Country of Charter

[OLDPRO]

What states have a rule / law that the student must do basic sci in the country of charter?

I know that these states do not:
AL, GA, NC, SC, MD, TENN, LA, Ill, Ohio, Va, Miss, ARk

[neilc]

doesn't NJ have that rule? i think i have heard about CA requiring it as well. not sure.

i would bet that it is not an established rule in most cases. however, the states do have the right to determine if an applicant meets the standards of the state, and this is a pretty easy way for them to deny it. they can simply say that this arrangement doesn't have suffecient oversight, and bango, no license. it is possible (likely even) that most, if not all, states will just accept it without question. but, given the level of scrutiny on this school, it is just too hard to take this for granted, even if there is no specific rule prohibiting it. if the states don't like it, they can find a way to reject the applicant.

[OLDPRO]

Yea I looked for it when I went to St. Chris but I only remember about 3 states that had it, a poster on the St. Chris forum stated MOST. They have pounded the school for missleading and then post that. SO if it can be supported then thats good for the poster, if not then they made a mistake.

[jpryor]

I don't think anybody has a problem with understanding that SC is not a UK school, but is a UK campus of a Senegalese school that is located in Senegal. SC does not issue UK degrees. SC does issue Senegalese degrees under it's charter authority from Senegal. Completely legal.

Arguing the oversight issue is a specious argument. Most oversight is what is called a desk review. Supporting documents and affadavits are the standard oversight process. Maybe an official actually visits the school on occasion, but that is the exception rather than the norm. So it doesn't matter if the school is located down the block or across several continents--desk reviews are the standard.

As for medical boards refusing somebody they don't want to license--I wouldn't argue that. But I think they'd find a basis well-grounded in law before trying to set a precedent with unfounded law.

[neilc]

I don't think anybody has a problem with understanding that SC is not a UK school, but is a UK campus of a Senegalese school that is located in Senegal. SC does not issue UK degrees. SC does issue Senegalese degrees under it's charter authority from Senegal. Completely legal.

Arguing the oversight issue is a specious argument. Most oversight is what is called a desk review. Supporting documents and affadavits are the standard oversight process. Maybe an official actually visits the school on occasion, but that is the exception rather than the norm. So it doesn't matter if the school is located down the block or across several continents--desk reviews are the standard.

As for medical boards refusing somebody they don't want to license--I wouldn't argue that. But I think they'd find a basis well-grounded in law before trying to set a precedent with unfounded law.

basically, if the med boards come to the conclusion that your school is inadequate, they can deny you. some ways that pop into mind that are especially pertinent to st chris: lack of ANY outside recognition, current issues with the charter paperwork/oversight from senegal as evidenced by the GMC, lack of any stateside approval and disapproval in a state. i don't think that a state board would have too hard a time making the argument that the education has not met any established criteria that demonstrates quality. this is really true of most of the new schools.

with the flood of new schools, i would not be surprised to see the states a bit gun shy when evaluating the applicants from offshore schools. i may be over-worried about it, but it seems foolish to go through 4 years of school and to bank all of your hopes (and money) on something that has a very real (and unestimable) chance of not working out in your favor. at least if a school has even one grad with a full license, you have a precedent to fall back on.

so, while state licensure laws may appear not to close a door outright, it is important to consider that a board does have tools to deny licensure whent they see fit, and that it is very difficult for a med student to make any reasonable assumptions based simply on his interpretation of the law. precedence helps avoid (but does not eliminate) unpleasant surprises way down the road when there is little you can do about it.

[Aviv Imanuel]

And not until the GMC reaches a decision it is a matter of speculation and opinions in the SC matter.

" it seems foolish to go through 4 years of school and to bank all of your hopes (and money) on something that has a very real (and unestimible) chance of not working out in your favor." 25 or 26 years ago the same was said about St. Georges, Ross and AUC.

I do concede that there are more bad acts than good acts out there, but some of the new players have promising potential. It boils down to an individuals decision and do some much needed legwork before taking a plunge.







basically, if the med boards come to the conclusion that your school is inadequate, they can deny you. some ways that pop into mind that are especially pertinent to st chris: lack of ANY outside recognition, current issues with the charter paperwork/oversight from senegal as evidenced by the GMC, lack of any stateside approval and disapproval in a state. i don't think that a state board would have too hard a time making the argument that the education has not met any established criteria that demonstrates quality. this is really true of most of the new schools.
with the flood of new schools, i would not be surprised to see the states a bit gun shy when evaluating the applicants from offshore schools. i may be over-worried about it, but it seems foolish to go through 4 years of school and to bank all of your hopes (and money) on something that has a very real (and unestimible) chance of not working out in your favor. at least if a school has even one grad with a full license, you have a precedent to fall back on.
so, while state licensure laws may appear not to close a door outright, it is important to consider that a board does have tools to deny licensure whent they see fit, and that it is very difficult for a med student to make any reasonable assumptions based simply on his interpretation of the law. precedence helps avoid (but does not eliminate) unpleasant surprises way down the road when there is little you can do about it.

[neilc]

And not until the GMC reaches a decision it is a matter of speculation and opinions in the SC matter.
" it seems foolish to go through 4 years of school and to bank all of your hopes (and money) on something that has a very real (and unestimible) chance of not working out in your favor." 25 or 26 years ago the same was said about St. Georges, Ross and AUC.
I do concede that there are more bad acts than good acts out there, but some of the new players have promising potential. It boils down to an individuals decision and do some much needed legwork before taking a plunge.

the difference is that 25-26 years ago st george's, ross and auc were the only games in town, unless you wanted to learn a new language. at this point there are several good players that offer a degree vailid throughout the US and in english. given the amount of good choices, there seems little reason to make a difficult, risky road even more treacherous.

it certainly does boil down to the individual choice, though. i merely encourage people to become very informed, and to be pessimistic. there is a lot at stake to be making emotional, optimistic decisions that may not be reality at this point.

and, sure, until GMC finishes, we are all speculating. but, the fact that it is being investigated underlines the issues facing these type of schools. it is a fair bet to think that simliar levels of scrutiny may be in the cards for these schools when more grads face permanent licensure in the states. and, the GMC issue is merely one of several i mentioned. i think equally worrisome is the fact that newer schools tend to have zero outside recognition of education quality. a board can simply say "why should we believe your school is adequate?" and what will you point to? established schools have approvals in difficult states, DOE, etc...newer schools have nothing other than the school administrations word. and we all know what kind of people some of these administrators are.

[Aviv Imanuel]

...repeat myself, (and you are providing the foundation of my point) that is the exact same situation that the 3 players I previously mentioned were 26 years ago. I was around back then since I am 42 and I remember how the medical community laughed at these schools. I certainly undertsant your need to have the upper hand in every single argument you get into and keep going on. Just try to see someones else point and my point is, two and a half decades ago St. George, Ross and AUC were viewed the exact same way we are viewing all these new players but today it happens at a major scale. The big 3 were the only games in town to cater to U.S. students unable to land a spot in a U.S. school, same thing we see today. No need to complicate the argument. It is very simple.

Being pessimistic is a personal choice as well Neil, you may encourage them to do so, but perhaps they may perceive it as a burden or annoying and take risk. When you take risk you either win or loose, a matter of personal choice. That is not for us to judge. We all pay a price for our decisions, sooner or later.

One thing is certain, we do not decide what happens to x or y school. We just speculate on what we hear, because sometimes we can't even see it.

Any new school carries risk, same happened 26 years ago, it happens today it will happen 26 years from today, neither you or I can stop that.


the difference is that 25-26 years ago st george's, ross and auc were the only games in town, unless you wanted to learn a new language. at this point there are several good players that offer a degree vailid throughout the US and in english. given the amount of good choices, there seems little reason to make a difficult, risky road even more treacherous.
it certainly does boil down to the individual choice, though. i merely encourage people to become very informed, and to be pessimistic. there is a lot at stake to be making emotional, optimistic decisions that may not be reality at this point.
and, sure, until GMC finishes, we are all speculating. but, the fact that it is being investigated underlines the issues facing these type of schools. it is a fair bet to think that simliar levels of scrutiny may be in the cards for these schools when more grads face permanent licensure in the states. and, the GMC issue is merely one of several i mentioned. i think equally worrisome is the fact that newer schools tend to have zero outside recognition of education quality. a board can simply say "why should we believe your school is adequate?" and what will you point to? established schools have approvals in difficult states, DOE, etc...newer schools have nothing other than the school administrations word. and we all know what kind of people some of these administrators are.

[azskeptic]

I received a phone call yesterday from a major newspaper doing a story on a new med school. One of the questions they asked was about the country of charter issues. They had seen the BBC article. Imagine the question will be asked more. Indeed we all await the GMC stance when they finish their investigation and make a ruling for the UK. I hopefully will have an interesting announcement shortly on this issue for those who want to study it at a conference.

[Tiza]

I am not pro or con regarding St. Chris. However, when I was interviewing for IM jobs in the states, I did run across one grad in Georgia who was either PGY-1 or 2, so SC has at least ONE grad in the states. I wonder what would happen though if GMC revokes recognition of the diploma and they do it retroactive fashion? This will be interesting. Would the residency program get rid of him? My feel from all the interviews I attended is that PD's are just too damn busy to research every school that comes across their desk and if ECFMG lets them take the boards, then it seems good enough for them, IMHO.:confused:

[teratos]

I am not pro or con regarding St. Chris. However, when I was interviewing for IM jobs in the states, I did run across one grad in Georgia who was either PGY-1 or 2, so SC has at least ONE grad in the states. I wonder what would happen though if GMC revokes recognition of the diploma and they do it retroactive fashion? This will be interesting. Would the residency program get rid of him? My feel from all the interviews I attended is that PD's are just too damn busy to research every school that comes across their desk and if ECFMG lets them take the boards, then it seems good enough for them, IMHO.:confused:The GMC decision will initially have no bearing on grads in the US. Whether state licensing boards and/or the ECFMG will do anything with it remains to be seen. G

[jpryor]

The GMC decision will initially have no bearing on grads in the US. Whether state licensing boards and/or the ECFMG will do anything with it remains to be seen. G

That's a presumption that the GMC decision will be negative against SC. Given the current vetting process underway, it looks as though there's a decided tilt in favor of SC.

As to Neil's comments about a board denying licensure: I won't dispute that there are some boards that are notoriously critical (CA comes to mind). But, based on my own limited research, I've only encountered friendly people with an intent to assist rather than oppose an applicant. My research was related to the recognition of SJSM, a slightly different issue than SC, but in the states where I spoke with board members, the "equivalency" topic was defined as duration of didactic education and clinical rotations and passing the USMLE.

I think there is a VMD perception of the world and then the real world. What may be true in some limited cases does not equate to an across the board reality. That said, I think anybody who fails to consider all possible negatives is a fool. But on the other hand, anybody who accepts something posted on VMD as gospel is also a fool.

[teratos]

Yes, I should have specified a NEGATIVE decision against SC. I haven't seen much that indicates a GMC decision will go either way. Hopefully it will go in favor of the students of SC. G

[jpryor]

Yes, I should have specified a NEGATIVE decision against SC. I haven't seen much that indicates a GMC decision will go either way. Hopefully it will go in favor of the students of SC. G

Sometimes you have to be nudged, but on the whole, I commend you on your fairness.

[neilc]

That's a presumption that the GMC decision will be negative against SC. Given the current vetting process underway, it looks as though there's a decided tilt in favor of SC.

As to Neil's comments about a board denying licensure: I won't dispute that there are some boards that are notoriously critical (CA comes to mind). But, based on my own limited research, I've only encountered friendly people with an intent to assist rather than oppose an applicant. My research was related to the recognition of SJSM, a slightly different issue than SC, but in the states where I spoke with board members, the "equivalency" topic was defined as duration of didactic education and clinical rotations and passing the USMLE.

I think there is a VMD perception of the world and then the real world. What may be true in some limited cases does not equate to an across the board reality. That said, I think anybody who fails to consider all possible negatives is a fool. But on the other hand, anybody who accepts something posted on VMD as gospel is also a fool.

i would say the boards i talked to varied greatly...some were very freindly and helpful, others had a fairly adversarial attitude when discussing IMG's. these states were not surprising, however, they were pretty much the same states that are thought to be difficult for IMG's.

hopefully it is easy for people. but, until the application is approved by a state board, the best we can do is speculate. the reality has yet to be decided.

[jpryor]

So true, Neil.

[neilc]

I am not pro or con regarding St. Chris. However, when I was interviewing for IM jobs in the states, I did run across one grad in Georgia who was either PGY-1 or 2, so SC has at least ONE grad in the states. I wonder what would happen though if GMC revokes recognition of the diploma and they do it retroactive fashion? This will be interesting. Would the residency program get rid of him? My feel from all the interviews I attended is that PD's are just too damn busy to research every school that comes across their desk and if ECFMG lets them take the boards, then it seems good enough for them, IMHO.:confused:

i think SC has lots of grads in the states doing residency. and, provided the grad can at least get a training license, i don't think the PD has a lot of incentive to bother with concerns about permanent licensure.

the big question mark is what happens AFTER residency.

[Aviv Imanuel]

I believe that is one of the most important questions to be asked about any school, the validity of a charter and charter issues because ultimately that is the key determining factor if the school is legitimate or not (other than the obvious, that in fact they have facilities, students, teachers, etc). Lets buckle up our safety belts and see what happens!


I received a phone call yesterday from a major newspaper doing a story on a new med school. One of the questions they asked was about the country of charter issues. They had seen the BBC article. Imagine the question will be asked more. Indeed we all await the GMC stance when they finish their investigation and make a ruling for the UK. I hopefully will have an interesting announcement shortly on this issue for those who want to study it at a conference.

[OLDPRO]

I believe that is one of the most important questions to be asked about any school, the validity of a charter and charter issues because ultimately that is the key determining factor if the school is legitimate or not (other than the obvious, that in fact they have facilities, students, teachers, etc). Lets buckle up our safety belts and see what happens!

I agree, it may be easy to get a charter in some countries but, hey get it! Get the WHO recongition, to have students attend the school before that, well is SHADY!