PDA

View Full Version : Why is it chartered in Senegal in the 1st place?



mog
11-17-2004, 11:22 AM
I'm interested in this school but just cannot figure out why in Senegal?? Also, a very primary question I have is; how can a foreign national who passed all the USMLE exams be licensed in US if they have to be a "US citizen"? Sorry for these basic questions, but I just cannot find these info anywhere.

Any comments will be appreciated. THanks.

bts4202
11-17-2004, 11:31 AM
I'm interested in this school but just cannot figure out why in Senegal?? Also, a very primary question I have is; how can a foreign national who passed all the USMLE exams be licensed in US if they have to be a "US citizen"? Sorry for these basic questions, but I just cannot find these info anywhere.

Any comments will be appreciated. THanks.

You do not have to be a US citizen to be licensed in the US. You just have to be a legal alien at a minimum. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

There is a full medical school in Senegal training Senegalese citizens to be doctors and contribute to Senegal healthcare. There is more info here: http://www.stchris.edu/about.htm

neelab80
11-17-2004, 01:42 PM
i have been accepted to this school for jan 05, but i have question about senegal also. Has anyone been there? is there a campus there really?

###
11-17-2004, 05:15 PM
......................

Darlyn3
11-17-2004, 07:01 PM
I'm interested in this school but just cannot figure out why in Senegal?? Also, a very primary question I have is; how can a foreign national who passed all the USMLE exams be licensed in US if they have to be a "US citizen"? Sorry for these basic questions, but I just cannot find these info anywhere.

Any comments will be appreciated. THanks.

BTS answered your questiion about the charter.
In regards to being a US citizen or not. It's better to be a Perminent Resident or a US Citizen, but you can get into certain residency programs with a J-1 Visa, etc. But it makes it that much difficult, a lot of paper work, etc. Hope that helps!
If anyone has anymore to add, by all means please do so.

-D

mog
11-18-2004, 11:33 AM
Thank you everybody for your kind inputs. It still gives me some doubts on how stable this school will be though... It sounds like they are keeping good records in terms of USMLE pass rate and residency matches, and I agree that it does have some potencial and I really wished that I could make up my mind and apply for it.

But I'm just skeptical still... to risk my career - to graduate from a school which may shut down after sometime because of problems, and then your qualification becomes nothing more than a piece of paper...

It would have been much better if they had at least a decent number of licensed physicians.

Anyway, thank you again for everybody.

stchrisrep
11-18-2004, 07:43 PM
Also, a very primary question I have is; how can a foreign national who passed all the USMLE exams be licensed in US if they have to be a "US citizen"? Sorry for these basic questions, but I just cannot find these info anywhere.

Any comments will be appreciated. THanks.



ECFMG

http://www.ecfmg.org/

bts4202
11-18-2004, 09:19 PM
i have been accepted to this school for jan 05, but i have question about senegal also. Has anyone been there? is there a campus there really?

http://www.stchris.edu/amsasccm2.htm

Mog, BTW, st chris is not in any danger of closing anytime soon.

Picard
11-19-2004, 03:09 AM
Mog, BTW, st chris is not in any danger of closing anytime soon.

Funny thing about this statement is that Kigezi's students said the same thing not too long ago.

Grace students said the same thing up until their school closed.

Ross said the same thing about their Wyoming campus -- it got booted out before it even started.

The point is, NO STUDENTS FROM ANY SCHOOL can make that blanket statement. You must look at the totality of the situation -- a school that has been around for a while with thousands of licensed grads -- perhaps it will stay around for a while... a school that is essentially UNACREDITED and UNWELCOMED by it's host country (UK)'s medical community because it has bought a charter from some third world country that none of its real paying students (in Luton) has a rats **** of being licensed in (remember Senegal is a French speaking country with licensing exams in French, and French is not one of the entry requirements to Luton campus).

The UK GMC tolerates SC now because SC is technically legal under current UK law... three real scenarios to consider that may really impact SC's survival need to be pointed out --

1) Lobbying by the UK medical community to outlaw the practice of buying a third world country charter and operating entirely in UK as US did when Ross tried to establish a Wyoming campus. Don't buy that Senegal campus thing -- it fools no-one. It's basically to support the legitamacy of the Luton campus... The school's real owner is unlicensible graduate from the now worthless Grace University. You think he really cares about what happens in Senegal? You really think that Senegal students pay the same tuition as Luton students? How many SC-Senegal grads are licensed in Senegal -- none that we can find.

2) The UK Luton campus continues to grow into a state-of-the-art campus with a growing student body while the Senegal campus remains essentially third world -- now the GMC may, at that point, revisit the PLAB issue and re-address the "PLAB eligbility" issue -- and this time, GMC may determine that SC-Luton is de-facto an unlicensed/unaccredited UK medical school that tries to hide under a third world charter it has little relationship with (students don't interact, faculty don't interact -- last we looked, few if any of their faculty speaks French)... and dispite it's claimed Senegal charter, it is essentially an unaccredited UK school -- sounds far fetched? Unless SC-Luton campus has no plan to grow/build, this future path is realistic. And the current GMC's view on SC is NOT the final decision... GMC can re-visit the issue as many times as it deem necessary in the future, just like California/NY continueously re-evaluate foreign schools they approve. So as SC-Luton (the real SC campus) grows into the state-of-the-art institute it aspires to be, GMC may one day come in and find them a de-facto unlicensed UK school and take away the PLAB eligbility -- and that will be the end of SC because without PLAB eligbility, most states in the US will not license it's grads because SC grads will be essentially unlicensible in the host country (UK) -- a requirement in the US licensure process in most states.

3) SC claims Senegal charter -- yet few, if any, SC-Luton grads are licensible in Senegal. Yes, they may be "eligible" for licensure in Senegal on paper. But since very few, if any, SC-Luton students are fluent in French, they are essentially barred from Senegal licensure because they won't even be able to read the instructions on the exam. And since SC-Luton has absolutely NO FRENCH FLUENCY requirement for matriculation, US licensing boards may feel that this is de facto evidence that SC really do not care if their grads are really licensible in Senegal in reality, which goes against the spirit of the law that requires eligibility in the charter country. SC may say, many Eastern European countries/Mexico have dual language programs -- well, their dual language programs TRUELY mirror each other in curriculum and both take place in the host country. So their English program students do need some fluency in the native language to survive the program (or even just to live in their host countries). And the curriculums mirror each other. SC, on the other hand, is no where near this. Their UK and Senegal programs are as far apart from each other as reality can go. UK students receive an entirely Americanized program with students doing their 3rd and 4th year in modern US hospitals. Last we looked, their Senegal students receive no where near the same education. So the two programs are not really mirror images of each other... again, goes to the spirit of the law -- SC Luton students are not educated under the Senegalese system and do not speak French... although they are "technically eligible" for licensure in Senegal, the reality is that none of them have a chance in hell in passing the Senegal licensure process... and US licensing authorities may have an issue with this...

So, for BTS, who is merely a student who claims no relationship with the SC admin, his saying that SC is not closing any time soon holds as much weight as Scott Peterson claiming he is not guilty... we heard the same thing from Kigezi students, Grace students... etc.

P

Picard
11-19-2004, 03:27 AM
Oh, and before any SC folks start singing the old tune of "this is just recruiters from other schools bashing SC"... blah blah blah -- PLEASE FOR ONCE POINT OUT WHAT PART OF THE THREE SCENARIOS LISTED ABOVE IS UNREALISTIC??? Plenty of histories in US licensing process have backed up these plausible scenarios... SC folks, please educate us why any of these three scenarios are unlikely to happen, and back it up with precedence... BEFORE you start spouting out how we are bashing your school. We have asked three legitamate scenarios that are potentially existance threatening -- how about it, tell us why they are not realistic.

P

azskeptic
11-19-2004, 08:50 AM
Oh, and before any SC folks start singing the old tune of "this is just recruiters from other schools bashing SC"... blah blah blah -- PLEASE FOR ONCE POINT OUT WHAT PART OF THE THREE SCENARIOS LISTED ABOVE IS UNREALISTIC??? Plenty of histories in US licensing process have backed up these plausible scenarios... SC folks, please educate us why any of these three scenarios are unlikely to happen, and back it up with precedence... BEFORE you start spouting out how we are bashing your school. We have asked three legitamate scenarios that are potentially existance threatening -- how about it, tell us why they are not realistic.

P

My take is that one should treat medical training like a business. It is possible to run your business without a license in a state but if they change the rules you may end up having major problems. I believe that St. Chris has the potential to fix this; they need only apply to get a UK charter and prove their equivalency. What a coup that would be for St. Chris if they were a UK approved school catering to US students. azskeptic

AUCMD2006
11-19-2004, 09:26 AM
"would be for St. Chris if they were a UK approved school catering to US students"


besides the obvious starter issues and charter in africa there is a massive shortage of doctors in the UK (hence their heavy recruiting of carib and other schools)

ValuelessMD
11-19-2004, 11:19 AM
..........

azskeptic
11-19-2004, 01:22 PM
goes to the spirit of the law -- SC Luton students are not educated under the Senegalese system and do not speak French... although they are "technically eligible" for licensure in Senegal, the reality is that none of them have a chance in hell in passing the Senegal licensure process... and US licensing authorities may have an issue with this...
P

I wonder how many students from, hmmm, lets see, Ross, SGU, Saba, UNIBE, St. Mathews, and don't forget Charles, and the rest are actually licenced in their school's place of charter to practice medicine? Let alone write their respective exams for licensure, if they even exist.

Last time I checked, all of these medical schools exist for one purpose only. That is to train american students for practice in america. Pretty much in the spirit of things if you ask me.

I believe that includes SGU too... :shock:

How many of them did their first 2 years in the country of their schools charter? ALL OF THEM except St. Chris,Kigezi,UHSA, IUHS,Grace,St. Luke

bts4202
11-19-2004, 01:30 PM
goes to the spirit of the law -- SC Luton students are not educated under the Senegalese system and do not speak French... although they are "technically eligible" for licensure in Senegal, the reality is that none of them have a chance in hell in passing the Senegal licensure process... and US licensing authorities may have an issue with this...
P

I wonder how many students from, hmmm, lets see, Ross, SGU, Saba, UNIBE, St. Mathews, and don't forget Charles, and the rest are actually licenced in their school's place of charter to practice medicine? Let alone write their respective exams for licensure, if they even exist.

Last time I checked, all of these medical schools exist for one purpose only. That is to train american students for practice in america. Pretty much in the spirit of things if you ask me.

I believe that includes SGU too... :shock:

How many of them did their first 2 years in the country of their schools charter? ALL OF THEM except St. Chris,Kigezi,UHSA, IUHS,Grace,St. Luke

How many of them train natives of the country of charter to practice in that country in any significant amount... NONE, except st chris.

AUCMD2006
11-19-2004, 08:32 PM
auc has a few sxm residents enrolled right now a whole 2...hehe

its a question of feasability to be licensed, no one questions that these schools bought a charter and that they train us docs but sc,kigezi,mcl etc have taken a step further and it may be too far for the boards we don't know until your biy gets a license.

Picard
11-19-2004, 11:04 PM
How many of them train natives of the country of charter to practice in that country in any significant amount... NONE, except st chris.

Umm, you mean there are actual SC-Senegal graduates practicing medicine in Senegal? Last time we asked that quetsion to Senegal Embassy website, the reply was NONE!!

Plus, SC Senegal campus is basically a smoke and screen to lend legitamacy to the real campus in Luton, where the real actions are. All you have to ask is this -- if the Luton campus were to be forced to close, would the Senegal campus (the fake "parent" campus) continue to exist independently without the support of Luton campus money? Would your CEO, the Grace graduate continue to run the Senegal Campus by itself? Heck NO. The reverse would be true -- if Senegal charter were to be lost, I bet your Grace Grad CEO would simply buy another charter from another third world country and SC-Luton will continue to exist until one of the three scenarios come true and force it to stop.

BTW, many of these Caribbean schools are in small countries where they don't need 300 new doctors per year to enter the work force. Last I look, SGU graduates comprise the majority of Grenadian physician workforce. How many SC Senegal graduates are practicing in Senegal now? What percentage Senegal's entire physician work force is SC Senegal grad -- Zero and Zero.

Oh, and this STILL does NOT answer any of the three scenario questions. SC Senegal is basically unrelated to SC in terms of curiculum (among other things.) It's in partnership in name only, which is what many US juristictions and UK jurisdcitions may have problem with.

Think about this -- of the three schools that have tried this model of buying charter from a third world country and operating entirely in UK to attract students, two of them have already failed... SC is now the sole survivor in this models short history of several years. History is not on your side...

P

###
11-19-2004, 11:49 PM
.......................

teratos
11-20-2004, 07:06 AM
What matters (and IS a significant difference) is that St. Chris may have trouble with licensing boards.

And this is what the SC people just don't get. I thinkwe need to give it a few years before anyone can say it is a safe bet. You ask if there are licensed grads, and the answer is "We have one person applying right now". Even if that ONE person gets a license, it still doesn't make SC safe. G

EnoughIsEnough
11-20-2004, 09:34 AM
.....................

azskeptic
11-20-2004, 09:41 AM
So let's say that we all agree SC is operating in Luton through a loophole in laws or through a shady connection with Senegal or for whatever reason they are able to operate. At the end of the day, there is a strong program in Luton vigorously training students and providing a valid medical curriculum. Why is everyone so angry about that? Students are getting a real education, not an online degree. Students are living in a decent environment, not a third world island. You'd think people would be happy that this can happen because in the end, the students benefit. But, instead, eveyone seems so angry SC got by in the UK, why? I just don't understand?

And comparing SC to Kigezi or MCL is a far stretch now. The only thing they have in common is their location/charter. Other than that, Kigezi had in all it's years of existence less students than SC has in one semester. MCL, from what I know, is a joke. SC has clever businessmen running the show that has made it grow into a much much bigger, stronger school than Kigezi or MCL. They seem to have more students than St. Matthew's, and AUC.

Who cares if the CEO graduated from Grace, it seems like he makes a darn good CEO and at least he can relate to the students in some extent because he's been through it. I'm sure he's happier and much richer as a CEO than he would be as a practicing clinician.

Hmmm....take the word medical school out and replace it with marriage....would you enter into a marriage where it might be legal,might not?

teratos
11-20-2004, 09:57 AM
No, i agree, id doesn't matter where the CEO went to school, or if he went to med school at all. Attending a school like Grace probably gave him great insight into what not to do. His business sense is what matters. If the charter issues turn out to NOT be an issue, then his gamble will have paid off big time. It is a great idea to have classes in a first world country, I just wouldn't want to be one of the chips on the table while waiting to see if there are any issues.

AUCMD2006
11-20-2004, 10:01 AM
"At the end of the day, there is a strong program in Luton vigorously training students and providing a valid medical curriculum. Why is everyone so angry about that?"


no one has questioned the staff, teachers at sc..heck they may be the best proffesors in the world but to a burocrat it will matter how strong an EDUCATIONAL curriculum a school has all they look at is the letter of the law and the interpretation of that letter is what you all should be worried about.

i don't think anyone is angry at SC just the continued misrepresentation by students and admin overinflating accomplishmensts not yet earned "we are good in 48 states, admin said NJ is in the bag, and so on". prospective students need to know that this or any school without a track record is not a safe bet. heck SMU was in the same boat a few years ago and they are doing well now but a ton of others have failed and there are something like 14 new med schools around here now.

the only question i have is since SC has been around since 98 and took in third year transfers that should mean they would have completed residency in 03 right? what happened to those grads? are they still trying to get a license, teaching high school biology, or are the dates wrong?

azskeptic
11-20-2004, 10:45 AM
"At the end of the day, there is a strong program in Luton vigorously training students and providing a valid medical curriculum. Why is everyone so angry about that?"


no one has questioned the staff, teachers at sc..heck they may be the best proffesors in the world but to a burocrat it will matter how strong an EDUCATIONAL curriculum a school has all they look at is the letter of the law and the interpretation of that letter is what you all should be worried about.

i don't think anyone is angry at SC just the continued misrepresentation by students and admin overinflating accomplishmensts not yet earned "we are good in 48 states, admin said NJ is in the bag, and so on". prospective students need to know that this or any school without a track record is not a safe bet. heck SMU was in the same boat a few years ago and they are doing well now but a ton of others have failed and there are something like 14 new med schools around here now.

the only question i have is since SC has been around since 98 and took in third year transfers that should mean they would have completed residency in 03 right? what happened to those grads? are they still trying to get a license, teaching high school biology, or are the dates wrong?

The unspoken thing is that St. Chris (the original one) 1998-2000 wasn't chartered. Students who 'transfered' to the new St. Chris went to an unchartered school for 2 years.....my guess is that causes some problems but who knows....see St. Chris's listing in Faimer

http://imed.ecfmg.org/details.asp?country=820&school=&currpage=1&cname=S ENEGAL&city=&region=AF&rname=Africa&mcode=820020&p size=25

There was NO recognition of the earlier school that I can find. The WHO listing didn't show St. Chris in those days

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/WDMS/senegal.doc

But court documents weren't kind to the earlier version of St. Chris either:

http://www.doj.state.or.us/releases/rel072500.htm

So it would appear to me that students of the earlier version of St. Chris would be scrambling still to get 'approved'. azskeptic

teratos
11-20-2004, 10:56 AM
Anyone who went to SC before accreditation will not be able to get licensed. They may be able to get a residency, but I would doubt that too. Don't you need WHO recognition to even be ECFMG certified? I know you need ECFMG prior to residency. G

azskeptic
11-20-2004, 11:34 AM
Anyone who went to SC before accreditation will not be able to get licensed. They may be able to get a residency, but I would doubt that too. Don't you need WHO recognition to even be ECFMG certified? I know you need ECFMG prior to residency. G

The rules call for 4 years in a IMED listed school

http://www.ecfmg.org/creds/index.html

the only persons who could meet that would be folks who graduated 2004 since St. Chris was recognized in 2000.

http://imed.ecfmg.org/details.asp?country=820&school=&currpage=1&cname=S ENEGAL&city=&region=AF&rname=Africa&mcode=820020&p size=25


Interesting issue. That one 'slipped' through wouldn't solve the licensing problem since ECFMG has rules on things like that too:

http://www.ecfmg.org/annc/irreg.html

ValuelessMD
11-20-2004, 11:41 AM
..........

bts4202
11-20-2004, 12:39 PM
But court documents weren't kind to the earlier version of St. Chris either:

http://www.doj.state.or.us/releases/rel072500.htm



That article has been debunked years ago, run a search. St. Chris was never asociated with St. John's in any way... they lied to try to get out of trouble. Also, st chris did have a charter at that time and ***** flew to oregon immediately and showed them the paperwork. Oregon withdrew their assertions.



The rules call for 4 years in a IMED listed school

http://www.ecfmg.org/creds/index.html

The ECFMG does not license physicians. However, you can not enter a residency without an ECFMG certificate. So i guess any grad who is in a residency, did, in fact, get ecfmg certified.


All of these comments, however, are just people spinning their wheels. These discussions have come up over and over again and the only thing any of us can do is wait for the first st chris students to get licensed. I know of several who are in the process now and are just complaining that the paperwork is horrendous. I am sure that since they are the first from our school it will take longer than usual. Believe me, when the results come out.. i will be the first to post them.

However, what does piss me off is people who make up random scenarios and want you to respond to them. Especially ones based on a complete lack of knowledge and holier than though hippocritical attitude. It is irresponsible to make assumptions about a senegal campus that one knows nothing about. Little do they know that there are many students there from senegal and all over africa. LIttle do they know that St. Chris has agreemenst with other african universities to send their students to st chris for med school. Little do they know that through its organizations, st chris gets funding from tuition as well as several world organizations. Little do they know that the campus in senegal is growing as fast as the luton campus. LIttle do they know that the luton and senegal curriculums are complete mirrors of each other. Little do they know that st chris is not seen any different than any of the carrib schools that buy a charter from a 3rd world country and that the only real difference is that st chris at least trains a significant portion of senegalese and other african people to become doctors and practice in the charter country ( no disrespect to AUC's 2 natives.. :lol: ). Little do they know that St chris Senegal AND st chris Luton are here to stay.

good luck

teratos
11-20-2004, 12:54 PM
This does not make any practical sense. What school out there can get an accreditation without first having a class of students to be evaluated for accreditation. Facilities aside, a school is approved on the whole picture, that being students, teachers, curriculum, etc. I don't think it is possible to get approval from a idea/plan alone. If that is the case, that would be more worrisome.

That being said, it is true StChris is making its own path. Albeit a risky one. But, did not SGU and Ross once upon a time do the same thing when there innovation was new and out of bounds of the american model.

No, any time done when the school is not recognized by WHO is not counted by the ECFMG. It is easy to get listed. There is no inspection process. You just need a charter. It can be done before any students start. It is a must that it be done if any of those people hope to practice in the US.

Please don't misunderstand my posts. I know there are a lot of bashers out there. I think the idea behind SC is a great idea. I am very concerned that it won't fly. A lot of states aren't real happy about people from SGU, AUC etc. Just give them an excuse to ban a school and they will. It remains to be seen what will happen. I suspect things will be favorable. Until then, we can't all see things through rose colored glasses. G

AUCMD2006
11-20-2004, 01:55 PM
(use your imagination of me singing the word sarcastically not meant ina mean way...hehe


what you need to be listed is recognition by the country you have a charter in that is it. the letter approving the school to operate and have graduates licensed in the country is sent to who now faimer and you are listed. SMU had their letter on their website when theywere in Belize and they started classes after they were chartered as you are supposed to do.

by your scenario it would mean that ANY new school that opens up is sacrificing its first couple of classes as unliceseable because they need to operate for a few years before being listed so i ask what student in their right mind would attend such aprogram..... :twisted:

ValuelessMD
11-20-2004, 02:27 PM
..........

AUCMD2006
11-20-2004, 04:53 PM
a school can apply to california, new york, new jersey, florida, and montana(i think), the four that require their own certification as soon as they are who/faimer listed....problem is most schools wouldn't pass their standards until they get a few hundred student tuition checks to invest in the infrastructure-->i point to SC in the begining using kings classrooms and labs, SJ finally getting a cadaver after a year, etc. (auc waited years before new york 01' to be exact, they needed to put all the gold up first to impress the new york people).

the ONLY one that i can think of where this doesn't apply is kansas that requires a school be in operation for 15 years before licensing anyone but that has nothing to do with rotations and they don't have an accreditation process....

ValuelessMD
11-20-2004, 05:17 PM
..........

azskeptic
11-20-2004, 05:56 PM
But court documents weren't kind to the earlier version of St. Chris either:

http://www.doj.state.or.us/releases/rel072500.htm



That article has been debunked years ago, run a search. St. Chris was never asociated with St. John's in any way... they lied to try to get out of trouble. Also, st chris did have a charter at that time and ***** flew to oregon immediately and showed them the paperwork. Oregon withdrew their assertions.



The rules call for 4 years in a IMED listed school

http://www.ecfmg.org/creds/index.html

The ECFMG does not license physicians. However, you can not enter a residency without an ECFMG certificate. So i guess any grad who is in a residency, did, in fact, get ecfmg certified.


All of these comments, however, are just people spinning their wheels. These discussions have come up over and over again and the only thing any of us can do is wait for the first st chris students to get licensed. I know of several who are in the process now and are just complaining that the paperwork is horrendous. I am sure that since they are the first from our school it will take longer than usual. Believe me, when the results come out.. i will be the first to post them.

However, what does piss me off is people who make up random scenarios and want you to respond to them. Especially ones based on a complete lack of knowledge and holier than though hippocritical attitude. It is irresponsible to make assumptions about a senegal campus that one knows nothing about. Little do they know that there are many students there from senegal and all over africa. LIttle do they know that St. Chris has agreemenst with other african universities to send their students to st chris for med school. Little do they know that through its organizations, st chris gets funding from tuition as well as several world organizations. Little do they know that the campus in senegal is growing as fast as the luton campus. LIttle do they know that the luton and senegal curriculums are complete mirrors of each other. Little do they know that st chris is not seen any different than any of the carrib schools that buy a charter from a 3rd world country and that the only real difference is that st chris at least trains a significant portion of senegalese and other african people to become doctors and practice in the charter country ( no disrespect to AUC's 2 natives.. :lol: ). Little do they know that St chris Senegal AND st chris Luton are here to stay.

good luck

Wasn't Dr. Harrington working for St. Chris at some point (the guy who got in trouble at Oregon and now is runing the Monterssat school?

So the 'original' St. Chris was chartered? Where? By whom? Who owned it? You have said it had no connection with the 'new' St. Chris?

bts4202
11-20-2004, 06:23 PM
The Harringtons (whoever they are) were trying to start St. John's... they never had anything to do with st chris. The article was a complete surprise to the school back in 2000 and they quickly moved to have the error corrected. Oregon has acknowledged this.

Picard
11-20-2004, 09:31 PM
However, what does piss me off is people who make up random scenarios and want you to respond to them. Especially ones based on a complete lack of knowledge and holier than though hippocritical attitude. It is irresponsible to make assumptions about a senegal campus that one knows nothing about. Little do they know that there are many students there from senegal and all over africa. LIttle do they know that St. Chris has agreemenst with other african universities to send their students to st chris for med school. Little do they know that through its organizations, st chris gets funding from tuition as well as several world organizations. Little do they know that the campus in senegal is growing as fast as the luton campus. LIttle do they know that the luton and senegal curriculums are complete mirrors of each other. Little do they know that st chris is not seen any different than any of the carrib schools that buy a charter from a 3rd world country and that the only real difference is that st chris at least trains a significant portion of senegalese and other african people to become doctors and practice in the charter country ( no disrespect to AUC's 2 natives.. ). Little do they know that St chris Senegal AND st chris Luton are here to stay.


Umm, this coming from a guy who claimed that SC is good to go in 48 states, NJ is good to go, we have a licened grad in FL, and defends his pal mtt who kept claiming SC to be a "private British school." HA HA. Now, BTS, are you now claiming that YOU have seen the Senegal Campus first hand? Talked to real physicians from Senegal about what they think of SC-Senegal? Do you really believe that there is a SINGLE Senegal SC grad practicing in Senegal? And, by claiming that the Senegal program "mirrors" SC Luton program are YOU claiming that your non-existant Senegal students ROTATE THROUGH the SAME US hospitals (or at least UK hospitals with the same caliber) than your Luton students? Are you saying that your Luton faculty teaches at Senegal and Senegal faculty teaches at Luton? Are you even aware that the traditional Senegal medical school is 6 yo 8 years long? Are you saying SC-Luton students spend 6 to 8 years in school now? Oh, I get it, this most recent claim is came from the same place/source that told you SC is good to go in 48 states!! Oh, we get it.

Let you in on a little secret. I actually work with a physician who went to the real Senegalese medical school -- UNIVERSITE CHEIKH ANTA DIOP, you know, the real school in Dakar that's been around since the 1950's. He also has several relatives who are Senegalese physicians in Senegal. "St. Chris - Dakar" is our favoriate lunch time joke. SC-Dakar is the laughing stock of the local Senegalese medical community. It has absolutely NO GRADUATES who are practicing in Senegal. Locals in Dakar see it as nothing more than rich American game that does absolutely NOTHING for the community. This is directly FROM A SENEGALESE PHYSICIAN who went a real Senegalese medical school and has strong ties to the area. So, who do I believe -- BTS who has been dishing out so much misinformation (and famous for trying to "appologize" AFTER HE WAS CAUGHT, MANY TIMES), or a good board certified internist from Senegal who actually went to a Senegalese medical school? BTS, remember to exercise your right to remain silent when you don't know what you are talking about.

P

Picard
11-20-2004, 09:40 PM
As for licensure... There MUST have been some licensure failures from SC grads they are keeping quiet about. If as they claimed that the school has been in existance since 1998, they have had graduates who should have been eligible for licensure since 2002 (after their PGY-II year). Most residency programs will bend over backwards/twist arms to have their PGY-III residents licensed because it's very inconvienent to the attending staff to have to sign all the outpatient scripts. And after hours/weekends, it's always desirable to have senior PGY-III's in house who are licensed. So, there MUST have been licensure attempts from SC grads since 2002. And since it doesn't take 2 years for boards to process the application, there MUST have been some failures/rejections SC is keeping quiet about... old news.

P

bts4202
11-20-2004, 09:54 PM
You really need to get your people straight.. everytime you disagree with someone on this board it doesn't always mean that it was me you were talking to:


a guy who claimed that SC is good to go in 48 states

nope, never said by me


NJ is good to go

guilty, i misunderstood


we have a licened grad in FL

definately not me


defends his pal mtt who kept claiming SC to be a "private British school

You can defend a friend and still not agree with everything the person says and I never defended those comments. In fact, i publicly disagreed with him http://www.valuemd.com/sutra40810.html&highlight=private#40810 Because he said something incorrect doesn't mean that I am guilty merely by being hs friend.. i would hate to think what we could find you guilty of if that was the case.


Let you in on a little secret. I actually work with a physician who went to the real Senegalese medical school -- UNIVERSITE CHEIKH ANTA DIOP, you know, the real school in Dakar that's been around since the 1950's. He also has several relatives who are Senegalese physicians in Senegal. "St. Chris - Dakar" is our favoriate lunch time joke. SC-Dakar is the laughing stock of the local Senegalese medical community. It has absolutely NO GRADUATES who are practicing in Senegal. Locals in Dakar see it as nothing more than rich American game that does absolutely NOTHING for the community. This is directly FROM A SENEGALESE PHYSICIAN who went a real Senegalese medical school and has strong ties to the area. So, who do I believe -- BTS who has been dishing out so much misinformation (and famous for trying to "appologize" AFTER HE WAS CAUGHT, MANY TIMES), or a good board certified internist from Senegal who actually went to a Senegalese medical school? BTS, remember to exercise your right to remain silent when you don't know what you are talking about.

I think you are completely full of garbage. Since it is you who keeps insisting that licensed docs information is public info... please share with all of us his name and what state he is licensed in so we can check the licensing boards and see if he is really who you say he is. Otherwise I will believe that you are completely full of it.


As for licensure... There MUST have been some licensure failures from SC grads they are keeping quiet about. If as they claimed that the school has been in existance since 1998, they have had graduates who should have been eligible for licensure since 2002 (after their PGY-II year). Most residency programs will bend over backwards/twist arms to have their PGY-III residents licensed because it's very inconvienent to the attending staff to have to sign all the outpatient scripts. And after hours/weekends, it's always desirable to have senior PGY-III's in house who are licensed. So, there MUST have been licensure attempts from SC grads since 2002. And since it doesn't take 2 years for boards to process the application, there MUST have been some failures/rejections SC is keeping quiet about... old news.

Again, you just make stuff up as you go along. If you can find any proof of anyone being rejected anywhere, then present it.. if not, then keep your conspiracy theory nonsense to yourself. Not to mention, I just did my IM clinical at a program that has almost all IMG residents. NONE.. as in NOT ONE, of the PGY-III's were licensed. Plus, all of the residents.. from PGY-I to PGY-III could write write outpatient scripts without any co-signature. That is what the temporary license is for!

microphage
11-20-2004, 10:02 PM
ah.... how I love how the world is finally back to normal again. :P

AUCMD2006
11-21-2004, 12:10 AM
if a school is started with the proper capital! then it would have no problems passing the minimal standards these states set, let me say this again...these are MINIMAL standards a school must meet!

all of our schools started as shady operations, so the same standards that SGU, AUC, and Ross couldn't pass 30 years ago your school is having problems meeting with the bonus of a charter issue...like i;ve said before i wouldn't have come to auc, sgu, or ross twenty years ago and i wouldn't go to sc or any new school now.

AUCMD2006
11-21-2004, 12:13 AM
Picard, yes they should already have licensed grads but none have showed up. if they started in 98 and had people transfer in as m2 or m3 then they should have had working grads since 2003.

BTS, you are right they wouldn't need to apply for licenses and i don't know how it works in georgia or where you are at but in miami and chicago they had PGY-III obtain licenses. regardless your transfers from 98 should have already been working for two years.

also if the dakar campus truly is the mirror of the luton campus please provide the statistics on the student body in sc-dakar...since it is the "same" school they should have a roster of enrolled numbers at your world headquarters right? or should we look for the university of il abrama el haribi ghaddrid eobadu al nmajriji (i fotrgot the parent name in dakar)

.....dang it my next vacation i want to go to dakar and visit the SC world headquarters with the mirror state of the art campus and faculty and plaster pictures all over the place...i wonder whose point i would prove picard or bts????? or i wonder if the school will be around, maybe everyone will transfer to xavier, i think of it as the back up school you all will get shuttled to in case luton busts....hehe

microphage
11-21-2004, 12:27 AM
Picard, yes they should already have licensed grads but none have showed up. if they started in 98 and had people transfer in as m2 or m3 then they should have had working grads since 2003.

BTS, you are right they wouldn't need to apply for licenses and i don't know how it works in georgia or where you are at but in miami and chicago they had PGY-III obtain licenses. regardless your transfers from 98 should have already been working for two years.

also if the dakar campus truly is the mirror of the luton campus please provide the statistics on the student body in sc-dakar...since it is the "same" school they should have a roster of enrolled numbers at your world headquarters right? or should we look for the university of il abrama el haribi ghaddrid eobadu al nmajriji (i fotrgot the parent name in dakar)

.....dang it my next vacation i want to go to dakar and visit the SC world headquarters with the mirror state of the art campus and faculty and plaster pictures all over the place...i wonder whose point i would prove picard or bts????? or i wonder if the school will be around, maybe everyone will transfer to xavier, i think of it as the back up school you all will get shuttled to in case luton busts....hehe

I wonder if there is a pizza hut on the first floor of the campus (or a whore house in the case of AUC) :wink:

ValuelessMD
11-21-2004, 02:37 AM
..........

###
11-21-2004, 03:25 AM
....................

teratos
11-21-2004, 06:38 AM
But what I still don't get is why all the fuss about StChris trying, please don't tell me it is because of the he said/ she said crap. Or is it "we" just love to forget where we came from.
Poof :wizard: Look everyone, I am now licenced...

I don't have a problem with SC trying, I have a problem with propaganda. i.e. "we have NJ in the bag". "We are able to be licensed in 48....47......46.....would you believe 45 states?" When SC first came about, the marketing campaign was aggressive and mean spirited. This was on the old Network54 forum. There were untrue posts about students at Ross being raped and all kinds of other stuff about schools SC was trying to get people away from. On the Network54 fora, the IP addresses were included in the posts. Can you guess where in the world those IPs traced to? If you guessed Luton, you guessed right. That left a very bad taste in my mouth. How many students would be involved in such aggressive marketing?

SC will probably work out, and will probably end up doing well because of location. That is just my gut feeling. Since they are in unchartered territory (no pun intended), and licensing isn't taken lightly by states, there is the very real possibility of non-licensure in some states. We have to wait and see. In the meantime, prospective students should get that info. What we mostly get is smug confidence.

###
11-21-2004, 07:11 AM
..................

neilc
11-21-2004, 07:13 AM
I think you are completely full of garbage. Since it is you who keeps insisting that licensed docs information is public info... please share with all of us his name and what state he is licensed in so we can check the licensing boards and see if he is really who you say he is. Otherwise I will believe that you are completely full of it.[quote]

you THINK he is full of garbage, yet we all KNOW you are...picard is by far the more reliable source of information, and you attacking him as an attempt to minimize his point is a total joke.


[quote="bts4202"]Again, you just make stuff up as you go along. If you can find any proof of anyone being rejected anywhere, then present it.. if not, then keep your conspiracy theory nonsense to yourself. Not to mention, I just did my IM clinical at a program that has almost all IMG residents. NONE.. as in NOT ONE, of the PGY-III's were licensed. Plus, all of the residents.. from PGY-I to PGY-III could write write outpatient scripts without any co-signature. That is what the temporary license is for!

talk about making stuff up as they go....your school has done this for years, with you as the primary distributor of "information"

anyhow, a resident works under a license that is valid only in the hospital/teaching facility they work in. in the rotations i have done, it was a big deal for the residents to get licensed for thsi reason. the only pharmacy that accepted scripts from house staff was the hospital pharm. so, either the state you work in is very different from all the rest, the staff are writing scripts for patients to be filled in the hospital pharmacy, the scripts are being cosigned....whatever. but, it is certainly very important to get the license as soon as possible for the reasons picard mentioned. either way, we can be sure that at least a few of those old students from 98 are out there...i would have to agree with picard's assertation that there are likely a few failures. i have seen the aggressive marketing of your "school" for years, and i know that if there was anything positive it would have been exagerated by now. and if it was negative, it would be ignored, hidden, swept under the rug. but, the math does not add up.

azskeptic
11-21-2004, 09:05 AM
actually if you listen to stuff that are posted on valuemd it can save you problems.

ask the former students at kigezi and st. luke. They got advanced warning which they didn't list to from members of valuemd.

Picard and Teratos should be respected elders on this list. these are folks who have made it through the matrix already.

azskeptic

Darlyn3
11-21-2004, 09:24 AM
Picard,


classes at St. George’s School of Medicine began on January 17, 1977.


For the founders and the first students, the road towards success was not guaranteed. Indeed, they encountered some early obstacles and challenges.


By 1987, St. George¹s obtained approval to conduct medical training in New York and New Jersey.

Given that you enjoy down talking SC with your fellow colleagues during lunch time, you should really give SC some credit. It took SGU 10 years to obtain approval from NY and NJ... and please understand, I am not doing this to knock SGU, in fact, I believe that SGU is better than ROSS in my opinion... I can't say better than AUC because AUC has come a long way and is up top with SGU. But this is to show that SGU had indeed encountered several obstacles for several years along with challenges. It's stated in the quote above. This is normal for all foreign medical schools trying to obtain some sort of approval with the US, etc.
Now some might argue this point and say that this took place because of the war and the assassination of Prime Minister Bishop, etc. But it still happened. SGU encountered several obstacles, but they made it.... and they made it BIG... And I have no problem with saying that... In fact, BTS and other SC students have always recognized the success that the school you and others have gone too have gained! We have never told prospective students to refrain from attending AUC, ROSS, SGU, SABA, SMU, etc. In fact, if you look into it, we've encouraged all students to look into these well established medical schools first and to leave schools like ours, MUA, etc for last.... Have we not?
We have never knocked your school, nor have we pointed out the obstacles that the school has faced. And please don't ask me to point them out, because that's not the point here. I just hope your realize that SC is still fairly new, and that we're doing everything possible to obtain the correct approvals and accreditations (if I may) to continue and become successful like schools mentioned above.
In addition, it took the founders of SGU ~8 more years after they obtained approval from the States of NY and NJ to obtain affiliations with the 50 affiliated clinical centers that is now has, and a few of them have been recently added on to the list.... A couple of years ago at that.
We are not asking for you to like our school, we can really care less. We are glad and applaud you for your success, but you really have it out for SC and you know it! Let us deal with these issues on our own... we really don't ask for your input. We just got through with the NY DOE site visit and already people have started making assumptions as to what will happen once they visit the Senegal campus. Who are you guys to make such predictions and assumptions? That's the question I want answered!!! Do you work for the Boards of Medicine for each State? You might have knowledge as to how it works, but you have no word in the outcome of SC's success and this include being approved by NY, etc.
And we've all taking responsibilities to our faults too. I've done so, BTS, MTT, amongst others. That's fine, let's put that behind us. It's just amazing how you've made SC the center of your world... And AZSKEPTIC is really trying to help us out now! So I thank him for that... And the same goes to Teratos! They've really changed they're personal views on SC, and we understand that we are still at risk with our charter issue, but let's not make any solid assumptions at this point.
As far as grads being licensed or not. We don't only have 1 grad applying for licensure... We have more than a few, and they are keeping us updated with things as they come. We have one that applied in TN, NJ, and FL and I've been keeping up with him a lot more than before, and he's told me that so far nothing negative has been throwned out to him. We just have to wait and see.
I just hope that you can stop your immaturaty and understand that we understand your points and views too, but we deserve a chance!

My intentions weren't to make personal attacks or insults too you, and if I did come across in such manner, my apologies.

Kindest Regards,

Darlyn

neilc
11-21-2004, 10:02 AM
darlyn, the point is not that st chris faces the same issues...it is that it faces entirely new issues, that other schools did not have to deal with. furthermore, why oh why would you assume that risk, when you have already stated that these schools have made it through the process that st chris hopes to get through? there are good schools out there already, that don't limit you to certain states, that have shown they can produce licensed grads, that will get you where you want to go. st chris may not EVER do that, no matter how much you want it to...

additionally, st chris admin and students have participated in dodgy recruitment practices on this and other websites, have repeatedly lied and provided misinformation, and have been evasive and misleading in nearly every thing they say.

if the school was upfront about the problems and issues, it would be one thing. but they are not. and, the reason so many people post here is not for the benefit of the students that already chose st chris. it is for those out there considering where to go to school...so, if you are foolish enough to take that risk, more power to you. what i think picard, teratos, az and others are trying to do is to lend some balance to this forum, and provide more accurate info to potential students, without the "everything is wonderful here at mdparadise" bias.

i mean for god's sake, look at the short history of the school. controversy everywhere, total lies uncovered, misleading claims made...you cannot even type in ***** (insert school presidents name there) because he whined about being mentioned here.

basically, best of luck to you. you have made your choice. but, if you think that those of us who know the history of this school and are familiar with pitfalls that pre meds fall in are simply going to allow potential students to be tricked into making the same mistake (i mean choice...) that you did, you are foolish. at the very least they deserve to be aware of the FACTS that there are better schools out there, and that st chris is a huge risk, now and for at least the next several years. if it even lasts that long...

bts4202
11-21-2004, 10:47 AM
Teratos,

I do not know anything about teh network 54 stufff you are talking about, that was well before my time. I think i posted twice on that forum before it became this one. Which means, if i never saw that stuff, then it has been at least 3 years since any of that drama happened.. i think it is time to move on... to forgive and forget. None of the original st chris students are on this forum so no one who was involved in any of that is here. None of the st chris students now go onto any other forum and say anything let alone make up stuff like some of the other school officials do on this board. You are one of teh only "elders" (as AZ put it) that IS respectable. You are balanced and fair and I thank you for that.

Neilc,

You have a long history of making a lot of claims that can not be substantiated, then when i point it out, you claim i did a hundred things that i never did and tell people not to listen to me! LOL. I don't know if you read my earlier post to picard, but lets do teh same thing with you. Once and for all.. please post everything i have said that is a lie with link provided so that we can all see exactley where i wrote it. This excludes the NJ thing because i have admitted that and explained that I misunderstood what was approved. The law we lobbied for was approved, not our school. So, besides that, anything else that I have lied about, please post it with a link. Until you do that, your claims that I have mislead or whatever are unfounded. You can not do as picard did and claim that every mistake made by anyone on this board is instantly my doing.

teratos
11-21-2004, 11:13 AM
Teratos,

You are balanced....



a lot of people say I'm unbalanced... :D

I do think people go overboard on SC. The big question is "will the charter issue be a problem?" I don't think it will. If that is the case, SC will probably be the best overall choice, as long as the academics are good.

On the flipside, I won't be suprised if there are some problems. I am anxiously awaiting the results of pending licensure applications. G

azskeptic
11-21-2004, 11:34 AM
On this list often people confuse pointing out problems and issues with trying to close down schools. The concern is for the students to be honest. It is a consumer issue. Schools that aren't honest will probably end up being closed by economics and govts; not by stuff written on discussion groups.

I concur with Teratos.....we all eagerly await to see what happens. I am not as confident though as he is that there aren't problems; too many things have been pointed out and turned out to be true when all of the 'smoke' cleared.

azskeptic

bts4202
11-21-2004, 11:47 AM
Teratos,

You are balanced....



a lot of people say I'm unbalanced... :D

I do think people go overboard on SC. The big question is "will the charter issue be a problem?" I don't think it will. If that is the case, SC will probably be the best overall choice, as long as the academics are good.

On the flipside, I won't be suprised if there are some problems. I am anxiously awaiting the results of pending licensure applications. G


I hope you are right. I means a lot coming from someone who actually is a physician and who has been through the process himself.

microphage
11-21-2004, 12:51 PM
Teratos,

You are balanced....



a lot of people say I'm unbalanced... :D

I do think people go overboard on SC. The big question is "will the charter issue be a problem?" I don't think it will. If that is the case, SC will probably be the best overall choice, as long as the academics are good.

On the flipside, I won't be suprised if there are some problems. I am anxiously awaiting the results of pending licensure applications. G

DUde, they just all called you an "elder," I think that was an personal insult. A dinosaur maybe but an elder?!!! come on!!

teratos
11-21-2004, 12:56 PM
DUde, they just all called you an "elder," I think that was an personal insult. A dinosaur maybe but an elder?!!! come on!!

Darned kids....

ValuelessMD
11-21-2004, 01:10 PM
............

teratos
11-21-2004, 01:32 PM
That is too funny. I think that one gave me some chest pain.....

bts4202
11-21-2004, 01:38 PM
OMG, that is too funny!! We should all :toast:

Picard
11-21-2004, 05:18 PM
I think you are completely full of garbage. Since it is you who keeps insisting that licensed docs information is public info... please share with all of us his name and what state he is licensed in so we can check the licensing boards and see if he is really who you say he is. Otherwise I will believe that you are completely full of it.

Ahh, now BTS wants names... this comes from a guy who refused to give the names of their professors under the guise of some non-existant outside rules, and somehow got his CEO's name listed as out-of-bound because of his fraudulent claim and ues of his worthless MD degree... sorry bts, your request is asking me to violate the TOS (SHAME ON YOU FOR ASKING A MEMBER TO VIOLATE THE TOS)!!! Besides, why would I subject my collegue to terroristic threats from SC students like you guys have done to me? Yes, I'm talking about those E-mails with IP addresses tracing back to Luton that were sent to my work... No, I'm not going to post them here. I've provided a few samples to Doc already. So, why would I feed my collegue to a bunch of immature medical students? Besides, what my collegue has told me about SC-Dakar is very easily verifiable by going to the source -- Dakar/Senegal. All you have to do is contact the Senegal licensing board/Dakar medical society to verify the information my collegue have said -- OOOPS... I forgot... BTS, along with 99% of SC's real students in Luton do NOT speak French and yet attend a school chartered in French... your problem, not mine. The truth still remains that no SC grads are licensed in Senegal and that the Dakar campus is a basically a smoke screen for the Luton campus... just ask anyone in who has practiced in Dakar.


Again, you just make stuff up as you go along. If you can find any proof of anyone being rejected anywhere, then present it.. if not, then keep your conspiracy theory nonsense to yourself. Not to mention, I just did my IM clinical at a program that has almost all IMG residents. NONE.. as in NOT ONE, of the PGY-III's were licensed. Plus, all of the residents.. from PGY-I to PGY-III could write write outpatient scripts without any co-signature. That is what the temporary license is for!
Ahh, the insight of a fresh 3rd year medical student... First he claims to be going to an Ivy-leaque hospital, now it's an IM program full of IMG's... ha ha. He is talking about a distant Yale affiliate in Connecticut, most likely the hospital in Norwalk or Danbury... been there as a medical student myself. It's funny how he now all of a sudden became a licensing expert on what a resident can and cannot do. It is true that a few states allow residents to write outpatient scripts without attending signiture. Connecticut is one of them. Majority of states do NOT. Resident scripts are only honored at the hospital pharmacy in most states. Besides, regardless of what the state allows, Medicare and Medicaid rules are very clear that a licensed physician must oversee and sign off all the care... which means (and this is where BTS's limited MS-III insight doesn't see and don't realize before he opens his mouth) -- attendings have to go back and co-sign everything residents do in a later date. Yes, the script/notes/orders will initially go through base on an unlicensed resident's signiture, but if the resident does not have a license, the attending have to go back and sign it later or the hospital will not get paid (and in the case of Medicare, will be in violation of Medicare rules). So yes, there is a great push to get all PGY-III licensed. In fact, there is a push among RRC's to require licensure before a resident can graduate from a residency program because it's really hard to call someone "board eligible" or "board certified" when that person hasn't even obtained a medical license (like some IMG's do). No, that's not a rule yet, but there's a great push in RRC to require that nationally. Many residency programs have already adopted the rules and require their residents to become licensed before the program will certify their training to sit for the board exam. Some states even mandate USMG residents to become licensed before progressing onto PGY-III level (and mandate IMG's to obtain their license during PGY-III level since IMG's need two years of post-graduate training)

So, as you can see AGAIN, the reality is much more complicated than what BTS and his SC friends would let you to believe.... So a reasonable person would conclude that if SC began operation in 1998 and took MS-III transfers, there MUST be graduates who have been eligible for licensure since July 2002, and graduates who have completed residency since June 30th 2003. And since it does NOT take a year for licensure paperwork, we MUST assume that if SC still has NO licensed grads, there MUST be some failures that SC is hiding... Where are these grads now? Are they teaching highschool biology? They certainly are not working as doctors without licenses, are they? No, we don't need to "find" failures for you... SC admin must already know. The question to SC admin is -- where are these charter class grads now? They should be licensed physicians by now, otherwise their degree is worthless...


but you really have it out for SC and you know it!

Darlyn3,
Yes, I have been very harsh on SC... have you ever wonder why most of us don't say much about other new schools such as St. Matthews? Look at what SC is doing -- SC's entire existance has been one misleading information campeign after another. Don't appologize for them AFTER the fact. DON'T DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!! And, if you noticed, most of the harsher statements came AFTER personal attacks from BTS, ValuelessMD, Mtt, Plasma. BTS has not yet appologized for calling me a recruiter when he HIMSELF was PAID by SC a lot more money working for them than I have. In fact, a few of them have sent some really, really nasty/terroristic e-mails to my work... and none of them have appologized for them. And if you have noticed, I don't mention my school by name often here -- that's not why I'm here. My school name has only been mentioned AFTER BTS MADE OUTRAGOUSLY MISLEADING/wrong informations/comparisons about other schools, including mine.

These are the future physicians you will be training along side with. We have spoken before, and I applaud your determination to become a physician while taking care of a family. Do I think you made a very poor choice? Yes I do. I think you can do much better than SC because I think you are taking a high risk with SC, a gamble you don't need to take given your situation. Please notice that most of us don't say anything about the "quality" of SC's education -- we don't know that. You don't see me talking about Pizza Hut and such. That's irrelevent. What is relevant the bigger picture of licensure. We don't need to go to SC to tell you that. We've been through the licensing game, and some of us are very involved in IMG licensure issues both in official and unofficial capacities. So yes, we are in the position to discuss these issues -- and SC has been famous for misleading potential students on these issues... That's why we are here, and not on St. Mathews forum...

P

azskeptic
11-21-2004, 05:24 PM
Picard, I suppose some of these people have complained to my 'partners' but the chickens don't understand English or French so nothing has filtered through to me..ha ha......azskeptic

bts4202
11-21-2004, 06:18 PM
Ahh, now BTS wants names... this comes from a guy who refused to give the names of their professors under the guise of some non-existant outside rules, and somehow got his CEO's name listed as out-of-bound because of his fraudulent claim and ues of his worthless MD degree... sorry bts, your request is asking me to violate the TOS (SHAME ON YOU FOR ASKING A MEMBER TO VIOLATE THE TOS)!!! Besides, why would I subject my collegue to terroristic threats from SC students like you guys have done to me? Yes, I'm talking about those E-mails with IP addresses tracing back to Luton that were sent to my work... No, I'm not going to post them here. I've provided a few samples to Doc already. So, why would I feed my collegue to a bunch of immature medical students? Besides, what my collegue has told me about SC-Dakar is very easily verifiable by going to the source -- Dakar/Senegal. All you have to do is contact the Senegal licensing board/Dakar medical society to verify the information my collegue have said -- OOOPS... I forgot... BTS, along with 99% of SC's real students in Luton do NOT speak French and yet attend a school chartered in French... your problem, not mine. The truth still remains that no SC grads are licensed in Senegal and that the Dakar campus is a basically a smoke screen for the Luton campus... just ask anyone in who has practiced in Dakar.

1. Fine, if you refuse to post it, then PM me the name and I will confirm your story. Also include your name so that I can confirm if this person (if he exists) actually knows who you are. Otherwise it is pretty obvious that you are flat out lying. You are the one who KEEPS saying over and over that St. Chris must release the names of their licensed grads because it is public info, please see this: http://www.valuemd.com/sutra119034.html&highlight=public#119034


When you become a licensed physician, you give up the "privacy" stuff about your professional status. It's public information. And, anyone applying for licensure will need paperwork from his or her medical school. So medical school cannot claim to be ignorant about where their licensed grads are.

So, don't let any medical school tell you that they don't keep track of their licensed grads (especially new ones with relatively few grads)... they MUST know where their grads are licensed since they are part of the application process.

And don't let any school tell you they are "respecting their graduates privacy" by not releasing their licensure status -- It's public record.

Man, forget the name, it is obvious you are lying.

2. Originally you said those emails were coming from me when i was back in the US, now you claim they have Luton IP's? Sounds a bit like your story changes for your point.... how convenient!


So, as you can see AGAIN, the reality is much more complicated than what BTS and his SC friends would let you to believe.... So a reasonable person would conclude that if SC began operation in 1998 and took MS-III transfers, there MUST be graduates who have been eligible for licensure since July 2002, and graduates who have completed residency since June 30th 2003. And since it does NOT take a year for licensure paperwork, we MUST assume that if SC still has NO licensed grads, there MUST be some failures that SC is hiding... Where are these grads now? Are they teaching highschool biology? They certainly are not working as doctors without licenses, are they? No, we don't need to "find" failures for you... SC admin must already know. The question to SC admin is -- where are these charter class grads now? They should be licensed physicians by now, otherwise their degree is worthless...

So as YOU said, there is no rule that PGY-III need to be licensed, then it makes no sense to assume what you are assuming. PLus, in MOST states, IMG's can not be licensed till AFTER 3 YEARS of residency.. there are only a VERY rare few that you can be licensed earlier. SO your argument just doesn't make sense.



Alabama Law
2. All other applicants for a certificate of qualification who graduated from a college of medicine not accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education of the American Medical Association or a college of osteopathy not accredited by the American Osteopathic Association shall present evidence satisfactory to the board that the applicant has completed three years of postgraduate or residency training in any of the following programs:



Colorado
(1) For graduates of schools other than those approved by the liaison committee for medical education or the American osteopathic association, the board may require three years of postgraduate clinical training approved by the board



Connecticut
(B) successfully completed not less than 36 months of full-time progressive postgraduate medical education within a single specialty area recognized by the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education in a program that is either accredited by the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education or deemed equivalent to such program by the department and the Connecticut medical examining board



Delaware
c. Received a degree of "Doctor of Medicine" or "Doctor of Osteopathy" or its equivalent, from a legally incorporated medical college or school located in a country other than the United States or Canada, which medical college or school has not been approved by the appropriate accrediting body of the American Osteopathic Association or the American Medical Association, but the applicant has completed 3 years postgraduate training in a residency program which has been approved by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the applicant has successfully passed the examination administered by the Educational Council for Foreign Medical Graduates



Washington DC
4603.5 An applicant under this section shall complete three (3) years of postgraduate clinical training in a program that meets the requirements of § 4602.4.



Idaho
93)03.Postgraduate Training. The foreign medical school graduate must submit documentation that the applicant has satisfactorily completed three (3) years of postgraduate training in a program which is located in the United States or Canada, which is approved for such training by the Liaison Committee on Graduate Medical Education and which is conducted under the direction of an acceptable school of medicine;



Georgia
Persons who are graduated after July 1, 1985, from medical or osteopathic colleges which are not approved by the board must complete three years of a board approved internship or residency training program to be eligible to stand any regular examination given by the board for a license to practice medicine in this state.

I can keep going, but i think you get the point.

BTW, you are mixing up your people again, but now you have also mixed up schools.. all the YALE talk was from the spartan forum. So aparently being licensed does NOT mean you know everything.

AUCMD2006
11-21-2004, 06:31 PM
funny,

you get the threats i get sc students complaing about the admin, the secrecy, and how they just keep being lied to...oh and i got two on bts getting preferential treatment for his rotations......i discredit most of these and don't post on them for obvious reasons but if you are getting threatening emails that just shows the level of maturity of some people there.

daryln, i have also spoken to you and you are very dedicated. over the last three years it is you and one other person at SC that gives your school hope provided there are more like you there. peace

Picard
11-21-2004, 06:52 PM
PLus, in MOST states, IMG's can not be licensed till AFTER 3 YEARS of residency.. there are only a VERY rare few that you can be licensed earlier. SO your argument just doesn't make sense.


Check your facts before you open your big mouth. You quoted a few states that require 3 years for IMG's. MAJORITY OF STATES REQUIRE ONLY TWO YEARS FOR IMG'S -- this is a well known fact. Let see, CA, NV, AZ, NM, OR, WA, MD, UT... want to see who can name more states? In fact, one of the states that SC wants to/claims to have students only require one year of training -- IL.

Again, even if a graduate waited until they graduate, you should have grads who finished residency in June 2003 -- we are almost into 2005 now. Have they been teaching high school biology all this time? No answer to this? Why don't you go and ask your employer about this and come back with an answer...


1. Fine, if you refuse to post it, then PM me the name and I will confirm your story. Also include your name so that I can confirm if this person (if he exists) actually knows who you are. Otherwise it is pretty obvious that you are flat out lying. You are the one who KEEPS saying over and over that St. Chris must release the names of their licensed grads because it is public info, please see this: http://www.valuemd.com/sutra119034.html&highlight=public#119034

picard wrote:
When you become a licensed physician, you give up the "privacy" stuff about your professional status. It's public information. And, anyone applying for licensure will need paperwork from his or her medical school. So medical school cannot claim to be ignorant about where their licensed grads are.

So, don't let any medical school tell you that they don't keep track of their licensed grads (especially new ones with relatively few grads)... they MUST know where their grads are licensed since they are part of the application process.

And don't let any school tell you they are "respecting their graduates privacy" by not releasing their licensure status -- It's public record.


Man, forget the name, it is obvious you are lying.

2. Originally you said those emails were coming from me when i was back in the US, now you claim they have Luton IP's? Sounds a bit like your story changes for your point.... how convenient!


Two points here -- first, I never said it was you. I said "I hope you are not the one sending these e-mails." There have been more than one e-mail, more than one sender -- some IP addresses trace back to Luton, some traced back to the east coast. I have no inclination of proving it to you or any other SC folks... for all I know, you knew exactly what went on with these e-mails or had some part in it's origin. So no, I don't trust you at all. Period. Why don't you tell us YOUR full name, addresses, birthdays.. so I can run you through the system. Heck, you still haven't answered why your precious CEO's name remains off-limits here. He is a public figure.

Second, yes, physician info is public info. So feel free to search for them. But it doesn't mean that physicians need to reveal who they are here to encourage harrassment, especially from immature medical students from questionable schools, ESPECIALLY WHEN WHAT HE SAID IS EASILY VERIFIABLE FROM OFFICIAL SENEGAL SOURCES. Again, SHAME ON YOU FOR ASKING ME TO VIOLATE TOS. Aren't you going to appologize for doing that? As a moderator, you should know better!

SC, on the other hand, has CLAIMED to have graduates in residencies. RESIDENCY APPOINTMENTS are routinely published by schools for verification. And with these names, outsiders can easily check to see if they have become licensed. So, this is why we are asking for names of graduates of your school. It has public interest. Plus, this information is NOT readily available from other sources. The Senegal information, on the other hand, is READILY VERIFIABLE by simply contacting the Senegal government. SC simply has NO graduates working in Senegal as physicians. Senegal's medical society simply has NO GOOD THINGS to say about SC-Dakar. All you have to do is go to the source. You don't have to believe me or my collegue. Go to the source, NOT SOMEONE FROM YOUR SCHOOL WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE SEEN THE CAMPUS. He/She saw what the school wanted him/her to see. Go to official Senegal sources yourself and see.

Again, typical tactics... when you cannot argue the real issue, attack the person asking the questions. You still have YET to answer any of the questions/issues. Here is one more for you to chew on -- Since LCME has come out with the statement that "Satelite campus" is in essense an independent entity and require to obtain accreditation from it's host country (talking about Cornell's "Qatar campus")... ever wonder when ECFMG will follow the same guideline and ask SC-Luton grads to prove that SC-Luton campus has accreditation from UK before granting ECFMG eligiblity? Boy, that's an even bigger time bomb waiting to happen to SC ...

P

ValuelessMD
11-21-2004, 06:58 PM
..........

###
11-21-2004, 07:30 PM
..................

###
11-21-2004, 07:37 PM
..................

ValuelessMD
11-21-2004, 07:43 PM
..........

bts4202
11-21-2004, 07:58 PM
This latest thing about posting names is silly.

Posting the names of faculty and officers of a school is an entirely different matter than posting the names of friends and associates. Most schools make the names of faculty and officers public. In general, schools are proud of their faculty and the faculty are proud to work for the school. Why is this different at SC? Is SC embarrassed by the credentials of its faculty? Are the faculty embarrassed by working at SC? Something is odd here.

I think it would be absolutely wrong for Picard to post the name of his friend. Just because he is a physician does not mean that he wants his name posted on the net for an entirely unrelated purpose. I would encourage Picard to get his friend to make a post. While I suspect what Picard is telling the truth, it would be more credible if we heard it directly from the source.

1. St chris does have all their faculty listed and their credentials: http://www.stchris.edu/faculty.htm

2. I told Picard to PM the info to me. He refuses even after claiming that all physicians information is public info and that st chris has to release the names of all its grads and told students to refuse to accept privacy concerns! I think it is very evident that he is lying. Most people can see that.

Next proven lie:


Check your facts before you open your big mouth. You quoted a few states that require 3 years for IMG's. MAJORITY OF STATES REQUIRE ONLY TWO YEARS FOR IMG'S -- this is a well known fact. Let see, CA, NV, AZ, NM, OR, WA, MD, UT... want to see who can name more states? In fact, one of the states that SC wants to/claims to have students only require one year of training -- IL.

check my facts huh? I didn't bother checking Ca or NM sicne st chris grads can't be licensed there anyway... but in the 6 states you list.. look what I found:



Arizona
32-1422. Basic requirements for granting a license to practice medicine
A. An applicant for a license to practice medicine in this state pursuant to this article shall meet each of the following basic requirements:
1. Graduate from an approved school of medicine or receive a medical education which the board deems to be of equivalent quality.
2. Successfully complete an approved twelve month hospital internship, residency or clinical fellowship program


32-1423. Additional requirements for students graduating from an unapproved allopathic school of medicine
In addition to the basic requirements for licensure prescribed in section 32-1422, any applicant who has graduated from an unapproved school of medicine shall meet each of the following requirements:
3. Successfully complete an approved twenty-four month hospital internship, residency or clinical fellowship program, in addition to the twelve months required in section 32-1422, subsection A, paragraph 2, for a total of thirty-six months of training



Nevada
(d) Is currently certified by a specialty board of the American Board of Medical Specialties in the specialty of emergency medicine, preventive medicine or family practice and who agrees to maintain certification in at least one of these specialties for the duration of his licensure, or:
(1) Has completed 36 months of progressive postgraduate:



Oregon
(C) Three years of training in an approved program if a graduate of an unapproved school of medicine.

And in Illinois where you said it is only 1 year:



Illinois
(iii) in addition thereto, has completed a course of postgraduate clinical training of not less than 24 months, as approved by the Department; or that the applicant has studied medicine at a medical or osteopathic college located outside the United States, its territories, or Canada,

Please, before you spout off about me not knowing what I am talking about, please actualy know what YOU are talking about.

Next, 1998 - 2003 is only 5 years... to get 7 years of training done in 5 years is impossible.. unless the person did no basic science in england at all.. making their licensure a useless measure. I am only counting people who actually did their basic science in england.

Until you provide me the name of your "friend" (by PM or publicly), I will think, as will most others reading this, that you are a liar. I have proven that you do not know what you are talking about several times in my last several posts. Have a good night and please, next time do better research.

AUCMD2006
11-21-2004, 08:07 PM
SC had students transfer in as M-III's which means grads available for livcensure since 03'. why would you only count the ones that completed all their training at SC? isn't one SC grad as good as another in eyes of a licensing board?

both of you need a time out.... :shock:

Darlyn3
11-21-2004, 08:17 PM
daryln, i have also spoken to you and you are very dedicated. over the last three years it is you and one other person at SC that gives your school hope provided there are more like you there. peace

Rrod,
Thanks for your kind words!

Thanks you though. By the way, my son is doing good. Nothing happened to him. Thanks again for that day!

Kindest Regards,

Darlyn

FLK
11-21-2004, 08:32 PM
Until you provide me the name of your "friend" (by PM or publicly), I will think, as will most others reading this, that you are a liar.


I think it is pretty obvious, from track record that there is one person here that most people will consider a liar.........and it ain't Picard.


I am looking forward to the day when a degree from this place is worth less than used toilet paper

###
11-21-2004, 08:33 PM
....................

azskeptic
11-21-2004, 08:34 PM
Until you provide me the name of your "friend" (by PM or publicly), I will think, as will most others reading this, that you are a liar.


I think it is pretty obvious, from track record that there is one person here that most people will consider a liar.........and it ain't Picard.

man this place hasn't changed ( well actually it looks even shadier than ever ) with the same old liars and scammers pushing their propoganda.

BTS you need to get a life!

Well, it is an amazing place....but it has been like this in the prior administration of the list before also..ha ha.......we need a sign like "STILL PITCHING STORIES HERE SINCE 2000" or something like that.......

azskeptic
11-21-2004, 08:36 PM
This latest thing about posting names is silly.

Posting the names of faculty and officers of a school is an entirely different matter than posting the names of friends and associates. Most schools make the names of faculty and officers public. In general, schools are proud of their faculty and the faculty are proud to work for the school. Why is this different at SC? Is SC embarrassed by the credentials of its faculty? Are the faculty embarrassed by working at SC? Something is odd here.

I think it would be absolutely wrong for Picard to post the name of his friend. Just because he is a physician does not mean that he wants his name posted on the net for an entirely unrelated purpose. I would encourage Picard to get his friend to make a post. While I suspect what Picard is telling the truth, it would be more credible if we heard it directly from the source.

SC does post its faculty and officers... http://www.stchris.edu/faculty.htm Regardless, the name issue is a tired one. But you are right, hearsay is just that, not credible.

My mistake. In the past, the were not posted. I looked for it but didn't see it. Good to see that they are now posted. I will correct my post.

you can look at various forms of the St. Chris webpage by going to www.archive.org and typing in www.stchris.edu this site gives you 'cached' copies of websites..pretty neat stuff.

ValuelessMD
11-21-2004, 08:45 PM
............

Picard
11-21-2004, 08:46 PM
BTS,
I'm not going to argue with you. Your credibility speaks for itself -- you are the ones who have lied about SC. And if you think I am going to provide you with any names so you and your SC cronies can threaten them, you more delusional than you appear to be. PM'ing you? ha ha, I may as well post the name publically. You and SC-admin are basically the same thing... why would I subject my friend to your terroristic threats and tactics...

I will simply challenge SC's legitamcy in real life where it counts. Let see, recent LCME's stance on Cornel NY and Cornel Qatar is a perfect start. For the first time an US accreditation body has taken a stance on "Satelite campus" needing to seek acreditation from it's real host country. Let see if ECFMG will follow this and see through SC's ploy of buying charter and operating under the guise of a "satelite" campus. Perhaps ECFMG should consider asking SC Luton students to provide UK accreditation proof for the Luton campus before allowing Luton students to sit for USMLE/ECFMG cert... Umm, we were all worked up about PLAB -- we were barking up the wrong tree... Who cares what GMC thinks. It's what ECFMG thinks that counts. Perhaps we should ask ECFMG to think about the LCME ruling and re-think SC-Luton's ECFMG eligibility...

P

ValuelessMD
11-21-2004, 08:51 PM
............

neilc
11-22-2004, 07:34 AM
well, you asked me to show any history of you misleading or lying. here are a few of your misleading posts...i had time to go through about 10 or 15 at random, and found 4 that were at the very least underinformed, passed off as legit info to potential students.

http://www.valuemd.com/viewtopic.php?p=3667&highlight=#3667
(no significance to charter location, how do you know thatand, shows that you are attempting to use the location in england to mislead folks.)
http://www.valuemd.com/viewtopic.php?p=6191&highlight=#6191
(everywhere else is legal, other than CA and Mex? You say you checked out all and this is what you found out? Hmm. We know this is not true. This is where the good to go in 48 states comes from)
http://www.valuemd.com/viewtopic.php?p=9646&highlight=#9646
(here is one where you tried to pawn off your review as an independent)
http://www.valuemd.com/viewtopic.php?p=31274&highlight=#31274
(here is the infamous NJ is official thread…)


shows a history of either lying outright (which i think is likely, based on the repetitive nature of your "mistakes"), or providing misinformation.

if anyone else has the time or the inclination to dig further into your posts, i am sure they could find more examples...

time and time again, you have proven yourself to be unreliable at best, a liar at worst. i think it is clear that you have a vested interest in your school, and that you try to market it aggresively...(mdparadise!!!hahahahahhahah...if paradise is a worthless degree) you have close ties to admin, you have been accused many times of recieving preferential treatment, you worked for the school...and you try to get into personal battles with people that have no motive but to at least level the playing field for those looking into med schools.

students beware! st chris may or may not get you where you want to be. despite all the hogwash, the FACT that matters is....NOBODY CAN PREDICT WHETHER YOUR DEGREE WILL BE WORTH ANYTHING!!!!

other important facts: there are many, many BETTER schools, with almost none of the risk. there are many schools that do not routinely lie to attract students. there are many schools that are not run by a man scared to have his name posted on this site, that are not run by a man that claims to have trained as an MD, with no evidence to back it up. there are many, many schools that will give you every opportunity to be a doctor in every state in the nation. do not accept the risk that these lackeys are trying to get you to accept. it is TOTALLY UNNECCESSARY!!!

AUCMD2006
11-22-2004, 09:18 AM
i am not in clinicals yet so all i have to go on is "book knowledge"

'Yup, SC has a colorful past. Ever go to the library of congress? I think there are pretty neat stuff there too.'


so to all MD's out there is this what they mean with "loose associations"? :lol: then there was the other one relating SC to the ~120 year struggle for women to vote?????

ValuelessMD
11-22-2004, 10:17 AM
.............

mo5225md
11-22-2004, 06:39 PM
do you think that st.chris will go for a uk charter?

teratos
11-22-2004, 07:31 PM
do you think that st.chris will go for a uk charter?

reverse that. Do you think the UK would go for a SC charter? I think the answer is "no". It really doesn't matter. If the UK wanted another med school, they wouldn't want to give a charter to one that is privately owned. They would just have one of their Universities open one.

With the physician shortage in the US, why doesn't the US just let a bunch of offshore schools open shop in the states? I would allow them to accredit them, regulate training etc. Nope, that isn't gonna happen either. G

stchrisrep
11-22-2004, 09:11 PM
do you think that st.chris will go for a uk charter?

It's probably unlikely that the college will do this. The admin wants to stay focused on a U.S. based training program.

AUCMD2006
11-23-2004, 07:29 AM
see this:"The admin wants to stay focused on a U.S. based training program."


read this: The admin knows that it would be more likely to get chartered and open aonther SC satellite campus on Mars than getting a UK charter


again not quality of the school just reasons teratos already stated and same for the US. But to claim its merely because of a focus issue is comical.... :lol: thnaks i needed a good laugh first thing in the moring beofore pharmacokinetics....

neilc
11-23-2004, 09:01 AM
do you think that st.chris will go for a uk charter?

It's probably unlikely that the college will do this. The admin wants to stay focused on a U.S. based training program.

give me a break. so, you are saying that if it could get a UK charter, it would say no, just to focus more on the US study model?

it most likely COULD NOT do this

azskeptic
11-23-2004, 09:04 AM
do you think that st.chris will go for a uk charter?

It's probably unlikely that the college will do this. The admin wants to stay focused on a U.S. based training program.

give me a break. so, you are saying that if it could get a UK charter, it would say no, just to focus more on the US study model?

it most likely COULD NOT do this

ha ha great comeback though......actually another good response would be that it doesn't fit in the business plan. The Company decided to open an alternative to UK approved schools in a country other than its charter.

TruthMan
11-23-2004, 10:06 AM
read this: The admin knows that it would be more likely to get chartered and open aonther SC satellite campus on Mars than getting a UK charter

If we do open a branch campus on Mars, no doubt many of us would in the end return to Mars to practice and provide adequate healthcare within the patient (err.. lifeform err.. molecular) community. It's all just part of the humanitarian focus here at St. Chris and fits well within the parameters of our' "give back" philosophy.

azskeptic
11-23-2004, 10:09 AM
read this: The admin knows that it would be more likely to get chartered and open aonther SC satellite campus on Mars than getting a UK charter

If we do open a branch campus on Mars, no doubt many of us would in the end return to Mars to practice and provide adequate healthcare within the patient (err.. lifeform err.. molecular) community. It's all just part of the humanitarian focus here at St. Chris and fits well within the parameters of our' "give back" philosophy.

Beam me up, BTS.

bts4202
11-23-2004, 03:55 PM
read this: The admin knows that it would be more likely to get chartered and open aonther SC satellite campus on Mars than getting a UK charter

If we do open a branch campus on Mars, no doubt many of us would in the end return to Mars to practice and provide adequate healthcare within the patient (err.. lifeform err.. molecular) community. It's all just part of the humanitarian focus here at St. Chris and fits well within the parameters of our' "give back" philosophy.

Beam me up, BTS.


:fight:


oooooohhhhh, you said beaM you up.... :drinkbud:

stchrisrep
11-23-2004, 10:20 PM
give me a break. so, you are saying that if it could get a UK charter, it would say no, just to focus more on the US study model?

it most likely COULD NOT do this


The college's goal is to prepare students for the USMLE.

neilc
11-24-2004, 05:41 AM
give me a break. so, you are saying that if it could get a UK charter, it would say no, just to focus more on the US study model?

it most likely COULD NOT do this


The college's goal is to prepare students for the USMLE.

first of all, you did not answer my question...second of all, the college's goal is to MAKE MONEY!

most school's have money as the driving reason behind it's existence. but, you must think we are fools if we are to believe that st chris chooses not to pursue a UK charter in order to remain true to its educational objective of preparing students for the USMLE. please, if you are going to be evasive and misleading, at least make an attempt to be believable!

teratos
11-24-2004, 05:45 AM
The college's goal is to prepare students for the USMLE.

With a UK charter, this would no longer be the goal of SC. There is plenty of money to be made in preparing people for the USMLE. There is also a great need for docs in the US. We shouldn't be argueing over where the charter is. Makes no sense. The only thing that people should worry about is whether there will be an issue with charter in one country, and physical facilities in another. That is wait and see.


Sure there have been half-truths (and "misstatements") in the past. I don't like those either. G

neilc
11-24-2004, 05:45 AM
read this: The admin knows that it would be more likely to get chartered and open aonther SC satellite campus on Mars than getting a UK charter.

agreed. that is the responsible answer any school admin, representative or student should get. not some ** about "we choose to operate here unaccredited in order prepare students for the USMLE"

neilc
11-24-2004, 06:47 AM
We shouldn't be argueing over where the charter is. Makes no sense. The only thing that people should worry about is whether there will be an issue with charter in one country, and physical facilities in another. That is wait and see.

i agree that this is one of the major issues surrounding this school. however, the typical st chris spin response, instead of simply acknowledging the reality that this UK charter is not achievable, they try to claim they just don't want it. ridiculous. and typical of the marketing plan they follow. trick people into attending by putting out misleading half-truths.

the other major issue is whether the UK will allow this type of school to remain in the UK. i have my doubts, as no other developed nation that i can think of allows this.

so, the questions are...will the charter in senegal be ok, if classes are in england? and, will england kick them out? if so, then what? will they close?what about transcripts? will they operate soley in senegal? who knows...

lots of doubt out there for this school, too much to accept the rosey picture painted by current students and admin, that is for sure. new students should view this school as a last resort, if even that, until st chris prove that it can get you a license where you want to work.

AUCMD2006
11-24-2004, 07:04 AM
it wants to be a "golden god"


there is no argument in the teaching as most students have said it is good..until a prof leaves that is then he was a bum... :lol: issue has always been wether most places will look past the charter, i'm sure some will out of sheer despiration for doctors, and some will not. question is how many of each will there be and no one has answered the 2003 mystery riddle yet.....where in the world are the 03' resident graduates?

azskeptic
11-24-2004, 09:21 AM
UK is a country of laws....that is what one should contemplate....dangerous to flaunt them....how they will respond is legendary in England.......

happy holidays to all.....azskeptic

ValuelessMD
11-27-2004, 04:58 AM
...........

azskeptic
11-27-2004, 05:04 AM
UK is a country of laws....that is what one should contemplate....dangerous to flaunt them....how they will respond is legendary in England.......

happy holidays to all.....azskeptic


FLAUNT ! :nah:

(Will anyone take the bait...Hmmmmmmmm)

AUCMD2006
11-28-2004, 04:52 PM
no one has addressed this yet. and those are funny....bts where did you get the drunk smileys? that looked like me at the fifth semester party....the one holding his buddy up that is... :lol:

bts4202
11-28-2004, 06:54 PM
no one has addressed this yet. and those are funny....bts where did you get the drunk smileys? that looked like me at the fifth semester party....the one holding his buddy up that is... :lol:

It has been addressed rrod. The first graduating class of st chris finished their PGY-3 year of residency in july of 2004, they are awaiting word on their licensure applications right now. However, there are very few of them, there should be much more after July of this coming year. No one finished PGY-3 by 2003, it just simply didn't happen.

The drunken icon is from the bank of new emoticons that Doc hooked up. Just click below the smileys on the left where it says "View more Emoticons".

:toast:

AUCMD2006
12-02-2004, 01:12 PM
what about those that transferred in 1998 as m-2's or m-3's? or are the first graduates regardless in july 04? also have they said anything about the two years SC went without a charter?

bts4202
12-03-2004, 03:04 PM
what about those that transferred in 1998 as m-2's or m-3's? or are the first graduates regardless in july 04? also have they said anything about the two years SC went without a charter?

As i said, the first graduating class of St. Christopher's finished their PGY-3 year of residency in july of 2004. I don't know who came in when or what, but I am friends with someone that was in the first graduating class and that is their status. Sorry, but there is nothing more to it than that.

Picard
12-04-2004, 12:06 AM
Let see, SC took in transfer students in 1998 into their MS-3 years. This means they graduated in 2000. This means they finished their residency in June 2003. Simple math, dispite how BTS is trying to confuse the issue.

Or, is SC NOW finally admitting that they misled these early students, lied and cheated them out of their education because these graduates who trusted SC before it had it's purchased charter are now out of luck with a worthless degree? Why is BTS now trying to steer the questions away from these early students? Are we saying that SC shouldn't have taken/cheated these students?

And BTW, many states may NOW require 3 years of post-graduate trainings for IMG's for licensure, IT WASN'T THE CASE BACK IN EARLY 2000's. Back in those days (when I got my license), IMG's only needed TWO years in MOST states for licensure. I know BTS quoted a bunch of recent laws in another thread about this -- back in 2002 when many of these old SC grads would have finished their PGY-II years, most of the states I've mentioned only require TWO YEARS of residency training. Heck, when I got my license, Illinois only require ONE year for IMG's. I know because I almost applied to IL after my internship to go around the two-year law in California. So, these early SC grads who graduated in 2000 would have been eligible for licensure since June 30th, 2002. The fact that no one from this group has been licensed MAY simply mean that SC cheated them and gave them worthless degrees because SC didn't have it's purchased charter until 2000 -- this is the most likely explanation.

P

azskeptic
12-04-2004, 03:23 AM
Let see, SC took in transfer students in 1998 into their MS-3 years. This means they graduated in 2000. This means they finished their residency in June 2003. Simple math, dispite how BTS is trying to confuse the issue.

Or, is SC NOW finally admitting that they misled these early students, lied and cheated them out of their education because these graduates who trusted SC before it had it's purchased charter are now out of luck with a worthless degree? Why is BTS now trying to steer the questions away from these early students? Are we saying that SC shouldn't have taken/cheated these students?

And BTW, many states may NOW require 3 years of post-graduate trainings for IMG's for licensure, IT WASN'T THE CASE BACK IN EARLY 2000's. Back in those days (when I got my license), IMG's only needed TWO years in MOST states for licensure. I know BTS quoted a bunch of recent laws in another thread about this -- back in 2002 when many of these old SC grads would have finished their PGY-II years, most of the states I've mentioned only require TWO YEARS of residency training. Heck, when I got my license, Illinois only require ONE year for IMG's. I know because I almost applied to IL after my internship to go around the two-year law in California. So, these early SC grads who graduated in 2000 would have been eligible for licensure since June 30th, 2002. The fact that no one from this group has been licensed MAY simply mean that SC cheated them and gave them worthless degrees because SC didn't have it's purchased charter until 2000 -- this is the most likely explanation.

P

One student went through a surgical residency but for some reason he didn't license during the process even before finishing his surgical residency.

azskeptic
12-04-2004, 03:23 AM
Let see, SC took in transfer students in 1998 into their MS-3 years. This means they graduated in 2000. This means they finished their residency in June 2003. Simple math, dispite how BTS is trying to confuse the issue.

Or, is SC NOW finally admitting that they misled these early students, lied and cheated them out of their education because these graduates who trusted SC before it had it's purchased charter are now out of luck with a worthless degree? Why is BTS now trying to steer the questions away from these early students? Are we saying that SC shouldn't have taken/cheated these students?

And BTW, many states may NOW require 3 years of post-graduate trainings for IMG's for licensure, IT WASN'T THE CASE BACK IN EARLY 2000's. Back in those days (when I got my license), IMG's only needed TWO years in MOST states for licensure. I know BTS quoted a bunch of recent laws in another thread about this -- back in 2002 when many of these old SC grads would have finished their PGY-II years, most of the states I've mentioned only require TWO YEARS of residency training. Heck, when I got my license, Illinois only require ONE year for IMG's. I know because I almost applied to IL after my internship to go around the two-year law in California. So, these early SC grads who graduated in 2000 would have been eligible for licensure since June 30th, 2002. The fact that no one from this group has been licensed MAY simply mean that SC cheated them and gave them worthless degrees because SC didn't have it's purchased charter until 2000 -- this is the most likely explanation.

P

One student went through a surgical residency but for some reason he didn't license during the process even before finishing his surgical residency.

bts4202
12-04-2004, 12:23 PM
Let see, SC took in transfer students in 1998 into their MS-3 years. This means they graduated in 2000. This means they finished their residency in June 2003. Simple math, dispite how BTS is trying to confuse the issue.

Or, is SC NOW finally admitting that they misled these early students, lied and cheated them out of their education because these graduates who trusted SC before it had it's purchased charter are now out of luck with a worthless degree? Why is BTS now trying to steer the questions away from these early students? Are we saying that SC shouldn't have taken/cheated these students?

And BTW, many states may NOW require 3 years of post-graduate trainings for IMG's for licensure, IT WASN'T THE CASE BACK IN EARLY 2000's. Back in those days (when I got my license), IMG's only needed TWO years in MOST states for licensure. I know BTS quoted a bunch of recent laws in another thread about this -- back in 2002 when many of these old SC grads would have finished their PGY-II years, most of the states I've mentioned only require TWO YEARS of residency training. Heck, when I got my license, Illinois only require ONE year for IMG's. I know because I almost applied to IL after my internship to go around the two-year law in California. So, these early SC grads who graduated in 2000 would have been eligible for licensure since June 30th, 2002. The fact that no one from this group has been licensed MAY simply mean that SC cheated them and gave them worthless degrees because SC didn't have it's purchased charter until 2000 -- this is the most likely explanation.

P

One student went through a surgical residency but for some reason he didn't license during the process even before finishing his surgical residency.

That is not possible. Surgical residency is 5 years long, the first graduating class would only be in their 4th year max. So it is impossible for someone to have finished their surgical residency.

If you still believe this, could you please tell us all who this person is? PM me if you refuse to post is publicly.

Again, this ridiculous speculating based on made up information amazes me. The first graduating class of St. Chritopher's would have finished their PGY-3 year this past June (2004). They are all applying for licensure NOW and we will know the results as soon as the states make their decision.

AUCMD2006
12-04-2004, 04:06 PM
" The first graduating class of St. Chritopher's would have finished their PGY-3 year this past June (2004)" these are the people that started as M-1's...what about the ones who transfered in 1998-2000 when the college operated without a charter?

again: what happened to the ones who transfered in as m-2's they should have been eligible for licensure since 2003? that is the question if you don't know say you don't know. they are for now in limbo

wolfvgang22
12-04-2004, 04:14 PM
So, basically, the final verdict on whether SC is a safe bet or not is on hold, pending whether SC can build a track record of licensed grads.

After listening to my elders (azskeptic, teratos, FLK, rrod, Picard, miklos, steph, etc) since the Network 54 era, I've come to the conclusion that these guys know what they're talking about. Their predictions are right on the money most of the time.

SC may turn out to be a great wager for many people, those adventurous intrepid ones who are more tolerant of risk than I. I couldn't afford such an investment as med school for that investment to fail.

More power to those who acknowledge and take on the additional risk of a newer school!

Picard
12-04-2004, 04:52 PM
Let see, 1998 + 2 = 2000. 2000 + 3 = 2003. Simple math.

SC took in MS-3 in 1998. These MS-3 should have graduated in May/June 2000 and entered residency in July 2000, some of which must have graduated in 2003. This is evident by the fact that Max is listed as a PGY-4. How about Max's classmates who went into 3-year residency programs?

P

ValuelessMD
12-04-2004, 04:55 PM
..........

wolfvgang22
12-04-2004, 05:03 PM
So, basically, the final verdict on whether SC is a safe bet or not is on hold, pending whether SC can build a track record of licensed grads.

After listening to my elders (azskeptic, teratos, FLK, rrod, Picard, miklos, steph, etc) since the Network 54 era, I've come to the conclusion that these guys know what they're talking about. Their predictions are right on the money most of the time.

SC may turn out to be a great wager for many people, those adventurous intrepid ones who are more tolerant of risk than I. I couldn't afford such an investment as med school for that investment to fail.

More power to those who acknowledge and take on the additional risk of a newer school!

If one lives for the destination, one is not living. Life is in the journey.
True. Don't know what that has to do with anything I said, but true. Maybe you are trying to say I'm not enjoying life because I'm more cautious than some others? If so, that's ok, I don't mind.

Good luck on your journey, may you avoid the many pot-holes on the road of life!

bts4202
12-04-2004, 05:21 PM
SC took in MS-3 in 1998. These MS-3 should have graduated in May/June 2000 and entered residency in July 2000, some of which must have graduated in 2003. This is evident by the fact that Max is listed as a PGY-4. How about Max's classmates who went into 3-year residency programs?

P

You proved my point! Max is in the class of the first people to ever get their MD from St Chris and he is now listed as a PGY-4, which means he finished his PGY-3 year in July of this year (2004). Which also means that all the people who graduated during that time are NOW applying for their licenses. Do you understand now?

Picard
12-04-2004, 05:31 PM
Ha, got you here.

Max, in his previous post, states that he is taking a year off to do research in Cleveland Clinic. So, he should be a PGY-5 now if he didn't take a year off. (And taking a "research year" off in surgery residency is not some "great honor". It's mostly because they were asked to leave a year) So, his classmates should have graduated in 2003.

Again, 1998+2 = 2000. 2000 + 3 = 2003. Simple math.

P

bts4202
12-04-2004, 05:34 PM
dude, u are seriously reaching. He is doing a research year this year, he was a PGY-3 last year, and he go back to PGY-4 next year. You are too funny.

Oh yeah, he is doing a research year at the cleveland clinic as a punishment.. hahahahah

http://www.clevelandclinic.org/misc/staff/

bts4202
12-04-2004, 05:40 PM
Uh oh, dana has proof that picard is wrong:

check out the website archives: http://web.archive.org/web/20030506220926/http://gsm.utmck.edu/surgery/current_residents.cfm

Back in May 2003 Max was a PGY-2, so in July 2003 he would become a PGY-3, then in July 2004, he would become............ PGY-4
:-rainbow

Picard
12-04-2004, 06:04 PM
Let see, Max posted his "research year" in Dec 2003, which means he was in research 07/03 - 06/04. Since he was "PGY-3" before he went into reesearch, this means that he was PGY-3 from 7/2002 to 6/2003!! And now he has returned as a PGY-4 (7/2004 - 6/2005) as listed by U. of T's website now (do a search yourself).

Regardless, you haven't answered the simple math:

1998+2=2000. 2000+3=2003.

P

###
12-04-2004, 08:23 PM
......................

bts4202
12-05-2004, 01:32 PM
I suppose the fuss aimed, in part, at showing that the SC people are not credible. That was determined a long time ago.

I think the credibility of my comments are backed up by the University of Tennessee School of medicine:

May 6 2003 page (PGY-2): http://web.archive.org/web/20030506220926/http://gsm.utmck.edu/surgery/current_residents.cfm

January 16 2004 page (PGY-3): http://web.archive.org/web/20040116030725/http://gsm.utmck.edu/surgery/current_residents.cfm

December 5th 2004 page (PGY-4): http://gsm.utmck.edu/surgery/current_residents.cfm

So exactley as i said, he finished his PGY-3 year this past July (for those who do not know, residency "years" change over in July). So if you question my credibility in this case, you also question the University of Tennessee School Of Medicine.

FrenchFrie
12-05-2004, 07:03 PM
what are the stats on the senegal students, they have clincals/residency there?

###
12-05-2004, 07:13 PM
...................

AUCMD2006
12-05-2004, 07:20 PM
all the tranfers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????? no one has answered this again it gets diverted to some other topic. so max took a research year so what?

what about EVERYONE else who didn't take a year off???? they should have been eligible for the last year like we've been pointing out or did every transfer take a research year?

ansgenius
12-06-2004, 08:45 AM
Since you all consider us poor sources of information, why don't you all just call up every state medical board and ask how many St Chris students have been rejected for licensure?

neilc
12-06-2004, 08:53 AM
Since you all consider us poor sources of information, why don't you all just call up every state medical board and ask how many St Chris students have been rejected for licensure?


how about this instead...we will continue to warn potential students about the issues surrounding your school. for example, the operation outside of the country of charter, the worry that the UK will allow this to continue, the history of deceptive advertising practices, the fact that many of the st chris students that post here are either lackey's for the school or blind optimists, and the fact that zero grads have been licensed yet.

you can call all the boards, and let us know if there is some positive info for a change. until then, we will assume that the risk remains high for those that attend this school.

sorry that your school is the focus of such richly deserved negative attention. however, the school and students have brought this extra scrutiny on themselves by being less than honest. if you are optimistic about your future, that is great. but, most of us that are not directly dependent on this school for our future see many, many potential complications. and, we will continue to voice them to those that are seeking medical education abroad.

don't kill the messengers. merely take a good, hard look at the school you go to and the risk it demands the students take. most rational people would find that unacceptable. and, most rational people see the lack of credibility surrounding nearly everyone involved in this school.

ansgenius
12-06-2004, 12:26 PM
If we did give you any positive info, would you believe it? I'm just trying to cut out the middle man. You're the ones assuming st chris students are all liars. So again, you all can call up the medical boards since you are all are so "impartial".

neilc
12-06-2004, 12:47 PM
If we did give you any positive info, would you believe it? I'm just trying to cut out the middle man. You're the ones assuming st chris students are all liars. So again, you all can call up the medical boards since you are all are so "impartial".

actually, no, it would take some serious verification before i believe anything positive about st chris, especially off of this board.

i am not assuming all st chris students are liars. however, there are several students that post regularly, and more in the past that have disappeared, that contiually post half-truths, lies and are using this as a method of recruiting students. these folks have given st chris the reputation it currently enjoys.

the burden of re-establishing credibility for st chris does not rest on our shoulders. that is up to admin and students that care. this will only happen by finally sticking to honesty over salesmanship. once the school begins to focus on reality, improving its situation, addressing legit concerns, then the school may begin to become trustworthy. until then, it will remain a dodgy school, with an unscruplous administration, several shifty students and a future that nobody can predict.

AUCMD2006
12-06-2004, 03:22 PM
it doesn't matter i'd still verify it. when i was applying and i heard auc sent all its students to brittain for clinicals i checked it out, when i heard ross had a bad living situation from a ross resident, i checked it out...and so on

anything you hear on these fora should be a starting point for your school search not a definitive guide.....

Picard
12-07-2004, 02:05 AM
DrB brought up a good point in a PM to me.

Forget about Max example as who knows exactly what went on with his residency and his year off to do research (again, most surgery residents will tell you that taking a year off during residency for "research" is often not a willing choice by the resident, regardless of where or how "famous" the research place is. Taking a year off during residency, especially a five yera surgery residency, is often not by choice. Heck, when I was a student rotating through surgery, a few of the residents were asked to take a year off for "research" at Columbia or Cornell. The Chief was a PGY-7 because he did TWO years of research, one at Columbia and one at Cornell -- guess what, it wasn't his choice. He was asked to do so because he rubbed some higher ups the wrong way. The worst part was, a surgery residency was funded for five years only. And since he drew salaries for his research years, he went virtually unpaid in the last two years of his residency -- except for a very minimal "stipend," much below that the PGY-4/5 salaries should have been. Good thing his wife was drawing an attending salary during those years...)

Anyways, back to the topic -- the basic question still remain unanswered by BTS/SC admin -- if SC took in MS-3 students back in 1998 as they claimed, these students should have graduated in 2000, and finish PGY-3 year in 2003. And back in those days of 2001-2002, most IMG"s could be licensed with two years of post-graduate training (which means these grads would have been eligible in 2002) -- what happened to them? How come no licensed grads yet? This is the question that remains unanswered by SC -- all we have now is arguments trying to draw attention away from this very basic question. Perhaps there is a simple explanation... but BTS's silly assertion that these folks don't exist is simply... silly.

P

FrenchFrie
12-07-2004, 07:57 AM
qwerty

ValuelessMD
12-07-2004, 09:58 AM
............

AUCMD2006
12-07-2004, 10:04 AM
"certainly not anything of substance"

i would call a year post graduation with no licenses yet somthing of substance. this may only be a problem with the people who went to the school in 98-00 without a charter and people who started later may not have problems but i would say for those people there may be some substance to the lack of licenses a year after they finished....

ValuelessMD
12-07-2004, 10:06 AM
............

microphage
12-07-2004, 10:31 AM
Anyway, I figured it was about time to answer this question once and for all. Yes, yes, I know, everyone just can't wait to read what I have to say, but I just can't keep the secret anymore. Sorry SC, I just can't live with myself !!!

http://www.clubmed.co.uk/cgi-bin/clubmed55/Ratio/Villages/[email protected]@@@0373401829.110243 [email protected]@@@&BV_EngineID=ccdfadddfhfjfeicflgcefkdffhdf hg.0&PAYS=341&LANG=EN&pIDVILLAGE=ALMCH

The real reason of course. And all you people thought SC did not have a campus in Senegal. For shame :yeah: :banana::banana::banana::banana::yeah:

hummm I don't see an anatomy lab....

wolfvgang22
12-07-2004, 01:26 PM
Since SC admin can't point to any licensed physicians, and no one else seems to be able to point out any actual licensed physicians, SC is clearly a very young school that has not proven anything yet.

Attending medical school is first and foremost a business decsion. Just like it is very risky, and perhaps bad business for a financial institution to loan money to someone with no credit history, it is risky to invest $100,000+ in a med school that might not enable me to practice medicine profitably.

My shareholders are my wife, kids, and parents who depend on me. Investing in SC would be poor stewardship of the trust they have placed in me at this time.

If you are independently wealthy, or very tolerant of higher risk investments for whatever reason, then by all means, attend St. Chris.

More power to the intrepid adventurers (or guinea pigs??) who choose St. Chris!

muse4lati
09-05-2005, 07:05 PM
How big is the Senegal Campus? Does anyone have a copy of Gough's report?

"We have a fully functioning school," ***** said. "The rule in New Jersey was written to exclude Internet schools. Orr (the Board of Examiners director) has no function to interpret the rules."

And, in response to Gough's report that the college is operated out of a back room in a doctor's office, ***** said the representatives from the embassy had checked out the wrong building.

"When we found out, we set up a meeting, we provided them with the proper information and everything was fine after that," ***** said.

http://www.valuemd.com/printthread.php?t=15632 (http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1080641518255060.xml)

teratos
09-05-2005, 07:42 PM
So why don't you consider other schools? You have yet to post a single thing on any other schools forum. You don't sound much like a prospective student to me. Everyone knows there are a lot of questions about SC. You are trolling. G

oldquack
09-05-2005, 07:46 PM
muse this is the dirtest tactic you have done yet - i just wasted 20 minutes of my time reading this- to realise you have dug out this from 2003 - anyone who does not notice this will think that the people speaking here were talking today- i was woundering why old bussslightyear was asking wait until we have a licensed graduate - as he knows the situation of the school well- and in my experience provides a fairly neutral view

By posting such old data you are posting a 1/2 true - which is little better than posting a lie, please be more proffesional in the future- i hope i am wrong but you seem to consistently pose as a new student - yet dig up very old stuff and then try to present as a curious george.

I am supprised that there is not an automatic locking on any thread over more than 6 months old to stop this sort of mischief - being able to access for reference seems reasonable but to add a comment to the bottom and then allow such old data to resurface seems a useless use of the forum

muse4lati
09-05-2005, 08:10 PM
Sorry, not yet. There are just too many conflicting stories. I want to resolve them all. Thank you for your patience with me. If you look here the article below is from 2004 and it has items that conflict with this thread from 2003. I didn't want to create a new thread - that would be a waste of all our time. Facts are facts no matter how old.

Is this true? Was a legal investigation launched as a result of his report?

http://www.valuemd.com/printthread.php?t=15632

Prospective students, please be careful reading this article.
It contains errors and is misleading.

The writer based his article from erroneous facts and
did poor research. As a result, a legal investigation has begun
against all parties involved in contributing to the negative campaign
against the college.

SPC partnership with med school hastily called off
St. Christopher's diplomas said to be meaningless in N.J.


Tuesday, March 30, 2004


By Ken Thorbourne
Journal staff writer

A partnership between St. Peter's College in Jersey City and an overseas medical school was killed last night, two weeks after it was announced, amid mounting concerns that its graduates would not be recognized as medical doctors by the state of New Jersey.

Touting the benefit of adding international flair to one's education, St. Peter's College officials had announced in mid-March an agreement with St. Christopher's School of Medicine in Luton, England, to train medical students in seven years.


Students would spend the first three years obtaining an undergraduate degree in biology at St. Peter's College, and the next four at the medical school to complete their doctorates in medicine, according to the agreement.

But an investigation by The Jersey Journal raised serious questions about the 4-year-old medical school's ability to keep its end of the bargain.

Asked about the medical school yesterday, an official with a national organization of college registrars and enrollment officers said he was very familiar with St. Christopher's.

"I know what it purports to be," said Dale Gough, director of international education services for the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

"They aren't really a medical school that is recognized anywhere. The embassy in Senegal said the school is in the back of a doctor's office. The U.K., I believe, has asked them to stop listing offices in England," Gough said.

And an official with the state's Board of Examiners said the medical school's graduates would likely not be accepted at any three-year medical residency program at a New Jersey hospital, a prerequisite to becoming a full-fledged doctor in this state.

"It raises questions when a school is training students at a place other than where it is licensed to be a school," said Ian Orr, executive director of the state's Board of Examiners, the licensing body for physicians in the state.

The school is chartered in Senegal, Africa, even though it lists its main teaching location as Luton, England, located 20 minutes outside of London by train, Orr said.

New Jersey law requires the state's future doctors to spend their first two years of medical school studying in the location where the school is chartered, Orr said.

Orr said other states also have denied hospital residency programs or medical licenses to graduates of the school.

Apparently concerned about the media attention, P., the president of St. Christopher's, said yesterday that he had called St. Peter's and offered to withdraw from the agreement.

"I don't want them to have to spend a third of the day answering questions on our behalf," P. said. "We are going to back out of the articulation agreement for a specified period of time, not because we have anything to hide. It is because we don't want to put St. Peter's in a negative light."

Eugene Cornacchia, provost of St. Peter's College, confirmed last night that the agreement, which had been in the works for several months, was dead.

"We are disappointed this happened, but we will continue to make certain that our students have every opportunity to succeed in their chosen medical field," Cornacchia said.

Acknowledging unresolved issues with New Jersey's Board of Examiners, P. said his 1,000-student college, which has a recruitment office in Scotch Plains, is lobbying the state to be exempted from the law requiring students to attend classes at the school's charter location.

"We have a fully functioning school," P. said. "The rule in New Jersey was written to exclude Internet schools. Orr (the Board of Examiners director) has no function to interpret the rules."

And, in response to Gough's report that the college is operated out of a back room in a doctor's office, P. said the representatives from the embassy had checked out the wrong building.

"When we found out, we set up a meeting, we provided them with the proper information and everything was fine after that," P. said.

St. Peter's College officials said they had visited the college's Luton offices - a rented space in a commercial building - for a week last autumn.

Ken Thorbourne covers education. He can be reached at [email protected] ([email protected]).

###
09-05-2005, 08:23 PM
............

AUCMD2006
09-05-2005, 08:34 PM
"however, years from now, it may be viewed as a brilliant stroke of genious!"

thats what my republican friends keep saying about bush....!

stop posting all this garbage, there is nothing new and all the info is old. st peter's called it off b/c until we see how the NJ board interprets the law a SC degree is worthless there however if they do get a grad there then who says they can't resurect the affiliation?

teratos
09-05-2005, 08:41 PM
There is no reason to go on a locking binge. There are sometimes legitimate reasons to resurrect old threads or to copy material from old threads. Everyone can see this for what it is and I think the cure is worse than the disease. What is the great harm in having this thread brought to the top?

In my view, the Senegal campus is pretty ingenious. All off-shore schools essentially have the same "buy a charter" mode of operation. SC is unique in that they were smart enough to realize that you don't need to locate your school in the same place you buy your charter. Very clever.


The Senegal "issue" is a red herring. Operationally, I don't think it makes an iota of difference where you get your charter or whether you have any real affiliation with the school. I think we all understand the Senegal "connection" is just a means to get a charter. In practical standpoint (quality of educational delivery), this strategy is really no different from locating a school on a carib island to get a charter. For all I care, the "home campus" could be run by penguins in Antarctica. Do you really think the Senegal government exercises any less oversight than the governments of Grenada, Dominica, etc? The Senegal strategy does involve some risk because we are uncertain how how the licensing authorities will view this arrangement. No matter how ill conceived (and protectionist) it may be, the licensing boards view is critical.

Overall, I don't think SC has anything to be ashamed about affiliating with Senegal -- provided the licensing authorities cooperate (which seems to be happening). The Senegal Strategy does have some risk; however, years from now, it may be viewed as a brilliant stroke of genious!

While I agree that the Senegal connection is sheer genius, if it works, I know that muse has an agenda other than what he proposes. For that reason he is being banned. Asking questions as a student is one thing. Trying to harm a school, and indirectly, its students is unacceptable to me. G







Copyright © 2003-2018 ValueMD, LLC. All rights reserved.