Friday, March 15, 2019

Do UCSF Faculty, Staff Understand Health Disparities?

Its a provocative question , but a real one.
It is a question Bay Area residents would normally think they don't have to ask. Yet, if you watch the:
Presentation by UCSF on item A1 from UC Regents meeting certain troubling methodology comes up in assessment of physical therapy student applications-people who want to be physical therapists not those seeking PT as patients to be extra clear-- It is a topic that directly affects health care disparities e.g. if patients have access to healthcare providers who can relate to their background, or conduct research that is applicable to their background reflects their background etc.

If nothing else, watch the Academic and Student Affairs Committee open session on item A1. The issues that come up -because the committee Action items discussion sounds like there are:

Failures on proper methodology on applicants at UCSF Physical Therapy program, which makes one wonder if the same problems exist for other programs. UCSF item comes up at 2:10:00 timemark.

It - the health disparities question- also raised with a UCI nursing program during the same agenda item. That comes up at 1:17:00 timemark.

Failure to maintain proper residents to non residents numbers - many graduate degree and professional degree programs maintain cohorts of 'Non-resident majority' students, many programs have inconsistent tuition and fees policies within similar schools in UC and result mostly in disparities for CA residents ( so , shortcut: with regard to admissions, and with regard to tuition and fees) that are then not reported to regents nor CA Leg timely. This comes up through out the meeting.

Failure to track the LEEP program at Berkeley, which may have resulted in URM EdD candidates incurring unnecessary and huge student loan debt which in turn their public education employer may also have paid for -so it may have been passed on to CA- that scenario comes up. This program comes up at the 25:00 timemark. And wrote more about it here earlier.

(Some 'students stayed in the program for several extra semesters, up to twelve semesters waiting for courses' example was given by the Dean of the Ed school.)

Failure to report these multiple problems in comprehensive reports to Regents with regularity.

On the sorta good side there was some attempt to gather the UC B Schools into a consistent group
And the four UC Law schools -- but it was done by giving two year extension and is hurriedly done in the last twenty minutes of the meeting. ( Unclear if the fourth UC law school was Hastings?? Hastings has UC identity issues going way back. The fourth law school did not send a representative to the UC Regents meeting . NONE of the UC B-schools sent any representatives at all for this item presentations to the UC Regents, so there's that optic for your consideration... And A2 on STEM Prep and A3 Value of UC Degree agenda items were pulled from the agenda as Discussion items because A1 needed the time)

Mostly things were passed with 'we promise to look at it' commitments -- but the problem is that this routinely falls off the UC Regents radar and the problems persist.

But there are regents ' working groups' looking into all this and the session openly raised these issues which is a sign of transparency at least.

And why do Chancellor's receive yearly healthy raises when these issues in terms of lack of accurate data , lack of reporting these problems to regents exists - and take place on their campuses?

No comments:

Post a Comment