^ That was just a quote from #1, I have no opinion about that.
I looked the tuition for the program in my area. One school has a tuition of $120k and the other is almost $200k. At an average salary of $85k it doesn’t seem like a good career to me. jmo
Actually @MaterS It’s a very good career, not something you’re going to get rich doing, but an honorable living. And that estimate for salaries is high depending on where you practice . Thank you . Your research helped to disprove the common misconception on this thread that " it’s all about the money."
redacted…dang it, I took the bait again. I am too close to this topic to be objective.
There is more information to know but it seems a bit of an “arms race” too. To become a Nurse Practitioner now you generally need a DSN (doctor of science in nursing). What happened to the MSN? It basically is vanishing. One reason given for “needing” a doctoral degree is to keep up with other health professions that require it. Another reason is that there were too many online master’s programs that weren’t rigorous enough. They could have tightened the requirement for the master’s instead of requiring the DSN but they chose to go with the arms race.
One thing I wonder (and for disclosure I am a graduate of an LAC before my PhD) why moving to a PhD for these sorts of degrees is really a great idea, as it essentially requires a standard 4 year LA curriculum (BS or BA) before the “hands on” training. Much like an MD I will note. But is that really necessary? (Is it really necessary for an MD either)? Just throwing it out there.
This thread has been very interesting. I didn’t know that pharmacists and nurses had also transitioned their training to professional degrees.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/health/policy/02docs.html?_r=2&ref=health
I just cannot imagine insurance companies will increase their payments to the providers for the extra training. So it seems to me they are pinching the students to pay for more training. Yes I benefit, but the students will pay higher tuition.
@MaterS Nurses can still practice as an RN with associates degree , although a BSN is desired by most hospitals . Nurse anesthetist’s and nurse practitioners have required higher degrees and pharmacists have required a Pharm D degree for years.
Healthcare is always evolving. When someone is working with human beings ongoing education is necessary . What amazes me is how many people believe that this is scheme by educational institutions to make more money. It also amazes me how little the general public know about healthcare and their opinions of what is required to work in healthcare. Believe me. You want highly educated people working on you and your loved ones. People can be seriously injured when people don’t know what they are doing. Clinical experience is important, but healthcare is not something that you can learn on the job . Some people aren’t phased at all by the training that an attorney or accountant require, but they question why someone working in healthcare needs an advanced degree. Truly amazing to me. I’m not implying that other professionals need less training . I’m just amazed at the number of people who think healthcare professionals shouldn’t require an advanced degree. Just my opinion of course.
@donnaleighg
" it essentially requires a standard 4 year LA curriculum (BS or BA) before the “hands on” training. Much like an MD I will note. But is that really necessary? (Is it really necessary for an MD either)?"
No, it’s not necessary. In most (if not all) western countries students go into medicine when they enter the university. Our LAC tradition makes medicine a post-grad field. One European doctor – a surgeon – told me he thought that was to the detriment of American doctors. When I asked why, he said that compared to his American peers, he has several years’ more of practice and hands-on experience.
We area bit off topic, but before we go further devaluing our liberal arts tradition. I am going on the record saying that liberal arts tradition develops a more well rounded practitioner. (And remember that most Europeans are entering college with a thorough HS education, in general. They are entering college at the same level as an American with 1 or even 2 years of college under their belt) General Ed requirements such as humanities, english, philosophy, ethics courses and the like develop critical thinking and communication skills, all transferable to medical fields. We are in such a rush to cut out the superfluous and just focus on the nuts and blots. Sure the liberal arts stuff is not essential but ask yourself if it makes a better person?
When I started OT school I the 80s , I went right into the OT program as a Freshman and graduated with a bachelors degree. It’s difficult to really say what’s better when people are functioning in different healthcare environments.
@labegg, you won’t get an argument from me r.e. the liberal arts tradition. (Among other benefits, I don’t mind young doctors having another 4 years to mature & grow.) However, don’t forget that many European high schools are more rigorous, cover more material and deeper than US high schools. In effect, they’ve had much of the education offered in LACs by the time they start their 1st year of university.
Yes, in England, for instance, after HS, if they want to go to uni, they attend some sort of 2-year “college” (sixth-form, grammar school, etc.) where they learn enough in up to 5 subject to do well on the A-levels (like our AP’s but generally harder) that top English unis require. So it’s kind of like going to CC for a while before uni.
However, a big drawback with taking kids straight in to a terminal (6Y) undergrad med school program is that few people actually really know what they want to do with their lives or really have a talent for at 18 (or even 19) even if they think they do.
@donnaleighg - these doctoral degrees that we’re speaking of for health professionals are not PhDs. There is no original research or dissertation required. It’s confusing, but they are like a sort of advanced master’s degree. The idea is that they are the ultimate degree in that field so therefore they are doctoral degrees.
All 50 states now allow direct access to PT. The PA profession was established in the mid 60’s.
Interesting about when PA programs began. Never saw them in clinical practice til a decade or so ago, by my recollection. Could be longer- maybe 15 or so years- but don’t recall them in any practice 20 or so years ago.
It’s all about shifting physicians away from being the gatekeepers of medicine,
@jym626 I first became aware of them about 25 years ago. Definitely more prevalent now.
My specialty field was also small back in those days. I guess many in healthcare are really growing. The PA national organization had 300 members int he 1970s. Expect its a lot bigger now!
I have a D who is a HS junior and would like to be a PT. She created a list of colleges she’d like to explore and possibly apply to next year. At least half are LACs. All have pre-professional health support and are supposedly strong in biology/genetics/athletic training, which are areas of interest to D. Her plan is to major in one of those while completing pre-PT requirements, then go to grad school. How many years would the doctorate requirement add on if she went this route?
With this new requirement, are people interested in PT better off trying to gain admission to a direct entry PT program? How many years do these typically take to complete?