Doctoral Degree for PAs

[EMEDPA]

 This is interesting. I see it's for Lynchburg graduates only... I wonder if that will ever open up? 9 months of residency than a doctorate? Deal. I wonder if this "residency" is paid?

yes, residency is paid. There is also coursework and a doctoral paper of some kind involved. plan is to open up to any pa-c with an MS after a few years as I understand it.

[PACdan]

yes, residency is paid. There is also coursework and a doctoral paper of some kind involved. plan is to open up to any pa-c with an MS after a few years as I understand it.

The wind in the willows is that this idea (< 1 year, optional post-grad doc) is mounting at another established program in the region. We'll see if this is the domino that starts the fall...

 

If would be very hard to pass up if 9 extra months could get it over and done with right after the MS. Especially if one planned to come out and start working for the federal gov.

[Joelseff]

yes, residency is paid. There is also coursework and a doctoral paper of some kind involved. plan is to open up to any pa-c with an MS after a few years as I understand it.

Any chance in changing the name of the degree? Lol.

[SoCalPA]

^^^ times a thousand. There is already the Master's of Medical Science (MMS) why not a DMS?

[ventana]

one year paid, for doctorate

well does it gain me anything clincally for less restrictive practice?

 

if not would have a tough time jumping at it, but if it gives me the ability to order VNA and Hospice and not  have an SP but a CP....  well maybe

[agatha]

^^^ times a thousand. There is already the Master's of Medical Science (MMS) why not a DMS?

DMS= Diagnostic Medical Sonographey :D

[cm7sus4]

Pushing programs to be longer will only drive more students to go for the MD. The time commitment is becoming too similar 

 

Disagreed; it is quite a leap to go from PA to MD.  A doctorate would require the GRE, which many prospective PA students have already taken - to leap on the MD train and try for the MCAT is a huge undertaking.  Pre-med students spend entire semesters preparing for the MCAT and a great many pay $1000s for prep courses from the likes of Kaplan, etc.  A competetive score requires A-level knowledge of physics, biology, basic genetics, inorg/orgo chem, and now psychology and sociology.  I'm not saying the GRE is easy, but the MCAT is a deal breaker - entry to PA school focuses on HCE where the MCAT focuses on very strong knowledge in the hard sciences, the kind of knowledge that gets you into PhD programs.  Not to mention that, although the doctorate would lengthen entry into the field, it still does not require residency, fellowship, board cert, etc.  Doctorate or not, PA would still be significantly seperated from the MD degree.  This is even a broader gap for those applying to PA schools which do not require the GRE.

 

Besides, take a look at how the NP profession has handled the same "mandate" (albeit, and unenforced mandate).  The DNP is not much longer than existing master's programs.  The local university basically just added a few research classes and a dissertation to their masters of nursing practice.  Many programs push your through the master's program and then have you earn your DNP while practicing as a licesned NP.  A PA doctorate could follow suit. 

[cm7sus4]

Give me one solid piece of objective evidence that the lack of a doctorate degree is "thwarting" the progress of the profession. One of the strengths of the profession right now is our ability to train nearly 7000 PAs a year after an average of 26 months of training. Demand is at an all time high. What is the problem that proponents are trying to solve with this "solution"?

 

It's in the article - they state that the profession's education level should rise according to demand on the healthcare system.  It would not be inconceivable to complete a post-MS doctorate while practicing as a PA...many clinicians pursue this route on a much higher level with research PhDs.  Lack of objective evidence does not necessitate a falisty, it only indicates a lack of objective evidence.  Besides, for those averse to spending more than is required to practice clinically, they simply will not enroll in the doctorate; and since PA clinical practice does not require a residency generally, then longer training will not necessarily hinder the overall output, though admittedly there willl be a lag period of reduced output which is equivalent to the length of the doctorate program.  The reason for the shortage of MDs is the residency bottleneck - there simply aren't enough residency slots.  PAs do not attend residency as a matter of course so adding an extra couple of letters to one's title will not hinder PA production in this respect.

[cm7sus4]

no, no, no, a thousand times NO to a doctoral PA degree!!

 

NO to more EMPTY CREDENTIALISM!

NO to more DEGREE CREEP!!

NO to more DEBT!!!

 

PA's are not behind the curve, they ahead of the curve - for not giving into degree creep, credentialism, and more and more DEBT!

 

I hate to say it but credentialism is the only way to advance in some hospital systems.  Just because the degree is offered, does not mean that 1) the profession will be known for it or 2) that people will actually flock to earn it.  The DNP is a great case study for this.

 

Higher Ed is a huge scam in many ways. Sickeningly expensive when information is freely available on the internet

 

I am surprised this was said.  It is invalid for the same reason that colleges ban the use of wikipedia as a primary source.  A degree confers that you have met/exceeded the academic standards of the school from which you earned said degree.  True, I can self-learn BLS from the Red Cross Youtube site, but there is no standard to which I have adhered while learning this knowledge, and so there is nothing against which to measure whether or not I have truly learned the material or technique.  Doctors worth their salt do not refer to google for d/dx, they look to academic texts, the government or places like Mayo for information, because the standard to which that information must be held is known and measurable.

 

Is this process expensive?  Absolutely.  Is it worth it?  That is something only the student can answer.  Information is free, but academic information which is held to an objective standard is not.

[burnpac]

It's in the article - they state that the profession's education level should rise according to demand on the healthcare system.  It would not be inconceivable to complete a post-MS doctorate while practicing as a PA...many clinicians pursue this route on a much higher level with research PhDs.  Lack of objective evidence does not necessitate a falisty, it only indicates a lack of objective evidence.  Besides, for those averse to spending more than is required to practice clinically, they simply will not enroll in the doctorate; and since PA clinical practice does not require a residency generally, then longer training will not necessarily hinder the overall output, though admittedly there willl be a lag period of reduced output which is equivalent to the length of the doctorate program.  The reason for the shortage of MDs is the residency bottleneck - there simply aren't enough residency slots.  PAs do not attend residency as a matter of course so adding an extra couple of letters to one's title will not hinder PA production in this respect.

 

I'm confused. When does a manifesto opinion piece rise to the level of objective evidence of a problem? If you want to do administration within an health care system, I would suggest an MBA or MPA as the appropriate degree. If folks want to pursue a Ph.D. after PA training, all the more power to them. The only reason that I can see to do this is to work as an educator, where it is required for advancement.

 

BTW, PAFT is calling for a doctorate as the terminal degree for PA training, not as a post-graduate option.

 

So, using a medical analogy, would you prescribe a new treatment without objective evidence supporting its efficacy, or, would you wait for the evidence to support such a decision?

 

Do you honestly think that the PA educational pipeline would produce the same amount of qualified PAs as it does now, when we make the training longer, harder to obtain, and more expensive?

 

What is the "problem" that you are trying to solve?

[ventana]

I'm confused. When does a manifesto opinion piece rise to the level of objective evidence of a problem? If you want to do administration within an health care system, I would suggest an MBA or MPA as the appropriate degree. If folks want to pursue a Ph.D. after PA training, all the more power to them. The only reason that I can see to do this is to work as an educator, where it is required for advancement.

 

BTW, PAFT is calling for a doctorate as the terminal degree for PA training, not as a post-graduate option.

 

So, using a medical analogy, would you prescribe a new treatment without objective evidence supporting its efficacy, or, would you wait for the evidence to support such a decision?

 

Do you honestly think that the PA educational pipeline would produce the same amount of qualified PAs as it does now, when we make the training longer, harder to obtain, and more expensive?

 

What is the "problem" that you are trying to solve?

 

 

Terminal degree just means that it is the highest degree offered - right now it is a masters (soon to change)

 

EBM - and data

We "know" so little with this and I am unsure that your analogy really holds any water as the problem lies in the fact that we are behind in the degree creep and there is no measurable data on this..... .other then getting left behind in the political realm.

 

We need to have the same terminal degree that most of the ALLIED HEALTH FIELDS have - of which we are not even a part of.  Instead we are the providers giving the orders to the Allied Health Fields - and it is illogical to think that the person we are asking to care for our patients are higher degreed.  Also, the political realm responds to titles, and terminal doctorates... just look at direct acces PT, independent NP and all the other examples of attaining a Doctorate level degress followed by crawling out from under the control of another profession.....

[burnpac]

Terminal degree just means that it is the highest degree offered - right now it is a masters (soon to change)

 

EBM - and data

We "know" so little with this and I am unsure that your analogy really holds any water as the problem lies in the fact that we are behind in the degree creep and there is no measurable data on this..... .other then getting left behind in the political realm.

 

We need to have the same terminal degree that most of the ALLIED HEALTH FIELDS have - of which we are not even a part of.  Instead we are the providers giving the orders to the Allied Health Fields - and it is illogical to think that the person we are asking to care for our patients are higher degreed.  Also, the political realm responds to titles, and terminal doctorates... just look at direct acces PT, independent NP and all the other examples of attaining a Doctorate level degress followed by crawling out from under the control of another profession.....

 

I'm using the AAPA policy interpretation of masters degree as a "terminal" degree. Terminal in this context means recommended and what every program should be doing. I suspect that is what the authors of this opinion piece mean by "terminal." Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

It seems like the driving reason for proponents of Doctoral PAs is "everyone else is doing it." I don't buy or support this rationale. We are not being left behind. Demand / salaries are at an all time high. Masters trained PAs are not being displaced by Dr. nurses. I don't even know a single doctoral NP. "Direct access" PT is a poor example. They can see patients directly on a very limited and restricted basis in many states. Few states required post graduate degrees per the linked document. They have no significant global independent practice authority that I can ascertain. I don't need a doctorate to prescribe OT/PT, and my therapists colleagues are more than happy to take referrals from a PA.

 

Show me one shredlette of evidence that doctorate degrees (other than MD/DO) mean anything in the political realm. I have been doing PA politics in our state for 25+ years, and I have never heard any legislator even ask about the educational level of PAs or others.  We are doing quite well politically in California and most other states because we are practice ready licensed health care providers who fill a critical need in the health care systems of our communities. We do solve a political problem for the state legislatures, and that is our strength as a profession. This train is picking up speed.

 

I know a lot of NPs in California, and I know of only one who is practicing "independently" in an OP environment. PAs scope of practice will continue to improve because of our utility to the health care system, and doctoral degrees won't appreciably change the realities of the health care system for PAs.

 

But here is the bottom line Ventana. No one in academia cares one whit what you and I think about this issue anymore than they cared about our opinions on baccalaureate or masters prepared PAs. If there is money to be made training doctoral PAs at the terminal level, then that will drive the market. What you, I, the AAPA, the NCCPA, ARC-PA, or others think will have zero impact on trends in this area. And that is the reality of PA education in this era.

 

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

I'm using the AAPA policy interpretation of masters degree as a "terminal" degree. Terminal in this context means recommended and what every program should be doing. I suspect that is what the authors of this opinion piece mean by "terminal." Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

It seems like the driving reason for proponents of Doctoral PAs is "everyone else is doing it." I don't buy or support this rationale. We are not being left behind. Demand / salaries are at an all time high. Masters trained PAs are not being displaced by Dr. nurses. I don't even know a single doctoral NP. "Direct access" PT is a poor example. They can see patients directly on a very limited and restricted basis in many states. Few states required post graduate degrees per the linked document. They have no significant global independent practice authority that I can ascertain. I don't need a doctorate to prescribe OT/PT, and my therapists colleagues are more than happy to take referrals from a PA.

 

Show me one shredlette of evidence that doctorate degrees (other than MD/DO) mean anything in the political realm. I have been doing PA politics in our state for 25+ years, and I have never heard any legislator even ask about the educational level of PAs or others. We are doing quite well politically in California and most other states because we are practice ready licensed health care providers who fill a critical need in the health care systems of our communities. We do solve a political problem for the state legislatures, and that is our strength as a profession. This train is picking up speed.

 

I know a lot of NPs in California, and I know of only one who is practicing "independently" in an OP environment. PAs scope of practice will continue to improve because of our utility to the health care system, and doctoral degrees won't appreciably change the realities of the health care system for PAs.

 

But here is the bottom line Ventana. No one in academia cares one whit what you and I think about this issue anymore than they cared about our opinions on baccalaureate or masters prepared PAs. If there is money to be made training doctoral PAs at the terminal level, then that will drive the market. What you, I, the AAPA, the NCCPA, ARC-PA, or others think will have zero impact on trends in this area. And that is the reality of PA education in this era.

 

Terminal means final. You're mistaking it for entry level. PAFT means what it said.

[burnpac]

Terminal means final. You're mistaking it for entry level. PAFT means what it said.

Oneal, I'm well aware what is the dictionary definition of "terminal." And, I'm also acutely aware of how the term "terminal" has been used in the PA education debate for over 20 years.

 

"PAFT feels that the future of our profession rests on the willingness of our PA educators to embrace the development of a doctorate level terminal degree for all PA graduates.  Our organization hopes that most PA programs will begin to transition to a terminal doctorate degree by 2020. By 2025, the majority of PA programs should have a terminal doctorate level degree in place with many institutions also offering an “add on” doctorate degree for those who wish to pursue additional training to advance their degree status." [emphasis added]

 

 If PAFT means what it said, then my observations above are spot on.

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

Oneal, I'm well aware what is the dictionary definition of "terminal." And, I'm also acutely aware of how the term "terminal" has been used in the PA education debate for over 20 years.

 

 

 

 

"

PAFT feels that the future of our profession rests on the willingness of our PA educators to embrace the development of a doctorate level terminal degree for

all

PA graduates. Our organization hopes that

most

PA programs will begin to transition to a terminal doctorate degree by 2020. By 2025, the

majority

of PA programs should have a terminal doctorate level degree in place with many institutions also offering an “add on” doctorate degree for those who wish to pursue additional training to advance their degree status.

" [emphasis added]

If PAFT means what it said, then my observations above are spot on.

I didn't mean to offend you by giving the definition of terminal, as your passive aggressive tone seems to imply I did, but it seemed necessary in explaining what was meant. Considering I was there for the BOD discussions, I'm acutely aware of what PAFT meant. I don't see "entry level" anywhere in there. I see "DEVELOP" doctoral terminal degree for all PA graduates. Perhaps a "to pursue" could be added for clarification. I don't see the word mandate still though. Then I see a bunch of things about PAFT hopes [that a lot of programs have a terminal doctorate degree], not entry level. Regardless, an entry level doctorate was not the intention. Back and forth, but not what was intended to be the platform.

 

While I know what they meant, I will say I hope that doctorate does become entry level. I hope we have a 2.5 year doctorate (note a 2.5 year doctorate is not any longer than we spend now, we already have enough credits for a doctorate) and a year residency. That's just my opinion though.

 

ETA: but what do I know. Perhaps there has been more discussion in my absence.

[burnpac]

I didn't mean to offend you by giving the definition of terminal, as your passive aggressive tone seems to imply I did, but it seemed necessary in explaining what was meant. Considering I was there for the BOD discussions, I'm acutely aware of what PAFT meant. I don't see "entry level" anywhere in there. I see "DEVELOP" doctoral terminal degree for all PA graduates. Perhaps a "to pursue" could be added for clarification. I don't see the word mandate still though. Then I see a bunch of things about PAFT hopes [that a lot of programs have a terminal doctorate degree], not entry level. Regardless, an entry level doctorate was not the intention. Back and forth, but not what was intended to be the platform. While I know what they meant, I will say I hope that doctorate does become entry level. I hope we have a 2.5 year doctorate (note a 2.5 year doctorate is not any longer than we spend now, we already have enough credits for a doctorate) and a year residency. That's just my opinion though.

Oneal, No offense taken whatsoever. Read whatever you want about my "tone," but I was just stating a fact.

 

Read what I said again.  

 

"Terminal in this context means recommended and what every program should be doing. I suspect that is what the authors of this opinion piece mean by 'terminal.'" [Emphasis added]

 

I didn't use the word "mandate." Explain to me how my observation and perception is not an accurate interpretation of the PAFT statement as it is currently written?

 

Terminal PA degree has always been used (right or wrong) to mean the entry level degree of a new PA graduate. Is the PAFT suggesting that PA programs develop simultaneous graduate and doctoral programs, with the graduate level being "entry level" and the Ph.D. being the "terminal" degree for the PA profession? Why would an educational institution do this? This makes no sense to me, nor does it to many others I suspect. That is why I believe and perceive that the PAFT is using "terminal" to mean exactly what I think that it does.

 

BTW, I think that you meant the "HOD," as the mission, policy and philosophy of the Academy is set by the House and not the BOD. I have been at every debate of the degree of the profession since the '91 House, and there has been many heated ones.

 

Saying that there should be separate "entry level" and "terminal level" degrees for PAs, makes about as much sense as saying the same for physicians.

 

You might find this interesting as this subject was debated by 45 folks a lot smarter than me in 2009. Notice how they use the terms "entry level" and "terminal."

 

Here is all the AAPA HOD policy on PA education.

 

HP-3200.1.0 Initial Education

HP-3200.1.1

AAPA believes competency-based professional education at ARC-PA accredited entry level PA programs followed by life-long learning has been a successful formula for competent PA practice.

[Adopted 2007, reaffirmed 2012]

HP-3200.1.2

AAPA believes the ability of PAs to practice and be reimbursed should not be compromised regardless of the degree awarded upon completion of entry level PA education.

[Adopted 2007, reaffirmed 2012]

HP-3200.1.3

AAPA recognizes that PA education is conducted at the graduate level and supports awarding the masters degree for new PA graduates.

[Adopted 2007, reaffirmed 2012]

HP-3200.1.4

AAPA opposes the entry-level doctorate for PAs. [Adopted 2010]

HP-3200.1.5

AAPA recognizes that PA education exists based on unique mission-driven and geographical needs in a variety of educational institutions and models.

[Adopted 2006, reaffirmed 2011] 

 

Also, look at this in Wikipedia. If this is what you and PAFT intended (i.e., first professional degree vs. advanced professional degree), then a rewrite for clarity and accuracy is suggested.

[ventana]

Oneil

BurnPAC is a strong lifelong supporter of AAPA - he is a great advocate, but at times I believe he gets "stuck" in word logic. 

 

I have gone around a number of times with him on different issues and we have agreed to disagree

 

BUT I do think the TERMINAL degree is exactly that - the highest degree that can be obtained in a field of study - as this is currently a MASTERS for PA we are  "outclassed" by others 

 

 

I hate to bring it up again..... but BurnPAC seems to forget the best example of getting left behind cost me over $40,000 personally! and cost the PA profession about 2 BILLION dollars (if you figure that the $40k HiTech Funds would be attained by 50k PA's - I have no idea rather this is a valid assumption but it is a LOT of money under any assumption)

 

I have two reasons that I believe we were overlooked for this - 

1) AAPA was asleep at the wheel - yup, sound asleep - I have said it before, and here it is again - I beleive EVERY SINGLE high level executive should have been terminated over this failure.  This was HUGE

2) With AAPA aspleep at the wheel, why would congress grant $40,000+ to an ASSISTANT - Our name killed us.

 

 

As for other examples, just look at the leaps and bounds and better practice laws that NPs have, they have lead the degree creep, and used it to their advantage

 

PT does offer direct access

as does other professions  -  -here is another HUGE example - Chiro's - think 1980's versus 2010's

 

 

 

 

Sorry BurnPAC - But I think you are out of touch with the challenges the future PAs are facing. I thank you for all your effort and truly hope you come around to realize where this profession is going and how exciting it is as you have a great passion for it and I suspect are great at your job.

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

Oneal, No offense taken whatsoever. Read whatever you want about my "tone," but I was just stating a fact.

 

Read what I said again.

 

"Terminal in this context means recommended and what every program should be doing. I suspect that is what the authors of this opinion piece mean by 'terminal.'" [Emphasis added]

I didn't use the word "mandate." Explain to me how my observation and perception is not an accurate interpretation of the PAFT statement as it is currently written?

 

Terminal PA degree has always been used (right or wrong) to mean the entry level degree of a new PA graduate. Is the PAFT suggesting that PA programs develop simultaneous graduate and doctoral programs, with the graduate level being "entry level" and the Ph.D. being the "terminal" degree for the PA profession? Why would an educational institution do this? This makes no sense to me, nor does it to many others I suspect. That is why I believe and perceive that the PAFT is using "terminal" to mean exactly what I think that it does.

 

BTW, I think that you meant the "HOD," as the mission, policy and philosophy of the Academy is set by the House and not the BOD. I have been at every debate of the degree of the profession since the '91 House, and there has been many heated ones.

 

Saying that there should be separate "entry level" and "terminal level" degrees for PAs, makes about as much sense as saying the same for physicians.

 

You might find this interesting as this subject was debated by 45 folks a lot smarter than me in 2009. Notice how they use the terms "entry level" and "terminal."

 

Here is all the AAPA HOD policy on PA education.

 

HP-3200.1.0 Initial Education

 

 

HP-3200.1.1

AAPA believes competency-based professional education at ARC-PA accredited entry level PA programs followed by life-long learning has been a successful formula for competent PA practice.

[Adopted 2007, reaffirmed 2012]

HP-3200.1.2

AAPA believes the ability of PAs to practice and be reimbursed should not be compromised regardless of the degree awarded upon completion of entry level PA education.

[Adopted 2007, reaffirmed 2012]

HP-3200.1.3

AAPA recognizes that PA education is conducted at the graduate level and supports awarding the masters degree for new PA graduates.

[Adopted 2007, reaffirmed 2012]

HP-3200.1.4

AAPA opposes the entry-level doctorate for PAs. [Adopted 2010]

HP-3200.1.5

AAPA recognizes that PA education exists based on unique mission-driven and geographical needs in a variety of educational institutions and models.

[Adopted 2006, reaffirmed 2011]

Also, look at this in Wikipedia. If this is what you and PAFT intended (i.e., first professional degree vs. advanced professional degree), then a rewrite for clarity and accuracy is suggested.

Sorry I read into it. It seemed to happen often when I read your post for some reason.

 

There are hundreds, in fact most professions, with a different entry level and terminal degree. Almost all start with a bachelors and ends with a doctorate. So most in fact have 3 different degrees! I think it's stupid too.

 

Honestly, I don't care anymore. Told myself long ago I would stop getting into debates on this forum, and in general, because they are fruitless. Every once in a while I slip. Feel grand because I'm sure I won't ever see my hopes become reality.

 

Lastly, I didn't intend anything. I was just there. I certainly didn't write it.

[burnpac]

...Sorry BurnPAC - But I think you are out of touch with the challenges the future PAs are facing. I thank you for all your effort and truly hope you come around to realize where this profession is going and how exciting it is as you have a great passion for it and I suspect are great at your job.

 

Jeff,

 

It is ok to call me Steve. You can judge me, but don't please presume to know me and everything about me based on this Forum. I have done my part to the best of my ability over the years. I expect no less from the next generation.

 

Let's try again sometime over a beer as I suspect we agree on much more than we disagree.

 

I wish you all the best.

[ventana]

Jeff,

 

It is ok to call me Steve. You can judge me, but don't please presume to know me and everything about me based on this Forum. I have done my part to the best of my ability over the years. I expect no less from the next generation.

 

Let's try again sometime over a beer as I suspect we agree on much more than we disagree.

 

I wish you all the best.

 

Ok thanks

 

Don't mean to offend, sorry 

[burnpac]

Sorry I read into it. It seemed to happen often when I read your post for some reason.

 

There are hundreds, in fact most professions, with a different entry level and terminal degree. Almost all start with a bachelors and ends with a doctorate. So most in fact have 3 different degrees! I think it's stupid too.

 

Honestly, I don't care anymore. Told myself long ago I would stop getting into debates on this forum, and in general, because they are fruitless. Every once in a while I slip. Feel grand because I'm sure I won't ever see my hopes become reality.

 

Lastly, I didn't intend anything. I was just there. I certainly didn't write it.

Oneal, The only one who can make your hopes a reality when you become a PA is you. I don't feel grand; I just feel as strongly about these issues as do you.

 

Remember, with 100,000 of your future colleagues, there are just as many differing opinions. Stand up for what you believe is right. That is all I'm doing.

 

The problem with debate by text is a lack of context of all of us sitting together in a pub, over some microbrew, with the added nuance of being able to look into each other's eyes and read each other's body language. This is a poor medium for professional discourse, and I take responsibility and apologize for any lack of collegiality that results.

 

All the best to you in the future.

[cinntsp]

My personal opinion is that the doctorate should not be the entry level degree, but should absolutely be an option, unless the standard PA curriculum is somewhat revamped to include what I perceive as the ideal requirements for the doctorate.  I think it should require some additional coursework in research, management, etc. and should include a clinical component in the form of a formal 1 year residency/fellowship.  

[PACdan]

I'll take a doctorate for my 100+ credit hours, now please.  :)

 

Tack on whatever "paper writing" class I need, I'll stay one more semester. With all the PA programs packing in 100, 110, 120 credits, I don't see why they just don't convert to doctorates en masse. 

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

My personal opinion is that the doctorate should not be the entry level degree, but should absolutely be an option, unless the standard PA curriculum is somewhat revamped to include what I perceive as the ideal requirements for the doctorate. I think it should require some additional coursework in research, management, etc. and should include a clinical component in the form of a formal 1 year residency/fellowship.

Exactly what I advocate for. I'm against PA school going any longer than 2.5 years, not including a Medicine or surgical intern year. Maybe for part time didactic year students who need to work to pay for school it could be 3 years. Otherwise, I agree we just need a couple courses to get a doctorate.

[Guest Paula]

Some PA programs already are three years long.  Marquette University in Milwaukee, WI is one of them with a 3 year program.

 

A Doctorate degree definitely should be a clinical degree that includes a formal residency.  Similar to what the Army Baylor Clinical Doctorates for PAs has.

 

Also, call it a Doctorate in Clinical Medicine.  NOT doctorate in PA studies or PA medicine.......  those are  meaningless titles.