It sucks that you have to have a doctoral degree to become a physical therapist.

dumb ish wrote:

f that

It doesn't take three years of graduate study to learn anatomy and physiology and basic strength training procedures. It just doesn't.

It does suck in the sense that it used to be a bachelors degree requirement to be a PT.

However, it is still only 3 years of post-college education. You can call it a "doctorate" or "masters" (Architects graduate form a masters program that is also 3 years, I believe, but they call it a masters degree).

It's a lot shorter than a lot of other careers.

PA school also used to be a bachelors degree and now it is a 2 year masters degree. It sucks that educational requirements have increased for most fields, but it is what it is. If you can't change it, don't complain. If you want to change it, then do it.

It'd suck to have you be my PT with that attitude.

A good PT needs a whole hell of lot more than the three things you listed...which is why it takes three years and why it should.

If you want some yahoo with poor schooling to treat your serious orthopedic problems then go see strength coach, chiropractor, or massage therapist.

dumb ish wrote:

f that

It doesn't take three years of graduate study to learn anatomy and physiology and basic strength training procedures. It just doesn't.

What's just as dumb is the people that think that is all a DPT degree is. What is even dumber are that there are DPT's that don't know much beyond that, when the career involves so much more.

dumb ish wrote:

f that

It doesn't take three years of graduate study to learn anatomy and physiology and basic strength training procedures. It just doesn't.

The purpose of the DPT requirement, according to Wikipedia, is that PTs will be able to accept patients directly (rather than through referral from MDs), which will help their status and compensation.

Whether PT will become as sketchy as a lot of chiropractic care - chasing post-accident dollars - remains to be seen.

asparagus wrote:

dumb ish wrote:

f that

It doesn't take three years of graduate study to learn anatomy and physiology and basic strength training procedures. It just doesn't.

The purpose of the DPT requirement, according to Wikipedia, is that PTs will be able to accept patients directly (rather than through referral from MDs), which will help their status and compensation.

Whether PT will become as sketchy as a lot of chiropractic care - chasing post-accident dollars - remains to be seen.

Everyone wants the status of an MD, no one wants to do the work it takes to get there (see also: PA, NP, DNP, etc.)

loperamide wrote:

Everyone wants the status of an MD, no one wants to do the work it takes to get there (see also: PA, NP, DNP, etc.)

As a patient, do you really care how much "work it takes"? Or do you care what results you get?

For sports injuries specifically, my personal experience with PAs and PTs has been much better than my experience with internal medicine doctors, who seem unable to diagnose any problem that a couch potato (most of their practice) would not have. Sesamoiditis? ITBS? Broken arm? Internists have totally failed me on these.

We could all go to see the appropriate specialist all the time, but that would make healthcare even more expensive than it already is.

1984 wrote:

It'd suck to have you be my PT with that attitude.

A good PT needs a whole hell of lot more than the three things you listed...which is why it takes three years and why it should.

If you want some yahoo with poor schooling to treat your serious orthopedic problems then go see strength coach, chiropractor, or massage therapist.

I think the OP was complaining about the inefficiency in becoming one. We could definitely cut out some non-Science related classes in undergrad and do the programs faster. I don't think English classes and liberal arts classes have helped me in medical school.

We should probably just have more combined BS/MD programs that are 6 years long to cut down on the time. Two semesters of orgo didn't help in medical school nor did physics. I'm not saying more education is bad, far from it. But we could make it much more efficient by focusing on MEDICAL biochemistry, anatomy, more clinically-oriented classes early on instead of doing esoteric study.

Same with the PT degree. If all the things they studied in their 3 year program were studied in college, they could cut off a year or two, most likely.

asparagus wrote:

loperamide wrote:

Everyone wants the status of an MD, no one wants to do the work it takes to get there (see also: PA, NP, DNP, etc.)

As a patient, do you really care how much "work it takes"? Or do you care what results you get?

For sports injuries specifically, my personal experience with PAs and PTs has been much better than my experience with internal medicine doctors, who seem unable to diagnose any problem that a couch potato (most of their practice) would not have. Sesamoiditis? ITBS? Broken arm? Internists have totally failed me on these.

We could all go to see the appropriate specialist all the time, but that would make healthcare even more expensive than it already is.

Dude, next time you rag on Internists, check out Harrisons. It's THICK. They ain't that dumb and uneducated.

dumb ish wrote:

f that

It doesn't take three years of graduate study to learn anatomy and physiology and basic strength training procedures. It just doesn't.

College is kind of a waste for PT, MD, and other health professions but the actual specific masters and doctoral programs take a long time to complete.

You don't call a neurosurgeon dumb because he had 4 years of medicine and 7 years of residency, right? The human body is pretty complex. You can't just do it with little education and few years of schooling.

Now, the electives in college don't add *too* much specific knowledge to health providers.

chinocochio wrote:

I think the OP was complaining about the inefficiency in becoming one. We could definitely cut out some non-Science related classes in undergrad and do the programs faster. I don't think English classes and liberal arts classes have helped me in medical school.

We should probably just have more combined BS/MD programs that are 6 years long to cut down on the time. Two semesters of orgo didn't help in medical school nor did physics. I'm not saying more education is bad, far from it. But we could make it much more efficient by focusing on MEDICAL biochemistry, anatomy, more clinically-oriented classes early on instead of doing esoteric study.

As a fellow medical student, I think this is really stupid. For one medicine is a profession, not a trade. Perhaps more importantly, the rigorous path of becoming a doctor weeds out the wrong kind of person. Dumbing this down would be silly.

Also, every 6-year student I have seen has been really immature. Basically, they made their choice to enter medicine when they were 17...not such a great idea in my book.

Loperamide, you represent the reason why a lot of people are disgusted with their MD's--arrogance. Allied health students don't go to school just to elevate their social status.

Sports wrote:

Loperamide, you represent the reason why a lot of people are disgusted with their MD's--arrogance. Allied health students don't go to school just to elevate their social status.

Then why are they fighting tooth and nail to increase their scope of practice without going to medical school?

So you think that the non-science studies are absolutely necessary to practice medicine or complete medical school?

I'm not advocating that we cut out core classes like anatomy or biochemistry, but cutting out things that are absolutely not taught in medical school and making the training period shorter so we can get docs practicing earlier and to alleviate our physician shortage. Of course, increasing the number of residency spots is kind of important. (understated sarcasm) Too bad they are barely growing.

Most doctors finish medical school at 24 outside of North America, just saying.

Absolutely necessary? No. Do they make for more insightful, mature, and compassionate physicians? Absolutely.

Shortening the training period won't reduce the physician shortage: there are already far more medical school applicants than seats. Of course, I don't think standards should be lowered either. Probably need to hire more midlevels to take care of all the crap (and that is already happening most places).

chinocochio wrote:

ms4 wrote:

As a fellow medical student, I think this is really stupid. For one medicine is a profession, not a trade. Perhaps more importantly, the rigorous path of becoming a doctor weeds out the wrong kind of person. Dumbing this down would be silly.

Also, every 6-year student I have seen has been really immature. Basically, they made their choice to enter medicine when they were 17...not such a great idea in my book.

Most doctors finish medical school at 24 outside of North America, just saying.

The Chief of Surgery at a very big-name institution told me that he thought what other countries do is insane and that

"no 24 year old should ever have MD after his or her name." I defer to his opinion.

loperamide wrote:

Then why are they fighting tooth and nail to increase their scope of practice without going to medical school?

You're projecting your own mentality onto everyone else. You are the one who is obsessed with social status and therefore cannot imagine how anyone could be motivated by anything else. Believe it or not, some people are actually interested in medicine and don't need medical school to acquire the skills necessary to practice certain aspects of it.

ms4 wrote:

chinocochio wrote:

Most doctors finish medical school at 24 outside of North America, just saying.

The Chief of Surgery at a very big-name institution told me that he thought what other countries do is insane and that

"no 24 year old should ever have MD after his or her name." I defer to his opinion.

Ok...so a fairly educated and accomplished person says one thing so you have to believe it? I think I shadowed a neurosurgeon that said the opposite, but whatever.

There has to be a balance and a push to have efficient schooling. Should we have HS, 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school, and...10 years of residency to have even more knowledgeable docs? Or how about 2 years of residency? It is a trade off, obviously--you can't have your cake and eat it.

a PT wrote:

loperamide wrote:

Then why are they fighting tooth and nail to increase their scope of practice without going to medical school?

You're projecting your own mentality onto everyone else. You are the one who is obsessed with social status and therefore cannot imagine how anyone could be motivated by anything else. Believe it or not, some people are actually interested in medicine and don't need medical school to acquire the skills necessary to practice certain aspects of it.

Basically what you're saying is that people who are "actually interested" in medicine would forgo intensive and in-depth medical training for a more superficial program. Come again? LOL.