Apollo1

37 is not too old to make a career change, but you'd probably be better served by going the nursing route. It's a lower threshold for entering the field, with more job opportunities available. There's increased competition for jobs between PAs and NPs, and with how things are looking now that will probably only increase. Health systems will continue to hire NPs for many reasons (ex. no SP necessarily required, can save money while still billing max rates, nurses easier to control).

I don't think looking to work part-time is beneficial to any new graduate. It would take you even longer to become seasoned/efficient, and potentially opens up risk for the hiring party b/c you're not fully vested in learning. I'm sure there are stories of individuals who worked part-time by choice straight out of school, but with the amount of responsibility expected of us and other factors you might be setting yourself up for failure.

1. Schools often list what PCE they accept. Opinions will vary, but in general the more care you're directly giving to the patient (ex. Nurse > Medic > EMT), the better it is for your resume and clinical rotations. Many applicants will try to find jobs working as an ER tech or PCT on the floor; others will scribe or work as an MA. Ultimately, its what position will get you the greatest number of hours in the shortest period of time while also giving you the breadth of exposure to various patient populations. 2. Difficulty will vary, but in general the sentiment on this site is that

Mnemonics are sometimes helpful too.

As an outsider looking in, it's weird that a PA with less than 1 year of experience is being asked to act as an expert witness. This isn't an indictment against you, just where you are in your career at this time.

This is presumptuous thinking that won't benefit you in the future. As an applicant who has experience in EM, I'd think you would recognize how the specialty is treated as primary care by many patients. There is a lot of crossover, re: physical exam, forming a DDx, treatment options, referral to specialists, etc. that you'll do in an FM setting that will be required from an EM midlevel. In some ways, you'll get greater exposure in FM to the bread-and-butter that EM visits encompass. The generally agreed upon order for choosing one school over another is: 1. PANCE pass rates 2. Tuitio

I know this is off-topic from OP's post, but I believe the dual PA/NP degree was given to NP students only (which kinda comes across as an end-around). Per their website: "Due to accreditation-limited enrollment and the need to ensure all physician assistant (P.A.) seats are filled by P.A. students, the dual-track option is no longer offered. Nurses exploring future career options..."

I'm not a huge fan of didactic students studying for the first PACKRAT, as it's supposed to gauge how much information you've retained over the first year. In some ways, it's gaming the system and may not truly reflect where your knowledge base is going into clinicals. In addition, if you take PACKRAT a second time it won't truly reflect how much improvement you've made over the course of clinicals.

Would go the PCT/ER tech route for faster entry. You'll get greater exposure to hands-on care and management. I would argue against scribing for PA school, as I think it's a better option for someone looking into med school. Scribes will be able to better navigate EMRs while in clinical phase and have more practice with drafting notes, but generally speaking they're not evaluating/interviewing patients and getting the hands-on experience that is actually what sets students apart during clinicals.

It's all well and good to do an elective in an area you feel weak in. Don't forget that a big part of these rotations is making connections for letters of recommendation, etc. when it comes time to practice. You have time to figure out what practice areas interest you; choosing an elective you see yourself working in will pay more dividends than focusing on PANCE prep.

Do y'all in EM try to find out what the starting rate is with a certain group vs. what is marketed by a recruiter? Rumor has it that it's not unheard of for a recruiter to list a lower starting and pocket the difference.

You're inferring emotion in a strictly text reponse without any overt cues to how I feel. For the sake of clarity, there was no emotion behind my response. You may want to check what preconceptions you have. If you're in a rotation with surgical privileges or are in the E.D., then it's distinctly possible that you may break a sweat. The vast majority of rotations and interactions with patients typically don't involve issues beyond reapplication of some deodorant (if even needed).

NPs are not under the Board of Medicine, and aren't technically required to have a supervising physician. They regulate themselves and have more lobbying power because there are more RNs than PAs. Legislators are being told that NPs are expanding into the rural areas to provide care to patients who are underserved, but in reality the vast majority of them are remaining in urban/suburban areas. It's cheaper for a hospital to hire an NP, because the hospital will continue to max bill the patient without having to pay for a supervising physician and won't have to pay the NP as much as the physici

Pack a small thing of deodorant in your bag. It's pretty straight forward...

https://health.ucdavis.edu/financialaid/coa-son.html - With California shifting towards NPs being able to practice w/o supervision, I'd give a hard look at those costs. The end-goal is being able to get a job and service your debt. Many executives in the C-suite aren't able to distinguish PA and NP, and it usually costs them less money to hire NPs. Both of these citations are old. I haven't found any new information regarding average debt for more recently graduated cohorts. https://paeaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/MSS_Indebtedness.pdf (Read pg. 3 for relevant topic