I am studying TRADITIONAL NATUROPATHY (which is NOT \"medicine\") at Clayton College of Natural Health. Therefore, my response is admittedly biased in support of Clayton and in favor of distance learning (but not against the residential schools or the “brand” of naturopathy taught at said schools).

A few personal opinions and critical caveats are in order. First, within the context of natural health, a distance learning mode is appropriate ONLY IF one wants to learn traditional naturopathy (versus the allopathic-naturopathic \"hybrid\" model taught by the residential schools). Second, if one wishes to combine the use of prescription medications, minor surgery, and other invasive procedures with natural healing practices, then clearly attending a residential school is the ONLY way to go. Third, I have absolutely nothing whatsoever against those who wish to study for and practice the allopathic-naturopathic hybrid variety (I am using \"hybrid\" in the most complimentary context possible -- i.e., I think it can be a good thing -- if that happens to be the student\'s/practitioner\'s \"thing\").

We really need to put the issues into a healthy perspective here. For ease of discussion here, I will distinguish between the two major naturopathic \"camps\" as (a) traditional naturopathy (i.e., as advocated by the early pioneers in 19th century Europe and on to Benedict Lust--one of the leaders in traditional naturopathy in America in the late 1800s) and (b) \"naturopathic medicine\" -- i.e., as advocated by the residential schools. These labels are arbitrary and, again, intended only to ease discussion. Regardless of what we wish to call the two recognized \"camps\" of naturopathy, we must realize that while traditional naturopathy and naturopathic medicine share many common beliefs and practices there is still a tremendous difference between the two schools of thought. The biggest difference is, of course, the manner and scope of practice by which each of the groups defines itself. Since I have not attended the residential schools I will not hold myself out as an expert on exactly what is (and is not) taught or advocated by these schools. However, I do understand that a fair amount of the curriculum is devoted to the study and practice of legend drugs, performing minor surgery, OB/GYN procedures (to include child delivery), and other invasive procedures. Traditional naturopathy on the other hand would not employ any of these modalities. Dr. Benedict Lust, for example, was \"opposed to the administrations of all drugs and narcotics ...” (see http://www.naturalhealth.org/tradnaturo/history2.html). Please see the definition of traditional naturopathy suggested by the Coalition for Natural Health at http://www.naturalhealth.org/tradnaturo/index.html. Take a few moments to ponder this definition (which appears generally accepted by traditional naturopaths) and I think you will discover that this is quite different than the scope of practice defined by naturopathic medicine.

As for Clayton, I investigated this school very carefully for over two years before finally enrolling only recently. I found the admissions staff and process to be exceptionally responsive, honest, and open to countless inquiries by me during my investigation. Since beginning the program I can say that I have been pleased with the quality of instruction and the rigor of the studies. I am a graduate of traditional bachelors, masters, and specialist degree programs -- all from traditional universities and I can tell you that distance learning \"can\" be just as demanding and effective as that provided at \"brick and mortar\" schools. A lot depends on how much you are willing to put into the process yourself, and the specific discipline you are studying (for both types of instruction).

In summary, distance learning is not inherently inferior to residential education. Each mode lends itself better to different disciplines -- especially in this discussion of traditional naturopathy and naturopathic medicine. Finally, I think we need to clear the air a bit regarding accreditation. That is to say, the last time I checked, the agency that accredits the residential NMD schools is no longer recognized by the U.S. government. Therefore, at best, you could say that the residential schools are accredited by an unrecognized/unofficial accrediting body -- i.e., just like the distance learning schools for traditional naturopathy (our schools are accredited -- but not by any agency recognized by the government). I think that there is nothing inherently wrong with attending a non-traditionally accredited school -- in the case of traditional naturopathy or naturopathic medicine. After all, we are all studying non-traditional paradigms in health and wellness. In the case of non-traditional healthcare, I would suggest that non-traditional accreditation is more appropriate in the first place. Please, however, do not hold the residential schools out as being superior or even better recognized because of the accreditation status -- they\'re in the same boat as the distance schools of natural health.

Finally, Pattie, I think that you just need to do some serious soul searching and career planning of your own. Once you decide on how you intend to practice as a natural health practitioner, the type of school and specific school that\'s right for you will become immediately apparent. Match the school (its philosophies, \"brand\" of naturopathy taught, etc.) with your true career goals and the decision will be perfectly clear to you. From my perspective, one is not superior or inferior to the other ... they are just different.

Peace ... Live Well Naturally,

Bill Carnagey, ND_2B