Scandinavian Doctoral Swords & Hats

[Ermintruder]

This is wonderfully exotic and foreign. Most impressed. If you want to get ahead, get a hat. Just what the doctor ordered. And a sword....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctoral_hat
"A doctoral hat (Finnish:tohtorinhattu, Swedish:doktorshatt) is a major part of the academic dress of Ph.D. recipients in Finland and Sweden. It is a silken top hat with a straight brim, although the hats of Finnish Doctors of Science (Technology) have an up-turned brim. Generally the colour of the hat is black, although a few faculties use coloured doctoral hats. On the front, the hat has a gold-coloured metallic emblem of the granting university or faculty. The hat is awarded in a solemn graduation ceremony.

Features
The basic colour of the hat is black. However, in Finland, other colors are found, as follows:

• Doctors of Fine Arts use dark blue;
• Doctors of Law use crimson;
• Doctors of Medicine and Dentistry use dark green;
• Doctors of Military Science use grey;
• Doctors of Music use sky blue;
• Doctors of Theology use purple.

Swedish doctoral hats are always black.

Obtainment and use
Doctoral hats are handmade, with the owner's head measured using a device called a conformateur. The hat should rest on the top of the head. The typical price for the doctoral hat is around 500 euros.

A doctoral hat is always worn with the white tie style of formal dress in lieu of a top hat. In practice, the hat is mostly worn on academic occasions, such as opening ceremonies, commencement, and disputations. In the disputations, the supervising professor and the opponent carry their hats, but do not wear them. During disputations, the hats rest on the table, with the university emblems towards the audience.

A doctoral hat is personal and is usually not lent to others. Along with the doctoral sword (found in Finland only, and not in all faculties), doctoral pike (found in Scotland only) doctoral bulawa (found in Ukraine and Poland), doctoral tailcoat facings (in certain universities / for certain degrees, e.g., for the degree of Doctor of Science in Technology at Aalto University), doctoral Bibles (in theological faculties), and doctoral rings(in Sweden), it forms part of the doctoral academic regalia.

The hat is usually stored in a specially made storage box"

 

[Xanatic*]

Here in Sweden it's just the hat, no sword. I feel we are missing out now.

 

[Frideswide]

doctoral pike (found in Scotland only)

why don't I know about this?

 

[Xanatic*]

The pike is just for doctorates in proctology.

 

[EnolaGaia]

When I was finishing my PhD in Sweden (Umeå Universitet) I received a letter from Stockholm advising me of the procedure for ordering my doctoral hat. It would have cost some hundreds of US dollars at the time (1992). Owing to the cost and my chaotic life events at the time, I never got around to ordering one.

Another thing that dissuaded me was that my doctoral student peers tended to dismiss the traditional formalities (like the hat), and nobody outside of Stockholm seemed to have ever seen anyone wear their doctor's hat.

On top of all that ... The Umeå Universitet crest / logo at the time displayed a trio of reindeer heads with full antlers. It always seemed to me a doctoral hat from Umeå should have been a furry pagan / Viking sort of cap crowned with horns rather than a dandified top hat. Now _there's_ a hat I couldn't have resisted paying for!

 

[Ermintruder]

When I was finishing my PhD in Sweden (Umeå Universitet) I received a letter from Stockholm advising me of the procedure for ordering my doctoral hat.

Excellent and unexpected, a home-team holder of The Hat! Well done, you! Might therefore @Xanatic* and yourself have any insights into the historical origins of this interesting tradition? Did it perhaps begin with some special vestment for Doctors of Medicine, for practical protection/recognition on duty, and then evolve into an awarded arms of office?

@Frideswide

doctoral pike (found in Scotland only)

why don't I know about this?

Yes, ditto-snap. Neverever heard of this before, or seen, during any of the many graduation ceremonies I've been at. If it were actually awarded anywhere, en Ecosse, it'd be at UofGlasgow, Edinburgh and especially St Andrews et cetera, id est, the Ancients). At the likes of Glasgow Cale Uni, and elsewhere, post-grads at their graduations do often seem to wear colourful silk flimsy hats, the veritable antithesis of sub fusc (a mode of dress we are all entirely familiar with, yet rarely name)

I wonder...doctoral pikes, Scottish. This may be a Faithfully Forwarded False Fact: Wiki is very dangerous this way, and can be deliberately used to plant slant or swing sense. I despair that many otherwise-sane consumers just swallow it's content whole, unchecked, always. A universally-enshrined repeated nonsense is still not real, regardless of currency. Well, eventually it is, but it's still not.

These Scando-hats....they obliquely remind me of the impressive headgear worn by the enigmatic Top Secret Drum Corps (but don't tell anybody)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Secret_Drum_Corps

 

[Ermintruder]

The academic study of academic dress appears to be the remit of the Burgon Society http://www.burgon.org.uk

Their hat-checklist is intriguing, ranging far beyond the brim of my expectation:

Square cap (Mortar-board)
Doctors' bonnet
John Knox cap
Bishop Andrewes' cap
Oxford ladies'cap
Sussex pileus
Leicester doctors' hat
Old UEA BA "Fr Brown" hat
Old UEA MA "Highwayman" hat

Wow....a Sussex pileus....

A hat, which looks like a hat-box?

 

[Krepostnoi]

When I was finishing my PhD in Sweden (Umeå Universitet) I received a letter from Stockholm advising me of the procedure for ordering my doctoral hat. It would have cost some hundreds of US dollars at the time (1992). Owing to the cost and my chaotic life events at the time, I never got around to ordering one.

Another thing that dissuaded me was that my doctoral student peers tended to dismiss the traditional formalities (like the hat), and nobody outside of Stockholm seemed to have ever seen anyone wear their doctor's hat.

On top of all that ... The Umeå Universitet crest / logo at the time displayed a trio of reindeer heads with full antlers. It always seemed to me a doctoral hat from Umeå should have been a furry pagan / Viking sort of cap crowned with horns rather than a dandified top hat. Now _there's_ a hat I couldn't have resisted paying for!

Did you have to do the public disputation? A UK viva is scary enough, and there's only another two people in the room. But in public? I know someone who was unfortunate enough to fail her viva, largely due to an unfriendly choice of external examiner. Can one fail the public disputation, or is that done mainly for show?

 

[EnolaGaia]

Did you have to do the public disputation? A UK viva is scary enough, and there's only another two people in the room. But in public? I know someone who was unfortunate enough to fail her viva, largely due to an unfriendly choice of external examiner. Can one fail the public disputation, or is that done mainly for show?

Let me start with your final question, before illustrating from my own experience ... The disputation event can play out as little more than a pro forma show, but it is in fact deadly serious and you can fail.

The disputation / defense was treated as a public event in the Swedish model (derived from the original 'German Model' of the early 19th century). The disputation is required to be nationally announced in advance, and the thesis / dissertation at issue must be made available for review throughout the country. At the appointed time / place, anyone may attend and be accorded the privilege of interrogating the doctoral candidate. To this end ...

Once the Professor (only one 'professor' under that system, and he / she 'owns' the department) approves the candidate for disputation, several things have to occur. The thesis must be printed, and two(?) copies must be delivered to each university library throughout the country. Once this distribution is certified, the candidate must visit the university's rector, submit various documentation, pass administrative review, and 'spike' the thesis. My recollection was that this had to be done before the disputation was formally scheduled and announcements were placed in the two national newspapers.

This has to be done with sufficient lead time to allow interested parties to review the thesis at any of the university libraries (or obtain a copy from the candidate's department).

At least in that place and at that time, there were a number of little details to the process for which my Swedish colleagues gave me no advance warning, so as to provide the entertainment value of seeing me collide headlong with sometimes surreal traditions. The height of dream-like surrealism came with the visit to the university rector. After reviewing and formally applying signatures and seals to my application documents, the rector took the submitted copy of my thesis, a couple of signed and sealed pages, and a small bag pulled out of his desk drawer, then asked me if I were ready for the spikning (spiking). Prior to this visit, no one would tell me what this 'spiking' was all about, so I basically said, "Sure - let's do it."

He led me to the main lobby of the administration building. On the lobby's walls were a number of bulletin boards with posters / announcements, etc. One bulletin board was empty, mounted over a heavy wood backing panel, and appeared to be riddled with small caliber bullet holes. The rector led me to this empty board. He then carefully overlaid a copy of my dissertation with a couple of signed and sealed documents, held the assembled set up against the bulletin board, pulled a hammer and a really big-ass nail (at least 5 - 6 inches long) from the bag, held these last two items out to me, and asked, "Are you ready to spike?"

It wasn't until that moment that the gestalt (of what was happening in all its Martin Luther-ish glory) came into focus. After years of work / trials / frustrations, this was it. I said something along the lines of, "Oh hell yes!", grabbed the hammer and nail, and channeled all my accumulated stress into affixing my thesis for all to see. Let's just say it was akin to the movie scene in which a character strikes the first blow, then gets carried away with blood lust.

After my little spiking frenzy, both the rector and the senior departmental aide who'd accompanied me were beside themselves with barely-suppressed laughter.

The rector then said there was one last thing, and he instructed me to turn and face away. Once I'd done so, he then kicked me in the ass (an old Swedish gesture for good luck). That completed the spikning rituals, and I was officially cleared to undertake the disputation.

I'll cover the disputation in a subsequent post ...

 

[Mythopoeika]

You wonder who invented all these little rituals. They seem fairly long-established.

 

[Frideswide]

EnolaGaia this is fantastic first hand testimony! thank you so much!

 

[Krepostnoi]

EnolaGaia this is fantastic first hand testimony! thank you so much!

Seconded, heartily.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Now to the disputation itself (at least as I've experienced it) ...

There are 3 parties to the disputation other than the candidate him- / herself: The Opponent, the examination committee, and the general audience. The Opponent is paid for his / her service as the initial 'master of ceremonies'. The examination committee is a panel of usually 5 scholars / academics selected for their relevance to the disciplinary / topical content of the thesis. In my case, the committee members were all imported from outside Sweden. To help justify the attendant costs for bringing all them in, we held a sort of symposium or mini-conference the day prior to the disputation, at which all of them made presentations to university audiences.

The disputation was held in an auditorium. The Opponent and I were on the stage, the examination committee was seated up front / centrally, and there were something like 40 - 50 other folks scattered about.

The disputation process proceeded as follows:

(1) The Opponent presents the thesis to the audience, describing the background and the research. During this phase the Opponent is free to comment (wherever he / she feels appropriate) on the dissertation and the research (including opinions and criticisms). The candidate can only sit passively and listen.

(2) The Opponent interrogates the candidate for as long as he / she feels is necessary. Once the Opponent is finished ...

(Somewhere by the end of step 2 the Opponent states his summary assessment of the candidate's work and expresses his recommendation concerning approval (or not)).

(3) The members of the examination committee interrogate the candidate for as long as they feel necessary. Once they're finished chewing on the candidate ...

(4) The general audience gets to interrogate the candidate.

There is no time limit for this process. I've heard of cases in which the interrogations had to be suspended and resumed on subsequent days. I vaguely recall being told the known record duration of this phase was on the order of a full week.

Once this presentation / interrogation is completed, the examination committee retires to a private place to discuss the results and vote on whether the candidate is approved. The supervising Professor and the Opponent join them, but neither are accorded voting privileges. These two people are included solely for advisory / explanatory roles. The Opponent serves as the reference point on the research / dissertation per se. The Professor is essentially a captive spectator, unless something about the work at issue causes the committee to turn their comments toward him / her.

It's definitely a star chamber sort of meeting (I've served on a Swedish exam committee myself). The supervising Professor has a major stake in the outcome, and the exam committee may give the Professor critical feedback on what he / she approved for disputation. There can also be discussion of more general issues among the assembled folks (e.g., guidelines and / or tips for future such processes; comparing notes). This last aspect of the private deliberations can seem like conversations among members of a secret fraternity.

The candidate and everyone else waits (sometimes for hours; often elsewhere than the presentation venue) until someone appears and announces the results of the committee's deliberations.

If the decision is a positive one, a party typically ensues. Otherwise ...

The committee is empowered to reject the candidate outright, and this occasionally happens. More commonly, the surfacing of any serious problems / flaws / etc. during the disputation will result in a sort of suspended sentence, under which the candidate must do additional work (revise the thesis, whatever ...) and undergo a subsequent review (up to and possibly including another full disputation event) before final approval can be granted.

The process is treated very seriously, the stakes are high, and success is by no means assured ...

Now for some illustrative anecdotes from the time I was in Sweden ...

I heard about multiple cases in which a member of the general audience had effectively dismembered a candidate's chances of approval during the final interrogation. I recall one case in which a candidate in astrophysics (?) was rejected or deferred because a physicist from Norway took it upon himself to travel to the disputation and demonstrate both flaws in the candidate's thesis as well as a gross lack of acknowledgment of prior (arguably identical) work - some of which the Norwegian had performed himself decades earlier.

I recall another case in which a scholarly member of the general audience provided evidence strongly suggestive of outright plagiarism - causing a suspension of the overall process. I later heard that the candidate had quietly dropped the matter and left the university.

I personally (as a member of an examination committee) once demonstrated serious flaws in a thesis that rendered it questionable if not nonsensical. At one point during the committee interrogation phase I stood, held up copies of both the thesis and a paper the candidate had published the previous year, and pointed out the diagrams for the analytical model he'd attributed to someone else - and claimed to have surpassed - and the model he'd submitted as his own superior version were in fact identical (not just suspiciously similar, but literally identical ...).

The candidate made the mistake (after reviewing both diagrams, which we'd screen-projected for the audience to see) of mealy-mouthing it wasn't an issue, even though the audience was already clearly aghast. He didn't seem to realize that casually brushing off the issue may have been tantamount to blowing off his chances for approval.

(Oops! ...)

This set off (in the deliberation phase) what can only be called a very emotional scene in which I had to simultaneously damn the thesis, argue for deferral / revisions rather than outright rejection, and deal with the supervising Professor's humiliation when he had to accept responsibility for letting a flawed work proceed to disputation. This case involved my own prior department, so it was very much a 'family affair'. I was in tears multiple times that day (as were other folks).

(Just for the record ... I'd only discovered this fatal discrepancy the night before, and I'd agonized all night over whether to let it lie versus being honor-bound to mention it. That was more stressful than anything I'd experienced in my own disputation. And yes - it resulted in some departmental acquaintances refusing to interact with me ever again ...)

 

[EnolaGaia]

Sorry to be so long-winded, but I wanted to try and present a reasonable overview of a system we Anglo-Americans don't face in our home countries.

Some additional comments ...

When I moved to Sweden I was 'ABD' (All but dissertation) in a PhD program at a major American public university, having completed more than enough course work and passed my major qualifying examination (in AI). As a result, I've essentially experienced most of both systems. A Swedish professor 'adopted' me, we calibrated my state of progress based on the American work, and determined I needed only produce the dissertation / disputation. Being able to complete my doctorate was a condition of accepting a job offer in Stockholm.

Back in the 1980's I bought and read one of the few self-help books I've ever found to be truly helpful - a book on how to successfully pursue a PhD. One of the key points the book made was to re-characterize the process in terms of extant members of an ostensibly elite / elitist club judging the candidate for inclusion in their fraternity. This turned out to be a valuable insight, and it was far more apparent in Sweden (under the German model) than in the USA.

Given the weird and stress-inducing rigors of surviving the Swedish model I hope you can appreciate why I occasionally find it useful or entertaining, if not necessary, to point out I obtained my terminal degree under a different system ...

... and that my proper title is Herr Doktor.

(Yes - I'm not ashamed to admit I really get off on the Herr Doktor bit ...)

 

[Mythopoeika]

How can I 'like' that more than once?

Wow! That's a really confrontational way of doing things. But it does ensure a really high standard.

 

[Krepostnoi]

No need to apologise, I could happily have read more. It's very interesting to hear an inside take on a different way of doing things. I am very happy not to have had to face your ethical quandary. Congratulations on standing up for your values, it can't have been easy.

 

[GingerTabby]

Thank you for this description of the events, EnolaGaia. It's an interesting read!

Last December I successfully defended my doctoral thesis but, fortunately, it was not a harrowing experience. It unfolded in the manner which I gather is typical of North American universities: a jury of four professors put questions to me while another professor presided over the event. The jury consisted of two professors from within my faculty (theology), another professor from outside my faculty (he was from canon law) and the external examiner, who was present via Skype. Like all such defences, it was advertised within the university community. The audience members are not permitted to speak, however. The turnout was quite small, possibly because the date of the defence fell during final exams. Most of the attendees were friends of mine from outside the university. The whole thing took just under two hours. Time limits for questioning are strict, and the presider is expected to keep everyone within those limits.

Candidates in theology are permitted to sit at a desk directly opposite the jury members while the presider sits in between at one side. I've been told that at a defence in the canon law faculty the candidate is expected to stand at a podium facing the jury. I likely would have collapsed in fright if I'd had to do that! I've also heard that defences in canon law often turn nasty. One person who mentioned this to me said, "that's because they're all lawyers." There was no unpleasantness at my defence, nor has there been at any of the others I've attended within my faculty.

A couple of amusing things happened immediately before my defence, but I wasn't made aware of them until afterwards. As is the norm within the university, the jury members, presider and thesis director met for about fifteen minutes immediately ahead of the defence to go over the order of the questions and other matters. During this meeting, the presider, who happened to be a Franciscan priest, asked my director if I should be invited to say a prayer before the defence began. My director said no because she thought the request might throw me off my game. Instead, the presider himself said a brief prayer before we began. I had never seen this done at a defence and I appreciated the gesture. (My director was correct in thinking I would have been rattled if I'd been asked to do it! I was too nervous). She also later told me that during the meeting she heard a cat purring over the Skype connection. She assumed the external examiner must have had a cat in his office with him but she wasn't about to ask. I neither saw nor heard one during the defence itself. It would have been an interesting distraction if one had appeared.

My graduation ceremony will take place in three weeks. I have already paid for the rental of my gown and hood but, unlike the Finns, I won't have the opportunity to purchase funky headgear.

 

[Ermintruder]

These are fascinating insights into the rigours and trials of thesis defence/disputation viva.

Despite having worked one of my previous life-careers in education, the procedural details affecting these dynamic peer inquisitions are all substantially unknown to me. Would a taught doctorate, say a North American DEd, also include an end-phase personalised defense interaction? Or is this process only focusing upon the veracity and substance of the research and conclusions, as opposed to being a required test, needed also because of it's relative scholarship level?

Is there a similar process at a post -doctoral/ professorial level, for thesis disputation, especially within a Scandinavian setting? Logic would indicate (and imagination prefer) that candidates would arrive already hatted and sworded, rather tham just suited and booted, as previous. Assuming they pass this even greater trial, what physical trophies or additional regalia might they be invested with? A more ornate sword, perhaps? A feather for that hat? Or perhaps because I have to ask, I do not need to know. But I must!

Thanks, all, for this. Am so glad I raised the matter of this hat and sword tradition.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... Would a taught doctorate, say a North American DEd, also include an end-phase personalised defense interaction? Or is this process only focusing upon the veracity and substance of the research and conclusions, as opposed to being a required test, needed also because of it's relative scholarship level?

Doctoral degree requirements can vary by institution (or even by department), even within a single nation, so there's no 'one size fits all' answer. I can only respond with broad strokes, and there are almost certainly local exceptions or variations that contradict any claim I make.

Having said that, here's how I'd break it down ...

The modern formats for doctoral requirements only date as far back as the 19th century. They nearly always involve a demonstration of the candidate's capabilities by which he / she will be judged for acceptance into 'the club'.

The two capabilities of focal concern can be most generally described as:

(1) Demonstrated knowledge of the subject field (both the overall discipline and the specific area of research interest).

(2) Demonstrated ability to define, perform, document, and defend (a) original research (i.e., something producing a new contribution to the field's knowledge base) OR (b) some equivalent project generating original results other than (e.g.) theoretical / analytical conclusions.

Capability (1) can be obtained and demonstrated through course work and some form of examination. The examination bit may be satisfied along the way (by simply passing courses) or in some cases be done via a formal discursive protocol such as a panel inquiry or the sort of 'defense' event we associate with doctorates.

Capability (2) typically involves a more stringent version of the examination bit involving interrogation (broadly defined) by one or more designated experts.

My understanding is that the classical / medieval (pre-modern) doctoral degree most commonly focused on Capability (1), expert interrogation was usually involved, and this interrogation concerned whether or not the candidate could demonstrate a mastery of the discipline's orthodox tenets. (Always bear in mind the label 'doctor' derives from doxa (Greek: 'opinion'; 'doctrine')).

At least in the US context, this Capability (1) certification for doctoral work is most commonly obtained through formal qualifying examinations. For example, my status as a dissertator (at the point I moved to Sweden) was predicated on my having passed my major qualifying exam.

The modern (19th century) protocol initiated routine attention to Capability (2) as well. This meant that any prescribed interrogation shifted focus (if only partially) to something the candidate produced above and beyond what the candidate knew (in terms of the subject matter).

The difference between Capability (1) and Capability (2) came to be reflected in the hierarchy of degrees / programs, to the point it became common to describe a masters / licentiate* degree as something requiring Capability (1) alone and a Doctoral degree as something requiring both Capabilities (1) and (2). Phrased another way, it became common to claim the key discriminator was the additional requirement for producing an original contribution before one could be approved at the doctoral level.

(*NOTE: My understanding is that licentiates originated under the German model, and they represent something more than a typical Anglo-American masters but somehow less than a full-fledged doctorate. I don't claim to really understand the licentiate category, so I'll skip over it for the purposes of this discussion.)

... Then things got more convoluted as curricular variations appeared at both these levels. It's not uncommon (at least in the USA) for masters-level degrees to be offered via thesis versus non-thesis options. The non-thesis option can be successfully pursued through course work alone. For example, I was awarded a masters degree automatically once I'd met the curricular requirements, even though I was registered as a doctoral student.

The thesis option at the masters level usually requires demonstrating Capability (2) without necessarily producing a new / original contribution. A masters-level thesis option may involve an interrogation / defense event, but the typical concern is whether the defended work demonstrates procedural competence in performing research rather than originality of the research's outcomes or implications.

Similar variation also appeared at the doctoral level, with the emergence of application- or vocationally-focused doctorates (such as the American D.Ed / Ed.D) for which Capability (2) could be evaluated on the basis of a project or body of work that didn't necessarily represent an original contribution to the field / discipline. As a result, there's always been some controversy concerning whether such doctorates are really equivalent to the classical PhD. The purported difference has been taken seriously enough that some American universities distinguish between a theoretical / academic PhD in Education and an applied / practitioner Ed.D or D.Ed.

IMHO it's fair to say there's more confusing variability in these matters among Anglo-American institutions than among those operating under the German model. I believe one reason traces back to a key difference between the historical contexts in which the two prevalent models arose. The German model reflects a scenario in which the university is funded by the state and is construed as a peripheral appendage of the nation-state apparatus. As such, one would expect there to be a coherent single set of national rules / criteria - a set that would naturally come to reflect the relative precision / specificity one associates with the law.

In the Anglo-American model (at least in the USA) the university is treated as the focal authority, regardless of its relationship with the state. Any national-level coherence or consistency among requirements can only be obtained via some (typically non-governmental) accreditation authority, and then only if the given institution subscribes to that authority's membership or certification. In this context, the perceived 'quality' of a PhD is to some extent dependent on the perceived 'quality' of the program / institution granting the degree.

If I'd finished my PhD in the USA, I would have been certified by a particular university on that particular institution's own terms. In Sweden (under the German model) my certification was effectively awarded by the state through the particular university. In this context, the perceived 'quality' of a doctorate is ostensibly uniform throughout the nation, regardless of which institution the student attends.

This last point explains why my Swedish friends and colleagues consistently said they didn't understand the prestige implications attributed to getting an American PhD from one university versus another.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... Is there a similar process at a post -doctoral/ professorial level, for thesis disputation, especially within a Scandinavian setting? Logic would indicate (and imagination prefer) that candidates would arrive already hatted and sworded, rather tham just suited and booted, as previous. Assuming they pass this even greater trial, what physical trophies or additional regalia might they be invested with? A more ornate sword, perhaps? A feather for that hat? Or perhaps because I have to ask, I do not need to know. But I must!
...

To the best of my knowledge, the doctorate is the terminal degree and no specific requirements (rituals; certifications) are formulated for post-doctoral work under the German / Swedish system.

On the other hand ... I've known multiple folks who've eventually obtained a second PhD, all of whom have been subject to satisfying the relevant requirements (e.g., thesis; defense) a second time.

 

[Krepostnoi]

On the other hand ... I've known multiple folks who've eventually obtained a second PhD, all of whom have been subject to satisfying the relevant requirements (e.g., thesis; defense) a second time.

Really? Wow. Would I be safe to presume the second doctorate is in a very different field to the first?

 

[EnolaGaia]

Really? Wow. Would I be safe to presume the second doctorate is in a very different field to the first?

Yes - at least in the cases with which I'm personally familiar. For example, one of my former professors (in computer science; holding a PhD in mathematics) later obtained a university doctorate in counseling psychology (or some other named field affiliated with psychotherapy). The second degree was employed as the basis for a second, late-in-life, career as a licensed psychotherapist. He had to complete a considerable amount of course work, practical project work, and another full thesis project to get the second doctorate.

 

[louisliufr]

I can believe the existence of the top hat while the sword is far away from my perception. I got a doctoral degree in America, they normally wear the doctoral tam (also referred to as beefeater). Some of my peers especially girls, even don't wear the traditional graduation outfit when they took pictures with their besties and relatives. I think now those graduation garb is more like a symbol to respect the tradition and as time passes by, people are inclined to accept more causal and free graduation commencement. That's why there're loads of students choosing to customize their graduation mortarboards by writing the words on the top of the hat.

 

[Frideswide]

A hat, which looks like a hat-box?

perhaps it is stored in a hatbox which looks like a hat?????