I was scrolling through LinkedIn when a promoted advertisement stopped me.
“Nominate yourself and earn a Dr. title.”
The advertisement invited people to nominate themselves for a “prestigious Honorary Doctorate” from an “internationally accredited university.” It promised global recognition, greater professional credibility, and, most strikingly, the opportunity to “earn a Dr. title.”
I could not simply keep scrolling.
I earned my Ph.D. through years of coursework, research, comprehensive examinations, and a dissertation. I also recognize that legitimate honorary doctorates can represent extraordinary accomplishment. Universities confer them on individuals whose contributions to their professions, communities, or society merit exceptional recognition.
In that sense, an honorary doctorate can certainly be earned.
It is not earned through doctoral study, but the recognition may reflect decades of meaningful work. The distinction does not diminish the accomplishments of legitimate honorary degree recipients. It explains what the honor represents.
The problem begins when an honorary doctorate is promoted primarily as a pathway to acquiring the title “Dr.”
There is nothing inherently inappropriate about a university accepting nominations for honorary degrees. Institutions often rely on members of their communities to identify deserving recipients. Nomination is simply the beginning of a selection process.
Self-nomination, however, changes the relationship between the individual, the institution, and the honor.
Traditionally, an honorary degree communicates that an institution has independently examined someone’s body of work and decided that it warrants recognition. The institution initiates the act of honoring, even if someone else originally nominated the recipient.
When individuals are encouraged to nominate themselves so they can “earn a Dr. title,” recognition begins to look more like acquisition. The applicant is not simply being honored for a body of work. The applicant is pursuing a credential because of the professional status attached to it.
That distinction is difficult to ignore.
The advertisement does not lead with service, leadership, discovery, creative achievement, or societal contribution. It leads with standing out. It offers recognition, credibility, and a title.
The honor becomes secondary to the personal branding opportunity.
The phrase “earn a Dr. title” is the most troubling part of the advertisement.
“Dr.” carries social and professional authority because it ordinarily signals the completion of advanced academic or professional study. An honorary doctorate recognizes accomplishment through a different process. It may be highly prestigious, but it does not certify that the recipient completed a doctoral program.
Presenting an honorary degree primarily as a way to acquire “Dr.” blurs that distinction.
This does not mean honorary degree recipients have accomplished less. Some have changed industries, led social movements, advanced scientific discovery, created enduring works of art, or transformed their communities. Their accomplishments may far exceed what any academic program could measure.
But the honor recognizes those accomplishments. It does not retroactively convert them into doctoral education.
When the central selling point becomes the title, the accumulated authority of both earned and honorary doctorates is repurposed as a professional positioning tool.
That should concern everyone who cares about credential integrity.
The phrase “internationally accredited university” also deserves scrutiny.
Accreditation is presented as if it were a universal seal of legitimacy. It is not. The identity of the accrediting body, the jurisdiction in which it operates, the scope of its recognition, and the status of the awarding institution all matter.
The advertisement does not identify the university in its central message. It does not explain what form of accreditation applies or what standards govern the selection of honorary degree recipients.
Prospective recipients should ask basic questions:
Who awards the degree?
Who accredits that institution?
What criteria are used to select recipients?
Who makes the final decision?
Are applicants or recipients required to pay fees?
Does an intermediary receive compensation?
What guidance is provided about representing the degree and using the title “Dr.”?
These are not minor procedural questions. They help determine whether an institution is recognizing accomplishment or allowing its degree-granting authority to become a source of marketable status.
Higher education is already operating in an environment of public skepticism, confusion about credentials, and persistent questions about value. Institutions cannot ask the public to respect academic distinctions while treating those distinctions casually.
Credential integrity involves more than protecting transcripts and confirming that students completed degree requirements. It also requires responsible stewardship of the meaning attached to every credential and honor an institution issues.
Universities should maintain clear policies for honorary degrees, including nomination procedures, selection standards, financial relationships, conflicts of interest, and expectations regarding how recipients represent the award.
They should also exercise caution when third parties advertise honorary degrees as a means of gaining credibility or acquiring a title.
Digital platforms have a role as well. A promoted advertisement on a professional network can appear alongside legitimate university announcements, career accomplishments, and academic achievements. That context can lend credibility to offers that many viewers may not know how to evaluate.
A legitimate honorary doctorate can be among the highest recognitions a university confers. Its value comes from the recipient’s accomplishments and from the institution’s willingness to associate its academic reputation with that person.
The question is not whether an honorary doctorate can be earned. It can be earned through a lifetime of exceptional accomplishment, even though it is not earned through doctoral study.
The more important question is why someone is pursuing it.
Is the individual being recognized because an institution has determined that a remarkable body of work deserves its highest honor?
Or is the individual pursuing an honorary degree primarily to gain the professional authority associated with “Dr.”?
Those are not the same thing.
People who have completed doctoral programs should not see the resulting title repackaged as a shortcut to professional credibility. People who have received honorary doctorates for genuine accomplishment should not have their recognition confused with something pursued primarily for personal branding.
The distinction is worth protecting.
If the primary appeal is “nominate yourself and earn a Dr. title,” we should be willing to ask a simple question:
What exactly is being honored?
Originally posted by Matthew Winn on LinkedIn. Be sure to follow him there to catch all his great industry insights.
Share Article:
© Copyright 2026, The Tambellini Group. All Rights Reserved.
Get exclusive access to higher education analysts, rich research, premium publications, and advisory services.
