Virtual Anatomy

Started by 365preDPT
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
3

365preDPT

Full Member
10+ Year Member
I am between 2 schools:

One is much cheaper ($80,000), a well known program, but only has a virtual anatomy lab (no gross anatomy/cadaver)

One is much more expensive ($40,000 more, $132,000 total for being out-of-state), is a newer doctoral program, but has great electives and gross anatomy.

Is having gross anatomy worth the extra money/debt?
 
I would personally never go to a school that only offered virtual anatomy. I think you learn so much about working with a cadaver. But it would also be hard to go to a school that costs that much more. Is that extra cost just tuition or tuition + living expenses?
 
365preDPT said:
just tuition 😳, not including most of my undergrad loans
Click to expand...

Jeez...Yeah, as beneficial as a gross anatomy course would be, I don't think its worth the cost of a brand new Cadillac... (strange to think about in comparison...eh?)

I was fortunate enough to have a cadaver lab in my undergrad and from experience, it was really tough...but definitely beneficial. But at the end of the day, the cheaper school will get you the degree still...If the class really is a 'bare bones' anatomy class (no pun intended), I am sure it will be made up in other ways...maybe through other courses with hands on experience.

If it save you THAT much money, they yeah, I would definitely go for the cheaper school...
 
If you're just talking about tuition/fees, $80k isn't particularly cheap either....are these the only two schools you've been accepted to, hence the decision between them?
 
Many schools are discarding cadavers and replacing them with virtual anatomy. Cadavers are great, but not worth an extra $40k. There are a number of disadvantages to cadavers, however:

-students spend a lot of time dissecting and not learning
-they're messy
-they're expensive to procure
-some students don't feel comfortable with them.

I've heard of medical schools replacing cadavers with flat-panel screens that show multiple layers of tissue.

It would be interesting to see research on the efficacy of flat-panel TVs, virtual anatomy, and cadavers. I wonder if students learn anatomy better with one of those methods.

Kevin
 
NewTestament said:
Many schools are discarding cadavers and replacing them with virtual anatomy. Cadavers are great, but not worth an extra $40k. There are a number of disadvantages to cadavers, however:

-students spend a lot of time dissecting and not learning
-they're messy
-they're expensive to procure
-some students don't feel comfortable with them.

I've heard of medical schools replacing cadavers with flat-panel screens that show multiple layers of tissue.

It would be interesting to see research on the efficacy of flat-panel TVs, virtual anatomy, and cadavers. I wonder if students learn anatomy better with one of those methods.

Kevin
Click to expand...

100% not necessary in my opinion. I think it is the biggest time and money waster at my institution, but my Department Chair loves cadaveric anatomy, so it is here to stay.
Cadavers are about 1-2k for a University with some additional costs for transport, pick up, etc.

Not too sure what you were looking for for research, and a simple Google search found:
http://udini.proquest.com/view/comparison-of-gross-anatomy-test-goid:762516338/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02611.x/full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ase.139/abstract

This one shows cadavers better: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0940960205000993

This is about surgeons: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1479666X04800507. I can see surgeons still needed practice with surgical techniques that a cadaver can offer.
 
ptisfun2 said:
100% not necessary in my opinion. I think it is the biggest time and money waster at my institution, but my Department Chair loves cadaveric anatomy, so it is here to stay. .
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's 100% unnecessary, but I think 3D virtual reality is the way to go. You don't have to spend hours dissecting (instead of learning) and you can see every feature on every screen. You can't say that about cadavers. Some structures (adductor hiatus, for example) are not visible on every cadaver. As a student, you wouldn't have to guess what a structure is. The computer could tell you (except on the practical of course). Like you said, cadavers are here to stay at many schools, for better and for worse.

Kevin
 
I think virtual anatomy is amazing, and I have no doubt it will become the standard in the future.

This is anecdotal, but I think cadaver dissection is a complete waste of time for DPT students, and everyone I have spoken to has said the same thing.

I understand the importance of it for surgeons and future researchers, but it's just a very expensive and ornate showing for DPT students. In the time it takes to remove tissue layers to just to show one or two points of focus, a teacher or student could go through many more images with virtual anatomy pictures. I understand the importance of being able to conceptualize and identify it, but going below the skin in real life just doesn't seem to be any more beneficial for a DPT.

Now let me hop off my soapbox

With that said, $40,000 is not worth virtual anatomy and you should always pick the cheaper school for DPT.
 
There is no literature that shows that dissection labs generate better DPTs than virtual labs.

Like many medical schools, DPT programs are starting to move to virtual labs. However, I believe that dissections are important to show how diverse the human anatomy can be. That alone is an experience that a virtual lab has not been able to reproduce at this time.

Virtual labs were created using data collected from previous anatomy research. When we throw away these basic sciences, we become more like "operators and techs" rather than true clinicians. My fear is a continual move towards a more vocational education, moving us further from the basic sciences that we have derived our information and understanding from.

Just my 2 cents.
 
I like Rocky Mountain a lot. I think you'd be fine there honestly you'll have a great amount of time spent in the clinic compared to other programs. Provo is great and you'll enjoy the faculty quite a bit.
 
Azimuthal said:
There is no literature that shows that dissection labs generate better DPTs than virtual labs.

Like many medical schools, DPT programs are starting to move to virtual labs. However, I believe that dissections are important to show how diverse the human anatomy can be. That alone is an experience that a virtual lab has not been able to reproduce at this time.

Virtual labs were created using data collected from previous anatomy research. When we throw away these basic sciences, we become more like "operators and techs" rather than true clinicians. My fear is a continual move towards a more vocational education, moving us further from the basic sciences that we have derived our information and understanding from.

Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

👍 👍 👍

I definitely agree with this. I don't think haven't virtual anatomy instead of cadavers would really affect the success of your career in the end, but for me I've gotten to look at cadavers before and found it one of the most fascinating things ever, so that would be something I would really like to go into more in grad school if I had the chance.
 
Azimuthal said:
There is no literature that shows that dissection labs generate better DPTs than virtual labs.
Click to expand...

Is there literature that says virtual labs generate better DPTs than dissection labs?

I'm not saying there isn't, but it's hard to make a comparison if there's no research in either way.

That said, as someone who has gone through a full gross lab in PT school and dissected to create prosections for A&P students at a college, I don't think the virtual experience will ever fully replace gross lab, even for DPTs. Understanding the natural variation (e.g. we had a cadaver whose basilic vein was not even close to being in the normal spot, and one who had a misplaced craniel nerve) is extremely interesting. And the argument that you spend time "dissecting" rather than "learning" I think is a bit ludicrous. For me, nothing will replace the feeling of looking for a structure on my own (or with my tank-mates) and finding it. You learn so much through the actual dissection process, rather than someone pointing it out to you. As you're digging through and seeing what structures are superior/inferior or superficial/deep to others, it really gets engrained in your head.

And anecdotally, while there may or may not be research on virtual vs. gross labs and the quality of DPTs they produce, I can say that the students who watched the dissection/let others do the "dirty work" and studied from the book or on the already-dissected bodies did not do nearly as well on lab practicals or written exams. Those who were elbow deep in cadaver generally faired much better overall in the course (and subsequently in kinesiology and examination skills courses where the knowledge of anatomy was essential), so that's something.
 
DancerFutureDPT said:
Is there literature that says virtual labs generate better DPTs than dissection labs?

I'm not saying there isn't, but it's hard to make a comparison if there's no research in either way.

That said, as someone who has gone through a full gross lab in PT school and dissected to create prosections for A&P students at a college, I don't think the virtual experience will ever fully replace gross lab, even for DPTs. Understanding the natural variation (e.g. we had a cadaver whose basilic vein was not even close to being in the normal spot, and one who had a misplaced craniel nerve) is extremely interesting. And the argument that you spend time "dissecting" rather than "learning" I think is a bit ludicrous. For me, nothing will replace the feeling of looking for a structure on my own (or with my tank-mates) and finding it. You learn so much through the actual dissection process, rather than someone pointing it out to you. As you're digging through and seeing what structures are superior/inferior or superficial/deep to others, it really gets engrained in your head.

And anecdotally, while there may or may not be research on virtual vs. gross labs and the quality of DPTs they produce, I can say that the students who watched the dissection/let others do the "dirty work" and studied from the book or on the already-dissected bodies did not do nearly as well on lab practicals or written exams. Those who were elbow deep in cadaver generally faired much better overall in the course (and subsequently in kinesiology and examination skills courses where the knowledge of anatomy was essential), so that's something.
Click to expand...

Once again, 👍 👍 👍

In lab practicals and animal dissections and things that I've done, I'm always amazed how much real-life dissections usually don't look anything like the "normal" pictures you find in textbooks...
 
DancerFutureDPT said:
Is there literature that says virtual labs generate better DPTs than dissection labs?

I'm not saying there isn't, but it's hard to make a comparison if there's no research in either way.

That said, as someone who has gone through a full gross lab in PT school and dissected to create prosections for A&P students at a college, I don't think the virtual experience will ever fully replace gross lab, even for DPTs. Understanding the natural variation (e.g. we had a cadaver whose basilic vein was not even close to being in the normal spot, and one who had a misplaced craniel nerve) is extremely interesting. And the argument that you spend time "dissecting" rather than "learning" I think is a bit ludicrous. For me, nothing will replace the feeling of looking for a structure on my own (or with my tank-mates) and finding it. You learn so much through the actual dissection process, rather than someone pointing it out to you. As you're digging through and seeing what structures are superior/inferior or superficial/deep to others, it really gets engrained in your head.

And anecdotally, while there may or may not be research on virtual vs. gross labs and the quality of DPTs they produce, I can say that the students who watched the dissection/let others do the "dirty work" and studied from the book or on the already-dissected bodies did not do nearly as well on lab practicals or written exams. Those who were elbow deep in cadaver generally faired much better overall in the course (and subsequently in kinesiology and examination skills courses where the knowledge of anatomy was essential), so that's something.
Click to expand...

Common' mod, read past my first sentence. You pretty much expanded what I said. We are at an agreement.

I don't quite understand your reversal of my research comment. You either have a null or an alternate. Either way you switch it, you'd be exploring if there is any difference between the two. I didn't state a poor research question. It was just a comment that could have went either way. Maybe I should have added a "vice versa"?
 
Last edited:
Azimuthal said:
There is no literature that shows that dissection labs generate better DPTs than virtual labs.
Click to expand...

No, but there is for med/vet students. I posted the links above with a simple Google search. CSM had a ed session on it a few years ago, but that would require a PubMed search and I am just not that interested.

PT students really are no different than others, so the external validity of the studies on other health profession student is apt.
 
ptisfun2 said:
No, but there is for med/vet students. I posted the links above with a simple Google search. CSM had a ed session on it a few years ago, but that would require a PubMed search and I am just not that interested.

PT students really are no different than others, so the external validity of the studies on other health profession student is apt.
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to reaffirm my stance. I saw your links before. I don't have time to go further into your Google search but a quick look shows some pretty poor studies. Until some 2a/2b articles get published (unlike these 4's and 5's) and perhaps a systematic review, the literature does not support one side over the other. One of those studies even tested right after the exposure - not conductive to a retention study. Bias? A few examined multi-model teachings methods, hardly a comparison? Did you read these thoroughly before assuming their position? Also, none actually examined how well each group performed occupationally - something very difficult to study. So I don't see how you have any validity, even if you wanted to compare retention versus occupational performance. None so with your articles.

I'm curious, are you in PT school? The year long research course should cover a lot about reviewing articles.

As of right now I have to say its a wait and see game.
 
Last edited:
Azimuthal said:
Until some 2a/2b articles get published (unlike these 4's and 5's) and perhaps a systematic review, the literature does not support one side over the other. One of those studies even tested right after the exposure - not conductive to a retention study.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There's nothing definitive yet. And a cursory Google search is not a literature review. Schools would be wise to at least experiment, and save their students the hassle of having to get dressed in scrubs and smell like cadavers for the rest of the day. There are other, and IMO, better options.

Kevin
 
Admittedly, I haven't been to PT school yet, however I will say this: my issue is still not with the educational quality or clinical preparedness concerns but with the personal interest in seeing in detail, for real, what the human body actually looks like. For me it's kind of like going to the Grand Canyon - trust me on this one if you haven't been there - pictures don't do it even close to justice. Seeing something like that personally, in real life, gives you a much greater appreciation of it.

I don't doubt that students can learn the body parts just as effectively for less money using virtual anatomy, however I find that to be a moot point. Why do I give two craps if it's cheaper? Physical therapy school tuition has not gone down even one time in my life (and probably not in the lifetime of anyone on this board), has now reached utterly exorbitant rates, and will continue to go nowhere but up (at many times the rate of inflation) regardless of whether virtual anatomy is used or not. If you think any of the cost savings from switching to virtual anatomy will filter down to become money in the pockets of students, you've got another thing comin' in life.

Even if lab fees were reduced as a result of no longer buying cadavers, schools would just hike tuition and other fees to make up for it. If you don't think so, welcome to the real world. Thousands of students wishing to be physical therapists ship off to private schools to be had financially for three years, and just grin and bear it because they have no other option. No amount of cadaver buying or lack thereof is going to change that a bit. In fact, schools no longer buying cadavers just means that we are being had even worse. The world of higher education is not primarily about what's best for the student. The world of higher education, sad as it may seem, is about money.

I don't see the time required for dissection as a huge issue either. You're already at school all day, every day for two more years, why not spend that time doing something more hands-on and interesting than spending it looking at a computer screen like we modern people spend most of our time doing anyway?

If we assume that students learn better using dissections, then in order to justify a switch to virtual anatomy (from the perspective of a paying student) we must also take it to be true that the time saved by not dissecting will be used in such a way as to confer a greater clinical preparedness and educational benefit to the student than doing dissections and cadaveric anatomy studies would have. If we assume that students really are better prepared for clinical practice using virtual anatomy rather than real human bodies (which I'm confident is an assumption that would ring true in the minds of only very few patients and healthcare practitioners), then we still ought to require that the money saved will become a decrease in the total cost of attendance, and that the time saved will be used to further benefit the student. If we assume that neither method is even a bit better than the other at educating future professionals as a whole, which seems unlikely, once again the cost of school must go down proportionally.

I'm not too concerned with what's been found in this or that low-end journal article found on a Google search, whatever the findings may be.No matter how well a study is planned, such social science-esque research always has the potential to be susceptible to either finding what it wants to find or to finding a connection that isn't there to make the study worth something. I'm concerned with reality, and my reality is that if I'm going to spend several years of my life and several tens-of-thousands of dollars (or several hundreds of thousands for other professions) earning a doctorate degree and becoming a healthcare professional, I find examining the structure of the human body, which I will be in the business of healing for 40+ years, up close and personal, to be utterly appropriate and in fact necessary. It's bad enough to have physical therapists practicing who have never actually looked at and examined with their own eyes and hands the internal structures they are treating - I can't even believe people are able to become Doctors of Medicine without having thoroughly done so.

I'm sure students who have been through physical therapy school will differ widely as to how well they enjoyed (or how much they didn't enjoy) dissection lab. Those who found it to be distasteful for whatever reason will argue against it, and that is fair enough. Those who enjoyed it and found it beneficial will probably argue for it, which is fair enough too. Not all will see it my way or anyone elses' way, and that's just fine. I personally feel that if I'm going to practice a profession that is centered on understanding human anatomy and educating others about the same, it would be important for me to have learned human anatomy in the way it was discovered in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I'm glad I had gross anatomy class/dissection lab vs virtual anatomy. I enjoyed gross anatomy enough that I tutored students for subsequent classes and worked as a graduate assistant for gross anatomy after graduation and while I studying for the boards.

Could I have learned anatomy in a virtual environment? I think so. However, looking back, I have a greater appreciation for the variety of nuances found with each and every cadaver I placed my hands on. I also believe I have a better understanding of the "stuff" we, as students, often haphazardly cut through to get to the musculature, nerves, arterial supply, etc. For example, I don't know if I would truly grasp the tensile strength of fascia, and how scarring, adhesions, etc can affect movement without having having had the opportunity to touch and feel it.
 
riseboi said:
Personally, I'm glad I had gross anatomy class/dissection lab vs virtual anatomy. I enjoyed gross anatomy enough that I tutored students for subsequent classes and worked as a graduate assistant for gross anatomy after graduation and while I studying for the boards.

Could I have learned anatomy in a virtual environment? I think so. However, looking back, I have a greater appreciation for the variety of nuances found with each and every cadaver I placed my hands on. I also believe I have a better understanding of the "stuff" we, as students, often haphazardly cut through to get to the musculature, nerves, arterial supply, etc. For example, I don't know if I would truly grasp the tensile strength of fascia, and how scarring, adhesions, etc can affect movement without having having had the opportunity to touch and feel it.
Click to expand...



And just how do they effect movement?
 
Disclaimer: I really enjoyed gross anatomy.

I think virtual gross anatomy would be just fine. Most of us would probably be far better off if more of the time that was dedicated to gross anatomy would be spent on palpation of relevant surface anatomy.

There is NO WAY that the large discrepancy in cost the OP is describing is worth it.
 
Well ya of course in the case of the OP, if those two schools are the only options then you'd just have to go with the cheaper one regardless of what they had because spending over $100k for a DPT is just insanity...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.