I think the issue becomes ultimately standardization in training. No two programs are the same and as you eluded, certainly not everyone wants to be a full-fledged foot and ankle surgeon. However, switching the training to a 3 year model with a more consistent curriculum across the board forces the new grad to see things with a broader scope and a firmer grasp on the principles of podiatric surgery - i.e. being able to make the proper diagnosis, diagnostic modalities, and even other physician referrals. 3 years of residency training means more exposure to cases, complications, and other departments/specialties. Believe it or not, but there are plenty of physicians that have preconceived negative impressions on our profession/specialty due to the fact that they had very bad experiences with untrained podiatrists. Having a consistent system of training with consistent curriculum at least produces a better trained podiatric physician with more experience to make evidence-based judgement calls and patient care delivery.
I'm not arguing against consistency throughout the system. I agree with you 100% that standardization across the entire educational spectrum is what podiatry needs to focus their attention on. What I don't agree with is slapping 3 year residency trained onto every program. I think it creates much more confusion to the general public. Personally, I think that it's a band-aid for the profession. I think the remaining 2-year programs should have been individually worked with to increase their numbers where deficient, to make them full fledged 3 year programs. After all, that's the differentiation we have now between 2 and 3 year programs; the number of sx cases and types. It's putting the cart before the horse! I personally wouldn't want a 2 year program. I want a 3 or 4. But we've got to get 2 year numbers up somehow so that we are all trained in the same manner. I think this has the potential to turn into - "Well they are already three year programs, all residencies are the same, we can just forget about them now." I certainly hope it doesn't.
You mention people wanting to specialize in woundcare as an alternative to surgery - I think that is great and all the power to them but don't think limb salvage and wound management is any "less complicated" than reconstructive hind foot/ankle surgery. How many of these "wound care docs" really have their patients undergo full work up from vascular, renal, neuro, or metabolic dx or even coordinate with other disciplines/specialists for that matter? I use this example because I've seen many patients "treated" by their local podiatrists for chronic open wounds with virtually no progression or work-up whatsoever - and I often wonder how many of them had proper work-up and how many of those docs took the time to recognize the need for a multidiscipline/specialty approach. If these podiatrists were adequately trained - which is the essence of this discussion, then these patients would not suffer the way they do and other physicians would trust us with more patient care. Again, it all comes down to consistent delivery using good medicine principles and evidence based practice.
I entirely agree with you again. I didn't mean to sound like wound care was any less challenging. With WC advances, I can see that it takes a lot of skill and mastery to be able to tailor a treatment plan for each individual program. Like I said before, I think standardization is what we need to do.
The nice thing that we are beginning to see in our profession is a push for consistent curriculum. Although, different programs will always have different niches but at least we know that the average podiatric resident will graduate from their training having completed an X amount of off-service rotations, X amount of cases in forefoot procedures, and variable amounts of Rear foot and ankle. Bottom line, having consistent exposure (some more while others have less) will produce a more standardized system. I'm shocked to see some of the aforementioned comments here in this thread pertaining to returning 1-year of "rotating residencies". This is 2010, medicine and healthcare rely on evidence-based principles and delivery - we should be moving forward with this profession not taking decades back.
I just happen to believe that the curriculum should actually be manipulated to conform to current standards. I know that programs will lean toward certain disciplines and I think we need that. I definitely do not advocate for 1-year programs. All I am saying is that because there will still be a distinction between FF & RF residencies, what was the point of changing the classification of the program? Having equal number of years implies the same breadth of knowledge base. All peds residents do a 3 year residency, and they all take the same boards in the end. But it won't work that way for pods until this distinction is eradicated. To me, it doesn't matter the number of programs who will still only have, primarily, FF cases. I think Brodiatrist and I are arguing the same point. We didn't say that we should be all going to 1 year residencies, or that standardization isn't progress. However, there will still be explaining to do to pt X.
"If you do a 3 year surgical residency, you WILL get divorced!! Because one time, when this guy I kinda know did a 3 year residency, he DID get divorced, and that probably will happen to you. So bring back the 1 year residency option, unless you want to pay alimony forever." 
