Educational Standards

[Guest guest]

Regarding educational reform -

 

 

There are no primary care medical providers at entry level in the US or

China with less than 4000 hours training. Primary care in this instance

refers to the capacity to function as an independent provider.

 

Emperor's College conducts revue departmental issues on an annual basis.

We have done testing on alternative models for teaching herbs, the

results of this test proved to be impractical to implement. There has

been a thorough revamp of biomedical sciences; these include one year of

A & P, one year of pathophysiology, and one year of western clinical

medicine plus courses on western physical assessment and integrative

east-west diagnosis. There has also been a complete revisiting of the

TCM theory components. We have one quarter Chinese language requirement.

In my estimation this is insufficient, however, it will be involved at

the Doctoral level with rudimentary translation skills as the objective.

Our courses are listed at http://www.emperors.edu/acupunture.html#

 

Emperor's programs are improving from the bottom up and from the top

down. The process of creating a doctorate has created insight into our

Master's program structure. It is very clear to me that both are

necessary. The doctorate is the arena for generating competencies

related to specialties. The Chinese programs don't begin specialty focus

until after 6 years training in basic materials.

 

I think Bob's reference to designing outcomes on the basis of the

ability to treat specific diseases is excellent. This is not how the

Council of Colleges or the Accreditation Commission is pursuing the

notion of competencies. They approaching the matter piecemeal with items

such as cupping, moxabustion, diagnosis and other items that have been

identified through job analyses. Bob's recommendation for a

meta-analysis of outcomes and skill domains related to treatment of

specific conditions is vital.

 

Regarding training for the treatment of cancer, I disagree that the

ability to read Chinese is necessary. It may be preferred. There are

many practitioners who treat cancer successfully integrating into the

standard care community and performing very professionally who do not

have Chinese language skills.

 

There is an education task force process for the acupuncture Board in

California. It is designed to determine competencies and hours of

training necessary for entry level to the profession. The Council of

Colleges lobbied for a competency based method of determining program

length until it became evident that this would necessitate a greater

number of hours than their intended 2800. Z'ev and can you state

Pacific's position on this? I know your super Dean Tom Haines is

actively engaged.

 

Will Morris

 

On a political note, CAOMA has submitted legislation in California to

increase the hours to 4000 by 2003. In brief:

 

California Assembly Bill 1943 (Chu)

 

SEC. 5. Section 4939 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to

read:

 

4939. (b) (1) Standards for the approval of training programs shall

include a minimum of all of the following:

(A) Seven hundred fifty hours of didactic and laboratory study in basic

sciences and clinical medicine.

(B) Eight hundred fifty hours of study in the principles and techniques

of traditional oriental medicine.

© Four hundred fifty hours of didactic and laboratory study in herbal

medicine.

(D) One hundred hours of study in ethics, hygiene, and practice management.

(E) One thousand fifty hours of study and practice in supervised

clinical practice.

This paragraph shall apply to all students entering programs between

January 1, 2003, and January 1, 2007, and to all persons who apply for a

license between January 1, 2007, and January 1, 2011.

 

(2) Standards for the approval of training programs shall include a

minimum of the following:

(A) One thousand hours of didactic and laboratory study in basic

sciences and clinical medicine.

(B) One thousand hours of study in the principles and techniques of

traditional oriental medicine.

© Five hundred hours of didactic and laboratory study in herbal medicine.

(D) One hundred hours of study in ethics, hygiene, and practice management.

(E) One thousand four hundred hours of study and practice in supervised

clinical practice.

This paragraph shall apply to students entering programs after January

1, 2007, and to persons who apply for a license after January 1, 2011.

 

© Clinical faculty shall be required to have five years experience as

a licensed acupuncturist.

 

(d) (1) Board approval of schools and colleges shall be valid for a

period of time determined by the board, not to exceed four years, and

shall expire at the end of that period.

(2) The board shall establish a review process.

(3) The board may revoke, suspend, or otherwise place conditions upon a

school or college at any time it may be determined that an approved

school or college fails to meet the criteria established by the board.

[Guest guest]

, Will Morris <will@e...> wrote:

We have one quarter Chinese language requirement.

> In my estimation this is insufficient, however, it will be involved at

> the Doctoral level with rudimentary translation skills as the objective.

 

One of my colleagues, an american who has been studying chinese for

about ten years and has excellent reading skills recently stated that

even the five semesters of 2 hours per week of chinese medical chinese

proposed by PCOM at the dr. level will not result in the ability to

read modern chinese journal articles. that we need to be realistic.

the most we will be able to accomplish in our doctoral programs is to

lay a foundation for further study. We will not establish even a

minimum competency in this area during the program itself. I don't

know how true this is. All I know is that the person who made this

statement is someone whose knowledge and ability for which I have the

utmost respect.

 

Z'ev and can you state

> Pacific's position on this? I know your super Dean Tom Haines is

> actively engaged.

 

I don't know the answer to this as I am not actively involved in these

issues.

 

[Guest guest]

We will not establish even a minimum competency in this area during the program itself. I don't know how true this is. All I know is that the person who made this statement is someone whose knowledge and ability for which I have the utmost respect.>>>We come back to priorities

Alon

[Guest guest]

Z'ev -

 

I am in agreement with you. This is a complex issue and it is unlikely to proceed smoothly - both sides have merit. You have asked many big questions. I have deadlines so I will only make brief commentary without line item responses.

 

Schools should be given latitude for program development with as little micromanagement regarding program content as possible. If the market determines Chinese language skills are necessary for the private practitioner in North America - it will happen. Obviously the professionals involved in the bill construction are not concerned with this and this includes the Asian communities. As far as competencies and domains are concerned, the practicing professional is a critical source for what is necessary in the field. Individuals whose primary source of livelihood are schools or other ventures have different agenda - yet these voices are also vital.

 

My guess is that all sides are headed for a 4000 hour doctorate. None will tolerate a 4000 hour Master's degree. I doubt current practitioners will want to go back to school. These are all questions the Department of Consumer Affairs will present to the professional organizations creating such legislation.

 

Will

 

My questions at the moment are:

1) While increased hours may be necessary, can students handle the cost and time increase to 4000 hours for a masters degree? Should the increased hours be implemented gradually, instead of all at once?

 

2) Who will want doctorate training if those hours are on top of a 4000 hours masters?

 

3) Are practitioner-based, as opposed to education-based groups and/or professionals equipped to determine what additional education is necessary?

 

4) If this additional education is necessary, what about practitioners already 'out in the field'? What should they do to improve competency?

 

4) It is interesting to me that there is no mention in any of this about Chinese language requirements. What good will the increased hours do without any access to Chinese language materials?

[Guest guest]

Even though it has been argued in the past that it is impossible to

adequately cover the classics and other topics properly the present

curriculum, and unrealistic to develop foreign language expertise

for translation too in that same timeframe, we should not be

dissuaded from incorporating those features.

 

If a student isn't able to translate journals, they should at least

be familiar with the etymolgy of important concepts through

classical examples.

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

 

, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

> We will not establish even a

> minimum competency in this area during the program itself. I

don't

> know how true this is. All I know is that the person who made

this

> statement is someone whose knowledge and ability for which I have

the

> utmost respect.

> >>>We come back to priorities

> Alon

[Guest guest]

 

 

> One of my colleagues, an american who has been studying chinese for

> about ten years and has excellent reading skills recently stated

that

> even the five semesters of 2 hours per week of chinese medical

chinese

> proposed by PCOM at the dr. level will not result in the ability to

> read modern chinese journal articles. that we need to be

realistic.

> the most we will be able to accomplish in our doctoral programs is

to

> lay a foundation for further study. We will not establish even a

> minimum competency in this area during the program itself. I don't

> know how true this is. All I know is that the person who made this

> statement is someone whose knowledge and ability for which I have

the

> utmost respect.

 

As Z'ev recently pointed out, it's not the

end of the path that begs our attention but

the part that is underfoot. Cheng Man Ching

said that students often give up the near

to seek the far. Learning a language is

a process that is motivated and monitored

by need. Where people need language they

acquire and use it, inventing as needed

to fill in along the way.

 

I think what the program needs to do is

orient the students to the subject and the

task that faces them and provide them with

enough in the way of fundamental tools

that should they come to appreciate the

need they will have the wherewithal with

which to proceed.

 

At a party just a while ago I heard a

relatively new studnet of Chinese medicine

repeat the often heard refrain that all

that you learn in school is the most basic

stuff and that it's once you get out that

your education really begins. And I had

to point out to this person that true as

that is, the problem seems to be that

relatively few who graduate go on to

pursue their education except in the ways

required by the various authorities.

And far to many simply never make it

into a sustainable practice of the

art in which they trained.

 

Jim suggested in another thread that

I am working at establishing some sort

of orthodoxy. If I am, it's news to me.

The only orthodoxy I know is the set

of views that proceeds from the awareness

that change is the constant organizing

principle of the universe. And when

you get right down to it, that's not really

the sort of orthodoxy that lends itself

to being established. The role of this

orthodoxy in Chinese culture is quite

fascinating.

 

Since we're talking about educational

standards, I'll put it this way. What

I'm suggesting is that people know

the meaning of the words they use,

and if those words have philosophical

backgrounds then these too should be

familiar. To me this boils down to

a point of personal integrity. And

I think that students and teachers

alike should demand of themselves

and each other that they understand

what they're talking about.

 

The only way to do this is for an

individual to be able to understand

the Chinese characters which constitute

the originals of so much of the theory

and practice of Chinese medicine. If

this truth, orthodoxy, or whatever other

label anyone wants to put on it were to

be widely taught, I believe that it

would engender a state of mind in

students that is far more conducive

to lifelong study and refinement of

clinical expertise.

 

But it's that state of mind, i.e. the

desire to learn and to know and to

understand that is the actual objective.

And in the final analysis it's not

up to the school, it's up to the individual

student.

 

If students achieve this sincerity

of intent, even a few hours of instruction

in how to proceed will serve to start them

on their way. Once underway, students naturally

need help from time to time, but the bulk

of the process of learning characters is

individual effort.

 

Having consistently held to the point of

view that the subject is complex and difficult,

as opposed to simple and easy, I am optimistic

that students can make substantial progress in

what may appear on the surface to be an

inadequate span of time. And if students are

well begun and discover that they need more

classroom time, no doubt adjustments could

be made to accomdate such a demand.

 

As to the specific competencies that can

be anticipated to develop during any given

course of study, I'd say that if we are still

talking about this in two or three years then

it all mattered and we should have some evidence

to hand. And if we're not, then whatever we

have to say about it now is nothing but ironic.

 

And again, at last it's up to the student.

 

Do you really want to know?

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

I have spoken with this teacher about the Chinese program in the

doctorate at Pacific, and my feeling remains that although modern

journals are sometimes difficult to read, textbooks and even some

classical works are less so. Easiest of all, as Jim Ramholz has pointed

out, are herbs, acupuncture hole names, and materia medica texts. As

time goes on, we should be able to tailor the material in these courses

to the needs of students and what they plan to do with the language

study.

 

Or as Steve Jobs said, " the journey is the reward " .

 

 

On Saturday, February 23, 2002, at 10:34 AM, 1 wrote:

 

> One of my colleagues, an american who has been studying chinese for

> about ten years and has excellent reading skills recently stated that

> even the five semesters of 2 hours per week of chinese medical chinese

> proposed by PCOM at the dr. level will not result in the ability to

> read modern chinese journal articles.  that we need to be realistic. 

> the most we will be able to accomplish in our doctoral programs is to

> lay a foundation for further study.  We will not establish even a

> minimum competency in this area during the program itself.  I don't

> know how true this is.  All I know is that the person who made this

> statement is someone whose knowledge and ability for which I have the

> utmost respect.

[Guest guest]

This is a difficult and complex issue, Will. I have discussed this from

time to time with Tom Haines, and I see pros and cons to the position of

the CAOMA, and to the schools' position. Since this submission (of a

bill increasing hours) is happening at the same time as the doctorate

programs are being developed, I hope they don't collide with each

other. Also, I am not sure of the CAOMA's view on the doctorate, if

they want to add these hours in the context of a doctorate degree.

 

I cannot speak for Tom or Jack, or say what Pacific's policy is

vis-a-vis the politics of this legislation. In fact, I was unaware this

issue was up again in the form of a bill until now. So my questions

(and views) are my own.

 

My questions at the moment are:

1) While increased hours may be necessary, can students handle the cost

and time increase to 4000 hours for a masters degree? Should the

increased hours be implemented gradually, instead of all at once?

 

2) Who will want doctorate training if those hours are on top of a 4000

hours masters?

 

3) Are practitioner-based, as opposed to education-based groups and/or

professionals equipped to determine what additional education is

necessary?

 

4) If this additional education is necessary, what about practitioners

already 'out in the field'? What should they do to improve competency?

 

4) It is interesting to me that there is no mention in any of this about

Chinese language requirements. What good will the increased hours do

without any access to Chinese language materials?

 

 

 

On Friday, February 22, 2002, at 12:00 PM, Will Morris wrote:

 

> There is an education task force process for the acupuncture Board in

> California. It is designed to determine competencies and hours of

> training necessary for entry level to the profession. The Council of

> Colleges lobbied for a competency based method of determining program

> length until it became evident that this would necessitate a greater

> number of hours than their intended 2800. Z'ev and can you state

> Pacific's position on this? I know your super Dean Tom Haines is

> actively engaged.

>

> Will Morris

>