What would happen to someone like me, geared toward lab animal from before Day 1 of vet school, who ended up not matching and having to do SA GP? Assuming there were even lab-animal oriented programs (would there also be programs just for aquatics, just for wildlife, just for regulatory/government, etc? How would that work?) I'd be up sht creek, having learned all about lab animals (many of which are companion animal types, but many of which are exotics or even wildlife). I like the idea of limited licensure in theory, but the field is still far too broad to do so, at least in my opinion.
I don't know what would happen to someone like you - that's the point of doing lots and lots of groundwork and thinking ahead of time. It doesn't seem like there would likely be an individual program for every last niche market, so I think <most> likely people would end up having to board in one of a few broad categories - SA, equine, production animal, lab/research/exotics/zoo, etc.
But I don't think it makes sense to say that we should force the majority of vets (SA+equine) to learn about everything else just because a minority are worried about their future prospects. I think it makes MORE sense to find a solution that works for the minority while at the same time freeing up the majority to focus their studies on things relevant to them.
I find the idea intriguing and I think it may make sense in certain situations, but I would hesitate, honestly. Probably because I came in hard in favour of one thing and have done a 180 in vet school. If I didn't have the experience I did, I'd still be in that field and possibly stuck with something I'd be unhappy with come internship and unable to move anywhere else. So between that and with a situation like TRH's, I don't think the primary example of switching fields should be an LA vet switching after 10 years, necessarily.
I think internships solve a lot of the species specializing, to be honest. Thoughts on internships, LIS?
Yes, the tendency for a lot of people to switch through vet school is one drawback. And there definitely is a romantic notion to getting our hands on all species a la James Herriot.
But, I still don't think that should be a showstopper. There are obviously going to be negatives to <ANY> change that is put in place. Both your point and TRH's are ones that are commonly raised when people object to it. And, there are people doing a really good job as mixed animal vets; there would need to be some way to factor that in.
The question - and why we should be fully exploring the issue - is "do the benefits of implementing it outweigh the negatives". And the only way to figure that out is to start sitting down and having smart industry leaders think about how to implement it, what it would look like, and what the benefits/drawbacks would be. Without that .... we're all just kinda spitting in the wind.
I mean, there are dozens of ways you could implement it. There's no inherent reason that limited licensure means necessarily taking away broader licensure. One concept could be the availability of limited licensure (say, someone wants to do SA companion medicine), but continue to provide broader licensure for people who want to pursue that route. Essentially, just expand the 'tracking' concept that some schools have into licensing. Alleviates the need for some people to study everything if they are confident about what they want to do, but leaves open the possibility for other people to study on a more broad basis if they want. The people choosing a limited approach could focus their studies and come out somewhat ahead of their mixed brethren, but the mixed folks would have the advantage of being able, in theory, to practice anywhere. It becomes your own assessment of what you want to do and what risks you want to take.
It would be interesting to see how the market would respond to that when it comes to a limited licensure vet applying for a job in competing with a broad licensure vet. Another concept would be forcing every new vet to do limited licensure, but then sure - you have to find some way to accommodate the niche fields (like TRH noted). It would also be interesting to see how schools would handle the concept of training with limited licensure.
I just don't think it's smart or wise to rule it out
just because there are some (obvious) negatives. There are some obvious negatives to sticking with the classical model as well ....... *shrug*
I think requiring an internship might make more sense without the financial challenges of our field. The MD field requires a residency for all
practical purposes (as best I understand it's not LEGALLY required like some people think ... it's just a practical requirement); but they can do that because for all the bitching about incomes we hear from MDs they really get paid pretty damn well (c'mon - similar debt to us but 2-10x the income.....). I mean, my family practitioner friend supports his family of 5 in a $750,000 house in a wealthy suburb of Seattle on just his income - they can't be doing
too badly. We don't have that financial luxury in vet med, so requiring additional training for species specialization .... that seems like a hard row to hoe, at least at this point. Maybe if we could improve the overall debt:income / income / financial challenges in the industry it would be more palatable, but.....
I dunno. I'm about as far from an expert on this stuff as you could get. It's just me thinking aloud. And I guess I'm at the point where I don't really have skin in the game anyway because no matter what happens down the road, you'd have to grandfather in people who trained under the classical approach.
