|
|
PT job outlook
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
PT job outlook - October 4, 2000 12:17:00 PM
|
|
|
lauracate
Posts: 2
Joined: September 6, 2000
Status: offline
|
I am a PT student and I have heard a lot about how there is a surplus of PTs in the United States and the job outlook is not so good. Now, I was wondering if this went for all areas of PT. I am planning to become a PT in the area of pediatrics. How do I find out what the job outlook is for this particular area?
Laura
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT job outlook - October 4, 2000 1:07:00 PM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball, MS, PT
Posts: 500
Joined: October 8, 1999
From: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Status: offline
|
You may want to take a look at the PED-PT listserv and ask the question there.
You will need to subscribe first by e-mailing
Listserv@listserv.temple.edu
Send the e-mail, with no subject. In the body of the e-mail, write simply
Subscribe Ped-PT
That should do it.
_____________________________
Be aware that you're not going to get much of an objective nor particularly well-educated answer from anyone. When BBA went through, a lot of Acute and Rehab PT's jumped ship and found shelter in the school system. That pissed off a lot of pediatric PT's who are far more competent than the acute care defectors. I’ll admit I’m a little biased by my feelings about that whole situation. Anyway, my experience is that new graduates are far more competent than the “experienced” acute and rehab defectors because they tend to be more up to date on current literature and research than their “experienced” mentors, which would put you in a pretty good position.
Contrary to what you may be hearing, now is a GREAT time to be going to physical therapy school, especially if you’re in a DPT program. Many faculties have a 1:2 faculty to student ratio . . . now THAT’s some personal attention. Furthermore, dropping enrollment will translate into a balance, and eventual shortage of PT’s within the next 5 to 10 years. The golden age of PT is over, no doubt about that, but this kind of thing is cyclical for most professions . . . engineering, nursing, etc. The mistake we made was not doing some outcomes research during the golden-era . . . everyone was too focused on the money, and not focused enough on the patient. Things will swing around, perhaps not the days of old, but the expected surplus of PT’s won’t last for long if most PT schools are only filling 50%-75% of their classes. (Don’t get pissed anybody. Yes, I know that some of the big gun, big names like Duke and UNC have seated full classes . . . I’m sure there are others like USC, but most schools are hovering at about 50%).
My generation of PT colleagues are just beginning to accept that as a condition of being a physical therapy profession. Conducting research AND publishing is a professional responsibility. This isn’t even a question for today’s graduates. Most fully understand that they can’t survive on the laurels of, “I’m a clinician, I don’t want to do research.” That’s why many experienced PT’s resent DPT’s. They see no better clinical skills upon graduation. That may be true, but the POTENTIAL to be a great clinician is FAR greater. In general, DPT’s (graduates within the past 5 years) understand research and can dissect B.S. from not. There are a few entry-level MS and MPT students (graduates from 5 to 10 years ago) who can do this, but it’s not as common as it should be. The BS trained students (graduates from 10 years or more ago) never cared about research, it just wasn’t their business, to them, PT was generally more of an art than a science. This is not a commentary on the degree, but rather a commentary on the evolution of the profession over the past few years.
IF YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW TO READ RESEARCH, THEN YOU CAN’T POSSIBLY APPLY IT TO CLINICAL PRACTICE. FURTHERMORE, IF YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND RESEARCH, THEN YOU CAN’T POSSIBLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE EVIDENCE-BASE OF PHYSICAL THERAPY.
And if you can’t contribute, then you’re not living up to your responsibility as a professional.
That said, you’ve got to LIVE YOUR BLISS. Be a pediatric PT because you love it, not because of the money (there isn’t much), and not because you think that the kids will appreciate it (many don’t), and not because you think that the parents will be appreciatie (most are, but there are a few that would rather you just get the hell out of their house) . . . and they’ll make you think long and hard about why you’re doing what you’re doing.
Be a pediatric PT because you love it. Be a pediatric PT because you want to be able to say, “I effected a positive change in that kid that he’ll take with him for the rest of his life. Because of me, he’s safer in movement. Because of me he’s more efficient and can walk farther. Because of me he can keep up with his friends. Because of me he’s happier than he’d otherwise have been.”
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT job outlook - October 5, 2000 6:42:00 PM
|
|
|
JSSSH
Posts: 45
Joined: September 10, 2000
From: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Status: offline
|
I guess this is kind of related. I am a student and haven't learned enough to be sure what field I want to get into yet. Do you think it is better to have placements in different areas to get a taste of everything? But will that minimize my employment chance because I will not have as much experience in any area as others?
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT job outlook - October 7, 2000 6:43:00 PM
|
|
|
Shawn Murphy
Posts: 7
Joined: October 6, 2000
From: Cedar Falls IA USA
Status: offline
|
I agree that the "Golden Era" of physical therapy is over. I disagree with the reason why it ended. I feel the primary demise of our reimbursement is not the lack of research, but the overpricing of services in the past. It is foolish to believe that the government/insurance agencies would continue paying top dollar for icepack/e-stim treatments. I feel that many therapists, not all, became greedy and abused the system by overcharging and undertreating patients/insurance/government. Thus creating a system that needed to be reformed. I feel that these reforms, which therapists caused themselves, led to the end of the Golden Age of PT. No doubt that these reforms have gone way too far and has caused our profession to go through some hard times that hopefully will continue to get better.
I also disagrre with you saying that new graduates are more competent then experienced PTs. I have my MSPT and feel I would be a much better clinician, If I would have two years of experience instead of two years of schooling.
Exuse my spelling and grammer mistakes as I realise this is a weakness I have
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT job outlook - October 7, 2000 7:55:00 PM
|
|
|
Rose
Posts: 122
Joined: September 19, 1999
From: Ohio
Status: offline
|
I agree with you,Shawn, totally. I have been a therapist for 33 years and have seen the "rape" of the system. I have seen a lot....heard a lot.....but it wasn't always the therpists. The people we worked for expected "recycling" of nursing home patients...etc..etc..etc. Lost a job over that issue myself.....
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT job outlook - October 7, 2000 8:06:00 PM
|
|
|
Shawn Murphy
Posts: 7
Joined: October 6, 2000
From: Cedar Falls IA USA
Status: offline
|
That is an excellant point Rose, often it is those who the therapists work for. I am sorry you lost a job , but you kept your honor which is more important. I thank you and other therapists like that made sacrifices for the good of our profession.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT job outlook - October 8, 2000 7:30:00 AM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball, MS, PT
Posts: 500
Joined: October 8, 1999
From: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Status: offline
|
Shawn,
This is not intended to belittle, it's intended to be "tough love". You had a little difficulty telling the difference once before, so I want to make sure we're clear . . .
Entry-level competence is a moving target. Practicing PT's are therefore not capable of assessing their own skills. (That's clearly established in the literature, e-mail me if you'd like references). They tend to use their own abilities as a golden standard for what a student should look like upon graduation. Two years out, and you don't have the abilities to even assess entry-level competence in most cases.
For example, entry-level competence now includes full course in (for example):
Radiographic Imaging
Pharmacology
Histology/Pathology
Research AND PUBLICATION
Evidence-based practice
Speaking for myself, I had some of this in PT school, but I'm not anywhere near entry-level competence for imaging. I don't know how to order and read an X-ray, do you? Some say "When we're allowed to do that by law, then I'll learn". Those kind of comments miss the point though, "experienced" PT's don't realize that you've got to establish the competency BEFORE asking for the laws to be changed.
My research and publication skills were not tuned until after completion of my fellowship, and well into my MBA/PhD. How many research articles have you published? If none, SURPRISE, you're no longer at entry-level pal.
You said that, "I have my MSPT and feel I would be a much better clinician, If I would have two years of experience instead of two years of schooling." No. You wouldn't have. You'd be a better technician perhaps, with all of the errors in practice passed down from your "experienced" mentor down to you. Go ahead and become and expert in strain-counterstrain, for example. A DPT student wouldn't waste their time because they'd know that SCS is based upon neurophysiologic theory that is just planly incorrect. Humans don't have a gamma-motor bias! So you'd have wasted 2 years becoming an expert technician, and they'd still be the superior clinician for NOT using the bogus technique. Sorry.
That may be harshly but, but based upon some of your previous postings Shawn, these kids are light years ahead of you when it comes to literature searches and MEDLINE sweeps. The above is just an example of how these kids are gonna pass you if you don't admit that to yourself. Don't feel bad about that, it's just a fact of life, and you're not alone. New graduates tend to be better prepared than most "experienced" clinicians in this regard.
Does this make them better clinicians upon graduation? No, of course not. What it does is better equips them to practice scientifically, with peppering of clinical art . . . as opposed to the other way around. What it does is allow them to tease out bullshit from not. Over the course of a career, this will make them far more LIKELY efficient and effective clinicians than you or I were upon graduation.
You can hold whatever bias you like, but the research (get just about any copy of JOPTE) seems to be stacking against you. So if you want to maintian your bias, you should get cracking with doing some education research, and publish quickly. Would you even know how to get started with that? Anyway, DPT student, fully trained and experienced in these skills, WILL BE a more competent, efficient, and effective clinician than you're likely to be when you both reach 5 years post-graduation. Sorry if that pisses you off, but the facts are the facts.
So, what can you do? For starters, make MEDLINE your friend. Most PT's are afraid of it cause they don't know how to use it. Those that do, complain that it takes to long to get the information that they're looking for.
Personally, I didn't get all that great with searching until I was about half-way through my post-graduate pediatric fellowship. I was able to cut down average time of search from about 45 minutes to 20 minutes. While doing an MBA, I got skilled enough to cut that down to about 90 seconds in most cases.
I'd be happy to mentor you (or anyone else) through a couple of helpful tips if you like.
Respectfully,
Andrew M. Ball, MS, MBA, PT
P.S. I know that was a little hard to swallow, so if you're ever in Chapel Hill, let me know and I'll buy ya a beer to make up for it.
[This message has been edited by Andrew M. Ball, MS, PT (edited October 08, 2000).]
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT job outlook - October 9, 2000 8:51:00 AM
|
|
|
mcap
Posts: 652
Joined: February 8, 2000
Status: offline
|
Drew:
This has been a topic of previous controversy but I feel that I must make my opinion known. I think that the DPT will be good for the profession and I applaud the efforts and skills being imparted in those programs. But Drew, you greatly overestimate the difference.
Am I in a position to judge. Maybe not. But I have solid credentials. I have an MS, and I am working on an MA possibly a PhD in biomechanics and ergonomics. I lecture on the spine to two physical therapy programs and I work with DPT students all the time. A DPT student is not at the level of a clinician with experience and an advanced degree. Let's look at some of your contentions:
1. Publishing. How many DPT students have actually published their work?
2. Radiology - First of all these PTs will not be able to order an imaging studies. Second, one or two courses is not a substitute for the years of training that physicians go through.
3. Research - Sorry - but many of my classmates and myself were quite proficient with Medline right out of school. I will match my research skills with any new DPT grad. By the way.....Cinhal actually has more relevant information in many cases.
4. Histology/Patho/Pharm - This is already part of most entry level curriclu. I had them all.
Drew, I respect your credentials thouroughly but you are very biased on this topic. You are planning to teach in one of these programs.
I like the idea of the DPT. I even wish I had one [IMG]http://www.rehabedge.com/forums/smile.gif[/IMG] But I am not motivated by fear or jealousy. I have worked extremely hard since graduating and ANY entry level trained therapist, DPT or not, has a lot of work to do before catching up.
Respectfully submitted,
MCAP
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT job outlook - October 9, 2000 11:44:00 AM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball, MS, PT
Posts: 500
Joined: October 8, 1999
From: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Status: offline
|
Perhaps I do overstate the difference Mcap. But you and I are the exceptions, not the rule. Both of us have gone on for more education. Both of us view physical therapy as a science first, art second. With more “experienced” PT’s that you and I, that’s usually not the case.
You asked a few questions that I'm not sure if they were rhetorical or you wanted an answer to.
1. Publishing. How many DPT students have actually published their work? Not many yet, but that's changing. Duke, Slippery Rock, USC, and Creigton strongly encourage publication. This is occruing with greater and greater frequency.
2. Radiology - I agree that it's going to be a while before we're able to order imaging, here in the US but it's commonplace in say, Austraila. Also, DC's order radiographs with one or two classes (not that I want to hold PT up to that "standard")
3. Research - Again, there are some schools that were more proficient than others in this area. I'd argue that that really depends on the school, and how recently you graduated as to how MEDLINE/Cinhal/Psychlit savvy you are.
4. Histology/Patho/Pharm - This is already part of most entry level curriclu. I had them all. You did, I did, but I'd suggest that you either graduated from a program in the NorthEast, or graduated within the past 5 to 7 years. These are classes only "recently" defined as entry-level. In a way you've proven my point about the "moving target" that is entry-level competence.
As for being biased, perhaps. But it's more a commentary on my allegance to leaders in the APTA Dept of Education, not because I have any formal affiliation with any DPT program. All the schools I work with are MPT, and the faculty positions that I'm looking into are all MPT programs. I will not likely be hired for a DPT program until my PhD is completed . . . not that I wouldn't accept one if offered (hint, hint).
I'd suggest Mcap, that we're not the rule in physical therapy. Not many PT's continue their education. Not many care to be evidence-based. You've complained about it on this very forum. Were that the case, there would never have been a need for the DPT in the first place. Sure, NOW DPT discussion centers more on program survival than eduation . . . but that's not how or why it started.
There are some programs that have simply flipped a page and POOF MPT to DPT. I reject that concept. My DPT experiences have been limited primarily to Duke students and they are impressive. More impressive than about a quarter of the "experienced" PT's that I've worked with over the years . . . and their potential for growth and leadership is far greater.
The point is, getting back to the original posting . . . is that opinions, even among professional friends and allies, differ significantly. Perhaps that's the best message for lauracate to take away from this thread. Understand your potential employer, and learn how to market yourself accordingly.
Respectfully,
Andrew M. Ball, MS, MBA, PT
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT job outlook - October 9, 2000 5:07:00 PM
|
|
|
Shawn Murphy
Posts: 7
Joined: October 6, 2000
From: Cedar Falls IA USA
Status: offline
|
I strongly disagree with your statement that people are only better technicians after two years of practicing with there BS. That would be true if they blindly accepted how other physical therapists practice as gospel and simply tried to copy them. If they did this I would agree they would only be better technician. If anybody did this they would only be better technicians, it wouldn't matter if they had a BS, MS, or DPT.
I have learned alot from more experienced therapists and I have learned alot from doing/reading research, but I judge it all on anatomy, biomechanics, common sense, and most importantly PATIENT RESPONSE before I accept it as the truth.
No doubt research has helped develop my treatment approaches. Research done by BSs, MSs, DPTs, and PhDs.
A person can read all known literature on a sunrise. Poems about them, science behind them, and artwork, but if a person has never watched a sunrise, they know very little about a sunrise in my book.
As always I appologize about spelling and grammer
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT job outlook - October 9, 2000 5:32:00 PM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball, MS, PT
Posts: 500
Joined: October 8, 1999
From: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Status: offline
|
Looks like we've started an all out controversy here. I think that Shawn and I have made our opposite opinions fairly clearly voiced. Instead of the two of us continuing to badger each other back and forth, I'd like to open this up for more interactive and inclusive discussion. This is a BIG issue in physical therapy right now. What do others think?
I'd like to hear from everyone. Experienced PT's. New Graduates. Students. Faculty. Everyone.
This is a great topic that lauracate started here, deserving of some kind of "TOPIC OF THE MONTH" award. Anyway, I'd suspect we're going to have very polarized responses from this point forward. It's been rather professional to date, so let's try to keep it that way.
Drew
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT job outlook - October 9, 2000 6:15:00 PM
|
|
|
Shawn Murphy
Posts: 7
Joined: October 6, 2000
From: Cedar Falls IA USA
Status: offline
|
HOLY COW we agree on something Drew 8)
This is a huge issue in PT right now, and one that should be debated by all of us.
Murph
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT job outlook - October 10, 2000 7:21:00 AM
|
|
|
mcap
Posts: 652
Joined: February 8, 2000
Status: offline
|
SJ:
I definitely agree with many of your points. This might be a lot of extra preparation and expense for performing basically the same job, at the same money and under the same conditions as previously. Many of the students I work with are about to get themselves into 6 figure debt and they have no idea of how hard it is to pay the money back (until I make it clear for them [IMG]http://www.rehabedge.com/forums/frown.gif[/IMG]
And yes, we may never order X-rays or have direct access that is reimbursible.
BUT, if we are ever to move in that direction, then this could be a first step. We all lament the lack of evidence based practice in our profession. Perhaps these programs will do a better job. I guess the only question is "Why isn't evidence based practice being taught at the Master's level??? And, if the faculties aren't changing substantially, will the results change substantially.
I don't know the answer to these questions. But if you look at the pharmacy profession, they have instituted the entry level doctorate. I don't know about the sucess but it seems like a good idea. The PharmD grads are supposed to be able to participate in more research and clinical areas.
Further, SJ...you can never underestimate the affect on public perception. You may want to take the high road on this one, and I applaud, but the title does affect public perception. Look at what it has done for our chiropractor friends.
I see both sides of the argument. The degree may not change the way we work and function. And, financially, three years of debt at an expensive school is certainly not worth the payoff at the other end. But if P.T. is going to move in the right direction this could be part of it. It will certainly not be the only part but it could help.
Previously I heard talk of trying to create an entity like the nurse practicioner or P.A. It would be a primary care P.T. who would see certain patients and could order films and prescribe some medications (in the army...currently they can). This would have been worth our efforts. And maybe this could have been tied to the DPT along with additional training and credentials. But I think the momentum isn't there for this.
mcap
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT job outlook - October 10, 2000 9:56:00 AM
|
|
|
Shawn Murphy
Posts: 7
Joined: October 6, 2000
From: Cedar Falls IA USA
Status: offline
|
mcap
I feel that the chiropractors success has much more to do with a unified profession with a very strong professional organization then the letters behind their name.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT job outlook - October 10, 2000 10:06:00 AM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball, MS, PT
Posts: 500
Joined: October 8, 1999
From: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Status: offline
|
Good points, both of you. Hence the controversy. Before we continue two quick points of clarification:
FIRST POINT:
The DPT is not normally intended to be a research degree per se. The DPT is supposed to be better trained to access and apply research . . . not necessarily to conduct it independently. There is however a professional value instilled in these kids that research is important and that helping PhD's collect data while in the clinic is valuable for the profession (that's how most of 'em intend to brind research to the clinic - through faculty/clinic links). The DPT is a clinician first, no different than the MPT in that regard. There is however intended to be a greater understanding and appreciation of research. In comparison to some of the newly graduated MPT's, you're right SJ, there should be no difference because BOTH are trying to graduate clinicians at entry-level competency. I use DPT, MPT, BS in terms of distance from current graduation (e.g DPT = today's graduates, MPT = 5 to 10 years ago, BS = more than 10), when it's not really appropriate to do so. I think my terminology confuses a little bit. A 2000 MPT graduate should = a 2000 DPT graduate in terms of entry-level competence. By that standard, maybe I think all graduates 2000 and beyond should be awarded DPT regardless of the program they graduate from. Maybe not, but that's a topic for further discussion here.
SECOND POINT:
The DPT is intended (at least this is what I got from my discussions with Jan Richardson), to move the profession toward use of the DPT in independent, evidence-based, primary care practice. I get the feeling, from recently meeting with a Slippery Rock (where Dr. Richardson formerly directed) student that independent primary care is the thrust where there too. I can't speak to Crieghton, Stan Paris Institute of PT, or any of the others, cause I don't have any contact other than an informal one with the CardioPulmonary prof. at Criegton . . . and the last time we spoke was when we went whitewater rafting about 2 years ago (By the way Angela, congrats!) . . . anyway, I digress.
Having spoken at length with Helen Hislop (former Editor of the Journal, former Director at USC, Lifetime member of the APTA . . . and I think, the first woman in the profession to earn a PhD) over the past few months, I get the impression that USC has a different vision, a far more research oriented one, but that's just my impression.
Sue Campbell and I haven't spoken or e-mailed in a while (for no other reason than we're both busy), so I'm not sure what she and Dr. Rothstien have cooked up over there, but I'd assume it's somewhere in between my perceptions of USC and Duke.
This leads me to observe that we all (Shawn, SJ, Mcap, and myself, may be basing our statements upon the differing values of the DPT program themselves). For the most part, we all seem to agree (with small differences) on the value (or not) of the DPT on a point by point basis. We all seem to have one of two visions as to what the DPT actually is. I'm wondering if that's biased by the APTA, or by the individual programs that we've worked with.
We've got a lot of the usuals chiming in, what about those who usually lurk in the darkeness? What do ya'll think? No opinion is wrong, and whatever you think, between SJ, Mcap, Shawn, and myself . . . at least one of us will have your back!
Drew
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT job outlook - October 10, 2000 12:50:00 PM
|
|
|
Dana D
Posts: 142
Joined: September 18, 1999
Status: offline
|
I am confused as to the criteria for achieving certain degrees in the field of PT.
It seems that within a range of 2-5 years you could have any degree of PT, from BS, MS to DPT, (in no particular order)
I completed a 4 1/2 year bachelors degree in
Dec. 1998... (wow, time flies)...
But the reason it was longer than a typical 4 year program, was because we were undergoing accreditation by CAPTE... so, the following year, the program became a master's program, with Yes, the exact same curriculum..
Drew, I have a question for you: the entry level competence you stated, is that for a BS, MS, or DPT degree? or is entry level PT entry level???
You had stated:
"For example, entry-level competence now includes full course in (for example):
Radiographic Imaging
Pharmacology
Histology/Pathology
Research AND PUBLICATION
Evidence-based practice"
With my BS degree...I took pharmacology, histology, designed and conducted a year long research project...learning about the procedures of research, the presentation of data, etc...
Yes, I used medline, cinahl, etc...became proficient in evidence based practice.. Our program was designed around Problem based learning... which focuses on research... for the majority of our classes, we did not get spoon fed information... we were presented with case studies, questions, had to find supporting articles, share information... etc...
So, in your eyes, does that qualify my degree for entry level?
A co-worker of mine, completed the same curriculum at a different university, in 2 years (because she had a previous bachelors degree) and earned a master's degree... Now what makes the two different?
are we both entry level? if so, what's the difference between the master's degree and the bachelors?
Nothing makes them different... there is not difference in salary, there is no difference in course work preparation, no difference in our exposure to PT... we each had to do 4 affiliations...and we each had to graduate and pass the same boards...
What I feel makes two therapists different is more internal...what their career goals are, work ethic, desire to learn, other life responsibilities... etc... I think it is more related to personal differences than degree difference...
So, after all that... what is the difference between a PT with a BS, a PT with an MS and a PT with a DPT who all graduated, say yesterday... all with the same type of clinical affilations......all without previous experience in the field (for ex. they were not a PTA or AT for years) when they start their first new job tomorrow, all in the same setting, what is the difference between them, on paper, degree wise? who is more prepared to assume a staff PT position?
I have trouble finding much of a difference myself...
[This message has been edited by Dana D (edited October 10, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Dana D (edited October 10, 2000).]
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT job outlook - October 10, 2000 3:03:00 PM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball, MS, PT
Posts: 500
Joined: October 8, 1999
From: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Status: offline
|
Wait! Wait! Wait!
We need to define some terminology here. The confusion seems to be that some of us are using DPT, MS, BS to define the degree obtained be it today or in 1950 . . .
Others (like me) are using DPT to define entry-level 1995-2000 (be the degree awarded BS, MS, or BS), MS to define entry-level 1990-1995, and BS to define entry-level previous to 1990.
I'm looking at what the predominant entry-level degree offered was as certain points in history. So Dana, in graduating 4.5 years ago, your BS would in fact be (for the purposes of my discussion) a MS that was darn near DPT. That's very different than a BS earned 15 years ago . . . that in my mind is a "true" BS.
The point is that new graduates have a better eye toward continuing their education. The biggest practical difference that I see in DPT students upon graduation, due to their residency year, is that they are better equipped to "hit the ground running" than MS students because they TEND TO have more supervised/mentored clinical time built into their programs. They tend to have better research skills simply because most of them do their research projects independently, as opposed to in groups, but even that's beginning to change at some MPT programs.
My position is this. Everyone graduating with entry-level competence 2000 SHOULD be awarded a doctorate. By the way, NO ONE in the APTA leadership agrees with me on that point, or at least no one has voiced that to me. I think that today's entry-level competence demands that the clinician keep up with the evidence-based literature and apply it to the art of clinical practice . . . as opposed to the other way around. This is is STARK CONTRAST to the "tone" of the profession prior to say 1985. I think we can all agree that PT graduates 2000 are FAR more evidence-based, and often more knowledgeable about the literature than their experienced mentors who graduated 10 or 20 years ago. The latter may be an expert TECHNICIAN, but who cares if you're an expert in SCS if there is no such thing as human gamma-motor neuron bias?
Drew
[This message has been edited by Andrew M. Ball, MS, PT (edited October 10, 2000).]
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PT job outlook - October 17, 2000 7:40:00 AM
|
|
|
SamCopp
Posts: 10
Joined: January 31, 2000
From: Bolivar, MO. USA
Status: offline
|
Hello Fellow PT's:
I have been reading with great interest about the DPT, however I want to try to answer a few of the original questions that the students raised. I work as a DOCE at one of the MPT programs in the Midwest. I suggest that we try to stick to the need of the students, above all else.
Regarding the pediatrics question: From my numorous and continuous contact with clinicians at our many sites, midwestern peds sites and other centers have just recovered from an "attrition" problem. As PT's quit, retired, or moved on during the past year, they were not being replaced, due to budgetary constraints and pressing insurance changes. This resulted in a wopping 40% drop in open slots for our students, across the board. Some peds sites have recovered and are doing well-the ones that went off site to handle home health and in school contracts. I can refer you to a center in Springfield, MO that has added 6 PT's in 1.5 years, serving over 600 kids, up from 200.
Jobs are bouncing back, as evidenced by many more listings in things from Director to staff PT. (see the PT web page for job listings).
The majority of clinicians who I have spoken to are not for the DPT at this time. The arguments for and against it (from both the academic and the clinician viewpoints) were also on the web page or PT Bulletin a while back.
I advise our MPT students to first fulfill their graduation requirements. Next, fulfill their career aspirations to build your portfolio and to be competitive. Next, observe on off hours at places that may help to build your portfolio of experiences or that you are curious about. Some of our students attend mission trips to India to help see love and service in action, others observe even during their regularly scheduled rotations in an area that he or she had wanted to affiliate in, but were not able to obtain. We encourage students to initiate contact at a new site for either purposes of recruitment or added exposure to an area of interest.
I hope that the above sheds light on the issues that you raised.
Last of all, I think that if we (the commenting PT's) view ourselves as "professionals", that our language should reflect this. Use of terms like p---ed off, b---sh--, etc. are not indicative of this nor appreciated, in my opinion.
SC
|
|
|
|
 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 |
|
0.141
|
Printable Version
All Forums >> [RehabEdge Forum] >> Open Forum >> PT job outlook 
