UTSW complaints (again)

[gyngyn]

Thanks, but I also noticed someone on page 2 being "restricted' (not revoked) when I first read through this thread. I believe it was Anesussy.

Multiple offenses will result in probation.
Offenses may be unrelated to the thread in which the member is participating.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[O Gurl]

Do you know which schools are like this? Only one I know of is SLU.

I am not aware of any other program that is structured this way... for good reason. I am sure there are some programs that forego using the NBME items, but they have their own solid procedures for validating test items and certainly don't leave students in the dark about which questions were eliminated and why.

 

[xffan624]

I think it is important to engage the facts that we have before us, and based on what is described and backed by evidence in the post, the professors were not being very forthright about the grading procedures. If that many classes warrant curves and grade adjustments after each exam, then that is a sign that MANY students were falling short of the established pass criteria. If other similarly situated students were being bumped above passing and are still in the class, and she just happened to fall a point or two shy in several classes, repeatedly, after having an attorney contact the school, then that is suspicious. The major question is whether she was being treated the same as her peers.

Also, both the school fin aid department and VA benefits office approved the double funding and, according to the blog, she did receive the refund on the excess after tuition and fees were settled. This is not unusual for Chapter 31 or Voc Rehabilitation since those are considered earned benefits for military services. A merit scholarship is also an earned funding source. I highly doubt that both offices got it wrong and issued the payments in error. So the adverse responses and comments about her "double dipping" seem a bit strange.

Finally, where did you read that any LOA was offered to accommodate her anxiety? The letters that she embedded within the blog for the scholarship revocation and dismissal do not make reference to any such offer.

Yeah, they're earned benefits but there still has to be a need met. The VA isn't going to shell out funds to whoever just 'cause you have the benefit. You have to have a beneficiary (i.e. school) certify that there is a bill to be paid. If someone else is paying for it, they're not just going to give you the difference. For the GI Bill they will pay a stipend if you're in residency and don't have a tuition owed. For voc rehab, they're pretty much like the GI Bill but they have more time leeway to extend payments. For Voc Rehab, the objective is get you employed (whatever the cost), not to give money away.

 

[O Gurl]

Yeah, they're earned benefits but there still has to be a need met. The VA isn't going to shell out funds to whoever just 'cause you have the benefit. You have to have a beneficiary (i.e. school) certify that there is a bill to be paid. If someone else is paying for it, they're not just going to give you the difference. For the GI Bill they will pay a stipend if you're in residency and don't have a tuition owed. For voc rehab, they're pretty much like the GI Bill but they have more time leeway to extend payments. For Voc Rehab, the objective is get you employed (whatever the cost), not to give money away.

Just to be clear, you are suggesting that the school financial aid office and the VA benefits office coordinated to allow an unauthorized release of funds for this student and that my school programs also made the same error 20 years ago and again 16 years ago? My VA funds ran concurrently with scholarships and resulted in a small “refund” dispersal each semester.

I think some confusion arises when it comes to COA as people think it is a fixed number. It is a rather complex formula that includes tuition, fees, supplies, living stipends and a variety of other factors, like health care costs for the service connected disability. It is why voc rehab and financial aid officers exist.

I’d love to see your sources of information if you are willing to share them, however, the scholarship was not even revoked due to duplicate funding sources. A very intentional rewording took place, which facilitated that move.

 

[operaman]

After reading the full Medium post, I have a lot of concerns. Firstly, the discrete changing of the scholarship language was out of bounds. That is, technically, changing the terms of a binding contract on one side without alerting the other party. It would have taken someone with major pull to request those changes be made. With that context established, everything else that she claims sounds a lot more believable. An institution that would do something that brazen and unethical, probably would also retaliate against a student who puts up a fuss about it.

The issue of grading is also concerning. First, I will be completely transparent in that I do not like the idea of any program that has sliding or ambiguous grading practices that may impact different students to different degrees, especially when there is not an established standard of transparency. Her correspondence with the professors in two of the course blocks were troubling. The way that they refused to hear appeals, in violation with their own handbook, is a sign of a culture of that does not hold itself accountable. Also, the one professor who simply could not come up with a valid explanation for the fact that she received fewer credited points back, pretty much seals the deal that something was amiss. It is not difficult to say, in simple terms, that we credited points back based on specific items that were deemed invalid and you happened to get those items correctly (strange, but ok) so you did not benefit from the curve. That is problematic for a variety of reasons, namely, it could allow instructors to pick and choose items based on who got them right. However, the instructor asserts that she did not get the tossed items correctly. So there really isn't any explanation for the discrepancy. I also scoff at the idea of taking credit away for not specifying right or left side of the body for MS1 anatomy lab. I don't think anyone can truly believe that a medical student doesn't know left from right. The idea at that point is to demonstrate that you know what the structure IS. I don't want to get too into the weeds on that, but if she did observe other students not being dinged for those small things, then it adds to a clear picture of some sort of bias or retaliation.

Finally, there is the issue of disability accommodation and equitable treatment of other similarly situated students. If they have done things like offered LOA or full year repeats (with the scholarship still active) then they will have a very hard time explaining why this time was handled so differently.

At any rate, those were my impressions. I do want to say, just for clarity, that I notice some accounts that have engaged this conversation have since been restricted. There does not appear to be anyone that is violating TOS in their responses. At most, some of the early contributions had some less than savory racial undertones, but even then, people have a right to speak that way. My hope is that if a moderator here on SDN is in any way tied to the UTSW, that he or she would not allow their affiliation to cause them to unfairly censor contributors.

The scholarship wording change ends up being a moot point. Even if they changed the wording back, she would still have lost both her scholarship as well as her seat in the class. I suspect this is what the school’s legal team has said and will argue in the future.

That aside, I don’t think the new wording is materially different than the original. Rather, it clarifies the intent of the policy in light of how the school handles failure and remediation. By definition, she did fail two courses and lost her scholarship appropriately according to the original wording. That UTSW temporarily puts a placeholder incomplete in the transcript pending remediation doesn’t change the fact she flunked two classes and broke the terms of her agreement under the original wording.

Your other points about grading and whatnot drastically overestimate how much faculty are aware of any given student. I would wager that the professors couldn’t have picked her out of a lineup much less cared enough to target her in any meaningful way. Other classmates of hers have posted on her blog and elsewhere and their accounts show that everyone got equal treatment but unfortunately she didn’t seem to understand how it all worked. Like the whole concept of throwing out X number of questions because they were ambiguous. I’m sure the prof didn’t spell it out because he was stunned anyone wouldn’t get it ( and it seems all of her former classmates understood based on their postings).

I read her account with an open mind and really tried to see her side of it, but alas I think she was doomed from the start. If someone can’t understand a very basic grading system, it doesn’t bode well for understanding physiology! And that prophecy seemed to play out as expected in her case.

 

[O Gurl]

The scholarship wording change ends up being a moot point. Even if they changed the wording back, she would still have lost both her scholarship as well as her seat in the class. I suspect this is what the school’s legal team has said and will argue in the future.

That aside, I don’t think the new wording is materially different than the original. Rather, it clarifies the intent of the policy in light of how the school handles failure and remediation. By definition, she did fail two courses and lost her scholarship appropriately according to the original wording. That UTSW temporarily puts a placeholder incomplete in the transcript pending remediation doesn’t change the fact she flunked two classes and broke the terms of her agreement under the original wording.

Your other points about grading and whatnot drastically overestimate how much faculty are aware of any given student. I would wager that the professors couldn’t have picked her out of a lineup much less cared enough to target her in any meaningful way. Other classmates of hers have posted on her blog and elsewhere and their accounts show that everyone got equal treatment but unfortunately she didn’t seem to understand how it all worked. Like the whole concept of throwing out X number of questions because they were ambiguous. I’m sure the prof didn’t spell it out because he was stunned anyone wouldn’t get it ( and it seems all of her former classmates understood based on their postings).

I read her account with an open mind and really tried to see her side of it, but alas I think she was doomed from the start. If someone can’t understand a very basic grading system, it doesn’t bode well for understanding physiology! And that prophecy seemed to play out as expected in her case.

People do not take the time to change wording that is inconsequential. If the original terms of the scholarship was that anything other than a full pass would count toward revocation, it would have said that. I don’t think a court will buy the argument that the institution made such a change without mutual agreement, but it is ok because of what happened the following semester. Especially if the change was caught and challenged before second semester. At that point, what happened the following semester has to be viewed through the lens of the contract dispute, where it just reeks of “we tried to make our problem go away.”

The grading allegations will be pretty easy to sort out at the end of the day and should not have been a fight at the time she inquired. Any professor should be more than able to explain their own grading and curving process. “I’m sure the prof didn’t spell it out because he was stunned anyone wouldn’t get it.” This is a cute thing to say on an online forum, but would come across very poorly if this were given in testimony as an official excuse for why a professor did not or could not answer a student’s question about their grades.

As for the statements of other students, I am not sure what you are referring to. I looked at the comment area of her blog and saw one person who, quite frankly, sounded very far from being a student. At any rate, I would not put too much stock in anonymous online posts. The real facts will need to be laid bare in sworn statements.

As for your “prophecy” about a (presumed) stranger, an argument that the student conveniently collapsed and failed out after a complaint was raised will need to be one that is firmly substantiated. Based on what we have before us, I think there is a lot that needs to be accounted for by a school that is coming into this from an unenviable position.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

People do not take the time to change wording that is inconsequential. If the original terms of the scholarship was that anything other than a full pass would count toward revocation, it would have said that. I don’t think a court will buy the argument that the institution made such a change without mutual agreement, but it is ok because of what happened the following semester. Especially if the change was caught and challenged before second semester. At that point, what happened the following semester has to be viewed through the lens of the contract dispute, where it just reeks of “we tried to make our problem go away.”

The grading allegations will be pretty easy to sort out at the end of the day and should not have been a fight at the time she inquired. Any professor should be more than able to explain their own grading and curving process. “I’m sure the prof didn’t spell it out because he was stunned anyone wouldn’t get it.” This is a cute thing to say on an online forum, but would come across very poorly if this were given in testimony as an official excuse for why a professor did not or could not answer a student’s question about their grades.

As for the statements of other students, I am not sure what you are referring to. I looked at the comment area of her blog and saw one person who, quite frankly, sounded very far from being a student. At any rate, I would not put too much stock in anonymous online posts. The real facts will need to be laid bare in sworn statements.

As for your “prophecy” about a (presumed) stranger, an argument that the student conveniently collapsed and failed out after a complaint was raised will need to be one that is firmly substantiated. Based on what we have before us, I think there is a lot that needs to be accounted for by a school that is coming into this from an unenviable position.

You have to keep in mind that all we're hearing at this point is her side of the story. That means this is the absolute best case scenario for her.

And it still doesn't look great.

 

[O Gurl]

You have to keep in mind that all we're hearing at this point is her side of the story. That means this is the absolute best case scenario for her.

And it still doesn't look great.

Yes, I think it is important to bear in mind that none of us have all of the facts. I think we differ quite a bit on how this looks for the student vs the school, but ultimately, things will need to be sorted out by a third party.

 

[texasvandy]

She was not the first student to be sent packing by UTSW for failing. It would be very hard to prove discrimination since people of every race have been thrown out in the past.

Institutions revoke scholarships on a regular basis for failing to meet grades. If they want to change policies 20 times over one year because they found that it does not adequately address all types of issues and courts find suspicious they will award her money back at best but it would be very surprising if she were ever to be reinstated.

 

[O Gurl]

She was not the first student to be sent packing by UTSW for failing. It would be very hard to prove discrimination since people of every race have been thrown out in the past.

Institutions revoke scholarships on a regular basis for failing to meet grades. If they want to change policies 20 times over one year because they found that it does not adequately address all types of issues and courts find suspicious they will award her money back at best but it would be very surprising if she were ever to be reinstated.

Of course. Students can and do fail out of medical school and all other graduate programs. Most of our data will show that the fail rates are very small, as most institutions offer lots of support and opportunities to course correct before damaging their own outcome data and dismissing a student. None of us want that. Students also give their best efforts to hang on to their career hopes and dreams. My program has had a handful of students not finish over the 12 years that I have been here. Many were disappointed and upset, but none has resulted in litigation, to the best of my knowledge. I think most people have a pretty solid internal gauge and insight. We know when we are in over our heads and just failing to meet the mark. We process our hurt feelings and move forward. When things do escalate to legal claims, I think it is fair to hold out the possibility that there is some basis for the plaintiff to continue in that avenue, even if the courts ultimately disagree and they lose.

All of that said, the question is whether she was treated in a fair and unbiased manner and still fail? Her allegation is that she observed differences in grading that were not explained to her satisfaction. That will need to be proven or disproven. Her other allegation is that this was done in retaliation for the contract language change and the subsequent complaint. That will need to be examined. You mentioned race as a possible sticking point, but I am honestly more interested in disability status. A school that accepts a student on VA Voc Rehab/Chapter 31 is acknowledging right off the bat that the veteran has a documented disability. She identifies hers as anxiety. To see so little attention paid to that in her decision and appeals letters from UTSW is deeply concerning to me. I think that aspect will certainly require careful consideration. What accommodation was she offered? How was the decision made to dismiss before remediation was attempted or a LOA? I cannot recall all of the point and grading information, but if these were classes that she was failing by a point or two, I think it will look damningly inflexible for a student to be completely dismissed before any of these options were tried.

As for scholarship requirements, I agree that schools have the right to set and adjust their expectations. I do not agree that it should be done after the contract has been executed and the student is in attendance and certainly not without clear and explicit agreement between both parties. Changes are usually applied to prospective students.

 

[texasvandy]

@O Gurl I have read some of the emails and I am unsure I have seen anything specific mentioned to accommodate any disorders in those threads. Until you raised it, I was not even aware that her military money was tied to a disability after having kept up with this thread all these days.

People read very selectively and not always digest every nuance. What I read tells me that the professors and Mihalic were proposing specific actions that were geared towards keeping her out of academic issues the way they saw fit and she turned down several of the different options and chose to go her own way. I believe those options would have resulted in her probably repeating year 1 as opposed to dismissal and loss of scholarship but she was concerned more about retaining scholarship than ensuring she stayed a student (There is some level of fear that everyone is out to get me is what I read). The way her write up reads it felt like she was overwhelmingly basing her decisions on retaining the scholarship as opposed to retaining the admission and for most people who have done medicine (not me) and discussing here that would have been a low priority. Many of them went into large debt to be doctors and don't consider retaining a scholarship to be that important and their input may be reflecting that aspect. Texas medical schools are cheap and it was a 200k decision or may be 175k after semester 1 if they were paying for room and board also in the scholarship.

I dont know a single professor in US that would admit bias (they are all humans and are fully biased in their own ways) and what is being claimed is collusion among all professors to deliberately flunk one person. These people are tenured and if an actual lawsuit is won against UTSW, nothing will happen to any of them and they will admit nothing.

 

[operaman]

Yes, I think it is important to bear in mind that none of us have all of the facts. I think we differ quite a bit on how this looks for the student vs the school, but ultimately, things will need to be sorted out by a third party.

I don’t think so. There’s no material fact in dispute in this case. She overwhelmingly failed multiple classes which other than the lab exam were all computer based multiple choice tests. Nobody stood over her and make her click the wrong answer out of retaliation. She literally had the answer in front her for every question and still flunked.

Even if we take her entire post as true, I still don’t see where she has any legal claim. Absolute best case scenario for her would be getting her spring semester scholarship payment back if the court decides to consider the revocation a breach of contract, which is basically Spare change that will get eaten up by attorney fees anyhow.

Any ADA claim is dead in the water too. She doesn’t actually allege any meaningful fact suggesting it was violated. And even if it does survive summary judgement, the emails from faculty are chock full of offers to help, referring her to student services, and even mention other offers for help that she refused. I can’t imagine any rational human thinking the school did anything but bend over backwards to help her.

As a neutral outsider reading her one sided account I see nothing to suggest the school did anything wrong. I can’t imagine this has any chance of surviving summary judgement.

 

[O Gurl]

@O Gurl I have read some of the emails and I am unsure I have seen anything specific mentioned to accommodate any disorders in those threads. Until you raised it, I was not even aware that her military money was tied to a disability after having kept up with this thread all these days.

People read very selectively and not always digest every nuance. What I read tells me that the professors and Mihalic were proposing specific actions that were geared towards keeping her out of academic issues the way they saw fit and she turned down several of the different options and chose to go her own way. I believe those options would have resulted in her probably repeating year 1 as opposed to dismissal and loss of scholarship but she was concerned more about retaining scholarship than ensuring she stayed a student (There is some level of fear that everyone is out to get me is what I read). The way her write up reads it felt like she was overwhelmingly basing her decisions on retaining the scholarship as opposed to retaining the admission and for most people who have done medicine (not me) and discussing here that would have been a low priority. Many of them went into large debt to be doctors and don't consider retaining a scholarship to be that important and their input may be reflecting that aspect. Texas medical schools are cheap and it was a 200k decision or may be 175k after semester 1 if they were paying for room and board also in the scholarship.

I dont know a single professor in US that would admit bias (they are all humans and are fully biased in their own ways) and what is being claimed is collusion among all professors to deliberately flunk one person. These people are tenured and if an actual lawsuit is won against UTSW, nothing will happen to any of them and they will admit nothing.

Yes, there is a lot of nuance here, so I’d caution anyone from thinking they have a firm grasp on what happened here. Voc Rehab/Chapter 31 is exclusively for disabled veterans, so there are certain expectation for a school’s disability accommodations when a student has those benefits. I think it is easy, but not particularly fair or accurate, to say the student was being unreasonable when she accepted UTSW’s offer over others based on the scholarship offer. I don’t think most students would turn that down. Having that pulled, especially in a scenario where a shady language change took place, is something that anyone should have the right to address through appropriate channels.

Without the context of the scholarship language dispute, I, too would be skeptical of allegations of collusion on this level. However, as I stated before, that move likely required someone pretty high up on the food chain to make it happen and the way it was done was unethical. If that claim holds up, the rest of the collusion argument won’t look that far fetched.

“These people are tenured and if an actual lawsuit is won against UTSW, nothing will happen to any of them and they will admit nothing.” This is quite unfortunate and one aspect of academia that is sorely in need of a culture shift. Personally, I would be disgusted if it were to be revealed that my colleagues engaged in inappropriate conduct that resulted in a student being dismissed and would be quite unhappy with the fact that they have a cloak of protection to allow them to just carry on and possibly do it again. That said, you are correct in the realities of tenure. There are terrible people firmly entrenched in many institutions that are virtually impossible to remove.

 

[O Gurl]

I don’t think so. There’s no material fact in dispute in this case. She overwhelmingly failed multiple classes which other than the lab exam were all computer based multiple choice tests. Nobody stood over her and make her click the wrong answer out of retaliation. She literally had the answer in front her for every question and still flunked.

Even if we take her entire post as true, I still don’t see where she has any legal claim. Absolute best case scenario for her would be getting her spring semester scholarship payment back if the court decides to consider the revocation a breach of contract, which is basically Spare change that will get eaten up by attorney fees anyhow.

Any ADA claim is dead in the water too. She doesn’t actually allege any meaningful fact suggesting it was violated. And even if it does survive summary judgement, the emails from faculty are chock full of offers to help, referring her to student services, and even mention other offers for help that she refused. I can’t imagine any rational human thinking the school did anything but bend over backwards to help her.

As a neutral outsider reading her one sided account I see nothing to suggest the school did anything wrong. I can’t imagine this has any chance of surviving summary judgement.

It is hard for me to know how to begin to respond to you because we genuinely seem to have read completely different blogs and attachments. “There’s no material fact in dispute in this case.” If you think a contract dispute, ADA accommodation, and grade discrepancies (with alleged proof from other students and written proof of professors violating their own handbook re: appeals) is immaterial, then I don’t think we have much of a reason to continue discussing this.

 

[guytakingboards]

It is hard for me to know how to begin to respond to you because we genuinely seem to have read completely different blogs and attachments. “There’s no material fact in dispute in this case.” If you think a contract dispute, ADA accommodation, and grade discrepancies (with alleged proof from other students and written proof of professors violating their own handbook re: appeals) is immaterial, then I don’t think we have much of a reason to continue discussing this.

-contract dispute over losing the merit-scholarship IS immaterial. She was expelled from medical school over multiple class failures. She probably could have managed to stay in school without the scholarship but then she failed more classes and that became a moot issue.

-ADA accommodation: the term "anxiety" is mentioned a total of two times in the post. Nowhere did it mention that she applied for and was denied accommodation for a disability. I don't doubt she has anxiety. In fact her post implies it's an official service-related condition. But ADA accomodations do not equal "i failed by 2 points.... but i have anxiety!?!?!"

-grade discrepancies: this portion is kinda nebulous to my reading. Maybe not every single move was above board on UTSW's part, maybe it was. I can't really tell. This part again falls back to: she failed multiple classes. Not 1, not 2, not 3. By my count 5. And as noted in her expulsion letter: she barely passed several others.

I have no love lost for UTSW. I've heard its a tough institution: med school and residencies. Had a good friend quit residency there and move to a new institution and specialty. That being said, I don't think she has much of a leg to stand on. If anything, the random backhand allegation of racism at the end probably completely shut the door for her.

 

[operaman]

It is hard for me to know how to begin to respond to you because we genuinely seem to have read completely different blogs and attachments. “There’s no material fact in dispute in this case.” If you think a contract dispute, ADA accommodation, and grade discrepancies (with alleged proof from other students and written proof of professors violating their own handbook re: appeals) is immaterial, then I don’t think we have much of a reason to continue discussing this.

This gets a bit nuanced because we have to distinguish between an alleged fact and an interpretation of that fact.

Fact: they changed the wording re the scholarship. No dispute there.

Fact: she failed two classes in the fall

Fact: she failed multiple classes in the spring.

Nobody disputes those key facts. Renders word changes moot. Contract dispute over.

Lather rinse repeat for ADA claims, grade discrepancies, etc.

Example:

ADA: she alleges she had a disability. Undisputed.

ADA: she presents evidence that says she never requested accommodations. Undisputed.

ADA: she presents multiple faculty emails, all of which direct her to school resources for people with disabilities. Undisputed.

ADA: she alleges that she was directly offered assistance but she refused it. Undisputed.

Grades: she alleges she was provided written copies of grading policy. No dispute.

Grades: she alleges she failed multiple classes. Undisputed

Grades: she alleges she appealed items on a couple exams. Undisputed

Grades: she alleges faculty reviewed the exam and credited back poor questions to those who missed them. Undisputed.

Grades: she appealed again, and it was quickly denied. Undisputed.

Grades: she alleges she failed so many things that the disputed questions wouldn’t have altered the outcome anyhow.

Game. Set. Match.

And on it goes. “I think the faculty was out to get me” is not a fact and there’s no question there to try before judge or jury. Same for “things sure looked suspicious to me.”

Whatever delusional framework she has created to console herself for flunking out of Med school doesn’t really meet the standard of fact. Unless she’s sitting on facts and evidence she failed to present in her post, I think it’s over for her. It’ll take a couple years to work through court, but I don’t see any material fact in dispute.

 

[Lawpy]

That diatribe the student wrote pretty much doomed whatever remaining chances she had in medicine. No way UTSW is going to take her back and I see zero reason why any US med school will take a chance on her

 

[GoSpursGo]

All of that said, the question is whether she was treated in a fair and unbiased manner and still fail? Her allegation is that she observed differences in grading that were not explained to her satisfaction. That will need to be proven or disproven. Her other allegation is that this was done in retaliation for the contract language change and the subsequent complaint. That will need to be examined.

I think the main problem that I (and others) have with this is that this likely isn't something that can be proven or disproven. That's why so many of these cases don't go anywhere--the result is closer to "the allegations cannot be proven" without disproving them either. But in the absence of incontrovertible evidence that they discriminated against her, in general the courts defer to educational institutions.

My default bias is that if someone truly has a legitimate case, then they probably would have a lawyer that would tell them NOT to make these kinds of posts online. Given that this post exists, I suspect she is making these kinds of posts to put the pressure of public opinion on UTSW to cut a deal. That may be unfair, and may or may not be true, but I don't think that this post helps her cause.

 

[deleted1139416]

I just find it hilarious how she’s gloating about getting an 80% as if that’s extremely impressive….

 

[deleted1139416]

Ok? But if you're failing, every point counts.

You could make the same argument for a crucial missed call at the end of a basketball game. "If you had just made your free throws, you would have won." Ok? So we just have to put up with incompetent refs?

None of your arguments are swaying me. It very much seems like you guys reached your own conclusion and are trying to shoehorn every piece of evidence to fit your side.

You don’t have to get 30% less points than the other team to win in basket-ball. But med school allows you to miss 30% of the points…..

The point is that she’s probably have flunked out anyway even if she got points for not writing down laterality. Even if she made it through first year, second year is way harder

 

[O Gurl]

-contract dispute over losing the merit-scholarship IS immaterial. She was expelled from medical school over multiple class failures. She probably could have managed to stay in school without the scholarship but then she failed more classes and that became a moot issue.

-ADA accommodation: the term "anxiety" is mentioned a total of two times in the post. Nowhere did it mention that she applied for and was denied accommodation for a disability. I don't doubt she has anxiety. In fact her post implies it's an official service-related condition. But ADA accomodations do not equal "i failed by 2 points.... but i have anxiety!?!?!"

-grade discrepancies: this portion is kinda nebulous to my reading. Maybe not every single move was above board on UTSW's part, maybe it was. I can't really tell. This part again falls back to: she failed multiple classes. Not 1, not 2, not 3. By my count 5. And as noted in her expulsion letter: she barely passed several others.

I have no love lost for UTSW. I've heard its a tough institution: med school and residencies. Had a good friend quit residency there and move to a new institution and specialty. That being said, I don't think she has much of a leg to stand on. If anything, the random backhand allegation of racism at the end probably completely shut the door for her.

I think we are running the risk of talking in circles here shortly, but I wanted to address this bolded statement. If it can be established that she was graded differently/more harshly than her peers on even a few assignments/exams in a few classes, then that, taken along with the scholarship business paints a very nasty picture for UTSW. From what I recall in the blog post (someone can correct me if I am wrong, it has been a few days now), she has evidence that she has elected not to share in the blog post to protect the sources, presumably other students. This is not something that we will sort out on SDN. There would need to be a thorough review of her evidence and that of the school's. I won't go back into the ADA issue other than to reiterate that it would not be great for UTSW if their move to dismiss came before standard practices re: disabled students (LOA, remediation of courses, repeat of the academic year, testing accommodation, etc). I just can't imagine a scenario where they have an open complaint being sorted out re: funding and they can argue that no bias was involved in their decision if several of those alternatives remained unexplored. We only have the student's account thus far. Perhaps UTSW will be able to prove that they tried all of that. We will have to wait and see.

 

[O Gurl]

I think the main problem that I (and others) have with this is that this likely isn't something that can be proven or disproven. That's why so many of these cases don't go anywhere--the result is closer to "the allegations cannot be proven" without disproving them either. But in the absence of incontrovertible evidence that they discriminated against her, in general the courts defer to educational institutions.

My default bias is that if someone truly has a legitimate case, then they probably would have a lawyer that would tell them NOT to make these kinds of posts online. Given that this post exists, I suspect she is making these kinds of posts to put the pressure of public opinion on UTSW to cut a deal. That may be unfair, and may or may not be true, but I don't think that this post helps her cause.

I tend to disagree about whether these claims can be proven/disproven. We are talking pre-clinical exams and assignments--things that have correct and incorrect answers with a certain amount of points allotted for the items. We typically see these types of allegations (targeting, discrimination, retaliation) for dismissals that occur during clinicals, a scenario that can often come down to one word against another and subjective performance ratings. Even then, I've seen it go both ways with who comes out on top in court. Generally speaking, though, it is a tougher case to make when these things happen outside of graded courses.

I think we have all also learned of student/employee vs school/hospital disputes once all internal avenues and appeals have been exhausted and things are headed to litigation. At that point, there really is no incentive for the dismissed student/employee to remain quiet. Once things land in court, they become matters of public records from press releases to actual searchable case decisions. That is why we try to manage these things internally.

 

[anesussy]

You don’t have to get 30% less points than the other team to win in basket-ball. But med school allows you to miss 30% of the points…..

The point is that she’s probably have flunked out anyway even if she got points for not writing down laterality. Even if she made it through first year, second year is way harder

Actually, 45-50% is considered a great field goal percentage. So you’re “allowed” to miss 50-55%.

 

[GoSpursGo]

I tend to disagree about whether these claims can be proven/disproven. We are talking pre-clinical exams and assignments--things that have correct and incorrect answers with a certain amount of points allotted for the items. We typically see these types of allegations (targeting, discrimination, retaliation) for dismissals that occur during clinicals, a scenario that can often come down to one word against another and subjective performance ratings. Even then, I've seen it go both ways with who comes out on top in court. Generally speaking, though, it is a tougher case to make when these things happen outside of graded courses.

I think we have all also learned of student/employee vs school/hospital disputes once all internal avenues and appeals have been exhausted and things are headed to litigation. At that point, there really is no incentive for the dismissed student/employee to remain quiet. Once things land in court, they become matters of public records from press releases to actual searchable case decisions. That is why we try to manage these things internally.

Her contention isn't that she was graded incorrectly, but rather out of proportion to her peers. Grading curves are adjusted all the time to account for problematic questions or other extenuating circumstances. Plus it didn't seem like these were MCQs, so I don't think it's that black and white. I generally think it is going to be difficult to prove that she was systematically discriminated against repeatedly, or that it was in a retaliatory manner. But I suppose we shall see. Regardless, I think any lawyer worth their salt would probably advise her against discussing ongoing litigation publicly.

 

[Big Time Hoosier]

I ended up with a bad grade first semester
biochem by one question. Literally one question across 3 months would have been the deciding factor.

1 question on an exam in a 3 credit course kept me from graduating summa cum laude. Crap happens.

Wait, what’s a dentist doing here? Ok...I’ll show myself the door.

Big Hoss

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

1 question on an exam in a 3 credit course kept me from graduating summa cum laude. Crap happens.

Wait, what’s a dentist doing here? Ok...I’ll show myself the door.

Big Hoss

That was kinda my point

 

[anesussy]

To the people arguing "one question shouldn't matter" - what if someone lightly bumped into your elderly mom with an unsteady gait, and your mom fell as a result? Would you be satisfied if that person refused to apologize, said that "one little bump shouldn't matter," and that your mom should have known better - her fault for not walking everywhere with a cane?

 

[Goro]

To the people arguing "one question shouldn't matter" - what if someone lightly bumped into your elderly mom with an unsteady gait, and your mom fell as a result? Would you be satisfied if that person refused to apologize, said that "one little bump shouldn't matter," and that your mom should have known better - her fault for not walking everywhere with a cane?

This isn't just apples to oranges, it's grapefruit to atom bombs.

You're just not going to let this go are you? To remind you, she failed multiple exams it wouldn't have mattered if she passed the anatomy exam she still would have failed out because she failed other courses.

Courses, plural.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Just for transparency, anesussy wasn't banned for any particular post, but rather for a pattern of posting which when examined in totality seemed pretty trollish.

 

[operaman]

Her contention isn't that she was graded incorrectly, but rather out of proportion to her peers. Grading curves are adjusted all the time to account for problematic questions or other extenuating circumstances. Plus it didn't seem like these were MCQs, so I don't think it's that black and white. I generally think it is going to be difficult to prove that she was systematically discriminated against repeatedly, or that it was in a retaliatory manner. But I suppose we shall see. Regardless, I think any lawyer worth their salt would probably advise her against discussing ongoing litigation publicly.

Yeah she definitely overestimates how important one preclinical student is. Truth is most of her faculty had no idea who she was and couldnt pick her out of a lineup. The idea that faculty are singling out one person from a faceless mass of students in a lecture hall/zoom is simply ridiculous.

Her idea that it’s a good idea to discuss publicly goes even beyond the ridiculous. Especially when everyone here reads her written words that will definitely get used in legal filings now and thinks she doesn’t have a case. Now UTSW can cite any/all of her words in their motion to dismiss without having to bother with discovery or depositions at all! I can’t imagine she has much of an attorney, or if she does they probably feel a lot of sympathy for her school that also had to watch her self destruct.

The only reason I can picture a lawyer taking this case on contingency would be to try and go after that second semester scholarship dispersement. They might be able to get some kind of settlement out of UTSW and then they’ll go back to Penny and say she either has to take it or start paying out of pocket. Then they pocket most or all of the settlement with legal fees plus their 30% of what’s left.

 

[Med Ed]

Yeah she definitely overestimates how important one preclinical student is. Truth is most of her faculty had no idea who she was and couldnt pick her out of a lineup. The idea that faculty are singling out one person from a faceless mass of students in a lecture hall/zoom is simply ridiculous.

Indeed.

You know what every med school faculty member (and admin) would love? If every student passed all their exams, progressed on time, and graduated with a job waiting on July 1. It would be an opium dream to dispense with all the failures, remediation exams, promotion committees, repeated years, dismissals, etc. The struggling student is not a source of joy for anyone.

But alas, med school is hard and not everyone makes it through cleanly, or at all.

 

[Goro]

Indeed.

You know what every med school faculty member (and admin) would love? If every student passed all their exams, progressed on time, and graduated with a job waiting on July 1. It would be an opium dream to dispense with all the failures, remediation exams, promotion committees, repeated years, dismissals, etc. The struggling student is not a source of joy for anyone.

But alas, med school is hard and not everyone makes it through cleanly, or at all.

Indeed 2x.

There's a saying in law enforcement that 90% of crime is committed by 5% of the criminals.

Well, in medical education, 90% of faculty headaches are made by 5% of our students.

And to paraphrase Anton Checkov, all good students are the same, all struggling students are different.

 

[operaman]

Indeed 2x.

There's a saying in law enforcement that 90% of crime is committed by 5% of the criminals.

Well, in medical education, 90% of faculty headaches are made by 5% of our students.

And to paraphrase Anton Checkov, all good students are the same, all struggling students are different.

Yeah maybe I should amend my post:

Her faculty had no idea who she was in the beginning. But she definitely managed to get on the radar eventually!

She thinks it’s some big conspiracy done in retaliation for the scholarship snafu. In reality it was retaliation for all the wrong answers she kept selecting on exams.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Just to be clear, and as I said on the first page--I do think it is conceivable that she was treated unfairly. Even if it wasn't some overt conspiracy to revoke her scholarship or push her out of the school, and even if I think laterality is a part of a correct answer in anatomy, it is certainly possible that implicit biases led to her not getting the benefit of the doubt that other students received, or that she didn't receive the same level of support other students had. I *do* think that will be difficult for her to prove legally, though.

Ideally she should have had an advisor who could have helped her long before reaching the point of dismissal. Without hearing the other side it’s hard for me to speculate whether she just had no support at all, or if she was just resistant or oblivious to attempts to help her.

 

[deleted1139416]

Just to be clear, and as I said on the first page--I do think it is conceivable that she was treated unfairly. Even if it wasn't some overt conspiracy to revoke her scholarship or push her out of the school, and even if I think laterality is a part of a correct answer in anatomy, it is certainly possible that implicit biases led to her not getting the benefit of the doubt that other students received, or that she didn't receive the same level of support other students had. I *do* think that will be difficult for her to prove legally, though.

Ideally she should have had an advisor who could have helped her long before reaching the point of dismissal. Without hearing the other side it’s hard for me to speculate whether she just had no support at all, or if she was just resistant or oblivious to attempts to help her.

When she made that post online, her intention was clearly to defame the school. So if she did have any solid proof that she was being treated unfairly, she would have explicitly made a case for that in her post, rather than talking in generalities to make the reader think so. Besides, I’m not sure if a difference in half a point is really considered unfair treatment. At our school it just means we have different people grading exams so the same answer could be graded slightly differently. It seems to me that this happened to her just a couple times and then she decided she was being untreated unfairly. Then she looked at everything else that happened to her through that lens of being treated unfairly. I think she’s just enveloped into a victim mentality.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

I mean what would be the motive to revoke her scholarship? What is 300k to an institution like UT Southwestern? I read that the entire UT system had an endowment that rivals that of Harvard

 

[futureapppsy2]

One point about disability accommodations that I think some people are missing here is that, legally, they can't be asked for/applied retroactively. If the student was approved for reasonable accommodations on the basis of disability but they weren't provided and she did poorly, then yes, there's basis for a claim there. If the student never sought accommodations prior to an exam, did poorly, and then said that her grade should be adjusted because she should have asked for accommodations earlier, she has no legal grounds for an ADA compliant. So, it very much depends on *when* she asked for accommodations.

 

[deleted1139416]

One point about disability accommodations that I think some people are missing here is that, legally, they can't be asked for/applied retroactively. If the student was approved for reasonable accommodations on the basis of disability but they weren't provided and she did poorly, then yes, there's basis for a claim there. If the student never sought accommodations prior to an exam, did poorly, and then said that her grade should be adjusted because she should have asked for accommodations earlier, she has no legal grounds for an ADA compliant. So, it very much depends on *when* she asked for accommodations.

Not only was she careless in requesting the accommodations, her signature says “Course Liason, Biomedical Innovation”. Why was she doing extracurriculars when she’s barely passing????

 

[nofliesonme]

Indeed 2x.

There's a saying in law enforcement that 90% of crime is committed by 5% of the criminals.

Well, in medical education, 90% of faculty headaches are made by 5% of our students.

And to paraphrase Anton Checkov, all good students are the same, all struggling students are different.

Perhaps you mean; Tolstoy's first sentence in Anna Karenina: "Happy families are all alike, every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."

 

[Goro]

Perhaps you mean; Tolstoy's first sentence in Anna Karenina: "Happy families are all alike, every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."

Russian writer!! At least I was on the same continent

 

[nofliesonme]

Russian writer!! At least I was on the same continent

Tolstoy, Chekhov, Dostoevsky and Tchaikovsky, walk into a bar.
I regret to inform you the joke has been cancelled.

 

[Med Ed]

Russian writer!! At least I was on the same continent

Europe or Asia?

 

[deleted968861]

Here's the real question: how do so many physicians and faculty (PhDs) have the time to analyze this situation over and over again and write long essays as responses concerning this case on an online forum?

Don't y'all have families, jobs, research, teaching to do?

 

[Goro]

Europe or Asia?

Yes

 

[Goro]

Here's the real question: how do so many physicians and faculty (PhDs) have the time to analyze this situation over and over again and write long essays as responses concerning this case on an online forum?

Don't y'all have families, jobs, research, teaching to do?

I can't answer for my colleagues, but it's pretty easy to write things down, using Voice, when I'm spinning cells down or waiting for a gel to run.

 

[operaman]

I can't answer for my colleagues, but it's pretty easy to write things down, using Voice, when I'm spinning cells down or waiting for a gel to run.

Yeah takes very little time to post. Pretty easy to multitask too. Plus we only have to read it all once to have a good idea of what’s going on. It’s not a complicated situation despite the OP’s delusions.

 

[Med Ed]

Don't y'all have families, jobs, research, teaching to do?

Yes. What else would we be escaping from?

 

[deleted968861]

I can't answer for my colleagues, but it's pretty easy to write things down, using Voice, when I'm spinning cells down or waiting for a gel to run.

Voice typically doesn't allow you to have impeccable grammar which you do in your posts. But thanks for the insight

 

[Goro]

Voice typically doesn't allow you to have impeccable grammar which you do in your posts. But thanks for the insight

It doesn't take long to go back and edit, either.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Here's the real question: how do so many physicians and faculty (PhDs) have the time to analyze this situation over and over again and write long essays as responses concerning this case on an online forum?

Don't y'all have families, jobs, research, teaching to do?

Could be that you’re a slow writer. I probably post here every day (though less than I once did) and got the highest score on my first exam, go on at least one date per weekend, exercise etc.