Part I: tradition in transition; Quality feathering of education's nest

Medical Laboratory Observer, March, 2007 by Carren Bersch

In a twist on the tired old "in like a lion," I offer the more colorful: "March comes in with an adder's head and goes out with a peacock's tail." And March also brings our yearly salary survey. Nearly 2,000 MLO readers submitted responses to the December time-dated survey.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Even before MLO, I had an intense curiosity about workplace issues, initially sparked half a dozen years ago when I awakened to a radio news broadcast on careers. While interviewing a young woman about her aspirations, the reporter asked if she would pursue a secretarial position. She revealed her disgust: "That's demeaning work."

Having spent many of my young years in office administration, her vitriolic remark insulted me. My wounded ego healed when I began to track transitioning job markets. Textile and manufacturing jobs flew the coop, in part, to growing global trade (including outsourcing) and the ever-burgeoning technology sector. Many professions have substantially changed (or simply gone defunct) in my lifetime, so why was I disturbed over my early profession's diminishment in the computer age?

Because--like laboratory automation--the speed of computers can never replace the quality of service provided to customers by a trained specialist.

While changes in the medical laboratory--my term: "tradition in transition"--have been a topic of discussion for years now, particularly the personnel shortage, we (okay, me) took another very brief survey regarding the future of quality in the laboratory. After all, medicine could not be practiced effectively today without well-trained people performing accurate, timely lab tests. According to my informal survey sources, there are reasons to be hopeful, and then ... there is the rest.

One aspect of that shifting lab scene is the education of its up-and-coming leaders. A good sign is that some med-tech schools are opening back up. A "thank-you" may be due "CSI" and other forensics TV shows and movies for spurring younger folks' ambitions in the field. Despite this, however, there are rumblings because, in our market-oriented society, education and those who seek it are also changing. According to Garrey Carruthers, dean of the New Mexico State University's College of Business: "The 'baby boomer' generation is being replaced by expanding minority and low-income groups--groups that have traditionally been the least-educated groups in this country."*

And if you (like Carruthers) operate an educational institution in today's world, you are charged with making a profit--often by acquiring students who may not be academically qualified but who can afford the tuition through loans and grants.

In my survey, two lab veterans in two different cities commiserated about the "sad situation" they have experienced in hiring newly graduated techs. Their drift was that "anyone" can now successfully matriculate from lab programs. They questioned what was being taught and agreed that more "hands-on" experience was required if med-lab grads were going to thrive in the healthcare field--and if the healthcare field itself was going to thrive under their watch.

These veterans mused that if the programs were thorough enough to challenge students who are truly interested in and dedicated to becoming an essential part of the healthcare workforce, then less interested, less dedicated candidates would be weeded out. They fail to understand that while low salaries have dogged the med-lab sector for years, med-lab programs may be enticing students for whom even this lower-rung stipend is more attractive--and the profession more respectable--than some of their immediate choices.

Everywhere, academic standards have been lowered through the years to give less adequately prepared applicants an opportunity to be successful. Even Harvard is about to "dumb down" its curriculum, according to some scholars. But in this market-driven world, students in every area of study are strictly motivated to obtain a degree. They have learned that this piece of paper alone shows that they deserve a salary, quality performance or not. We heard ruminations that the quality of teaching in med-lab programs has been diluted, too, over time; and there are suggestions that more stringent qualifications for laboratory educators are needed.

Among the more upbeat comments we received was that we need to better 'sell' the profession as a 'noble and valuable' one that demands highly trained and immensely dedicated individuals. True, say others, but there exist few incentives for highly qualified high-school students or college graduates to seek employment in the laboratory. Most realize that other healthcare jobs offer (1) better pay; (2) less (or no) risk of exposure to diseases and bioterror agents, and (3) no stress over never-ending error-free work expectations.

As March winds down to its "peacock feather" of a conclusion, educators, long-term lab pros, industry associations, and government agencies as well as individuals need to flock together. They must determine in which direction medical laboratory education flies. Will we strive for the heights to which many seasoned lab veterans aspired over recent decades, or will we let medical lab science, like other educational venues and other once sought-after professions, land in a nest of mediocrity? Is it not time to ruffle some feathers?