Sponsored Links
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42
  1. #1
    azskeptic's Avatar
    azskeptic is offline Moderator 666 points
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,728
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    The Changing Face of Chiropractic Education - A Corollary

    Advertisements



    http://www.chiroweb.com/columnist/meemoophil/index.html

    The Changing Face of Chiropractic Education - A Corollary
    by Reed Phillips, DC, PhD
    I take the title of this article from a recent (March 1, 2004) editorial by Donald M. Petersen, Jr., editor and publisher of Dynamic Chiropractic. I do so partly because what was put into print is now out of date; it would appear the emphasis should be on "The Changing Face."

    My goal is not to detract from the good words of Mr. Petersen, but rather, to add a second voice of concern from someone who stands a little closer to the fire. Mine is a voice of concern - for as our educational establishments go, eventually so goes the profession.

    What is this "changing face of chiropractic education"?

    Mr. Petersen commented on the declining enrollment within the chiropractic programs in the U.S., indicating it "... has dropped by more than 30 percent in the past seven years." Depending on the source of information, this percent of decline may vary from 20 percent to 40 percent, but the presence of a decline is constant. Furthermore, the precipitous nature of this decline seems to have been more severe in the past three years.

    While the trend of continued declining enrollments could spell disaster for the future of the profession, it is often discounted with comments such as, "It is happening to all the health professions." This statement is certainly true (except in medicine, where there is a decline in inquiries, but not enrollments), but when used as justification for non-action, one is certainly adopting a "head-in-the-sand" attitude.

    With the unprecedented acceptance of "alternative therapies" by the American public, it is befuddling that so few people are pursuing careers in chiropractic, one of the more recognized and scientifically substantiated of the "alternative therapies." There are many reasons (excuses) that might be offered by way of explanation for the decline in enrollments; I will focus on only one.

    The Image of Chiropractic Education

    We lay claim to being "doctors." I believe the public generally can distinguish between a doctor associated with health care and a doctor associated with academia. The social standard in health care in the U.S. is the MD, or medical doctor, while the social standard in academia is the PhD, or the doctor of philosophy in a particular field of study. A comparison of the DC and PhD degrees is not appropriate because of how they differ; thus, I will remark on the comparison between the DC and the MD.

    Let's start with the fact that nearly 100 percent of students enter medical school with high scholastic performance and a bachelor's degree from a major university. Contrast this with the long-term debate in chiropractic education as to whether the profession should advance its entrance requirements from 60 units at the junior college level of training to 90 units leading toward a bachelor's degree, over which some chiropractic educational institutions/programs still complain.

    For years, chiropractic has attempted to equate chiropractic education with medical education by drawing attention to the similarity in the number of classroom hours and subject matter. If chiropractic students sit in classrooms equal in time to the medical students, does that make the two programs equal? Seat time is a poor measure of quality education.

    One could contrast (and the public probably does) the difference between the facilities, resources and experienced faculty in chiropractic and medical education. Yes, all chiropractic programs have regional accreditation (except two in California) by the same agencies that accredit the medical programs. One must remember that accreditation is an assurance that an institution and its programs are meeting a minimal level of acceptability. Accreditation is not a measure of achievement or excellence beyond that which is required.

    How many Nobel Laureates are teaching in chiropractic education? None! How many chiropractic educational institutions have faculty who are conducting research funded by NIH, or at least NIH-level grants? A few! How many of the PhDs in our chiropractic programs are actually conducting research and publishing their work for the benefit and growth of the profession? And how many DCs in chiropractic educational programs are actually conducting research and publishing their work? A few! Conducting and publishing one's work is a requisite for continued existence in a medical educational institution; it is paid token homage in chiropractic education.

    Since this article addresses the "changing face of chiropractic education," I should mention leadership. Of the 16 programs in the U.S., three (Life, Palmer and Palmer West) have named new presidents (or recycled previous presidents) in the past month (as of March 4). Five programs have installed new presidents since 2000 (NYCC, Sherman, Northwestern, TCC and Western States). By contrast, three programs have retained the same presidents since 1981 (Life West, Cleveland LA & KC).

    I do not wish to infer that time in service for a president is a valid indicator of the quality of education in a program, but there is a relationship that can be looked at from either end of the spectrum. Can a president sit too long at the helm, causing the program either to lose its direction or be stuck in a rut and not seek new frontiers? Conversely, changing of a president can also be a disruptive process (and usually is, in chiropractic education), leading to a change in mission and vision, loss of other seasoned administrators, financial costs in finding a new president, and many other ramifications that make it a difficult and challenging process.

    Now, a bit more about the problem of image: How many readers can name the president of the UCLA School of Medicine? What about the president of UCLA? My point is, chiropractic educational programs historically, and to a lesser degree today, hang on the reputation of the president, e.g., Janse, Napolitano, Haynes and others. While these and others were bright, energetic and dedicated warriors of the cause of chiropractic education, they may have carried their programs more on the basis of their individual charisma than their contributions to the advancement of the profession. There may well be charismatic leaders in medical education, but they also display a high profile of academic achievement, contribute to the growth of new knowledge in their field, and demonstrate their ability to succeed in the academic/clinical arena over which they preside. While chiropractic program presidents come from backgrounds in practice and teaching, only two have achieved the academic credentialing looked upon by the public, as well as the scientific and health care community, as a necessary qualifier to lead an "academic" institution - something chiropractic educational programs claim to be.

    Chiropractic education is beset by its high dependence upon the tuition dollar to cover operational costs. As enrollments decline, resources to support the educational endeavor likewise decline. This financial crunch leads to a decreased work force (without an equal reduction in the workload); pay scales below those from non-tuition-dependent programs; less research; and hence, less external funding support and a strain on existing resources and facilities.

    Finally, while chiropractic education ends at the conclusion of 10 semesters (and some after nine) of training, medical education, at the end of four years of medical school, typically transitions to a three- to five-year training experience focused in an area of specialty. This advanced residency training experience is an intensive time of supervised teaching, hands-on patient experience, application of knowledge and skills to serious decision-making, and an enculturation experience of the novice trained practitioner into a journeyman. Chiropractic has nothing comparable in the training of its practitioners.

    Image is a problem in chiropractic education, but the greater problem is the accumulation of issues previously discussed which germinate and perpetuate our less-than-satisfactory image. My experience chairing the Chiropractic Advisory Committee of the Veteran's Administration is a foreboding example of this problem.

    In determining a job classification for the doctor of chiropractic in the Veteran's Health Affairs system, a job analysis was conducted by an independent agency. Close scrutiny of practice patterns and behavior, typical case scenarios covering not only presenting conditions, but also actual treatment protocols (and yes, chiropractic education) provided data that was compared to other health professions currently functioning within the VHA system. It was concluded that the complexity of decision-making in chiropractic practice was considerably less than that of a medical doctor (probably because of the limited case mix seen in chiropractic practice), but more complex than a physical therapist who works under medical prescription. Chiropractic education was determined to be less rigorous and comprehensive than medical education, and most similar to that of the optometrist. I remind the reader that these decisions were arrived at based on the data collected; thus, the basis of our image is largely our own doing (or undoing).

    Our image has also been tarnished by the bashing of the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) in public forum. Chiropractic publications that accuse the CCE of exercising bias and prejudice are read by more than the devotees of the publishers. The very organization that has brought credibility to chiropractic education is strong and will withstand such blows, but the image of chiropractic and chiropractic education in the eyes of our skeptics has been confirmed. Even in our own profession, those distant from the facts must depend on what they read. When smothered with innuendos, accusations and inaccurate statements of the facts, they too pause to ponder the credibility of our "professional academic enterprise."

    The Changing Face of Chiropractic Education

    Those of you who graduated pre-CCE (1974) have probably rehearsed (on numerous occasions) the challenges faced by the chiropractic programs of your day. There was no enforcement of educational standards; schools taught what the president said would be taught. Facilities were old, in need of repair, and lacked necessary teaching aids, especially in laboratories. Libraries (now "learning resource centers") were small, isolated from the rest of the library world, and lacked adequate holdings to offer opportunities for expanded learning. There were no computers. Faculty and administrators often earned their living in clinical practice or other enterprises external to the chiropractic educational program, because the program could not pay a sustainable wage (many faculty were volunteers). Few if any faculty came with an earned graduate degree of any sort, and the basic science courses were often taught by a recent graduate reading to the students from a book. Research was virtually nonexistent.

    Therefore, even though we can find much fault with our current situation in chiropractic education, comparatively, chiropractic education has made miraculous historical improvements. Educational standards are enforced fairly and without bias, despite frequent commentaries from overactive pariahs. They have become the "sounding brass and tinkling cymbals" (Corinthians 1:13) of our profession.

    Academic freedom is required of every program accredited by the CCE. Academic freedom does not imply an "anything goes" attitude. Propriety and respect must be maintained. The president cannot dictate to the faculty what they shall teach, even though some may still try. While facilities are in need of constant maintenance, and technology continues to advance at light speed, chiropractic educational programs are required to meet these needs in a timely manner. Learning resource centers are connected to the world of cyberspace; technology is everywhere; holdings are current and relevant; and staff is qualified with specialized training in information acquisition and distribution. Faculty and most senior administrators come with experience outside the chiropractic educational world. They enter our portals with graduate degrees in hand. Their experience in higher education brings rich dividends to our programs. Research has become an integral (albeit limited) part of the fabric of each accredited institution.

    Conclusion

    From an historical perspective, the "face of chiropractic education" has changed in ways that members of the previous generation could only dream of. Are we satisfied? I think not!

    We expound with rhetoric regarding unfairness, if not outright discrimination, when we experience the cultural privileges granted to one group of "doctors" and not the other (us). Two cases in point: efforts to eliminate chiropractic from participating in the California State Work Comp system, and restricting doctors of chiropractic from performing physical examinations on commercial drivers because we are "... not trained adequately to assume such responsibility."

    If we want parity (and I believe we do), we must first define it. It does not mean that we want to become medical doctors. But I fear we seek parity of benefits without sharing the parity of responsibility. We desire equal respect and recognition, but some in our profession, who are quite vocal, deride educational standards and attainment in the name of "philosophy." (Kant and Hegel must be disgusted.)

    If this profession is to thrive (and I think it will always survive because of the good it provides), we must assume the responsibility of being accountable to the public we serve. We (the profession) cannot speak with a "forked tongue" and expect the social acceptance and legitimization we desire. Chiropractic education must rally behind a banner of integrity, willing to submit to the review of our peers (that's what accreditation is all about) and seek to be not only good teachers (which is very, very important), but also purveyors of new knowledge.

    Chiropractic education has changed in a dramatic way over the years, and it (and the profession it feeds) must continue transforming its image.

    Reed Phillips, DC, PhD
    President, Southern California University of Health Sciences
    Whittier, California
    Moderator - State Licensing Forum

    Still skeptical after all these years.
    This is it. There are no hidden meanings.WYSIWYG

    Hidden Content

    Hidden Content

  2. #2
    MitchDC is offline Elite Member 512 points
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,194
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Well Said

    Dr. Phillips is not only a great leader but a great man. His point is well made and I hope that the profession follows his lead.

    -M

    Quote Originally Posted by azskeptic
    http://www.chiroweb.com/columnist/meemoophil/index.html

    The Changing Face of Chiropractic Education - A Corollary
    by Reed Phillips, DC, PhD
    I take the title of this article from a recent (March 1, 2004) editorial by Donald M. Petersen, Jr., editor and publisher of Dynamic Chiropractic. I do so partly because what was put into print is now out of date; it would appear the emphasis should be on "The Changing Face."

    My goal is not to detract from the good words of Mr. Petersen, but rather, to add a second voice of concern from someone who stands a little closer to the fire. Mine is a voice of concern - for as our educational establishments go, eventually so goes the profession.

    What is this "changing face of chiropractic education"?

    Mr. Petersen commented on the declining enrollment within the chiropractic programs in the U.S., indicating it "... has dropped by more than 30 percent in the past seven years." Depending on the source of information, this percent of decline may vary from 20 percent to 40 percent, but the presence of a decline is constant. Furthermore, the precipitous nature of this decline seems to have been more severe in the past three years.

    While the trend of continued declining enrollments could spell disaster for the future of the profession, it is often discounted with comments such as, "It is happening to all the health professions." This statement is certainly true (except in medicine, where there is a decline in inquiries, but not enrollments), but when used as justification for non-action, one is certainly adopting a "head-in-the-sand" attitude.

    With the unprecedented acceptance of "alternative therapies" by the American public, it is befuddling that so few people are pursuing careers in chiropractic, one of the more recognized and scientifically substantiated of the "alternative therapies." There are many reasons (excuses) that might be offered by way of explanation for the decline in enrollments; I will focus on only one.

    The Image of Chiropractic Education

    We lay claim to being "doctors." I believe the public generally can distinguish between a doctor associated with health care and a doctor associated with academia. The social standard in health care in the U.S. is the MD, or medical doctor, while the social standard in academia is the PhD, or the doctor of philosophy in a particular field of study. A comparison of the DC and PhD degrees is not appropriate because of how they differ; thus, I will remark on the comparison between the DC and the MD.

    Let's start with the fact that nearly 100 percent of students enter medical school with high scholastic performance and a bachelor's degree from a major university. Contrast this with the long-term debate in chiropractic education as to whether the profession should advance its entrance requirements from 60 units at the junior college level of training to 90 units leading toward a bachelor's degree, over which some chiropractic educational institutions/programs still complain.

    For years, chiropractic has attempted to equate chiropractic education with medical education by drawing attention to the similarity in the number of classroom hours and subject matter. If chiropractic students sit in classrooms equal in time to the medical students, does that make the two programs equal? Seat time is a poor measure of quality education.

    One could contrast (and the public probably does) the difference between the facilities, resources and experienced faculty in chiropractic and medical education. Yes, all chiropractic programs have regional accreditation (except two in California) by the same agencies that accredit the medical programs. One must remember that accreditation is an assurance that an institution and its programs are meeting a minimal level of acceptability. Accreditation is not a measure of achievement or excellence beyond that which is required.

    How many Nobel Laureates are teaching in chiropractic education? None! How many chiropractic educational institutions have faculty who are conducting research funded by NIH, or at least NIH-level grants? A few! How many of the PhDs in our chiropractic programs are actually conducting research and publishing their work for the benefit and growth of the profession? And how many DCs in chiropractic educational programs are actually conducting research and publishing their work? A few! Conducting and publishing one's work is a requisite for continued existence in a medical educational institution; it is paid token homage in chiropractic education.

    Since this article addresses the "changing face of chiropractic education," I should mention leadership. Of the 16 programs in the U.S., three (Life, Palmer and Palmer West) have named new presidents (or recycled previous presidents) in the past month (as of March 4). Five programs have installed new presidents since 2000 (NYCC, Sherman, Northwestern, TCC and Western States). By contrast, three programs have retained the same presidents since 1981 (Life West, Cleveland LA & KC).

    I do not wish to infer that time in service for a president is a valid indicator of the quality of education in a program, but there is a relationship that can be looked at from either end of the spectrum. Can a president sit too long at the helm, causing the program either to lose its direction or be stuck in a rut and not seek new frontiers? Conversely, changing of a president can also be a disruptive process (and usually is, in chiropractic education), leading to a change in mission and vision, loss of other seasoned administrators, financial costs in finding a new president, and many other ramifications that make it a difficult and challenging process.

    Now, a bit more about the problem of image: How many readers can name the president of the UCLA School of Medicine? What about the president of UCLA? My point is, chiropractic educational programs historically, and to a lesser degree today, hang on the reputation of the president, e.g., Janse, Napolitano, Haynes and others. While these and others were bright, energetic and dedicated warriors of the cause of chiropractic education, they may have carried their programs more on the basis of their individual charisma than their contributions to the advancement of the profession. There may well be charismatic leaders in medical education, but they also display a high profile of academic achievement, contribute to the growth of new knowledge in their field, and demonstrate their ability to succeed in the academic/clinical arena over which they preside. While chiropractic program presidents come from backgrounds in practice and teaching, only two have achieved the academic credentialing looked upon by the public, as well as the scientific and health care community, as a necessary qualifier to lead an "academic" institution - something chiropractic educational programs claim to be.

    Chiropractic education is beset by its high dependence upon the tuition dollar to cover operational costs. As enrollments decline, resources to support the educational endeavor likewise decline. This financial crunch leads to a decreased work force (without an equal reduction in the workload); pay scales below those from non-tuition-dependent programs; less research; and hence, less external funding support and a strain on existing resources and facilities.

    Finally, while chiropractic education ends at the conclusion of 10 semesters (and some after nine) of training, medical education, at the end of four years of medical school, typically transitions to a three- to five-year training experience focused in an area of specialty. This advanced residency training experience is an intensive time of supervised teaching, hands-on patient experience, application of knowledge and skills to serious decision-making, and an enculturation experience of the novice trained practitioner into a journeyman. Chiropractic has nothing comparable in the training of its practitioners.

    Image is a problem in chiropractic education, but the greater problem is the accumulation of issues previously discussed which germinate and perpetuate our less-than-satisfactory image. My experience chairing the Chiropractic Advisory Committee of the Veteran's Administration is a foreboding example of this problem.

    In determining a job classification for the doctor of chiropractic in the Veteran's Health Affairs system, a job analysis was conducted by an independent agency. Close scrutiny of practice patterns and behavior, typical case scenarios covering not only presenting conditions, but also actual treatment protocols (and yes, chiropractic education) provided data that was compared to other health professions currently functioning within the VHA system. It was concluded that the complexity of decision-making in chiropractic practice was considerably less than that of a medical doctor (probably because of the limited case mix seen in chiropractic practice), but more complex than a physical therapist who works under medical prescription. Chiropractic education was determined to be less rigorous and comprehensive than medical education, and most similar to that of the optometrist. I remind the reader that these decisions were arrived at based on the data collected; thus, the basis of our image is largely our own doing (or undoing).

    Our image has also been tarnished by the bashing of the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) in public forum. Chiropractic publications that accuse the CCE of exercising bias and prejudice are read by more than the devotees of the publishers. The very organization that has brought credibility to chiropractic education is strong and will withstand such blows, but the image of chiropractic and chiropractic education in the eyes of our skeptics has been confirmed. Even in our own profession, those distant from the facts must depend on what they read. When smothered with innuendos, accusations and inaccurate statements of the facts, they too pause to ponder the credibility of our "professional academic enterprise."

    The Changing Face of Chiropractic Education

    Those of you who graduated pre-CCE (1974) have probably rehearsed (on numerous occasions) the challenges faced by the chiropractic programs of your day. There was no enforcement of educational standards; schools taught what the president said would be taught. Facilities were old, in need of repair, and lacked necessary teaching aids, especially in laboratories. Libraries (now "learning resource centers") were small, isolated from the rest of the library world, and lacked adequate holdings to offer opportunities for expanded learning. There were no computers. Faculty and administrators often earned their living in clinical practice or other enterprises external to the chiropractic educational program, because the program could not pay a sustainable wage (many faculty were volunteers). Few if any faculty came with an earned graduate degree of any sort, and the basic science courses were often taught by a recent graduate reading to the students from a book. Research was virtually nonexistent.

    Therefore, even though we can find much fault with our current situation in chiropractic education, comparatively, chiropractic education has made miraculous historical improvements. Educational standards are enforced fairly and without bias, despite frequent commentaries from overactive pariahs. They have become the "sounding brass and tinkling cymbals" (Corinthians 1:13) of our profession.

    Academic freedom is required of every program accredited by the CCE. Academic freedom does not imply an "anything goes" attitude. Propriety and respect must be maintained. The president cannot dictate to the faculty what they shall teach, even though some may still try. While facilities are in need of constant maintenance, and technology continues to advance at light speed, chiropractic educational programs are required to meet these needs in a timely manner. Learning resource centers are connected to the world of cyberspace; technology is everywhere; holdings are current and relevant; and staff is qualified with specialized training in information acquisition and distribution. Faculty and most senior administrators come with experience outside the chiropractic educational world. They enter our portals with graduate degrees in hand. Their experience in higher education brings rich dividends to our programs. Research has become an integral (albeit limited) part of the fabric of each accredited institution.

    Conclusion

    From an historical perspective, the "face of chiropractic education" has changed in ways that members of the previous generation could only dream of. Are we satisfied? I think not!

    We expound with rhetoric regarding unfairness, if not outright discrimination, when we experience the cultural privileges granted to one group of "doctors" and not the other (us). Two cases in point: efforts to eliminate chiropractic from participating in the California State Work Comp system, and restricting doctors of chiropractic from performing physical examinations on commercial drivers because we are "... not trained adequately to assume such responsibility."

    If we want parity (and I believe we do), we must first define it. It does not mean that we want to become medical doctors. But I fear we seek parity of benefits without sharing the parity of responsibility. We desire equal respect and recognition, but some in our profession, who are quite vocal, deride educational standards and attainment in the name of "philosophy." (Kant and Hegel must be disgusted.)

    If this profession is to thrive (and I think it will always survive because of the good it provides), we must assume the responsibility of being accountable to the public we serve. We (the profession) cannot speak with a "forked tongue" and expect the social acceptance and legitimization we desire. Chiropractic education must rally behind a banner of integrity, willing to submit to the review of our peers (that's what accreditation is all about) and seek to be not only good teachers (which is very, very important), but also purveyors of new knowledge.

    Chiropractic education has changed in a dramatic way over the years, and it (and the profession it feeds) must continue transforming its image.

    Reed Phillips, DC, PhD
    President, Southern California University of Health Sciences
    Whittier, California
    MitchDC/MD
    RUSM 2006 Graduate

  3. #3
    IMG X-Files's Avatar
    IMG X-Files is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    226
    Downloads
    14
    Uploads
    0
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    DC Schools

    From what I've seen in the US and Canada, DC Schools have great medical facilities, laboratories and Radiology departments. The education at DC schools is by far better than most carribean medical schools...considering the caliber of students entering, faculty and facilities......Actually in Canada, many hospitals are now integrating DCs as part of the health care teams..........DCs have alot to offer, especially hands on approach to health care very similar to the physios.....I would love to see more DCs in the hospitals....it will take alot of pressure off all of us...
    I think DCs came a long way since the late 60s and early 70s when considered quackary by most of the medical community......Today, many of my colleagues consider DCs and referring to DCs when medicine fail and surgery is not an option....Perhaps Chiropractic will be the first line of MSK Conditions in the near future...
    IMG X-Files
    International Medical Education Advisor
    Suggested Websites

  4. #4
    khiro is offline Member 512 points
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Northwest Florida
    Posts
    128
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    declining numbers update

    i enjoyed reading this article back in 2006 but at the time had no knowledge of the current number of graduates from my old chiro college. well, no more. the numbers are in...when i graduated in 1985 there were around 110. this past december 2009, my old school graduated 23.

    this speaks volumes about a lot of things, but mostly i think it is an image problem. you see, the student of today can choose between many options what profession they want to work in. information is at the end of the laptop. what freedom!!

    chiropractic can not compete against the image of marcus welby, md and most recent; house. and chiros can say (and do) that they don't compete, but in reality your patient is choosing and the image of the medical profession and its approach is very powerful. yes there are the "informed" and non-herd pts. but the majority are of the herd, being led by the md, do, pa, and np.

    i have enjoyed being a small part of the healthcare industry, so i would hope that the difference between 110 and 23 still chose HC as a profession; we will never know. it is clear that they did not choose chiropractic.

  5. #5
    AgActual's Avatar
    AgActual is offline Member 525 points
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    224
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    i enjoyed reading this article back in 2006 but at the time had no knowledge of the current number of graduates from my old chiro college. well, no more. the numbers are in...when i graduated in 1985 there were around 110. this past december 2009, my old school graduated 23.
    Is that 23 number the graduates for all of 2009 or just for those graduating in December? I think that would be understandable if that was just the class that graduated in December, since most students graduate in May.

    One thing i am more confused about is the 110 graduates back in 1985. 110 graduates a year today would be a fairly small number. Life and Life West alone graduate over 800 students a year and my school, which is one of the smallest chiro schools around, still has 150-200 a year. Which school did you graduate from, if you don't mind me asking? Was it fairly new back in 1985?

  6. #6
    AgActual's Avatar
    AgActual is offline Member 525 points
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    224
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Double post
    Last edited by AgActual; 08-19-2010 at 11:19 AM.

  7. #7
    AgActual's Avatar
    AgActual is offline Member 525 points
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    224
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    triple post
    Last edited by AgActual; 08-19-2010 at 11:19 AM.

  8. #8
    AgActual's Avatar
    AgActual is offline Member 525 points
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    224
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    quadruple post....god what the hell happened?!

  9. #9
    rabbitgti20 is offline Newbie 510 points
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    12
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I agree that the chiropractic profession must continue to transform its image.

  10. #10
    khiro is offline Member 512 points
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Northwest Florida
    Posts
    128
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    sorry i missed your post AgActual

    the december 2009 class had 23 or so grads. its a 10 trimester program, so this would have been the september entering class of 2006. for the year, the numbers would have been close to 60 or so grads. thats right, the one graduating class of december 1985 in numbers swamped the whole year of 2009. back in 85 the classes were fairly the same in size, so i would say that TCC would have graduated around 300 or so for a yearly number. and as stated previously the 2009 number was around 60. now these 2009 numbers are coming from me counting the number of individuals lined up and looking sharp in a grad photo. could it be that some grads were not in the official photo? yes i suppose, but most would have been in the pictures. why the decrease in enrollment? did TCC institute some new higher level of standard for matriculation? could have, i don't know. just numbers of course do not tell the whole story about an individual or an institutions progress; but i bring it up just to point out that students who are smart have lots of choices today. tons, and tons, and tons. there are plenty of options for young people today, and in houston texas it is just mind boggling what a student can do.

    i'm hoping my son will go into the maritime systems engineering at TAMUG. just a big ole pile of opportunity.

    anyway, there is no doubt that there are too many chiropractors to be supported by private insurance, cash patients, etc.. some people believe this and some don't. doesn't matter to me one way or the other. its a change that i wanted to point out.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-26-2017, 12:07 AM
  2. Chiropractic Diploma(DC) Vs. Doctor of Chiropractic Medicine(DCM)
    By CARICOM-MED in forum Chiropractic Schools
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-22-2011, 02:02 PM
  3. Face to Face interview vs. Over the Phone interview
    By Gill781 in forum American University of Antigua (AUA)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-02-2009, 09:42 AM
  4. Education vs Medical Education in ERAS Application
    By TheOne_1 in forum Residency Match Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-28-2006, 11:39 AM
  5. The Changing Face of Chiropractic Education - A Corollary
    By azskeptic in forum The Relaxing Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-01-2004, 09:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •