Proposal for Doctorates in Physical Therapy - Oakland University Senate

1. Physical Therapy DPT & DScPT proposals.
Acrobat reader (.pdf) file. To download Acrobat reader click here.

TO: Louis Esposito
Vice President for Academic Affairs

FROM: Michael B. Smith, Chair
Senate Budget Review Committee

RE: Committee response to proposal for Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy

DATE: March 14, 2001

This memorandum summarizes the Senate Budget Review Committee's review of the items listed above, reflecting the consensus reached during our meeting on March 8, 2001. The original draft of the report on the Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy was written by Pat Nicosia, and the original draft of the report on the MSITM was written by Gadis (Buck) Dillon. After slight revisions were suggested by various committee members, the committee chair organized the documents into this final memorandum. Committee members who contributed to the discussion, either in person or by email, were: Buck Dillon, Marc Lipman, Austin Murphy, Pat Nicosia, Mohinder Parkash, Michael Smith, and Gloria Sosa.

PROPOSAL FOR DOCTORATES IN PHYSICAL THERAPY

The Senate Budget Review Committee met on March 8 to discuss the proposal for two doctoral programs in Physical Therapy. Though we understand the rationale for proposing these new programs, it was the decision of the Committee to defer making a recommendation at this time for a number of reasons, including the fact that the budget materials were incomplete. We also noted that Appendices A and B referred to in the text were not included. Our discussion points are noted below and should be of assistance as the Senate reviews these two programs.

Concerns About the Proposal:

The proposal fails to show a multi year budget. What is shown are the additional revenues from what we believe will be the first cohort of students. It appears on page 17 that the first cohort will result in additional revenue of $143,738. It is also noted that this additional revenue will be sufficient to support the compensation for two additional faculty members. But, the additional revenue will just barely cover the compensation for two more faculty members. Note that the cost for faculty is annual, but the additional revenue will accrue over three years, so the indicated revenue will actually only cover one year of faculty cost.

We feel that the proposal should show a pro forma revenue and expense analysis for at least 3 years, and preferably 5. We are assuming that the program will admit 28 students to the DPT and 5 to the DScPT each year. Since it takes about three years to complete the degrees (possibly less for the DScPT), by the third year we should reach a steady state enrollment status. To make a proper judgement on the budget ramifications of this program, it is important to see the revenue and expense analysis for that third and, preferably, the fourth and fifth years of the program. Perhaps by the third year there would be ample excess revenues for the two extra faculty members.

There was no mention of the budget ramification of the $30 per credit hour currently charged students in the MPT program. These dollars ultimately are used for the PT program. Assuming this fee will continue, it should be included as part of the revenue analysis. Also, the tuition analysis showed an undergraduate rate of $126.70 per credit hour and graduate rate of $220.60 per credit hour, but this is incorrect. The current rate for FY 2001 is $134.40 at the upper undergraduate level and $227 at the graduate level.

The revenue analysis also notes the loss of undergraduate tuition revenue if the new DPT program is instituted. However, we question whether these credits will be lost to the SHS or to the university. Since incoming students in the program must have a bachelors degree, and since preference for admission is given to OU grads, many prospective students would likely get their bachelors degrees from OU, which would be a positive additional revenue source. While this revenue source may accrue to the university, rather than the program directly, it is a favorable factor that is not fully noted in the proposal.

We are also concerned about the statement of the APTA House of Delegates that by 2020 all practicing physical therapists will be doctors of physical therapy. It is unclear to us whether this is the true direction of the field or just a vision statement: i.e., will there actually be changes in licensing requirements for practicing PT's which would mandate this kind of major change in programs?

The survey noted that there was major interest in the doctoral degree if the program was of the same length (question 1) or a year longer (question 2). The questions seem irrelevant, considering that we are talking about a 5 year MPT program moving to a 7 year DPT. That is an extra two years. Question 3 notes that the total length of time to complete the program is priority number 2. We are concerned about the true demand for the DPT over the MPT, considering the extra two years and extra cost.

The program assumes that 28 students will enter the DPT annually and 5 will enter the DScPT annually. This appears reasonable in light of the current numbers in the MPT and MSPT programs. However, because of the extra time for degree completion, we wonder whether the current masters degree programs could or actually should be continued along with the proposed new ones for a few years, initially. This would give time to decide whether it is a wise decision to move from the MPT to the DPT program. Since there will be many courses that are similar, both MPT and DPT students could be in the same class, so there should be no additional cost.

The proposal should be more convincing about the need to move from the masters level of instruction to the doctoral level of instruction. Without additional budget data, and because of the concerns noted above, the Senate Budget Review Committee is unable to make a recommendation on these programs.

3/14/01