In a followup to the School Wars, I read this blog: Send in the Cannibals! from ADVANCE for Health Information Professionals HIM Insider Blogs. This blogger a frequent participant in the MT school wars that go on in some of the online forums and the agenda of this blog carries through the theme.
One problem I have with this blog entry is the same problem I have with much of the online discussions; i.e., the person putting forth a position has a lack of experience and exposure in the business coupled with a biased agenda that results in the promotion of misinformation. This isn't limited to the online forums, by the way. I was in an AHIMA workgroup a couple years back where one of the workgroup members was attempting to push inclusion of a publication from another industry group she had been involved in. I called one of the other participants from that industry group and asked: "Where did this information come from? Before I include it in a practice brief, I'd like to know that these are actual facts and not opinions." Her answer was that the paper produced had no facts, only opinions based on what the members of the industry group believed to be true. I'm okay with that - as long as everyone understands they are not looking at facts, but opinions. There was absolutely nothing to support the "facts" promoted in that publication and I wasn't comfortable including them in an AHIMA practice brief because the next thing you know, everyone is quoting them as facts and they become accepted as facts. The same is true of the online forum discussions and blogs (including mine): qualify the person and the position. Are you reading something that is fact, or opinion? If someone is promoting a position based on their personal experience, how extensive is that personal experience? If they make a statement that sounds like a fact, verify whether it's a fact or an opinion before accepting it as fact.
"No, those are not the only two schools who can turn out good MTs--but the list is a mishmash, with no way to discern the level at which each school listed managed to qualify for the dubious honor. Like those top two, did they knock it out of the park and set the standard, or did they squeak by with the minimum criteria or even get special dispensation and fail to truly even meet them?"
I was pretty sure everyone had heard this old joke, but in reading the above, I'm not so sure any more: "Question: What do you call the guy who graduated at the bottom of his class in medical school? Answer: DOCTOR."
Caveat emptor is the standard in any marketplace. Why does Ms. Johnston somehow feel MT should be different? Because we're women and we should nurture and help one another? (More on that in another blog.) What irritates me about statements like this is they imply women are too stupid to do the homework and make a good decision and therefore they need to be protected by someone who "knows better." I realize this stems from women's desire to "mother," but give other women some credit - there's a fine line between "mothering" and "s'mothering." Let's find ways to help each other without being codependent enablers.
"In my humble opinion, a good clue when picking a school is whether it even requires you to take a preadmission test before they accept your money. Those who are truly in it for the right reasons DO, not just for their benefit, but for yours. Do you have the skills necessary for MT? Do you perhaps need to spend some time getting remedial help in keyboard skills or basic English language/grammar first?"
I actually agree with this and appreciate that it's prefaced with the disclaimer that this is just an opinion. However, there is a reality here: people who don't have the basic skills to become a medical transcriptionist, but are dead-set on becoming one, will find a way to meet their goal, regardless. What I don't understand is why the schools don't see the additional opportunity and offer classes to bring these people up to speed. The answer I've been given when I ask that question is that the schools aren't in the business of teaching basic skills that every high school graduate should have. Trying to change the public school system is about as futile as trying to convince someone they shouldn't become a medical transcriptionist. If someone needs additional English and typing to bring them up to speed, why not add that to the coursework as a prerequisite? Yes, it's going to take longer to complete the entire course. Yes, there's no promise they will successfully complete the prerequisites and then be passed on to the actual MT portion of the coursework. By offering prerequisite basic skill courses, the schools are passing up an opportunity for additional revenue and shuffling off people who WILL find a way to get where they want to be, however unprepared they may be when they get there. It's very high-minded to say "they shouldn't become an MT at all," but not terribly realistic. I have dreams where I tell people they should consider another career and they actually listen to me, but then I wake up. (This is similar to the dream where people with years of experience on their resume decide to stop inflicting their incompetence on other people's medical records and leave MT for careers in food service or retail.)
"Just because a school or business is listed in such a place does NOT mean it is legitimate. It simply means that entity was willing to cough up the money to be included."
This is where Ms. Johnston loses me completely. Let's take a look at where this blog is: a commercial site that publishes numerous magazines. How are these magazines supported? Through ads. Do they have a screening policy? I don't see anything in their advertising specs that indicates Advance has prerequisites (other than payment) for advertisers or that Ms. Johnston has to approve all ads prior to publication. Perhaps Ms. Johnston would like to help them write one or maybe she wants to contribute a policy for everyone else, although I suggest consulting an attorney before implementing it. Would it include only the schools she disapproves of, or does it extend to MTSOs and others? Maybe she'd just like to reconsider her status as a paid blogger at a site that will take advertising from any entity "willing to cough up the money to be included."
Do I see fava beans on that vegetarian menu?
"If the school approval process works, why are there even graduates who NEED this kind of stopgap?"
Here's where Ms. Johnston's lack of experience shows. Obviously, she's never hired MTs, trained MTs or worked with MTs in any capacity except as co-workers. She's bought hook, line and sinker into the popular perception that there are schools in the MT universe whose graduates hit the ground running and require no additional training, but she has no experience to back up her position. Everyone needs additional training, some people will require more than others and some of those people in the latter category are graduates of the schools Ms. Johnston favors. There are a lot of factors affecting the final result, not the least of which is numbers. A school that graduates a couple hundred MTs a year is going to have fewer duds IN NUMBER than a school that graduates a couple thousand. On a percentage basis, I couldn't say and neither can Ms. Johnston because she doesn't have the facts any more than I do. Since graduates of these schools are in greater demand, I'd have to conclude that their screening process is working, their curriculum and instruction are better, and the percentage of high-quality graduates is greater than the schools churning people through on a numbers basis.
I want to note that my intent here is not to denigrate the top 2 schools in any way. They're great schools. I recommend them to people when they ask. Unlike some of the school wars participants, however, I'm not convinced that nobody should consider any other school or that every other school should hang its head in shame and close its doors out of consideration for the betterment of the industry.
"But wait, you say--there are nationals who hire grads of courses not considered great by the MT community at large, so how bad can those courses be? Again, consider the possible mutual behind-the-scenes back scratching, lower wages, and a need to find warm bodies, none of which reflect a measure of excellence."
Why is Jeanne Johnston working on another career so she can leave MT? According to her bio:
"...as the field morphs into less of a career and more of a low-wage production-based job, I've been left wondering if I'm in a viable spot and if not, what the alternatives might be."
OK, so why does she sound surprised that companies are hiring warm bodies without regard for excellence? Or that schools are churning out grads who will never put out work anywhere close to "excellent?" Look, I'd love for people to care about quality above price but I don't see MT ever going back to that - with a few exceptions, those days are gone. As stated in my School Wars blog, someone looking into MT has to justify for themselves the difference in cost between one school and the other and the potential earnings on the other end. This is why certification for MTs hasn't gone very far - it costs money that the MT isn't likely to see come back in a paycheck. So if you're looking at a difference in tuition of approximately $1,000 and a school that says you have to take the course at a certain pace over a period of time and you need to get into the work force FAST and cheap - you're going to pick the less expensive school that will let you graduate in 3 months. And someone who finds themselves in need of a job fast that allows them to work at home with some flexibility isn't likely to be talked out of going into MT when there aren't many other alternatives available. In my opinion, it's arrogant to tell them they are wrong in the choices they are making because it doesn't meet your ideal. Ideals are great, but don't use the stars in your eyes to bludgeon other people.
"Beware, also, the MTSOs who have simply created a school as an offshoot. Occasionally, these might be legitimate, though limiting, because other companies might not see that kind of specific grooming as useful on a résumé. Worst-case scenario, it can be a way to simply get their work done for free, again benefiting you nothing but street smarts."
Again, another opinion based on lack of experience. In the competitive market for MTs, starting a school and then skimming the best of the best from that school to work for your own service is legitimate smart business. Curriculum and instruction are what matter, not whether or not a school is associated with a transcription service. There are some very good schools that have grown out of transcription services trying to fill a need in their own service. Much like the recent conversation on MT Chat about whether or not community colleges graduate MTs who are employable, this statement is just talking off the top of the head.
In my opinion, Ms. Johnston doesn't have either the experience or the exposure to even know what is good and bad for MTs. I'd criticize her more for it, but when I had 5 years in the business, I thought I knew everything, too. Fifteen years later, I'm pretty sure I still don't know as much as Ms. Johnston thinks she knows about what's good for the industry.
"They don't care if these women are looking for a real career or just a hobby, they don't care if they even finish their courses or get a job--but in marketing this way, they are bringing in the MT hobbyists in droves and have impacted the legitimacy of MT as a true profession in the worst possible way. I think this has had a far greater impact than even offshoring, though cheap offshore labor and speech recognition are the nails in the coffin."
If this is the greatest thing to impact MT, then it's been going down the tubes for the last 30 years. The "hobby MT" issue has been debated since before I became an MT and quite frankly, there are lot of MTs out there that started 30 years ago as hobby MTs. That does not de facto make them a bad MT or MTSO.
And let's inject a dose of reality here: how many schools hold your hand through graduation? Let's pull on our grownup britches, ok? Anyone signing up for an MT course is an adult. If they pay their money and never attend one class, whose responsibility is that? Am I reading this wrong, or is Ms. Johnston actually saying that schools should be held accountable for making sure everyone who plunks down their money graduates?
There's a reason MT is a Pink Collar Ghetto career. On the one hand, there are those who say MTs should want more for themselves, that MTs who work for "pin money" or a little extra are hurting the industry because they aren't thinking in terms of MT as a business. It's okay to want to work at home in your jammies (not many of us can criticize that - it's why most of us got into MT in the first place) but by damn, be a smart businesswoman! Unless, of course, you actually ARE a businesswoman running a business, in which case you're supposed to act like a woman and be caring and nurturing and make decisions based on what's good and kind and nurturing for all MTs (i.e., "fair"), whether or not it's good for the business, just as long as it's good for MT as a whole - or what someone with an overdeveloped sense of fairness but not a lot of experience thinks is good for MTs as a whole.
In other words, be ambitious but not more ambitious than other women think you ought to be. Women are faster than men to label ambitious women as bitches. Ambitchous women aren't caring and nurturing and therefore they're cannibilistic. Running a business like a business isn't womanly - unless, of course, you're talking to a production MT who just wants to make a little extra money and doesn't want to spend thousands of dollars going to the "right" school. They should be more professional - but not ambitchous.
Could someone assist Ms. Johnston in selecting a nice Chianti? She's vegetarian, so hold the liver.