I think you have many good points, but I would like to respond to some with my perspective.
I feel that one of the reasons that many regulatory bodies have is the aspect of the online classroom and learning environment with little to no in person contact.
I think the big question is how much does that person to person contact make a difference in mentoring and the hard to measure personal guidance and universal professional development/networking make a difference?
For example, while going to school I meet many new people, my horizons are broadened, beliefs challenged, I have met life long contacts, a few friends, etc. But when I apply for that job I can reminice about also having professor X. They understand that his class was damn near impossible compared to similar classes in other places. Even if they don't like me, I get recognition for my efforts. Not to mention real recommendations.
Take your online class, you might get a grade, but a lot of the things you can use to differentiate yourself from the 10,000 other applicants is the cost. Some will find it worth it, some will not.
As I am currently attending college for the second time things are very different now as opposed to what they were almost 20 years ago. Then you had to show up for class, email was just a novelty and most professors would not let you tape record their lectures. Now attendance to most lectures is optional and the professor will not only let you record the lecture they will normally email the whole thing to the students complete with audio and video synced to relevant Power Points. I have also seen a TA come to class for a lecture and essentially hit 'play' and the so called lecture will be displayed on a screen in absence of the professor. Although this is a accredited brick and motor school that I attend (I have seen this at two local state universities as well) what is the difference of being in a classroom to watch a screen as opposed to doing in the comfort of you own home?
Just because it can be done this way, and probably benefits the professor, does it benefit the student? It is hard to form relationships from a video. Maybe not important for an undergrad, but certainly important for grad applications, thesis or dissertation work, etc.
For many their only option is the non-traditional online classroom so they can attend their lectures at 1400 or 0200 to get them into their schedule. I have done several online courses through the local universities and many times they take more work and you have to be more disciplined in order to pass your proctored exams. With today's primary and secondary schools moving to computers on every students desk at what point does the classroom turn into daycare, the teacher to attendant, and the possible learning take place only on the computer?
With the first part I can sympathize. However, with the proctored exams I cannot. Some of the things the US seems to be very entralled with is replacing people with complex roles with simple technologies and standardized testing.
When you look comparitively at education of all levels, the US falls behind by a significant margin in primary and secondary education and despite the propaganda and advertizing, seems to be importing more and more of its high end scientists and educators from abroad. The only logical conclusion is that they cannot produce such quality themselves. So your, English, German, Indian, or Japanese PhD (or any level graduate) may be well more capable than somebody with the same degree from an American university.
I saw a number a few years ago that stated 35% of all upper educated workers in the US were born and educated abroad and hired by US companies. NOw let's say that number is even 1/2 right, since I honestly don't even remember where I saw that at. 17% is almost 1 in 5. That should speak volumes.
As for the clinical requirements I do think exam or otherwise there should be a minimum of hours that every student should have to perform in the health field at the initial levels. Do I think a RN going from a ASN to BSN degree should have to complete clinicals, to a point yes, but it should be minimal. For example my wife is currently a ASN ICU RN with a with a number of years experience at the critical care level, her employer was pushing for her to get her BSN, which we checked into. It was not the cost of the classes which we found disturbing it was the fact that most programs wanted 1200+ hours of clinicals. On the surface this does not sound like a bad thing but think of the loss of income. The hospital wants a free ICU nurse for 1200 hours about (think $40,000 in salary, or $60,000 due to overtime because that would be in addition to her normal shifts) in exchange for a BSN my wife would make an extra $1.00, yes one dollar an hour in for the BSN degree. Who here is benefiting from the BSN other than the patients? When you calculate the cost of tuition and the loss of income the return on investment would be greater than 10 years! The point I am trying to make is no matter what your situation you must earn a return on investment for furthering your education, else what is the point.
When I first started traveling abroad the flaw in this thinking became clear. "What's in it for me?" is not only job security, becase why pay a US trained nurse with a 2 year degree 60K when you could pay a nurse trained in the Phillipines with a 4 year degree 30K?
Healthcare may not be outsourcable, but healthcare education certainly is. 25% of all US physicians are trained abroad. While there has been some marginal increases in US schools and class size, residencies have not substantially increased, which means sooner or later there will be a bottleneck or collapse. People won't be able to see a doctor because there are not enough, and when that happens they will settle for lesser care and education from a plethor of "mid level" providers at a lower cost. The earnings of a US trained physician will not make the schooling attractive and more and more will decide medical school isn't worth it, furhter reducing supply.
But that aside, education promises mobility and distinction. Why hire somebody with a 2 year degree when there are so many with 4? The employer is getting more. What happens if you are forced to relocate or a hospital is merged?
You may have 20 years on the job. Who wants to hire that person at 3-4x a person with 1-2 years experience? What is worse, how do you demonstrate you actually care about your job and are not just in a "do the minimm rut" aside from constant advancement?
We all decry the individuals who don't continue their education but at the same time what they do makes financial sense if there is no return on investment other than more alphabet soup, minutely more job security, massive debt, and loss of income while attending school.
But what is the financial payoff? Is there one?
again, marketability and portability. Let's say healthcare spending is slashed in the US 10%. (modest compared to what it will likely be) 20 years bedside care at a premium price employee might be cut first. Without the advanced education, management or other lateral positions might not be available. You just went from making 40K a year to 0 and are not competative in the market place. Now you have that same debt and time loss with no income to even get back into the game. Just as bad, what if you are not competative elsewhere and you are stuck where you are? What if you have to sell a hose at a loss, or pull family to a location that severely impacts the standard of living or opportunities for children in order to maintain employment?
How do you get career satisfaction when you cannot compete for positions with better employers? Does it take a toll at home or personal life? What is that worth in dollars?
My point being education will continue to evolve, we may not like it but it will, it has been and shall always be the student that makes the difference in any class no matter whether it be Paramedic, RN, or MD;
Yes and no. The student plays a vital role, but I have noticed most students only rise to the minimum they are required. Surely there are exceptions, but at what point is the minimum too low?
at our level the instructor is only a guide, facilitator, and to point out our weaknesses via exams so that we may further our studies in the areas that we are weak.
Until a person reaches the graduate level, I find that to be largely untrue. Just my experience. In all the textbooks I saw prior to the 3rd year of my medical education, they presented absolute facts. Now my texts books say things like: "We don't really know why, these theories have been postulated, you must decide for yourself." How many RN or paramedic texts have you seen like that? I have seen no paramedic text with such things.
Like it or otherwise I see the computer taking the place of the facilitator in our lifetime, it will be up to the students to make the most of what technology will offer.
That is certainly the case, but at what point does technology fail the student?
How does the student realize the technology is holding them back if they know nothing else?
Just some things to consider.
), merely curious.
