dr. title/language again

[Guest guest]

At 4:42 PM +0000 12/31/01, jramholz wrote:

>The time/benefit *is* an important question, too...

>

>The issue of time/benefit at this stage of development in our

>profession is largely about the social and financial considerations.

>Are classes now adequate and sufficient to go the next step and

>spend extra time requiring language?

--

As a teacher in two colleges and also on the seminar circuit, I'd say

that without question the most valuable next addition would medical

Chinese language. It is a major missing link in our education at

present. A one unit class per semester for 12 semesters would be an

immense improvement, and not incredibly burdensome for the student or

institution.

 

>Can schools do it and remain

>solvent? Are we are putting an extra burden on schools who often

>have small enrollments and limited financial resources? Will a

>language requirement discourage application to schools?

--

I can't imagine any serious student intent on becoming a practitioner

not signing up for this reason, assuming that it was a requirement at

all schools. Of course, it would have to be a requirement for

accreditation to create an even playing field.

 

>The return

>on this investment hasn't been demonstrated yet.

--

Not sure what this means. Whose investment, in what?

 

>If there are now

>not enough competent teachers now for classes in English who can

>survey the published translations and commentaries, the burden on

>finding new teachers who know how to teach the language only

>compounds a school's problems.

--

I don't think it is necessary to find all new teachers. Finding a

teacher for the medical Chinese class could not be too difficult.

Current teachers of other CM classes can be brought up to speed over

time, and if they refuse, can be replaced over the longer term. It

doesn't need to be an all at once transition. In the short term, it

would be more important that they be committed to the project, than

to be expert.

 

Rory

--