Rocky Vista Board Scores!!!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Why bother, even if it was available you would just dismiss it like you do every point on this subject. Like I said earlier, I have absolutely no affiliation with the school, so really it doesn't affect me in any way. Show me your objective data that says RVU will fail, their scores stink, or they have been discriminated against by PDs.

The issue is not that I won't accept it; the issue is that there is no data that puts RVU in good light

Could you please explain to me what is so wrong with a for profit medical institution? I always see this thrown out there, but from what I can tell, the "non-profit" organizations are the ones that should be ashamed of themselves for not disclosing profits. You're kidding yourself if you don't believe money is being made in both institutions.

*UofP and most for-profit institutions are purchased WITH accreditation, they don't invest in it THEN try to get accreditation. RVU has to EARN their own accreditation under careful scrutiny of the AOA. This is why schools with regional (the best) accreditation are so valuable to investors interested in the for-profit system.
I think you are overestimating the stringency of the AOA.

*UofP and others have no real requirements for admissions, where RVU does and they have to maintain those requirements per the AOA.

And what are these oh so stringent AOA admission requirements? Oh, wait, there are none.

*RVU loses money when someone drops out or fails out, UofP and other for profits don't (at least not in the same way). This is why they have 4 week courses, so they can milk you as you go and to get you to start, which in turn means to start paying ASAP. You can't just refill a medical school spot in the same manner you can an UG spot.

Actually, RVU would gain money if someone fails out. They can just string people along until 3rd year. When someone fails to pass the boards, that is one more rotation they don't have to pay for, since they don't have their own hospital.

Now for some common sense, obviously RVU won't be a diploma mill, because they will immediately lose their their accreditation through the AOA. They can't charge more than other schools, because that's bad for business. They CAN however more easily reinvest funds to increase the value of your educational dollar more easily than could be done at a bureaucratic non-profit.

the thing is, there is such a surplus of applicants,RVU could do whatever the hell they want and still have plenty of applicants who don't know any better.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Could you please explain to me what is so wrong with a for profit medical institution? I always see this thrown out there, but from what I can tell, the "non-profit" organizations are the ones that should be ashamed of themselves for not disclosing profits. You're kidding yourself if you don't believe money is being made in both institutions.

*UofP and most for-profit institutions are purchased WITH accreditation, they don't invest in it THEN try to get accreditation. RVU has to EARN their own accreditation under careful scrutiny of the AOA. This is why schools with regional (the best) accreditation are so valuable to investors interested in the for-profit system.
I think you are overestimating the stringency of the AOA.

And I feel like you are underestimating it. This issue is moot without data.

*UofP and others have no real requirements for admissions, where RVU does and they have to maintain those requirements per the AOA.

And what are these oh so stringent AOA admission requirements? Oh, wait, there are none.

College Degree, 1 year of Bio, 1 year of Physics, 2 years of chemistry, and the MCAT. Your word was "stringent" not mine.

*RVU loses money when someone drops out or fails out, UofP and other for profits don't (at least not in the same way). This is why they have 4 week courses, so they can milk you as you go and to get you to start, which in turn means to start paying ASAP. You can't just refill a medical school spot in the same manner you can an UG spot.

Actually, RVU would gain money if someone fails out. They can just string people along until 3rd year. When someone fails to pass the boards, that is one more rotation they don't have to pay for, since they don't have their own hospital.

Ahhh gotcha, because that would be looked very highly upon by future applicants. Let's not kid ourselves, people get strung along at a good number of well established MD and DO programs, so to think that RVU is somehow different or is held to a different standard is hypocritical.

Now for some common sense, obviously RVU won't be a diploma mill, because they will immediately lose their their accreditation through the AOA. They can't charge more than other schools, because that's bad for business. They CAN however more easily reinvest funds to increase the value of your educational dollar more easily than could be done at a bureaucratic non-profit.

the thing is, there is such a surplus of applicants,RVU could do whatever the hell they want and still have plenty of applicants who don't know any better.

Yes, but what you fail to see is that if RVU doesn't adhere to a certain standard of excellence then they will lose favor with local hospitals, residency programs, future students, and the AOA. This is true of any school, public, private, or for profit.



@The Poet Song

I wasn't trying to undermine you or what you were saying, but the idea of throwing a pizza party with poorly managed funds seemed a little out there. I understand your point, and agree. Money can be better allocated if it is monitored. I believe this is done with better management at private than public schools (because you remove additional governing bodies and pockets that need to be filled), but a for-profit school, in theory, would monitor these expenditures even more closely. I can think of scandals at all of the above mentioned types of institutions that deal with money being misappropriated and they all move on. Really, the bottom line comes down to the integrity of those running the school and those in positions to oversee the dollars and cents flowing into and out of the institution. This is true of any business.
 
A for profit medical education system cut corners to earn maximum advertiseable benefit for its product. When a for profit medical school make good product, more people apply and they can gain tuition. How can they do that?

If I am managing a for profit school, I want to use the least amount of money to achieve the best achievable product. I would NOT use more money to get a better product if that cuts into my profit margin. It's just business 101, maximumizing profit.

How can I maximumize profit? For one, I would teach to COMLEX. I would get Goljan, I would get what I need the most to let student rock their boards, as well as I can be.

And then I would release them to the no name community clinics where they don't rotate impatient, so I can save on rotation cost.

Mark my word, a for profit medical school will produce enough physician who can pass board and demostrate a good product, but I bet they don't have rigorious clinical training because that's just extra money that could have gone into the investor's pocket.

The model I showed above is already be used, for countless generations of IMGs, who don't know their in and out about the wards because all they did was outpatient medicine.

THat is my argument against for profit medical school (I am looking at you, Carribean schools), because they are basically 2 year board prep courses with minimal quality of clinicals needed to get people into any residency.

As for RVU, I don't know. We'll see when they graduate their first class.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
A for profit medical education system cut corners to earn maximum advertiseable benefit for its product. When a for profit medical school make good product, more people apply and they can gain tuition. How can they do that?

If I am managing a for profit school, I want to use the least amount of money to achieve the best achievable product. I would NOT use more money to get a better product if that cuts into my profit margin. It's just business 101, maximumizing profit.

How can I maximumize profit? For one, I would teach to COMLEX. I would get Goljan, I would get what I need the most to let student rock their boards, as well as I can be.

And then I would release them to the no name community clinics where they don't rotate impatient, so I can save on rotation cost.

Mark my word, a for profit medical school will produce enough physician who can pass board and demostrate a good product, but I bet they don't have rigorious clinical training because that's just extra money that could have gone into the investor's pocket.

The model I showed above is already be used, for countless generations of IMGs, who don't know their in and out about the wards because all they did was outpatient medicine.

THat is my argument against for profit medical school (I am looking at you, Carribean schools), because they are basically 2 year board prep courses with minimal quality of clinicals needed to get people into any residency.

As for RVU, I don't know. We'll see when they graduate their first class.

I believe this is what happens at the non-profit ATSU in Arizona. For years 2-4, the students go to community health centers throughout the US.
 
A for profit medical education system cut corners to earn maximum advertiseable benefit for its product. When a for profit medical school make good product, more people apply and they can gain tuition. How can they do that?

If I am managing a for profit school, I want to use the least amount of money to achieve the best achievable product. I would NOT use more money to get a better product if that cuts into my profit margin. It's just business 101, maximumizing profit.

How can I maximumize profit? For one, I would teach to COMLEX. I would get Goljan, I would get what I need the most to let student rock their boards, as well as I can be.

And then I would release them to the no name community clinics where they don't rotate impatient, so I can save on rotation cost.

Mark my word, a for profit medical school will produce enough physician who can pass board and demostrate a good product, but I bet they don't have rigorious clinical training because that's just extra money that could have gone into the investor's pocket.

The model I showed above is already be used, for countless generations of IMGs, who don't know their in and out about the wards because all they did was outpatient medicine.

THat is my argument against for profit medical school (I am looking at you, Carribean schools), because they are basically 2 year board prep courses with minimal quality of clinicals needed to get people into any residency.

As for RVU, I don't know. We'll see when they graduate their first class.


Here are some of RVU's clinical sites. They are excellent hospitals with both in and outpatient services.

http://www.rockyvistauniversity.org/dept_clinicalmed.asp

As far as their curriculum goes, it was changed this year. It is a new integrated curriculum that has worked very well in the past at other US institutions. It is the same curriculum used at TCOM. I'm going to guess you're not saying TCOM teaches to the test... But I suppose you could, seeing as we're all entitled to our own opinions.
 
The issue is not that I won't accept it; the issue is that there is no data that puts RVU in good light

The truth is there is no data to put RVU in any light (good or bad). Yet you somehow seem to portray it like there is. Then this bit of info pertaining to board scores surfaces about a real concern for potential students. While it could be taken as data for good light, it is admittedly incomplete.
 
Last edited:
What we do know is that with the top 80% of the class at RVU, there still was a below average board pass rate. Most other schools, you take the top 80% of the class and you have a 100% pass rate. It says a lot.
 
What we do know is that with the top 80% of the class at RVU, there still was a below average board pass rate. Most other schools, you take the top 80% of the class and you have a 100% pass rate. It says a lot.


:confused:
 
What we do know is that with the top 80% of the class at RVU, there still was a below average board pass rate. Most other schools, you take the top 80% of the class and you have a 100% pass rate. It says a lot.


I think he means that the top 80% at most other schools would have a 100% pass rate, versus the top 80% at RVU that did below average.
 
What we do know is that with the top 80% of the class at RVU, there still was a below average board pass rate. Most other schools, you take the top 80% of the class and you have a 100% pass rate. It says a lot.

Where are you getting 80% from? And also this technique for boards is not unique to Rvu from what other posters have said on sdn.
 
I think he means that the top 80% at most other schools would have a 100% pass rate, versus the top 80% at RVU that did below average.

So what other new schools have a 100% pass rate??
 
He is making the false assumption that 100% of the top 80% of other med school classes pass the boards.


I'm just trying to get my head wrapped around what type of logic he is using because its not clicking with me right now.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I'm just trying to get my head wrapped around what type of logic he is using because its not clicking with me right now.

I think it's this kind:

faulty-logic.jpg
 
how many people are in that RVU class who took the exam? If you see earlier in thread only 85% took the board so far because the bottom 15% is not allowed to, I believe. So if 85% of people have a 85% pass rate that's 72% people passing in that class so far.
 
I'm just trying to get my head wrapped around what type of logic he is using because its not clicking with me right now.

Most schools have >90% pass rates using their entire class- the good and the bad students. Those who fail make up the bottom of the class. So at most schools, if you take the top 80% of the class, you take out the bottom 20% who are likely to fail. Thus you end up with a 100% pass rate, or close.

The fact that RVU has a subpar average despite selecting only the best students to take the boards, speaks volumes- basically everything I have been saying from the very beginning- people are just too stubborn to admit it.
 
Most schools have >90% pass rates using their entire class- the good and the bad students. Those who fail make up the bottom of the class. So at most schools, if you take the top 80% of the class, you take out the bottom 20% who are likely to fail. Thus you end up with a 100% pass rate, or close.

The fact that RVU has a subpar average despite selecting only the best students to take the boards, speaks volumes- basically everything I have been saying from the very beginning- people are just too stubborn to admit it.

Speaking as a Colorado resident and someone who has been reading this thread since it started, I find it sad that DO medical students are looking down their nose at RVUCOM, DO'S will have to deal with enough of this from MD's (like it or not) that its sad your doing it to each other, before the first class has even graduated! Like it or not, good board pass rates or not, Rocky Vista is going to be a medical school and is going to be producing Osteopathic physicians. The arguments against the for profit model are insignificant at this point, and I would argue the for profit model is the only one that would have supported a new medical school in a state whose academic funding is a joke at best. Look at the accreditation problems CU is facing/will be facing due to state funding.


End rant
 
Speaking as a Colorado resident and someone who has been reading this thread since it started, I find it sad that DO medical students are looking down their nose at RVUCOM, DO'S will have to deal with enough of this from MD's (like it or not) that its sad your doing it to each other, before the first class has even graduated! Like it or not, good board pass rates or not, Rocky Vista is going to be a medical school and is going to be producing Osteopathic physicians. The arguments against the for profit model are insignificant at this point, and I would argue the for profit model is the only one that would have supported a new medical school in a state whose academic funding is a joke at best. Look at the accreditation problems CU is facing/will be facing due to state funding.


End rant

Instatewaiter is not a DO, he is an MD. Why he posts everything that seems to be on his mind about the osteopathic profession in the osteopathic medical student and pre-DO forums is beyond me. That being said, I absolutely see what he is saying as far as the "top 80%" thing goes. I'm not sure why other people seem so confused about it. Why it is such a big deal.....especially to Instatewaiter....I have yet to figure out.
 
Last edited:
Most schools have >90% pass rates using their entire class- the good and the bad students. Those who fail make up the bottom of the class. So at most schools, if you take the top 80% of the class, you take out the bottom 20% who are likely to fail. Thus you end up with a 100% pass rate, or close.

The fact that RVU has a subpar average despite selecting only the best students to take the boards, speaks volumes- basically everything I have been saying from the very beginning- people are just too stubborn to admit it.

Okay. So my next question: What are the pass rates of other new DO schools?
 
I think a better question is what were the pass rates for the first class of a brand new school (DO or MD).

Well, I wanted to be fair and only compare DO schools because we are talking about a DO school. This isn't in anyway to say that DO schools are inferior its just that MD students don't take COMLEX and that's what the debate is about.
 
Instatewaiter is not a DO, he is an MD. Why he posts everything that seems to be on his mind about the osteopathic profession in the osteopathic medical student and pre-DO forums is beyond me. That being said, I absolutely see what he is saying as far as the "top 80%" thing goes. I'm not sure why other people seem so confused about it. Why it is such a big deal.....especially to Instatewaiter....I have yet to figure out.

If you followed his tumultuous relationship with Jagger, you would know most of the story. From what I can glean off of a post JP made not too long ago, ISW was an SMP student who got into an MD school, possibly after turning down some DO acceptances. I don't know about the latter, but apparently, he was very close, but I do believe he did apply DO as a backup since that's usually how the SMP story ends: win or lose completely with no retry.

I think ISW makes many valid points but comes from a common viewpoint from the SMP world. Being an SMP graduate myself, I can understand the terrifying risk and uncertainty, and getting exactly what he wants while knowing a bit about the world he left behind is what brings him back here. That's my interpretation anyway.

That said, like DoktorB, ISW's point about the top 80% thing is valid, as you could say that about any school when comparing to a new school. New schools do have a lot to prove and I believe RVU could've done better. That said, I grow tired of the board scores being so important in judging a school's preparedness for residency. 3rd and 4th year are much more important and yet, people still want to know who has the highest pass rates.
 
If you followed his tumultuous relationship with Jagger, you would know most of the story. From what I can glean off of a post JP made not too long ago, ISW was an SMP student who got into an MD school, possibly after turning down some DO acceptances. I don't know about the latter, but apparently, he was very close, but I do believe he did apply DO as a backup since that's usually how the SMP story ends: win or lose completely with no retry.

I think ISW makes many valid points but comes from a common viewpoint from the SMP world. Being an SMP graduate myself, I can understand the terrifying risk and uncertainty, and getting exactly what he wants while knowing a bit about the world he left behind is what brings him back here. That's my interpretation anyway.

That said, like DoktorB, ISW's point about the top 80% thing is valid, as you could say that about any school when comparing to a new school. New schools do have a lot to prove and I believe RVU could've done better. That said, I grow tired of the board scores being so important in judging a school's preparedness for residency. 3rd and 4th year are much more important and yet, people still want to know who has the highest pass rates.


it is legit to judge a school based on board scores. the boards are minimum competency tests. if you cant pass them you shouldnt be a doctor. its that simple. step I (comlex or usmle) is not hard if 1) you studied at all during the first 2 years and 2) your school gave you the right tools to succeed. the board scores reflect both the students and the school. so yes, board scores should be a very big part in judging preparedness for residency. the boards are not just a hoop to jump through in the path of becoming a doctor.
 
As it stands right now, RVU is not different than any of the other new DO schools when comparing the pass rates of their first class. Most of the inaugural classes of DO schools that I've researched, their board schools hoovered around a high 70-80% range. However, their subsequent classes improved greatly with at least meeting the average pass rate.

LECOM-B had a low pass rate for their inaugural class and everyone completely rip them a new because of it. Their average pass rate since then has been nothing short of great. If RVU doesn't improve their board scores then I would see a cause for alarm, but until then getting all hyped up is kinda .....******ed? :cool:
 
As it stands right now, RVU is not different than any of the other new DO schools when comparing the pass rates of their first class. Most of the inaugural classes of DO schools that I've researched, their board schools hoovered around a high 70-80% range. However, their subsequent classes improved greatly with at least meeting the average pass rate.

LECOM-B had a low pass rate for their inaugural class and everyone completely rip them a new because of it. Their average pass rate since then has been nothing short of great. If RVU doesn't improve their board scores then I would see a cause for alarm, but until then getting all hyped up is kinda .....******ed? :cool:

I guess it's ******ed to state one's opinion now days.
 
it is legit to judge a school based on board scores. the boards are minimum competency tests. if you cant pass them you shouldnt be a doctor. its that simple. step I (comlex or usmle) is not hard if 1) you studied at all during the first 2 years and 2) your school gave you the right tools to succeed. the board scores reflect both the students and the school. so yes, board scores should be a very big part in judging preparedness for residency. the boards are not just a hoop to jump through in the path of becoming a doctor.

I might have sounded that way, but I don't discount the importance of boards. The key thing is the majority of schools will prepare you well. Yes, it is worrisome that a school would have a 70% pass rate. Yes, it is strange for a school to select its best and not be able to break past the 90% pass rate. But, this should not be the most important factor.

With Step 1, you have a lot more personal control. Consider doing DIT, Kaplan or whatever do augment your studying. There are more options.

3rd year, not so much. You might be completely screwed this year and what more can you do but excel at the 'rotations', keep up your manual skills and plan a rigorous 4th year.

That said, is merely passing good enough for a school? You'd want to look further, like how much time off they give you, board review classes, and of course, averages for the exams. On the interview trail, 2 of the schools I interviewed at told me their average scores in addition to pass rate, so if you're counting numbers, that should be the one to look at.
 
I guess it's ******ed to state one's opinion now days.

I've never stated that anyone's opinion is ******ed, but I did say (or imply) that it is ******ed to pass your opinions as facts about a school when you don't even know what the outcome will be.
 
Last edited:
I've never stated that anyone's opinion is ******ed, but I did say (or imply) that it is ******ed to pass your opinions as facts about a school when you don't even know what the outcome will be.


I am done with this thread here, I'll let time do the talking.
 
If you followed his tumultuous relationship with Jagger, you would know most of the story. From what I can glean off of a post JP made not too long ago, ISW was an SMP student who got into an MD school, possibly after turning down some DO acceptances. I don't know about the latter, but apparently, he was very close, but I do believe he did apply DO as a backup since that's usually how the SMP story ends: win or lose completely with no retry.

Tumultuous between Jagger and I? I don't think so, we generally get along well.
 
Tumultuous between Jagger and I? I don't think so, we generally get along well.


Hehe, well, I guess I meant along the lines of noisy and exciting. Since no one's been banned yet, no harm, no foul :laugh:
 
Those of you who are knocking the school clearly don't go to school there. I toured their campus yesterday, it's beautiful, state-of-the-art, the students are happy, they feel they are doing well, and are passing their boards and tests. If you're going to have an opinion about something, maybe you should make it informed instead of just a narrow-minded judgment based on bias because the schools status is for profit instead of NPO, for the record, all schools are a business, they all want to make $$, end of story...
 
Those of you who are knocking the school clearly don't go to school there. I toured their campus yesterday, it's beautiful, state-of-the-art, the students are happy, they feel they are doing well, and are passing their boards and tests. If you're going to have an opinion about something, maybe you should make it informed instead of just a narrow-minded judgment based on bias because the schools status is for profit instead of NPO, for the record, all schools are a business, they all want to make $$, end of story...

Well said. :thumbup:
 
Those of you who are knocking the school clearly don't go to school there. I toured their campus yesterday, it's beautiful, state-of-the-art, the students are happy, they feel they are doing well, and are passing their boards and tests. If you're going to have an opinion about something, maybe you should make it informed instead of just a narrow-minded judgment based on bias because the schools status is for profit instead of NPO, for the record, all schools are a business, they all want to make $$, end of story...

I think you have a good point and I don't disagree with you completely. However I find it ironic you base your opinion on a tour of the campus and talking to 1st and 2nd year students. I'd like to hear how those rotation sites are coming along?

RVU is definitely a viable option for some students. However simply due to it's for profit nature it will not achieve the same things as other DO schools because it's motivations are profits, not educational goals.
 
I think you have a good point and I don't disagree with you completely. However I find it ironic you base your opinion on a tour of the campus and talking to 1st and 2nd year students. I'd like to hear how those rotation sites are coming along?

RVU is definitely a viable option for some students. However simply due to it's for profit nature it will not achieve the same things as other DO schools because it's motivations are profits, not educational goals.

A tour is supposed to show you basically all the good things about a school. A shinny new building adds nothing to your education. I have said it so many times on this board- What the building looks like for your first 2 years means nothing. What matters are their clinical rotations. So your building is state-of-the-art for 1st and 2nd year... how is that going to change your education? It's not. It's just a shinny thing to show pre-meds who don't realize what is important in medical education. Of course if your rotations are in locations that don't want you and don't teach you well, it doesn't matter what your first 2 years of education were like.

That a poster felt comfortable after talking with 1st and 2nd years students doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot since those students now don't have contact with the 3rd years who are the guinnea pigs for the first rotations and who are the only one's who have taken the boards.
 
A tour is supposed to show you basically all the good things about a school. A shinny new building adds nothing to your education. I have said it so many times on this board- What the building looks like for your first 2 years means nothing. What matters are their clinical rotations. So your building is state-of-the-art for 1st and 2nd year... how is that going to change your education? It's not. It's just a shinny thing to show pre-meds who don't realize what is important in medical education. Of course if your rotations are in locations that don't want you and don't teach you well, it doesn't matter what your first 2 years of education were like.

That a poster felt comfortable after talking with 1st and 2nd years students doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot since those students now don't have contact with the 3rd years who are the guinnea pigs for the first rotations and who are the only one's who have taken the boards.

I don't have contact with 3rd year students??? Huh....that's funny. Because I saw 5 at school yesterday at a workshop. And I saw about 15 earlier this month at the school talent show.
Every single 3rd year student I talk to is more than happy with their clinical rotations. Their preceptors are great teachers, they are learning a lot, and they are hands on with procedures.
And the third years I talked to that didn't do well on boards admits that they did not put in enough work and didn't study hard enough. We also have people who did exceptionally well.
I will repeat what I have said before...The school isn't perfect, but considering how long it has been in operation I would say it's pretty darn good.
 
A tour is supposed to show you basically all the good things about a school. A shinny new building adds nothing to your education. I have said it so many times on this board- What the building looks like for your first 2 years means nothing. What matters are their clinical rotations. So your building is state-of-the-art for 1st and 2nd year... how is that going to change your education? It's not. It's just a shinny thing to show pre-meds who don't realize what is important in medical education. Of course if your rotations are in locations that don't want you and don't teach you well, it doesn't matter what your first 2 years of education were like.

That a poster felt comfortable after talking with 1st and 2nd years students doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot since those students now don't have contact with the 3rd years who are the guinnea pigs for the first rotations and who are the only one's who have taken the boards.

You aren't going to change their mind, let time and their experience in the real world do the talking.
 
Those of you who are knocking the school clearly don't go to school there. I toured their campus yesterday, it's beautiful, state-of-the-art, the students are happy, they feel they are doing well, and are passing their boards and tests. If you're going to have an opinion about something, maybe you should make it informed instead of just a narrow-minded judgment based on bias because the schools status is for profit instead of NPO, for the record, all schools are a business, they all want to make $$, end of story...

Sounds like you've got it all figured out. State-of-the-art, wow! What does that mean, btw?

Do you think I'm narrow-minded in my judgement because you disagree? Is my bias only because of the "for-profit" status?

I listed quite a few reasons. Especially in this age of increasingly competitive GME, dwindling reimbursements, and noctor revolutions, it would be very prudent for a med stud to be to listen to ole' Coastie.
 
I think you have a good point and I don't disagree with you completely. However I find it ironic you base your opinion on a tour of the campus and talking to 1st and 2nd year students. I'd like to hear how those rotation sites are coming along?

RVU is definitely a viable option for some students. However simply due to it's for profit nature it will not achieve the same things as other DO schools because it's motivations are profits, not educational goals.

Im only a first year but we do have some contact with 3rd years. We are required to do shadowing hours and many of us do them at our rotation sites. The students are doing well and the preceptors i've met seem eager to teach and excited that CO finally has another medical school. It is my opinion that the for profit model was the only way another medical school would open here given the crumby public funding situation in this state.

I encourage anyone who's questioning the school to sit in on classes labs or visit rotation sites...and compare the quality of teaching to any other US medical school. I've sat in on labs and classes at 3 schools and found rvu to be best hence my decision to attend.
 
Im only a first year but we do have some contact with 3rd years. We are required to do shadowing hours and many of us do them at our rotation sites. The students are doing well and the preceptors i've met seem eager to teach and excited that CO finally has another medical school. It is my opinion that the for profit model was the only way another medical school would open here given the crumby public funding situation in this state.

I encourage anyone who's questioning the school to sit in on classes labs or visit rotation sites...and compare the quality of teaching to any other US medical school. I've sat in on labs and classes at 3 schools and found rvu to be best hence my decision to attend.

lab and class have nothing to do with third year. Do you guys pay your rotation sites at all?
 
LECOM doesn't.

there's also a pretty big difference between rotating in a big teaching hospital, a teaching hospital and a hospital that has no its own residency.

As for the issue of whether paying a hospital to have rotation sites, I think that issue will clarify itself over the long run as more MD schools open up and approaches the capacity of the current MD GME system.
 
A tour is supposed to show you basically all the good things about a school. A shinny new building adds nothing to your education. I have said it so many times on this board- What the building looks like for your first 2 years means nothing. What matters are their clinical rotations. So your building is state-of-the-art for 1st and 2nd year... how is that going to change your education? It's not. It's just a shinny thing to show pre-meds who don't realize what is important in medical education. Of course if your rotations are in locations that don't want you and don't teach you well, it doesn't matter what your first 2 years of education were like.

That a poster felt comfortable after talking with 1st and 2nd years students doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot since those students now don't have contact with the 3rd years who are the guinnea pigs for the first rotations and who are the only one's who have taken the boards.



Exactly, I couldn't agree more. I love how schools flaunt their sim labs, nice new buildings, comfy libraries and lecture halls to naive pre-meds. Looking back it definitely had some sort of an influence on the school I ultimately decided to attend. At the time, the complexities and politics of 3rd year rotations weren't at the top of my radar. In fact I thought that most clinical rotations were created relatively equally. Boy how naive I was.

In reality, 3rd/4th year rotations are what really matter. That's were you learn real medicine, acquire solid LOR's, and network with residency programs. You shouldn't have to fight for popular rotations through a lottery system either, but this commonly occurs. My adviser once told me that a med student slows down a physicians productivity by 20%. In private practice, physicians can't afford to take the time to teach you, and your education can suffer as a result. Traditionally residents do a large share of teaching, so you should make sure you are rotating at a site that has residents.

Board scores are extremely important and med school is mostly independent learning, so you can't rely on having good faculty to spoon feed you during 1st/2nd years. You should be following along a review book during your basic science courses. If you aren't being held accountable for what's in FA or Goljan, then don't be surprised if you fail or get a below average step 1 score.

Med school is worthless even if it costs 300k if it doesn't help you land the residency position in the field of your choice. As a pre-med or MSI/MSII you need to be looking into what schools and rotation sites will provide you with the best chances of attaining your goals. I can't stress enough how important board scores, clinical rotations, and LOR's are. Having an old friend who is a current RVU student, I wish you guys the best of luck. All I can say is study hard and try to network as much as possible. It's going to be an uphill battle trying to attain a competitive residency position especially in the next few years as enrollment has increased across the board MD/DO.
 
Can we get someone here descibe RVU's rotation? How many month of inpatient IM? surgery? etc? Do you work in a hospital with residents? Etc.
 
Can we get someone here descibe RVU's rotation? How many month of inpatient IM? surgery? etc? Do you work in a hospital with residents? Etc.



http://www.rockyvistauniversity.org/PDFs/3rdyr Curriculum sheet.pdf


This is the link to the third year rotation sites, a lot of them are the bigger hospitals in Denver. As to having residents...I would bet so but havent checked on the hospitals own websites.

Just from doing some google searches it looks like st joes has residencies in IM, FM, SURG, and Ob/GYN.
 
Last edited:
Can we get someone here descibe RVU's rotation? How many month of inpatient IM? surgery? etc? Do you work in a hospital with residents? Etc.

Going by what is on the website the main sites are in the health one and centura health systems. Here they are:

Health one:
SkyRidge Medical Center- Community hospital without residencies and 186 beds (very small)
Medical Center of Aurora- community hospital without residencies and 346 beds (small)
Swedish Medical Center- Community hospital without residencies and 368 beds (small)
North Suburban Medical Center- community hospital without residencies and 139 beds (very small)
Rose Medical Center- community w/o residencies. 422 beds (small-medium)
St. Luke Medical Center- Community w/o residencies with 340 beds (small)

Centura:
Parker Adventist Hospital- community without residencies and 100 beds (tiny)
St.Anthony Medical Center- community w/o residenncies 150 beds (tiny)
Porter Adventist- community w/o residencies 368 beds (small)
Littleton Adventist Hospital- community w/o residencies 231 beds (tiny). ~9000 admissions per year
stmarycorwin- community, no residents- 408 licensed beds ~ 8,059 annual admissions
 
Going by what is on the website the main sites are in the health one and centura health systems. Here they are:

Health one:
SkyRidge Medical Center- Community hospital without residencies and 186 beds (very small)
Medical Center of Aurora- community hospital without residencies and 346 beds (small)
Swedish Medical Center- Community hospital without residencies and 368 beds (small)
North Suburban Medical Center- community hospital without residencies and 139 beds (very small)
Rose Medical Center- community w/o residencies. 422 beds (small-medium)
St. Luke Medical Center- Community w/o residencies with 340 beds (small)

Centura:
Parker Adventist Hospital- community without residencies and 100 beds (tiny)
St.Anthony Medical Center- community w/o residenncies 150 beds (tiny)
Porter Adventist- community w/o residencies 368 beds (small)
Littleton Adventist Hospital- community w/o residencies 231 beds (tiny). ~9000 admissions per year
stmarycorwin- community, no residents- 408 licensed beds ~ 8,059 annual admissions


What about the other sites listed?
 
Top