What made you decide a 100k+ tuition school was worth it?

[flyingsquirrel]

With entry level salary at 65k-70k and cheaper state schools at around 70k tuition, what made you decide it was worth it to spend 100k+ in tuition in schools such as University of Saint Augustine?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[swolecat]

99.999% of the people there didn't have state school offers

 

[ktachiba]

I decided to attend a school that was ~113K instead of cheaper options that were around 70k for many reasons.

The most important is that I am fortunate enough to recieve financial help from my parents and I have no undergrad debt, so cost wasn't one of my main factors when deciding on school.

My top factors in choosing a program were graduation rate (I wanted over 95% for a three year average), first time NPTE pass rate (again I wanted over 95% for three year average), location (I wanted to experience a new environment in a place that is fun to live in), and faculty( I wanted faculty with different specializations and that have been teaching for a long time). The program I chose fit those criteria so I decided to attend it over cheaper programs that didn't.

I also believe that you can make much more than 65k if you are willing to work 50 hour weeks, do travel PT, or work in a high paying areas like Las Vegas. I am expecting to earn 90k + immediately unless I do a residency.

I think it's important to pick the school that feels right to you and fits your criteria because this one of most important investments you are going to make in your life. What's the point of going to a cheaper school if you are going to be miserable there or if it doesn't have good graduation/NPTE pass rates? Of course, everybody's financial situation is different, so some may be forced to put cost as the most important criteria when picking schools.

 

[southernswimmer]

I'll be attending a school that's ~104K. For reference, my in-state option would have put me ~80K in the hole and COL slightly narrows that ~20K gap.

Two big factors for me are that I have no undergrad debt, and will be relatively young when I graduate (24, assuming I don't fail anything ).

My reasons for attending the higher-cost school are nearly identical to @ktachiba's. Additional factors for me were clinical sites and job site placements. The majority of my in-state school's clinical sites were in SC and the Southeast, and the majority of graduates stay in SC for jobs. I love my home state, but I need to expand my horizons. I picked the school that will help me grow the most both professionally and personally, and be the best clinician I can be.

Honestly, PT school doesn't make much financial sense, unless you're lucky enough to live in a state with a cheap school. And, quite frankly, my future debt load terrifies me. But I know that I am frugal and financially savvy, and fully expect to be able to pay off my debt within a practical time frame.

 

[PT2Bee]

will people ever give this topic a rest.

 

[el_duderino]

Wait.

$100,000 a year tuition?

 

[southernswimmer]

Wait.

$100,000 a year tuition?

That would be a nightmare.

OP meant $100k total for the program.

 

[el_duderino]

Oh! Holy crap, I was like wtf

 

[Archline]

I decided to attend a school that was ~113K instead of cheaper options that were around 70k for many reasons.

The most important is that I am fortunate enough to recieve financial help from my parents and I have no undergrad debt, so cost wasn't one of my main factors when deciding on school.

My top factors in choosing a program were graduation rate (I wanted over 95% for a three year average), first time NPTE pass rate (again I wanted over 95% for three year average), location (I wanted to experience a new environment in a place that is fun to live in), and faculty( I wanted faculty with different specializations and that have been teaching for a long time). The program I chose fit those criteria so I decided to attend it over cheaper programs that didn't.

I also believe that you can make much more than 65k if you are willing to work 50 hour weeks, do travel PT, or work in a high paying areas like Las Vegas. I am expecting to earn 90k + immediately unless I do a residency.

I think it's important to pick the school that feels right to you and fits your criteria because this one of most important investments you are going to make in your life. What's the point of going to a cheaper school if you are going to be miserable there or if it doesn't have good graduation/NPTE pass rates? Of course, everybody's financial situation is different, so some may be forced to put cost as the most important criteria when picking schools.

Whoa, that's $43,000 more! That's a HUGE difference! I would not recommend this to most people, debt is a real thing. $43,000 is enough for a deposit on a house and a car! You are just trading freedom to choose a school for the freedom of choosing any job after school. Realistically, $43,000 will add about 7 years of debt for the typical PT. To pay off the whole $113,000 debt, It'll take 20 years, and that is just tuition! The point of going to a less expensive school is that you don't have to work 50+ hours a week, or feel the pressure of making $90k after school (I would love to know how to make that much $$ though, please share!) to pay off the debt. You can start "life" sooner!

My state school will cost around $68K (tuition), which I can pay off at a comfortable 10% annual salary (assuming around $65,000) in around 10 years. Easy.

I know it is all "pie in the sky" when choosing a school, but be smart and do some simple math. A less expensive school will net you the same job as a more expensive school, but you will be much better off financially!

 

[Azimuthal]

GI Bill

 

[ktachiba]

Whoa, that's $43,000 more! That's a HUGE difference! I would not recommend this to most people, debt is a real thing. $43,000 is enough for a deposit on a house and a car! You are just trading freedom to choose a school for the freedom of choosing any job after school. Realistically, $43,000 will add about 7 years of debt for the typical PT. To pay off the whole $113,000 debt, It'll take 20 years, and that is just tuition! The point of going to a less expensive school is that you don't have to work 50+ hours a week, or feel the pressure of making $90k after school (I would love to know how to make that much $$ though, please share!) to pay off the debt. You can start "life" sooner!

My state school will cost around $68K (tuition), which I can pay off at a comfortable 10% annual salary (assuming around $65,000) in around 10 years. Easy.

I know it is all "pie in the sky" when choosing a school, but be smart and do some simple math. A less expensive school will net you the same job as a more expensive school, but you will be much better off financially!

Yeah I agree financially it isn't the best decision, but I am fortunate enough to have my parents helping me out. I put more value on graduation rate, first time NPTE pass rate, location and faculty before cost though, so to me it was a wise decision. I think grad school is going to be a once in a lifetime experience and investment and I'm making sure I get the best of both worlds. I didn't want to be miserable at a cheaper school for 3 years just cuz it was cheaper. To me, 3 years is a kind of a long time and I wanna be happy where I am.

 

[ktachiba]

I also wanted schools that had graduation and first time NPTE pass rates of at least 95%. The other cheaper programs were around 88-90% in one of those categories and that was too low for me.

 

[Macklelaur]

I'd rather take a large loan at USA than an in-state school because of what USA offers. All of my professors still practice, a research project is not a mandatory part of program, the NPTE passing rate is high and I'll finish school only a few credits shy of having a manual therapy certification. Sometimes, you get what you pay for. I am willing to pay more for school, so that I can maximize my benefits at the end of the tunnel. Everybody has their reasons.

 

[VitaminPT]

99.999% of the people there didn't have state school offers

Pshhhhht... Okay guy.

 

[flyingsquirrel]

[QUOTE="The point of going to a less expensive school is that you don't have to work 50+ hours a week, or feel the pressure of making $90k after school (I would love to know how to make that much $$ though, please share!) to pay off the debt. You can start "life" sooner!"[/QUOTE]

I agree with this point, you can also make a lot of money without a DPT degree, just work two jobs =)

The point of better paying career means more money for less hours. Not more hours for more money. If you're spending more hours to get more money, then you're not really getting "paid more". I'd gladly accept a 50k salary, if it meant working 4 hours a day. (That won't ever happen in a regular PT position though.)

 

[hulksmash2010]

I'm probably going to graduate with about $98,000 in debt (including undergrad). It's fine with me. But I'm single with no family. My plan is to keep being cheap and find a roommate or find some family to live with. Pour money in those loans.
Also, PRN work will definitely be important during this time. It's all about how hard you're willing to work. I know more money is in settings others don't want. So I'll be doing that too. I'm willing to sacrifice a lot to get out of debt asap. In about 5-6 years. Or at least get the majority paid off. I'm also getting a pay back plan with the smallest payment and just pay more than is expected. It's possible doing what you love. Just be sure you're willing to do the time when borrowing.

 

[dianebiz]

Remember the interest that continually grows on those loans. Make sure you add that to your debt. It took my parents 22 years to pay off a $100,000 mortgage.

 

[deleted699287]

With entry level salary at 65k-70k and cheaper state schools at around 70k tuition, what made you decide it was worth it to spend 100k+ in tuition in schools such as University of Saint Augustine?

I am going to a school with ~$110k tuition and as of now I don't think it is worth it. However, if you have financial assistance to pay it off quicker, I honestly don't think it is that big of a difference in the long run. But if you can't pay it off quickly, the loan difference grows significantly.

Some reasons that make the higher tuition worth it

1. Higher rank. I will start off saying that the US News rankings do NOT mean much in terms of program quality and job salary. However, I believe that people will more often times than not go to the program with higher rank, so higher ranked schools will have higher competition. Debatable but higher competition means that the ones who get in will usually be more "school smart." Doesn't mean much with salary, but it is nice to have a great network of PT's that are in the smarter end of the scale. Does having a more school smart network pay off in the long run? I have no idea lol.
2. National name recognition. This correlates with rank a lot of times. This can help if you are looking to work somewhere far away from your school. Schools like USC will be recognized whereas University of Smalltown will not. You will honestly probably still find a job, but this might just help getting closer to the job you want and a little bit faster.
3. Higher initial salary? Idk if it does, but if a bigger name school helps you make ~5k more on your first job, that becomes a significant increase in salary in the long run. 70k vs 65k on the first job with % raises over 30 years. Definitely makes up for the tuition difference.

Why not worth it?

1. First off, you can get the above 2 things in relatively affordable schools, but more difficult to find since it seems like the higher ranked nationally recognized schools have a huge research component that means more $$$ for you.
2. Relates to above #3. Starting salary may not change much. I do not know much about this, but this is something to look into.
3. Your quality as a PT will probably be the same. This is also debatable, but it seems that most accredited programs will give you the education you need, so it's not like you are coming out of 100k university a significantly better PT than 65k university.
4. Money. Obvious.

Disclaimer: A lot of the stuff I said is pretty debatable and I am by no means an expert with this stuff, so I hope people correct me where I need correcting. That would be great for me too.

 

[dianebiz]

We need to demand higher starting salaries that correspond with the required doctorate. Don't settle. Older Pts have more experience but don't have the debt or education that we have. We have to start somewhere.

 

[engmedpt]

six figs tuition is insane.

 

[engmedpt]

We need to demand higher starting salaries that correspond with the required doctorate. Don't settle. Older Pts have more experience but don't have the debt or education that we have. We have to start somewhere.

Emphasize education, whatever else you do in school, and selection criteria in being chosen to get in. The lack of higher salary to me is an injustice.

 

[Azimuthal]

Emphasize education, whatever else you do in school, and selection criteria in being chosen to get in. The lack of higher salary to me is an injustice.

Employers are not going to care about the education, unfortunately. Some PT's even mock our generations' financial situation. Many large hospitals do not even leave any room for negotiation as they have a set step system beginning with new graduates levels.

Salary is increasing, though very slowly. When I began school, CA's median PT salary was around $80k/annual. It's now above $92k, 2-3 years later. As a new grad, I was offered a base wage of >$40/hr after benefits in an acute care setting. I was informed immediately that there is no room for negotiation.

Our salary is heavily tied to our low reimbursement rates. The ACA has opened up other avenues of providing skilled PT services and so our profession has seen larger than normal growth as of recent, not solely contributing to the baby boomer generation or obesity rates. The thing is, when we demand a higher salary, we have to justify our reasoning. Outcome measures are relatively the same. (why aren't more new grads following practice patterns?) When we provide skilled services such as wound care, etc., we have the burden of proving competency and skill level. To do this, we have to keep proving that PT's have the foundational knowledge and skills in such areas. However, I have observed a growing trend of PT students petitioning to decrease the educational requirements in some basic foundational courses, such as pathophysiology, histology, pharmacology, etc. In my opinion, this just adds fuel to the fire coming from other professions that PT's lack the education to perform certain tasks. When our education, skills and efficacy comes into question, you bet that that will ultimately effect how our reimbursements are calculated, and in turn, how much we get paid.

 

[engmedpt]

If you were offered >40/hr starting then that's really solid. Your posts are always great.

Im assuming the want to decrease is because of loan burden. Im surprised its those courses that you mentioned though. Honestly, Ive only seen people arguing things like research and professional issues courses not providing much value.

 

[engmedpt]

Employers are not going to care about the education, unfortunately. Some PT's even mock our generations' financial situation. Many large hospitals do not even leave any room for negotiation as they have a set step system beginning with new graduates levels.

turn, how much we get paid.

If done to your face....I wouldn't ever do them any favors.

 

[Azimuthal]

If you were offered >40/hr starting then that's really solid. Your posts are always great.

Im assuming the want to decrease is because of loan burden. Im surprised its those courses that you mentioned though. Honestly, Ive only seen people arguing things like research and professional issues courses not providing much value.

Yeah, the compensation was not as I had expected. It was better. Strangely, per diem was lower, coming in just shy of $50/hr. Obviously I went for the full-time position. When I asked about the per diem rate, I was told that it was based on experience, and entry-level is automatically given a 0 variable when calculating the rate. I don't know how other hospitals do it. I hear private practice and privately operated SNFs and home health leave plenty of room to negotiate. Some even low ball an offer, expecting a counter.

I have also heard the complaints lodged against research and professional practice. I don't mind those classes. I saw the curriculum and knew what a DPT entailed. I'm a passive guys and not a curriculum justice warrior. It's there, CAPTE requires it and I'm not the only one who's putting in my dues. We have such an entitlement issue within society. I was surprised at the attitudes some of my classmates demonstrated against some of the basic courses I mentioned. In fact the class before ours, got pathology reduced by 2 units. Yeah, I understand that everyone has an inherent want to concentrate on what they deem more important and that much of patho is neatly tucked within the curriculum. However, when we prove our education requirements and rigor, we have to go digging to explain away something as clear cut such as pathology. Or those who only want to memorize medications names and basic indications/contraindications without the pharmacology portion. The APTA needs to work with CAPTE to better standardize course titles, required content, and minimal hours. Doing so will allow us to better protect and justify increasing our scope of practice. The salary will follow.

 

[jblil]

We need to demand higher starting salaries that correspond with the required doctorate.

This is the most naive thing I've read in a while.

The market will set our salaries. You can demand all you want, but if the supply of PTs is plentiful, your demand will be ignored.

Read the following post on SDN (Audiology section) to see what happened in that field. I don't think AuDs are in a position to make any demands right now, even though they have a doctorate.
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/this-is-my-story-cautionary-tale.1008835/

Azi - congrats on your job! Benefits are ok, too?

 

[southernswimmer]

The market will set our salaries. You can demand all you want, but if the supply of PTs is plentiful, your demand will be ignored.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say our salaries will be (are) tied to Medicare reimbursement rates? Health care's hardly a free market.

 

[jblil]

Yes. The bottom line is that our salaries are set by outside forces. "Demanding" higher pay because we have a doctorate simply does not make sense. And don't get me started on 2-yr online doctorates like South College's - I bet we'll see more of that kind soon.

Several folks mentioned cash-based PT practices. It's a good idea, but you'll need to find a relatively affluent area to open your practice in.

 

[southernswimmer]

Yes. The bottom line is that our salaries are set by outside forces. "Demanding" higher pay because we have a doctorate simply does not make sense. And don't get me started on 2-yr online doctorates like South College's - I bet we'll see more of that kind soon.

Several folks mentioned cash-based PT practices. It's a good idea, but you'll need to find a relatively affluent area to open your practice in.

I completely agree with you on all points. It'll be interesting to see where health care goes in the next few years.

Also, I read through the Audiology post. Sounds like a nightmare.

 

[jblil]

It'll be interesting to see where health care goes in the next few years.

I think one trend is for Medicare/Medicaid to move to "capitated payments". I am currently doing my clinical rotation in a non-profit (NP) that operates under such an arrangement. It receives payments from Medicare, based on the number of patients and their medical conditions. If the NP can hold its expenses below what it gets from Medicare, it pockets the difference. If actual expenses are higher than the payments provided by Medicare, the NP will need to dig into its own pockets to make up the difference.

Pros of this arrangement: a lot of emphasis is put on preventive measures and on early detection of medical conditions, as they're significantly less expensive to treat at that stage. I also like our hospital-like setup, although we're only a small clinic: we have MDs, PTs, OTs, SLPs, Nursing, etc all under the same roof. My desk is literally next to the OT's, and the MD's is 20 ft away. This helps make communications very informal and easy.

Cons: Although I have not seen it, there could be a temptation to limit care, to hold expenses down. The NP I am working at seems to be very ethical; it's small, and very flat hierarchy-wise: I've chatted with its Exec Director, and her office is but one room in our clinic. However, I am sure that there are (or will be) other NPs whose only goal is to pocket the Medicare payments while maintaining a barely tolerable level of care for its patients. You only need to look at the present Home Health industry to see such examples. Before PT school, I worked in a fraud-detection group in our state's Medicaid office so I have no illusions...

 

[engmedpt]

Yes. The bottom line is that our salaries are set by outside forces. "Demanding" higher pay because we have a doctorate simply does not make sense. And don't get me started on 2-yr online doctorates like South College's - I bet we'll see more of that kind soon.

Several folks mentioned cash-based PT practices. It's a good idea, but you'll need to find a relatively affluent area to open your practice in.

How did they get accredited? I specifically talked with a family member who is a physician the other day and mentioned there are med schools talking about hybrid online and shortened programs. She said she wouldn't be hiring or working with them.............

I would assume many employers would call BS on those programs....at the same time I'm not sure if hospitals would just hire or not.

 

[Carson Ranger]

Higher rank. I will start off saying that the US News rankings do NOT mean much in terms of program quality and job salary. However, I believe that people will more often times than not go to the program with higher rank, so higher ranked schools will have higher competition. Debatable but higher competition means that the ones who get in will usually be more "school smart." Doesn't mean much with salary, but it is nice to have a great network of PT's that are in the smarter end of the scale. Does having a more school smart network pay off in the long run? I have no idea lol.

This is pure myth. The highest-ranked schools on the USN list receive a fraction of the applications the state schools receive, because no one wants to pay that much. In addition, the most expensive private schools must admit a far greater percentage of their applicants to make sure they fill their classes. UNLV's acceptance rate is about 5%, whereas Northwestern's is twice that. And the "school smarts" bit is also complete bunk. The most competitive schools are most definitely NOT USC, Pitt, Northwestern, etc.

 

[engmedpt]

This is pure myth. The highest-ranked schools on the USN list receive a fraction of the applications the state schools receive, because no one wants to pay that much. In addition, the most expensive private schools must admit a far greater percentage of their applicants to make sure they fill their classes. UNLV's acceptance rate is about 5%, whereas Northwestern's is twice that. And the "school smarts" bit is also complete bunk. The most competitive schools are most definitely NOT USC, Pitt, Northwestern, etc.

USC uses the rankings to justify charging mega tuition from guaranteed government funds.

^Stay away from that nonsense. And yeah, state schools have really high applicant volume.

 

[jblil]

How did they get accredited?

You mean, how did South College's 2-yr online DPT get accredited? CAPTE, the accrediting agency, has rather minimal standards. Very much like the time I was conscripted into the army (not in the US): "You can fog a mirror? Congrats, here's your rifle!"

There was a discussion about South College in the salary thread (scroll to post #157, about midway down the page):
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/starting-salary-for-dpt-new-grads.931151/page-4

 

[engmedpt]

You mean, how did South College's 2-yr online DPT get accredited? CAPTE, the accrediting agency, has rather minimal standards. Very much like the time I was conscripted into the army (not in the US): "You can fog a mirror? Congrats, here's your rifle!"

There was a discussion about South College in the salary thread (scroll to post #157, about midway down the page):
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/starting-salary-for-dpt-new-grads.931151/page-4

I remember now. I think a better question would be do you know if accrediting agencies communicate with the professional organization much or do they act almost as completely separate entities and meet up every few years? that's a pretty vague question tho.

 

[engmedpt]

I completely agree with you on all points. It'll be interesting to see where health care goes in the next few years.

Also, I read through the Audiology post. Sounds like a nightmare.

Audiology is also a completely different practice than physical therapy. Didn't that thread revolve around how many HAs can be sold as a large part of angst among other things? PT doesn't revolve around the amount of therex bands that can be sold

 

[NewTestament]

However, I have observed a growing trend of PT students petitioning to decrease the educational requirements in some basic foundational courses, such as pathophysiology, histology, pharmacology, etc. In my opinion, this just adds fuel to the fire coming from other professions that PT's lack the education to perform certain tasks. When our education, skills and efficacy comes into question, you bet that that will ultimately effect how our reimbursements are calculated, and in turn, how much we get paid.

Schools must balance the demands of students with the interests of the profession as a whole. I don't think a bunch of young grad students should be dictating what gets taught in curriculum. There are always going to be courses that they don't like. But grad students should not be in a position to write the curriculum. This is almost communism. If anything, PT schools needs more of the classes that PT students want to eliminate or cut: differential dx, pharmacology, imaging, pathology, and advanced physiology. If we're going to be autonomous practitioners and doctors of physical therapy, then PT school should probably be 2.5-3 years full-time with 30-36 weeks of internships.

 

[Azimuthal]

This is the most naive thing I've read in a while.

The market will set our salaries. You can demand all you want, but if the supply of PTs is plentiful, your demand will be ignored.

Read the following post on SDN (Audiology section) to see what happened in that field. I don't think AuDs are in a position to make any demands right now, even though they have a doctorate.
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/this-is-my-story-cautionary-tale.1008835/

Azi - congrats on your job! Benefits are ok, too?

Thanks jblil. Benefits are okay, though limited in coverage selection. Things may change during the new fiscal year as our hospital is going through system - wide changes.

 

[jblil]

Audiology is also a completely different practice than physical therapy.

I used that example to illustrate the point that a doctorate degree per se is not enough to command higher pay. Outside forces, such as prices and marketing channels of hearing aids for AuDs, or Medicare reimbursements for us, will dictate to a large degree how much most of us get paid.

If we're going to be autonomous practitioners and doctors of physical therapy, then PT school should probably be 2.5-3 years full-time with 30-36 weeks of internships.

I agree 1,000%.

 

[Azimuthal]

I remember now. I think a better question would be do you know if accrediting agencies communicate with the professional organization much or do they act almost as completely separate entities and meet up every few years? that's a pretty vague question tho.

This is exactly why I brought up the education disparity issue. The APTA works closely with CAPTE, but CAPTE is an independent accrediting agency. I would like them to establish better accreditation requirements in terms of course identifiers and minimal hours requirement.

Without doing so, we get challenges from other professions questioning academic rigor, etc. to maintain their status quo or prevent PT's from practicing to the extent our education.

Read this: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFjAH&usg=AFQjCNFmbXI868txnI1MKjRCCWAjgaxkhA

APTA response: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...8QFjAB&usg=AFQjCNFMiXwlrT7gGd-6eIpkuW7I8fd02Q

PT's were among many other professions under the scrutiny of the AMA's scope of practice data series.

 

[engmedpt]

Schools must balance the demands of students with the interests of the profession as a whole. I don't think a bunch of young grad students should be dictating what gets taught in curriculum. There are always going to be courses that they don't like. But grad students should not be in a position to write the curriculum. This is almost communism. If anything, PT schools needs more of the classes that PT students want to eliminate or cut: differential dx, pharmacology, imaging, pathology, and advanced physiology. If we're going to be autonomous practitioners and doctors of physical therapy, then PT school should probably be 2.5-3 years full-time with 30-36 weeks of internships.

I completely agree. All the courses you mentioned are surprising to me that students want to cut out. Those are stupid important for outside job validation. If someone wants to say the details aren't used day to day, well guess what, physicians don't have to draw out the carbon to carbon bonds and the subtleties of the Kreb's cycle from their biochem courses either.

This is exactly why I brought up the education disparity issue. The APTA works closely with CPTE, but CPTE is an independent accrediting agency. I would like them to establish better accreditation requirements in terms of course identifiers and minimal hours requirement

That's broken..................

The professional organization advocating for the move isn't in control of the accreditation! Are you kidding me???

I feel like this can only prolong the turf war.

 

[TAKEit-or-LEAVEit]

How did they get accredited? I specifically talked with a family member who is a physician the other day and mentioned there are med schools talking about hybrid online and shortened programs. She said she wouldn't be hiring or working with them.............

I would assume many employers would call BS on those programs....at the same time I'm not sure if hospitals would just hire or not.

So South College has not officially gotten accredited and tbh they shouldn't. I am currently a student in their charter class and can say it was the biggest mistake of my life. They are all well known physical therapists in the field that have published countless research articles but cannot teach for anything! The online component of the program could be so much better. Professors do not teach in their lectures and upload lectures that take 10 hours to get through (per class). If anyone out there is thinking of attending their program, DO NOT DO IT! Even if it is the only program that takes you.

 

[jblil]

Professors do not teach in their lectures and upload lectures that take 10 hours to get through (per class).

Sorry to hear about your experience at South College. What is the instructional method there? Do you just watch lectures that are posted online? What about discussing the material with the instructors or your classmates? Is that possible in real-time, or do you use a discussion board? Personally, I have gotten more out of the material through discussions and BS sessions with my classmates, than through the lectures themselves.

 

[tcpt]

So South College has not officially gotten accredited and tbh they shouldn't. I am currently a student in their charter class and can say it was the biggest mistake of my life. They are all well known physical therapists in the field that have published countless research articles but cannot teach for anything! The online component of the program could be so much better. Professors do not teach in their lectures and upload lectures that take 10 hours to get through (per class). If anyone out there is thinking of attending their program, DO NOT DO IT! Even if it is the only program that takes you.

Did you know this before you enrolled??

 

[green_machine]

In my opinion, the high tuition absolutely isn't worth it. I'm a nontraditional applicant and career changer. I currently make equal to or maybe even more than a starting PT salary, so the motivation to change isn't financial. I came out of undergrad with $30K debt which I paid off by my 28th birthday (partly by being frugal and putting extra into principal to avoid interest accumulation). My point is that I know and understand the sacrifice and hardship of student loan debt. PT school would be so much more and at the same salary.... The only reason I even consider it is because my husband makes 6 figures and we have investment property that pays the mortgage and allows us to live essentially "rent-free." Even in that situation, I turned down an interview at St Augustine because >$100K for tuition alone simply doesn't make sense.

Will you want to own property, marry, have children someday? Don't take on that debt! PT is a great career and does so much good, but the cost of education has become unbalanced compared to earning potential. Just as a future teacher or social worker shouldn't go to an expensive private school, PTs should pay attention to education costs... Private schools that give some back in form of scholarship can make sense, but St Augustine in particular is a for-profit school. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years St Augustine's quality and reputation goes in the toilet and PTs there become less marketable.

 

[TAKEit-or-LEAVEit]

Did you know this before you enrolled??

Not. At. All. A lot of empty promises and since it was spearheaded by great clinicians figured it would be a superior educational experience. I could not have been more wrong.

The director of our program has recently informed us that he is jumping ship to run Baylor's program. 2017 graduating class only had a 69% pass rate for those that took the exam in July which is awful. One very influential staff member that may or may not have been listed in the previous post, had the audacity to send out emails to those that did not pass saying they had no one to blame but themselves and should take sole responsibility for their failures (exact verbiage). They did not listen to complaints from students about curriculum being too fast, they disregarded concerns about working 55-60 hours at our terminal internship WHILE taking 2 classes full of lectures and assignments, working on our final project, and trying to prepare for boards, and now they are suffering the consequences with such a low first time pass rate. I can only speak for myself in saying this program was all about the money and simply put, a business venture for the lead faculty. Faculty did their jobs and that was all. No sense of unity or caring.

 

[Filmgal74]

The director of our program has recently informed us that he is jumping ship to run Baylor's program.

Is this former director Dr. John Child's? What program were you in?

 

[PTAg17]

Is this former director Dr. John Child's? What program were you in?

Dr. Child's was the director at South College and is now the director at Baylor

 

[TAKEit-or-LEAVEit]

Is this former director Dr. John Child's? What program were you in?

The former director of South College's Doctor of Physical Therapy program is Dr. Michael Walker. He is now at Baylor. Dr. John Child's was basically the guy that spearhead the whole thing. Owner, money guy, whatever you want to call him. We saw him at orientation, at one of our labs for a day, and I'm not sure if he went to the new grad's graduation or not.

 

[TAKEit-or-LEAVEit]

Dr. Child's was the director at South College and is now the director at Baylor

Dr. Childs is the guy behind the curtains. Dr. Walker was our director essentially. We never see Childs.