ISU Medical School

[uhlenrici]

No law school please, despite of what you might think, the grads from Iowa already have trouble getting jobs in law. ISU does produce a significant number of talented premed students already. A medical school would be great for our "rankings" and even better for our access to research funding. However, like most of you had said, U of I already has one and without a massive private endowment or something, no way we end up with one.

ISU does have some good research happening in the biomedical sciences program and some other sections. However most of that research relies on using animal or similar types of models to research human medical conditions, this is great and all, but not quite the highest level of medical research. I would love if we added a medical school, but it isn't going to happen. If it did, it would probably be the U of I med. Ames.

Good point on the current job market for law grads, aren't there a lot of engineers that go to law school eventually?It seems like it to me but maybe that's more MBA/biz route. It makes a lot of sense to me to try to pounce on a good program like Drake when this covid thing shakes out.. Anything to keep establishing a presence in Des Moines is probably a good play long term.

 

[uhlenrici]

MDs and DOs are both rightfully called "doctors" and practice evidence-based medicine. Osteopathy started on sandier footing than did the mainstream medical community a century or two ago, but they eventually came around and saw the light. This is in contrast to some well-known forms of quackery out there (see my last comment below) who do not embrace science. We should point and laugh at those types of "docs."

That being said, nearly all the top-tier institutions out there are going to be staffed by MDs. MD programs tend to attract the better students, match their graduates into higher-profile residency programs and specialties, and have a higher match rate compared to DO graduates. That is not to say DOs never find themselves in higher echelons, but the averages are what they are. MDs are at the heights and DOs at the base.

I will reiterate though -- the "lower-tier" docs who go through a lot of the same hell to end up working in relatively low-paying lunch pail specialties (e.g., family medicine or psychiatry, etc.) only have my respect. They go through a lot of the same nonsense as the high-flyers only to serve as the front-line "grunts" at community and rural hospitals that we need. A lot of those types are DO graduates, and we should be thankful for them.



See my comments above. It is really rare to see a DO at a top-ranked research school or residency program. It is not impossible, but it is definitely rarer.



Yes, there certainly is.

I would prefer, if this were to ever happen, that ISU went the MD route. Very few public universities offer a DO program, most that once did have converted to MD, and the few that still do often offer both and only have the DO program around as a "legacy" sort of thing rather than something they would build if they started fresh.

I doubt any of the new flock of public medical schools in the past 20 years is a DO program opposed to an MD program -- should be the same here.



Yeah, they do. DOs have just carved out for themselves a less prestigious niche for themselves at the bottom of the totem pole, but an important one.

Goodness no. Get that quackery out of here.

You might find this interesting @Sigmapolis there is a pretty strong push from a lot of the DO schools to integrate the accreditation standards for DO and MD granting programs, like, in the next five years push. I think just to simplify the system since there's so many DOs going into traditionally MD residencies now.

 

[Sigmapolis]

You might find this interesting @Sigmapolis there is a pretty strong push from a lot of the DO schools to integrate the accreditation standards for DO and MD granting programs, like, in the next five years push. I think just to simplify the system since there's so many DOs going into traditionally MD residencies now.

Oh yeah, I am definitely familiar with the push just to integrate/eliminate the distinction. That is mostly from the DO side, though, and not from the MDs.

I would be fine with that, but I am not a doctor -- just married to one.

 

[CTTB78]

Really hard to do biomedical engineering without both a med school and an engineering school - something Iowa offers....
.

That might make sense with several of the engineering programs but I'd I don't see the tie to Civil engineering and Environmental engineering offerings, etc.

 

[jdoggivjc]

That might make sense with several of the engineering programs but I'd I don't see the tie to Civil engineering and Environmental engineering offerings, etc.

You’re not going to hear me argue against that, especially with ISU being among the best in the nation in those disciplines. Obviously you need certain disciplines to support a college or a program like biomed engineering, like mechanical, materials science, etc. But civil and construction engineering? Not sure it’s necessary, especially when ISU does it so much better.

 

[Cydoc21]

Also a current med student with some thoughts...

1. While a medical school at ISU would likely have a solid preclinical curriculum, it would be sorely lacking in terms of quality clinical experiences. Mary Greeley is not an academic center and would not be able to accommodate every 3rd and 4th year med student on rotations. Students from UI and DMU already cover most of the state (including some at Mary Greeley) for rotations. I see this as one of the more difficult aspects of a med school in Ames.

2. As has been mentioned previously, if ISU were to start a med school, 15 years ago would have been the time to do it. The number of new residency spots has not kept up with the increase in medical schools.

3. Students from UI and DMU make up most of the physician workforce in the state. I don't think that adding an entirely new medical school is needed in the state. A partnership between DMU and ISU would be interesting however. A large number of ISU students already end up at DMU, but a partnership with research dollars etc. could be beneficial for both.

 

[Cydoc21]

You might find this interesting @Sigmapolis there is a pretty strong push from a lot of the DO schools to integrate the accreditation standards for DO and MD granting programs, like, in the next five years push. I think just to simplify the system since there's so many DOs going into traditionally MD residencies now.

This is already happening. In 2015, it was announced that the accreditation bodies for DO and MD residencies would merge into one body in 2020. This was in large part due to the fact that DO grads could match into either a DO or MD residency, while MD grads could only match to an MD residency. Over the last five years, most DO residencies have received accreditation from the ACGME (governing body for residency programs), however a small portion did not make the cut. This years match was the first post-merger and simplified the process for DO grads who would often apply to both programs, but now only had to apply through one system. And MD grads now had access to programs that were only previously available to DOs, granting them more access to more competitive fields.

The majority of DOs will take the MD boards in addition to the DO boards, in order to be more competitive for residency positions. It would not surprise me if the DO boards were to be eliminated in the future and all med students (DO or MD) only take the MD boards. There is a strong financial incentive however for governing body of DOs to keep the DO boards around.

 

[Cypow]

These are some odd, but interesting questions. Obviously, you struck a nerve for discussion. And this thread is surprisingly lacking the typical snarky and trolling posts. So, @Cypow what makes you so interested in these questions?

Thanks for asking. I'm very pleased to see that other alumni/friends of the university are interested in this topic.

As to why I'm interested... This might provoke a bit of controversy, but I do think it needs to be said. The perception of Iowa State in the national and international eye has been changing slowly but surely over the past few decades, and not for the better. There is a very real possibility of ISU falling out of the AAU in the future, whether the university administration can see that or not. The BoR does not seem to have Iowa State's best interests in mind by some accounts, and will likely sit back and watch if ISU continues to decline. You might think I'm being dramatic. Look at ISU's decline in the rankings since the late 1900s. Flawed or not, all rankings point to a steady decline. I'd rather not argue about the legitimacy of rankings, but hopefully it is obvious to everyone that the perception of our alma mater is not what it was.

I think real change starts with discussion. Covid-19 could break the status quo and open up a world of new opportunities. I think we must at least be open to considering these potential opportunities, even if they seem implausible right now. If we're talking, that's a start.

It's best practice to do what you do well and not try to compete directly with what others do well in

This is the mentality that worries me. Iowa State must view itself as an international competitor, not just a local learning establishment that exists only to serve the engineering/agricultural needs of the state of Iowa. "Best Practice" is not saying "others do this well so we shouldn't do anything". ISU has the potential to be a comprehensive university. It can do this while continuing to focus on its strengths. It is not zero sum. Great engineering schools can have medical schools (and medicine actually fits perfectly with ISU's mission and strengths). Increased collaboration and an academic partnership with Des Moines University seems to be a realistic avenue, let's hear more.

I'm hoping this conversation finds its way into other venues. Ideally, serious talks amongst university administration, and alumni from across the globe who are dedicated to moving this university forward. The potential is there, though I'm not sure we always see it. I want to see the ambition of our athletics department in university itself.

 

[nfrine]

I've been wondering this same thing for 20+ years. Has anyone ever come across a competent engineer that graduated from U of I?

I had the opportunity to hire and work with engineers from both ISU and Iowa. Both universities produced some outstanding engineers.

 

[Mtowncyclone13]

This is the mentality that worries me. Iowa State must view itself as an international competitor, not just a local learning establishment that exists only to serve the engineering/agricultural needs of the state of Iowa. "Best Practice" is not saying "others do this well so we shouldn't do anything". ISU has the potential to be a comprehensive university. It can do this while continuing to focus on its strengths. It is not zero sum. Great engineering schools can have medical schools (and medicine actually fits perfectly with ISU's mission and strengths). Increased collaboration and an academic partnership with Des Moines University seems to be a realistic avenue, let's hear more.

Why? Nike makes athletic gear. They excel at it. You know what they don't do? Make formal wear. Make dress shoes. Make outdoorsman gear. Could they? Sure, but others do those things already so Nike focuses on continuing to build what they do best.

Successful organizations stick to improving their strengths and not trying to compete directly with others who are already experts at their own craft. A look at some of the biggest businesses flops of the past 50 years is companies expanding outside of their core competencies. It's like saying Perkins in Ames should get into the inexpensive BBQ business to challenge hickory park.

Unless the Iowa State medical school has some brand new unique way of operating it makes little sense to directly compete with established entities in a small market. There's like 1,500 people in the MD and DO programs in Iowa. Does that enrollment need a third option?

I don't know why that scares you.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

Starting a medical school from scratch in a town of 60,000 people to try to improve a university’s USNWR ranking feels kind of like having a kid you don’t want in order to try to save a marriage. It’s a bad idea on its own merits and it won’t fix the underlying problem anyway.

 

[Angie]

I didn't go over every post with a fine-toothed comb, but I don't know if anyone addressed the point about ISU acquiring MGMC. I believe that Mary Greeley is city-operated, but governed by their board, and sustains itself largely by the foundation and profits. Speaking from experience, there's sometimes a little bit of a murky area between ISU and the city, and i can't imagine that being an easy transition.

 

[Cypow]

Why? Nike makes athletic gear. They excel at it. You know what they don't do? Make formal wear. Make dress shoes. Make outdoorsman gear. Could they? Sure, but others do those things already so Nike focuses on continuing to build what they do best.

Successful organizations stick to improving their strengths and not trying to compete directly with others who are already experts at their own craft. A look at some of the biggest businesses flops of the past 50 years is companies expanding outside of their core competencies. It's like saying Perkins in Ames should get into the inexpensive BBQ business to challenge hickory park.

Unless the Iowa State medical school has some brand new unique way of operating it makes little sense to directly compete with established entities in a small market. There's like 1,500 people in the MD and DO programs in Iowa. Does that enrollment need a third option?

I don't know why that scares you.

Universities are not businesses that exist only to serve customers and make a profit. That mentality has become prevalent in the US, and it is hurting our higher education system. Your comparisons do not apply here.

Also, claiming that the life sciences are outside of ISU's core competencies is absurd.

This conversation has grown beyond the idea of simply starting a medical school from scratch. Academic partnerships and collaborations are clearly more interesting and feasible; let's talk about that.

 

[Cypow]

Starting a medical school from scratch in a town of 60,000 people to try to improve a university’s USNWR ranking feels kind of like having a kid you don’t want in order to try to save a marriage. It’s a bad idea on its own merits and it won’t fix the underlying problem anyway.

You're certainly not wrong. I only mention the rankings because they signify the underlying problems, of course the rankings themselves are not the problem. I only hoped to bring attention to the fact that there are, indeed, severe underlying problems, and I'm not quite sure alumni living in Iowa are quite aware of that, being so close to the university and what not.

 

[Clonefan23]

Universities are not businesses that exist only to serve customers and make a profit. That mentality has become prevalent in the US, and it is hurting our higher education system. Your comparisons do not apply here.

Also, claiming that the life sciences are outside of ISU's core competencies is absurd.

This conversation has grown beyond the idea of simply starting a medical school from scratch. Academic partnerships and collaborations are clearly more interesting and feasible; let's talk about that.

I think the idea of collaboration/partnership with DMU is very interesting. I'm not sure on the exact numbers, but I would expect Iowa State is one of the top feeder schools for DMU's PT program.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Universities are not businesses that exist only to serve customers and make a profit. That mentality has become prevalent in the US, and it is hurting our higher education system. Your comparisons do not apply here.

Also, claiming that the life sciences are outside of ISU's core competencies is absurd.

This conversation has grown beyond the idea of simply starting a medical school from scratch. Academic partnerships and collaborations are clearly more interesting and feasible; let's talk about that.

Any entity -- including for-profit corporations and nonprofit public and private institutions, such as most hospitals and universities -- have to cover their costs.

If it does not, then it will not be around in the long-term.

This is how an economy decides if something is really worth having... by asking the question if it is wanted more than what it costs to provide it.

Even if an institution has a mission that is more magnanimous than the bottom line alone (and I would say there are certainly corporations out there who would say they do not purely see their mission and goal as shareholder value, and there are definitely "nonprofits" that act a lot like for-profits... "Church" of $cientology...), it still needs to meet its costs. This is complex and based around a series of continua rather than simple binaries, but the bedrock rule about covering costs in the long-term applies no matter who you are.

Any expansion to Iowa State has to work a similar way.

 

[agrabes]

Thanks for asking. I'm very pleased to see that other alumni/friends of the university are interested in this topic.

As to why I'm interested... This might provoke a bit of controversy, but I do think it needs to be said. The perception of Iowa State in the national and international eye has been changing slowly but surely over the past few decades, and not for the better. There is a very real possibility of ISU falling out of the AAU in the future, whether the university administration can see that or not. The BoR does not seem to have Iowa State's best interests in mind by some accounts, and will likely sit back and watch if ISU continues to decline. You might think I'm being dramatic. Look at ISU's decline in the rankings since the late 1900s. Flawed or not, all rankings point to a steady decline. I'd rather not argue about the legitimacy of rankings, but hopefully it is obvious to everyone that the perception of our alma mater is not what it was.

I think real change starts with discussion. Covid-19 could break the status quo and open up a world of new opportunities. I think we must at least be open to considering these potential opportunities, even if they seem implausible right now. If we're talking, that's a start.



This is the mentality that worries me. Iowa State must view itself as an international competitor, not just a local learning establishment that exists only to serve the engineering/agricultural needs of the state of Iowa. "Best Practice" is not saying "others do this well so we shouldn't do anything". ISU has the potential to be a comprehensive university. It can do this while continuing to focus on its strengths. It is not zero sum. Great engineering schools can have medical schools (and medicine actually fits perfectly with ISU's mission and strengths). Increased collaboration and an academic partnership with Des Moines University seems to be a realistic avenue, let's hear more.

I'm hoping this conversation finds its way into other venues. Ideally, serious talks amongst university administration, and alumni from across the globe who are dedicated to moving this university forward. The potential is there, though I'm not sure we always see it. I want to see the ambition of our athletics department in university itself.

You seem to have strong opinions about this, and seem like someone who would know better than I do the realities of what is going on. That said, it seems like there are a few basic questions you haven't answered for those of us who don't follow this stuff on a regular basis:

1) Why is ISU falling in the rankings? Its premier programs remain strong and top rated.
2) Is it really true that ISU could lose AAU status? If so, why?
3) It seems really impractical to add a medical or law school for a lot of reasons already discussed. Is having one of those types of schools, even if relatively low quality, better than not having one at all?

I think you're right to say that a University shouldn't be operated like any other business, but at a certain point you have to acknowledge reality. Today's environment for both the demographics of students and the general social and political attitudes are different than they were even 20-30 years ago. As an alum I want ISU to be the best school possible, but as a resident and tax payer, I don't want to throw good money after bad.

 

[Cypow]

Any entity -- including for-profit corporations and nonprofit public and private institutions, such as most hospitals and universities -- have to cover their costs.

If it does not, then it will not be around in the long-term.

This is how an economy decides if something is really worth having... by asking the question if it is wanted more than what it costs to provide it.

Even if an institution has a mission that is more magnanimous than the bottom line alone (and I would say there are certainly corporations out there who would say they do not purely see their mission and goal as shareholder value, and there are definitely "nonprofits" that act a lot like for-profits... "Church" of $cientology...), it still needs to meet its costs. This is complex and based around a series of continua rather than simple binaries, but the bedrock rule about covering costs in the long-term applies no matter who you are.

Any expansion to Iowa State has to work a similar way.

I'd never advocate for running a university at a deficit, so we're on the same page with covering costs. That's a given, and I didn't think it really needed to be stated explicitly.

Nonetheless, direct comparisons between universities and corporations are inherently flawed in a number of way. Many of the issues that American universities face are the direct result of the corporatization of higher ed.

It's difficult to have conversations about these topics when one side views universities as pure capitalistic enterprises (even if that side doesn't quite realize that they hold these preconceived notions). For productive conversation, let's agree on what universities definitely are, and what they definitely should not be.

 

[Cypow]

I think you're right to say that a University shouldn't be operated like any other business, but at a certain point you have to acknowledge reality. Today's environment for both the demographics of students and the general social and political attitudes are different than they were even 20-30 years ago. As an alum I want ISU to be the best school possible, but as a resident and tax payer, I don't want to throw good money after bad.

A fair point. Bad money is usually easy to spot. I'd pose this question: How do we agree on what is "good money"?

According to some, the only "good money" for ISU is dumping every dollar into engineering or ag. This is not a winning strategy long-term, and it is apparent that many alumni have a somewhat inflated view of our engineering department.

 

[Sigmapolis]

I'd never advocate for running a university at a deficit, so we're on the same page with covering costs. That's a given, and I didn't think it really needed to be stated explicitly.

Good. Reality would intervene eventually anyways if we tried to.

Nonetheless, direct comparisons between universities and corporations are inherently flawed in a number of way. Many of the issues that American universities face are the direct result of the corporatization of higher ed.

Emphasis added.

Would you mind expanding upon this statement? I'm curious about it.

It's difficult to have conversations about these topics when one side views universities as pure capitalistic enterprises (even if that side doesn't quite realize that they hold these preconceived notions). For productive conversation, let's agree on what universities definitely are, and what they definitely should not be.

Emphasis added.

There are anarchists and relatively extreme libertarian positions out there that all education (or at least all post-secondary education) should be handled through market interactions only or, alternatively, the means of production should be privately held (e.g., buildings, computers, and books are privately owned, and teachers work for businesses and not for state and local governments, etc.) even if the government subsidizes tuition to the point every student has a shot at at least a high school education (or less or more, it depends).

Even me, who is kind of notorious for some of his libertarian and heterodox positions around here, does not go so far as to view universities as "pure capitalistic enterprises" built around their bottom lines. I am also much more comfortable with states running public universities than I would be with the federal government doing it, as well, even if federal policy, federal tuition aid and loans, and federal research money has become increasingly important to the operations of major research universities in recent decades.

I do not think there are actually many people out there who go so extreme as you might imagine there. Some, sure, but you are talking about a small minority.

I think the broader point is they have to generate some sort of value, however you might want to define that (and bottom line monetary profits is just one way of doing that). I share your desire to keep Iowa State in the AAU, but there are some unfortunate practical realities making a medical school in Ames a hard sell right now.