Starting a new med school?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Shredder

User
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,904
Reaction score
4
I don't like the selection criteria med schools use. I think they're silly and that I could turn out superior docs if I started my own school. Can this be seen as a business opportunity? A new med school to compete with the very best of the current ones while making a profit and churning out amazing docs? I couldn't do it for many years, but it's something I am pondering. Thoughts?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Well how about "coaxing" open a few more choice residency slots by letting applicants "pay" for training?

What's another $200k in debt anyway?
 
Shredder said:
I don't like the selection criteria med schools use. I think they're silly and that I could turn out superior docs if I started my own school. Can this be seen as a business opportunity? A new med school to compete with the very best of the current ones while making a profit and churning out amazing docs? I couldn't do it for many years, but it's something I am pondering. Thoughts?
sorry, pal, but its just not realistic. i mean, sure, osteopathic schools pop up like starbucks franchises, but your criteria of "A new med school to compete with the very best of the current ones" is the deal-breaker.

the initial cost to enter the sector of medical education (with the intent of competing with the big boys, rather than the osteopathic strategy) is staggering. its not like a law school where you just need a library, a classroom, and some attorneys willing to teach part-time. also, law schools can increase their class size (and therefore, revenue) with far less of a detriment to the actual education being provided. (ever wonder why there are almost 3 laws schools for every med school in the US?) to open up a big-time med school, you need state-of-the-art facilities, a library, TONS of full-time faculty to provide research/mentoring opportunities comprable to "the very best of current schools" (and you'd need BIG NAMES in science, again, to compete with the best schools--and the big names won't defect to your upstart school cheaply...), labs (for research and student courses in anatomy/histo/etc), clinical skills facilities, and the quiant little matter of finding a hospital to co-op with (unless you want to build a university hospital, which would be financially insane, but necessary to compete with the big boys).

overall, we're talking an entry cost of well into the hundreds of millions (if not beyond, what with a hospital and all). i just don't see it happening, man.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
superdevil said:
sorry, pal, but its just not realistic. i mean, sure, osteopathic schools pop up like starbucks franchises, but your criteria of "A new med school to compete with the very best of the current ones" is the deal-breaker.

the initial cost to enter the sector of medical education (with the intent of competing with the big boys, rather than the osteopathic strategy) is staggering. its not like a law school where you just need a library, a classroom, and some attorneys willing to teach part-time. also, law schools can increase their class size (and therefore, revenue) with far less of a detriment to the actual education being provided. (ever wonder why there are almost 3 laws schools for every med school in the US?) to open up a big-time med school, you need state-of-the-art facilities, a library, TONS of full-time faculty to provide research/mentoring opportunities comprable to "the very best of current schools" (and you'd need BIG NAMES in science, again, to compete with the best schools--and the big names won't defect to your upstart school cheaply...), labs (for research and student courses in anatomy/histo/etc), clinical skills facilities, and the quiant little matter of finding a hospital to co-op with (unless you want to build a university hospital, which would be financially insane, but necessary to compete with the big boys).

overall, we're talking an entry cost of well into the hundreds of millions (if not beyond, what with a hospital and all). i just don't see it happening, man.

Not only that, but there's still the little matter of getting "accredited" once you do all of the things Superdevil has listed. Try breaking into this monopoly...
 
this article i read was thought provoking and sparked my new school hopes
Every year about this time, high school students get letters of admission -- or rejection -- from colleges around the country. The saddest part of this process is not their rejections but the assumption by some students that they were rejected because they just didn't measure up to the high standards of Ivy U. or their flagship state university.

The cold fact is that objective admissions standards are seldom decisive at most colleges. The admissions process is so shot through with fads and unsubstantiated assumptions that it is more like voodoo than anything else.

A student who did not get admitted to Ivy U. may be a better student than some -- or even most -- of those who did. Admissions officials love to believe that they can spot all sorts of intangibles that outweigh test scores and grade-point averages.

Such notions are hardly surprising in people who pay no price for being wrong. All sorts of self-indulgences are possible when people are unaccountable, whether they be college admissions officials, parole boards, planning commissions or copy-editors.

What is amazing is that nobody puts the notions and fetishes of college admissions offices to a test. Nothing would be easier than to admit half of a college's entering class on the basis of objective standards, such as test scores, and the other half according to the voodoo of the admissions office. Then, four years later, you could compare how the two halves of the class did.

But apparently this would not be politic.

Among the many reasons given for rejecting objective admissions standards is that they are "unfair." Much is made of the fact that high test scores are correlated with high family income.

Very little is made of the statistical principle that correlation is not causation. Practically nothing is made of the fact that, however a student got to where he is academically, that is in fact where he is -- and that is usually a better predictor of where he is going to go than is the psychobabble of admissions committees.

The denigration of objective standards allows admissions committees to play little tin gods, who think that their job is to reward students who are deserving, sociologically speaking, rather than to select students who can produce the most bang for the buck from the money contributed by donors and taxpayers for the purpose of turning out the best quality graduates possible.

Typical of the mindset that rejects the selection of students in the order of objective performances was a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education which said that colleges should "select randomly" from a pool of applicants who are "good enough." Nowhere in the real world, where people must face the consequences of their decisions, would such a principle be taken seriously.

Lots of pitchers are "good enough" to be in the major leagues but would you just as soon send one of those pitchers to the mound to pitch the deciding game of the World Series as you would send Randy Johnson or Roger Clemens out there with the world championship on the line?

Lots of military officers were considered to be "good enough" to be generals in World War II but troops who served under General Douglas MacArthur or General George Patton had more victories and fewer casualties. How many more lives would you be prepared to sacrifice as the price of selecting randomly among generals considered to be "good enough"?

If you or your child had to have a major operation for a life-threatening condition, would you be just as content to have the surgery done by anyone who was "good enough" to be a surgeon, as compared to someone who was a top surgeon in the relevant specialty?

The difference between first-rate and second-rate people is enormous in many fields. In a college classroom, marginally qualified students can affect the whole atmosphere and hold back the whole class.

In some professions, a large part of the time of first-rate people is spent countering the half-baked ideas of second-rate people and trying to salvage something from the wreckage of the disasters they create. "Good enough" is seldom good enough.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050415.shtml

100+ million huh...so be it; theres time yet, and there are always investors. monopoly is not the american way. with enough money, anything is possible!
 
I like that article. You may wish to consider that it could be easier to convince an existing medical school to implement your admission ideas than to convince investors to launch a new school.

How would you like to choose your class, by the way?
 
Shredder said:
100+ million huh...so be it; theres time yet, and there are always investors. monopoly is not the american way.
try 600-700+ million. ask yourself "how much would it cost to build johns hopkins school of medicine and hospital from scratch? i'm sure even my estimates are pitifully optimistic. unless you are good buds with 'the donald' and ted turner, you'll never raise that kind of money to open up a school.

Originally Posted by Shredder
with enough money, anything is possible!
now you're thinkin' like a businessman! hell, if i had 8 trillion dollars, i'd paint the moon yellow and rename it "Sun Jr." so what?
 
flindophile said:
This happens all the time in the caribbean. Basically, you buy a charter from a third world country and, voila!, you are WHO listed. There are about a dozen such schools in the caribbean -- and several of them are quite successful.
St Georges American University of the Caribbean
Ross University
Medical University of the Americas
Saint Matthews
St James
Saba
St Christophers
etc.

All of these schools cater to US students who don't get admitted to US schools. All together, they represent about 10% of the input to US residency programs. St. Georges graduates about 600 students a year -- almost all of whom go on to US residencies. So, this is one way to start a med school.

True, but he didn't say he wanted to just "start a med school". He wanted to "compete with the very best" US allopathic ones...
 
flindophile said:
All of these schools cater to US students who don't get admitted to US schools. All together, they represent about 10% of the input to US residency programs. St. Georges graduates about 600 students a year -- almost all of whom go on to US residencies. So, this is one way to start a med school.

This is true, but Shredder stated that he is trying to build a school that will graduate superior doctors compared to what most US schools graduate. I don't think building a school in the Carribean will be the answer to that - try getting top US college grads to leave the country and take on $200,000+ debt for a school that can't promise California accreditation. On that note, I'm curious to hear Shredder's superior qualification criteria. This could be interesting.
 
Law2Doc said:
True, but he didn't say he wanted to just "start a med school". He wanted to "compete with the very best" US allopathic ones...


You beat me to it! :smuggrin:
 
jrdnbenjamin said:
How would you like to choose your class, by the way?
not exactly sure, but i dont know if im convinced the current system is turning out the best docs possible. id prolly emphasize objective criteria and make it a little less wishy washy. what do you think? good old agent smith, the villains are always the best characters
SanDiegoSOD said:
On that note, I'm curious to hear Shredder's superior qualification criteria. This could be interesting.
ha you guys are putting me on the spot. do you think you could start a new med school that would pump out the best docs? its like if you see a business and you dont think it is as effective as it can be, you start thinking maybe you could topple it with your own. oh ill say one thing for starters, diversity would be thrown out the window, it would be a strict meritocracy. everybody there would be absolutely the most qualified according to a single standard. a school meant for one purpose: to turn out the best damn life savers and medical leaders the world has ever seen, all else is irrelevant. probably something like what i suspect IIT in india is for coders.
 
If you want to graduate the best doctors, you're going to have to admitt the best students. Convincing applicants to come to your new school over the Ivy League will take some work---mostly by giving everyone a free ride and a stipend of about $20,000 or more. Given that medical school tuition costs $35,000 and that we would give every student their books, health insurance, a laptop, and a free T-shirt just for good measure, you would need an additional $30 million dollars a year (for a class size of 125) just to make it happen.
 
This is interesting to think about. I suspect that training has more to do with quality of doctors than admissions though. Most people say medical training isn't very conceptually difficult, and the smartest people in society tend not to go into medicine anyway.

Also, qualities like empathy do have some value. Most physicians aren't "saving lives" most of the time, they're taking care of people. I don't know a good way to select for that, though, and I don't think the current system does a great job either.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
the current system does an all right job of taking care of people, but saving lives and healing is more important than feeling good and being "taken care of". i think a new school should be full of pompous pricks and bastards who are just so incredibly good that you plead for their care anyway. they would hold people accountable for their health woes, at least those who should be held accountable, like a scared straight for medicine maybe. make them cry if needed but make them healthy, thats more important than their feelings. some people need to be shocked into reality for their own good. what do you think...i dont have a lot of conviction in this idea, its more for conversation

as for competing with the ivies for students and wooing them away...what if a new school seeks a different kind of applicant, a kind that ivies wouldnt take bc they dont fit the formula but that still has huge potential
 
actually no, is that a sitcom on tv? i dont watch tv, but ill do look into it. sounds intriguing..
 
haha, awesome, inspiration is always good. ill make a note of it. glad to hear im not alone, if tv characters count as company heh.
 
competition is superb. bureaucracy and stagnation are evil.
 
Shredder said:
I don't like the selection criteria med schools use. I think they're silly and that I could turn out superior docs if I started my own school. Can this be seen as a business opportunity? A new med school to compete with the very best of the current ones while making a profit and churning out amazing docs? I couldn't do it for many years, but it's something I am pondering. Thoughts?

Has to be a non-profit organization (sorry Trumpster :p )
 
riceman04 said:
Has to be a non-profit organization (sorry Trumpster :p )
youre sure? can there be a revolution, making a private/public company that is a school? imagine owning stock in a school, and providing free tuition on the condition that students are bound by contract to give back a percentage of their future incomes to the school for some amount of time? i like!
 
Shredder said:
youre sure? can there be a revolution, making a private/public company that is a school? imagine owning stock in a school, and providing free tuition on the condition that students are bound by contract to give back a percentage of their future incomes to the school for some amount of time? i like!


But then you would be compromising the sole purpose of education (well at least an aspect of it).
 
Why don't you make tons of money and endow a school? Endow it with so much money that it can offer free tuition? You'll attract the best students then. Imagine what a 1 billion dollar endowment could do? Google made 3 billion last year.

1 billion dollars could mean 50 million in passive income at the least. This funds about 1250 medical students at $40,000/year. You could make 10 schools become like Hopkins. ;)
 
Andrew_Doan said:
Why don't you make tons of money and endow a school? Endow it with so much money that it can offer free tuition? You'll attract the best students then. Imagine what a 1 billion dollar endowment could do? Google made 3 billion last year.

1 billion dollars could mean 50 million in passive income at the least. This funds about 1250 medical students at $40,000/year. You could make 10 schools become like Hopkins. ;)


Hey that's how Rice U. was set up until the late 60's! It was freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
 
Top