copypasta'd from a post of mine in the dental forum:
So as I'm sure everyone expected, the mandatory backlash from a (future) UoP student
😛
I promise I'll try to be civil...
The fact that all those schools went back to four year programs (except one) indicates that it was a bad idea.
I just don't see how you can cram in all the things dental students need to learn now in just three years.
Because you don't understand how it happens, doesn't necessarily mean that it can't. The commission on dental accreditation reports the accreditation status of University of the Pacific is "Approval without reporting requirements" (
http://www.ada.org/prof/ed/programs/...ddsdmd_us.asp), which according to the commissions status definitions (
http://www.ada.org/prof/ed/accred/standards/predoc.pdf) means they meet or exceed the requirements outlined in that document to graduate dental students. Considering that on the last accreditation visit in 2000, on which the University received 18 superlative commendations with no recommendations, they probably exceed it.
I can also add, that while I'm sure there are several dental schools around the country that have 16 quarter, 30 credit/semester, year round curriculums, I can't seem to find them. Every school I interviewed at and researched besides UoP has a significant amount of "break ", whether it is a lighter class load or straight up time off. The faculty at UoP suggests the majority of their "time crunch" comes from eliminating breaks and vacations, and starting 2-3 months earlier than other school, not from removing essential curricula.
I'm not trying to convince you that UoP is the greatest dental school in the world, but it is a great school.
I suppose the only good thing is that you only pay three years of tuition but in all probability, the schools will cram four years worth of tuition into three years.
You hit the nail right on the head here, we get four years of education, and we pay for it
🙂
CLIFFS:
1. Accreditation = sufficient
2. ...
3. Profit