jdtpac Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 so what agenda is driving the trend away from recruiting health care professionals to stock PA schools. if folks with HCE fare better at first, but it levels out later on, why not just have the person that hits the ground running? im not trying to drive home the notion that HCE makes better PAs, im highlighting how agenda driven much of the activism towards recruiting and aapa policy priorities are. it lends to the notion of the inneficacy of the leadership in accomplishing goals that many forum PAs seem to want them to focus on. anyone who says that there arent enough resources to go around to accomplish everything everyone wants is correct, but good examples of agenda items that could easily bear fruit are name change, and bridge program endorsement. they dont have to accomplish those realities, all folks here seem to be asking for is that a position in favor of those things be enacted. they are hiding behind an arguement where they say "it isnt likely to happen, so lets not even rock the boat with the notion.... lets spend time advocating for _____(fill in the blank item that mirrors what the AMA is doing)____. i think thats where a lot of the ire comes from. yeah, the ANA gets stuff done and has a large warchest and army. however, they DONT accomplish a lot more of thier agenda each year than they DO accomplish. the difference is that they arent afraid to try. thats why i see them as the streetfighters that the AAPA isnt. even if they didnt have the money on thier side, i have a hard time believing they wouldnt put the best use thier meetings and brainstorming sessions. they have the ridiculous DNP because they werent afraid to throw down on brash proposals that they felt would carry some impact. love it or hate it, its a reflection of them getting in faces and looking to make waves. a simple endorsement of a couple of areas is more than AAPA can bear? "gotta send if back to the comittee for further study! thats some big doins! this could really blow up in our faces if we dont handle it like an egg." and thats the attitude of the folks to scared to get in the game. its not a matter of resources, its a matter of heart. There is no agenda intentionally driving away individuals with previous HCE and certainly not an AAPA policy that would ever support it. Competition in the marketplace with the APNs has been the driving force behind the proliferation of Masters level PA programs, and that is the unmitigated truth. Individuals with previous HCE such as paramedics, EMTs, RT’S, military corpsmen and even some nursing professionals which in the past had no problem getting into PA programs are now finding it more difficult because a large percentage of those individuals do not have baccalaureate degrees. Unfortunately for them this is now the minimum requirement for getting into PA school. And that is not going to go away. The degree creep train for PA education pulled out of the station a long time ago. I know of several individuals that I have worked with that I tried to convince that they were PA material but they either did not want to return to school to complete their baccalaureate degree or if they had the proper credentials they didn't want to move in order to attend a program. “it lends to the notion of the inneficacy of the leadership in accomplishing goals that many forum PAs seem to want them to focus on”. Can you answer that question for me please. What is your definition (or understanding) of who and what AAPA leadership is?? What lack of power, as you have implied, is prevalent in leadership that prevents them from achieving the goals you mentioned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted March 27, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 27, 2012 there are still several fine programs which will take applicants without a bs degree, U.WA/Medex for starters.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted March 27, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 27, 2012 there are still several fine programs which will take applicants without a bs degree, U.WA/Medex for starters.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andersenpa Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 there are still several fine programs which will take applicants without a bs degree, U.WA/Medex for starters.... I think the BS is required for the masters tracks at Seattle and Spokane Anchorage and Yakima are BS tracks No idea what Tacoma will be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andersenpa Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 there are still several fine programs which will take applicants without a bs degree, U.WA/Medex for starters.... I think the BS is required for the masters tracks at Seattle and Spokane Anchorage and Yakima are BS tracks No idea what Tacoma will be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted March 28, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 28, 2012 I think the BS is required for the masters tracks at Seattle and SpokaneAnchorage and Yakima are BS tracks No idea what Tacoma will be if you read the fine print on the bs options at uw(yakima/anchorage) it is a certificate program with a bs option. I know someone who graduated recently from there with a certificate and will complete his bs with a few online courses while working full time. my understanding is that Tacoma will be a cert/bs program to facilitate the large # of vets encouraged to apply by the Obama administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted March 28, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 28, 2012 I think the BS is required for the masters tracks at Seattle and SpokaneAnchorage and Yakima are BS tracks No idea what Tacoma will be if you read the fine print on the bs options at uw(yakima/anchorage) it is a certificate program with a bs option. I know someone who graduated recently from there with a certificate and will complete his bs with a few online courses while working full time. my understanding is that Tacoma will be a cert/bs program to facilitate the large # of vets encouraged to apply by the Obama administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acozadd Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Isn't there a movement to have every program at a masters level by a certain date? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acozadd Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Isn't there a movement to have every program at a masters level by a certain date? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdtpac Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 We've seen similar comments on this forum before.I'll say the same thing again: Are the opinions of rank-and-file PAs less valid because they have never served in a leadership position? Taking the stance that PAs with criticisms should hold their tongue until they've served state/national is no more legitimate than "working joe" PAs dismissing leadership PAs for not being 100% clinical. ALSO..... Why is it that when a PA is unhappy with the status quo that they should "reevaluate their career choice"? Why is it that PAs looking to make PROGRESS for our profession (more autonomy, fewer antiquated supervisory regulations, more career options like bridge programs) are "dissed" for not seeing your glass half full (must be half full of dues payments?) Why is it that supporting IN CONCEPT the idea of bridge programs is a bad thing? This would create more physicians who would be former-PAs. It seems THESE are the docs who PAs would want, docs who would be PA advocates. Is a former PA physician going to hire an NP or a PA? andersenpa, Here’s my response your #144 post, I will attempt to answer your questions one by one: #1 Are the opinions of rank-and-file PAs less valid because they have never served in a leadership position? Absolutely, positively no! And I nor any other individual that I know of who has served in leadership has ever implied that in any comments I have read on this forum. But it seems like when individuals who have been in leadership try to address issues that may not necessarily be vetted factually, their explanations are met with incredulity. Instead of trying to understand an issue from those who have been intricately involved at the policy-making level, there are quite often disparaging and judgmental remarks made insinuating leadership is inept. #2 Taking the stance that PAs with criticisms should hold their tongue until they've served state/national is no more legitimate than "working joe" PAs dismissing leadership PAs for not being 100% clinical. Being involved in a professional organization doesn't necessarily mean serving in an office or on a committee. But in my experience, individuals who choose to be members in an organization are often better informed on issues than those were not member. It is not always understanding policies but also state laws and regulations. I can't tell you how many times in my career I have been called by individuals who were not members of the state organization that were having trouble with the medical board because of an infraction stemming from spanning from not having knowledge of a change in the statutes or regulations. And most individuals I know that have been involved in leadership are not only 100% involved in a clinical practice but also 20-25% above that involved in volunteerism in the state chapter, specialty organization, the Academy or even a combination of all 3. #3 Why is it that when a PA is unhappy with the status quo that they should "reevaluate their career choice"? I don't know many PAs, who have a lot of experience, that would want greater autonomy because they already have earned it by delivering high quality and extremely professional services .Which in turn gives their supervising physicians and other staff members a sense of comfort and level of respect for the PAs abilities affording them a greater role and responsibility performing their duties. And there are those individuals who no matter how much they receive are not satisfied with their status. You may not have ever experienced working with an individual like that but it becomes quite obvious to everyone else but that person that they probably do need to do some reevaluate of their career choices. #4 Why is it that PAs looking to make PROGRESS for our profession (more autonomy, fewer antiquated supervisory regulations, more career options like bridge programs) are "dissed" for not seeing your glass half full (must be half full of dues payments?) This is the same as a first question. If you truly believe in your convictions and believe the current leadership is not doing enough to advanced your agenda then the only option you have is to get involved and make change happen. The easy thing to do is to come to this forum and spout out, it is much harder to take time of your personal to volunteer to better the future of your profession. I think PAMAC referred to that as activism. #5 Why is it that supporting IN CONCEPT the idea of bridge programs is a bad thing? This would create more physicians who would be former-PAs. It seems THESE are the docs who PAs would want, docs who would be PA advocates. Is a former PA physician going to hire an NP or a PA? You want an answer to this question, have ever been to a house of delegates meeting? If not, it wouldn't be a bad idea for you to take advantage of coming to one of the annual Academy meetings and see how policies like this one are addressed. They are decided by approximately 300 of your peers that are elected by the state chapters and specialty organization to represent you. There is a portion of the house of delegates meeting that is very where any PA may participate in debate of the issues that are being presented at that meeting. This is how we do the business of the profession, here is where policy is designed and decided, and not by a few individuals who are on the committee/council or the Board of Directors. I for one do not disagree with you on this issue and I debated in favor of the policy that was presented at the HOD, however the collective mind of the profession chose not to adopt a policy endorsing bridge programs at this time. Debating the issues on this forum our only informative and are not very effective method of change. You want to positions heard you either have to get involved or discuss them with individuals who were involved in the policymaking process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdtpac Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 We've seen similar comments on this forum before.I'll say the same thing again: Are the opinions of rank-and-file PAs less valid because they have never served in a leadership position? Taking the stance that PAs with criticisms should hold their tongue until they've served state/national is no more legitimate than "working joe" PAs dismissing leadership PAs for not being 100% clinical. ALSO..... Why is it that when a PA is unhappy with the status quo that they should "reevaluate their career choice"? Why is it that PAs looking to make PROGRESS for our profession (more autonomy, fewer antiquated supervisory regulations, more career options like bridge programs) are "dissed" for not seeing your glass half full (must be half full of dues payments?) Why is it that supporting IN CONCEPT the idea of bridge programs is a bad thing? This would create more physicians who would be former-PAs. It seems THESE are the docs who PAs would want, docs who would be PA advocates. Is a former PA physician going to hire an NP or a PA? andersenpa, Here’s my response your #144 post, I will attempt to answer your questions one by one: #1 Are the opinions of rank-and-file PAs less valid because they have never served in a leadership position? Absolutely, positively no! And I nor any other individual that I know of who has served in leadership has ever implied that in any comments I have read on this forum. But it seems like when individuals who have been in leadership try to address issues that may not necessarily be vetted factually, their explanations are met with incredulity. Instead of trying to understand an issue from those who have been intricately involved at the policy-making level, there are quite often disparaging and judgmental remarks made insinuating leadership is inept. #2 Taking the stance that PAs with criticisms should hold their tongue until they've served state/national is no more legitimate than "working joe" PAs dismissing leadership PAs for not being 100% clinical. Being involved in a professional organization doesn't necessarily mean serving in an office or on a committee. But in my experience, individuals who choose to be members in an organization are often better informed on issues than those were not member. It is not always understanding policies but also state laws and regulations. I can't tell you how many times in my career I have been called by individuals who were not members of the state organization that were having trouble with the medical board because of an infraction stemming from spanning from not having knowledge of a change in the statutes or regulations. And most individuals I know that have been involved in leadership are not only 100% involved in a clinical practice but also 20-25% above that involved in volunteerism in the state chapter, specialty organization, the Academy or even a combination of all 3. #3 Why is it that when a PA is unhappy with the status quo that they should "reevaluate their career choice"? I don't know many PAs, who have a lot of experience, that would want greater autonomy because they already have earned it by delivering high quality and extremely professional services .Which in turn gives their supervising physicians and other staff members a sense of comfort and level of respect for the PAs abilities affording them a greater role and responsibility performing their duties. And there are those individuals who no matter how much they receive are not satisfied with their status. You may not have ever experienced working with an individual like that but it becomes quite obvious to everyone else but that person that they probably do need to do some reevaluate of their career choices. #4 Why is it that PAs looking to make PROGRESS for our profession (more autonomy, fewer antiquated supervisory regulations, more career options like bridge programs) are "dissed" for not seeing your glass half full (must be half full of dues payments?) This is the same as a first question. If you truly believe in your convictions and believe the current leadership is not doing enough to advanced your agenda then the only option you have is to get involved and make change happen. The easy thing to do is to come to this forum and spout out, it is much harder to take time of your personal to volunteer to better the future of your profession. I think PAMAC referred to that as activism. #5 Why is it that supporting IN CONCEPT the idea of bridge programs is a bad thing? This would create more physicians who would be former-PAs. It seems THESE are the docs who PAs would want, docs who would be PA advocates. Is a former PA physician going to hire an NP or a PA? You want an answer to this question, have ever been to a house of delegates meeting? If not, it wouldn't be a bad idea for you to take advantage of coming to one of the annual Academy meetings and see how policies like this one are addressed. They are decided by approximately 300 of your peers that are elected by the state chapters and specialty organization to represent you. There is a portion of the house of delegates meeting that is very where any PA may participate in debate of the issues that are being presented at that meeting. This is how we do the business of the profession, here is where policy is designed and decided, and not by a few individuals who are on the committee/council or the Board of Directors. I for one do not disagree with you on this issue and I debated in favor of the policy that was presented at the HOD, however the collective mind of the profession chose not to adopt a policy endorsing bridge programs at this time. Debating the issues on this forum our only informative and are not very effective method of change. You want to positions heard you either have to get involved or discuss them with individuals who were involved in the policymaking process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LT_Oneal_PAC Posted March 28, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 28, 2012 Dissatisfaction is the fuel of ambition. If the membership was all happy and content with leadership/progress then we would never change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LT_Oneal_PAC Posted March 28, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 28, 2012 Dissatisfaction is the fuel of ambition. If the membership was all happy and content with leadership/progress then we would never change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physasst Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 andersenpa,Here’s my response your #144 post, I will attempt to answer your questions one by one: #1 Are the opinions of rank-and-file PAs less valid because they have never served in a leadership position? Absolutely, positively no! And I nor any other individual that I know of who has served in leadership has ever implied that in any comments I have read on this forum. But it seems like when individuals who have been in leadership try to address issues that may not necessarily be vetted factually, their explanations are met with incredulity. Instead of trying to understand an issue from those who have been intricately involved at the policy-making level, there are quite often disparaging and judgmental remarks made insinuating leadership is inept. #2 Taking the stance that PAs with criticisms should hold their tongue until they've served state/national is no more legitimate than "working joe" PAs dismissing leadership PAs for not being 100% clinical. Being involved in a professional organization doesn't necessarily mean serving in an office or on a committee. But in my experience, individuals who choose to be members in an organization are often better informed on issues than those were not member. It is not always understanding policies but also state laws and regulations. I can't tell you how many times in my career I have been called by individuals who were not members of the state organization that were having trouble with the medical board because of an infraction stemming from spanning from not having knowledge of a change in the statutes or regulations. And most individuals I know that have been involved in leadership are not only 100% involved in a clinical practice but also 20-25% above that involved in volunteerism in the state chapter, specialty organization, the Academy or even a combination of all 3. #3 Why is it that when a PA is unhappy with the status quo that they should "reevaluate their career choice"? I don't know many PAs, who have a lot of experience, that would want greater autonomy because they already have earned it by delivering high quality and extremely professional services .Which in turn gives their supervising physicians and other staff members a sense of comfort and level of respect for the PAs abilities affording them a greater role and responsibility performing their duties. And there are those individuals who no matter how much they receive are not satisfied with their status. You may not have ever experienced working with an individual like that but it becomes quite obvious to everyone else but that person that they probably do need to do some reevaluate of their career choices. #4 Why is it that PAs looking to make PROGRESS for our profession (more autonomy, fewer antiquated supervisory regulations, more career options like bridge programs) are "dissed" for not seeing your glass half full (must be half full of dues payments?) This is the same as a first question. If you truly believe in your convictions and believe the current leadership is not doing enough to advanced your agenda then the only option you have is to get involved and make change happen. The easy thing to do is to come to this forum and spout out, it is much harder to take time of your personal to volunteer to better the future of your profession. I think PAMAC referred to that as activism. #5 Why is it that supporting IN CONCEPT the idea of bridge programs is a bad thing? This would create more physicians who would be former-PAs. It seems THESE are the docs who PAs would want, docs who would be PA advocates. Is a former PA physician going to hire an NP or a PA? You want an answer to this question, have ever been to a house of delegates meeting? If not, it wouldn't be a bad idea for you to take advantage of coming to one of the annual Academy meetings and see how policies like this one are addressed. They are decided by approximately 300 of your peers that are elected by the state chapters and specialty organization to represent you. There is a portion of the house of delegates meeting that is very where any PA may participate in debate of the issues that are being presented at that meeting. This is how we do the business of the profession, here is where policy is designed and decided, and not by a few individuals who are on the committee/council or the Board of Directors. I for one do not disagree with you on this issue and I debated in favor of the policy that was presented at the HOD, however the collective mind of the profession chose not to adopt a policy endorsing bridge programs at this time. Debating the issues on this forum our only informative and are not very effective method of change. You want to positions heard you either have to get involved or discuss them with individuals who were involved in the policymaking process. John, as long as we don't have another medical marijuana debate in the house...... I seriously started to catalog all of the ways I could kill myself with the various items in the room.....alphabetically....:) Just kidding. I actually enjoy the HOD. I don't agree with their decisions always, but I try to remind myself that it is a democratic body of my peers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physasst Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 andersenpa,Here’s my response your #144 post, I will attempt to answer your questions one by one: #1 Are the opinions of rank-and-file PAs less valid because they have never served in a leadership position? Absolutely, positively no! And I nor any other individual that I know of who has served in leadership has ever implied that in any comments I have read on this forum. But it seems like when individuals who have been in leadership try to address issues that may not necessarily be vetted factually, their explanations are met with incredulity. Instead of trying to understand an issue from those who have been intricately involved at the policy-making level, there are quite often disparaging and judgmental remarks made insinuating leadership is inept. #2 Taking the stance that PAs with criticisms should hold their tongue until they've served state/national is no more legitimate than "working joe" PAs dismissing leadership PAs for not being 100% clinical. Being involved in a professional organization doesn't necessarily mean serving in an office or on a committee. But in my experience, individuals who choose to be members in an organization are often better informed on issues than those were not member. It is not always understanding policies but also state laws and regulations. I can't tell you how many times in my career I have been called by individuals who were not members of the state organization that were having trouble with the medical board because of an infraction stemming from spanning from not having knowledge of a change in the statutes or regulations. And most individuals I know that have been involved in leadership are not only 100% involved in a clinical practice but also 20-25% above that involved in volunteerism in the state chapter, specialty organization, the Academy or even a combination of all 3. #3 Why is it that when a PA is unhappy with the status quo that they should "reevaluate their career choice"? I don't know many PAs, who have a lot of experience, that would want greater autonomy because they already have earned it by delivering high quality and extremely professional services .Which in turn gives their supervising physicians and other staff members a sense of comfort and level of respect for the PAs abilities affording them a greater role and responsibility performing their duties. And there are those individuals who no matter how much they receive are not satisfied with their status. You may not have ever experienced working with an individual like that but it becomes quite obvious to everyone else but that person that they probably do need to do some reevaluate of their career choices. #4 Why is it that PAs looking to make PROGRESS for our profession (more autonomy, fewer antiquated supervisory regulations, more career options like bridge programs) are "dissed" for not seeing your glass half full (must be half full of dues payments?) This is the same as a first question. If you truly believe in your convictions and believe the current leadership is not doing enough to advanced your agenda then the only option you have is to get involved and make change happen. The easy thing to do is to come to this forum and spout out, it is much harder to take time of your personal to volunteer to better the future of your profession. I think PAMAC referred to that as activism. #5 Why is it that supporting IN CONCEPT the idea of bridge programs is a bad thing? This would create more physicians who would be former-PAs. It seems THESE are the docs who PAs would want, docs who would be PA advocates. Is a former PA physician going to hire an NP or a PA? You want an answer to this question, have ever been to a house of delegates meeting? If not, it wouldn't be a bad idea for you to take advantage of coming to one of the annual Academy meetings and see how policies like this one are addressed. They are decided by approximately 300 of your peers that are elected by the state chapters and specialty organization to represent you. There is a portion of the house of delegates meeting that is very where any PA may participate in debate of the issues that are being presented at that meeting. This is how we do the business of the profession, here is where policy is designed and decided, and not by a few individuals who are on the committee/council or the Board of Directors. I for one do not disagree with you on this issue and I debated in favor of the policy that was presented at the HOD, however the collective mind of the profession chose not to adopt a policy endorsing bridge programs at this time. Debating the issues on this forum our only informative and are not very effective method of change. You want to positions heard you either have to get involved or discuss them with individuals who were involved in the policymaking process. John, as long as we don't have another medical marijuana debate in the house...... I seriously started to catalog all of the ways I could kill myself with the various items in the room.....alphabetically....:) Just kidding. I actually enjoy the HOD. I don't agree with their decisions always, but I try to remind myself that it is a democratic body of my peers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted March 28, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 28, 2012 Isn't there a movement to have every program at a masters level by a certain date? there is a move to have all programs capable of offering an ms degree. they can offer other degrees as well. all "new programs" are meant to offer an ms as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted March 28, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 28, 2012 Isn't there a movement to have every program at a masters level by a certain date? there is a move to have all programs capable of offering an ms degree. they can offer other degrees as well. all "new programs" are meant to offer an ms as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acozadd Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 there is a move to have all programs capable of offering an ms degree. they can offer other degrees as well. all "new programs" are meant to offer an ms as well. Thanks for the clarification. Im sure locally those students in non-MS programs have no problem finding jobs, but I wonder if they have issues nationally. Nearly every job I applied to required and MS, some stated bachelors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acozadd Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 there is a move to have all programs capable of offering an ms degree. they can offer other degrees as well. all "new programs" are meant to offer an ms as well. Thanks for the clarification. Im sure locally those students in non-MS programs have no problem finding jobs, but I wonder if they have issues nationally. Nearly every job I applied to required and MS, some stated bachelors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToppDog Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 if you read the fine print on the bs options at uw(yakima/anchorage) it is a certificate program with a bs option. I know someone who graduated recently from there with a certificate and will complete his bs with a few online courses while working full time... This is true. This may also technically be the case for the masters program. It is my understanding that for both the masters & bachelors option you first get accepted into MEDEX & then you apply for either the graduate program or the bachelors completion program, but if for some reason you are not accepted into one of those options, then you do the certificate program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToppDog Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 if you read the fine print on the bs options at uw(yakima/anchorage) it is a certificate program with a bs option. I know someone who graduated recently from there with a certificate and will complete his bs with a few online courses while working full time... This is true. This may also technically be the case for the masters program. It is my understanding that for both the masters & bachelors option you first get accepted into MEDEX & then you apply for either the graduate program or the bachelors completion program, but if for some reason you are not accepted into one of those options, then you do the certificate program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted March 28, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 28, 2012 This is true. This may also technically be the case for the masters program. It is my understanding that for both the masters & bachelors option you first get accepted into MEDEX & then you apply for either the graduate program or the bachelors completion program, but if for some reason you are not accepted into one of those options, then you do the certificate program. YUP, FROM THEIR SITE: Q: What degree options are available through MEDEX? A: MEDEX Northwest, the Physician Assistant Training Program at the University of Washington, School of Medicine is a certificate program and offers a Masters in Clinical Health Services degree or Bachelors in Clinical Health Services degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted March 28, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 28, 2012 This is true. This may also technically be the case for the masters program. It is my understanding that for both the masters & bachelors option you first get accepted into MEDEX & then you apply for either the graduate program or the bachelors completion program, but if for some reason you are not accepted into one of those options, then you do the certificate program. YUP, FROM THEIR SITE: Q: What degree options are available through MEDEX? A: MEDEX Northwest, the Physician Assistant Training Program at the University of Washington, School of Medicine is a certificate program and offers a Masters in Clinical Health Services degree or Bachelors in Clinical Health Services degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToppDog Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 No, you are right. You have to choose a track, which determines the site you'll attend; Seattle & Spokane for the masters option, & Yakima & Anchorage for the bachelors option. But, you have to get accepted into the MEDEX program prior to applying to the graduate or bachelors option; so if for some odd reason you are not accepted into whichever one of those you chose, then you just stay put at the site you are at & only do the certificate portion of the program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToppDog Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 No, you are right. You have to choose a track, which determines the site you'll attend; Seattle & Spokane for the masters option, & Yakima & Anchorage for the bachelors option. But, you have to get accepted into the MEDEX program prior to applying to the graduate or bachelors option; so if for some odd reason you are not accepted into whichever one of those you chose, then you just stay put at the site you are at & only do the certificate portion of the program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.