That is incorrect as the SGU website states
SGU - Residency Appointment Directory
The National Residency Match Program (NRMP) and Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMs) place applicants for postgraduate medical training positions into residency programs at teaching hospitals throughout the United States and Canada. In the US, St. George’s University students obtain postgraduate training positions by either going through the NRMP, or by signing outside of the Match program. We post those residency positions reported to us by NRMP after March 20, and will post those who have signed outside of the Match as they are reported. On average, 29 percent of our graduating classes obtain residencies that are not through the National Residency Match Program.
SGU states that they
place 94% in residency slots 2019, and on average they 29% who find spots other the the match. That would mean 65% of those who get a spot actually match into the position
This is absolutely pure anecdote and I don't expect anyone to buy my answers, or make decisions based on them. I'm pretty critical of my own graduating institution (SGU) in general. But I think a decent portion of that 29% are people seeking placement outside of the US as first-choice, and thus I wonder how much they contribute to that number. Africa (and the Caribbean also) in particular draws a decent number of individuals that are seeking "Western" medical education that can then return to their home countries to practice & teach. I only bring this up because I have several colleagues that are doing this. Again, very anecdotal. I've frequently cited SGU's overall attrition at around 15-20% based on my own experiences, so this isn't a huge deviation from the numbers you're quoting. And it's also a big jump from USMD/DO schools. Take with a grain of salt, of course.
Starting with a US-bound class of 1450 (
see my previous analysis), and an 8% attrition rate, would mean about 115 students drop out, meaning about 1335 students would left to complete and graduate. Yet only 960 got a residency slot. That is another 375 students unaccounted for. Either they are misleading in how they define attrition, choosing to not count those urged to drop out before actually failing out, or they are strict in how they define students "eligible" to apply for residency, by restricting who will get a dean letter in order to apply
This is a little overly simplistic because the class sizes are dramatically different between the January and August classes with rolling admissions. The August class is typically around 1,000 students, but the Jan class is usually more like 400. When students start to decel (meaning they drop back into the class below them) the class sizes start to vary wiiiiidely and it becomes very difficult to track. The decel mechanic has no parallel in the US system that I know of. Additionally, the students that matriculate in the UK campus have a very different composition and attrition rate, for MS1. Those students then join the Grenada class in MS2. For these and other reasons, it's really hard to get a bead on what a "typical" SGU class looks like statistically. Making estimations of attrition becomes quite tough.
They are able do so by having an incoming class more than five times the size of the largest US medical school class. It more that ten times the size of the typical US medical school class. How can any school providing medical education on that massive scale able to provide oversight, quality, and clinical instruction . This isnt impressive, this is frightening
In general, I agree with you. SGU is predatory, no question. But I also think you're sensationalizing a bit, and dipping into the fallacy of an
Argument from Incredulity. Medical education isn't at parity across institutions even within the US, let alone globally. Some schools are simply better than others, that's just a fact. Does that mean that we shouldn't value physicians that trained outside of a typical "US-centric" model of medicine? Isn't that why we have Step 1, Step 2 CK, Step 2 CS, and Step 3 to even the playing field? Implying that Caribbean, or any other international graduates, are somehow deficient by virtue of their graduating institution is exactly the bias we're trying to fight. Does it really matter if you attend med school in Nigeria, Russia, Grenada, Iowa, California, or Iceland? If you meet the criteria to sit the exam, shouldn't you have the option to prove yourself, and pass the bar?