Tracking vs. Non-Tracking

[cbucks]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hello! I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this since I'm not comparing two schools directly, but I was wondering if there were any pros/cons to schools that track or schools that don't track?
From what I understand with my limited information: schools that track give you a "deeper" education into a field you're interested in, while non-tracking is more "general" by covering more fields and teaching about any species that could be on the NAVLE. I know a lot of non-tracking schools offer electives that that you're interested in to supplement this, but is there anything else I should take into consideration here?

 

[PinkKongToy96]

Many schools that track also have required core rotations, to make sure you get the general background on all the species in order to prepare you for the NAVLE.

 

[supershorty]

I'm a student at a school that tracks, but we don't start tracking until spring semester of 3rd year. We all have the same courses (aside from electives) before that. And like @PinkKongToy96 said, we have required core rotations.

I feel like I'll be prepared for the NAVLE in the species I'm not interested in working on - but I appreciate being able to tailor my later experiences to fit what I really want to pursue for my career.

 

[MixedAnimals77]

I think it kind of depends on what you want to do, but all schools make you a DVM in the end. IMO if you want to do anything besides mixed animal I think tracking is fine. There are deficits in many tracking programs from what I've breifly viewed for people interested in true 50:50 mixed practice. Ex: CSU back when I was looking at applying during the clinical I was going to have to sacrifice (I think-this was a long time ago) an equine rotation for a small animal rotation or vice versa. Not to say rotations always work out in general, but based on how the tracking curriculum is set up at that particular school. I think in general schools that don't have tracking may be better for the student wanting to pursue mixed practice after school because the rotations are more generalized. With that said I attend a non-tracking school-yes small animal people have to do equine rotations (IDK how true this is for tracking schools), but non-tracking does still allow for experiences arranged outside of the core rotations to more tailor to a student's interest.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

Hello! I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this since I'm not comparing two schools directly, but I was wondering if there were any pros/cons to schools that track or schools that don't track?
From what I understand with my limited information: schools that track give you a "deeper" education into a field you're interested in, while non-tracking is more "general" by covering more fields and teaching about any species that could be on the NAVLE. I know a lot of non-tracking schools offer electives that that you're interested in to supplement this, but is there anything else I should take into consideration here?

All schools will sufficiently prepare you for the NAVLE, tracking or no. Tracking schools still have a huge core curriculum (including core rotations) that everybody takes. Track classes and track rotations are essentially glorified electives.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

I think it kind of depends on what you want to do, but all schools make you a DVM in the end. IMO if you want to do anything besides mixed animal I think tracking is fine. There are deficits in many tracking programs from what I've breifly viewed for people interested in true 50:50 mixed practice. Ex: CSU back when I was looking at applying during the clinical I was going to have to sacrifice (I think-this was a long time ago) an equine rotation for a small animal rotation or vice versa. Not to say rotations always work out in general, but based on how the tracking curriculum is set up at that particular school. I think in general schools that don't have tracking may be better for the student wanting to pursue mixed practice after school because the rotations are more generalized. With that said I attend a non-tracking school-yes small animal people have to do equine rotations (IDK how true this is for tracking schools), but non-tracking does still allow for experiences arranged outside of the core rotations to more tailor to a student's interest.

Depends on the institution and how it is set up. We had a mixed animal track at VMCVM (small, food, equine, mixed, and public/corporate tracks in total), and I think other tracking schools do as well. Mixies get to pick track classes and rotations from the small, large, and eq tracks.

Honestly, I loved tracking because I still got a great core experience and I was able to focus on what I liked. Since I wanted to specialize, having the opportunity to take advanced classes (and schedule special rotations) in my area of interest was great.

 

[SocialStigma]

I went to a school that tracked (SA, equine, food animal, or mixed) for 4th year clerkship. I was really happy I could take SA rotations only because I had (and still have) zero interest in LA medicine. It gave me the freedom to complete multiple rotations in areas of SA that I was interested in (ie. 14 weeks of surgery), since I didn't have to take any LA rotations. I didn't feel like I was a disadvantage taking the NAVLE as a SA stream student. About ~85% of my class was in the SA track and we all passed.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

I went to a school that tracked (SA, equine, food animal, or mixed) for 4th year clerkship. I was really happy I could take SA rotations only because I had (and still have) zero interest in LA medicine. It gave me the freedom to complete multiple rotations in areas of SA that I was interested in (ie. 14 weeks of surgery), since I didn't have to take any LA rotations. I didn't feel like I was a disadvantage taking the NAVLE as a SA stream student. About ~85% of my class was in the SA track and we all passed.

Wow, none? That's interesting. We still had core rotations that everybody has to take regardless of track (e.g. all foodies still had to take small animal surgery and all smallies still had to take ambulatory food animal med) but then we had "open" rotations that we could do. You could repeat rotations (e.g. take a second surg rotation if you were a smallie interested in surg), set up your own, or go somewhere else.

As long as the NAVLE pass rate is fine (which as far as I know, it is in all school that track) I see no disadvantage to tracking.

 

[SocialStigma]

Wow, none? That's interesting. We still had core rotations that everybody has to take regardless of track (e.g. all foodies still had to take small animal surgery and all smallies still had to take ambulatory food animal med) but then we had "open" rotations that we could do. You could repeat rotations (e.g. take a second surg rotation if you were a smallie interested in surg), set up your own, or go somewhere else.

Nope, none! Each track had their own track-specific core rotations, so as a SA person my only core rotations were SAIM, primary care, ECC, path, neuro, diagnostic imaging, and surgery.