For those of you who may have read or heard the 45th Mary McMillan Lecture by James Gordon, and any others who may be able to comment:
Among several things discussed, Dr. Gordon essentially made the claim that the physical therapy academy should be consolidated into a much smaller number of substantially larger programs (class sizes comparable to medical and pharmacy schools, well upwards of 100-150 students per class). His argument for this is that large programs with larger faculties will be more likely to have the infrastructure/resources/economies of scale to be able to produce high quality research and propel academic physical therapy forward. He feels that the many new programs with little research output that have proliferated in recent years are essentially holding the PT academy back, to paraphrase.
I'm very interested to know if anyone has any thoughts on this subject. Thanks all.
I am so glad someone posted this. Now my details are fuzzy since I read the transcript almost a year ago, and was too excited to re-read before responding. Bear with me as I have a lot to say about this (although I will review and edit before posting!).
When I read this transcript initially, I said, 'Bravo Dr. Gordon!' Now the McMIllan's lecture purpose is to be a bit evocative and challenge the status quo, so all should be read with a grain of salt. But I do not believe Dr. Gordon was recommending consolidating programs together; he was recommending closing smaller programs without noticeable research activity. So not consolidating schools; rather consolidating students within schools.
The purpose of an academic program for PT [and swap out PT for just about any health care profession] is 3-fold:
1. Educate PT students using evidence based practice in collaboration with our clinical faculty.
2. Generate new knowledge (i.e., research) to move the profession forward.
3. Expose (defined in many many ways and probably be individualized to the student) students to the generation of new knowledge.
#1 is obvious and I think requires no additional explanation.
#2 and 3 are CRITICAL for PTs to advance our profession and 'own our profession' (I do not say own specific interventions or tests and measures; I am purposely stating our profession). Very few others (e.g., private industry) will take the lead on this, so academic programs MUST.
The proliferation of PT schools in smaller universities has hurt our profession. I wish I had the guts to say in publicly like Dr. Gordon rather than on an anonymous discussion board, but our faculty has discussed this AT LENGTH (I am at a 'middle of the road' school. About 50% of my job is paid for by my research funding, but of the 20 faculty I work with, only about 3 have any salary paid from grants, and only about 1/2 - 2/3 of faculty are considered 'research active.'). CAPTE requires the Chair to have a terminal degree (e.g., PhD), but that is it! These schools have no one educated or qualified to conduct research by and large, but CAPTE has some vague wording about all faculty have a 'scholarly agenda;' hence the 'fluff'' pointed out in an earlier post. I would call it garbage that often shows up at our national conference. The opening of all of these schools has put a strain on hiring qualified educators (a search of a facutly job board or my email inbox will prove that!), although I am sure completely competent clinicians and clinical faculty. But if you agree at all with my 3-fold purpose of PT academic programs, most of these small programs fall well short.
In our current environment of PT education, my job as a faculty member is to address each of my 3-fold purposes. If I don't I am failing the profession. With a smaller number of larger programs, each faculty member can focus on what they do best. PT faculty with no education and no skills in research will no longer be required to produce 'research' and can collaborate with colleagues at their institution that have the education and training rather than 'collaborating' with equally unqualified colleagues at these small schools. Of course we could collaborate between programs, but that is a rant for another day....
For the 'hands on' argument many PTs stated in response to Dr. Gordon's lecture (and stated in this discussion).. I will quote an oft stated adage in the PT world (I do not know who said it originally)..."For too long PT has been practiced from the neck down. In the current healthcare climate, we must start practicing PT from the neck up." Clinical decision making and WHY we do things should be the focus of PT education; the psychomotr skill development is receiving less and less time in PT programs (although still covered and important) over the last 5 years and I expect that to continue. This is following (and not leading) practice that PTs will be doing less 'hands on' interventions and will delegate 'extenders' to do more of the psychmotor interventions with patients. For us 'old' PTs, I think this was a tough pill to swallow, but it is where we are. I like to think about it in the 'Cowboys and Pit Crews' discussion (Atul Gwande) rather than a marked change in the PT profession.
Ok, that is enough out of me for a while!!!!
