Why are there 2 year residencies? I would think that most students want to do the three year program inj the first place so why not make the 3 year programs the standard. I can underdtand that some people might not want to mess with the ankle in practice but shouldn't they at least have the training and elect not to use it. What are your thoughts?
actually, 2 year residencies do in fact expose you to rear foot, forefoot and in some cases, ankle surgeries but the number of cases are obviously less than those at a 3-yr program so consequently, you wouldn't be eligible for Rearfoot or re-constructive foot and ankle certification.
I do know a few people in my class (intelligent people I may add) who are looking for the 2 year programs because of personal/family reasons (some were women who want to practice part-time for example), while others do not want to perform surgeries at all.
I definately agree that the standard should always be 3-years for more uniformity in the profession, even if some DPM's choose to not perform some of the foot and ankle procedures, but at least it maintains a standard in our profession, by which our colleagues can identify us - and of course, to eliminate confusion about who we are and our level of training in the future.
