Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Pre-Medical - DO' started by PhoenixFire, Aug 5, 2011.
What's the difference between for-profit vs. non-profit schools?
There are plenty of threads which answer this question, please do a search.
Short Answer- none, npo's can shift and move gains around to represent a NPO front.
Not going to touch on the education side. But if your question is about the designation then;
Non-profit means that once they pay bills, including salaries, anything left over should be nil. If there is you have to spend it on the school, or reduce what you are charging.
For profit means they once you pay bills & salaries there should be money left. This is then given to the people who own the school in the form of dividends or other like-cash options. If you make enough you get to keep your job, not enough and the owners will fire you.
The basic overriding goal of the management of a for-profit entity is to create value for stockholders. There is a rule mentioned in every business book: "Stock price maximization should be the primary goal of corporate managers."
A non-profit has a different goal, typically to serve a stated cause or public policy. Financial backing is provided by a non-profit foundation or by the government, so profit is not a primary goal.
Are there any disadvantages to going to a profit, or non profit school?
^ I'd like to know the answer to this as well...
Realistically only if it is in the Caribbean or other central or south American country and you have the goal of practicing in the USA. Lets all just talk about what everyone is skirting around... RVU. If you go to RVU you will be fine.
Rvu prepares you well. Source: highest COMLEX pass rate and second highest average score (2nd by 2 points) on COMLEX 1 of all DO schools.
Here's a great discussion on RVU's match list from 2012:
And below that is some solid analysis from both side.
Just see your options and go from there. But RVU is the only for-proft school so far. Also, I would focus on the residents/attendings responding and not the premeds or med students.
^ Concur with darklabel. The entire thread is a must read on how to gauge quality of matching (more specifically the residents and attendings responses).
Basically, ALL schools are for-profit because they all charge you skyrocketed prices?
Yes there are multiple disadvantages both theoretical and data driven.
First some background. In the early 20th century there were multiple not-for profit schools and multiple for profit schools. The state of medical education was abysmal. Things were not standardized and many schools were putting out charlatans. The Flexner report was created- albeit by a man without much experience- to determine what was wrong with medical education. This shaped the next 100 or so years of medical education. Flexner found that for-profit schools were the worst offenders and produced the worst product. Most of these schools shut down in the coming decade and thereafter for-profit medical education disappeared from the US. From that point on, for-profit education has been a pariah in the US.
Now that was a century ago; what does that have to do with today? Well, we have experience from medical education in the Carribean and non-medical for profit education in the US. For decades the Caribbean has been offering medical "education" for profit. The product that is produced is substandard and the attrition is massive where even at some ofthe best schools 1/3 of the entering class never graduates. Those that do often struggle to find a residency in the US. The worst schools essentially graduate students who cannot ever be placed in a residency in the US. Many states will not allow students from certain programs to work in those states.
The experience with for-profit non-medical education has been similar in the quality of product and the degree of attrition. Places like University of Phoenix, Devry, ITT come to mind as do some of the absolute worst offenders. Roughly 13% of students attend for-profit universities yet these places make up 50% of default rates for student debt. In these circumstances, there is good evidence that the marked doesn't work because the demand is too inelastic.
And it makes sense. When you compare not for profit and for-profit models, one is pumping money back into the school and the other is pumping money out of the school to the investors. This theoretically wouldn't be that worrisome if we didn't already have a good amount of evidence that most for profit education is inferior to not for profit education in the quality of product it puts out and the ability for its students to complete their mission.
Your argument is very sound, but I can't help but wonder why the LCME removed the for-profit ban from its standards?
I don't know why either. Perhaps since they knew the ACGME would control all post-graduate training, they were planning on accrediting all COCA and LCME schools under the LCME alone and needed to allow for profit to take over all DO school acreditation...?