Part IV: Information by Program Type
E. JOINT DEGREE MA PROGRAMS
E. JOINT DEGREE MA PROGRAMS E. JOINT DEGREE MA PROGRAMS E. JOINT DEGREE MA PROGRAMS
Current Data
Type and Number of Programs
• MSN/MA 11
• MD/MA 10
• JD/MA 8
• MBA/MA 1
Current (2000-2001) Enrollment Levels (MSN/MA only; 6 programs; MD/MA and JD/MA insufficient response – 2 and 1 programs
respectively; with no response specific to MBA/MA)
• Total Enrollment 86
o Average 14.33
o Range 1 - 27
• Full Time Students 55 (64
%)
o Average 9.17
o Range 0 - 16
• Part Time Students 31 (36
%)
o Average 5.17
o Range 0 – 12
Financial Aid Available for Students MSN/MA • Research Assistantships 4 (25.00 %) • Fellowships 3 (18.75 %) • Scholarships 2 (12.50 %) • Teaching Assistantships 2 (12.50 %)
• Full Tuition Waiver 2
(12.50 %)
• Partial Tuition Waiver 1
(6.25 %)
• Other(s) 2
(12.50 %)
o Federal and Private loans
only to advance students.
MD/MA
• Partial Tuition Waiver 1
(25 %)
• Research Assistantships 1
(25 %)
• Scholarships 1 (25
%)
• Other(s) (only advance students are eligible for financial assistance) 1 (25 %)
JD/MA
• Partial Tuition Waiver 1
(33.33 %)
• Research Assistantships 1
(33.33 %)
• Scholarships 1
(33.33 %)
Faculty Disciplinary Background (respondents selected all applicable): MSN/MA • Philosophy 6 (20.69 %) • Medicine 5 (17.24 %) • Nursing 4 (13.79 %) • Law 4 (13.79 %) • Theology/Religious Studies 3 (10.34 %) • History 2 (6.90 %) • Behavioral/Mental Health 1 (3.45 %) • English/Literature 1 (3.45 %) • Public Health 1 (3.45 %) • Social Work 1 (3.45 %)
• Other(s) (Programs are individualized as are faculty) 1 (3.45 %)
MD/MA
• Behavioral/Mental Health 1 (16.67 %)
• Law 1 (16.67 %) • Medicine 1 (16.67 %) • Nursing 1 (16.67 %) • Philosophy 1 (16.67 %) • Theology/Religious Studies 1 (16.67 %) JD/MA • Behavioral/Mental Health 1 (16.67 %) • Law 1 (16.67 %) • Medicine 1 (16.67 %) • Nursing 1 (16.67 %) • Philosophy 1 (16.67 %) • Theology/Religious Studies 1 (16.67 %)
Adequate Training for Full or Part Time Work in Bioethics/Med Humanities: MSN/MA • Full Time 7 (100 %) MD/MA • Full Time 1 (50.00 %)
• Part Time only (e.g., ethics committee, etc.) 1 (50.00 %)
JD/MA
• Full Time 1
(100 %)
Historical Data Year First Offered:
MSN/MA: 1982, 1988 (2), 1990, 1997, 2000
MD/MA: 1982, 2000
Additional Data by Joint Degree Program Type
Key: NA = Not Applicable; DNC = Program Does Not Collect MSN/MA (all responses included)
Number in Entering Class 1995-1996: NA, 4, 4, 2, NA 1996-1997: NA, 5, 0, 1, NA 1997-1998: NA, 4, 6, 0, 1 1998-1999: NA, 4, 2, 1, 0, 0 1999-2000: NA, 3, 5, 1, 0, 0 2000-2001: NA, 0, 5, 6, 0, 0 Program Graduates 1995-1996: NA, 1, 2, 1, 0, NA 1996-1997: NA, 2, 1, 0, 0, NA 1997-1998: NA, 2, 6, 0, 0, 0 1998-1999: NA, 1, 1, 2, 0, 0 1999-2000: NA, 6, 2, 0, 0, 0
Bioethics/Medical Humanities Related Employment
Year Full Time Part Time
1995-1996: DNC, NA,2, 2, 1, 0, NA NA, 0, 0, 0, 0, NA 1996-1997: DNC, NA, 2, 1, 0, 0, NA NA, 0, 0, 0, 0, NA 1997-1998: DNC, NA, 2, 5, 0, 0, 0 NA, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0 1998-1999: DNC, NA, 1, 1, 2, 0, 0 NA, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 1999-2000: DNC, NA, 6, 2, 0, 0, 0 NA, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 Bioethics/Medical Humanities Related Further Studies
1995-1996: DNC, NA, 0, 0, 0, 0, NA 1996-1997: DNC, NA, 0, 0, 0, 0, NA 1997-1998: DNC, NA, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 1998-1999: DNC, NA, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 1999-2000: DNC, NA, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
Average Starting Salary 1995-1996: 5 DNC, 2 NA 1996-1997: 5 DNC, 2 NA 1997-1998: 6 DNC, 1 NA 1998-1999: 6 DNC, 1 NA 1999-2000: 6 DNC, 1 NA JD/MA (1 Response) Number in Entering Class
1995-1996: 0 1996-1997: 0 1997-1998: 1 1998-1999: 1 1999-2000: 3 2000-2001: 4
Program Graduates 1995-1996: NA 1996-1997: NA 1997-1998: 0 1998-1999: 1 1999-2000: 1
Bioethics/Medical Humanities Related Employment
Year Full Time Part Time
1995-1996: NA NA
1996-1997: NA NA
1997-1998: 0 0
1998-1999: 0 0
1999-2000: 1 0
Bioethics/Medical Humanities Related Further Studies 1995-1996: NA
1996-1997: NA 1997-1998: 0 1998-1999: 0 1999-2000: 0
Average Starting Salary 1995-1996: DNC 1996-1997: DNC 1997-1998: DNC 1998-1999: DNC 1999-2000: DNC MD/MA ( 2Responses) Number in Entering Class
1995-1996: 0, NA 1996-1997: 0, NA 1997-1998: 0, NA 1998-1999: 0, NA 1999-2000: 0, NA 2000-2001: 0, 2 Program Graduates 1995-1996: 0, NA 1996-1997: 0, NA 1997-1998: 0, NA 1998-1999: 0, NA 1999-2000: 0, NA
Bioethics/Medical Humanities Related Employment
Year Full Time Part Time
1995-1996: 0, NA 0, NA
1996-1997: 0, NA 0, NA
1998-1999: 0, NA 0, NA
1999-2000: 0, NA 0, NA
Bioethics/Medical Humanities Related Further Studies 1995-1996: 0, NA
1996-1997: 0, NA 1997-1998: 0, NA 1998-1999: 0, NA 1999-2000: 0, NA Average Starting Salary
1995-1996: DNC, NA 1996-1997: DNC, NA 1997-1998: DNC, NA 1998-1999: DNC, NA 1999-2000: DNC, NA Analysis:
Of the 30 joint degree MA programs offered among the 47 responding institutions,
• Target student populations and minimum entrance
requirements for the joint degree programs are parasitic upon the populations the primary professional degree targets (nursing, medicine, and law students). None of the responses received offered additional information in either of these areas.
• MSN/MA programs are significantly more numerous than either MD/MA or JD/MA programs.
• Of the 9 respondents who indicated the start-year for their joint degree program, 5 indicated the programs
started in 1990 or later (with 4 having started from 1997 – 2000).
• 9 of 10 respondents indicated that they consider their joint degree graduates to be adequately trained for full time work in bioethics/medical humanities, with 1
indicating that he/she considered his/her graduates to be adequately prepared for only part time bioethics/medical humanities work.
• Disciplinary backgrounds of faculty in joint degree programs range from one disciplinary background (1 MSN/MA: philosophy) to programs with as many as 7
disciplinary backgrounds represented among their faculty (2 MSN/MA programs).
• Philosophy (8), Medicine (7), Law (6), Nursing (6), and Theology/Religious Studies (5) were the most common
Appendix A
Appendix AAppendix A
Appendix A: Survey Respondents By Institution: Survey Respondents By Institution: Survey Respondents By Institution : Survey Respondents By Institution
American Medical Association Chicago, Illinois Baylor College of Medicine/Rice University Houston, Texas Boston University Boston, Massachusetts
Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio
Brown University Providence, Rhode Island
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, Ohio
City University of New York New York, New York
Cleveland Clinic Foundation Cleveland, Ohio
Cleveland State University Cleveland, Ohio
Dalhousie University
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Drew University Madison, New Jersey
Duquesne University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Emory University Atlanta, Georgia Georgetown University Washington, District of Columbia Harvard University Boston, Massachusetts
Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, Maryland
Loma Linda University Loma Linda, California
Loyola University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois
McGill University Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Medical College of Wisconsin Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan
Midwestern University Glendale, Arizona
Montefiore Medical
Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine/New York University
New York, New York
Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon
Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center
Chicago, Illinois
Saint Louis University St. Louis, Missouri
Sarah Lawrence College Bronxville, NY
State University of New York at Buffalo
Buffalo, New York
Trinity International University Deerfield, Illinois
Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois
University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota
University of Nevada-Las Vegas Las Vegas, Nevada
University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tennessee University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston, Texas
University of Texas Medical Branch
Galveston, Texas
University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada
University of Utah Salt Lake City, Utah
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia University of Washington Seattle, Washington University of Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin
U.S. National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Maryland
Vanderbilt University Nashville, Tennessee
Youngstown State University Youngstown, Ohio
Appendix B: Open
Appendix B: Open
Appendix B: Open
Appendix B: Open----Ended Response on Program Strengths Ended Response on Program Strengths Ended Response on Program Strengths Ended Response on Program Strengths
and Weaknesses (Verbatim)
and Weaknesses (Verbatim)
and Weaknesses (Verbatim)
and Weaknesses (Verbatim)
∗∗∗∗Question: What do you consider to be the greatest strength of this program? ~structured course work and mentored research.
-Collegial atmosphere.
~Out three programs in applied philosophy (MA, PHD, and specialized MA) give students a thorough in philosophical theory, so our students are philosophically well-grounded as well as competent with the more applied issues.
~This is a full humanities program, as it relates to medicine. It is the only such PHD granting program in the country. The program is small and is intentionally kept small for better student to faculty interaction. ~The Department has eight faculty with extensive publications and research projects in a wide variety of areas in Philosophy and Medicine. These include clinical ethics, ethics and health policy, feminist, narrativist and other theoretical approaches to the field, ethics, and genetics, empirical approaches to bioethical issues, nursing ethics, and geriatric ethics. All eight teach courses and supervise research in Philosophy and Medicine as well as take turns mentoring the Philosophy and Medicine graduate student discussion group.
~Our programs are designed to meet the individual needs and interests of students. We do not offer a formalized, standard course of study and discourage any student interested in such programs from applying.
~Active involvement of our senior faculty and intensive clinical experience.
~The interdisciplinary breadth of the program; students are required to take two distinct areas of concentration and, if they choose to write a thesis (as most do), to draw on at least two disciplines significantly in that thesis. Thus, the program provides the opportunity for students who wish to combine (for instance) medical anthropology and bioethics, or literature and epidemiology of plague or AIDS, and so on. We benefit greatly from the presence and cooperation of the XXXXXXX whose faculty teach many of the courses our students take and serve as thesis directors or committee members for many of our students. Finally, we also benefit from the strong disciplinary offerings (and possibility of continuation at PHD levels) elsewhere in the University, esp. in philosophy of health care, medical anthropology, and medical sociology.
~good teaching by people with clinical experience. ~multidisciplinarity of faculty and students
~Interdisciplinary nature combining a social, philosophical, historical, and political approach to analysis of issues in medical ethics
~1. Attention to the contexts in which ethical issues occur in health care 2. Clinical experience paralleling academic study
~This program has evolved to the point where it really tries to take advantage of its location in a professional association. In addition to academic activities, fellows have the opportunity to learn more about how ethics is developed at the policy level. Moreover, fellows have unique research and online teaching opportunities. Lastly, the program is interdisciplinary.
~It is part of a general PHD program in Ethics so that the students are thoroughly steeped in theological and philosophical ethics, the sociology of religion, and clinical training in bio-medical ethics.
~The cohesion of the faculty, the close link between bioethics and philosophy and the philosophical rigor with which bioethics is pursued.
~a) Flexibility - allows students to design programs that meet their individual educational goals (e.g., philosophy/moral theory, political science, economics, history of medicine). b) Quality- provides students to study with highly esteemed faculty in an array of academic disciplines. c) Interdisciplinary - students get clinical experience at XXXXXX as well as opportunities to study in any relevant academic discipline. d) Convenience - The Graduate School is centrally located in XXXXXX. Many courses are taught in the evening. e) Cost -Tuition is approximately $2,300 per semester for full time students who are XXXX residents.
~Exposing persons well trained in academic ethics to the clinical environment
~This program allows students with a minimal background in philosophy to pursue an MA that will broaden the scope of their philosophical education. The program will prepare students to use moral theory and political philosophy in confronting concrete problems of society and the professions. Through links to professional schools around XXX, students can also gain the practical (clinical) experience that will be useful in achieving their educational goals.
~Engagement of many area ethics committees; roughly 400 area clinicians and university faculty ~Location in a major school of medicine with four associated teaching hospitals; students get practical clinical experience as well as theoretical basis
~--the humanizing effect of the breadth of issues
~The program's interdisciplinary focus, and the multiple backgrounds of faculty. ~Its interdisciplinary character
~Since 1984, our Center has trained more than 140 ethics fellows in a one or two year fellowship. Of these trainees, approximately 50 currently serve as directors or co-directors of US or Canadian institutional ethics programs at medical schools, hospitals, or health care organizations. Between 1995 and 1999, our Center provided one or two years of fellowship training for 48 different fellows including 32 physicians. At least ten of the fellows, including four of the physicians, stayed on for a second year of training.
Question: What do you consider to be the greatest weakness of, or concern that you have about, this program?
~The weakness of the graduate minor in bioethics is that it excludes students in the law school and those who have backgrounds in disciplines unavailable at XXX, such as religious studies.
~Limited in taking PHD students because they must compete for admission with all other applicants to our PHD program and few students interested in bioethics are able to do so successfully.
~More opportunity for clinical ethics activities for students. More training in research methods. Greater financial and professional rewards for faculty teaching.
~We have applied to the university to convert the MAIS in Applied Ethics into an MA. Upon approval, we plan to invite students in the MAIS to apply for transfer to the MA. The weakness is that approval has not
yet taken place; the university approval process takes time. We would like to be able to provide more financial support to students in the program.
~Two and one-third faculty lines is not enough to adequately service the number of students in the program. It is difficult to recruit other faculty to teach EPS courses. Students ofter do not have much experience with faculty other than the three core faculty, and the three core faculty are overworked when it comes to thesis committees.
~There is a need for more active marketing to make the program better known and to get more students involved in the program.
~Our major concern involves the pressing commitments of Faculty in regard to their own and
collaborative research activities, as well as the ever increasing demand for external consultation and committee involvement; both of which work to limit the time faculty has to spend with individual students. ~Need to develop practica at the policy level.
~Lack of specific funding arrangement
~1. It is funded solely by tuition revenues at this point. This is in part because of the newness of the program and the younger faculty. 2. The full time faculty is small and we rely heavily on adjunct faculty at this point. Both of these weaknesses should be mitigated as the program and its faculty matures. (we are only one year old).
~Because the faculty members most committed to this program are faculty of the Center for Bioethics and Health Law, and because centers do not have the ability to hire/fire/tenure faculty and thus faculty
members must remain responsive to the priorities of the departments in which they have their faculty appointments, the MA Program in Bioethics remains dependent on individual faculty members who themselves lack independence in devoting themselves to the Program. A second area of concern is finding financial support for our students to compete nationally for high quality students.
~Incoming students' lack of bioethics education, especially bioethics as a multidisciplinary enterprise. ~Keeping students engaged and advancing the program.
~We have been struggling to arrange more and better clinical ethics practical experiences (e.g. practicum courses at nearby health institutions)
~As the only Health Advocacy graduate program, we are working to increase public understanding about the need for professionally educated advocates in a wide range of settings. Advocacy has moved from the narrow perception of health advocate as patient representative in an institution, to a broader view that looks at rights of the individual as a basis for positive change in the larger system. We are working on the expansion of our job placement abilities beyond hospitals and other provider facilities to advocacy organizations, all branches of government, public health arenas and into the private sector, including managed care organizations.
~Future positions for interdisciplinary scholars
~The Certificate Program does not yet provide intensive clinical fieldwork or mentoring in clinical consultation. Rather than a weakness, this is a concern that we plan to address.
~Funding.
~As a new PHD program (opened in 1996) we need to track our graduates (the first graduates in 2000 obtained immediate employment) in order to ascertain whether the program contributes well to their career trajectories.
~Clinical environment at the XXX is unique and is focused on research, so the ethical consultation differs from usual clinical consultative experience.
~The bioethics program is disadvantaged by the fact that the university does not have a medical school or a nearby hospital with which to affiliate
~Due to funding limitations in the current medical center environment, we are unable to provide stipends to all our students.
~The budget for outside speakers is limited. However, by pooling resources with the XXX the colloquium program has been respectable.
~There is not much institutional support, especially financial support, for our students. On the other hand, this helps ensure that only seriously committed students apply.
~Our greatest concern is recruitment and support of a sufficiently large annual cohort of graduate students
~low enrollment
~inadequate number of faculty to discharge both academic and clinical duties in the program.
~lack of adequate funding for faculty and fellows
~1. Institutional commitment to the program 2. Number of faculty available 3. Integration of clinical and academic
~Perhaps its greatest weakness is one of its strengths--the fact that it is a full time residential fellowship. Unfortunately, we are not able to recruit practicing physicians or even recent medical graduates because of the substantial expense involved.
~It is not really a separate program, simply an option within a larger program.
~The lack of emphasis on grooming students to perform well on the job market (e.g., no formal support or training for paper publication).
~Outside of courses/seminars, there is little group activity. ~We do not do a good job of filling in academic weaknesses.
~No formal degree programs; low financial support; no basis for longevity
~Program is still experimenting with different requirements to try to find the optimal blend of coursework and practical experience in an optimal and reasonable time frame for students.
~--the very breadth of issues
~I find that the people we train have basic weaknesses in their previous formation.
~When we started our XXXXXX, we were "the only game in town," especially for training physicians and other clinicians. Since then, new opportunities for ethics fellowship training have become available in many excellent universities around the country including XXXXXXXX. We compete with such excellent programs for qualified trainees. In my view, the more such programs, the better; they speak to the viability of the discipline and to the availability of funded faculty positions for well-trained individuals.
Appendix C: Project Stages
Appendix C: Project StagesAppendix C: Project Stages
Appendix C: Project Stages
Stage I (April – June 2000)
• Development of detailed plan for project, including: compilation of comprehensive program and program director list, with e-mail addresses; identification of survey content; design of survey instrument; and adopting a web-based methodology for carrying out the survey
• Approval of detailed work plan for project (including, in particular, project timeline, survey content and methodology) by ASBH Status of the Field Committee
Stage II (July – September 2000)
• E-mail notification to program directors of the project and alerting them to the kind of information being sought
• Contracting with InfoSurv for vetting of survey instrument and managing web-based survey
• Finalizing survey instrument; approval of final survey instrument by ASBH Status of the Field Committee
• Six month progress report on project to ASBH Board (at the end of Stage II)