Guest guest Posted July 3, 2004 Report Share Posted July 3, 2004 Doug and Steve The current DAOMs are 'postgraduate clinical specialty' programs. Clinical doctorates typically provide what are called 'first professional degrees.' In that sense, the DAOM is different in that it requires a Master's degree in OM or equivalent to matriculate. As our profession evolves towards first professional degrees as entry level (which, IMO is inevitable if one observes any of the other health professions)... these DAOM degrees will become what are called 'transitional degree programs.' After states render doctoral entry level standards, the resources, investment and program development that occurs at the providing institutions will be directed toward the first professional degrees. Entry into first professional degrees is the US is typically 2 years of baccalaureate level training be it law, dentistry or podiatry. In medical programs however, the competition is such that most people enter with a bachelor's degree. The current Master's degrees are four years or close to 3,000 hours. If this takes place after a bachelor's degree, which most matriculants maintain, then our master's degree programs are roughly twice as long as any master's degrees that are currently in force in the US. Our hours and standards increase have resulted in programs that are closer to doctorates than they are master's. None of this is a Ph.D. - these are research degrees. And - we need them. There is one that is currently state approved status in Los Angeles at American University of . This program has some merit although it lacks accreditation status. best - Will Will Morris, L.Ac., OMD, MSEd Dean of Educational Advancement Emperor's College Secretary AAOM This message is a PRIVATE communication. This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, or use it, and do not disclose it to others. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message with the word delete in the subject column, and then delete it and any attachments from your system. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2004 Report Share Posted July 4, 2004 Well, the Australian model sounds great. If only I were 30 years younger (and knew what my path would eventually be!)... sigh. There is a limited amount that a Chinese Bachelors will let you do but the doctors in the outpatient ward in Shanghai just had Bachelors, but they weren't prescribing pharmaceuticals etc... The number of PhD's is so limited that they can be revered but also, as I said, seen as more academic and research oriented than Masters who remain more in contact with patients. At least that is how my Chinese collegues have described it. doug > > I envisage TCM degrees here moving to 6 years with a longer clinical > component moving more towards the Chinese Bachelor then Masters model. > > Incidentally, it is my understanding that in China, you can not get > your little " red stamp " to practice without a Masters; and are not > considered well qualified until you have a PhD. > > Best Wishes, > Dr. Steven J Slater > Practitioner and Acupuncturist > Mobile: 0418 343 545 > chinese_medicine@m... > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2004 Report Share Posted July 4, 2004 , " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...> wrote: However, > only the OM classes taught by the America teachers cover Western > medicine. The OM classes taught by the Chinese teachers are basically > Chinese Herb classes, even though they are not supposed to be that way. > > Brian C. Allen Brian is right. between OM4-6, one gets about 40 more hours of WM and no more in OM7-10. Even if OM7-10 included WM, it would still only be 25% WM. the total amount of WM in the western classes thus can only be: 7 classes x 14 weeks x 3 hours = 294 hours 25% of 294 = about 75 hours. still nowhere near half the program when added to the existing WM hours. Hours are not the issue. SIOM teaches their entire mat med and rx in 9 credits. their students have 100% first time pass rates on NCCAOM herb exam and the CA exam. this is every student who ever went to SIOM. 100% first time. they have no rote lectures on herbs at all. It is all case based and self-study. volumes of research have shown that case based, problem solving learning far exceeds rote in outcomes at every level of education. PCOM has only made it halfway there by not using this method in basic classes and by not enforcing the teaching of it by the chinese in upper level classes. Doing it halfway is really no better than not doing it at all and arguably worse. Students could get all the classroom training they need in 2000 hours. the rest of the combined masters/DAOM program should be internship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2004 Report Share Posted July 4, 2004 < wrote: " Students could get all the classroom training they need in 2000 hours. the rest of the combined masters/DAOM program should be internship. " As a student, I agree with this statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2006 Report Share Posted May 18, 2006 Hi all. I just wanted to pass on a piece of information of which some of you may already be aware: As of the beginning of this year, ACTCM has changed policy such that a bachelor's degree is no longer necessary for admission. Although this may at first glance seem like a minor shift, I think it is quite significant-and quite problematic. ACTCM continues to claim that it holds the highest academic standards in the TCM field, frequently comparing itself to other schools with regard to quality of education, academics, state board performance, etc. I personally fail to understand how the downgrading of the admissions policy serves these so-called high standards. Many of us (myself included) chose to attend ACTCM at least in part because of its claim of high standards. (Whether or not the school has lived up to these claims is a subject for another discussion.) In the long run, I believe the change in admission policy will negatively effect its academic standards as well as the public perception of our school and of our degrees, potentially negating a major reason for our attendance of this particular institution. Like it or not, the reputation of a school from which one holds a degree is a significant aspect of public perception, and thus has significant impact on professional status, earning power, and a number of other factors. There is a larger issue here as well: I also believe that until all TCM schools require undergraduate degrees for admission, the status of the master's degree in our field will remain questionable and can be easily devalued by professionals from other fields. Formerly a leader in this area (the only school in the Bay Area which required a bachelor's degree for admission), ACTCM has now regressed in a way which I believe undermines the status of our training and of the TCM field in general. As an aside, I believe it is noteworthy that ACTCM is in the midst of a shift toward a doctoral degree program. It is my understanding that the school's long-term plan is ultimately to phase out the master's degree entirely, with the idea of the DAOM becoming the entry-level degree required for basic licensure. At the same time, the leaders of our school have publicly supported the idea of a technician-level certification which would have a lesser scope of practice-and which some of us believe would effectively undermine the status of the master's degree for which we've worked so hard. Thus, I can only wonder whether this admissions policy shift is in some way connected with a larger agenda held by the ACTCM administration. Consistent with this, I am also concerned about the fact that this policy change was not made public in any significant way; there was no process by which students and/or alumni might have had input into a shift with potential impact on the status of our degrees. (I do not know whether this change was made at an administrative level, or whether it was approved at the level of the Board.) Finally: I have spoken with the admissions department about this policy change, and have been informed by them that the change was made by senior management in order to allow the school to admit deserving and qualified individuals who might have significant life experience but no undergraduate degree. Although I find this practice laudable, it is noteworthy that under the previous policy exceptions were made on a case-by-case basis for such deserving individuals. So, despite the fact that I have been assured by the admissions department that they will hold to stringent standards for individuals without undergraduate degrees (and I believe they will-those in the admissions office are, in my opinion, both competent and well-intentioned), I fail to understand the reason for such a policy shift-and I continue to find this shift troubling and problematic. I am not certain what, if any, the appropriate course of action is in this instance. And from the above, I'm sure it's clear where my biases lie-biases which may or may not be shared by the majority of students and alumni. Regardless, I felt it was necessary and appropriate to make this issue public, and to open the possibility for discussion. I look forward to your comments. Best, Mike _______________ Michael P. Aanavi, Ph.D. P.O. Box 12983 Berkeley, California 94712 510/525.8728 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2006 Report Share Posted May 18, 2006 Dr. Marcus and all, I just thought I'd let you know that most western medical schools in the US do not require a Bachelor's degree for admission. See here: http://hms.harvard.edu/admissions/default.asp?page=requirements My understanding is that Medical school is considered Professional school and not Graduate school. My CM school requires considerably more college education than Harvard requires. Of course, my bet is that very few Harvard Med students don't have their Bachelor's degree... Steve Edwards wrote: > Hi all. > > I just wanted to pass on a piece of information of which some of you > may already be aware: > > As of the beginning of this year, ACTCM has changed policy such that a > bachelor's degree is no longer necessary for admission. > > Although this may at first glance seem like a minor shift, I think it > is quite significant-and quite problematic. > > ACTCM continues to claim that it holds the highest academic standards > in the TCM field, frequently comparing itself to other schools with > regard to quality of education, academics, state board performance, etc. > > I personally fail to understand how the downgrading of the admissions > policy serves these so-called high standards. > > Many of us (myself included) chose to attend ACTCM at least in part > because of its claim of high standards. (Whether or not the school > has lived up to these claims is a subject for another discussion.) In > the long run, I believe the change in admission policy will negatively > effect its academic standards as well as the public perception of our > school and of our degrees, potentially negating a major reason for our > attendance of this particular institution. > > Like it or not, the reputation of a school from which one holds a > degree is a significant aspect of public perception, and thus has > significant impact on professional status, earning power, and a number > of other factors. > > There is a larger issue here as well: I also believe that until all > TCM schools require undergraduate degrees for admission, the status of > the master's degree in our field will remain questionable and can be > easily devalued by professionals from other fields. Formerly a leader > in this area (the only school in the Bay Area which required a > bachelor's degree for admission), ACTCM has now regressed in a way > which I believe undermines the status of our training and of the TCM > field in general. > > As an aside, I believe it is noteworthy that ACTCM is in the midst of > a shift toward a doctoral degree program. It is my understanding that > the school's long-term plan is ultimately to phase out the master's > degree entirely, with the idea of the DAOM becoming the entry-level > degree required for basic licensure. At the same time, the leaders of > our school have publicly supported the idea of a technician-level > certification which would have a lesser scope of practice-and which > some of us believe would effectively undermine the status of the > master's degree for which we've worked so hard. > > Thus, I can only wonder whether this admissions policy shift is in > some way connected with a larger agenda held by the ACTCM > administration. Consistent with this, I am also concerned about the > fact that this policy change was not made public in any significant > way; there was no process by which students and/or alumni might have > had input into a shift with potential impact on the status of our > degrees. (I do not know whether this change was made at an > administrative level, or whether it was approved at the level of the > Board.) > > Finally: I have spoken with the admissions department about this > policy change, and have been informed by them that the change was made > by senior management in order to allow the school to admit deserving > and qualified individuals who might have significant life experience > but no undergraduate degree. Although I find this practice laudable, > it is noteworthy that under the previous policy exceptions were made > on a case-by-case basis for such deserving individuals. So, despite > the fact that I have been assured by the admissions department that > they will hold to stringent standards for individuals without > undergraduate degrees (and I believe they will-those in the admissions > office are, in my opinion, both competent and well-intentioned), I > fail to understand the reason for such a policy shift-and I continue > to find this shift troubling and problematic. > > I am not certain what, if any, the appropriate course of action is in > this instance. And from the above, I'm sure it's clear where my > biases lie-biases which may or may not be shared by the majority of > students and alumni. Regardless, I felt it was necessary and > appropriate to make this issue public, and to open the possibility for > discussion. > > I look forward to your comments. > > Best, > > Mike > > _______________ > Michael P. Aanavi, Ph.D. > P.O. Box 12983 > Berkeley, California 94712 > 510/525.8728 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2006 Report Share Posted May 18, 2006 I agree! Admissions standards are a serious problem. If a promising candidate lacks a BA, but in all other ways is prepared with real life experience, let them pass a proficiency test. We must not lower our already ridiculously lax entrance requirements Y <alonmarcus wrote: Hi all. I just wanted to pass on a piece of information of which some of you may already be aware: As of the beginning of this year, ACTCM has changed policy such that a bachelor's degree is no longer necessary for admission. Although this may at first glance seem like a minor shift, I think it is quite significant-and quite problematic. ACTCM continues to claim that it holds the highest academic standards in the TCM field, frequently comparing itself to other schools with regard to quality of education, academics, state board performance, etc. I personally fail to understand how the downgrading of the admissions policy serves these so-called high standards. Many of us (myself included) chose to attend ACTCM at least in part because of its claim of high standards. (Whether or not the school has lived up to these claims is a subject for another discussion.) In the long run, I believe the change in admission policy will negatively effect its academic standards as well as the public perception of our school and of our degrees, potentially negating a major reason for our attendance of this particular institution. Like it or not, the reputation of a school from which one holds a degree is a significant aspect of public perception, and thus has significant impact on professional status, earning power, and a number of other factors. There is a larger issue here as well: I also believe that until all TCM schools require undergraduate degrees for admission, the status of the master's degree in our field will remain questionable and can be easily devalued by professionals from other fields. Formerly a leader in this area (the only school in the Bay Area which required a bachelor's degree for admission), ACTCM has now regressed in a way which I believe undermines the status of our training and of the TCM field in general. As an aside, I believe it is noteworthy that ACTCM is in the midst of a shift toward a doctoral degree program. It is my understanding that the school's long-term plan is ultimately to phase out the master's degree entirely, with the idea of the DAOM becoming the entry-level degree required for basic licensure. At the same time, the leaders of our school have publicly supported the idea of a technician-level certification which would have a lesser scope of practice-and which some of us believe would effectively undermine the status of the master's degree for which we've worked so hard. Thus, I can only wonder whether this admissions policy shift is in some way connected with a larger agenda held by the ACTCM administration. Consistent with this, I am also concerned about the fact that this policy change was not made public in any significant way; there was no process by which students and/or alumni might have had input into a shift with potential impact on the status of our degrees. (I do not know whether this change was made at an administrative level, or whether it was approved at the level of the Board.) Finally: I have spoken with the admissions department about this policy change, and have been informed by them that the change was made by senior management in order to allow the school to admit deserving and qualified individuals who might have significant life experience but no undergraduate degree. Although I find this practice laudable, it is noteworthy that under the previous policy exceptions were made on a case-by-case basis for such deserving individuals. So, despite the fact that I have been assured by the admissions department that they will hold to stringent standards for individuals without undergraduate degrees (and I believe they will-those in the admissions office are, in my opinion, both competent and well-intentioned), I fail to understand the reason for such a policy shift-and I continue to find this shift troubling and problematic. I am not certain what, if any, the appropriate course of action is in this instance. And from the above, I'm sure it's clear where my biases lie-biases which may or may not be shared by the majority of students and alumni. Regardless, I felt it was necessary and appropriate to make this issue public, and to open the possibility for discussion. I look forward to your comments. Best, Mike _______________ Michael P. Aanavi, Ph.D. P.O. Box 12983 Berkeley, California 94712 510/525.8728 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Alon, i understand your pts, and would like to pt out a couple things myself. first, our schools masters degrees are often masters level technical programs - m. in aom etc. the masters of science programs are expanded and longer than many masters degrees. a nursing masters for an rn with a bachelors is 2 yrs. i do take this subject personally. i entered acup. school with 2 two yr degrees and at least close to enough credits 4 a bachelors, but w/o that diploma. i had graduated from high school with honors, and marched from one junior college, at least, with honors. i was 30 or 31 when i started acup. school. if i had 2 complete a bachelors first, i can only imagine how much more i would have incurred in loans! i certainly put in enuf hours 2 earn the rest of my bachelors and my masters! lynn --- <alonmarcus wrote: > Hi all. > > I just wanted to pass on a piece of information of which some of you may already be aware: > > As of the beginning of this year, ACTCM has changed policy such that a bachelor's degree is no longer necessary for admission. > > Although this may at first glance seem like a minor shift, I think it is quite significant-and quite problematic. > > ACTCM continues to claim that it holds the highest academic standards in the TCM field, frequently comparing itself to other schools with regard to quality of education, academics, state board performance, etc. > > I personally fail to understand how the downgrading of the admissions policy serves these so-called high standards. > > Many of us (myself included) chose to attend ACTCM at least in part because of its claim of high standards. (Whether or not the school has lived up to these claims is a subject for another discussion.) In the long run, I believe the change in admission policy will negatively effect its academic standards as well as the public perception of our school and of our degrees, potentially negating a major reason for our attendance of this particular institution. > > Like it or not, the reputation of a school from which one holds a degree is a significant aspect of public perception, and thus has significant impact on professional status, earning power, and a number of other factors. > > There is a larger issue here as well: I also believe that until all TCM schools require undergraduate degrees for admission, the status of the master's degree in our field will remain questionable and can be easily devalued by professionals from other fields. Formerly a leader in this area (the only school in the Bay Area which required a bachelor's degree for admission), ACTCM has now regressed in a way which I believe undermines the status of our training and of the TCM field in general. > > As an aside, I believe it is noteworthy that ACTCM is in the midst of a shift toward a doctoral degree program. It is my understanding that the school's long-term plan is ultimately to phase out the master's degree entirely, with the idea of the DAOM becoming the entry-level degree required for basic licensure. At the same time, the leaders of our school have publicly supported the idea of a technician-level certification which would have a lesser scope of practice-and which some of us believe would effectively undermine the status of the master's degree for which we've worked so hard. > > Thus, I can only wonder whether this admissions policy shift is in some way connected with a larger agenda held by the ACTCM administration. Consistent with this, I am also concerned about the fact that this policy change was not made public in any significant way; there was no process by which students and/or alumni might have had input into a shift with potential impact on the status of our degrees. (I do not know whether this change was made at an administrative level, or whether it was approved at the level of the Board.) > > Finally: I have spoken with the admissions department about this policy change, and have been informed by them that the change was made by senior management in order to allow the school to admit deserving and qualified individuals who might have significant life experience but no undergraduate degree. Although I find this practice laudable, it is noteworthy that under the previous policy exceptions were made on a case-by-case basis for such deserving individuals. So, despite the fact that I have been assured by the admissions department that they will hold to stringent standards for individuals without undergraduate degrees (and I believe they will-those in the admissions office are, in my opinion, both competent and well-intentioned), I fail to understand the reason for such a policy shift-and I continue to find this shift troubling and problematic. > > I am not certain what, if any, the appropriate course of action is in this instance. And from the above, I'm sure it's cl === Message Truncated === Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 From your link it says they do require a Bachelor's degree.. " In the final analysis, however, it is not the number of years in college or hours in a course, but the quality of education and the maturity of the student which determine readiness for medical school. At least three years of college work and a baccalaureate degree are required prior to matriculation in medical school. " My bold and italics. Sean _____ On Behalf Of Steve Edwards Thursday, May 18, 2006 11:21 PM Re: Re: DAOM Dr. Marcus and all, I just thought I'd let you know that most western medical schools in the US do not require a Bachelor's degree for admission. See here: http://hms.harvard.edu/admissions/default.asp?page=requirements My understanding is that Medical school is considered Professional school and not Graduate school. My CM school requires considerably more college education than Harvard requires. Of course, my bet is that very few Harvard Med students don't have their Bachelor's degree... Steve Edwards wrote: > Hi all. > > I just wanted to pass on a piece of information of which some of you > may already be aware: > > As of the beginning of this year, ACTCM has changed policy such that a > bachelor's degree is no longer necessary for admission. > > Although this may at first glance seem like a minor shift, I think it > is quite significant-and quite problematic. > > ACTCM continues to claim that it holds the highest academic standards > in the TCM field, frequently comparing itself to other schools with > regard to quality of education, academics, state board performance, etc. > > I personally fail to understand how the downgrading of the admissions > policy serves these so-called high standards. > > Many of us (myself included) chose to attend ACTCM at least in part > because of its claim of high standards. (Whether or not the school > has lived up to these claims is a subject for another discussion.) In > the long run, I believe the change in admission policy will negatively > effect its academic standards as well as the public perception of our > school and of our degrees, potentially negating a major reason for our > attendance of this particular institution. > > Like it or not, the reputation of a school from which one holds a > degree is a significant aspect of public perception, and thus has > significant impact on professional status, earning power, and a number > of other factors. > > There is a larger issue here as well: I also believe that until all > TCM schools require undergraduate degrees for admission, the status of > the master's degree in our field will remain questionable and can be > easily devalued by professionals from other fields. Formerly a leader > in this area (the only school in the Bay Area which required a > bachelor's degree for admission), ACTCM has now regressed in a way > which I believe undermines the status of our training and of the TCM > field in general. > > As an aside, I believe it is noteworthy that ACTCM is in the midst of > a shift toward a doctoral degree program. It is my understanding that > the school's long-term plan is ultimately to phase out the master's > degree entirely, with the idea of the DAOM becoming the entry-level > degree required for basic licensure. At the same time, the leaders of > our school have publicly supported the idea of a technician-level > certification which would have a lesser scope of practice-and which > some of us believe would effectively undermine the status of the > master's degree for which we've worked so hard. > > Thus, I can only wonder whether this admissions policy shift is in > some way connected with a larger agenda held by the ACTCM > administration. Consistent with this, I am also concerned about the > fact that this policy change was not made public in any significant > way; there was no process by which students and/or alumni might have > had input into a shift with potential impact on the status of our > degrees. (I do not know whether this change was made at an > administrative level, or whether it was approved at the level of the > Board.) > > Finally: I have spoken with the admissions department about this > policy change, and have been informed by them that the change was made > by senior management in order to allow the school to admit deserving > and qualified individuals who might have significant life experience > but no undergraduate degree. Although I find this practice laudable, > it is noteworthy that under the previous policy exceptions were made > on a case-by-case basis for such deserving individuals. So, despite > the fact that I have been assured by the admissions department that > they will hold to stringent standards for individuals without > undergraduate degrees (and I believe they will-those in the admissions > office are, in my opinion, both competent and well-intentioned), I > fail to understand the reason for such a policy shift-and I continue > to find this shift troubling and problematic. > > I am not certain what, if any, the appropriate course of action is in > this instance. And from the above, I'm sure it's clear where my > biases lie-biases which may or may not be shared by the majority of > students and alumni. Regardless, I felt it was necessary and > appropriate to make this issue public, and to open the possibility for > discussion. > > I look forward to your comments. > > Best, > > Mike > > _______________ > Michael P. Aanavi, Ph.D. > P.O. Box 12983 > Berkeley, California 94712 > 510/525.8728 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 I am not saying the program does not require work.What i am saying is that we all get shorted because these programs are not integrated within the higher educational system in the US Oakland, CA 94609 - J. Lynn Detamore Friday, May 19, 2006 1:58 AM Re: DAOM Alon, i understand your pts, and would like to pt out a couple things myself. first, our schools masters degrees are often masters level technical programs - m. in aom etc. the masters of science programs are expanded and longer than many masters degrees. a nursing masters for an rn with a bachelors is 2 yrs. i do take this subject personally. i entered acup. school with 2 two yr degrees and at least close to enough credits 4 a bachelors, but w/o that diploma. i had graduated from high school with honors, and marched from one junior college, at least, with honors. i was 30 or 31 when i started acup. school. if i had 2 complete a bachelors first, i can only imagine how much more i would have incurred in loans! i certainly put in enuf hours 2 earn the rest of my bachelors and my masters! lynn --- <alonmarcus wrote: > Hi all. > > I just wanted to pass on a piece of information of which some of you may already be aware: > > As of the beginning of this year, ACTCM has changed policy such that a bachelor's degree is no longer necessary for admission. > > Although this may at first glance seem like a minor shift, I think it is quite significant-and quite problematic. > > ACTCM continues to claim that it holds the highest academic standards in the TCM field, frequently comparing itself to other schools with regard to quality of education, academics, state board performance, etc. > > I personally fail to understand how the downgrading of the admissions policy serves these so-called high standards. > > Many of us (myself included) chose to attend ACTCM at least in part because of its claim of high standards. (Whether or not the school has lived up to these claims is a subject for another discussion.) In the long run, I believe the change in admission policy will negatively effect its academic standards as well as the public perception of our school and of our degrees, potentially negating a major reason for our attendance of this particular institution. > > Like it or not, the reputation of a school from which one holds a degree is a significant aspect of public perception, and thus has significant impact on professional status, earning power, and a number of other factors. > > There is a larger issue here as well: I also believe that until all TCM schools require undergraduate degrees for admission, the status of the master's degree in our field will remain questionable and can be easily devalued by professionals from other fields. Formerly a leader in this area (the only school in the Bay Area which required a bachelor's degree for admission), ACTCM has now regressed in a way which I believe undermines the status of our training and of the TCM field in general. > > As an aside, I believe it is noteworthy that ACTCM is in the midst of a shift toward a doctoral degree program. It is my understanding that the school's long-term plan is ultimately to phase out the master's degree entirely, with the idea of the DAOM becoming the entry-level degree required for basic licensure. At the same time, the leaders of our school have publicly supported the idea of a technician-level certification which would have a lesser scope of practice-and which some of us believe would effectively undermine the status of the master's degree for which we've worked so hard. > > Thus, I can only wonder whether this admissions policy shift is in some way connected with a larger agenda held by the ACTCM administration. Consistent with this, I am also concerned about the fact that this policy change was not made public in any significant way; there was no process by which students and/or alumni might have had input into a shift with potential impact on the status of our degrees. (I do not know whether this change was made at an administrative level, or whether it was approved at the level of the Board.) > > Finally: I have spoken with the admissions department about this policy change, and have been informed by them that the change was made by senior management in order to allow the school to admit deserving and qualified individuals who might have significant life experience but no undergraduate degree. Although I find this practice laudable, it is noteworthy that under the previous policy exceptions were made on a case-by-case basis for such deserving individuals. So, despite the fact that I have been assured by the admissions department that they will hold to stringent standards for individuals without undergraduate degrees (and I believe they will-those in the admissions office are, in my opinion, both competent and well-intentioned), I fail to understand the reason for such a policy shift-and I continue to find this shift troubling and problematic. > > I am not certain what, if any, the appropriate course of action is in this instance. And from the above, I'm sure it's cl === Message Truncated === Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including board approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Steve that is true but try to get into one without the degree. Oakland, CA 94609 - Steve Edwards Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:21 PM Re: Re: DAOM Dr. Marcus and all, I just thought I'd let you know that most western medical schools in the US do not require a Bachelor's degree for admission. See here: http://hms.harvard.edu/admissions/default.asp?page=requirements My understanding is that Medical school is considered Professional school and not Graduate school. My CM school requires considerably more college education than Harvard requires. Of course, my bet is that very few Harvard Med students don't have their Bachelor's degree... Steve Edwards wrote: > Hi all. > > I just wanted to pass on a piece of information of which some of you > may already be aware: > > As of the beginning of this year, ACTCM has changed policy such that a > bachelor's degree is no longer necessary for admission. > > Although this may at first glance seem like a minor shift, I think it > is quite significant-and quite problematic. > > ACTCM continues to claim that it holds the highest academic standards > in the TCM field, frequently comparing itself to other schools with > regard to quality of education, academics, state board performance, etc. > > I personally fail to understand how the downgrading of the admissions > policy serves these so-called high standards. > > Many of us (myself included) chose to attend ACTCM at least in part > because of its claim of high standards. (Whether or not the school > has lived up to these claims is a subject for another discussion.) In > the long run, I believe the change in admission policy will negatively > effect its academic standards as well as the public perception of our > school and of our degrees, potentially negating a major reason for our > attendance of this particular institution. > > Like it or not, the reputation of a school from which one holds a > degree is a significant aspect of public perception, and thus has > significant impact on professional status, earning power, and a number > of other factors. > > There is a larger issue here as well: I also believe that until all > TCM schools require undergraduate degrees for admission, the status of > the master's degree in our field will remain questionable and can be > easily devalued by professionals from other fields. Formerly a leader > in this area (the only school in the Bay Area which required a > bachelor's degree for admission), ACTCM has now regressed in a way > which I believe undermines the status of our training and of the TCM > field in general. > > As an aside, I believe it is noteworthy that ACTCM is in the midst of > a shift toward a doctoral degree program. It is my understanding that > the school's long-term plan is ultimately to phase out the master's > degree entirely, with the idea of the DAOM becoming the entry-level > degree required for basic licensure. At the same time, the leaders of > our school have publicly supported the idea of a technician-level > certification which would have a lesser scope of practice-and which > some of us believe would effectively undermine the status of the > master's degree for which we've worked so hard. > > Thus, I can only wonder whether this admissions policy shift is in > some way connected with a larger agenda held by the ACTCM > administration. Consistent with this, I am also concerned about the > fact that this policy change was not made public in any significant > way; there was no process by which students and/or alumni might have > had input into a shift with potential impact on the status of our > degrees. (I do not know whether this change was made at an > administrative level, or whether it was approved at the level of the > Board.) > > Finally: I have spoken with the admissions department about this > policy change, and have been informed by them that the change was made > by senior management in order to allow the school to admit deserving > and qualified individuals who might have significant life experience > but no undergraduate degree. Although I find this practice laudable, > it is noteworthy that under the previous policy exceptions were made > on a case-by-case basis for such deserving individuals. So, despite > the fact that I have been assured by the admissions department that > they will hold to stringent standards for individuals without > undergraduate degrees (and I believe they will-those in the admissions > office are, in my opinion, both competent and well-intentioned), I > fail to understand the reason for such a policy shift-and I continue > to find this shift troubling and problematic. > > I am not certain what, if any, the appropriate course of action is in > this instance. And from the above, I'm sure it's clear where my > biases lie-biases which may or may not be shared by the majority of > students and alumni. Regardless, I felt it was necessary and > appropriate to make this issue public, and to open the possibility for > discussion. > > I look forward to your comments. > > Best, > > Mike > > _______________ > Michael P. Aanavi, Ph.D. > P.O. Box 12983 > Berkeley, California 94712 > 510/525.8728 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Yes, I totally agree. I just thought it was a point that should be made. Steve Edwards wrote: > Steve that is true but try to get into one without the degree. > > > > > Oakland, CA 94609 > > > - > Steve Edwards > > Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:21 PM > Re: Re: DAOM > > > Dr. Marcus and all, > > I just thought I'd let you know that most western medical schools in > the > US do not require a Bachelor's degree for admission. See here: > http://hms.harvard.edu/admissions/default.asp?page=requirements > > My understanding is that Medical school is considered Professional > school and not Graduate school. My CM school requires considerably more > college education than Harvard requires. Of course, my bet is that very > few Harvard Med students don't have their Bachelor's degree... > > Steve Edwards > > wrote: > > > Hi all. > > > > I just wanted to pass on a piece of information of which some of you > > may already be aware: > > > > As of the beginning of this year, ACTCM has changed policy such > that a > > bachelor's degree is no longer necessary for admission. > > > > Although this may at first glance seem like a minor shift, I think it > > is quite significant-and quite problematic. > > > > ACTCM continues to claim that it holds the highest academic standards > > in the TCM field, frequently comparing itself to other schools with > > regard to quality of education, academics, state board > performance, etc. > > > > I personally fail to understand how the downgrading of the admissions > > policy serves these so-called high standards. > > > > Many of us (myself included) chose to attend ACTCM at least in part > > because of its claim of high standards. (Whether or not the school > > has lived up to these claims is a subject for another > discussion.) In > > the long run, I believe the change in admission policy will > negatively > > effect its academic standards as well as the public perception of our > > school and of our degrees, potentially negating a major reason for > our > > attendance of this particular institution. > > > > Like it or not, the reputation of a school from which one holds a > > degree is a significant aspect of public perception, and thus has > > significant impact on professional status, earning power, and a > number > > of other factors. > > > > There is a larger issue here as well: I also believe that until all > > TCM schools require undergraduate degrees for admission, the > status of > > the master's degree in our field will remain questionable and can be > > easily devalued by professionals from other fields. Formerly a > leader > > in this area (the only school in the Bay Area which required a > > bachelor's degree for admission), ACTCM has now regressed in a way > > which I believe undermines the status of our training and of the TCM > > field in general. > > > > As an aside, I believe it is noteworthy that ACTCM is in the midst of > > a shift toward a doctoral degree program. It is my understanding > that > > the school's long-term plan is ultimately to phase out the master's > > degree entirely, with the idea of the DAOM becoming the entry-level > > degree required for basic licensure. At the same time, the > leaders of > > our school have publicly supported the idea of a technician-level > > certification which would have a lesser scope of practice-and which > > some of us believe would effectively undermine the status of the > > master's degree for which we've worked so hard. > > > > Thus, I can only wonder whether this admissions policy shift is in > > some way connected with a larger agenda held by the ACTCM > > administration. Consistent with this, I am also concerned about the > > fact that this policy change was not made public in any significant > > way; there was no process by which students and/or alumni might have > > had input into a shift with potential impact on the status of our > > degrees. (I do not know whether this change was made at an > > administrative level, or whether it was approved at the level of the > > Board.) > > > > Finally: I have spoken with the admissions department about this > > policy change, and have been informed by them that the change was > made > > by senior management in order to allow the school to admit deserving > > and qualified individuals who might have significant life experience > > but no undergraduate degree. Although I find this practice laudable, > > it is noteworthy that under the previous policy exceptions were made > > on a case-by-case basis for such deserving individuals. So, despite > > the fact that I have been assured by the admissions department that > > they will hold to stringent standards for individuals without > > undergraduate degrees (and I believe they will-those in the > admissions > > office are, in my opinion, both competent and well-intentioned), I > > fail to understand the reason for such a policy shift-and I continue > > to find this shift troubling and problematic. > > > > I am not certain what, if any, the appropriate course of action is in > > this instance. And from the above, I'm sure it's clear where my > > biases lie-biases which may or may not be shared by the majority of > > students and alumni. Regardless, I felt it was necessary and > > appropriate to make this issue public, and to open the possibility > for > > discussion. > > > > I look forward to your comments. > > > > Best, > > > > Mike > > > > _______________ > > Michael P. Aanavi, Ph.D. > > P.O. Box 12983 > > Berkeley, California 94712 > > 510/525.8728 > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 I am not convinced any of our programs regardless of academic stature are being integrated into the rest of higher education. We are still marginalized by insurance carriers and large portions of the population of consumers. What reason does anyone in the mainstream education world have to look at even our doctoral programs and call them anything but a great way for schools to make money. I currently hold an MSAOM from Bastyr, and I found my education rigorous and exacting, and as much credit as having gone to Bastyr gets me in these parts (which is considerable in the northern seattle suburbs) my business is still paralyzed by the fact that we provide something people refer to as " Complimentary " or " Alternative " medicine. we are not many peoples' idea of and end-all be-all against hip replacement surgery or irritable bowel syndrome. We may know we can help or even completely erase the effects of some conditions, but it doesn't matter unless someone comes to you so you can tell them. I don't see a difference in having a doctoral level of education, how much good does it do a Chiropractor? their scope is still the same. If we remain competent we will fill our niche... I think we have to ask the question: do we belong in the mainstream medical world without at least the same level of western medical training as say an RN? I don't think anyone will see us as anything more than a slightly mystical and possibly glorified version of a physical therapist. The hubris of this profession frustrates me... though perhaps not as much as the hubris of the mainstream medical professions. Ever Grumbling, Brett Jackson, L.Ac. , " " <alonmarcus wrote: > > I am not saying the program does not require work.What i am saying is that we all get shorted because these programs are not integrated within the higher educational system in the US > > > > > Oakland, CA 94609 > > > - > J. Lynn Detamore > > Friday, May 19, 2006 1:58 AM > Re: DAOM > > > Alon, i understand your pts, and would like to pt > out a couple things myself. first, our schools > masters degrees are often masters level technical > programs - m. in aom etc. the masters of science > programs are expanded and longer than many > masters degrees. a nursing masters for an rn with > a bachelors is 2 yrs. i do take this subject > personally. i entered acup. school with 2 two yr > degrees and at least close to enough credits 4 a > bachelors, but w/o that diploma. i had graduated > from high school with honors, and marched from > one junior college, at least, with honors. i was > 30 or 31 when i started acup. school. if i had 2 > complete a bachelors first, i can only imagine > how much more i would have incurred in loans! i > certainly put in enuf hours 2 earn the rest of my > bachelors and my masters! lynn > --- > <alonmarcus wrote: > > Hi all. > > > > I just wanted to pass on a piece of information > of which some of you may already be aware: > > > > As of the beginning of this year, ACTCM has > changed policy such that a bachelor's degree is > no longer necessary for admission. > > > > Although this may at first glance seem like a > minor shift, I think it is quite significant-and > quite problematic. > > > > ACTCM continues to claim that it holds the > highest academic standards in the TCM field, > frequently comparing itself to other schools with > regard to quality of education, academics, state > board performance, etc. > > > > I personally fail to understand how the > downgrading of the admissions policy serves these > so-called high standards. > > > > Many of us (myself included) chose to attend > ACTCM at least in part because of its claim of > high standards. (Whether or not the school has > lived up to these claims is a subject for another > discussion.) In the long run, I believe the > change in admission policy will negatively effect > its academic standards as well as the public > perception of our school and of our degrees, > potentially negating a major reason for our > attendance of this particular institution. > > > > Like it or not, the reputation of a school from > which one holds a degree is a significant aspect > of public perception, and thus has significant > impact on professional status, earning power, and > a number of other factors. > > > > There is a larger issue here as well: I also > believe that until all TCM schools require > undergraduate degrees for admission, the status > of the master's degree in our field will remain > questionable and can be easily devalued by > professionals from other fields. Formerly a > leader in this area (the only school in the Bay > Area which required a bachelor's degree for > admission), ACTCM has now regressed in a way > which I believe undermines the status of our > training and of the TCM field in general. > > > > As an aside, I believe it is noteworthy that > ACTCM is in the midst of a shift toward a > doctoral degree program. It is my understanding > that the school's long-term plan is ultimately to > phase out the master's degree entirely, with the > idea of the DAOM becoming the entry-level degree > required for basic licensure. At the same time, > the leaders of our school have publicly supported > the idea of a technician-level certification > which would have a lesser scope of practice-and > which some of us believe would effectively > undermine the status of the master's degree for > which we've worked so hard. > > > > Thus, I can only wonder whether this admissions > policy shift is in some way connected with a > larger agenda held by the ACTCM administration. > Consistent with this, I am also concerned about > the fact that this policy change was not made > public in any significant way; there was no > process by which students and/or alumni might > have had input into a shift with potential impact > on the status of our degrees. (I do not know > whether this change was made at an administrative > level, or whether it was approved at the level of > the Board.) > > > > Finally: I have spoken with the admissions > department about this policy change, and have > been informed by them that the change was made by > senior management in order to allow the school to > admit deserving and qualified individuals who > might have significant life experience but no > undergraduate degree. Although I find this > practice laudable, it is noteworthy that under > the previous policy exceptions were made on a > case-by-case basis for such deserving > individuals. So, despite the fact that I have > been assured by the admissions department that > they will hold to stringent standards for > individuals without undergraduate degrees (and I > believe they will-those in the admissions office > are, in my opinion, both competent and > well-intentioned), I fail to understand the > reason for such a policy shift-and I continue to > find this shift troubling and problematic. > > > > I am not certain what, if any, the appropriate > course of action is in this instance. And from > the above, I'm sure it's cl > === Message Truncated === > > > > > > > > > > > Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including board approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Steve Edwards I just thought I'd let you know that most western medical schools in the US do not require a Bachelor's degree for admission. ____________________ Steve, The academic credentials of MDs are not in question by the general populace. Their academic rigor is well established. Our Credentials are in question. We are not on the same playing field in that regard, so I really think the lack of a bachelor's requirement for MDs is moot. Anyone who practices in an area unfriendly (or lukewarm) to acupuncturists can attest to the amount of questions about our education that face us on a regular basis. I'm in Ohio where we are considered little more than technicians. Written physician referrals are needed for ANY procedure, with follow-up feedback to said physician (the follow-up never happens). The lack of respect dictated by the medical board is reflected in the attitude of the general population. I am disheartened at any formal lessening of our standards. I do fully support case by case exceptions, and I don't think a challenge exam is necessary. Exams don't determine proficient healers. I think exceptions should be awarded based on a detailed in person interview with faculty and administration. Tim Sharpe L.Ac. 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.