Are you in favor of public MD schools being required to take 90%+ instate?

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Originally Posted by DanGee777

Would you include GPA as a significant part of it? I'm biased, but if someone has a 3.3 GPA, and a 36 mcat, I think that makes them at least as qualified for med school as someone who has a 3.9 GPA and a 28 mcat. Yet according to AAMC stats, the 3.9/28 has a 68% chance of admittance, while the 3.3/36 has only a 60% chance. If someone goes to a less academically rigorous college and diligently selects some of the easier professors using RateMyProf, should they be rewarded for it? There's a valid argument to be made that they should, and that the other student should have done the same. Still, considering that the MCAT is the only standardized metric that we have to compare applicants, shouldn't we make the MCAT ~70% of the decision and the GPA ~20% of the decision? This is similar to the ratio most law schools use with LSAT/GPA. Or, at the very least, make BCPM GPA a bigger part of the decision than cGPA?

I would agree with that.

That being said, it doesn't really address what he said. It should be obvious that - assuming we could somehow rank applicants regardless of how we do so - a selection of the highest ranked applicants taken only from one state will necessarily be inferior to a selection from the entire country unless this state happened to have all the top applicants.

And btw, I used to be a resident of a more rural state, and had I gone to med school there, I probably would've left for residency and never come back (granted I'd never tell them that :P). So states like Mississippi may be better served by opening up to OOS applicants, but charging some absurdly high OOS tuition, but offering loan forgiveness for working in the state for a certain length of time

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Assume there's some formula f(x,y,z) = S where x is MCAT, y is GPA, and z is school caliber.

I'm just going by S, I'm making no assumptions about which particular f() you should use.

Proposed formula for assigning interview slots:

School caliber 5% maximum (based on avg entering ACT/SAT score, or other factors if school does not require it)
Other soft factors 5% maximum
MCAT scaled and converted to a percentage with a maximum of 70%
GPA scaled and converted to a percentage with a maximum of 20%
-15% if you are from another state and you are white or asian
-20% if you are from California and you are white or asian
+10% if you are from NY State and are a white or asian
+25% if you are from NY state and are a URM

Originally Posted by DanGee777

Fair enough. You have to include a URM component. I happen to believe that the URMs from the great state of NY are more deserving of SUNY spots than certain ORMs (who shall not be named) from states that begin with the letter... C, and end with the letter... A.

Why? Aside from the weight placed upon URM status in general, I see no value in the instate vs out of state preference if those ORMs as you call them are better qualified than instate ORMs.

I'm not going to touch URM stuff in general because a) the topic is toxic and b) I don't know how it works (quotas, handicaps, etc).

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Why? Aside from the weight placed upon URM status in general, I see no value in the instate vs out of state preference if those ORMs as you call them are better qualified than instate ORMs.

I'm not going to touch URM stuff in general because a) the topic is toxic and b) I don't know how it works (quotas, handicaps, etc).

Because URMs from NY are easier to get along with than are ORMs from California, and because diversity is important. Adding a bunch of whites and asians from California does not add diversity to the class. It's not the same as adding some blacks and hispanics. That's diversity.

The value in the instate vs out of state preference is that NY state is giving too good a deal to the OOS folks. California makes OOS matriculants pay OOS tuition all 4 years. NY grants them in-state tuition after one year. How is that fair?

If you're opposed to heavy in-state preference, then why can't NY at least do what a lot of state public schools do? I'm talking about making the OOS tuition at their publics ~$50,000 a year for all 4 years. If you did that, you'd see a significant percentage of the OOS apps from states like California drop, I imagine. The applicants know that if they get into the SUNY, that they're only stuck paying 55,000 for one year, then it's back down to 29,000 with the rest of the class. Families here have been paying high NY state income taxes for years to fund SUNY to help keep tuition low. OOS grads come in and take the spots, contribute nothing in taxes while they're here,and leave. Sure, they help stimulate the local economy while they're at SUNY Stony Brook or SUNY Downstate, but an IS matriculant could do that just as easily. Tell me the public policy argument in favor of giving OOS ORMs these seats. Maybe they do their residency here, but then they move back to California with the rest of their family. Great bargain for us, huh? SUNY grads may not do their residencies here, but a TON of them come back after residency. Almost every doctor I've ever been to has been a SUNY grad except for my primary care doctor (he's a DO), and all of them are NY natives.

I don't think you ever really addressed my argument. If it is okay for MS to limit their student slots to MS residents, and if it is fair for GA to do so (well, 98.5% of the spots, but same thing), why is it unfair for NY to do so? You stated that MS would get flooded by OOSers with higher stats if they didn't, well, that's what's happening to some SUNYs as well. Something like 60-65% of the apps each SUNY gets each year are from out of state. I suspect a lot are from California. Why is it fair in your mind to take higher qualified OOS ORMs into SUNY but not into MS? I realize that NY is a more popular destination than MS but many of these OOS SUNY matriculants never come back to the state after residency (or after they finish med school if they do residency out of state).

Originally Posted by DanGee777

Because URMs from NY are easier to get along with than are ORMs from California, and because diversity is important.

What about URMs from CA? (The more appropriate comparison.)

And really, "easier to get along with"? That's just silly - and sounds like you may have some personal biases to work out.

I agree about instate tuition - that should not be available after one year.

EDIT: And yes I did address your argument (somewhere). I don't think any state should save spots for their citizens. I think there should be an instate/out of state tuition difference for all four years to cover the difference in tax payer investment.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

What about URMs from CA? (The more appropriate comparison.)

And really, "easier to get along with"? That's just silly - and sounds like you may have some personal biases to work out.

I agree about instate tuition - that should not be available after one year.

I added a bunch of stuff to my post above. Cali for URMs is a different situation. I think they have a state proposition that bans URM preferences in public education, which is why their URM numbers are relatively low, although I could be wrong about that. Keep in mind that California has a very small black population and a burgeoning hispanic population. NY has plenty of both. I wouldn't be as opposed to having URMs from California with disadvantaged backgrounds taking spots over in-state NY people, but there is certainly no argument for us to get more ORMs from California. What do they add to the class? GPA and MCAT? Come on. Look at our other schools in NY. We have Albany and NYMC, but they're 45k a year versus 29k for SUNY. At least some of those kids were probably rejected from SUNY. They could EASILY fill the 4 SUNY med schools with 100% in-state matriculants and the average MCAT wouldn't go down. Just take the kids from those schools, and then let the ORMs from other states take slots at Albany and NYMC.

The only people that are upset are the people who are looking from the outside (OOS applicants).

If you are an IS applicant, that's a good thing.

There are many things which could be done.

Personally, I place value in having the highest caliber students in SUNY schools because that makes the schools better. (And I want them to have a good reputation because I want NY to have strong institutions.)

NY has strong applicants, so we can hold our own. For the strong applicants from other states, they should be welcome if they want to attend (but should pay more since none of their or their families' taxes went to the schools).

For under qualified NY students, I don't really have much sympathy. They should have better access to other state schools since they're probably better than average students in MS, but so be it.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

There are many things which could be done.

Personally, I place value in having the highest caliber students in SUNY schools because that makes the schools better. (And I want them to have a good reputation because I want NY to have strong institutions.)

NY has strong applicants, so we can hold our own. For the strong applicants from other states, they should be welcome if they want to attend (but should pay more since none of their or their families' taxes went to the schools).

For under qualified NY students, I don't really have much sympathy. They should have better access to other state schools since they're probably better than average students in MS, but so be it.

Go move to Mississippi and work a minimum wage job for a year?

That's better than having no job.

"1 in 2 new graduates are jobless or underemployed"
http://news.yahoo.com/1-2-graduates-jobless-underemployed-140300522.html

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Go move to Mississippi and work a minimum wage job for a year?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Go move to Mississippi and work a minimum wage job for a year?

Texas is better . 7 MD schools (all with super-heavy IS preference) vs 1, and the tuition is so cheap. Still under 10k a year. Like I said, I've thought about it. I would do it, if I wasn't so goshdarn OLD already.

There's inconsistencies and unevenness across the board. I just don't think that NY has the short end of the stick. You have four medical schools (some states don't have any), and even your top private medical schools like Cornell, Sinai, etc have a skewed preference for in-staters (as a reference, Stanford and Harvard do NOT show this preference). I have a US News book from 2009 which showed the % accepted for in-state versus OOS for private and public medical schools and NY private heavily favored in-staters, more so than most other schools. So as a whole you have a ton of schools to choose from with all the SUNYs and privates, so unlike Cali natives, its probably pretty likely that a New Yorker can stay in their own state for med school.

I'm furious that Texas schools only charge ~25K in OOS tuition (which is pretty much equal to what NYers pay in-state) .

As an applicant with no state schools, I appreciate that schools accept OOS students. I spent a large part of my childhood in upstate NY and now, as a mother, I am applying to school there because a) I would love to attend the school, and b) because I had a great childhood there, I love that part of the country, it is a great place for me to raise my kids, and I would like to end up there eventually regardless of where I end up going to school.

The reason state schools are so cheap compared to private schools is because the tuition is heavily subsidized by the taxpayers of that state. Not only that, but the larger university is often heavily funded by the state. Therefore, the state school should take in-state applicants and hopefully produce physicians that will practice in state. Otherwise, all medical schools should just be private from the taxpayer point of view and medical students can pay for their education on their own. The practice of accepting out of state students who change their residency after a year and get in state tuition is idiotic from the public policy point of view, but good for applicants

I think state schools should only accept OOSers who cook well. Honestly, I don't care about credentials except culinary.

Originally Posted by DanGee777

If it is okay for MS to limit their student slots to MS residents, and if it is fair for GA to do so (well, 98.5% of the spots, but same thing), why is it unfair for NY to do so?

I personally can't address what's fair per say, but I can address reality. The NE is and will always be saturated with physicians and medical schools. Furthermore, there's a whole bunch of movement within the NE, be it from MA to NY or to PA and even as far south as VA. The state has no incentive to limit its SUNY schools to in-state students because the state will always have enough doctors (compared to the rest of the nation) regardless of where individuals go to medical school. I would be willing to bet that tons of people who go to medschool and do their residencies in the NE end up practicing in NY.

Because NY will have enough doctors regardless of SUNY regulations, isn't it in the school's best interest to enroll the best (we unfortunately/fortunately have to use objective criteria to determine "best") students?

I just found this link (2009 data) that shows that per 100,000 people there are 392 doctors in NY while there are 177 in MS. Even with SUNY letting OOSers in, there's no (relative) shortage of doctors in NY. For more comparison, CA has 262 doctors per 100K people; more than 100 doctors less than NY. If we're really looking to equalize access, more CA students should be accepted everywhere!

http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data...apita-by-state

Originally Posted by RedSox10

There's inconsistencies and unevenness across the board. I just don't think that NY has the short end of the stick. You have four medical schools (some states don't have any), and even your top private medical schools like Cornell, Sinai, etc have a skewed preference for in-staters (as a reference, Stanford and Harvard do NOT show this preference). I have a US News book from 2009 which showed the % accepted for in-state versus OOS for private and public medical schools and NY private heavily favored in-staters, more so than most other schools. So as a whole you have a ton of schools to choose from with all the SUNYs and privates, so unlike Cali natives, its probably pretty likely that a New Yorker can stay in their own state for med school.

Were those stats corrected for MCATs and GPAs? I'd wager some private schools in other states have a heavy preference for people from NY too...

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Were those stats corrected for MCATs and GPAs? I'd wager some private schools in other states have a heavy preference for people from NY too...

No they weren't corrected for GPA and MCAT. BUT, for example Mass (my home state with only 1 state med school which accepts a total of 180 students to fill a class of 125) has a higher ave GPA and MCAT according to AAMC than NY, so I don't think its fair to assume that NY schools have a preference for NY because those students have higher numbers/are smarter. it's much more likely NY schools have a preference for NY because they know people from NY will attend....

Other states with a higher MCAT and GPA are CA, CT, CO, IA, NH, UT, VT, etc. and the list continues.

Table of ave GPA and MCAT for applicants by state:
https://www.aamc.org/download/161700/data/table21.pdf

Table of ave GPA and MCAT of matriculated applicants by state:
https://www.aamc.org/download/161700/data/table21.pdf

Originally Posted by RedSox10

No they weren't corrected for GPA and MCAT. BUT, for example Mass (my home state with only 1 state med school which accepts a total of 180 students to fill a class of 125) has a higher ave GPA and MCAT according to AAMC than NY, so I don't think its fair to assume that NY schools have a preference for NY because those students have higher numbers/are smarter. it's much more likely NY schools have a preference for NY because they know people from NY will attend....

Other states with a higher MCAT and GPA are CA, CT, CO, IA, NH, UT, VT, etc. and the list continues.

Table of ave GPA and MCAT for applicants by state:
https://www.aamc.org/download/161700/data/table21.pdf

Table of ave GPA and MCAT of matriculated applicants by state:
https://www.aamc.org/download/161700/data/table21.pdf

Average isn't the only part of the story. NY also has more applicants, so with an above average MCAT/GPA plus a larger population of applicants (and maybe larger number of applicants per capita), you have a very large pool of talented applicants coming from NY.

Originally Posted by Porfirio

I thought residency match was more correlated.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking if medical students being educated in a given state are more likely to stay in that state? Absolutely true, but where they end up as attendings is much more sporadic.


Even residents in rural areas are difficult to lock down, the best way in my opinion is to snag them directly from residency (or later even, get them when you can) via loan repayment and other benefits.

I'm in favor of it. It sucks if for example, you want to go to school in Cali and aren't from Cali, but many public schools are funded by the state. By offering instate residents a lower tuition, they keep these students in state longer. After living the majority of their life in that state, by the time the graduate medical school, few are going to want to leave. Its just states protecting the investments they have made.

Personally I like the general idea, but instead of having a 90% quota I think it should be public schools accept all in-state students who meet the following criteria:

3.5 GPA
30 MCAT
Minimum 150 hours volunteer and shadowing.
Minimum 1 extracurricular.

I think public schools should be required to accept applicants who meet the above criteria. I think the 90% quota wouldn't work because if it was in a small state they might get a ton of applicants with 2.5s and have to accept a lot of them.

Also I personally believe that schools shouldn't be allowed to grant MDs to students who cannot reach a 3.0 GPA by the end of their fourth year. Not trying to cause a forum war here, but that's just my personal opinion. As a patient, I wouldn't want a C student to take care of me.

Originally Posted by nysegop

Personally I like the general idea, but instead of having a 90% quota I think it should be public schools accept all in-state students who meet the following criteria:

3.5 GPA
30 MCAT
Minimum 150 hours volunteer and shadowing.
Minimum 1 extracurricular.

I think public schools should be required to accept applicants who meet the above criteria. I think the 90% quota wouldn't work because if it was in a small state they might get a ton of applicants with 2.5s and have to accept a lot of them.

Also I personally believe that schools shouldn't be allowed to grant MDs to students who cannot reach a 3.0 GPA by the end of their fourth year. Not trying to cause a forum war here, but that's just my personal opinion. As a patient, I wouldn't want a C student to take care of me.

I'd argue 30 MCAT over 3.0 GPA. There are many people who screw up badly enough first year or two to rule out an overall 3.0 who are capable of handling medical school.

People who goof off in college can be redeemed. There's no cure for stupid.

Originally Posted by whatbout2morrow

I'm furious that Texas schools only charge ~25K in OOS tuition (which is pretty much equal to what NYers pay in-state) .

Wow, at my state school the OOS is ~$50,000 and the instate is ~$30,000.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

I'd argue 30 MCAT over 3.0 GPA. There are many people who screw up badly enough first year or two to rule out an overall 3.0 who are capable of handling medical school.

People who goof off in college can be redeemed. There's no cure for stupid.

Good point! But then i'd make it 32 MCAT required if you have below a 3.5 and only 30 required if you have at or above a 3.5. This is because MCAT is more a test of how much you know and GPA is more a test of how hard you work. Students should be able to work hard and be smart.

Sorry for double post.

Originally Posted by nysegop

Good point! But then i'd make it 32 MCAT required if you have below a 3.5 and only 30 required if you have at or above a 3.5. This is because MCAT is more a test of how much you know and GPA is more a test of how hard you work. Students should be able to work hard and be smart.

Sorry for double post.

There's very little knowledge tested on the MCAT.

It's mainly reading comprehension and basic understanding of physical sciences.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

There's very little knowledge tested on the MCAT.

It's mainly reading comprehension and basic understanding of physical sciences.

A.K.A. Knowledge

Originally Posted by nysegop

A.K.A. Knowledge

Reading comprehension isn't really knowledge.

A native speaker with a high enough IQ and proficiency in math and physics (just broad stroke concepts, no memorization) could do very well on the MCAT.

The only memorization required would be for the minimal amount of physiology on the test and a tiny bit of organic.

There are really no nitpicky details on the test, it's just another aptitude test with science-themed questions.

Yes, solely because I would like to stay and 90% would increase my chances.

It makes me giggle how people think New York = NYC. Head up state and you might as well call it West Vermont.

Originally Posted by Itsame

It makes me giggle how people think New York = NYC. Head up state and you might as well call it West Vermont.

Could we please call it West Vermont? I'm tired of those ****s leeching money out of the city.

I don't think that state schools should be funded by the state only to have that money go towards OOS students.

Originally Posted by nysegop

I don't think that state schools should be funded by the state only to have that money go towards OOS students.

And I don't think Denise Richards should have wasted so many years on Charlie Sheen when she could have been with me instead.

That's already covered in the differential between IS and OOS tuition.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

And I don't think Denise Richards should have wasted so many years on Charlie Sheen when she could have been with me instead.

That's already covered in the differential between IS and OOS tuition.

Not enough though. I still think IS applicants deserve a little bit of edge over their OOS similars.

I don't think that it's the role of the state to subsidize medical education. Private schools should be able to choose whoever they want.

Originally Posted by FutureCTDoc

I don't think that it's the role of the state to subsidize medical education. Private schools should be able to choose whoever they want.

Private schools do.

Please leave your masturbatory fantasies about Ayn Rand for the sociopolitical forums.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Private schools do.

Please leave your masturbatory fantasies about Ayn Rand for the sociopolitical forums.

Actually it is about fundamental fairness, the people subsidizing these schools, the taxpayers of these states are no better off for having done so, only poorer. It's hardly shocking to say that private med schools exist and can do just as fine a job as public ones, the question is should people who never go to these schools underwrite your attendance?

Originally Posted by FutureCTDoc

Actually it is about fundamental fairness, the people subsidizing these schools, the taxpayers of these states are no better off for having done so, only poorer. It's hardly shocking to say that private med schools exist and can do just as fine a job as public ones, the question is should people who never go to these schools underwrite your attendance?

The same argument could be made about all public education.

There are talented people in many states who could not afford the debt burden of college or medical school without the state school systems.

It's of a benefit to the common good of the state that they be able to get an affordable education, both because they are likely to stay there and because they have ties to other tax paying residents of the state.

This isn't the place to debate the costs/benefits of public education, go to the sociopolitical forum.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

The same argument could be made about all public education.

There are talented people in many states who could not afford the debt burden of college or medical school without the state school systems.

It's of a benefit to the common good of the state that they be able to get an affordable education, both because they are likely to stay there and because they have ties to other tax paying residents of the state.

This isn't the place to debate the costs/benefits of public education, go to the sociopolitical forum.

So then those talented people should save up or work while they go to school, college isn't a right, the same is true for medical school. Those people who are overwhelmingly the middle and upper middle class are subsidized by all the tax payers in the state, it's in fact regressive the poor person's sales tax is sending these kids to med school.

The benefit to the "common good" is de minimus, people stay near where they go for residency (the fact that they are medicare funded is an issue unto itself), residencies don't require public medical schools.

I certainly think private schools should be able to choose whoever they want. Unless they receive state funding... but then they wouldn't be a "private" school. But I also think that the state SHOULD fund medical education. Why? Because doctors are very valuable assets to the community. They obviously shouldn't pay for all of it. But at least get the state schools down to undergrad level tuition.

I'll be a dissenting opinion. My state school does accept a high proportion of IS applicants (I can't remember the numbers off the top of my head, but it is pretty high). However, they're the only medical school in the state (well, now a DO school has opened up, but there's a lot of controversy about that school).

On the other hand, Virginia (where I go to school) has multiple state schools (UVA, EVMS, VCU, VT, plus a DO school, which I'm not sure whether is state or private). There are proportionally more seats available in Virginia than in my state.

If a school individually decides to only accept IS students, or a high proportion of them, fine. But I don't think it should be made a policy across the board, just because some applicants would prefer to stay IS.

Originally Posted by FutureCTDoc

So then those talented people should save up or work while they go to school, college isn't a right, the same is true for medical school. Those people who are overwhelmingly the middle and upper middle class are subsidized by all the tax payers in the state, it's in fact regressive the poor person's sales tax is sending these kids to med school.

The benefit to the "common good" is de minimus, people stay near where they go for residency (the fact that they are medicare funded is an issue unto itself), residencies don't require public medical schools.

Quite frankly, not enough people would become doctors. And those who did would only be those from independently wealthy families or non-traditional applicants after retiring from Wall St.

And hospitals would simply stop supporting residencies. Without the subsidy, I'd be surprised if more than 10% of current residencies could stay open.

You seem kind of clueless about these things, and either grew up incredibly wealthy and insulated or just have swallowed too much Libertarian koolaid.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Quite frankly, not enough people would become doctors. And those who did would only be those from independently wealthy families or non-traditional applicants after retiring from Wall St.

And hospitals would simply stop supporting residencies. Without the subsidy, I'd be surprised if more than 10% of current residencies could stay open.

You seem kind of clueless about these things, and either grew up incredibly wealthy and insulated or just have swallowed too much Libertarian koolaid.

Or both, dude. Don't forget that option.

Originally Posted by FutureCTDoc

So then those talented people should save up or work while they go to school, college isn't a right, the same is true for medical school. Those people who are overwhelmingly the middle and upper middle class are subsidized by all the tax payers in the state, it's in fact regressive the poor person's sales tax is sending these kids to med school.

The benefit to the "common good" is de minimus, people stay near where they go for residency (the fact that they are medicare funded is an issue unto itself), residencies don't require public medical schools.

So... affordable education is bad? Especially for poor people?

I hope you run for political office.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Could we please call it West Vermont? I'm tired of those ****s leeching money out of the city.

Where does your water come from? West Vermont. Where do some of your vegetables come from? West Vermont

FWIW, I think a lot of us Upstaters would be happy to separate into two distinct states, Upper NY and Lower NY. SUNY Buffalo and SUNY Upstate medical schools take a LOT of their students from downstate and the NYC area in general. Stony Brook and Downstate have very few upstaters. Let's keep the two upstate SUNYs for the upstaters, and you guys can have your two downstate schools. What do you say?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...seccession.png

P.S. -- if you want to accuse of us being money leechers, this is a good article for you to read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/op...pagewanted=all

"The fundamental inequity of the cuts, as currently proposed, can be seen in how they would affect two of the state’s school districts: Ilion in the economically depressed Mohawk Valley, and Syosset, a wealthy town in Long Island’s Nassau County."

I'm really kidding about the secession, but I don't think some of the Upstate rural school districts could survive without some state aid from Long Island/Manhattan/Westchester etc.. FWIW, Brooklyn, Queens and Bronx schools couldn't survive either without some state aid from LonIsland/Manhattan/Westchester etc. There aren't enough wealthy school districts in Upstate NY to subsidize the big city ones like Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, Utica, etc.

Now if you're a Rand acolyte like Mr. FutureCTDoc, you might be okay with that. I didn't get that vibe from you, however, considering you accused him of drinking Libertarian koolaid :P. FWIW, I totally agree with you. If we want to ensure that 80% of doctors come from the top 2% of the population, then getting rid of state MD schools seems like a phenomenal idea. But it might not have to come to that to achieve that outcome-- just let state MD tuition keep rising, and eventually it will equal private school tuition.

Last point in this post, I promise. Many graduates of Buffalo med school come back to the Western NY area after residency. Many graduates of Upstate med school come back to the Central NY area after residency. If there was one thing we could do to help increase the number of upstate NY students who are admitted and will practice in Upstate NY, we could have the two upstate SUNY med schools give a slight preference to upstate applicants. NYC and LI and the rest of downstate don't have any doctor shortages, really, except primary care in some areas. Many upstate cities have massive shortages of primary care doctors and shortages in more than a few specialties.

K, liberal rant over.

Originally Posted by nysegop

They obviously shouldn't pay for all of it. But at least get the state schools down to undergrad level tuition.

AMEN. Texas tuition is like 6k a year at most of their state schools, and they aren't exactly KNOWN for being massive funders of education, unlike NY. Tuition at state schools here is 30k a year and going higher. While that might not be a problem for some students, there's something wrong with the fact that students who attend public MD schools will still be graduating with 170k or 180k in debt, versus maybe 240k at a private school. Almost everyone at Texas public MD schools graduates with <100k debt, I'd imagine. Considering that many graduates of state MD schools stay in the state in which they graduate to practice, it seems like common sense that we should be encouraging states to subsidize medical education with more public $.

Originally Posted by DanGee777

Considering that many graduates of state MD schools stay in the state in which they graduate to practice, it seems like common sense that we should be encouraging states to subsidize medical education with more public $.

Good luck with that argument. People see MDs as part of the top 10% by income. Why should the public subsidize the education of people who will have a skill that will earn them big, big bucks? Better the taxpayers money be put in the place where it will guarantee that they get something from their tax dollars that will benefit them, e.g. income subsidies for primary care providers in underserved areas, and not a tuition handout for the next Park Avenue plastic surgeon.

The taxpayers are already screaming for relief. Not only are they subsidizing these medical schools but they are on the hook for the pensions of the faculty members who teach in these schools and the staff that support the endeavor.

Originally Posted by DanGee777

Where does your water come from? West Vermont. Where do some of your vegetables come from? West Vermont

First, let me congratulate you and the rest of your community for the great job you've done keeping the White Walkers (and Canadians) at bay.

SUNY UPSTATE:


Water I believe comes from Westchester (which would still be "lower NY" on your map), vegetables probably from Ohio.

FWIW, I think a lot of us Upstaters would be happy to separate into two distinct states, Upper NY and Lower NY. SUNY Buffalo and SUNY Upstate medical schools take a LOT of their students from downstate and the NYC area in general. Stony Brook and Downstate have very few upstaters. Let's keep the two upstate SUNYs for the upstaters, and you guys can have your two downstate schools. What do you say?

Deal - those are the better schools anyway.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...seccession.png

P.S. -- if you want to accuse of us being money leechers, this is a good article for you to read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/op...pagewanted=all

I'll see you and raise you $23 billion. (And a raspberry to Pataki.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_Fiscal_Equity

Now if you're a Rand acolyte like Mr. FutureCTDoc, you might be okay with that. I didn't get that vibe from you, however, considering you accused him of drinking Libertarian koolaid :P. FWIW, I totally agree with you. If we want to ensure that 80% of doctors come from the top 2% of the population, then getting rid of state MD schools seems like a phenomenal idea. But it might not have to come to that to achieve that outcome-- just let state MD tuition keep rising, and eventually it will equal private school tuition.

I've got some libertarian streaks to my political philosophy, but I'd call myself a civil libertarian. I have little interest in protecting the rights of states or corporations if they conflict with my individual freedoms. And while I support individual rights ad absurdum in private, in public an individual's rights extend only as far as they don't interfere with the rights of another (eg don't blow smoke or wave a gun in my face).

I have also seen far too many rich idiots and poor geniuses to think that ability to afford medical school is a good measure of who should go.

My grandfather had a lifelong dream of becoming a doctor, but wasn't able to afford it. He was fairly successful at what he ended up doing, but I don't think we're doing our country any favors by shutting his modern equivalent out of medicine for purely financial reasons.

Originally Posted by LizzyM

Good luck with that argument. People see MDs as part of the top 10% by income. Why should the public subsidize the education of people who will have a skill that will earn them big, big bucks? Better the taxpayers money be put in the place where it will guarantee that they get something from their tax dollars that will benefit them, e.g. income subsidies for primary care providers in underserved areas, and not a tuition handout for the next Park Avenue plastic surgeon.

The taxpayers are already screaming for relief. Not only are they subsidizing these medical schools but they are on the hook for the pensions of the faculty members who teach in these schools and the staff that support the endeavor.

Just have NY state impose a miniscule tax on NYSE transactions, and with that money, give free scholarships covering cost of attendance(~55k value? I know tuition is ~29k) to the SUNY students that agree in writing to do a primary care (IM, peds, family care, psych or OB/gyn for purposes of this discussion) residency after graduation, and also to serve in an underserved area of NY for 4 years. If they renege and decide to specialize instead after graduating, they owe the entire amount and it would be non-dischargeable. If they only serve 2 years after residency, then they owe 2 years of cost of attendance, etc. That would probably help alleviate the shortages. With 600 students graduating from the public MD schools each year, hopefully at least some would take the deal. Obviously most of the people already planing to go into primary care would. Now how can Jane Lynch disagree with that?