Pacific (Oregon), Stony Brook, Rosalind Franklin, or Temple?

[blazersfan22]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

How would you personally rank these programs, and why? Please do not cite the US News Rankings. Anybody go or know anyone that attends/attended these programs, and know what the good/bad aspects of these programs are? These are the programs I'm currently debating between. Thanks.

 

[ptdream]

i dont know why stony brook has 143.5 credits prog. while others are lesser than stony brook😕

 

[duffy0387]

My girlfriend attended Stony Brook this past year. She enjoyed the campus and said that the equipment was state-of-the art. One thing she didn't like was that a lot of the professors were from out of the country and had heavy accents. I don't know any information about the other schools.

Are you applying to PT schools now? If so, have you been through any interviews? I have recently been to two interviews at CMU and Hunter College. Unfortunately I was turned down at each. How many schools did you apply to? If you don't mind me asking, what is your GPA/GRE scores? Do you think you have a good chance?

 

[kdpt3]

I am completely unfamiliar with Stony Brook and Temple.

I've heard great things about both of the other two, but I'm not sure that I could adequately compare them. As for Rosalind Franklin, I've talked a lot about PT and PT school with a graduate of their program. He gives the school a good name and liked it because of class size, as well as their clinical placements. Chicago has great health care options available for sites, and the process seemed to give them some choice and flexibility. He also seems to really know what he's talking about when it comes to anatomy, but will dive in to learn more when he's not sure. I think it's a good sign to maintain the desire to learn, especially in this field. He could have been that way anyway, but I think PTs do reflect their schools, to a certain extent.

The positives, in my opinion, about Pacific include class size (40, not too big or too small), great facilities, positive student/faculty interactions according to students and graduates, and the distinguished honor of being the only PT school in Oregon. That means that with a competitive applicant pool your classmates would be an added strength to your learning and also that it might be a little easier to secure internships and jobs during and after the program. I think the previous statement about applicant pool and jobs could describe some other programs in the NW, but Pacific does interviews and doesn't require the GRE, so they really look at the applicant as a whole. I think that's a tremendous strength. UW in Seattle and University of Puget Sound accept on basis of application alone.

That's my $.02 🙂

 

[blazersfan22]

Yea, I'm applying to PT schools now. I've been accepted to Stony Brook and Arcadia. I've also had interviews at Rosalind Franklin and Temple and will hear from them in two weeks. Otherwise, I currently have an interview at MGH Institute of Health Professions. The other schools I applied to, Pacific, Midwestern, Thomas Jefferson, and Duquesne still have not sent letters. I've already declined to attend Samuel Merritt College and Chatham. My overall gpa is 3.45, but science is a lot higher. Can't remember my GRE's, but I think they were in the mid 1300's. Like your girlfriend, I loved Stony Brook's campus. The PT facilities definitely are not up to par with Pacific's, but they're good. I didn't notice any teachers with heavy accents. In fact, I was very impressed with their faculty. One of their graduates even just won some award by Advance Magazine for PT of the Year, I think for the whole East Coast. Is your girlfriend in undergrad? Regarding my chances at the other schools, I felt good about my interview at Rosalind, but not so much about Temple. That said, I wasn't very impressed with either Arcadia or Temple. They definitely don't deserve to be ranked so much higher than schools like Stony Brook. Best of luck in the application process.

My girlfriend attended Stony Brook this past year. She enjoyed the campus and said that the equipment was state-of-the art. One thing she didn't like was that a lot of the professors were from out of the country and had heavy accents. I don't know any information about the other schools.

Are you applying to PT schools now? If so, have you been through any interviews? I have recently been to two interviews at CMU and Hunter College. Unfortunately I was turned down at each. How many schools did you apply to? If you don't mind me asking, what is your GPA/GRE scores? Do you think you have a good chance?

 

[jesspt]

It's my understanding that many of the factors that schools are ranked on come down to the school's reputation, and that primarily PT Department Chairs are the ones who fill out the rankings questionaire. So, typically, if a school's faculty are well respected, and in particular, are well published, a school tends to be ranked highly. Shirley Sahrmann, PT, PhD, FAPTA, for example, is widely published, and in addition to contributing to the body of PT scientific literature, she has also started a Movement Science post-graduate Fellowship. She, along with other prominent faculty members, is quite probably why Wash U is ranked highly. So, schools with faculty members that are less well published, don't hold PhDs, etc. tend to be ranked lower.

In defense of my alma mater, Arcadia University, it is ranked highly (and "deserves" its ranking as much as any of the other highly ranked programs) quite likely due to a faculty that has been incredibly well-published and stresses evidence-based practice and integration of current best evidence into treatment. Some of the other places you may visit may have shiny, more expensive equipment and a larger campus, but most of that is window dressing. To borrow a phrase from Jason Silvernail, a PT that posts regularly on evidenceinmotion.com and somasimple.com, "The only high-tech equipment I've ever needed in the clinic are my brain and my two hands." A nice quote that I couldn't agree more with.

My $0.02.

 

[blazersfan22]

Sorry for knocking Arcadia. Let me clarify my opinion. I also agree that the faculty was very impressive. The facilities are mediocre. The students are cool enough, but the undergrad kids and campus as a whole has a very weird feel to it. The curriculum is very strange. They're changing their internship/clinical rotation schedule for the upcoming class so there will only be two very long ones. For these reasons, I feel that it is nothing more than a mediocre school. I was accepted there, I'm not hating because of bitter feelings, just my personal opinion. Regardles, congratulations on graduating from a physical therapy program. It's an impressive feat and I tip my hat to you. Just my $0.02

It's my understanding that many of the factors that schools are ranked on come down to the school's reputation, and that primarily PT Department Chairs are the ones who fill out the rankings questionaire. So, typically, if a school's faculty are well respected, and in particular, are well published, a school tends to be ranked highly. Shirley Sahrmann, PT, PhD, FAPTA, for example, is widely published, and in addition to contributing to the body of PT scientific literature, she has also started a Movement Science post-graduate Fellowship. She, along with other prominent faculty members, is quite probably why Wash U is ranked highly. So, schools with faculty members that are less well published, don't hold PhDs, etc. tend to be ranked lower.

In defense of my alma mater, Arcadia University, it is ranked highly (and "deserves" its ranking as much as any of the other highly ranked programs) quite likely due to a faculty that has been incredibly well-published and stresses evidence-based practice and integration of current best evidence into treatment. Some of the other places you may visit may have shiny, more expensive equipment and a larger campus, but most of that is window dressing. To borrow a phrase from Jason Silvernail, a PT that posts regularly on evidenceinmotion.com and somasimple.com, "The only high-tech equipment I've ever needed in the clinic are my brain and my two hands." A nice quote that I couldn't agree more with.

My $0.02.

 

[jesspt]

I didn't explicitely state this in my previous post, but what I was trying to get at is that many prospective students have little on which to base their choice of school. This leads them to making choices for reasons that are logical ones from their perspective (new, "state of the art" facilities, a desireable location i.e. city vs. suburban vs. rural, the friendliness of the faculty, etc.), but in reality will have little positive impact on how effective a therapist they will become.

The students are cool enough, but the undergrad kids and campus as a whole has a very weird feel to it. The curriculum is very strange. They're changing their internship/clinical rotation schedule for the upcoming class so there will only be two very long ones. For these reasons, I feel that it is nothing more than a mediocre school.

For instance, when I attended Arcadia (so long ago it was called Beaver College) we had a new gait analysis mat, which we utilized during our biomechnics coursework. At the time it was "state of the art" and we all thought it was a great learning experience. Now, how many times do you suppose I've used a gait analysis mat (or thought that I could benefit from using one) since I've become a clinician? As you might expect from the tone of this post, not once.

Additionally, I think if you polled many clinicians, they would tell you that they would have rather had longer clinical internships in the areas they were interested in as opposed to the shorter ones in pre-specified areas that many of us had to go through. I think the change in internships is probably meant to address that.

Finally, I AM NOT trying to sell Arcadia here. What I'm tyring to do is make you think a bit about the reasons why you would choose a school. And, since nobody asked, here is how I would rank my criteria (from the perspective of a practicing clinician):
1. Cost of attending the program (as long as the NPTE pass rates are acceptable (greater than 95%)
2. Are the current faculty pullished in areas that I think I would like to practice in?
3. Does the curriculum encourage indpendent thought and critical reasoning?
4. Does the current curriculum emphasize evidence-based practice?
5. Do they teach cranio-sacral therapy or myofascial release (if so, run like the wind AWAY from this program).

 

[PTWannabe]

1. Cost of attending the program (as long as the NPTE pass rates are acceptable (greater than 95%)

Are you saying greater than 95% on the first try or overall?

 

[jesspt]

Ideally on the first try, but I'm not sure you can find that info out anywhere, except from the school itself.