- Joined
- Jul 5, 2017
- Messages
- 1,902
- Reaction score
- 3,261
You massively underestimate how bored we are. What else do you think I do on the toilet?
UTSW complaints (again)
- Thread starter DrK97
- Start date
- Status
You massively underestimate how bored we are. What else do you think I do on the toilet?
D
deleted968861
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,969
- Reaction score
- 56,440
Sure it does, you just have to dictate the punctuation as well.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2018
- Messages
- 1,365
- Reaction score
- 2,321
Dictation has saved me tons of time.
I love it. It isn’t as good a real transcriptionists. . . But that is too expensive for modern medicine.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,092
- Reaction score
- 10,014
Preach. Dictation is what let’s me leave every day with all my charting done and actually write good notes. No way I could ever type that fast.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2018
- Messages
- 815
- Reaction score
- 1,353
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,969
- Reaction score
- 56,440
I actually don't dictate my notes, but I do for most of my SDN posts.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2010
- Messages
- 671
- Reaction score
- 21
Apologies for the slow reply. I went back to the Medium post and read back through the attachments that were embedded and linked throughout. I have to say that there are several points that you stated in this post that I simply cannot find evidence of.
ADA: she presents evidence that says she never requested accommodations. Undisputed.
Where and how did she prove she never asked for accommodations?
ADA: she presents multiple faculty emails, all of which direct her to school resources for people with disabilities. Undisputed.
Factually untrue. I am not sure why you would assert this when the emails are clearly viewable from the post.
ADA: she alleges that she was directly offered assistance but she refused it. Undisputed.
Factually untrue. The only thing coming close to this statement is where one of the Deans requested to speak with her and she asked that they keep their communications in writing. If there is another exchange that you are referring to, please let me know.
Grades: she alleges faculty reviewed the exam and credited back poor questions to those who missed them. Undisputed.
This is directly contradicted in her emails with the respiratory instructors where she asks point blank if the items that were tossed out were ones that she had answered correctly and the response was no. That entire exchange was unusual because the context would have to be that students were not informed of the outcomes of the curves and challenges, else that would be something that would be clearly established already. At any rate, based on their back and forth, there was no clear answer as to why she was credited back fewer points than peers (her allegation).
Grades: she alleges she failed so many things that the disputed questions wouldn’t have altered the outcome anyhow.
Factually untrue. There are courses where half a point on one exam was the difference between passing and failing.
Fact: they changed the wording re the scholarship. No dispute there.
No dispute about the fact that it happened. It is the legality of it that is in question. I am not a lawyer, but retroactively applying new criteria to an existing contract just doesn't pass the whiff test.
Fact: she failed two classes in the fall
Related to the point above, this is a problematic take. If "incomplete" could be remedied by simply retaking the final, then it is clearly a different disposition than "failure" requiring that the course be repeated. Again, if there was no practical difference between the two, then why make the covert language change?
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2010
- Messages
- 671
- Reaction score
- 21
I think a certain level of personal investment is palpable in this thread. Everyone can read as much or as little into that as they wish. That said, this is a very interesting (and salacious, I'll admit) topic, so it will obviously draw attention. It was enough to cause me to dust off my SDN account! 10k people have viewed the thread so far, but yes. Most of the activity and discourse has been limited to a small group of docs/faculty.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2006
- Messages
- 10,418
- Reaction score
- 14,645
Threads that go on for pages tend to get more traffic, which makes more people post on them.
And the questions get more intersting as the topic develops.
So now here's my deep dive into her article, by topic/complaint she espouses:
1. The double scholarship issue
I don't have much to say here, since I don't understand the rules involved. Several posters have said it's impossible, and others state it happened to them. In any case, it's uncommon so it doesn't surprise me that things didn't go smoothly. If the school had never been in this situation before, it wouldn't surprise me at all that when they get the VA payment after everything has already been covered, they would just roll it to the next semester. The error may not be any sort of nefarious event.
One thing worth noting: if she had kept her spot in medical school and lost her UTSW full ride, she still has a full scholarship. At least if I'm understanding the situation correctly, and the VA scholarship is for everything. If the VA scholarship is for less than the full cost, then it's obv more of an issue.
2. Conditional Pass
Per her description, a conditional pass is when either the final exam or the coursework is "narrowly short" of the 70%. She states that she got an incomplete in Microanatomy, but does not disclose why. It must be because her exam was <70%, else she would fail (as Incomplete is when the final exam is <70%). There is no mention of how "narrowly short" she was in this course, hence a CP might not have been an option at all. And, I expect that a CP is dependent upon satisfactory completion of other courses -- once she fails the next thing, they likely convert the CP to an incomplete or fail also (this is my guess, may be incorrect). She complaints about not getting an option of a CP, but it's not clear that she qualified for one - in microanatomy (we don't have enough info), nor in Anatomy -- which does not have a final. And I expect the CP is for someone who is otherwise doing well -- not someone who is barely passing other courses. But we'd need their full grading criteria to know.
So there is some chance she has a valid argument here -- but we're missing too much information to know. I don't expect this argument would be successful, unless she can show someone in similar circumstances who got this kind of treatment.
3. Anatomy grade
As already mentioned on the thread, Anatomy is different where there isn't a final. There are three exams covering 1/3 of the material. Just getting a 70+ on the last exam is great, but to pass you need to get a 70 average on all exams. I can't speak to the advice to not take the last exam at all, but as mentioned perhaps it was mathematically impossible for her to pass the course at that point. If so, her average in that class would need to be quite low -- 56% (assuming all three exams are weighted equally). It does make me wonder what the school's advice was really all about. Her complaints that Anatomy is managed differently than everything else are non-valid -- that was known prior to the course, and certainly wasn't changed to specifically impact her. And she can't get a conditional pass in Anatomy, since there's no final (if that is her complaint, which is somewhat vague).
4. Differential grading in anatomy
This is another point which may be true. I assume the anatomy exams are "fill in the blank" hence her missing the laterality. These types of tests are subject to differential grading if not done carefully. She claims knowledge of someone else with a different score for the same question in a quiz review. I have no idea if that's true or not, and since she seems to suggest that the exams are not turned back to the students for review I'm not certain how she (or anyone) would know this. But maybe the quizzes (different from the exams) were turned back to people, so perhaps some truth there. If she can actually show that there is differential grading and that she got lower grades --- whether that's on purpose, implicit bias, or simply an error -- she would have a valid argument. She would need to show enough of a problem to change all of the exams to get her grade about a 70%.
5. Withdrawal of the scholarship / changing of the website
This is probably the most interesting of the questions raised. It's very clear from the initial wording that failing 2 courses = losing her scholarship. With that:
A. Does getting an incomplete in a course count as a failure? On the one hand, one could argue that it isn't. "Incomplete" =/= "Fail". That's certainly her argument. On the other hand, one could argue that incomplete is simply a placeholder for a failed course while the student tries to remediate. That, as far as the scholarship is concerned, it's a fail. UTSW would need to show that other students in the same boat had the same outcome. This is something she could certainly argue in court. She states this is a contract issue -- and contracts are all about technicalities. And that's exactly what this is -- a technicality. I'm sure the school meant that if you get 2 incompletes you lose your scholarship, but they wrote the rules such that it's a bit vague. She would have some real chance of winning this argument. Although, since she ultimately was dismissed due to more failures (and not an inability to pay / forced to take out loans / etc), it's not clear what she would win. Not her spot back.
B. Can the school change the "rules" for keeping the scholarship? We are assuming that these new rules applied to her. And the question also is whether this is really a change in the rules, or just a clarification. But even if we say it's a change, whether or not the school can change the rules mid flight is again a contract issue. Does the contract state that these rules are fixed? Or does the contract state "per the rules in the handbook" and the handbook can change at any time. Because if so, the school can change the rules any time they want. if they do change the rules, I would ask whether they pass the "sniff test". if they changed the rules stating that to keep your scholarship you needed to score >80% on each course, I'd say that was very unfair (although might still be legal). But this change? I think this is reasonable, and is simply clarifying the issue.
6. Appeals
She makes multiple complaints that her appeals were not heard, or were not valid. The law is that schools must have some sort of appeal process for adverse actions -- there is no standard as to what that appeal may consist of. It does not need to include witnesses, or the student having a "presentation". It's simply some double check mechanism, should be by someone different than made the initial decision -- but the person assessing the appeal can get input from anyone they want. She appealed the withdrawal of the scholarship which was upheld. If she can show that the school did not follow it's policies regarding appeals, she could get her spot back. But an appeal isn't what "she wants", it's what the written rules call for. If it's just the chair or dean reviewing the decision along with a written statement by her, then that's all there is.
And the rules are lower down in her post -- she has a screenshot. It's super vague, as expected. All that's required is the dept chair and then the dean review the decision, and that's it. She's allowed to submit a statement in writing with all supporting documentation, and that's all.
7. Failing MSKS
She reports failing the final by one point. She has lots of complaints here. A) guidance of what to study was off base, B) appeals only form memory, C) she had three questions that the student committee decided not to appeal, D) curves were smaller now, and E) the deans reached out to her before grades were finalized to tell her she failed. The first four I think are meaningless. If the student committee decided not to appeal those questions, it's probably because they thought they were fine questions. The last point is of some concern, although the deans were probably aware of what the curve was going to be before it was finalized. They should have waited until it was all done.
She then wanted to appeal her own question list. That's not a thing. They had a question appeal process which they followed, she can't just then start appealing other questions. Again the appeal policy isn't included anywhere, but I expect it just allows a general appeal but not to change the scoring of specific questions. And this matches her description -- she appealed and lost at all levels. Again, an appeal isn't what she wants it to be, it's what the rules state.
Last she wants a conditional pass, which isn't an option since this is no longer 1st semester. And, I expect that a CP might not be an option once you have other failures / incompletes.
She received a full fail for this course. We don't have the school's full policy. There may be a limit to the number of incompletes -- there usually is, since there's only so much you can make up over the summer. Once you fail enough things, repeating the year is the only viable option.
8. Lawyer
This isn't one of her complaints, but an important point nonetheless. She got a lawyer involved. That's her God-given-American right to do so. But if she expects that everything will be hunky dory afterwards and she'll be given the benefit of the doubt, she doesn't understand how things work. Getting lawyers involved makes everyone follow the rules carefully, makes those you are contending with very unhappy, and likely happy to show you the door if possible. You can call that retaliation. I call it life. It's only retaliation if people then bend (or break) the rules to kick you out.
And the school's lawyers don't need to respond to her lawyer if they don't want to. if a lawsuit is filed, then they are compelled to respond. Else, they are welcome to ignore her lawyer for any reason they want.
9. Respiratory block failure
She starts by complaining that the grading was changed -- but it's clear this was changed by input from the prior year and had nothing to do with her. And she failed the exam, but by a very, very small margin. Again she says she was contacted before the curve / corrections were applied -- and if so, that's a mistake again on the school's part (although again the course director might know at that point what the corrections were going to be, unclear from her description). In any case, they should wait until scores are finalized.
Then there's all the emails about the "one point". I see that the language is confusing, but the answer seems clear to me. Three questions were dropped. She already had two of them correct, so she only got one point back for the one that was wrong. The wording isn't great in their email "no, those questions you answered correctly were continued to be counted in your favor and were not dropped". I think what they are trying to say is what has been said on this thread (and the comment on her medium post). If you got those three questions all correct, your score didn't change at all. if you got them all wrong, you get +3. She got +1. This isn't a "curve", it's a "gimme" -- free questions which everyone gets correct.
And now there is no way they can give her a half a point. Once they do that, she may ask for more points in the future and they will have set a precedent for everyone. And she's brought lawyers into the scene, so now everyone is following the rules. Rules say a 69.4 is a fail, so fail it is. And a 69.4 doesn't round up to a 70.
10. Dismissal
She complains that she was not allowed to attend the SPC meeting. She can only do so if the rules allow. If not, all she's allowed is a written statement. if the rules allow for her to be present, then she would have a legal action to get her spot back as her dismissal would be invalid. Otherwise, the SPC can dismiss her. Her complaints seem mostly invalid -- that the Deans were already biased against her (of which her only evidence is that other decisions didn't go her way). The "grading discrepancy" which doesn't appear to exist (and that they may have reviewed in the committee), that they didn't "investigate" anything (not clear that there's anything to investigate if the course leader explains how the discarded questions were credited back). Her comments that other people did worse, or that she was doing fine on some board study thing, are irrelevant.
She was not offered to repeat the year. Perhaps other people were allowed to in the past -- she mentions that with no evidence. But let's assume that's true. Why would they not allow her to repeat the year? Because #8. Because she was driving them crazy with all of these complaints. Repeating the year is a privilege -- something the school can offer a worthy student who seems to have turned things around and is likely to do better the second time. She is correct at the end -- she had worn out her welcome there, and they simply let her go. And there's nothing illegal about that unless she can prove it's because of her race or some other protected class.
So, TL;DR summary:
She may have some valid complaints / legal arguments. Whether the school was allowed to withdraw her scholarship with two incompletes rather than two fails and/or whether they could change those rules mid flight. Whether there was differential biased scoring in the anatomy lab final. And was the appeal process followed correctly. Those are the points she should have focused upon. I have no idea how far she would have gotten with any, since we don't have enough data to assess.
The remainder of her arguments do not appear based on any evidence I can see / she has offered. They are clouding the issue, and honestly make her less believable.
She blames everyone/thing else except herself for her failures. Her medical issues, father's illness, adjustment to medical school, unfair grading, and vague retaliation. No where does she take any responsibility for this -- and certainly some, if not most, is her responsibility.
As I've told multiple students and residents, how you deal with conflict is often more important than the actual issue causing the conflict itself. reading her description of all of this, I honestly start to get frustrated. I can imagine those who worked with her felt similar. Even if some of her points have merit, the way she is delivering all this is going to drive people crazy. Perhaps it was all different in the moment, but I doubt it based upon the emails she has posted. She alienated the faculty who were there to support her, and then wonders why no one is supporting her. Anyone who tells her anything she doesn't want to hear is labeled as biased against her. She didn't do well in medical school for likely many reasons. With a repeat year, she probably would have had a decent shot of success. She created enough turmoil and created an unhealthy environment for everyone. Her communication skills and approach to the problem are what ended her career. And she can't see that -- which is a huge part of the problem.
OK, I've now wasted way too much time on this. Back to ERAS apps.
And the questions get more intersting as the topic develops.
So now here's my deep dive into her article, by topic/complaint she espouses:
1. The double scholarship issue
I don't have much to say here, since I don't understand the rules involved. Several posters have said it's impossible, and others state it happened to them. In any case, it's uncommon so it doesn't surprise me that things didn't go smoothly. If the school had never been in this situation before, it wouldn't surprise me at all that when they get the VA payment after everything has already been covered, they would just roll it to the next semester. The error may not be any sort of nefarious event.
One thing worth noting: if she had kept her spot in medical school and lost her UTSW full ride, she still has a full scholarship. At least if I'm understanding the situation correctly, and the VA scholarship is for everything. If the VA scholarship is for less than the full cost, then it's obv more of an issue.
2. Conditional Pass
Per her description, a conditional pass is when either the final exam or the coursework is "narrowly short" of the 70%. She states that she got an incomplete in Microanatomy, but does not disclose why. It must be because her exam was <70%, else she would fail (as Incomplete is when the final exam is <70%). There is no mention of how "narrowly short" she was in this course, hence a CP might not have been an option at all. And, I expect that a CP is dependent upon satisfactory completion of other courses -- once she fails the next thing, they likely convert the CP to an incomplete or fail also (this is my guess, may be incorrect). She complaints about not getting an option of a CP, but it's not clear that she qualified for one - in microanatomy (we don't have enough info), nor in Anatomy -- which does not have a final. And I expect the CP is for someone who is otherwise doing well -- not someone who is barely passing other courses. But we'd need their full grading criteria to know.
So there is some chance she has a valid argument here -- but we're missing too much information to know. I don't expect this argument would be successful, unless she can show someone in similar circumstances who got this kind of treatment.
3. Anatomy grade
As already mentioned on the thread, Anatomy is different where there isn't a final. There are three exams covering 1/3 of the material. Just getting a 70+ on the last exam is great, but to pass you need to get a 70 average on all exams. I can't speak to the advice to not take the last exam at all, but as mentioned perhaps it was mathematically impossible for her to pass the course at that point. If so, her average in that class would need to be quite low -- 56% (assuming all three exams are weighted equally). It does make me wonder what the school's advice was really all about. Her complaints that Anatomy is managed differently than everything else are non-valid -- that was known prior to the course, and certainly wasn't changed to specifically impact her. And she can't get a conditional pass in Anatomy, since there's no final (if that is her complaint, which is somewhat vague).
4. Differential grading in anatomy
This is another point which may be true. I assume the anatomy exams are "fill in the blank" hence her missing the laterality. These types of tests are subject to differential grading if not done carefully. She claims knowledge of someone else with a different score for the same question in a quiz review. I have no idea if that's true or not, and since she seems to suggest that the exams are not turned back to the students for review I'm not certain how she (or anyone) would know this. But maybe the quizzes (different from the exams) were turned back to people, so perhaps some truth there. If she can actually show that there is differential grading and that she got lower grades --- whether that's on purpose, implicit bias, or simply an error -- she would have a valid argument. She would need to show enough of a problem to change all of the exams to get her grade about a 70%.
5. Withdrawal of the scholarship / changing of the website
This is probably the most interesting of the questions raised. It's very clear from the initial wording that failing 2 courses = losing her scholarship. With that:
A. Does getting an incomplete in a course count as a failure? On the one hand, one could argue that it isn't. "Incomplete" =/= "Fail". That's certainly her argument. On the other hand, one could argue that incomplete is simply a placeholder for a failed course while the student tries to remediate. That, as far as the scholarship is concerned, it's a fail. UTSW would need to show that other students in the same boat had the same outcome. This is something she could certainly argue in court. She states this is a contract issue -- and contracts are all about technicalities. And that's exactly what this is -- a technicality. I'm sure the school meant that if you get 2 incompletes you lose your scholarship, but they wrote the rules such that it's a bit vague. She would have some real chance of winning this argument. Although, since she ultimately was dismissed due to more failures (and not an inability to pay / forced to take out loans / etc), it's not clear what she would win. Not her spot back.
B. Can the school change the "rules" for keeping the scholarship? We are assuming that these new rules applied to her. And the question also is whether this is really a change in the rules, or just a clarification. But even if we say it's a change, whether or not the school can change the rules mid flight is again a contract issue. Does the contract state that these rules are fixed? Or does the contract state "per the rules in the handbook" and the handbook can change at any time. Because if so, the school can change the rules any time they want. if they do change the rules, I would ask whether they pass the "sniff test". if they changed the rules stating that to keep your scholarship you needed to score >80% on each course, I'd say that was very unfair (although might still be legal). But this change? I think this is reasonable, and is simply clarifying the issue.
6. Appeals
She makes multiple complaints that her appeals were not heard, or were not valid. The law is that schools must have some sort of appeal process for adverse actions -- there is no standard as to what that appeal may consist of. It does not need to include witnesses, or the student having a "presentation". It's simply some double check mechanism, should be by someone different than made the initial decision -- but the person assessing the appeal can get input from anyone they want. She appealed the withdrawal of the scholarship which was upheld. If she can show that the school did not follow it's policies regarding appeals, she could get her spot back. But an appeal isn't what "she wants", it's what the written rules call for. If it's just the chair or dean reviewing the decision along with a written statement by her, then that's all there is.
And the rules are lower down in her post -- she has a screenshot. It's super vague, as expected. All that's required is the dept chair and then the dean review the decision, and that's it. She's allowed to submit a statement in writing with all supporting documentation, and that's all.
7. Failing MSKS
She reports failing the final by one point. She has lots of complaints here. A) guidance of what to study was off base, B) appeals only form memory, C) she had three questions that the student committee decided not to appeal, D) curves were smaller now, and E) the deans reached out to her before grades were finalized to tell her she failed. The first four I think are meaningless. If the student committee decided not to appeal those questions, it's probably because they thought they were fine questions. The last point is of some concern, although the deans were probably aware of what the curve was going to be before it was finalized. They should have waited until it was all done.
She then wanted to appeal her own question list. That's not a thing. They had a question appeal process which they followed, she can't just then start appealing other questions. Again the appeal policy isn't included anywhere, but I expect it just allows a general appeal but not to change the scoring of specific questions. And this matches her description -- she appealed and lost at all levels. Again, an appeal isn't what she wants it to be, it's what the rules state.
Last she wants a conditional pass, which isn't an option since this is no longer 1st semester. And, I expect that a CP might not be an option once you have other failures / incompletes.
She received a full fail for this course. We don't have the school's full policy. There may be a limit to the number of incompletes -- there usually is, since there's only so much you can make up over the summer. Once you fail enough things, repeating the year is the only viable option.
8. Lawyer
This isn't one of her complaints, but an important point nonetheless. She got a lawyer involved. That's her God-given-American right to do so. But if she expects that everything will be hunky dory afterwards and she'll be given the benefit of the doubt, she doesn't understand how things work. Getting lawyers involved makes everyone follow the rules carefully, makes those you are contending with very unhappy, and likely happy to show you the door if possible. You can call that retaliation. I call it life. It's only retaliation if people then bend (or break) the rules to kick you out.
And the school's lawyers don't need to respond to her lawyer if they don't want to. if a lawsuit is filed, then they are compelled to respond. Else, they are welcome to ignore her lawyer for any reason they want.
9. Respiratory block failure
She starts by complaining that the grading was changed -- but it's clear this was changed by input from the prior year and had nothing to do with her. And she failed the exam, but by a very, very small margin. Again she says she was contacted before the curve / corrections were applied -- and if so, that's a mistake again on the school's part (although again the course director might know at that point what the corrections were going to be, unclear from her description). In any case, they should wait until scores are finalized.
Then there's all the emails about the "one point". I see that the language is confusing, but the answer seems clear to me. Three questions were dropped. She already had two of them correct, so she only got one point back for the one that was wrong. The wording isn't great in their email "no, those questions you answered correctly were continued to be counted in your favor and were not dropped". I think what they are trying to say is what has been said on this thread (and the comment on her medium post). If you got those three questions all correct, your score didn't change at all. if you got them all wrong, you get +3. She got +1. This isn't a "curve", it's a "gimme" -- free questions which everyone gets correct.
And now there is no way they can give her a half a point. Once they do that, she may ask for more points in the future and they will have set a precedent for everyone. And she's brought lawyers into the scene, so now everyone is following the rules. Rules say a 69.4 is a fail, so fail it is. And a 69.4 doesn't round up to a 70.
10. Dismissal
She complains that she was not allowed to attend the SPC meeting. She can only do so if the rules allow. If not, all she's allowed is a written statement. if the rules allow for her to be present, then she would have a legal action to get her spot back as her dismissal would be invalid. Otherwise, the SPC can dismiss her. Her complaints seem mostly invalid -- that the Deans were already biased against her (of which her only evidence is that other decisions didn't go her way). The "grading discrepancy" which doesn't appear to exist (and that they may have reviewed in the committee), that they didn't "investigate" anything (not clear that there's anything to investigate if the course leader explains how the discarded questions were credited back). Her comments that other people did worse, or that she was doing fine on some board study thing, are irrelevant.
She was not offered to repeat the year. Perhaps other people were allowed to in the past -- she mentions that with no evidence. But let's assume that's true. Why would they not allow her to repeat the year? Because #8. Because she was driving them crazy with all of these complaints. Repeating the year is a privilege -- something the school can offer a worthy student who seems to have turned things around and is likely to do better the second time. She is correct at the end -- she had worn out her welcome there, and they simply let her go. And there's nothing illegal about that unless she can prove it's because of her race or some other protected class.
So, TL;DR summary:
She may have some valid complaints / legal arguments. Whether the school was allowed to withdraw her scholarship with two incompletes rather than two fails and/or whether they could change those rules mid flight. Whether there was differential biased scoring in the anatomy lab final. And was the appeal process followed correctly. Those are the points she should have focused upon. I have no idea how far she would have gotten with any, since we don't have enough data to assess.
The remainder of her arguments do not appear based on any evidence I can see / she has offered. They are clouding the issue, and honestly make her less believable.
She blames everyone/thing else except herself for her failures. Her medical issues, father's illness, adjustment to medical school, unfair grading, and vague retaliation. No where does she take any responsibility for this -- and certainly some, if not most, is her responsibility.
As I've told multiple students and residents, how you deal with conflict is often more important than the actual issue causing the conflict itself. reading her description of all of this, I honestly start to get frustrated. I can imagine those who worked with her felt similar. Even if some of her points have merit, the way she is delivering all this is going to drive people crazy. Perhaps it was all different in the moment, but I doubt it based upon the emails she has posted. She alienated the faculty who were there to support her, and then wonders why no one is supporting her. Anyone who tells her anything she doesn't want to hear is labeled as biased against her. She didn't do well in medical school for likely many reasons. With a repeat year, she probably would have had a decent shot of success. She created enough turmoil and created an unhealthy environment for everyone. Her communication skills and approach to the problem are what ended her career. And she can't see that -- which is a huge part of the problem.
OK, I've now wasted way too much time on this. Back to ERAS apps.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,691
- Reaction score
- 7,654
This depends on if the scholarship from the school is "fenced" or "non-fenced." Fenced scholarships can only be used for tuition. Non-fenced can be used for any educational expense. If the school's scholarship was fenced, the VA would have only paid what was left after the school's scholarship had been applied. If it was non-fenced, the VA would pay all the tuition (since it's a state school), and then the scholarship from the school would essentially be considered an overage on the student's account and "refunded" to the student. This money would be considered taxable income. I was on the HPSP and received a non-fenced scholarship from my dental school, it was definitely a hassle because the school had never dealt with the situation before, but I was ultimately able to collect this money.
Scholarships and the GI Bill
Scholarships -- you may think that they will do you no good since you or a family member is a veteran or active duty military member. However, a scholarship can still be a great deal for you in most situations. There are also many veterans and their dependents who don't qualify for GI Bill...
Big Hoss
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2010
- Messages
- 671
- Reaction score
- 21
I really appreciate your detailed and informed breakdown of the situation, down to the specific point allotments that were brought up regarding her Respiratory Block. However, and I say this as respectfully as possible, there are some very concerning, almost chilling, elements in your reply. In general, you chalk up all of the concerning actions on the part of UTSW as innocent mistakes. From the grading discrepancy that she claims to have observed in Anatomy down to the Deans repeatedly contacting her course directors prior to grade finalizations and prematurely communicating that she failed. One of the Deans that she named (Dr. Mihalic) is the same one she spoke to at or around the time the scholarship language changed. After something like that has been revealed, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the student's trust to be shaken. Later you mention that there is no evidence that the "Deans were against her" but the narrative that you'd just summarized, and the sentiments you express at the end, suggests otherwise.
"She makes multiple complaints that her appeals were not heard, or were not valid. The law is that schools must have some sort of appeal process for adverse actions -- there is no standard as to what that appeal may consist of. "
That sounds like a canned defense against student complaints and program misconduct. It is basically saying that UTSW has committed to offer the bare minimum standard required by law that allows them to engage in loose applications of appeals processes. The question will be one of whether they are, in fact, basing determinations off of who has annoyed or frustrated them vs the student's academic performance and promise.
"Her comments that other people did worse, or that she was doing fine on some board study thing, are irrelevant."
I am not sure how academic performance and metrics of subject area knowledge can be "irrelevant" in a student academic case.
"Then there's all the emails about the "one point". I see that the language is confusing, but the answer seems clear to me. Three questions were dropped. She already had two of them correct, so she only got one point back for the one that was wrong. The wording isn't great in their email "no, those questions you answered correctly were continued to be counted in your favor and were not dropped". I think what they are trying to say is what has been said on this thread (and the comment on her medium post). If you got those three questions all correct, your score didn't change at all. if you got them all wrong, you get +3. She got +1. This isn't a "curve", it's a "gimme" -- free questions which everyone gets correct."
This is more than poor wording, it is inaccurate and inconsistent communications from the course instructors. It also doesn't fit the emails she attached, which indicated that there was an initial round of items tossed and then a second round with additional items tossed. For her to get +1 on the second round would mean she got the other additional items that were tossed correct. However, when she explicitly asked that, she was told she did not. Ultimately, this will be something that has to be explored with access to the actual data, but there seems to be no logical reason why the course directors are repeatedly misspeaking in regards to direct questions from a student about a test.
"And the school's lawyers don't need to respond to her lawyer if they don't want to. if a lawsuit is filed, then they are compelled to respond. Else, they are welcome to ignore her lawyer for any reason they want."
The point you are making is that the school's attorneys are free to refuse to engage in any sort of mitigation of a problem, forcing a lawsuit. I think this clearly indicates that the student is not simply escalating to be a squeaky wheel. Lower level, internal processes to address her concerns failed, in large part, because the school said "Screw you. Sue us."
"This isn't one of her complaints, but an important point nonetheless. She got a lawyer involved. That's her God-given-American right to do so. But if she expects that everything will be hunky dory afterwards and she'll be given the benefit of the doubt, she doesn't understand how things work. Getting lawyers involved makes everyone follow the rules carefully, makes those you are contending with very unhappy, and likely happy to show you the door if possible. You can call that retaliation. I call it life. It's only retaliation if people then bend (or break) the rules to kick you out."
AND LATER
"Even if some of her points have merit, the way she is delivering all this is going to drive people crazy. Perhaps it was all different in the moment, but I doubt it based upon the emails she has posted. She alienated the faculty who were there to support her, and then wonders why no one is supporting her. Anyone who tells her anything she doesn't want to hear is labeled as biased against her. She didn't do well in medical school for likely many reasons. With a repeat year, she probably would have had a decent shot of success. She created enough turmoil and created an unhealthy environment for everyone. Her communication skills and approach to the problem are what ended her career. And she can't see that -- which is a huge part of the problem."
This is where I have the most concern about your stated position. When you are part of faculty or in administration for a public, government funding school, you are simply not allowed to make determinations of student progress based on negative feelings you have toward them. I don't think that needs to be explained in any great detail. Discrimination on the basis of personal feelings and making decisions to punish or rid yourself of a student you dislike for personal reasons is just simply not ok.
The core question would have to be this: If you find yourself having a strong adverse response to a student for 1) asking for clarification on grading 2) using the established appeals process and/or 3) having an attorney discuss a contract issue with the school, then it may be advisable to step back and ask yourself why you are so triggered by those actions or that person. It may even be a good idea to step back and get some support to help manage those emotional reactions. However, to simply act on your negative feelings, knowing full well that other alternatives would be fair and appropriate to allow the student to continue, then you are engaging in retaliation. I think we are in a dark place where educators, administrators, or program directors will attempt to defend that, even on an online forum, and have a significant number of people cheering it on.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Messages
- 63,099
- Reaction score
- 154,727
UTSW isn’t going to be forced to readmit the student. Sorry but once the student failed to communicate with the school and started making things worse to the point she got expelled despite the school’s willingness to work with her (even taking into account UTSW’s reputation for being tough) and then posting an open rant demonizing the school in the midst of legal proceedings, she effectively doomed her career in medicine.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2010
- Messages
- 671
- Reaction score
- 21
Given what is being exposed here and the defenses being mounted for it, I have to be honest. I can’t imagine why any student would be dying to attend UTSW.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 39,373
- Reaction score
- 22,369
I disagree with a lot of what you said, but as @NotAProgDirector said this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the confrontational nature American legal system. When someone lawyers up, it is not to "discuss" an issue--there is an implicit threat that "if you don't respond to my demands, I'm going to sue the hell out of you." On a personal level, the faculty are probably worried that if the school gets sued and loses, they will probably get fired. Responding adversely in that situation isn't being "triggered," it is an understandable response to a very real and intentional threat. Sure, there are times when bringing in a lawyer may be appropriate to achieve your goals, but it will result in a relationship becoming adversarial, and in an adversarial relationship you will not get any benefit of the doubt.
Again... is it possible she was discriminated against? Maybe, maybe not, I haven't done the deep dive into this article that others have done in greater detail. But as it pertains to trying to fight a school by lawyering up, it is usually a losing move. Whether that is fair or not, the forums are just riddled with stories of students and residents whose situations went from bad to worse when they brought in a lawyer. Very often, the lawyer is the only one who wins.
You’ve literally described retaliation. It's very much illegal for state institutions and those that accept fed funds. This is a horrible defense of the program and Inl sincerely hope that no one here is speaking for the school.
I saw a link in the article and wanted to see if there are any other programs that have had so many lawsuits filed against it.
- UT Southwestern to Pay $4.5 Million to Resolve Alleged Controlled Substance Act Violations That Permitted Drug Diversion by Staff
- Doctor who treats transgender children takes UT Southwestern to court over change in care
- UT Southwestern Will Pay $3.6 Million in Discrimination Case
- Gilani v. Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr., Civil Action 3:21-CV-01461-X | Casetext Search + Citator
- https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2007/06/18/daily21.html
- https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/oliver-v-utsw-mtd.pdf
- Shah v. Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Sch., 54 F. Supp. 3d 681 | Casetext Search + Citator
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2010
- Messages
- 671
- Reaction score
- 21
It is shocking that people who are likely involved in student training are saying these things. Having attorneys speak with other attorneys about contract language should 1) not be something that professors and deans are even intimately aware of and 2) perfectly acceptable and established means for handling an issue such as contract language. To take that act as a personal affront or threat literally screams “I did something wrong and I am afraid it will be uncovered.”
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Messages
- 63,099
- Reaction score
- 154,727
What a bizarre post. One former student’s one-sided story that doesn’t even put her in a good light isn’t going to have any impact on UTSW admissions
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Messages
- 63,099
- Reaction score
- 154,727
Are you a lawyer?
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2010
- Messages
- 671
- Reaction score
- 21
Gently, the defenses being mounted here amount to “she annoyed us by asking questions so we reacted with dismissal.” The only thing that is bizarre here is that you are pretending that is normal or that the litany of lawsuits against this particular institution do not add up to a pretty clear and disturbing picture.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 39,373
- Reaction score
- 22,369
Idk what else to tell you. I’m neither defending nor condemning UTSW, but I have never seen a situation where lawyers get involved that did not turn adversarial. Blame the lawyers who advertise how they’re going to “win big”—by definition that means somebody is going to lose big. Your argument that taking affront to lawyering up implies guilt is the same argument that people erroneously apply to people who invoke the fifth amendment—when you enter an adversarial relationship, people will act adversely.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 592
- Reaction score
- 1,081
[sarcasm] yes that is exactly what happened. she annoyed them and they dismissed her for that [/sarcasm] Not the whole failing 5 classes thing.
This situation being 'normal' is not an adjective I'd use, but it is fairly common. People wash out of medical school and residency every year. Some think their dismissal was unfair and sue the institution. Saw a medical school classmate do it. Saw a co-resident do it. Both instances the people had some opportunity to remediate but whatever reason it didn't work out. Both cases were really an issue of the person not being able to meet the academic standard. Both cases also made allegations that created a toxic environment where no one wanted to bend over backwards for them. Then came the lawsuits.
Now I don't know what background you have, but several here have been involved in these types of situations and they're mostly going off their experiences rather than ideology.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2010
- Messages
- 671
- Reaction score
- 21
Both instances the people had some opportunity to remediate but whatever reason it didn't work out.
Reading about the particular case would be useful before jumping in with sarcasm. According to her account, she was not given the chance to remediate. So yeah, this is not normal.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 592
- Reaction score
- 1,081
Pretty sure she was offered/told to take some incompletes, chose not to, and then failed enough classes anyway that the school decided remediation was moot.
You think she's being railroaded, most of us don't. That's fine.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2010
- Messages
- 671
- Reaction score
- 21
You are “pretty sure” she was offered that and chose not to based on… what? Inventing scenarios has become quite the trend on this thread.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,460
- Reaction score
- 17,032
We don't actually know the details of any true contractual agreement. Ms. Jackson refers to "the merit scholarship contract on UTSW's website," but the document in question isn't a contract. It's a policy. And in fact she refers to it elsewhere as the "Scholarship Eligibility Policy."
Medical schools typically have defined processes for changing policies (which usually include faculty and administrators), and may undertake such changes as they deem fit.
It also doesn't surprise me that changes to the policy language were made recently. We often don't find current policies to be insufficient until a new or rare situation occurs, and I think it's probably rare to have someone on a merit scholarship flunk out in the first year.
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2021
- Messages
- 4,533
- Reaction score
- 4,243
PERSONALLY, I don’t believe that the school can arbitrarily change the terms of a scholarship because it would be akin to breach of contract. Some people turn down better schools for full rides, so I don’t think that arbitrary alteration of the terms is justified. That being said most handbooks will say that conditional pass is akin to a fail
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2010
- Messages
- 671
- Reaction score
- 21
I agree that a merit scholar flunking out completely in year 1 with a performance that is so dismal that remediation or repeat was not even entertained is very rare. Interestingly, the language changes started before the rare circumstance arose.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,460
- Reaction score
- 17,032
Indeed. Rare enough to make me suspect that academics weren't the only issue.
We don't actually know when the changes were initiated, or what the precipitation factors may have been.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2010
- Messages
- 671
- Reaction score
- 21
???
We do know that changes were made before she was dismissed.
At this point, the conversation seems to have regressed to the point where I am having to repeatedly refer back to the Medium blog to be sure I am not hallucinating. I think that is a pretty good indication that good faith has exited the chat.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Messages
- 63,099
- Reaction score
- 154,727
I think it’s better to quote specific examples from the blog here to clear up any confusion
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2010
- Messages
- 671
- Reaction score
- 21
I would rather cut my grass with my teeth than read a blog post + attachments to licensed doctors, professors, and program administrators.
I will provide some hints, however.
1. Start from the beginning and read to the end. Take breaks if needed.
2. First semester (when the scholarship was revoked) comes before second semester (dismissal). Universal truth of time and space. I think those separate times periods are even divided by subheadings in the blog.
3. Try not to make up things that you do not see in the body of the text nor the attachments and then go quiet when asked what you are talking about (looking at several contributors up to this point).
I honestly do not want to be snarky, but when colleagues are pretending to not be able to read a linked document in the original post of the thread, my incredulity threshold collapses.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2016
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 13
UTSW grad weighing in, our school has a certain reputation that I don’t think is well deserved. Knowing the professors and admin named in her blog and I find it hard to believe her side of events completely. Our preclinical curriculum is tough, people fail all the time, like any school with 200+ students some get dismissed from school. I highly doubt there was a massive conspiracy to remove her from school.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,092
- Reaction score
- 10,014
Apologies for not responding sooner, but your last response to my post was so riddled with magical thinking that I couldn't justify the effort to convince someone that dragons and fairies don't exist. I exagerate of course, but not by that much. Just like in your responses to nAPD, you seem to have the same gift for misunderstanding things that are glaringly obvious to everyone else that plagued Ms. Jackson. It becomes increasingly difficult to respond to someone whose arguments grow increasingly ridiculous. I suspect the courts will feel the same way when the time comes and dismiss the whole thing at summary judgement.
Sure, first semester precedes the second, but failing two classes preceded any language change. She, a merit scholar, failed her first course in September and sounds like she barely passed everything else from what the SPC say in her dismissal letter. In fact, she failed 5 courses and barely passed the rest! Maybe a point on one exam would have made that 4 failures, which would probably still have gotten her dismissed. You mention that remediation and repeating the year weren't options, but given that she spurned all the offers of help given to her, what exactly would change? The SPC wisely saw that repetition and remediation in her case would be futile. I'm not sure what judge is going to insert himself into that dynamic and say that he as a judge is better situated to decide who should be a physician than a highly respected medical school faculty.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2006
- Messages
- 10,418
- Reaction score
- 14,645
Happy to continue a respectful discussion, or stop, whichever is your preference - mentioned only because you hinted above that there was no point to continuing. Stopping isn't a sign of defeat. No one on this thread is likely to change their mind. The best outcome we can expect is a better sense of the other person's viewpoint.
Also, for complete clarity, I have nothing to do with UTSW. Never been there.
Her appeal of the scholarship withdrawal - I don't know what her argument was that she should get to keep it. She may have argued that incomplete =/= fail which would totally depend upon grading policies which haven't been shared. It might also depend upon whether changing the scholarhip policy language was allowed -- as mentioned, if this is a policy and not a signed contract, that might also be totally legal and reasonable. She might not like it, but that's not a valid argument to overturn it.
Your comment has an element of truth to it. Schools could create a legally minimal appeal process that is essentially a sham. Yes, that can happen. Did that happen here? I don't know. What I do know is that she failed multiple courses, and the policy states that failing multiple courses loses your merit scholarship. I think arguing that an "incomplete" because you failed the final isn't a fail is a perposterous point of view. Especially since at this school it appears that if this happens and then you pass the exam, you just get a Pass on your transcript. In most other schools, you get a "remediated pass" or "F/P" or it's listed both as a fail and pass on the transcript. IMHO I think she's twisting the situation in knots to get a good outcome for her, and hence I tend to think there's more to this in UTSW's policies that we haven't seen. But that's my opinion, not clear fact.
His answer is poorly worded: "We can best address your concerns by answering your last question: Were the questions dropped questions that I had already gotten correct? Our answer - no..." What he thinks she is asking is whether the questions were actually "dropped" -- they no longer count at all. They would disappear from both the numerator and denominator. if that were the case, her grade would go DOWN if she got the questions correct. The rest of his answer supports that -- the change can't make anyones score go down. In fact, she got those two questions correct hence she didn't get any more points for them. There's nothing about multiple rounds of questions or points in the emails, so I can't speak more to that. I agree this email could have been more direct and just said -- you got 2/3 of the invalidated questions correct, and hence you got 1 point added. Plus the 2 point curve. You may read something nefarious into this, but I don't.
But that's not what I was trying to say. An example: I had a resident who we had to let go for professionalism problems. It was a very sad situation, we had given them multiple chances and tried to impress how important fixing the issue was. But in the end it was a recurrent issue we couldn't ignore, and they were let go. They appealed the decision - which I was fully supportive of. I wanted a second opinion about whether what we had done was reasonable, and it was upheld.
What ended up happening is they got another spot at another program. I advocated for another chance, a clean start. I hoped that this horrible situation would impress how critical this professionalism issue was to their future career. This program was in a different state, and that state decided to hold a hearing to determine if they would get a license (this is one of those states that's a pain about this sort of thing). I traveled to the meeting and with the other PD advocated for them, ensuring that the license was granted. They finished their training and have moved on.
Had this person gotten a lawyer involved in the termination, none of that would have happened. First, I probably would have been disappointed enough that I wouldn't have been willing to do the extra work / extra time to get this done. Second, I would be worried that they hadn't learned the lesson necessary and hence might have similar issues in the next program. And last, it's likely that HR would have refused to let me get involved, for fear it would just drag me into more legal problems with them. They'd insist that I summarize their performance in writing, submit it to any other programs or boards (with a signed release of course), and leave it at that.
So that was my point. Once you get lawyers involved, or if you start driving people crazy, they are only going to end up doing the minimum necessary. This isn't specific to Med Ed, it's the way the world works.
----
Overall, I can see your point of view. If you start with the assumption that she's gotten a raw deal, it's very possible to see everything the school has done as specifically designed to end her education and get their scholarship back. And I can't attest to whether UTSW has good or bad administration. Perhaps they are terrible and have ruined her career. Yet, the point remains that she was failing many of her classes and I don't think the school engineered that. She has one vague complaint that anatomy lab tests had disparate grading -- with no clear proof offered other than someone said so. I remain struck by the fact that nowhere in any of this does she take any responsibility -- it's always someone else's fault, or some outside force. And that makes me lean towards the side of the school. In any case, we don't have all the facts -- only what she has decided to share with us. There might be much more, much of which might not support her arguments.
Also, for complete clarity, I have nothing to do with UTSW. Never been there.
What I was trying to convey is that many people assume than an "appeal" is the same as a "legal appeal" -- that there will be evidence submitted, witnesses testify, and some sort of a "jury of peers" to make a determination. That's not usually the way this works. The person running/deciding the appeal needs to be someone else that the person who made the decision. Per the policy she posted in the article, she has the opportunity to submit her side of the story with whatever evidence she has. The course directors get to do the same, and I expect the Dean/Chair (or whomever is making the decision) would question them directly about the issue. An appeal as defined does not allow her to complain about specific questions. As defined, it's an opaque process so I can imagine why she thinks it was a sham -- she couldn't see the inner workings, and they decided against her.
Her appeal of the scholarship withdrawal - I don't know what her argument was that she should get to keep it. She may have argued that incomplete =/= fail which would totally depend upon grading policies which haven't been shared. It might also depend upon whether changing the scholarhip policy language was allowed -- as mentioned, if this is a policy and not a signed contract, that might also be totally legal and reasonable. She might not like it, but that's not a valid argument to overturn it.
Your comment has an element of truth to it. Schools could create a legally minimal appeal process that is essentially a sham. Yes, that can happen. Did that happen here? I don't know. What I do know is that she failed multiple courses, and the policy states that failing multiple courses loses your merit scholarship. I think arguing that an "incomplete" because you failed the final isn't a fail is a perposterous point of view. Especially since at this school it appears that if this happens and then you pass the exam, you just get a Pass on your transcript. In most other schools, you get a "remediated pass" or "F/P" or it's listed both as a fail and pass on the transcript. IMHO I think she's twisting the situation in knots to get a good outcome for her, and hence I tend to think there's more to this in UTSW's policies that we haven't seen. But that's my opinion, not clear fact.
Whether or not she was scoring well on a board review system, she failed their exams. She might have been answering the board review questions "open book". And maybe 75% is very low for that review. I have no idea. But it remains irrelevant in my view -- she needed to pass her exams. And other people doing worse isn't an excuse for anything.
I think we are reading those emails differently. She first asks if she only got one point back, and they respond that's correct. Then she asks: "Did I get the more challenging questions correct? The announcement read to me like the entire class was credited points back..."
His answer is poorly worded: "We can best address your concerns by answering your last question: Were the questions dropped questions that I had already gotten correct? Our answer - no..." What he thinks she is asking is whether the questions were actually "dropped" -- they no longer count at all. They would disappear from both the numerator and denominator. if that were the case, her grade would go DOWN if she got the questions correct. The rest of his answer supports that -- the change can't make anyones score go down. In fact, she got those two questions correct hence she didn't get any more points for them. There's nothing about multiple rounds of questions or points in the emails, so I can't speak more to that. I agree this email could have been more direct and just said -- you got 2/3 of the invalidated questions correct, and hence you got 1 point added. Plus the 2 point curve. You may read something nefarious into this, but I don't.
Already mentioned, but getting lawyers involved always makes things very messy. In fact, once a lawyer gets involved we may lose control of whether a resident stays or goes from the program -- HR gets involved, and they call the shots. We assume that once a lawyer is involved, a lawsuit is possible / likely.
I'm going to agree in part, and disagree in part. I agree that my personal feelings towards people should not affect their grading or progression in the program. if two students answer "carotid artery" when the correct answer is "left carotid artery", then they should get the same score for that question. I should not allow my personal feelings to influence that at all.
But that's not what I was trying to say. An example: I had a resident who we had to let go for professionalism problems. It was a very sad situation, we had given them multiple chances and tried to impress how important fixing the issue was. But in the end it was a recurrent issue we couldn't ignore, and they were let go. They appealed the decision - which I was fully supportive of. I wanted a second opinion about whether what we had done was reasonable, and it was upheld.
What ended up happening is they got another spot at another program. I advocated for another chance, a clean start. I hoped that this horrible situation would impress how critical this professionalism issue was to their future career. This program was in a different state, and that state decided to hold a hearing to determine if they would get a license (this is one of those states that's a pain about this sort of thing). I traveled to the meeting and with the other PD advocated for them, ensuring that the license was granted. They finished their training and have moved on.
Had this person gotten a lawyer involved in the termination, none of that would have happened. First, I probably would have been disappointed enough that I wouldn't have been willing to do the extra work / extra time to get this done. Second, I would be worried that they hadn't learned the lesson necessary and hence might have similar issues in the next program. And last, it's likely that HR would have refused to let me get involved, for fear it would just drag me into more legal problems with them. They'd insist that I summarize their performance in writing, submit it to any other programs or boards (with a signed release of course), and leave it at that.
So that was my point. Once you get lawyers involved, or if you start driving people crazy, they are only going to end up doing the minimum necessary. This isn't specific to Med Ed, it's the way the world works.
----
Overall, I can see your point of view. If you start with the assumption that she's gotten a raw deal, it's very possible to see everything the school has done as specifically designed to end her education and get their scholarship back. And I can't attest to whether UTSW has good or bad administration. Perhaps they are terrible and have ruined her career. Yet, the point remains that she was failing many of her classes and I don't think the school engineered that. She has one vague complaint that anatomy lab tests had disparate grading -- with no clear proof offered other than someone said so. I remain struck by the fact that nowhere in any of this does she take any responsibility -- it's always someone else's fault, or some outside force. And that makes me lean towards the side of the school. In any case, we don't have all the facts -- only what she has decided to share with us. There might be much more, much of which might not support her arguments.
Are you, a lawyer? I just noticed that you've commented several times on this thread as if your words were fact. Ultimately the courts will decide. I'm eager to see what is unearthed.
The Feds describe retaliation as, “The Supreme Court has defined retaliation as an intentional act in response to a protected action.”
I think going through appeal processes and inquiring about being graded differently falls under that. However, the site also says the following in regards to retaliation:
“Retaliation is a deliberate action used to send a clear message that complaining is unwelcome and risky. It is employed to instill fear in others who might consider making a complaint in the future. Those with cause for complaining are frequently among the most vulnerable in an institution. Once they complain, they are labeled “troublemakers.” Retaliation, and the fear of retaliation, becomes a potent weapon used to maintain the power structure within the institution.”
It's a summation of what you wrote previously.
On another note it seems odd that so many doctors are ignoring the elephant in the room. It's not hard to believe anything against an institution that's been sued so many times. I checked my state’s med school and I found one suit over a decade ago. It's alarming that UTSW has mishandled so many situations. What is happening in that program?
Whether this student, or all the previous students/employees that have sued are wrong or not, it's good this is out during the application cycle.
The Feds describe retaliation as, “The Supreme Court has defined retaliation as an intentional act in response to a protected action.”
I think going through appeal processes and inquiring about being graded differently falls under that. However, the site also says the following in regards to retaliation:
“Retaliation is a deliberate action used to send a clear message that complaining is unwelcome and risky. It is employed to instill fear in others who might consider making a complaint in the future. Those with cause for complaining are frequently among the most vulnerable in an institution. Once they complain, they are labeled “troublemakers.” Retaliation, and the fear of retaliation, becomes a potent weapon used to maintain the power structure within the institution.”
It's a summation of what you wrote previously.
On another note it seems odd that so many doctors are ignoring the elephant in the room. It's not hard to believe anything against an institution that's been sued so many times. I checked my state’s med school and I found one suit over a decade ago. It's alarming that UTSW has mishandled so many situations. What is happening in that program?
Whether this student, or all the previous students/employees that have sued are wrong or not, it's good this is out during the application cycle.
Where did you read that?
Can you post where you found this in the article?
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,460
- Reaction score
- 17,032
Sorry for the confusion, but I said "initiated."
The implication from Mrs. Parker's story is that UTSW made the policy change around the time of her inquiry for the sole purpose of screwing her out of her scholarship. But we don't know when the process to change the policy was initiated, or the circumstances around the change(s). It could be nefarious or benign.
My own institution has made not-entirely-dissimilar wording changes to some policies in order to reflect the fact that there is more to medical school than passing multiple choice exams.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,460
- Reaction score
- 17,032
UTSW has thousands of faculty, thousands of students, and a budget somewhere north of $4 billion. It provides healthcare. A lot of it.
It's going to get sued. A lot. It comes with the territory.
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2021
- Messages
- 4,533
- Reaction score
- 4,243
Most of these cases tend to end very anticlimactically. Look at the UVA case recently. Was in national papers then ended in a murmur when the court ruled in favor or UVA
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,092
- Reaction score
- 10,014
Sure it’s in some of the letters and e-mails to her.
All of the reference seeking out the academic support services.
There’s reference in one spc letter that two faculty/deans had personally offered to help and she refused.
There’s email chains with another dean offering to meet and work with her but she refuses and insists on only communicating in writing.
Definitely not behavior that bodes well for remediation!
That's strange, because I read that she asked for communication to be in writing, which is a perfectly reasonable request for any professional and institution to accommodate. It certainly isn't a denial of help.
I can not think of any help that couldn’t be offered via email, in writing, unless they're recommending something that will come back to bite them and thus don’t want it memorialized. After reading another case, I understand that request. Another student accused a dean of coercing him into writing an admission of guilt, that subsequently led to him being dismissed. If that was her offer to help, it's not hard to imagine why people wouldn't be comfortable talking to her in person.
I imagine this situation could be overwhelming and intimidating for a student—especially one with a mental health disorder.
I can not think of any help that couldn’t be offered via email, in writing, unless they're recommending something that will come back to bite them and thus don’t want it memorialized. After reading another case, I understand that request. Another student accused a dean of coercing him into writing an admission of guilt, that subsequently led to him being dismissed. If that was her offer to help, it's not hard to imagine why people wouldn't be comfortable talking to her in person.
I imagine this situation could be overwhelming and intimidating for a student—especially one with a mental health disorder.
I'm certain most medical schools, especially state-run schools have a large number of faculty and students too, but I'm frankly not seeing many lawsuits against them or even private institutions. I believe I excluded any, of the numerous, patient lawsuits from the list.
Not a lawyer, but most of the cases likely ended in settlements. Students are afraid, understandably so, and are much more likely to take some little money and a transfer/re-admission. The school gets the fringe benefit of keeping their dealings buried.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,092
- Reaction score
- 10,014
That’s not an unreasonable position. It does serve to alienate the very people trying to help though. And I can imagine it would be very hard to help someone with academic issues via email. Having done a fair bit of this, there’s usually a lot of back and forth and getting to know the student and their needs. Hard to do in writing.
It also demands a lot more time of the faculty to have a drawn out email conversation. It could be done in 20 minutes in person but could take hours drawn out over days to do in writing. And she’s not the only student in the class.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2010
- Messages
- 72,634
- Reaction score
- 115,675
What I was trying to convey is that many people assume than an "appeal" is the same as a "legal appeal" -- that there will be evidence submitted, witnesses testify, and some sort of a "jury of peers" to make a determination. That's not usually the way this works.
To follow up my learned colleague's words, at my school, an appeal about dismissal is a letter written by the student to the Dean as to why they shouldn't be dismissed. That's it. No jury, no committee and certainly no lawyers.
To follow up my learned colleague's words, at my school, an appeal about dismissal is a letter written by the student to the Dean as to why they shouldn't be dismissed. That's it. No jury, no committee and certainly no lawyers.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2010
- Messages
- 72,634
- Reaction score
- 115,675
You've never taught medical students, have you?
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,460
- Reaction score
- 17,032
Explain your methodology in more detail.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,460
- Reaction score
- 17,032
Having been through this before (not at UTSW), the request to keep everything in writing is tantamount to being read your Miranda rights. It's a not-so-veiled threat that everything you write is at elevated risk of being decontextualized and read aloud in a courtroom.
It has, shall we say, a rather chilling effect on communication. It is also read as a signal that the student no longer wishes to engage productively with the school.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2021
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 289
Yes, you absolutely are allowed to make calls about students based on "negative feelings". Not everything in medical school is a matter of objective grading. Part of the responsibility of medical school faculty is to determine if you are on track to be a competent physician, and that requires some degree of subjective evaluation. If this student is unable to get along with a large portion of faculty in a learning environment despite all her peers having no problems, it is indicative of a problem on her part and taking that into account seems completely sensible. If her response to failing courses is making wild, paranoid accusations about faculty, I would argue she doesn't posses the stability and introspection to be a physician. A students ability to conduct themselves in a respectful and professional manner is expected at almost all educational institutions. If it didn't matter, why even do interviews for admission?
Also this is somewhat ironic, given that the objective fact is that this student FAILED MULTIPLE CLASSES and her focus is that she has "negative feelings" towards how the situation was handled.
This is a complete non sequitur. They didn't dismiss her as retaliation over some sort of personal falling out. She flunked out because she didn't pass her classes.
Last edited:
- Status
