09/28/2026
There has been increasing discussion about declining foundational skills and knowledge among students entering DPT programs. From what many of us are seeing, I think there is some truth to the observation that, nationwide, students may not be entering professional education with the same level of academic preparation we have historically expected.
But I think there is another side of this conversation that we don’t discuss enough.
Once a program admits a student, the responsibility shifts.
Admissions standards are supposed to serve as a filter. Programs establish the prerequisites, determine the requirements, and decide how applicants are evaluated. Ultimately, when a program offers someone admission, it is saying: This applicant has demonstrated the capacity to succeed in our program.
So if DPT programs are consistently finding that admitted students lack the foundational skills necessary to succeed, I don’t think that responsibility can simply be placed back on the students.
The program admitted them.
Students absolutely have responsibility for their own learning. They have to engage, study, respond to feedback, develop their clinical reasoning, and ultimately demonstrate that they meet the standards of the profession.
But once admitted, it becomes a two-way street.
Education should be transformational, but there is also an inherently transactional component to professional education. Students are investing substantial time, effort, and money in an education intended to prepare them for a profession.
Admission isn’t a guarantee of graduation or licensure. But it is an institutional judgment that a student has met the standards established by the program and has a reasonable opportunity to succeed within the educational program that institution designed.
That should give us some pause for introspection.
If student preparation has changed, have admissions processes changed with it? Are the measures being used still identifying the skills necessary for success in DPT education? If admitted students increasingly need support in foundational skills, are programs identifying those needs early and providing the necessary resources?
And we should be willing to examine the other end of the process: outcomes.
If we are seeing national concerns about student preparedness alongside changes in remediation, progression, and licensure outcomes, perhaps we need to examine the entire process.
That doesn’t mean lowering the bar. It means asking whether the system; from who is admitted, to how students are educated, to the outcomes ultimately produced is working as intended.
Perhaps the conversation shouldn’t simply be:
“What’s happening to today’s students?”
Perhaps we should also be asking:
“If students have changed, how should admissions processes and educational systems change with them?”
Once a program admits a student, it can’t put the outcome entirely on that student.
Their success becomes a shared responsibility.
