Programs with no gross anatomy?

[hope4baylor]

What's your opinion on programs without gross anatomy courses and cadaver labs? I'm noticing that the cheaper schools don't include these in their curriculum while more expensive, private schools do. Is a curriculum that begins in the summer with a gross anatomy course and cadaver lab worth and extra 15-25k total tuition?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jblil]

IMO gross anatomy and cadaver dissection are integral parts of a PT's education. I would not want to be in a PT program that does not include them.

 

[HouseDPT]

IMO gross anatomy and cadaver dissection are integral parts of a PT's education. I would not want to be in a PT program that does not include them.

Co-sign.

I enjoyed cadaver lab. But given the NPTE "outcomes" between cadaver and non-cadaver lab programs, I guess you can make an argument that you don't need to be around dead bodies. Although why someone wouldn't want to spend hours locked in a cadaver lab cutting is beyond me.

But anatomy is fundamental to a PT's knowledge base. I wouldn't roll the dice on a non-PT-driven, undergraduate level anatomy course to base, you know, clinical reasoning, treatment, continuing education selection discretion, palpation, literature analysis, etc. (Basically everything we do.)

I'm curious: can you share which programs don't have anatomy in their curriculum?

 

[okramango]

I haven't noticed any correlation between program cost and lack of gross anatomy. I'm attending a low cost state program with a really nice cadaver lab, just for PT students, and two semesters of gross anatomy. I don't agree that you'll need to pay more in tuition in order to have gross anatomy in your curriculum.

 

[bnwj89]

I think cadaver experience is really great, but I don't really think dissection is necessary. About half the programs I interviewed at did dissections, and the other half had the students view already-dissected cadavers (prosections). The argument was that actual act of dissection is tedious and unnecessarily takes up a lot of time. (cleaning up adipose tissue and whatnot)

 

[hope4baylor]

I haven't noticed any correlation between program cost and lack of gross anatomy. I'm attending a low cost state program with a really nice cadaver lab, just for PT students, and two semesters of gross anatomy. I don't agree that you'll need to pay more in tuition in order to have gross anatomy in your curriculum.

In my state (Florida) this is definitely the pattern. Of course there are some programs I haven't looked into because I have restrictions in my living arrangements. I'm applying to UM, FIU and UM (maybe a few more, still considering). UM and Nova have anatomy in the curriculum and you start with it in the summer. FIU doesn't and, when I asked how anatomy was covered in the curriculum and if they had cadaver labs, I was told that it should have been covered in undergrad. FIU is significantly cheaper at 77k vs 85-95k for the others but, although that's a lot of money saved, I'm not sure it's worth it.

I can't comment on other Florida schools as I have not dug into them since Miami is my target area.

 

[hope4baylor]

I did a quick review of a few more programs. This is just from the website, I haven't spoken to them directly like I have the Miami schools:

UF has anatomy in it's curriculum but it's not an initial summer of gross anatomy like some programs
USF starts with "foundational sciences" which includes anatomy courses broken up by the different systems, you are in classes with med students your first year. I'm from Tampa and most of the DPT students I've met complained that you had to learn a lot of unrelated material
FGCU does not look to have anatomy at all, the curriculum looks very similar to FIU.
UNF starts with a gross anatomy course


Okramango, you are correct. Cost does not correlate with having or not having an anatomy course. However, it would not be the best decision for me personally to attend these cheaper schools because I'd have to take out living expense loans, which will quickly make up the money I'm saving on tuition. I can live in the Miami area for free and will require very little, if any, extra money for living. So, personally, one of my main considerations is whether I should go to the cheapest school in the area (FIU) and forgo the anatomy lab. Or go to one of the more expensive schools to the tune of 8-18k more total tuition dollars and have an anatomy course.

Obviously, this is assuming I get into multiple schools but I'm neurotic enough to start fretting about all this now

 

[jesspt]

I think cadaver experience is really great, but I don't really think dissection is necessary. About half the programs I interviewed at did dissections, and the other half had the students view already-dissected cadavers (prosections). The argument was that actual act of dissection is tedious and unnecessarily takes up a lot of time. (cleaning up adipose tissue and whatnot)

I generally agree with the above. I think that the importance of gross anatomy tends to be vastly overstated. While I enjoyed my gross dissections, it was time consuming. And, in hindsight, I think that the significant amount of time my classmates and I spent in the cadaver lab could have been better spent on more clinically relevant subjects.

Things to think about when looking at Gross Anatomy vs non-Gross Anatomy programs:

1. The last day of Gross Anatomy is the last time you actually get to touch a muscle, tendon, ligament, or nerve. After that, you actually have to touch living, breathing people, and can only touch those things (or guess that you are touching them) through the skin. Would it possibly be better to take some of that dissection time and spend a bit more on palpation of surface anatomy as well as understanding which nerves and their cutaneous branches course through what you're actually in contact with (the patient's skin)?

2. They always make sure that you bring in your anatomy atlas. They told us "That's your road map" for dissection. Isn't it possible that I could have just spent a bit more time looking at my atlas in order to learn the anatomical positions of deeper structures rather than having to spend all that time cutting away skin, subcutaneous fat,etc just to see something that I then had to verify with my atlas?

3. Do I need to have dissected the abdominal core musculature to teach a patient a lumbo-pelvic stabilization exercise? Or dissected the knee in order to understand to avoid open kinetic chain exercise in a patient who has recently undergone an ACL reconstruction? Or the shoulder girdle to know to avoid active range of motion in a recent rotator cuff tear repair? The answer to all of these questions, is of course, no. Anatomy is a foundational science for physical therapy, but it is a much smaller piece of the foundation that makes up our clinical reasoning than it is often given credit for.

 

[NewTestament]

I don't think less expensive schools are the only ones with no anatomy. FIU is one example of a private school that does not have gross anatomy. I applied to public schools that offered gross anatomy. Do not go to a more expensive school just to take anatomy. It's not worth your money.

I finished gross anatomy last trimester and I wasted so much time in the cadaver lab. We spent most of our time dissecting and not actually learning. Since we were inexperienced, it was a tedious process and we often weren't sure what we were doing or what we were looking at. Nothing was labeled so we were guessing until we got confirmation. We had to wear scrubs and gloves. We smelled like preservatives the rest of the day.

I only learned after class or when a professor was showing us the structures. My classmates had the same feelings. I don't feel I have a better understanding of the human body after looking at cadavers.

As Jess said, you will NEVER see another cadaver in your life, and dissecting will not make you a better clinician. Palpation is a far more useful skill than dissecting. Gross anatomy will NOT improve your score on the NPTE either. It's nice to see that there are variations among bodies, but it's enough to know that they exist.

Some schools are now using digital flat-screen monitors instead of cadavers. While this is more sanitary and doesn't require students to dissect, it still won't improve your knowledge of anatomy. My textbooks have almost everything I need to know about anatomy. I don't need to see 'the real thing.'

Kevin

 

[bnwj89]

I don't think less expensive schools are the only ones with no anatomy. FIU is one example of a private school that does not have gross anatomy. I applied to public schools that offered gross anatomy. Do not go to a more expensive school just to take anatomy. It's not worth your money.

I finished gross anatomy last trimester and I wasted so much time in the cadaver lab. We spent most of our time dissecting and not actually learning. Since we were inexperienced, it was a tedious process and we often weren't sure what we were doing or what we were looking at. Nothing was labeled so we were guessing until we got confirmation. We had to wear scrubs and gloves. We smelled like preservatives the rest of the day.

I only learned after class or when a professor was showing us the structures. My classmates had the same feelings. I don't feel I have a better understanding of the human body after looking at cadavers.

As Jess said, you will NEVER see another cadaver in your life, and dissecting will not make you a better clinician. Palpation is a far more useful skill than dissecting. Gross anatomy will NOT improve your score on the NPTE either. It's nice to see that there are variations among bodies, but it's enough to know that they exist.

Some schools are now using digital flat-screen monitors instead of cadavers. While this is more sanitary and doesn't require students to dissect, it still won't improve your knowledge of anatomy. My textbooks have almost everything I need to know about anatomy. I don't need to see 'the real thing.'

Kevin

Completely agree

 

[Outdoors]

Im going to have to disagree with most of the above posters. It is important to remember that there are people with a variety of learning styles (audio, visual, tactile, ect), personally I see a large disadvantage with a lack of a hands on visual component to an anatomy class at a graduate level. (either prossection/dissection)

It might not be necessary to produce qualified PT's but it is very important for many people who learn in a variety of mediums.

my2cents

 

[hope4baylor]

Im going to have to disagree with most of the above posters. It is important to remember that there are people with a variety of learning styles (audio, visual, tactile, ect), personally I see a large disadvantage with a lack of a hands on visual component to an anatomy class at a graduate level. (either prossection/dissection)

It might not be necessary to produce qualified PT's but it is very important for many people who learn in a variety of mediums.

my2cents

I think this might be the direction I'm leaning in. Sure, I took undergrad anatomy but it was so basic and I don't remember all that much. I learned more muscles doing crossfit!

The school I'm considering that doesn't have anatomy is 77k while the ones with it are 84k to 94k. I feel like I'd be at a huge disadvantage jumping straight into a full semester of PT classes without going through anatomy first.

 

[hope4baylor]

Also, I'm not only asking about cadavers. Some of the schools don't have anatomy at all and instead go straight into a full semester of PT classes.

 

[bnwj89]

Also, I'm not only asking about cadavers. Some of the schools don't have anatomy at all and instead go straight into a full semester of PT classes.

Honestly, I think it is pretty absurd for a PT program to not have anatomy at all. My undergrad anatomy course was great and I learned a ton, but PT school anatomy is on a whole different level. And how about the students that have been out of school for 5-10 years? I really doubt they remember much from their undergraduate anatomy. I think the dissection/prossection thing is debatable, but I don't think anatomy in general should be debatable.

On the other hand, it must be integrated into other classes or something, because the schools are the accredited, right?

 

[hope4baylor]

It MUST be covered, but I'd think that still puts you at a disadvantage trying to learn the anatomy of a region during a class focused on rehab. For example, first semester curriculum at FIU consists of:

Analysis of Movement and Function w/ Lab
Prof. Practice Seminar
Princ. of Diagnostic Imaging
Therapeutic exercise
Applied Musculoskeletal systems w/ lab

I'm imagining diving into PT school and trying to learn this stuff while also refreshing (& trying to build upon) my current anatomy knowledge. Sounds terrible!

FYI, it was FIU that I e-mailed and they told me anatomy should have been covered in undergrad. Of course, it's probably an admin assistant or something who answers these e-mails and they may or may not know the ins-and-outs of the curriculum, but that was her answer.

 

[bnwj89]

It MUST be covered, but I'd think that still puts you at a disadvantage trying to learn the anatomy of a region during a class focused on rehab. For example, first semester curriculum at FIU consists of:

Analysis of Movement and Function w/ Lab
Prof. Practice Seminar
Princ. of Diagnostic Imaging
Therapeutic exercise
Applied Musculoskeletal systems w/ lab

I'm imagining diving into PT school and trying to learn this stuff while also refreshing (& trying to build upon) my current anatomy knowledge. Sounds terrible!

FYI, it was FIU that I e-mailed and they told me anatomy should have been covered in undergrad. Of course, it's probably an admin assistant or something who answers these e-mails and they may or may not know the ins-and-outs of the curriculum, but that was her answer.

Very interesting. My first semester has consisted of anatomy, kines, and procedures (gait training, assistive devices, transfers, etc), with a research class and professionalism class also. Really feels like we are "laying the foundation" right now.

 

[NewTestament]

Honestly, I think it is pretty absurd for a PT program to not have anatomy at all

So do I. In my first trimester I had anatomy. It was beneficial. The lecture component was difficult and intensive. It was a lot of information, and it definitely favored students who already had a good understanding of anatomy. In the lab we looked at models with keys. The models allowed us to see where everything was. We could see which structures were superficial and deep. For our practicals, we had to palpate five different structures.

My point is that the wet lab is a waste of time and money. I calculate I spent 80-100 hours in the wet lab. That time could have been better spent practicing my palpation skills or studying clinical anatomy.

Kevin

 

[CortneyDPT]

I ran across this and wanted to update the info for prospective students. I'm a first year DPT student at FIU and we do work with cadavers. We take an anatomy course with the medical students and a musculoskeletal anatomy in the first semester. In both classes, we use a wet and dry lab. This is only the second year we've done it. It's in the medical school but we have access to go in when ever we need. I'm not sure if we use them again in following semesters, but I don't see why we would. The plactinated specimens are helpful for identifying the muscular system but beyond that, they're not necessary. Just an FYI

 

[DesertPT]

when I asked how anatomy was covered in the curriculum...I was told that it should have been covered in undergrad.

This may have changed at this school since as the above poster described, but if someone at a PT school had told me that I don't think I would have applied...

 

[ashnicolee43]

I don't know if this helps but I was given a rare opportunity to spend the last year of my undergrad in a cadaver anatomy course. Dissection was intense but I learned more about the human body than I thought possible! It was an amazing experience and I wouldn't have given it up for anything.
However, It was crazy time consuming. We had 9 scheduled hours of dissection a week but we had to come in multiple other times to ensure our dissections were complete in time for the practical. This didn't include study time or time spent on other classes or work/observation hours. I think that doing that during a more intense grad program would be hard.
Also, even though I spent so much time observing the human body and I also was a TA for the lower level course that just observed the bodies, palpating a live human body isn't even close to the dissection. I spent so much time looking at cadavers and dissecting them but it's just a different experience that can't be learned through dissection.
With all that being said, if given the chance to dissect again, I'd love to. But I wouldn't pick a program based on if they had gross anatomy just do to the fact that I have experienced it already and because I think if it was hard to keep up with in undergrad then it'll be triple that in a grad program.
This is just my experience though!

 

[truthseeker]

I think the dissection is essential. It gives/forces students to recognize and understand the three dimensional nature of the muscles and the pathways of the nerves. looking at it in a book or even one of the cool new anatomy DVDs that simulate three dimensions is not the same as stuffing your hand in the adductor hiatus and following nerves and blood vessels. Also, you don't get an appreciation of how we ARE NOT SYMMETRICAL. I have not ever dissected a cadaver that did not have something that was not in the book. Yes you can learn that by taking notes and taking the word of your teachers, but you may not "KNOW" it until you touch it.

 

[topher031888]

I loved my gross anatomy course. I chose the program largely because we got to do a dissection. Now will it make me a better PT than someone who didn't do a dissection? Probably not, but I personally wanted to have that experience because I think it is a big part of how I like to learn (it was also the cheaper of the 2 programs that I received acceptance from). I also agree with truthseeker, having the option to know something for yourself is pretty awesome.

 

[SBanks]

I agree with truthseeker. I think it is incredibly important to see and feel all of the structures you are studying. I think most kids today have a big problem with seeing things from a global perspective in which gaining a broader, and deeper understanding of a subject -in this case a very important subject- leads to a better grasp of other relevant material. Even if it doesn't seem relevant right at the moment you'll gain a better appreciation of what you are actually doing later on. Some kids today only want to learn "specific stuff", but that won't do this profession any good.

 

[NewTestament]

Also, you don't get an appreciation of how we ARE NOT SYMMETRICAL.

And an appreciation of how no two bodies are the same. The atlases are averages.