RE: Elites

[Guest guest]

> I think people like you and I (both 99 percentiles) need to

cop to the

> fact that we are essentially elites and, therefore, tend to

have elitist

> opinions. What'd'ya think?

 

If you define " elites " in this context as articulate, educated, and

capable of understanding complex concepts, you and many others on CHA

would pass. So would most medical doctors, Ph.D. medical researchers

and others that you might never trust to accurately feel your pulses,

understand your psyche or project clear qi through an acupuncture

needle. It's impossible to determine who will make a good TCM

practitioner by adding up their SAT scores. But what criteria would

make sense? To let the educational process or market forces weed them

out? .don't mean to be disagreeable. Somehow this concept of elitism

seems to ignore the validity of so many intangibles.

 

Stephen

 

---

[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

At 7:48 PM -0800 10/30/03, Stephen Morrissey wrote:

>It's impossible to determine who will make a good TCM

>practitioner by adding up their SAT scores. But what criteria would

>make sense? To let the educational process or market forces weed them

>out?

--

Stephen,

 

I agree it's probably impossible to predict who will make a good

practitioner, but I think we can break this down to a determination

of what makes a suitable student in a masters degree program in

Oriental medicine. There should be certain prerequisites, such as

those mentioned by Marnae, that lay a subject matter foundation for

further study in the masters program. There should be a track record

of academic ability at college/university level. If a student can get

into medical school, he should have little academic difficulty

dealing with it once he's in, and the school should not be faced with

the choice of dismissing a student for poor performance, or

compromising standards in order to keep him in. If the schools were

to adopt such a standard, they would be acting responsibly toward

themselves, the profession, and the student. What is clearly

irresponsible is to admit students who don't meet these criteria, and

to then pass them through regardless of performance, or dismiss them

after they have invested heavily in the program.

 

The personal side of being a good practitioner can be fostered in the

context of their training, but not if the student is unable to

maintain the required the academic standard. Becoming a good

practitioner requires both sides of the coin.

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Rory, I actually agree with all of your points. When I took the

California boards in '84 there were people that were taking them for the

third year in a row, not having passed the previous two. Some of them

never did pass and spent quite a few years of their lives chasing a

dream that was not meant to be. Maybe that continues to happen, I

haven't kept track.

Thanks for the well-considered perspectives.

Stephen

 

 

Stephen,

I agree it's probably impossible to predict who will make a good

practitioner, but I think we can break this down to a determination

of what makes a suitable student in a masters degree program in

Oriental medicine. There should be certain prerequisites, such as

those mentioned by Marnae, that lay a subject matter foundation for

further study in the masters program. There should be a track record

of academic ability at college/university level. If a student can get

into medical school, he should have little academic difficulty

dealing with it once he's in, and the school should not be faced with

the choice of dismissing a student for poor performance, or

compromising standards in order to keep him in. If the schools were

to adopt such a standard, they would be acting responsibly toward

themselves, the profession, and the student. What is clearly

irresponsible is to admit students who don't meet these criteria, and

to then pass them through regardless of performance, or dismiss them

after they have invested heavily in the program.

 

The personal side of being a good practitioner can be fostered in the

context of their training, but not if the student is unable to

maintain the required the academic standard. Becoming a good

practitioner requires both sides of the coin.

 

Rory

--