-/herself as a Dr, the others should generally have no way of finding it out, and they need not and in fact should not use it on that person. If the others choose to use it, doesn't it mean that they do not approve of the government review itself or its outcome?
(The American in the centre of this saga indeed thought that he is entitled to use his title since his employer used it on his employment contract.)
A law shrouded with inconsistencies is going to generate trouble for many foreigners and even Germans who study abroad. If this law is to stay, I wonder if its implementation could be improved. For instance, foreigners with a Dr title should be required to submit documents supporting their qualification when applying for certain classes of visas. This would save the need of an extra process later on. It also sounds illogical that others are allowed to address someone else as Dr when the person concerned is not entitled to it. The Germans should probably scrap this absurd practice, or at least be consistent in the use of this 'important' title. At the end of the day, it should be the employers and professional bodies who should be taking responsibility in judging and evaluating qualifications whether the government is involved in it nor not. I'm sure they are taking greater care these days when it's easier than ever to fake or buy academic degrees.
It is no easy matter to obtain a Dr title; it's a more precarious matter to use it properly, at least in Germany.
前日看到一則新聞（英文），說有名在德國工作多年的美國科學家，被人告發擅自使用「博士」頭銜而掉進法律泥沼！
事緣是德國自1930年代有法令，規定如要使用Dr（適用於醫科及博士畢業生）的頭銜，必須從認可的大學先領取相關學位，原本祇有德國的大學才算認可，到2001年放寬到歐盟其他地方的大學。從其他國家取得有關學位的人，必須把其資歷送給有關當局審查，方可使用Dr此頭銜。在德國這個對頭銜極度認真看待的國度裡（連我的租約上，房東也把自己寫成「某某工程學碩士」），誤用頭銜可非等閒事！
我想，法令原意是要杜絕有人拿着假頭銜招遙撞騙，但執行起來，我就覺得有些令人不解的地方。
第一，就算不可用Dr頭銜，仍可於自己的名字後列明學位，例如PhD（博士）和MBBS/MBChB（醫生）等，對一般人來說，使用Dr頭銜和列明學位名稱功能上是相等的，學位名稱可不能隨便列寫，不然會觸犯虛報學歷或訛騙罪，在不少國家是刑事罪行。使用Dr要審查，但寫自己是PhD便不用，又是否有邏輯？
（我的匈牙利同事登記新住址時——在德國和不少歐洲國家有登記住址的制度——在「學歷」一欄填寫了Dr，前日便收到信要求提呈學歷證明，我當年填了PhD卻毫無問題，何解？）
第二，外地畢業的醫生，就算掛了Dr頭銜，一般也得通過本地醫學會或其他機構的考核方可在本地註冊，然後重新執業，一個頭銜，不能執業基本上是沒意思的。所以就算沒有政府當局的認可程序，也會有專業公會把關，招遙撞騙實在難以得逞。
（其實政府認可了也沒用，過得了公會那一關才最重要。）
最令我不解的是，根據德國約定俗成的規矩，就算某人不能自稱Dr時，其他人是可以仍然如此稱呼之，我實在不明白，如不能主動使用頭銜，別人一般根本無法得知，亦無必要、甚至不應該這樣稱呼，用了則不是不承認政府的做法或審查結果嗎？
（那個涉案的美國人，便是因為其研究所在其合約上稱呼他為Dr，便以為自己照用Dr頭銜可也。）
一道實際上充滿矛盾法令，會為外國人甚至負笈外國的德國人帶來如此麻煩，如要保留，是否可改善執行的辦法？例如要求所有Dr人士申請特定簽證類別時提交學歷證明，一了百了。我在最後一點談到的怪規矩，更是不合邏輯，根本就應摒棄。其實今時今日，假學歷和用錢購買學歷愈見普遍的年頭兒，就算沒政府介入，一般僱主和機構都會提高警惕，更注重資歷的審核。
Dr的學問，原來是可以搞得如斯複雜！
Comments