mellyminiangel said:
I just found this thread and I’m just going throw this out there: there looks to be a lot of criticism about UA wanting to jump the gun to get applications in. But, as one person pointed out, they lose money if they wait a year to open applications. And, like it or not, all colleges and universities are businesses. They need to make money in order to function. And this is relieved by getting the inaugural class in for next fall instead of 2021.
I'm just going to quote a couple of points regarding this issue from my previous posts on this:
After all, Midwestern and LMU began accepting applications for the inaugural class during the 2013-2014 cycle and had already received reasonable assurance quite a bit prior to that point. At least, if I remember correctly (I was lurking the forums around that time). They didn't open up applications while they were still awaiting a decision; they held off until they actually had that letter of reasonable assurance in hand. Why can't U of A?
Unfortunately, you're probably also right that it's mostly financial incentive that is driving them to start accepting applications prematurely. The thing is, they're already having to pay staff to get the program and facilities organized and operating, so they're spending either way. And, let's be real, it's the U of A. This isn't some small, dinky Mickey Mouse state school in the middle of nowhere like where I did my undergrad. It's a major university and it should have a large enough revenue stream as it is to keep current goings-on at the college sustained until next the start of the next cycle, especially since there are no plans to build and maintain a full service teaching hospital.
mellyminiangel said:
Yes, I agree they are acting a bit over confident from what I’ve seen. But I am interpreting it as they have that confidence for a reason and almost assured they will get the letter of reasonable assurance. If not, it’s a bad business move waiting to happen.
This is the most likely case, but because of the rather troubled and spotted history of this particular school and its multiple previous unsuccessful attempts for reasonable assurance, I will remain
skeptical until we have concrete confirmation one way or the other.
mellyminiangel said:
I will be applying, as there’s not much associated risk; if they accept people and, come April, they don’t have the letter, they know that few people in their right mind would actually attend (another reason for them to be on top of their game).
I'd also like to think that few people in their right mind would actually attend a unaccredited school, but the fact that there are still a fair number of pre-vets every year who choose to apply to and attend a school like SMU with the knowledge that their degree is not accredited and that they will have numerous difficult, expensive, time-consuming hoops to jump through should they want to practice in the US and actually use that degree they shelled out so much money, blood, sweat, and tears for... yeah.
Pre-vets are desperate. Not all of them, of course, but a good number certainly have blinders on and are just trying to get into any program they can.
mellyminiangel said:
Also, for me as an OOS student with no in-state option, the cost is not bad compared to some schools. And finishing a year early is appealing (even with the potential for intense mental stress). Vet school is not meant to be mentally soothing, and though some people may be horrified at the idea of no breaks, but others still may find the curriculum appealing in its own right.
I won't comment on the cost, because it gets a bit washy depending on individual location and circ*mstances and and we also don't know total COA for U of A at this time (only the tuition figures), though the program being truncated to three years does help a little. I personally still think that the asking price is too high considering that an entire year's worth of COA at the vet school I attended is $10k less than yearly IS tuition alone at U of A. U of A has no plans for a teaching hospital of any sort, so it really ought to cost even less, all things considered.
But, with all due respect, you're not in vet school yet. Everyone in this thread who has commented negatively about the lack of breaks is either currently attending or has previously attended vet school. As trite as it sounds, you can't truly understand what it's like until you experience it for yourself; sure, you know going in that vet school is "hard" but you can't fully conceptualize to what degree and what exactly that means for you until you're in the midst of the schooling.
You need breaks in vet school. Even the schools that utilize 2+2 models still have that one large summer break between first and second year to allow students time to decompress and recharge, in addition to whatever typical breaks they have throughout the year. The sheer volume of material is so massive and the pace at which it is shoved into your face is so breakneck, even in a traditional four year program, that I honestly couldn't imagine having to endure that all year around with only a week or maybe two off every few months. Hell, I've been out of vet school for nearly two years now and I still can't do seemingly easy things I used to love like write poetry or translate or read for pleasure because my brain has become so accustomed to such constant, rapid input and regurgitation of information at this point, largely thanks to vet school, that they feel too slow and aren't anywhere near stimulating enough anymore and it ****ing sucks. Of course, there's also the fact that this means there would zero downtime for students to do things like work to supplement living costs or participate in research projects or attend conferences, should they elect to do any of those things, but that's already been touched upon.
I'll just be blunt: I think that this curriculum design is terrible. I think it will lead to further burnout in an at-risk population where burnout and mental health issues, including suicide, are already significant problems and I think it will also lead to increased attrition, both within the school and the profession itself. The only AVMA-accredited school that is presently using a model similar to U of A's is Ross, and their attrition rates are high, partly because they do accept a lot of people who probably shouldn't be in vet school but also partly because their program is set up to be accelerated, much like U of A's is.
I truly believe that it would be the exceptional vet student who could make it through a three year, year round DVM program relatively unscathed and not experience some level of burnout by the end.
mellyminiangel said:
But, as mentioned, time will tell. We won’t know until the school or the AAVMC announces something. And in the meantime, sending in an application won’t hurt.
You're right, time will tell and sending in an application won't hurt. By all means, you should absolutely apply if you'd like, especially since (at least from what @DishonorOnUrCow has said, it sounds like there aren't any application fees this year); don't let a bunch of bitter meanies on the interwebs stop you. 
Really, though, just recognize that a lot of the criticism slung toward U of A's program comes from those who have been there and done that before and also know that a lot of it is valid. Frankly, we don't need any more vet schools period. Full stop. There is already a glut of graduates as it is and while there is a "shortage" of large animal vets in rural areas of the country, it's due to the intermingling of several complex issues and simply opening up a new vet school isn't going to solve it; this has been the justification for starting up several new DVM programs over the past decade or two and it hasn't fixed the problem yet and it won't in the future.
I do think that vet med education does need some radical change, but I'm not sure that this is it and I'm also not sure that this program is in the best interest of student well-being.
