The latest waste of our tuition dollars

A third "patient simulator" was purchased and 12,000 square feet on the HSC allocated to "train students in interdisciplinary medicine and communication," according to the Independent Collegian.
Apparently, there are too few real patients at the UTMC for students to learn on; and administrators no longer trust HSC students with the few real patients remaining.

“The nice thing about it is that if a patient dies in simulation, the simulation
can be rebooted,” Stobbe said. “You can’t reboot a real person.”

This quote is almost at risk of criminal negligence. If students get used to having multiple tries to get a procedure right, what is to prevent them from taking a real surgery or procedure lightly out of sheer habit?
The common patient simulator costs over $27,000 (for example "SimMan"), and that's just for the unit itself. Software and accessories are not included.
While this is a small expense ($100-200K), it is an example of how the Main Campus is put on a complete spending freeze while the Health Science Campus is permitted frivolities. Many projects on the Main Campus have been held up for several years now - I will let you fill in the blanks - with the exception of construction that was already in the 10-year construction plan. Some of this construction also exhibits the imbalance of priorities. The new business building, for instance, was only financed at the level of $1/2 a million by the individuals who got the naming rights - when usually getting the name of a building costs $20 million to start the conversation, and UT funded the rest. Nonetheless, projects such as the Ottawa River running through Main Campus has been placed on a very long-term timeline, even though it will cost no more than $3 million in total.

Dean receives No Confidence vote

Tuesday, Dean Yueh-Ting Lee of the College of Arts and Sciences was the first in UT's history to receive a No Confidence vote from their respective faculty governance body, the Arts and Sciences Council. Later that evening, Student Senate unanimously approved a Resolution supporting the deep level of discussion, consideration, and action undertaken by the Council as a model for what should occur across the University.
The Faculty spent most of the hour and a half meeting sharing examples of instances in which they felt they had been misled, manipulated, or otherwise treated with less respect and consideration than they feel they are due.
Examples include how, following the Budget Reallocations Proposal of UT Vice President for Finance and Administration Scott Scarborough, Dean Lee aggressively pushed forward plans to join various A&S departments into Schools by the Fiscal Year '08-'09 budgeting deadline: July 1st, 2008. Dean Lee instructed the appropriate Chairs to proceed with plans to merge Departments but not inform their faculty until the official announcement on July 1st. The Chairs did not obey, but guided their colleagues in expressing their feeling that the proposals for merging Departments that Dean Lee referred to were very tentative drafts considered by the faculty in question, and were not ready to be implemented. They also strongly objected to the request to hide important matters from their colleagues, as this went against the time-honored value of shared governance. Dean Lee promptly responded conceding that he had made a mistake, and agreed with the faculty; however, he soon after issued a memo announcing to all his plans to merge certain Departments, and noting that all these plans originated from the Faculty themselves.
They enumerated the many times they had spoken with the Dean about their concerns; how they felt he had not properly represented them to the Higher Administration; and some even objecting to the process by which Dr. Lee was selected to be the Dean.
The issue that so riled the Faculty was not so much the content of the proposed policies [though many had strong objections to them], but that the Dean seemed not to value proper communication, his role as the chief advocate for the College, or traditions of shared rather than top-down governance.
The Vote of No Confidence is a first step to encourage Dean Lee to strongly reconsider his position and role, and to earnestly, diligently, and expediently come to understand the traditions and nature of the College he serves, which Faculty have endeavored to impart to him for the full seven months of his tenure in office. It is our hope that Dean Lee will pay careful attention to his colleagues and seek ardently to rectify the ills that brought about this Vote.

(Watch out for more information about the Dean at our Informational Site.)

Administrators: Talk to Students

This is a Letter to the Editor we wrote to the Collegian, which was published in the Forum section of the Monday, April 14th issue:

Amid the many significant changes being undertaken at this moment in the University's history – from University-wide budget reallocation, to the restructuring of the College of Arts & Sciences, to conceptions of “extreme student centeredness,” to requirements that all things align themselves with the Directions Strategic Plan, many are wondering when they will have their chance to offer input, or where to go to even gain a full and complete understanding of the proposed plans, their timelines, and how their own careers or plans of study will be effected.

One of the more frustrating aspects is how many administrators react to criticism by claiming that the plans are not yet set in stone but “open for discussion” or are “still a conversation.” The ironic part about this phenomenon is that it seems that administrators would not offer such opportunities for conversation if they did not receive a less than celebratory reaction, and that many of these plans come with accelerated timelines that make it difficult for individuals – whether students, faculty, or staff – to provide input before the plans begin to be implemented. Take for example the plans announced in Dr. Jacobs' State of the University Address, which were to begin being implemented “this afternoon at best, tommorow at the latest,” or the added requirements to professors' requests for sabbatical leave that many feel were added “in the middle of the process.”

No one believes that anyone in the administration is “evil” or even “misguided” – in fact, many aspects of the proposed plans are exciting, revolutionary, and have been needed for some time. The issue is the reality that few among the administration are willing or permitted to voice their doubts about or point out anticipated flaws in proposed plans, so that they reach the general public without being polished by careful thought and revision. The recurrence of proposals that are announced in their final stages of preparation also gives the impression that the administration believes that we non-administrators simply do not know what is good for us – a “speak now or forever hold your peace” paradigm that does not foster very much confidence.

If these plans are truly to be student-centered, they need to have significant student input. If they are to greatly affect faculty and staff, they need to incorporate the principles of shared governance that have been valued and protected for so long. And finally, if these plans are truly to be discussed, there needs to be more time to engage with administrators and many opportunities for question-and-answer sessions, focus groups, and even one-on-one meetings with concerned individuals. As the saying goes, the “greatest danger with communication is the illusion that it has occurred.” We have great confidence in our leaders, and great hope for the future of our Great Institution. We ask only that as students – the often proclaimed raison d'etre of the University – be able to have meaningful role in envisioning that future.

Welcome, One and All!

Greetings and Welcome,
This blog is open to absolutely anyone who wishes to discuss the plans and changes being announced at the University of Toledo, and offer their thoughts, ideas, suggestions, rants, and arguments in a community, dialogue-focused setting.
To join this blog as a contributor, simply create/use a GMail account - if you want anonymity in your posts, it may be a good idea to create/use an account name that is not easily tied to your identity.
This blog is associated with and run by Students for Real Student Centeredness, a student movement begun by a small group of students that is expanding rapidly, including students, faculty, staff, and administrators from diverse settings, each expressing themselves and using their voices in their own unique ways to describe their unease with aspects of the plan or its process(es), or even praising aspects of it they believe will be beneficial.
Let us see all of those ideas and comments here. Please join us, and let your voice be heard. Or if you have your own great idea about how to make sure student voices are heard, go out and do it on your own -- or ask discussants in this blog to help you! All are welcome.
Note also that we have a small site serving as a Clearing-house for information and views about the President's Address, the "ancient" White Paper, and the plans therein, located at UTVoices' Tripod Site. {It is a free site, so beware the annoying ads and popups -- maybe we'll upgrade if we gather some funds :-)}

This is What Democracy Looks Like