doctoral folly continues

[Guest guest]

has more

respect than that of DCs and NDs.

>>>I agree on this regarding DCs and this has to do with their business

practices and incredible indoctrination in medical schools against DCs (Just

talk to any MD they will tell you). I am not sure about Nods in areas were NDs

have gained practice rights. I several MDs in Washington and they have a whole

lot of respect to NDs and are even beginning to go into partnerships with them

and not for the business aspects but they see them as a real medical asset. They

respect their approach and education. I have talked to several and they told me

they were really surprised when they spoke to the NDs about their first 2 years

of training, realizing that is was at almost the same level they got in the

first two years.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Texas decided that it was not under our scope of practice to do tui na even

though it is taught in the TCM schools. This was prompted by a DC complaint

about manipulations. This is a big reason why we need to protect and

delineate what we do and the L Ac title does not do us justice. It limits

us as a technician to doing acupuncture. Various nephareous groups have

sought out this specificity to then eliminate our other tools as well. MD

are not being scrutinized and limited in this way, quite the opposite for

them as they continue to add alternative methods to their scope without any

proper CAM education. Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

On 12/11/04 12:09 AM, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus wrote:

 

> no tui na

>>>> >>>And many that have do not have the full scope of tui na

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Your comment about drug companies is correct but is not related to my

discussion about state government regulating medicine. This idea was

attempted years ago here in MN and was disastrous. It is the job of state

regulatory boards to regulate and professional standards to determine how

they practice. Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

On 12/11/04 12:26 AM, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus wrote:

 

> Scarry that the government is now into medicine and this

> affects our choice of care and also limits new methods and discovery. It

> also provides an immunity to prosecution, even if you create a blunder, for

> following their guidelines.

>

>

>>>> >>>This has two sides. The problem is that you cannot trust drug companies

>>>> to tell you the truth regarding efficacy or safety. MDs often need such

>>>> guides since they are used to hear this info from drug raps. At Kaiser they

>>>> do not even let drug raps in, so that all drug formulations are created by

>>>> pharmocologist that look very closes at the research. A sad state for

>>>> medicine this days

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Steve

A professional degree in the US is different. Medical doctors (MDs) do not have

a true doctoral level education. They only have 4 years of postgrad education.

So you just cant compare it. With your system BM go to school 6-7 years out of

highschool. Correct? In the US you first do 4 years of collage than go to

graduate school. You cant get a PhD in the English system after 8 years of

higher education. you may get an MS. So professional degrees in the US do not

follow the usual academic criteria for a doctoral education. This is how it is

here and therefore should be for us as well. You guys are confusing systems and

designations

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Steve

Also in the US MD (medical doctor) does not apply highest level of education. It

does not even allow you to have a license to work. It just means you fished

medical school. You will need one additional year of internship to get a basic

license. With this license if you then do not go on to get additional 3-6 years

of residency you cannot even get malpractice insurance or get privileges in

hospitals in most regions of the country. Only in rural areas. So as you can see

the system is a bit different.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

This is an interesting discussion. What do you mean most of our students

couldn't get into an MA or an MS program? Many of our students have MAs and

MSs (and three of mine are MDs), so that is clearly not true.

 

>>>What % have an undergraduate or graduate degree at yosan

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Julie, so glad you shared this info. I agree that there is a wide disparity

of education of the new students some have degrees and others only the two

years undergrad. It would interesting to find out how many practitioners

have other degrees and how students in CA-recognized programs compare with

other programs. We might find a real bias.

 

I would like to find out more about Yo San and hope to hear from you

offline. Thanks

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

On 12/9/04 7:58 PM, " JulieJ8 " <Juliej8 wrote:

 

>

>> > IMO, most of our

>> > students could not get into a real MA or MS program, and most of our

>> > teachers could not teach in such programs.

>

> This is an interesting discussion. What do you mean most of our students

> couldn't get into an MA or an MS program? Many of our students have MAs and

> MSs (and three of mine are MDs), so that is clearly not true.

>

> One of my students has a MS from UCLA in engineering. He told me that three

> of his teachers at Yo San are better than any teacher he had in any of his

> other educational settings.

>

> Of course, this is just one isolated comment.

>

> Julie Chambers

>

>

Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including board

> approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a free

> discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I think we might be surprised by this, I hope anyway. Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

On 12/10/04 11:35 AM, " alon marcus " <alonmarcus wrote:

 

> This is an interesting discussion. What do you mean most of our students

> couldn't get into an MA or an MS program? Many of our students have MAs and

> MSs (and three of mine are MDs), so that is clearly not true.

>

>>>> >>>What % have an undergraduate or graduate degree at yosan

> alon

>

>

[Guest guest]

" As for the other groups, they did accomplish something that I hope we

can someday, uniform standards. "

 

DCs? You never know what a DC will do when you go to their office.

What uniform standards are you talking about?

 

" The way to break the monopoly is to have standards to demonstrate to

legislators that we are on an equal footing. "

 

I totally agree that we should have uniform standards of diagnosis and

treatment. I have been arguing that for years, including on this forum.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Hi Julie,

 

Periodically, we host a group of perhaps ten USC med school students

for a shift at the Emperor's college teaching clinic. At a recent

shift while these students were sitting with us all in the intern room,

I looked carefully at their eyes. I looked at the bright alert

inquisitive clarity that I saw in their eyes and compared it to the

sometimes dull and dare I say wholly unaware shen that I saw among

*some* of the ECTOM students in the room.

 

I couldn't help but notice a very real difference. Granted, there is

always one student among the USC guests who makes me wonder what their

admissions people were thinking, but when I look around at the students

at my own school, I have this thought much more often.

 

I agree with what Bob said, understanding that of course there are

exceptions to every trend. Some of which you have described.

 

As for the teaching staff being unable to teach at a " real " MA or MS

program, I hope to enter the doctoral program at ECTOM to hone these

teaching skills as well as obtain more TCM understanding. It is

beginning to look to me like the DAOM is a lot less important than I

originally thought, but I still appreciate the opportunity to learn

more, imperfect as it may be.

 

-al.

 

On Dec 9, 2004, at 5:58 PM, JulieJ8 wrote:

 

>> IMO, most of our

>> students could not get into a real MA or MS program, and most of our

>> teachers could not teach in such programs.

>

> This is an interesting discussion. What do you mean most of our

> students

> couldn't get into an MA or an MS program? Many of our students have

> MAs and

> MSs (and three of mine are MDs), so that is clearly not true.

>

> One of my students has a MS from UCLA in engineering. He told me that

> three

> of his teachers at Yo San are better than any teacher he had in any of

> his

> other educational settings.

>

> Of course, this is just one isolated comment.

>

> Julie Chambers

 

--

 

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

-Adlai Stevenson

[Guest guest]

" What do you mean most of our students couldn't get into an MA or an

MS program? "

 

" Most " means 51%. I think I can stand by that from my experience

teaching all over the U.S.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Bob,

Let me address your concerns one at a time.

 

DCs? You never know what a DC will do when you go to their office.

 

resp: You pay them for making that call after you arrive not before. This

is an issue of the individual provider and applies equally to any MD or L Ac

as well. I do not think we need to be trying to change anyone else's

professional standards, just ours. Our various schools have a wide

disparity in educational ability, some teach at a much higher standard than

others. Healthcare is about choices not limitations.

 

>What uniform standards are you talking about?

 

resp: Educational and licensure.

>

> " The way to break the monopoly is to have standards to demonstrate to

>legislators that we are on an equal footing. "

 

resp: Wrong, our sense of fair play is getting in the way of reality.

Legislators receive large amounts of money nowadays and protect their

financial interests (AMA, pharmaceutical, insurance co). We do not have

enough money or influence to compete on this level. This practice has

become quite common place for members of Congress and the Senate. Until you

remove the money, this trend will continue. The way to get legislation

passed is to create a large groundswell of public support for it.

>

>I totally agree that we should have uniform standards of diagnosis and

>treatment. I have been arguing that for years, including on this forum.

 

resp: I never said uniform standards of treatment nor diagnosis. This

would force us all to accept the same treatment plans, points, etc for any

given condition. This is great for insurance companies and simplifies

education but in tne end we no longer have the right to adapt things to how

we see it. This thinking limits us to being a technician. This does

nothing to honor all the various and legit styles of care.

 

I hope this provides some clarity to these issues. I would like to see us

put together our concerns, proposed changes and ideas as to why. I think

this would be more productive in moving forward.

 

Lastly, Bob, have you thought of creating a post grad residency program? I

would like to know if you would consider such an endeavor. Thanks for the

debate.

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

> " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001

>

>

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:18:51 -0000

>

>

> " As for the other groups, they did accomplish something that I hope we

>can someday, uniform standards. "

>

>DCs? You never know what a DC will do when you go to their office.

>What uniform standards are you talking about?

>

> " The way to break the monopoly is to have standards to demonstrate to

>legislators that we are on an equal footing. "

>

>I totally agree that we should have uniform standards of diagnosis and

>treatment. I have been arguing that for years, including on this forum.

>

>Bob

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Steve just like in WM as the profession develops the requirements for higher

specialization would hopefully increase.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " alon marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

 

>

> >>>What % have an undergraduate or graduate degree at yosan

> alon

 

 

PCOM has over 1000 students on three campuses, thus they probably provide a

decent

sample size. I have been told that about 70% of the students have bachelor's

degrees. I

would estimate that less than 10% have advanced postgraduate degrees in an

academic

discipline that required entrance examinations (I also fit that description). I

have taught

entry level classes for most of my time at PCOM and pretty much know all the

students in

SD, so the latter figure is high guesstimate. As to whether other students

could have

matriculated into a conventional masters, I cannot say for sure. I can say that

the vast

majority here have not (and probably would not want to). We have no MDs at this

time in

our masters program.

 

The fact that a certain % of the student population are exceptions does not

alter the fact

that there are no uniform entry standards into the field like an MCAT or

undergrad degree,

thus it does seem ludicrous to call it a masters in the first place and then use

the

existence of this masters to justify expansion to an even more suspect

doctorate. Does

anyone think the approval of granting of masters degrees instead of the older

certificates

changed the minds of any vested interests. Neither the public, the insurers or

politicians

seem to have been affected by this change. Quite the reverse, actually. In CA,

the

broadest interpretations of our scope were made in the era of low hours prior to

masters

degrees. Now as we approach the graduation of the first DAOM classes with over

4400

hours of training, we are about to see our scope rolled back and much of

insurance

coverage lost. I don't see how pushing an entry level DAOM will help anyone.

The schools

have spent far more than they have earned on the current DAOMs and interest in

the

programs is not high. And I would extend the scenario I described earlier about

the

typical mainstreamer response to describing yourself as practicing medicine to

the

bemused response of true academics when they find out your masters is in OM. A

title is

only as valuable as its public perception. Otherwise, its a piece of paper no

better than

placemat. And a title that is perceived as illgotten is worse than none at all.

 

Perhaps the national alliance, which supposedly respects diversity, should get

behind the

healthcare freedom acts. It is already legal to practice chinese herbology in

all 50 states

without a license (though only in 16 with a license). Why not encourage

awareness of this

as another avenue for our graduates who might not be interested in practicing

acupuncture. In many states, you can get away with herbology, dietary advice

and even

bodywork with no license under common law precedents. It is far less likely

that many of

the holdout states will actually allow herbs in their scope much less the title

of doctor. So

why fight this battle when the trends are in the opposite direction. I think

our profession

has long distinguished itself in being behind the times. We have held on to

outmoded

educational methods while mainstream med has been immersed in progressive PBL

styles

for decades now. And now we are fighting to increase regulatory barriers to

free trade in

an era when that is anathema to most on all sides of all fences. You can

characterize it

however you want, it really comes down to the restraint of one individual to

contract a

service from another without government interference. So even if there would be

an

enhancement of public perception or any other supposed benefit from more titles

and

more laws, who cares? I feel strongly there would be far more benefit to

everyone with

less of all of this. I have been blogging on this topic elsewhere

 

see http://www..org/2004/11/radical-suggestion.html

 

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

I will try to find out from Yo San's admissions department what % have

degrees. I agree with it is probably around 70%.

 

Bob (Flaws), of course you're entitled to your opinion, but how can you tell

that 51% of TCM students could not get admitted to a MA or MS program?

 

Julie

 

 

 

-

" mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1

 

Friday, December 10, 2004 10:38 AM

Re: doctoral folly continues

[Guest guest]

" Lastly, Bob, have you thought of creating a post grad residency program? "

 

For years and years. However, Blue Poppy takes up too much of my time

to really try to make this happen. Short of winning the lottery,

doesn't look likely. Besides, more and more, I have other interests

beyond Chinese medicine.

 

That being said, two days ago, I did tell one of tyhe administrators

at SWAC that Blue Poppy would be interested in buying their Boulder

campus. If that ever happened, I would definitely try to push for

postgraduate residential training. However, first I would create the

kind of undergraduate training I would like to see.

 

In the past, I have approached CU Medical School to set up a program

through them, using their faculty, classroom space, and teaching

clinics. They've turned me down twice now at five year intervals.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

We need to be inline with them or we

risk splitting from them.

>>>I agree and they have much more experience in what is necessary to learn to

become a safe and effective practitioner.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

As for the other groups, they

did accomplish something that I hope we can someday, uniform standards.

The way to break the monopoly is to have standards to demonstrate to

legislators that we are on an equal footing.

>>>Amen

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

You are confusing degree with licensure. They are two separate issues.

Later

>>>I was just explaining the system of training. Residency is still a training

program, you need to take tests and boards.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I am glad to see so many with degrees from PCOM. I too am an alumni.

I have spent time in the political process with an organization that fought

for alternative healthcare freedom of choice in MN (MNHC). This was the

first group in the country to tackle the issue of what are called health

freedoms.

 

There are pros and cons to deregulation and elimination of

licensure/standards as I perceive this to be about. Right now our biggest

threat is the medical-insurance industry. The government has made economic

changes under pressure from this group. The biggest cons would be that

everyone, including other practitioners, your mother, etc could practice.

This sure appeals to the American sense of equality but not a reality in

healthcare. In addition, there would be little to no outside third party

payers that would cover it. This would definitely create problems for

standardization. The natural progression for any profession is to become

more standardized with rules and regulations. We are not any different in

this. We are different in the crazy way we have gone about it though. We

seem to have fought to avoid following this established trend.

 

If students are acepted into undergrad and transfer to a TCM school with two

years, there is no reason for entrance exams as they were previously

accepted. This is not the students entry into college. However, the

Master's degree without a Bachelor's is problematic. I am glad to see that

some schools offer this as a dual degree option and some states require a

Bachelor's as well for licensing.

 

The assessment of today's trends needs to be evaluated in more detail. We

are the unlucky recipient of especially hard economic times (recession is

used often). The insurance providers will cut loose any and all medical

coverages up to those provided for the MD's. In fact, Gov. Schwartzeneger

slashed coverage for all non-MD providers in the work comp system without

regard for efficacy. This is due to the close relationship between

medicine/insurance and the Republican party. America is in need of a single

payer healthcare system. Along these line the state of MN is looking into

that very issue.

 

Many changes are creating chaos for us all. While it may look to you as if

the medical insurance system is eliminating us, it is not for lack of

efficacy but due to economic cuts. The federal government will soon be

forced to step in and run things. There is enormous problems with the way

the medical insurance industry has done business that simply needs to

change. The way their system operates in this country is not for the

benefit of our health but for profits. Back in the 70's there was nothing

for us other than cash fees.

 

The best solution for the future would be to involve more preparatory

coursework in western sciences with better practitioner development and more

rellevent classes. Schools need to lead the way on this issue. Programs

need to make available educational advances in teaching and the usage of

electronic media (computers). Remember we are looking at the future. If we

cannot make this profession look like it is worth it, then students will not

pursue it. This would cause a decline in future grads and a loss of

numbers. Things have consequences. Later

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " " <

>

>

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:11:10 -0000

>

>

> , " alon marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

>wrote:

>

> >

> > >>>What % have an undergraduate or graduate degree at yosan

> > alon

>

>

>PCOM has over 1000 students on three campuses, thus they probably provide a

>decent

>sample size. I have been told that about 70% of the students have

>bachelor's degrees. I

>would estimate that less than 10% have advanced postgraduate degrees in an

>academic

>discipline that required entrance examinations (I also fit that

>description). I have taught

>entry level classes for most of my time at PCOM and pretty much know all

>the students in

>SD, so the latter figure is high guesstimate. As to whether other students

>could have

>matriculated into a conventional masters, I cannot say for sure. I can say

>that the vast

>majority here have not (and probably would not want to). We have no MDs at

>this time in

>our masters program.

>

>The fact that a certain % of the student population are exceptions does not

>alter the fact

>that there are no uniform entry standards into the field like an MCAT or

>undergrad degree,

>thus it does seem ludicrous to call it a masters in the first place and

>then use the

>existence of this masters to justify expansion to an even more suspect

>doctorate. Does

>anyone think the approval of granting of masters degrees instead of the

>older certificates

>changed the minds of any vested interests. Neither the public, the

>insurers or politicians

>seem to have been affected by this change. Quite the reverse, actually.

>In CA, the

>broadest interpretations of our scope were made in the era of low hours

>prior to masters

>degrees. Now as we approach the graduation of the first DAOM classes with

>over 4400

>hours of training, we are about to see our scope rolled back and much of

>insurance

>coverage lost. I don't see how pushing an entry level DAOM will help

>anyone. The schools

>have spent far more than they have earned on the current DAOMs and interest

>in the

>programs is not high. And I would extend the scenario I described earlier

>about the

>typical mainstreamer response to describing yourself as practicing medicine

>to the

>bemused response of true academics when they find out your masters is in

>OM. A title is

>only as valuable as its public perception. Otherwise, its a piece of paper

>no better than

>placemat. And a title that is perceived as illgotten is worse than none at

>all.

>

>Perhaps the national alliance, which supposedly respects diversity, should

>get behind the

>healthcare freedom acts. It is already legal to practice chinese herbology

>in all 50 states

>without a license (though only in 16 with a license). Why not encourage

>awareness of this

>as another avenue for our graduates who might not be interested in

>practicing

>acupuncture. In many states, you can get away with herbology, dietary

>advice and even

>bodywork with no license under common law precedents. It is far less

>likely that many of

>the holdout states will actually allow herbs in their scope much less the

>title of doctor. So

>why fight this battle when the trends are in the opposite direction. I

>think our profession

>has long distinguished itself in being behind the times. We have held on

>to outmoded

>educational methods while mainstream med has been immersed in progressive

>PBL styles

>for decades now. And now we are fighting to increase regulatory barriers

>to free trade in

>an era when that is anathema to most on all sides of all fences. You can

>characterize it

>however you want, it really comes down to the restraint of one individual

>to contract a

>service from another without government interference. So even if there

>would be an

>enhancement of public perception or any other supposed benefit from more

>titles and

>more laws, who cares? I feel strongly there would be far more benefit to

>everyone with

>less of all of this. I have been blogging on this topic elsewhere

>

>see http://www..org/2004/11/radical-suggestion.html

>

>Todd

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

That would make sense. Have you thought of a government grant to set up a

school/research center. I would love to see that happen. I would prefer to

see it in So Cal, where I think the schools are more open to teaching

agreements. Let me know if I can help. Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001

>

>

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>Fri, 10 Dec 2004 19:47:26 -0000

>

>

> " Lastly, Bob, have you thought of creating a post grad residency program? "

>

>For years and years. However, Blue Poppy takes up too much of my time

>to really try to make this happen. Short of winning the lottery,

>doesn't look likely. Besides, more and more, I have other interests

>beyond Chinese medicine.

>

>That being said, two days ago, I did tell one of tyhe administrators

>at SWAC that Blue Poppy would be interested in buying their Boulder

>campus. If that ever happened, I would definitely try to push for

>postgraduate residential training. However, first I would create the

>kind of undergraduate training I would like to see.

>

>In the past, I have approached CU Medical School to set up a program

>through them, using their faculty, classroom space, and teaching

>clinics. They've turned me down twice now at five year intervals.

>

>Bob

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

.. I don't see how pushing an entry level DAOM will help anyone.

>>>>If it remains in the mamapapa schools of today i totally agree. If it was

however in the system it would make a big difference

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

I do not think that we will ever be really accepted into the mainstream

educational arena. I would, however, think that we could do a much better

job of re-creating this ourselves for the students. Teaching agreements

with major univ or resources for proper science classes would go a long way

to helping. So many possibilities, so many problems. Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " alon marcus " <alonmarcus

>

>

>Re: doctoral folly continues

>Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:53:50 -0800

>

>. I don't see how pushing an entry level DAOM will help anyone.

> >>>>If it remains in the mamapapa schools of today i totally agree. If it

>was however in the system it would make a big difference

>alon

>

>

[Guest guest]

Graduate level teachers are often some of the worst teachers you will

ever encounter---and this is true at the best universities. THey did

not go into it to teach, they went into it to do research etc.

 

Also, I think that its inevitable that MD's would have students who

were more on top of things. The harder it is to get into a school the

more cream of the crop you will find. We'll get there in time.

 

 

, Al Stone <alstone@b...> wrote:

> Hi Julie,

>

> Periodically, we host a group of perhaps ten USC med school students

> for a shift at the Emperor's college teaching clinic. At a recent

> shift while these students were sitting with us all in the intern room,

> I looked carefully at their eyes. I looked at the bright alert

> inquisitive clarity that I saw in their eyes and compared it to the

> sometimes dull and dare I say wholly unaware shen that I saw among

> *some* of the ECTOM students in the room.

>

> I couldn't help but notice a very real difference. Granted, there is

> always one student among the USC guests who makes me wonder what their

> admissions people were thinking, but when I look around at the students

> at my own school, I have this thought much more often.

>

> I agree with what Bob said, understanding that of course there are

> exceptions to every trend. Some of which you have described.

>

> As for the teaching staff being unable to teach at a " real " MA or MS

> program, I hope to enter the doctoral program at ECTOM to hone these

> teaching skills as well as obtain more TCM understanding. It is

> beginning to look to me like the DAOM is a lot less important than I

> originally thought, but I still appreciate the opportunity to learn

> more, imperfect as it may be.

>

> -al.

>

> On Dec 9, 2004, at 5:58 PM, JulieJ8 wrote:

>

> >> IMO, most of our

> >> students could not get into a real MA or MS program, and most of our

> >> teachers could not teach in such programs.

> >

> > This is an interesting discussion. What do you mean most of our

> > students

> > couldn't get into an MA or an MS program? Many of our students have

> > MAs and

> > MSs (and three of mine are MDs), so that is clearly not true.

> >

> > One of my students has a MS from UCLA in engineering. He told me that

> > three

> > of his teachers at Yo San are better than any teacher he had in

any of

> > his

> > other educational settings.

> >

> > Of course, this is just one isolated comment.

> >

> > Julie Chambers

>

> --

>

> Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

> -Adlai Stevenson

[Guest guest]

, " heylaurag "

<heylaurag@h...> wrote:

Also, I think that its inevitable that MD's would have students who

> were more on top of things. The harder it is to get into a school

the

> more cream of the crop you will find. We'll get there in time.

>

 

Hummm...

I had a very good friend who graduated from Stanford U in the late

40's with a medical degree. He went on to be a great doctor whom

many respected and admired. He told me that he was a 'C' student and

he was concerned about the medical school mills pumping out students

and basing entrance criteria solely on grades.

 

On the other hand I did find it extremely easy to get into

acupuncture school( " Do you have money or can get money and meet the

minimum requirements? Fine, you are in " ) and for the most part was

suprised at the low expectations put on students. I kept expecting

it to get more difficult. It sounds as if many on this list had a

common experience. I would like to see the schools at least try to

use common sense when admitting students. These people will be

responsible for someone's health and safety!

I don't plan to apply for the doctorate course. The only reason the

doctorate would be worthwhile for me is if it presents a challenge

and I gain experience that I couldn't get on my own.

Meanwhile, I take plenty of CE classes. I finally figured out that

for me the ones worth taking are mostly herbal classes.

Jill Likkel