Graduate Education in Audiology We Agree With the Diagnosis, But Not the Treatment Clinical Focus: Grand Rounds
Clinical Focus: Grand Rounds  |   March 01, 1993
Graduate Education in Audiology
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Larry E. Humes, PhD
    Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405
  • Allan O. Diefendorf
    Indiana University Medical Center, Indianapolis
  • Patricia G. Stelmachowicz
    Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
  • Cynthia G. Fowler
    Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Long Beach, CA
  • Sandra M. Gordon-Salant
    University of Maryland, College Park
  • Authors’ Note: This article was submitted to the American Journal of Audiology simultaneously with a similar article that has since been published in Audiology Today (Humes et al., 1992). Although the general topic is the same in both articles, the emphasis here is on suggested improvements in the ASHA requirements for clinical certification in audiology.
    Authors’ Note: This article was submitted to the American Journal of Audiology simultaneously with a similar article that has since been published in Audiology Today (Humes et al., 1992). Although the general topic is the same in both articles, the emphasis here is on suggested improvements in the ASHA requirements for clinical certification in audiology.×
Article Information
Hearing Disorders / Audiologic / Aural Rehabilitation / Professional Issues & Training / Clinical Focus / Grand Rounds
Clinical Focus: Grand Rounds   |   March 01, 1993
Graduate Education in Audiology
American Journal of Audiology, March 1993, Vol. 2, 48-50. doi:10.1044/1059-0889.0201.48
 
American Journal of Audiology, March 1993, Vol. 2, 48-50. doi:10.1044/1059-0889.0201.48
In recent years, much concern has been expressed about the qualifications of audiologists currently being graduated from existing programs with master’s degrees. A professional doctorate, the AuD, has been advocated frequently as a solution to the deficiencies in the educational preparation of audiologists (Goldstein, 1989). We share the concern about the quality and depth of training received by graduating master’s-level clinicians. We do not believe, however, that a professional doctorate represents the only or the best solution to the problem at this time. As we’ve recently noted in a slightly different context (Humes et al., 1992): “Four years of undergraduate education and 2 years of graduate work represent an educational model that is well-suited to the training of competent and highly qualified audiologists. The primary problem, though, is that most student audiologists receive the vast majority of their education in the final 2 years of this 6-year time period.” Undergraduate education in audiology should be restructured so that much of the coursework currently taken at the master’s level could be taken during the final 2 years of an undergraduate program. This would leave 2 years of master’s work for truly advanced education and clinical work. This structure could parallel that in speech-language pathology; undergraduate audiology majors would receive two survey-type courses in speech-language pathology, just as current speech-language pathology majors receive such coursework in audiology. The focus, however, would be on audiology and hearing science as an undergraduate, especially during the final 2 years. Six years of college education should be more than adequate to enable students to achieve the highest level of competence as audiologists, as long as a significant amount of the educational process was allowed to take place during the first 2 years.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Audiology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access