Does your school rank affect starting salary?

[deleted671726]

Hello,

I was wondering if your choice of school affects your starting salary? For example, is there a benefit in salary or leverage in negotiations if I went to the #5 school compared to the #50 school?

I ask this because I currently go to a top 10 program, which is also very expensive, and I wonder if the investment was worth it. I was wondering if I could get experience from working PT's about the topic.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[goyo1010]

no

 

[Bluecase]

Nope! I've met people from usc and east nowhere state who are at the same hospital job making the same amount of money

 

[callmecrazy]

No, but how I wish it did for my own benefit, hah.

 

[jdaniels360]

GO TO THE CHEAPEST SCHOOL YOU GET INTO THAT IS ACCREDITED AND HAS A 90%+ PASS RATE.

 

[deleted671726]

Yeah that is what I was thinking too. I wish I knew that before applying to schools haha. Oh well. I also realized that the pass rate itself may be just telling part of the story also. I feel like my program is subpar, but the pass rate is near 100%. I do not think it is the program that is good, but it just happens to be that smarter kids tend to go to higher ranked schools and do better on the licensure exam. This is all just speculation, but I realize that maybe even the pass rates for higher ranked programs are misleading - they don't indicate the program quality. The % only indicates how smart the students generally are.

 

[DesertPT]

If your program is highly ranked, in what way is it subpar?

 

[ktachiba]

Yeah that is what I was thinking too. I wish I knew that before applying to schools haha. Oh well. I also realized that the pass rate itself may be just telling part of the story also. I feel like my program is subpar, but the pass rate is near 100%. I do not think it is the program that is good, but it just happens to be that smarter kids tend to go to higher ranked schools and do better on the licensure exam. This is all just speculation, but I realize that maybe even the pass rates for higher ranked programs are misleading - they don't indicate the program quality. The % only indicates how smart the students generally are.

I disagree, I think most of the smart kids tend to go to the cheap, unranked state schools with good passing rates, not highly ranked schools according to US News Report. It also depends on your financial situation, as some smart kids with rich parents prefer to go to highly ranked, expensive PT schools because they really like the program.

Or they choose to go to fairly cheap private schools in popular locations, especially if their in-state tuition is not much cheaper (i.e. Puget Sound)

 

[DesertPT]

I disagree, I think most of the smart kids tend to go to the cheap, unranked state schools with good passing rates, not highly ranked schools according to US News Report. It also depends on your financial situation, as some smart kids with rich parents prefer to go to highly ranked, expensive PT schools because they really like the program.

Or they choose to go to fairly cheap private schools in popular locations, especially if their in-state tuition is not much cheaper (i.e. Puget Sound)

Many of the top 20% of PT schools are state programs.

PT is a field where private does not = prestigious. At some places, yes. But a lot of the programs with great reputations have them because of their long history, and many of the programs with long histories are at state school. If anything, state PT schools are generally more desirable than private programs, not less.

 

[ktachiba]

Oh yea I think maybe my post came off the wrong way cuz I didn't mean that the state schools were inferior in any way. I just meant that US rankings are bull**** and it really doesn't matter which PT school you attend as long as they have a good passing rate. Most of the "smartest" applicants know this and wisely choose to go to the cheap state school where they will recieve the same education as those paying $100k.

But there are some top applicants who choose to go to a particular program no matter the cost cuz they are fortunate to have money (or don't mind having a large debt), and really like what the program has to offer.

There are also random private schools that seem to be popular such as Puget Sound

 

[ktachiba]

Rankings only matter for business school or law school, not PT or any other health professional school. At the end of the day, you take the same boards/exams. My dad went to medical school in the Philippines and nobody cares.

 

[engmedpt]

It would only matter for job competition. The need is too great currently. Im going to a top 15 ONLY because the tuition is manageable and COL is incredibly low. Direct bus routes and general location of where I want to live. Top five first time pass rate as well. Be careful. Don't bank on PSLF and take a worst case scenario approach. I tell ppl to apply to the UNF program a lot. Super cheap, warm faculty, small class, and they straight up kill NPTE first try. If your pass rate is that high, then its quality is fine.

 

[deleted671726]

If your program is highly ranked, in what way is it subpar?

I think it is subpar because they spend a lot of time teaching us research-relevant topics, which either means that we spend unnecessary time at school with less time to study or it cuts into more practice-relevant material. For example, for almost every physiology and biomechanics section, we have to learn calculations and formulas, which I highly doubt is ever going to be useful. We also have a lot of research projects and papers. I did not expect to be writing so many research papers in PT school. Currently, we are doing a month long project where we teach one another how to use crutches. I understand that these things have benefit, but I do not find them very necessary, especially when having them requires us to be in class 8am-5pm. I understand that there is value to learning how to do research, make surveys, and write papers... but I am not paying tuition to learn to be a researcher. They also don't really teach us material. We spend 7-8 hours in class a day with a lot of these "helpful but not necessary" classes and go home and teach ourselves most of the material.

My view is that the top schools' ranks are heavily influenced by the research the school produces... which does not necessarily mean the school has good teaching quality. This is similar for colleges. A PT school can have a high rank, but that is more of an indicator that it is a good research program. Therefore, the school may tend to focus more on training students to pursue research and PT practice, whereas lower ranked schools (less research-producing schools) will focus more on training students for PT practice. So if you want to pursue research as a PT, a top-ranked program is key. However, if you want to practice as a PT, your school rank does not matter as much. From what I have gathered from my classmates, they all assumed that a higher-ranked program would have a better education and possibly more opportunity for jobs, but we have come to the conclusion that the only advantage we get is that we know a little more about the research side of PT (which again I don't really care about because I just want to practice).

Having said that, I believe that most people (such as myself) assumed that higher rank was better, so we chose the higher ranked school when given the choice. By "smarter" I mean test-taking GPA GRE "school-smart." I am sure the "street-smart" people knew reality and chose the more affordable schools, which definitely is the "street-smart" choice. However, I am sure that most "school-smart" people with the academic credentials end up going to higher-ranked schools and doing better on the licensure exam. On the other hand, lower-ranked schools will have a mix of "street-smart" academically proficient students and also students who may not have had the academic credentials. As a result, those lower-ranked schools will end up having lower pass rates because of the makeup of the class, not necessarily the program quality. I am essentially saying the higher ranked schools may have better pass rates because they will end up attracting more academically proficient "school-smart" people, meaning that the pass rates do not necessarily suggest that the program is good. It just means the students are smart.

Again, I want to clarify that I don't say higher-rank and lower-rank as determinations of quality. I am just referring to the US News ranking.

 

[DesertPT]

I think it is subpar because they spend a lot of time teaching us research-relevant topics, which either means that we spend unnecessary time at school with less time to study or it cuts into more practice-relevant material. For example, for almost every physiology and biomechanics section, we have to learn calculations and formulas, which I highly doubt is ever going to be useful. We also have a lot of research projects and papers. I did not expect to be writing so many research papers in PT school. Currently, we are doing a month long project where we teach one another how to use crutches. I understand that these things have benefit, but I do not find them very necessary, especially when having them requires us to be in class 8am-5pm. I understand that there is value to learning how to do research, make surveys, and write papers... but I am not paying tuition to learn to be a researcher. They also don't really teach us material. We spend 7-8 hours in class a day with a lot of these "helpful but not necessary" classes and go home and teach ourselves most of the material.

My view is that the top schools' ranks are heavily influenced by the research the school produces... which does not necessarily mean the school has good teaching quality. This is similar for colleges. A PT school can have a high rank, but that is more of an indicator that it is a good research program. Therefore, the school may tend to focus more on training students to pursue research and PT practice, whereas lower ranked schools (less research-producing schools) will focus more on training students for PT practice. So if you want to pursue research as a PT, a top-ranked program is key. However, if you want to practice as a PT, your quality of education does not matter. From what I have gathered from my classmates, they all assumed that a higher-ranked program would have a better education and possibly more opportunity for jobs, but we have come to the conclusion that the only advantage we get is that we know a little more about the research side of PT (which again I don't really care about because I just want to practice).

Having said that, I believe that most people (such as myself) assumed that higher rank was better, so we chose the higher ranked school when given the choice. By "smarter" I mean test-taking GPA GRE "school-smart." I am sure the "street-smart" people knew reality and chose the more affordable schools, which definitely is the "street-smart" choice. However, I am sure that most "school-smart" people with the academic credentials end up going to higher-ranked schools and doing better on the licensure exam. On the other hand, lower-ranked schools will have a mix of "street-smart" academically proficient students and also students who may not have had the academic credentials. As a result, those lower-ranked schools will end up having lower pass rates because of the makeup of the class, not necessarily the program quality. I am essentially saying the higher ranked schools may have better pass rates because they will end up attracting more academically proficient "school-smart" people, meaning that the pass rates do not necessarily suggest that the program is good. It just means the students are smart.

Again, I want to clarify that I don't say higher-rank and lower-rank as determinations of quality. I am just referring to the US News ranking.

Thanks for your thorough reply. Very insightful.

 

[ptlover]

Here's the thing on research. In the long run we are trying to make PT more accessible to patients. In some sense research, in my opinion makes you a little more knowledgeable. At some point you may have the opportunity to participate in research in a field you are passionate about. As DPTs we have a responsibility to stay up to date with current studies etc. I think conducting, participating, assisting, whatever you want to call it, in research helps you understand studies a tad bit better and have an appreciation for that research. I personally love research because it challenges you and attempts to solve a need in our profession. To me that's awesome, and to be apart of that is rewarding. Not to say that a school that doesn't have research isn't as valuable. I am sure most schools have research incorporated to some extent. It makes us knowledgeable as Doctors in my opinion, again though its not the only thing that does but helps in ways!

 

[DesertPT]

Here's the thing on research. In the long run we are trying to make PT more accessible to patients. In some sense research, in my opinion makes you a little more knowledgeable. At some point you may have the opportunity to participate in research in a field you are passionate about. As DPTs we have a responsibility to stay up to date with current studies etc. I think conducting, participating, assisting, whatever you want to call it, research helps you understand studies a tad bit better and have an appreciation for that research. I personally love research becaus3 it challenges you and attempts to solve a need in our profession. To me that's awesome, and to be apart of that is rewarding. Not to say that a school that doesn't have research isn't as valuable. I am sure most schools have research incorporated to some extent. It makes us knowledgeable as Doctors in my opinion, again though its not the only thing that does but helps in ways!

I agree from my own experience in research that being directly involved definitely teaches you the skills of interpreting the literature a lot better. However truly being able to do so in an expert fashion requires a long term time period of training that you are not going to get in a clinical degree like a DPT, no matter how much research is required. A research doctorate (ie. PhD, ScD) is needed to actually know how to do research. But I think that the principles clinicians need to be able to appraise and implement the current PT literature in an intelligent fashion must be taught well in PT school if we are to continue this push for evidence-based practice and doctorate level practitioners.

 

[engmedpt]

UNF students are in class around 20-25 hours a week, have one of the lowest rankings, but have a phenomenal first time pass rate with an awesome admissions group and faculty from when I visited there. No research really. A few posts up that I saw completely explains a disconnect behind the quantity of in class time, superfluous curriculum that is unnecessary, and how the ranking system is incredibly flawed and skews good notions of how people should approach the app cycle.

 

[jblil]

Currently, we are doing a month long project where we teach one another how to use crutches.

A month to teach someone how to use crutches? How can you stretch it to a month? I can understand a couple of hours max, but one entire month? Really, I think 15 mins would be enough.

 

[DesertPT]

A month to teach someone how to use crutches? How can you stretch it to a month? I can understand a couple of hours max, but one entire month? Really, I think 15 mins would be enough.

I was thinking the same thing...sounds like a real pain...

 

[truthseeker]

.

 

[truthseeker]

I think it is subpar because they spend a lot of time teaching us research-relevant topics, which either means that we spend unnecessary time at school with less time to study or it cuts into more practice-relevant material. For example, for almost every physiology and biomechanics section, we have to learn calculations and formulas, which I highly doubt is ever going to be useful. We also have a lot of research projects and papers. I did not expect to be writing so many research papers in PT school. Currently, we are doing a month long project where we teach one another how to use crutches. I understand that these things have benefit, but I do not find them very necessary, especially when having them requires us to be in class 8am-5pm. I understand that there is value to learning how to do research, make surveys, and write papers... but I am not paying tuition to learn to be a researcher. They also don't really teach us material. We spend 7-8 hours in class a day with a lot of these "helpful but not necessary" classes and go home and teach ourselves most of the material.
My view is that the top schools' ranks are heavily influenced by the research the school produces... which does not necessarily mean the school has good teaching quality. This is similar for colleges. A PT school can have a high rank, but that is more of an indicator that it is a good research program. Therefore, the school may tend to focus more on training students to pursue research and PT practice, whereas lower ranked schools (less research-producing schools) will focus more on training students for PT practice. So if you want to pursue research as a PT, a top-ranked program is key. However, if you want to practice as a PT, your quality of education does not matter. From what I have gathered from my classmates, they all assumed that a higher-ranked program would have a better education and possibly more opportunity for jobs, but we have come to the conclusion that the only advantage we get is that we know a little more about the research side of PT (which again I don't really care about because I just want to practice).
Having said that, I believe that most people (such as myself) assumed that higher rank was better, so we chose the higher ranked school when given the choice. By "smarter" I mean test-taking GPA GRE "school-smart." I am sure the "street-smart" people knew reality and chose the more affordable schools, which definitely is the "street-smart" choice. However, I am sure that most "school-smart" people with the academic credentials end up going to higher-ranked schools and doing better on the licensure exam. On the other hand, lower-ranked schools will have a mix of "street-smart" academically proficient students and also students who may not have had the academic credentials. As a result, those lower-ranked schools will end up having lower pass rates because of the makeup of the class, not necessarily the program quality. I am essentially saying the higher ranked schools may have better pass rates because they will end up attracting more academically proficient "school-smart" people, meaning that the pass rates do not necessarily suggest that the program is good. It just means the students are smart.
Again, I want to clarify that I don't say higher-rank and lower-rank as determinations of quality. I am just referring to the US News ranking.

nicely parsed! You worded that very nicely so as not to offend those of us who attended a school with a lower ranking. I am not being snarky, I really mean it. Very well said.

 

[jchen707]

I think that in the end it isn't as cut and dry as everyone is making it out to be. You have to look at how the program fits you personally, that can be a top school or a school not ranked. However, I don't advise anyone to look at NPTE pass rate only. If the program is accredited it should be a given that they prepare you for the boards. Every program has intangibles that make it a better fit for some than for others. Even at top schools, I'm positive that some are very happy and have felt that their program prepared them for their future, but some at the same program may feel like it was a waste of time. Unfortunately, most of the time individuals don't realize this until they've gone through the program. Either way, I think that if you're applying to schools you need to look at the entire picture, not just one aspect alone (i.e. ONLY price, ONLY ranking etc...). Some programs may also tend to be a bit more research focused at some point in the program, but also have opportunities to expand on your clinical knowledge by holding advanced electives with certifications after you do long term clinical affiliations. To me the intangibles are much more important when picking the program, but it seems like most posters on this forum only touch on the tangibles, like price, ranking, pass rate. Just my two cents

 

[DesertPT]

seems like most posters on this forum only touch on the tangibles, like price, ranking, pass rate.

In my opinion price is really the only one of these worth concerning yourself significantly with.

Pass rates are about the same at most programs. Small differences from year to year are likely due largely to random chance.

 

[jchen707]

I personally do not think any of these aspects should be considered in isolation, which is contrary the feeling I get from reading most of the posts on these forums. Yes you will owe money, but there are ways to pay it off. This is an investment in your future. You're not going to be making 6 figures when you graduate, most likely, but you're also not making minimum wage. Paying off loans is doable if you budget and so many posts on SDN make it seem like it will be impossible to ever pay off all of your loans, which isn't the case.

 

[DesertPT]

SDN make it seem like it will be impossible to ever pay off all of your loans, which isn't the case

I totally agree.

 

[ktachiba]

In my opinion price is really the only one of these worth concerning yourself significantly with.

Pass rates are about the same at most programs. Small differences from year to year are likely due largely to random chance.

Rankings (i.e. USNWR rankings) are simply faculty opinion surveys that do not correlate with educational quality at all. As an isolated example, UNLV is ranked around the 50th percentile best case by USNWR, possibly lower. Yet their program seems to be the most academically rigorous of the four programs I applied to and interviewed at, and since 1998 they have not had a single graduate (close to 500 students) fail to become licensed.

I disagree about the pass rates being the same at most programs. Many programs differ in terms of 1st time NPTE pass rate. I belive you are referring to the 3 year pass rate, which should be ~100% for all programs. Also, graduation rate varies as well from school to school and I believe that is a very important part of the criteria.

 

[DesertPT]

As I said in another recent thread on this subject, 1st time pass rates are not published by many programs, or if they are they can be difficult to find. Three-year pass rates are the only number that is universally available from FSBPT for every school. Even programs with stellar reputation occasionally have a class of students where an unusual number fail the first time. Nevertheless, if you average out a few years worth of graduates at any given school, the vast majority of schools will fall within a few percentage points of the national average first time pass rate, which consistently sits at 88-90% from year to year.

This was part of my post from the other thread:

The more I see this line repeated on this forum, the more I realize that this is not the end-all-be-all of school decision making criteria. If you are a quality student you will graduate and become licensed regardless where you go school. Other than a few outliers, the vast majority of schools have ultimate NPTE failure rates low enough to chalk it up to issues specific to those few students more than the school itself.

First time pass rates aren't really an objective way to compare schools. Some schools report this data, but only the three-year ultimate pass rates are universally available, and this is what schools report more often than not. If you take the NPTE repeatedly over the course of 3 years and fail to ever pass, your problem way likely bigger than the school you went to. FSBPT reports that 99% of graduates of accredited PT education programs have ultimately passed the NPTE each graduation year for the last 3 years, and 88-90% pass on their first attempt each year pretty consistently. See here: https://www.fsbpt.org/FreeResources/NPTEPassRateReports/NPTEGraduationYearReports.aspx. When you look across the school-specific data, there are very few schools indeed that have an ultimate pass rate of less than 95%.

I know that this is contradictory to the common consensus on SDN, but I am realizing that graduation and pass rates are mostly not the mission critical deciding factors that we make them out to be, barring the few schools who's numbers in this area may be well below the norm.

 

[DesertPT]

@ktachiba I agree with you that first time pass rates are likely a decent way to compare program quality (at least if you were taking the average first time pass rate of numerous graduating classes, to minimize interference from stochastic effects). I have never seen any actual evidence that shows a correlation between first time pass rates and educational quality (how that would be quantified is another discussion), however I don't doubt that such a correlation exists. Or at least I have no evidence that a correlation does not exist. However, I cannot consistently recommend first time pass rates as a way to compare schools across the board, because of the difficulty of obtaining this information from some schools. For the data to really be reliable I would like to see the average for at least 5 graduating classes. And that many years of data is really going to be hard to come by at a lot of schools (and will of course be non-existent at schools who have only graduated a few classes).

Essentially, I completely agree with the notion of using first time pass rates as a comparator in principal. In practice, however, it is not a consistently reliable (or sometimes even viable) metric.

 

[ktachiba]

@ktachiba I agree with you that first time pass rates are likely a decent way to compare program quality (at least if you were taking the average first time pass rate of numerous graduating classes, to minimize interference from stochastic effects). I have never seen any actual evidence that shows a correlation between first time pass rates and educational quality (how that would be quantified is another discussion), however I don't doubt that such a correlation exists. Or at least I have no evidence that a correlation does not exist. However, I cannot consistently recommend first time pass rates as a way to compare schools across the board, because of the difficulty of obtaining this information from some schools. For the data to really be reliable I would like to see the average for at least 5 graduating classes. And that many years of data is really going to be hard to come by at a lot of schools (and will of course be non-existent at schools who have only graduated a few classes).

Essentially, I completely agree with the notion of using first time pass rates as a comparator in principal. In practice, however, it is not a consistently reliable (or sometimes even viable) metric.

Yeah that is true, some schools don't post the 1st time NPTE stats on their web-site. But as I said on the previous thread, I usually just e-mail the school for the information, and they usually are very happy to tell me. I also ask for the 3 year average, not just one year, for the reasons you stated above.

I also think graduation rate tells a lot about the environment of that program. Anything below 90% graduation rate looks a bit shady to me. It comes off that the faculty has no problem dropping students from the program, and I wouldn't want to be in that type of environment.

Luckily, both schools that we are attending have great graduation rates and 1st time NPTE pass rates (3 year average)

 

[ktachiba]

Also, if a school refuses to provide you with the first time NPTE pass rates for the past 3 years, that looks REALLY shady, and I wouldn't want to attend that program unless I had to.


And while most schools may have an average 1st time NPTE pass rate of around ~88-90%, I wanted to attend a school that had a 1st time NPTE pass rate at >95% (3 year average)

 

[DesertPT]

Luckily, both schools that we are attending have great graduation rates and 1st time NPTE pass rates (3 year average)

At this point I'm just grateful to be attending anywhere at all and have this dreadful pre-PT process finally over with lol...

 

[truthseeker]

Do you think that maybe the pass rates are affected by the students at all? you can have the best program in the land and have one or two students that make bad choices or are leaders for the force of evil (read $0.25 draws at the local bar on tuesday nights) and other students follow them etc . . . Probably not very clear but you can have one or two students who can get away with having more fun and studying less and if those are the "cool" kids that everyone wants to be around, the followers might not be able to hack it.

Rambling, but if you are a good student, you will pass. Each program is required to include all of the things needed to pass the test. If you don't take advantage of the classes and other resources you are a fool.

Go cheap!!

 

[DesertPT]

Do you think that maybe the pass rates are affected by the students at all?...if you are a good student, you will pass. Each program is required to include all of the things needed to pass the test. If you don't take advantage of the classes and other resources you are a fool.

Thank you. This is the point I have been trying to get across.

 

[jesspt]

I think that in the end it isn't as cut and dry as everyone is making it out to be. You have to look at how the program fits you personally, that can be a top school or a school not ranked. However, I don't advise anyone to look at NPTE pass rate only. If the program is accredited it should be a given that they prepare you for the boards. Every program has intangibles that make it a better fit for some than for others. Even at top schools, I'm positive that some are very happy and have felt that their program prepared them for their future, but some at the same program may feel like it was a waste of time. Unfortunately, most of the time individuals don't realize this until they've gone through the program. Either way, I think that if you're applying to schools you need to look at the entire picture, not just one aspect alone (i.e. ONLY price, ONLY ranking etc...). Some programs may also tend to be a bit more research focused at some point in the program, but also have opportunities to expand on your clinical knowledge by holding advanced electives with certifications after you do long term clinical affiliations. To me the intangibles are much more important when picking the program, but it seems like most posters on this forum only touch on the tangibles, like price, ranking, pass rate. Just my two cents

I couldn't disagree more. The number one, two, and three things one should consider when choosing a school is how much student loan debt will they be forced to carry once they graduate. Then look at NPTE pass rate.

I you end up at a school that has "intangibles" that make it a less than ideal fit for you you never have to worry about them once you graduate. AT ALL. But you do get to be saddled with that student loan payment every month.

When you look back at these threads (and lord knows thare are a TON of them), the only people who are arguing against price are typically the people who have decided to attend an expensive school. You never see a person who has graduated from these expensive programs come out in support of not making cost/debt load the primay factor to consider when choosing a school. The words conformation bias come to mind.

 

[jesspt]

Thank you. This is the point I have been trying to get across.

Yes. Performance in PT school is, to a large degree, dependent upoin the learner, not the environment in which they are learning.

 

[DesertPT]

I you end up at a school that has "intangibles" that make it a less than ideal fit for you you never have to worry about them once you graduate. AT ALL. But you do get to be saddled with that student loan payment every month.

When you look back at these threads (and lord knows thare are a TON of them), the only people who are arguing against price are typically the people who have decided to attend an expensive school. You never see a person who has graduated from these expensive programs come out in support of not making cost/debt load the primay factor to consider when choosing a school. The words conformation bias come to mind.

Once again, the point I have been trying to get across. I'm glad their are people who are able to say it more succinctly than me.

My attempts are making me think of a quote from Parks & Recreation: "All I have are facts and science! People hate facts and science!"

 

[jchen707]

I couldn't disagree more. The number one, two, and three things one should consider when choosing a school is how much student loan debt will they be forced to carry once they graduate. Then look at NPTE pass rate.

I you end up at a school that has "intangibles" that make it a less than ideal fit for you you never have to worry about them once you graduate. AT ALL. But you do get to be saddled with that student loan payment every month.

When you look back at these threads (and lord knows thare are a TON of them), the only people who are arguing against price are typically the people who have decided to attend an expensive school. You never see a person who has graduated from these expensive programs come out in support of not making cost/debt load the primay factor to consider when choosing a school. The words conformation bias come to mind.

I think we will have to agree to disagree. There are things that you cannot put a price tag on. Everyone has different goals for their professional careers. It comes down to how will you plan to reach these goals. PTs are so much more than just passing the NPTE. You can prep for the NPTE with books. But the intangibles can and will impact you as a professional and as a student while in school. Cost can be a limiting factor but there's also a good chance that if you chose a program based solely on the price you could end up miserable, just like if you were to choose any program based on one factor. That is my point, it is not cut and dry. nothing in life is ever black and white.

 

[truthseeker]

Its your choice ultimately, just don't say we didn't warn you. IMO the only thing you are going to get out of going to a "top tier" school is a mountain of debt. You will have the same license, you will be just as likely to pass your test going to any accredited school, you will be just as likely to have good internships/clinicals, you will be just as likely to make lifelong friends and you will make the same amount of money. Your success depends upon you, your skills, your dedication to learning (in school and after you have graduated), your personality, your communication skills, your ability to relate to your patients and the referral sources.

Unlike some professions, if I see an application from someone from Duke or USC (the "top tier" schools) the door doesn't open wider. (e.g. engineering there are a few schools that will open some doors that other diplomas won't, there are a lot of second tier schools that will open MOST doors. Think of it like fantasy football: Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Drew Brees - elite QBs. Most teams would be very happy with Matt Ryan, Phillip Rivers, Matthew Stafford, Ben Roethlisberger, Joe Flacco, but they are not "elite")

If you have the opportunity to go to an accredited school for less money, you might be able to afford a reliable car. Just sayin'

 

[ktachiba]

I couldn't disagree more. The number one, two, and three things one should consider when choosing a school is how much student loan debt will they be forced to carry once they graduate. Then look at NPTE pass rate.

I you end up at a school that has "intangibles" that make it a less than ideal fit for you you never have to worry about them once you graduate. AT ALL. But you do get to be saddled with that student loan payment every month.

When you look back at these threads (and lord knows thare are a TON of them), the only people who are arguing against price are typically the people who have decided to attend an expensive school. You never see a person who has graduated from these expensive programs come out in support of not making cost/debt load the primay factor to consider when choosing a school. The words conformation bias come to mind.

It also feels as if many people who preach about going to cheap schools have a lot of undergrad debt and/or are struggling with money. I have no undergrad debt and parents who are willing to help me out, so I decided to attend a slightly more expensive private school over UNLV because Vegas has too many distractions for me. I once considered going into professional gambling and I might be temped to play poker instead of studying.

I also didn't even go to my Cal State Fresno interview because I don't want to live in Fresno and be miserable for 3 years of my life (no offense to those who live in Fresno...just not my type of city).

Due to my life situation, I guarantee I will not regret going to a school 30K more expensive because I believe it perfectly fits my personality and life situation. Everybody's life situation and preferences are different. You shouldn't be considered an idiot for choosing to go to a school based off reasons other than NPTE pass rate and cost. I actually believe graduation rate is MORE important than FIRST TIME NPTE Pass Rate

 

[ktachiba]

Now, if I had a lot of debt and no parents to help me out, I would agree with you and put cost/pass rate near the top of my criteria..However, I would still put graduation rate over 1st Time NPTE pass rate (3 year average)...nobody should care about the ultimate NPTE pass rate as that is ~100% for every program.

I guarantee I'll be in a better financial situation by the time I graduate than other students that attend cheaper state schools due to my life situation. That's why I think one should use their own criteria and judgment (cost, location, npte/graduation rates, faculty, etc). when it comes to choosing schools, not just ONLY looking at tuition and NPTE pass rate, because not everybody has the same life situation and preferences.

 

[Carson Ranger]

From what I've gathered through this process, the more competitive state schools often have higher average GPAs and GRE scores
than the most expensive private schools, which receive far fewer applications.

"School smart" vs. "street smart" is a false meme.

 

[pass-npte]

I think the school name is the first thing the potential employer would look at the resume. But then after it depens on what you talk, how you talk and what you know and eventually what you really can do. And if you satify your employers need to make as many money as he/she needs.

School rating is overrated and it matters of how much you have interest in your profession. You can be a graduate of Harvard medical school but also be a total DUMB when it comes to desision making.
IN FACT, AS A PT YOU DON'T make DECISIONS. so, why to worry at all)))

And you know that you don't make money by working, you make money by making others (sillier then you) work FOR YOU
SO, best is to become a businessman as most medical professionals are )))

 

[truthseeker]

I hope your tongue is in your cheek when you say that a PT doesn't make decisions. I make them all the time, everyday. I am in charge of what I do to and with my patients.

Second, as one who hires and fires, I don't care where someone went to school. I care that they have a license in good standing, can think, problem solve and communicate.

I agree that school rating is over-rated.

 

[pass-npte]

very good, that may happen after 25 years of practice or when you do have your own practice.The way PT profession is regulated doesn't give any decision making for therapists. They do what doctors refer in their referrals. The best they can "Decide" is the eval and discharge.

 

[pass-npte]

Medicine is business. So, you think of money first, every patient is certain amount of dollars. Unfortunately it is true.

 

[jblil]

Most MDs I know are pretty naive about business and investing. After spending 7+ years for a degree on top of their undergrad, I think most of them are too tired and prefer to let someone else handle the business end.

 

[DesertPT]

IN FACT, AS A PT YOU DON'T make DECISIONS

 

[engmedpt]

Wut???

IN FACT, AS A PT YOU DON'T make DECISIONS. so, why to worry at all)))

Uh, yeah if you work at a straight up physician owned ortho mill.

Note that I'm specifically saying ortho.mill.

 

[engmedpt]

@truthseeker is a clinician and an employer. Ill take his side

 

[okramango]

IN FACT, AS A PT YOU DON'T make DECISIONS. so, why to worry at all)))

The way PT profession is regulated doesn't give any decision making for therapists. They do what doctors refer in their referrals.

Lol!!!