Recognition of outstanding persons by honouring them with doctorate degrees has been practiced by universities the world over. However, this practice is being opposed and supported by many people.

How far can you support this concept?
What are your opposing arguments?


There are different opinions on how appropriate it is to recognize people of great caliber by conferring them doctorate degrees. I for one have my own arguements to support this system, and I can identify a few opposing views too.

My primary argument in favour of this universal practice of recognition is that the services and contributions of some eminent men and women cannot be calculated either in terms of money or in terms of time. Such people need to honoured with the highest of qualifications a centre of excellence can afford. Secondly, there are several main stream doctorate degree holders who services go even unnoticed. And finally, when such people are honoured so, they become part of history and culture, and their life keeps the present and coming generation motivated.

For example, our cricket legend Sachin Tendulkar, the India King of Chess and space scientist A.P.J Abdul Kalam, to mention a few, are much bigger and larger than life figures whose contributions to humanity are far beyond anyone’s comprehension.

However, there are some counter points. Firstly, some universities may take it as a means for gaining public relations mileage by getting media coverage. Secondly, some individuals may use their power, influence and money to manage an honorary doctorate so as to satisfy their petty interests. Thirdly, there are chances for making real degrees lose their merit and value.

Coming back to the point, I find it right to conclude that conferring honorary doctorate should be kept in high esteem. And there should a strict system in place to observe that such titles to go to deserving hands. Let there be different opinions on this.


270 words