Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 Jim, > If Wiseman is mandated as a standard, that gives one publisher a > monopoly and makes the inventories of the other publishers virtually > worthless since school sales are one of the largest markets. Having to > retool will create an undo financial burden for other publishers. Which monopoly would that be? Dictionary sales? How do you create a monopoly by selling a big, thick dictionary for a per word cost less than most of the textbooks that concern you? And, while giving the methodology away on-line? Anyone can take the work and do what they want. Monopolies come from proprietary methods, not published ones. Look at the situation as it currently stands. There's a committee, they chose books as sources for the exams. In fact, this has just been recently done anew. The committee publishes its results and people naturally use those books for their classes, and students naturally assume that there is an advantage to buying and studying those books. In fact, there is a big advantage because these books contain what can be asked on the exams and this creates, if not a virtual monopoly, a huge advantage for the publishers of those selected texts. Now, let's suppose I come along and I want to stick my fingers in the textbook pie. What to do? That's obvious isn't it? There's no sense in producing different textbooks so I need to produce some that are cheaper than the textbooks the committee selected but which are essentially the same in the eyes of teachers and students. This is not some deep secret; it is Harvard Business School Marketing 101. If I make a cheaper version of a functionally identical product, people will buy it and not the competition's. Even if I don't manage to monopolize the market, I will impair my competitor's cash flow, weakening their ability to compete. Its a pretty good strategy because if the books are functionally identical, people will think I did a good thing by lowering prices and say nice things about me on CHA. The first thing I do is grab copies of the books the committee selected and look at the sources, to see if any of the rights are tied-up. No problem there, even if there was, the data is available from many sources. Thus, I can get the same information, I can get the legal right to use it and no one can stop me. Indeed, if I buy the rights to any of the most common sources, I will be able to raise hell in the courts, further burdening my competition. If I weaken them enough, I can apply the tried-and-true discounter strategy to its fullest extent, driving the competition out of the market, then raising prices when the monopoly is mine. Nasty SOB aren't I! The next step in my monopolist plot will be to reverse engineer those textbooks to create less expensive versions that are functionally identical. Here is where I start to run into problems. Some of what I need is essentially in the public domain -- pinyin, latin nomenclature, acupoint numbers, etc. But, much of what I need to create my clone texts -- term lists, the principles for what does and does not get translated, what is polysemous and when, what is dropped or added from the sources, what gets simplified and what does not, are only available to the textbook writers and publishers. So, practically, even if I have the rights, I don't have the tools and I cannot make a functionally identical product. As soon as the readership sees that there are differences between the selected texts that they need to memorize and my not-so-cloned alternatives, my nefarious marketing plan will fail. In the end, I'm stuck, I don't dare take the risk because I can't make a functionally identical text. Now, go back to this scenario only imagine that it is Practical Dictionary- based books that are mandated, or defaulted because he's the only one who did " the heavy lifting. " The road map for competing with these texts is available for free and the dictionary you need costs $87.50 at your favorite on-line discounter. So, where's the most likely source of monopoly, in the scenario you propose, or in the one we've got? If we in the Wiseman " clique " were intent on monopolizing the trade, why would we argue for an open source approach? This argument is just the " slave to a dictionary " argument in another form; it asserts commercial coercion instead of academic coercion. What creates coercion is not dictionaries, it is not published methodologies, it is not COMP standards, it is political process. At any rate, the Wiseman monopoly scenario is a bogyman story because it is not going to happen. The infrastructure we have would take years to change -- even if the will to do so were there -- and to my knowledge the only time a Wiseman text ever appeared on an exam list, it disappeared under cover of darkness. No writer or publisher is going to invest in textbooks unless they are participants in the market as it stands because there are less risky things to do. And that, in fact, is really the scacriest scenario because what we need is more and more people to invest more and more so that the field can continue to develop. Bob bob Paradigm Publications www.paradigm-pubs.com 44 Linden Street Robert L. Felt Brookline MA 02445 617-738-4664 --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 All, Further to what Bob Felt wrote below, I want to ask again... Is there currently a transparent mechanism by which textbooks are designated on the list put out by the exam committees? Does anybody know and understand this mechanism? These are not rhetorical questions. I do not know how this is accomplished? Are there published criteria? Do we have a common body of standards that are employed in determining what people will study and constitutes the currnetly mandated standards of instruction, examination and certification? Ken , " Robert L. Felt " <bob@p...> wrote: > Jim, > > > If Wiseman is mandated as a standard, that gives one publisher a > > monopoly and makes the inventories of the other publishers virtually > > worthless since school sales are one of the largest markets. Having to > > retool will create an undo financial burden for other publishers. > > Which monopoly would that be? Dictionary sales? > > How do you create a monopoly by selling a big, thick dictionary for a per > word cost less than most of the textbooks that concern you? And, while > giving the methodology away on-line? Anyone can take the work and do > what they want. Monopolies come from proprietary methods, not published > ones. > > Look at the situation as it currently stands. There's a committee, they chose > books as sources for the exams. In fact, this has just been recently done > anew. The committee publishes its results and people naturally use those > books for their classes, and students naturally assume that there is an > advantage to buying and studying those books. In fact, there is a big > advantage because these books contain what can be asked on the exams and > this creates, if not a virtual monopoly, a huge advantage for the publishers > of those selected texts. > > Now, let's suppose I come along and I want to stick my fingers in the > textbook pie. What to do? That's obvious isn't it? There's no sense in > producing different textbooks so I need to produce some that are cheaper > than the textbooks the committee selected but which are essentially the same > in the eyes of teachers and students. This is not some deep secret; it is > Harvard Business School Marketing 101. If I make a cheaper version of a > functionally identical product, people will buy it and not the competition's. > Even if I don't manage to monopolize the market, I will impair my > competitor's cash flow, weakening their ability to compete. Its a pretty > good strategy because if the books are functionally identical, people will > think I did a good thing by lowering prices and say nice things about me on > CHA. > > The first thing I do is grab copies of the books the committee selected and > look at the sources, to see if any of the rights are tied-up. No problem there, > even if there was, the data is available from many sources. Thus, I can get > the same information, I can get the legal right to use it and no one can stop > me. Indeed, if I buy the rights to any of the most common sources, I will be > able to raise hell in the courts, further burdening my competition. If I > weaken them enough, I can apply the tried-and-true discounter strategy to > its fullest extent, driving the competition out of the market, then raising > prices when the monopoly is mine. > > Nasty SOB aren't I! > > The next step in my monopolist plot will be to reverse engineer those > textbooks to create less expensive versions that are functionally identical. > Here is where I start to run into problems. Some of what I need is > essentially in the public domain -- pinyin, latin nomenclature, acupoint > numbers, etc. But, much of what I need to create my clone texts - - term > lists, the principles for what does and does not get translated, what is > polysemous and when, what is dropped or added from the sources, what gets > simplified and what does not, are only available to the textbook writers and > publishers. So, practically, even if I have the rights, I don't have the tools > and I cannot make a functionally identical product. > > As soon as the readership sees that there are differences between the > selected texts that they need to memorize and my not-so-cloned alternatives, > my nefarious marketing plan will fail. In the end, I'm stuck, I don't dare > take the risk because I can't make a functionally identical text. > > Now, go back to this scenario only imagine that it is Practical Dictionary- > based books that are mandated, or defaulted because he's the only one who > did " the heavy lifting. " The road map for competing with these texts is > available for free and the dictionary you need costs $87.50 at your favorite > on-line discounter. > > So, where's the most likely source of monopoly, in the scenario you propose, > or in the one we've got? > > If we in the Wiseman " clique " were intent on monopolizing the trade, why > would we argue for an open source approach? This argument is just the > " slave to a dictionary " argument in another form; it asserts commercial > coercion instead of academic coercion. What creates coercion is not > dictionaries, it is not published methodologies, it is not COMP standards, it > is political process. > > At any rate, the Wiseman monopoly scenario is a bogyman story because it > is not going to happen. The infrastructure we have would take years to > change -- even if the will to do so were there -- and to my knowledge the > only time a Wiseman text ever appeared on an exam list, it disappeared > under cover of darkness. No writer or publisher is going to invest in > textbooks unless they are participants in the market as it stands because > there are less risky things to do. And that, in fact, is really the scacriest > scenario because what we need is more and more people to invest more and > more so that the field can continue to develop. > > Bob > > > > > > bob@p... Paradigm Publications > www.paradigm-pubs.com 44 Linden Street > Robert L. Felt Brookline MA 02445 > 617-738-4664 > > > --- > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 Ken, I do know that the California State Board Reference list has been mostly the same for many years. About 2 years ago, the Board sent letters to the schools, asking them if they wanted Deadman's Manual of Acupuncture to be placed on the reference list...we (Yo San) said yes, absolutely! But as far as I know, it is still not there...maybe I am misinformed. If you have not seen the CA reference list, I think you would be disappointed. Julie > Ken wrote: > Is there currently a transparent mechanism by > which textbooks are designated on the list > put out by the exam committees? > > Does anybody know and understand this mechanism? > > These are not rhetorical questions. I do > not know how this is accomplished? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 Julie, What would really disappoint me is if no one really knows how the current mandate was achieved or how it is maintained. It's far too important a process to be conducted out of the public view. The recent talk about monopolies piqued my interest. Who is calling the shots? Ken , Julie Chambers <info@j...> wrote: > Ken, > > I do know that the California State Board Reference list has been mostly the > same for many years. About 2 years ago, the Board sent letters to the > schools, asking them if they wanted Deadman's Manual of Acupuncture to be > placed on the reference list...we (Yo San) said yes, absolutely! But as far > as I know, it is still not there...maybe I am misinformed. > > If you have not seen the CA reference list, I think you would be > disappointed. > > Julie > > > Ken wrote: > > > Is there currently a transparent mechanism by > > which textbooks are designated on the list > > put out by the exam committees? > > > > Does anybody know and understand this mechanism? > > > > These are not rhetorical questions. I do > > not know how this is accomplished? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 Dear Ken, Someone knows. I just don't know. I will read the CA Acup Board Rules and Regulations to see if the issue is addressed in there...it must be! Julie Ken wrote: > > What would really disappoint me is if no > one really knows how the current mandate > was achieved or how it is maintained. > > It's far too important a process to be > conducted out of the public view. > > The recent talk about monopolies piqued > my interest. > > Who is calling the shots? > > Ken > > , Julie Chambers > <info@j...> wrote: > > Ken, > > > > I do know that the California State Board Reference list has been > mostly the > > same for many years. About 2 years ago, the Board sent letters to > the > > schools, asking them if they wanted Deadman's Manual of > Acupuncture to be > > placed on the reference list...we (Yo San) said yes, absolutely! > But as far > > as I know, it is still not there...maybe I am misinformed. > > > > If you have not seen the CA reference list, I think you would be > > disappointed. > > > > Julie > > > > > Ken wrote: > > > > > Is there currently a transparent mechanism by > > > which textbooks are designated on the list > > > put out by the exam committees? > > > > > > Does anybody know and understand this mechanism? > > > > > > These are not rhetorical questions. I do > > > not know how this is accomplished? > > > 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 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 , " Robert L. Felt " > If we in the Wiseman " clique " were intent on monopolizing the trade, why would we argue for an open source approach? This argument is just the " slave to a dictionary " argument in another form; it asserts commercial coercion instead of academic coercion. What creates coercion is not dictionaries, it is not published methodologies, it is not COMP standards, it is political process. > > At any rate, the Wiseman monopoly scenario is a bogyman story because it is not going to happen. The infrastructure we have would take years to change -- even if the will to do so were there -- and to my knowledge the only time a Wiseman text ever appeared on an exam list, it disappeared under cover of darkness. No writer or publisher is going to invest in textbooks unless they are participants in the market as it stands because there are less risky things to do. And that, in fact, is really the scacriest scenario because what we need is more and more people to invest more and more so that the field can continue to develop. Bob: I see I need to start using emoticons sometimes for irony, exaggeration, and hyperbole. I think you've portrayed the situation very accurately. IMO, the best and most workable solution is simply to include the Chinese when translating. Whatever style of translation prefered---literal or figurative---should be judged in context of both languages side by side. Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 Jim, Do you have any idea how the currently mandated textbooks achieved this status? Does anyone? Bob Flaws? Will? Alon? Anyone? If no one knows how these standards are set, we need something more than emoticons. Ken , " James Ramholz <jramholz> " <jramholz> wrote: > , " Robert L. Felt " > > If we in the Wiseman " clique " were intent on monopolizing the > trade, why would we argue for an open source approach? This > argument is just the " slave to a dictionary " argument in another > form; it asserts commercial coercion instead of academic coercion. > What creates coercion is not dictionaries, it is not published > methodologies, it is not COMP standards, it is political process. > > > > At any rate, the Wiseman monopoly scenario is a bogyman story > because it is not going to happen. The infrastructure we have would > take years to change -- even if the will to do so were there -- and > to my knowledge the only time a Wiseman text ever appeared on an > exam list, it disappeared under cover of darkness. No writer or > publisher is going to invest in textbooks unless they are > participants in the market as it stands because there are less risky > things to do. And that, in fact, is really the scacriest scenario > because what we need is more and more people to invest more and > more so that the field can continue to develop. > > Bob: > > I see I need to start using emoticons sometimes for irony, > exaggeration, and hyperbole. > > > I think you've portrayed the situation very accurately. IMO, the > best and most workable solution is simply to include the Chinese > when translating. Whatever style of translation prefered---literal > or figurative---should be judged in context of both languages side > by side. > > > Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 Ken said: > > If no one knows how these standards are > set, we need something more than emoticons. Julie queries: what is/are " emoticons " ? And why are you so concerned about how these standards were set? We all know that Chinese Acupuncture and Moxibustion (CAM) has been a standard text for a long time -- what difference does it make how it got to be that? We need to concern ourselves with what texts to replace CAM with -- namely, I think, Maciocia and Deadman, to start. Julie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 In , " dragon90405 wrote: > If no one knows how these standards are > set, we need something more than emoticons. Ken: The good news is that Wiseman has two books in the top 100 recommended by the AAAOM, and one on the NCCAOM lists. The NCCAOM site says they don't recommend any single text. Their book list is compiled by a consensus of experts. So the standard is simply consensus. " There is no single text recommended by the NCCAOM to study from for the acupuncture examination. This is an examination of acupuncture as it is practiced in the U.S. today as determined by a consensus of experts. These experts include acupuncturists practicing in America whom, as a group, possess a broad diversity of training and backgrounds. Examination writers frequently use the following texts in developing test items. Sources are not limited to the books listed here, but NCCAOM suggests that the primary books be included among a candidate's study sources. NCCAOM does not endorse any third- party study or preparation guide. It is very likely that one will find differences of opinion on some subjects treated in the references given here. The fact of controversy is itself a point of interest, but no questions will be based on such contradictions. " Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2003 Report Share Posted January 28, 2003 Julie, I'm sorry to say that you can actually find out more than you or anyone would ever need or want to know about emoticons at, you guessed it, http://www.emoticon.com/ As to why I'm concerned about how current standards came to be, I think it reflects on who we are as a profession and might inform the process of how we develop more effective standards for the future. For example, I would not endorse your selections, as both authors neglect the critically important element of clarifying the meanings of terms. And basic texts that ignore nomenclature are deficient in my view. Does anyone have any info on how the California state licensing exam has gone about nominating its standard refernece texts? Ken , Julie Chambers <info@j...> wrote: > Ken said: > > > > If no one knows how these standards are > > set, we need something more than emoticons. > > Julie queries: what is/are " emoticons " ? > > And why are you so concerned about how these standards were set? We all know > that Chinese Acupuncture and Moxibustion (CAM) has been a standard text for > a long time -- what difference does it make how it got to be that? We need > to concern ourselves with what texts to replace CAM with -- namely, I think, > Maciocia and Deadman, to start. > > Julie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 At 4:56 AM +0000 1/29/03, dragon90405 <yulong wrote: >Do you have any idea how the currently >mandated textbooks achieved this >status? -- I'm not sure that this is what you are asking about, but in my college, we review the currently available literature on an ongoing basis, in consultation with the teachers of individual classes. We don't necessarily use books on someone else's reference text list. The students can use those when they are preparing for specific exams if they feel the need to. Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 At 9:53 PM -0800 1/28/03, Julie Chambers wrote: >And why are you so concerned about how these standards were set? We all know >that Chinese Acupuncture and Moxibustion (CAM) has been a standard text for >a long time -- what difference does it make how it got to be that? We need >to concern ourselves with what texts to replace CAM with -- namely, I think, >Maciocia and Deadman, to start. -- Why would you want to replace CAM? Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 , Rory Kerr <rorykerr@w...> wrote: We > don't necessarily use books on someone else's reference text list. > The students can use those when they are preparing for specific exams > if they feel the need to. > > Rory > -- Rory Hypothetically, would you use another text beside Bensky to teach materia medica if that other text deviated significantly in areas of categories, temp, taste and entering channel from what is taught on board exams. While I agree with your basic premise, given the magnitude of the data one must absorb about materia medica, it seems that it would be quite a task to relearn this from Bensky right before taking the exam. How does one set testing standards when knowledge is not truly standardized. The shortcut solution is to use limited reference texts since there will never be unanimity on this topic of flavors, temps, etc. In order to ask questions on an exam that are either right or wrong, their must be some standard. This is one of the reasons I have been uneasy about putting too much emphasis in my teaching on attributes rather than functions. So I use the attributes now as teaching tools, but shy away from stating them as FACTS, per se. Perhaps if board exams deemphasize this data as absolute, we could have more flexibility in choosing texts on this subject. Actually, it is my understanding that the CA board has deemphasized this data testing in favor of case studies. If that is true, then perhaps we already have a freer hand than we thought we did. PCOM still tests rote herbal data on yearend exams and maybe this needs to be reexamined as well. Or since this data is no longer prominent on boards, then we could choose our own favorite texts and adjust our yearend exam questions to match our text choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 I, for one am very concerned about how standard texts are chosen. . . ..it influences the whole tone of CM college education, the language, terminology, concepts, of a subject. It establishes a text or author as an indelible authority. Many students feel that those texts are the only ones they need to be concerned with for the life of their practices. And, finally, the information in these texts are seen as 'absolutes', definitive, beyond debate. It reminds me of my school days 23 years ago. The 'required text' was 'Essentials of Chinese Acupuncture'. I so disliked this book that I only studied from 'Acupuncture:A Comprehensive Text', which I felt was vastly superior. I still passed all my exams. On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 09:53 PM, Julie Chambers wrote: > And why are you so concerned about how these standards were set? We > all know > that Chinese Acupuncture and Moxibustion (CAM) has been a standard > text for > a long time -- what difference does it make how it got to be that? We > need > to concern ourselves with what texts to replace CAM with -- namely, I > think, > Maciocia and Deadman, to start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 Ken, please suggest a text that would be appropriate (a single text) for the first year of theory study. Please also suggest one for the study of acupuncture point location and channel theory. Julie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 Rory Kerr <rorykerr> -- > > Why would you want to replace CAM? > Because it is not well-written, the pictures are poor, it contains some mistakes. Maybe I would keep it as a reference book but require Deadman as well. Also, to respond to someone else who said they don't teach from the State Board references, at our school, we are required to teach from the State Board references, and we can use whatever else we want as additional texts in the classroom. This is to make sure students are prepared to pass exams (an important goal for most in our program). Julie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 To answer both Z'ev and Todd on teaching, I am glad to hear Todd say he emphasizes atttibutes more than properties in herbs. I use this approach too, and one of my students coined the phrase " duties " , which I think is apt. If my students understand an herb's duties, and how it carries those out, then it matters less if the herb is " cool " , " slightly cold " or " neutral " -- isn't one mulberry product called all three in different books? Z'ev, I agree that students should not rely only on the standard texts, and I give my students a bibliography just for studying herbs that has about 30 texts on it, to which I am adding texts regularly. Julie > I, for one am very concerned about how standard texts are chosen. . . > .it influences the whole tone of CM college education, the language, > terminology, concepts, of a subject. It establishes a text or author > as an indelible authority. Many students feel that those texts are the > only ones they need to be concerned with for the life of their > practices. And, finally, the information in these texts are seen as > 'absolutes', definitive, beyond debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 Julie, , Julie Chambers <info@j...> wrote: > Ken, please suggest a text that would be appropriate (a single text) for the > first year of theory study. Please also suggest one for the study of > acupuncture point location and channel theory. > > Julie For many years now I've put lack of adequate materials at the top of my list of issues challenging the profession. That was one of my main motivations for coming to China in '92. I perceived at that time that the literature available in English tended to fall into one of two categories: 1) translations from the PRC (such as CAM in its various incarnations), which tended to be incomprehensible and which constituted an extremely truncated rendition of the subject; or 2) original texts from Western authors that were highly idiosyncratic in their perspectives on the subject and which largely ignored the most fundamental issues or, again, treated them in an inadequately brief fashion. For the past ten years I've been researching and experimenting in the various issues related to the production of materials that present to non-Chinese students and practitioners of the subject a more well-rounded rendition of basic theories, to start with, and more complex matters. But I don't have an answer yet. That's probably the main reason that I persist in these discussions. I'm looking for more and better information that will help lead me and others to design and production of more adequate materials. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 Well, Ken, then how can you reject my choices? We have to teach with something! Why don't you write a book (I mean it, I'm not being snitty, I promise) that would take the place of CAM and Maciocia and Deadman and fulfill your requirementes of covering the " most fundamental issues " and would be better rounded and more adequate? You seem to be good at writing books; how about it? Julie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 Julie, I'm well aware with the " we have to make do with something approach. " When I started studying Chinese medicine in 1970, we had Felix Mann...period. And I would reject the choice of that book as a standard for instruction, examination and certification as well. It's really easy to reject choices. It's not really easy to write a text book. But I have been talking to several publishers here in China and in other parts of the world about getting such a book, actually a series of books, into the works. Believe me, if and when such a development occurs, it won't be kept secret. Ken , Julie Chambers <info@j...> wrote: > Well, Ken, then how can you reject my choices? We have to teach with > something! > > Why don't you write a book (I mean it, I'm not being snitty, I promise) that > would take the place of CAM and Maciocia and Deadman and fulfill your > requirementes of covering the " most fundamental issues " and would be better > rounded and more adequate? > > You seem to be good at writing books; how about it? > > Julie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 At 7:24 PM +0000 1/29/03, < wrote: >Hypothetically, would you use another text beside Bensky to teach materia >medica if that other text deviated significantly in areas of categories, temp, >taste and entering channel from what is taught on board exams. While I >agree with your basic premise, given the magnitude of the data one must >absorb about materia medica, it seems that it would be quite a task to relearn >this from Bensky right before taking the exam. -- If I was to consider another text, I'd go through a review process with faculty, including well trained faculty from China. I'd want to know if the text was reasonably consistent with the consensus with respect to basic information. I believe Bensky's MM does coincide with the consensus (BTW Dan doesn't like his book being called Bensky, because he didn't write it; he compiled and translated it). If at that point it became clear the proposed book was substantially at variance from the consensus, I'd want it to be used as a second text, to be compared to the standard, and for the students to be aware of the differences, and why they exist. Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2003 Report Share Posted January 29, 2003 At 12:31 PM -0800 1/29/03, Julie Chambers wrote: >Because it is not well-written, the pictures are poor, it contains some >mistakes. Maybe I would keep it as a reference book but require Deadman as >well. -- I think most books contain some mistakes. But are the two really comparable, or interchangeable? Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2003 Report Share Posted January 30, 2003 > > I think most books contain some mistakes. But are the two really > comparable, or interchangeable? > > Rory Only from the point of view of acupuncture theory and point location. And in our school, that is the main use of CAM (we don't use it for theory or diagnosis), although we tell ALL our students they must read it from cover to cover to prepare for the state exam. But what's your opinion of this book (since you have responded a couple times to my complaints about it)? Julie > -- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2003 Report Share Posted January 30, 2003 At 10:07 AM -0800 1/30/03, Julie Chambers wrote: >Only from the point of view of acupuncture theory and point location. And in >our school, that is the main use of CAM (we don't use it for theory or >diagnosis), although we tell ALL our students they must read it from cover >to cover to prepare for the state exam. > >But what's your opinion of this book (since you have responded a couple >times to my complaints about it)? -- I've never used it, or studied it. When I was a student we had it's predecessor, Essentials, which I think was a good introductory text. In those days there was that, and Acupuncture, A Comprehensive Text, and not much else. Rory -- 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.