AuD Prerequisites: On Where the Shortfalls in Audiology Training Lie

[SoCalAud]

sorry!

I need to hold this post for a couple of days.

Thanks for being patient!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[rEliseMe]

Gonna post it soon? I'm excited to hear what you have to say!

 

[SoCalAud]

Gonna post it soon? I'm excited to hear what you have to say!

I bet! I'm so sorry to hold you guys back. I am waiting for my mentor because we are both working on this topic together. This weekend he has to present his research at the HLAA (Hearing Loss Association of America) Convention from June 17-20.

We will post this up soon. Next week maybe, but I can't promise an exact date, though.

 

[rEliseMe]

Aww, okay. I'll keep my eyes peeled! No pressure, but I am very excited.

 

[BigAl]

Keeping us in suspense. You'll get a lot of people wondering what this is all about, good strategy

 

[SoCalAud]

Hi everyone!

Okay, first before I share this topic I'd like to ask you all few simple questions...

What does audiology mean to you?

What do you think your duties are as an Audiologist?

Once this starts rolling and we get some good amount of answers, I will unwrap the topic. Trust me, this will get very interesting...

 

[rEliseMe]

What does audiology mean to you?

What do you think your duties are as an Audiologist?

First of all, FINALLY! I'm glad you revived this. I'm very excited to hear what you have to say!

To me, audiology is the study of (and care of) the ear, hearing mechanism, and its role within the larger picture of the client/patient and his or her life. As an audiologist, my duties would be to diagnose and treat hearing and/or balance issues. However, to me, 'treat' encompasses anything that serves as remediation for the problem. It could be assisting technology, behavioral techniques, preventative care, or anything else which can be argued falls under the umbrella term.

I also believe it's very important that clinicians keep track of current data and research, and determine how/why/how much it changes or solidifies current practices. Because audiology is so technology-driven, it's vital that clinicians keep up with that technology so that they can take advantage of it.

 

[SoCalAud]

When I have something really exciting or interesting to share, I absolutely have no patience to hold it all in. Ask my fiance - he is laughing in the living room as I am saying this out loud.

Okay so the inadequacies of modern audiologist training, lets recap what audiology means. It generally refers to science of hearing, but here is a broader way of defining this term – "it is the discipline involved in the prevention, identification, and evaluation of hearing disorders, the selection and evaluation of hearing aids, and the habilitation/rehabilitation of individuals with hearing impairment" University of Buffalo - Department of Communicative Disorders and Sciences. http://cdswebserver.med.buffalo.edu/drupal/?q=node/322

Already this tells us we're doing more than putting together hearing aids and selecting the "right" ones for our clients such as dispensing ALD's (amplified phones, alerting devices, even FM systems, CapTel, and other sundry items

Does anyone seem interested in how the hearing aids and cochlear implants work? Do you crave for those extra details on how they work or even the type of hearing loss your patient has, such as some of the reasons behind it?

What is your purpose of choosing this field? If your reason is because of your passion to help others, then do you feel like you want to gather as much information as possible to answer your patient's questions? Most questions they ask are beyond the basics that you only know. I know parents from John Tracy Clinic ask those in dept kind of questions and most of these parents said that their child's audiologist was unable to answer them back and they simply referred them to a specialist. That would be a smart thing to do, but if we're going to school for another FOUR years to be an audiologist, do you want to be prepared to answer those questions? Are you like me who wants to know beyond the basics?

After looking through some AuD courses (most schools have them available for you on their online catalog) at half of the schools in the US, it seems like they forgot or didn't realize that students coming from other (non-science) majors or communicative disorders will not be able to fully understand some of the most important topics such logarithms or let alone the very basics for electroacoustics due to our lack of math and phsyics on our backs? Some of those courses are almost identical to engineering classes, while some other AuD programs don't have those kind of classes, therefore they are letting you get the easy way out.

Why the easy way out? Audiology today is getting more advanced than what it was almost 70 years ago. How come the training is so easy or basic? We're the next generation to come up with something better than what we have available today.

 

[AudioEngineer]

While I agree with what has been said, the evaluation and treatment of problems associated with the vestibular system are often left out. This is a newer science to audiologists, but has been a growing field for the last 30 years of audiology.

I would also say that the responsibility of the audiologist is:

1 - Care for individuals, family, and those who interact with hearing and balance affected persons.
2 - Evaluation of conditions relating to loss of hearing or balance.
3 - Determination of course of action related to otovestibular issues.
4 - Counseling for treatment, compensation, and coping.
5 - Treatment to reduce or eliminate issues relating to hearing or balance.
6 - Training for those who interact with patients.
7 - Consulting for otovestibular effects of surgeries, other medications, and neurological/physilogical issues.
8 - Ongoing training and research connected with audiological trends in science.

 

[AudioEngineer]

-
After looking through some AuD courses (most schools have them available for you on their online catalog) at half of the schools in the US, it seems like they forgot or didn’t realize that students coming from other (non-science) majors or communicative disorders will not be able to fully understand some of the most important topics such logarithms or let alone the very basics for electroacoustics due to our lack of math and phsyics on our backs? Some of those courses are almost identical to engineering classes, while some other AuD programs don’t have those kind of classes, therefore they are letting you get the easy way out.

Why the easy way out? Audiology today is getting more advanced than what it was almost 70 years ago. How come the training is so easy or basic? We’re the next generation to come up with something better than what we have available today.

I agree. I definitely wanted a program that was comprehensive in it's approach to the four year degree. I chose a school based partly on their consideration of lack of Communication Disorders coursework, Physics, and other sciences. It may be harder work. I may have to give up my summers for the next four years, but it'll be worth it. Of course, my career path has been in audio, acoustics, engineering, and waveform sciences, so I know how much more info there is out there, that many audiologists never learn.

My wife is laughing at me right now, because I have taught seminars in acoustics for 10 years, and she's heard this all before, while I was looking through course catalogs.

I have been instructed to get off my soap box and come to bed.

-TTFN

 

[Dustbug10]

This is good! Personally, I would like to know everything there is to know about sound science and the functionality of a hearing aid from its core to the extras. I was super pumped for Amplification I, but we learned only the basics of how a hearing aid is put together and works. Most of the class seemed to deal with the subjective stuff(self report measures, etc.) The professor is a major advocate of the rehabilitative model and I am all for that. But I am concerned that AuD students are being trained as technicians rather than scientists so to speak. I would like to know how all of the equipment we have anything to do with works, and apply common sense from that knowledge to make necessary repairs, adjustments, and/or improvements..

 

[SoCalAud]

AudioEngineer, my fiance is a senior ME (Mechanical Engineer major) at Cal Poly Pomona. He's taking acoustics this upcoming fall quarter, so whatever he learns from that course I'm hunting him down so he can tutor me during my AuD studies.

Dustbug10, I think AuD programs should have two tracks - one to train students as clinicians and two - train them almost as audio engineers, etc. I'd take the science track, too.

rEliseMe, I might consider the AuD/PhD track now! So, two more additional years? Good thing we're both young Did you check out the Phonak Virtual Conference - the link I sent you Facebook? I have no idea if it's up or saved. Sorry!

 

[gjoseph]

SoCalAud -- Do you think in the future pre-req's for AuD school would strengthen? Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to take Physics 1 if I decide to pursue Audiology.

 

[AudioEngineer]

This is good! Personally, I would like to know everything there is to know about sound science and the functionality of a hearing aid from its core to the extras. I was super pumped for Amplification I, but we learned only the basics of how a hearing aid is put together and works. Most of the class seemed to deal with the subjective stuff(self report measures, etc.) The professor is a major advocate of the rehabilitative model and I am all for that. But I am concerned that AuD students are being trained as technicians rather than scientists so to speak. I would like to know how all of the equipment we have anything to do with works, and apply common sense from that knowledge to make necessary repairs, adjustments, and/or improvements..

Wait... Let me get this straight. Your Amplification I instructor was a rehabilitative promoter? As in psychology, I am a strong proponent of the evaluation, therapy, compensation, training model. However, I think they are missing something when a professor is teaching a course where he doesn't prefer the methods he teaches. Probably a major reason that professors don't teach about this stuff is that they don't know, themselves.

I talked with the out-going AAA President, who works at one school. They hired a physicist to teach their principles of sound class.

In fact, there is too much info involved in the science behind and construction of hearing aides to teach in a class. I spent hours upon hours -- special recognition to my wife for standing there with the glazed-over look -- with the engineers and reps from the hearing aid companies at AudiologyNOW! Just the software/processing advances in the last year would take me hours to explain. It is no wonder the engineers latched on to me. They have probably had no way to explain it to audiologists before.

 

[Dustbug10]

Wait... Let me get this straight. Your Amplification I instructor was a rehabilitative promoter? As in psychology, I am a strong proponent of the evaluation, therapy, compensation, training model. However, I think they are missing something when a professor is teaching a course where he doesn't prefer the methods he teaches. Probably a major reason that professors don't teach about this stuff is that they don't know, themselves.

I talked with the out-going AAA President, who works at one school. They hired a physicist to teach their principles of sound class.

In fact, there is too much info involved in the science behind and construction of hearing aides to teach in a class. I spent hours upon hours -- special recognition to my wife for standing there with the glazed-over look -- with the engineers and reps from the hearing aid companies at AudiologyNOW! Just the software/processing advances in the last year would take me hours to explain. It is no wonder the engineers latched on to me. They have probably had no way to explain it to audiologists before.

So for those audiology students who are not receiving this sort of education, what would you recommend?

 

[rEliseMe]

rEliseMe, I might consider the AuD/PhD track now! So, two more additional years? Good thing we're both young Did you check out the Phonak Virtual Conference - the link I sent you Facebook? I have no idea if it's up or saved. Sorry!

AuD/PhD programs are all different (and not all universities have them, so check into that if you haven't already). I think the James Madison program is 6 years but the UIowa program is 7. Of course, a lot also depends on how hard you work and what other things you're involved in... it could take longer but might not take shorter.

I think what encourages me is I'm not dying to be done with school. Since research is what I want to do with my life, graduate school is just a trial run of that and my job will (hopefully) not be too different, so it's okay if it takes me 9 years instead of 7... except for the cost factor, of course.

 

[AudioEngineer]

So for those audiology students who are not receiving this sort of education, what would you recommend?

There isn't enough time, even in the current doctorate for everything. Honestly, it seems that this varies by school and focus. Schools focused heavily on clinical care have a tendancy to skew their education standards toward the clinical, "Here is how to meet the patient's needs. Learn the rest in your spare time." model. Perhaps this is the best way with a limited time. When my wife was going through medical school, it was amazing the amount of information that was covered. What is even more amazing is how much more she is learning now that she is rotating into residency.

Other schools have a less clinical approach. They give you all the information they can cram in and then figure that you'll figure out what to do with it when you get there. The "sink or swim" approach, I guess. This method makes for a great researcher or manufacturer's rep, but it is important to learn, in a didactic setting, from the common clinical experiences of our professors.

Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in between. I haven't been to school for audiology yet, so my opinions aren't worth a wooden nickel, but since you asked, I'll give it. While the hunger for the physics behind sound and the human issues is good, I am not certain that the current Au.D. programs have the time or resources to answer all of your questions. I could go on-and-on about the current compression algorithms they have just started to implement in new hearing aides. I could go on equally long about feedback supression and noise cancellation technologies. The truth is that only some of what is in my head (which is a small dent in the actual information behind the technology) will actually matter in a clinical environment. Should the schools teach some of it? Yes. Are they? I am not sure. Should all of the information be taught now? No. There is too much for it not to compromise other required information. The technology and information changes so fast that it would be difficult to stay ahead. However, the basics should be covered. If they are coming up short, that is a shame. I would not be able to report on that until four years from now. Perhaps by then, I may try to change that in some school as an adjunct.

 

[AudioEngineer]

So for those audiology students who are not receiving this sort of education, what would you recommend?

Perhaps the correct course of action is a blending of responsibility. Schools should definitely provide the basic science behind each type of assitive device and the physics behind sound. Once you get past the basics of current technology - basics of how sound travels, waveform, amplification, problems with amplification, feedback loops, feedback reduction/isolation/extermination, sound reproduction and conduction, et cettera - it should become the responsibility of the individual to seek out more information where it is desired or necessary to their individual practices.

At AudiologyNOW!, they offered limited CEUs (Continuing Education Units) and seminars regarding the technologies of amplification and conduction. These must be utilized if you want to remain current. The technology has completely reversed directions in the last 18 months, so that it could advance further and faster than ever before. It will continue this trend, so to stay in the know, you will have to stay on top of things.

Where I saw the biggest hole at AudiologyNOW! is in the hard sciences behind sound (and balance). I think these should be offered at the conference for CEUs. Obviously, if someone chooses to practice in vestibular treatment, this would be a waste of their time in any environment.

Since I have not been through all (or any) audiology programs, I cannot report to its effectiveness in the area of hard science. However, looking at course lists, I would guess that there is too much crammed in to cover these topics thoroughly.

During my school interview, the professors had a discussion about the requirement of Physics coursework. I posed an interesting dilemma for them. I had no college physics credits (only physical science- to meet the prereq). When I toured the program, I was advised to take the course to be ready for audiology, despite scraping the line of qualification. Now, they had a chance to review my resume, which included the curriculum for the sound/acoustics seminar that I co-developed and teach. They were discussing whether I still should do the physics, since my knowledge surpassed the coursework.

Their concern over a physics course is valid. I believe that general physics should be a requirement of any BS degree. I believe that general physics should be a minimum requirement for entry into an audiology program (it was for us). Each program could then expand briefly on the basic science covered by that course and each student could decide if they wanted more (offered at the conference each year). In short, I believe that the secret to a complete education in any dicipline is better cooperation between governing authorities, education institutions, continuing education programs, and ultimately the individual (once available).

 

[BigAl]

I believe there is only so much that can be covered in the classroom. I do agree the basics of the technology need to be understood, for the simple fact that we need to understand what and why we are prescribing one technology of the other. We are audiologists, not audio engineers. There is more to audiology then just hearing aids, and the (re)habilitation goes hand in hand with hearing aids. In my HA class we covered the circuits and the basic algorithms that are utilized. Here is the problem we face, time. There is just not enough of it to go in to such depth that some of you suggest. As I mentioned it is important to know and understand the technology, but it is not the only part of audiology. Guess this is the reason we have audio engineers working for all these HA companies.

AudioEngineer I do like your suggestion about having these topics offered as CEU's, after all isn't that the whole point of them.

 

[Dustbug10]

Sounds like audiology needs an undergraduate degree.

 

[SoCalAud]

Sounds like audiology needs an undergraduate degree.

Used to be available, but since money is the only issue, it had to be taken out due to lack of students majoring in it. It wouldn't hurt if it becomes available now.

And to Al, THREE years may not be enough to learn acoustics and etc so maybe we should add an additional two years to this (take engineering based classes)? I understand we're not audio engineers, but if you just want to sit and push a ear mold in someone's wear, get a HD license. Who cares about the 4 year education, right? By the way, what's your reasoning for selecting this kind of career? Just curious....

 

[rEliseMe]

Here is the problem we face, time. There is just not enough of it to go in to such depth that some of you suggest.

All the more evidence to support offering a full audiology undergraduate program.

I did not realize that an Audiology undergraduate degree was available at one point, SoCal. Was that local or was it a fairly widespread phenomenon?

 

[SoCalAud]

I did not realize that an Audiology undergraduate degree was available at one point, SoCal. Was that local or was it a fairly widespread phenomenon?

It was available if I would say maybe 7 or more years ago. When I was at a local community college I was searching for majors related to audiology and looked mostly online. Some of the things I found were something on the lines like "*****university: audiology major suspended (or withdrawn)" related undergraduate studies. Today, I was trying to look for it and post the link on here, but no such luck. I do think taking SLP classes an undergrad is really useful for future references.

I know CSU Northridge has a audiology track for undergrads, but half the classes are SLP based. They have a lot of audiology classes - maybe 4 to 5 available. If interested: http://www.csun.edu/catalog/communicationdisordersandsciences.html

 

[BigAl]

Dustbug good point, regarding this issue my beef is with ASHA. ASHA doesn't promote the field to undergrads nor does it promote it to males. The numbers speak for themselves. If you look at most of the undergrad programs out there, they are mainly SLP focused as was in my case.

I understand we're not audio engineers, but if you just want to sit and push a ear mold in someone's wear, get a HD license. Who cares about the 4 year education, right?

Ditto, if I wanted to push HAs I'd be working for Miracle Ear. That's what I'm saying, there is more to audiology besides HAs. Psychoacoustics for example is more important than the inner workings of a HA, in my opinion. Certain topics we need to have a better grasp of than others. Adding two more years or even another year would not justify the cost of education to what we will make after graduating. I'm a full year in and already over 50K in the hole, I'm not looking to be in debt on par with med students who will be making twice as much when they are done.

To answer your other question, my initial path was going into chiropractics until right before going in I questioned myself if I want to crack backs for the rest of my life. So I was told about SLP, did my research and it seemed interesting and I took some classes. After my intro to audiology class, I knew that is what I wanted to do. I'm the type of person that needs instant gratification and audiology had that, while SLP you had to wait six months to see if your treatment was working or not. The technological aspect also drew me in, and the range of patients that I would be able assist. The other thing that drew me to the field is the opportunity to give back. I had a buddy that was in the service and he was telling me how his hearing diminished in his shooting ear. That inspired and motivated me to pursue the degree and I plan on joining the Army Reserve Med Corp as audiologist after I graduate. Also, there are many opportunities to make a good living.

 

[rEliseMe]

I know CSU Northridge has a audiology track for undergrads, but half the classes are SLP based. They have a lot of audiology classes - maybe 4 to 5 available.

Interesting. I can see that happening... there are maybe 10 audiology students in my class, split between the two locations. My degree is Communication Sciences and Disorders with a Pre-Audiology track, but really only a few classes are different, the rest are heavily SLP. I would love to see courses with SLP from the perspective of an Audiologist.

 

[SoCalAud]

Adding two more years or even another year would not justify the cost of education to what we will make after graduating. I'm a full year in and already over 50K in the whole, I'm not looking to be in debt on par with med students who will be making twice as much when they are done.

Certainly agree with you on that one. Audiologists need better pay, no doubt.

 

[AudioEngineer]

That's what I'm saying, there is more to audiology besides HAs. Psychoacoustics for example is more important than the inner workings of a HA, in my opinion.

I agree, BigAl. This is why I feel that it is best to cover the basics in grad school and offer the rest as CEUs. I understand that you covered basic circuitry and amplification algorithms in HA I. That is great! Did your coursework cover the physics of sound and how the ear translates pressure energy and relays information to the brain?

Beyond these basics that ALL audiologists should know, I think there are too many sub-specialties to focus on the information for just hearing amplification. A vestibular specialist would not be concerned with the inner workings of the newest cochlear implant. With only 4 years to cover this information, each audiologist needs to determine what material is pertinent to them and be responsible for the depth of their own knowledge. The reason this is important is that the technology is constantly changing. Like most health sciences professions, the breadth and scope of knowledge in our field is expanding. Professional journals and CEUs are among the only means for some of us to track these changes. These resources are offered for a reason.

 

[BigAl]

Did your coursework cover the physics of sound and how the ear translates pressure energy and relays information to the brain?

Yes in 4 different courses; speech and hearing sciences, A&P (not the supermarket ), diagnostics 2 and in HA, certain parts were the basics and certain parts were more in depth.

Like most health sciences professions, the breadth and scope of knowledge in our field is expanding. Professional journals and CEUs are among the only means for some of us to track these changes. These resources are offered for a reason.

Ditto...

 

[audiegrrl]

Just wanted to chime in and say that I fully agree with AudioEngineer: there is simply not the time to teach topics like physics and signal processing to the depth that you want.

I'm an audiologist (MS/AUD/PHD) who has worked in R/D for hearing aid development and has taught hearing aid courses to AuD students in the past. We cover the basics for these areas and the student can then decide if they want more information and take that responsibility to obtain it.

In addition to not having enough time to teach entire courses on DSP and Physics (and even here--single courses would not be enough to understand everything that is involved with hearing aid development)...most AuD students do not have sufficient background in math and sciences to readily understand these topics. Most students who are highly proficient in engineering, physics, math don't tend to gravitate towards clinical audiology. Given the disparity in salary--I completely understand that.

So here is my suggestion for those of you who hunger for in-depth knowledge of DSP, physics, etc: get your undergrad in this area. Take the responsibility to acquire this knowledge and don't just sit there and complain that someone is not spoon-feeding it to you. Get a degree in biomed engineering, software engineering, physics...whatever your interest is (these folks are among the team members for hearing aid development). Then get your AuD. Problem solved.

One more comment: fitting hearing aids is much more than just "pushing an earmold in the ear." If this is truly your view of rehabilitative audiology, perhaps you should rethink your decision to enter Audiology.

From my experience in R/D within the hearing aid industry--it is a multidisciplinary effort. No one professional has all of the knowledge necessary. A biomed engineer obviously knows things that a typical audiologist does not--but (believe it or not) the audiologist has valuable information to contribute to the process that the biomed engineer does not. It really takes a team effort. If you are not comfortable with the audiological role--then by all means, go get the training you need to do what you want to do. You can get your undergrad degree in almost anything and still get an AuD. Yes, you may have to spend some time taking make-up foundation classes, but that is true for any grad degree program where your undergrad is not in the same area.

Take the responsibility to get the training you want. AuD programs train you to do what you need to do as an audiologist (including teaching appropriate levels of background/foundation information). If you want more--go get it! It will take extra work and time--but that is they only way you are going to get it. I will also bet an AuD with a biomed or other engineering background will be HIGHLY sought after. Heck, your pay may (may) even be commensurate with your level of education (unlike audiologists). Quit complaining and go do it!

 

[rEliseMe]

I liked your post until this part, Audiegrrl.

So here is my suggestion for those of you who hunger for in-depth knowledge of DSP, physics, etc: get your undergrad in this area. Take the responsibility to acquire this knowledge and don't just sit there and complain that someone is not spoon-feeding it to you. Get a degree in biomed engineering, software engineering, physics...whatever your interest is (these folks are among the team members for hearing aid development). Then get your AuD. Problem solved.

The thing is, I'm $45,000 in debt already. How is wanting the most out of my education (and cash) complaining? I'll go out and learn on my own (and I do), but this is not an all-or-nothing issue. Programs can offer more without offering all.

 

[audiegrrl]

Well, selection of an appropriate program is important. As said above, different programs do have different areas of focus.

You cannot expect to get a biomed degree, a physics degree, an audio engineering degree and an AuD degree in the same 4 year period. It just won't happen.

The best you can do is to find a program that fits as closely as possible with your areas of interest...keeping in mind that NO AuD program can do the above.

A good program will teach you the things you need to know in terms of background information (physics of sound, signal processing, psychophysics, etc) in order to be a a competent audiologist. If you want to know about any of those areas at a deeper level than is covered in AuD coursework, you are going to have to take some responsibility and obtain that information through other coursework. That is why I think it makes sense to obtain an undergrad in engineering or physics or whatever your interest is, and then get your AuD.

What specific programs are you referring to that do not offer sufficient training (for audiologists) in these areas? I would suggest you not attend these programs and instead find a program that does offer this vital background training. That is also your responsibility. AuD programs vary--buyer beware.

As an aside--I'm very interested in psychophysical measures and how they can be applied clinically to hearing impaired adults (esp the elderly). In order to get the level of training I wanted in this area, I needed to obtain my PhD. I did not expect a CLINICAL AuD program to provide enough focused training in psychophysics to allow me to conduct independent research in this area.

Just be clear about what you want from your education and find a program that offers it. It may not be an AuD program....completely depends on what your goals are.

It sounds like you are dissatisfied with the level of background information covered in your AuD program. Perhaps you could meet with your advisor and discuss taking some outside classes (in EE, physics, etc.) to meet your elective requirements? This would help you meet your specific goals as well as fulfill some of the requirements of your AuD training (with no extra $$). Good luck to you.

ETA: whether you like my post or not is irrelevant. I've been in this field for a long time and have taught many generations of students. I'm sharing my perspective of this issue...which does not change depending on whether you like it or not. There are many things that I dislike about the field of audiology--many things I'm dissatisfied with. However, I choose to continue in this field because there are enough positives to make it worth it for me. Your mileage may vary.

 

[rEliseMe]

I should have been more specific. When I said I liked your post, I meant that I saw your perspective (although respectfully disagreed) up until that point.

I am dissatisfied with my program, but I am as of yet an undergraduate student. To remedy my frustration with being offered much less than I am capable of learning, I've been reading as many articles as possible and I enlisted the help of a faculty advisor to conduct an undergraduate research study, among other various projects and nights spent browsing wikipedia's sources (wiki's a good aggregate; jumping off point).

In any case, I will pursue a PhD as well as an AuD as my passion is research. My fear is that my graduate program will turn out like my undergraduate program and I'll be left feeling like we could be learning so much more if we wouldn't cater to the dumbest person in the class.

What specific programs are you referring to that do not offer sufficient training (for audiologists) in these areas? I would suggest you not attend these programs and instead find a program that does offer this vital background training. That is also your responsibility. AuD programs vary--buyer beware.

Just be clear about what you want from your education and find a program that offers it. It may not be an AuD program....completely depends on what your goals are.

It sounds like you are dissatisfied with the level of background information covered in your AuD program. Perhaps you could meet with your advisor and discuss taking some outside classes (in EE, physics, etc.) to meet your elective requirements? This would help you meet your specific goals as well as fulfill some of the requirements of your AuD training (with no extra $$). Good luck to you.

ETA: whether you like my post or not is irrelevant. I've been in this field for a long time and have taught many generations of students. I'm sharing my perspective of this issue...which does not change depending on whether you like it or not. There are many things that I dislike about the field of audiology--many things I'm dissatisfied with. However, I choose to continue in this field because there are enough positives to make it worth it for me. Your mileage may vary.

 

[audiegrrl]

I should have been more specific. When I said I liked your post, I meant that I saw your perspective (although respectfully disagreed) up until that point.

I am dissatisfied with my program, but I am as of yet an undergraduate student. To remedy my frustration with being offered much less than I am capable of learning, I've been reading as many articles as possible and I enlisted the help of a faculty advisor to conduct an undergraduate research study, among other various projects and nights spent browsing wikipedia's sources (wiki's a good aggregate; jumping off point).

In any case, I will pursue a PhD as well as an AuD as my passion is research. My fear is that my graduate program will turn out like my undergraduate program and I'll be left feeling like we could be learning so much more if we wouldn't cater to the dumbest person in the class.

Wow, that definitely sounds depressing. Have you already selected your graduate program? Spoken with faculty and current students? Reviewed texts and syllabi? Discussed with an advisor doing a minor area of study for your electives (like in EE or physics or DSP)? I think you have more control over this than you realize. Faculty LOVE students who are self-motivated and interested in learning more (and who are willing to actually do the work). Make this what you want it to be. Start now by taking some foundation classes in the areas you are most interested in.

You will get out of this program what you put into it and it sounds like you are willing to do the work. Be creative and enlist the support of a faculty member--map out what you want to achieve and see how you can fit it into your program of study. It is possible--but it will take some work on your part. Good luck!

 

[rEliseMe]

Wow, that definitely sounds depressing. Have you already selected your graduate program? Spoken with faculty and current students? Reviewed texts and syllabi? Discussed with an advisor doing a minor area of study for your electives (like in EE or physics or DSP)? I think you have more control over this than you realize. Faculty LOVE students who are self-motivated and interested in learning more (and who are willing to actually do the work). Make this what you want it to be. Start now by taking some foundation classes in the areas you are most interested in.

Some positives and negatives
1. I have selected my program and so far I have been incredibly impressed. I have not reviewed syllabi because it's very hard to tell how fulfilling the course will be; I know from experience. My classes last semester had the ASHA guidelines we were going to achieve, but I'm not sure we met them all. However, if the faculty are indicative of the level of education, I'm probably worrying over nothing.

2. Unfortunately, I attend a relatively small university with very little choice in elective courses. I'm filling my elective schedule with psychology courses and one physics course. There aren't any audiology-related courses that serve as electives. It's a barebones prep course. That's where my frustration comes from. I truly believe it's possible to offer a more challenging (read: more informational) audiology undergraduate degree without being forced to change the prerequisites for graduate school.

 

[SoCalAud]

Audiegrrl, I respect your point and view. FYI: it's not about the training we WANT, where it's more about training we NEED as future audiologists.

Secondly, I have been very passionate about audiology since I do have first hand experience. Yes, I do have a hearing loss myself and know exactly what hearing impaired people go through. I want to be the audiologist that I wish I had.

By the way, no one here is being a complainer. We're just curious to know what we need to help better serve future patients.

****I AGREE: I truly believe it's possible to offer a more challenging (read: more informational) audiology undergraduate degree without being forced to change the prerequisites for graduate school. ****

 

[audiegrrl]

Audiegrrl, I respect your point and view. FYI: it's not about the training we WANT, where it's more about training we NEED as future audiologists.

Secondly, I have been very passionate about audiology since I do have first hand experience. Yes, I do have a hearing loss myself and know exactly what hearing impaired people go through. I want to be the audiologist that I wish I had.

By the way, no one here is being a complainer. We're just curious to know what we need to help better serve future patients.

The faculty I'm familiar with attempted to answer that same question when planning the curriculum for the AuD program. Obviously, they want to teach you what you need to know to competently serve patients. Perhaps a chat with the chair of your program will help you to better understand why they have selected the classes that make up their AuD program. During this same discussion, I'm sure they would be happy to share with you other (non-audiology...but related) courses that you could take to enhance your learning.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems that the faculty of current AuD programs and current clinicians would be best suited to help you answer these questions. Of course, you can discuss it all you want amongst yourselves as well. A lot of thought goes into curriculum planning (based in part on the ASHA standards for competence) and subject areas are not randomly covered or omitted.

Anyway, I shall bow out of this thread as I'm now just repeating myself. Enjoy your discussion.

 

[Dan Schwartz]

Audiegrrl, I hope you stick around.

I've been counseling SoCalAuD for several months on what to look for in a graduate audiology program.

And Yes, just like @AudioEngineer, I too am a real EE. And Yes, just like @SoCalAuD, I too am hearing impaired -- Noise-induced Reverse Slope SNHL, at age 19 in the lab and at the large disco redesigning massive bass bins and all new gigantic 30 inch subwoofers. Earplugs don't help below 150 Hz, especially when up at 146 dB SPL. FML

In between thunderstorms here in New Jersey, I'm going to run out for dinner; and reply at length to this entire thread. Most of what you need to know about me is in my profile.~

[email protected]

The faculty I'm familiar with attempted to answer that same question when planning the curriculum for the AuD program. Obviously, they want to teach you what you need to know to competently serve patients. Perhaps a chat with the chair of your program will help you to better understand why they have selected the classes that make up their AuD program. During this same discussion, I'm sure they would be happy to share with you other (non-audiology...but related) courses that you could take to enhance your learning.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems that the faculty of current AuD programs and current clinicians would be best suited to help you answer these questions. Of course, you can discuss it all you want amongst yourselves as well. A lot of thought goes into curriculum planning (based in part on the ASHA standards for competence) and subject areas are not randomly covered or omitted.

Anyway, I shall bow out of this thread as I'm now just repeating myself. Enjoy your discussion.

 

[Dan Schwartz]

@SoCalAuD: You have a good look at what the prerequisites should be for audiology, because you're looking over the shoulder of your fiance!

All kidding aside, many of the basic principles Joe is learning ,such as wave theory, control systems (Laplace & Fourier transforms), and even thermo, which goes into the difference between adiabatic vs isothermal (wave propagation) conditions he'll need in acoustics next semester. Also, I'm sure he's had a couple of courses with labs in electronics.

Someone above mentioned Biomedical Engineering: Programs in it vary all over the map as to curriculum learned once you get past the core: Some may be more into robotics (motion control), some more into material science (plastic/metallurgy/ceramic engineering), and so on.

[email protected]

Audiegrrl, I respect your point and view. FYI: it's not about the training we WANT, where it's more about training we NEED as future audiologists.

Secondly, I have been very passionate about audiology since I do have first hand experience. Yes, I do have a hearing loss myself and know exactly what hearing impaired people go through. I want to be the audiologist that I wish I had.

By the way, no one here is being a complainer. We're just curious to know what we need to help better serve future patients.

****I AGREE: I truly believe it's possible to offer a more challenging (read: more informational) audiology undergraduate degree without being forced to change the prerequisites for graduate school. ****