Template talk:Medical education in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Education (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

NRMP[edit]

The NRMP identifies six "types" of applicants for NRMP matching positions.

  • U.S. Allopathic
  • Canadian
  • U.S. Osteopathic
  • US born FMG
  • Non-US born FMG
  • Fifth Pathway

Source: Results and Data February 2008 www.nrmp.org
I propose each one of the these types be considered a pathway for entry into the US physician education and training system. Possibly the two foreign educated category be combined into one "IMG" category (since there's already one article on this.) Bryan Hopping T 13:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are pathways to this topic, not within this topic. Antelan talk 18:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The topic is physician education and training. Physicians in the United States are educated at two types of U.S. medical schools. The may also be educated internationally and permitted to enter the U.S. training system via various pathways. Bryan Hopping T 19:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see the question below. The point is that you are creating redundancies. Antelan talk 19:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
As you can see, the breakdown of pathways (4 at present), differs from the breakdown of degrees (2 at present).Bryan Hopping T 19:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but a better formulation than having "pathways" and "degrees" would be "degrees" and "additional pathways", adding in the 2 beyond the traditional US MD and DO degrees. It avoids linking to 2 articles that are not actually about US physician education. Antelantalk 01:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Which two articles are not related to the education & training of US physicians? Bryan Hopping T 02:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The ones that you keep reinserting, as one might have imagined. And based on that response, I can't tell if you understood what I was saying. Antelantalk 12:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The article Osteopathic medicine in the United States discusses medical school and training, rather heavily. The article allopathic, though very incomplete at the moment, does mention several bodies of great import to physician education and training in the United States. Does that answer the question? I'm not sure if I do understand what you are saying.Bryan Hopping T 18:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The core of my comment is that the allopathic link in this template is functionally redundant with MD, and osteopathic is functionally redundant with DO. MD and DO are relevant to training, and they give the reader links to and a sense of the philosophical differences. Therefore, I am combining the lists to keep it relevant and non-redundant. Antelantalk 19:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't see the redundancy argument. In each section, the allopathic/osteopathic parallelism is seen. MD/DO, AMA/AOA, AAMC/AACOM. The "pathways" articles are the general categories of this parallelism, the other subsections offer specific examples of the two categories. Bryan Hopping T 19:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What do "Pathways" cover that "Degrees" don't[edit]

See title. Hopping alluded to an explanation on the talk page, but there is none yet. Here is a good place for it. Antelan talk 19:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirects, Pathways, Allopathy[edit]

On wikipedia, internal links via redirects should be avoided, hence "comparison of MD and DO" is the correct form. And I'm also interested in an answer to the pathways question above. If no one explains this section should possibly be removed. Also, User:Hopping is, perhaps unintentionally, pushing the term allopathic, which is not common and considered insulting by many. This point has been raised on his user page. The allopathic article is short, and describes the controversial history of the term rather than what an MD actually is. Hence a link to the MD article is far superior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.135.100.158 (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need an article that discusses these pathways in total, in addition to the articles that describe the individual components (i.e. the degrees, the exams, etc.)? Bryan Hopping T 19:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected[edit]

Bryan Hopping & whoever's using Tor...time to quit the edit warring here. Please take the time to discuss the best way to link from the template. — Scientizzle 20:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Conversion to navbox[edit]

I've never really liked sidebar navigation in Wikipedia, and was wondering if anyone opposed converting this to a bottom {{navbox}}? The current box takes up too much space, has a lot of white space, and all of the links are hidden by default. I can't think of any other sidebar navigation boxes used on the medicine articles, but there are many bottom navboxes. Also, why not simplify the name of this template to Template:Medical education in the United States, to match Medical education in the United States - the main article of the template? --Scott Alter 04:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am taking User:Hopping's action of blanking the template as indifference for this proposal, so with no opposition, I am going ahead. --Scott Alter 14:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about the blanking. It had no relation to this discussion. There was some problem with the template itself.
Fully support all your changes. Bryan Hopping T 00:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)