Doctorate

[OneiroKnight]

I notice there is an increasing push in many of the health professions toward the doctoral level. Doctorate in Physical Therapy, for example. Recently there has been discussion of a clinical doctorate for Nurse Practitioners. There are already several doctoral level degrees for nurses, each with varying degrees of research, teaching, and policy focus. All very academically rigourous, though this would arguably be the first clinically focused degree. It seems to be the idea is that there will be a slow phasing out of the Master's level for Nurse Practitioners, and the entry point to being an NP in practice will be that of the doctorate level. It will be a four year program after a B.S., and a one year residency training. If one already has a Master's then it will be 2 further years in clinical rotations, and a one year residency. Even though I am an NP, about to graduate, and feel I have had the training to do the basic things in a family practice environment, I have looked back and wished there was more clinical training. Less papers, less group projects, and more hours working with patients alongside seasoned NPs and physicians. I have had a good deal of experience being the RN with patients, and my NP training has shown me a bigger picture, I still feel the need for more. This feeling has lead me to consider medical school, which subsequently lead me to this discussion board. Since the DNP is still pretty new, and has not yet gained much by way of becoming firmly established, I might still pursue becoming a physician, though there is a fifty/fifty chance my marriage won't survive, which I am still weighing heavily. Furthermore, I applaud the new approach of the doctorate for NPs, and pershaps this will give them a bit more colleagial respect among thier peers from other disciplines. What do the rest of you feel?

Daniel
BSN, RN, MS/FNP(st)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PharmDr.]

I think having a clinical doctorate in nursing is great. I just applied to NSU BSN program and want to pursue MSN. I also think there is a need for more clinical training for NP's. As a guy, I hope that nursing becomes less stereotyped with woman only and wearing short skirts and that little hat. I know that since pharmacy introduced the PharmD that there was a huge increase in applications and interest in the field. A lot more woman want to pursue pharmacy now and hopefully more men ill enter nursing if the DNP becomes accepted. I used to want to become a medical doctor but realized that a being a NP is everything I am looking for. I have to admit, after looking through some nursing books that they do indeed do more than being servants of the doctors. They also have to learn a lot more than I thought a "nurse" has to know. Anyways, introducing a doctorate of this kind would be a great thing for the profession.

 

[ayndim]

I notice there is an increasing push in many of the health professions toward the doctoral level. Doctorate in Physical Therapy, for example. Recently there has been discussion of a clinical doctorate for Nurse Practitioners. There are already several doctoral level degrees for nurses, each with varying degrees of research, teaching, and policy focus. All very academically rigourous, though this would arguably be the first clinically focused degree. It seems to be the idea is that there will be a slow phasing out of the Master's level for Nurse Practitioners, and the entry point to being an NP in practice will be that of the doctorate level. It will be a four year program after a B.S., and a one year residency training. If one already has a Master's then it will be 2 further years in clinical rotations, and a one year residency. Even though I am an NP, about to graduate, and feel I have had the training to do the basic things in a family practice environment, I have looked back and wished there was more clinical training. Less papers, less group projects, and more hours working with patients alongside seasoned NPs and physicians. I have had a good deal of experience being the RN with patients, and my NP training has shown me a bigger picture, I still feel the need for more. This feeling has lead me to consider medical school, which subsequently lead me to this discussion board. Since the DNP is still pretty new, and has not yet gained much by way of becoming firmly established, I might still pursue becoming a physician, though there is a fifty/fifty chance my marriage won't survive, which I am still weighing heavily. Furthermore, I applaud the new approach of the doctorate for NPs, and pershaps this will give them a bit more colleagial respect among thier peers from other disciplines. What do the rest of you feel?

Daniel
BSN, RN, MS/FNP(st)

I like the idea of a residency. And I think additional training that NP's would get at the doctorate level would be great. There is so much more that can be covered. However, if only one were to be implemented, residency or doctorate I would vote for the residency. Hands on experience like that is invaluable. Also, I think the MD community would have more respect for NP's if they did a residency.

 

[OneiroKnight]

I like the idea of a residency. And I think additional training that NP's would get at the doctorate level would be great. There is so much more that can be covered. However, if only one were to be implemented, residency or doctorate I would vote for the residency. Hands on experience like that is invaluable. Also, I think the MD community would have more respect for NP's if they did a residency.

I like the doctoral level, as well as the residency requirement, and the plans are that both will be included. The current model is that NPs are trained in a particular focus throughout the education, such as Family NP, or Pediatric NP, or Psych NP, etc. and this focus is maintained through the program. For example, someone who completes an NP program with an "Adult" health focus (ANP), then they are outside their scope if they treat any patients younger than 12 or 13. Likewise, a psych NP shouldn't be treating much by way of physiological pathology, such as asthma or CHF. They are not trained in the variety of areas that physician, and probably PAs as well, who train in the medical model. This limits the scope of practice to their specific area of training. Anything subspecialty wise, is gained through employment with a physician in that area, such as cardiology or I.M. or whatever, which are basically not part of the general training of the NP, but learned on the job, so to speak. The overall scope however, is still limited. If I am educated as a Adult Nurse Practitioner, and get a job with a cardiologist, that is all well and good, but I would not be able to see pediatric cardiac patients, unless I went back to school for a second certificate in pediatrics.

The extra two years of a DNP program beyond a masters, would serve to broaden and deepen the NP knowledge base, and vicariously the scope of practice as well, I project. Many might think that, why should I go to school for four years, and a one year residency, to be a "midlevel" provider, when I could go to medical school four years, and 3 to 7 years residency? Though I suppose "getting in" to med school would be more challenging, and the residency more intensive. Though nursing, needing to have a different focus then medicine, would probably define the scope and practice of a DNP as distinct from physician colleagues.

 

[CVPA]

Interesting discussion. I am a little concerned, however, with the concept of phasing out the master's level NP and replacing it with a DNP. Remember the grass roots of PAs and NPs. One of the arguments about midlevel practitioners that justifies their existence has been the decrease in cost of education compared to physician training. If the level of NP training goes to the doctorate level, the gap in educational expense will be narrowed thus weakening the argument for the utilization of NPs. This has been the historic argument for keeping PA training at a baccalaureate level despite the well recognized fact that PA training is and always has been, at a graduate level. Although the argument has lost its momentum, it does have some merit. If, however, the doctorate is offered to those NP graduates who wish to become educators or researchers or at least incorporate education/research into their clinical position, that is a horse of a different color and the applicability of such a degree becomes obvious. In the absence of such a successive goal, however, I see little applicable use of the degree in the universal training of NPs other than to bolster their perception amongst peers. If the rationale is to deepen and broaden the base of knowledge, perhaps the efforts would best be served intensifying the existing training rather than raising the level of training to a doctorate level which has potential occult ramifications for mid-level practioners and does little to actually accomplish the intended goal.

The concept of all NPs being doctorally prepared sounds nice. It makes one feel elevated, to a certain extent. That is a poor reason, however, to pursue a doctorate degree and I would advise one caution in succumbing to that temptation. If one is wishing to pursue a doctorate for reasons of prestige and acceptance, he or she then needs to re-examine why they are a mid-level practitioner and not a physician and then come to terms with it.

 

[rn29306]

Hello NPs. Was strolling through and saw the doctorate title. We also have been following this closely, it affects CRNAs also. It has been well received among our crowd and I'm pleased to see that the NP group seems to embrace it as well.
As far as the MD community accepting this, I would urge the followers of this thread to stroll over to "Anesthesiology" and check out the following two threads that evolved into Doctorate CNRA discussions:
1. Hug a PA-A Anesthetist
2. Clinical Doctorate of Anesthesia Nurses...What the?
Not the best initial presentation by the OP, but I had to defend it once it was brought up.
I was specifically wondering how the fellowship for your NP program would be incorporated. One possible scenario for us: We were told that the program would lenthen from our current 27 months (was going to 31 months soon anyway). Master's level degree in as CRNA would be established at about the same timeline as it currently stands, then the fellowship in up to two specialties of nurse anesthesia (opean heart, trauma, neuro..whatever) would take place with the still-student CNRA bringing home 75% pay of a current CNRA, working part-time employed and part-time at an institution on the fellowship. This would allow money to support the family (if one), loans, basically provide for oneself and others while continuing your education.
Threads elsewhere involving other disciplines with anesthesia consistently turn into shouting matches and degradation until the monitors close the thread. I in no way want this to happen now that a "non-NP" just entered the discussion. We are all nurses here. Thanks guys.

 

[ayndim]

Interesting discussion. I am a little concerned, however, with the concept of phasing out the master's level NP and replacing it with a DNP. Remember the grass roots of PAs and NPs. One of the arguments about midlevel practitioners that justifies their existence has been the decrease in cost of education compared to physician training. If the level of NP training goes to the doctorate level, the gap in educational expense will be narrowed thus weakening the argument for the utilization of NPs. This has been the historic argument for keeping PA training at a baccalaureate level despite the well recognized fact that PA training is and always has been, at a graduate level. Although the argument has lost its momentum, it does have some merit. If, however, the doctorate is offered to those NP graduates who wish to become educators or researchers, that is a horse of a different color and the applicability of such a degree becomes obvious. In the absence of such a successive goal, however, I see little applicable use of the degree in the universal training of NPs other than to bolster their perception amongst peers. If the rationale is to deepen and broaden the base of knowledge, perhaps the efforts would better be served intensifying the existing training rather than raising the level of training to a doctorate level which has potential occult ramifications for mid-level practioners.

The concept of all NPs being doctorally prepared sounds nice. It makes one feel elevated, to a certain extent. That is a poor reason, however, to pursue a doctorate degree and I would advise one caution in succumbing to that temptation. If one is wishing to pursue a doctorate for reasons of prestige and acceptance, he or she then needs to re-examine why they are a mid-level practitioner and not a physician and then come to terms with it.

I don't think it is about prestige but about the additional training. The idea of a residency especially appeals to me. I do think that PhD training should be voluntary. Not necessarily for research/education purposes only but for specialized fields, such as cardiology NP/PA's. Although, I suppose a residency would work just as well as a PhD in that case.

 

[CVPA]

Although, I suppose a residency would work just as well as a PhD in that case.

Exactly my point. Think about it. If the proposed rationale for a doctorate is additional training, as you say, then you are obliged to ask yourself this question: To what end is additional training necessary? Is it A) as a result of an inherant deficiency in the current infrastructure of NP training? or B) to build a better and deeper knowledge base on which to base clinical decisions? It seems to me the answer is B. So, if that is the case, then adding a residency is, in my opinion, the more logical choice in accomplishing that goal. Conferring a doctorate degree doesn't do anything more than attempt to address the issue of prestige and status....and by the way, there is nothing wrong with coveting prestige and status. There seems to be an underlying tone amongst posters that as healthcare professionals, we are to be nothing less than altruistic and pure and desire nothing other than to help others. As a result, no one ever seems to want to admit that prestige and status motivate in anyway. All I am saying is, don't let it be the motivating and driving force in pursuing a doctorate. The best way to deal with that desire is simple: by continually setting an example of clinical competance and professionalism. Prestige, status, and respect will naturally follow.

 

[OneiroKnight]

Exactly my point. Think about it. If the proposed rationale for a doctorate is additional training, as you say, then you are obliged to ask yourself this question: To what end is additional training necessary? Is it A) as a result of an inherant deficiency in the current infrastructure of NP training? or B) to build a better and deeper knowledge base on which to base clinical decisions? It seems to me the answer is B. So, if that is the case, then adding a residency is, in my opinion, the more logical choice in accomplishing that goal. Conferring a doctorate degree doesn't do anything more than attempt to address the issue of prestige and status....and by the way, there is nothing wrong with coveting prestige and status. There seems to be an underlying tone amongst posters that as healthcare professionals, we are to be nothing less than altruistic and pure and desire nothing other than to help others. As a result, no one ever seems to want to admit that prestige and status motivate in anyway. All I am saying is, don't let it be the motivating and driving force in pursuing a doctorate. The best way to deal with that is simple: by continually setting an example of clinical competance and professionalism. Prestige, status, and respect will naturally follow.

I see your train of thought. I think in the NP community, it is more about prestige and respect. NPs strongly dislike the term "midlevel", and vigorously dislike having to justify their existence, explain their role, or be called 'Dr. X's nurse practitioner'. The extra clinical competencies could be attained with specific courses, seminars, and workshops, for improving XRAY interpretation, suturing, or whatever. Or, as someone mentioned, a residency. Also, I agree the cost of the education would rise dramatically if they phase out Masters and made the DNP the entry point. Then the largest difference between med school and a DNP, aside from the "Nursing vs Medical Model", would be the length of residency requirements. I think that the curricula would be a bit different as well, during those four years. Even though truthfully, NPs, CRNAs, are probably more vested in the medical model than the other advanced practice nurses, and probably more than the nursing model, I would venture to think that the curricula would be distinct from medical school.

 

[deleted6669]

"I do think that PhD training should be voluntary. Not necessarily for research/education purposes only but for specialized fields, such as cardiology NP/PA's. Although, I suppose a residency would work just as well as a PhD in that case."

fyi: there have been optional pa residencies for > 20 yrs in many fields. for a list see www.appap.org

also nova southeastern currently has a DHSc ( Dr health science ) program for pa's who desire a doctorate.( this program also admits other health care providers who already have an ms).

 

[lawguil]

"I do think that PhD training should be voluntary. Not necessarily for research/education purposes only but for specialized fields, such as cardiology NP/PA's. Although, I suppose a residency would work just as well as a PhD in that case."

fyi: there have been optional pa residencies for > 20 yrs in many fields. for a list see www.appap.org

also nova southeastern currently has a DHSc ( Dr health science ) program for pa's who desire a doctorate.( this program also admits other health care providers who already have an ms).

I keep seeing the PhD flash across the screen. I suspect that the DNP is a "clinical doctorate" as opposed to a PhD - doctor of philosophy aka academic degree. My experience with other clinical doctorates 1.) Academic requirements are almost identical to the previous requirements before the clinical doctorate developed. (A clinical doctorate does not mean a better education) 2.) Are more a way of establishing status and political clout. 3.) Allied health professions who have made the transition to the clinical doctorate are now seeing academic institutions with less academically qualified candidates and students. (DPT programs are seeing there best students drop out of the program to pursue PA or MD/DO school and are struggling to keep numbers) 4.) It costs more $ and you don't make more $. 5.) It bothers me to reduce the term Dr. into a blanket term used to describe every health care profession in existence. It's just going to make this trendy transition that much more difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. L.

 

[chicoborja]

I keep seeing the PhD flash across the screen. I suspect that the DNP is a "clinical doctorate" as opposed to a PhD - doctor of philosophy aka academic degree. My experience with other clinical doctorates 1.) Academic requirements are almost identical to the previous requirements before the clinical doctorate developed. (A clinical doctorate does not mean a better education) 2.) Are more a way of establishing status and political clout. 3.) Allied health professions who have made the transition to the clinical doctorate are now seeing academic institutions with less academically qualified candidates and students. (DPT programs are seeing there best students drop out of the program to pursue PA or MD/DO school and are struggling to keep numbers) 4.) It costs more $ and you don't make more $. 5.) It bothers me to reduce the term Dr. into a blanket term used to describe every health care profession in existence. It's just going to make this trendy transition that much more difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. L.

1) Credit hours to a clinical doctorate versus a masters will yield a better education. This is not the first time I've heard that doctors versus masters does not produce more qualified practitioners. The courses from the masters would likely remain the same or changed little; however, several didactic courses would be added. Additionally clinicals would increase. I don't see how increased depth of course work and increases clinical hours would not yield a better prepared clinician. Will a doctoral clinician always be better prepared than a masters clinician, of course not! However, as a whole, they will be better prepared. How much better prepared remains to be seen.

2) Yes...it is primarily about status and clout. Transitioning to the doctoral level makes it easier to lobby for direct access/better insurance reimbursement. That's just how it is though.

3) I believe the third comment about losing quality students because of a doctoral transition is highly suspect. In the case of physical therapy as mentioned, the assumption that the best physical therapy students would choose a medical route because of increased length downplays the differences between physical therapy and medicine. Lawguil...are you implying that the best physical therapy students actually would prefer to be PAs or MD/DOs? This comment, although true in some instances, is a bit short-sighted. Allied health and medicine are different. Ancilliary providers do not always choose their respective fields because of an inability to pursue medicine.

4.) cost more but dont make more......right on target...99% true

5.) Yes, doctoral transitioning is very trendy!....lets see....pharmacy, audiology, physcial therapy, and now nursing.....whos next...Speech Pathology? Occupational Therapy? Both these fields have clinical doctorates in a limited number of programs. Could it be too far off?

thats just my 2 cents

 

[OzDDS]

Yes, doctoral transitioning is very trendy!....lets see....pharmacy, audiology, physcial therapy, and now nursing.....whos next...Speech Pathology? Occupational Therapy? Both these fields have clinical doctorates in a limited number of programs. Could it be too far off?

Only in America...

Shouldn't students be required to attain a bachelors and possibly a masters degree as well (in the same field) before you should be able to attain a "Doctorate".

Ex) Bachelor of Biology--> Masters of Biology--> PhD in Biology

With the name changing the US has done.. you have fooled yourself into calling yourself something which has no foundation. This 1) foolish 2) a bastardization of an educational system 3) Completly politically and money driven.

Even medicine in the US.. MD degree.. technically isn't even a doctorate. It is equal to the british system's Bachelor of Medicine degree. Both are undergraduate medical degrees.

Seems silly to me..

 

[OzDDS]

My experience with other clinical doctorates 1.) Academic requirements are almost identical to the previous requirements before the clinical doctorate developed. (A clinical doctorate does not mean a better education) 2.) Are more a way of establishing status and political clout.

It costs more $ and you don't make more $.

It bothers me to reduce the term Dr. into a blanket term used to describe every health care profession in existence. It's just going to make this trendy transition that much more difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. L.

That sounds about right..

 

[DrBlaze]

Only in America...

Shouldn't students be required to attain a bachelors and possibly a masters degree as well (in the same field) before you should be able to attain a "Doctorate".

Ex) Bachelor of Biology--> Masters of Biology--> PhD in Biology

With the name changing the US has done.. you have fooled yourself into calling yourself something which has no foundation. This 1) foolish 2) a bastardization of an educational system 3) Completly politically and money driven.

Even medicine in the US.. MD degree.. technically isn't even a doctorate. It is equal to the british system's Bachelor of Medicine degree. Both are undergraduate medical degrees.

Seems silly to me..

I just an ignorant Aussie, and I think I get it but can someone just clarify this for me...

Under this new world (US) order of doctorate programs, applicants just roll up, (potentially with any academic background) do the doctrate and hey presto they are <insert chosen health profession>?

David

 

[CVPA]

...however, several didactic courses would be added. Additionally clinicals would increase. I don't see how increased depth of course work and increases clinical hours would not yield a better prepared clinician. Will a doctoral clinician always be better prepared than a masters clinician, of course not! However, as a whole, they will be better prepared. How much better prepared remains to be seen.

Chico:

I think your point is well taken, although I am not sure that additional clinicals would necessarily be taken in a doctoral program vs a masters program. Most definately the didactic portion would be more rigorous and involve courses with more depth, which can only improve the clinical quality of the graduate. As you say, however, how much that would improve the quality of the graduate is yet to be seen and in my opinion, remains an important question. Moreover, would the "improvement" justify the added expense of the training and as I said previously, to what end is the level of training being increased to a doctorate level? If one is proposing changing the basic training model of mid-level practioners to a doctorate, a need has to be demonstrated. What is the need in this case? I would say it is more of a want than a need and as you also correctly pointed out, its trendy. Its a trend that makes the universities money and provides for good discussions on SDN!

 

[OneiroKnight]

There are already several different types of Doctoral degrees in nursing, each with a little different focus. The standard PhD, with a strong research focus; the DNS (or DSc, DSN, depending on the university) which has a combined research, teaching, and policy focus; the ND which was previously the most clinical of them all, and it seems to have more of a populations focus and a case management emphasis. Now, the DNP. It is specifically for the Nurse Practitioner role. The others you could get into without the advanced scope of patient care, as they are more academic. For many of them, one needs to have a Master's already, and I believe aside from the ND, it must be a Master's in Nursing before you are allowed to enter. With the DNP, you must have a bachelors, and it will confer the DNP upon completion plus you will have the Nurse Practitioner credentials. For those who are already NPs, and have Master's, it will be a shorter program, 2 years beyond the Master's, plus a year of a residency.

Yes, it is a practice doctorate, not an academic doctorate. So it will not replace any of the others, it is specific for the NP role. Much like the Juris Doctorate, or the Doctorate of Chiropractic, or the Doctor of Optometry or Podiatry. All practice doctorates.

I don't know. I see the argument that it is not cost effective to train midlevel providers at the doctoral level, and that it will be more work, cost more money for the individual, who will not make more money... on the other hand, I have just completed a Master's, and I feel the need for a stronger clinical base. I just wonder how nursing will differentiate the scope and role of the DNP from those of other disciplines.

 

[CVPA]

...on the other hand, I have just completed a Master's, and I feel the need for a stronger clinical base.

That is a very significant statement you just made and I would venture to say that there are likely many of your colleagues who feel the same way. The more I think about this and the more I read, the more I am convinced that the best answer to this whole thing is post-graduate residencies. If you look at the allopathic and osteopathic models of training, what makes them strong clinically is not so much the medical school training (although certainly important), but rather the post-graduate residency programs (PGRP). The same, I believe, holds true for mid-level practitioners. When it comes to cultivating clinical skills as a practitioner, and assuming that you have already received adequate basic medical sciences training, no amount of in depth extra classroom didactics can take the place of a structured clinical training program. The beauty of PGRPs for NPs and PAs is twofold: 1) There is no added expense for education, as you are receiving a stipend and providing a service to the medical institution as opposed to just paying extra tuition, and 2) you graduate with a stronger set of clinical skills which will undoubetdly reflect in your performance, thereby benefiting the profession as a whole. More importantly, however, will be the conferred benefit to your future patients.

 

[lawguil]

When it comes to cultivating clinical skills as a practitioner, and assuming that you have already received adequate basic medical sciences training, no amount of in depth extra classroom didactics can take the place of a structured clinical training program.

I couldn't agree more!!! Well Said!! If an organization were genuinely trying to improve them for the purpose of patient care, they would have post graduate training.

Does anybody out there feel a little embarrassed about what allied health organizations are doing with respect to clinical doctorates. Does anybody worry what real doctors actually think about allied health professionals moving towards a "clinical doctorate"? I would be so embarrassed to call myself DR so and so if I were a NP or PT or whatever. I think it takes credibility away from some very credible and respected professions. I think it is very disrespectful to people who have actually earned a doctorate(PhD,DSc,EdD,MD,DO,DVM,DDS,DPM) L.

 

[CVPA]

Does anybody out there feel a little embarrassed about what allied health organizations are doing with respect to clinical doctorates. Does anybody worry what real doctors actually think about allied health professionals moving towards a "clinical doctorate"? I would be so embarrassed to call myself DR so and so if I were a NP or PT or whatever. I think it takes credibility away from some very credible and respected professions. I think it is very disrespectful to people who have actually earned a doctorate. L.

I can only speak for myself. As a PA who is working on a doctorate (PhD), I in no way feel embarrassed about what I am doing because I am getting a PhD with the idea of eventually entering academia full-time with some part-time clinical research. In that capacity, the PhD will serve me well. To me, thats when a doctorate makes sense; when there is a successive goal that is best served by such a degree. If you want to be a better clinician, do a residency. If your a well-seasoned graduate and residency is not logistically possible, attend every CME conference you can that is applicable to your specialty, read the appropriate journals, join the appropriate organizations and participate on committees, write papers that are applicable to your specialty and then publish them in a peer-reviewed journal. Collectively, these types of acitivites will go a lot farther towards making you a better clinician than obtaining a doctoral degree. Don't get me wrong. There is a lot of good information in these programs. I just think there is a more efficient and better directed way of becoming a strong clinician that costs a lot less time and money while ultimately serving the purpose better.

As far as addressing myself as "Doctor", I would not allow anyone to address me as "Doctor" in a clinical setting. I believe that is inapproriate. Not because its an insult to anyone, because I will have earned that title, but because in that setting, its nothing but confusing to the patient, counterproductive to the acceptance and growth of my profession, and arguably a misrepresentation of who I am. The same holds true for any other allied health professional who obtains a doctorate.

 

[OzDDS]

I just an ignorant Aussie

Actually, I'm American born and bred.. I love the US! But you have to admit that it seems a bit silly for the US to create all these "doctorate" programs when in essence they really aren't doctorates.. and even if the US wants to continue to claim they are doctorates.. The United States still allows health professionals from the UK to practice in the US who only have "bachelor degrees" and recognise their degree as equal. mmm Shouldn't that say something?

 

[OneiroKnight]

The title of "Doctor" has never been solely the domain of physicians. A PhD in any discipline qualifies you to be called Doctor, engineering, mathematics, history... as far as the clinical sciences go, I doubt anyone mistakes or confuses their dentist as a physician, but (s)he is called Dr. so and so, because of the earned degree in that specific discipline. DDS, DPM, OD, DC, NMD, DPT, etc., etc., etc., none of these are physicians, and doubtfully any of them are confused as being physicians. As long as one does not misrepresent themselves as a Physician, "Medical Doctor", or Doctor of Osteopathy, than there is no harm; meaning it should be clear what you are a doctor of. The term Dr. is okay if you have a doctoral degree. This is such an issue with PAs or NPs who have attained a doctoral degree (be it PhD, DNS, DNP, or whatever kind of doctorate), and no offense intended here, but it seems that it is the discipline of medicine who finds the most offense with calling an NP or PA "Doctor", when they don't seem to have the same issue with the PhD in micro who instructed their classes back in med school, who was also, not a physician necessarily.

I know a NP who has an ND, and she introduces herself to patients as, "hello, I am Dr. X, a Nurse Practitioner" Not much room for misrepresentation there.

Anyway, aside from the tangent on titles, I think perhaps I agree with CVPA on the post grad residency vs. the clinical doctorate. Presently as new grads, usually we have to negotiate for a lower salary, because we figure in the teaching time, and collaboration time needed to learn the ropes. Nothing like a residency, and certainly not like an 80+ hours/week like the MDs and DOs do for 3 years. And we get paid a bit more then they do also. But I have been told it takes about a year out before you feel like you feel competent in the midlevel role.

 

[lawguil]

I can only speak for myself. As a PA who is working on a doctorate (PhD), I in no way feel embarrassed about what I am doing because I am getting a PhD with the idea of eventually entering academia full-time with some part-time clinical research. In that capacity, the PhD will serve me well. To me, thats when a doctorate makes sense; when there is a successive goal that is best served by such a degree. If you want to be a better clinician, do a residency. If your a well-seasoned graduate and residency is not logistically possible, attend every CME conference you can that is applicable to your specialty, read the appropriate journals, join the appropriate organizations and participate on committees, write papers that are applicable to your specialty and then publish them in a peer-reviewed journal. Collectively, these types of acitivites will go a lot farther towards making you a better clinician than obtaining a doctoral degree. Don't get me wrong. There is a lot of good information in these programs. I just think there is a more efficient and better directed way of becoming a strong clinician that costs a lot less time and money while ultimately serving the purpose better.

As far as addressing myself as "Doctor", I would not allow anyone to address me as "Doctor" in a clinical setting. I believe that is inapproriate. Not because its an insult to anyone, because I will have earned that title, but because in that setting, its nothing but confusing to the patient, counterproductive to the acceptance and growth of my profession, and arguably a misrepresentation of who I am. The same holds true for any other allied health professional who obtains a doctorate.

CVPA,

Excuse me for my lack of clarification. I have a great deal of respect for people who obtain a PhD. People who obtain PhD's are a rare bread of birds and I make a special effort to address these Dr's as DR XYZ. I intended my post to be angled at people signed up for the DPT or DNP or PsychD or AlliedHeathScienceD's who are a very common bread of birds and have in no way (in my opinion) earned the designation. I'm sure you understand that these people are not earning PhD, EdD or DSc. They are earning something recently created/redefined by the allied health professions. My respect goes out to MD/DO PhD/EdD/DSc/DVM/DDS/DPM. Not the other wannabee's.

 

[50960]

What about so called "allied health " professionals whos license requires a doctorate (ND,OD, PhD/PsyD, DC) etc..? They all use the title doctor in a clinical setting.

 

[CVPA]

".....it seems a bit silly for the US to create all these "doctorate" programs when in essence they really aren't doctorates..."

I'm sorry, maybe you know something about these programs that I do not. To my understanding, these doctoral programs are offered by fully accredited universities with decent reputations. There is no reason, that I know of, to assume that the curriculums are bogus. I have looked into a number of curriculums around the country when I was deciding where I wanted to apply and they were no walk in the park. Although I take issue with the applicability of some of these programs, make no mistake, they are academically demanding and the student deserves the conferred degree upon graduation.

"...I know a NP who has an ND, and she introduces herself to patients as, "hello, I am Dr. X, a Nurse Practitioner" Not much room for misrepresentation there."

The problem with this, OneiroKnight, is that most people in this country are still coming to terms with what a Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant are. You throw "Dr. Jones, a Nurse Practitioner" or "Dr. Smith, a Physician Assistant", into the equation and the waters will go from muddy to black. Although I am sure your friend does not mean to misrepresent herself, that is exactly what she is doing by walking into an exam room and introducing herself as "Dr X", regardless of how she qualifies the statement. The current accepted standard of behavior in clinical medicine is to identify yourself as "Doctor" only if you are a physician. In fact, there are laws in most states which have specific language addressing this sort of thing. If you are a PsyD in an office or an OD in an optometry clinic or something like that, people know that you are not a physician and understand the difference despite addressing the person as "Doctor". However, if you practice in an environment where 99.9% of the people before and after you were/are physicians, and you introduce yourself as "Dr. X", people are going to think of you as a physician, and that my friend, is misrepresentation.

 

[OzDDS]

".....it seems a bit silly for the US to create all these "doctorate" programs when in essence they really aren't doctorates..."

I'm sorry, maybe you know something about these programs that I do not. To my understanding, these doctoral programs are offered by fully accredited universities with decent reputations. There is no reason, that I know of, to assume that the curriculums are bogus. I have looked into a number of curriculums around the country when I was deciding where I wanted to apply and they were no walk in the park. Although I take issue with the applicability of some of these programs, make no mistake, they are academically demanding and the student deserves the conferred degree upon graduation.

I never said the curriculms were bogus or that they were not accredited schools. I'm speaking about how the US has changed the names of degrees to be called doctorate.. but in effect they are no different than a bachelors in the same field. The only reason for the name change is so that the person completing the degree can call themselves Dr. One example is the Doctor of Physical therapy. 10-15 years ago.. this was a bachelor degree. Now it is a Doctorate... the PTs who did only the bachelor have the same scope of practice and make the same money as the Doctorate guys... so what's the point.. The programs are not bogus.. just the name of the degree.

 

[CVPA]

I never said the curriculms were bogus or that they were not accredited schools. I'm speaking about how the US has changed the names of degrees to be called doctorate.. but in effect they are no different than a bachelors in the same field. The only reason for the name change is so that the person completing the degree can call themselves Dr. One example is the Doctor of Physical therapy. 10-15 years ago.. this was a bachelor degree. Now it is a Doctorate... the PTs who did only the bachelor have the same scope of practice and make the same money as the Doctorate guys... so what's the point.. The programs are bogus programs.. just the name of the degree.

I am confused. As I understand it, they haven't changed the names per se, the programs that I am talking about were created and added over the past few years. These are new programs. Which ones are you referring to?

 

[50960]

lawquil,

As I have stated before, a Psy.D. and a Ph.D are considered equal in all clinical arenas. As one who has both degrees I can say that they are not much different in scope, but a bit in focus. It takes one or the other to even begin the process of getting a license as a clinical psychologist. There is no such degree as a psychD, and the closest is a PsyD which was started in the 60's. My wife has a Ph.D. in biochem, and can run around any MD in a discussion of oxidative phosphorylation, but she could not Dx a MVP nor a panic disorder, and would not know where to start a differential of the two. Doctor only means physician exclusively if you are ignorant of alot of other doctors (your dentist, podiatrist, vet etc...). I really doubt even the most rural of folk think their horse's doctor is an MD.

 

[fapt]

hi all
i am a PT in Taiwan, however, in taiwan we don't have doctor of physical therapy and pharmacy and dentist.
But i want to know why do any students studying DPT can call themself Dr.?
I got confused.

Thnaks a lot!

MS, PT, Taiwan

 

[OzDDS]

I am confused. As I understand it, they haven't changed the names per se, the programs that I am talking about were created and added over the past few years. These are new programs. Which ones are you referring to?

I suppose yeah.. you could say that they have "created new programs" .. but they have done away with all of the "Bachelors of Physical therapy" programs as far as I know. I don't know of a single program in the US now that now offers it. They have changed some of the curriculm sure, maybe this includes adding a few classes to make it an additional year so they could justify calling it a doctorate. But when you graduate.. Guess what? Your still just a physical therapist. No different than a physical therapist who has only a bachelors degree. So yes, In the US.. they are changing allied health care training programs to so called "doctorate programs". It REALLY is just an unwarrented name change..

 

[OzDDS]

The title of "Doctor" has never been solely the domain of physicians. .

Sure.. but there is a difference between someone who is given the title of "doctor" and a doctorate degree holder.

You don't have to be the holder of a doctorate degree to be called doctor.. ie. someone who is "doctoring you" or performing diagnosis, prescription and/or surgery. example dentists and physicans. No matter what the degree is called.. DMD/DDS/MD or BDS/BDent/MBBS/MbChb. These are all med/dent degrees.. but not a single one of them is technically a doctorate degree... they are all undergraduate professional degrees. which grant the holder to the title of "doctor", because of what they do.

Conversly.. any one who holds a "true" doctorate degree.. ie. PhD, DSc.. also is granted the title of "doctor".. but this is given because of academic acheievment.. not because of job performed.

Allied health professionals.. unless they attain a "true" doctorate.. ie. PhD, DSc.. I don't think you should be granting that title to every PT, OT, Nurse, or audiologist who wants it or who completes what is "really" a basic first degree in that field.

 

[lawguil]

Sure.. but there is a difference between someone who is given the title of "doctor" and a doctorate degree holder.

You don't have to be the holder of a doctorate degree to be called doctor.. ie. someone who is "doctoring you" or performing diagnosis, prescription and/or surgery. example dentists and physicans. No matter what the degree is called.. DMD/DDS/MD or BDS/BDent/MBBS/MbChb. These are all med/dent degrees.. but not a single one of them is technically a doctorate degree... they are all undergraduate professional degrees. which grant the holder to the title of "doctor", because of what they do.

Conversly.. any one who holds a "true" doctorate degree.. ie. PhD, DSc.. also is granted the title of "doctor".. but this is given because of academic acheievment.. not because of job performed.

Allied health professionals.. unless they attain a "true" doctorate.. ie. PhD, DSc.. I don't think you should be granting that title to every PT, OT, Nurse, or audiologist who wants it or who completes what is "really" a basic first degree in that field.

I agree completely OxDDS. Psisci, Sorry about the PsychD vs. PysD. Hopefully this is succinct enough. If the program is a Clinical Doctorate and not a PhD, DSc , EdD MD, DO, DVM, DDS, DPM it is a bogus degree - It shouldn't exist. I fully understand an academic doctorate aka - PhD,DSc,EdD. I personally don?t think that OD?s, DC?s, ect have earned a doctorate degree and are simply allied health professionals who could learn there trade at levels less than a doctorate.
Not that this qualifies anything, but I work in a reputable academic institution and have been involved in a number of committee?s with respect to the new clinical doctorate degree's, namely physical therapy. The APTA set a year of 1998 (or so) as the last year that a student could graduate with a Bachelors degree in physical therapy. After this year the entry level degree had to be a Masters. However there was no change in the curriculum. It still took 3 years to complete and most school offered it in a 5 year masters program. Most of the changes affected prerequisite courses if you will (Ochem, chem,physics,nutrition,bio ect.) Now the APTA, in search of a little more political clout, decided that nearly the same curriculum should be called a doctor of physical therapy degree and that would now be the entry-level standard for physical therapist. Sure, maybe they will throw in a research class and "capstone" project, but the coursework is still the same as a bachelors pre-1998. At the same time, they don't require any CEU's to maintain license/certification and have done a lousy job developing a certification exam at the national level. In fact many times the people now teaching students in a DPT program don't even have doctorate degrees themselves if they are a physical therapist. At our institution, the PT instructors are in the process of earning the tDPT. Why do academic institutions go along with the clinical doctorates. Let's think about this. If the APTA suddenly creates a mandate, if you will, that entry level will now be a DPT, you can either let you accreditation expire, or go along with it. Most schools have a ton of money invested in great programs, but they in no way, shape or form resemble a doctorate degree (more of a bachelors degree), but it does have the ability to make the school more money. Please keep in mind that physician's and PhD's where I work do not agree or respect the NAME CHANGE. Are the students better prepared? Our institution is currently accepting candidates for the grand opening of our DPT degree = more of the same. We are currently at an average gpa of 3.13. Historically our average was at 3.5 give or take a tenth. We are accepting less qualified candidates and over looking pre-requisites in order to accept a full class. I don't think anybody at our institution supports physical therapy being an DPT entry level program, but guess what, we're selling the program to students current and future and guess what, they're buying it. I genuinely believe that allied health programs should be rigorous, respected and are great professions and professionals. It is my belief that PT and others should still be an entry level bachelors degree and if your interested in graduate level work, earn a masters or PhD, DSc or EdD ect?... Then you will be a DR. I hope that everybody recognizes that academic institutions have become graduate degree granting factories. Education has become BIG business.

 

[CVPA]

I agree completely OxDDS. Psisci, Sorry about the PsychD vs. PysD. Hopefully this is succinct enough. If the program is a Clinical Doctorate and not a PhD, DSc , EdD MD, DO, DVM, DDS, DPM it is a bogus degree - It shouldn't exist. I fully understand an academic doctorate aka - PhD,DSc,EdD. I personally don?t think that OD?s, DC?s, PsyD?s, ect have earned a doctorate degree and are simply allied health professionals who could learn there trade at levels less than a doctorate.
Not that this qualifies anything, but I work in a reputable academic institution and have been involved in a number of committee?s with respect to the new clinical doctorate degree's, namely physical therapy. The APTA set a year of 1998 (or so) as the last year that a student could graduate with a Bachelors degree in physical therapy. After this year the entry level degree had to be a Masters. However there was no change in the curriculum. It still took 3 years to complete and most school offered it in a 5 year masters program. Most of the changes affected prerequisite courses if you will (Ochem, chem,physics,nutrition,bio ect.) Now the APTA, in search of a little more political clout, decided that nearly the same curriculum should be called a doctor of physical therapy degree and that would now be the entry-level standard for physical therapist. Sure, maybe they will throw in a research class and "capstone" project, but the coursework is still the same as a bachelors pre-1998. At the same time, they don't require any CEU's to maintain license/certification and have done a lousy job developing a certification exam at the national level. In fact many times the people now teaching students in a DPT program don't even have doctorate degrees themselves if they are a physical therapist. At our institution, the PT instructors are in the process of earning the tDPT. Why do academic institutions go along with the clinical doctorates. Let's think about this. If the APTA suddenly creates a mandate, if you will, that entry level will now be a DPT, you can either let you accreditation expire, or go along with it. Most schools have a ton of money invested in great programs, but they in no way, shape or form resemble a doctorate degree (more of a bachelors degree), but it does have the ability to make the school more money. Please keep in mind that physician's and PhD's where I work do not agree or respect the NAME CHANGE. Are the students better prepared? Our institution is currently accepting candidates for the grand opening of our DPT degree = more of the same. We are currently at an average gpa of 3.13. Historically our average was at 3.5 give or take a tenth. We are accepting less qualified candidates and over looking pre-requisites in order to accept a full class. I don't think anybody at our institution supports physical therapy being an DPT entry level program, but guess what, we're selling the program to students current and future and guess what, they're buying it. I genuinely believe that allied health programs should be rigorous, respected and are great professions and professionals. It is my belief that PT and others should still be an entry level bachelors degree and if your interested in graduate level work, earn a masters or PhD, DSc or EdD ect?... Then you will be a DR. I hope that everybody recognizes that academic institutions have become graduate degree granting factories. Education has become BIG business.

Lawguil:

Your personal experience and insight into this situation is invaluable.....and a bit disheartening. Sadly, I think your right on the mark with your assessment.

 

[lawguil]

The Doctor of Science degree (and the Doctor of Health Science - DHSc) is a well-recognized degree in Europe and to a lesser degree on the East Coast (Boston University was one of the first institutions to award the DSc). The DSc is designed for professional specialty areas such as Dentistry, Pharmacology, and Physical Therapy. The DSc degree?s primary focus is on the practice of the profession. It tends to have depth and focus in the professional area, but not the breath one might see in a PhD. It is distinctive from an EdD or PsyD in that it builds on the entry level education of a profession and the subsequent post entry level clinical experience. Most DSc degrees are over 60 credits in length. Most have some significant terminal project such as a doctoral project or dissertation but less research (inquiry) credits than a PhD or EdD.
Depending on the focus of the institution (research vs. teaching), the DSc degree is accepted in most academic institutions, but may not qualify an individual for a tenure tract position. It is generally regarded as an academic degree rather than a clinical degree.
Issues to consider: The DSc degree may prepare an individual to teach in their content area, to provide expert mentoring and vision for their clinical field, and to conduct and participate in clinical research. If a state determines that only individuals with clinical doctorates can be addressed as ?Dr.? in the clinic, the DSc may not qualify. This issue may require legal opinion.

A Doctorate in Education is regarded similarly to a PhD in many institutions. Many academic institutions make a distinction between the EdD and PhD when offering both in the same program. They may regard the EdD as the ?practitioner?s? degree and the PhD as the research degree. Generally, the distinction is in the number of required research (inquiry) credits units required. Often the PhD has a greater requirement for research credit units. However, Harvard, as an example, only offers an EdD for a doctorate in Education. The EdD is generally over 60 credit units, requires a qualifying exam (which may less rigorous than a PhD), and a dissertation.
The EdD is regarded by most academic institutions as an academic doctorate, qualifying the individual for a tenure tract position and by credential, positioning the individual for access to grant money. The EdD, when distinguished from the PhD is designed to create ?users of knowledge? in specific practice areas.
Issues to Consider: Most institutions view the EdD and PhD as synonymous with regards to salary, promotion, tenure, etc. It is not regarded as a strong research based degree when compared with the PhD. The EdD requires a significant time commitment and may include a residency requirement.

The Doctor of Philosophy degree is the ?gold standard? of academic degrees. The purpose of the PhD is to educate students to ?create new knowledge? that is, to become scholars.1 The PhD often has a residency requirement that requires a student to engage in full-time studies on campus for a portion of their program. Non-traditional institutions (such as technology based programs) often do not require this residency requirement.
The emphasis of the PhD is on designing, performing, analyzing, and writing of original research. The PhD is typically broad and may require courses not in the student?s content area. Generally, a PhD requires upwards of 72 credit units.
The PhD is accepted at all academic institutions as the quintessential academic degree. The expectation is the individual will generate research.
Issues to consider: The PhD generally requires the most time and is the most rigorous. Some may feel the PhD does not prepare an individual to work in any particular sector, but rather prepares them for academia. If the PhD (or minor) is not in Education, the degree may not include any education courses. The PhD may be considered not as useful in the clinical area.

The DO,MD, DDS become worthy of the mighty ?D? because of the extensive clinical training, intensity, and invasive autonomy of a physician. Viewing medical schools globally, they are probably more selective than any other educational program. The pre-requisites for medical school make sense and provide a foundation to construct a medical student. Further, referring to a physician as Dr is reflected in hundred and hundreds of years of history and by definition describes what it is they do.
Issues to consider: The MD,DO, DDS is not accepted by most academic institution for tenure tract position, but may be qualified to teach in a specific content area (such as a medical school). As a general rule physicians aren?t known for generating quality research outside of specific clinical subjects.

Where exactly do the allied health clinical doctorates fit in. Newly fabricated degrees previously granted at the undergraduate level designed to provide more political leverage and status to allied health professionals.
Issues to consider: Legitamate professions, but losing respect because of an organizations aimless efforts to be something that they are not. Unclear how academic institutions will recognize this degree. L.

 

[50960]

I can agree with that, and I do agree with your central point that academic institutions are in it for the $$, and are creating doctorates out of nothing substantial. I have a PhD from Univ of London, UK, and I know that the PhD in the UK is vastly different than in the US. A British PhD is the completion of a large, and new research project almost exclusively. There are no new courses to take per se. The resulting "dissertation" is called a "thesis", and it is orally defended. This process can take 2 years or 10 years depending on the person, and the topic. As far as didactic learning goes the MSc/MA is the termination point in the UK.

 

[delicatefade]

Lawguil - unfortunately you are right on the money regarding the PT profession. Despite what they will tell you, PT programs did not change that much when they transitioned from MPT->DPT. For instance, as far as I can tell the only curriculum change at my alma mater was a management class and an extra clinical. That's it. And the quality of students has certainly gone down the toilet.

As far as allied health professionals introducing themselves as doctor, I think it depends on the setting. In a physical therapy office, no one is going to mistake a DPT for a physician. But in a hospital setting, patients will be confused left and right - I've already seen it happen with a new DPT grad who was hired before I left and a little too proud of his degree...

 

[OneiroKnight]

I can't speak for the DPT programs, but I can speak for the doctoral nursing programs. Nursing has been, and continues to be confusing to most. We still have 3 entry level points to basic nursing: Diploma in Nursing (3 years), Associates (2.5 years), and Bachelors (4 years). Advanced Nursing Practice, include Nurse Practitioners, Nurse Anesthetists, Nurse Midwives, and Clinical Nurse Specialists. These are all now at the Masters level. NP used to be an extra year or so above the B.S. level, and you would get a certificate, but that was some time ago. The Masters programs are all 2 to 2.5 years beyond a Bachelor's, and include a thesis or an applied research project. Most of the doctoral programs, with the exception of the ND, require 4 years beyond a Masters (PhD., DNS, DSc, DSN). The ND program allows you entry after a B.S., and the up-coming DNP will as well, and they are 4 years in length full time, after the undergraduate degree. I am not sure about the dissertation requirements on the latter two. The DNP will be composed entirely of clinical classes, and a residency. They aren't fluffed up bachelor's classes, and they prepare one to function at a much higher level than the basic nursing level, for which an Associates, or better yet, a Bachelor's degree would suffice.

In reference to calling oneself Doctor, I can see your points about the context of the setting. I wouldn't say one were misrepresenting oneself necessarily, but I can now understand why an NP or PA or DPT who may have a doctorate shouldn't call themselves "Dr" in the hospital setting, or other setting where most are physicians. Patients misunderstand things pretty easily. It would be different in an academic setting, or a PT clinic or whatever, or psychologists office.

 

[group_theory]

I have no problem calling people who have doctorates (whether PhD, MD/DO, DDS, DC, DNS/DSN/DNP, DPT, etc) in academic settings, conferences, or other non-clinical settings. They earned it through hard work, dedication, and time committment. (I will never call someone doctor if their doctorate comes from a diploma mill)

Unfortunately, despite the origin (latin derivation) of "doctor", the public still equates the term "doctor" with medical doctor (or crazy evil mad scientists). Some of you also do this at a subconscious level. If a friend or family member tells you "I went to the doctor today", you immediately infer that he/she means "medical doctor" and not chiropractors (DC), pharmacists (pharmD), educational specialists (Ed.D), researcher (PhD), physical therapist (DPT), etc.

We live in a society where men in scrubs or labcoat are automatically assumed to be doctors, even if they inform (and re-inform constantly) the patient that they are not "doctors". The same sad truth holds for females. Female doctors have been mistaken for nurses a lot too, even if they introduce themselves as "Dr. Jane Doe". To believe that the public and/or patient will suddenly understand that they are not seeing a medical physician when the NPs/PAs introduce themselves as "Dr. Jane Doe, your Nurse Practitioner" or "Dr. Jane Doe, your Physician Assistant" just because there is a qualifier is naive at best.

Actions speaks louder than words. If NPs were suddenly given doctorates but the end-product (how they do clinically) essentially remains the same, then there is no increase in prestige as viewed by others. I guess (and please correct me if I'm wrong) this is what happened with the DPT/MSPT/BSPT situation. If the prestige (or money) were elevated when physical therapy became a clinical doctorate, you'll see more applicants (and increase standards). The exact opposite has happened.


Also, someone mentioned this earlier in the thread ... at this advance level ... isn't the shift now more towards the medical model than nursing model? If NPs are still practicing the nursing models (and not medical models), how is the thought process or actual "work product" different from PAs or MD/DOs? (this question is just a curiosity of mine, and is not meant nor should it be inferred as an indictment against NPs)

 

[chicoborja]

First off, nursing is a complete mess as far as doctoral education goes---PhD, ND, DNSc, DNS, and DNP. Come on, how bout a lil homogeneity here. No comment on the DNP cuz my chosen field isnt any better.
First a few comments on professional doctorates.

PharmD....used to be 2+3 in BS in pharmacy, now its 2+4 equals PharmD. The only difference is a year of clinical rotations. I'm sure pharmacy school is extremely rigorous but the difference between the BS and PharmD is minute.

DPT....most of these programs are 4+3. Who offers a doctorate in 3 years?!?! Come on! I know DCs give the option of 3 or 4 years depending how rigorous it is. In regards to Lawguil's comments on quality of students, I'm betting if the pay was better then the quality of students would sky rocket. Students go where the money is and rightfully so.

PsyD...this reminds of the comments people were making regarding professional doctorates being so much easier than academic doctorates. Hmmm....I dont necessarily think this is true. The professional allied health profession doctorate is certainly not harder than the PhD.; however, a PhD is not terribly difficult for a reasonably intelligent person that is going to an average doctoral granting institution. Let me elaborate. There is a plethora of dissertations that once completed are never published and sit on their respective universities' library shelves collecting dust. There are a lot of PhD students that do crap research and are granted the degree. It would not be economically wise for universities to be far stricter on PhD defenses. This would cause fewer to pursue the PhD in an already starving field. Although the PhD is harder than their allied health doctorate bretherin, it is not necessarily a night and day difference.

AuD....here's what I'm workin on. Its audiology for the majority out there that are unfamiliar. I enjoy the topics I study; however, it is not presented in what I presume to be a doctoral level by any stretch of the imagination. A lil overview about the educational preparation of audiologists would be in order. Maybe some of this info would be useful to generalize to other allied health fields, maybe not. Traditionally audiology grew out of Speech Pathology and Otolaryngology during WWII. After the war, academic programs began to develop in departments of Speech Path. Later, actual majors in audiology evolved. In the 60's (I believe) both speech and aud changed from a BA to an MA. The MA required, and for the most part still does, a pre-professional undergrad in Speech and Hearing Science (aka Communication Disorders). Flaw #1 These programs were not simply basic sciences but also contained professional coursework Flaw #2 The basic sciences were watered down to accomodate the addition of professional coursework. Consequently, basic sciences had to be integrated into the masters curriculum because there wasnt enough room in the undergrad with professional coursework being present. Over the past one to two decades, professionals within the field expressed their concerns that current graduates were unsatisfactory due to the variety of substantial technological advances. Discussion concerning a professional doctorate was supported strongly by many and opposed by some but they were in the minority. Those that opposed it based their opinions on very logical assumptions. They felt that a doctorate was presumptious considering the undergrad could be strengthened and that would carry over into more in depth coursework in the grad program. However, pride and self-admiration won. The AuD has become the new standard and although some programs are attempting to change the prerequisites from an undergrad in Speech and Hearing Science to those pre-med/dent/opt majors, it has been unsuccessful thus far.

 

[ether_screen]

Do people still have issues with clinical doctorates if the respective curriculums are enhanced by provided a significantly greater depth in education?

 

[OneiroKnight]

"Who offers a doctorate in 3 years?!?! "

Well, many. Law school is only about 3 years above the Bacheloreate level, and it is a Doctoral degree. Juris Doctorate. DDS. DC. Probably others as well.

I was discouraged a bit when I went to a conference at my university on the new doctoral program in nursing, a DNS program. It is 4 years full time beyond the Master's level. Oh ****. I have already been in school so long, my wife is tired, I am wanting more movement for my efforts, and I would have to go back another four??? That amounts to ten years of full time work! Granted my career options open wide, but money doesn't go up much, and I have to watch where I call myself "Dr."

 

[OzDDS]

"Who offers a doctorate in 3 years?!?! "

Well, many. Law school is only about 3 years above the Bacheloreate level, and it is a Doctoral degree. Juris Doctorate. DDS. DC. Probably others as well.

Again, JD, DDS, and DC.. none of these are "Doctorate" degrees.. they are simply undergraduate professional degrees.

no lawyer goes by the term Doctor.. Dentists do because of the job they perform, ie. diagnosis, Rx rights, surgery.. etc. Id say DC holders too.. but again.. I still think chiropractic is a bit dubious and borderline.. but still.. I suppose you could clump them in too if you really wanted too. But even then.. even doctors, dentists, and cough.. "ahum" chiros.. still even they are not holders of "true" doctorate degrees.

The united states recognises british degrees such as Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Dentistry, and Bachelor of Laws ... all as equal to MD, DDS, and JD in the US. these are all simply undergraduate professional degrees.. basic degrees in their respective fields. Not real "doctorates".

UK US
MBBS = MD
BDS = DDS
LLB = JD

 

[truthseeker]

I couldn't agree more!!! Well Said!! If an organization were genuinely trying to improve them for the purpose of patient care, they would have post graduate training.

Does anybody out there feel a little embarrassed about what allied health organizations are doing with respect to clinical doctorates. Does anybody worry what real doctors actually think about allied health professionals moving towards a "clinical doctorate"? I would be so embarrassed to call myself DR so and so if I were a NP or PT or whatever. I think it takes credibility away from some very credible and respected professions. I think it is very disrespectful to people who have actually earned a doctorate(PhD,DSc,EdD,MD,DO,DVM,DDS,DPM) L.

I think that the amount of education required, for example, to recieve a DPT, is commensurate with the amount of education required to receive a PhD or DVM or DPM etc. . . . I am not saying that it is the same information, but to say that it is disrespectful is silly. A DPT is just as meaningful a degree as the ones you listed. It does not imply that PTs can prescribe, do surgery, or hold a tenured post in academia, but it is 7-8 years of education. How many years does it take to get you PhD in history? How many years does it take to get an MD? About the same. The fact that a PhD does not require a residency and the MD does is irrelevant. Both receive their degrees after 7-8 years, just like the DPT
lighten up and get a bit less defensive about your turf. DPT is not an attack on the "real doctor" turf at all, just a way to increase the clinical knowledge we have when we begin our professional lives, and to demonstrate our relative level of expertise when compared to other practitioners. DCs for one group are percieved as having more education than PTs and they do not.

 

[OneiroKnight]

Again, JD, DDS, and DC.. none of these are "Doctorate" degrees.. they are simply undergraduate professional degrees.

no lawyer goes by the term Doctor.. Dentists do because of the job they perform, ie. diagnosis, Rx rights, surgery.. etc. Id say DC holders too.. but again.. I still think chiropractic is a bit dubious and borderline.. but still.. I suppose you could clump them in too if you really wanted too. But even then.. even doctors, dentists, and cough.. "ahum" chiros.. still even they are not holders of "true" doctorate degrees.

The united states recognises british degrees such as Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Dentistry, and Bachelor of Laws ... all as equal to MD, DDS, and JD in the US. these are all simply undergraduate professional degrees.. basic degrees in their respective fields. Not real "doctorates".

UK US
MBBS = MD
BDS = DDS
LLB = JD

Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what a "true" doctorate degree is then. I consider all of these doctoral degrees, each with a different focus, perhaps more emphasis on a particular clinical area or modality, or perhaps on research, teaching or policy focus, as in some of the other types of doctoral degrees. It seems you consider them "professional" degrees, but not doctoral, with which I disagree, respectfully.

I can't speak to the UK system, but I do know that their medical education is direct from high school, a six year program, and residency. This equates to a Master's degree here, six years. Imagine the rejection of a medical school here in the US that tried to let you go for only two years beyond your bachelors, and call yourself "Dr"??

By the way, to one of the other posters, an EdD is pretty easy to earn.

 

[OzDDS]

I can't speak to the UK system, but I do know that their medical education is direct from high school, a six year program, and residency. This equates to a Master's degree here, six years. Imagine the rejection of a medical school here in the US that tried to let you go for only two years beyond your bachelors, and call yourself "Dr"??
.

Actually.. there are 6-year MD programs in the US for students right out of high school too! McMaster university in Canada has an MD program that is 3 years too! The Universities in the the UK and Australia also have 4 year graduate entry programs too! The University of Pacific in SanFrancisco has a 5-year program for students out of high school to earn a DDS and only a DDS.. no other Bachelors degree in 5 years! AND this is an American ADA program!

Sorry.. but there are american doctors and dentists who only have a medical degree as well! In the UK and australia these days.. most people have to obtain a first degree too just like the US in order to gain admission to med school too. Most go to 4 year programs... for example Cambridge Med has both options.

Medical and Dental school degrees are still only undergraduate professional degrees.. not doctorates. No matter how you obtain them.

Are you sure a DPT degree is 8 years long? I hadn't heard that one before.
You must mean most obtain a 4 year bachelors and then do the 4 years to get the DPT? So.. DPT is 4 years not 8. Sorry... your bachelors in communication doent equate as part of your DPT curriculum sorry.
yeah.. you know what 2-3 years go.. people were doing 4 years of college, then doing 4 and geting an MSPT degree.. which isnt any different. and a couple of years before that they were doing sometimes doing 4 years of college and then applying to do a BSPT degree. Just because many people complete one prior degree before matriculation at a health professional program.. doesnt mean that then that health program automatically confers you a doctorate degree. There are some people I'm sure who want to do a bachelor of engineering degree at MIT.. and maybe in order to be competitive enough to get in.. they have to first complete another degree somewhere else and then reapply to get in. But that doesnt mean that then they can just automatically get in to MIT and do engineering but instead get a Doctor of engineering. It just doesn't work that way.

If you want a doctorate degree.. First you should complete a first degree in a particular subject, then move onto a Masters and/or PhD in that subject matter. Or I would say that the clinical doctorates would be legit if you already have expereince in that field.. say if someone completed a 4 year bachelor of Physical therapy.. then did a 2-3 year Masters of Physical therapy, then completed a 4 year clinical Doctorate of Physical therapy. Each one building on the other's knowledge.. not just skipping straight to the doctorate.

 

[OzDDS]

their medical education is direct from high school, a six year program, and residency. This equates to a Master's degree here,

I don't understand this logic.. What if there was a 4 year bachelor of chemical enginering degree.. but because of AP credit I had from high school and because I took a high load of classes I finished it in 2 years! So because I finished my 4 year degree in 2 years.. that means my Bachelor degree is really only equal to an Associates degree?

Just because some programs cram all the course into a high intensity accelerated program.. doesnt mean it's any less of a medical degree or whatever.

These accelerated programs exist in both the US and the UK

A UK med degree does not equate to a masters degree in the US.. it equates to a med degree. UK med (MBBS) = US med (MD)
once you pass your American board exams.. the US goverment claims you can call yourself MD. because the US accepts them to be equal.

 

[lawguil]

I think that the amount of education required, for example, to recieve a DPT, is commensurate with the amount of education required to receive a PhD or DVM or DPM etc. . . . I am not saying that it is the same information, but to say that it is disrespectful is silly. A DPT is just as meaningful a degree as the ones you listed. It does not imply that PTs can prescribe, do surgery, or hold a tenured post in academia, but it is 7-8 years of education. How many years does it take to get you PhD in history? How many years does it take to get an MD? About the same. The fact that a PhD does not require a residency and the MD does is irrelevant. Both receive their degrees after 7-8 years, just like the DPT
lighten up and get a bit less defensive about your turf. DPT is not an attack on the "real doctor" turf at all, just a way to increase the clinical knowledge we have when we begin our professional lives, and to demonstrate our relative level of expertise when compared to other practitioners. DCs for one group are percieved as having more education than PTs and they do not.

I respectfully disagree. The "DPT" is in no uncertain terms in any shape or form comparable to the PhD in America. If it were comparable, they would call it a PhD - trust me. The PhD changes who you are and the DPT simply gives the average warrior a diploma to put on the office wall; and it will go right beside your colleagues who earned a BSPT 8 years ago whom has forgotten more than you leaned in 8 years of DPT school. You would have to be hindered by anything as mundane as rational thinking and lack even a modicum of sanity to "earn" a PhD where I come from. It extends beyond being able to extrapolate information and being conversant with knowledge created by others. I suspect that there are no words I can write that can get this message through to the deep and dark recesses of that mush-like thing you call a brain. The only way you'll believe it is if you go through the process on your own. L.

 

[delicatefade]

I think that the amount of education required, for example, to recieve a DPT, is commensurate with the amount of education required to receive a PhD or DVM or DPM etc. . . . I am not saying that it is the same information, but to say that it is disrespectful is silly. A DPT is just as meaningful a degree as the ones you listed. It does not imply that PTs can prescribe, do surgery, or hold a tenured post in academia, but it is 7-8 years of education. How many years does it take to get you PhD in history? How many years does it take to get an MD? About the same. The fact that a PhD does not require a residency and the MD does is irrelevant. Both receive their degrees after 7-8 years, just like the DPT
lighten up and get a bit less defensive about your turf. DPT is not an attack on the "real doctor" turf at all, just a way to increase the clinical knowledge we have when we begin our professional lives, and to demonstrate our relative level of expertise when compared to other practitioners. DCs for one group are percieved as having more education than PTs and they do not.

I disagree - DPT education is not much different from MPT education. Looking at my school alone, the only thing that changed was an extra management class, an extra clinical, and perhaps and extra professional "seminar" when they transitioned from MSPT to DPT. The transition is a political ploy that has more to do with competition between DC's and PT's than it has to do with how much "more" PT's are learning now as compared to a few years ago.

 

[truthseeker]

I respectfully disagree. The "DPT" is in no uncertain terms in any shape or form comparable to the PhD in America. If it were comparable, they would call it a PhD - trust me. The PhD changes who you are and the DPT simply gives the average warrior a diploma to put on the office wall; and it will go right beside your colleagues who earned a BSPT 8 years ago whom has forgotten more than you leaned in 8 years of DPT school. You would have to be hindered by anything as mundane as rational thinking and lack even a modicum of sanity to "earn" a PhD where I come from. It extends beyond being able to extrapolate information and being conversant with knowledge created by others. I suspect that there are no words I can write that can get this message through to the deep and dark recesses of that mush-like thing you call a brain. The only way you'll believe it is if you go through the process on your own. L.

First of all, your tone is duly noted to be that of a prick. Secondly, I do not claim that it is the same. Thirdly, If you can't carry on a civil discussion, you should keep your snide comments to yourself. I don't sense any "respectfullness" in your disagreement.

 

[truthseeker]

I disagree - DPT education is not much different from MPT education. Looking at my school alone, the only thing that changed was an extra management class, an extra clinical, and perhaps and extra professional "seminar" when they transitioned from MSPT to DPT. The transition is a political ploy that has more to do with competition between DC's and PT's than it has to do with how much "more" PT's are learning now as compared to a few years ago.

I agree that the DPT is not much different than an MPT. However, it is arguable that the MPT degree underrepresented the level of knowledge held by the PT professional. In addition, I agree that it is a political ploy. I think that the DPT reflects a more appropriate level of education rather than the Masters. What do you call it when you add courses to a master's program?