There's been a lot of debate in the medical physics community about whether this is a good idea or not. I see advantages and disadvantages to it, but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
So that this isn't a complete rant, I should point out the advantages. First off, for the student you have a guarantee of clinical experience, so you avoid the uncertainty and stress of having to find a residency after your degree, which you need in order to eventually become certified. For the profession, the DMP also provides a somewhat faster track to train physicists (at least compared to anyone going the PhD route). This will assist in meeting the projected demand for
medical physicists in the near future (those who believe that the market is already saturated are unlikely to see this as a positive). Further, graduates will have the prestige of the title "doctor" not given to anyone with an MSc. In the long run, if the vast majority of
medical physicists have the "doctor" title, it becomes a visible distinction that is not always currently present.
My first major concern with these programs is their lack of emphasis on research and the subsequent consequences. Research, far more than course work, is what creates the skills to solve problems that have not yet been encountered, and for which there is no predetermined solution in the back of the textbook. It instills critical thinking skills, and a level of intellectual independence that cannot come from other forms of training. Further, this is the stage in a physicist's training where the physics is most deeply and intimately learned. While many
medical physicists have careers that are almost entirely clinical in nature - "clinical" does not mean you won't encounter new technologies or new methodologies or problems that have not been solved. One of the most fundamental contributions a
medical physicist makes to the radiotherapy team is his or her ability to solve problems. By eliminating this aspect of the training, you produce an inferior final product.
If you look back a few pages in this thread, you'll see some of the discussions I've had with others about whether or not a
medical physicist is a "glorified technician." Something that hasn't been emphasized is the relationship between physicists and radiation therapists (RTs). RTs are very technically competant professionals and their training programs are now largely becoming degree-based (as opposed to a 2 year technical diploma). They vastly outnumber physicists and as a result have a strong political foundation that physicists can't field. If we produce medical physicsts, with minimal to no research experience, we become not that much different than RTs (there is, of course still an undergraduate physics background, and the didactic course work, which are not to be trivialized). But there is the risk that many
medical physicists could be replacd by "advanced" RTs.
Another effect of reduced research emphasis is the overall effect on the radiation therapy field. With less
medical physicists trained to do research, less
medical physicists will do research and less progress will be made and the field will stagnate rather than grow and advance and improve.
Another concern I would have as a student considering a DMP program is pay. As a resident, you are paid for your services. My understanding is that these programs turn that around. For similar work, you end up having to pay. This extremely undervalues the work contributions that residents make to a department. While it is a learning position, residents will often do a lot of routine, skilled "grunt" work (QA, chart checks, etc) and getting people to pay to do this smacks of Tom Sawyer tricking the neighbourhood kids into whitewashing a fence.
