US vs. foreign education model

[canis13]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I know this has been discussed before, and I've even commented a couple times in past threads about my confusion/bewilderment/maybe-even-prejudice-against the veterinary school education model in the UK/Australia/New Zealand/Europe, but I still feel like I never got a good answer. Specifically regarding the difference that in the US/Canada, although there are some folks who get accepted to vet school after only 3 years of undergrad (or even 2 in some very rare cases?), most people entering vet school have completed 4 years of undergrad. However, everywhere else outside of North America, you can be accepted into vet school right after finishing high school and can get your vet degree after 5 years. Meaning on average, American and Canadian vets have 3 more years of education. The general consensus is that foreign grads with BSc/BVSc's (or whatever) are just as well qualified and just as good of veterinarians as US grads with DVMs, and I don't think I necessarily disagree with that.

So I guess I'm just wondering what people think of this difference...if foreign educated veterinarians are just as competent and skilled as US and Canadian vets, then what's the purpose or benefit of having 2-3 years more of secondary education? Does it make more sense to spend 5 years solely devoted to vet medicine without all of the extra pre-vet general science prep? Does British/Australian high school better prepare students for studying science than US high school? Also, I'm curious if anyone knows how these differences developed historically...I feel like I remember that in the old days in the US, you got a bachelor's degree in medical sciences.

Also, it seems the admissions requirements for vet school don't just differ in regards to academics...I was reading RVC's website, and they say that you need a minimum of 2 weeks work experience in order to apply. Is that just a very very low minimum, or do British students routinely enter vet school with less than 100 hours of vet experience?

I'm not entirely sure what my opinion is on the matter...part of me thinks it would been nice to be able to finish everything in 5 years, but on the other hand, I feel like having 4 years of undergraduate courses has made me a much better student, and therefore I think I will do much better in vet school than if I had no undergraduate preparation.

So yeah, what are your thoughts?

 

[VeganSoprano]

I think part of the answer is that American high school and the first couple of years of undergrad are much less rigorous than in some other countries. Speaking from my own experience, my senior year in high school was a complete waste of time from an academic standpoint. I think time is used more efficiently in some other countries. British A-levels, for instance, are roughly the equivalent of lower-division American college classes. A British bachelor's is a 3 year program, not 4. Again, more efficient. It also results in lower educational expenses and reduced opportunity costs, since British, etc. vets commonly graduate around age 23 and Americans commonly graduate around age 26.

So if you consider the final year of HS in the UK to be the equivalent of an American's freshman year in college, it's not that different from an American being accepted to vet school after their sophomore year. That's not unheard of.

Now having said all that, I do think there are advantages in the liberal education that a separate BA or BS provides. I also think the maturing process of a young adult means big differences from one year to the next. A 26-year-old is often a pretty different person from whom they were at 23, and these differences do make a difference in clinical practice.

I think AVMA accreditation is sufficient evidence that the educations are basically equivalent. As for the systems, I think North Americans do benefit from a liberal undergrad education but would also benefit from a more rigorous HS education and perhaps from a 3 year standard undergrad instead of 4. Just my random musings...

 

[svendenhowser]

Well I can only really talk about what we do in AU but I think we do fine here. Yes you can do vet straight out of high school (hell you can do medicine, pharmacy, physio, etc straight out of high school), but majority in my year already have a bachelors or at least a partial bachelors and are all in our mid-20's.

I had 0 vet experience hours when I started vet, it's not a requirement here. We do a lot of vacation prac work though (both pre-clinical on properties/stations and such, and clinical in vet practices) throughout the 5 years.

The university of Melbourne has changed their model to a more US-esque type system. From what I've heard not many people like it, they find it a waste of time when they could have already completed what they wanted to do in the first place. There was a huge rush of people trying to get in the year before they brought this model in because they didn't want to do it. Not sure if opinions have changed now that it's been going for a year (?) or so. I feel the same way, why should I spend 3-4years doing an arts or science degree when all I wanted to do was vet?

I can't compare high school here with the US, but coming from a below average, regional state high school, I felt I did fine in my first bachelor degree.

 

[shortnsweet]

That is a very loaded question..but here is my take on it.

UK/Aussie high schools are second to none in the world. The quality of education those kids receive in four years is outstanding. It is highly demanding and prepares them for the rest of their lives. What you have are much more mature and more directed/focused students graduating. I have studied in both countries, and can vouch for the history of those schools being top notch....it is hard for the US to even try and compare to them because the education is just so different.

They decide what they want to do when they are about 16, and they usually stick to it and focus their studies---they take organic chem etc as juniors and seniors..can you imagine?? After being on the other side now, I am still amazed that 18 year olds can handle the demands of the vet school (or any school we consider "professional" for that matter) as well as they do. They are hard workers, and really know their stuff before arriving to university. They know how their testing system works, they understand what is expected of them, and many times, still show up the Americans who are 5-10yrs older than them.

At 18, I knew I wanted to be a vet, but I also knew I needed the college experience and "maturing" time before entering vet school. I WANTED those 4 extra years. I wanted to explore...get a liberal arts education, and become a more well rounded student. Yes...will I be considered "old" when I graduate? 9 years of schooling is a LOT...but US high school grads would not and could not handle professional school right when they graduate. Sorry.

UK schools like to see American students come in with a bit more experience, and rely on them, in my opinion, to help their classmates through peer teaching. We share our knowledge, and add to the class. We, on average, have a lot more experience than the UK students, as during high school they do not have as much time to work, but through the RCVS EMS program, everyone gets put back onto an even playing field, and gain weeks and weeks of experience in all fields, pre clinical and clinical.

UK schools, i'm not sure about Aussie/Irish etc, also have a ton of hands on experience in vet school starting the very first year (I have heard from some of my US vet school friends that they are amazed we have as much as we do our first year, because they had very little--it was more lecture based).

It's hard to say if one system is better than the other...they are just so different. As a US student entering, four years of college was amazingly beneficial to me and i'm not sure how I would have handled it otherwise. We all will come out as amazing and competent doctors.... but those youngins'....man they took their smart pills 😉

 

[jpeterman13]

Im curious...if the veterinarians from both systems were polled later in their career, what would the percentage be of people that are still happy in the profession? Making such an important life decision at such an early age in foreign countries makes me wonder if that leaves students regretful later in life. i swear that i read somewhere that US vets are more confident in their decision than their foreign counterparts. however ill bet that that might now be different due to the increasing amount of debt placed upon graduating vets. sorry about formatting problems, im on my phone because of my awesome HP computer's decision to fry its motherboard.

 

[random23]

FWIW here's my opinion (someone who did undergrad in the US and currently in UK vet school):

When looking just at the science background between UK and US vet students, I don't believe there is much benefit to having an extra 3 years of school in the US. For example, I took AP chem in high school, did really well on the AP exam, but was advised not to go straight into orgo when I got to college because vet schools would like to see that you took chem at the college level as well (I thought that was the point of AP classes, but whatever). So I took gen chem again in college and aced it because we learned the same **** I learned in AP chem (and btw this was at a large highly ranked private university). The same went for bio and physics. So really, I feel I could have skipped the first 1-2 years of college and still had the same strength of science background. Obviously, not all US high schools have strong science depts. so it's not applicable to everyone.

Granted, the upper level sciences I took in my last 2 years were helpful in vet school (for example immunology). However, to apply to vet school in the US, mainly you just need chem, orgo, physics, calc, bio, and micorbio (with some variation between schools)- so even in the US not every student has much upper level science. Personally, I never saw the point in repeating the same material I took in AP classes in high school. That's what I like about the UK system. They take their A-levels (which takes place from ages 16-18) and that's their science background. If I took out all the extraneous (non-science or math) classes I had to take to earn my liberal arts bachelor's, I don't think I'd be any less prepared for vet school. I just wouldn't know as much about the renaissance or be able to speak french as well.

Being younger students means they may not be as mature their first year or two, but by the time clinical years begin I would say everyone is ready for the responsibility. It is possible some of them would not be happy with their career choice later on, but that still happens in the US too and I really don't think any vet is happy being a vet every single day because it's a tough job and there are some tough days. IMO, I'd be a lot happier as a vet if I didn't have to pay back massive debt from having to earn an undergrad degree+ a vet degree. I may be more mature and well-rounded when I enter vet school, but I really don't think being 'well rounded' from a liberal arts degree is worth the extra cost and I don't think those extra classes prepared me any better to be a vet at all.

As for them having less experience hours when they enter- that is true. However, I really believe it is the quality of experience and not the quantity that matters. There are people that have 1,000s of hours of experience in one SA practice that go into vet school in the US. Sure, that's a lot of hours, but perhaps not much variety. Also, there are still people that get accepted to US schools with not a lot of hours of experience. I got accepted with about 500 hours to a US vet school. Additionally, the UK schools require that every student completes 26 weeks of clinical work experience over breaks before they can graduate (that's the equivalent of just over 6 months). I think that getting clinical experience while in vet school is much more beneficial than getting it before anyway because you tend to understand cases and what is going on better if you've actually learned it at school already.

I'm not sure where the skepticism about avma-accredited foreign grads being as prepared as US grads comes from when plenty of them go back to work in the US and there are many that teach at US vet schools as well. There are obviously pros and cons to each system, but I think the end product at both US and foreign accredited institutions are good vets. I personally feel the required 26 weeks of clinical EMS has given me some really good preparation- I got to do a spay at one practice (under supervision) in the beginning of my second year and have done many since. There are some people (from foreign and US schools) who graduate only having done one or even half of one. Point being, vet school is what you make of it. There is a range of well-prepared and unprepared graduates from every vet school and it really depends on the person.

re-reading this post, it does seem a bit defensive and that was certainly not intended...just giving my thoughts on the matter.

 

[sumstorm]

The one caveat I would mention is the suicide rates of vets in other countires. I haven't seen a study here, but I do know at least once scientist has postulated that locking into a career early on may contribute.

I also think the financing affects it; here we are on a capitalist model that utilizes large loans for most of our education. If the school or government doens't have to put in as much in funds (even in other countries where it isn't free, there is generally a larger contribution to educational costs) per student, there is less incentive to be efficient.

I also had the AP problem in college; had great AP grades and test results, and my high school senior year classes were at a university and attended with freshman college students, but they were still listed as high school classes. I was advised by my college and by several vet schools that high school is high school; I had to retake classes. Even when the systems are there, like AP, there isn't a good reason for schools to use or acknowledge them. If a school has 4000 students enroll in a 4 year program, and 1000 graduate in 2 years, they aren't going to transfer 1000 students to replace the lost tuition, and if another 1000 graduated in 3 years....well, now tuition revenue is half of the original value. For a vet school, that is already trying to juggle lots of other parameters, extra maturation time, diversity of life experience, and extra science courses are seen as positives....and oppurtunities for that increase over time.

 

[sumstorm]

IMO, I'd be a lot happier as a vet if I didn't have to pay back massive debt from having to earn an undergrad degree+ a vet degree. I may be more mature and well-rounded when I enter vet school, but I really don't think being 'well rounded' from a liberal arts degree is worth the extra cost and I don't think those extra classes prepared me any better to be a vet at all.

I agree about the debt, but I disagree about well-roundedness. A complaint I hear from a lot of clinicians is the inability of new vets to relate to clients, understand household and facility economic decisions, and appreciate the perspective of other's. There was an article in DVM360 about it a year or so ago. Reading on here, looking around at school, I see a lot of folks who have only had insulated life experiences; where their only exposure to difficulty is trying to get into vet school. In those situations I think the diversity of classes is important to get them to have some perspective beyond 'do good for animals.' Just my opinion, based on my experiences here and abroad.

As for them having less experience hours when they enter- that is true. However, I really believe it is the quality of experience and not the quantity that matters. ... Also, there are still people that get accepted to US schools with not a lot of hours of experience. I got accepted with about 500 hours to a US vet school. Additionally, the UK schools require that every student completes 26 weeks of clinical work experience over breaks before they can graduate (that's the equivalent of just over 6 months). I think that getting clinical experience while in vet school is much more beneficial than getting it before anyway because you tend to understand cases and what is going on better if you've actually learned it at school already.

I agree about quality vs quantity, and I think there is something to be said for diversity of experience (and many schools require diversity of experience as well.) However, there is still a difference between 500 hours and 0 hours. There is a difference between the James Harriot idealic view of vet med and the reality of what vet med is today. I do think in some systems there is a real risk of locking someone into a profession that they have no actual clue about leading to greater dissatisfaction later in life. Also, we definitly have clinicals at the vet school I attend, so I am not sure how 6 months of clinicals is an improvement over the minimum year at our school, and even 2 years at some of the US schools. I don't think the point of early experience is about understanding cases; it is about understanding that it isn't all about perfect pets, and loving animals, and ideal clients. While you may be mature enough to realize that...many people 16+ aren't. How many times do we hear statements like 'I could never put a pet to sleep!' and 'it must be nice to play with puppies and kittens all day' and 'vets are getting rich off the backs of pet owners and rescue groups' which reflect just how little society in general knows about the profession. I am not saying that early experience is the only way to know the reality, but I really believe everyone applying to vet school should be able to list one thing they will dislike about every day practice as a vet in whatever field they are interested in; every job has something that is just obnoxious or repetitive or mind numbing, and for osme folks those things will outweigh the fun, challenging, and interesting stuff. IE I wouldn't enjoy working at a S/N clinic, or doing vaccine clinics as my primary job. Some vets would hate working with 100 species with very little background information, but I love it.

I think both systems have values and demerits.

 

[Armymutt25A]

I don't know that I can agree that the UK secondary education system is superior to the US. I spent the bulk of my freshman and sophomore years in a private English school and maintained close ties to my former classmate after going back to an American school. I noticed a few differences. The English secondary school includes grades outside of our normal high school. A US freshman is a 4th year. English schools require a student to specialize very early. You pick two electives to study for two years before taking a standardized test called a GCSE, in addition to English, "Maths", Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and possibly some other core classes - it's been almost 20 years, so I'm kind of rusty. At the completion of the GCSE, a student may leave school and go out into the world. Most stick around for 6th Form, which has and upper and lower division. This is where you get even more specialized. To me, the UK system doesn't graduate well rounded people. The fact that you don't really have much opportunity to explore is a bit of a damper. It is good at graduating a labour force for that economy. Someone without any post secondary education can still get a decent paying job there. The secondary ed system serves as a filter for college. It's not unusual for less than 50% of a graduating class to not go on to college. I don't now the statistics for a normal US school, but my DoD Dependent School sent over 75% of us to colleges. While they may be smart in their fields, many of them lack basic knowledge outside of it.

 

[random23]

I agree about the debt, but I disagree about well-roundedness. A complaint I hear from a lot of clinicians is the inability of new vets to relate to clients, understand household and facility economic decisions, and appreciate the perspective of other's. There was an article in DVM360 about it a year or so ago. Reading on here, looking around at school, I see a lot of folks who have only had insulated life experiences; where their only exposure to difficulty is trying to get into vet school. In those situations I think the diversity of classes is important to get them to have some perspective beyond 'do good for animals.' Just my opinion, based on my experiences here and abroad.



I agree about quality vs quantity, and I think there is something to be said for diversity of experience (and many schools require diversity of experience as well.) However, there is still a difference between 500 hours and 0 hours. There is a difference between the James Harriot idealic view of vet med and the reality of what vet med is today. I do think in some systems there is a real risk of locking someone into a profession that they have no actual clue about leading to greater dissatisfaction later in life. Also, we definitly have clinicals at the vet school I attend, so I am not sure how 6 months of clinicals is an improvement over the minimum year at our school, and even 2 years at some of the US schools. I don't think the point of early experience is about understanding cases; it is about understanding that it isn't all about perfect pets, and loving animals, and ideal clients. While you may be mature enough to realize that...many people 16+ aren't. How many times do we hear statements like 'I could never put a pet to sleep!' and 'it must be nice to play with puppies and kittens all day' and 'vets are getting rich off the backs of pet owners and rescue groups' which reflect just how little society in general knows about the profession. I am not saying that early experience is the only way to know the reality, but I really believe everyone applying to vet school should be able to list one thing they will dislike about every day practice as a vet in whatever field they are interested in; every job has something that is just obnoxious or repetitive or mind numbing, and for osme folks those things will outweigh the fun, challenging, and interesting stuff. IE I wouldn't enjoy working at a S/N clinic, or doing vaccine clinics as my primary job. Some vets would hate working with 100 species with very little background information, but I love it.

I think both systems have values and demerits.

Lots of good points. Sorry if I didn't explain it clearly. The 6 months clinical EMS is on top of the final year of clinics- so I guess it is a year and 6 months. It is essentially requiring 6 months of externships which I think has merit because the way vet school hospitals run is often far different from actual practice. I wasn't saying it was an improvement over US schools, as most US students do externships, but it does help make up for the fact that some of their students enter with less experience. Also, yes 500 hours is a lot more than 0. But when we say they generally have less experience, I don't mean 0. The RCVS website lists a minimum of 2 weeks experience, but in reality that's not sufficient to get a British student into school here. Most of them do have months of experience (I'd put it at a few hundred hours on average). They probably just don't have 1000's like some US applicants because they're younger and haven't had enough time- but it is certainly not true that they have no experience. Additionally, there are many mature British students at my school who have earned vet nursing degrees or worked in practice as much as any typical US applicant.

Likewise, with the point made about the DVM360 article. I certainly agree. But I also believe maturity comes with the specific experiences of one's life and not with age. I know some people in their late 20's or 30's that don't really demonstrate any more maturity than the 19 and 20 year olds. I really don't see any of the young British students having the 'play with puppies' and 'being a vet is always fun' notion. Those students would probably be weeded out at interview. I also haven't seen any drop out at all because it just wasn't for them. They all seem to have a very good idea of what being a vet is and isn't. Also, the complaints from clients you mentioned...were these complaints from clients in the US about US graduated vets? Because then I suppose having 'well-roundedness' hasn't been achieved by the US system either according to these clients.

I suppose the end conclusion is always the same- both systems have values and demerits like you said.

I understand the situation is rather different in Australia, so I can't speak for that. Just giving my thoughts/experience on the situation with Britain.