I didn’t know there was a distinction between PhD “Student” and PhD “Candidate” until I kept getting policed by white academics who reminded me I was a “student.”

I still find that distinction arbitrary/annoying. And as a first gen student, getting policed made me more annoyed.

Because here’s the thing, at least in the US, the road to becoming a “PhD Candidate” can be wildly different across fields and institutions. Most get the title when they defend their dissertation prospectus. But even then some folks do that when they are still in course work.

No one tells those of us who are first gen that this distinction exists and that some people care a lot about the distinction. I know so many first gen students who just said they were a candidate first year because they were in a PhD program...why wouldn’t they be a candidate?

I also am not entirely sure what the distinction between student and candidate does qualitatively. A third year “student” is closer to a first year “candidate” than a first year “student.” Sure the distinction is in completed degree items but again that’s so institution specific.

For all these reasons and more I get extra frustrated when academics, especially white academics, police PhD Students/Candidates about the term they use.

Like, first of all, stop policing people about things period. Second, is it that deep???

Started a poll on this issue because I’m curious.

#PhDChat https://twitter.com/jjrodv/status/1287213416038498311?s=21

Post Script: Some say the distinction is that a PhD Student is working towards a Masters and a PhD Candidate working towards a PhD. But not all institutions offer Masters after exams. And depending accreditation standards, some students need Masters to even begin a PhD Program.

My institution, for example, is accredited by Middle States as well as the Association of Theological Schools. In ATS accredited schools, students *must* have a Masters degree to even apply to the PhD Program. So me and all my colleagues had a Masters before starting our PhD's.