- Joined
- Dec 13, 2017
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 21
I'm hoping to start a new conversation about CNU that has a little different tone. Looking through past posts it seems things quickly devolve into personal attacks and "northsplaining" (love that term). First off, yes this is a new account and my first post. I felt I was too easily identified from my other account. But I'm not here to blindly defend CNU. I did interview recently and had a really good experience. I was impressed by the school and the students and wanted to discuss a few issues.
The main criticisms against CNU are very valid. Everyone, current students included, agrees that the loan situation is bad. They are advocating for change, but it does not seem likely. The main reason given by the school is that federal loans would require compliance and increased administration costs. I find this to be a very unsatisfactory answer, and it just leads to speculation about the school's true motivations.
They fielded the first class in 8 weeks with wildly inappropriate demographics. This is true and no reasonable person disputes it. They likely did it to start a cash flow and satisfy investors.
These issues have been discussed at length and I hope to avoid them here. I acknowledge they are serious issues. What I hope to discuss is the quality of the education, the opinion of PDs, and the likely outcome for CNU students.
The class they fielded in 8 weeks performed at the national average on step 1. The current M1s were selected from over 6,000 applications. It seems likely that step 1 scores will go up for CNU. The students I met were impressive. Something like 24% of California applicants have to matriculate outside the state. It seems to me that CNU is mostly drawing from this pool. I talked to multiple students who chose CNU over another acceptance. The idea that this school only gets students who couldn't get in anywhere else is false. To me this says that the preclinical education at CNU is good, or at least adequate.
Someone posted that there are no standardized patients at this school. That is completely false. Standardized patients start in year one and I think are every other week. Additionally, the simulation center was very nice. Sidebar - the anatomy lab was the nicest I've seen (n=3). Rotation sites are at the 3 largest hospital systems in Sacramento, UC Davis excluded, and are shared with students from Touro, Drexel, and USC. I think it's reasonable to say the clinical education here is good too, or at least adequate.
All that was a lot of text to get to my questions:
Is it possible that the LCME is functioning as designed? The school has added faculty and corrected admissions mistakes. On the LCME site there has been a pending survey for quite some time. Does anyone know when the decision to advance them to provisional status will be made?
To what degree can the students drive their own success? Every doctor I've talked to said that where you go to school doesn't really matter. PDs list school prestige low on their priority list. How are students from new schools typically evaluated come match time? And how will the for-profit status of CNU affect the first gradating class? Or will it? I only know one PD but she said it would not be a factor for her.
@gyngyn You said the PDs you interact with are skeptical of CNU students. The post I'm referring to was from 2016, before the fist class had started their clerkships. The school says they have been getting great feedback from rotation sites and the early focus on clinical skills has been paying off. Is there any truth to this? Do you know if the reputation of CNU students is changing at all? I would especially appreciate your insights.
The common wisdom here is MD > DO, in that it keeps more options open. Is this still the case with CNU?
@Med Ed You said the institution was likely in financial trouble. I think the decision to hastily field the inaugural class speaks to this. Do you know of any new developments in this arena?
Any student that elects to go here has to be well-informed about the loan options. The interests rates are sometimes better, sometimes worse than fed loans. It sucks to not have income-based repayment or PSLF. That said, for most people it still seems like a small risk worth taking. If it were your only acceptance, would you go there?
The main criticisms against CNU are very valid. Everyone, current students included, agrees that the loan situation is bad. They are advocating for change, but it does not seem likely. The main reason given by the school is that federal loans would require compliance and increased administration costs. I find this to be a very unsatisfactory answer, and it just leads to speculation about the school's true motivations.
They fielded the first class in 8 weeks with wildly inappropriate demographics. This is true and no reasonable person disputes it. They likely did it to start a cash flow and satisfy investors.
These issues have been discussed at length and I hope to avoid them here. I acknowledge they are serious issues. What I hope to discuss is the quality of the education, the opinion of PDs, and the likely outcome for CNU students.
The class they fielded in 8 weeks performed at the national average on step 1. The current M1s were selected from over 6,000 applications. It seems likely that step 1 scores will go up for CNU. The students I met were impressive. Something like 24% of California applicants have to matriculate outside the state. It seems to me that CNU is mostly drawing from this pool. I talked to multiple students who chose CNU over another acceptance. The idea that this school only gets students who couldn't get in anywhere else is false. To me this says that the preclinical education at CNU is good, or at least adequate.
Someone posted that there are no standardized patients at this school. That is completely false. Standardized patients start in year one and I think are every other week. Additionally, the simulation center was very nice. Sidebar - the anatomy lab was the nicest I've seen (n=3). Rotation sites are at the 3 largest hospital systems in Sacramento, UC Davis excluded, and are shared with students from Touro, Drexel, and USC. I think it's reasonable to say the clinical education here is good too, or at least adequate.
All that was a lot of text to get to my questions:
Is it possible that the LCME is functioning as designed? The school has added faculty and corrected admissions mistakes. On the LCME site there has been a pending survey for quite some time. Does anyone know when the decision to advance them to provisional status will be made?
To what degree can the students drive their own success? Every doctor I've talked to said that where you go to school doesn't really matter. PDs list school prestige low on their priority list. How are students from new schools typically evaluated come match time? And how will the for-profit status of CNU affect the first gradating class? Or will it? I only know one PD but she said it would not be a factor for her.
@gyngyn You said the PDs you interact with are skeptical of CNU students. The post I'm referring to was from 2016, before the fist class had started their clerkships. The school says they have been getting great feedback from rotation sites and the early focus on clinical skills has been paying off. Is there any truth to this? Do you know if the reputation of CNU students is changing at all? I would especially appreciate your insights.
The common wisdom here is MD > DO, in that it keeps more options open. Is this still the case with CNU?
@Med Ed You said the institution was likely in financial trouble. I think the decision to hastily field the inaugural class speaks to this. Do you know of any new developments in this arena?
Any student that elects to go here has to be well-informed about the loan options. The interests rates are sometimes better, sometimes worse than fed loans. It sucks to not have income-based repayment or PSLF. That said, for most people it still seems like a small risk worth taking. If it were your only acceptance, would you go there?