Talk:St. Matthew's University

Texas, again. Third opinion request.

I have requested a third opinion regarding the ongoing attempts of an IP editor to insert POV and unsourced information. See: 1 2 3. I have already reverted twice and dropped a note on the IP talk page, however I am requesting third opinion in order avoid 3rr and gain additional insight. Basket of Puppies 22:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is all a bit thick for me. I wandered in here because I was doing an article on a college president B.D. Owens (who has a good reputation). My knee jerk to the situation is that attempts to establish the new school appear to be aimed at cleaning up its reputation (the guy who founded St. Matthew's left six cadavers in the next school after he shut it down). I don't understand the Texas issue but it did pass and was signed by the governor as can be seen from this linK: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/billlookup/History.aspx?LegSess=81R&Bill=HB3674 I don't entirely see the relevance of that bill since it doesn't mention St. Matthew's by name. Americasroof (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting! So it appears that this is no longer a TX House bill but in fact law. Thus, the licensing section should be updated to reflect that SMU graduates can be granted a TX medical license as long as they are board certified by the appropriate board. Very interesting! Basket of Puppies 23:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

3O? I requested protection for the page, and it's been protected for a day. Um, but the text that the anon IPs were trying to add doesn't really belong in its current form. No article should have text that says "You should all make yourselves familiar with the following bill". Having said that, it seems that the Texas section should be updated based on the most current information. So if we can find a source about that bill, then it should be added. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting, but I believe incorrect. Based on the enrolled version of the law, it still states:

"Sec.A155.004 ADDITIONAL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR GRADUATES OF CERTAIN FOREIGN MEDICAL SCHOOLS.

A license applicant who is a graduate of a medical school that is located outside the United States and Canada must present proof satisfactory to the board that the applicant: (1) is a graduate of a school whose curriculum meets the requirements for an unapproved medical school as determined by a committee of experts selected by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board."

Since SMU is still on Texas' Higher Education Coordinating Board's Degrees Illegal to Use in Texas list, I don't see how SMU graduates can get licensed in Texas. The new law means that graduates of schools which have not been evaluated/deemed comparable are eligible if they are board certified, however, it does not apply to SMU as it has been specifically disapproved. Since the THECB has determined the curriculum does not meet the requirements by declaring the degree illegal to use in Texas, SMU graduates are not able to be licensed in TX, so we should change back to the previous wording. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 22:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe I am a bit confused. I read the law and it seems to apply to schools that are unapproved. It specifically says so, in fact. It then says if a licensee-applicant from such a school wishes to obtain a TX license then they must have three years post-graduate education and be board certified. That appears to be the remedy for those who are coming from such an unapproved school. Am I possibly reading it wrong? Basket of Puppies 03:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the law states that that applicant must prove that the school is "substantially equivalent" or be board certified if their school is "unapproved." It does not say that graduates of "disapproved" schools are eligible with board certification. Texas maintains a list of schools it considers "substantially equivalent" - and any school not on this list is considered "unapproved," but still may be considered "acceptable" if the graduate can prove equivalence. However, since SMU is on the THECB's list of degrees illegal to use in Texas, it is a "disapproved" school and ineligilble per Texas Administrative Code 163.1, which states:

If another state's physician licensing agency or education agency has determined that a medical degree conferred by a medical school is not the equivalent of an accredited or authorized degree or has otherwise disapproved the medical school, the board will not recognize the medical school as an acceptable unapproved medical school.

Therefore, SMU graduates are ineligible in Texas, because the school was disapproved by multiple state licensing agencies and the new bill does not change anything because it still requires the school the meet the requirements of the THECB, which SMU does not being specifically disapproved. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 02:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Texas revisited

81(R) HB 3674 is now in effect, which changes the rules for accreditation in Texas. However, it still says:

(d) An applicant must present proof satisfactory to the board that:

(1) each medical school attended by the applicant is substantially equivalent to a Texas medical school as determined by board rule; or

(2) the applicant is specialty board certified by a specialty board organization acceptable to the board.

This does not seem to offer the relief to SMU's graduates that the anonymous editor says it does. Any other opinions on this? —C.Fred (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And now I read the discussion above and see that we've been through this before. However, an IP is raising the issue again; page protection may need to be reconsidered. —C.Fred (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked for temporary page protection. It has been declined. Basket of Puppies 20:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

Daaron McField, an SMU School of Medicine graduate, was recruited by the Canadian Football League immediately after graduating from the University of British Columbia, to play professional football (http://www.caycompass.com/cgi-bin/CFPnews.cgi?ID=1003224). Select SMU alumni would like Daaron McField to be added to the SMU Notable Alumni section. Thank you. Drjcoby 69. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjcoby69 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Placed reference for first notable SMU graduate and removed "citation needed." - Drjcoby69 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjcoby69 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that "select SMU alumni" have a conflict of interest in the article and should be prepared for their wishes to be overturned by neutral editors. —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What conflict of interest are you referring to? This SMU graduate is proud to have been recognized in the Olympic games as well as being a member of the SMU academic community. Your overturning this piece is unwanted. (Drjcoby69) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjcoby69 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My comments have been signed. Why do you keep stating that they are not signed? (Drjcoby69) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjcoby69 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The SineBot expects the standard signature format. If you add four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your message, Wikipedia will automatically append your username, links to your user and talk pages, and a timestamp of your message. The missing timestamp is probably triggering SineBot, and since you use an unlinked signature, it's doing the full unsigned message. —C.Fred (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As for the conflict of interest, that's because SMU alumni are asking for the graduate to be included. Alumni, current students, and faculty all have conflicts of interest with the school. Further, they do not own the article—they cannot dictate what should be included. This article's content is open to discussion, and subject to the rules of verifiability, the same as all other articles. —C.Fred (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Provided citation for Kehinde Aladefa (SMU graduate who competed in the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, GA (Drjcoby69)

History

I respectfully request that the following sentence under History be deleted because it has no reference/authenticity regarding its validity:

"In 2001 charges of embezzlement were levied against Sersland and he and his wife were banned from the campus."

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjcoby69 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a legitimate request and I reworded the sentence per the reference. BTW, new discussions go at the bottom of other ones. Americasroof (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for editorializing and making this change. (Drjcoby69) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjcoby69 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no reference to the following sentence recently updated in History and would like to see it deleted (unless referenced appropriately): "In 2001 Sersland and his wife were temporarily banned from the campus in administration change."

Please advise. Thank you. - Drjcoby69 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjcoby69 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I see no reference to the following sentence recently updated in History and would like to see this entire sentence deleted (unless referenced/cited appropriately): "In 2001 Sersland and his wife were temporarily banned from the campus in administration change."

Please advise. Thank you. - Drjcoby69 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjcoby69 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The source clearly says that Sersland and his wife were barred from the campus by the Supreme Court. However, their ban from campus is not what's relevant to the school; what's relevant is that the board of directors did a sudden change to the administration. It's been reworded to say that in 2001, the BOD abruptly removed him and his wife from their positions at the school. —C.Fred (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay - thank you for the re-wording. Drjcoby69

The following statement has absolutely nothing to do with SMU and in fact MUA is still open (although not on Belize, it is located on Nevis). Visit http://www.muacampus.org/:

"Sersland then formed the Medical University of the Americas Belize in 2002[5] which closed in 2007[6]"

Kindly remove this statement in its entirety. Thank you. Drjcoby69 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjcoby69 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually MUA Belize and MUA Nevis are two different schools, which are not related to my knowledge. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 16:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So then why do you feel a need to put another sentence in the SMU history section about Serlands when he had absolutely nothing to do with the University after he left? I find your remarks (cited as they may be) to be offensive and slightly "biased" towards SMU. Please remove your reference to Serlands and MUA-Belize in its entirely. Thank you. (Drjcoby69)

I agree with the inclusion of a sentence about what Sersland did after he left SMU. As the founder of the school, it is relevant to the reader to know what he did next. Since he's gone to another school, it also implies a sense of closure that SMU is not facing any lingering litigation over his dismissal. —C.Fred (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Mentioning more about Serlands only taints SMU which is a good med and vet school with over 1100 grads. What Serlands did after leaving SMU is of absolutely no concern to anyone - he is gone - case closed. Besides, the statement about MUA is misleading because although MUA-Belize is closed, MUA-Nevis is not AND anything to do with MUA (either place) has nothing to do with SMU. Again, let's remove the second reference to Serlands, PLEASE!!! (Drjcoby69) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjcoby69 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My comments have been signed. Why do you keep stating that they are not signed? (Drjcoby69) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjcoby69 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

IMED listing

Hoping to stave off another edit war. Opening a chat about the IMED listing. In this edit by Leuko he indicates "FAIMER/IMED do not approve anything, they merely list". I agree! However, Leuko removed the IMED reference. I am confused by this as the edit he removed specifically stated that the school is listed with IMED. So- I am confused! Leuko, might you be able to comment? Basket of Puppies 22:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we just need wording like exists for WHO, that they're listed in IMED, but the listing does not indicate accreditation? —C.Fred (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

My bad, thanks for pointing that out User:Basket of Puppies. I thought it was already listed in the preceding section, but I guess not, so I added it with the wording suggested by User:C.Fred. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 22:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, perfect! We're on the same page and all is well! Thanks for the checkin! Basket of Puppies 00:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Recurrent Deletion of the Licensing Section

The licensing section is continuously being deleted by a single purpose account. I have replaced it. Please note that continued deletion of cited material/disruptive editing is grounds for banning per ArbCom precedent. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 18:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It is terribly annoying. I wish the accounts would discuss it here instead of just blanking the sections. Soon I guess we will have to begin asking for WP:AIV help. Basket of Puppies 18:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that the user has never been told that blanking verified content is inappropriate, so I left a warning on his talk page. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 18:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Tho I am somewhat sure that the SPAs are related, it seems like a good idea to follow protocol and issue warnings as they happen. Once they get past the lvl 3 warning I figure we can report to AIV. I have the article on my watchlist so I'll keep an eye out for more blanking that needs to be reverted. Basket of Puppies 18:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, unfortunately no, they can only be reported to AIV after vandalizing after a final (Level 4) warning. If it becomes too much of a problem, we'll have to request page protection. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 18:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I meant by "after lvl 3", meaning lvl 4...ahh...I need coffee. Basket of Puppies 19:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The California Medical Board never went and accessed other countries in order to be approved for licensure. Isn't this discrimination? How could they access schools in other countries if they can't read the language. In addition, the California Medical Board accepted almost $100,000 to access the school. Wouldn't it be logical to access a school and accept another 6 figures to re-evaluate it? Go figure.

Bottom line is all medical graduates have to take the United States Medical Licensure exams and if they pass it meets equivalency in the United States. From my experience, US International Medical Graduates are who they claim to be. If you do a search on Indian and Chinese names, the same name will appear several times. Are they who they claim to be? In addition, most Indians receive an MBBS degree which is standard to the degree in the U.K. although they must do a year of clinical s and receive a certificate. The program directors in the US never question their clinical certificate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.170.73.150 (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

GMC and case-by-case-basis

There seems to be some confusion as to what the reference actually says regarding the licensing for SMU graduates in the UK. There is a date in time (31 December 2010) after which SMU grads are prohibited to apply for UK licenses. However, graduates previous to this date are:

Doctors graduating from the following schools seeking registration with a licence to practise are advised to contact the GMC as applications will be dealt with on a case by case basis.

I will update the article to reflect this. Basket of Puppies 17:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The GMC cite clearly states that St. Matthew's University located in Grand Cayman is approved

How is this a difficult concept to grasp? Go look at the cite yourselves. δ_ij^i.broke.it. 05:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Currently, there's no mention of any date restriction relating to the Cayman Islands in the source. The article should be updated following the apparent removal of the ban. Meph^talk 05:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Meph^talk 09:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is there a mention of a campus that does not exist and that has no affiliation with the school in Cayman? The school moved from Belize many years ago so why does it need to be mentioned? No other schools have this issue...JesuitMD (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It is mentioned because it is sourced, factual material. The way it is written in the article indicates that the restrictions apply to graduates of the Belize campus only so what's the problem? SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 19:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture change

Good afternoon,

I am employed by Global University Systems (GUS) - the company that owns St Matthew's University; my Conflict of Interest (please see my Talk Page for all COIs). I would like to request an update to the pictures and the logo on the Wikipedia page. The following link shows the university's updated logo:

Any insight from Editors on how to do this is appreciated. MsAttempt (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Hi MsAttempt. You need to upload the logo as a non-free logo. It's the same process as what you did at Arden University. Then, post here again and an editor can place the updated logo in the article. Best, Altamel (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Altamel: Great thank you - I have been through this process now.

@MsAttempt: Hi, I have updated the article with the new logo. By the way the reply to function only works if the edit with the reply to template is signed with four tildes. TSventon (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@TSventon: Thank you for the tip! MsAttempt (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Abbreviations

Good morning,

I am employed by Global University Systems (GUS) - the company that owns St. Matthew’s University; my Conflict of Interest (please see my Talk Page for all COIs).

I would like to request that all abbreviations of St. Matthew’s University to SMU, please be removed. This is because Southern Methodist University uses the same abbreviation throughout their website.

Any insight from Editors on this is appreciated.

MsAttempt (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done There's no issue in using the abbreviation throughout the article as long as the full name is spelled out in the infobox and lede paragraph. See Oregon State University as well as Ohio State University. Graywalls (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

USMLE and NAVLE Results

Good afternoon,

I am employed by Global University Systems (GUS) - the company that owns St. Matthew's University; my Conflict of Interest (please see my Talk Page for all COIs). I would like to request that the following sentence be added under the ‘School of Medicine’ subheading in the ‘Accreditation’ section:

‘St. Matthew’s University School of Medicine has self-reported an average first-time pass rate on the USMLE Step 1 of 95%.’

I would also like to request that the following sentence be added under the ‘School of Veterinary Medicine’ subheading in the ‘Accreditation’ section: ‘St. Matthew’s University School of Veterinary Medicine has self-reported an average first-time pass rate of 92% on the NAVLE in the last three years.’

Thanks MsAttempt (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Hi @MsAttempt:, thank you for requesting an edit and using this template. I have decided not to add this information because it is WP:PROMOTION based on WP:PRIMARY sources. If you have any questions or comments about this request, please post below. Thanks again for your request. Z1720 (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

References