Tuesday, January 28, 2014

One Side of the ELM Debate


After following the developments on the entry-level master’s (ELM) discussion over the past 6-12 months, and in particular after reading the NATA’s Entry-level degree evaluation document, I have hopped down off the fence and stepped confidently onto the side in favor of making this change to a Master’s degree.  What follows is one girl’s opinion including what I believe to be the most important points of this issue in favor of a transition to an ELM degree.  If you’re looking for evidence behind these points, you’ll find it in the degree evaluation document by following this link: http://www.nata.org/sites/default/files/The_Professional_Degree_in_Athletic_Training.pdf.  Be warned I am only presenting one side of the argument.  I was planning on presenting both sides but it turns out that one side of the story is pretty lengthy!!  Either that or I’m just long-winded…

For some historical perspective, it is important to note that the NATA’s Vision Quest (VQ) report, which was intended to give us direction and vision for the profession into the year 2020, said the Bachelor’s degree is currently meeting our needs, but that requirements will continue to be evaluated contingent upon the health care market.  It seems that is what we are doing, so in this way things are going according to the VQ plan.

Switching to an ELM is going to be a huge undertaking when it happens, and I believe it will happen eventually.  The NATA/CAATE/BOC have already used a significant amount of time, manpower, energy, and money to examine our entry level degree and figure out if this is the right move.  I imagine that if we decide not to make this change, the NATA will wait 3-5 years, someone else will bring it up, and we will repeat this process all over again (ahem….nomenclature), thereby using more money, manpower and energy that could be put somewhere else.  I don’t think anyone can deny this change needs to happen eventually, so unless we see some huge red flags during the research and investigation, let’s just make the right decision now and go for it.  It will be hard, but if we take our time and make sure we do it right, we will look back as those who made the decision about eliminating the internship route did and know that even through all the struggle and stress it was worth it because it was the right thing for the profession.

We have too many AT programs. If you ask me, its straight up redonkulous and I think if we lost a few programs, or 100, it would be better for the profession and better for our students. We are wide and shallow.  It is time for us to become narrower and deeper. Would cutting the number of AT Programs be hard for a lot of people? Definitely, and that is absolutely unfortunate. But ultimately it would be for the greater good and so it will be worth it, and the strong will survive which will strengthen our profession.  Additionally, a lot of AT programs have “numbers” requirements to keep them afloat which further contributes to the dilution of AT-focused students in our programs.  Decrease the number of programs and the students per program should increase, therby solving the numbers problem. I just can’t get the vision out of my head of what kind of profession we would have if we really focused on the students who want to do what we do.  Can you imagine?

Regarding the "stepping stone" concept, I believe this issue is very complex and has so many layers, that it will be hard to adequately address here.  Briefly, though, I think most students who come through our ATPs fall into one of four categories:
1.   they want to end up as a PT/PA/etc from the get go and truly are using AT as a stepping stone
2.   they go into it wanting to be ATs and then somewhere during their education decide they don’t like the idea of being overworked, underpaid, and disrespected for what might be the rest of their lives so they decide they will finish the ATP and then focus on something else for their post-graduate work
3.   they finish the ATP, maybe go to grad school for AT-related study, enter the workforce, decide they can’t or don’t want to deal with being overworked/underpaid/disrespected so they go back to school for PT/PA/etc and end up leaving the profession
4.   they finish the ATP, end up working as an AT, and stay in it for the extent of their career. 
Changing the degree to an ELM would probably all but eliminate groups 1 and 2, thus eliminating our “stepping stone” problem for the most part.  I’m not sure groups 3 and 4 will be affected directly by a change to an ELM because these individuals’ end-goal is AT.  What is the best move for the students who will be ATs for the rest of their lives?  Our focus should always be here, and all the others will find their way, and they will be okay.  We can mentor them and encourage them and help them find their way, but we can’t make our plans around them.

I also think the ECE’s point about basic courses competing with AT courses is valid. Letting the students get their GE requirements out of the way before being immersed in their clinical rotations will increase their drive, focus, and passion for athletic training. 

That’s all I have as far as a point-by-point perspective regarding the ELM degree debate. Hopefully I have adequately represented my perspective, and I hope someone will provide a thoughtful presentation of the potential drawbacks of an entry-level degree change. The fact is we don't REALLY know what this change will do to our profession. This degree evaluation document is the closest thing we have to an idea of what kind of chain reaction a degree change could set off. 

We have many other problems that need fixing (salary, ATs lacking in secondary school, only 48 states with licensure, lack of recognition and respect from others, and our identity crisis).  There is no way to know how an ELM will affect these problems, but I don’t think this is something we should expect to be able to predict.  Most of these other problems I just listed are OUR problems, and if WE don’t put our energy, time, and passion into fixing them, we will never see our dreams realized.  Our salaries, being respected, and our identity crisis are not problems the NATA, CAATE, or BOC can fix. Only we can.  So let’s let the powers that be use their wisdom and resources to make this decision, and as we stay informed and speak our minds about this, let’s daily wage war against apathy, self-loathing, and the status quo and move this profession forward.

So what do you think about the ELM degree debate?  …and please don’t comment until you’ve read the document – make sure you’re opinion is educated!

-Kim Detwiler


No comments: