Guest guest Posted May 22, 2004 Report Share Posted May 22, 2004 people may want to download the details on the NOMAA doctorate. as you can see, they have every intention of teaching oriental medical theory and traditional therapies. they just have no intention of catering to the new age, alt med or mystically oriented crowd. I know that's actually what many of the faithful find offensive about NOMAA. but if you have a problem with them, it would be better to address actual issues and not just set up straw men. http://www.nomaa.org/nomaa_omd_curriculum.pdf Chinese Herbs FAX: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2004 Report Share Posted May 22, 2004 At 9:35 AM -0700 5/22/04, wrote: >NOMAA. but if >you have a problem with them, it would be better to address actual >issues and not just set up straw men. -- At this point I have only questions, based of information I was unable to find on NOMAA's website: Who is NOMAA? I can find no list of commissioners or members. What's the corporate status of NOMAA? it seems to be a private organization rather than a non- profit. Who has funded NOMAA so far? Who stands to profit financially? Do they have a developed accreditation program with publications that elaborate their methods and standards for accreditation? Which people developed the program criteria for the doctorate? Was this a consensus process with input from colleges and professionals? If so, who were they? (Note: it would take me about 30 minutes to generate my personal wish list for the content of a doctoral program, such as NOMAA has published. Its a whole different matter to develop a list criteria that the profession and the colleges have contemplated and have reached consensus agreement about.) NOMAA appears to be unaccredited at present. What is the status of their application to DoE for their own accreditation? Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2004 Report Share Posted May 25, 2004 To Rory's list of questions I would add: The OM theoretical component seems to be written in an entirely alternative term set which I can only assume comes from Kendall (haven't read the book yet). Who then will teach the theory classes-- indeed all the OM classes if the theory and terminology are the building blocks for more advanced courses? Will the theory be based entirely on the Dao of CM , or will other books be used which then need to be re-interpreted to fit the new paradigm? Will Asian instructors be used, do they need to be " re-oriented " toward the DK paradigm? If not, who will re-interpret or reframe their clinical and didactic instruction. Have we any track record of the applicability of this paradigm to either instruction or practice? 's comparison of DK with Worsley is interesting; in both cases we have a Western interpretation of primary Chinese sources as the guiding principle behind an entire curriculum. In Worsley's case, wasn't the theory and practice a little more developed before the 5E schools began to emerge? I'm asking here, not a rhetorical question. robert hayden 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.