Richard, sadly I don't have time to consider this discussion as I have to
dash off to a meeting and then the University closes for 10 days
I will try to respond in the new year, but I suspect the answer is no!
Happy Christmas
> ----------
> From: Richard Bolton[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To: - for physiotherapists in education and practice
> Sent: 21 December 2001 11:30
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Fast Track Physiotherapy Courses
>
> Thanks Marion.
>
> All you have outlined is well and good. But you have not addressed the
> actual issue of INTERNATIONAL recognition of these fast track courses. I
> have acknowledged that they give recognition in their local countries,
> such as that from the CPSM, but do they gain any cross-border recognition?
> This is my point.
>
> As a graduate from Sydney University (now a four year course and very
> intense at that) I cannot see how any the governing board in Australian
> could accept a two year qualification? I must state that I am not against
> these types of courses, in fact I believe they should be marketed to
> individuals who have studied Physiotherapy to a lesser level in developing
> nations (economic or professionally) so that they may achieve an
> international standard.
>
> Can you let us know if you know of any short course that is
> internationally accepted through the usual processes. This I would love to
> know as well as I will refer hundreds of inquiries we get a year to that
> institution.
>
>
> cheers
>
>
> richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I have a feeling that Richard may not be in full possession of the
> facts
> relating to these 'fast track', or 'accelerated' courses and as a
> consequence he may have come to a flawed conclusion.
>
> I can only speak for those courses with which I am familiar, but in
> the UK
> the accelerated courses in physiotherapy and occupational therapy
> are
> normally run over two calendar years not two academic years. Thus if
> you
> compare the number of hours a student is required to spend studying
> on a
> standard undergraduate course with those spent on an accelerated
> course they
> are virtually the same. This means that the students on the
> accelerated
> courses cover the same curriculum and undertake the same length of
> clinical
> education as those on standard undergraduate courses. The difference
> is that
> the students don't get long holidays and must be able to cope with
> intensive
> continuous study.
>
> As these accelerated courses all require that the entrants hold a
> first
> degree (usually 2:1 or above) it means that the students are well
> versed in
> higher education and the theory goes that they should require no
> induction
> into IT, use of learning resources, study skills, essay writing,
> research
> methods etc. etc. They should therefore have the potential to
> progress
> faster through the areas prescribed in the national curriculum and
> to take
> many of these areas to a higher level than their compatriots
> studying on an
> undergraduate course. For this reason the award of a Masters degree
> is seen
> appropriate.
>
> I have had the opportunity and privilege over the last 7 years to
> observe
> closely a number of these courses in both occupational therapy and
> physiotherapy. I was initially sceptical about whether they would
> produce
> graduates equal to or more advanced than those coming through a
> 'standard'
> route. I now feel I have evidence that the graduates from the
> accelerated
> courses are equal to their undergraduate counterparts in terms of
> the
> delivery of skills and clinical work and that their academic
> understanding
> of their profession shows a depth and maturity beyond that of other
> students.
>
> It would be inappropriate and unethical for any statutory body to
> refuse to
> consider these graduates for registration in the same way that they
> consider
> other UK professional graduates. The evidence exists that the
> students who
> study on an accelerated course in the UK have fulfilled all the
> criteria set
> out by the professional and statutory bodies (PSB's). These
> accelerated
> courses all have to be approved by the PSB's and re-approved on a
> regular
> basis. They are scrutinised annually by people such as myself and
> they would
> not be allowed to continue if they were not achieving nationally
> approved
> standards.
>
> This may explain why I feel Richard has not been in receipt of all
> the
> facts. The universities offering accelerated courses approved by the
> PSB's
> are justified in marketing their courses as leading to state
> registration
> and the general public may rest assured that the quality control and
>
> standards of these courses is equal to that of other approved
> courses in the
> UK. There is certainly no mal-practice or misleading information. I
> have
> talked to a number of qualified staff who have employed graduates
> from such
> courses and I can report that they told me that they were very happy
> with
> these staff and were keen to recruit more.
>
> However Richard does make an interesting point that currently the
> accelerated courses do not normally accept overseas students whose
> professional education does not render them eligible for state
> registration
> in the UK. The reason the entry requirement for these courses is a
> first
> degree is so that the students come well versed in how to study to a
> higher
> level and they can therefore start their education at an intensity
> that less
> experienced students would find difficult. They also bring advanced
> knowledge in related subjects. It would be interesting to consider
> if
> colleagues from abroad could cope well with such a course, if they
> could ,
> there would be no reason to exclude them.
>
> Happy Christmas
>
> Marion Trew
> University of Brighton.
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
