How's Loma Linda?

[LadyWolverine]

Are you saying that Georgetown is a religious school as well?? What other schools are like this or where can I find the list?

Georgetown is a Catholic, Jesuit institution. So are BC, Creighton, Loyola Chicago, and SLU. While their "rules" may not be as strict as those of SDAs, you will be expected to respect Catholic beliefs as a student at these schools. For example, at GU, they do not dispense OCPs on campus. While some people may find this practice antiquated, right-wing, stupid, or even insulting, while on their campus, you follow their rules.

There are other denominations besides Catholic-Jesuit and SDA that are affiliated with medical schools, but I don't know which one is which off the top of my head. It's 3am, I'm tired, and likely to make a mistake, at which point a pre-med is likely to jump at the chance to correct me.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ButImLETired]

Wow, how in the world did this perfectly legitimate thread descend into such disgusting, unapologetic ignorance?

Live and let live, people. Being atheist scientists does not, believe it or not, give you the right to insult other people's Faith. I shudder at the thought of you treating a religious person- would you ignore his/her wishes because you disagree with them? You talk of being objective, meanwhile here you are calling a perfectly legitimate religious affiliation a "cult". I am absolutely appalled at the idea that there will be physicians like you out there. You don't like it? Don't apply. If you're bitter cause you're a CA resident and can't get in anywhere, go OOS. Seriously, just shut up.

 

[Excelsius]

This is a ridiculous statement for so many reasons. Just because California is a liberal state does not mean that religious denominations don't have the right to provide education for Church members that is consistent with their particular beliefs. Loma Linda is accredited and therefore adequately train new physicians, at least up to US standards. Whatever else they provide/require in the curriculum is up to the SDAs to decide. And, despite the California location, as a private school, it is not technically a "CA med school." They don't OWE you a spot just because you are a CA resident. It's not like the state of California set aside so many medical school spots 100 years ago and gave a fraction to Loma Linda so that they may exclude non-SDA students like you or me.



Yes, but "State" is not really involved here, now is it? And how is a medical school which emphasizes the Christian values of service, caring, and compassion "vestigial?"

No school owes a spot to anyone. It is the requirements, implicit or not, that are questionable or perhaps even unethical. I am sure that if I could prove that I got rejected from any school based only on my religious beliefs, I would win the case. To do this would require a good lawyer at a great cost since med school admissions are very competitive in general and proving anything would be difficult. But I believe that after a single precedent schools would change their processes.

Of course the state isn't involved here. I brought that example for the purposes of extrapolation. Separation of state and church involved separation at all levels of society: work, politics, education. I am saying that it is time to explicitly separate church and education as well. We might need "Monkey Trials Professional" to get there.

 

[LadyWolverine]

To separate church and private education in the manner in which you have proposed is to violate the first amendment of the Constitution.

From Loma Linda's Affirmative Action statement, which is freely available on the University's website:

"The free exercise of religion guaranteed by the constitution of the United States includes the right to establish and maintain religious educational institutions. Loma Linda University is incorporated as a California religious nonprofit corporation, owned and operated by the Seventh-day Adventist Church as an integral part of the Church's teaching ministry. Federal and state guidelines clearly recognize the right of religious institutions to seek personnel and students who support the goals of the institution, including the right to give preference to members of the church which sponsors the institution.
The University is committed to equal education and employment opportunities for women and men of all races and does not discriminate on the basis of handicap, sex, race, color or national origin in its education and admissions policies, financial affairs, employment programs, student life and services or any University-administered program. It does, however, retain the right to give preference in student admissions to qualified Seventh-day Adventist applicants. While this right is retained, it should be emphasized that admissions are not limited exclusively to Seventh-day Adventist applicants.

To this end, the University is in compliance with Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, and substantial compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (45 CFR 106 et seq.) Sections 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and Section 402 of the Vietnam Era Veterans Adjustment Act of 1974 and does not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of age or because they are disabled veterans or veterans of the Vietnam era. In addition, the University administers student programs without discrimination on the basis of age, except in those programs where age is a bona fide academic qualification for admission in accordance with the provisions of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.

The University reserves constitutional and statutory rights as a religious institution and employer to give preference to Seventh-day Adventists in admissions and employment, including but not limited to 42 USC Secs 2000e-1, 2000e-2, Sec 6-15 of Federal Executive Order 11246: 41 CFR Secs 60-1.5(5); 20 USC Sec 1681(a) (3), 34 CFR Secs 106.12(a) (b), 106.21, 106.31, 106.39, 106.40, 106.51, 106.57; California Government Code Secs 12926(d) (1); and Title II, Division 4, Chapter 2, Section 7286.5 of the California Code of Regulations, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sec 4 of the California Constitution. The University believes that Title IX regulations are subject to constitutional guarantees against unreasonable entanglement with or infringements on the religious teachings and practices of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The University expects students and employees to uphold biblical principles of morality and deportment as interpreted by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The University claims exemptions from the provisions of the Title IX set forth in 34 CFR Secs , 86.21, 86.31, 86.40, 86.57(b)."

 

[Excelsius]

To separate church and private education in the manner in which you have proposed is to violate the first amendment of the Constitution.

From Loma Linda's Affirmative Action statement, which is freely available on the University's website:

"The free exercise of religion guaranteed by the constitution of the United States includes the right to establish and maintain religious educational institutions. Loma Linda University is incorporated as a California religious nonprofit corporation, owned and operated by the Seventh-day Adventist Church as an integral part of the Church's teaching ministry. Federal and state guidelines clearly recognize the right of religious institutions to seek personnel and students who support the goals of the institution, including the right to give preference to members of the church which sponsors the institution.
The University is committed to equal education and employment opportunities for women and men of all races and does not discriminate on the basis of handicap, sex, race, color or national origin in its education and admissions policies, financial affairs, employment programs, student life and services or any University-administered program. It does, however, retain the right to give preference in student admissions to qualified Seventh-day Adventist applicants. While this right is retained, it should be emphasized that admissions are not limited exclusively to Seventh-day Adventist applicants.

To this end, the University is in compliance with Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, and substantial compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (45 CFR 106 et seq.) Sections 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and Section 402 of the Vietnam Era Veterans Adjustment Act of 1974 and does not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of age or because they are disabled veterans or veterans of the Vietnam era. In addition, the University administers student programs without discrimination on the basis of age, except in those programs where age is a bona fide academic qualification for admission in accordance with the provisions of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.

The University reserves constitutional and statutory rights as a religious institution and employer to give preference to Seventh-day Adventists in admissions and employment, including but not limited to 42 USC Secs 2000e-1, 2000e-2, Sec 6-15 of Federal Executive Order 11246: 41 CFR Secs 60-1.5(5); 20 USC Sec 1681(a) (3), 34 CFR Secs 106.12(a) (b), 106.21, 106.31, 106.39, 106.40, 106.51, 106.57; California Government Code Secs 12926(d) (1); and Title II, Division 4, Chapter 2, Section 7286.5 of the California Code of Regulations, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sec 4 of the California Constitution. The University believes that Title IX regulations are subject to constitutional guarantees against unreasonable entanglement with or infringements on the religious teachings and practices of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The University expects students and employees to uphold biblical principles of morality and deportment as interpreted by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The University claims exemptions from the provisions of the Title IX set forth in 34 CFR Secs , 86.21, 86.31, 86.40, 86.57(b)."

I guess they are being very careful. You could just bring up the right to assembly to explain the practices as well, without having to go through further details. There are loopholes everywhere because everything is not just black and white. If I wanted to spend the time, I could use the exact laws above (+-) to make my case for a white only school. Maybe a good idea for a blog or a book at a later time, but I think some will understand my point without that.

Just a little hint: we have DO schools in this country that for some reason are stigmatized once in a while. Why? Because they teach the exact same stuff as MDs with the addition "osteopathic manipulation." Well, if that warrants a different title for the school, I think we should require schools that claim they are part of a specific assembly to have their own separate classification, like MDP, DR, or DP. There is no reason why people like me must waste their time looking for information in order to identify these schools.

Often illegality or unethical practices are not branded by law, but by public. As long as the public doesn't mind these schools, there will never be a push to change things. Legal justifications cannot stand up to public scrutiny. Constitution is what you interpret it to be and my interpretation, along with many others, is that as long as the institution classifies itself as a general school that is usually not affiliated with religions, it is not guaranteed any admission rights by the constitution based on assembly or anything else. An extreme example: Nazi's don't have to accept any non-Nazi's into their institution, but if Nazi's create a medical school (assuming they are even allowed to do that), they should not have the right to deny admission based on non-Nazi status simply because the institution they created is generic and is not specific to their assembly. I don't think I have to explain myself further.

 

[LadyWolverine]

Just a little hint: we have DO schools in this country that for some reason are stigmatized once in a while. Why? Because they teach the exact same stuff as MDs with the addition "osteopathic manipulation." Well, if that warrants a different title for the school, I think we should require schools that claim they are part of a specific assembly to have their own separate classification, like MDP, DR, or DP. There is no reason why people like me must waste their time looking for information in order to identify these schools.

Just a little hint: MD vs. DO distinction is due to LCME vs. AOA accreditation. That is what warrants the different DEGREES - they came from different roots, and are thus not technically the same degree, regardless of the overlap in coursework and training. Do your homework. The designation of MD vs. DO schools has nothing to do with religious affiliation and is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Loma Linda is accredited by the LCME and is thus an MD-granting institution. They abide by the policies set forth by the LCME for medical education, meaning they teach to a standard decided upon by the LCME which is the same for ALL MD-granting medical schools. They do not require a separate distinction simply because they are affiliated with a particular religious denomination.

Your last sentence just smacks of entitlement. It's hard to take someone seriously when they come across as a spoiled brat throwing a temper tantrum. Schools do not hide their religious affiliations. With the internet at your disposal, such information is easily accessible. Back when I was applying to medical school, we were encouraged to research each of the institutions to which we intended to apply. Perhaps you should start doing the same.

 

[LadyWolverine]

Often illegality or unethical practices are not branded by law, but by public. As long as the public doesn't mind these schools, there will never be a push to change things. Legal justifications cannot stand up to public scrutiny. Constitution is what you interpret it to be and my interpretation, along with many others, is that as long as the institution classifies itself as a general school that is usually not affiliated with religions, it is not guaranteed any admission rights by the constitution based on assembly or anything else.

What the hell does that even mean? A "general school?" What is a school, other than a place of learning? Churches and other religious entities have every right to establish places of education, to teach their own curricula, and come up with their own admissions criteria. Freedom to practice religion is one of the basic principles upon which this country is founded, and formal education is an integral part of many, if not all, faiths. In the case of Loma Linda, religion came first, then the school, THEN the school of medicine. What constitutes a "general school that is usually not affiliated with religions?" Are you talking about medical schools? Universities? High Schools? Middle/Elementary schools? What about Catholic Universities like Notre Dame and CUA? How about Jewish day school for high school students? Would you have these be dispelled as well?

Look, if you don't want to go to Loma Linda or any other medical school with a religious affiliation, DON'T APPLY THERE. Bottom line. These schools are NOT taking anything from you, they are not robbing you of your chances of admission to medical school. Stop acting like they are. Those slots would not exist if the school (and thus the religious denomination) didn't exist beforehand. Nobody is excluding you, and you are free to apply to and attend Loma Linda, as long as you 1) meet their academic criteria for admission, and 2) can abide by and respect their religious beliefs. The latter seems to be a big problem for you, and seeing as it's likely that the majority of the applicants self-select (meaning SDAs are more likely to apply and matriculate), and you indicated in an earlier post that you would not be comfortable in such a setting, perhaps another school is a better choice.

Like most young liberals, however, you seem to want the country to conform to your atheistic ideal and eradicate any semblance or reminder of religion in your daily lives, instead of respecting the rights of others to practice their religion, in a peaceful and unobtrusive manner at that.

How did I guess you'd somehow invoke Godwin's Rule?

 

[Excelsius]

"people like me" means students who are atheists. I am sorry if that sounds like an entitlement. "We" don't even have our school, so we must not be as entitled after all. I know that the conservatives would make such a big deal out of a school that denied admission to Christians that it would shut down due to ethical or financial reasons.

As I said, there isn't much else I can add. You keep mixing religion and education. Yes, accreditation is part of education as well. If LL teaches something extra, it should have a different accreditation, even if it meets all MD standards. If it doesn't teach anything extra (which is not the case), then it shouldn't have the right to discriminate based on religion.

You are welcome to substitute Nazi's with extremists, eugenicists, utopians, or whatever else makes you more comfortable. I used them because most people can identify with what I meant by that example vs using something more arcane. Why can't you put yourself in others' shoes as well? Please, understand that if Nazi's are repulsive to you, SDAs might be repulsive to others. Also, I do not have anything against SDAs or Christians (I was one for 16 years, since birth). My problem is mixing religion with scientific education.

It is unlikely that I will apply to LL, but that is irrelevant. As for the school taking up no space, I think that if the given state has a certain number of med schools, there will be less incentive to build more because a certain number of "same" schools already exists. This is how a religious school can take a spot (not just in a state, but in the entire country).

Please, keep and practice your religion. I happily condone it because I know that religion is very important since it comforts many people and keeps others in check, but for Christ's sake, keep it out of the educational system.


Ok. This is enough. I am sorry if anyone got offended. If you read carefully, you'll see that I don't have any issues with religion. My frustration is with the ideology of creating the schools...

 

[DrJD]

"people like me" means students who are atheists. I am sorry if that sounds like an entitlement. "We" don't even have our school, so we must not be as entitled after all. I know that the conservatives would make such a big deal out of a school that denied admission to Christians that it would shut down due to ethical or financial reasons.

As I said, there isn't much else I can add. You keep mixing religion and education. Yes, accreditation is part of education as well. If LL teaches something extra, it should have a different accreditation, even if it meets all MD standards. If it doesn't teach anything extra (which is not the case), then it shouldn't have the right to discriminate based on religion.

You are welcome to substitute Nazi's with extremists, eugenicists, utopians, or whatever else makes you more comfortable. I used them because most people can identify with what I meant by that example vs using something more arcane. Why can't you put yourself in others' shoes as well? Please, understand that if Nazi's are repulsive to you, SDAs might be repulsive to others. Also, I do not have anything against SDAs or Christians (I was one for 16 years, since birth). My problem is mixing religion with scientific education.

It is unlikely that I will apply to LL, but that is irrelevant. As for the school taking up no space, I think that if the given state has a certain number of med schools, there will be less incentive to build more because a certain number of "same" schools already exists. This is how a religious school can take a spot (not just in a state, but in the entire country).

Please, keep and practice your religion. I happily condone it because I know that religion is very important since it comforts many people and keeps others in check, but for Christ's sake, keep it out of the educational system.


Ok. This is enough. I am sorry if anyone got offended. If you read carefully, you'll see that I don't have any issues with religion. My frustration is with the ideology of creating the schools...

Am I confused or aren't there also schools that are at least 90% minority? What is the difference between that and a school that is "all white",or atheist, or what not? So are we to assume that you also have a problem with Howard, Meharry, etc?

Seriously, you say that it is "unlikely that you will apply," why in the WORLD would you apply to a school that you obviously feel so strongly about? Save the space for those who actually want to go there and take part in the Christian learning environment.

I totally understand that you aren't attacking Christianity, and I'm not trying to come off as harsh, but it seems like a situation where you should just not apply and move on. The curriculum of EVERY medical school is slightly different to reflect their mission and goals as an institution. So Loma Linda's reflects their mission... done.

 

[bcat85]

Are you saying that Georgetown is a religious school as well?? What other schools are like this or where can I find the list?

You respect private rights, ok. How about if we push it further? Let's create a school for whites only (or any other race that is the opposite of yours). Would you still respect private rights? Let's not go into belief vs skin color because I could create such "moral" requirements that would heavily favor white candidates. There is a reason why you can't discriminate based on age, sex, race, and religion. And all that stuff that LL wants you only to abide by their rules is BS. When over 90% of the class is SDA or other similarly devout dendrite, it shows that the school selects based on affiliation and not moral character.

Actually I have no problems with LL's requirements in regards to alcohol, tobacco. drugs, etc, since I already live like that. I can live without the meat as well. But I don't like it when the school almost overtly requires you to be a devout Christian or SDA. Neither will I fit in a class that has certain evolutionary beliefs.

While there may be exceptions where an SDA believes in evolution, my interaction and SDN threads show that these people are rare.

Here's an idea. If you don't like LLU, there are more than 120 other schools you could apply to and not have to deal with rules you see as archaic and discriminatory. C'mon. why get into a huge debate about 1 school. Would you want to go to Bob Jones University? Of course not, because you're not a religious person (and you certainly their particular brand of religious person). Chill out.

As an aside, many private medical schools have a religious affiliation. I know that SLU is a Jesuit school, and I believe Rush is presbytarian (though I'm not sure if they are still), and Duke was founded by quakers and methodists (though we methodists believe in evolution and not telling other people what to do).

 

[rockydoc]

Are you saying that Georgetown is a religious school as well?? What other schools are like this or where can I find the list?

You respect private rights, ok. How about if we push it further? Let's create a school for whites only (or any other race that is the opposite of yours). Would you still respect private rights? Let's not go into belief vs skin color because I could create such "moral" requirements that would heavily favor white candidates. There is a reason why you can't discriminate based on age, sex, race, and religion. And all that stuff that LL wants you only to abide by their rules is BS. When over 90% of the class is SDA or other similarly devout dendrite, it shows that the school selects based on affiliation and not moral character.

Actually I have no problems with LL's requirements in regards to alcohol, tobacco. drugs, etc, since I already live like that. I can live without the meat as well. But I don't like it when the school almost overtly requires you to be a devout Christian or SDA. Neither will I fit in a class that has certain evolutionary beliefs.

While there may be exceptions where an SDA believes in evolution, my interaction and SDN threads show that these people are rare.

There are literally scores of undergraduate institutions and some graduate ones which are very similar to Loma Linda in the fact that they are privately owned, accredited, religious institutions which have high standards of education. (comparable if not better at times than other schools). Sorry that this is the first time you've heard of these schools, but that's the point. You obviously wouldnt want to go somewhere like that. These schools are made specifically for people of strong faith who WANT to be educated in an environment which fosters their beliefs. These arent meant for people who dont want to be there.

When a person holds to very conservative religious values it can be hard sometimes to constantly be bombarded by all the stuff that flies in the face of their beliefs at public schools. For people like that, EVERY day at a typical state school is comparable to you goin to Loma Linda (a lot of things they hear from professors goes against their beliefs). So where do people like this go for relief? Where do they go where they can fellowship with other people that hold their same beliefs and wont judge them and understand why they dont drink, smoke, have premarital sex, etc etc.? They go to places like Loma Linda. So what's the harm to you? SDA's and other conservative religious groups are the minority everywhere except at these institutions. It's for them, not for you. That's the point.

Now obviously if someone who wasnt SDA or whatever and truly had a desire to go to Loma Linda and could express that desire and would abide by the standards, then they have every right to go there. People like you however, really shouldnt go there. I dont see where your gripe is.

 

[rockydoc]

So sadly, (and I took part), every thread about Loma Linda inevitably turns into a raging debate. It truly is hard for people to just learn about the school b/c these threads always turn south so fast.

I ask again, is there ANY med student GOING TO LOMA LINDA that could enlighten SDN about the school. And Im not talkin about the standards and all that, I mean, curriculum, atmosphere, EC opportunities, etc. You know, the stuff we read about other "normal" schools.

 

[bcat85]

So sadly, (and I took part), every thread about Loma Linda inevitably turns into a raging debate. It truly is hard for people to just learn about the school b/c these threads always turn south so fast.

I ask again, is there ANY med student GOING TO LOMA LINDA that could enlighten SDN about the school. And Im not talkin about the standards and all that, I mean, curriculum, atmosphere, EC opportunities, etc. You know, the stuff we read about other "normal" schools.

That would probably help clear things up a bit.

 

[wonderfulname]

"people like me" means students who are atheists. I am sorry if that sounds like an entitlement. "We" don't even have our school, so we must not be as entitled after all. I know that the conservatives would make such a big deal out of a school that denied admission to Christians that it would shut down due to ethical or financial reasons.

As I said, there isn't much else I can add. You keep mixing religion and education. Yes, accreditation is part of education as well. If LL teaches something extra, it should have a different accreditation, even if it meets all MD standards. If it doesn't teach anything extra (which is not the case), then it shouldn't have the right to discriminate based on religion.

You are welcome to substitute Nazi's with extremists, eugenicists, utopians, or whatever else makes you more comfortable. I used them because most people can identify with what I meant by that example vs using something more arcane. Why can't you put yourself in others' shoes as well? Please, understand that if Nazi's are repulsive to you, SDAs might be repulsive to others. Also, I do not have anything against SDAs or Christians (I was one for 16 years, since birth). My problem is mixing religion with scientific education.

It is unlikely that I will apply to LL, but that is irrelevant. As for the school taking up no space, I think that if the given state has a certain number of med schools, there will be less incentive to build more because a certain number of "same" schools already exists. This is how a religious school can take a spot (not just in a state, but in the entire country).

Please, keep and practice your religion. I happily condone it because I know that religion is very important since it comforts many people and keeps others in check, but for Christ's sake, keep it out of the educational system.


Ok. This is enough. I am sorry if anyone got offended. If you read carefully, you'll see that I don't have any issues with religion. My frustration is with the ideology of creating the schools...

I think Excelsius is just trying to say that "he doesnt like some people build schools based on their religious beliefs." It would be interesting to see some atheists' schools, Islamic schools, Hindu schools... etc.

To Excelsius, you should earn lots of money or know poeple with lots of meony, and then build a med school whose ranking is better than LLU or Georgetown

 

[LucidSplash]

I ask again, is there ANY med student GOING TO LOMA LINDA that could enlighten SDN about the school. And Im not talkin about the standards and all that, I mean, curriculum, atmosphere, EC opportunities, etc. You know, the stuff we read about other "normal" schools.

The one LL student I know of is currently in Zambia (although he may be back?). You could always check out his blog. He'll probably weigh in, if asked, when he gets back stateside. http://doctajay.com/

 

[Raryn]

As a private institution, they have every right to have whatever policies they want. Just like as private individuals, you or I aren't exactly forced to apply there. Loma Linda is the only one of the 127 US MD granting institutions that has policies that are this extensive, and thats why I am not applying there. I am applying to several schools that are historically Jesuit, several schools that are historically protestant, and a couple that are historically Jewish (Albert Einstein and Mt. Sinai). I would be perfectly comfortable in any of those environments, but because I don't believe I would enjoy the environment at Loma Linda, I am not applying there. And I do this knowing that I would most likely get in to Loma Linda if I wanted. (My family has a very good friend who went to Loma Linda for undergrad, med school, and residency and who personally knows the dean of Loma Linda. He has rooms on the campus named after him and has expressed a desire to write me a LOR for practically guaranteed admission. I've tactfully turned him down.)

 

[rockydoc]

Interesting thing is that there was a story on the TODAY SHOW about Loma Linda this morning...its about a prostate cancer patient who went there for proton treatment. He talks about the school with great admiration. here's the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25918331/

 

[rockydoc]

The one LL student I know of is currently in Zambia (although he may be back?). You could always check out his blog. He'll probably weigh in, if asked, when he gets back stateside. http://doctajay.com/

thanks, he seems like a great guy, real humble and passionate

 

[167649]

Actually I have no problems with LL's requirements in regards to alcohol, tobacco. drugs, etc, since I already live like that. I can live without the meat as well. But I don't like it when the school almost overtly requires you to be a devout Christian or SDA. Neither will I fit in a class that has certain evolutionary beliefs.

While there may be exceptions where an SDA believes in evolution, my interaction and SDN threads show that these people are rare.

Look, you have no grasp whatsoever about how evolution is approached by Loma Linda. All you are doing with all these posts is making assumptions, vague statements that since "they are christians" they don't believe in it and therefore have nothing to do with it. We've actually had this discussion on SDN about it before, and it isn't as you assume. I can't speak for students, since I wasn't one, so perhaps someone like DoctaJay would better address this. But I can say that as a former scientist there (you seem to think they crucify scientists for heresy or something) the issue never once came up. I've published, with loma linda as the institution, with writing that heavily implies the existance of evolution. It isn't like, when I look at homology between humans and other mammals, I have to assume they we're created by the story told in genesis or I'll be fired. And we sure had plenty of students come through our lab, so it's not like they are sheltering the students from the "blasphamy" of evolution.

I do not think you have any clue what you are talking about, despite what you may like to think.

My frustration is with the ideology of creating the schools...

Good god, have you even read the constitution?

Anyways, you have rights too, don't apply there.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

I know some ppl who went and graduated from loma linda...If i knew what the hell this debate was about, I could try to enlighten yall, but It seems to me Its just one ignorant person with subpar grades whining about how christianity is a cult.

 

[Chrishel]

While I completely respect the right of private institutions to decide on their own admissions policies, I am bothered by many groups using the shroud of being "private" to discriminate when they see fit, but then begging for public money when they need funding.

This is exactly the same beef I have with the boy scouts hiding behind being a private organization to keep out atheists, agnostics, gays, etc., but then hold their meetings for little or no cost to the BSA in schools, city halls, and other public spaces and only pay $1 to rent out Ft. A.P. Hill to host their humongous jamboree (which is also staffed by members of the government and military and ends up costing millions of dollars to taxpayers).

I suppose I think that if you are going to be funded heavily by grants from the government, then you should implement hiring/admission practices which are in line with those in the public sector. Otherwise, do what other truly private organizations do and live solely on your own dollar, and don't come asking for my tax money to fund your discriminatory organization.

 

[classydude]

I dont know about the lifestyle there, however friends of mine who go there tell me that a lot of kids drink coffee (even in class) and parties exist. I cant tell you if thats true or not as I dont go there, but I can speak about its academic reputation. There is no doubt that LLU is a top notch school academically. In fact, on the clinical boards, LL students always outperform the UC's Im told. They also have a good match list and all the physicians I know of that went to LLU are top notch, so there is no doubt that its a great school.

And serisouly, if you have problems with a school because you cant get drunk, party, smoke, etc, then should you really be going to medical school? Maybe law school is the better path for you...

 

[LadyWolverine]

And serisouly, if you have problems with a school because you cant get drunk, party, smoke, etc, then should you really be going to medical school? Maybe law school is the better path for you...

Please. Most medical students still like to party once in a while.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to have a social life while in med school.

 

[postnational]

There are many pedagogical, ethical and legal issues that come up in this thread.

What is of importance here however is the fact that Loma Linda is essentially asking the student to give up some rights (some of which are constitutionally protected) in order to gain admission to the program.

The comparisons between Loma Linda and Jesuit schools are simply false. A Jesuit hospital may very well have the right to not perform abortions. But that does not mean that said institution is going to reprimand a student for choosing to have an abortion. Likewise if Yeshiva chooses to shut down its libraries because they are observant as an institution fine. But forcing me to not study (or anything else) during Saturday and force me to attend services is a completely different story.

Furthermore, schools should (and usually) ask questions that specifically relate to the potential performance of the candidate if admitted to said program (or the overall mission of the program). The same goes for employers of course. I fail to see the connection between performance as a student or a practising professional and pre-marital sex. Let alone that I am leaving out the pedagogical, moral and psychological implications of forcing students in a rigorous science to follow a rigorous (and irrational imo) honour code.

Bottom line: asking others to give up their right to privacy and the right to live their lives as they please (provided that they don't intentionally hurt others) is wrong in any way you see it and simply saying "its a private institution don't apply there if you don't think you can follow through" is also wrong in a variety of different levels.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

whats your real sn?

 

[LadyWolverine]

Furthermore, schools should (and usually) ask questions that specifically relate to the potential performance of the candidate if admitted to said program (or the overall mission of the program). The same goes for employers of course. I fail to see the connection between performance as a student or a practising professional and pre-marital sex.

LLU's mission is intimately tied to their Christian faith:

http://www.llu.edu/llu/medicine/mission.html

Thus, those questions and expectations that you deem unconstitutional/unethical/breach of privacy do specifically relate to the performance of the candidate in this particular program, if the goal is to create physicians that abide by Christian principles. Although I do not personally share SDA beliefs, I have absolutely no problem seeing the connection.

LLU is not the only school in the US with strict standards that could be construed as asking students to give up "the right to live their lives as they please." Baylor comes to mind (for the record, I'm talking about the undergraduate campus - I don't know about the medical school).

The whole point of the existence of LLU is so that SDA students may have a place to go to learn to practice medicine, grow in their faith, abide by their religious customs and observances, and "live their lives as they please." Note that you have it backwards. LLU is not trying to impose their beliefs on other people. On the contrary, some of these "other people" (as evidenced by posters on this thread) seem to be intent on making LLU change their policies to fit their beliefs.

I've said several times already. LLU is taking nothing from you. SDAs are not imposing their beliefs on you or on medical education in general. But they have the right to open, staff, and supply their medical school with students as they see fit. If their mission is to train and turn out Christian physicians, so be it. If you don't want to play by their rules, don't apply. But to use some twisted interpretation of the constitution to make the case that they should be run out of their own school simply because you don't understand or care for their religious beliefs is ridiculous.

You may find SDA customs "irrational," but they are no more irrational than those of a devout Catholic, an orthodox Jew, practicing Muslim, etc. Since when did freedom of religion in this country become freedom from religion? We should respect every person's right to believe whatever they wish, as long as nobody is harmed or oppressed in the process.

 

[gasdf1234567]

And serisouly, if you have problems with a school because you cant get drunk, party, smoke, etc, then should you really be going to medical school? Maybe law school is the better path for you...

Haha I'm pretty sure the large majority of med school applicants would prefer not to attend Loma Linda because of said policies. I guess we will all make poor doctors...onto law school for us!

 

[rockydoc]

Bottom line: asking others to give up their right to privacy and the right to live their lives as they please (provided that they don't intentionally hurt others) is wrong in any way you see it and simply saying "its a private institution don't apply there if you don't think you can follow through" is also wrong in a variety of different levels.

You arent forfeiting any rights by attending a school which asks you to abide by certain standards. Why? Because YOU are CHOOSING to abide by those standards. Similar situations happen all the time with employers. Havent you ever worked somewhere that had rules that were technically infringing "your rights" as you describe? Just because these standards are a little more strict than normal school and work standards, doesnt automatically make them oppressive. Its still your choice. For instance, its my "right" to wear a tank-top, shorts, and sandals anywhere I please. However, if I showed up to work like that I would be fired. Infringing on my rights? I dont think so.

 

[Excelsius]

I know some ppl who went and graduated from loma linda...If i knew what the hell this debate was about, I could try to enlighten yall, but It seems to me Its just one ignorant person with subpar grades whining about how christianity is a cult.

It might be a good idea first to try to understand the debate and only then decide to make your erudite, over-par-GPA contributions.

I read a little about these other allegedly religious medical schools. None of them come across as intense as Loma Linda. There is a difference between a school having a certain religious affiliation (e.g., Albert Einstein) and a school overtly mandating admissions and personal requirements based on those affiliations.

If you take everything on faith, then it doesn't matter what data you are presented with or what is asked. You are not going to change your positions. Some people here can't understand what is being criticized and keep getting angry because they think their rights are somehow attacked. Maybe this entire discussion is pointless.

 

[classydude]

I imagine the reason why no student who actually goes to LLU has responded to this thread is that its ridiculous. While we sit here and argue about silly things, they are working hard, living well and smiling knowing that they have a good chance at getting a CA residency (you'll find that most UC's and private hospitals in CA take LLU students, especially my school UCSD). Probably because they are excellent clinical physicians. So lets bring this thread back to something productive and maybe a LLU student will actually post.

 

[Salient]

It doesn't seem like many of you guys actually understand Loma Linda and its mission. If you understood why the school exists in the first place, you would understand why they would consider an atheist a waste of one of their school seats. There are over 100 other medical schools that can make an excellent doctor out of an atheist, but their school is reserved for people who want to be more than just excellent doctors.

 

[Decicco]

Maybe this entire discussion is pointless.

That's a good thought.

 

[bcat85]

There are many pedagogical, ethical and legal issues that come up in this thread.

What is of importance here however is the fact that Loma Linda is essentially asking the student to give up some rights (some of which are constitutionally protected) in order to gain admission to the program.

The comparisons between Loma Linda and Jesuit schools are simply false. A Jesuit hospital may very well have the right to not perform abortions. But that does not mean that said institution is going to reprimand a student for choosing to have an abortion. Likewise if Yeshiva chooses to shut down its libraries because they are observant as an institution fine. But forcing me to not study (or anything else) during Saturday and force me to attend services is a completely different story.

Furthermore, schools should (and usually) ask questions that specifically relate to the potential performance of the candidate if admitted to said program (or the overall mission of the program). The same goes for employers of course. I fail to see the connection between performance as a student or a practising professional and pre-marital sex. Let alone that I am leaving out the pedagogical, moral and psychological implications of forcing students in a rigorous science to follow a rigorous (and irrational imo) honour code.

Bottom line: asking others to give up their right to privacy and the right to live their lives as they please (provided that they don't intentionally hurt others) is wrong in any way you see it and simply saying "its a private institution don't apply there if you don't think you can follow through" is also wrong in a variety of different levels.

You don't have to go there. If they say from the get-go "You have to do X,Y, and Z to go to our school," then you have to do X,Y, and Z to go to their school. It's like saying the army is unconstitutional because it assigns people to their posts regardless of there they want to go.

It might be a good idea first to try to understand the debate and only then decide to make your erudite, over-par-GPA contributions.

I read a little about these other allegedly religious medical schools. None of them come across as intense as Loma Linda. There is a difference between a school having a certain religious affiliation (e.g., Albert Einstein) and a school overtly mandating admissions and personal requirements based on those affiliations.

If you take everything on faith, then it doesn't matter what data you are presented with or what is asked. You are not going to change your positions. Some people here can't understand what is being criticized and keep getting angry because they think their rights are somehow attacked. Maybe this entire discussion is pointless.

In the name of the Good Lord, don't apply there. As was stated above, there are 127 other schools you could apply to. Once you try to apply to all of those, please do let us know and we'll sympathize with you over LLU's adherence to their SDA faith.

That's a good thought.

Word.

 

[TamarMD]

In all honesty Excelsius you've already mentioned that you were a person of SDA faith for 16 years and you aren't anymore. Something obviously made you uncomfortable (either with the religion or the belief in God) to make you choose NOT to be a follower of that faith anymore. Now just like you chose not to be a part of that religion/faith, you can choose not to attend LLU. You don't have to abide by their principles if you never set foot in their institution in the first place. You're acting as though LLU hides their mission and goes "ok once they sign this contract we're gonna pop out with a balloon with the word LIFE on it and say 'Surprise now that we have your soul for the next 4 years there is no sex, no drinking, no smoking and no caffeine. Life? *pop balloon* you have none'". It's on the front of their website. They're "A Senventh-Day Advnetist Institution Integrating Health, Science, and Christian Faith". Then when you click their "about us" page it goes on into further detail. If I'm a person who doesn't believe in God the moment I read "LLUAHSC serves the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in its mission 'to make man whole' physicaly, intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually." I'd say "oh ok I don't want to go there" and get off the page.


Ok I have a question about LLU. I can't find this on their site. What do they want for LORs? Do they want the typical 2 science and 1 non-science? I read somewhere (it was either SDN or another med thread) that they want a letter from your clergyman. Does that apply if you're not SDA? Say you're a Christian (not SDA) but not as religious as you used to be would that count against you? Does anyone know what the Secondary for LLU looks like? What questions do they ask? I have no problems abiding by their principles (I say that now but who knows what kind of person I'll be when it comes time for me to appy) so I'd like to find out more info.

 

[rockydoc]

Ok I have a question about LLU. I can't find this on their site. What do they want for LORs? Do they want the typical 2 science and 1 non-science? I read somewhere (it was either SDN or another med thread) that they want a letter from your clergyman. Does that apply if you're not SDA? Say you're a Christian (not SDA) but not as religious as you used to be would that count against you? Does anyone know what the Secondary for LLU looks like? What questions do they ask? I have no problems abiding by their principles (I say that now but who knows what kind of person I'll be when it comes time for me to appy) so I'd like to find out more info.

There is an actual secondary app. thread for LLU with all the questions and stuff. Its a beast though, I think 6 essays or something like that. And there is a section where they ask you if you are part of a faith and then there is a drop-down box to choose your particular religion from or to say "other". Most of the essays are specifically geared to making sure that you will fit their school and that you will be able to handle the lifestyle. I think that goes to show just how much they care that a person who will hate the experience doesnt end up going to LLU. And people should view this as a service to them.

 

[TamarMD]

Ok thanks for answering my question.

 

[postnational]

You arent forfeiting any rights by attending a school which asks you to abide by certain standards. Why? Because YOU are CHOOSING to abide by those standards. Similar situations happen all the time with employers. Havent you ever worked somewhere that had rules that were technically infringing "your rights" as you describe? Just because these standards are a little more strict than normal school and work standards, doesnt automatically make them oppressive. Its still your choice. For instance, its my "right" to wear a tank-top, shorts, and sandals anywhere I please. However, if I showed up to work like that I would be fired. Infringing on my rights? I dont think so.

Have you ever heard of the fallacy of false analogy?

How many employers do you actually know (be specific) that ask you to sign an oath of celibacy as a necessary pre-condition for the job?

 

[postnational]

LLU's mission is intimately tied to their Christian faith:

http://www.llu.edu/llu/medicine/mission.html

Thus, those questions and expectations that you deem unconstitutional/unethical/breach of privacy do specifically relate to the performance of the candidate in this particular program, if the goal is to create physicians that abide by Christian principles. Although I do not personally share SDA beliefs, I have absolutely no problem seeing the connection.

Firstly, when I mentioned "overall mission" I was refering to missions that actually have something to do with practicing medicine. For example certain schools are geared towards producing doctors that will service rural populations. The desire of an applicant to do that may be taken into consideration when the admissions committee reviews his application. It is completely justified and logical. Even then however they don't make the applicant sign a statement that says that he has to follow through with what he said during the application process. What is even more important however in this particular example is that there is a social need. There is a lack of doctors in rural areas. Exactly which social need is a physician who doesn't have premarital sex fulfilling?

Somehow I am still missing the point of producing SDA doctors. Why not just doctors who choose their faith in their private lives?

A medical school (just like any professional) school (especially those that receive federal money) is there to produce a professional... not a professional who "grows in faith". Certainly providing the opportunities for a student to grow in faith is perfectly acceptable.

Oh and http://www.llu.edu/apply/lifestyle.html seems to be a better link... even though it gave me the creeps when I read it.

The arguement "don't apply there if you don't want" is not relevant if people think that some of the admissions and matriculation practices of a publicly funded institution are shady, unethical or illegal. Then again the issue won't get solved on an internet board. Thus, I am done with the LLU discussion. Good luck to anyone applying there.

 

[bcat85]

Firstly, when I mentioned "overall mission" I was refering to missions that actually have something to do with practicing medicine. For example certain schools are geared towards producing doctors that will service rural populations. The desire of an applicant to do that may be taken into consideration when the admissions committee reviews his application. It is completely justified and logical. Even then however they don't make the applicant sign a statement that says that he has to follow through with what he said during the application process. What is even more important however in this particular example is that there is a social need. There is a lack of doctors in rural areas. Exactly which social need is a physician who doesn't have premarital sex fulfilling?

Somehow I am still missing the point of producing SDA doctors. Why not just doctors who choose their faith in their private lives?

A medical school (just like any professional) school (especially those that receive federal money) is there to produce a professional... not a professional who "grows in faith". Certainly providing the opportunities for a student to grow in faith is perfectly acceptable.

Oh and http://www.llu.edu/apply/lifestyle.html seems to be a better link... even though it gave me the creeps when I read it.

The arguement "don't apply there if you don't want" is not relevant if people think that some of the admissions and matriculation practices of a publicly funded institution are shady, unethical or illegal. Then again the issue won't get solved on an internet board. Thus, I am done with the LLU discussion. Good luck to anyone applying there.

I'll second that.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

This is what I think of this thread

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aItxUl7NIH0&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

 

[odoctadocta]

i'm a fellow premed and also a sda. although i'm a sda i feel llu is wrong for forcing our religion upon anyone. of course practices that go against the church's teachings are going to be frowned upon and certain rules should be enforced on campus, but as a grown being we should have the right to do whatever we please on our own time and place.

i believe as long as there is a mutual respect between the student and the school, and no one is purposely offending another person, then the right is for the individual to practice what he believes.

and to make it clear an sda is like any other person who practices in a certain denomination/religion---you will have people who are sticklers and seem to have something shoved up their butt, and others who are more laxed, and yet others who just keep the title to look good or be "saved".

 

[rockydoc]

chubby, is that one of your home videos?

 

[Salient]

scroll down two posts

 

[bcat85]

This is what I think of this thread

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aItxUl7NIH0&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

I know I swore myself off of this thread... but that's awesome

 

[semper]

i grew up sda AND in loma linda AND graduated from loma linda academy. i have 1 cousin currently in med school their and another in residency. they make you sign the same lifestyle commitment in their high schools, any sda college and their grad/professional schools.

i am re-applying to med school this year, including loma linda. last year i applied late but still got interviewed. one of my interviewers told me that they had a student who was top of their class but unfortunately got arrested for being drunk in public their 3rd year. the end result was that loma linda was glad to help the student transfer to another top notch medical school in california, one that did not require students to abstain from alcohol and tobacco. this tells me that they are not trying to force anyone to abstain from anything, but if you CHOOSE to go to this school, you must respect the fact that they want to create a student body as well as an environment free of certain things.

living here my whole life i can tell you that med students DO drink. they make up a large population of bar-goers during the weekends. and i can tell you, not everything closes on saturdays. being that you are in the middle of the inland empire, there is not much to do around here anyway except a couple of local bars and house parties, but the cops are pretty strict when it comes to noise complaints and you can expect those starting around midnight. if you don't mind driving out atleast 45 minutes, there is a lot to do...irvine, fullerton, la, orange county, etc.

the reason that they tie in med school with the sda lifestyle is because sda's have certain beliefs that affect the way they practice medicine. sda's believe in treating the patient as a WHOLE. not just curing diseases, but mentally, emotionally and spiritually. SDA's believe that God has a large part in medicine, and like to integrate God into their practice. i'm not saying an SDA doctor is going to force you to talk about religion or anything, but SDA doctors are supposed to reflect Christ in all their practices and act as missionaries in a sense, witnessing to their patients just by reflecting Christ through their work (which does not mean preaching about creation or anything).
there are also certain beliefs about nutrition, as well as prevention of diseases which i think is probably why they implement the lifestyle commitment. no tobacco and no alcohol because even though tobacco and alcohol use does not 100% guarantee liver, lung, or other medical problems...they still increase the risk.

for all those applying and do NOT believe or practice these beliefs, i can tell you that my interview last year was almost completely about my lifestyle, so be ready to answer those kind of questions.

i tried not to post on this thread for a while, but i hope what i've written offers some help to those trying to figure out loma linda.

 

[odoctadocta]

i agree 100% to the above poster

 

[Salient]

edited your quote since you did

I think that if they let you do whatever you wanted while attending school there, there would be a lot more people pretending to fit the mold just to get in. Since they require obedience to their policies for the entire four years of medical school, it turns away a lot of people who would be willing to lie for acceptance to a good school.

 

[samyred]

I didn't have much choice regarding admissions last year, but I am glad to be a Loma Linda IDP student.
In the interview they don't give preference to people according to their faith, for instance, I told him I am agnostic but I believe in god and I explained to him my point of view.
On the other hand they ask if you drink or smoke and it is a deal breaker if you do any of those 2. To be frank, I was never a big fan of cigarettes and alcohol.
Loma Linda is a quiet town, away from the trouble of big cities, I feel safer in this place!.

I attended the week of devotion last quarter (30 min everyday for a week). They basically have a rock band playing in church, it was pretty cool and more spiritual than religious I would say.

I agree with what semper said.

Do you have time to party anyways if you are a med/dentistry student? lol

 

[jdh71]

One warning, don't get anyone pregnant. THEY WILL EXPEL YOU IF THEY FIND OUT. Obviously if you're married then feel free to embrace your inner rabbit.

This is the case at their undergraduate colleges.

I haven't read the rest of thread yet, so I don't know if anyone has responded to this last bit on nonsense yet, but this is not true - ignorance and rumors, or outright lies are unbecoming of a physician

 

[jdh71]

I've heard that they have been having some financial problems. A physician I talked to actually thought they had already closed down.
Just speculation.

more rumor . . . you guys are failing pretty hard in here right now