View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
wwalkeri
Joined: 12 Dec 2005 Posts: 136
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 1:24 am Post subject: Apparently Biosciences are key |
|
|
This link http://www.tulane.edu/newwave/010206_yjones.html is just another example that shows the university could support its current programs. Apparently we have the money to make expansions in the areas of biosciences but not engineering. Why is bioscience key to rebuilding? Bioscience will not rebuild the infrastructure, bioscience will not strengthen the levees, and bioscience will not bring people and patients to the med school if they have nowhere to live. Again, just another example of Tulane trying to expand while telling its students that it does not have the money to support their academic needs. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mollyzogirl
Joined: 09 Dec 2005 Posts: 93 Location: New Orleans
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 1:41 am Post subject: distraction |
|
|
I saw that earlier on the website. It looks like Tulane is saying, "See we are going to do something good for New Orleans!!!" While covering up the big cuts they made that are going to hurt the city, and disturb the rebuilding process.
I'm BME, and I've heard rumors that, supposedly, cutting the other programs is supposed to increase university support for our program. Personally, I don't buy it. I think they are just saying that so that BME's and ChemE's dont worry too much about the cuts, and it looks like they are 'reinvesting' the money they are 'saving' somewhere that benefits the students. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
brocktice
Joined: 09 Dec 2005 Posts: 5 Location: New Orleans, LA
|
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:26 pm Post subject: Money for Bioscience |
|
|
This is most likely because the biosciences tend to bring in grant money. _________________ Brock M. Tice
Graduate Student, Tulane University
Department of Biomedical Engineering
504-296-5872
Info Site: brocktice.com
Blog: virtuallyshocking.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hollus
Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 10
|
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One of the ChemE and BME professors got a $400,000 grant for those depeartments in the past year or so, which is why they are probably keeping those programs. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
wwalkeri
Joined: 12 Dec 2005 Posts: 136
|
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But those departments are not the only ones with grants. From the information I have heard, cutting departments is all about cutting tenured faculty. Altiero proposed a plan to cut only faculty, but Cowen denied it on the basis that in order to cut tenured faculty their entire department had to go. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dr. H.
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 37
|
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
wwalkeri wrote: | But those departments are not the only ones with grants. From the information I have heard, cutting departments is all about cutting tenured faculty. Altiero proposed a plan to cut only faculty, but Cowen denied it on the basis that in order to cut tenured faculty their entire department had to go. |
Not quite right. The university declared "financial exigency", which, according to AAUP guidelines allows them to fire tenured faculty. The only restriction is they cannot fire a tenured faculty member while retaining an untenured one in the program.
Dr. H. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
wwalkeri
Joined: 12 Dec 2005 Posts: 136
|
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the clarification, but the part that really ticks me off is that Altiero supposedly proposed a plan with the necessary numbers of faculty cuts. For some reason Cowen insisted that it be entire departments. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|