UTSW complaints (again)

[GoSpursGo]

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.

I vehemently agree with everything from @NotAProgDirector , as usual, but especially this point which I think should be emphasized.

In general, faculty involved in education and training are invested in helping their trainees succeed. Not always, and not at every institution of course--I cannot say with certainty what happened with UTSW. But when a lawyer gets involved on the student's behalf, you're going to start dealing with the lawyers from the school, and they are likely to be less charitable than the faculty. Oftentimes the faculty may even be unable to help, even if they were still inclined to do so. There are cases where involving a lawyer may indeed be necessary, but it's definitely the "nuclear option."

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[O Gurl]

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?

@operaman I have reposted my last reply to you since you managed to not address a single direct question that I asked you about your prior statements that do not appear anywhere in the post or attachments.

 

[O Gurl]

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.

Pre-clinical coursework is absolutely supposed to be objective. It is also supposed to be transparent and fair. The student is not responsible for the school’s action of changing the language of her scholarship agreement and then deciding to revoke the scholarship under the revised language and she was within her rights to attempt to address that through the appropriate channels. I saw nothing in her correspondence with her professors or deans that indicated that she was being unprofessional in any way. If your idea of “being able to get along with others” means simply accepting mistreatment and breaches of contract, then we view that differently.

 

[O Gurl]

I vehemently agree with everything from @NotAProgDirector, as usual, but especially this point which I think should be emphasized.

In general, faculty involved in education and training are invested in helping their trainees succeed. Not always, and not at every institution of course--I cannot say with certainty what happened with UTSW. But when a lawyer gets involved on the student's behalf, you're going to start dealing with the lawyers from the school, and they are likely to be less charitable than the faculty. Oftentimes the faculty may even be unable to help, even if they were still inclined to do so. There are cases where involving a lawyer may indeed be necessary, but it's definitely the "nuclear option."

A school lawyer responding to a contract dispute over scholarship terms (or, in this case, not responding) should not have any impact on a course instructor being willing or able to review a student’s concerns about an exam nor a committee’s decision about the student’s progress. Full stop. Blurring the lines between those two is shockingly unethical.

A basic definition of legal retaliation is an intentional act in response to a protected action. What the student has alleged and provided some evidence of (if the embedded correspondence is to be taken as unaltered and true) is that her scholarship agreement changed, she sought counsel, a person suspected of being involved in the change started to repeatedly engage her course directors about her performance, she narrowly failed a series of finals, the same contacted instructors announced that they would depart from policy and not hear appeals, she learns of her classmates receiving difference credited points back and curves (she claims double what she saw back) and without this concerns being addressed, she is dismissed by the promotions committee without LOA, remediation or a year 1 repeat being entertained.

To suggest that the lawyers would have had a say in how things progressed for her, academically, either at the course level or through the committee hearing is a clear cut description of retaliation for pursuing a contract issue. A move to “wait out” the student’s attorney would imply that the plan was to neutralize the problem/complaint. However, this seems to have only opened the door to even larger complaints of discrimination, ADA accommodation failures, retaliation. Making a small issue into something potentially much larger.

I think we can do this for ages and I realize now that this is not a very healthy or fruitful conversation. Like someone else stated, no one here is likely to change their minds based on what we know now and none of us have the full picture. However, I do think that this case could be a major eye opener for a lot of important issues in academia and medicine.

 

[O Gurl]

You've never taught medical students, have you?

What are you advising your students of that you would not be willing to put in writing?

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.

Agreed. I’m not familiar with the case you referenced about a Dean being accused of coercion, but declining to engage in writing is never a good sign.

 

[lumya]

I feel like there’s a lot of disagreement on how wrong the school is in the situation, but even if UTSW did something that was discriminatory what’s when the best case outcome for the student?

After getting a lawyer and posting publicly, if she’s able to file a case, it’ll take years and cost a ton of money. Instead of going to court, UTSW will probably just pay her some money and make her sign an agreement not to trash them anymore and maybe they’ll retroactively have her withdrawn instead of dismissed. That still means she can’t go to medical school and become a doctor. What other medical school is going to accept her with this blip in her past?

I’m not saying there weren’t instances where Ms. Jackson experienced discrimination and I’m not saying she deserved it or that it’s fair, but there were many points where a she could’ve taken a different action that would’ve allowed her to have a more favorable outcome of staying in medical school. As a medical student, it feels bad to say “just suck it up and grovel,” but I’ve learned that I have so little power right now, and the only way I can ever change what I deem to be unfair is to graduate and enter leadership positions to change it.

 

[Lawpy]

I’ve learned that I have so little power right now, and the only way I can ever change what I deem to be unfair is to graduate and enter leadership positions to change it.

You’d have to be sure you actually continue to care about those things even years after graduating. Because priorities change in residency and in practice that most people stop caring about what goes on in med school. There’s also the situation where looking at things from a medical educator viewpoint gives a much deeper and broader picture of things that can’t be understood nor appreciated at the med student level

 

[O Gurl]

I feel like there’s a lot of disagreement on how wrong the school is in the situation, but even if UTSW did something that was discriminatory what’s when the best case outcome for the student?

After getting a lawyer and posting publicly, if she’s able to file a case, it’ll take years and cost a ton of money. Instead of going to court, UTSW will probably just pay her some money and make her sign an agreement not to trash them anymore and maybe they’ll retroactively have her withdrawn instead of dismissed. That still means she can’t go to medical school and become a doctor. What other medical school is going to accept her with this blip in her past?

I’m not saying there weren’t instances where Ms. Jackson experienced discrimination and I’m not saying she deserved it or that it’s fair, but there were many points where a she could’ve taken a different action that would’ve allowed her to have a more favorable outcome of staying in medical school. As a medical student, it feels bad to say “just suck it up and grovel,” but I’ve learned that I have so little power right now, and the only way I can ever change what I deem to be unfair is to graduate and enter leadership positions to change it.

I completely empathize with your position and I do think there are many (if not most) medical students who do “suck it up and grovel.” I think that is why I am so invested in this case. Here we have a student who took a very scary and anxiety-inducing step to say “no, this is not right” and tried to address it through the only means available to her. If this case does conclude with some settlement, she would be wise to push for some injunctive relief related to her academic record and I would strongly encourage her to reapply if she still has a desire to pursue medicine. She clearly was a strong applicant. Strong enough to secure multiple offers and the scholarship. What happened with that scholarship was not her fault. Cutting through some of the venom being spewed here, that is something that should have been able to have been remedied in short order at the school level. If she is able to explain her situation well in her cover letters and interviews and her record is corrected to a withdrawal (or at least her grades are verified and updated), I think she could move forward. There are absolutely some programs that would pass on her because of this. However, I think I mentioned before that that would be self-selection. A school with a bias against students who exercise their rights is no loss, in my opinion. However, there is new blood ascending the ranks in many programs and there are still genuinely good people at the helms of many of them. Students have bounced back from legal issues, especially if they are determined to have had a valid claim.

 

[GoSpursGo]

A school lawyer responding to a contract dispute over scholarship terms (or, in this case, not responding) should not have any impact on a course instructor being willing or able to review a student’s concerns about an exam nor a committee’s decision about the student’s progress. Full stop. Blurring the lines between those two is shockingly unethical.

A basic definition of legal retaliation is an intentional act in response to a protected action. What the student has alleged and provided some evidence of (if the embedded correspondence is to be taken as unaltered and true) is that her scholarship agreement changed, she sought counsel, a person suspected of being involved in the change started to repeatedly engage her course directors about her performance, she narrowly failed a series of finals, the same contacted instructors announced that they would depart from policy and not hear appeals, she learns of her classmates receiving difference credited points back and curves (she claims double what she saw back) and without this concerns being addressed, she is dismissed by the promotions committee without LOA, remediation or a year 1 repeat being entertained.

To suggest that the lawyers would have had a say in how things progressed for her, academically, either at the course level or through the committee hearing is a clear cut description of retaliation for pursuing a contract issue. A move to “wait out” the student’s attorney would imply that the plan was to neutralize the problem/complaint. However, this seems to have only opened the door to even larger complaints of discrimination, ADA accommodation failures, retaliation. Making a small issue into something potentially much larger.

I think we can do this for ages and I realize now that this is not a very healthy or fruitful conversation. Like someone else stated, no one here is likely to change their minds based on what we know now and none of us have the full picture. However, I do think that this case could be a major eye opener for a lot of important issues in academia and medicine.

Agreed. I'm not sure what personal experience you have where you are so convinced of your position that you find input from multiple faculty members from varied institutions completely unrelated to UTSW to be "shockingly unethical." I don't see how using that kind of charged language is conducive to a rational conversation. Regardless, I think we've both said our piece.

My general advice for trainees is to try and resolve problems with your superiors on a personal or institutional level without involving lawyers. There are exceptions, but I would strongly advise exhausting all other avenues of conflict resolution first.

 

[Lawpy]

In any case, the former student isn’t coming back to UTSW or any US med school for that matter. The case will likely be end up thrown out or a settlement may be reached.

 

[O Gurl]

Agreed. I'm not sure what personal experience you have where you are so convinced of your position that you find input from multiple faculty members from varied institutions completely unrelated to UTSW to be "shockingly unethical." I don't see how using that kind of charged language is conducive to a rational conversation. Regardless, I think we've both said our piece.

My general advice for trainees is to try and resolve problems with your superiors on a personal or institutional level without involving lawyers. There are exceptions, but I would strongly advise exhausting all other avenues of conflict resolution first.

I don’t want to belabor the first point for too long, but 11k people have viewed this conversation on a med student forum yet this conversation has almost exclusively been engaged by a handful of veteran users, some seemingly with intimate knowledge of this case and the players (e.g. referring to deans by shortened names, mentioning specific point allotments on the student’s exams, etc). I don’t think it is much of a reach to assume that some of the contributors here may not be impartial or “completely unrelated.”

I am genuinely very curious about what other avenues this student should have pursued. Let’s just focus on the scholarship. The language was changed while she was already an active student. Her timeline of events states that the change, as evidenced by the archives, took place when she spoke to the Dean of Students about how an incomplete would impact her standing. The scholarship was revoked based on the updated language, she appealed, it was denied and the decision letter says the ruling was final, she later learned of the language change. What should she have done next?

 

[O Gurl]

In any case, the former student isn’t coming back to UTSW or any US med school for that matter. The case will likely be end up thrown out or a settlement may be reached.

Thank you, Judge and National US Medical School Program Director.

I’d like to state for the record that you certainly do not speak for my program nor our affiliate program, but by all means, please do flex your self-appointed, imagery muscles.

 

[Lawpy]

I don’t want to belabor the first point for too long, but 11k people have viewed this conversation on a med student forum yet this conversation has almost exclusively been engaged by a handful of veteran users, some seemingly with intimate knowledge of this case and the players (e.g. referring to deans by shortened names, mentioning specific point allotments on the student’s exams, etc). I don’t think it is much of a reach to assume that some of the contributors here may not be impartial or “completely unrelated.”

I am genuinely very curious about what other avenues this student should have pursued. Let’s just focus on the scholarship. The language was changed while she was already an active student. Her timeline of events states that the change, as evidenced by the archives, took place when she spoke to the Dean of Students about how an incomplete would impact her standing. The scholarship was revoked based on the updated language, she appealed, it was denied and the decision letter says the ruling was final, she later learned of the language change. What should she have done next?

Let’s not pretend that you’re impartial here given that you’re one of the only few people giving an impassioned defense of the former student for whatever reasons. Sorry as much as the power differential is terrible, i’m 100% deferring to the faculty and administrators who are far more experienced on these types of situations, so nitpicking on phrases selectively isn’t going to get us anywhere.

 

[Lawpy]

Thank you, Judge and National US Medical School Program Director.

I’d like to state for the record that you certainly do not speak for my program nor our affiliate program, but by all means, please do flex your self-appointed, imagery muscles.

Now this is interesting. You’re a US med school adcom member? Because if you are, i’m willing to bet your colleagues are going to override you and agree with the prevailing point in not admitting the former student to your school. Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[GoSpursGo]

I don’t want to belabor the first point for too long, but 11k people have viewed this conversation on a med student forum yet this conversation has almost exclusively been engaged by a handful of veteran users, some seemingly with intimate knowledge of this case and the players (e.g. referring to deans by shortened names, mentioning specific point allotments on the student’s exams, etc). I don’t think it is much of a reach to assume that some of the contributors here may not be impartial or “completely unrelated.”

I am genuinely very curious about what other avenues this student should have pursued. Let’s just focus on the scholarship. The language was changed while she was already an active student. Her timeline of events states that the change, as evidenced by the archives, took place when she spoke to the Dean of Students about how an incomplete would impact her standing. The scholarship was revoked based on the updated language, she appealed, it was denied and the decision letter says the ruling was final, she later learned of the language change. What should she have done next?

I'm not going to debate further with someone who is outright implying that the conversation is not occurring in good faith.

Best of luck to you.

 

[O Gurl]

Now this is interesting. You’re a US med school adcom member? Because if you are, i’m willing to bet your colleagues are going to override you and agree with the prevailing point in not admitting the former student to your school. Feel free to prove me wrong.

I’m going to bite (despite deep reservations in doing so). Let’s pretend you are speaking to your colleagues on program’s selection committee meeting. You are narrowing down your pool of applicants to decide who to invite for interviews. Let’s also assume this case has been adjudicated/settled with even some of her claims substantiated. What, precisely, would be your argument against this student if she meets your admissions standards? What is the prevailing point, stated plainly?

 

[O Gurl]

I'm not going to debate further with someone who is outright implying that the conversation is not occurring in good faith.

Best of luck to you.

I can appreciate that and the respectful nature of our conversation, at least. Same to you.

 

[Lawpy]

I’m going to bite (despite deep reservations in doing so). Let’s pretend you are speaking to your colleagues on program’s selection committee meeting. You are narrowing down your pool of applicants to decide who to invite for interviews. Let’s also assume this case has been adjudicated/settled with even some of her claims substantiated. What, precisely, would be your argument against this student if she meets your admissions standards? What is the prevailing point, stated plainly?

The fact that she got dismissed alone is more than enough to not interview her when I have hundreds to thousands of applicants who don’t have such a red flag. Add this to the issue of openly humiliating the school seals the deal. The outcome of litigation is irrelevant.

 

[Goro]

A school lawyer responding to a contract dispute over scholarship terms (or, in this case, not responding) should not have any impact on a course instructor being willing or able to review a student’s concerns about an exam nor a committee’s decision about the student’s progress. Full stop.

Full stop,. Indeed. You also appear to have no experience in teaching Medical students.

When the lawyers get involved, faculty may be told by Administration do not have any unsupervised contact with the student in question.

Having been on the receiving end of this myself, I know from what I speak. Sometimes Administration may even say do not have any contact with the student, period.

What's the lawyers are involved, the pool is poisoned

 

[O Gurl]

The fact that she got dismissed alone is more than enough to not interview her when I have hundreds to thousands of applicants who don’t have such a red flag. Add this to the issue of openly humiliating the school seals the deal. The outcome of litigation is irrelevant.

Got it. You care most about the school being outed in lead up to a legal battle that they, to a large extent, forced (their attorneys disengaged from pre-litigation talks). So even if her case reveals that her claim has merit, you would still argue to penalize her for not accepting it quietly.

Noted and I appreciate the candor.

 

[O Gurl]

Full stop,. Indeed. You also appear to have no experience in teaching Medical students.

When the lawyers get involved, faculty may be told by Administration do not have any unsupervised contact with the student in question.

Having been on the receiving end of this myself, I know from what I speak. Sometimes Administration may even say do not have any contact with the student, period.

What's the lawyers are involved, the pool is poisoned

Then you have supervised or documented contact. For the record, I do have experience in teaching and clinical supervision. I cannot imagine any scenario where I would be advised by my institutions’ legal counsel to not address a students questions about an exam in my course or an evaluation on my rotation. They may provide guidance or set some parameters for how I should approach it, which would be welcomed, but refusing to address the needs of an active student/trainee, even with a legal case brewing, would not be advice that would be handed down. I also cannot stress this enough, but retaining counsel is a protected right for students and employees.

 

[Lawpy]

Got it. You care most about the school being outed in lead up to a legal battle that they, to a large extent, forced (their attorneys disengaged from pre-litigation talks). So even if her case reveals that her claim has merit, you would still argue to penalize for not accepting it quietly.

Noted and I appreciate the candor.

The school isn’t being outted here. And schools in general are necessarily risk averse. They aren’t going to take a chance on someone who got dismissed and bashed their former school openly

 

[lumya]

I don’t want to belabor the first point for too long, but 11k people have viewed this conversation on a med student forum yet this conversation has almost exclusively been engaged by a handful of veteran users, some seemingly with intimate knowledge of this case and the players (e.g. referring to deans by shortened names, mentioning specific point allotments on the student’s exams, etc). I don’t think it is much of a reach to assume that some of the contributors here may not be impartial or “completely unrelated.”

I am genuinely very curious about what other avenues this student should have pursued. Let’s just focus on the scholarship. The language was changed while she was already an active student. Her timeline of events states that the change, as evidenced by the archives, took place when she spoke to the Dean of Students about how an incomplete would impact her standing. The scholarship was revoked based on the updated language, she appealed, it was denied and the decision letter says the ruling was final, she later learned of the language change. What should she have done next?

You’ve brought up a couple times that most people responding at adcoms, so here’s my take as a student. I worked for a couple years before med school but she was in the Air Force so I assume she’s at least equally knowledgeable of finances and professionalism.

1) I would’ve applied to FAFSA. I’m not a veteran but my understanding of the GI bill is that it only covers tuition. Therefore, I would’ve had to take out cost of living loans unless I had enough saved up to bank on that. Even so, FAFSA opens up before all decisions are made and GI bills are capped for private schools, so I may have needed extra funds for tuition.

2) I’m not on a merit scholarship (I wish). Those are conditional. If you read the requirements for keeping a merit scholarship, it says “including” before listing the criteria. What that means to me as a non lawyer is that the listed criteria is the floor, not the ceiling for how I can lose my scholarship. I would 100% lose my scholarship for not meeting one of the listed criteria but I might lose it for other reasons as well. Which also means the school can change the absolute causes for losing a scholarship. This also lends me to believe that she may not have cause on this point alone unless she can prove discrimination instead of breach of contract.

3) Actually met with the faculty that was reaching out. I get that the student probably wanted to get everything on paper since she had a lawyer involved, but Texas is also a one party consent state so she could’ve recorded if she felt like she was going to get railroaded.

4) Not made the post. I don’t know enough to comment on when a lawyer is warranted, but posting about it is not going to help her case with UTSW or future schools. Even if the dismissal got removed and she was able to bounce back, that’s going to take a couple of years. She’ll have to retake the MCAT and this post is public.

I feel for her. She was struggling a lot. But I don’t think it’s 100% UTSWs fault. She talks about them changing the Respiratory block to prevent her from succeeding and I find that absurd. No offense to adcoms, but faculty are pretty lazy and reuse slides from year to year and I find it ridiculous to think they would go through the work to target one student.

 

[xffan624]

You’ve brought up a couple times that most people responding at adcoms, so here’s my take as a student. I worked for a couple years before med school but she was in the Air Force so I assume she’s at least equally knowledgeable of finances and professionalism.

1) I would’ve applied to FAFSA. I’m not a veteran but my understanding of the GI bill is that it only covers tuition. Therefore, I would’ve had to take out cost of living loans unless I had enough saved up to bank on that. Even so, FAFSA opens up before all decisions are made and GI bills are capped for private schools, so I may have needed extra funds for tuition.

GI bill covers fully in state tuition and provides a monthly stipend that pretty much covers COL.

 

[Lem0nz]

Wow this thread really went to @#($.

Didn't we make it clear on like, page 2, that if you don't get laterality right every single time for the rest of your life then your medical career is over? Doesn't matter if its MS1, MS3, PGY2, PGY27... Laterality matters and she got ONE QUESTION wrong. She's out. Period. Full stop. Full throttle. Now stop again. Out. This thread is wild.

@O Gurl Your experience with lawyers in medicine is either one to two standard deviations away from what is normal or non-existent. The very first thing every single interaction I or any of my peers who've interacted with them have had be it with patient level issues, HR issues, med-ed issues, to literally whatever is to *immediately* cease contact with the opposing party. Even in benign small situations. In the vast majority of those situations you are then further required to communicate *only* with your legal representation, sometimes even excluding other supporting people on your side of the legal argument. What you describe of having lawyers review contracts being normal/ok is true when it is a normal expected part of the process, almost always before said contract is executed. Such as physician employment contracts. It is not normal or routine to need a lawyer to review a scholarship contract. If you have to call a lawyer to review your scholarship process it is because something has gone terribly wrong.

 

[operaman]

Let’s not pretend that you’re impartial here given that you’re one of the only few people giving an impassioned defense of the former student for whatever reasons. Sorry as much as the power differential is terrible, i’m 100% deferring to the faculty and administrators who are far more experienced on these types of situations, so nitpicking on phrases selectively isn’t going to get us anywhere.

Yeah she’s slipped up a couple times in her posts, ie “our data will show…” etc.

All of us have our own experiences and biases. Mine comes from getting to an age where I and those I love require more and more medical care. I don’t want people in medicine who flunk out or barely pass. I want the best, and if someone can’t hack it then they need to find another path.

 

[O Gurl]

@O Gurl Your experience with lawyers in medicine is either one to two standard deviations away from what is normal or non-existent. The very first thing every single interaction I or any of my peers who've interacted with them have had be it with patient level issues, HR issues, med-ed issues, to literally whatever is to *immediately* cease contact with the opposing party. Even in benign small situations. In the vast majority of those situations you are then further required to communicate *only* with your legal representation, sometimes even excluding other supporting people on your side of the legal argument. What you describe of having lawyers review contracts being normal/ok is true when it is a normal expected part of the process, almost always before said contract is executed. Such as physician employment contracts. It is not normal or routine to need a lawyer to review a scholarship contract. If you have to call a lawyer to review your scholarship process it is because something has gone terribly wrong.

The student retained counsel after learning about the language change in her scholarship agreement. I am not sure why we are now rehashing on the most basic established events in this case.

The argument that faculty and instructors may have been prohibited from speaking to the student because she had an attorney look into the scholarship revocation and language change doesn’t map onto the supporting documents that I saw in the blog. I imagine that having the lawyers take over correspondence is something that could happen, but it obviously did not happen here. We are discussing all of this without UTSW’s response, but I would be surprised if that is later claimed when we clearly see that the student continued to engage the instructors and deans and vice versa through the posted emails. I am a bit confused as to how/why that idea even got introduced to this conversation, to be honest.

 

[O Gurl]

Yeah she’s slipped up a couple times in her posts, ie “our data will show…” etc.

Please quote what you are talking about. It is one thing to repeatedly make up things about the blog post and refuse to ever explain why you are doing so, but to start making up things about comments here on the thread is almost pathological.

 

[Lem0nz]

The student retained counsel after learning about the language change in her scholarship agreement. I am not sure why we are now rehashing on the most basic established events in this case.

The argument that faculty and instructors may have been prohibited from speaking to the student because she had an attorney look into the scholarship revocation and language change doesn’t map onto the supporting documents that I saw in the blog. I imagine that having the lawyers take over correspondence is something that could happen, but it obviously did not happen here. We are discussing all of this without UTSW’s response, but I would be surprised if that is later claimed when we clearly see that the student continued to engage the instructors and deans and vice versa through the posted emails. I am a bit confused as to how/why that idea even got introduced to this conversation, to be honest.

It wasn’t. We were simply collectively shutting you down that retaining legal counsel somehow is a neutral stance and should not prompt people to become defensive. It isn’t and it does.

The core of the problem remains that the student in question needed to perform better academically to become a physician. She did not. It is sad. You have inferred a fantastical, exciting, dramatic, and intriguing take from a single side of a story that should not be openly public if there is an actual legal proceeding to be made. You’ve even gone as far as to insinuate that other veteran posters here are somehow in on it. They aren’t. They don’t go to UTSW.

As unexciting as it is, it just so happens that they have seen or experienced this story before, probably many times each in their various faculty or educational journeys, and they know the other side. The other side is probably not exciting and full of palace intrigue and conniving professors who are racist or hate people with anxiety or just really didn’t like this one person. Far more likely they’re just tired because students who fail academically or professionally and then become hostile when the underlying issue is the student are one of the worst elements of those jobs. Not because said faculty hate those students. Rather and far simpler: it’s just sad and there’s nothing you can do to fix it.

 

[operaman]

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.

This one. Post #110.

ETA: this is in re to your asking above where you slipped up with your verbiage. See beginning of quote for “most of our data…”

 

[O Gurl]

1) I would’ve applied to FAFSA. I’m not a veteran but my understanding of the GI bill is that it only covers tuition. Therefore, I would’ve had to take out cost of living loans unless I had enough saved up to bank on that. Even so, FAFSA opens up before all decisions are made and GI bills are capped for private schools, so I may have needed extra funds for tuition.

2) I’m not on a merit scholarship (I wish). Those are conditional. If you read the requirements for keeping a merit scholarship, it says “including” before listing the criteria. What that means to me as a non lawyer is that the listed criteria is the floor, not the ceiling for how I can lose my scholarship. I would 100% lose my scholarship for not meeting one of the listed criteria but I might lose it for other reasons as well. Which also means the school can change the absolute causes for losing a scholarship. This also lends me to believe that she may not have cause on this point alone unless she can prove discrimination instead of breach of contract.

3) Actually met with the faculty that was reaching out. I get that the student probably wanted to get everything on paper since she had a lawyer involved, but Texas is also a one party consent state so she could’ve recorded if she felt like she was going to get railroaded.

I think you are responding the question I put to GoSpursGo about what the student should have done after the scholarship was revoked and she learned of the contract language change. I’m not sure if you meant you’d apply for FAFSA at that point because you believe that the school has a right to pull a scholarship for things listed or unlisted and the right to change the criteria at any point and apply it to active recipients. I think that would be your personal choice, but I think that many people would see the problem in that and explored their options for legal help. This student has shared that out of a few pre-match offers, she selected UTSW because of the strong offer, including merit funds. To advocate the keep your head low and grovel approach to what essentially may have amounted to a post commitment breach of contract, will not resonate with many people. Which is valid. Be it a student and a university or a doctor and a hospital facility, changes to agreements should be handled lawfully and ethically and (sorry to sound like a broken record) seeking legal counsel is a legally protected action.

As for meeting with the faculty, I am genuinely not interested in skimming the blog post again, so anyone here can correct me if I am wrong, but she describes meeting with instructors and deans in semester 1. Afterwards, she learned that she was given advice contrary to what her classmates were given regarding one of her finals and that the scholarship language changed after talking to one of the deans. I can fully understand a breach in trust at that point. Your point about audio recording is valid, I think, but another alternative is to communicate in writing, which she requests somewhere in the emails.

 

[O Gurl]

It wasn’t. We were simply collectively shutting you down that retaining legal counsel somehow is a neutral stance and should not prompt people to become defensive. It isn’t and it does.

Ok, I just did not want a red herring argument to get weaved into a real discussion of the facts. There was obviously no restrictions on faculty from continuing to treat the student like any other student while the school’s counsel and the student’s counsel should have been sorting out the contract question.

 

[O Gurl]

This one. Post #110.

ETA: this is in re to your asking above where you slipped up with your verbiage. See beginning of quote for “most of our data…”

That is actually funny. “Most of our data” means medical and graduate training data. I am speaking to fellow faculty and administrators. There is absolutely no good faith way that you honestly misread that given the rest of that paragraph includes me referring to my current program and what we want for our students and clinical trainees.

I also now firmly believe that you were also not misreading anything about the student’s blog. You are intentionally lying. I wasted my time going back and looking for where she confirmed that she was offered accommodation and refused and several other things that you claimed.

I honestly do not have the patience for that debate style, nor do I see any reason to engage a person who embraces that approach.

 

[futureapppsy2]

@O Gurl , to clarify are you a med school admin or med school faculty? (No uterior motives here, just wondering about your positionality)

 

[operaman]

That is actually funny. “Most of our data” means medical and graduate training data. I am speaking to fellow faculty and administrators. There is absolutely no good faith way that you honestly misread that given the rest of that paragraph includes me referring to my current program and what we want for our students and clinical trainees.

I also now firmly believe that you were also not misreading anything about the student’s blog. You are intentionally lying. I wasted my time going back and looking for where she confirmed that she was offered accommodation and refused and several other things that you claimed.

I honestly do not have the patience for that debate style, nor do I see any reason to engage a person who embraces that approach.

Ok that’s fine. “Most of our data will show” certainly could be read as someone more closely involved with the student in this case, the future tense suggesting those data will be presented at some future point presumably in litigation.

I’m afraid I have to say I doubt your experience as faculty/admin at the med school or GME level. Your point of view with many of the things discussed in this thread seems wildly out of scope of the experience of others who are known faculty.

You don’t have to be faculty to have a valid opinion here of course and it’s good to have someone articulating an opposing view on this topic regardless of your position in the medical world.

 

[O Gurl]

@O Gurl , to clarify are you a med school admin or med school faculty? (No uterior motives here, just wondering about your positionality)

No ulterior motive perceived. Faculty with one primary and one adjunct appointment. My training responsibilities mostly consist of clinical supervision and preceptorship since moving away from research.

 

[O Gurl]

Ok that’s fine. “Most of our data will show” certainly could be read as someone more closely involved with the student in this case, the future tense suggesting those data will be presented at some future point presumably in litigation.

I’m afraid I have to say I doubt your experience as faculty/admin at the med school or GME level. Your point of view with many of the things discussed in this thread seems wildly out of scope of the experience of others who are known faculty.

You don’t have to be faculty to have a valid opinion here of course and it’s good to have someone articulating an opposing view on this topic regardless of your position in the medical world.

Or it can be read as intended. That if we were to step away and look at our own program’s outcome data, most will show that medical and graduate school dismissal rates are very small, as I expound on in that very same post and paragraph. At any rate, I think we’ve concluded our discourse.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

As mentioned before, no one will be changing their mind here. But I can say that this discussion has helped frame the issue from "the other side" more clearly for me, and that has been helpful.

One issue is the withdrawal of the scholarship. The initial scholarship rules (prior to edits) was clear that she could lose her scholarship if she failed two classes. There remains some debate whether she did or not. Re-reading the SPC letter that was sent to her, they clearly delineated these as failed courses that would be "recorded as incomplete". Whether or not these count as "failed" or not is an interesting question. The policy also states that after the first failure she will get a warning -- and that seems a key piece to the puzzle to me. If she got a warning after the first "incomplete", it clearly supports the notion that the school considered that a failure. If they didn't, then she has a very good argument to keep her scholarship -- they didn't follow the rules, and the lack of warning notice suggests the school considered it a non-fail.

Next is the issue of whether her engaging a lawyer to address this dispute should have any impact on the rest of the process. In a purely academic sense, I agree it shouldn't. In a perfect world, the two issues would be firewalled from each other. But in reality, that's not what happens. Once lawyers get involved, problems like this tend to spiral out of control -- no matter who is "right". The lawyers (and HR) have only one motive -- to limit liability and legal exposure. They could care less what's best for the student. It's not their fault -- that's exactly what they are paid to do. "Any future issues involving this person need to be run through our office" is the usual refrain. This does not condone differential grading -- that's wrong on every level no matter what. But resolution of disputes, requests for explanations, etc -- the legal team now becomes a part of all of that.

Last, and perhaps most eye opening for me, is the discussion around one sentence in one email: "I would prefer to keep all in writing from this point forward". It was suggested here that perhaps she was finding in person meetings very anxiety provoking. Or perhaps she was appropriately concerned that what she remembered from meetings wasn't what actually had transpired. So perhaps there is a good explanation for this comment. Unfortunately, anyone involved in Med Ed will read this comment very differently: "I'm planning on suing you, my lawyer has told me to get everything in writing so they have as much evidence as possible". I can't tell what she meant by it, but I can 100% guarantee you that's how everyone involved at UTSW interpreted this -- even if she didn't mean it that way. And it's also a very unhealthy way to get feedback -- difficult feedback like this is a give-and-take, requires a back and forth discussion, and is best when non-verbal cues can be read.

 

[Goro]

I'd like to point out something that was told to me by a previous Dean of ours: "No medical school has ever been successfully sued when their actions were shown to not be arbitrary or capricious."

 

[operaman]

As mentioned before, no one will be changing their mind here. But I can say that this discussion has helped frame the issue from "the other side" more clearly for me, and that has been helpful.

One issue is the withdrawal of the scholarship. The initial scholarship rules (prior to edits) was clear that she could lose her scholarship if she failed two classes. There remains some debate whether she did or not. Re-reading the SPC letter that was sent to her, they clearly delineated these as failed courses that would be "recorded as incomplete". Whether or not these count as "failed" or not is an interesting question. The policy also states that after the first failure she will get a warning -- and that seems a key piece to the puzzle to me. If she got a warning after the first "incomplete", it clearly supports the notion that the school considered that a failure. If they didn't, then she has a very good argument to keep her scholarship -- they didn't follow the rules, and the lack of warning notice suggests the school considered it a non-fail.

Next is the issue of whether her engaging a lawyer to address this dispute should have any impact on the rest of the process. In a purely academic sense, I agree it shouldn't. In a perfect world, the two issues would be firewalled from each other. But in reality, that's not what happens. Once lawyers get involved, problems like this tend to spiral out of control -- no matter who is "right". The lawyers (and HR) have only one motive -- to limit liability and legal exposure. They could care less what's best for the student. It's not their fault -- that's exactly what they are paid to do. "Any future issues involving this person need to be run through our office" is the usual refrain. This does not condone differential grading -- that's wrong on every level no matter what. But resolution of disputes, requests for explanations, etc -- the legal team now becomes a part of all of that.

Last, and perhaps most eye opening for me, is the discussion around one sentence in one email: "I would prefer to keep all in writing from this point forward". It was suggested here that perhaps she was finding in person meetings very anxiety provoking. Or perhaps she was appropriately concerned that what she remembered from meetings wasn't what actually had transpired. So perhaps there is a good explanation for this comment. Unfortunately, anyone involved in Med Ed will read this comment very differently: "I'm planning on suing you, my lawyer has told me to get everything in writing so they have as much evidence as possible". I can't tell what she meant by it, but I can 100% guarantee you that's how everyone involved at UTSW interpreted this -- even if she didn't mean it that way. And it's also a very unhealthy way to get feedback -- difficult feedback like this is a give-and-take, requires a back and forth discussion, and is best when non-verbal cues can be read.

And seeing that she bcc’d her legal team on the whole “in writing” thing and other emails, I suspect people were reading her motives accurately.

 

[wholeheartedly]

At this point, this discussion is just people talking in circles, going nowhere. I think we’ve thoroughly exhausted all the angles of this issue. The moderator staff has decided to close it.