-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
Teaching vet school - how to get there
Started by Chapelle
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
This is just what I know from experience - May be wrong about all of it.
Yes and No. Some faculty positions in a vet school will obviously have a large clinical aspect that traditional university prof. would not have
Yes and no. Depends on what you go into. At some med. schools and at least one vet schools, some of the prof. only have Ph.D's. Take Biochem and Immunology as an example. The Immunologists I know at Miss. State do not have DVM's, but still teach at the CVM school. I am sure there are some Vet Immunologist that teach the clinical stuff...
I would think that as a Ph.D you would have to do a Post Doc. You would probably have a very hard time getting such a position without one, otherwise everyone would be applying for these jobs. As a DVM with extensive clinical/research experience, it may be possible to skip the post doc step, but again, it depends on what you can offer the school
Again, totally depends on your position. If you specialized in a specific area of Vet Med, got boarded, and could offer some unique skill sets to the school, you probably could get away without doing research, but probably not. As far as only one grad. student, I don't see the connection. If you plan on doing research, you are either going to have to get money from industry or government in the form of grants. Unless you can do research REALLY cheaply, I doubt a school would fund you completely. The more grad students you have, the more research you can do.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I think most have PhDs, but not all have DVMs. I can't really elaborate further - that's just my notion.
I think a lot of the professors I've met didn't start out wanting to teach, either...
It's an attractive option, though. Well, except for the pay... right?
I think a lot of the professors I've met didn't start out wanting to teach, either...
It's an attractive option, though. Well, except for the pay... right?
Check out this site:
http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/jobs.htm
It lists a bunch of currently available faculty positions at OSU. It will give you an idea what type of requirements there are and the different levels of involvement for teaching/research/clinical time spent.
http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/jobs.htm
It lists a bunch of currently available faculty positions at OSU. It will give you an idea what type of requirements there are and the different levels of involvement for teaching/research/clinical time spent.
My PI, who is a faculty member at a vet school and has taught a course here, is "only" 😉 a PhD, while the professor who taught the same course last year here is a DVM/PhD. If you're a PhD, you're going to be doing research research research and mentoring graduate students and applying for grants and all that fun stuff. If you're a DVM/PhD you can obviously do some clinical consulting type work too, and also do research research research and mentoring graduate students etc.
I don't know much about the clinical faculty, to be honest. The area I'm interested in involves a ton of research, and that's my main draw to it, so I won't be doing anything without a PhD. I do have an eventual goal of becoming faculty at a SVM, though. 🙂
I don't know much about the clinical faculty, to be honest. The area I'm interested in involves a ton of research, and that's my main draw to it, so I won't be doing anything without a PhD. I do have an eventual goal of becoming faculty at a SVM, though. 🙂
Check out the various schools' websites and look at the faculty members' biographies. At my alma mater the first two years of classes were taught mostly by PhDs (a big mistake IMHO, because we spent a lot of time learning things that were irrelevant). The third year was taught mostly by DVMs and of course all of the faculty on clinics had DVMs, and some also had PhDs.
All of the clinical faculty had done residencies, and there were a lot of residents there as well.
So I would say--get your DVM, do an internship (pretty much anyone can get one: there are quite a few available even if you don't get one through the official match), and then either do a residency immediately if you can get one, or go out and get a few years of practice under your belt and then try again for a residency.
All of the clinical faculty had done residencies, and there were a lot of residents there as well.
So I would say--get your DVM, do an internship (pretty much anyone can get one: there are quite a few available even if you don't get one through the official match), and then either do a residency immediately if you can get one, or go out and get a few years of practice under your belt and then try again for a residency.
🙄 I'm pretty sure that whether it's taught by a DVM or a PhD doesn't have much bearing on the actual relevancy of the subject, though perhaps on your perceived relevancy..
Well, considering that I've BTDT and have been out practicing in the real world, I think it's more than just "perceived relevancy" as you so condescendingly put it, complete with eye-rolling. Anatomy taught by a veterinarian is a lot different from that taught by someone whose only experience is with cadavers. A lot of what we learned in the first two years was irrelevant to future practice and most of the professors who taught us, while very intelligent people and sometimes excellent teachers, had absolutely no idea about the reality of veterinary medicine, and their classes reflected that.
If you ever make it into veterinary school, I hope your experience is different. In the meantime it might be better not to jump to conclusions about others' experiences based on nothing more than what you think they might have been through.
If you ever make it into veterinary school, I hope your experience is different. In the meantime it might be better not to jump to conclusions about others' experiences based on nothing more than what you think they might have been through.
Thanks for the input BeagleOne, but do you think the material covered would be all that different in the first couple of years if all the classes were in fact taught by DVMs? Or is it more that vets would know what to emphasize, and also tack on anecdotes to the material material, to make it more relevant? I agree that a lot of things that are taught in courses like microbiology for example would be irrelevant in a clinical setting, but would that really change if a vet is teaching instead of a PhD?
Really, it's going to be quite different at each of the schools. I know a little bit about Ohio State's system.
There are two different tracts - tenure tract and clinical tract. There is a lot of debate in academia over the "triathlete" professor - one that can fulfill the three missions of service (clinics), research, and teaching. Tenure tract is the more traditional tract and you are expected to work in all three area, including a very significant research component. As the title implies, these professors can become tenured.
Clinical tract professors typically fulfill all three missions, but in different ways. Usually the emphasis is more in the service and teaching aspect, but they are still expected to complete clinically relevant research. This research may not lead to the same publications as the tenured tract research. These positions lead not to tenure, but longer contracts (5 year as opposed to year to year).
At Ohio State we have a lot of boarded specialists as our clinical professors, and a lot of PhD/DVMs that teach our Preventative Medicine and Bioscience classes.
There are two different tracts - tenure tract and clinical tract. There is a lot of debate in academia over the "triathlete" professor - one that can fulfill the three missions of service (clinics), research, and teaching. Tenure tract is the more traditional tract and you are expected to work in all three area, including a very significant research component. As the title implies, these professors can become tenured.
Clinical tract professors typically fulfill all three missions, but in different ways. Usually the emphasis is more in the service and teaching aspect, but they are still expected to complete clinically relevant research. This research may not lead to the same publications as the tenured tract research. These positions lead not to tenure, but longer contracts (5 year as opposed to year to year).
At Ohio State we have a lot of boarded specialists as our clinical professors, and a lot of PhD/DVMs that teach our Preventative Medicine and Bioscience classes.
Like it or not, not everyone goes into veterinary medicine for the same reasons. As someone who took immunology from a DVM and PhD, I can say, that the PhD was MUCH more relevant for what I want to do than what the DVM taught me. Sure, for 75%, perhaps the DVM (if it can really be generalized like that) would be more relevant, but as Nyanko said, that is based on what someone thinks will be relevant.
It really does seem like your making a gross generalization based on what you found useful as a vet (doing whatever niche work you are doing). I say that not as an insult, but lets be honest, whatever you are doing as a vet, is only a small niche of what a vet could be doing - and perhaps others will find the relevancy of the material vastly different.
Wait, who's being condescending here?
No Imagination put it best. Perhaps if your path in veterinary medicine involves clinical practice, a lot of what you learned from a PhD in anatomy or pathology might seem irrelevant, but would an anatomical pathologist see it the same way? The entire tone of your post is judgmental and condescending, actually, and makes narrow presumptions about a field that is quite the opposite of narrow. Again, your perception and perspective.
I have to agree that what is valid and useful for one future vet maybe irrelevant for another. However, I also tend to believe that additional knowledge isn't irrelevant; I believe it helps one to think beyond the boudaries of their field. Of course, that is probably the liberal arts student in me.
There are basically 2 type faculty at a veterinary school, clinical and basic science. The clinical faculty staff the hospitals and are veterinarians, usually boarded in a specialty. They have completed a DVM (or equivalent) and a residency. They often have private practice experience but not always. Some have PhDs others don't.
Basic science includes anatomy, physiology and often pathology. They may or may not be a DVM and usually have a PhD.
The expectations for all faculty are teaching, research and service but the division of these depends on the position. For example, a PhD basic scientist is usually expected to do a lot of research and is often expected to bring in grant money. An anatomist may have a much higher teaching load and less research expectations.
Clinical faculty vary. Some are almost 100% teaching/service (some schools classify hospital duty as service, others as teaching) with minimal research. Others do a lot of research, either basic or clinical research.
Promotion/tenure is based on you're time allocation. For example, if you're allocation is 70% research, you better be publishing and bringing in the grants. If it's teaching, you need to have a decent number of lecture/lab hours with good teaching evaluations. And some schools are better than others at rewarding good teachers while other schools seem reluctant to promote based on teaching/service alone -- you need publications.
This points out one of the great things about vet. medicine -- there are a lot of different career paths you can take.
Basic science includes anatomy, physiology and often pathology. They may or may not be a DVM and usually have a PhD.
The expectations for all faculty are teaching, research and service but the division of these depends on the position. For example, a PhD basic scientist is usually expected to do a lot of research and is often expected to bring in grant money. An anatomist may have a much higher teaching load and less research expectations.
Clinical faculty vary. Some are almost 100% teaching/service (some schools classify hospital duty as service, others as teaching) with minimal research. Others do a lot of research, either basic or clinical research.
Promotion/tenure is based on you're time allocation. For example, if you're allocation is 70% research, you better be publishing and bringing in the grants. If it's teaching, you need to have a decent number of lecture/lab hours with good teaching evaluations. And some schools are better than others at rewarding good teachers while other schools seem reluctant to promote based on teaching/service alone -- you need publications.
This points out one of the great things about vet. medicine -- there are a lot of different career paths you can take.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I didn't see anything wrong with Beagle's comment. It's not like he/she is saying "I like horses. Dr. PhD taught us about fish, therefore, what he teaches is irrelevant". If that were the case, then I would agree that Beagle's post would be irrational, because we're all going to have to learn about a species or specialization that we aren't particularly interested in at some point. However, I don't think that's what they are implying. I think (and correct me if I'm wrong Beagle), but it seems to me like what you are saying is it's frustrating when there are things like outdated/specialized techniques or obscure diseases being taught instead of things we are more likely to see/use, and that is often the case in your experience when a class is being taught by a PhD as opposed to a DVM who has clinical knowledge. If this is what you're saying, than I (and the majority of my class) completely agree.
True, everyone has different interests. I want to go into anatomical pathology and do research, so obscure information about some disease you probably would never see in practice would interest me. A person wanting to specialize in surgery may really care about a tiny muscle. Of course everyone is going to have different interests, but I think the vet curriculum should be focused on giving a more general and clinically useful education by teaching about things most commonly seen in clinics and useful modern techniques (and it seems to me that this is the way vet school is designed). The majority of students will be general vets, so that's the most relevant information to the majority of the students (therefore Beagle's "perceived relevancy" is the same as most vet students). Despite that I or someone else might find some obscure lab technique "relevant" doesn't mean it should be included in lecture time IMO. The time to learn the details are in residencies/PhD that you do after vet school. Otherwise, we'd all be in vet school for way longer than 4 years.
🙂
True, everyone has different interests. I want to go into anatomical pathology and do research, so obscure information about some disease you probably would never see in practice would interest me. A person wanting to specialize in surgery may really care about a tiny muscle. Of course everyone is going to have different interests, but I think the vet curriculum should be focused on giving a more general and clinically useful education by teaching about things most commonly seen in clinics and useful modern techniques (and it seems to me that this is the way vet school is designed). The majority of students will be general vets, so that's the most relevant information to the majority of the students (therefore Beagle's "perceived relevancy" is the same as most vet students). Despite that I or someone else might find some obscure lab technique "relevant" doesn't mean it should be included in lecture time IMO. The time to learn the details are in residencies/PhD that you do after vet school. Otherwise, we'd all be in vet school for way longer than 4 years.
🙂
Personally, I have to agree with BeagleOne. I really enjoyed my PhD instructors as people and am still in awe of their brilliance and dedication. At my school, all of the instructors are very dedicated to actually TEACHING and provide students with great focus and attention.
That said, I came into vet school with many years of clinical experience in various fields (from general practice to specialty). There were many things that we were taught--especially first year--that really were NOT relevant to our future life as a veterinarian. You can argue that fact set A will be relevant to someone if they go into research, fact set B will be relevant if you go into clinical practice--but when you get to vet school, you'll see it's not like that.
If fact set A is going to be relevant to YOUR PARTICULAR RESEARCH, then you will learn about it in much much more depth and detail than we talk about it in one class. I guarantee that you will NOT remember what this one professor talked about for a single lecture for the rest of your career and base your future research project off of this one lecture.
Do we really need two to three weeks of glycolysis in vet school? Do we need to know every single part/conformation/aa sequence of a particular receptor on a particular hormone that's secreted during a particular day of the reproductive cycle? No--we just need to know that genetically, there can be issues with the receptor conformation and they can have difficulty acheiving x, y, z.
Some of our PhDs mention that certain "tests" will be "very valuable" to us in the clinic--based on their research article that mentioned either veterinarians using this assay for this disease twenty years ago, or based on some newfangled research about a test that costs $500 to perform and you're never going to utilize it on a patient unless you're doing research in THAT PARTICULAR FIELD (and/or they come out with a cheaper version of the test whose efficacy has been studied and published in a peer-reviewed journal). When, again, you would know much better what tests you'd like to utilize in your own project--and why--than the professor teaching you first-year endocrinology or whatever. I appreciate their efforts at tying in what they think is relevant to being a veterinarian--I really do--but they don't understand some of the practicalities sometimes. You can tell who are researchers and who are clinicians.
It's hard to explain to students who haven't been to vet school before, but there really is a difference in how relevant the subject matter is. Again, I'm not saying the non-DVMs are any less intelligent or any less distinguished in their field or any less worthy of respect or any less talented at teaching the material they're presenting--just that DVMs tailor material to be more practical to life as a veterinarian. And life as a veterinarian doesn't mean a veterinarian in the clinic--it means recognizing, treating, and preventing disease, in ANY context.
Nothing condescending. Does it really matter in the long run? I'm sure not, because so much is forgotten from the first eyar or two of vet school anyway. 🙂
That said, I came into vet school with many years of clinical experience in various fields (from general practice to specialty). There were many things that we were taught--especially first year--that really were NOT relevant to our future life as a veterinarian. You can argue that fact set A will be relevant to someone if they go into research, fact set B will be relevant if you go into clinical practice--but when you get to vet school, you'll see it's not like that.
If fact set A is going to be relevant to YOUR PARTICULAR RESEARCH, then you will learn about it in much much more depth and detail than we talk about it in one class. I guarantee that you will NOT remember what this one professor talked about for a single lecture for the rest of your career and base your future research project off of this one lecture.
Do we really need two to three weeks of glycolysis in vet school? Do we need to know every single part/conformation/aa sequence of a particular receptor on a particular hormone that's secreted during a particular day of the reproductive cycle? No--we just need to know that genetically, there can be issues with the receptor conformation and they can have difficulty acheiving x, y, z.
Some of our PhDs mention that certain "tests" will be "very valuable" to us in the clinic--based on their research article that mentioned either veterinarians using this assay for this disease twenty years ago, or based on some newfangled research about a test that costs $500 to perform and you're never going to utilize it on a patient unless you're doing research in THAT PARTICULAR FIELD (and/or they come out with a cheaper version of the test whose efficacy has been studied and published in a peer-reviewed journal). When, again, you would know much better what tests you'd like to utilize in your own project--and why--than the professor teaching you first-year endocrinology or whatever. I appreciate their efforts at tying in what they think is relevant to being a veterinarian--I really do--but they don't understand some of the practicalities sometimes. You can tell who are researchers and who are clinicians.
It's hard to explain to students who haven't been to vet school before, but there really is a difference in how relevant the subject matter is. Again, I'm not saying the non-DVMs are any less intelligent or any less distinguished in their field or any less worthy of respect or any less talented at teaching the material they're presenting--just that DVMs tailor material to be more practical to life as a veterinarian. And life as a veterinarian doesn't mean a veterinarian in the clinic--it means recognizing, treating, and preventing disease, in ANY context.
Nothing condescending. Does it really matter in the long run? I'm sure not, because so much is forgotten from the first eyar or two of vet school anyway. 🙂
I also agree 100% with BeagleOne, so I think the vet students are in full support as opposed to the pre-vets. Again, its something you'll be able to decide for yourself on once you actually get in vet school and take a variety of courses from a variety of professors, some with recent extensive clinicial experience, some with clinical experience 20 years ago, and some that have spent their whole life in a lab.
You get so much information thrown at you in vet school that its up to you, what you feel is important you will retain, and otherwise you have to memorize it for the test, then forget it and throw it out of your brain.
You get so much information thrown at you in vet school that its up to you, what you feel is important you will retain, and otherwise you have to memorize it for the test, then forget it and throw it out of your brain.
Of course "fact sets" are largely irrelevant. I hate to see anything as a "fact set" to be honest - isn't there a larger picture here?
That's a hell of a guarantee. Research is not based on "fact sets" or "single lectures," though, it is based on a fairly different (but somewhat tangential) skill set to the one that allows you to memorize and regurgitate (which I realize is pretty central to the DVM curriculum). Personally when I'm in a class of any kind, I'm constantly thinking about unexplored avenues in whatever subject the instructor is talking about, and how one might be able to explore them further. If something puts a loud enough bug in my ear, I may very well go home and read some academic papers on the topic, and see what's been done since, and may even end up incorporating some aspect of it into my own research.
I don't see how understanding the "why" is anything other than helpful, and in fact I feel like it's quite necessary to say you actually fully understand a topic. I realize most people won't remember all those details, and it feels like information overload, but familiarity with the details does seem like it could be important, even if just to be able to recognize them later if you read them again.
"the professor teaching you first-year endocrinology or whatever" probably knows a whole lot better than you do about endocrinology and how to judge the effectiveness of a particular test. I don't know why you switch gears from a "project" to "a clinic" but it's very confusing.
You just said that the divide was due to "researchers" vs "clinicians" so you are quite obviously talking about relevance to being a veterinarian in a clinic.
It is fairly obvious to me, as someone who is most definitely on the research side of things, that a typical vet student and a typical graduate student think on completely different terms. It's obvious both from here on SDN and from my experience in the one DVM course that I've taken (taught by a DVM/PhD). So it's no wonder that there would be a noticeable difference in the way that a product of each of these types of education would approach teaching a course. So I'm not going to agree with you guys, likely ever, but I do feel compelled to state my case and why I feel the way I do.
I'm sure that there are many things in the basic sciences that will be irrelevant to any given veterinary student, but I maintain that what those things are does not have to do with whether the person teaching them has a DVM or not, but the perspective and goals of the given student.
Last edited:
One other 'benefit' of irrelevant information, and this just may be me.
When i took Immunology at the vet school (Not quite clinical, but a very strong clinical emphasis), I was left confused. It was superficial, and incorporated a lot of facts.
I later took Adv. Immunology taught by two Ph.D's (at the vet school), and the level of detail was much greater, although somewhat irrelevant (I guess).
The advanced class with the minutia allowed me to understand the general concepts and remember them much better then the 'introductory' course.
Perhaps its just me, but I found Adv. Biochem, and Adv. Metabolism to be much easier then the respective lower level versions.
I would imagine that (again, perhaps its just me), in Vet medicine, going into older, more minute detail, or understanding how and why an original older test was performed is still relevant in letting me understand the concept better as a whole.
Now, who knows, perhaps once I start I will get jaded enough to say "F it, just tell me whats on the test and I will memorize it", but right now - much rather understand 'why' it is the way it is.
When i took Immunology at the vet school (Not quite clinical, but a very strong clinical emphasis), I was left confused. It was superficial, and incorporated a lot of facts.
I later took Adv. Immunology taught by two Ph.D's (at the vet school), and the level of detail was much greater, although somewhat irrelevant (I guess).
The advanced class with the minutia allowed me to understand the general concepts and remember them much better then the 'introductory' course.
Perhaps its just me, but I found Adv. Biochem, and Adv. Metabolism to be much easier then the respective lower level versions.
I would imagine that (again, perhaps its just me), in Vet medicine, going into older, more minute detail, or understanding how and why an original older test was performed is still relevant in letting me understand the concept better as a whole.
Now, who knows, perhaps once I start I will get jaded enough to say "F it, just tell me whats on the test and I will memorize it", but right now - much rather understand 'why' it is the way it is.
*sigh* Not going to try to argue, but you will see what I mean when you actually get to vet school. And FYI, nyanko, I was using the "clinician/researcher" because that's what everyone else assumed the "divide" is about in terms of relevant/irrelevant (i.e., relevant to life in practice or relevant to life as a researcher). I was actually trying to say that the relevancy to everyone--no matter which field you're entering--could be increased. Sorry if that wasn't clear--I was (and am now) in a hurry.
Also, it's not a question of not wanting to know "why" or wanting to have fewer lectures or any of that. To the contrary--I hate rote memorization and PREFER to analyze things in terms of "why." When I mentioned not needing three weeks of glycolysis, it's not that I want fewer lectures--it's that it would be nice if the time allocation to certain concepts was different and that time could be better spent going more in-depth on things that are actually relevant. To everyone. Such as, I don't know, cell signaling mechanisms, or ion channels. (So important for things like pharmacology and pathology!) It would be great to go more in-depth in things that are more relevant...to recognizing, preventing, and treating disease...in any context.
And btw, the students who say "F it, just tell me whats on the test and I will memorize it"--drive me absolutely NUTS. And that is NOT AT ALL what I am trying to say.
Like I said, I think it will be clearer to you when you get to vet school. Especially after first year, when you begin to see how it would have been beneficial to spend more time/detail on subject X than subject Y in order to understand things in class Z--and later on.
Also, it's not a question of not wanting to know "why" or wanting to have fewer lectures or any of that. To the contrary--I hate rote memorization and PREFER to analyze things in terms of "why." When I mentioned not needing three weeks of glycolysis, it's not that I want fewer lectures--it's that it would be nice if the time allocation to certain concepts was different and that time could be better spent going more in-depth on things that are actually relevant. To everyone. Such as, I don't know, cell signaling mechanisms, or ion channels. (So important for things like pharmacology and pathology!) It would be great to go more in-depth in things that are more relevant...to recognizing, preventing, and treating disease...in any context.
And btw, the students who say "F it, just tell me whats on the test and I will memorize it"--drive me absolutely NUTS. And that is NOT AT ALL what I am trying to say.
Like I said, I think it will be clearer to you when you get to vet school. Especially after first year, when you begin to see how it would have been beneficial to spend more time/detail on subject X than subject Y in order to understand things in class Z--and later on.
It seems odd to me that I hear similar statements going to high school, going to college, traveling internationally, etc. The 'you won't know till you go' and the general suggestion that just because someone has experienced something they KNOW how another human being will think, feel, and respond.
I was told repeatedly that I shouldn't bother with calc based stats because it wouldn't help me for med/vet...it was just a lot of excess information I didn't need, it wasn't relevant to what I would do, and it might damage my admissions potential. Same for calc based physics, advanced technical writing, every foreign language, every art and dance class, anthropology, etc. This includes my international studies of conservation.
Is it even possible in anyone's mind that there are some bizarre, weird individuals in the world who just like knowledge? Perhaps Nyanko has unique concepts about how glycolysis is fundamental in disease mechanisms. Obviously, different schools consider different things important (otherwise all the pre-reqs and courses throughtout all the schools would be identical.) I know that the MD friend researching the role of glycolysis in alzheimers would like to see MORE glycolysis in early med studies. I am sure there are things we all would prefer to see more of or less of in the curriculem, but I have a feeling those things differ by the individual. IE perhaps I want to see more hands on behavior work for SA vet students while Nyanko wants more lab applicable information and somone else doesn't want to cover rare diseases in a species they don't plan to treat, while someone fascinated by comparative disease research wants to know every viral disease but could care less about microbial infestations.
Maybe you are right....that as a person I will change and decide it is all too much and that the opportunity to learn more than I will use isn't a privelage. Or maybe that same attitude that kept me cleaning alzheimer and late stage cancer patient's rear ends through undergrad so that I could even have the opportunity to apply will hold true, and much like quantum physics, I will see some value in even having the opportunity to learn something. Of course, we all know that we will use quantum physics every day in veterinary med! And calculus! and the only reason to learn anything is because it ties directly into what we will be doing in the future (even though the future isn't so known.)
Maybe you are right.....you have said it in enough posts and repetition = veritas. Just like it was true for all those other classes I had to take that have no real purpose in vet med. Except I actually think it was valuable, but to each thier own.
I was told repeatedly that I shouldn't bother with calc based stats because it wouldn't help me for med/vet...it was just a lot of excess information I didn't need, it wasn't relevant to what I would do, and it might damage my admissions potential. Same for calc based physics, advanced technical writing, every foreign language, every art and dance class, anthropology, etc. This includes my international studies of conservation.
Is it even possible in anyone's mind that there are some bizarre, weird individuals in the world who just like knowledge? Perhaps Nyanko has unique concepts about how glycolysis is fundamental in disease mechanisms. Obviously, different schools consider different things important (otherwise all the pre-reqs and courses throughtout all the schools would be identical.) I know that the MD friend researching the role of glycolysis in alzheimers would like to see MORE glycolysis in early med studies. I am sure there are things we all would prefer to see more of or less of in the curriculem, but I have a feeling those things differ by the individual. IE perhaps I want to see more hands on behavior work for SA vet students while Nyanko wants more lab applicable information and somone else doesn't want to cover rare diseases in a species they don't plan to treat, while someone fascinated by comparative disease research wants to know every viral disease but could care less about microbial infestations.
Maybe you are right....that as a person I will change and decide it is all too much and that the opportunity to learn more than I will use isn't a privelage. Or maybe that same attitude that kept me cleaning alzheimer and late stage cancer patient's rear ends through undergrad so that I could even have the opportunity to apply will hold true, and much like quantum physics, I will see some value in even having the opportunity to learn something. Of course, we all know that we will use quantum physics every day in veterinary med! And calculus! and the only reason to learn anything is because it ties directly into what we will be doing in the future (even though the future isn't so known.)
Maybe you are right.....you have said it in enough posts and repetition = veritas. Just like it was true for all those other classes I had to take that have no real purpose in vet med. Except I actually think it was valuable, but to each thier own.
Oh good lord. I'm a huge fan of knowledge for knowledge's sake. I double-majored in philosophy, for god's sake. I love learning new things and applying my knowledge and satisfying curiosity that I didn't even know I had. Okay?! There's no need to sound so self-righteous about learning. I LOVE LEARNING. THIS IS NOT ABOUT THAT. And I'm willing to bet that all the other people here who are veterinary students/veterinarians talking from the same point of view about this issue also love learning and knowledge for its intrinsic value. Hard to get into vet school without that. (Difficult, but not impossible.)
And nyanko might have great perspectives about glycolysis in disease mechanisms, but what I'm referring to isn't about glycolysis in disease mechanisms.
Again, you'll see when you get there. No need to get all self-righteous about a love of knowledge and/or learning. Believe me, for the hundredth time, this is not about that.
Interesting that as rugbychick16 pointed out, there is a pretty definite line on this issue between pre-vets and those who have been through at least a year of vet school. Hmmm. Food for thought.
And nyanko might have great perspectives about glycolysis in disease mechanisms, but what I'm referring to isn't about glycolysis in disease mechanisms.
Again, you'll see when you get there. No need to get all self-righteous about a love of knowledge and/or learning. Believe me, for the hundredth time, this is not about that.
Interesting that as rugbychick16 pointed out, there is a pretty definite line on this issue between pre-vets and those who have been through at least a year of vet school. Hmmm. Food for thought.
Last edited:
I learn best the same way as you are describing here. I like to go into detail, and sometimes I think going into detail and spending time on more minute topics really can reinforce big or more "relevent" topics. The problem with that mindset while in vet school is there's simply not enough time (or mind space in my case) to learn everything in detail. You need enough information to solve the problem, and there really isn't room for much else. That's all there is time for, so when professors start teaching about topics that aren't going to be used clinically, while interesting to some, it is frustrating to know that time could be used being taught about a test/disease we will be expected to know while in clinics. As it was said before, not everyone is on a clinical path, but that's what the vet curriculum is designed for (clinical) so I think it's important to teach a little about a lot of (commonly seen) things.
I'm telling you, I really like to know the "why" behind everything too....I want to be a pathologist, and this is the main reason...because I'm always curious about why...But, when you've slept 2 or 3 hours a night for a week straight during finals, you make a mental note to go back and learn the why later. It's not about being jaded, it's just sometimes how it has to be when you are crunched for time. So, when you are in a foul mood because you are up and the rest of the world is asleep, it can be annoying to know you are studying you a** off to learn about a topic you will likely never hear about again (regardless of you're field of interest).
When I used to read about how people crammed in vet school, I thought "oh, I'll be ok. I have good time management skills, and I doubt I'll need to pull all-nighters or be cramming" .....Well, that's just not realistic for most if not all (not implying this is what you're saying). This curriculum is do-able, but there's pretty much only time to (barely) learn what you'll be tested over.
When you have me agreeing with sumstorm, something bizarre must be going on. 😉
You know, I don't disagree all the time with the "you don't know until you've done it" assertion, but I also don't think that the fact that 4 vet students and 3 pre-vets are debating on the issue from opposite sides actually means anything, either. How can "relevance to being a veterinarian" be any sort of judgment other than a personal one?? That's what I can't get past about this whole thing.
😀 I thought the same thing! Perhaps I can't really know until I have done it, but I also get very tired of all the bemoaning.
And then, on previous thread when I have said 'ok, what will make it better' I get told to bug off because it is just people venting. Oddly enough, by the same people. I actually just get to a point where I feel like saying 'if you don't like it, don't do it. No one is forcing anyone to attend vet school.' It is a privelage, can't it be appreciated as such? I heard the same junk about pre-reqs, about undergrad major/general graduation requirements, and I get tired of it then, as well. If you don't like it, do something else OR do something about it. At least this time I don't have to work more than a full time job just to be able to attend, since loans will cover it. I will take having to learn some knowledge that won't necessarily be ideal but is at least somewhat related to my field over having to spend hundreds of hours welding, being a CNA, or working a factory line just to have the privelage to attend. Even when I had to do all of that, I thought about what it gave me...what it contributed to my life. I know vet students who actually enjoy/ed school, who aren't griping about learning about glycolysis. I guess that is what it comes down to for me. This is a privelage that I have worked hard to have access to. If I can find benefit to working as a welder in 100 degree F heat in a metal building every weekend and caring for unhappy human patients every night while attending undergrad, I am pretty sure I can find benefit to memorizing 'extra' and 'unnecessary' stuff.
sumstorm:
You can damn well bet that I appreciate the opportunity to obtain a veterinary education at least as much if not more so than you do. I have always wanted to be a veterinarian, never wanted to be anything else, and it took me four admissions cycles over seven years in order to get accepted. You don't think I "appreciate" the "privlege" of my education after showing that kind of tenacity and fortitude?!
Perhaps it comes across otherwise on the forum because certain topics are broached and internet communication is unclear. However, I can assure you that I absolutely LOVE being a veterinary student and I LOVE that I am going to be a veterinarian. There is no better profession on earth--I truly believe that. And I am so grateful to all of my instructors for their expertise, dedication, skill, knowledge and patience.
That said, I refer you back to what Kat0303 pointed out. TIME is the issue in vet school. It's not like instructors have all this extra time to fill so they give us more background on glycolysis. It's more a question of how time is utilized when you're drinking from a firehose and trying to absorb as many details as you can. Unless you have a photographic memory, you will find that at times it is difficult to review all of the exam-eligible material even once before an exam--let alone spend hours researching a nitpicky little amino acid sequence just because you're oh-so-fascinated.
I love veterinary medicine. I am very passionate about it. I am extremely interested in the veterinary education process, from admissions to graduation to life as a new graduate. In fact, I am SO PASSIONATE about the veterinary education I and all of my future colleagues are receiving that I want to make that veterinary education be the best it can possibly be.
My posts are not meant to be a bitch session, but rather an exploration as to how to improve veterinary education.
I'm excited that my own school's entering freshman class will be exposed to a brand-new curriculum for their entire four years. I'll be curious to see how it goes for them.
Just because you feel extraordinarily lucky and grateful to be offered an opportunity does not mean that you aren't allowed to analyze how it could be improved for those lucky enough to come after you.
You can damn well bet that I appreciate the opportunity to obtain a veterinary education at least as much if not more so than you do. I have always wanted to be a veterinarian, never wanted to be anything else, and it took me four admissions cycles over seven years in order to get accepted. You don't think I "appreciate" the "privlege" of my education after showing that kind of tenacity and fortitude?!
Perhaps it comes across otherwise on the forum because certain topics are broached and internet communication is unclear. However, I can assure you that I absolutely LOVE being a veterinary student and I LOVE that I am going to be a veterinarian. There is no better profession on earth--I truly believe that. And I am so grateful to all of my instructors for their expertise, dedication, skill, knowledge and patience.
That said, I refer you back to what Kat0303 pointed out. TIME is the issue in vet school. It's not like instructors have all this extra time to fill so they give us more background on glycolysis. It's more a question of how time is utilized when you're drinking from a firehose and trying to absorb as many details as you can. Unless you have a photographic memory, you will find that at times it is difficult to review all of the exam-eligible material even once before an exam--let alone spend hours researching a nitpicky little amino acid sequence just because you're oh-so-fascinated.
I love veterinary medicine. I am very passionate about it. I am extremely interested in the veterinary education process, from admissions to graduation to life as a new graduate. In fact, I am SO PASSIONATE about the veterinary education I and all of my future colleagues are receiving that I want to make that veterinary education be the best it can possibly be.
My posts are not meant to be a bitch session, but rather an exploration as to how to improve veterinary education.
I'm excited that my own school's entering freshman class will be exposed to a brand-new curriculum for their entire four years. I'll be curious to see how it goes for them.
Just because you feel extraordinarily lucky and grateful to be offered an opportunity does not mean that you aren't allowed to analyze how it could be improved for those lucky enough to come after you.
I just want to second this point, and add my opinion on it. I am a person who believes that almost everything in the world should be constantly changing. In the same way that architectural designs should change as better technologies become available, a vet school's classes should be improved every year, taking in students' input and an instructor's observation. If there seems to be flaws in a program, those flaws should be approached, not allowed to remain in a "this is how it has always been" mentality.
(To continue that thought: Why don't the vet schools have slightly different courses for those planning to pursue research versus clinical studies? I feel that it would not be that huge of a strain on resources to teach basics, and then break into different sessions and allow those who want to know every minute detail of glycolysis to learn that, and those who want to know more the application of the cycle to clinical work to learn that.)
Well, this is probably because everyone who graduates gets the same degree and is eligible to sit for boards and become a licensed veterinarian. Plus the details of glycolysis are actually included in the "basics" part. 😉
Oh, and my actual goal in veterinary medicine is in academia & research, so...yeah, me too?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Agreed. I'd also like to point out that it's okay to gush about vet school and awesome to feel lucky at being accepted (I sure did!), but it's really NOT necessary to detail every accomplishment or trial you've ever completed/been through so that you can sanctimoniously pat yourself on the back about your own fortitude, knowledge, and skill set whether or not it's relevant to the conversation at hand or has been repeated twice in the same topic three posts up.
Seriously, it's getting a little ridiculous.🙄
I am sorry.
This is the third thread focusing on the same negative to vet school featuring the same individuals. I am not saying that vet school should never change (though in a similar line of posts I was lambasted when I pointed out that it HAS changed over time, and when I suggested that vets generally no longer go through labs on how to dip rads, I was told 'we still have to learn it' when what that actually meant was a couple lines on a power point slide) but that at some point, griping about it on various posts on here isn't changing anything. Previously, in a very similar segment of threads, I asked what could be done, got my head bit off for that as well. If I hear someone say repeatedly 'this sucks' then eventually I am going to think that same individual really does believe that it sucks. The fact that there is more and more to do and less time to do it, not just in vet med studies, but in jobs and careers. It happens with company downsizing and increasing technology.
This is the third post I have read in the past 6 month about the SAME COMPLAINT, which is, essentially: Vet students are required to learn too much too quickly. It takes a couple of variations including limited licencing, specialized study, learning methodology, and now, apparently, whether or not PhD's or DVM's teach classes. I see the same individuals saying that it is too much too quickly. I don't get what repeating that across various threads on SDN is actually doing to improve it. Every single time, I hear 'just wait, you'll see, you don't know what it is like' and my response is the same 'just wait, you'll see, my attitude hasn't changed.' If I can learn while homeless...if I can learn while getting less than 4 hours of sleep because I have to perform physically demanding work, I can deal with excess information. Or, as my husband puts it; 'good morning, love, no one is trying to kill us today, so it is a beautiful morning!'
I guess, in a semester or a year, we will see if I collapse under the weight of vet medical studies. Currently taking my first vet school class (distance) and starting on campus in 36 days (orientation starts on a Sunday, how odd!)
Let's move back to the OP's question: what is necessary to teach at vet school. I have a feeling it varies from school to school. Based on the last half dozen posts, is sounds like experienced vet students would think that obtaining a DVM would make you a better instructor, though I would wonder if that is modified by whether or not the DVM has practical experience.
This is the third thread focusing on the same negative to vet school featuring the same individuals. I am not saying that vet school should never change (though in a similar line of posts I was lambasted when I pointed out that it HAS changed over time, and when I suggested that vets generally no longer go through labs on how to dip rads, I was told 'we still have to learn it' when what that actually meant was a couple lines on a power point slide) but that at some point, griping about it on various posts on here isn't changing anything. Previously, in a very similar segment of threads, I asked what could be done, got my head bit off for that as well. If I hear someone say repeatedly 'this sucks' then eventually I am going to think that same individual really does believe that it sucks. The fact that there is more and more to do and less time to do it, not just in vet med studies, but in jobs and careers. It happens with company downsizing and increasing technology.
This is the third post I have read in the past 6 month about the SAME COMPLAINT, which is, essentially: Vet students are required to learn too much too quickly. It takes a couple of variations including limited licencing, specialized study, learning methodology, and now, apparently, whether or not PhD's or DVM's teach classes. I see the same individuals saying that it is too much too quickly. I don't get what repeating that across various threads on SDN is actually doing to improve it. Every single time, I hear 'just wait, you'll see, you don't know what it is like' and my response is the same 'just wait, you'll see, my attitude hasn't changed.' If I can learn while homeless...if I can learn while getting less than 4 hours of sleep because I have to perform physically demanding work, I can deal with excess information. Or, as my husband puts it; 'good morning, love, no one is trying to kill us today, so it is a beautiful morning!'
I guess, in a semester or a year, we will see if I collapse under the weight of vet medical studies. Currently taking my first vet school class (distance) and starting on campus in 36 days (orientation starts on a Sunday, how odd!)
Let's move back to the OP's question: what is necessary to teach at vet school. I have a feeling it varies from school to school. Based on the last half dozen posts, is sounds like experienced vet students would think that obtaining a DVM would make you a better instructor, though I would wonder if that is modified by whether or not the DVM has practical experience.
Last edited:
What, no mention about unicorns crapping rainbows?? This one's getting boring. Alliecat, I appreciate you 😍 I'm right there with you.
As a teacher for 9 years, I get fed up with parents and the county and the school board telling me what's best for my classroom, and these people have never even taught a class. Why is a topic so hotly debated from people who have not even sat in a vet course yet?
At least I know when I don't know enough to have a well-informed opinion.
As a teacher for 9 years, I get fed up with parents and the county and the school board telling me what's best for my classroom, and these people have never even taught a class. Why is a topic so hotly debated from people who have not even sat in a vet course yet?
At least I know when I don't know enough to have a well-informed opinion.
To be fair, both No Imagination and I have "sat in a vet course" and are graduate students who ostensibly have taught classes in general.
edit: Before someone flies off the handle at me for it, I'm not saying that it means we've had the same experience as any vet student, but it's still inaccurate and dishonest to act as if the people arguing this are idealistic, naive children who don't know any better.
I still don't feel like I've had a satisfactory answer to my only real contention, the statement about relevancy to any given individual. A lot of the stuff taught by anyone may be technically irrelevant to my goals but quite relevant to someone else's, whether the person teaching it holds a DVM, a PhD, both or neither. I can certainly see the argument for DVM taught courses providing more relevancy for clinics, another part of the veterinary curriculum, but not really for after school.
Last edited:
This is the last post I'll make in this thread--I promise!--but I just wanted to a) second Pandacinny's comments; b) point out how sumstorm is complaining about similar repetitive issues brought up by vet students while at the same time being very repetitious about her own experiences; and c) reassure you, sumstorm and others, that it is hardly that I (or any of the other vet students on this thread, I am sure) am having "academic difficulty" or "collapsing under the weight of vet school." Quite to the contrary--I had a 3.9 this past semester, notoriously one of the most difficult in our curriculum. Do NOT make the assumption that because someone can think of a way to improve a certain system, they must be failing (in whatever that means) in that system and looking for an excuse/whatever.
(Also please note that I would not have brought up my grades had it not been insinuated several times that I--or other vet students who agree on the relevancy issue--must be struggling.)
Also, I do not think that having a DVM makes you a better instructor. Being a good instructor requires many things, among them a gift for teaching and a sincere desire to be constantly improving. As I said, I love the instructors at my school and think one of the biggest advantages of attending my CVM is the dedication of the instructors and quality of the instruction.
If anything, perhaps a bit tighter oversight over the bits and pieces of the curriculum are in order--but at KSU, I know firsthand that the student/faculty affairs committee is extremely responsive and quick to implement change at student suggestion. I'm sure it's not like this at every school, however,
Don't you want to be the best doctor you can be upon graduation? I do. I want my classmates to be, too. And I want everyone else enrolled in veterinary school to be as well. This is one way in which I think we can improve. Among many others--which were brought up in different threads.
Btw, hi, Philo! I really value your opinion on this issue as a former educator yourself.
(Also please note that I would not have brought up my grades had it not been insinuated several times that I--or other vet students who agree on the relevancy issue--must be struggling.)
Also, I do not think that having a DVM makes you a better instructor. Being a good instructor requires many things, among them a gift for teaching and a sincere desire to be constantly improving. As I said, I love the instructors at my school and think one of the biggest advantages of attending my CVM is the dedication of the instructors and quality of the instruction.
If anything, perhaps a bit tighter oversight over the bits and pieces of the curriculum are in order--but at KSU, I know firsthand that the student/faculty affairs committee is extremely responsive and quick to implement change at student suggestion. I'm sure it's not like this at every school, however,
Don't you want to be the best doctor you can be upon graduation? I do. I want my classmates to be, too. And I want everyone else enrolled in veterinary school to be as well. This is one way in which I think we can improve. Among many others--which were brought up in different threads.
Btw, hi, Philo! I really value your opinion on this issue as a former educator yourself.
Well, this is probably because everyone who graduates gets the same degree and is eligible to sit for boards and become a licensed veterinarian. Plus the details of glycolysis are actually included in the "basics" part. 😉
Oh, and my actual goal in veterinary medicine is in academia & research, so...yeah, me too?
Basically, you answer my comment that questions the way things are done with a comment saying "because that is the way things are done." Why should the boards cover details of glycolysis important only to someone pursuing that field? Why would a basic coverage not suffice? And if a basic coverage became what was necessary for boards (a.k.a. there was a push for reformation of them and it happened,) the split I described would be immensely useful for both those planning on practice and on research.
I also really like this comment by alliecat:
This coming semester I am going to be working with my genetics professor to improve the class technologies she uses, and help implement different programs to allow more interactive and thorough learning. Throughout this last semester while I was taking the course, I constantly commented to a friend in the class on different ways topics could be taught or emphasized. We never really talked grades, and at the end of the semester, she was shocked that I had a high A. Her reasoning was that because I constantly talked/complained about an inferior teaching method being used, I was doing poorly in the class! This wasn't the case at all, but the same assumption seems to be slightly made here.
Don't fix something that isn't broken... upgrade it.
I don't think anyone was implying you would be collapsing either, you sound very capable of handling whatever comes your way. I received one B and the rest As for my first year courses, and for the most part enjoyed what I learned very much. Its just very frustrating to get into a clinical setting over the summer, and have my veterinarians tell me "pretty much everything you learned first year is useless in the real world", or "you don't learn any practical bovine medicine knowledge in vet school". It makes all those days spent studying for 12 hours seem so useless.
It's unfortunate that there is such a breakdown of communication here, because you seem to be completely missing the point. It's hard to even respond to this, because your points are so far from what we (as in the people that share my opinion) are even suggesting that it's into a completely different conversation than it began.
Last edited:
I can guarantee that 90% of threads that turn heated have veered pretty far from the original topic... this one has actually stayed ON topic compared to most. Such is the nature of internet forums - love it and hate it at the same time.
lol, sorry Chapelle. Thanks for your patience.
I only know a little about how being a pathology faculty member works, since that's what my eventual goal is. It may translate across specialties, but I'm not sure.
The way my research advisor (a pathology faculty member) described it, after graduating with the DVM, you can do a several year residency that either includes doing a PhD after the residency or not (or maybe you can do them at the same time in some programs, I don't know). My advisor, for example, went into a residency after vet school and completed it in a few years. She then worked on her PhD for a few years. She finished the whole thing in under 5 years, which she said is pretty fast relatively. Per my advisor, you don't have to have a PhD to fill a faculty position, but you won't do as much research and won't make as much money. Pathologists also don't have to do an internship before a residency most of the time.
After that, she became a faculty member at our vet school. The way she described it to me, there's a triad of responsibility for the pathology faculty. They're expected to have a balance between research, necropsy/biopsy service, and teaching. The weight of each thing is tailored to the pathologists experience, qualification, and interests. So if they really love teaching, but don't have a PhD, they may do something like 10% research, 60% teaching, 30% necropsy/biopsy service.
Also, as far as the money not being good in teaching at a vet school, that's not necessarily the case. I mean, you can make massive amounts of money working as a pathologist for a pharmaceuticals company, but I wouldn't say the faculty salaries are bad...The average for pathologists at our school hangs somewhere around $100,000 a year.
Hope that helps at all...Wish I could tell you more!🙂
I agree with most of your post, and Bill and I both talked about the 3 requirements of a faculty member, but I would disagree on the fact that you can kind of split the 3 areas how you would like. There are certain requirements one must accomplish to make promotion and tenure. Even if you loved teaching, the percentage breakdown that you outlined will not make you competitive, or even eligible for promotion. Ten percent research is not going to get you very many publications.
This is an area that is heavily debated in most medical academia fields. The current promotion and tenure scheme is not really what is best for students, nor is not a huge draw to get people to go into academia. It forces people that maybe are really into research and not the best professors to teach, and vice versa. I know that many schools are making adjustments; realizing that the academic triathlete is no longer a model that is working. The difficulty comes in with recognizing and rewarding via pay raises and promotions all of the three areas equally. For example, research is probably the easiest to reward - you have a researcher that has written several book chapters, has gotten several big peer-reviewed research papers published so it is fairly easy to objectively review the progress he/she has made. An academic with a much higher teaching load, though, is much harder to review. How do you evaluate the progress a professor has made? By evaluations - which are inherently biased? grades? etc. Same with an evaluating a teaching clinician. These are all things that are trying to be worked out and evaluated by various schools in order to 1. Get academics in the area they want to be/will perform best 2. Make sure they are properly rewarded for their work.
This is all very good information. I just made the numbers up as far as the 10% research thing, so that number might not be realistic. I just wanted to explain how the 3 things can be weighted differently, and you don't have to do an equal amount of all 3 things. I didn't mean to imply it's just totally up to you how the 3 things are weighted, since there are other factors that go into it. It seemed to me that when she described it, your preference on how it was split up did play a role in it. Do you think that's the case?
I just went back and read your's and Bill's responses to the OP. I don't know how I missed them (maybe because this thread turned heated so quickly?), but it was really helpful. I don't know much about the path to get tenure or what other options you have other than seeking tenure, so that helped clear that up a bit for me.
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I'm on the teaching track and have no desire for a PhD. I have an MS. Some DVM only people teach and do a ton or research just with a DVM and end up sort of honorary PhDs. I think It's all about you and what you have to offer the school. You probably have to be passionate about SOMETHING outside of the classroom or you'd lose your value. Plus you probably need to DO some of whatever you're teaching. The real question is: What do you like to do? (in the field of vet med of course)
Last edited:
True. But the point is that if your appointment is 10% research, you're not required to have a ton of publications. But you better be doing other scholarly activities during the other 90% of your time. I was promoted/tenured on a 10-15% research time with an average of one first-author publication/year.
