# Daniel Freeman Paramedic School



## Kellen (Sep 10, 2009)

hello to all.  i'm new to this forum, kinda stumbled upon it on accident actually.  i've been working as an emt for like 2 months and i'm hoping to go to medic school in about a year.  i live in northern CA and i'd like to leave the area (kinda sick of it up here haha) so i was looking into the daniel freeman program in LA.  has anyone gone to the school or know how it compares to the program at San Francisco City College?  all info is appreciated thanks a lot


----------



## medic417 (Sep 10, 2009)

Search is on right side on line above.  There has been some discussions that mention that school.


----------



## Kellen (Sep 10, 2009)

much appreciated


----------



## EMT007 (Sep 11, 2009)

Its pretty hard to get into on your own as most of their class spots are reserved for LAFD and LACoFD, but they do take several non-fire students each class.


----------



## mycrofft (Sep 12, 2009)

*Daniel Freeman used to be Trauma City, Ike Turner's ER of choice.*

Look into living arrangements, you may want to commute and etc. Not cheap.


----------



## SoCal (Oct 18, 2009)

Like ive said at other posts... Look @ Bakersfield College Paramedic Program...

Great program... offers a lot...

Look at google under Bakersfield College Allied Health Program...


----------



## DV_EMT (Oct 18, 2009)

Ive heard that its a GREAT SCHOOL... definately try it out and see if ui can get in


----------



## MrBrown (Oct 18, 2009)

One of my friends went there; he said it's nothing but a cookbook whacker mill 

From thier website the program is described as a *"non-degree granting, non-college credit, clock hour vocational education program"*

That's quality right there.


----------



## NickD (Oct 18, 2009)

MrBrown said:


> One of my friends went there; he said it's nothing but a cookbook whacker mill
> 
> From thier website the program is described as a *"non-degree granting, non-college credit, clock hour vocational education program"*
> 
> That's quality right there.



I went to EMT school at Daniel Freeman (UCLA), worked a year as an EMT with a 911 company, and I'm currently in their paramedic prep program. I also took a phlebotomy course there. And I disagree with my Kiwi colleague above. While I'll agree higher levels of education is a no-brainer for EMS few people would characterize DF as a whacker mill. And you do accrue college credits in all their programs. Not to mention, the majority of paramedic schools in the States are non-degree programs, so that's sort of a sideways criticism.  

DF is the 1st or 2nd oldest paramedic school in the U.S. (There is a running, but friendly dispute, with another school in Florida over this). We have instructors both brilliant and caring including a few with ties going back to the 1970s and the formative years of EMS. 

It's one of the few, if not the only, paramedic school in Los Angeles that accepts private students who are not affiliated with a fire department. Even the community colleges here require a mini-fire academy for admission. How many privates they take in each class depends on how many sponsored fire guys are enrolling. And in most classes it's six to ten. 

Like any course of education a lot depends on the student. I'm sitting next to young fire guys who will depend on a very established support system within the fire department and unfortunately medicine isn't that high on their interests list. But that's a separate issue concerning the way Los Angeles County implements EMS. However, privates do apply from all over the country at DF. 

As to the _cookbook_ comment that laughably inaccurate too as they do everything except tattoo _critical thinking_ on your forehead . . .  

I have a _friend_ who thinks New Zealand is a boring, provincial, stuck in the 80s kind of place. But I know he's wrong because I lived and worked in NZed for a year in the early 1990s. It's a wonderful country. 

Your _friend_ is flat out wrong about DF . . .


----------



## VentMedic (Oct 18, 2009)

NickD said:


> I went to EMT school at Daniel Freeman (UCLA), worked a year as an EMT with a 911 company, and I'm currently in their paramedic prep program. I also took a phlebotomy course there. And I disagree with my Kiwi colleague above. While I'll agree higher levels of education is a no-brainer for EMS few people would characterize DF as a whacker mill. *And you do accrue college credits in all their programs.* Not to mention, the majority of paramedic schools in the States are non-degree programs, so that's sort of a sideways criticism.


 
The website clearly states they do NOT offer college credits. That is made clear up front so there is no false hope.

If you look at the many community colleges in CA and FL, you will find the majority of them DO offer a degree program. Unfortunately it is an option so the real reason there are not more degreed Paramedics is not the fact there are no programs but rather most do not have the motivation to take an A&P class or perceive it to be a waste of time. There are also medic mills that have made a half-arsed attempt to offer degrees "with ease of entry". Generally they credit transfer nowhere. 

Also, the difference between FL and CA's first Paramedic programs is that FL did establish the degree and was even sought after in the 1970s by FFs. Thus, that is why I got my degree in 1979. 



> As to the _cookbook_ comment that laughably inaccurate too as they do everything except tattoo _critical thinking_ on your forehead . . .


 
If you look at the state and local protocols for CA, critical thinking is really not a necessity...unfortunately. For some, as long as they can read the protocols or have a nurse read for them they will do just fine in some CA systems. This is why the MICN has a large presence in EMS and CCT in CA.

If you have yet to go through a Paramedic program you may not be the best reference for quality and content.


----------



## JPINFV (Oct 18, 2009)

NickD said:


> And you do accrue college credits in all their programs.






> 	Does the Program offer college credit?
> Not at this time.  We are working towards being able to offer college credit for students however that will not be available for several more courses.  Program graduates are able to petition other colleges for credit for the course.


-UCLA Center for Prehospital Care Frequently Asked Questions
http://www.cpc.mednet.ucla.edu/SRRS/ProgramDocs/Programs/13/student FAQ info sheet 040611.dot


----------



## NickD (Oct 18, 2009)

The college credits I received for EMT school at DF were through another local college, credits for my current paramedic prep course are through still another college, and I thought the paramedic course was the same. I'll give you your point on that one . . . 

If I had to guess why it's probably a matter of internal squabbles between DF and UCLA which runs it's own medical school.


----------



## daedalus (Oct 18, 2009)

I find it funny that they are looking into making Freeman actually apply towards college credit, but the UCLA itself will not offer it. It will be through the Westwood college (which has just been sued for offering junk degrees).

Also, the program itself is not even on the UCLA campus, it is in the ghetto in Inglewood. The hospital it used to be affiliated with is now shut down. 

I love when people spout off to me that Daniel Freeman is the best paramedic school. Actually, my school _required_ anatomy and physiology before entering, and the big bad UCLA Daniel Freeman does not. My school offers college credit and can apply towards an Associates degree in Paramedic Studies. Daniel Freeman does not. My school is also much cheaper.


----------



## NickD (Oct 19, 2009)

I suppose a little "school spirit" is unavoidable but at the same time masks the real problem. I replied to the initial characterization of DF because I felt it rash so I'm guilty too. But the larger point is don't expect the general public and higher level providers to stop denigrating EMS until we stop denigrating ourselves. It's the easiest first step to respectability we could take.  

Can we all agree the best paramedic school in the world is still capable of turning out poor medics just as the reverse of that is true? Getting a dream paramedic curriculum in place would be laudable but not a solid guarantee of overall improvement in care. If level of education was the only key, why are there questionable doctors, nurses, professors, etc? 

So what we are really talking about is human nature. And that's a lot harder to fix. Instead we blame our schools, we blame our protocols, we blame fire for muscling into EMS, we blame everybody and everything except ourselves. And that's exactly where 100% of the blame rests. 

And to insinuate because a school is situated in a "ghetto" (your word) it's second rate is what? I don't even know what that means. With good instructors and knowledge hungry students you could run a good paramedic school on any street corner sitting on milk crates . . .


----------



## triemal04 (Oct 20, 2009)

NickD said:


> I suppose a little "school spirit" is unavoidable but at the same time masks the real problem. I replied to the initial characterization of DF because I felt it rash so I'm guilty too. But the larger point is don't expect the general public and higher level providers to stop denigrating EMS until we stop denigrating ourselves. It's the easiest first step to respectability we could take.
> 
> Can we all agree the best paramedic school in the world is still capable of turning out poor medics just as the reverse of that is true? Getting a dream paramedic curriculum in place would be laudable but not a solid guarantee of overall improvement in care. If level of education was the only key, why are there questionable doctors, nurses, professors, etc?
> 
> ...


It's funny.  Whenever a thread takes a turn like this one has and turns into this type of a discussion, it seems like it's often an EMT or someone who's only even a student that comes out with the smartest post while everyone else keeps whining and yelling.

Quite funny really.


----------



## daedalus (Oct 20, 2009)

> Can we all agree the best paramedic school in the world is still capable of turning out poor medics just as the reverse of that is true? Getting a dream paramedic curriculum in place would be laudable but not a solid guarantee of overall improvement in care. If level of education was the only key, why are there questionable doctors, nurses, professors, etc?


Heres the thing, a rigorous set of entry requirements will significantly decrease the probability of a school turning out poor medics. 


> And to insinuate because a school is situated in a "ghetto" (your word) it's second rate is what? I don't even know what that means. With good instructors and knowledge hungry students you could run a good paramedic school on any street corner sitting on milk crates . . .


Lets not mince words. People spend good amounts of money to get into Daniel Freeman for Paramedic education. They spend much more than most paramedic schools in California. They should have the right to know that the school is not located in the UCLA campus in Westwood (both are very nice areas) and is instead located in Inglewood. According to recent statistics, Inglewood has a much higher violent and petty crime rate compared to Westood and most reasonable people in the greater Los Angeles area will tell you to avoid the area if you can.



> It's funny. Whenever a thread takes a turn like this one has and turns into this type of a discussion, it seems like it's often an EMT or someone who's only even a student that comes out with the smartest post while everyone else keeps whining and yelling.
> 
> Quite funny really.


Perhaps funny to you, but no one else is laughing. It is you who turns rather serious threads with good debates into a mockery of the EMS profession.


----------



## Dwindlin (Oct 20, 2009)

daedalus said:


> Perhaps funny to you, but no one else is laughing. It is you who turns rather serious threads with good debates into a mockery of the EMS profession.









To make a comment more on topic, I disagree (partly) with the comment about rigorous selection will stem the tied of poor providers.  You may lessen it a little, but fact of the matter is academic programs use academic standards for entry, and anyone who has been out in the field for very long knows those geniuses who can recite the damn textbook by heart but fall apart completely soon as a patient shows up.  Same thing happens at every level of training.


----------



## JPINFV (Oct 20, 2009)

atkinsje said:


> To make a comment more on topic, I disagree (partly) with the comment about rigorous selection will stem the tied of poor providers.  You may lessen it a little, but fact of the matter is academic programs use academic standards for entry, and anyone who has been out in the field for very long knows those geniuses who can recite the damn textbook by heart but fall apart completely soon as a patient shows up.  Same thing happens at every level of training.



Can I put up the quality of my program's worst student vs your program's worst student since, apparently, prereqs don't matter?


----------



## Dwindlin (Oct 20, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> Can I put up the quality of my program's worst student vs your program's worst student since, apparently, prereqs don't matter?



What do you considered difficult pre-req's that are going to make a difference clinically?

I'll use medical school as it may help illustrate my point.  I don't think anyone would argue that med students are some of the most academically talented students coming out of UG (on average matriculating medical school classes represent the top 1% of students nationwide).  Yet even with extremely difficult screening/selection processes people enter their 3rd year at the top of their class, with extraordinary board scores and do miserably the last 2 years.  Why? Because all this information your taught means nothing if you can't apply it.  Rigorous pre-req's won't fix that.


----------



## triemal04 (Oct 20, 2009)

daedalus said:


> Perhaps funny to you, but no one else is laughing. It is you who turns rather serious threads with good debates into a mockery of the EMS profession.


See?  It's funny!  The rest of your response just helps illustrate that fact.  Speaking of which...weren't you someone who made such a big deal about leaving...and is still posting?  Also funny.  :lol:


atkinsje said:


> What do you considered difficult pre-req's that are going to make a difference clinically?
> 
> I'll use medical school as it may help illustrate my point.  I don't think anyone would argue that med students are some of the most academically talented students coming out of UG (on average matriculating medical school classes represent the top 1% of students nationwide).  Yet even with extremely difficult screening/selection processes people enter their 3rd year at the top of their class, with extraordinary board scores and do miserably the last 2 years.  Why? Because all this information your taught means nothing if you can't apply it.  Rigorous pre-req's won't fix that.


They won't to a certain extent, but then, what would you do to fix that problem?  The easiest solution is to start having the students (any student in a field that interacts with pt's) interact with pt's very early so they can get used to it and become more proficient as time goes on and their knowledge increases.  That won't solve the problem of having someone who is very proficient in the classroom but inefficient in applying that knowledge though; it'll just allow it to be recognized earlier, and, hopefully, get resolved.

Having pre-reqs to enter a program should still be used though; by the same token, someone can be the most amicable, nicest person out there who can interact with anyone, but if they can't understand/retain/troubleshoot what they learn, it doesn't matter.

Interesting balancing act.


----------



## daedalus (Oct 20, 2009)

> To make a comment more on topic, I disagree (partly) with the comment about rigorous selection will stem the tied of poor providers. You may lessen it a little, but fact of the matter is academic programs use academic standards for entry, and anyone who has been out in the field for very long knows those geniuses who can recite the damn textbook by heart but fall apart completely soon as a patient shows up. Same thing happens at every level of training.


I don't agree, but you seem to be set on it.

It really is my opinion that someone with education in the basic medical sciences will be a far better provider than someone who is trained in the field with street smarts. The ability to really understand altered physiology and pathogenesis of disease, and than to apply your knowledge of physical examination and pharmacology to fix the problem is the trait of a good provider and someone who provides good patient care. (by understanding of pharmacology, I do not mean that one can say lidocaine numbs the heart to borrow and example from another poster). 

Are biology and chemistry classes really important? You tell me. Can you explain to your patient in detail why prolonged sun exposure is bad? Is statistics important? Can you break down and interpret a study?
Is biochemistry important? Physiology? 

I think they are.


----------



## daedalus (Oct 20, 2009)

atkinsje said:


> What do you considered difficult pre-req's that are going to make a difference clinically?
> 
> I'll use medical school as it may help illustrate my point.  I don't think anyone would argue that med students are some of the most academically talented students coming out of UG (on average matriculating medical school classes represent the top 1% of students nationwide).  Yet even with extremely difficult screening/selection processes people enter their 3rd year at the top of their class, with extraordinary board scores and do miserably the last 2 years.  Why? Because all this information your taught means nothing if you can't apply it.  Rigorous pre-req's won't fix that.


Some (not all by any means) medical students have never touched a patient before 3rd year. True. They have spent two years learning the basic medical sciences (some schools now have internships where a student spends some time doing an history and physical with a family practice doc during their first or second year so even that is not true anymore).

So, some are "handicapped" their third year when they get thrown into the hospital. I argue they really are not handicapped. Sure, they may have not taken vital signs on real patients yet, or started IVs, or any other "skills", but they rapidly catch up to everyone else with "skills" and than have the added bonus of knowing how and why.

But this is not about medical school, it is about EMS. You two can sit here and say the internet is not about being serious all you want. You can call me a nerd or loser or whatever pleases you. But if not here on an EMS forum, where do you suppose these ideas are presented to our peers? This is the "Education and Training" sub forum, and it is dedicated to discussion of such topics. Since you two obviously are not into serious discussions or discussions about education, perhaps the "EMS Lounge" is a better place for you to direct your posting energy. Clever graphics and sayings do not impress me or others who come here to talk about bettering ourselves.


----------



## triemal04 (Oct 20, 2009)

daedalus said:


> Some (not all by any means) medical students have never touched a patient before 3rd year. True. They have spent two years learning the basic medical sciences (some schools now have internships where a student spends some time doing an history and physical with a family practice doc during their first or second year so even that is not true anymore).
> 
> So, some are "handicapped" their third year when they get thrown into the hospital. I argue they really are not handicapped. Sure, they may have not taken vital signs on real patients yet, or started IVs, or any other "skills", but they rapidly catch up to everyone else with "skills" and than have the added bonus of knowing how and why.
> 
> But this is not about medical school, it is about EMS. You two can sit here and say the internet is not about being serious all you want. You can call me a nerd or loser or whatever pleases you. But if not here on an EMS forum, where do you suppose these ideas are presented to our peers? This is the "Education and Training" sub forum, and it is dedicated to discussion of such topics. Since you two obviously are not into serious discussions or discussions about education, perhaps the "EMS Lounge" is a better place for you to direct your posting energy. Clever graphics and sayings do not impress me or others who come here to talk about bettering ourselves.


The only one mentioning "skills" here is you.  Forget skills.  Ignore them for a minute if you can.  (or ignore me, don't care which)  I can't speak for atkinsje, but what I'm talking about is the ability to apply what you learned in class to the physical reality of pt care; to be able to interact with a pt and be able to communicate with them, ask the appropriate questions/test the right things at the right time, interpret the answers/results and then formulate and act on a course of treatment, as well as interpret the results to that treatment, the problems that occur from it, know what to do when things don't work, or you can't do them and so on.  The ability to do that takes time to learn, and while having multiple pre-reqs before entering into the actual paramedic courses (or medical school, or nursing school or whatever) will help you understand what you are learning, it won't necessarily help you apply that knowledge in the field, or be a good indicator as to if you CAN apply that knowledge.

That's where the dilemma is.  Should pre-reqs be required?  Absolutely without a doubt.  But, right now, in the vast majority of cases, there isn't a system in place to judge how someone will work in the field, OR a system to help them correct their deficiencies; I do believe another posted here was recently dropped from his internship because of that.  There needs to be some set way to help people overcome problems they encounter, and/or determine if they are suited for this profession.  If not, many people who otherwise would be good providers won't make it because they can't figure out a way to translate the classroom into the field.  It is unfortunately an aspect of our education that is sadly overlooked and underappreciated.

As far as the rest...don't worry.  Anyone reading this thread is very much getting an education.  Just not in what you want them to.  Doesn't make it any less valuable though.  Alike a face to face conversation, people won't always follow your narrow rules about what you think can and can't be said.  Doesn't make things any less valid though.


----------



## JPINFV (Oct 20, 2009)

atkinsje said:


> What do you considered difficult pre-req's that are going to make a difference clinically?



Chemistry, college level intro bio, physics, psychology to name 3 that will directly affect the providers ability to critically think during calls. Depending on the program and what is taught, I'll throw on college level bio chemistry, anatomy, and physiology as well. The problem at all levels is the ability to apply those courses to patient care. 

As far as clinically, again, want to compare the worst medical student to the worst EMT student? 3rd year for medical students is essentially the same as clinicals for EMS students. There are going to be some on both sides of the fence who have never dealt with patients before in there life. How ever, I'd argue that the people who make it into medical school are going to be better able to evaluate their performance and adjust themselves accordingly. In large part I'd argue that the quality of the filter leading into the program (prereqs, competition, etc) is going to raise the bar (both average and minimum performance) compared to less rigorous preparatory work.


----------



## JPINFV (Oct 20, 2009)

triemal04 said:


> The easiest solution is to start having the students (any student in a fieldhttp://emtlife.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=186344 that interacts with pt's) interact with pt's very early so they can get used to it and become more proficient as time goes on and their knowledge increases.



I will definitely agree with that. We started working with our standardized patients the second week of school and have already had 4 patient encounters with them. The objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE. For example, our first OSCE 20 minutes to conduct a full medical history and review of systems with a 7 minute follow up period to add/adjust our subjective note on it)  makes up the vast majority of our grade for Introduction to Clinical Medicine.


----------



## daedalus (Oct 20, 2009)

triemal04 said:


> The only one mentioning "skills" here is you.  Forget skills.  Ignore them for a minute if you can.  (or ignore me, don't care which)  I can't speak for atkinsje, but what I'm talking about is the ability to apply what you learned in class to the physical reality of pt care; to be able to interact with a pt and be able to communicate with them, ask the appropriate questions/test the right things at the right time, interpret the answers/results and then formulate and act on a course of treatment, as well as interpret the results to that treatment, the problems that occur from it, know what to do when things don't work, or you can't do them and so on.  The ability to do that takes time to learn, and while having multiple pre-reqs before entering into the actual paramedic courses (or medical school, or nursing school or whatever) will help you understand what you are learning, it won't necessarily help you apply that knowledge in the field, or be a good indicator as to if you CAN apply that knowledge.
> 
> That's where the dilemma is.  Should pre-reqs be required?  Absolutely without a doubt.  But, right now, in the vast majority of cases, there isn't a system in place to judge how someone will work in the field, OR a system to help them correct their deficiencies; I do believe another posted here was recently dropped from his internship because of that.  There needs to be some set way to help people overcome problems they encounter, and/or determine if they are suited for this profession.  If not, many people who otherwise would be good providers won't make it because they can't figure out a way to translate the classroom into the field.  It is unfortunately an aspect of our education that is sadly overlooked and underappreciated.
> 
> As far as the rest...don't worry.  Anyone reading this thread is very much getting an education.  Just not in what you want them to.  Doesn't make it any less valuable though.  Alike a face to face conversation, people won't always follow your narrow rules about what you think can and can't be said.  Doesn't make things any less valid though.


I am not for limited exchange of ideas or "my way or the highway". I just think that it is possible to have a serious discussion on the internet about the education of prehospital providers. 

I am also not saying you are absolutely wrong. I believe there is clinical value in biology and chemistry classes, psychology and stats and the like. I would not be taking said classes if I did not believe it. One of the big reasons I even want to go to medical school is because I feel like I am missing the big foundation of a broad education in the basic sciences.

However, one should not think that just because they have read an entire organic chemistry book that they will be able to provide quality patient care.


----------



## triemal04 (Oct 21, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> I will definitely agree with that. We started working with our standardized patients the second week of school and have already had 4 patient encounters with them. The objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE. For example, our first OSCE 20 minutes to conduct a full medical history and review of systems with a 7 minute follow up period to add/adjust our subjective note on it)  makes up the vast majority of our grade for Introduction to Clinical Medicine.


Cool.  As long as there's meaningful feedback and the instructor is able to help those who are struggling, then that's a good way to go about doing it.  Perhaps paramedic schools should take another clue and get their act together...


daedalus said:


> However, one should not think that just because they have read an entire organic chemistry book that they will be able to provide quality patient care.


So...then you do agree that all the pre-req's in the world won't be the only deciding factor in if someone becomes a good provider?  That's been the only point started by that nice "lowly" basic a couple pages back and added onto by myself and others; having to take multiple pre-req's is GOOD, but there is more to becoming a good paramedic/whatever (much, much more) than that.  Personal motivation, retention, communication skills, ability to think/function under duress, etc etc and ad infinitum all matter.  Point being, that just because a particular school does or doesn't do something does not automatically mean that someone will be a great, or lousy paramedic.


----------



## JPINFV (Oct 21, 2009)

triemal04 said:


> Cool.  As long as there's meaningful feedback and the instructor is able to help those who are struggling, then that's a good way to go about doing it.  Perhaps paramedic schools should take another clue and get their act together...



Yea. Outside of the OSCEs, the standardized patient gives feedback as well as a facilitator that watches the interaction (interview, or physical, or what ever else we're doing) on closed circuit TV.


----------



## Dwindlin (Oct 21, 2009)

Too many responses to quote them all so if my responses seem disjointed my bad.

Overall I think there should much more emphasis placed on patient contact prior to beginning any schooling in medical sciences (including med school).  When you talk about 3rd years catching up, thats not what I meant.  Yes, thats the case for many, but for some (on average between 5 - 10% of the class will fail/tank 3rd and 4th year) they never get to a point they can apply everything they were taught in the 1st 2 years (This differs at some programs, mine however is the standard 2 year pre-clin, 2 year clinical).  

Also to speak more broadly about the pre-recs you mentioned.  In my experience (which for those of you that don't know I am currently a medical student, and in getting there I managed to earn an A.S., two B.S. and a M.S. so I have some experience in the classroom) the most relavent and useful class you mentioned as a pre-req was stats.  Exactally for the reason you mentioned.  The rest of them you mentioned will be of little to no value in and of themselves.  

Intro bio will teach you almost nothing useful (intro bio will cover no topic in the detail necessary to acurately apply to human physio), gen chem same deal (I got no directly relatable chemistry until I took a 400 level Biochem course).  I suppose O-chem is arguable, however for those who think your going to walk away with an understanding of pharmocology I wouldn't hold your breath.  Most UG Ochem programs are focused on very, very basic knowledge of functional group chemistry only thing I got out of it was a slightly better understanding of nomeclature (ie. I could picture better what the drug actually looked like, not much help practically).  Physics I meantioned in another thread but I'll mention it here.  Useless.  Unless you want to be a radiologist, even then you really only need to understand magnetism and some nuclear physics.  I've heard the argument about understanding forces when dealing with MOI but honestly when's the last time you saw a trauma surgeon calculating and resolving forces involved in an accident?

Now do I think pre-req's are unecessary? No.  Being able to gauge whether someone has the ability to make it through the curriculum is important (which no matter what anyone tells you I assure you that's all pre-med pre-reqs are for, once in medical school you won't need hardly any of it).  However, I don't think increasing the difficulty or amount of pre-req's makes a better clinician.  Makes a better student? Absolutely.  But again, hang around long enough and you'll find those people have all the book smarts in the world, but for some reason can't ever make the adjustment to applying it.

Edit: Ok my edit tag is a little lie because I'm adding this.  Even at the medical school level I don't know how many times I've already heard "You won't learn any real medicine until you get to the wards..."  Which to just add to my points experience in our business is king.  I don't care how much education you have, chances are there is someone with less education, and more experience who can still mop the floor with you as a provider.


----------



## daedalus (Oct 21, 2009)

You make some great points (by the way, I never refer to basics as "lowly"). However, at this point in time paramedics are required to have *no* knowledge of chemistry or biology. I can think of two things that would have helped some class mates of mine in medic school if they had taken these things: cellular metabolism in bio and the chemistry of solutions in general chemistry. Some people had to learn that for the first time and when the physiology of shock and concepts in fluid administration comes up, they become important. 

There is also the issue of clinical experience. Yes, real patient experience "on the wards" is king. This works well for medical students because on the wards there are attending and residents and highly educated RNs and allied staff to learn from. In the field, you may be learning from another tech school grad. There needs to be better standards in EMS, for both basics and medics. I only push this so we can all provide better care for our patients and so we can all feel a little more proud of our education.


----------



## JPINFV (Oct 21, 2009)

atkinsje said:


> Exactally for the reason you mentioned.  The rest of them you mentioned will be of little to no value in and of themselves.
> 
> Intro bio will teach you almost nothing useful (intro bio will cover no topic in the detail necessary to acurately apply to human physio), gen chem same deal (I got no directly relatable chemistry until I took a 400 level Biochem course).  I suppose O-chem is arguable, however for those who think your going to walk away with an understanding of pharmocology I wouldn't hold your breath.  Most UG Ochem programs are focused on very, very basic knowledge of functional group chemistry only thing I got out of it was a slightly better understanding of nomeclature (ie. I could picture better what the drug actually looked like, not much help practically).  Physics I meantioned in another thread but I'll mention it here.  Useless.  Unless you want to be a radiologist, even then you really only need to understand magnetism and some nuclear physics.  I've heard the argument about understanding forces when dealing with MOI but honestly when's the last time you saw a trauma surgeon calculating and resolving forces involved in an accident?


I'd argue that O Chem is a relatively useless class, hence I didn't mention it at all (and I did much better in O Chem than G Chem). However, between discussions on forums and when doing my SMP, the concepts covered in G Chem was extremely useful. The thing is with most of these courses is that you don't necessarily connect what you're applying to the actual course you learned it in. If you're in a physiology course talking about synaptic clefts, then the concepts regarding receptor activation and destruction of neurotransmitters really comes back to what is learned regarding enzyme dynamics in G Chem. Same thing with, say, glucose transporters, diabetes, and glucose in the urine (clinical correlate from G Chem). 

As far as the trauma surgeon calculating, why would he need to? He doesn't need a hard number, just an understanding of the concepts involved. 



> Edit: Ok my edit tag is a little lie because I'm adding this.  Even at the medical school level I don't know how many times I've already heard "You won't learn any real medicine until you get to the wards..."  Which to just add to my points experience in our business is king.  I don't care how much education you have, chances are there is someone with less education, and more experience who can still mop the floor with you as a provider.



Yea... I actually haven't heard that at all. Maybe it'll change when we start getting into the systems, but I'd be more than willing to bet that the trauma surgeon who is one of the faculty facilitators for gross anatomy lab would disagree that we aren't learning "real medicine" yet. Similarly, I highly doubt that the people running the standardized patient program thinks that what their teaching isn't "real medicine" either.


----------



## triemal04 (Oct 23, 2009)

daedalus said:


> You make some great points (by the way, I never refer to basics as "lowly"). However, at this point in time paramedics are required to have *no* knowledge of chemistry or biology. I can think of two things that would have helped some class mates of mine in medic school if they had taken these things: cellular metabolism in bio and the chemistry of solutions in general chemistry. Some people had to learn that for the first time and when the physiology of shock and concepts in fluid administration comes up, they become important.
> 
> There is also the issue of clinical experience. Yes, real patient experience "on the wards" is king. This works well for medical students because on the wards there are attending and residents and highly educated RNs and allied staff to learn from. In the field, you may be learning from another tech school grad. There needs to be better standards in EMS, for both basics and medics. I only push this so we can all provide better care for our patients and so we can all feel a little more proud of our education.


Actually, as has been said, a general chem and bio class will do exactly squat for someone in the paramedic class; having taken both I'm speaking from experience and that of my classmates and many others.  What WILL help is a full A&P series, and therein is part of the problem; a pre-req is only good if it's applicable to the class.  Yes, some will always be "filler" if you are going for a degree, but if the emphasis is placed on courses that don't matter...see where I'm going with this?

For the rest...yep...everyone goes to a tech school and doesn't know anything...just like every resident helping an intern and every attending helping both knows everything and is king of all and an excellent teacher.  Can I stop the sarcasm now?  Stop falling into the trap of thinking that every OTHER profession is perfect and without fault; that isn't the case.  That's not to say that some don't do things better than us (they often do).


----------



## daedalus (Oct 23, 2009)

An over riding theme of my posting in this thread is that educated people are far less likely to teach bad medicine. You are putting words in my mouth if you think that I said that every tech school grad is stupid, or that every tech school grad who teaches future paramedics will turn them into the pulp of bad paramedicine. Similarly, I do not believe just because somebody has taken a full body of science classes, that they will be automatically better than somebody who has not. I am able to think for myself and will not fall into traps of thinking that every other health profession is automatically better. 

What I mean is that people who understand the sciences behind what they are practicing and teaching will be better paramedics and better paramedic preceptors/teachers. I really believe this. I did not used to believe it, but now I do. And, I also disagree with your assessment that college level general chemistry and biology is useless. I have also taken these classes. I have taken them as pre-reqs to get into general anatomy/histology and a human physio class and I took them as pre-reqs to medical school. While I may not be a medical student (yet), I have taken most of the classes required and I am able to apply them even to paramedic education. 

I will agree that human anatomy and physiology has been far more useful for me, however crack open any A&P book and the first few chapters are reviews of chemistry and cell biology/genetics.


----------



## triemal04 (Oct 23, 2009)

daedalus said:


> An over riding theme of my posting in this thread is that educated people are far less likely to teach bad medicine. You are putting words in my mouth if you think that I said that every tech school grad is stupid, or that every tech school grad who teaches future paramedics will turn them into the pulp of bad paramedicine. Similarly, I do not believe just because somebody has taken a full body of science classes, that they will be automatically better than somebody who has not. I am able to think for myself and will not fall into traps of thinking that every other health profession is automatically better.
> 
> What I mean is that people who understand the sciences behind what they are practicing and teaching will be better paramedics and better paramedic preceptors/teachers. I really believe this. I did not used to believe it, but now I do. And, I also disagree with your assessment that college level general chemistry and biology is useless. I have also taken these classes. I have taken them as pre-reqs to get into general anatomy/histology and a human physio class and I took them as pre-reqs to medical school. While I may not be a medical student (yet), I have taken most of the classes required and I am able to apply them even to paramedic education.
> 
> I will agree that human anatomy and physiology has been far more useful for me, however crack open any A&P book and the first few chapters are reviews of chemistry and cell biology/genetics.


So then what did you mean by "*This works well for medical students because on the wards there are attending and residents and highly educated RNs and allied staff to learn from. In the field, you may be learning from another tech school grad.*"  Because that would appear to be you saying that having a "tech school grad" as a preceptor would lead to a poor experience.  Or by saying "*It really is my opinion that someone with education in the basic medical sciences will be a far better provider than someone who is trained in the field with street smarts*."  Kind of contradicts what you just said above doesn't it?  I mean, you did it in this post; look at the the first 2 paragraph's!  You openly contradict yourself! What you mean comes across very clearely; you say it again and again in multiple places.  Dear god...


----------



## daedalus (Oct 23, 2009)

triemal04 said:


> So then what did you mean by "*This works well for medical students because on the wards there are attending and residents and highly educated RNs and allied staff to learn from. In the field, you may be learning from another tech school grad.*"  Because that would appear to be you saying that having a "tech school grad" as a preceptor would lead to a poor experience.  Or by saying "*It really is my opinion that someone with education in the basic medical sciences will be a far better provider than someone who is trained in the field with street smarts*."  Kind of contradicts what you just said above doesn't it?  I mean, you did it in this post; look at the the first 2 paragraph's!  You openly contradict yourself! What you mean comes across very clearely; you say it again and again in multiple places.  Dear god...


_
"This works well for medical students because on the wards there are attending and residents and highly educated RNs and allied staff to learn from. In the field, you may be learning from another tech school grad"_

Where did I say this student is automatically disadvantaged? I didn't.
They are much more likely to be disadvantaged, in my opinion. But they are not, and I did not say they are, automatically worse off. 
_
"It really is my opinion that someone with education in the basic medical sciences will be a far better provider than someone who is trained in the field with street smarts"_

This is my opinion, and to every rule there are exceptions. 

Now, can we cut the crud? Instead of picking apart my posts, you could have recognized that for the most part, I am not steadfastly saying you are wrong. I think there is middle ground. You offer another view on the topic, which I am, and other readers are, benefited by. 

I really doubt that you believe that the standards for paramedic education, the way they are right now, cannot be improved.


----------



## triemal04 (Oct 23, 2009)

daedalus said:


> _
> "This works well for medical students because on the wards there are attending and residents and highly educated RNs and allied staff to learn from. In the field, you may be learning from another tech school grad"_
> 
> Where did I say this student is automatically disadvantaged? I didn't.
> ...


Oh dear god no, I don't believe that at all; the educational standards for paramedics need a huge amount of improvement to reach an appropriate level; don't take what I'm saying to mean otherwise in the least.

What I *am* saying is that your attitude statements are, often, silly, ignorant, and contradict themselves.  And it get's really old hearing the same statements over and over when it's fairly clear that you aren't contemplating the entire picture, or even understand it.


daedalus said:


> You are putting words in my mouth if you think that I said that every tech school grad is stupid, or that every tech school grad who teaches future paramedics will turn them into the pulp of bad paramedicine.





daedalus said:


> There is also the issue of clinical experience. Yes, real patient experience "on the wards" is king. This works well for medical students because on the wards there are attending and residents and highly educated RNs and allied staff to learn from. In the field, you may be learning from another tech school grad.


So...really, what exactly did you mean by that?  Explain in detail, because you seem to be backtracking in your last post.  It's pretty clear that you feel the preceptor, as a "tech school" grad would not be able to do an adequate job and thus put the preceptee at a disadvantage.


daedalus said:


> Similarly, I do not believe just because somebody has taken a full body of science classes, that they will be automatically better than somebody who has not.





daedalus said:


> It really is my opinion that someone with education in the basic medical sciences will be a far better provider than someone who is trained in the field with street smarts.


So wait...taking lot's of extra classes doesn't make someone a better medic...but wait...yes it does.  Hmmm...

Perhaps start thinking about what it is you are saying.


----------



## Dwindlin (Oct 23, 2009)

daedalus said:


> While I may not be a medical student (yet), I have taken most of the classes required and I am able to apply them even to paramedic education.



I found Bio/Chem useless for medic school, and were extra useless in M1.

Only classes from UG that helped me at all were Biochem, and some...like miniscule amount of O-chem, and A&P


----------



## daedalus (Oct 23, 2009)

> So wait...taking lot's of extra classes doesn't make someone a better medic...but wait...yes it does. Hmmm...
> 
> Perhaps start thinking about what it is you are saying.


You can understand the concept that poor medics can come from any type of program. I believe that a lot fewer poor medics come from programs requiring a science background. Those two concepts can exist together and be valid. I am not contradicting myself. 

My background and the state of EMS in my geographic area:

I am in Southern California, and a very large number of people in paramedic schools are in paramedic school to boast their chances of getting picked up by the Fire Department. Most of my friends in EMS are looking to go to the Fire Departments, and openly admit that if they could get away with only going to EMT school along with the Fire Academy, they would skip medic school. Now, I leave that to others to decide if that is a good or bad thing for medics and medic students to have an outlook like that. Personally, I think being a paramedic entails quite a bit of responsibility and one should have a drive to enter and do well in a paramedic program. The Fire Service is a noble career and those guys work hard to get picked up by departments. Between the CPAT, FF Academy, Fire science degree, EMT school, and Paramedic School, they have a lot on their plate. Very few of the fire bound guys (fire bound guys make up the majority of so cal paramedic students) opt for the degree option for paramedicine. It is easy to see why. They prefer the tech schools to get their medic out of the way so they can quickly continue to pursue employment as a firefighter. 

So, I find that others who opt to pursue the degree option (which requires college coursework, of course) are much more interested in just being a paramedic. These programs are generally more academically rigorous because of the expanded list of courses you must take, and generally have accesses to better resources (better hospital affiliations, access to financial aid, college libraries, counseling, anatomy labs, etc) and are cheaper than tech schools because the California Community College System sets limits on price per academic unit. 

I prefer to be in the company of people who want to talk about field medicine in class, and not hoses and engines (nothing wrong with that, not my thing). I prefer to get a college degree with the completion of my paramedic education.  

Straight up, I believe that community college degree programs better prepare future paramedics. I am sure there are great paramedics from tech schools, and some poor paramedics from college programs. I believe that the college programs turn out a higher ratio of competent medics than the tech schools. I would also rather be precepted by someone with a college degree in the field they are teaching me. You do not have to agree with me, I keep an open mind and I subscribe to no dogma. If I find out that the real world does not match these beliefs, I will change them. 

Comparing medical students on rotations and paramedic interns was a bad comparison. I probably should have thought that one out better. My preference is to have access to preceptors who went though the degree programs because that guarantees that they had anatomy and physiology at the very least. As I said earlier, NCTI only requires their 5 day A&P course, and Daniel Freeman along with most tech schools do not require any A&P. 

A college program at least guarantees that somebody sat through a A&P class, where as other programs cannot say the same thing.


----------



## triemal04 (Oct 23, 2009)

Daedalus-

This whole discussion and your answers have become ridiculous.  As it pertains to this topic, where you are from does not matter one tiny bit...nobody cares, and all you are doing is displaying just how big the chip on your shoulder is.  You have contradicted yourself repeatedly in this thread, that becomes clearer with every post as *you continue to do it.*   I don't know if I can say it any plainer than that.  

Have your opinion.  Stand up for your opinion.  Back up your opinion with *facts and accurate information* not rumor, speculation, experiences that represent a infinitesimally small slice of EMS, conjecture and rhetoric.  And for f's sake...stop saying one thing and then almost immediately the exact opposite.  Lose the attitude while you're at it.

That's all I'm saying.


----------



## daedalus (Oct 23, 2009)

triemal04 said:


> Daedalus-
> 
> This whole discussion and your answers have become ridiculous.  As it pertains to this topic, where you are from does not matter one tiny bit...nobody cares, and all you are doing is displaying just how big the chip on your shoulder is.  You have contradicted yourself repeatedly in this thread, that becomes clearer with every post as *you continue to do it.*   I don't know if I can say it any plainer than that.
> 
> ...


I was looking forward to hearing your ideas on how paramedic education could be changed, since you do not agree with my approach. It seems you are going down a different path. I have tried to explain my side to you and yo took it the wrong way from the beginning, so I have had to explain it to you a different way which you now seem to think I am flip flopping.

I cannot think on how else to make it clear to you that I believe that paramedic programs requiring a set of pre-requisite science classes will produce better prepared paramedics on average than a tech school that requires no pre-requisite classes. 

I cannot think on how else to make it clear to you that I concede to the fact that poor paramedics can be produced in a college degree paramedic program, and good paramedics can come from tech/trade programs *however, the school with a stronger pre-requisite program will produce less poor paramedics than a tech school.
*This is my opinion, I have had it since the beginning of this thread.

And I also ask, while I do not have data to support my opinion, can you provide data to back your statements? 

I would much rather a productive debate about what we can do to educate better paramedics. So, if you will, re-read this post, and assume that this has been what I have been trying to tell you since the beginning. I want to know how you would do things differently.

(By the way, my philosophy on life is that people's thoughts, opinions, values, and beliefs are based on the sum of their experiences in life. The reason I explained to you where I live and what EMS is like around here is to give you the background to see what I see. I am not so ignorant to believe things are done like this everywhere, however my experiences have given me the belief that single role paramedic systems are superior to fire based. This is not a knock an FFs, who I have a deep respect for)


----------



## daedalus (Oct 24, 2009)

> "It really is my opinion that someone with education in the basic medical sciences will be a far better provider than someone who is trained in the field with street smarts."



There may be a misunderstanding. At this point, when I refer to basic medical science, I am speaking of A&P, pharmacology, and pathophys. I am not sure about other areas, by a local college offers these classes and by pre-reqs, I am speaking about taking at least A&P. 
(as an aside, A&P requires gen. bio. and gen. chem. to get into at a local community college. May or may not be the same other places).

I still genuinely believe there must be a misunderstanding, and as I said above I am hoping you will enlighten me as to what your opinions are.


----------



## AnthonyM83 (Jan 12, 2010)

daedalus said:


> I find it funny that they are looking into making Freeman actually apply towards college credit, but the UCLA itself will not offer it. It will be through the Westwood college (which has just been sued for offering junk degrees).
> 
> Also, the program itself is not even on the UCLA campus, it is in the ghetto in Inglewood. The hospital it used to be affiliated with is now shut down.
> 
> I love when people spout off to me that Daniel Freeman is the best paramedic school. Actually, my school _required_ anatomy and physiology before entering, and the big bad UCLA Daniel Freeman does not. My school offers college credit and can apply towards an Associates degree in Paramedic Studies. Daniel Freeman does not. My school is also much cheaper.



Daniel Freeman has a strong reputation and lengthier application than most schools I've heard of in Southern California for private students. While A&P is not required, it makes you a stronger applicant. There is also a personal statement. EMT entrance exam. Basic HOBBET exam. Panel interview. And required references from employers, coworkers, and academic instructors. Their packet seems similar to my college application packet.

While I can't say whether that makes it better or worse than other schools, it is impressive that they make their applicants work for their spot. I have coworkers who have changed their mind on applying when they realized the application process. If anything, I think that weeds out for motivation, which isn't everything, but does make a difference when academics or field internship gets tough (people have different strengths & weaknesses).

For reference, I recently checked and they do offer college credit through the local community college. They are a part of UCLA, but not to subject all the same rules, regulations, and not integrated with the regular campus, so can't get UCLA credit.

It is in Inglewood, so they could be right next to their affiliated hospital, but that shut down 2-3 years ago. They have kept the building. Most people know it's not in Westwood, though. Bringing this up as a negative makes me feel like you're reaching to find negatives. I'm all for criticisms of different programs, but again sounds like reaching, especially when you compare your school right after.

I do know they have some big names in EMS as their instructors. This doesn't make them good educators by itself, but there must be something drawing them to that school (and it's not the money). They have worked in different systems are familiar with newest trends in EMS and in education. I know they have regular meetings on educational techniques. While located in Los Angeles, they teach a more national scope, as students are allowed to practice wider scope by their medical director while in hospital clinicals, including RSI. I'm sure this is what most schools do, but making the point that it's not just LA County training.

Also, from speaking to several people who have attended more than one paramedic school before (for various reasons), they have all been impressed with the time commitment the full-time instructors put into the students. I've been told many schools offer to go the extra mile for students, but comparatively they go above and beyond. I put a lot of value in the words of people who been to more than one medic school. While they might have not finished for various reasons (disease, being hired onto a FD during school, failed internship), their comments about the school's support, teaching style, and intelligence is still valid.




triemal04 said:


> Actually, as has been said, a general chem and bio class will do exactly squat for someone in the paramedic class; having taken both I'm speaking from experience and that of my classmates and many others.



I acknowledge that you said it was in your experience. To offer a different view, in my experience it helped tremendously to immediately grasp many of the biological concepts and instead spend my type studying some of the harder concepts. Chemistry came in handy during pharmacology and toxicology when discussing equilibrium shifts and following the chemical reactions on the board. In fact, I'd say it was invaluable.


----------



## JPINFV (Jan 12, 2010)

I think another issue with UCLA having an AS degree paramedic program is that I'm not entirely sure if UCs are empowered to grant associate degrees. To the best of my knowledge, there are no associate level degrees granted by UC Irvine, even counting university extension courses/programs. However, UCLA might be able to give credit through  their university extension office.


----------



## MrBrown (Jan 12, 2010)

Oh dear looks like I started quite the ker-fuffle 

My friend went to Bakersfield CC which he said was a cookbook whacker mill, heck my bad


----------



## triemal04 (Jan 13, 2010)

AnthonyM83 said:


> I acknowledge that you said it was in your experience. To offer a different view, in my experience it helped tremendously to immediately grasp many of the biological concepts and instead spend my type studying some of the harder concepts. Chemistry came in handy during pharmacology and toxicology when discussing equilibrium shifts and following the chemical reactions on the board. In fact, I'd say it was invaluable.


Sorry, but you should have kept reading; might have helped you to not misunderstand what I said.  Allow me to clarify.

If all you take is a general chem and bio class to prepare for/gain entrance to a paramedic class then yes, I agree they will be worthwhile since some of the info is applicable.  But, there are much better classes to take that offer that same information, cover it in much greater detail, and provide more info as well.  For me, after taking a year of A&P the chem and bio classes didn't matter because the applicable material had been covered again and then expanded on.  It doesn't matter what class you get the information from as long as you get it, but some offer much more than others.  Clear?


----------



## AnthonyM83 (Jan 13, 2010)

triemal04 said:


> Sorry, but you should have kept reading; might have helped you to not misunderstand what I said.  Allow me to clarify.
> 
> If all you take is a general chem and bio class to prepare for/gain entrance to a paramedic class then yes, I agree they will be worthwhile since some of the info is applicable.  But, there are much better classes to take that offer that same information, cover it in much greater detail, and provide more info as well.  For me, after taking a year of A&P the chem and bio classes didn't matter because the applicable material had been covered again and then expanded on.  It doesn't matter what class you get the information from as long as you get it, but some offer much more than others.  Clear?



I see what you're saying.
I did read what you originally wrote though. Despite it, your phrase that chem and bio meant "squat" made me feel it warranted addressing.


----------



## MrBrown (Jan 13, 2010)

You know the funniest thing I heard it was where LACoFD send thier people, hmmmmmmm I must have been mis-informed


----------



## AnthonyM83 (Jan 14, 2010)

It's one of two schools LACoFD sends their FF's (they skip the aforementioned application process). The two schools are like opposites. Of course, many who are forced to attend will do the bare minimum ("80% is an A" mentality).

Also, since the school can't very well flunk most of the FF's being sent there and remain in business (sad truth), standards can't be raised that much. But much effort is made to get the FF's to at least meet those minimum standards.


----------

