PDA

View Full Version : My interview with the Senegalese



LJG
11-19-2005, 01:35 AM
As we all know a group from Senegal was on campus yesterday including the Ambassador fromSenegal to London General ****** *******. They spoke with a group of three of us (students) asking question about education experience, country of origin, future plans, and what opinion we have about students and teachers. At the end we were informed that all paper work between the government of Senegal and the GMC has been completed. That the government full supports SCCOM including the sub-campus in Luton and they are expecting a positive resolution fairly soon. The Ambassador went on to say that they the government is proud of the Luton campus and the quality of the program and that we are "the jewel" of Senegal and ambassadors in the pursuit and sharing of knowledge. Just a matter of time now, thank GOD............

Miklos
11-19-2005, 02:06 AM
The Ambassador went on to say that they the government is proud of the Luton campus and the quality of the program and that we are "the jewel" of Senegal and ambassadors in the pursuit and sharing of knowledge.
Well, whatever other criticisms one may have of Senegal, it certainly appears that this ambassador sure knows how to lay it on thick. Especially, as the relationship between Senegal and SC is at the crux of the matter.

Who knows, the information above might even impact the GMCs investigation...

So, if you haven't already done so, consider voting in the Lounge (http://www.valuemd.com/relaxing-lounge/56225-vote-outcome-gmc-investigation-sc.html) on the outcome of the GMC investigation. [Yes, that was a shameless plug.]

Smythe
11-19-2005, 05:08 AM
I'm curious how interviewing students in Luton makes any difference as to whether or not there was an actual operating school in Dakar in 2000

jpryor
11-19-2005, 07:18 AM
I'm curious how interviewing students in Luton makes any difference as to whether or not there was an actual operating school in Dakar in 2000

It doesn't. It appears, based on this information, that the proverbial whitewash is operating just fine.

LJG
11-19-2005, 07:39 AM
Well, whatever other criticisms one may have of Senegal, it certainly appears that this ambassador sure knows how to lay it on thick. Especially, as the relationship between Senegal and SC is at the crux of the matter.

Who knows, the information above might even impact the GMCs investigation...

So, if you haven't already done so, consider voting in the Lounge (http://www.valuemd.com/relaxing-lounge/56225-vote-outcome-gmc-investigation-sc.html) on the outcome of the GMC investigation. [Yes, that was a shameless plug.]

He is a true Politician

bts4202
11-19-2005, 07:41 AM
I think their 3 day long meeting with the GMC is what will determine the outcome. It is nice to have the senegal delegation come and talk to some people and be extra thorough, especially considering that one of their own admin was a major player in causing this problem in the first place. I guess we will all see what happens in the next few weeks (hopefully sooner).

LJG
11-19-2005, 07:46 AM
It doesn't. It appears, based on this information, that the proverbial whitewash is operating just fine.

I am just happy to get it from the horses mouth that the charter, sub-campus, government support, and anything need is totally stable. Get it horse, stable, hahahaha:lolup:

bts4202
11-19-2005, 07:51 AM
I am just happy to get it from the hourses mouth that the charter, sub-campus, government support, and anything need is totally stable. Get it hourse, stable, hahahaha:lolup:

pssst, I think you mean "horse"... hahaa. Sorry, I had to bust your ball$ a little.:D

LJG
11-19-2005, 07:55 AM
I think their 3 day long meeting with the GMC is what will determine the outcome. It is nice to have the senegal delegation come and talk to some people and be extra thorough, especially considering that one of their own admin was a major player in causing this problem in the first place. I guess we will all see what happens in the next few weeks (hopefully sooner).

We were told by the Senegalese that the BBC took a lot of the info out of context and played only selective parts of the interview back. The University was accredited in 2003 and SCCOM was accredited in 2000. The government of Senegal is considering legal action against the BBC because they are so upset. I believe the entire event has made the government more aware and supportive of the program in Luton. I wish everyone could have been there, I'm glad the admin wasn't or they would raise tuition again.

jpryor
11-19-2005, 08:09 AM
We were told by the Senegalese that the BBC took a lot of the info out of context and played only selective parts of the interview back. The University was accredited in 2003 and SCCOM was accredited in 2000. The government of Senegal is considering legal action against the BBC because they are so upset. I believe the entire event has made the government more aware and supportive of the program in Luton. I wish everyone could have been there, I'm glad the admin wasn't or they would raise tuition again.

Welcome to the world of sensational journalism. Truth is not the objective...it's always revenue. But don't look for any criticism against the GMC; however, litigation against the BBC is free publicity. But I suspect once things are rectified that this will all calm down and it will be back to business as usual.

LJG
11-19-2005, 08:16 AM
Welcome to the world of sensational journalism. Truth is not the objective...it's always revenue. But don't look for any criticism against the GMC; however, litigation against the BBC is free publicity. But I suspect once things are rectified that this will all calm down and it will be back to business as usual.

Sensationalism or not the government officials from Senegal are truly upset. One of the people in attendance was a government attorney directed by the President of Senegal to attend.

bts4202
11-19-2005, 08:21 AM
Sensationalism or not the government officials from Senegal are truly upset. One of the people in attendance was a government attorney directed by the President of Senegal to attend.

did they mention anything about their actual conversations with the GMC? How had their meetings been going?

AUCMD2006
11-19-2005, 08:40 AM
"The Ambassador went on to say that they the government is proud of the Luton campus and the quality of the program and that we are "the jewel" of Senegal"

must be a pretty small jewel for no one to know about it.....jk

like i said give them time and they'l get to the bottom of it actually making the admin answer questions... i still wonder how luton can be a satellite campus of a parent university if it came first, shouldn't dakar be the satellite?

anyway looks like SC will be around and we can argue about some other preventable catastrophe your admin causes in 8 month..it seems to be cyclical...peace

OLDPRO
11-19-2005, 08:55 AM
We were told by the Senegalese that the BBC took a lot of the info out of context and played only selective parts of the interview back. The University was accredited in 2003 and SCCOM was accredited in 2000. The government of Senegal is considering legal action against the BBC because they are so upset. I believe the entire event has made the government more aware and supportive of the program in Luton. I wish everyone could have been there, I'm glad the admin wasn't or they would raise tuition again.

SO there's an answer from no less than the Ambassador from SENEGAL guys and gals! I would think this answers how Senegal thinks of of St. Chris. Hey you don't like it take it to Senegal. :rolleyes:

LJG
11-19-2005, 09:03 AM
did they mention anything about their actual conversations with the GMC? How had their meetings been going?

After the people from Senegal finished their questions they asked if we had any questions. No one asked about their meeting with the GMC because we didn't know about it until later. Our questions were about the charter, affiliation to the main campus, dates, things like that. We were a bit taken back by their attitude about the BBC report.

Smythe
11-19-2005, 09:04 AM
We were told by the Senegalese that the BBC took a lot of the info out of context and played only selective parts of the interview back. The University was accredited in 2003 and SCCOM was accredited in 2000. The government of Senegal is considering legal action against the BBC because they are so upset. I believe the entire event has made the government more aware and supportive of the program in Luton. I wish everyone could have been there, I'm glad the admin wasn't or they would raise tuition again.

I would love to see that lawsuit.
Will it include students that studied in 1998?

Will they include the letters from the US amba.ssador in 2000?

I would imagine that the Senegalese folks will do whatever it takes to keep their cash cow fat and happy

OLDPRO
11-19-2005, 09:04 AM
I'm curious how interviewing students in Luton makes any difference as to whether or not there was an actual operating school in Dakar in 2000
SMYTHE cause the Government of Senegal says they accredited the school in 2000 just like the WHO listing. Sorry you can't get your way here but if the Government of Senegal supports its school then all this "research" you have done is smoke and mirrors to defame a legit school.

Good luck.:rolleyes:

LJG
11-19-2005, 09:05 AM
"The Ambassador went on to say that they the government is proud of the Luton campus and the quality of the program and that we are "the jewel" of Senegal"

must be a pretty small jewel for no one to know about it


Does size really matter.........

LJG
11-19-2005, 09:13 AM
I would love to see that lawsuit.
Will it include students that studied in 1998?

Will they include the letters from the US amba.ssador in 2000?

I would imagine that the Senegalese folks will do whatever it takes to keep their cash cow fat and happy

We would be fools to believe that almost everything that happens isn't $$$$$$ based. But the fact remains that the campus in Luton is state of the art and continues to develop and improve.

OLDPRO
11-19-2005, 09:24 AM
I would love to see that lawsuit.
Will it include students that studied in 1998?

Will they include the letters from the US amba.ssador in 2000?

I would imagine that the Senegalese folks will do whatever it takes to keep their cash cow fat and happy

And how is this different for ROSS, SGU or AUA where you go? :lolup:

Or any school anywhere that has over head and needs to pay bills and expand? I think making money is true everywhere in the world except dirt poor Cuba!

CorporateRaider
11-19-2005, 09:36 AM
The University was accredited in 2003 and SCCOM was accredited in 2000.

Help me here:

When was it accredited? In 2000? Or 2003?

LJG
11-19-2005, 09:40 AM
Help me here:

When was it accredited? In 2000? Or 2003?

The medical school received it's charter in Feb, 2000. The university received it's charter in 2003. The University has a different name than SCCOM much like Cambridge U, Kings College is 86 yrs older than Cambridge Univ.

CorporateRaider
11-19-2005, 09:43 AM
Thank you.

Well, I guess at least on the side of the Sengelease (sp?) they are backing the school so that places that issue to rest.
On the other hand all that is lacking is the go ahead from GMC and this case is over with.




The medical school received it's charter in Feb, 2000. The university received it's charter in 2003. The University has a different name than SCCOM much like Cambridge U, Kings College is 86 yrs older than Cambridge Univ.

azskeptic
11-19-2005, 11:15 AM
I checked the site and it appears the investigation is still going as they haven't changed their details. Please keep us informed when all is resolved and the lawsuit begins against the BBC.

azskeptic
11-19-2005, 11:18 AM
Thank you.

Well, I guess at least on the side of the Sengelease (sp?) they are backing the school so that places that issue to rest.
On the other hand all that is lacking is the go ahead from GMC and this case is over with. and per the article the NHS Fraud Control unit report also I suppose is being awaited.

LJG
11-19-2005, 12:25 PM
I checked the site and it appears the investigation is still going as they haven't changed their details. Please keep us informed when all is resolved and the lawsuit begins against the BBC.

If they do sue the BBC would that have to occur in the UK? because if it occured in Senegal I don't think they (the BBC) would get a fair trial.

OLDPRO
11-19-2005, 12:36 PM
I checked the site and it appears the investigation is still going as they haven't changed their details. Please keep us informed when all is resolved and the lawsuit begins against the BBC. First off this is so short sighted. A meeting with the GMC on Thursday or Friday by these people would not result in an immediate web site change. AZ I have lived here in the UK for a year now and my wife works here and I can tell you Nothing, Nothing moves that fast! This is not the USA and we have to wait for everything the GMC wants will be done. There may be documents they want in their hands before the Web site is changed. Not going to happen till next week per my sources. CHILL

CorporateRaider
11-19-2005, 03:41 PM
SNIPPET............... per my sources. CHILL

What else are your sources saying? Are they gonna sue the BBC?

OLDPRO
11-19-2005, 04:46 PM
What else are your sources saying? Are they gonna sue the BBC?

Don't know it's up to the Senegal Government I would think.:confused:

tanisha
11-19-2005, 11:04 PM
SO there's an answer from no less than the Ambassador from SENEGAL guys and gals! I would think this answers how Senegal thinks of of St. Chris. Hey you don't like it take it to Senegal. :rolleyes:

now whuds, if it looks like st chris will be around will you "coincidentally stick around," or do you plan to "still transfer"? hahahha!!!!!!!!

tanisha
11-19-2005, 11:16 PM
First off this is so short sighted. A meeting with the GMC on Thursday or Friday by these people would not result in an immediate web site change. AZ I have lived here in the UK for a year now and my wife works here and I can tell you Nothing, Nothing moves that fast! This is not the USA and we have to wait for everything the GMC wants will be done. There may be documents they want in their hands before the Web site is changed. Not going to happen till next week per my sources. CHILL

hold up now, i thought you said that you were transferring because your wife had already moved to go and be with a family member suffering from cancer, so how now do you suddenly say she is still working in the UK, my man whuds, keep the story straight, if st. chris looks like it's going to pull thru this investigation, you look like you are gong to pull your transfer story and stay right in Luton. how's that for honesty?!?!?!?!

OLDPRO
11-20-2005, 03:36 AM
hold up now, i thought you said that you were transferring because your wife had already moved to go and be with a family member suffering from cancer, so how now do you suddenly say she is still working in the UK, my man whuds, keep the story straight, if st. chris looks like it's going to pull thru this investigation, you look like you are gong to pull your transfer story and stay right in Luton. how's that for honesty?!?!?!?!

Tanisha do not call me a liar! I withdrew from the College this past week and have plane tickets to the Carrib. My wife will transfer to the US a month after I leave. Why do I have to post my plans to satisfy you? BTW The above is a TOS violation and you have been PM'd.

My Father-in-law has cancer and is at his home in PR at this time, He will go back to his home in the US after my wife has transferred.

I don't understand all this stuff about attacking why?
I'm just a medical student and I still have friends at the college, you ever heard of Email?

Miklos
11-20-2005, 04:30 AM
The government of Senegal is considering legal action against the BBC because they are so upset.
First off, I hope that this does resolve in the favor of SCs students (please note that until the GMC says so, nothing has been resolved.).

However, I don't see legal action against the BBC taking place.

In order to sue, the Senegalese government would need to prove that the BBC harmed Senegal in some way. Based on both the written and audio accounts, I don't think that this will happen, at least not in a British court of law. At best, the government can claim that they made a mistake in the paperwork and didn't have that information during the BBC interview. Not a basis for a suit.

As far as SC suing the BBC, I would bet big bucks against that as well. Why?

1. The legal basis would be very shakey, as seen above (the school had a chance to squash the story, but for whatever reason chose not to).
2. The character issue (http://www.valuemd.com/st-christophers-college-medicine/50757-discussions-about-chairman.html). If the given individual is worried about his reputation being discussed on an internet forum, he may well have significant worries about it being discussed in open court.

jpryor
11-20-2005, 08:24 AM
One need only review the GMC web site to understand the harm done. What none of us know is the detail in what caused this action.

teratos
11-20-2005, 08:27 AM
One need only review the GMC web site to understand the harm done. What none of us know is the detail in what caused this action.

We don't know much, if anything, of what is going on behind the scenes. All of the red tape is being dealt with by the officials in the governement and school. With incomplete information, we can only speculate. G

azskeptic
11-20-2005, 08:30 AM
We don't know much, if anything, of what is going on behind the scenes. All of the red tape is being dealt with by the officials in the governement and school. With incomplete information, we can only speculate. G Indeed we know nothing from the outside from the GMC/NHS FRaud COntrol Unit, WHO, or Senegalese govt and unless the administration is telling students they know nothing either.

CorporateRaider
11-20-2005, 08:32 AM
Ummm..........what does the W.H.O. have to do with this?


Indeed we know nothing from the outside from the GMC/NHS FRaud COntrol Unit, WHO, or Senegalese govt and unless the administration is telling students they know nothing either.

teratos
11-20-2005, 08:33 AM
Ummm..........what does the W.H.O. have to do with this?

Not much....

azskeptic
11-20-2005, 08:35 AM
Ummm..........what does the W.H.O. have to do with this? The allegation that something is wrong with the charter would indicate that the agency being dealt with in addition is WHO. WHO is the one who acknowledges if a charter was notified at a certain time,etc.

CorporateRaider
11-20-2005, 08:43 AM
Would appear to me that for the W.H.O. to do much of anything there would have to (need to) be a request from the Government of Senegal , to withdraw, the listing due to a revocation of the Charter.........right?

For example:

What allegedly took place with St. Luke uNOTversity in Liberia, West Africa.






The allegation that something is wrong with the charter would indicate that the agency being dealt with in addition is WHO. WHO is the one who acknowledges if a charter was notified at a certain time,etc.

OLDPRO
11-20-2005, 08:45 AM
The allegation that something is wrong with the charter would indicate that the agency being dealt with in addition is WHO. WHO is the one who acknowledges if a charter was notified at a certain time,etc. WHO just lists what the country reports so this is just making something out of nothing again. Unless you can prove otherwise. WHO doesn't list medical schools any more this way. IMED is the new list.

We have been through this and through this why keep bringing it up?

teratos
11-20-2005, 08:45 AM
Unless it is shown that the charter was obtained under some false pretenses as alleged. Who knows. Let's wait and see. Speculation isn't a good thing. G

OLDPRO
11-20-2005, 08:49 AM
Ummm..........what does the W.H.O. have to do with this?

It seems that (without any evidence) this is an attempt to show that WHO was not contacted by the SENEGAL government, although the Government of SENEGAL (Via the Ambassador) has just said that they have supported the school since 2000 to a current student. I'm really getting anoyed at the vain attempts to defame the school here.:confused:

teratos
11-20-2005, 08:50 AM
It seems that (without any evidence) this is an attempt to show that WHO was not contacted by the SENEGAL government, although the Government of SENEGAL (Via the Ambassador) has just said that they have supported the school since 2000 to a current student. I'm really getting anoyed at the vain attempts to defame the school here.:confused:

What happens will happen, regardless of what people post. G

OLDPRO
11-20-2005, 08:51 AM
Unless it is shown that the charter was obtained under some false pretenses as alleged. Who knows. Let's wait and see. Speculation isn't a good thing. G

I know I just want it let go cause if the Country wants to it can do what was done to St. Luke, say they never backed the school. So let's wait and see otherwise proof and take it up with Senegal.

Allegations without proof just seem wrong to me? :confused:

azskeptic
11-20-2005, 08:52 AM
It seems that (without any evidence) this is an attempt to show that WHO was not contacted by the SENEGAL government, although the Government of SENEGAL (Via the Ambassador) has just said that they have supported the school since 2000 to a current student. I'm really getting anoyed at the vain attempts to defame the school here.:confused: No, its not that. WHO is the agency that recognizes charters and reports it to IMED. Thus it is logical that WHO is the agency that is being questioned.

CorporateRaider
11-20-2005, 08:53 AM
I don't know how you reached the conclusion below.

I think that the W.H.O. "list - listing" is over-rated and no longer serves a purpose but to discriminate against medical schools.


It seems that (without any evidence) this is an attempt to show that WHO was not contacted by the SENEGAL government, although the Government of SENEGAL (Via the Ambassador) has just said that they have supported the school since 2000 to a current student. I'm really getting anoyed at the vain attempts to defame the school here.:confused:

teratos
11-20-2005, 08:54 AM
Allegations without proof just seem wrong to me? :confused:

Allegations are just that. Suggestions of guilt without proof. G

azskeptic
11-20-2005, 08:59 AM
Every country has a WHO person who is reponsible for monitoring such details. See the system at:

http://www.who.int/hrh (http://www.who.int/hrh)

WHO notified Faimer but indeed Faimer also has notification from the Ministry of Healths also

http://imed.ecfmg.org/

OLDPRO
11-20-2005, 09:03 AM
Every country has a WHO person who is reponsible for monitoring such details. See the system at:

http://www.who.int/hrh (http://www.who.int/hrh)

WHO notified Faimer but indeed Faimer also has notification from the Ministry of Healths also

http://imed.ecfmg.org/
If you know this stuff why bring it up as questions? Senegal had to inform these orgs and claims they did so now. I would then you NEED TO GO TO SENEGAL and take it up them if this is their stance. They seem to be taking the responsability for this school which was and is the question of the day.

azskeptic
11-20-2005, 09:06 AM
If you know this stuff why bring it up as questions? Senegal had to inform these orgs and claims they did so now. I would then you NEED TO GO TO SENEGAL and take it up them if this is their stance. They seem to be taking the responsability for this school which was and is the question of the day. Well, the agency you are dealing with is the GMC who depends on WHO,not IMED. I didn't bring up the question.

CorporateRaider
11-20-2005, 09:13 AM
W.H.U.D.S.:

Why....... do you get agitated -- so, by the comments of Arizona Skeptic?





If you know this stuff why bring it up as questions? Senegal had to inform these orgs and claims they did so now. I would then you NEED TO GO TO SENEGAL and take it up them if this is their stance. They seem to be taking the responsability for this school which was and is the question of the day.

OLDPRO
11-20-2005, 09:15 AM
Indeed we know nothing from the outside from the GMC/NHS FRaud COntrol Unit, WHO, or Senegalese govt and unless the administration is telling students they know nothing either.

Oh I beg to differ YOU brought it up in this post plain as day.:confused:

Miklos
11-20-2005, 09:28 AM
One need only review the GMC web site to understand the harm done. What none of us know is the detail in what caused this action.

Best of luck blaming the BBC for the GMCs actions in a court of law. That argument doesn't hold a drop of water.

Smythe
11-20-2005, 09:38 AM
W.H.U.D.S.:

Why....... do you get agitated -- so, by the comments of Arizona Skeptic?
************

jpryor
11-20-2005, 10:02 AM
Best of luck blaming the BBC for the GMCs actions in a court of law. That argument doesn't hold a drop of water.

Okay then, show me where the GMC decided to spontaneously conduct an investigation and, before conducting any investigation, decided to controvert its prior acceptance of SC graduates.

Miklos
11-20-2005, 10:34 AM
Okay then, show me where the GMC decided to spontaneously conduct an investigation and, before conducting any investigation, decided to controvert its prior acceptance of SC graduates.

The GMC is an independent body. It has no legal relationship with the BBC. The GMC decides for itself whether to launch an investigation or not. It does not need to prove that it spontaneously conducted an investigation. (I could call up the GMC and complain about SC. Whether or not they act is not up to me.)

Furthermore, it decided to: We are currently investigating the affiliations claimed by UK based medical colleges with these universities. We have suspended our acceptance of primary medical qualifications awarded by these universities until further notice.

Again, as the suspension can be lifted at any time if circumstances allow, what harm is done?

The GMC's role (as authorized by parliament) is to protect, promote and maintain the health and safety of the public by ensuring proper standards in the practice of medicine.

So long as the GMC is acting within its powers, based on what it believes to be evidence and doing a proper investigation, neither SC nor Senegal can claim any harm resulted.

Miklos
11-20-2005, 10:37 AM
ICD-10 F60.0

If I wasn't looking to be banned, I'd edit this post, because to me it clearly falls into the "insults" category.

jpryor
11-20-2005, 11:10 AM
The GMC is an independent body. It has no legal relationship with the BBC. The GMC decides for itself whether to launch an investigation or not. It does not need to prove that it spontaneously conducted an investigation. (I could call up the GMC and complain about SC. Whether or not they act is not up to me.)

Furthermore, it decided to: We are currently investigating the affiliations claimed by UK based medical colleges with these universities. We have suspended our acceptance of primary medical qualifications awarded by these universities until further notice.

Again, as the suspension can be lifted at any time if circumstances allow, what harm is done?

The GMC's role (as authorized by parliament) is to protect, promote and maintain the health and safety of the public by ensuring proper standards in the practice of medicine.

So long as the GMC is acting within its powers, based on what it believes to be evidence and doing a proper investigation, neither SC nor Senegal can claim any harm resulted.

Allow me to clarify (and I'm speculating just as much as anybody else offering an opinion)...I sincerely doubt there will be any complaints filed against the GMC (although if they acted purely on the BBC report there should be. Given the temporal relation, it suggests there was heavy reliance on the BBC report, but again, that is pure speculation).

The argument has been postulated that SC was incapable of proving its charter with the Senegalese government and that the BBC attempted to verify the veracity of an alleged copy of some document without success. If that was the sole basis of the BBC report and the subsequent action of the GMC, then I don't see that SC has any complaint, as it should have proper documentation on hand in any office representing the school.

But there appears to be emerging indications that the BBC report was flawed. This is as much speculation as opining on the GMC action, but it appears that SC and the Senegalese government might have recourse againt the BBC (if, in fact, the report is flawed) and any resources the BBC relied on it making its report.

Before anybody accuses me of saying AzSkeptic might be a target of litigation arising out of this, I am not (although anybody can be sued--which doesn't mean anything). In Az's defense, he is entitled to his opinions. He is an informed consumer, at best, and does not hold any credentials or perform in an official capacity in any manner that would render a reasonable person reliant on his opinion. If the BBC did, it is the mistake of the BBC.

Miklos
11-20-2005, 11:28 AM
Allow me to clarify (and I'm speculating just as much as anybody else offering an opinion)...I sincerely doubt there will be any complaints filed against the GMC (although if they acted purely on the BBC report there should be. Given the temporal relation, it suggests there was heavy reliance on the BBC report, but again, that is pure speculation).
One could always file a complaint, but when it comes to government agencies and their charters, they are allowed to err on the side of caution.


The argument has been postulated that SC was incapable of proving its charter with the Senegalese government and that the BBC attempted to verify the veracity of an alleged copy of some document without success. If that was the sole basis of the BBC report and the subsequent action of the GMC, then I don't see that SC has any complaint, as it should have proper documentation on hand in any office representing the school.
From way outside the loop, that's what it looks like to me.


But there appears to be emerging indications that the BBC report was flawed.
SC would like to claim that this is the case, but given that the BBC:
Contacted the Senegalese director of higher education and interviewed him. During the interview he states that he does not know about SC receiving accreditation back in 2000.
Gave the SC administration an opportunity to rebut (and thereby) squash the story during at least one interview and the SC administration did not / could not (?) prove the charter.I'm very critical of the press at times, but it seems to me that the BBC did their homework. IF (and this is a very big IF) what LJG says is correct and the Senegalese ambassador et al. are not throwing a diplomatic smokescreen on the issue (that's their job after all), at best the Senegalese can claim misunderstanding, being misquoted, etc...

If it comes down to the trustworthiness of the BBC vs. either SC or the Senegalese government, it is a no-brainer for me.


This is as much speculation as opining on the GMC action, but it appears that SC and the Senegalese government might have recourse againt the BBC (if, in fact, the report is flawed) and any resources the BBC relied on it making its report.
Doubtful. See above.


Before anybody accuses me of saying AzSkeptic might be a target of litigation arising out of this, I am not (although anybody can be sued--which doesn't mean anything). In Az's defense, he is entitled to his opinions. He is an informed consumer, at best, and does not hold any credentials or perform in an official capacity in any manner that would render a reasonable person reliant on his opinion. If the BBC did, it is the mistake of the BBC.
I don't know what exactly one would sue him for. For arguments sake, even if he did provide the BBC with the complete story, he didn't make the decision to publish it. So, what exactly would SC or anyone else sue him for? Besides if SC were to sue him, he could do discovery on SC. Back to the character issue (http://www.valuemd.com/st-christophers-college-medicine/50757-discussions-about-chairman.html). I'm betting against that.

jpryor
11-20-2005, 11:34 AM
I don't know what exactly one would sue him for. For arguments sake, even if he did provide the BBC with the complete story, he didn't make the decision to publish it. So, what exactly would SC or anyone else sue him for? Besides if SC were to sue him, he could do discovery on SC. Back to the character issue (http://www.valuemd.com/st-christophers-college-medicine/50757-discussions-about-chairman.html). I'm betting against that.

I think it would be ill-advised for anybody to sue Az. He's just a citizen with an opinion.

maximillian genossa
11-20-2005, 11:39 AM
" He is an informed consumer, at best, and does not hold any credentials or perform in an official capacity in any manner that would render a reasonable person reliant on his opinion"

However, the lack of credentials does not necessarily disqualify him as an expert on the subject. A reasonable person will corroborate whatever he posts, not just believe it because he has several thousand postings on this site or is writting a book on the subject, speaks to medical boards or for whatever reasons. Whoever takes at face value his postings and claims and do not verify the stories is making a horrible mistake, not to mention being irresponsible, not him. If the BBC did not, that is their problem.

I believe it was a matter of time until the GMC would investigate St. Chris, et al. I do not believe it was triggered by Az work.







Allow me to clarify (and I'm speculating just as much as anybody else offering an opinion)...I sincerely doubt there will be any complaints filed against the GMC (although if they acted purely on the BBC report there should be. Given the temporal relation, it suggests there was heavy reliance on the BBC report, but again, that is pure speculation).

The argument has been postulated that SC was incapable of proving its charter with the Senegalese government and that the BBC attempted to verify the veracity of an alleged copy of some document without success. If that was the sole basis of the BBC report and the subsequent action of the GMC, then I don't see that SC has any complaint, as it should have proper documentation on hand in any office representing the school.

But there appears to be emerging indications that the BBC report was flawed. This is as much speculation as opining on the GMC action, but it appears that SC and the Senegalese government might have recourse againt the BBC (if, in fact, the report is flawed) and any resources the BBC relied on it making its report.

Before anybody accuses me of saying AzSkeptic might be a target of litigation arising out of this, I am not (although anybody can be sued--which doesn't mean anything). In Az's defense, he is entitled to his opinions. He is an informed consumer, at best, and does not hold any credentials or perform in an official capacity in any manner that would render a reasonable person reliant on his opinion. If the BBC did, it is the mistake of the BBC.

jpryor
11-20-2005, 11:54 AM
Before we are accused of getting off topic let's agree that Az isn't the issue in this thread.

One of the points I brought up earlier was the initial acceptance of SC's documentation. I would HOPE that there was more to it than just presenting some paperwork and voila! you're in.

BTW, anybody interested in pooling resources and buying Xavier?

CorporateRaider
11-20-2005, 12:00 PM
BTW, anybody interested in pooling resources and buying Xavier?

Xavier is for sale?

PM me with more information.

CorporateRaider
11-20-2005, 12:17 PM
Right !! Az should not be the issue; but there could be general issue on the way some people (no one in particular) tries to counter, Az's, arguments.
Az is old (relativly speaking) and wise (very wise).






Before we are accused of getting off topic let's agree that Az isn't the issue in this thread.

jpryor
11-20-2005, 12:26 PM
Right !! Az should not be the issue; but there could be general issue on the way some people (no one in particular) tries to counter, Az's, arguments.
Az is old (relativly speaking) and wise (very wise).

I'm game. Heck,

azskeptic
11-20-2005, 12:27 PM
" He is an informed consumer, at best, and does not hold any credentials or perform in an official capacity in any manner that would render a reasonable person reliant on his opinion"

However, the lack of credentials does not necessarily disqualify him as an expert on the subject. A reasonable person will corroborate whatever he posts, not just believe it because he has several thousand postings on this site or is writting a book on the subject, speaks to medical boards or for whatever reasons. Whoever takes at face value his postings and claims and do not verify the stories is making a horrible mistake, not to mention being irresponsible, not him. If the BBC did not, that is their problem.

I believe it was a matter of time until the GMC would investigate St. Chris, et al. I do not believe it was triggered by Az work. The BBC is a class act. They spoke to literally dozens of people that I know and yet only used a bit. Why would that be? Probably because they decided to focus on items that they could corroborate or prove.

jpryor
11-20-2005, 12:41 PM
The BBC is a class act. They spoke to literally dozens of people that I know and yet only used a bit. Why would that be? Probably because they decided to focus on items that they could corroborate or prove.

Maybe it would be better if we were more precise...it wasn't the BBC that conducted an investigation, was it? I believe it was a report for a popular radio program that is carried by the BBC and if I recall correctly, there is a disclaimer that "the views do not reflect those of the BBC" or verbiage to that effect.

As to it being a class act, I'm sure there are legitimate news sources that would not agree...much as the Washington Post or NY Times view the National Inquirer.

azskeptic
11-20-2005, 12:45 PM
Maybe it would be better if we were more precise...it wasn't the BBC that conducted an investigation, was it? I believe it was a report for a popular radio program that is carried by the BBC and if I recall correctly, there is a disclaimer that "the views do not reflect those of the BBC" or verbiage to that effect.

As to it being a class act, I'm sure there are legitimate news sources that would not agree...much as the Washington Post or NY Times view the National Inquirer. award winning BBC reporters....look at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/

more about the bbc at

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/running/

jpryor
11-20-2005, 12:57 PM
Your first link is apparently to the fivelive current web site and what that means escapes me. As to the link to the BBC...same thing.

To my way of thinking neither the BBC nor the Fivelive program are the issue. Both exist to make money. The reporter is an issue, as well as the research and resources that were the basis of the report. If it was an accurate report, then well done. If it was flawed and people and insitutions were harmed, then let the chips fall where they may. If there were no objections to the material then I'd say the report had more credibility. But there was an immediate opposing of the material and I'm not so biased that I'm not willing to wait and see.

jpryor
11-20-2005, 01:04 PM
Sorry, but I have a Sunday to live. I'll check in later to continue this!

CorporateRaider
11-20-2005, 01:37 PM
Well the BBC is about reporting. I think that the real issue is not so much SC; it's more about "squatter schools" and well (it appears) that SC is the most succsessful of these schools in England (or at least that is my understanding of the situation), so that probably made it a target, besides the issue that allegedly there are other similar "squatter schools" that are claiming to hold some type of affiliation with recognized schools from other countries (but apparently they are not , or the agreement has not been signed).

It just so happens that for sometime (I don't know how long), SC had or has or seems or for some people seems to have an issue on exactly which date it obtained its recognition.

Another item up for bid is: Just because a school has a Charter in "X" country, does that mean the school has the legal right under that charter to open a campus outside of the borders of the Charter country. If the answer is "yes, it does" then what type of oversight does the national regulator of that school offer over the operations of the SCHOOL OF MEDICINE?

So under review we have:

1. Should countries (like the UK) allow "squatter schools"?
2. On what day of which month and In what year was SC legally recognized by Senegal?
3. What type of government oversight does the country of origin offer to the schools it charters outside of Senegal?

It would appear (to me at least) that these are the questions that are being (need to be) or should be addressed.

azskeptic
11-20-2005, 04:49 PM
Your first link is apparently to the fivelive current web site and what that means escapes me. As to the link to the BBC...same thing.

To my way of thinking neither the BBC nor the Fivelive program are the issue. Both exist to make money. The reporter is an issue, as well as the research and resources that were the basis of the report. If it was an accurate report, then well done. If it was flawed and people and insitutions were harmed, then let the chips fall where they may. If there were no objections to the material then I'd say the report had more credibility. But there was an immediate opposing of the material and I'm not so biased that I'm not willing to wait and see. my response was to the party who acted like the show was a visitor or something. The show is run by BBC employees and it is part of the scheduled reports of the BBC.

bts4202
11-20-2005, 10:12 PM
I love how people all the sudden think they are lawyers on this website. It is hysterical.

But regardless, I would personally like to thank Dean. You have made it extremely easy for st chris to solidify itself in the UK. By forcing the GMC to take a long hard look at st chris you essentially force them to give us validation. Plus, by forwarding this info to every state medical board and the FSMB and canadian board, you have also given us the opportunity to use the review to show every state that all of our school is legitimate and up to the UK's scrutiny. The FSMB will likely be watching to see what the UK concludes. If they ban us or something like that, then it would be terrible. But So far, the way things are looking, you may have ended up helping us more than hurting us.. thanks man!!

neilc
11-20-2005, 10:39 PM
well, bts, hopefully this all gets involved in favor of st chris. but, i really fail to see how this can be seen as helpful. assuming the GMC says you are good to go, won't that simply mean that the charter is in place? i am under the impression that they are simply verifying that you guys are a legit degree granting institution. so, that will show what exactly? and, the other issue is certainly the negative publicity. st chris appeared to be unorganized and evasive in the interviews. and, there is still no outside approval from any entity. so, it looks like st chris will simply be back where they started from, at best. i fail to see where there is any gain in this for st chris.

btw, do you know anything about the NY approval? why is that taking so long.

microphage
11-20-2005, 10:42 PM
well, if the GMC finds in favor of SC... that means SC will be where they were at BEFORE all this started. Its just that someone did the investigation this time rather than just taking someones word for it.

(again, this is all opinions just like every other user in this place... what do we know... we're just med students:wink:).

bts4202
11-20-2005, 10:50 PM
Well, AZ said that the GMC is doing an investigation as in depth as the NY approval process would be. Others have said "it will take a lot more than just paperwork". So, with that being the case, an approval will be seen by many as equivalent to NY approval. Its nice to see such a brisk response form st chris and from the senegal govt. I wish I was still in Luton to see some of it... maybe get to meet some of the higher ups in senegalese govt..lol. Yes, I know, its just senegal, but I think it would be cool.

microphage
11-20-2005, 10:54 PM
Well, AZ said that the GMC is doing an investigation as in depth as the NY approval process would be. Others have said "it will take a lot more than just paperwork". So, with that being the case, an approval will be seen by many as equivalent to NY approval. Its nice to see such a brisk response form st chris and from the senegal govt. I wish I was still in Luton to see some of it... maybe get to meet some of the higher ups in senegalese govt..lol. Yes, I know, its just senegal, but I think it would be cool.

yeah but the end outcome is... you won't be on the pooh pooh list anymore. Which is where SC was before all this started.

Again, not important really...

bts4202
11-20-2005, 10:57 PM
yeah but the end outcome is... you won't be on the pooh pooh list anymore. Which is where SC was before all this started.

Again, not important really...

Thats precisely the name of the game.. get off the poo poo list. The "big 3" aren't well respected schools or anything, they are just off of most places poo poo list (except Texas).

neilc
11-20-2005, 11:03 PM
Thats precisely the name of the game.. get off the poo poo list. The "big 3" aren't well respected schools or anything, they are just off of most places poo poo list (except Texas).

again, i am not sure who's poo poo list you will be off of, other than the GMC. and, i am pretty sure this won't be seen as equivilent to NY approval by anyone, especially since st chris has applied for and not recieved NY approval.

and, while the big 3 may not be respected in the same terms as say harvard, they certainly have been around long enough so that people that matter are familiar with the product, and can have some faith in the grads. that goes a long, long way. (in fact, the PD at my current top choice is an SGU grad. and this is a well respected, university program. somebody respects these grads, they hold strong positions)

azskeptic
11-21-2005, 02:03 AM
Well, AZ said that the GMC is doing an investigation as in depth as the NY approval process would be. Others have said "it will take a lot more than just paperwork". So, with that being the case, an approval will be seen by many as equivalent to NY approval. Its nice to see such a brisk response form st chris and from the senegal govt. I wish I was still in Luton to see some of it... maybe get to meet some of the higher ups in senegalese govt..lol. Yes, I know, its just senegal, but I think it would be cool. Only on issues of charter. Obviously the GMC is not NY,etc. but at least your legal situation will be clarified and that is good for SC students,one way or another. Of course I could be wrong..has GMC sent into an evaluation team like NY did earlier in the year?

OLDPRO
11-21-2005, 03:30 AM
again, i am not sure who's poo poo list you will be off of, other than the GMC. and, i am pretty sure this won't be seen as equivilent to NY approval by anyone, especially since st chris has applied for and not recieved NY approval.

and, while the big 3 may not be respected in the same terms as say harvard, they certainly have been around long enough so that people that matter are familiar with the product, and can have some faith in the grads. that goes a long, long way. (in fact, the PD at my current top choice is an SGU grad. and this is a well respected, university program. somebody respects these grads, they hold strong positions)
Wow I just lost my lunch over this! The big three are not the same as the US schools. The US med schools have a 98% entrance to graduation rate. The Big three cannot claim this. The big three accept students who would never, never get in in the US. So the standards are different. How can you say so different from other offshore schools? I think for the most part Just older and have had more time and money ;)

Miklos
11-21-2005, 03:42 AM
Wow I just lost my lunch over this! The big three are not the same as the US schools. The US med schools have a 98% entrance to graduation rate. The Big three cannot claim this. The big three accept students who would never, never get in in the US. So the standards are different how can you say they are so different? I think for the most part Just older and have had more time and money ;)

No one claims that the Big 3 are US schools.

However, I take issue with the underlined bit.

Many of the students going to the Big 3 could make it into US schools, if there were more spots (especially those from states like California, where admissions are insanely impacted). See the outgoing AAMC president's remarks about expanding LCME spots that az posted in the lounge.

OLDPRO
11-21-2005, 04:29 AM
No one claims that the Big 3 are US schools.

However, I take issue with the underlined bit.

Many of the students going to the Big 3 could make it into US schools, if there were more spots (especially those from states like California, where admissions are insanely impacted). See the outgoing AAMC president's remarks about expanding LCME spots that az posted in the lounge.

Okay what about students without a ** degree, Without Orgo Chem? I know several at ROSS who did not have these completed and ROSS accepted them and they are taking these classes there. No med school accepts students without these. How about students without MCATS? No US college would without these. The big three will I don't care whats on the web sites, they do and have. I think this proves theres a difference.

Don't use advanced acceptance in the USA either, thats for exceptional students. If these same students were exceptional then they would not be in the Carrib.

OLDPRO
11-21-2005, 04:40 AM
The last post being said, I like the Offshore schools and think they are needed.
I hate the US schools and despise the way it has been twisted into this needless endless application process. Students who get into the US schools are better students as to studying. I think the students who go to the offshore schools are not as prepared to study, Medical school (as I have found out) is constant study, you are 2 weeks behind as soon as the first day of class. Without the Carrib schools I would not get a chance of med school myself! ;)

Miklos
11-21-2005, 04:46 AM
Okay what about students without a ** degree, Without Orgo Chem? I know several at ROSS who did not have these completed and ROSS accepted them and they are taking these classes there. No med school accepts students without these. How about students without MCATS? No US college would without these. The big three will I don't care whats on the web sites, they do and have. I think this proves theres a difference.
No doubt there are students like that. However, a friend of mine who recently applied to all three (non-traditional with a master's in an unrelated field, though science) was specifically told that he would need to complete o-chem and the MCAT.


Don't use advanced acceptance in the USA either, thats for exceptional students. If these same students were exceptional then they would not be in the Carrib.
My point is simply the following. Although the total number of applicants for AAMC schools has gone down significantly over the last 10 years (http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2004/2004summary.htm), the differences between being accepted and not are pretty slim. Where do a lot of the solid applicants end up? At the Big 3.

See the speech by the outgoing AAMC president (http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/pressrel/2005/051106.htm):



Challenge number 5 is to enlarge the capacity of LCME-accredited medical schools.
As Yogi Berra is famously credited with saying, 'prediction is a risky business, especially about the future.' Nowhere is that adage more apt than in trying to predict our country's future need for physicians.
As I'm sure you all remember, the AAMC, along with most other national organizations, announced with great fanfare less than a decade ago that the U.S. was heading for a huge surplus of physicians.

The assumptions underlying that prediction seemed altogether reasonable at the time-namely, that closed panel HMOs would soon become the dominant mode of healthcare delivery. Since that model uses far fewer physicians than the open-ended, fee-for-service model, we and many others surmised that the U.S. would soon be awash in an abundance of doctors. How quickly things change!

The consensus now is that present trends will soon culminate in a significant shortage of physicians. Workforce gurus now point to the fact that our population is increasing substantially, is growing older, and is using more healthcare services. In the meantime, the overall supply of physicians is barely increasing at all.

Moreover, physicians as a group are growing older even faster than the U.S. population, while younger physicians are choosing to work shorter hours. Convinced that these trends are unstoppable, the AAMC this past February called for an expansion of medical school and GME capacity by some 15 percent over the next 10 years.

Will this be enough? Is 15 percent the right number? Who knows? What we do know is that a 15 percent increase in our graduates will add only about 2500 new MDs to the workforce each year, and only after many years in the pipeline, at that.

Close monitoring of the physician supply and demand will be essential to recalibrate our target, if needed. Should current trends continue, even more doctors may be called for. Alternatively, should the healthcare delivery system be refashioned along more rational lines, fewer may be needed.


Fortunately, the AAMC's new Center for Workforce Studies, which is already making significant contributions to our understanding of this complex issue, is positioned to play a key role in helping us keep tabs on future trends.

But there is much more at stake for us in this arena than just getting the overall number right. We need, as a community, to have a serious discussion about the nature of the educational pipeline that produces our nation's doctors.

Let me ask you a question:
What fraction of the physicians emerging from ACGME-accredited training programs and joining the practitioner workforce each year do you think are graduates of LCME-accredited medical schools?
The answer may surprise you. It certainly surprised me. The answer is 64 percent-less than two thirds.

As **** ***** noted a few moments ago, of the some 24,000 individuals who funnel through the GME pathway toward independent practice each year, more than one third-over 8,500 individuals-have received their undergraduate medical education from somewhere other than an LCME-accredited school.

To be specific, about 2,700 are graduates of osteopathic medical schools, some 1,300 are U.S. citizen graduates of foreign medical schools, largely in the Caribbean, and well over 4,500 are non-U.S. citizens who attended a wide variety of schools abroad.

As you may know, all the other suppliers of U.S. physicians-the osteopathic schools, the for-profit offshore schools, and many other foreign schools-also see a U.S. doctor shortage on the horizon, and they are rapidly expanding their capacity even as we speak. Five new osteopathic schools have opened in the past 10 years and several more are on the drawing board.

Even more arresting, no fewer than 15 off-shore schools have opened their doors over the same 10-year period and those already in existence are increasing their capacity dramatically. India, and perhaps other foreign countries, see a lucrative export market for physicians and are cranking up their already sizable medical education apparatus.

Hence, if current projections prove accurate-that our health care system will demand and be able to assimilate many more doctors over the next few decades-we could be facing an unwelcomed reality. When considered against the far more dramatic expansion occurring in the non-LCME world, our modest expansion plans could result in our corner of the medical profession becoming a minority presence.


Is this a cause for concern? I certainly think it is. To think otherwise would imply that ACGME training provides graduates of non-LCME schools with all the benefits our students obtain as undergraduates-that by the time residents finish their training, any differences that existed on entry to GME are no longer evident. I just don't believe that.

I think our model of undergraduate medical education offers the public something of special value-that it equips our students with a set of critically important, foundational capabilities and attitudes that the current format of GME does not and cannot provide.

Even if you think otherwise, consider the ethical questions raised by our reliance on foreign schools to educate so many of our country's doctors. Can we, in good conscience, continue to recruit so many highly educated professionals from developing countries who clearly need them much more than we do? A recent United Nations report captured this issue in its headline: 'Health care brain drain threatens to overwhelm developing world.'

Last week's New England Journal of Medicine echoed that threat and documented its magnitude.
And there is yet another ethical question raised by our current reliance on foreign schools. What is our obligation to qualified American citizens who aspire to become doctors? Rather than consign so many of them to schools in the Caribbean, don't we have a civic responsibility to open our doors to more students who can meet our standards?

Given the need to ensure that the preponderance of tomorrow's doctors are educated in LCME-accredited medical schools, and the need to face up to the ethical implications of a global medical brain drain, I've come to the conclusion that we should begin thinking seriously about expanding our capacity, not by 15 percent, but by something more like 30 percent, or 5,000 additional MDs each year.
Considering the large gap between the number of students we now graduate each year and the much larger number of GME slots that exist, an expansion of this magnitude would still leave room for over 1,000 graduates of foreign schools each year, even if an expanded physician workforce turned out to be unneeded and GME capacity were not increased at all--which seems highly unlikely.

Increasing U.S. medical school capacity by 5,000 students per class is a tall order, to be sure, but not impossible. Consider this scenario: an average increase of 30 students per class for each of our current 125 schools would get us three-quarters of the way to this goal.

Just eight new schools with an average class size of 150 would take us the rest of the way. Our analysis shows that there are plenty of qualified applicants already available. Using MCAT scores as a rough indicator, we could accept 30 percent more students from the current pool and still have an entering class with an average total MCAT score above 26.


Many of those students at the Big 3 (and elsewhere) are good enough to get into LCME schools if there were additional spots.

OLDPRO
11-21-2005, 05:03 AM
MIKLOS you can post away what I posted still stands and is true. Most US MD degree schools you need an MCAT of 30 to be competative so 26 is low.

Most will never get in a US school with a 26 and you have posted this yourself.

Miklos
11-21-2005, 06:46 AM
MIKLOS you can post away what I posted still stands and is true. Most US MD degree schools you need an MCAT of 30 to be competative so 26 is low.

Most will never get in a US school with a 26 and you have posted this yourself.

Why have I rattled you so much? must not like the truth?

Umm, no. I've got my MD, so I'm not too worried about that.

What bothers me is that you use absolutes ("never") and don't seem to understand the market aspects of medical education, especially as they concern USIMGs.

I'm not sure that I can make my point any better than quoting the president of the AAMC, as I did in the post above, but I'll try again.

1) The US allopathic medical establishment (AAMC, AMA, etc..) is finally coming to terms with the fact that it looks as if (again, not 100%) there will be a physician shortage. This looks to be the combination of many factors, including a graying population, retiring physicians, more female physicians (who tend to work less) and poor forecasting on the part of the medical establishment, who were crying about a physician surplus for a long time and thereby limiting the number of LCME graduates to about 16,000 per year. (http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2004/factsgrads1.htm)

2) As the speaker points out above, there is a move afoot to increase the current cap of about 100,000 U.S. government funded residency positions per year.

3) In response to the AAMC decisions to limit the number of graduates, a number of things have taken place, as the speaker point out again:

...of the some 24,000 individuals who funnel through the GME pathway toward independent practice each year, more than one third-over 8,500 individuals-have received their undergraduate medical education from somewhere other than an LCME-accredited school.

To be specific, about 2,700 are graduates of osteopathic medical schools, some 1,300 are U.S. citizen graduates of foreign medical schools, largely in the Caribbean, and well over 4,500 are non-U.S. citizens who attended a wide variety of schools abroad.

As you may know, all the other suppliers of U.S. physicians-the osteopathic schools, the for-profit offshore schools, and many other foreign schools-also see a U.S. doctor shortage on the horizon, and they are rapidly expanding their capacity even as we speak. Five new osteopathic schools have opened in the past 10 years and several more are on the drawing board.

What does this mean in real terms? It means that many (not all) of the allopathic rejects are going elsewhere, be it:

Osteopathic
Foreign In his remarks, he says that about 1,300 USIMGs get a residency each year (I don't have the data to back his statement up, but I figure as he is the president of the AAMC, he probably knows). He goes further and says that most of these are from the Carib. Knowing what we know about Carib. education on this board and from the few numbers that the ECFMG publicly releases, we know that the overwhelming majority of USIMGs that successfully get a residency come from the Big 3.

He goes on to advocate that the AAMC put a dent in the osteopathic schools and though he doesn't spell it out, put the cramp on the Big 3 et al. by expanding the number of spots at LCME schools. His data says that if they dropped the standard to a 26 on the MCAT, they could increase enrollment by 30%, that is to almost 21,000 graduates a year.

He calls these applicants "qualified" and is fighting for their marketshare.

Why is it inconceivable to you that many of these "qualified" applicants end up at the Big 3?

jpryor
11-21-2005, 07:22 AM
Most will never get in a US school with a 26 and you have posted this yourself.

I think Az posted a list of the average MCAT and GPA's for the US medical schools. An interesting read.

neilc
11-21-2005, 10:18 AM
Wow I just lost my lunch over this! The big three are not the same as the US schools. The US med schools have a 98% entrance to graduation rate. The Big three cannot claim this. The big three accept students who would never, never get in in the US. So the standards are different. How can you say so different from other offshore schools? I think for the most part Just older and have had more time and money ;)

where on earth did you get that i said offshore schools were the same as US schools? perhaps you should read my message again....i agreed that they were not as respected as the US schools, but that the grads have done very well over time, hold high positions, and they ARE respected throughout the US.

also, while i would agree that there are certainly SOME students in the big 3 that could never get into a US school, i would say they are in the minority. as the info and data from miklos points out, there are a lot of students that were just on the cusp, but missed on US schools. the VAST majority of those students end up at the more established carib schools, ireland or australia. the rest of us go elsewhere.

OLDPRO
11-21-2005, 10:53 AM
Umm, no. I've got my MD, so I'm not too worried about that.

What bothers me is that you use absolutes ("never") and don't seem to understand the market aspects of medical education, especially as they concern USIMGs.

I'm not sure that I can make my point any better than quoting the president of the AAMC, as I did in the post above, but I'll try again.

1) The US allopathic medical establishment (AAMC, AMA, etc..) is finally coming to terms with the fact that it looks as if (again, not 100%) there will be a physician shortage. This looks to be the combination of many factors, including a graying population, retiring physicians, more female physicians (who tend to work less) and poor forecasting on the part of the medical establishment, who were crying about a physician surplus for a long time and thereby limiting the number of LCME graduates to about 16,000 per year. (http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2004/factsgrads1.htm)

2) As the speaker points out above, there is a move afoot to increase the current cap of about 100,000 U.S. government funded residency positions per year.

3) In response to the AAMC decisions to limit the number of graduates, a number of things have taken place, as the speaker point out again:

...of the some 24,000 individuals who funnel through the GME pathway toward independent practice each year, more than one third-over 8,500 individuals-have received their undergraduate medical education from somewhere other than an LCME-accredited school.

To be specific, about 2,700 are graduates of osteopathic medical schools, some 1,300 are U.S. citizen graduates of foreign medical schools, largely in the Caribbean, and well over 4,500 are non-U.S. citizens who attended a wide variety of schools abroad.

As you may know, all the other suppliers of U.S. physicians-the osteopathic schools, the for-profit offshore schools, and many other foreign schools-also see a U.S. doctor shortage on the horizon, and they are rapidly expanding their capacity even as we speak. Five new osteopathic schools have opened in the past 10 years and several more are on the drawing board.

What does this mean in real terms? It means that many (not all) of the allopathic rejects are going elsewhere, be it:
Osteopathic
ForeignIn his remarks, he says that about 1,300 USIMGs get a residency each year (I don't have the data to back his statement up, but I figure as he is the president of the AAMC, he probably knows). He goes further and says that most of these are from the Carib. Knowing what we know about Carib. education on this board and from the few numbers that the ECFMG publicly releases, we know that the overwhelming majority of USIMGs that successfully get a residency come from the Big 3.

He goes on to advocate that the AAMC put a dent in the osteopathic schools and though he doesn't spell it out, put the cramp on the Big 3 et al. by expanding the number of spots at LCME schools. His data says that if they dropped the standard to a 26 on the MCAT, they could increase enrollment by 30%, that is to almost 21,000 graduates a year.

He calls these applicants "qualified" and is fighting for their marketshare.

Why is it inconceivable to you that many of these "qualified" applicants end up at the Big 3?
Look I did not use absolutes I said; most and some , in what I posted. Bottom line is the Big three currently are not the same as the US allopathic schools. Yes some people get in with low MCATS It's possible in allopathic as well as DO but MOST do not. So second or third choice is one of the Big three for many, some it may be thier 1st choice and I think thats fine, the other schools are second or last choice down the line to become a physician.

I said it before you posted this that I do not like the system in the US for admissions into med school I think it's crazy. But for people to get upset because I do not think the big three is the same I'm sorry it is my opinion, It may change one day but currently I see in some cases little difference in the schools between each other since the professors seem to go from school to school. How is Dr. X that was at Ross and now at SGU now better or worse than they were before? What if Dr. X taught at St. Chris and went to St. Matts? is he the Best professor ever at St. Matts but wasn't at St. Chris? ( this has happened by the way).

What seems to make a school better is time and money. You know gotta tell you a lot of people are telling me I should go to SABA because it's been there a long time, but I feel the only thing they have compared to others is that they have been around a long time. ;)

TAFKA
11-26-2005, 12:19 PM
edited to remove text

teratos
11-26-2005, 12:22 PM
and they'd also do well on the USMLE if getting questions wrong was the way to get a good score!!!
Now there is a statement that puts someone in their place. :rolleyes:

bts4202
11-26-2005, 03:59 PM
Many of those students at the Big 3 (and elsewhere) are good enough to get into LCME schools if there were additional spots.

hahaha, yeah ok. Thats what everyone says. :lolup:

teratos
11-26-2005, 04:30 PM
hahaha, yeah ok. Thats what everyone says. :lolup:
Actually, if you look at some of the stats, a lot could. Of course, the norm is people that aren't that close.

bts4202
11-26-2005, 07:05 PM
Actually, if you look at some of the stats, a lot could. Of course, the norm is people that aren't that close.

Oh yeah? Can you please show me some stats from a source other than a schools admin?

azskeptic
11-26-2005, 07:08 PM
Actually, if you look at some of the stats, a lot could. Of course, the norm is people that aren't that close. actually some of the students I've talked with actually didn't even check with US schools...they just went straight to offshore figuring it was too competitive..while their roommates with the same grads went US...go figure

teratos
11-26-2005, 07:11 PM
Oh yeah? Can you please show me some stats from a source other than a schools admin?

I'll take the word of my friends who told me what their stats were. Whether you believe me or not is of little concern. G

bts4202
11-26-2005, 07:13 PM
actually some of the students I've talked with actually didn't even check with US schools...they just went straight to offshore figuring it was too competitive..while their roommates with the same grads went US...go figure

not exactley valid data, but thanks for the anecdote.


I'll take the word of my friends who told me what their stats were. Whether you believe me or not is of little concern. G

cool, i like the new approach of throwing out anecdotes and pawning them off as stats. I wish I could do that in my current research.. man, life would be easy.

azskeptic
11-26-2005, 07:42 PM
not exactley valid data, but thanks for the anecdote.



cool, i like the new approach of throwing out anecdotes and pawning them off as stats. I wish I could do that in my current research.. man, life would be easy. I've posted the average stats for schools. There are folks claiming on the forums gpas and mcats that would have made it but obviously not scientific.......glad to see you are into evidence based research these days.

teratos
11-26-2005, 07:44 PM
cool, i like the new approach of throwing out anecdotes and pawning them off as stats. I wish I could do that in my current research.. man, life would be easy.
Since all of your posts are accurate and scientifically proven?? Just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't mean you need to go on the attack. G

bts4202
11-26-2005, 09:03 PM
Since all of your posts are accurate and scientifically proven?? Just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't mean you need to go on the attack. G

I certainly state my opinion as such and do not label it as a statistic. BTW, I am not attacking, I asked for confirmation of your "statistics" and you made some offhand remark about how my opinion doesn't matter. I think you are more defensive than I am attacking. If your opinion is only based on a few anecdotal tidbits you have collected over the years, it is OK to say that.

microphage
11-27-2005, 01:51 AM
now now.... This ain't an arguement till rrod arrives...

neilc
11-27-2005, 10:16 AM
well, bts, while i am pretty sure that there are no stats kept outside of the school administration, i am also confident that most of us can figure out the basic story.

i am sure you would agree that there is not some magical drop off in pre-med student quality at the exact same number of US medical school seats. therefore, it stands to reason that there are likely quite a few folks that are right on the bubble. further, i think we can logically assume that even more folks are just a bit below this "bubble", yet are still very qualified students. and, IF there were more spots in the US, these bubble students and the ones with slightly lower stats would prob get into US schools. no big shocker there, right?

now, the next question is where do these students go? well, i would imagine that a few do some post-bac work, quite a give up on medicine, and quite a few go osteo or to the carib/international. as for where in the world they go, who really knows? i do know that the quality of students from AUC, Ross, SGU and Ireland appear to me to be much, much higher than the average student at my school, and the stats appear to be about the same as osteo schools. additionally, they appear to have better qualifications than the average student at pretty much all the other offshore schools i have dealt with.

a couple of points: first, is this anecdotal? yes. and it always will be, most likely. that does not mean that it isn't fact. i would be interested in your thoughts as to where these qualified folks do go, or why you think that they are not out there. second, what does it mean? well, it means a little bit. in terms of this argument, it means that IF the US merely opened a few more seats, they would likely have qualified folks to fill them, folks that are doing something else or studying abroad right now. also, i would venture to say that ON AVERAGE the schools with more of these people would do better on the USMLE (see MCAT/USMLE correlations). but, it also doesn't mean some important things....just having these students doesn't make a school better on an individual level. that requires good infrastructure, instruction and value of degree post-grad. also, it doesn't mean that the lower level students (and there are a lot of us out there) cannot do well offshore. in fact, i think there are a lot of us that were not even close to the US standards, and many of us are doing very well.

i guess what i am saying is that even though teratos may not have hard data, it is pretty clear that his take on the situation is almost universally accepted, and prob pretty accurate.

azskeptic
11-27-2005, 10:23 AM
back on topic, what are you hearing from the Senegal delegation as to their progress?

teratos
11-27-2005, 10:25 AM
I certainly state my opinion as such and do not label it as a statistic. BTW, I am not attacking, I asked for confirmation of your "statistics" and you made some offhand remark about how my opinion doesn't matter. I think you are more defensive than I am attacking. If your opinion is only based on a few anecdotal tidbits you have collected over the years, it is OK to say that.

Never gave you statistics, gave you 'anecdotes". I know the stats of quire a few of the people I went to school with. Many are quite good. Some, like mine, weren't so hot. Quite a few people could have gotten into a US school if they kept trying, at least based on the stats published by US schools. Since this information isn't available to us in a scientific format, maybe we shouldn't discuss it at all. I guess you look just as stupid laughing at it as we do telling you it is probably true. Is it any less wrong saying it ISN'T true if you can't support your hypothesis?

bts4202
11-27-2005, 11:01 AM
Never gave you statistics, gave you 'anecdotes". I know the stats of quire a few of the people I went to school with. Many are quite good. Some, like mine, weren't so hot. Quite a few people could have gotten into a US school if they kept trying, at least based on the stats published by US schools. Since this information isn't available to us in a scientific format, maybe we shouldn't discuss it at all. I guess you look just as stupid laughing at it as we do telling you it is probably true. Is it any less wrong saying it ISN'T true if you can't support your hypothesis?

Well, I did not claim your opinion was wrong, I asked for some data to back it up. Rather than say anything of value, you merely dismissed me as unimportant.

I also laughed at the notion of "most of the big 3 students could get into US schools if there were enough spots". Everyone says they could have gotten into a US school for this reason or that reason, and if there were enough spots then even I could have gotten into a US school.

I have heard it all and a lot of times it is **. I know some people who have stellar scores but suck at interviewing and thus, could not get into a US school. I know people with average scores and great personalities who got into US schools with no problems. Everyone has an excuse of why they went offshore, but the most reliable and realistic rule to follow is, if they are american and are not in a US school.. there is a reason for it.

AUCMD2006
11-27-2005, 07:06 PM
"I asked for confirmation of your "statistics" and you made some offhand remark about how my opinion doesn't matter'

it is quite odd for someone who beleives whatever administration throws at them as gospel yet not interpret the same source from other schools as valid. maybe we should hire doctors who aren't doctors and people with half million dollar judgements against them to bolster our school's credibility eh? would you beleive the stats from auc then?

desai29
11-27-2005, 07:36 PM
any final word from GMC yet?

bts4202
11-27-2005, 07:43 PM
any final word from GMC yet?

http://www.valuemd.com/st-christophers-college-medicine/52289-gmc-change-status-st-chris-24.html#post315651

there has been no change in the past 6 hours on a sunday.. no

microphage
11-27-2005, 10:32 PM
http://www.valuemd.com/st-christophers-college-medicine/52289-gmc-change-status-st-chris-24.html#post315651

there has been no change in the past 6 hours on a sunday.. no

you'd start to think things in UK ran on Caribbean time...

teratos
11-28-2005, 04:24 AM
Well, I did not claim your opinion was wrong, I asked for some data to back it up. Rather than say anything of value, you merely dismissed me as unimportant.



Hope I didn't hurt your feelings. I thought it was clear that the cases I mentioned were anecdotal. G

CorporateRaider
11-28-2005, 08:47 AM
I got a pm from a senior member of Valuemd that says that the investigation is going to go on for awhile and that all of the "faithful" kiddies of the school, speak because they are naive.

No, I don't have scientific data, it was a PM for crying out loud.

:cool:

bts4202
11-28-2005, 04:16 PM
I got a pm from a senior member of Valuemd that says that the investigation is going to go on for awhile and that all of the "faithful" kiddies of the school, speak because they are naive.

No, I don't have scientific data, it was a PM for crying out loud.

:cool:

I don't think I can mention some of the emails I have gotten with "inside info" on certain people and events..lol. While some of them are certainly funny, I doubt most of them are accurate.

teratos
11-28-2005, 05:14 PM
I don't think I can mention some of the emails I have gotten with "inside info" on certain people and events..lol. While some of them are certainly funny, I doubt most of them are accurate.

I would doubt it as well. Probably not much "inside info" available. G

CorporateRaider
11-28-2005, 08:41 PM
SNIPPET........I doubt most of them are accurate.

True.

Well, we will see how quick this is cleared and moving along.

Miklos
11-29-2005, 11:18 AM
If you haven't already voted, the poll on the GMC outcome (http://www.valuemd.com/relaxing-lounge/56225-vote-outcome-gmc-investigation-sc.html) in the Lounge is still open until tomorrow.

DrShikima
11-29-2005, 12:39 PM
If you haven't already voted, the poll on the GMC outcome (http://www.valuemd.com/relaxing-lounge/56225-vote-outcome-gmc-investigation-sc.html) in the Lounge is still open until tomorrow.

Tick Tock!







Copyright © 2003-2020 ValueMD, LLC. All rights reserved.