by El Gato » Mon Mar 07, 2016 9:54 am
the article really highlights what I think is a stupid mindset in Arizona. The competition/rivalry between Tucson and Phoenix is ridiculous. They are in the same state. One can't really succeed without the other because they are joined at the hip. The idea of the article seems to be that funding should be based on metro population size. Why? That would be a stupid and arbitrary way to do it. The article raises the spector of all these "Tucson people" running the show. Uh, how about considering that they are (state of) Arizona people running the show? Would it even be shocking if they pulled people from out of state? As a taxpayer do you want decisions based on geography? It seems to be a small time mindset that Arizona needs to grow out of.
As far as the governance issue regarding accreditation, well, accreditors are in many cases rightly coming under scrutiny. Take it to it's logical conclusion. A med school is found to be non-compliant because decisions were made by the parent school. The school ultimately loses accreditation (not saying that would happen here). Does that impact the education the students recieved? Not one wit. Do you honestly think criticism of the administrative decision making is reflective of students' performance on board exams? HIGHLY unlikely.
Also, the article insinuates that there is a problem in that the ABOR doesn't approve the salaries of the administrators. Actually, that would probably set off warning signs to the accreditors as well. They tend to favor those decisions coming from the CEO, not the boards of regents/trustees. Can't have it both ways regarding accreditation which the article tries to do. And the size of salaries? News flash - hospital administrators make a LOT of money. It's like toilet paper, mattresses, lasic eye surgery and shoes: not an area to skimp on.
I could go on, but I'll spare you guys.