How are kids supposed to address professors? Dr., Professor, first name? Daughter got rude reaction

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP and haven't read the thread.

Personally I think honorifics should be done away with entirely. I don't think doctors should insist on Dr. I don't think professors should be Prof. I think the use of honorifics perpetuates power imbalances that on the whole aren't good. Let everyone go by first name. And yes, I have honorifics I could use but I don't.

An adult insisting another adult use a title is just cringeworthy behavior to me.

I respect your opinion. Would you consider reading the NYT article linked in this thread to see if any of the issues outlined there might, in your opinion, warrant an exception?

I will find it and read it.

Mostly I find the insistence on honorifics to be the vestiges of a racist and misogynistic history in which those honorifics were used as a way of keeping people who deserved it on their merits out of power.

You want respect? Earn it based on your behavior, not by insisting another adult address you with a title.

I am a woman of color, PhD holder, and professor and you could not be more off base here.

Nope. I've been in the trenches myself and I completely disagree with you.

DP, I agree with the professor PP. The NYT article also noted that professors with doctoral degrees who are younger, minority, and/or female are more likely to be referred to by their first names. Anecdotally, I’ve found this to be true among my academic colleagues who’ve mentioned this issue.

The solution is to not use title at all, not to insist other adults use it.

I do make an exception in the military. But beyond that, no.

Why does the military get an exception?

I am the PP who wrote about the military exception. I haven't posted since then, so anything intervening is not me. I make exceptions for the military because in the military, title is not just an honorific but a way of making the organization function, most critically in life-critical roles. In other words, there is a collapsing of the title and job function in a way that makes the system operable, and has impact on life or death situations. Thinking about it, I can think of a few different scenarios where that could be the case: for instance, I could see a rational need to use formal titles in a surgical operating theater, or an emergency room. But certainly not in a college classroom, where it's really just about professorial ego.

I also wonder to an extent if this is geographic in nature. I am in California and I don't run into this insistence on titles often. My doctors, for instance, will often use first names ("Hi, I am John Smith.") I find people who insist on titles from grown adults in non-life-critical situations to be off-putting. Luckily I don't run into it often. And yes, I call people what they want to be called. I just find the insistence on it to be a bit ridiculous and over the top.

How about clergy?

And politicians: Governor, Senator, President? Okay, I wouldn't call the current guy in the oval office Mr President to his face, but in general.

I am the PP. As I said, I will call people what they want, and if a clergy member wants to be Father John or Sister Mary, I will call them that, although I would personally not feel comfortable with a deep religious relationship with someone who insisted on it even for adult to adult relationships. I've known clergy who don't use titles, so it's not universal. In the interest of full disclosure, I know multiple people who were abused by priests as children and my desire to give clergy any sort of pedestal is non-existent.

I don't see why politicians should only be addressed by special titles. I've met politicians before and I certainly do not think they deserve special treatment. Frankly most of them could stand to have far less ego. Our world would probably be a better place if they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP and haven't read the thread.

Personally I think honorifics should be done away with entirely. I don't think doctors should insist on Dr. I don't think professors should be Prof. I think the use of honorifics perpetuates power imbalances that on the whole aren't good. Let everyone go by first name. And yes, I have honorifics I could use but I don't.

An adult insisting another adult use a title is just cringeworthy behavior to me.

I respect your opinion. Would you consider reading the NYT article linked in this thread to see if any of the issues outlined there might, in your opinion, warrant an exception?

I will find it and read it.

Mostly I find the insistence on honorifics to be the vestiges of a racist and misogynistic history in which those honorifics were used as a way of keeping people who deserved it on their merits out of power.

You want respect? Earn it based on your behavior, not by insisting another adult address you with a title.

I am a woman of color, PhD holder, and professor and you could not be more off base here.

Nope. I've been in the trenches myself and I completely disagree with you.

DP, I agree with the professor PP. The NYT article also noted that professors with doctoral degrees who are younger, minority, and/or female are more likely to be referred to by their first names. Anecdotally, I’ve found this to be true among my academic colleagues who’ve mentioned this issue.

The solution is to not use title at all, not to insist other adults use it.

I do make an exception in the military. But beyond that, no.

Why does the military get an exception?

I am the PP who wrote about the military exception. I haven't posted since then, so anything intervening is not me. I make exceptions for the military because in the military, title is not just an honorific but a way of making the organization function, most critically in life-critical roles. In other words, there is a collapsing of the title and job function in a way that makes the system operable, and has impact on life or death situations. Thinking about it, I can think of a few different scenarios where that could be the case: for instance, I could see a rational need to use formal titles in a surgical operating theater, or an emergency room. But certainly not in a college classroom, where it's really just about professorial ego.

I also wonder to an extent if this is geographic in nature. I am in California and I don't run into this insistence on titles often. My doctors, for instance, will often use first names ("Hi, I am John Smith.") I find people who insist on titles from grown adults in non-life-critical situations to be off-putting. Luckily I don't run into it often. And yes, I call people what they want to be called. I just find the insistence on it to be a bit ridiculous and over the top.

How about clergy?

And politicians: Governor, Senator, President? Okay, I wouldn't call the current guy in the oval office Mr President to his face, but in general.

I am the PP. As I said, I will call people what they want, and if a clergy member wants to be Father John or Sister Mary, I will call them that, although I would personally not feel comfortable with a deep religious relationship with someone who insisted on it even for adult to adult relationships. I've known clergy who don't use titles, so it's not universal. In the interest of full disclosure, I know multiple people who were abused by priests as children and my desire to give clergy any sort of pedestal is non-existent.

I don't see why politicians should only be addressed by special titles. I've met politicians before and I certainly do not think they deserve special treatment. Frankly most of them could stand to have far less ego. Our world would probably be a better place if they did.

What do you mean by "special title" or "special treatment?"

If you meet your senator, at the first time, are you going to call them "Joe" or "Mr. Smith?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP and haven't read the thread.

Personally I think honorifics should be done away with entirely. I don't think doctors should insist on Dr. I don't think professors should be Prof. I think the use of honorifics perpetuates power imbalances that on the whole aren't good. Let everyone go by first name. And yes, I have honorifics I could use but I don't.

An adult insisting another adult use a title is just cringeworthy behavior to me.

I respect your opinion. Would you consider reading the NYT article linked in this thread to see if any of the issues outlined there might, in your opinion, warrant an exception?

I will find it and read it.

Mostly I find the insistence on honorifics to be the vestiges of a racist and misogynistic history in which those honorifics were used as a way of keeping people who deserved it on their merits out of power.

You want respect? Earn it based on your behavior, not by insisting another adult address you with a title.

I am a woman of color, PhD holder, and professor and you could not be more off base here.

Nope. I've been in the trenches myself and I completely disagree with you.

DP, I agree with the professor PP. The NYT article also noted that professors with doctoral degrees who are younger, minority, and/or female are more likely to be referred to by their first names. Anecdotally, I’ve found this to be true among my academic colleagues who’ve mentioned this issue.

The solution is to not use title at all, not to insist other adults use it.

I do make an exception in the military. But beyond that, no.

Why does the military get an exception?

I am the PP who wrote about the military exception. I haven't posted since then, so anything intervening is not me. I make exceptions for the military because in the military, title is not just an honorific but a way of making the organization function, most critically in life-critical roles. In other words, there is a collapsing of the title and job function in a way that makes the system operable, and has impact on life or death situations. Thinking about it, I can think of a few different scenarios where that could be the case: for instance, I could see a rational need to use formal titles in a surgical operating theater, or an emergency room. But certainly not in a college classroom, where it's really just about professorial ego.

I also wonder to an extent if this is geographic in nature. I am in California and I don't run into this insistence on titles often. My doctors, for instance, will often use first names ("Hi, I am John Smith.") I find people who insist on titles from grown adults in non-life-critical situations to be off-putting. Luckily I don't run into it often. And yes, I call people what they want to be called. I just find the insistence on it to be a bit ridiculous and over the top.

How about clergy?

And politicians: Governor, Senator, President? Okay, I wouldn't call the current guy in the oval office Mr President to his face, but in general.

I am the PP. As I said, I will call people what they want, and if a clergy member wants to be Father John or Sister Mary, I will call them that, although I would personally not feel comfortable with a deep religious relationship with someone who insisted on it even for adult to adult relationships. I've known clergy who don't use titles, so it's not universal. In the interest of full disclosure, I know multiple people who were abused by priests as children and my desire to give clergy any sort of pedestal is non-existent.

I don't see why politicians should only be addressed by special titles. I've met politicians before and I certainly do not think they deserve special treatment. Frankly most of them could stand to have far less ego. Our world would probably be a better place if they did.

What do you mean by "special title" or "special treatment?"

If you meet your senator, at the first time, are you going to call them "Joe" or "Mr. Smith?"

Well, when I've met politicians before, I held my hand out and said "Hi, I am Larla Deecum. Nice to meet you." And then generally the politician shook my hand and said "Nice to meet you too." There wasn't a chance for me to use a title or a name.

I don't know what I would do in other situations with politicians, but my guess is it would be situational: If I am introduced as Larla Deecum, I would likely run with Joe Smith. If I am introduced as Ms. Deecum, I would go with Mr. Smith. It's never happened to me though, so I don't know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP and haven't read the thread.

Personally I think honorifics should be done away with entirely. I don't think doctors should insist on Dr. I don't think professors should be Prof. I think the use of honorifics perpetuates power imbalances that on the whole aren't good. Let everyone go by first name. And yes, I have honorifics I could use but I don't.

An adult insisting another adult use a title is just cringeworthy behavior to me.

I respect your opinion. Would you consider reading the NYT article linked in this thread to see if any of the issues outlined there might, in your opinion, warrant an exception?

I will find it and read it.

Mostly I find the insistence on honorifics to be the vestiges of a racist and misogynistic history in which those honorifics were used as a way of keeping people who deserved it on their merits out of power.

You want respect? Earn it based on your behavior, not by insisting another adult address you with a title.

I am a woman of color, PhD holder, and professor and you could not be more off base here.

Nope. I've been in the trenches myself and I completely disagree with you.

DP, I agree with the professor PP. The NYT article also noted that professors with doctoral degrees who are younger, minority, and/or female are more likely to be referred to by their first names. Anecdotally, I’ve found this to be true among my academic colleagues who’ve mentioned this issue.

The solution is to not use title at all, not to insist other adults use it.

I do make an exception in the military. But beyond that, no.

Why does the military get an exception?

I am the PP who wrote about the military exception. I haven't posted since then, so anything intervening is not me. I make exceptions for the military because in the military, title is not just an honorific but a way of making the organization function, most critically in life-critical roles. In other words, there is a collapsing of the title and job function in a way that makes the system operable, and has impact on life or death situations. Thinking about it, I can think of a few different scenarios where that could be the case: for instance, I could see a rational need to use formal titles in a surgical operating theater, or an emergency room. But certainly not in a college classroom, where it's really just about professorial ego.

I also wonder to an extent if this is geographic in nature. I am in California and I don't run into this insistence on titles often. My doctors, for instance, will often use first names ("Hi, I am John Smith.") I find people who insist on titles from grown adults in non-life-critical situations to be off-putting. Luckily I don't run into it often. And yes, I call people what they want to be called. I just find the insistence on it to be a bit ridiculous and over the top.

How about clergy?

And politicians: Governor, Senator, President? Okay, I wouldn't call the current guy in the oval office Mr President to his face, but in general.

I am the PP. As I said, I will call people what they want, and if a clergy member wants to be Father John or Sister Mary, I will call them that, although I would personally not feel comfortable with a deep religious relationship with someone who insisted on it even for adult to adult relationships. I've known clergy who don't use titles, so it's not universal. In the interest of full disclosure, I know multiple people who were abused by priests as children and my desire to give clergy any sort of pedestal is non-existent.

I don't see why politicians should only be addressed by special titles. I've met politicians before and I certainly do not think they deserve special treatment. Frankly most of them could stand to have far less ego. Our world would probably be a better place if they did.

What do you mean by "special title" or "special treatment?"

If you meet your senator, at the first time, are you going to call them "Joe" or "Mr. Smith?"

DP. Doctors in a medical setting, yes. Academics who have earned their PhD in an academic setting, yes. But politicians? Why? Why not stop there? Do you call your hairdresser Mr or Mrs? If not, why not? I'm guessing your hairdresser does more for you than your senator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to a prestige college and the first time I met the president of the university he said call him by his first name. I was merely a random, sloppy teenager at the time. Ever since, I’ve assumed anyone caught up with formal titles is an insufferable twit.

What is a "prestige college"? Is it a finishing school?

Also, your logical reasoning skills are terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP and haven't read the thread.

Personally I think honorifics should be done away with entirely. I don't think doctors should insist on Dr. I don't think professors should be Prof. I think the use of honorifics perpetuates power imbalances that on the whole aren't good. Let everyone go by first name. And yes, I have honorifics I could use but I don't.

An adult insisting another adult use a title is just cringeworthy behavior to me.

I respect your opinion. Would you consider reading the NYT article linked in this thread to see if any of the issues outlined there might, in your opinion, warrant an exception?

I will find it and read it.

Mostly I find the insistence on honorifics to be the vestiges of a racist and misogynistic history in which those honorifics were used as a way of keeping people who deserved it on their merits out of power.

You want respect? Earn it based on your behavior, not by insisting another adult address you with a title.

I am a woman of color, PhD holder, and professor and you could not be more off base here.

Nope. I've been in the trenches myself and I completely disagree with you.

DP, I agree with the professor PP. The NYT article also noted that professors with doctoral degrees who are younger, minority, and/or female are more likely to be referred to by their first names. Anecdotally, I’ve found this to be true among my academic colleagues who’ve mentioned this issue.

The solution is to not use title at all, not to insist other adults use it.

I do make an exception in the military. But beyond that, no.

Why does the military get an exception?

I am the PP who wrote about the military exception. I haven't posted since then, so anything intervening is not me. I make exceptions for the military because in the military, title is not just an honorific but a way of making the organization function, most critically in life-critical roles. In other words, there is a collapsing of the title and job function in a way that makes the system operable, and has impact on life or death situations. Thinking about it, I can think of a few different scenarios where that could be the case: for instance, I could see a rational need to use formal titles in a surgical operating theater, or an emergency room. But certainly not in a college classroom, where it's really just about professorial ego.

I also wonder to an extent if this is geographic in nature. I am in California and I don't run into this insistence on titles often. My doctors, for instance, will often use first names ("Hi, I am John Smith.") I find people who insist on titles from grown adults in non-life-critical situations to be off-putting. Luckily I don't run into it often. And yes, I call people what they want to be called. I just find the insistence on it to be a bit ridiculous and over the top.

How about clergy?

And politicians: Governor, Senator, President? Okay, I wouldn't call the current guy in the oval office Mr President to his face, but in general.

I am the PP. As I said, I will call people what they want, and if a clergy member wants to be Father John or Sister Mary, I will call them that, although I would personally not feel comfortable with a deep religious relationship with someone who insisted on it even for adult to adult relationships. I've known clergy who don't use titles, so it's not universal. In the interest of full disclosure, I know multiple people who were abused by priests as children and my desire to give clergy any sort of pedestal is non-existent.

I don't see why politicians should only be addressed by special titles. I've met politicians before and I certainly do not think they deserve special treatment. Frankly most of them could stand to have far less ego. Our world would probably be a better place if they did.

What do you mean by "special title" or "special treatment?"

If you meet your senator, at the first time, are you going to call them "Joe" or "Mr. Smith?"

DP. Doctors in a medical setting, yes. Academics who have earned their PhD in an academic setting, yes. But politicians? Why? Why not stop there? Do you call your hairdresser Mr or Mrs? If not, why not? I'm guessing your hairdresser does more for you than your senator.

I address everyone by last name, unless solely introduced by first name, or if invited otherwise. That includes parents of friends, unless they say "call me Elizabeth."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP and haven't read the thread.

Personally I think honorifics should be done away with entirely. I don't think doctors should insist on Dr. I don't think professors should be Prof. I think the use of honorifics perpetuates power imbalances that on the whole aren't good. Let everyone go by first name. And yes, I have honorifics I could use but I don't.

An adult insisting another adult use a title is just cringeworthy behavior to me.

I respect your opinion. Would you consider reading the NYT article linked in this thread to see if any of the issues outlined there might, in your opinion, warrant an exception?

I will find it and read it.

Mostly I find the insistence on honorifics to be the vestiges of a racist and misogynistic history in which those honorifics were used as a way of keeping people who deserved it on their merits out of power.

You want respect? Earn it based on your behavior, not by insisting another adult address you with a title.

I am a woman of color, PhD holder, and professor and you could not be more off base here.

Nope. I've been in the trenches myself and I completely disagree with you.

DP, I agree with the professor PP. The NYT article also noted that professors with doctoral degrees who are younger, minority, and/or female are more likely to be referred to by their first names. Anecdotally, I’ve found this to be true among my academic colleagues who’ve mentioned this issue.

The solution is to not use title at all, not to insist other adults use it.

I do make an exception in the military. But beyond that, no.

Why does the military get an exception?

I am the PP who wrote about the military exception. I haven't posted since then, so anything intervening is not me. I make exceptions for the military because in the military, title is not just an honorific but a way of making the organization function, most critically in life-critical roles. In other words, there is a collapsing of the title and job function in a way that makes the system operable, and has impact on life or death situations. Thinking about it, I can think of a few different scenarios where that could be the case: for instance, I could see a rational need to use formal titles in a surgical operating theater, or an emergency room. But certainly not in a college classroom, where it's really just about professorial ego.

I also wonder to an extent if this is geographic in nature. I am in California and I don't run into this insistence on titles often. My doctors, for instance, will often use first names ("Hi, I am John Smith.") I find people who insist on titles from grown adults in non-life-critical situations to be off-putting. Luckily I don't run into it often. And yes, I call people what they want to be called. I just find the insistence on it to be a bit ridiculous and over the top.

How about clergy?

And politicians: Governor, Senator, President? Okay, I wouldn't call the current guy in the oval office Mr President to his face, but in general.

I am the PP. As I said, I will call people what they want, and if a clergy member wants to be Father John or Sister Mary, I will call them that, although I would personally not feel comfortable with a deep religious relationship with someone who insisted on it even for adult to adult relationships. I've known clergy who don't use titles, so it's not universal. In the interest of full disclosure, I know multiple people who were abused by priests as children and my desire to give clergy any sort of pedestal is non-existent.

I don't see why politicians should only be addressed by special titles. I've met politicians before and I certainly do not think they deserve special treatment. Frankly most of them could stand to have far less ego. Our world would probably be a better place if they did.

What do you mean by "special title" or "special treatment?"

If you meet your senator, at the first time, are you going to call them "Joe" or "Mr. Smith?"

DP. Doctors in a medical setting, yes. Academics who have earned their PhD in an academic setting, yes. But politicians? Why? Why not stop there? Do you call your hairdresser Mr or Mrs? If not, why not? I'm guessing your hairdresser does more for you than your senator.

I address everyone by last name, unless solely introduced by first name, or if invited otherwise. That includes parents of friends, unless they say "call me Elizabeth."

I have a PhD and I’m not calling every random person I meet “Mr” or “Mrs” something. That’s ridiculous. I’m not 5 years old and we don’t live in Germany. In that case they should be calling me “Dr” which I would never expect them to do outside an academic setting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not OP and haven't read the thread.

Personally I think honorifics should be done away with entirely. I don't think doctors should insist on Dr. I don't think professors should be Prof. I think the use of honorifics perpetuates power imbalances that on the whole aren't good. Let everyone go by first name. And yes, I have honorifics I could use but I don't.

An adult insisting another adult use a title is just cringeworthy behavior to me.

I respect your opinion. Would you consider reading the NYT article linked in this thread to see if any of the issues outlined there might, in your opinion, warrant an exception?

I will find it and read it.

Mostly I find the insistence on honorifics to be the vestiges of a racist and misogynistic history in which those honorifics were used as a way of keeping people who deserved it on their merits out of power.

You want respect? Earn it based on your behavior, not by insisting another adult address you with a title.

I am a woman of color, PhD holder, and professor and you could not be more off base here.

Nope. I've been in the trenches myself and I completely disagree with you.

DP, I agree with the professor PP. The NYT article also noted that professors with doctoral degrees who are younger, minority, and/or female are more likely to be referred to by their first names. Anecdotally, I’ve found this to be true among my academic colleagues who’ve mentioned this issue.

The solution is to not use title at all, not to insist other adults use it.

I do make an exception in the military. But beyond that, no.

Why does the military get an exception?

I am the PP who wrote about the military exception. I haven't posted since then, so anything intervening is not me. I make exceptions for the military because in the military, title is not just an honorific but a way of making the organization function, most critically in life-critical roles. In other words, there is a collapsing of the title and job function in a way that makes the system operable, and has impact on life or death situations. Thinking about it, I can think of a few different scenarios where that could be the case: for instance, I could see a rational need to use formal titles in a surgical operating theater, or an emergency room. But certainly not in a college classroom, where it's really just about professorial ego.

I also wonder to an extent if this is geographic in nature. I am in California and I don't run into this insistence on titles often. My doctors, for instance, will often use first names ("Hi, I am John Smith.") I find people who insist on titles from grown adults in non-life-critical situations to be off-putting. Luckily I don't run into it often. And yes, I call people what they want to be called. I just find the insistence on it to be a bit ridiculous and over the top.

How about clergy?

And politicians: Governor, Senator, President? Okay, I wouldn't call the current guy in the oval office Mr President to his face, but in general.

I am the PP. As I said, I will call people what they want, and if a clergy member wants to be Father John or Sister Mary, I will call them that, although I would personally not feel comfortable with a deep religious relationship with someone who insisted on it even for adult to adult relationships. I've known clergy who don't use titles, so it's not universal. In the interest of full disclosure, I know multiple people who were abused by priests as children and my desire to give clergy any sort of pedestal is non-existent.

I don't see why politicians should only be addressed by special titles. I've met politicians before and I certainly do not think they deserve special treatment. Frankly most of them could stand to have far less ego. Our world would probably be a better place if they did.

What do you mean by "special title" or "special treatment?"

If you meet your senator, at the first time, are you going to call them "Joe" or "Mr. Smith?"

DP. Doctors in a medical setting, yes. Academics who have earned their PhD in an academic setting, yes. But politicians? Why? Why not stop there? Do you call your hairdresser Mr or Mrs? If not, why not? I'm guessing your hairdresser does more for you than your senator.

I address everyone by last name, unless solely introduced by first name, or if invited otherwise. That includes parents of friends, unless they say "call me Elizabeth."

I have a PhD and I’m not calling every random person I meet “Mr” or “Mrs” something. That’s ridiculous. I’m not 5 years old and we don’t live in Germany. In that case they should be calling me “Dr” which I would never expect them to do outside an academic setting.

You do you, darling.

[Anonymous]

<<The professors and university support staff are the employees in this situation, are they not?>>

They are not your daughter's employees. She is their student. They work for the department chair/university.

[Anonymous]

I think the OP may have reposted -- anonymously. She is just embarrassed to read how far off base she was.

[Anonymous]

Can't we just address people as they choose to be addressed and not have a hissy fit when they correct us?

Can't we also not have a hissy fit when someone addresses us in a different way and politely inform them?

Isn't it that simple -- co-operation?

[Anonymous]

It absolutely ASTOUNDS me that there are people who think it is up to them to decide how to address other people. They wouldn’t even consider the preferences of the person they are addressing. No regard for their feelings/level of comfort, and clearly no respect for others.

Unbelievable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP may have reposted -- anonymously. She is just embarrassed to read how far off base she was.

But she went to a "prestige college"

I don't think she realizes how far off base she is. If she got this far in life without realizing these things, this thread isn't going to enlighten her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your daughter is now in the world of academia. This is how academia works: You err on the side of respect until you are invited into a more informal relationship.

Don't like it? You don't have to stay in academia.

I have a master's degree and have worked as an administrative staff member at four universities and a law school. This is how academia is. Now you know, too.

What exactly is disrespectful about using someone's first name?

Being on a first name basis suggests that you and the other person are peers. Your daughter is not a peer to her professor. She is a student. She is in a subordinate role. She needs to address all professors as "Professor Smith" or "Doctor Smith" until given permission to do otherwise. It's EXTREMELY rude for a student to use a professor's first name without being asked.

[Anonymous]

I feel like this thread has given me a whole new understanding of how there ends up being such rampant sexual harassment by professors victimizing students, and how academics close ranks and protect their own.