Where are all the male PAs ?????

[UGoLong]

As a boy who grew up with cap guns, playing cowboys and Indians, and influenced heavily by the manly deeds of returning World War II veterans, I have to smile at some of the comments on this thread. In spite of what younger people might think, we were probably more thoroughly disciplined in school then than now. And any adult in my town felt absolutely entitled to stop you, reprimand you, break up a fight, or call your parents. Teachers could have you stand all of recess with your nose to the wall for mistreating a classmate.

 

It wasn't peaches and cream, but I believe thinking that today's men are somehow emasculated because of how they are treated in school is not all that promising an explanation. As far as I can tell, kids are less disciplined in school these days and less may be expected of them, in general. Not everyone, to be sure. And girls are growing up with a wider horizon of jobs and lifestyle options. That's a very good thing.

 

Until my generation, most people didn't go to college unless they were fairly well-off. That isn't the only measure of success, but things changed after WWII. Neither of my parents went to college and you best believe that they expected my brother and me to go, to raise our own families, and to be successful. When I wanted to get a part-time job after school, I was told that "school is your job." They went to parent-teacher conferences religiously. They wanted to see my report card, tests, homework, etc. If I didn't understand something, they taught me or found someone who could.

 

Bottom line: I think many of us live up to the expectations others set for us, at least until we are old enough to set our own. While it's stupid to expel a boy from school for pointing a piece of bread bitten to look like a gun or having a plastic knife to cut up his lunchtime banana, the bigger issue is who is giving him expectations for his life and what are those expectations?

[Guest Paula]

What does "act like girls" mean?

 

They are to sit quietly in class, not make noise or wiggle, are to not run around like crazy in recess and if not get sent to me for ADHD drugs. 

[UpRegulated]

Enough with the sexism and stereotypes. Please

 

Because we all know that our behavior has nothing to do with our biology, right?

[G. Davenport]

there are fewer PA programs available that accept e.g. AS paramedics or nurses, so there's also a supply/demand curve.  

 

When we went from certification to Bachelor's degree and now Master's degree for all new programs and conversion of others by matriculation of 2020 class.  The corpsman who leaves service with a family sees a much longer journey and perhaps simply can't afford to take that much time out of work.  They are older with bills and responsibility.  

 

I was a certified PA and wonder if my path would have been different today - given there doesn't seem to be a certification (alone) option anymore.  

 

I entered PA school with an Associates of Science degree.  If I was required to go two more years before applying to PA school, hmm....    

 

i was 31 and my wife and two kids still needed a roof over their head and food on the table.  Adding two years to my journey (making it a four year process) would have played a major role in my decision tree.

 

Bottom line, when we went from certification to graduate concept we impacted our demographics and this may play a large role in the shift seen (age and gender).  Perhaps impacting the older non-traditional applicant (who has to balance spouse and children) more than any other potential applicant. 

 

G

[EMEDPA]

Bottom line, when we went from certification to graduate concept we impacted our demographics and this may play a large role in the shift seen (age and gender).  Perhaps impacting the older non-traditional applicant (who has to balance spouse and children) more than any other potential applicant. 

 

G

agree and this is a shame because these folks are the heart and soul of the profession. we are closing the door to navy corpsmen, army medics, paramedics/RTs/RNs with a.s. degrees, etc in favor of 22 yr old candy strippers and scribes. Am I the only one who sees a problem with that?

[LESH]

"Unintended consequences"...

[PACProvider]

They do submit the data. The PAEA has it and publishes it in a yearly report.

 

I asked the question "Are the acceptance rates for male and female applicants similar or is there a bias toward female students?" I went to the PAEA report and I do not find any date on acceptance rates. It is my understanding of the report that they are only publishing information (data) on matriculated students. Knowing the percentage of female to male matriculated students tells us absolutely nothing about whether there is unfair bias in admissions. I would like to see how many male applicants apply and what percentage are accepted. Show how many female applicants apply and then show me how many are accepted. Control for GPA, HCE and age. After I see the data, I might be willing to believe there is not an unfair bias in admissions in favor of women.

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

I asked the question "Are the acceptance rates for male and female applicants similar or is there a bias toward female students?" I went to the PAEA report and I do not find any date on acceptance rates. It is my understanding of the report that they are only publishing information (data) on matriculated students. Knowing the percentage of female to male matriculated students tells us absolutely nothing about whether there is unfair bias in admissions. I would like to see how many male applicants apply and what percentage are accepted. Show how many female applicants apply and then show me how many are accepted. Control for GPA, HCE and age. After I see the data, I might be willing to believe there is not an unfair bias in admissions in favor of women.

Sorry. I was under the impression that if I told you where the data was you would find it and not respond like I was an idiot incapable of understanding your question. Didn't realize we were going to be rude. Here is an article that talks about percentage of applicants by gender. You're looking for figure 5 on page 5 of 8.

 

http://www.paeaonline.org/index.php?ht=action/GetDocumentAction/i/25459

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

I asked the question "Are the acceptance rates for male and female applicants similar or is there a bias toward female students?" I went to the PAEA report and I do not find any date on acceptance rates. It is my understanding of the report that they are only publishing information (data) on matriculated students. Knowing the percentage of female to male matriculated students tells us absolutely nothing about whether there is unfair bias in admissions. I would like to see how many male applicants apply and what percentage are accepted. Show how many female applicants apply and then show me how many are accepted. Control for GPA, HCE and age. After I see the data, I might be willing to believe there is not an unfair bias in admissions in favor of women.

Or this. Page 2 of 5 top right hand corner

 

http://www.paeaonline.org/index.php?ht=a/GetDocumentAction/i/144686

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

Or here, though not found on PAEA to my knowledge

http://science-math.wright.edu/sites/default/files/page/attachments/CASPA-Data-Fact-Sheet-062712.pdf

[PACProvider]

Sorry. I was under the impression that if I told you where the data was you would find it and not respond like I was an idiot incapable of understanding your question. Didn't realize we were going to be rude. Here is an article that talks about percentage of applicants by gender. You're looking for figure 5 on page 5 of 8.

 

http://www.paeaonline.org/index.php?ht=action/GetDocumentAction/i/25459

Thank you for this reply. I went to the site and did my best to find the data. I decided to study the annual report.

 

http://www.paeaonline.org/index.php?ht=a/GetDocumentAction/i/156969

 

I searched for "applicant" and found no data. I read the entire report and didn't see the data you referenced in the link in your previous message. However, it appears from studying the data in the annual report about matriculated and the link to the report you sent me about applicants, that there is NOT a bias in favor of female over male applicants. Your link did provide date about applicants. I was stunned but I now believe that unfair admission bias as a cause for declining male enrollment must be dismissed.

[cop to pa]

In response to Mr. Davenport:

    I am 37, married, with a child.  I am also a former Navy Corpsman of 8 years who got out in 2004.  I am, in short, who you are talking about.  If it weren't for the revised post 9/11 GI Bill, I would not be able to be working on finishing my Bachelor's and pre-reqs to apply to PA school.  I'm going to a State University full-time and my family is living on both my GI Bill stipend and my wife's salary.  Under the old Montgomery GI Bill, my current course would be impossible and I could not realistically be able to become a Physician Assistant.

    On a tangent, I have been trolling this site for years, reading and researching.  I have looked at the requirements and financial information on the PA programs in the three States I wish to apply to.  I have researched extensively, cold-called PAs to try and shadow, in order to bolster my application.  And, it saddens me to say, have gone to open houses filled with questions like: "what's the difference between a PA and NP?", and "do I have to do all the prerequisites, or just most of them?"

    I wholeheartedly agree that the higher educational level is a greater impact than the gender issue.  Even though I have been vastly outnumbered at open houses by females, it has been even more so by people with little to no HCE but a whole lot of college.  It's a bit disenfranchising, and I will not even be applying to CASPA until next cycle.

[EMEDPA]

and many programs now accept "research" and scribe as "experience" when these folks have never physically touched a pt.

shameful.

[db_pavnp]

Your link did provide date about applicants. I was stunned but I now believe that unfair admission bias as a cause for declining male enrollment must be dismissed.

 

I was surprised to see you suggest this possible bias.  If anything, programs are always drumming for diversity and I would think male applicants would have a minor advantage.

[G. Davenport]

In response to Mr. Davenport:

I am 37, married, with a child. I am also a former Navy Corpsman of 8 years who got out in 2004. I am, in short, who you are talking about. If it weren't for the revised post 9/11 GI Bill, I would not be able to be working on finishing my Bachelor's and pre-reqs to apply to PA school.

 

PM me with your email.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Z PA-C]

My program is split exactly down the middle 50:50 M:F :)

[JohnnyM2]

and many programs now accept "research" and scribe as "experience" when these folks have never physically touched a pt.

shameful.

I suppose that you will never pass up an opportunity to bash scribes (twice in this thread alone). As a long time member of this forum with many thousands of excellent posts, however, I find it unfortunate that you continue to adhere to an outdated view of what a PA should be, as if that were the only acceptable way to enter the profession. If experienced medics, corpsmen, paramedics and other experienced healthcare professionals are eschewing PA school because they can't afford to spend so many years getting the pre-reqs, applying and attending school, that is, indeed, unfortunate. Undoubtedly, the profession would benefit by having more of these experienced and, often, older people, though I suspect that there are not nearly enough of them to fill the increasing number of PA student slots being added. As a male chauvinist, myself, I would like to see more men enter the profession. I feel that a 50/50 mix would be beneficial to the profession. That, however, is just my own prejudice which others will certainly disagree with.

 

It seems to me that you once stated you would have liked to have done an EM fellowship but couldn't move to do that. Some of the "younger" scribe-PAs, however, may be in a better position to enter one of these programs, at the end of which they will likely be better prepared than an EMT-PA without the EM fellowship. The original 1960s, PA model was excellent and is still valid today but, as the ranks of PAs continue to expand, new models will evolve. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. As someone who prefers the PA model of advanced practice to the NP model, I like the idea that the PA profession is growing and offering an opportunity, other than med school, to many excellent healthcare professionals who want to advance their careers.

 

My spouse's view on the matter (she is a woman, I should add) is that it isn't so much that the ranks of male PAs are shrinking but, rather, that more and more women are preferring PA school to med school because of perceived lifestyle advantages, and are preferring PA school to NP because of the superior training. :-)

 

Sent from my Kindle Fire HDX using Tapatalk 2

[Guest Paula]

I would like to see more men in the field too.  I believe it will help in keeping salaries higher (this may be an out-moded view, BTW).  I was in a female dominated profession (dietetics) and I remember reading a study done regarding the gender/pay discrepancy in the field with it being mostly female.  Salaries were higher for men and it helped to have more men in the field to increase the female salaries.  I imagine nursing has the same issues.  There are not a lot of male dietitians and those who are in the field tend to work in academia.

 

The PA profession, being female dominated may be at risk for lower salaries.  If female PAs want the career because of the lifestyle advantages...i.e. off for a while for parenting ( I am not opposed to this and support), then we may be offered lower salaries as we are not at work on a full-time basis. 

 

Personally, there can be  no such thing as pay equality between male/females in the same profession because none of us have the EXACT same job, same experience, same length of employment, take the same call, work the same overtime, work the same shifts, etc., etc., etc. 

[PACdan]

Lots of scribes in my class, I was surprised. In fact, lots of research + scribing.

 

As I said, I was surprised, but not shocked. Along with everything else, we're also doing a fair amount of research and writing throughout didactic and clinical years. With all the EBM and CTCI, these schools want the minds of high academic achievers. They may fumble a bit when it comes to initial pt. interactions, but the schools know they can digest the mountains of knowledge placed before them. Juggle 20 credit hours at once. The grizzled medic may be great with his skill set and EM procedures, but that can get in the way too. Sometimes it's hard to un-focus the trained mind, to do all that rewiring.

 

PA schools are there to mold students. And in many ways, the fresh, malleable clay will stretch further before cracking. What I'm seeing and taking away from this is a push to be more and more like medical school. And part of that is accepting a similar applicant archetype.

 

[rev ronin]

The problems with scribes or researchers isn't the applicants themselves--they're just doing the best they can--it's the fact that clinical skills are no longer tested, and thus you can get out of a program being marginal or downright deficient.  PANCE is head-knowledge only, zero hands on, and PANCE pass rates are the only objective and universal way of measuring PA schools, so schools prefer braniac applicants from ivory towers to street medics and floor nurses.  Good PANCE pass rate?  Must be a good program.

 

Employers want PAs... but they don't want academics-only candy strippers who are just looking to work part-time in between having babies.  They want the experienced paramedics, RTs, RNs, and similar medical technicians or entry level professionals who've upleveled their skills once they've seen from the inside what medicine is and that they want to do more.  We're already headed for a Pharm.D. like rapid oversupply of the job market, but in the process the quality of graduates is going to be so diluted along the way that the actual demand for PAs will tank first.

 

The NPs have the same problem--no one can make someone a medical practitioner overnight.  Six to seven years, one way or another, is what it's going to take to get someone to be a competent clinician, and the PA promise was never to make a competent clinician in two years... just to take someone with years of experience and give them the tools needed.

[PACdan]

^^^ at the same time, I'm under no illusions that this student population is not more willing to assume the ever increasing debt burden to attend. At the end of the day, both education and healthcare are a business.

 

Anyone who says differently is selling something.

[EMEDPA]

I suppose that you will never pass up an opportunity to bash scribes

 

It seems to me that you once stated you would have liked to have done an EM fellowship but couldn't move to do that. Some of the "younger" scribe-PAs, however, may be in a better position to enter one of these programs, at the end of which they will likely be better prepared than an EMT-PA without the EM fellowship. The original 1960s, PA model was excellent and is still valid today but, as the ranks of PAs continue to expand, new models will evolve.

my scribe, research, and candy stripper bashing will continue as I feel they are inappropriate types of 'experience". nothing I have seen in clinical practice has changed that. this forum alone is full of "why can't I get in" threads from former scribes.

when I graduated PA school there was 1 em pa residency. I applied for it. that same year it closed so I didn't even get a chance to interview. it was several years before another opened.

I have yet to see a former scribe get into an em pa residency. i would be surprised if they made the cut as part of the screening is commitment to em in former experience and scribe does not show that as it is not direct hce, it is shadowing.

[PACdan]

The problems with scribes or researchers isn't the applicants themselves--they're just doing the best they can--it's the fact that clinical skills are no longer tested, and thus you can get out of a program being marginal or downright deficient. PANCE is head-knowledge only, zero hands on, and PANCE pass rates are the only objective and universal way of measuring PA schools, so schools prefer braniac applicants from ivory towers to street medics and floor nurses. Good PANCE pass rate? Must be a good program.

 

Employers want PAs... but they don't want academics-only candy strippers who are just looking to work part-time in between having babies.

This is an institutional problem. And the institutions are doing it to themselves. The hospitals and schools are integrated in many places. If they want differently than what they're getting, they need to shift the metric. You can't tell me the academic hospital that trains these PAs then doesn't understand/opines about what they're getting 2.5 years later when they hire them. They trained them!

 

[JohnnyM2]

my scribe, research, and candy stripper bashing will continue as I feel they are inappropriate types of 'experience". nothing I have seen in clinical practice has changed that. this forum alone is full of "why can't I get in" threads from former scribes.

when I graduated PA school there was 1 em pa residency. I applied for it. that same year it closed so I didn't even get a chance to interview. it was several years before another opened.

I have yet to see a former scribe get into an em pa residency. i would be surprised if they made the cut as part of the screening is commitment to em in former experience and scribe does not show that as it is not direct hce, it is shadowing.

Really? I have seen many threads where people ask if scribing counts as HCE. Also threads where people list their stats and are told that they need HCE other than scribe. What I haven't seen are a lot of threads where highly motivated and otherwise qualified applicants say they can't get in because they were scribes. Granted some schools state up front that direct HCE is required and scribe doesn't count, but then it would be foolish for a previous scribe to apply to those schools. I have also seen threads where candidates with very relevant Direct patient care experience were not accepted for other reasons.

 

I do know about a half dozen scribes who have been accepted and done quite well in PA school. I suspect this is also true of accepted candidates who were lab techs and researchers.

 

Also, I have read posts by PA-Cs who have failed at their first jobs but they don't seem to blame that on prior HCE, or lack thereof. Generally, there are other reasons. I have read some posts by PA-Cs having a difficult time due to poor quality of clinical rotations.

 

As for EM Residencies, I can't find the ones who state that HCE prior to PA school is an important consideration for acceptance and I know one person recently accepted into an EM residency with lab tech as prior-to-PA school HCE. With regard to "commitment to EM in prior HCE," how is it that an EMT has more commitment to EM than someone who has worked as an ED scribe for a few years?

 

Sent from my Kindle Fire HDX using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[gbrothers98]

Many great points on both sides of the argument concerning gender and experience.

I would suggest looking past some of the button pushing points and look at the reality of what is today.

 

First, gender differences in the profession. This shouldnt surprise anyone, my medic class in the Air Force was 50/50. My ED in the Air Force was 50/50 and overall the medics at my base were tilted to female majority. Medicine in general attracts women for a variety of reasons in all positions. Currently the clinic attached to the hospital I work in the ED of has a 70/30 split for female providers, MD, NP, PA. If there is a concern that there is a gender inequity, then public education and recruitment aimed at males by national, state and specialty PA organizations along with PA academic institutions should occur. I dont see an overwhelming apparent concern about gender in the PA profession appearing in media nor as an issue at leadership conferences.

 

2nd, HCE for applicants. There have been some studies that indicate program performance and PANCE passage has no relation to HCE. I have an anecdotal experience in my PA class of a paramedic who would seem like a shoo in for success but he brought his paramedic attitude and perspective to everything in a primary focused PA program. It was a hard and difficult transition. He definitely knew how to listen to lung and heart sounds but his interaction skills were stuck on dealing with lower income drug addicted trauma victims. So the more malleable clay argument may win this out. The other consideration is that for those with much HCE, that usually entails a certain amount of associated 'homesteading' ie spouses, houses, kids, other responsibilities. The debt to accrue and the flexibility required of students today is unacceptable to this group. The reward is just not there for them.

 

3rd, the true issue is real time performance of new graduates soon after graduation. I would have to disagree that skills are not tested anymore. It is an ARC-PA requirement that clinical skills be verified prior to graduation. So the deficit there lies with the programs and does not lay at the feet of the applicants HCE. A significant requirement that is needed by every program is to have a very strong clinical skills curriculum. That would entail someone with a strong clinical background, something that a program may not be able to attract given the salary discrepancy between academics and clinical work.

 

What really lies at the heart here is the length and quality of training. I dont think gender and prior HCE can really be affected and likely it....really.....doesnt......matter.

 

I firmly believe that the PA education length needs to move past the 2 year length developed in 1965, a standard that has been in place for almost 50 years. I think the complexity of medicine and the expectations of the public cannot be met in 2 years. In comparison, physicians have 7-9 years of education and training to mold them into clinicians.

 

I also think that concerns about performance concerning new grads can be addressed with better clinical rotations. If anyone has experience with this aspect of PA education, you will know there is a crisis concerning quality rotation sites. There are 2 ways to alleviate this crisis. First, if every PA took one student for a 6 week rotation a year, there would be no lack of resources. 2nd, if every PA who took a student received a direct stipend for their time as a preceptor, I suggest $1000, preceptors will have interest and also a responsibility to actually provide some education. These 2 steps are a wave that would lift all boats IMO.

 

Personally I have high regard for current PA students whom go through this 2 year process and come out at the end being able to actually practice medicine. Its a tremendous change to affect in just 2 years. I also dont fault students whom are just trying to improve their station in life by becoming PAs regardless of their grades and their HCE. We should be a profession that welcomes all comers regardless of gender and HCE but a standard needs to be upheld with the consideration that it may take more time and more of our involvement to assure that this occurs.

 

Regards

G Brothers PA-C