PT Reviewer, 2401 S Indiana Ave, Chicago, IL (2026)

06/15/2026

I’ve seen a lot of posts from people disappointed that their educational session proposals for APTA CSM 2027 were not accepted. That reaction is completely understandable.

If it offers any perspective, I’ve presented at CSM consistently for the past decade. The only years I haven’t presented were years I didn’t submit. Until this year, I had havent had a session proposal that I led rejected (or at least that I can recall).

I currently serve on the board of the Academy to which I submitted and know many of the programming committee members well. For those wondering if acceptance is simply a matter of connections, that has not been my experience.

The reality is that conference programming has become increasingly competitive. The cost of hosting conferences continues to rise, and CSM has historically struggled to fill many session rooms despite overall conference attendance growing. Most of us have attended presentations where the room was only partially filled. As a result, fewer presentation slots are available. This makes acceptance rates lower across the board.

So it’s not a grand conspiracy; it’s a numbers game. Strong proposals from experienced and well known presenters are being declined as well.

If your session wasn’t accepted, don’t take it personally or view as a reflection of the value of your work. Consider submitting to your Academy’s conference or other professional meetings. Keep refining, keep submitting, and keep sharing your ideas.

And if we want to see more educational programming in the future, there’s something all of us can do: attend the conference and show up for sessions. Don’t just attend the marquee talks. Seek out sessions in smaller academies and specialty areas. Those academies are often impacted the most, and strong attendance helps justify future programming opportunities. Supporting presenters by being in the room is one of the simplest ways we can strengthen professional education for everyone.

Congratulations to everyone whose proposals were accepted. I’m looking forward to learning from you in 2027 and showing you all my home town Philadelphia!

05/08/2026

CLINICAL ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR!!!!!!!!!!!

I may share a more detailed reflection and appreciation this weekend because now I’m of a few words.

Thank you to my colleagues, students, mentors, friends, and family. Most importantly, thank you God!

LET’S GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Time to celebrate!

05/04/2026

Nice addition to the office!

2025 UIC DPT Faculty Fantasy Football Champion!

05/02/2026

Realistically, if policymakers were serious about tackling student loan debt, one of the first things they should address is the interest rate.

Yes, the sticker price of programs matters. But for many students, especially graduate and professional students, the most financially crippling part of student debt is not just the amount borrowed it’s how much interest accumulates over time.

For example, a student who borrows $100,000 at 7% interest and repays it over 20 years would pay roughly $775 per month. By the end, they would repay about $186,000 total meaning more than $86,000 in interest alone.

And that assumes a standard repayment structure where the monthly payment is high enough to cover the interest and gradually reduce the principal.

Many student loan borrowers are not in that situation. If their payment is income-based, in deferment, or otherwise too low to fully cover the monthly interest, the balance may barely move or in some cases, even grow.

That is the part that makes the system feel unsustainable. Students can end up paying far more for a degree than the original cost of the education itself.

It is also hard to justify that federal student loans (meant to support education, workforce development, and public good) can carry higher interest rates than many mortgages. We say education is an investment in society but then structure the financing in a way that can turn that investment into a long-term financial burden. This ends up being harmful to society as those in this financial situation frequently delay major life milestones such as purchasing homes, starting a family and perhaps a small business.

If we want to have a serious conversation about student debt, capping federal student loan interest at a nominal rate (0-1%) should be near the top of the list.

05/02/2026

It can be true that the cost of higher education has reached a point where the return on investment for certain fields is under real pressure. That pressure has been building for decades and is multifactorial. Wage stagnation, the rising cost of living, and tuition growth have all contributed.

It can also be true that some institutions have not been good stewards of tuition increases. For years, there were few practical limits on what universities could charge because federal loan programs often guaranteed access to the funds needed to cover those costs. Some universities managed that responsibility better than others. Public institutions, in particular, have often been able to keep tuition lower because of state support.

That said, the new borrowing limits being implemented by the Department of Education are not the solution. They are abrupt, overly broad, and lack nuance.

For example, the UIC is a highly affordable public institution that is consistently recognized for upward mobility. Students who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to improve their economic standing after completing their education here. That is true across many programs at UIC, including the Doctor of Physical Therapy program.

For in-state students, the UIC DPT program remains one of the more affordable options. When the tuition cost is considered alongside starting salaries for physical therapists in Chicago, (~85,000–$90,000) range, and national median salaries approaching six figures, the long-term value proposition is still strong. A program with tuition costs ~$66,000 can represent a reasonable and responsible investment. Yet under these new borrowing limits, even affordable programs like ours may become difficult for students to finance.

And perhaps the most concerning part is that programs like ours may be among the least affected. Many other programs have much higher tuition costs and will face even larger gaps between what students can borrow and what their education costs.

Some may argue that this will force universities to lower tuition. Possibly???Universities are like large cruise ships. They can change course, but they do not turn quickly.

These changes take effect July 1, and many students have already been accepted into programs that begin in Fall 2026. That leaves an entire cohort of students caught in the middle.

What are they supposed to do in the interim? Rely on private loans? Delay enrollment? Walk away from a career path they have been admitted into and planned for?

For those supporting these changes, that question has to be answered honestly. The immediate burden will not fall on institutions first. It will fall on students who were accepted this spring and preparing to begin their programs this fall.

Cost containment in higher education is necessary. But abrupt borrowing caps without transition planning, nuance, or protection for students already in the pipeline are not reform. They are disruption.

04/19/2026

Just finished a great weekend at APTA Headquarters for the Volunteer Leadership Summit. Thank you to my colleagues on the Public Policy and Advocacy Committee, the APTA Board and Staff, and other national committees for a productive and inspiring few days.

I am looking forward to continued collaboration and to seeing many of you again in July for the Payment Summit and the 2026 House of Delegates.

04/17/2026

As we head into admissions season, I’d like to share this perspective.

The ethics of admissions are not defined by how high or low standards are, but by whether institutions give admitted students a fair chance to succeed.

Higher admissions standards can be ethically appropriate because they increase the likelihood that admitted students will be able to meet the academic and professional expectations of the program. In turn, this helps protect students from being admitted into a pathway where they have a low probability of success, which can cost substantial time, money, and opportunity. In this model, a program may reasonably rely on the usual range of student support resources, such as sufficient faculty, tutoring, and academic support services.

Lower admissions standards can also be ethically appropriate because they expand access, particularly in high-demand fields where many programs are highly selective. However, if a program adopts this model, it assumes a greater responsibility to provide MORE than the typical level of academic and student success support. That may include more intensive advising, tutoring, remediation structures, and other targeted resources. Without those added supports, the institution risks admitting students into a program without giving them a fair opportunity to succeed.

Both approaches can be ethical.

Both require alignment between admissions standards and the level of support provided.

Both also require ongoing reflection and adjustment based on actual student outcomes.

04/12/2026

As a reminder to students starting to prepare applications for Physical Therapy school, when evaluating programs, rankings like U.S. News and World Report are very limited. They’re based on a single, subjective survey question (rank the quality of a program 1-5) sent to program directors of accredited programs; and only about 40% respond. This is also why there are so many ties every year. In my opinion, there isn’t much difference in quality between the programs ranked in the top 50.

Instead start with these objective metrics:

1. Ultimate NPTE pass rate (Found on FSBPT.org)
2. First-time NPTE pass rate (Found on FSBPT.org)
3. Cost (Found on Program Website)
4. Graduation rate (Might find on program website but may have to email program)
5. Job Placement rate (Might find on program website but may have to email program)

Ultimately, the equation is simple:

If I invest the inputs of time and money into a DPT program, what is the likelihood that it will provide the outcomes of graduation, PT licensure, getting hired as a PT, and a positive return on those investments.

Everything else is sort of window dressing for your decision on where to apply.

Once you’ve assessed these hard data points, then factor in location, faculty expertise, program culture/community, and other opportunities that might interest you like research, community service or exciting clinical placements etc.

04/12/2026

As a reminder to students starting to prepare applications for Physical Therapy school when evaluating programs, rankings like U.S. News and World Report are very limited. They’re based on a single, subjective survey question (rank the quality of a program 1-5) sent to program directors of accredited programs; and only about 40% respond. This is also why there are so many ties every year. In my opinion, there isn’t much difference in quality between the programs ranked in the top 50, 50-100, etc.

Instead start with these objective metrics:

1. Ultimate NPTE pass rate: The core function of a DPT program is to graduate individuals who can ultimately pass the board exam and start practicing as a physical therapist. If the ultimate pass rate is not at or very close to 100% (accounting for rare exceptions), it raises questions about program effectiveness.

2. First-time NPTE pass rate: these should at least meet and ideally exceed the national average (currently 85%). Follows the same reasoning as #1.

3. Cost: Ideally at or below the median salary of a PT or at least within a range that allows for manageable repayment without compromising quality of life.

4. Graduation rates: These reflect the likelihood that a student admitted to the program will successfully graduate. (This is harder to find but you can ask programs for this information).

5. Job placement rates: These indicate the likelihood of securing employment in the field after graduation. (This is harder to find but you can ask programs for this information).

Ultimately, the equation is simple:

If I invest the inputs of time and money into a DPT program, what is the likelihood that it will provide the outcomes of graduation, PT licensure, getting hired as a PT, and a positive return on those investments.

Everything else is sort of window dressing for your decision on where to apply.

Once you’ve assessed these hard data points, then factor in location, faculty expertise, program culture/community, and other opportunities that might interest you like research, community service or exciting clinical placements etc.

04/08/2026

Honored to serve as guest editor for this special issue of the Cardiopulmonary Physical Therapy Journal, published today.

This project feels like a full-circle moment for me. Nearly a decade ago, my first publication was an editorial on the effects of respiratory muscle training on chemoreflex sensitivity titled “A Breath of Fresh Air.” It felt fitting, then, to title this editorial for the special issue “Taking a Second Breath.”

This issue highlights how much the field of respiratory muscle testing and training has re-emerged and continues to gain momentum. The response to our call for papers far exceeded expectations, with strong representation from researchers and clinicians around the world. In fact, we will be publishing an additional issue featuring more papers from the original call.

Grateful to everyone who helped bring this issue to life, and excited to see where this work goes next.

Link to editorial: https://journals.lww.com/cptj/fulltext/2026/04000/taking_a_second_breath__the_re_emergence_of.1.aspx

Link to special issue: https://journals.lww.com/cptj/pages/currenttoc.aspx

PT Reviewer

06/15/2026

05/08/2026

05/04/2026

05/02/2026

05/02/2026

04/19/2026

04/17/2026

04/12/2026

04/12/2026

04/08/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category