Talk:List of medical schools in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

December 19 rollback

I reverted the 19 December 2006 additions by 69.174.74.195 as they were schools of osteopathic medicine, which is explicitly outside the stated scope of this list. I left a message on the editor's talk page directing to the appropriate list. — ERcheck (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

→ List of medical schools in the United States — Someone who did not appreciate that the "List of medical schools in the United States" page did not include osteopathic medical schools has renamed the page to "List of allopathic medical schools in the United States". The word "allopathic" is a disparaging term used by the inventor of homeopathy to insult conventional medicine, and as such this is not a neutral page name. The page should be returned to its original name or, if we wish to try and compromise with the osteopaths, "List of conventional medical schools in the United States". 62.31.67.29 14:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No discussion needed. Unilateral move to a bullshit name reverted. - hahnchen 17:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're out of line. Calling anything a "bullshit name" does not assume good faith, which is an important Wikipedia principle. Ehb (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

Are there really 426 total medical schools in the US? That sounds a little high.

No, there aren't. There are 125.

I think the 426 number "includes branch campuses" (e.g., affiliated teaching hospitals). Better yet, why does this list include 2 schools (FIU and UCF) that haven't even opened yet, much less been accredited, and 1 school (San Juan Bautista) that only recently (November 2006) got surveyed for initial accreditation with a decision not due until June 2007?

Osteopathic schools

It doesn't make sense to exclude the osteopathic school from a article called "list of medical schools", since the MD and DO degrees are considered equivalent in all 50 states. Both degrees earn one the title of "physician" or "surgeon."

There can be a separate list of schools called "osteopathic" and "allopathic", but considering that DO students take USMLE, are eligible for AMA approved residencies and have degree recognized as equivalent to the MD - there's no valid reason to separate them. Putting them in a separate list implies a separation where there isn't one. Placing them in a list with dentists and naturopaths implies a degree of separation far greater than what exists.

As far as the terms Allopathic and Osteopathic go . . . this should be discussed, not blown off as bullshit. There's some interesting history there, in both of the terms. Allopaths no more treat people using "agents that cause a reaction opposing the symptoms" than "osteopaths" treat only peoples bones. Both terms are outdated, and have changes meaning considerable but they serve some purpose. To call the term "allopath" bullshit or derogatory is to ignore the common usage of this term by every physician in the US. The AMA and the AAMC uses the term "allopathic" to describe its own medical schools.[1] These definitions[2] are a further reference.OsteopathicFreak 04:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Am not opposed to moving the "see also Osteo" link to the top of the page. People think "MD" when they think medical school, but those of us in allo schools know that osteo schools are also medical schools. Therefore, go with conventional wisdom as per WP guidelines, but clarify things. Antelan ^talk 05:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate and respect you opinion. I don't agree with simply revert the page to an older version because you disagree.

In response to the conventional wisdom argument, the vast majority of people don't even know what an allopathic or osteopathic physician is. The average person doesn't make a distinction, because legally there's no difference. Many, many DO's simply use the intials MD after their name to avoid confusing their patients who will invariable think that an Osteopath is a bone doctor, or something like that. (This is legal is some states.) The separation is artificial, the DO and MD degrees are equivalent, de jure and de facto. DO's and MD's work in the same hospitals, hold the same positions, and have the same practice rights. Isn't the conventional wisdom that a "medical school" is a school where one becomes a "physician" or "surgeon"? If being a DO or an MD will earn you that title, what compelling reason is there to list them separately? I'm going to follow WP guidelines and not simply revert to the older version, though I hope that others will at least look at it and consider doing so.

I think this conversation is important, and I think that there's a serious amount of DO v MD competitive bullshit going on. Let's just drop it and put them on the same page. If people want to have separate pages that are lists of "allopathic" and "osteopathic" medical schools, that's seems appropriate (though excessive IMO.) But if you're going to have a list of US med schools without specifying, then I feel strongly you've got to list them together.OsteopathicFreak 07:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• The first line of this article, before any other discussion, consists of a link to osteopathic medical schools. The second line clearly states, in bold, that this list contains allopathic medical schools. Then, there is a list of other degrees whose recipients are usually called "doctor". Only after linking to all of the other pages does the list even begin. This is one appropriate way of creating a list, since it will be useful to a reader who was looking for any of the mentioned degree programs.
• You state, "The separation is artificial, the DO and MD degrees are equivalent, de jure and de facto." While MDs and DOs can do many of the same things lawfully, the degrees are not equivalent. This is a point that many DOs emphasize, because they receive additional training in theories that are not taught in allopathic medical schools. Consider the 1982 Eatough vs Albano case in New Jersey requiring DOs to use DO, not MD, as their post-nominal title: [...] the state had a legitimate interest in assuring that members of the public were able to make an informed and intelligent choice when seeking medical care, and the requirement that osteopathic physicians use the D.O. designation was rationally related to that interest. The same source (from the state of Maryland) goes on to explain that as of 1996 (old, yes, but it's the only source I have at the moment), a survey of 29 states showed that none of those states allowed MDs to use DO, or DOs to use MD. [[3]] This has little bearing on the article, except to support the notion that schools granting DO are different from those granting MD, and a visitor might find it useful to have two pure lists instead of one mixed list.
• Again, I think that the original editors of these articles were wise to split the lists, since in doing so they provide useful information to the visitor. The extensive inter-linking insures that this method of list-building does not deny access to learning about any of the programs. Antelan ^talk 15:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• You state "The first line of this article, before any other discussion, consists of a link to osteopathic medical schools." True, and I think this is great. However, the title of the article is "List of US med schools" not list of allopathic med schools. If the title is to remain unqualified, the list must include both.
• You state "there is a list of other degrees whose recipients are usually called 'doctor'." There are many degrees which lead to the title doctor. Yet there are no other degrees that lead to the title "medical doctor," "physician," or "surgeon." Only the MD and DO degree earn you this title - the common sense definition of what title one earns by attending a "med school." The fact that both degrees earn you this title is not commonly known, and this list propagates that misconception.
• You state "MDs and DOs can do many of the same things lawfully . . ." this is accurate, but misleading. "Many of the same things"? Many? In fact, they do exactly the same things. Prescribe drugs, perform surgery, counsel their patients. To find any meaningful difference one has to look very closely, even in their respective curricula, which are nearly identical. Do DO's receive additional training in musculoskeletal manipulative therapy (OMT)? Yes, but so does any MD who goes into sport medicine or PM&R. MD schools (like Harvard) are offering courses in Osteopathic Manipulation, blurring the line even further. [4] [5] There is perhaps a greater emphasis on primary care medcine at a DO school, and more DO graduates go into primary care, but should this fact exclude DO schools from being placed on a list of US med schools? I'm not suggesting that there is no difference. I'm suggesting that the difference is subtle, often misrepresented or confused, and that this list adds to that confusion.
• You state "a visitor might find it useful to have two pure lists instead of one mixed list." Agreed. But then the lists should be labelled as such. "US allopathic schools" and "US osteopathic." In the current situation, visitors are being misled by a list called "US med schools" that excludes osteopathic schools and only lists allopathic schools, but does not specify this fact in the title of the list. My experience is that most people either think a DO is a OD, or they think that DO's are chiropractors. Most people think that DO's are not physicians, did not go to med school, and don't have same practice rights as MD's. This list adds to that misconception. It suggests that Osteopathic med schools are not US med schools, by not including them in a list of US med schools.
• Add to this confusion the fact in every other country in the world attending an osteopathic medical school does not lead to becoming a physician. The US is very unique in this fashion, a fact which this list ignores. The list maintains the assumption of any non-US visitor that DO in the US are not fully licensed medical physicians, further obfuscating the parity of the degrees.
• In my opinion, the real reason this list is so ardently maintained to exclude osteopathic schools, without specifying in the title, is the long-standing professional turf war between the AMA and the AOA, a war that is now over. The few, vocal individuals who insist in maintaining the separation are usually med students attending allopathic schools, or insecure DOs who wanted to go to an allopathic school. The perception is that osteopathic schools and students are "second rate" and this justifies the exclusion. [6] (This article makes some excellent points on this topic. It also seems noteworthy that DO schools are equal members of the American Medical Student Association. The only schools with full respresentation in the AMSA leadership are US DO and MD med schools schools. Here's their list of US med schools [7])
  • The simplest solution would be to include a brief explanatory note after the title. This is a list of all medical schools where physicians and surgeons (medical doctors) are trained in the United States. For separate lists of "allopathic" and "osteopathic" schools, see also . . . User:OsteopathicFreak 66.82.9.109 20:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Are the two the same, or are they different? Having two lists for two different sets of schools that teach two different corpora of material and are governed by two different accrediting bodies is simply calling a spade a spade. To do otherwise is to unnecessarily conflate the two similar, but distinct, programs, and constitutes WP:OR. As I have suggested above, this is less useful for a visitor looking into either a DO or an MD school. Wikipedia does not exist to push any point of view, which appears to be what you are doing here. You have made it clear that you feel that there has been a turf war between MDs and DOs, but that should not be used as a rationale to push a non-neutral POV in simply constructing a list. The changes made by 66.82.9.109 linked to two nonexistent articles and, again, reduced the ability of a visitor to distinguish between two similar but distinct lists. I am reverting these changes. I do agree that disambiguation could be expanded upon at the beginning of this article. Antelan ^talk 22:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

US osteopathic medical schools are medical schools. Therefore, they would belong in a list of medical schools in the US. However, even though the scope of practice and medical practice licenses are the same, allopathic and osteopathic schools are different. When a student chooses to apply to medical school, they usually decide to apply using AACOMAS (AACOM) or AMCAS (AAMC), and are aware of the degree differences. Though, I would agree that the majority of the public does not know the difference between MD and DO. Whether or not the word "allopathic" originally was derogatory in nature, it is now commonly used among those in admissions to medical schools, and is used by the AMA and AAMC (if you search their sites, the word "allopathic is used"). Therefore, I do not think it should be a problem to use "allopathic". As far as I see, these are the options:

1. • Move this article to "List of allopathic medical schools in the United States"
   • Make "List of medical schools in the United States" a disambiguation page to the allopathic and osteopathic lists (that could mention some of the differences between the two)
2. • Move this article to "List of allopathic medical schools in the United States"
   • Make "List of medical schools in the United States" a combination list of allopathic and osteopathic schools, noting which schools are osteopathic and which are allopathic (perhaps move everything to a table)
3. • Remove individual osteopathic and allopathic lists
   • Make "List of medical schools in the United States" a combination list of allopathic and osteopathic schools, noting which schools are osteopathic and which are allopathic (perhaps move everything to a table)

I like the second option, which provides the information in all formats. If the list of both is converted to a table, it could be sorted based on allopathic/osteopathic or listed intermingled by state using class="wikitable sortable". --Scott Alter 00:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The first option is necessary (to distinguish two different, but similar, degree granting programs) and sufficient (to represent both fairly). I'd be in support of that. It will require some discussion the term allopathic, since its origins are divisive and current recommendations are to drop the term since it is divisive. Nomenclature aside, a disambig linking to the two lists seems appropriate. Antelan ^talk 01:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I just skimmed through those articles in JAMA and Arch Intern Med (and some of the references), and this appears to be the opinions of the authors. While I see and understand the resistance of some physicians to the term allopath, is there a statement against its usage by any medical organization? Alternatively, the lists could be called "List of MD (or DO) granting medical schools in the United States". --Scott Alter 01:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I misread the first link as being a journal article instead of a journal's book summary so I agree with your statement. I've never really cared about this personally, but my instinct is that a neutral portrayal of the term requires the history to be addressed. I prefer your alternative, where the schools are simply labeled as MD/DO granting institutions. It comes off as noncontroversial. If there's a way to get the sample table below to sort by two fields, I'll be all for this method. Right now, once you click to sort primarily by degree, the secondary ordering is on the school names. The desired behavior would be for the secondary ordering to default to state, with school name being tertiary. I'll do my wikihomework and see if I can find something about how to do this tonight or tomorrow. Antelan ^talk 02:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

When I use the table below, it does exactly what we want it to do - it initially is sorted by state, then school. Clicking on degree once makes it sort by degree, state, school (DO on top). Clicking again on degree sorts by degree, state, school (MD on top). I tried this in Firefox 2 and IE 7 on Windows XP. --Scott Alter 02:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Weird. I am running Firefox 2.0.0.3 on XP and I wasn't seeing the same behavior. After restarting my browser, I am now. I'll help you do this list tomorrow if you're interested. I'm testing how links work in the sample table now. Antelan ^talk 03:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As I have time (which I really don't have), I'll keep adding to this table here. Once it is completed, we can move it to the article and redirect the Osteopathic list. --Scott Alter 03:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I just completed a merge of the two lists into one table. Hopefully this will satisfy everyone. --Scott Alter 05:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Previous Request for comment

This is a dispute about what schools should be included in a "list of med schools in the United States." Are US osteopathic schools "US med schools" in the same manner as US allopathic med schools?

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• It doesn't make sense to exclude the osteopathic school from a article called "list of medical schools", since the MD and DO degrees are considered equivalent in all 50 states. Both degrees earn one the title of "physician" or "surgeon."OsteopathicFreak 04:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• People think "MD" when they think medical school, but those of us in allo schools know that osteo schools are also medical schools. Therefore, go with conventional wisdom as per WP guidelines, but clarify things. Antelan talk 05:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• I think that the original editors of these articles were wise to split the lists, since in doing so they provide useful information to the visitor. The extensive inter-linking insures that this method of list-building does not deny access to learning about any of the programs. Antelan talk 15:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• You state "there is a list of other degrees whose recipients are usually called 'doctor'." There are many degrees which lead to the title doctor. Yet there are no other degrees that lead to the title "medical doctor," "physician," or "surgeon." Only the MD and DO degree earn you this title - the common sense definition of what title one earns by attending a "med school." The fact that both degrees earn you this title is not commonly known, and this list propagates that misconception.User:OsteopathicFreak 66.82.9.109 20:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Add to this confusion the fact in every other country in the world attending an osteopathic medical school does not lead to becoming a physician. The US is very unique in this fashion, a fact which this list ignores. The list maintains the assumption of any non-US visitor that DO in the US are not fully licensed medical physicians, further obfuscating the parity of the degrees. User:OsteopathicFreak 66.82.9.109 20:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• The simplest solution would be to include a brief explanatory note after the title. This is a list of all medical schools where physicians and surgeons (medical doctors) are trained in the United States. For separate lists of "allopathic" and "osteopathic" schools, see also . . . User:OsteopathicFreak 66.82.9.109 20:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Are the two the same, or are they different? Having two lists for two different sets of schools that teach two different corpora of material and are governed by two different accrediting bodies is simply calling a spade a spade. To do otherwise is to unnecessarily conflate the two similar, but distinct, programs, and constitutes WP:OR. The changes made by 66.82.9.109 linked to two nonexistent articles and, again, reduced the ability of a visitor to distinguish between two similar but distinct lists. I am reverting these changes.Antelan talk 22:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Additional point, the list as it stands now say it is a list of "all 125 accredited U.S. medical schools." This is factually incorrect. Only the 125 allopathic schools are listed here. 66.82.9.109 00:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Osteopathic schools are medical schools and should be included in this list (if this list is kept). As it stands now, the list is misleading and needs to be changed. I would vote to have 3 lists - allopathic, osteopathic, and a combined list (in a sortable table). --Scott Alter 00:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• The title of the page should be changed to "List of allopathic medical schools," or osteopathic schools should be included. Osteopathic medical schools are "medical schools." Period. (For what it is worth, I'm an allopathic medical student). It's fine to have two separate pages, but they need to be appropriately titled. A popular misconception is not a legitimate rationale for mistitling a page.-Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 01:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• A sortable table would be a great solution, but it would have to be twice-sortable to make the most sense (that is, sortable by two categories - type of degree awarded and simultaneously by its state [location]). Is this doable within Wikipedia? If not, I don't think we need to create three lists when we are only discussing two subjects. All that seems to be needed is a disambiguation page. Also, Rustavo, popular misconceptions have not been used to back the creating two separate lists. Antelan ^talk 01:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If the table is created in the order by state and school, then sorting by MD/DO would sort the list as MD/DO, state, school. What I think is ideal would be having a filtered table (like this), but I'm not up on my CSS, nor do I think it is currently built in to Wikipedia. --Scott Alter 01:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The concern is that someone clicks to sort so the DO schools are at the top, but then they're not organized by state but by school name. The problem would be exacerbated by the even-longer list of MD schools. If you could sort by school type and then by state, too, that would be ideal. Barring that, I think the disambiguation option would be the most concise solution. Antelan ^talk 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as the in the code, the list is in the order state, school, any sorting will be the field sorted on, followed by the original sort order (state, then school). So this might be viable. I'll make a sample table and put it here for demonstration. --Scott Alter 02:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, sounds good. If it seems to work, we can split the listmaking up. Antelan ^talk 02:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see any dispute about the following, from the beginning of this section: Are US osteopathic schools "US med schools" in the same manner as US allopathic med schools? I haven't seen anyone disagree with that. It's a question about lists, not osteo/allo. Antelan ^talk 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Also, would someone link to the RfC concerning this article? I see the headline up top, but I can't find it on the RfC page. Thanks. Antelan ^talk 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Gutting entire list?

OsteopathicFreak (or someone else editing under your IP), would you mind reverting the last changes you made? They ended up truncating the list at Illinois. Thanks. Antelan ^talk 01:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Gratitude

I just wanted to say how happy I am that this once very disputed page has come to a resolution that everyone, especially a reader seeking this information, will benefit from. Antelan ^talk & Scott Alter put a great deal of hard work into this page, which is now totally jammin'. Muchas gracias. OsteopathicFreak 22:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, OsteopathicFreak. Scott Alter deserves all the credit - he's the brains and brawn behind the outfit! I'm stoked that this article can satisfy everyone involved. Antelan ^talk 01:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I second, while there are allo/osteo difference mostly they are of interest to a future student (i.e. different applications, taking the COMPLEX instead of USMLE, different residency programs and matches, etc.) and its nice to see a page that stays neutral and informative to the average joe. Gtadoc 01:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Though, there is still work to be done as OsteopathicFreak has mentioned at Talk:Allopathic medicine. I just created a new topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Medical education, as medical education needs a lot of work. You should take a look there before making changes to Allopathic medicine. Ultimately, I'd like for all medical education articles to be neutral and to satisfy editors without disputes. --Scott Alter 00:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

School links

Scott,

Someone recently updated the UNM Med link, and you've reverted the change. I actually think that the other user's method of linking is preferable. That is, in the case that a medical school has its own page in Wikipedia, only link to that page. It's confusing to have what looks like one solid link actually be two links - one to the university, and another to the school of medicine. What is more, the university link is but a click away, so a change would not inhibit the ability of people who want to view the university's page. In the case where there is no Wikipedia page for the school of medicine, an alternate linking method should be used. Example:

• University of South Alabama College of Medicine (No page for the college of medicine, so link to the university)
• Stanford University School of Medicine (Just link to the SOM)

This method clearly differentiates between those schools that do and do not have their own pages. I'm going WP:BOLD and start making this change, since it can always be reverted later. Antelan ^talk 16:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I really didn't revert the change. Previously, it looked like "University of New Mexico School of Medicine". The person just created the UNM School of Medicine article and then changed the entire school name to link there ("University of New Mexico School of Medicine"). I then changed it to be like all of the other links ("University of New Mexico School of Medicine"). I don't have a problem with having the entire university and school name link to the school (when there is an article dedicated to the school) or having just the university name as a link if the school does not have an article. I just was keeping with the consistency. If you want to go through and modify all of the links to be like this, go ahead. Just keep it consistent. --Scott Alter 16:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the list. Sorry for misinterpreting your edit - revert is a touchy word around here, and I didn't mean to use it like that. All the best. Antelan ^talk 17:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Unaccredited US schools

How should unaccredited US schools fit in to this list. I just came across Stewart University New Scotland School of Medicine, which is located in California on an Indian reservation and considers itself an international school. It is unaccredited and has few requirements (no bachelors degree, no MCAT, phone-interview, pre-med courses). The school awards MD degrees after 2 years and 10 months. The school sounds like a sham, but it does exist and is a medical school in the US.

Any suggestions as to how to handle this? What about in the intro mentioning something like most schools are accredited, but others are not and have lower standards. There could be separate lists for accredited and unaccredited schools under different headings. --Scott Alter 06:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the fact that it touts itself as an international school sufficient to rule out it being in the United States? The school exists outside the U.S. legal structure, no? Just my two cents. User:Hopping ^T 13:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it says that it is an international school to explain how it fits into the US medical education system - that it is considered an international school by the US legal structure. All medical schools should be listed somewhere within List of medical schools ("a list of medical schools by region and country"). While Indian reservations have their own governance, the land is technically US federal territory. So it should be listed as within North America within the US, and therefore on this page. --Scott Alter 16:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am extremely wary of including this school in this list. However, I find your argument perfectly compelling. I think the title of the page implies that this list is a list of all "recognized" schools of medicine within the territory of the United States. A reasonable litmus test for "recognized" would be, Are there actual practicing physicians of medicine who hold medical licenses who are graduates of this school? If the answer is "yes" and we can document and the school is within U.S. territory, then I see no compelling reason to not to include this school in this list, however irregular it may seem. User:Hopping ^T 09:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Your concern is completely understandable. Many people who do not know anything about US medical education may see this school in the list and think it is just like the others. This is one reason why I wouldn't include side-by-side with the others, and the list article would have to be modified to address accredited vs. not accredited. Also, Medical school in the United States should be modified to mention the unaccredited schools. The school only started last January, so it doesn't have any practicing graduates yet. If the school is notable, it should be here. (Or maybe a separate list - like "List of unaccredited medical schools in the United States." But then, this list should be changed to "List of accredited medical schools in the United States" - which I wouldn't want to do.) I think that all universities are automatically notable, but I could not find that in any guidelines after a brief search. I also wonder how many others unaccredited schools there are in the US. --Scott Alter 16:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Should schools currently undergoing accreditation go in this list? (See http://www.lcme.org/newschoolprocess.htm for lists of applicant and candidate schools.) There is already an article for Florida International University College of Medicine and it is in Category:Schools of medicine in the United States. This school plans to accept its first class to start in Fall 2009. Maybe the criteria for inclusion in this list could be either 1) is currently accredited or 2) is a new school not yet accepting students, has a Wikipedia article, and is seeking accreditation. Any schools that fall under #2 would get an asterisk that says "New school currently seeking accreditation." --scottalter 22:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What if we kept them separate? On this page below the list of accredited, operational schools, we could create a list of unaccredited schools and schools that are not yet accepting applications. Antelan ^talk 23:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about separate lists as well. In this case, I'd probably put all of the new schools, and not just the ones with articles. Would you want to list unaccredited, operational schools not seeking accreditation (like "Stewart University New Scotland School of Medicine," though this article was recently deleted)? Should there be 3 distinct lists (accredited/operational, non-accredited/non-operational, and non-accredited/operational)? Maybe a list for closed medical schools should also be added (if there are any with articles). --scottalter 00:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that's an interesting idea (listing closed medical schools). Could be very historically interesting. Three lists is probably the cleanest way to go, but two lists could work if we specify which has accreditation and which does not (I just felt that doing so within the main list would lead to huge amounts of clutter and potential confusion). At the same time, if you're not accredited and you have no students, are you really a medical school by any stretch of the imagination? It's much easier to "buy" an accredited school without students than one with neither. Antelan ^talk 01:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think non-operational schools seeking accreditation (such as Florida International University College of Medicine) do have good reasons for being included on this page. For example, potential med school applicants would find it useful to know that in the year of their anticipated application, some new schools might be around. They probably do belong in a separate list so that the anticipated date of opening can be included. I'm not sure there are any non-accredited operational schools, besides Stewart University New Scotland School of Medicine, so we could probably leave this category out. I don't really know anything about closed medical schools - I was just thinking that last permutation of accreditation and operation is (formerly) accredited, non-operational.

So for now, I'll add the new, non-operational schools seeking accreditation to a list of its own. Others schools can be added later. --scottalter 01:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks lovely. Antelan ^talk 03:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know of an official listing of prospective osteopathic medical schools (comparable to the LCME lists)? William Carey University College of Osteopathic Medicine was just added to this list today, but the only mention from the AOA I could find was on their blog. --Scott Alter 21:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

New Schools in the Pipeline

• AMA article on the status of new schools (here). Bryan Hopping ^T 15:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Medical College of Georgia (allopathic) plans to build a "branch campus" in Athens, Georgia. Not sure what the time line is, or what the accredidation status is yet. When an existing school opens a branch campus, I believe the approval process is greatly simplified. Articles here and here. Bryan Hopping ^T 14:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Another new school (osteopathic). Planned for Oregon. Opening 2011 or 2012. (here.) Bryan Hopping ^T 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

More new schools:

• Grassroots Activism and the Pursuit of an Expanded Physician Supply New England Journal of Medicine.

Bryan Hopping ^T 00:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1