Rocky-Vista and its aftermath

[hallowmann]

Think of it like this. All schools are for-profit. The only difference is that the "for-profit" ones are honest about it.

Yeah except that's not the only difference. Non-profit entities have to make returns public, they have to make public their highest earners and their salaries, and they have to make numerous other aspects of their business public upon request. Let alone the fact that they can't have a profit, they have to put the money back into the business/school, whereas for-profit can just cut a check to the owners.

Now sure, there are loopholes that non-profits use to make ventures very profitable for individuals involved, but its obvious when they do that (and in turn bad from a PR perspective). It's also not the priority of the business, but rather a side effect of individual greed.

Anyway, I don't want this thread to devolve into an argument about for-profit vs. non-profit, but that's just my opinion, I don't think education, especially medical education, should be for-profit.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[OMS398563]

Yeah except that's not the only difference. Non-profit entities have to make returns public, they have to make public their highest earners and their salaries, and they have to make numerous other aspects of their business public upon request. Let alone the fact that they can't have a profit, they have to put the money back into the business/school, whereas for-profit can just cut a check to the owners.

Now sure, there are loopholes that non-profits use to make ventures very profitable for individuals involved, but its obvious when they do that (and in turn bad from a PR perspective). It's also not the priority of the business, but rather a side effect of individual greed.

Anyway, I don't want this thread to devolve into an argument about for-profit vs. non-profit, but that's just my opinion, I don't think education, especially medical education, should be for-profit.

Seconded.

The fact of the matter is that RVU's success or failure is irrelevant. RVU can become the best DO school ever founded and it would not change anything one iota. With the allowing of a for-profit DO school the flood gates have essentially been opened. We will, at best, become the Caribbean of the United States. The accreditation of for profit schools, subpar clinical rotations, and the fact that we are essentially unable to provide GME for our own students highlights the true goal of the AOA and its leadership. To enrich themselves at the expense of the next generation of Osteopathic Physicians. This is truly sad because historically Osteopathic medicine does have something unique to offer. Maybe a LCME takeover would be for the best. Nothing states we cannot have an OMT club and keep to the tenets on the side.

 

[acapnial]

Yeah except that's not the only difference. Non-profit entities have to make returns public, they have to make public their highest earners and their salaries, and they have to make numerous other aspects of their business public upon request. Let alone the fact that they can't have a profit, they have to put the money back into the business/school, whereas for-profit can just cut a check to the owners.

Now sure, there are loopholes that non-profits use to make ventures very profitable for individuals involved, but its obvious when they do that (and in turn bad from a PR perspective). It's also not the priority of the business, but rather a side effect of individual greed.

Anyway, I don't want this thread to devolve into an argument about for-profit vs. non-profit, but that's just my opinion, I don't think education, especially medical education, should be for-profit.

That's very civil of you to not want to argue about for profit schools, but doing so isn't the thread devolving, it's keeping in the thread's tradition!

Seconded.

The fact of the matter is that RVU's success or failure is irrelevant. RVU can become the best DO school ever founded and it would not change anything one iota. With the allowing of a for-profit DO school the flood gates have essentially been opened. We will, at best, become the Caribbean of the United States. The accreditation of for profit schools, subpar clinical rotations, and the fact that we are essentially unable to provide GME for our own students highlights the true goal of the AOA and its leadership. To enrich themselves at the expense of the next generation of Osteopathic Physicians. This is truly sad because historically Osteopathic medicine does have something unique to offer. Maybe a LCME takeover would be for the best. Nothing states we cannot have an OMT club and keep to the tenets on the side.

Now I agree that lower standards and limited GME are real problems but what actual problems has RVU's for profit status created? That BCOM exists? I don't see very many new for profit schools in the whoot whoot posts. People might not like for profit schools philosophically but RVU is hardly turning osteopathic medicine into the caribbean of anything.

 

[OMS398563]

That's very civil of you to not want to argue about for profit schools, but doing so isn't the thread devolving, it's keeping in the thread's tradition!

Keeping the tradition alive!

Now I agree that lower standards and limited GME are real problems but what actual problems has RVU's for profit status created? That BCOM exists? I don't see very many new for profit schools in the whoot whoot posts. People might not like for profit schools philosophically but RVU is hardly turning osteopathic medicine into the caribbean of anything.

"Will they be able to provide high-quality medical education if they also have to deliver a profit? Even if they can deliver a profit and provide high-quality education, surely they would be able to provide even more and better education if the profits were reinvested into education rather than passed on to investors or shareholders? This last point is almost unassailable – it begs difficult questions of supporters of the profit motive. Thirdly questions will inevitably arise as to the social accountability of medical education institutions. Most would say that they should be socially accountable and that this accountability should be to only a single master – the population that they serve. Certainly having only one master offers the benefit of simplicity of purpose. Fifthly involving the profit motive in undergraduate medical education may add another element to the hidden curriculum of schools. The stated curriculum of a school may state that its core purpose is to produce competent doctors who will want to stay in the vicinity of the school to provide primary care. However, it may be an open secret at the school that its real purpose is to deliver a profit – no matter what the economic, educational or healthcare costs. It is certainly well known that the hidden curriculum can have a powerful effect on undergraduates at medical school.[7] Sixthly some would argue that giving consideration to the profit motive in medical education is unfair to all involved – from investors to providers to learners. The duty of a profit making organization is to deliver value to shareholders – it is unfair to expect the organization to deliver education at the expense of profit. Seventhly and finally the profit motive may result in some unwanted incentives in the system. It may encourage schools to provide education that will help students to pass their exams and not necessarily education that is based on students’ needs, and in the final analysis patients’ needs."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4455002/

Also, BCOM is a medical school opened by a wealthy businessman with no real connection to medicine, much less Osteopathic Medicine. It is a cash grab under the guise of serving the under-served.

 

[starri]

Hasn't RVU established a lot of GME slots, though? I know we quibble about the quality of where they're located (because a community hospital is the eighth circle of hell), but that has to be a net positive. They certainly seem to have more that NYCOMAS, which has been around longer.

I interviewed at their new psych program. I was fairly impressed by it, but I was more iffy on it being at a for-profit hospital, which is, for me, even worse than for-profit education.

 

[acapnial]

"Will they be able to provide high-quality medical education if they also have to deliver a profit? Even if they can deliver a profit and provide high-quality education, surely they would be able to provide even more and better education if the profits were reinvested into education rather than passed on to investors or shareholders? This last point is almost unassailable – it begs difficult questions of supporters of the profit motive. Thirdly questions will inevitably arise as to the social accountability of medical education institutions. Most would say that they should be socially accountable and that this accountability should be to only a single master – the population that they serve. Certainly having only one master offers the benefit of simplicity of purpose. Fifthly involving the profit motive in undergraduate medical education may add another element to the hidden curriculum of schools. The stated curriculum of a school may state that its core purpose is to produce competent doctors who will want to stay in the vicinity of the school to provide primary care. However, it may be an open secret at the school that its real purpose is to deliver a profit – no matter what the economic, educational or healthcare costs. It is certainly well known that the hidden curriculum can have a powerful effect on undergraduates at medical school.[7] Sixthly some would argue that giving consideration to the profit motive in medical education is unfair to all involved – from investors to providers to learners. The duty of a profit making organization is to deliver value to shareholders – it is unfair to expect the organization to deliver education at the expense of profit. Seventhly and finally the profit motive may result in some unwanted incentives in the system. It may encourage schools to provide education that will help students to pass their exams and not necessarily education that is based on students’ needs, and in the final analysis patients’ needs."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4455002/

Also, BCOM is a medical school opened by a wealthy businessman with no real connection to medicine, much less Osteopathic Medicine. It is a cash grab under the guise of serving the under-served.

All sort of logical points in the article, but very theoretical, which I assume is because they're trying to talk about the idea of for profit medical education in multiple countries. But here in the US we have had a for profit medical school that is graduating it's 6th class in a few months, so we can talk about the way it's actually folding out. The leadership of nonprofit schools can easily soak up the revenue they're supposed to be reinvesting into the school system. Which is why you don't see a difference in what resources or quality of education RVU provides to students compared to PNWU, or AZCOM or whatever, nor do you see a significant difference in tuition, outside of state schools and LECOM. The idea that for profit schools have to worry about revenue to meet some bottom line and nonprofit schools don't, because the "single master" they serve is the population, is absurd. Don't make enough money, your organization fails. The extra money beyond what they need to run their organization at the level they do ends up in the pockets of the leadership in both cases. It always boggles my mind to look up the salaries of the leadership of schools that are nonprofit and supposedly stuffing the extra revenue back into the school, or the community it serves.

I don't believe BCOM is any more a cash grab than AZCOM.

 

[doing_all_the_things]

Yeah except that's not the only difference. Non-profit entities have to make returns public, they have to make public their highest earners and their salaries, and they have to make numerous other aspects of their business public upon request. Let alone the fact that they can't have a profit, they have to put the money back into the business/school, whereas for-profit can just cut a check to the owners.

Now sure, there are loopholes that non-profits use to make ventures very profitable for individuals involved, but its obvious when they do that (and in turn bad from a PR perspective). It's also not the priority of the business, but rather a side effect of individual greed.

Anyway, I don't want this thread to devolve into an argument about for-profit vs. non-profit, but that's just my opinion, I don't think education, especially medical education, should be for-profit.

You bring up a good point about non-profits but it should be recognized that they do not always follow those principles. "putting money back in the school" can be done by simply increasing the salaries of employees of the institutions themselves. This is in fact a glaring loophole that non-profits exploit all the time. In addition to this, expansion deals are almost always a form of money laundering. For example, a non-profit person makes a deal with a construction company to build a new facility. the facility should not cost more than say 10 million to build (arbitrary number) but the non-profit agrees to pay the construction company 20 million. the construction company cooks the books to make it seem like they are spending all 20 million but in reality that money is split between the non-profit person who made the deal and the construction company. I dont like the idea of for-profit institutions at all, but non-profits can be exceedingly corrupt.

 

[SlugMD]

All sort of logical points in the article, but very theoretical, which I assume is because they're trying to talk about the idea of for profit medical education in multiple countries. But here in the US we have had a for profit medical school that is graduating it's 6th class in a few months, so we can talk about the way it's actually folding out. The leadership of nonprofit schools can easily soak up the revenue they're supposed to be reinvesting into the school system. Which is why you don't see a difference in what resources or quality of education RVU provides to students compared to PNWU, or AZCOM or whatever, nor do you see a significant difference in tuition, outside of state schools and LECOM. The idea that for profit schools have to worry about revenue to meet some bottom line and nonprofit schools don't, because the "single master" they serve is the population, is absurd. Don't make enough money, your organization fails. The extra money beyond what they need to run their organization at the level they do ends up in the pockets of the leadership in both cases. It always boggles my mind to look up the salaries of the leadership of schools that are nonprofit and supposedly stuffing the extra revenue back into the school, or the community it serves.

I don't believe BCOM is any more a cash grab than AZCOM.

I would argue that AZCOM is cash grabbing more than BCOM considering their tuition is $15k+/year more expensive than BCOM. Being under the guise of "non-profit" is very misleading in my opinion.

Honestly, BCOM and RVU being DO schools is the only stigma I for see when applying for residency. I don't see a PD not ranking someone from BCOM or RVU just because they are for-profit considering CNU is for-profit and MD. Looks like the LCME has softened their stance on for-profit a lot over the last couple of years.

 

[COQueen]

If any of you watched the confirmation hearing for Betsy Devos, our new Secretary of Education, there was a big discussion on for-profit charter K-12 schools and her involvement and support for such programs. She made a very interesting point that I believe is also applicable to this discussion. She discussed that for-profit schools must be held to the same scrutiny and standards of non-profit schools and that outcomes must always be compared and that, in the end, the education is most important and ensuring that standards are being met.
If we take a look at the outcomes of RVU, I doubt anyone here would say that RVU hasn't met and exceeded expectations despite being only 10 years old. RVU has one of the highest COMLEX averages in the country (2nd highest last year), near 100% student retention, and growing clinical partnerships. Last year, RVU's USMLE Step 1 average was higher than the state MD school. RVU places students in some of the most competitive MD and DO GME programs in the country, including many ivy league programs. Tuition is still below the national average for private DO programs with a scholarship budget that is greater than most private DO programs. The COM is also opening up new GME opportunities in Colorado and Utah with new programs added every year. By all standards the school has met and exceeded expectations despite only being around for 10 years.

 

[acapnial]

If any of you watched the confirmation hearing for Betsy Devos, our new Secretary of Education, there was a big discussion on for-profit charter K-12 schools and her involvement and support for such programs. She made a very interesting point that I believe is also applicable to this discussion. She discussed that for-profit schools must be held to the same scrutiny and standards of non-profit schools and that outcomes must always be compared and that, in the end, the education is most important and ensuring that standards are being met.
If we take a look at the outcomes of RVU, I doubt anyone here would say that RVU hasn't met and exceeded expectations despite being only 10 years old. RVU has one of the highest COMLEX averages in the country (2nd highest last year), near 100% student retention, and growing clinical partnerships. Last year, RVU's USMLE Step 1 average was higher than the state MD school. RVU places students in some of the most competitive MD and DO GME programs in the country, including many ivy league programs. Tuition is still below the national average for private DO programs with a scholarship budget that is greater than most private DO programs. The COM is also opening up new GME opportunities in Colorado and Utah with new programs added every year. By all standards the school has met and exceeded expectations despite only being around for 10 years.

I'm as pro-RVU as anyone, but for the sake of accuracy I feel compelled to disagree with the bolded. When the rumor started going around that we got a better step 1 score than CU it's because our score last year was better than CU's was in 2010, the last time they listed their step 1 publicly. But the average score has gone up since 2010, and I'm willing to bet CU's has as well since they always seem to score within a couple points of the average. Anyway, can't say for sure without more current CU step data. Also, our tuition is little bit above national average (though still quite reasonable, compared to some of the other programs out there).

http://www.aacom.org/docs/default-s...1st-year)-2016-17-and-historical.pdf?sfvrsn=4

 

[NecrotizingFasciitis]

I was reading pg. 1 of this thread and began to feel disheartened, then I realized they were posts from 2007. Then I got to the 2012 posts and now today's posts and I feel a lot better about this situation. There really hasn't been much positive said about the amount of expansion going on.

 

[IslandStyle808]

The problem isn't for-profit education specifically (yes there are some shady schools), but more the control of these for-profit institution. You give an institution free reigns to any funds, they will find ways to funnel that money into useless endeavors, like putting statues or paintings all over the place. There has been a rise in for-profit schools since the 2000s, but the problem with these schools is that the governing bodies don't do squat to make sure these funds are going to the right place. For example, mandating having 30% of all funds collected from students being required to go into the school would be a start (speaking more specifically about for-profit schools in general). It is more of a problem of making sure for-profits and not for-profits are putting funding in the right locations by the bodies that over see each.

 

[IslandStyle808]

I was reading pg. 1 of this thread and began to feel disheartened, then I realized they were posts from 2007. Then I got to the 2012 posts and now today's posts and I feel a lot better about this situation. There really hasn't been much positive said about the amount of expansion going on.

Because SDN loves to defend the status quo and think that there is a good reason for the way education is put into place, it is sometimes true but not always.

 

[acapnial]

I was reading pg. 1 of this thread and began to feel disheartened, then I realized they were posts from 2007. Then I got to the 2012 posts and now today's posts and I feel a lot better about this situation. There really hasn't been much positive said about the amount of expansion going on.

You know the mychaskiw that was adamantly against rvu on page one is now dean of BCOM

 

[NecrotizingFasciitis]

You know the mychaskiw that was deadset against rvu on page one is now dean of BCOM

I had no idea. I don't know much about all of this; I have only seen it discussed on here a couple times. I've been trying to become more savvy in this area since Betsy Devos was nominated.

 

[IslandStyle808]

You know the mychaskiw that was adamantly against rvu on page one is now dean of BCOM

So much so, he made a publication against RVU and for-profits in general.

 

[deleted707454]

I was reading pg. 1 of this thread and began to feel disheartened, then I realized they were posts from 2007. Then I got to the 2012 posts and now today's posts and I feel a lot better about this situation. There really hasn't been much positive said about the amount of expansion going on.

I did the same thing. I was like, whoa SDN really turned up the hate for RVU all of a sudden. Then I saw the date... I start there in July - can't wait.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

You know the mychaskiw that was adamantly against rvu on page one is now dean of BCOM

I wonder what changed his mind...

 

[abolt18]

The problem isn't for-profit education specifically (yes there are some shady schools), but more the control of these for-profit institution. You give an institution free reigns to any funds, they will find ways to funnel that money into useless endeavors, like putting statues or paintings all over the place. There has been a rise in for-profit schools since the 2000s, but the problem with these schools is that the governing bodies don't do squat to make sure these funds are going to the right place. For example, mandating having 30% of all funds collected from students being required to go into the school would be a start (speaking more specifically about for-profit schools in general). It is more of a problem of making sure for-profits and not for-profits are putting funding in the right locations by the bodies that over see each.

This crap happens all the time at my school. We had many outcries over the fact that huge amounts of money are wasted on useless things.

And as someone else said, non-profit means nothing. They can always find ways to do sketchy stuff. Don't know if you've followed the huge scandals with the ABIM the past few years and their multi million dollar penthouse and other wasteful spending. But hey, they were putting money back into the company!
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2015/01/physician-investigates-american-board-internal-medicine.html

 

[acapnial]

I wonder what changed his mind...

You start getting a little older and you begin to realize what really matters in life. Multi million dollar penthouses, preferably in the same neighborhood as the ABIM.

 

[AlteredScale]

I wonder what changed his mind...

$$$$$$$$!!

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

$$$$$$$$!!

When he saw it was a lot more than 30 pieces of silver he decided to jump on that gravy train

 

[TheaterOfTheme]

When he saw it was a lot more than 30 pieces of silver he decided to jump on that gravy train

That is a very ironic outcome. This guy would have been better off keeping quiet. Pretty pathetic--not that for-profits can't work out for students but talk about a sell-out!


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile