Not according to the same unreliable source, the CT article, that everyone seems to be quoting like its fact?? According to them St. George's, AUC, Spartan, and a couple of others are "banned" in Idaho. Funny how people check out the Idaho thing related to other schools but accept the 219 and other statements about Spartan without verification? And both are written in the same article??

Thanks professor for the correction

The 10-25% figure came from the following assumptions:

10%: 33+ new students per trimester ==> 100+ students per year
219 graduates according to 2002 AMA guide per news article
22 years in business.
Thus, 22 x 100 = 2200 students. 219 / 2200 gives roughly 10%

25%: 25 new students per trimester ==> 75 students per year
7 years to graduate and licensed ==> 15 years of students
So, 75 x 15 = 1125; 219 / 1125 = 19.5%
If we assume also that not all graduates registered with AMA, then 25% may be a fair shot.


As for the 219 figures given by the news article, there has been no proof that it is invalid. In fact, given that the AMA guide is available on CDROM and provides a search facility, it is hard to see how the reporters can get the wrong figure.


As for the invalidity(?) of some items(s) in the news article, it is hard to jump to the conclusion that the whole news report is invalid. If we do that, then the same principle can be applied to comments made by Spartan front office, and we can say the school is bogus -- and we know Spartan is not.

Why not collect this information? It is especially easy for Spartant because of their very small class size to collect pass rates/scores of the Step 1.

I can't believe everyone is allowed to blindly pass and take the Step 1, leading to a pathetic pass rate of 25%. How about a decel program -take less classes per term, take more terms to learn the the material?

I'm glad you don't believe it because it's not true. I'm sure many students will tell you that they know of students who have failed during the Basic Sciences. And the "pathetic pass rate of 25%" was used by a student to make a point, but it's not an official number because there is no such thing! I've heard 90% get thrown around the same way, but I think that's just as unlikely as 10-25%. Neither rediculous number has any real substance to back it.

I also think the school should collect the information (which I think they've recently started or least attempted to start), but it still won't make the number verifiable. St. Chris claims 90% first time pass rate, but many say it's not true. There is no way for us to confirm this number either way so what's the point? Would you be happier if Spartan made up some rough estimate without proof (like other schools)? Than they'd be accussed of "lying", so it's a no-win situation. Yes, they should collect it, but NO, they don't. The fact remains that there is no official number available.

dt, great mathematical effort, but to use those numbers as a basis from an unreliable source (I never said invalid) makes your conclusion equally as unreliable. Not to mention that you're using registration in the AMA to determine first time pass rates for the USMLE??? I think we can use the same numbers to calculate the tea in China . And all this time I thought that the people around here who made up the pass rate numbers actually had some type of logical reason for their estimates.

My point was that the article has already been proven to be biased and incorrect on several occassions. I also said that some stuff they said was true, but it still means the article is "unreliable" at best. The same argument has been made about the AAIMG (which I think you agreed with) having correct and incorrect information given which makes it unreliable. It is not a good source of information unless the statements can be verified by a reliable source. Until then, it's an "unreliable" rumor.

I have never said my figures were about USMLE pass rate. (You are trying to do that above.) I have never said my conclusion was reliable. I have tried to cite my sources whenever I can. I am pointing out that the chances of practicing in the US are low for Spartan students.

Given that there are no official numbers released by Spartan, I think my effort is not too bad.

Hope this helps.

dt,

Sorry for misunderstanding. I appreciate your attempts to cite a source, which is a much better effort than most around here. But I still feel that the source is unreliable until proven otherwise. I also think that your statement about the chances of practicing in the U.S. being low for Spartan students is not well substantiated based on your unreliable source, especially since I've personally seen otherwise when it comes to plenty of Spartan alumni practicing in the U.S.

I sure hope that others who post numbers around here can provide sources as you have so that we can determine their validity on our own instead of taking it as fact.

speaking of reliable sources:


according to the DOE representative: spartan is not approved for stafford loans period.


Hmmmm, now why would they tell students that they are approved, hmm

When did Spartan say they're currently approved for Stafford Loans? Did I miss the announcement on their website or something? If it was before 1997 than they were approved, after that they lost approval and have been trying to get reinstated. Recently, they supposedly made some progress, but I never heard them say it was a done deal? The most I've ever heard from them claim officially is "we're working on it". That doesn't sound anything like "we're currently approved"?? If they ever do claim this and we verify it's incorrect, than you can repost this message. But until then, it seems like you have your facts wrong, but you probably already knew that.

i'm sorry...you right. my facts are wrong. i made a mistke.

they didn't say Stafford Loans, they must have said Sanford and Son Loans (You Big Dummy).......LOL.

When I was in med school I was distracted with rumors,articles,angry students,I decided with my classmates to close our ears and ignore pass rates because there is no such thing,all you need is 100% pass rate for you and you only & who cares about others alleged statistics.
I consider myself neutral in my openion,many schools try to play with words and statistics,others lists all clerkships hospitals faculty as their own full time employees so their faculty list get inflated on their websites,the majority of my class of 85 passed[I know at least 10 out of 20 students passed] and for me it was 100% success rate because I passed.
When you go for residency the issue of med school will be folded and your priorities become doing excellent job,then you go on to FLEX,then speciality boards and become expert in your field.Except for one or two states that is not possible to be licensed,when a board members look at your credentials with diplomas from USA med schools[residency],excellent references,board certification,they will know you are qualified and will vote you in and biochemistry and human embryology courses will be of least important[no body remembers much of basic sciences by the time they start practice,I know because I been there and all my ivy league partners told me so].
the CT article attacked US schools,Mexican,Phillipinos schools,included St Georges and others,and including Spartan,so why at Spartan site loaded with concerns and only one concern at AUG and everyone else on the other forums focusing on more important issues.
Why the CT article did not mention that 2 doctors from FL won physician of the year awads for excellence,one grad is founder of top pharm.co,many professors/assistant professors in *** *** ******s such as Boston,Brown,Harvard,Baylor,one simply can not say all carribean,mexican,American[the one mentioned in the article]and phillipino grads are all bad because simply its not true.I invite anyone interested to go to state board displines/malpractice section and see the long list and school of graduation.

the road to success is difficult and if you lose your focus and energy in the beginning it will be hard to reach your goals.
The article bares no importance in the decision making of State boards because such boards do not need articles to decide,if they have concerns they will have special requirements for the unapproved schools[3 yrs residency,license elsewhere 5 years,and BC]
This articles did not tell anything knew and the only message it had is Spartan[and most other schools]disapproved in CA/IN and that's all.