Anyone know anything about Dr. Christopher Stackpole

[Samoo]

PDX Blazer's fan here, and Stackpole was just hired as Director of Player Health. Coming from a physical therapy office in Farmington called ProEx. Supposed to be a young hotshot but is only 26 with somewhat limited experience.

http://www.blazersedge.com/2013/6/3...topher-stackpole-as-director-of-player-health

 

[Rico444]

No, but I'm quite familiar with his brother Richard. Does great work in the industry.

 

[sledog]

26? Has he passed his internship?? The lads better get to NYU Med, or equal, if they need med help.

 

[progrocks]

Thank you for linking to that. He got a doctorate two years after his bachelors? I will never again assume a doctorate is a hard earned long time degree and assume they are all hacks. Considering the luck the Blazers have had with some of their big players over the past decade I would hire a witch doctor before a physical therapist to run my medical team, or maybe even an MD!

 

[Sportsman5]

Thank you for linking to that. He got a doctorate two years after his bachelors? I will never again assume a doctorate is a hard earned long time degree and assume they are all hacks. Considering the luck the Blazers have had with some of their big players over the past decade I would hire a witch doctor before a physical therapist to run my medical team, or maybe even an MD!

usually 3 years. UConn's is 3 summers, 3 springs, and 3 falls. So essentially 4.5 years if you took just courses in the fall and spring like a bachelors plus research at UConn. About half get their research published. I think he graduated quick at BU because he probably took some grad courses his senior year due to finishing undergrad early. I know of several people who have done this. Experience is overrated in my opinion in an age of information. You can be 16 and know more than 90% of professionals in a given industry due to the enormous amount of information on the internet. However, it seems as if he has power such as deciding what other health professionals are on the staff. You would think someone who knows very little about other modalities would not have that power. If he knows enough to be the most qualified for his job at 26, plus a ton about the other modalities like MDs, chiropractors, massage therapists etc. on staff, than he must acquire information at a rate that is better than any other who has ever lived. If that's the case, than God bless him and the trail blazers organization.

 

[jleves]

No, but I'm quite familiar with his brother Richard. Does great work in the industry.

Post of the week!

 

[Dogbreath2U]

Experience is overrated in my opinion in an age of information. You can be 16 and know more than 90% of professionals in a given industry due to the enormous amount of information on the internet.

This is just so wrong I am stunned. If you have a significant health problem requiring surgery, do you want someone who has done the procedure a thousand times or someone who has read about it?

 

[Sportsman5]

Did you seriously think I was referring to a surgeon performing a surgery when I stated you can learn 90% of the information you need over the internet!!!!???????????? My point is that we are far from the days of needing 20-40 years of experience to be at the top of your field. I used an extreme example to make a point that there are some industries where information can be gathered so easily that at a young age you can outperform most who are currently in the field. You don't need to wait until entering a field to gain much of the cutting edge knowledge about it. Experience is a reflection of time and opportunities for learning that are taken advantage of. In the past, it was very hard to gain knowledge past a certain rate due to limited access to information. Therefore, it was almost impossible for someone to be at the top of their field with say 5 years of work experience. In many fields however (NOT ALL) those days are gone. Is it more likely that someone who has 30 years experience is better at their job than 7 years? Yes. Is it very plausible that a person with much less experience in an industry where optimal techniques are discovered on a monthly or yearly basis is ahead of the more experienced person? absolutely. Most professionals I know who are 35+ have so much going on in their life that they literally do not have time to keep up with even a small fraction of new information, techniques, and procedures. In some industries it barely matters because the industry is basically at a stand still, and in others they are being left in the dust to the detriment of people who are relying on them. Do you not agree with this?

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

PT doctoral degrees are earned in two years, I have multiple friends who did that. In fact, I think I know this kid from BU, I probably have many friends who know him. For reference, I knew a guy who was an '07 at BU in PT and he was hired last year as the head AT for the New York Islanders.

 

[zls44]

168 comments on a story announcing the hiring of a player health supervisor.

Or, "why Blazers Edge is terrifying".

 

[Dogbreath2U]

Did you seriously think I was referring to a surgeon performing a surgery when I stated you can learn 90% of the information you need over the internet!!!!???????????? My point is that we are far from the days of needing 20-40 years of experience to be at the top of your field. I used an extreme example to make a point that there are some industries where information can be gathered so easily that at a young age you can outperform most who are currently in the field. You don't need to wait until entering a field to gain much of the cutting edge knowledge about it. Experience is a reflection of time and opportunities for learning that are taken advantage of. In the past, it was very hard to gain knowledge past a certain rate due to limited access to information. Therefore, it was almost impossible for someone to be at the top of their field with say 5 years of work experience. In many fields however (NOT ALL) those days are gone. Is it more likely that someone who has 30 years experience is better at their job than 7 years? Yes. Is it very plausible that a person with much less experience in an industry where optimal techniques are discovered on a monthly or yearly basis is ahead of the more experienced person? absolutely. Most professionals I know who are 35+ have so much going on in their life that they literally do not have time to keep up with even a small fraction of new information, techniques, and procedures. In some industries it barely matters because the industry is basically at a stand still, and in others they are being left in the dust to the detriment of people who are relying on them. Do you not agree with this?

I think that your point applies to a much smaller percentage of jobs/professions than you suggest (i.e. fields dependent on a rapid rate of technological change), but even then the acquisition of information is only a part of being effective or successful. Knowing facts does not provide judgment, a knowledge of patterns over time, an ability to understand the bigger context of systems, etc. I do agree that your point probably does apply to some fields, but there aren't too many situations where I would want a 16 year old to be responsible for doing something of importance without significant oversight.

 

[diggerfoot]

I think that your point applies to a much smaller percentage of jobs/professions than you suggest (i.e. fields dependent on a rapid rate of technological change), but even then the acquisition of information is only a part of being effective or successful. Knowing facts does not provide judgment, a knowledge of patterns over time, an ability to understand the bigger context of systems, etc. I do agree that your point probably does apply to some fields, but there aren't too many situations where I would want a 16 year old to be responsible for doing something of importance without significant oversight.

You make a valid point that age can deliver a greater range of experience, and with that wisdom and judgement. Yet the handicap of age can be "this is the way things are done," resulting from a narrow focus, dogmatic inclination, laziness, burn out or other factors. I've worked in two other fields where, unfortunately, "the way things are done" cuts off the potential for wisdom derived from greater experiences. The young are more likely to learn from the more experienced and adjust that to current experience than the old will adjust to current experience. I think you are correct that it depends on the field whether the advantages of youth win out, but there are probably many more fields where youth wins out than you suspect. One of the two fields I spoke of was not necessarily technology based: teaching. You get a few young teachers who never should have entered the field. That is outweighed by at least half the old teachers having started burn out but hanging on for the sake of their pensions.

 

[Dogbreath2U]

You make a valid point that age can deliver a greater range of experience, and with that wisdom and judgement. Yet the handicap of age can be "this is the way things are done," resulting from a narrow focus, dogmatic inclination, laziness, burn out or other factors. I've worked in two other fields where, unfortunately, "the way things are done" cuts off the potential for wisdom derived from greater experiences. The young are more likely to learn from the more experienced and adjust that to current experience than the old will adjust to current experience. I think you are correct that it depends on the field whether the advantages of youth win out, but there are probably many more fields where youth wins out than you suspect. One of the two fields I spoke of was not necessarily technology based: teaching. You get a few young teachers who never should have entered the field. That is outweighed by at least half the old teachers having started burn out but hanging on for the sake of their pensions.

You make good points, but the advantage of young teachers lies in their energy and enthusiasm, not the information that they have obtained from the internet.

 

[Sportsman5]

You make good points, but the advantage of young teachers lies in their energy and enthusiasm, not the information that they have obtained from the internet.

I think you are taking my point about the internet and imagining a kid reading a blog or something. My point it that their are vast amounts of college level lectures and continuing education seminars on the internet etc. In other words. I can listen and watch some of the best people in the world talk for literally hours about what they have learned over many years. Then listen to them 3 more times. Then listen to another leading expert from a different country with different experiences for hours, then listen to that 3 more times so I remember and assimilate the information. This can all be done in virtually real time. Not have to wait a year for that person to travel to the New York to do a seminar that I may or may not be able to attend. The chances that your college professors or on job trainers are the best in the world is slim to none. With the internet you can learn from the best in a setting and format that allows you to absorb and retain the information. Obviously most do not seek out these opportunities. That is why I said that someone with 30 years experience has a better chance of knowing what they are doing than someone with 7 years.

 

[Dogbreath2U]

I think you are taking my point about the internet and imagining a kid reading a blog or something. My point it that their are vast amounts of college level lectures and continuing education seminars on the internet etc. In other words. I can listen and watch some of the best people in the world talk for literally hours about what they have learned over many years. Then listen to them 3 more times. Then listen to another leading expert from a different country with different experiences for hours, then listen to that 3 more times so I remember and assimilate the information. This can all be done in virtually real time. Not have to wait a year for that person to travel to the New York to do a seminar that I may or may not be able to attend. The chances that your college professors or on job trainers are the best in the world is slim to none. With the internet you can learn from the best in a setting and format that allows you to absorb and retain the information. Obviously most do not seek out these opportunities. That is why I said that someone with 30 years experience has a better chance of knowing what they are doing than someone with 7 years.

Well, the availability of exactly the kind of information that is needed for free has not been my experience, but I admit that this could be more true for some fields that others and that my understanding of what is available may be limited by what I have come to learn about. I have come across excellent information and training on some subjects that did surprise me (for free, no less). A lot of learning requires real-world and real-time feedback to practice and learn experientially. As I think about it more, I do acknowledge that there are some very good things on the web. It can be difficult to find the time to take advantage of it when it is so rarely built into people's jobs.

 

[Sportsman5]

Well, the availability of exactly the kind of information that is needed for free has not been my experience, but I admit that this could be more true for some fields that others and that my understanding of what is available may be limited by what I have come to learn about. I have come across excellent information and training on some subjects that did surprise me (for free, no less). A lot of learning requires real-world and real-time feedback to practice and learn experientially. As I think about it more, I do acknowledge that there are some very good things on the web. It can be difficult to find the time to take advantage of it when it is so rarely built into people's jobs.

I agree that there is certainly a "practice" aspect to becoming great at what you do. that is why I used an example of 30 years experience vs 7 years instead of something like 30 years vs 3 months. Your last point is also a HUGE one that goes back to my point that I basically do not know anyone who is 35+ that has time to do proper continuing education. Usually at that point in life the day to day of a person's professional and personal life is so great that there is little time to do anything else besides keep up with work, take care of kids, and take care of aging parents. I am in no way attacking people in this position. However, I am just pointing out that the difference in knowledge and abilities between experience levels is much closer than it used to be and in some cases (like the person that just got hired) a very young professional can be near the top of his field. Normally a situation like this wouldn't be a problem because the best and brightest would quickly move up the ladder at their organization if they proved themselves. The massive issue in this economy is that in some cases the best people are unemployed due to age/ experience discrimination. Sometimes (and some would argue in most cases) people hire based upon a 1-2 page resume and sometimes as little as one 30-60 minute interview. For some jobs this is sufficient, but for most it is INSANE that it works that way. I am 100% aware of time constraints etc. and that it logistically has to be that way, but it used to be that a resume could tell you a lot about a person's ability to perform a job vs another candidate. However, now in some industries it tells you very little.