Sullivan University is FOR PROFIT!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Yourmother

I'm Chris Hansen..
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Messages
635
Reaction score
1
Whoa, hold the boat! You mean to tell me that Sullivan University is a FOR PROFIT university!!!!!

Members don't see this ad.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
There should be an appropriate label for the dozens of new, unneeded, private label schools that want to make a quick buck that are popping up everywhere. Bandwagon schools, maybe? I just hope it all stops soon. A PharmD will be like a psychology BS in 20 years at the rate schools are opening.
 
There should be an appropriate label for the dozens of new, unneeded, private label schools that want to make a quick buck that are popping up everywhere. Bandwagon schools, maybe? I just hope it all stops soon. A PharmD will be like a psychology BS in 20 years at the rate schools are opening.

I feel the same way. California Northstate is coming out of nowhere to open the 8th pharmacy school in California, which i don't think is needed at all.

However, Kentucky has only one pharmacy school. The state has the second biggest shortage of pharmacists after Alabama. I think the state does need one more school.
 
Most private pharmacy schools are for profit I believe. I don't know about USC though, they've been around for so long - does anyone from USC know?
 
I feel the same way. California Northstate is coming out of nowhere to open the 8th pharmacy school in California, which i don't think is needed at all.

However, Kentucky has only one pharmacy school. The state has the second biggest shortage of pharmacists after Alabama. I think the state does need one more school.

Just curious- where did you get this information? Got a link or a website?
 
I feel the same way. California Northstate is coming out of nowhere to open the 8th pharmacy school in California, which i don't think is needed at all.

However, Kentucky has only one pharmacy school. The state has the second biggest shortage of pharmacists after Alabama. I think the state does need one more school.

nah, Mississippi has the biggest shortage.
 
nah, Mississippi has the biggest shortage.

I'm not sure which information is correct. If you google "Pharmacy Manpower Project," which is referenced in the article, their map has demand in this order (5= highest demand)
[SIZE=-2][/SIZE]
NC 4.75
SD 4.67
KY 4.56
CA 4.46
AK 4.33
AL 4.29
SC 4.29
 
Members don't see this ad :)
it seems Sullivan University gets a lot of talk for a school that hasn't even admitted its first class yet (even though it has accepted some of that class). Sullivan must at least be enjoying all this attention for its program
 
That's an interesting change in position from defending a for profit school in the osteopathic forums.

AWWWW YA CAUGHT ME.....I'm DOOMED! so much egg on my face!

Thanks for noticing..........my point exactly. There is so much hostility over the "for profit status" of RVU that I thought I reseach schools. Low and behold Sullivan is a for profit! Yet I've never heard a peep of angst or animosity.

Personally, I think for profit is fine. It meets a need. So many people are so against the tax status. I don't see what the big deal is?
 
South University, GA and Pharm school at Univesity of southern California are also private and FOR PROFIT. Sullivan is not the only one.
 
If the school gets enough money to stay open, the students pass the boards, and the school can become and remain accredited, that's all that counts.

Hopefully it doesn't become like basic science PhD programs, where finding a job for a PhD is extremely difficult nowadays because there is no attempt to balance supply and demand for scientists on a national level.
 
okay, for the record, I agree with you guys. I have nothing against FOR PROFIT, in fact I think it can be more beneficial in some aspects.

My point was that there is this HUGE OUTRAGE over RVU, the new for profit med school in the other forums. Again, I don;t see what all the fuss is about. They're over there using SDN to push petitions, etc.

Anyhow, it appears that pharmacy is more advanced and progressive, which is a refreshing change....
 
okay, for the record, I agree with you guys. I have nothing against FOR PROFIT, in fact I think it can be more beneficial in some aspects.

My point was that there is this HUGE OUTRAGE over RVU, the new for profit med school in the other forums. Again, I don;t see what all the fuss is about. They're over there using SDN to push petitions, etc.

Anyhow, it appears that pharmacy is more advanced and progressive, which is a refreshing change....

I do have some issues with an institution having the status of FOR PROFIT. First, it doesn't appear that the focus will be on the education quality, rather the money they're bringing in to the stakeholders. They want to make sure their earnings are growing. Second, a for profit institution like University of Phoenix seems to only admit students so they can get their money. At one time, I heard that it was only a diploma mill, that all you had to do was pay for the classes and you pass. I've learned that this is incorrect, you do have to do the work assigned to make the grade. BUT... at one time I thought of getting an MBA from UoP. I had to fill out the information request form, and I didn't think they would EVER stop calling me. They didn't seem to care what credentials I had - they kept pressuring me to enroll for classes - IMMEDIATELY. I do take issue with a for profit place like this... Although, I'm sure Sullivan will not admit students to look good on their GL.

All that said, it's a fact that a business has to make a profit to stay in business -- even the not-for-profit businesses. If they're not profitable, they are unable to invest in new initiatives. If unable to invest in initiatives, they ultimately fail. It's a fine line to walk on for the not-for-profits/non-profits too.
 
I do have some issues with an institution having the status of FOR PROFIT. First, it doesn't appear that the focus will be on the education quality, rather the money they're bringing in to the stakeholders. They want to make sure their earnings are growing. Second, a for profit institution like University of Phoenix seems to only admit students so they can get their money. At one time, I heard that it was only a diploma mill, that all you had to do was pay for the classes and you pass. I've learned that this is incorrect, you do have to do the work assigned to make the grade. BUT... at one time I thought of getting an MBA from UoP. I had to fill out the information request form, and I didn't think they would EVER stop calling me. They didn't seem to care what credentials I had - they kept pressuring me to enroll for classes - IMMEDIATELY. I do take issue with a for profit place like this... Although, I'm sure Sullivan will not admit students to look good on their GL.

All that said, it's a fact that a business has to make a profit to stay in business -- even the not-for-profit businesses. If they're not profitable, they are unable to invest in new initiatives. If unable to invest in initiatives, they ultimately fail. It's a fine line to walk on for the not-for-profits/non-profits too.


I agree with you brother, but the $750,000 salary for the Dean at a California medical school (La Jolla?)...that salary isn't exactly buying desks and chalkboards....
 
I agree with you brother, but the $750,000 salary for the Dean at a California medical school (La Jolla?)...that salary isn't exactly buying desks and chalkboards....

That salary is high because you need to be competitive in attracting competent and talented individuals to the job, as these people will easily get taken away by other institutions or the private sector offering higher salaries/better benefits.

And you need talented Deans and Chancellors to attract top level faculty which will make or break your student population's academic careers.

University of California is having that problem right now retaining faculty as funding levels have dropped. If you don't have good faculty, you might as well throw your institution's reputation out the window.
 
That salary is high because you need to be competitive in attracting competent and talented individuals to the job, as these people will easily get taken away by other institutions or the private sector offering higher salaries/better benefits.

And you need talented Deans and Chancellors to attract top level faculty which will make or break your student population's academic careers.

University of California is having that problem right now retaining faculty as funding levels have dropped. If you don't have good faculty, you might as well throw your institution's reputation out the window.

So you're essentially saying that the $750,000 salary is to be considered an investment to enchance the program? Okay, I agree with you there.
 
So you're essentially saying that the $750,000 salary is to be considered an investment to enchance the program? Okay, I agree with you there.

Bingo...in knowing the in's and out's of executive search committees (and having served on 2 of them), as well as other areas... high level university positions will make or break your school. A chancellor/dean alone can affect hundreds of millions of dollars in funding, help or hinder the attracting of the next great Nobel laureate, and more....

I'd rather have a talented dean with old black and white chalkboards vs. a ****ty one with those new interactive projector smart boards.
 
Top