|
|
PT Masters versus Doctorate Degree
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
PT Masters versus Doctorate Degree - February 16, 2000 5:48:00 AM
|
|
|
dennis
Posts: 1
Joined: February 15, 2000
From: huntsville, al,usa
Status: offline
|
I am a student applying to various PT Graduate programs. Some are Master's level while others have or are converting to a Doctoral Program. Looking long term what are the pro & cons between the two degree programs??
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT Masters versus Doctorate Degree - February 16, 2000 11:00:00 AM
|
|
|
mcap
Posts: 652
Joined: February 8, 2000
Status: offline
|
Dear Dennis:
I am a PT with four years experience and a master's degree.
You ask a tough question!!!!! I think that down the road....eventually your DPT degree might open up additional opportunities and avenues. However, for now, you need to realize that no one is paying any more for therapists with DPT degrees. The monetary and career advantages of a DPT are not there yet and might take some time to materialize if ever.
Furthermore you need to factor in the cost of an extra year of school. A recent article in the PT advance tallied the total cost of an extra year of school at 15,000 tuition. The total cost came to 70,000 when you factor in living expenses and wages lost from not working a year!!!!! That's quite a bit of money!!
So.....in my opinion....if it was me.....I would get through school as cheaply as possible. If money is no object..then go for the DPT. Don't forget that there will be opportunities to pursue advanced DPT's or other advanced degrees in the future.
This is JUST my opinion. You need to make the right choice for you. To be honest....with the job market the way it is right now I probably wouldn't go into therapy at all.
Good luck.
-marc
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT Masters versus Doctorate Degree - February 16, 2000 2:32:00 PM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball, MS, PT
Posts: 500
Joined: October 8, 1999
From: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Status: offline
|
I agree with Marc's assessment regarding financial renumeration. I had hoped that DPT programs would dive into clinical research and publication in far greater detail than has become the case. I had hoped that this would create perhaps better clinicians, but the potential for clinicians from these programs to practice in a manner much more aligned with ev. based practice.
This has not turned out to be the case.
My final analysis is a little different than Mcap's in that I try to keep my options open. I'm not sure that a DPT will open more options in the future . . . but I'm sure that DPT's will have at least as many options as MPT's. I'd therefore go the DPT route for an entry-level degree. In a tight job market . . . 10 years in the future . . . DPT versus MPT may make a much bigger difference than it does now.
I'd also lobby for all DPT programs to work toward combined DPT/PhD programs with real research and publication experiences . . . not just another year tacked on. You can be a good clinician without keeping up on the research, but you can't be GREAT without doing so.
Marc raises an excellent point as he states, "Don't forget that there will be opportunities to pursue advanced DPT's or other advanced degrees in the future."
This too is JUST my opinion. You need to make the right choice for you. You need to live your bliss, everything else is secondary.
Drew
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT Masters versus Doctorate Degree - February 20, 2000 6:55:00 PM
|
|
|
jc137
Posts: 6
Joined: February 17, 2000
From: Santee, CA, USA
Status: offline
|
Drew:
Question: You stated that the DPT programs have not graduated clinicians more aligned with evidence based practice.
"I had hoped that this would create perhaps better clinicians, but the potential for clinicians from these programs to practice in a manner much more aligned with ev. based practice.
This has not turned out to be the case."
How do you know this is the case? Are you basing this on your experience?
I have heard that DPTs have more experience in research and clinical skills than that of graduates of a B.S. or M.S. program. Unfortunately, it is too early to measure the success of the DPT when it is only seven years old. After each graduating class, most universities have made modifications in the DPT programs in order to produce reliable clinicians able to diagnosis and understand research literature. This is my opinion as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT Masters versus Doctorate Degree - March 19, 2000 5:50:00 PM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball, MS, PT
Posts: 500
Joined: October 8, 1999
From: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Status: offline
|
Sorry JC,
I must have missed your posting, sorry to not have responded in a more timely manner.
In answer to your question, I have not seen DPT graduates any more aligned with evidence based practice than new graduates of quality MPT or MSPT programs. Most new graduates are far more evidence based than their experienced mentors though.
I base my opinions upon interactions with students and new graduates from several programs, conversations with Jan Richardson, and most importantly conversations with Jody Gandy.
The DPT programs are not heavier in research, or at least no more than the quality master's programs. They are however heavier in teaching skills necessary for independent physical therapy practice in today's healthcare environment. "Entry-Level" competence is after all a moving target, and most professional ego's disallow experienced PT's from recognizing that if they graduated more than 5 years ago, they are likely missing some entry-level skills such as full course curriculum in:
Pharmacology
Radiographic Imaging
Business Administration
Diagnostics
Literature Search and Review
Updated Clinical Neurology / Basic Science
I'm a fan of the DPT, it's a positive thing. I believe in encouraging practicing PT's to complete transitional DPTs to fill the gaps in their skills that are no longer entry-level.
DPTs are typically more evidence-based than their more experienced mentors, but it's a dangerous, perhaps ignorant, and clearly arrogant assumption to say that new graduate DPTs are more evidence and research based than their MPT or MSPT counterparts. They may prove to have advanced skills in other areas, but enhanced research/evidence-based practice over masters programs is not an intended goal. Excellence in these areas above and beyond experienced clinicians in this areas however, is . . . but that goal is not exclusive to the DPT.
No DPT program requires dissertation and publication, though one has a "product demonstrating excellence" component. As such, lauding the enhanced research and evidence based skills of a DPT over an MPT is inappropriate and laughable. This is not the goal of the clinical doctorate . . . that is the PhD's role.
Drew
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT Masters versus Doctorate Degree - March 19, 2000 7:20:00 PM
|
|
|
jc137
Posts: 6
Joined: February 17, 2000
From: Santee, CA, USA
Status: offline
|
Drew:
Thank you for replying to my post.
I have to say that I am a little confused by your statement below.
"DPTs are typically more evidence-based than their more experienced mentors, but it's a dangerous, perhaps ignorant, and clearly arrogant assumption to say that new graduate DPTs are more evidence and research based than their MPT or MSPT counterparts. "
Isn't it a contradiction to say that "DPTs are typically more evidence-based than their more experienced mentors, but not more evidence and research based than their MPT or MSPT counterparts?" Who are you referring to as "their more experienced mentors?" It is possible that I misunderstood your message.
____________________________________________
I know of at least one school (the one I have decided to attend) that has the option of getting involved with the research field. However, like MDs, a clinical doctorate does not require disserations or publications to complete the degree. The purpose of the clinical doctorate is to establish skills in diagnosis and patient management by focusing on evidence-based practice. Like MDs, DPTs are gradually becoming a part of the research field. Research and teaching is not just exclusive to Ph.D.s.
Also, "entry level" individuals spend at least three years in the program (as far as I am aware of). Two years of basic sciences, pathology, diagnosis, management, imaging and pharmacology courses and then one year in clinics and hospitals. From the individuals I have spoken to, most MSPTs lack a basic understanding of science courses especially pathophysiology as well as differential diagnosis. Most have not developed clinical expertise in the hospitals along physicians or other health care providers. With only two years of study, I can understand why. There really isn't enough time to utilize their skills under supervision. After graduating, they learn as they go along and try to fill in as many gaps as possible. Some say that this is part of the reason that they do not feel competent in physical therapy diagnosis.
I understand that the current DPT programs are not perfect, being fairly new, however, with time they will come to meet all the required studies to prepare PTs for a direct access environment. With time, we can prove that we are competent to diagnose, evaluate and treat patients (with most neuro cardiorespiratory, & muscloskeletal disorders)without a physician referral.
With time, we will be known as specialists in pathophysiology of movement.
I guess these are strong words for someone who still has to walk the walk, but I feel that physical therapy has so much potential and not enough people willing to start the ball rolling. Physical therapy can have a greater impact in the health care field if we (all PTs) can continue educate our people of its benefits through practice and research.
JC
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT Masters versus Doctorate Degree - March 20, 2000 6:35:00 AM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball, MS, PT
Posts: 500
Joined: October 8, 1999
From: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Status: offline
|
Sorry not to have been clearer. New graduate DPTs are not much more evidence-based than new graduate MPT or MSPT graduates. All are more evidence-based than PT's who have been practicing for 5 of more years. My collegues tend to attack the DPT because this realization is a blow to their professional ego, and they can't attack the new-graduate MPTs or MSPTs because they have equivocal degrees.
Some of the older 5 year masters programs (Ithaca, Springfield, PCPS, etc.) had much more time than a 3 year DPT to emphasize and teach the importance of evidence-based practice.
The DPT is an evidence-based degree, yes. But the emphasis on evidence-based practice is no stronger than that of a quality MPT or MSPT program. Entry-level competance and expectations are the same regardless of the degree upon graduation, if they weren't, MPT programs couldn't roll into a DPT with little more than another year of internship. The truth is that newly trained therapists have more of a scientific (evidence-based) and business administration framework from which to operate . . . and THAT is the core of this issue, the one practicing PTs refuse to admit. OLD and ANTIQUE versus the NEWER TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED NEW GRADUATES.
I graduated from a school that mandated a semester of Pharmacology, a semseter of Heatlhcare Management, a semester of Histology/Pathology, etc., etc. As far as I can tell, I took as many semester hours (if not more) than some DPT programs, and the only skill I'm lacking is Imaging. Does that mean that with that course I'm entitled to a DPT??? Some schools seem to think so in the way that they tack on an extra year of internship and POOF! DPT. One year of internship does not make for more evidence-based thought. In fact, if the mentor is not evidence-based, it tends to beat this innovation out of the more scientifically trained novice clinician.
The confusion is in the realization that older clinicians, though they may have some post-professional skills, are generally not practicing at TODAY'S entry-level expectations. I'm a case in point, I've got all of the other skills you describe . . . except Imaging. I'm therefore NO LONGER at entry-level competence . . . though I certainly was slightly beyond entry-level upon graduation.
Finally, the research question. DPT's are not trained in how to conduct research, and this is not the intent of the degree. I'm all for clinicians being expected to engage in research, but in most cases this is on the job training (if at all). Being invovled in a research progject (group or individual), IS NOT the same thing as dissertation and publication (e.g. true independent, peer-reviewed research). DPT may train a therapist to respect the research process and utilize literature in a way that most practicing PTs do not, but it in now way trains them as PRODUCERS of new knowledge . . . nor was that ever the intent of the degree.
There was a time when schools were moving toward fully integrated 5 year combined BS/MS programs. If time makes a better clinician, as you seem to suggest, then the DPT would serve to promote devolution in that it cramms 5 to 6 years of study into 3, now wouldn't it???
Again, I disagree with your statements regarding MSPT programs lack of understanding of basic sciences, though I recognize that my program spent more time on these issues than did most others. As I've said, the only thing I'd be missing in your statements lauding the DPT is Imaging. Most schools are moving to DPTs in order to compete for students in a tight applicant market. It has, except in the cases of the first few programs, no been an effort to produce a better therapist, but rather to promote the school in the marketplace when competing for students.
Drew
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
0.078
|
Printable Version
