- Joined
- Apr 10, 2008
- Messages
- 230
- Reaction score
- 0
There's one for-profit med school in the US. Search SDN for Rocky Vista or RVU and you'll see about 5 years of completely unresolved argument about whether it's the end of the world or not-so-bad-what's-the-big-deal. Most of which is from the perspective of young premeds, who can't possibly gauge the socioeconomic consequences of a for-profit med school, unless maybe they majored in economics and public policy.i may sound a lil dumb but, whats the main difference between a for profit and a non profit medical school besides the money part? i mean.. is the education valued the same? can a person graduated from a for-profit medschool and go on to residency and stuff?
i may sound a lil dumb but, whats the main difference between a for profit and a non profit medical school besides the money part? i mean.. is the education valued the same? can a person graduated from a for-profit medschool and go on to residency and stuff?
That's not correct. Federal loans are available for study based on the accreditation status of a school, which is independent from its business model. RVU has limited financial aid capabilities until it graduates its first class.You also have to understand that "FOR-PROFIT" medical schools do not qualify for government loan assistance. Therefore, you may be accepted, but good luck trying to get the $50,000/year needed to attend.
How can I invest? Mine as well start utilizing the lucrative sector of this DO/medical career thing.
PS: I don't think the AOA will approve another for-profit school, nor do I think a school will get off the ground in So-Cal right now. Too many factors working heavily against it.
I don't think the AOA will approve another for-profit school
As I just learned from a recent AOA release, they have nothing to do with accrediting schools - that is COCA's job. They are completely separate from the AOA and current law says it is illegal to block the formation of a school (anti-trust or something along those lines). As long as the requirements are met, it is my understanding that COCA has to grant accreditation.
The AOA can only support or deny support for building more schools in its general statements.
It's an interesting situation for the DO community. On one hand, there is a shortage of primary care docs and the AOA wants nothing more than to create more DOs. However, with the pace of the new schools, standards are going to be obscenely low for these new institutions as well.
Can somebody explain why the hell DO schools keep opening like no tomorrow? It seems unwise to do so without the same increases in residency spots and on top of that makes the whole osteopathic community look shady.
Pretty sure this is bs just like most thing the AOA recently said.
medical school is a business but I think we all prefer that it tries to stay a non-profit business.I agree with Serenade and Goro has mentioned that schools have been rejected in the past.
Also, if you exclude the recent expansion of schools, there has been an almost moratorium in medical schools for both MD and DO in the last few decades, but now that DO schools are popping like rabbits, suddenly COCA (AOA has no real power, just like AAMC has no real power when it comes to the opening of new schools) is "powerless" to stop it.
As a fellow SDNer has said, remember that medicine is also a business, and theres a lot to be made when it comes to opening up medical schools.
Can somebody explain why the hell DO schools keep opening like no tomorrow? It seems unwise to do so without the same increases in residency spots and on top of that makes the whole osteopathic community look shady.
necrothread. Web site doesn't even exist anymore.
Pretty sure this is bs just like most thing the AOA recently said.
That gave me a good laugh.
You may be correct - I was just rewording what I had read.
As for the degree mills and law school comparison, that will only apply if schools have truly BS residency placements. Many law schools can't hide the fact that their grads are placing into quality jobs. Medical schools (or at least most) don't have this problem yet. If you go to a school and don't realize you aren't happy with their track of placements then you're an idiot. Approach med school as a $300k business investment in yourself and you won't be disappointed.
That gave me a good laugh.
You may be correct - I was just rewording what I had read.
As for the degree mills and law school comparison, that will only apply if schools have truly BS residency placements. Many law schools can't hide the fact that their grads are placing into quality jobs. Medical schools (or at least most) don't have this problem yet. If you go to a school and don't realize you aren't happy with their track of placements then you're an idiot. Approach med school as a $300k business investment in yourself and you won't be disappointed.
It you have a 3.2 and a 24 MCAT and go to a new DO school, don't succeed academically, do below average on the boards, and don't place into a residency you're happy with.... don't be upset when you don't get the return on your investment.
...Those students who want to go into the more competitive specialties in either AOA or ACGME will have to step up their game more so than in the past...
Man, Rancho COM would have been an awesome name.Thank God they didn't name it RANCHO CUCAMONGA College of Osteopathic Medicine!
But who appoints COCA?As I just learned from a recent AOA release, they have nothing to do with accrediting schools - that is COCA's job. They are completely separate from the AOA and current law says it is illegal to block the formation of a school (anti-trust or something along those lines). As long as the requirements are met, it is my understanding that COCA has to grant accreditation.
The AOA can only support or deny support for building more schools in its general statements.
It's an interesting situation for the DO community. On one hand, there is a shortage of primary care docs and the AOA wants nothing more than to create more DOs. However, with the pace of the new schools, standards are going to be obscenely low for these new institutions as well.
A Southern Cali med school does sound pretty cool. Personally I would love to go to med school in either of the following cities: New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Northern California (San Francisco).
New York City- well it is the city that never sleeps. My brother lived there for 4 years and has some crazy stories of his nights there.
Chicago- I've been there. Sick environment, some great schools in the area. Deep-fried pizza is soooo delicious.
Philadelphia- Cheesesteaks. I go to school there, it's pretty sweet.
San Francisco- A lot of family lives there.
I get really bored in my hometown (suburbia) really quickly.
Can somebody explain why the hell DO schools keep opening like no tomorrow? It seems unwise to do so without the same increases in residency spots and on top of that makes the whole osteopathic community look shady.
There is one medical school in San Francisco and it is extremely hard to gain admission there.
More power to you if you can get in, though
Actually, I recently found out that COCA has now created new requirements (as of July 2013) that requires all accredited and new schools to have additional plans and meet certain stats in terms of GME in order to maintain accreditation (which may be a move to attempt to slow down COM expansion or at least make an attempt for GME to keep up). For one, they are now requiring all COMs to publicize the percent of graduates who match and those who don't, that percentage must be 98% match rate or higher into a GME across a 3 yr period, the schools must be a part of an OPTI, the schools must document and publicize the pass rate of the COMLEX (including level 3 taken during internship), and new schools must have a proposal and plan for GME placement of their students.
At this point, I think the main complaint for COCA is that it needs to beef up requirements for clinical education at COMs, as they seem to be very variable across all of the osteopathic colleges.
Also, on a side note, but somewhat related to this thread, the LCME recently modified its previous requirement that new MD schools be strictly non-profit, now allowing for for-profit MD schools. That might mean that the two proposed for-profit allo schools (one in CA near Sacramento and one in FL) may actually have a shot at opening up.
Touro-CA is a bit inland, but is still very close to SF.
Actually, I recently found out that COCA has now created new requirements (as of July 2013) that requires all accredited and new schools to have additional plans and meet certain stats in terms of GME in order to maintain accreditation (which may be a move to attempt to slow down COM expansion or at least make an attempt for GME to keep up). For one, they are now requiring all COMs to publicize the percent of graduates who match and those who don't, that percentage must be 98% match rate or higher into a GME across a 3 yr period, the schools must be a part of an OPTI, the schools must document and publicize the pass rate of the COMLEX (including level 3 taken during internship), and new schools must have a proposal and plan for GME placement of their students.
At this point, I think the main complaint for COCA is that it needs to beef up requirements for clinical education at COMs, as they seem to be very variable across all of the osteopathic colleges.
Also, on a side note, but somewhat related to this thread, the LCME recently modified its previous requirement that new MD schools be strictly non-profit, now allowing for for-profit MD schools. That might mean that the two proposed for-profit allo schools (one in CA near Sacramento and one in FL) may actually have a shot at opening up.
Touro-CA is a bit inland, but is still very close to SF.