Guest guest Posted January 24, 2003 Report Share Posted January 24, 2003 As I reported last week, ACAOM intends to survey the practitioner community about requiring an entry level doctorate degree in ten years. this has enraged at least one national organization who declare that ACAOM should not even ask the question. Statement from the Council of Colleges of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine The Council of Colleges of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine believes that the recent ACAOM Doctoral Survey proposal has caused major concerns to many colleges of acupuncture and Oriental medicine across the country and is premature, misleading, biased, and undermines the current national Visioning Search Task Force process. The executive committee of the Council, having received input from members of the Council, including its mission and visioning committee, feels that it is important that our profession consider the role of the doctorate in the future with calm reflection and a careful planning process. We do not believe the ACAOM survey will promote this calm reflection or help educational institutions. Accordingly, the Council's executive committee, which functions as the board of the Council between meetings, expresses its strong concern regarding the ACAOM survey for the reasons indicated below. see the rest at http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/archives2003/feb/02acaom.html Chinese Herbs " Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds " -- Albert Einstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2003 Report Share Posted January 25, 2003 Todd - ACAOM has an obligation to entertain discourse from all stakeholders. They are on the right track. CCAOM executive committee has acted unilaterally. Yet, based on personal conversation, it is clear to me that not all schools feel this way, and many support a higher standard. CCAOM should perform surveys and get an acurate picture of constituent desires. Most importantly, the suggestion that ACAOM should not ask the question would violate there own accreditation criteria. Will As I reported last week, ACAOM intends to survey the practitioner community about requiring an entry level doctorate degree in ten years. this has enraged at least one national organization who declare that ACAOM should not even ask the question. William R. Morris, OMD Secretary, AAOM Dean of Clinical Education Emperor's College of TOM 310-453-8383 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2003 Report Share Posted January 25, 2003 Dear All - As I have indicated previously, there are many schools who disagree with the Council statement in Acupuncture Today. It was pushed through by the Council Executive Committee, and they did not poll their constituency. I believe this to be a grievous error, even though it is possible according to their bylaws. It is imperative for everyone to respond to the Accreditation Commission (ACAOM) poll with your opinion if it is to achieve a level of validity. Everything will be on the table -- language, clinical skills -- everything. This would be an amazing thing from my perspective. We would not have to attach a postgraduate clinical doctoral program onto: an attempt to fill entry requirements to a first professional degree through a master's program. Rather, the new doctorate can be designed from the ground up as an entry level doctorate. This would be based on criteria established through a brand new process; one that the profession can be heard instead of being railroaded by the interests of a few schools who control the Council of Colleges -- which by the way -- have controlled the development of this profession from very early on. It is time we grow up as professionals and take control of the destiny of our profession ... this is the opportunity. Fill out the ACAOM survey and be heard. As far as CHA is concerned -- this group could take a leadership position by polling it's members and developing a consensus statement on those features we can agree upon. I would leave Chinese language agenda out at this juncture because of the controversial nature of the topic; once we get to the tables it can be addressed. The ACAOM really wants to know what we have to say. In addition, this might be a way to have a CHA representative at the hearings. Will Morris Statement from the Council of Colleges of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine The Council of Colleges of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine believes that the recent ACAOM Doctoral Survey proposal has caused major concerns to many colleges of acupuncture and Oriental medicine across the country and is premature, misleading, biased, and undermines the current national Visioning Search Task Force process. The executive committee of the Council, having received input from members of the Council, including its mission and visioning committee, feels that it is important that our profession consider the role of the doctorate in the future with calm reflection and a careful planning process. We do not believe the ACAOM survey will promote this calm reflection or help educational institutions. Accordingly, the Council's executive committee, which functions as the board of the Council between meetings, expresses its strong concern regarding the ACAOM survey for the reasons indicated below. see the rest at http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/archives2003/feb/02acaom.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2003 Report Share Posted January 26, 2003 Will: The article said that three schools already have a doctorate level program. Do you know which schools and of what types of classes their doctorate curriculum consists? Jim Ramholz , WMorris116@A... wrote: > Everything will be on the table -- language, clinical skills -- everything. ... Rather, the new doctorate can be designed from the ground up as an entry level doctorate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2003 Report Share Posted January 26, 2003 PCOM, Bastyr and OCOM. OCOM sent out a brochure. check their websites for updates. todd , " James Ramholz < jramholz> " <jramholz> wrote: > Will: > > The article said that three schools already have a doctorate level > program. Do you know which schools and of what types of classes > their doctorate curriculum consists? > > > Jim Ramholz > > > > , WMorris116@A... wrote: > > Everything will be on the table -- language, clinical skills -- > everything. ... Rather, the new doctorate can be designed from the > ground up as an entry level doctorate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2003 Report Share Posted January 26, 2003 This is obviously another difficult crossroads for our profession. It seems we are having a lot of them, true signs of growing pains. I firmly support a doctorate-only degree, and I think ten years should be more than enough time to do so. Many other issues arise in the meantime, such as continuing education for practitioners, grandfathering, etc. that will have to be dealt with. I do think Chinese language is a core issue and should be on the table now. I see no reason to put this off any longer, and not requiring it at the national level for doctorate programs was another grievous error. While I agree that trying to stop a poll was also a grievous error, we must understand that it is the colleges that have to bear the major financial burden of any changes in educational standards. Practitioners less so. These schools are nearly all privately owned, with little or no funding, unlike the University of California or SUNY. The financial risk factor is very great, and the key word is enrollment enrollment enrollment. Anything that is a risk to enrollment is a great financial risk. When the schools started as 'mom and pop' outfits, the risks were less, the agenda more free-form. Now it takes hundreds of thousands of dollars just to get through the certification processes. I think this reality also influences what is happening with the national exam. It is amusing, and somewhat expensive, to think that after 20 years of practice, I may have to take the national herb exam to keep up my NCCA certification. So, while I support an open forum, entry-level doctorate, and well-integrated Chinese language courses in the schools, I think we do need to be sensitive to the financial risks for the colleges. Undoubtedly, the next ten years may force closure of smaller schools and even some larger ones. The costs of starting new schools will get more steep. We've already seen a few closures in the past year. On Sunday, January 26, 2003, at 04:52 AM, WMorris116 wrote: > Dear All - > > As I have indicated previously, there are many schools who disagree > with the Council statement in Acupuncture Today. It was pushed through > by the Council Executive Committee, and they did not poll their > constituency. I believe this to be a grievous error, even though it is > possible according to their bylaws. > > It is imperative for everyone to respond to the Accreditation > Commission (ACAOM) poll with your opinion if it is to achieve a level > of validity. Everything will be on the table -- language, clinical > skills -- everything. > > This would be an amazing thing from my perspective. We would not have > to attach a postgraduate clinical doctoral program onto: an attempt to > fill entry requirements to a first professional degree through a > master's program. Rather, the new doctorate can be designed from the > ground up as an entry level doctorate. > > This would be based on criteria established through a brand new > process; one that the profession can be heard instead of being > railroaded by the interests of a few schools who control the Council > of Colleges -- which by the way -- have controlled the development of > this profession from very early on. It is time we grow up as > professionals and take control of the destiny of our profession ... > this is the opportunity. Fill out the ACAOM survey and be heard. > > As far as CHA is concerned -- this group could take a leadership > position by polling it's members and developing a consensus statement > on those features we can agree upon. I would leave Chinese language > agenda out at this juncture because of the controversial nature of the > topic; once we get to the tables it can be addressed. The ACAOM really > wants to know what we have to say. In addition, this might be a way to > have a CHA representative at the hearings. > > Will Morris > > Statement from the Council of Colleges of Acupuncture and Oriental > Medicine > > The Council of Colleges of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine believes > that > the recent ACAOM Doctoral Survey proposal has caused major concerns to > many colleges of acupuncture and Oriental medicine across the country > and > is premature, misleading, biased, and undermines the current national > Visioning Search Task Force process. The executive committee of the > Council, having received input from members of the Council, including > its > mission and visioning committee, feels that it is important that our > profession consider the role of the doctorate in the future with calm > reflection and a careful planning process. We do not believe the ACAOM > survey will promote this calm reflection or help educational > institutions. > Accordingly, the Council's executive committee, which functions as the > board of the Council between meetings, expresses its strong concern > regarding the ACAOM survey for the reasons indicated below. > > see the rest at > http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/archives2003/feb/02acaom.html > > > > <image.tiff> > > > Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed > healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate > academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety > of professional services, including board approved online continuing > education. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2003 Report Share Posted January 26, 2003 Jim - OCOM, Bastyr and PCOM have all been approved to deliver a postgraduate clinical specialty doctorate. This is not what I am speaking about. Rather, I would see the doctorate structured from the ground up as an entry level first professional degree as the ring we are attempting to grasp in our growth as a profession. Bastyr is a cancer specialty, OCOM doesn't seem to be a specialty, I haven't seen anything from PCOM - Todd and Z'ev? Will The article said that three schools already have a doctorate level program. Do you know which schools and of what types of classes their doctorate curriculum consists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2003 Report Share Posted January 26, 2003 We currently have more schools per capita than any other profession anywhere in the world. Yes, three schools have closed in the last year. More will close. We cannot in any way -- any longer -- stunt the forward movement of this profession based on the survival of a few who are likely not survive anyway. Other issues such as CME and grandfathering will arise, however, they are state licensing issues, not academic ones. The licensing bodies are very interested in a licensure title that would be grandfatherable; this is not the purview of the schools or the Accrediting process. Along the lines of continuing education, I believe we should push for a moratorium on the use of the term CEU which is a trade designation. Rather, I believe we should seek designation commensurate with the objective of life-long learning, that of continuing medical education (CME). Language needs to be on the table. However, those schools that choose another focus need the academic freedom to pursue what they deem is most consequential to the needs of this country from doctoral level training in OM. The colleges as a special interest group have run the national agenda for policy development. It is time for balanced discourse. The ACAOM process will insure this. Do not let fear for the schools drive us away from balanced discourse the way it has in the past. Will Morris This is obviously another difficult crossroads for our profession. It seems we are having a lot of them, true signs of growing pains. I firmly support a doctorate-only degree, and I think ten years should be more than enough time to do so. Many other issues arise in the meantime, such as continuing education for practitioners, grandfathering, etc. that will have to be dealt with. I do think Chinese language is a core issue and should be on the table now. I see no reason to put this off any longer, and not requiring it at the national level for doctorate programs was another grievous error. While I agree that trying to stop a poll was also a grievous error, we must understand that it is the colleges that have to bear the major financial burden of any changes in educational standards. Practitioners less so. These schools are nearly all privately owned, with little or no funding, unlike the University of California or SUNY. The financial risk factor is very great, and the key word is enrollment enrollment enrollment. Anything that is a risk to enrollment is a great financial risk. When the schools started as 'mom and pop' outfits, the risks were less, the agenda more free-form. Now it takes hundreds of thousands of dollars just to get through the certification processes. I think this reality also influences what is happening with the national exam. It is amusing, and somewhat expensive, to think that after 20 years of practice, I may have to take the national herb exam to keep up my NCCA certification. So, while I support an open forum, entry-level doctorate, and well-integrated Chinese language courses in the schools, I think we do need to be sensitive to the financial risks for the colleges. Undoubtedly, the next ten years may force closure of smaller schools and even some larger ones. The costs of starting new schools will get more steep. We've already seen a few closures in the past year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Ken - Medical professions - I don't have the figures but can get them. Ratios of professionals to training institutions for each profession. Will What heads are you counting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Ken, There are about 50 TCM schools and 15,000 pracitioners. The number of practitioners will probably double in the next 2-3 years due to the number of students in the pipeline. Will Thanks. I'd be very interested in seeing those numbers. How many schools of Chinese medicine are there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Will, Can you clarify what you mean by this: , WMorris116@A... wrote: > We currently have more schools per capita than any other profession anywhere > in the world. What heads are you counting? Thanks, Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Will, Thanks. I'd be very interested in seeing those numbers. How many schools of Chinese medicine are there? Ken , WMorris116@A... wrote: > Ken - > > Medical professions - I don't have the figures but can get them. Ratios of > professionals to training institutions for each profession. > > Will > > > > What heads are you counting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 In a message dated 1/27/2003 12:54:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, WMorris116 writes: OCOM doesn't seem to be a specialty, OCOM has specialties in gynecology, pain management or geriatrics in their Doctoral Program. -Anne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Jim, From what I can tell, the program at OCOM does not contain language studies. It does look at the classics, but it is hard to tell to what extent. I'm trying to find out more information on this. -Anne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 , WMorris116@A... wrote: I haven't > seen anything from PCOM - Todd and Z'ev? geriatrics, neuromuscular and psychiatry as PCOM has long time close working relationships with integrative medical facilities and providers serving seniors, college athletes and homeless (most of whom are mentally ill at the facility we use). BTW, the first class is intended for fall 2003. I think apps are being accepted. And it does require 5 semesters of chinese medical chinese. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Ann - from my examination of the program, there is insufficient time spent on specialty topics to merit the moniker 'specialty'. The progarm is heavily weighted in general studies. Will Morris In a message dated 1/27/2003 12:54:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, WMorris116 writes: OCOM doesn't seem to be a specialty, OCOM has specialties in gynecology, pain management or geriatrics in their Doctoral Program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Two years will double so two - three years should account for attrition. Thanks. Does your estimate of the number of practitioners doubling take into account drop-out rate, both from schools and from the ranks of professionals? Do we have numbers available for the drop-out rates? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Anne: Do they include language studies or have classes that focus on particular classical texts? Jim Ramholz , ajeffres@a... wrote: > OCOM has specialties in gynecology, pain management or geriatrics in their Doctoral Program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Ken No to both of these - I think it shifts radically from school to school and from 5 year period to five year period but I have no hard data........ Will Do you know the attrition rate for practitioners ? The drop out rate from schools? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Will, Thanks. Does your estimate of the number of practitioners doubling take into account drop-out rate, both from schools and from the ranks of professionals? Do we have numbers available for the drop-out rates? Ken , WMorris116@A... wrote: > Ken, > > There are about 50 TCM schools and 15,000 pracitioners. The number of > practitioners will probably double in the next 2-3 years due to the number of > students in the pipeline. > > Will > > > Thanks. I'd be very interested in seeing > > those numbers. How many schools of Chinese > > medicine are there? > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Will, Thanks. Do you know the attrition rate for practitioners ? The drop out rate from schools? Ken , WMorris116@A... wrote: > Two years will double so two - three years should account for attrition. > > > Thanks. > > > > Does your estimate of the number of practitioners > > doubling take into account drop-out rate, both > > from schools and from the ranks of professionals? > > > > Do we have numbers available for the drop-out > > rates? > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Will, Thanks. Does anyone on the list have any information about the attrition rate both in the schools and after graduation? We've talked about this topic before, and it seems to me that any discussion that focuses on the success of various approaches to education would be well served by some way of evaluating what the current education is actually producing in terms of successful students and graduates. Ken , WMorris116@A... wrote: > Ken > > No to both of these - I think it shifts radically from school to school and > from 5 year period to five year period but I have no hard data........ > > Will > > > Do you know the attrition rate > > for practitioners > > ? > > The drop out rate from schools? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.