Rutgers Senate votes no confidence in President Holloway over medical school merger plan

[Tango Two]

Rutgers Senate votes lost confidence in President Holloway over medical school merger plan

Rutgers University intends to merge its medical schools in Newark and New Brunswick, raising concern among the faculty of both.

www.mycentraljersey.com

 

[retired711]

Rutgers Senate votes lost confidence in President Holloway over medical school merger plan

Rutgers University intends to merge its medical schools in Newark and New Brunswick, raising concern among the faculty of both.

www.mycentraljersey.com

Having served nine years in the University Senate, I observe as follows:

First, it doesn't matter much what the University Senate thinks. The University Senate is a talkshop. It has *no* power except to approve the university calendar.

Second, this isn't even the University Senate. It's its Executive Committee. That committee is unrepresentative. It includes hardly any students and no administrators, yet the Senate's membership includes many from both groups. (The University Senate is not a faculty senate in the way many other universities have Senates.)

Third, contrary to the headline, the Committee didn't quite say it had lost confidence in Holloway. It said it ""has lost confidence in the leadership of President Holloway representing the values of shared governance." That's ambiguous, to say the least. All it seems to say is, " you aren't paying enough attention to what the rest of us think." Its not like saying, "you ought to quit," which is what a vote of no-confidence usually means.

In saying all of this, I am *not*, repeat, *not* endorsing the merger. I don't know nearly enough about it. I'm just questioning how important this resolution is.

 

[Knight Shift]

Having served nine years in the University Senate, I observe as follows:

First, it doesn't matter much what the University Senate thinks. The University Senate is a talkshop. It has *no* power except to approve the university calendar.

Second, this isn't even the University Senate. It's its Executive Committee. That committee is unrepresentative. It includes hardly any students and no administrators, yet the Senate's membership includes many from both groups. (The University Senate is not a faculty senate in the way many other universities have Senates.)

Third, contrary to the headline, the Committee didn't quite say it had lost confidence in Holloway. It said it ""has lost confidence in the leadership of President Holloway representing the values of shared governance." That's ambiguous, to say the least. All it seems to say is, " you aren't paying enough attention to what the rest of us think." Its not like saying, "you ought to quit," which is what a vote of no-confidence usually means.

In saying all of this, I am *not*, repeat, *not* endorsing the merger. I don't know nearly enough about it. I'm just questioning how important this resolution is.

Irregardless (long-running joke that this is/is not a word), it seems to me that the Senate had some very valid points that got steamrolled in the process, namely, the concern about minimizing the role of University Hospital in Newark and loss of prestigious residency opportunities for students (this seems like the biggest issue). Strom seems like a typical hand-waving bureaucrat in a large system. I did not do a deep dive, nor do I have a vested interest, but from reading the story, it seems that Strom did not have any significant material responses and was dismissive.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Irregardless (long-running joke that this is/is not a word), it seems to me that the Senate had some very valid points that got steamrolled in the process, namely, the concern about minimizing the role of University Hospital in Newark and loss of prestigious residency opportunities for students (this seems like the biggest issue). Strom seems like a typical hand-waving bureaucrat in a large system. I did not do a deep dive, nor do I have a vested interest, but from reading the story, it seems that Strom did not have any significant material responses and was dismissive.

Would there not be any residency at Newark under this plan?

I have a friend that received his MD at RWJ as well as served as a resident there. He always said Newark was held in much lower regard.

 

[DJ Spanky]

I have little knowledge of either medical school, although a close friend and college roommate when to UMDNJ after he graduated with me.

However, when I read about "combining administrative functions blah, blah, blah" I shudder. Having been through this several times (and having worked with multiple clients who went through this) during my career, I've found more often than not that this usually goes poorly and is disruptive to both organizations. And, most times, does not achieve the level of organization and cost savings that those in charge always tout.

 

[retired711]

I have little knowledge of either medical school, although a close friend and college roommate when to UMDNJ after he graduated with me.

However, when I read about "combining administrative functions blah, blah, blah" I shudder. Having been through this several times (and having worked with multiple clients who went through this) during my career, I've found more often than not that this usually goes poorly and is disruptive to both organizations. And, most times, does not achieve the level of organization and cost savings that those in charge always tout.

Speaking as someone with some experience of the law school merger, I totally agree. It is a pain in the ass for people in Camden to have to rely on staff in Newark 80 miles away for support, and I'm sure Newark people feel the same way when they have to rely on staff in Camden.

Not to change the subject, but the law school merger has not accomplished its goals in the slightest. It is the product of a socialist mindset that opposes competition. Cal's and UCLA's law schools cooperate in some ways, but think of themselves as competitors. That makes both schools better just as competition makes businesses better.