teaching aids and CEUs

[Guest guest]

A colleague respectfully pointed out to me that he did not see how

there would be any real learning value to using powerpoint slides with

associated audio in a distance learning course in herbology. A recent

dispute at PCOM over who gets to use the powerpoint projector led to a

similar comment by an administrator regarding live classes. His point:

unless one is using the unique properties of powerpoint to incorporate

motion, 3D, audio, etc., there is no advantage over just listening to

lecture while following with handouts and a whiteboard. So whoever was

making fullest use of powerpoint got to use the projector. Finally,

another colleague who recently started using powerpoint in class has

had a similar experience to me. She finds it distracting, destroys any

spontaneity and interferes with eye contact. My initial sense is that

I don't like it for lecture classes, though I definitely see the value

in a class like physical exam where viewing a procedure and hearing

certain sounds and directions while practicing could be of immense

educational value. Especially in the distance learning format. Same

for various acupuncture techniques, casetaking, pulsetaking, tongue

examination and perhaps the demonstration of computer software and

other learning tools that are " hands-on " .

 

But when it comes to herbs, you can really learn many times more from

10 hours of reading than you ever could from 10 hours of lecture, no

matter how much multimedia is included. There is just no significant

audiovisual component to education in herbology, unless one considered

incorporating some of the more popular learning aids amongst students

into the class presentation. The fanciful zoo card images and the herb

and formula songs created by a few different sources could be presented

right in class. But personally I think that would be an obscene waste

of time for those who find no use in such things. People can use those

aids on their own. One already has samples of raw herbs and is already

filling formulas in clinic concurrent with class, so what virtual

experience is really necessary here. While the powerpoints provide

outlines or bullets, so do textbook table of contents, simple handouts

or transparencies. If it is truly useful to have outlines flashed on a

screen, then an LCD is certainly more convenient than other methods (if

the equipment doesn't crash - always have a paper backup). But is it

truly useful to flash outlines on screens. Well, setting aside the

value of rote lecture altogether, I would say no. It is better for the

students to listen to me than look at a screen. They can easily

enough glance at their notes as necessary or when I direct them.

 

Personally, I think lecture is largely without value. They mainly

served an authoritarian and indoctrinating purpose in ages past (note

the similarity to the sermon). Books already provide a thorough

orderly presentation of the course information. Modern technology even

allows text to be converted to speech for those who would rather be

read to. But as one of my colleagues noted, if a person can't read

with comprehension or doesn't like to read, chinese herbology is really

not the right field for them. It is internal medicine, which has

always been about booksmarts. Sure, there have been plenty of lay and

illiterate herbalists, but that is not who we train or license. You

can always just set up shop right now with ever reading one book at

all. But we represent the literate tradition and there is no dispute

amongst those who came before us nor any of the leading figures today.

A common refrain in chinese medical literature of the past is the

criticism of inferior physicians for lack of sufficient study. I have

never met a chinese herbalist who was not well versed in all those

words in all those books. Since reading is necessary to practice

herbology and reading is the most efficient way to absorb concepts,

reading should be the basis for TCM education from day one. Class

should be used for discussion, active learning exercises, Q & A, but not

for presentation of material more efficiently transmitted in text form.

Perhaps this is the great unspoken issue here. If students think that

they will ever learn chinese herbs based solely upon what they are able

hear in lecture or in clinic, they are gravely mistaken. Whether you

hear it in class or not, if you do not read voluminously thereafter,

you will never get it. As for memorization issues, that is also not

for the classroom. Some will use zoo cards, songs, limericks, flash

cards. I like the herbal tutor software and believe that it is more

clinically useful to learn this way than with any type of pnemonics.

 

The sad irony here are the rules for approved distance continuing

education. You don't get credit for what you read, only what you

listen to or watch. So if I write a 40 page essay and it takes you 3

hours to read and absorb it, you would get no credit for that. but if

I read it to you while you sit passively before a computer screen, you

will get credit for as long as I can drag it out. As long as you take

a quiz. Or you can listen to the same words live from me at a seminar

and get credit for sleeping in the audience - no quiz required at all.

Live attendance is considered the gold standard. Watching a video is

runner up. And reading doesn't even make the cut. One might suspect

that the CEU rules for distance learning support an industry geared

towards fluff and shut out a legitimate option. One should be able to

read any 30 hours worth of material every two years and submit an essay

or take a quiz and be done with it all. You would learn a lot more

than either of the other two options and have to prove it, too. But

then the CEU industry would take a big hit and we all know that is

where the bucks are. I know a fellow who has been practicing for over

20 years - 4 patients per hours, teaches at a school and has other

income. But nothing is more lucrative than the frequent sabbaticals he

takes from all of this to teach CEUs around the world. While he is

extremely knowledgeable and puts on a great show, it hardly has the

educational value of reading Mitchell, et al's shang han lun with

commentaries. I do think the classroom is useful for live discussion,

just not transmission of data. But seminars need to be small to be

useful. The CHA conferences worked out that way, with most of the

presentations actually developing into dynamic interactions both years.

It should have been planned that way from the start. The same has

been true of PCOM symposium lectures in years past by Damone, Chace,

Mitchell, Wiseman, Unschuld, to name those I have attended. But the

most popular presenters make big bucks lecturing to packed halls, not

small intimate groups. So the dynamic is lost.

 

I do commend the NCCAOM for their much more flexible standards than CA.

They give credit for teaching, language study, qi gong practice,

supervised clinical training, writing books or journal articles, but

still not for reading. So they still reward those who support

institutions like schools, publishing houses and those who teach

chinese and qi gong, but still no option for the average Joe to read a

book and prove what they learned. One is required to support an

industry. You know what they always say - follow the money. This

trend towards multimedia lecture as a replacement for book learning,

small group discussion and active learning does not bode well in fields

where there really is no substitute for words on paper and lots of

them.

 

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

At 10:57 AM -0800 1/23/05, wrote:

>I do think the classroom is useful for live discussion,

>just not transmission of data. But seminars need to be small to be

>useful.

--

 

I agree, but how do you ensure that the students do the prior

reading for the discussion? If they don't, then I think the value of

seminars in a training program is lost, and might end up being worse

than transmission of basics. I suppose starting each discussion with

a short quiz on the reading might work, and rigorously dropping

students who don't do the work.

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

Interesting post. While I'm not a seasoned Powerpoint user (just

started playing with it last week, in fact), I've been using overhead

projections for years with my teaching, both liver and DL. I think

such audiovisual aids do two things:

 

1. It is a well known fact that different people learn via different

senses. Some are predominantly visual, some are auditory, and some are

kinesthetic. So, using lecture plus visual helps both those people who

are predominantly visual and those who are predominantly auditory

processors. Further, while each of us has a dominant sensory mode, we

each use all three, and, the more modes one uses when trying to learn

new information, the quicker that learning is. So visual plus auditory

is better than either visual alone or auditory alone.

 

2. Students don't have to write as much if they have both visual and

auditory already there for them in reviewable forms. They will still

take notes, but these notes are not verbatim scribbles of everything

the lecturer is saying. They are only the keypoints not otherwise

covered. This allows the student to have kinesthetic input via writing

but also the time to reflect or think about what they are hearing and

seeing.

 

So, personally, I don't think the visual is distracting, nor do I

think it cuts down on eye contact. The main thing is being aware of

the importance of eye contact when speaking in public and making a

conscious effort to keep up optimal eye contact with your audience.

 

I have sat through 15 hopur classes on Western medicine with Bruce

Robertson, MD, where I thought the Powerpoint technology worked very,

very well for all the reasons stated above. Bruce is an excellent and

practiced public speaker and teacher. I thought the technology only e

hanced his inate skills, not detracted from them.

 

I do plan on moving from overheads to Powerpoint at some point this

year since I have recently been required to use this format by some of

my European teaching gigs. So it will be interesting to see if this

technology is appreciably different from overheads. I can say that, if

one has a laptop and the porjector, it should be much cheaper than

overheads. Costs me $1.00 per overhead when you count the transparency

plus the protective sleeve.

 

I've also been playing with Wordperfect's presentation software and I

really like it. Much more user friendly with more " bells and

whistles. " However, I have concerns about it's portability for when

I'm teaching somewhere and I want to use their hardware rather than

dragging mine along.

 

The whole issue of appropriate teaching methodologies and technologies

is an important one that we TCM teachers need to keep on top of.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Rory,

 

When I had my own school back in the mid 80s, we started every class

with a 10 minute quiz that covered the previous class's material. The

quiz was meant to be answered as quickly as one could write. If the

student had to think about the answer, they wouldn't have time to

complete the quiz. This methodology worked very well for insuring the

students kept up with the work and learned the material to the

required level of proficiency.

 

That being said, the school failed because of low enroll once we

weeded out the nonperformers.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

, Rory Kerr <rorykerr@o...> wrote:

 

>

> I agree, but how do you ensure that the students do the prior

> reading for the discussion? If they don't, then I think the value of

> seminars in a training program is lost, and might end up being worse

> than transmission of basics. I suppose starting each discussion with

> a short quiz on the reading might work, and rigorously dropping

> students who don't do the work.

 

 

I go back and forth over whether it is my job to hold the hands of adults in

med school.

This is not elementary school where education is forced and relevance is hard to

demonstrate. If people don't have the motivation to put in the time, they will

never get it

anyway.

 

[Guest guest]

, " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001>

wrote:

>

>

>

> Interesting post. While I'm not a seasoned Powerpoint user (just

> started playing with it last week, in fact), I've been using overhead

> projections for years with my teaching, both liver and DL. I think

> such audiovisual aids do two things:

 

I don't dispute anything you say, just the efficiency of it. Time spent in ANY

form of

lecture has always been wasted time for me as a student. Yes, powerpoint makes

for a

more effective lecture. I just don't think lecture has much value to begin

with.

 

[Guest guest]

, rw2@r... wrote:

 

>

> It's been a long time since I've attended a seminar in which I learned more

than I can by

reading books, searching the Internet, and asking questions on discussion

groups. And I

don't generally like watching videos, because I can read much faster than I can

listen to a

talking head. Besides, trying to rewind a video to review a specific topic can

be a

frustrating experience - books with tidy indexes are so much nicer, or even

better, cross-

referenced computer databases.

 

 

I agree. I find video fairly useless for learning unless there is something to

SEE. I like the

audio option when my eyes are otherwise occupied (while cooking, in the car,

etc.). But if I

have all my senses to myself, I'll always choose reading for knowledge every

time (though I

vastly prefer video for entertainment).

 

[Guest guest]

Rory,

 

For many years, I've required that students who attend my seminars first

complete all assigned reading and the homework to prove it.

 

My seminars are smaller as a result of weeding out non-readers and whiners, but

the quality of the classes are a vast improvement over the days I had to act as

nursemaid for people who wanted to call themselves herbalists, but could not or

would not read, think, and do their own independent study. These latter students

tend to be the most disruptive and yet demand the most attention. Finally, I

decided that it was not fair to my dedicated students to waste valuable class

time dealing with these issues, which most people should learn to overcome in

grade school, not in adult courses.

 

I strongly believe in the method of Socratic-style, question-and-answer dialog,

which requires that students come to class with questions and ideas already

formulated. I take issue with the Chinese teaching style of rote memorization,

keep your mouth shut, and don't ask questions. Perhaps a good way to become

indoctrinated in religious dogma, but not a good method for training

professionals who can think on their feet. The Socratic method demands that

students learn to " talk TCM " , because that is the proven best way for anyone to

learn a new language. It's also the quickest way to spot students' errors in

thinking.

 

One of my colleagues recently commented that in some of the CEU courses he has

offered, students have had the audacity to snooze through the class, only to

wake up at the end in time to have their certificate of attendance signed. My

colleague is an above-average lecturer with useful material to present. But in

the typical class, students ask few questions and seem more interested in " doing

their time " rather than achieving specific goals of competence.

 

The fact that accredited schools and the professional CEU rackets continue to

cater to and encourage this nonsense is one more indication of how badly the

educational system has declined.

 

It's been a long time since I've attended a seminar in which I learned more than

I can by reading books, searching the Internet, and asking questions on

discussion groups. And I don't generally like watching videos, because I can

read much faster than I can listen to a talking head. Besides, trying to rewind

a video to review a specific topic can be a frustrating experience - books with

tidy indexes are so much nicer, or even better, cross-referenced computer

databases.

 

---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist

contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/

Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA

Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org

 

 

 

> Rory Kerr <rorykerr

>Re: teaching aids and CEUs

>

>At 10:57 AM -0800 1/23/05, wrote:

>>I do think the classroom is useful for live discussion,

>>just not transmission of data. But seminars need to be small to be

>>useful.

>--

>

> I agree, but how do you ensure that the students do the prior

>reading for the discussion? If they don't, then I think the value of

>seminars in a training program is lost, and might end up being worse

>than transmission of basics. I suppose starting each discussion with

>a short quiz on the reading might work, and rigorously dropping

>students who don't do the work.

>

>Rory

>--

 

 

 

---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist

contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/

Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA

Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org

[Guest guest]

One of the biggest surprises I have had in my TCM education is the prevalence of

the " preaching " style method of classroom instruction. As an undergraduate, I

was required to read entire books over a one week period and discuss them in a

fifty minute class seminar, to prepare to " teach " class on occasion, and to

conduct my own research and present it to the class using powerpoint or some

other visual aid. Why don't we role play patients with different diseases and

patterns, for example, instead of listen to the teacher take up three hours to

tell us what we already read in one hour? Everybody knows that active learning

is superior to passive learning.

 

rw2 wrote:Rory,

 

For many years, I've required that students who attend my seminars first

complete all assigned reading and the homework to prove it.

 

My seminars are smaller as a result of weeding out non-readers and whiners, but

the quality of the classes are a vast improvement over the days I had to act as

nursemaid for people who wanted to call themselves herbalists, but could not or

would not read, think, and do their own independent study. These latter students

tend to be the most disruptive and yet demand the most attention. Finally, I

decided that it was not fair to my dedicated students to waste valuable class

time dealing with these issues, which most people should learn to overcome in

grade school, not in adult courses.

 

I strongly believe in the method of Socratic-style, question-and-answer dialog,

which requires that students come to class with questions and ideas already

formulated. I take issue with the Chinese teaching style of rote memorization,

keep your mouth shut, and don't ask questions. Perhaps a good way to become

indoctrinated in religious dogma, but not a good method for training

professionals who can think on their feet. The Socratic method demands that

students learn to " talk TCM " , because that is the proven best way for anyone to

learn a new language. It's also the quickest way to spot students' errors in

thinking.

 

One of my colleagues recently commented that in some of the CEU courses he has

offered, students have had the audacity to snooze through the class, only to

wake up at the end in time to have their certificate of attendance signed. My

colleague is an above-average lecturer with useful material to present. But in

the typical class, students ask few questions and seem more interested in " doing

their time " rather than achieving specific goals of competence.

 

The fact that accredited schools and the professional CEU rackets continue to

cater to and encourage this nonsense is one more indication of how badly the

educational system has declined.

 

It's been a long time since I've attended a seminar in which I learned more than

I can by reading books, searching the Internet, and asking questions on

discussion groups. And I don't generally like watching videos, because I can

read much faster than I can listen to a talking head. Besides, trying to rewind

a video to review a specific topic can be a frustrating experience - books with

tidy indexes are so much nicer, or even better, cross-referenced computer

databases.

 

---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist

contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/

Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA

Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org

 

 

 

> Rory Kerr <rorykerr

>Re: teaching aids and CEUs

>

>At 10:57 AM -0800 1/23/05, wrote:

>>I do think the classroom is useful for live discussion,

>>just not transmission of data. But seminars need to be small to be

>>useful.

>--

>

> I agree, but how do you ensure that the students do the prior

>reading for the discussion? If they don't, then I think the value of

>seminars in a training program is lost, and might end up being worse

>than transmission of basics. I suppose starting each discussion with

>a short quiz on the reading might work, and rigorously dropping

>students who don't do the work.

>

>Rory

>--

 

 

 

---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist

contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/

Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA

Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Group,

 

I am interested in this discussion since I teach herbs at Yo San. I have

seen - in person - teaching Chinese herbal formulas and internal

medicine, and I think his approach of having students bring in formula

modifications and discuss them is very effective. I am happy to say that

when I teach a 3-hour class, I usually reserve the last hour for student

presentations, either based on case studies, or on their own group research

in class. Most of my students say they learn so much more that way, and even

the ones who say they don't like this (they are lazy and don't want to have

to do active learning) do learn more this way. I have had first-semester

students tell me that being able to read and discuss case studies in class

was " thrilling " !

 

Any teacher who lectures for three hours is missing a great opportunity.

 

Julie Chambers

 

 

 

-

" Jamie Koonce " <untothewholeperson

 

Monday, January 24, 2005 10:28 PM

Re: Re: teaching aids and CEUs

 

 

>

> One of the biggest surprises I have had in my TCM education is the

> prevalence of the " preaching " style method of classroom instruction. As

> an undergraduate, I was required to read entire books over a one week

> period and discuss them in a fifty minute class seminar, to prepare to

> " teach " class on occasion, and to conduct my own research and present it

> to the class using powerpoint or some other visual aid. Why don't we role

> play patients with different diseases and patterns, for example, instead

> of listen to the teacher take up three hours to tell us what we already

> read in one hour? Everybody knows that active learning is superior to

> passive learning.

[Guest guest]

At 12:18 AM +0000 1/25/05, wrote:

>I go back and forth over whether it is my job to hold the hands of

>adults in med school. This is not elementary school where education

>is forced and relevance is hard to demonstrate. If people don't

>have the motivation to put in the time, they will never get it

>anyway.

--

 

 

 

If we were to insist on this study ethic, would the schools support

faculty with the high failure rate of Roger's 'non-readers and

whiners', and subsequent low enrollment?

 

I rather doubt it.

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

It most likely will continue to be your job for as long the schools do not

stress the medical school atmosphere to incoming students. If they continue

to let everyone in without regard to their scholastic ability and drive to

learn than spoon-feeding is where it is at.

Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " " <

>

>

>Re: teaching aids and CEUs

>Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:07:46 -0000

>

>

> , Rory Kerr <rorykerr@o...> wrote:

>

> >

> > I agree, but how do you ensure that the students do the prior

> > reading for the discussion? If they don't, then I think the value of

> > seminars in a training program is lost, and might end up being worse

> > than transmission of basics. I suppose starting each discussion with

> > a short quiz on the reading might work, and rigorously dropping

> > students who don't do the work.

>

>

>I go back and forth over whether it is my job to hold the hands of adults

>in med school.

>This is not elementary school where education is forced and relevance is

>hard to

>demonstrate. If people don't have the motivation to put in the time, they

>will never get it

>anyway.

>

>Todd

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

" Time spent in ANY form of lecture has always been wasted time for me

as a student. "

>

>

 

That's probably because you're a visual accessor. However, 30% or so

are auditory. What about those people? A good class needs to speak to

all styles of intelligence.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

" If we were to insist on this study ethic, would the schools support

faculty with the high failure rate of Roger's 'non-readers and

whiners', and subsequent low enrollment?

 

" I rather doubt it. "

 

Rory

 

I agree with Rory. That's why I have consistently said that the

schools are the main problem with our profession. What goes in

determines what comes out.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Well Bob, sounds like an invitation to creation of your own program again.

I like the sounds of this and would like to help with curriculum development

if you decide to move forward with this.

Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001

>

>

>Re: teaching aids and CEUs

>Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:08:22 -0000

>

>

> " If we were to insist on this study ethic, would the schools support

>faculty with the high failure rate of Roger's 'non-readers and

>whiners', and subsequent low enrollment?

>

> " I rather doubt it. "

>

>Rory

>

>I agree with Rory. That's why I have consistently said that the

>schools are the main problem with our profession. What goes in

>determines what comes out.

>

>Bob

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 11:08 AM 1/25/2005, you wrote:

 

 

> " If we were to insist on this study ethic, would the schools support

>faculty with the high failure rate of Roger's 'non-readers and

>whiners', and subsequent low enrollment?

>

> " I rather doubt it. "

>

>Rory

>

>I agree with Rory. That's why I have consistently said that the

>schools are the main problem with our profession. What goes in

>determines what comes out.

>

>Bob

>

I find this a very complex and difficult issue.

 

Certainly on one level many of the schools are just out there to make some

money in a very what can be a very lucrative field. However, as we have

seen over the years, many schools have closed because it was not as

lucrative a field as previously imagined - even if anyone and everyone is

let in.

 

However, in order to survive, a program must be profitable. It simply is

not possible to continue to exist if you are costing the institution

money. Witness Mercy College, a program that had an excellent reputation

but because of its entry requirements and the necessity of being a

full-time day student, and for all I know other things as well, the

program was not able to get sufficient students to make money. They are

now in their last year of operation, teaching out their current students

but not admitting any new students. This was not a fly by night Mom &

Pop. This was an program within a larger institution that began with a

commitment to maintaining the program whether or not it was financially

viable. But, in the end, the economics of running a program are much

greater than might be expected. We are no longer in a place where all you

have to do is have a couple of classrooms and some faculty and run the

students through an already established private clinic. In addition to

faculty, staff and administration salaries there are insurance costs,

advertising costs, supplies, support for the profession at large etc., etc.

And the more you committed you are to creating a quality program, the

higher these costs are. If you are willing to hire a first year grad to

teach at $30.00 an hour, that is the quality you will get. If you require

that faculty have extensive clinical experience or experience in research

or language or some other area, you have to pay them more. Or, if you pay

them less, expect less from them!

 

The bottom line is it is expensive to run quality programs. If we could

charge a tuition that was commensurate with other clinical endeavors it

might make a difference, but the competition is fierce and if we were to

charge the tuition required to turn a profit while maintaining a small

class size, we wouldn't have any students, no matter the quality of the

program. You might hear complaints about the cost of education in this

field, but compare it to the cost of other health care fields and it is

nominal.

 

Personally, I am committed to working within the currently accepted,

traditional academic environment in order to create a quality program. I

believe that the existence of external standards (be they ACAOM, State of

CA or something else) helps us to understand what " the minimum " is and move

past it. Serving as a site visitor for ACAOM is incredibly insightful when

it comes to understanding how the process works and how to make changes and

improvements. I feel strongly that supporting our profession and our

schools is an important aspect of being a professional in this field. I

become extremely disillusioned by the constant critique of schools by

individuals who have little to no involvement in the management of these

programs or by students who assume that they know better than individuals

who have been doing this and learning from what we do for 20 years or

more. I also believe that many of the schools have made changes in the

last 10 years and are not necessarily the same as the school you may have

graduated from. This is not to say that more development is not in order

but the constant griping without action doesn't do anyone any good. We are

all imperfect human beings trying to do our best in an imperfect

world. Much as students may desire it, the life of an administrator is not

just the institution - they have lives outside of that world as well and

cannot be available 24 hours a day - although there is certainly enough

work to do to keep one busy most of that time! In general, our schools are

much more responsive to student concerns than other types of program - how

often did you get to talk to anyone in administration, much less the Dean

or Director when you were in college, or nursing school or med school?

 

Certainly, there is the option that individuals like Roger have chosen. To

create a program outside of the established academic environment. On a

personal level, I think that is great. And I have the greatest respect for

what Roger is doing - again, on an individual level. But what happens when

40 or more of these programs open. And there is no standard, no objective

measure for comparison, no way of understanding the qualification of the

faculty, etc. The prospective student may luck out and choose a good

institution. But they can just as easily choose a deficient one - without

being aware of it. Perhaps they are choosing out of the necessity to

remain in a particular geographic area, perhaps they are choosing based

upon cost, perhaps they are choosing based upon the look of the brochure,

perhaps they are choosing based upon the number of students already

attending the program. Who knows. But without the external standards, the

student is left to make a choice without any way to really understand what

they are choosing from or even how to make an educated decision.

 

While I agree with Bob, Rory and Roger that we need to weed out more

individuals and raise the level of our students this is also a tricky issue

- often students who do not seem to perform very well in their initial

academic endeavors are able to excel in the clinical phase of their

program. Should we therefore tell these students sorry - you don't get to

study this medicine or should we help them through it so that they can

become clinicians? I wonder how many of the 800 odd members of this group

would have been weeded out? Or even just how many of the 20 or so active

voices? Over the past 10 years of teaching I have seen a number of

students completely transform themselves. I have also seen brilliant

individuals who simply cannot communicate with patients. As Bob said

earlier, there are different ways of learning and different ways of

interacting. For better or for worse our schools seem to be places where

individuals go to initiate change in themselves, although they may not

always be aware of it.

 

I am not trying to be an apologist for poor educational programs or for

poor performing students. I think they need to be weeded. But sometimes,

weeding at the initial application phase loses you some good candidates and

lets in some who should never practice medicine. And, much as you may hate

the idea, schools need to be profitable. We are not yet in a place where we

have endowments to support faculty (anyone out there interested in endowing

a chair? The Blue Poppy Chair in OM Theory? Sounds great!) or funds to

support our students. Maybe some day we will, but for now, an educational

program, be it for profit or not for profit, has to make money in order to

pay for its existence.

 

I also agree that for many, a lot more is gained by one hour of reading

than by three hours of lecture. But should the dyslexic student be refused

the opportunity to study this medicine? For him/her it may take 3 hours to

get through the 1 hour of reading. Does that mean that faculty should

stand up and recite what is in the book. Certainly not. Again, depending

upon the level of the student, that three hours of lecture can be used in a

variety of ways. Explaining theory, discussing Herb Pairs or the

mechanisms of action of a medicinal substance or point...Lectures are a

time to take some time to review what was in the reading, answer questions

about the reading and use the reading as a jumping off place for further

discussion of clinical options or theoretical positions. More often than

not, it is the inexperienced teacher who teaches straight from the

book. And, sadly, more often than not, that is the teacher that the

administration receives the fewest complaints about. Expectations are

clear - know what is in the book (I'm going to say it again in class just

in case it wasn't clear). Don't think too much, don't challenge too much

and students will like you and you will keep your job - teaching

mediocrity. But, challenge your students, make them think, make it

difficult to know what you have to know " for the test " and students will

complain. They will say that you are not clear, that you tell them things

that are different from what is in the book, that you ramble, that you

don't seem to know the material very well. If you have a discerning

administration, or an administration that supports active teaching, you'll

be fine. If you have an administration that caters to the students, then

you will lose your job. I've gotten off the point here, but it is

important to listen carefully to complaints. What is the complainant

really saying - is it more about their own abilities/study skills than it

is the faculty? I say this because there is a lot of complaining about

" the schools " that goes on on this forum - or as Bob said above " That's

why I have consistently said that the schools are the main problem with our

profession. What goes in determines what comes out. " Maybe so - but I like

to think that the some of the schools are trying to change. Unfortunately

when we denigrate " the schools " we are denigrating our own training, our

own profession and in the end, that makes everyone look bad. It has been

said before on this forum - if we want to advance our profession we have to

pull together and support each other rather than bad mouthing other

professionals, our educational institutions, our oversight bodies etc. We

are all colleagues and while we may not always agree or we may think that

so and so is poorly trained or such and such a school is not as good the

school I attended, we need to start being careful about what we say and how

we say, or we will put ourselves out of business simply by putting down our

own profession.

 

I have rambled on too long and probably said some things that I oughtn't to

have said. Have at me!

 

Marnae

 

 

 

>

>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.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 4:08 PM +0000 1/25/05, Bob Flaws wrote:

>That's why I have consistently said that the

>schools are the main problem with our profession. What goes in

>determines what comes out.

--

 

Bob,

 

Just to be clear, I'm not in favor of weeding people out at entry.

People deserve the opportunity if their desire is strong. There are

plenty of associate degree level students who can do well if they

apply themselves, and I'm not in favor of raising the entry bar to a

full degree. However, once in, students should be held responsible

for the quality of their work, and that the standard should tend to

exclude slackers. This is supposed to be a literate, scholarly

medicine, and our requirements of students should reflect that. I

think this is where, as a generalization, we could do better.

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Witness Mercy College, a program that had an excellent reputation

but because of its entry requirements and the necessity of being a

full-time day student, and for all I know other things as well, the

program was not able to get sufficient students to make money.

>>>That is way the rules need to be changed from the top and forced on the

schools

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

At 6:08 PM -0800 1/25/05, Alon Marcus wrote:

>Witness Mercy College, a program that had an excellent reputation

>but because of its entry requirements and the necessity of being a

>full-time day student, and for all I know other things as well, the

>program was not able to get sufficient students to make money.

> >>>That is way the rules need to be changed from the top and forced

>on the schools

--

 

But which rules?

 

Mercy had other problems besides high entry requirements, such as

poor location and problematic management. SIOM has a bachelors degree

entry requirement and seems to be doing fine so far, because it makes

sense in terms of their business model.

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Rory Kerr <rorykerr wrote:

 

>

> At 6:08 PM -0800 1/25/05, Alon Marcus wrote:

> >Witness Mercy College, a program that had an

> excellent reputation

> >but because of its entry requirements and the

> necessity of being a

> >full-time day student, and for all I know other

> things as well, the

> >program was not able to get sufficient students to

> make money.

> > >>>That is way the rules need to be changed from

> the top and forced

> >on the schools

> --

>

> But which rules?

>

> Mercy had other problems besides high entry

> requirements, such as

> poor location and problematic management. SIOM has a

> bachelors degree

> entry requirement and seems to be doing fine so far,

> because it makes

> sense in terms of their business model.

>

> Rory

 

There are other factors in SIOM's success -

When SIOM opened, entry of new students into the field

was at its height. It has changed since then.

 

SIOM exists in a much different environment than NY

schools - there are currently 2 schools in Seattle and

one in Portland - as compared to 6 - 8 in the NYC

area.

 

When SIOM opened, it ran more like a " Mom & Pop " shop

with Dan Bensky and Paul Karsten being the main

instructors, clinicians and administrators and most of

the clinical training occurring out of their clinical

practices.

 

SIOM began its existence with Dan's well earned

reputation as a guiding force.

 

Clearly SIOM has changed since then, and I certainly

admire its model, however, starting a school like SIOM

is much more difficult today, especially in more

well-populated areas where several schools already

exist. Perhaps it could be done in a state that has

recently achieved licensure, but it would be very

difficult in a place like NY. This is a market driven

economy and the market will only support so much.

 

Marnae

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Marnae,

 

As usual, a great reply. However, I would like to respond about Mercy

College.

 

" Witness Mercy College, a program that had an excellent reputation

but because of its entry requirements and the necessity of being a

full-time day student, and for all I know other things as well, the

program was not able to get sufficient students to make money. They

are now in their last year of operation, teaching out their current

students but not admitting any new students. This was not a fly by

night Mom & Pop. This was an program within a larger institution that

began with a commitment to maintaining the program whether or not it

was financially viable. "

 

Having had great hopes for them and having worked a bit with them, one

of their big problems was lack of sufficient and the right

advertising. From a marketing point of view, they sucked big time. I

believe they could have made it if they had known how to promote and

publicize their program properly. They simply did not know how to sell

their unique product. Honora and I tried to talk to them about this,

but what we had to say fell on deaf ears, or they simply did not know

what to do with our advice. I also believe they hired the wrong

administrators.

 

In terms of a Blue Poppy endowed Chair of OM Theory, nice idea. But

please don't think Blue Poppy has that kind of deep pockets. Perhaps

some herb and needle suppliers have, but we don't. Like most people in

this niche market, we just barely cover our cash flow keeping 11

employees fed and housed and donating a percentage of profits to

various charities.

 

(I hope everyone saw our Fall push for Heifer International. We raised

$5K for them. thanks to everyone who helped make this a reality.

Heifer was thrilled. In 2005, we'll be helping several different

organizations. For instance, this month we're underwriting an

acupuncture training course in Guatemala.)

 

But I will make this offer: Honora and I would both be willing to

teach for one semester per year at a college such as Touro (in NY, LA,

or SF) if we were paid a decent wage for our time. Same semester, same

time for both of us; one school per year. For me that would mean the

pro-rated equivalent of $75K per year. You'd have to ask Honora her price.

 

BTW, did you receive the e-mail I sent you last week? I sent it via

the e-mail address on the CHA list. I have another proposition for you

I'd like to discuss.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Rory,

 

" Just to be clear, I'm not in favor of weeding people out at entry.

People deserve the opportunity if their desire is strong. "

 

Point taken. However, once in, there should be real academic

standards, at least for those pursuing Chinese internal medicine.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Mercy had other problems besides high entry requirements,

>>>>Mostly entry requirements, but also having yearly national boards,

requirement to pass weekly exams etc.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

At 6:08 PM -0800 1/25/05, Alon Marcus wrote:

> >>>That is way the rules need to be changed from the top and forced

>on the schools

--

 

Alon, I'm still interested to know what rules you think need to be changed.

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Rory

I think the schools should become real graduate schools. That is students should

have a BS before getting in. There should be yearly national boards that are

truly rigorous. I think the schools should have rules put upon them of who can

teach and supervise. I think any class that a school chooses to teach should

meet university standards and students should be tested at a university

standard. Not what is going on today. Up to now the profession has left the

natural growth of education to the schools thinking they would follow other

major professions. This however has not worked. We still basically have either

mom and pop schools or for profit institutions that really do not care about the

quality of the education. They will use any excuse to tell that things are great

and the profession cannot change faster. I believed them for years but no

longer. If a school chooses to teach there own biomedical sciences above what is

needed for a BS then the students should be taking the same exams used in other

major universities.

What I am basically saying is that all western and related courses should

follow, and students tested, on already expectable university levels. All CM

courses should follow what is taught in China at the BS level and the same test

used, with some additions needed for practice in the US, used. The levels of

courses and standards need to be set by others than the schools as is done now.

The schools have way too much influence on the governing bodies

 

Alon