Moderator LT_Oneal_PAC Posted January 31, 2017 Moderator Share Posted January 31, 2017 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25715009/ As long as it's 12 months or less and cost less than 30% of what they are already paying for there degree, students want a doctorate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthehorizen Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 PAs are not being held back because we don't have a pathway to a doctorate. Nurse Practitioners have blown right by us in nearly all states with independent practice. The state legislatures did NOT require a doctorate for them to have independent practice. Once again, PAs are working from a sense of inferiority and scrambling to get some credential or degree that will finally get them the recognition they deserve. It doesn't matter how much you know or how competent you are. PAs are going to lose professional ground continuously unless and until we have independent practice. It should be pointed out that surveys are one the weakest forms of evidence. Additionally, this wreaks of publication bias. The journal is a Physician Assistant Education journal. The contributors, all three, have PhDs and work in education (UNC School of Public Health, UNC PA program and Campbell University). It is in the self-interest financially for academics to generate research that makes favorable conclusions about "importance of doctoral education." I wonder (since I don't subscribe) if the three contributors stated their conflict of interest bias as academics with income derived exclusively from production of diplomas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted January 31, 2017 Moderator Share Posted January 31, 2017 the Lynchburg DMSc fits that bill literally and figuratively Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LT_Oneal_PAC Posted January 31, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted January 31, 2017 PAs are not being held back because we don't have a pathway to a doctorate. Nurse Practitioners have blown right by us in nearly all states with independent practice. The state legislatures did NOT require a doctorate for them to have independent practice. Once again, PAs are working from a sense of inferiority and scrambling to get some credential or degree that will finally get them the recognition they deserve. It doesn't matter how much you know or how competent you are. PAs are going to lose professional ground continuously unless and until we have independent practice. It should be pointed out that surveys are one the weakest forms of evidence. Additionally, this wreaks of publication bias. The journal is a Physician Assistant Education journal. The contributors, all three, have PhDs and work in education (UNC School of Public Health, UNC PA program and Campbell University). It is in the self-interest financially for academics to generate research that makes favorable conclusions about "importance of doctoral education." I wonder (since I don't subscribe) if the three contributors stated their conflict of interest bias as academics with income derived exclusively from production of diplomas. Dude, not everything revolves around that. Yes, it's a big issue. Yes, I agree simply having a doctorate won't give practice rights. It was just interesting to note that a majority of students wanted the doctorate option. No one was talking about anything else. Do you know of a way, other than survey, to determine what a group of people desires? Yes, a survey is weak, but it's not asking about anecdotal data on "did that one antibiotic work for that patient with sniffles," it's asking "hey, you want a doctorate? if yes, what would make you more likely to pursue it?" blah blah. I don't think there is anyone here in favor of a entry level doctorate. Plus, its hardly in their best interest unless they own a stake in the university. I've never seen a teacher paid based on number of students enrolled or years required for a student to graduate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthehorizen Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Plus, its hardly in their best interest unless they own a stake in the university. I've never seen a teacher paid based on number of students enrolled or years required for a student to graduate. I have a colleague who graduated from a PA school that essentially doubled their class size from one year to the next. They didn't have the resources to manage the increased student load (no classrooms, no teachers, no clinic sites). When the students asked why the class size doubled, there were multiple inconsistent answers. Then one day, my colleague was sitting in the University cafeteria and she overhead three faculty discussing the "budget crises." One faculty member said "if it wasn't for the doubling the the PA program, there would have been layoffs." She thought it was pretty clear that the class size was determined by how much revenue the school required to balance its budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anewconvert Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I have a colleague who graduated from a PA school that essentially doubled their class size from one year to the next. They didn't have the resources to manage the increased student load (no classrooms, no teachers, no clinic sites). When the students asked why the class size doubled, there were multiple inconsistent answers. Then one day, my colleague was sitting in the University cafeteria and she overhead three faculty discussing the "budget crises." One faculty member said "if it wasn't for the doubling the the PA program, there would have been layoffs." She thought it was pretty clear that the class size was determined by how much revenue the school required to balance its budget. Yeah... I'm like 95% certain ARC-PA has to approve class size changes in order for a program to stay accredited. Which leads me to believe that your colleague is making stuff up, doesn't know the whole story or....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlottew Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I know of a program that increased class size without telling ARC-PA, it was not detected until they formally petitioned ARC-PA for a (further) increase in class size, and their historical #'s were reviewed. (ie. first time takers of PANCE) So it's not always tracked that actively. There is a big incentive to increase enrollments to raise available $$. Which is why ARC-PA limits enrollments... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LT_Oneal_PAC Posted February 1, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted February 1, 2017 I have a colleague who graduated from a PA school that essentially doubled their class size from one year to the next. They didn't have the resources to manage the increased student load (no classrooms, no teachers, no clinic sites). When the students asked why the class size doubled, there were multiple inconsistent answers. Then one day, my colleague was sitting in the University cafeteria and she overhead three faculty discussing the "budget crises." One faculty member said "if it wasn't for the doubling the the PA program, there would have been layoffs." She thought it was pretty clear that the class size was determined by how much revenue the school required to balance its budget. Yeah... I'm like 95% certain ARC-PA has to approve class size changes in order for a program to stay accredited. Which leads me to believe that your colleague is making stuff up, doesn't know the whole story or....... It's true that universities will increase program sizes for profit. Unless there are going to be layoffs though, there is no benefit to the professors. Those programs have no doctorate degree track and it will be years before they do have one if they started today. I doubt they are planning on having a budget crisis years from now. So I still don't see any conflict of interest, or very little at best. As for your colleague, those professors were probably lied to about the reason for the class size increase and they still didn't have an incentive for class increase. Sure, they didn't want to be laid off, but they are PAs. Why work in a understaffed and under-resourced PA program for less money than you can make in clinical practice. It would be easy to walk away. My school did the same thing. The college wanted more money, so it increased the class size. The faculty were adamantly against this, however, and did everything in their power to stop it and make it fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthehorizen Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Yeah... I'm like 95% certain ARC-PA has to approve class size changes in order for a program to stay accredited. Which leads me to believe that your colleague is making stuff up, doesn't know the whole story or....... She said the name of the program but I won't name it here. The pass rates for the program were consistently around 95 to 97% until the doubling of the class size. Then the larger class size had a pass rate of 80% (first time). Either the admission standards were lowered to get more applicants or the program couldn't manage the education of double the number of students in one year. The program reverted back to the original size and pass rates are back up to 97%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joelseff Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 I am for a doctorate if it will truly bridge us to parity with MD/DO WITHOUT having to go back to med school... I dunno if that will ever happen. Had high hopes for Lincoln Memorial University's DMS program but that doesn't look like it's gaining any traction... Or is it? Anyone know? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.