Talk:St Matthews University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Chartering Class

The School was established in 1996 with first chartering class in May 1997. Prior to relocation to Cayman Islands in September 2002 basic science instructions took place in Ambergis Caye, Belize. Please allow me to change this info in the article. Thanks (Drouch 14:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Drouch)

Sure, you can change it, but you need to cite a reliable source to support your claim. Leuko 14:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I found a listing in IMED, so I've added the information. Leuko 15:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ,Drouch 16:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curriculum

I was wondering why St. Matthews doesn't list their curriculum like other offshore medical schools do? Any particular reason why it is not in the article? Buzybeez 14:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Most likely because no one cared enough to include it. Leuko 15:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this section should be renamed to "Medical School Curriculum". SMU also have Vet School and their curriculum is different. (Drouch 19:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

good point drouch, I agree. Buzybeez 14:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Either a main header of Curriculum, and sections for each school, or a header for each school, and sections within for curriculum of that school. However, we don't need to publish the whole prospectus. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

further thoughts - We don't really need to publish the curriculum at all - accredited MD programs are pretty much the same regardless of where you study. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree,this info should be deleted Drouch 04:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

A WP:RFC that may affect issues of contention in the editing of this article has been requested in a similar article here: Talk:Medical_University_of_the_Americas_-_Belize#RFC_Oct_2007. Please go there to comment! DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 23:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accreditation Commission of Colleges of Medicine

I have heard of these folks and it appears they are out of Ireland (?) or some other European country, but I cannot find a website for them nor a wiki article. Does anyone have a link? Bstone 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No idea - they can't confer accreditation on any institution unless they're the government of the jurisdiction from which the institution issues its qualifications anyway, so it's a moot point here - If they're a list of accredited (by some criteria) institutions they'd just be another list which we'd dispute the meaning and relevance of. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Followup - from the link posted I'd guess they're either part of the Cayman Government or an NGO recognised by the Cayman Govt as an accreditation authority for the Caymans. It seems from this article in the Caymans press that ACCM is a NGO that performs the functions of an accreditation service, however there does seem to be some confusion as to where it's based:

I can't actually find a website for this commission DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

ACCM is based in Ireland: P.O.Box 38, Bray, County Wicklow, Ireland Drouch 02:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

They seem to be the accreditation body for Saba, St Maaerten (school relocated form Montserrat) and Cayman Isles (from NCFMEA site). Do they have a web presence at all? DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion(ONLY AN OPINION), this is US Department of Education by proxy (their way to bypass international laws and to control these schools). They just hired few prominent Irish physcians and medical educators to make sure these schools are following LCME guidelines. As such I don't see any reason for web presence. Drouch 04:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is the US Dept of Ed by proxy, I'd expect them to have a website. Likewise, if it is a group of semi-retired academics or professionals offering a quality auditing service to Carribean (and other) governments without the means to do such things internally for the accreditation of educational institutions and courses, I'd also expect them to have a web presence. In fact, if they're recognised by the US Dept of Ed for the accreditation of otherwise unaccredited institutions and / or courses, and they make their money by providing (and presumably charging for) accrediting such courses, I'd expect them to have a presence where such institutions might be able to find them, and possibly also a list of their client institutions. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 22:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Drouch 23:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When Editing

• Wikilinks - Please don't insert wikilinks, ie text surrounded by [[double brackets]] unless you have checked that the article you're linking to actually exists, and note that wikilinks are case sensitive. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Abbreviate Name - the abbreviation "SMU" is defined for the university name in the introductory paragraph, so please use it. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• References - please see WP:Footnotes#Where to place references, the <ref></ref> or <ref name="xxx" /> tags should be placed either immediately before or immediately after punctuation, and not separated by spaces from the punctuation (or each other if there are multiple references at a single point). Usage should be consistent throughout the article, so when editing, please see what is the most common form in the article and clean up existing references in the text you're working on. Also, you can make the references a lot more readable by using external link form inside the <ref>[longComplicatedURL textual description]</ref> reference tags. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accreditation

As an observation, on the matter of Accreditation, a picture may be said to be worth a thousand words, but one good verifiable external reference is worth a hundred self published scanned or photographed images of documents from government departments. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Leuko

Do you have a hidden agenda against this university? Why all "positive" facts are either deleted or minimized and the "negative" ones are emphasised? I don't see you doing the same thing on other legit med schools articles, which makes me wonder about your neutrality regarding this one. Please undo your edits in section 2. Drouch 21:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think (from several comments he has made on multiple discussion pages about various institutions) that Leuko is of the viewpoint that any negative wording pertaining to any offshore (from his US-centric viewpoint) institution offering medical tuition that can be found in any source pertaining to the subject absolutely must be included in wikipedia, because to not include it is whitewashing the flaws of that institution. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 21:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Even Harvard has its flaws I don't see anybody making them a "centerpiece" of the article.Drouch 22:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I observe that Leuko adds the most negative information possible with synthesis of information leading to an article which violates NPOV. This is not a personal attack against Leuko in any way, but rather a critique of his editing. Bstone 23:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Licensing Section removed

The user User:Drjcoby removed the entire licensing section, without comment. I have restored this section. Some of his other edits were adding in references which were helpful, however. So, if Drjcoby sees this, can you please comment here why you removed the licensing section. Most other articles about Caribbean medical schools have similar sections. Thank you. Bstone 19:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And it happened again. Leaving appropriate message on User:Drjcoby's talk page. Bstone 23:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And again. User:Rjd0060 reverted this time. Bstone 02:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, it seems User:Drjcoby is in violation of WP:SPA Bstone 02:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The section disappeared again, this time by User:Jfdietrich. I smell a sock. Restored and placed warning on talk page. Alerting admin who blocked User:Drjcoby. Bstone 17:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And now, mere moments after I reverted it, User:Traveler1019 has blanked the licensing section. It's more than mere happenstance that these users are blanking this one section. Alerting admins. Bstone 17:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If the editors who feel the licensing section should be removed could please discuss it here, I am certain we will be able to figure this out. So, before you simply delete the section might you please discuss it here. Thank you. Bstone 17:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that most of the info regarding licensing and accreditation is irrelevant. Wiki is an encyclopedia and not some sort of consumer report. For general reference take a look on US Med schools articles. I don't see there a single mention about their accreditation or licensing. By removing licensing and accreditation sections this article will cause less controversy and unauthorized edits. Drouch 22:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The licensing section may be overkill, but I think it is relevant to note that a medical school, in proximity to the US, graduates doctors who may not practice in the US. It probably warrants a paragraph with selected example(s) rather than a full section, though--and with reliable sources preserved. —C.Fred (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the licensing section should stay in it's current form. US med schools don't have a similar section as they are all licensed by the LCME. If you look at other Caribbean medical school articles you will see that most, if not all, have an accreditation and licensing section. If we remove it from this section- or heavily modify it- then consistency would demand that we do the same to the other Caribbean med school articles. The materials are sourced, verified and pertinent to the article. I vote it stays. Bstone 01:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bstone, little correction LCME is accrediting body not licensing. If we really looking for consistency then I suggest to add to every US med school "LCME accredited",ostheopathic school "AOA accredited", Polish school "their accrediting body" etc.. Wiki is an international source.... this article is too egocentric (or about any other carib school)... Drouch 03:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

C.Fred, correction doctors who graduate from SMU can practice in the U.S. (44-45 states)... 5-6 states doesn't make it US.Drouch 04:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Still, that's a notable exclusion. By way of comparison, I was reading the Bob Jones University article today, which has an extensive section on their refusal to gain accreditation—and the subsequent inability of some graduates to get/keep government jobs. —C.Fred (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

On federal level SMU does not have any problems. In fact, some SMU graduates actually work for the government.:) Drouch 04:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it not notable that graduates from a medical school which has near 100% student body of American citizens cannot be licensed in every American state? I believe it is. I do believe that every medical school that has an article on wikipedia should have a link to it's accreditation body. Bstone 05:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

near 100%? Do you have any verified sources? I know it's general knowledge, but...Let's play by the same rules. Till this point has been proven I don't see any need for licensing info. Drouch 12:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The CA Medical Board report states this. Says how SMU was created primarily for US students who could not get into US med schools and how near 100% of the students are US citizens. Bstone 17:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Per CA report as of 2004 the student body composed of aprox 85% Americans. I don't see any mention about the fact that school is created primarily for US students. Are we looking on different reports? This data can be different right now. Also if you are looking for consistency I think every med school that harboring Americans should have licensing info. Except St.Georges, Ross, Saba and AUC all Carib schools have some problems with medical boards in some states. Why in the article about Medical University in Poznan the info about their 4 years program is absent (they also harbor Americans)? Poznan also have problems with CA. I believe licensing info is irrelevant it suppose to be general article about legitimate school. If somebody is intersted in school from the consumer point of view they should check it with the appropriate state board. Otherwise wiki will become consumer report for medical schools that harboring Americans. Drouch 18:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the way that Saba Medical University article body is build seems to be the right format to adopt. Drouch 19:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] semi protection

I have requested semi-protection based on the recent vandalism/blanking. Bstone 17:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection was enabled but only after User:Jfdietrich removed the licensing section with the note of "Irrelevant". I am fearful to revert it as I may be violating 3RR. Can another editor or admin please do this? Bstone 20:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:SmuSeal.jpg

Image:SmuSeal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Texas

I called the Tx Med Board based on reports from the school that their grads getting Tx med licensed. This is OR but the sources are on their website which I will be linking to. They stated clearly that simply not being on the "approved" or even being on the "disapproved" list in no way means that they can't get a medical license, but instead they would have to submit Supplemental Documentation in order to obtain a license. I am going to edit the Tx licensing section with this info. They also stated it is decidedly not a misdemeanor to apply for a license in Tx. Bstone (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Purchases vs Recapitalized

SMUinsider has repeatedly replaced "recapitalized" with "purchased" in reference to Equinox Capital. The reference clearly says

Equinox Capital III, L.P. today announced that it has completed the recapitalization of St. Matthew's University, Inc.

[1]. As well, SMUinsider seems to be adding POV materials. Perhaps he/she can join in the discussion? Bstone (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What does recapitalization mean? Equinox and SMU's administration always stresses that the school was "recapitalized" and not purchased. This causes much confusion among the students when infact all it means is that the school's ownership has changed. Fact: Equinox Capital purchased a majority share of St. Matthew's University from Dr. Michael Harris. Is this not a purchase? Also, how can you characterize the information of Dr. Knight's arrest as POV? It is absolutely factual, supported by reliable references, and completely relevant to the subject at hand. You may not like it, but the statement of Dr. Knight's arrest was completely neutral and purely factual. Wikipedia is not a mechanism for advertising, it is a vehicle for fact and truth. SMUinsider (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion. If you would like to have the article read purchase and not recapitalize then you will need to find a neutral reference which can support it. Otherwise the article will have to read with how the reference presents. About Dr Knight- any article about him and a possible DUI would have to be relevant to the university, which the one you presented is not. So anything about Dr Knight would have to go in an article about Dr Knight, which currently does not exist. Wikipedia is not a collection of random facts or trivia, such as Dr Knight being arrested for DUI. Sorry, but it can't be included. Bstone (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)