Guest guest Posted April 15, 2010 Report Share Posted April 15, 2010 On 8:13am April 15th, 2010 Jessica Feltz W... said on Blog: considering that Dort Bigg resigned his 14-year-position as ACAOM's Executive Director last month and no replacement has been hired, I am not entirely surprised that an organizational response is lacking. --------------------------- I communicated a TEN DAY DEMAND (similar to the CAN complaint) to Mr Bigg and ACAOM on March 12th, 2010 with a copy to the USDE Secretary Arne Duncan and to date I have not heard from anyone at ACAOM and certainly not from Mr. Bigg. There is absolutely no excuse for their lack of response. Apparently such an organization needs to have their accreditation status investigated by USDE and if appropriate......it should be rescinded. The USDE rescinded the accreditation status in the naturopathic world several times in the past so it has been done before. Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2010 Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 Don Regardless whether YOU believe that FPD was a good thing (you are entitled to your beliefs) and I to my beliefs (which is that FPD was not a good thing at this time in this way). One thing which definitely needs to come on top in the process is HONESTY in these proceedings and not special interest groups agendas. The organization stated that CONSENSUS was needed to move ahead. CONSENSUS was NOT reached by a long shot. Not even by the farthest stretch of one's imagination. Therefore the process of moving ahead with the FPD........ FAILED. Richard In a message dated 4/16/2010 11:23:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, don83407 writes: Many of us wrote them with our desire for a FPD. I think the FPD is a good thing. We are not going to get total agreement on this topic, there are no topics that do. Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2010 Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 Many of us wrote them with our desire for a FPD. I think the FPD is a good thing. We are not going to get total agreement on this topic, there are no topics that do. Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. Chinese Medicine CC: habeas_1; ORIENTALMEDICIN; hkaltsas acudoc11 Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:11:39 -0400 ACAOM and Complaint about FPD On 8:13am April 15th, 2010 Jessica Feltz W... said on Blog: considering that Dort Bigg resigned his 14-year-position as ACAOM's Executive Director last month and no replacement has been hired, I am not entirely surprised that an organizational response is lacking. --------------------------- I communicated a TEN DAY DEMAND (similar to the CAN complaint) to Mr Bigg and ACAOM on March 12th, 2010 with a copy to the USDE Secretary Arne Duncan and to date I have not heard from anyone at ACAOM and certainly not from Mr. Bigg. There is absolutely no excuse for their lack of response. Apparently such an organization needs to have their accreditation status investigated by USDE and if appropriate......it should be rescinded. The USDE rescinded the accreditation status in the naturopathic world several times in the past so it has been done before. Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 Michael Thanks for allowing me my own opinion...as well. Mine is just as VALID as yours! Studies? That's what I am asking for from ACAOM. Where are their studies? Richard In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:31:54 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: Richard, That is your opinion as well. How do you know or better where are your studies? At some point, we need to allow our leadership to lead. I expect that of them as well. We are not asking them to keep us where we have been largely due to an uneducated profession. Over the years, we have expected a lot from them and they continue to move us forward. Now you want to go backwards, why? I also think that the FPD is necessary for our future existence. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 M I am as much a stakeholder as the next person. Furthermore....they OWE EVERY stakeholder the TRUTH and HONESTY in all dealings. What is over the top or not is NOT for you to decide. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by USDE is way over the top for something like this. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 Richard, That is your opinion as well. How do you know or better where are your studies? At some point, we need to allow our leadership to lead. I expect that of them as well. We are not asking them to keep us where we have been largely due to an uneducated profession. Over the years, we have expected a lot from them and they continue to move us forward. Now you want to go backwards, why? I also think that the FPD is necessary for our future existence. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:31:05 -0400 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD Don Regardless whether YOU believe that FPD was a good thing (you are entitled to your beliefs) and I to my beliefs (which is that FPD was not a good thing at this time in this way). One thing which definitely needs to come on top in the process is HONESTY in these proceedings and not special interest groups agendas. The organization stated that CONSENSUS was needed to move ahead. CONSENSUS was NOT reached by a long shot. Not even by the farthest stretch of one's imagination. Therefore the process of moving ahead with the FPD........ FAILED. Richard In a message dated 4/16/2010 11:23:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, don83407 writes: Many of us wrote them with our desire for a FPD. I think the FPD is a good thing. We are not going to get total agreement on this topic, there are no topics that do. Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 Many of the past professional decisions were met with resistance to change as well. We can get through it and be better. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > Chinese Traditional Medicine > don83407 > Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:23:23 -0500 > RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > Many of us wrote them with our desire for a FPD. I think the FPD is a good thing. We are not going to get total agreement on this topic, there are no topics that do. > > > > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > > > Chinese Medicine > CC: habeas_1; ORIENTALMEDICIN; hkaltsas > acudoc11 > Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:11:39 -0400 > ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > On 8:13am April 15th, 2010 Jessica Feltz W... said on Blog: > > > considering that Dort Bigg resigned his 14-year-position as ACAOM's > Executive Director last month and no replacement has been hired, I am not entirely > surprised that an organizational response is lacking. > --------------------------- > I communicated a TEN DAY DEMAND (similar to the CAN complaint) to Mr Bigg > and ACAOM on March 12th, 2010 with a copy to the USDE Secretary Arne Duncan > and to date I have not heard from anyone at ACAOM and certainly not from > Mr. Bigg. > > There is absolutely no excuse for their lack of response. > > Apparently such an organization needs to have their accreditation status > investigated by USDE and if appropriate......it should be rescinded. > > The USDE rescinded the accreditation status in the naturopathic world > several times in the past so it has been done before. > > Richard > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 M And I think it odd that you would think they don't OWE EVERYONE a response! By the way I am not alone.......or odd in asking/demanding --- actually it is our right to DEMAND. Out of the 3,000 responses to the FPD (from a sea of 30,000 stakeholders) there were approximately 2,100 AGAINST the FPD. So WHY do you believe that your VOTE counts more than the majority of the 3,000 which was against? Not to forget that the REAL MAJORITY voiced NO opinion. Go back and look up the word CONSENSUS and you shall have one answer. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by USDE is way over the top for something like this. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 M If one CHEATED in school and got caught........would it be way over the top to consider EXPELLING such a student? Actually suspending accreditation granting status is not much more than a slap on the wrists. It will send an appropriate message to get their house in order and keep it in order. Losing accreditation granting status would be way over the top and devastating. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by USDE is way over the top for something like this. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 R, I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by USDE is way over the top for something like this. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine CC: habeas_1; ORIENTALMEDICIN; hkaltsas acudoc11 Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:11:39 -0400 ACAOM and Complaint about FPD On 8:13am April 15th, 2010 Jessica Feltz W... said on Blog: considering that Dort Bigg resigned his 14-year-position as ACAOM's Executive Director last month and no replacement has been hired, I am not entirely surprised that an organizational response is lacking. --------------------------- I communicated a TEN DAY DEMAND (similar to the CAN complaint) to Mr Bigg and ACAOM on March 12th, 2010 with a copy to the USDE Secretary Arne Duncan and to date I have not heard from anyone at ACAOM and certainly not from Mr. Bigg. There is absolutely no excuse for their lack of response. Apparently such an organization needs to have their accreditation status investigated by USDE and if appropriate......it should be rescinded. The USDE rescinded the accreditation status in the naturopathic world several times in the past so it has been done before. Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 M Obviously some simple math is being evade or made to not exist....... 30,000 stakeholders minus 3,000 responses equals 27,000 missing majority 3,000 response 2100 against (70% against) Bottom Line......ZERO CONSENSUS. Lets stop playing this broken record. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:09:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, You are welcome. Of course you can contribute but in the end we must also realize when things are changing. There have already been a couple of studies and likely there will be in the future, as nothing has yet been truly decided (this appears to be an issue for some). In reverse, where are the studies that show overwhelming rejection? I have not see any. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 M And I think ACAOM is NOT doing a fine job regardless of resources. Organizations such as ACAOM have a DUTY to PRODUCE everything and anything asked for. Just like any not-for-profit organization. Their detailed financial records and operational documents are WIDE OPEN to scrutiny for any of the public to request and investigate. That's the nature of being an accreditation granting organization. They come under the microscope just like they purportedly put the schools under same. You are incorrect - ACAOM does NOT decide FPD. Even ACAOM clearly delineated that it is CONSENSUS of ALL stakeholders which decide FPD. So why do YOU state something oddly different? You state you don't work for ACAOM but do you make money teaching at a school? I don't profit from running or teaching at a school. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:05:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, I think that ACAOM is doing a fine job, with the resources they have to use. I see no reason to get caught up in a witch hunt, when people are looking to hang them. Would you provide data or response to someone with an agenda to discredit you? I find this very odd behavior. I would prefer to see more people willing to get involved with making the process better and less about going backwards (change is inevitable and look where our profession has come). We are seeing many more people showing agreement on the FPD, at some point we must honestly ask when we are going to make it happen. If anything the ACAOM tends to move very slowly, which means that even if they were willing to start this change today, it would probably mean another decade or two before it really happened (possibly after we are done practicing). The future of our profession is much more interested in the FPD, and as it is their future, we really need to be looking to create it for them or they will leav e. As I do not currently work with ACAOM, it is not up to me to make this decision, nor is it up to you. You get an equal comment on this but in the end, they will decide and we need to more forward. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:34:53 -0400 Re: TCM - ACAOM and Complaint about FPD M I am as much a stakeholder as the next person. Furthermore....they OWE EVERY stakeholder the TRUTH and HONESTY in all dealings. What is over the top or not is NOT for you to decide. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by USDE is way over the top for something like this. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] _______________ The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar & ocid=PID28 326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --- Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia To change your email delivery settings, click, and adjust accordingly. Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group requires prior permission from the author. Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 M You can write till the cows fly over the moon and it will not change my opinion. What appears to have taken place needs investigation by USDE and THEY will be the ones who will decide to suspend accreditation granting status or not. And this is a BIG DEAL especially if they have violated their own stated procedures....just like schools get suspended by ACAOM. If a school has trouble running properly according to the procedures their status is pulled and the same should go for ACAOM. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:01:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, Students do cheat, even in our programs as much as in normal college. BTW,That still changes nothing. Suspension is not warranted at this time. I I would think that the Naturopathic organization had a more issues of a larger concern. That's stop making things larger then they really are. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:42:13 -0400 Re: TCM - ACAOM and Complaint about FPD M If one CHEATED in school and got caught........would it be way over the top to consider EXPELLING such a student? Actually suspending accreditation granting status is not much more than a slap on the wrists. It will send an appropriate message to get their house in order and keep it in order. Losing accreditation granting status would be way over the top and devastating. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by USDE is way over the top for something like this. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] _______________ The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount & ocid=PID283 26::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --- Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia To change your email delivery settings, click, and adjust accordingly. Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group requires prior permission from the author. Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 M And I think ACAOM is NOT doing a fine job regardless of resources. Organizations such as ACAOM have a DUTY to PRODUCE everything and anything asked for. Just like any not-for-profit organization. Their detailed financial records and operational documents are WIDE OPEN to scrutiny for any of the public to request and investigate. That's the nature of being an accreditation granting organization. They come under the microscope just like they purportedly put the schools under same. You are incorrect - ACAOM does NOT decide FPD. Even ACAOM clearly delineated that it is CONSENSUS of ALL stakeholders which decide FPD. So why do YOU state something oddly different? You state you don't work for ACAOM but do you make money teaching at a school? I don't profit from running or teaching at a school. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:05:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, I think that ACAOM is doing a fine job, with the resources they have to use. I see no reason to get caught up in a witch hunt, when people are looking to hang them. Would you provide data or response to someone with an agenda to discredit you? I find this very odd behavior. I would prefer to see more people willing to get involved with making the process better and less about going backwards (change is inevitable and look where our profession has come). We are seeing many more people showing agreement on the FPD, at some point we must honestly ask when we are going to make it happen. If anything the ACAOM tends to move very slowly, which means that even if they were willing to start this change today, it would probably mean another decade or two before it really happened (possibly after we are done practicing). The future of our profession is much more interested in the FPD, and as it is their future, we really need to be looking to create it for them or they will leav e. As I do not currently work with ACAOM, it is not up to me to make this decision, nor is it up to you. You get an equal comment on this but in the end, they will decide and we need to more forward. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:34:53 -0400 Re: TCM - ACAOM and Complaint about FPD M I am as much a stakeholder as the next person. Furthermore....they OWE EVERY stakeholder the TRUTH and HONESTY in all dealings. What is over the top or not is NOT for you to decide. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by USDE is way over the top for something like this. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] _______________ The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar & ocid=PID28 326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --- Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia To change your email delivery settings, click, and adjust accordingly. Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group requires prior permission from the author. Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 Furthermore it is not only ODD but highly SUSPECT that there are 3 Members of ACAOM who run and/or own schools or heavily involved with AOM schools. ACAOM is a quasi-governmental agency or at least an organization with a governmental delegated important duty. As such like state Acupuncture Boards it is highly unethical to have Director Members who OWN and RUN schools or even teach Continuing Education courses. This is yet another area of concern. The proverbial.... fox guarding the chicken coop? Also...no one answers the question that with 60 college credit prerequisite entrance requirement and approximately 200 credits for the ACAOM accredited AOM program (so called funky Masters) is actually equivalent to a Bachelors, Masters AND more importantly a TRIPLE PhD. YES...that's right a TRIPLE PhD! So the Masters is ALREADY a PhD by credits alone. The AOM schools need to stop bilking prospective students interested in the field with more costly and worthless dream degrees. THIS is what will SCARE away prospective students. Richard In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:48:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kuangguiyu writes: Mike - I find it very odd behavior for one of our representing organizations to a). announce that they are seeking a CONSENSUS from the profession on moving forward with the FPD and b). receive an overwhelmingly negative response that they then c). interpret as " support " to go forward with their plan. Very odd behavior indeed IMO. And requesting that they, as a representing body for the profession, explain the logic behind such odd behavior is hardly a witch hunt. I would also prefer to see more people involved in bettering the process, but adding another - basically redundant - degree may not be the best way to move forward. You say that many more people are showing agreement on the FPD. What data are you referring to here? The only concrete data that I am aware of is the two-to-one negative response to the ACAOM's quest for consensus. You also say that the future of our profession is much more interested in the FPD - do you mean current and prospective students? And if so, where do you get the data to support that? And how does creating this new degree 'keep them from leaving'? It seems to me that tweaking our current IMO bloated Master's degree and making it more affordable - rather than more expensive, as the FPD would almost surely be - would advance the profession by making training more accessible to more people who may be interested in it. There are already doctorate programs in place for those who wish to go deeper, so the FPD doesn't really seem to be bringing anything new to the table. Why is the FPD such a necessity and how exactly does it advance the profession? Kim Blankenship, L.Ac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 R, Students do cheat, even in our programs as much as in normal college. BTW,That still changes nothing. Suspension is not warranted at this time. I I would think that the Naturopathic organization had a more issues of a larger concern. That's stop making things larger then they really are. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:42:13 -0400 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD M If one CHEATED in school and got caught........would it be way over the top to consider EXPELLING such a student? Actually suspending accreditation granting status is not much more than a slap on the wrists. It will send an appropriate message to get their house in order and keep it in order. Losing accreditation granting status would be way over the top and devastating. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by USDE is way over the top for something like this. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 R, I think that ACAOM is doing a fine job, with the resources they have to use. I see no reason to get caught up in a witch hunt, when people are looking to hang them. Would you provide data or response to someone with an agenda to discredit you? I find this very odd behavior. I would prefer to see more people willing to get involved with making the process better and less about going backwards (change is inevitable and look where our profession has come). We are seeing many more people showing agreement on the FPD, at some point we must honestly ask when we are going to make it happen. If anything the ACAOM tends to move very slowly, which means that even if they were willing to start this change today, it would probably mean another decade or two before it really happened (possibly after we are done practicing). The future of our profession is much more interested in the FPD, and as it is their future, we really need to be looking to create it for them or they will leave. As I do not currently work with ACAOM, it is not up to me to make this decision, nor is it up to you. You get an equal comment on this but in the end, they will decide and we need to more forward. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:34:53 -0400 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD M I am as much a stakeholder as the next person. Furthermore....they OWE EVERY stakeholder the TRUTH and HONESTY in all dealings. What is over the top or not is NOT for you to decide. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by USDE is way over the top for something like this. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 R, You are welcome. Of course you can contribute but in the end we must also realize when things are changing. There have already been a couple of studies and likely there will be in the future, as nothing has yet been truly decided (this appears to be an issue for some). In reverse, where are the studies that show overwhelming rejection? I have not see any. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:32:21 -0400 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD Michael Thanks for allowing me my own opinion...as well. Mine is just as VALID as yours! Studies? That's what I am asking for from ACAOM. Where are their studies? Richard In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:31:54 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: Richard, That is your opinion as well. How do you know or better where are your studies? At some point, we need to allow our leadership to lead. I expect that of them as well. We are not asking them to keep us where we have been largely due to an uneducated profession. Over the years, we have expected a lot from them and they continue to move us forward. Now you want to go backwards, why? I also think that the FPD is necessary for our future existence. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 Mike - I find it very odd behavior for one of our representing organizations to a). announce that they are seeking a CONSENSUS from the profession on moving forward with the FPD and b). receive an overwhelmingly negative response that they then c). interpret as " support " to go forward with their plan. Very odd behavior indeed IMO. And requesting that they, as a representing body for the profession, explain the logic behind such odd behavior is hardly a witch hunt. I would also prefer to see more people involved in bettering the process, but adding another - basically redundant - degree may not be the best way to move forward. You say that many more people are showing agreement on the FPD. What data are you referring to here? The only concrete data that I am aware of is the two-to-one negative response to the ACAOM's quest for consensus. You also say that the future of our profession is much more interested in the FPD - do you mean current and prospective students? And if so, where do you get the data to support that? And how does creating this new degree 'keep them from leaving'? It seems to me that tweaking our current IMO bloated Master's degree and making it more affordable - rather than more expensive, as the FPD would almost surely be - would advance the profession by making training more accessible to more people who may be interested in it. There are already doctorate programs in place for those who wish to go deeper, so the FPD doesn't really seem to be bringing anything new to the table. Why is the FPD such a necessity and how exactly does it advance the profession? Kim Blankenship, L.Ac. On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 5:04 PM, mike Bowser <naturaldoc1wrote: > > R, > > I think that ACAOM is doing a fine job, with the resources they have to > use. I see no reason to get caught up in a witch hunt, when people are > looking to hang them. Would you provide data or response to someone with an > agenda to discredit you? I find this very odd behavior. I would prefer to > see more people willing to get involved with making the process better and > less about going backwards (change is inevitable and look where our > profession has come). We are seeing many more people showing agreement on > the FPD, at some point we must honestly ask when we are going to make it > happen. If anything the ACAOM tends to move very slowly, which means that > even if they were willing to start this change today, it would probably mean > another decade or two before it really happened (possibly after we are done > practicing). The future of our profession is much more interested in the > FPD, and as it is their future, we really need to be looking to create it > for them or they will leave. As I do not currently work with ACAOM, it is > not up to me to make this decision, nor is it up to you. You get an equal > comment on this but in the end, they will decide and we need to more > forward. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > Chinese Medicine > acudoc11 > Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:34:53 -0400 > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M > > > > I am as much a stakeholder as the next person. > > > > Furthermore....they OWE EVERY stakeholder the TRUTH and HONESTY in all > > dealings. > > > > What is over the top or not is NOT for you to decide. > > > > R > > > > > > In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > > naturaldoc1 writes: > > > > R, > > > > I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by > > USDE is way over the top for something like this. > > > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 M Thank the system that this kind of thinking is not the order of the day. Enough is already in evidence. Let the investigation begin. R In a message dated 4/18/2010 10:21:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, Failure to respond to you is not a violation of anything. I do not consider that there is enough concern to ask for any sort of investigation. You have not provided enough data on violations up to this point. If there were, then I would say let the investigation begin. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 20:49:57 -0400 Re: TCM - ACAOM and Complaint about FPD M You can write till the cows fly over the moon and it will not change my opinion. What appears to have taken place needs investigation by USDE and THEY will be the ones who will decide to suspend accreditation granting status or not. And this is a BIG DEAL especially if they have violated their own stated procedures....just like schools get suspended by ACAOM. If a school has trouble running properly according to the procedures their status is pulled and the same should go for ACAOM. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:01:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, Students do cheat, even in our programs as much as in normal college. BTW,That still changes nothing. Suspension is not warranted at this time. I I would think that the Naturopathic organization had a more issues of a larger concern. That's stop making things larger then they really are. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:42:13 -0400 Re: TCM - ACAOM and Complaint about FPD M If one CHEATED in school and got caught........would it be way over the top to consider EXPELLING such a student? Actually suspending accreditation granting status is not much more than a slap on the wrists. It will send an appropriate message to get their house in order and keep it in order. Losing accreditation granting status would be way over the top and devastating. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by USDE is way over the top for something like this. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ________ The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount & ocid=PID283 26::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --- Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia To change your email delivery settings, click, and adjust accordingly. Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group requires prior permission from the author. Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 M As I responded to you before many times....I have been more than involved for the past 15 years. Instead of sitting on the sidelines why don't you involve yourself? Also.....this is not complaining! This is about being involved in the process. And again.....ACAOM does NOT determine FPD. Have you failed to read their documentation where even ACAOM states they do NOT? Such ideas are unfounded so why do you continue to present them? R In a message dated 4/18/2010 10:16:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, Maybe you should think about volunteering to help ACAOM instead of complaining. In the end, ACAOM will decide if we are going to have the FPD, they also decided upon the master's degree and took away the post-graduate OMD (CA). Involvement is not simply about pointing out ACAOM's failures as they have helped us to become a profession and not a bunch of unruly individuals from the 60's. Creating more chaos does little to help. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 20:50:14 -0400 Re: TCM - ACAOM and Complaint about FPD M And I think ACAOM is NOT doing a fine job regardless of resources. Organizations such as ACAOM have a DUTY to PRODUCE everything and anything asked for. Just like any not-for-profit organization. Their detailed financial records and operational documents are WIDE OPEN to scrutiny for any of the public to request and investigate. That's the nature of being an accreditation granting organization. They come under the microscope just like they purportedly put the schools under same. You are incorrect - ACAOM does NOT decide FPD. Even ACAOM clearly delineated that it is CONSENSUS of ALL stakeholders which decide FPD. So why do YOU state something oddly different? You state you don't work for ACAOM but do you make money teaching at a school? I don't profit from running or teaching at a school. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:05:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, I think that ACAOM is doing a fine job, with the resources they have to use. I see no reason to get caught up in a witch hunt, when people are looking to hang them. Would you provide data or response to someone with an agenda to discredit you? I find this very odd behavior. I would prefer to see more people willing to get involved with making the process better and less about going backwards (change is inevitable and look where our profession has come). We are seeing many more people showing agreement on the FPD, at some point we must honestly ask when we are going to make it happen. If anything the ACAOM tends to move very slowly, which means that even if they were willing to start this change today, it would probably mean another decade or two before it really happened (possibly after we are done practicing). The future of our profession is much more interested in the FPD, and as it is their future, we really need to be looking to create it for them or they will leav e. As I do not currently work with ACAOM, it is not up to me to make this decision, nor is it up to you. You get an equal comment on this but in the end, they will decide and we need to more forward. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:34:53 -0400 Re: TCM - ACAOM and Complaint about FPD M I am as much a stakeholder as the next person. Furthermore....they OWE EVERY stakeholder the TRUTH and HONESTY in all dealings. What is over the top or not is NOT for you to decide. R In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by USDE is way over the top for something like this. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ________ The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar & ocid=PID28 326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --- Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia To change your email delivery settings, click, and adjust accordingly. Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group requires prior permission from the author. Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 M NO excuse and NO room for conflict of interest! It's odd that you see exercising one's rights to be involved in the process as " complaining " . Too bad that more of the 27,000 silent majority don't speak out. Probably because they SEE how special interest groups work and that they feel it useless. As you can see.....I am,NOT one of them. R In a message dated 4/18/2010 10:11:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, I understand the conflict of interest as we had a local president of an acupuncture school, which was bought by a chiro college, and this same person became the president of the acu association. We are very small profession and so it is almost impossible that at some point you will not have this occur. I, like you, would like not to see it but we must also remember that doing things for the " profession " may not always appear to be what is best for an individual. Before we some organized professional association, we were all over the map, no standards whatsoever. What we can do is help them to improve things and not just complain about it. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:03:40 -0400 Re: TCM - ACAOM and Complaint about FPD Furthermore it is not only ODD but highly SUSPECT that there are 3 Members of ACAOM who run and/or own schools or heavily involved with AOM schools. ACAOM is a quasi-governmental agency or at least an organization with a governmental delegated important duty. As such like state Acupuncture Boards it is highly unethical to have Director Members who OWN and RUN schools or even teach Continuing Education courses. This is yet another area of concern. The proverbial.... fox guarding the chicken coop? Also...no one answers the question that with 60 college credit prerequisite entrance requirement and approximately 200 credits for the ACAOM accredited AOM program (so called funky Masters) is actually equivalent to a Bachelors, Masters AND more importantly a TRIPLE PhD. YES...that's right a TRIPLE PhD! So the Masters is ALREADY a PhD by credits alone. The AOM schools need to stop bilking prospective students interested in the field with more costly and worthless dream degrees. THIS is what will SCARE away prospective students. Richard In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:48:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kuangguiyu writes: Mike - I find it very odd behavior for one of our representing organizations to a). announce that they are seeking a CONSENSUS from the profession on moving forward with the FPD and b). receive an overwhelmingly negative response that they then c). interpret as " support " to go forward with their plan. Very odd behavior indeed IMO. And requesting that they, as a representing body for the profession, explain the logic behind such odd behavior is hardly a witch hunt. I would also prefer to see more people involved in bettering the process, but adding another - basically redundant - degree may not be the best way to move forward. You say that many more people are showing agreement on the FPD. What data are you referring to here? The only concrete data that I am aware of is the two-to-one negative response to the ACAOM's quest for consensus. You also say that the future of our profession is much more interested in the FPD - do you mean current and prospective students? And if so, where do you get the data to support that? And how does creating this new degree 'keep them from leaving'? It seems to me that tweaking our current IMO bloated Master's degree and making it more affordable - rather than more expensive, as the FPD would almost surely be - would advance the profession by making training more accessible to more people who may be interested in it. There are already doctorate programs in place for those who wish to go deeper, so the FPD doesn't really seem to be bringing anything new to the table. Why is the FPD such a necessity and how exactly does it advance the profession? Kim Blankenship, L.Ac. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] _______________ Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:W L:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --- Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia To change your email delivery settings, click, and adjust accordingly. Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group requires prior permission from the author. Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 M You know what has been said? Liars figure and figures lie! Lets not consider that just because the 27,000 didn't speak out that their voices are worthless. And let's not monkey with the figures. 2,100 of the 3,000 replies were AGAINST FPD. You quote figures.......would you care to provide the actual reports and data? R In a message dated 4/18/2010 10:33:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, First off those 27,000 had a chance to reply as well. At some point a study is simply a representation of the population. Let's work on making things better and not complaining so much. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 M I just sat in on a graduating class for three weeks to help the instructor colleague evaluate his presentation. What I found was that even today.... these graduating students haven't a clue how to handle a patient in clinic. That's the FAULT of the schools. Post graduate residency would be a great idea for all grads who are struggling because their clinic experience was greatly deficient. It appears that this is a problem across the US with possibly a few exceptions. As to " some statistics put forth " for the FPD.....as I remember that was just ONE licensee's wishful thinking. The way it should be? Maybe. The way it will be? NOT if the night-trade-school cottage industry has anything to say about it. You can bet that the funky-Masters (really a triple PhD) will go from $50,000 to over $100,000. and how does that help the patient? R In a message dated 4/18/2010 10:32:48 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: Kim, From what I have seen, there were two studies undertaken on this issue. The latest one, showed support for the FPD and a large number of participants, especially current students, were in support of this. The FPD would not be a redundent degree but one that is deeper in many areas of study and clinical practice. The state of CA is considering a post-graduate residency to get students more clinical time as a requirement for licensure. At present time that would not make sense as there are no current situations that would work for us. Here the FPD would greatly help. As a former clinical supervisor, I have seen the level of students that enter the clinic at more then one OM program and I can say it is very low. We can argue about what the schools should be doing but adding in one more year of clinical training and select courses of deeper material is important. Some statistics were put forward previously about cost and it appears this would amount to a very small increas e to students. A FPD would be entirely different from the DAOM, which we now see. I would suggest you read the post or article that William Morris on this issue. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine kuangguiyu Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:48:21 -0700 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD Mike - I find it very odd behavior for one of our representing organizations to a). announce that they are seeking a CONSENSUS from the profession on moving forward with the FPD and b). receive an overwhelmingly negative response that they then c). interpret as " support " to go forward with their plan. Very odd behavior indeed IMO. And requesting that they, as a representing body for the profession, explain the logic behind such odd behavior is hardly a witch hunt. I would also prefer to see more people involved in bettering the process, but adding another - basically redundant - degree may not be the best way to move forward. You say that many more people are showing agreement on the FPD. What data are you referring to here? The only concrete data that I am aware of is the two-to-one negative response to the ACAOM's quest for consensus. You also say that the future of our profession is much more interested in the FPD - do you mean current and prospective students? And if so, where do you get the data to support that? And how does creating this new degree 'keep them from leaving'? It seems to me that tweaking our current IMO bloated Master's degree and making it more affordable - rather than more expensive, as the FPD would almost surely be - would advance the profession by making training more accessible to more people who may be interested in it. There are already doctorate programs in place for those who wish to go deeper, so the FPD doesn't really seem to be bringing anything new to the table. Why is the FPD such a necessity and how exactly does it advance the profession? Kim Blankenship, L.Ac. On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 5:04 PM, mike Bowser <naturaldoc1wrote: > > R, > > I think that ACAOM is doing a fine job, with the resources they have to > use. I see no reason to get caught up in a witch hunt, when people are > looking to hang them. Would you provide data or response to someone with an > agenda to discredit you? I find this very odd behavior. I would prefer to > see more people willing to get involved with making the process better and > less about going backwards (change is inevitable and look where our > profession has come). We are seeing many more people showing agreement on > the FPD, at some point we must honestly ask when we are going to make it > happen. If anything the ACAOM tends to move very slowly, which means that > even if they were willing to start this change today, it would probably mean > another decade or two before it really happened (possibly after we are done > practicing). The future of our profession is much more interested in the > FPD, and as it is their future, we really need to be looking to create it > for them or they will leave. As I do not currently work with ACAOM, it is > not up to me to make this decision, nor is it up to you. You get an equal > comment on this but in the end, they will decide and we need to more > forward. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > Chinese Medicine > acudoc11 > Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:34:53 -0400 > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M > > > > I am as much a stakeholder as the next person. > > > > Furthermore....they OWE EVERY stakeholder the TRUTH and HONESTY in all > > dealings. > > > > What is over the top or not is NOT for you to decide. > > > > R > > > > > > In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > > naturaldoc1 writes: > > > > R, > > > > I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by > > USDE is way over the top for something like this. > > > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________ > The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with > Hotmail. > > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar & ocid=PID28326:\ :T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5 > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > --- > > Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times > http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com > > Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine and > acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia > > To change your email delivery settings, click, > and adjust > accordingly. > > Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group > requires prior permission from the author. > > Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely > necessary. Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] _______________ Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:W L:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --- Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia To change your email delivery settings, click, and adjust accordingly. Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group requires prior permission from the author. Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 R, I understand the conflict of interest as we had a local president of an acupuncture school, which was bought by a chiro college, and this same person became the president of the acu association. We are very small profession and so it is almost impossible that at some point you will not have this occur. I, like you, would like not to see it but we must also remember that doing things for the " profession " may not always appear to be what is best for an individual. Before we some organized professional association, we were all over the map, no standards whatsoever. What we can do is help them to improve things and not just complain about it. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:03:40 -0400 Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD Furthermore it is not only ODD but highly SUSPECT that there are 3 Members of ACAOM who run and/or own schools or heavily involved with AOM schools. ACAOM is a quasi-governmental agency or at least an organization with a governmental delegated important duty. As such like state Acupuncture Boards it is highly unethical to have Director Members who OWN and RUN schools or even teach Continuing Education courses. This is yet another area of concern. The proverbial.... fox guarding the chicken coop? Also...no one answers the question that with 60 college credit prerequisite entrance requirement and approximately 200 credits for the ACAOM accredited AOM program (so called funky Masters) is actually equivalent to a Bachelors, Masters AND more importantly a TRIPLE PhD. YES...that's right a TRIPLE PhD! So the Masters is ALREADY a PhD by credits alone. The AOM schools need to stop bilking prospective students interested in the field with more costly and worthless dream degrees. THIS is what will SCARE away prospective students. Richard In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:48:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kuangguiyu writes: Mike - I find it very odd behavior for one of our representing organizations to a). announce that they are seeking a CONSENSUS from the profession on moving forward with the FPD and b). receive an overwhelmingly negative response that they then c). interpret as " support " to go forward with their plan. Very odd behavior indeed IMO. And requesting that they, as a representing body for the profession, explain the logic behind such odd behavior is hardly a witch hunt. I would also prefer to see more people involved in bettering the process, but adding another - basically redundant - degree may not be the best way to move forward. You say that many more people are showing agreement on the FPD. What data are you referring to here? The only concrete data that I am aware of is the two-to-one negative response to the ACAOM's quest for consensus. You also say that the future of our profession is much more interested in the FPD - do you mean current and prospective students? And if so, where do you get the data to support that? And how does creating this new degree 'keep them from leaving'? It seems to me that tweaking our current IMO bloated Master's degree and making it more affordable - rather than more expensive, as the FPD would almost surely be - would advance the profession by making training more accessible to more people who may be interested in it. There are already doctorate programs in place for those who wish to go deeper, so the FPD doesn't really seem to be bringing anything new to the table. Why is the FPD such a necessity and how exactly does it advance the profession? Kim Blankenship, L.Ac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.