Will the CA board decide on SMU's application this week?

[Cotterpin_Doozer]

why didn't smu address the assertion by the review committee that the USMLE step 1 pass rate was 80 % for the first two tries...I thought smu reported a higher rate?

[studentMD]

Originally Posted by Mo716

There is more interest in this one issue than any other at SMU. The issue isn't just about California. This disapproval makes the school look very bad. There is a list of "disapproved" school on the California Medical Board website, and now SMU will be among the handful of schools listed there. That's a HUGE blow.

http://www.medbd.ca.gov/Unapproved_Med_Schools.htm

not there yet...
so what states use the cali disapproved list?

[mo5225md]

indiana and nevada use that list. And as far as just reapplying...its not the fact the they are sueing just to salvage their name...it is the principle of it. Sometimes things dont go your way...but when you are in the right...you have an obligation to fight for what your standing for. Having that said...someone said that it would take years...wouldnt the decision be overturned after the process?

[doctermob]

This is painful but I believe we will all pull through. I suggest that the students and faculty put in their very best at this time. The students on the other hand should study so hard to make outstanding grades in the USMLE and also in their clinical rotations.

It is not the end of the world. SMU is bound to succeed and no weapon formed against it shall prosper.
I don't know about you but I am well convinced that SMU is another Harvard in the making. We will get there and it will be a hglorious moment.

Cheer up y'all, struggle continues. My sinecre regards and thanks goes to the various deans,professors and also the students. Y'all are wonderful. It is okay, we will not stop but rather we shall continue to wax strong.

To my fellow students especially the class of 2009. I say cheer up. We are equal to the task and God will help us do greater exploit than our predecessor. Nothing good comes easy but victory is ours. Let not your heart wax cold. SMU is marching on and upward bound we go.

I have packed my luggages and am set to possess my academic possessions @ SMU and I trust the good Lord to see us through.

Long live SMU, long live the faculty, deans and administrative officers. I love you all and I appreciate all your honest effort to make the school proud. Once more y'all are wonderful and the best. I am so proud of all of you including the students.
Long live class of 2009! no retreat no surrender.
Shallom!

[opnr2k2]

26 pages of objections... That’s a lot of misinformation. I would assume the Cali board will respond to these and be forced to conduct another on site visit, because obviously they did not do a adequate job on their first visit.

[mo5225md]

if that is the case...and SMU is correct on all that is stated...than CA should be forced to set an appropriate retroactive date in accordance with the fact that they should have been approved feb 18th of this year.

[azskeptic]

Originally Posted by mo5225md

if that is the case...and SMU is correct on all that is stated...than CA should be forced to set an appropriate retroactive date in accordance with the fact that they should have been approved feb 18th of this year.

Hmmmm...that is quite a reach. Realize that the Board considered the objections already and in total voted to not approve SMU.

So let's be realistic.....if you are thinking they'll 'fix' everything how long will it take? If California is important to you, you can't take a risk on SMU or any school that isn't approved.

If they take it to court, you're talking years,years,years..California has more attorneys working for it than SMU could afford and they have precedent.....the Board has been shown to be the correct group to approve or disapprove schools in the past.

[hyloran]

Originally Posted by Mo716

There is more interest in this one issue than any other at SMU. The issue isn't just about California. This disapproval makes the school look very bad. There is a list of "disapproved" school on the California Medical Board website, and now SMU will be among the handful of schools listed there. That's a HUGE blow.

There is a difference between applying for recognition and not getting it, and being disapproved. I doubt SMU will end up on that list you mentioned.

However another question to ponder is, what effect does CA's denial have on Texas?

[azskeptic]

Originally Posted by hyloran

There is a difference between applying for recognition and not getting it, and being disapproved. I doubt SMU will end up on that list you mentioned.

However another question to ponder is, what effect does CA's denial have on Texas?

Why wouldn't the school be on the disapproved list? It is disapproved.

Not only Texas but also NM I believe would be a question.

[Bob2k]

Yeah, it will be on the disapproved list with illustrious company like Spartan, St John's and six schools from the Dominican Republic, half of which are closed. that's the entire list. this is a lot worse than if SMU had never applied for cali recognition.

spartan went rapidly downhill after being disapproved by cali and then consequently losing its stafford eligibility. kind of reminiscent of what's happening now with this and key bank.

i think the smu prez should not have fired off a letter demanding an apology from the board. even if they called smu students "immature" or whatever in saba's report, the injury was not as great as it is now from getting all huffy about it. it was probably rather irrelevant.

secondly, a protracted legal battle is going to achieve nothing in this realm. it basically amounts to saying "approve us or else" and the cali board is never going to give in to that, especially to an entity with far fewer lawyers than them.

lastly, smu counsel should have left out the trivial inaccuracies in their objection compilation, like board member so-and-so lives at x, not y. who cares? that has nothing to do with anything. likewise with the assertion that very few faculty have been at smu more than two years. cali says "very few", smu says five. well, five is not a huge number. it IS rather small. when they threw everything they could muster at the board's report, it detracts from the major points of disagreement which is the criteria that will decide the next approval/disapproval by cali.

and one point in the report really jumped out at me, all the more so because smu did not object to it at all which must make it true by inference: that there have been 263 grads, 97 of which are in residency and seven of which have completed it, so for god's sake what are the other 160 doing?