Faculty respond with skepticism to idea of veteran-focused medical school
Syracuse University faculty members are widely skeptical that the establishment of a veteran-focused medical school at SU could be self-sustaining and not drain the university’s existing resources.
Chancellor Kent Syverud charged a 21-member Faculty Advisory Committee in September with the task of assessing faculty sentiment toward the college. The committee received about 330 submissions to an online survey that it made available to all 1,649 SU faculty members. About 20 percent of faculty responded to the survey, which the committee generated in order to provide Syverud with “the most comprehensive assessment” of the potential impact a college of medicine could have on the university, according to the committee’s 107-page report, which was given to the chancellor on Oct. 23 and obtained by The Daily Orange.
The committee’s findings are based on faculty input it generated from both the survey and from feedback inquiries conducted within the committee members’ respective university departments. In the report, about 50 pages are dedicated to faculty comments.
The idea for a veteran-focused medical school was made public by SU in August. The college would accept 40 to 60 undergraduate students tuition-free on a commitment that the students will serve in VA hospitals across the U.S. upon graduation — a concept comparable to the ROTC. The potential partnership with the Veterans Administration medical system is due to the VA’s projected 22,000-doctor shortage within the next 10 years.
The survey first asked faculty to indicate their individual assessment of the potential impact the creation of a college of medicine at SU could have in four areas: research, student recruitment, faculty recruitment and retention and campus life.
Although the results of the first question were favorable or neutral in the establishment of a college of medicine by a 2:1 ratio compared with opposing views, according to the report, many faculty members took issue with the committee’s assumption that the college would be self-sustaining, or, in other words, exclusively funded by donations and grants from the federal government.
Faculty members were able to list these concerns in the second and third questions of the survey, which provided space for faculty members to elaborate on their responses and discuss other issues and factors they think university leadership should take into consideration when making the decision of whether to establish such a college.
The fact that the financial dent of the college — based on both infrastructure costs and the recruitment, retention and support of faculty members — was not disclosed to faculty members was a grievance commonly expressed in responses, according to the report. The report also shows that those who think the total cost of the college is insufficiently understood believe it is realistic to estimate the cost per faculty member at $2 million to $3 million, according to the report.
“The premise that this will not negatively impact SU finances and that it can be funded entirely by external sources is, to be kind, delusional,” one response read.
Other faculty members wondered why the university would undertake the challenge of establishing a medical school when, as one response read, its “student caliber continues to plummet.”
Although Syverud made clear in his April 2014 inauguration speech that two of his goals are to enhance the undergraduate experience and to restore SU as the best place for veterans to gain a college education, some faculty members indicated in their responses that he has bigger fish to fry before thinking about creating a veteran-focused medical school.
“Managing this broken institution back to health is enough for this or any chancellor,” the second response read, adding that the chancellor already has a full plate. “The medical school is an unnecessary diversion.”
The responses to the survey regarding research were mostly positive. Some feedback indicated that the establishment of the college could add to the prestige of SU, create multiple research opportunities that are not currently available to the university, increase enrollment of pre-med undergraduates and provide experiential learning opportunities for students, according to the report.
Other faculty members expressed concerns that the college would hurt neighboring medical schools and hospitals, such as the State University of New York Upstate Medical University.
“Why pick a fight with Upstate? How is this being a good neighbor?” one response read. “We would be the smallest metro area in the nation with two medical schools. How well would that work?”
Faculty concerns went beyond funding, research and competition, though. Other faculty members worried that the university would become a “defense contractor” to the National Security State, according to one response, and that greater integration between SU and the Department of Defense would “subordinate the academic mission of the university to security interests furthering the corporate and business models already adopted at SU (with questionable success).”
Another concern raised was that the college could be a way for the university to “use veterans to garner federal defense and security funds.” Others said the school seems like a way to “capitalize on veterans” and that the plan itself is “little more than an opportunistic way for the university to make money.”
“… In modern times, the optics of close association of universities with the military and the politics of war might hurt its reputation, at least internationally,” one response read.