Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Pre-Medical - DO' started by badapplestix, Aug 20, 2011.
Is this real??
Bottom says "This site is purely for investment purposes and in no way is used to solicit students." Maybe the University of Phoenix will buy it.
It also says: "This institution's application for approval to operate has not yet been reviewed by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education"
Just because they're looking for money doesn't mean they're going to be for-profit...
The osteopathic medical community is screwing its students.
STOP OPENING NEW SCHOOLS. THERE ISN'T ENOUGH GME TO GO AROUND!
It's for-profit. Like RVU. Facepalm!
SEC filing: http://marketbrief.com/southern-california-college-of-osteopathic-medicine-llc?secwatch
CEO is an IMG and runs an IMG residency placement company: http://www.americlerkships.org/about-us/executive-team
Thank God they didn't name it RANCHO CUCAMONGA College of Osteopathic Medicine!
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?
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.
This seems to just be someone's idea right now, more than anything else. It'll be years before it comes to any type of fruition.
It's 99% a financial situation. A non-profit has regulations regarding what they can do with any positive difference between incomes and expenses (profits) and must "reinvest" them in the school. They also have theoretical restrictions on paying employees and must compensate similar to similar institutions. This is often argued when people say "ZOMG the president of XXCOM makes $850k! That's absurd!" Then you look and see that's in the middle of the pack for professional school executive pay. Non-profits also have to publish detailed filings with the IRS about their financials.
For-profits, on the other hand, can pay whoever whatever they want with no public transparency (except to their investors, or except if they are publicly held). If they have $5 million in profits at the end of the year, they can disburse it to their investors, or they can build a new building on campus. They also have to pay taxes on that, which a non-profit wouldn't. There is less incentive to invest in the programs, especially low-return programs like much research. On the other hand, there is a greater incentive to create a better program at lower costs because you have investors with skin in the game.
From an education standpoint, there are theoretical safeguards in place, in that there are accrediting bodies that look at the quality of education and facilities, and there are nationally standardized exams that level the playing field a bit. Yea, they can be manipulated by schools that teach a two-year COMLEX/USMLE course instead of teaching medicine, but eventually the results will show up.
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.
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.
For example, U of Phoenix is for-profit (how to tell: their name is on a major stadium), and you can get federal aid there. As with Carib med schools. DeVry. Kaplan. Strayer.
Two problems not yet mentioned with for-profit schools:
1. If they fail as a business, which happens, they can and will close the school, which happens.
2. Faculty or staff who work towards priorities other than profit can be fired pretty easily, and then trustees who disagree with the firing can get fired pretty easily...because there's a CEO whose priority is profit. See RVU year #1.
Hope you're right, Jagger.
Looks like 7/180 people already ponied up 100k. Maybe for 100k they will give you a free acceptance and waive tuition.
yes, can't wait for this place to open. UCR med school is open too. woo hoo
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.
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.
Pretty sure this is bs just like most thing the AOA recently said.
Because who cares if DO physicians universally have their education questioned? Who cares if people see osteopathic medicine as a career in which the terms sub-par-residency are associated? Obviously neither the AOA, COCA.
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.
medical school is a business but I think we all prefer that it tries to stay a non-profit business.
The same reason why laws schools are becoming degree mills.
necrothread. Web site doesn't even exist anymore.
Still in applicant stage.
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.
The AOA has proved they can 'invent' residencies. Whether or not they are quality or not. More AOA physicians = more slave dues till death.
I would totally apply to this school. It is in SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. If you do well on the board exams and rotations here, you will have better chance of matching in Southern Cal than those going out of state - well, if you don't mind primary care like me.
Wow, another new one!
Well not just BS residency placements, but also potentially adding more medical graduates when there are not that many residency spots. 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. At this current point in time, it is not much of an issue correct, but I hope it does not become an issue in the future. If the growth of residencies spots were not controlled, as they are now, one could see a flood of physicians (just like lawyers). The latter won't happen though.
Why should the AOA or ACGME bend over backwards to cater to these students?
We have a primary care physician shortage, particularly in the rural areas where specialists typically don't train or practice.
expect them to go there!
Man, Rancho COM would have been an awesome name.
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.
But who appoints COCA?
AOA and COCA could at least maintain separate websites if they were serious about maintaining the appearance of separate status.
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.
I actually drove by Vallejo on vacation in Napa on the way back to san francisco and it is about 25 minutes from Napa and 30 minutes from San Francisco. Not a bad place to be when you're done studying!
This seems like common sense stuff to me. Thanks for sharing that