Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

wmu med school not owned/operated by wmu = wmu has no med school

Posted: 2/25/2013 12:23 PM

wmu med school not owned/operated by wmu = wmu has no med school 


Ran into this gem out of the Western Harold. As it appears, the supposed wmu school of medicine isn't actually owned or operated by wmu. It is instead a privately owned and governed entity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to my "Northern Lower" logic that means wmu has no med school.

www.westernherald.com/news/wmu...aking-ceremony/

I wonder how long the k-zoo diploma factory will perpetuate the myth that they have a medical school. They still claim to be a "Top 100 National University" (per their website) even though in the most recent U.S. News and World Report, they come in near the bottom at 189.

colleges.usnews.rankingsandrev...university-2330

Last edited 2/25/2013 4:20 PM by CHIPPhD

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/25/2013 4:53 PM

Re: wmu med school not owned/operated by wmu = wmu has no med 


Well, if this doesn't cause Dip to swoop in to defend the honor of WMU (and his sense of self-esteem) nothing will.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/50/Hb_quickdraw_photo_01_md.jpg/200px-Hb_quickdraw_photo_01_md.jpg




Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/25/2013 5:14 PM

Re: wmu med school not owned/operated by wmu = wmu has no med 


The WMU med school will be a seperate corporation owned by the University, not unlike other entities owned by the university that are separate from the non-profit univeristy (i.e. the hockey building and swimming pool are owned by a university subsidiary that maintains and rent the building to cover its costs and mortgage).  The med school will therefore not be part of the WMU budget or use any state funds, it must pay its own way.

While WMU may be ranked 189, CMU is not ranked at all.

The WMU model is same one used by Oakland University Medical School that just opened.

Last edited 2/25/2013 5:22 PM by Bronco67

Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/25/2013 6:24 PM

Re: wmu med school not owned/operated by wmu = wmu has no med 


Bronco67, please provide evidence to support your claim. Per the article I provided; “...The school is not part of WMU proper, but instead is a separate, privately owned entity with its own source of funding and governance." Take note of the authors use of the phrase “privately owned.” If it was a separate corporation owned by wmu one would expect them to use the phrase “university owned”. Now, we all know that wmu students aren’t known for their intellectual prowess, so it could just be poor journalism. With that in mind, see the following article from the wmu website. They assert in the in the closing sentences that “…the school is a privately funded initiative housed at WMU”.  Is seems as if they are using creative writing to dance around the idea that the wmu medical school really isn’t the wmu medial school at all.

http://www.wmich.edu/news/2012/06/886

Acceptable forms of evidence include official press releases and published articles. You will find that I provide evidence to support any claim I assert in my posts. I ask that you do the same as well.


My hunch is that the 100M dollar donation from Upjohn had some strings attached; namely that the actual school is owned by Upjohn (or perhaps a joint venture between Upjohn and one or more other companies) and wmu just gets to slap their name on it.


As for the U.S. News and World Report rankings, it’s probably best not to put too much stock in them. They are easily manipulated and do not accurately represent the academic quality of an institution (see articles below). I was just pointing out that K-DOOF was perpetuating a lie. You are correct though, Central Michigan is not included on that list. I’m not going to lose too much sleep over not being on a list that really has no integrity.



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50...llege-rankings/



http://www.newsmax.com/US/us-n...02/07/id/489336

Last edited 2/25/2013 7:42 PM by CHIPPhD

Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/25/2013 7:03 PM

Re: wmu med school not owned/operated by wmu = wmu has no med 


Not a problem, but I am not the best at linking but will give it my best.  I agree that the US news listing is pretty bogus.

The link below has the information in the last paragraph.

http://med.wmich.edu/node/1443

The next is the authorization from the WMU Board of Trustees to create the new corporation.

http://www.wmich.edu/wmu/news/2011/10/070.html

Last edited 2/25/2013 7:39 PM by Bronco67

Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/25/2013 7:52 PM

Re: wmu med school not owned/operated by wmu = wmu has no med 


I’m going to include the edit I made to my last post.

Per the article I provided; “...The school is not part of WMU proper, but instead is a separate, privately owned entity with its own source of funding and governance." Take note of the authors use of the phrase “privately owned.” If it was a separate corporation owned by wmu one would expect them to use the phrase “university owned”.  Now, we all know that wmu students aren’t known for their intellectual prowess, so it could just be poor journalism. With that in mind, see the following article from the wmu website. They assert in the in the closing sentences that “…the school is a privately funded initiative housed at WMU”. Is seems as if they are using creative writing to dance around the idea that the wmu medical school really isn’t the wmu medial school at all.



http://www.wmich.edu/news/2012/06/886

 


The link above was written after the most convincing piece of evidence you provided – the authorization from the board of trustees. I’m sure you know that just because plans are made in a meeting, that doesn’t mean they are implemented. Also, the article just states that they are renewing an authorization devised in 2009; well before the anonymous “gift” was made. I’m sure that “gift” changed things a little bit.  Like I said above, the use of creative writing to dance around calling the school an entity of wmu creates a preponderance of evidence that it is not.


“...The school is not part of WMU proper, but instead is a separate, privately owned entity with its own source of funding and governance." Take note of the authors use of the phrase “privately owned.”


To paraphrase the above quote; when you say something is separate and privately owned, as well as under its own governance…well, you get the idea.



 

Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/25/2013 8:28 PM

Re: wmu med school not owned/operated by wmu = wmu has no med 


In the first link I provided the last paragraph from the article dated in October 2012 and after the authorization article, describes the corporation created as follows:

"The new Western Michigan University School of Medicine is a collaboration involving Western Michigan University and Kalamazoo’s two teaching hospitals, Borgess Medical Center and Bronson Methodist Hospital. It has been in planning since 2008 and was granted preliminary accreditation from the Liaison Committee on Medical Education in October 2012. Expected to welcome its first class in fall 2014, the school is a private 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation supported by private gifts, clinical revenue, research activity, tuition from students, and endowment income. In March 2011, Western Michigan University received a gift of $100 million for the medical school from anonymous donors."

A private corporation is one where the outstanding stock is owned/held by an entity (such as WMU) and is not publicly traded.  Thus as the sole owner controls the board and management of the private corporation.  So the corporation has been completed, if it was not, the accreditation would not have been granted.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/25/2013 9:00 PM

Re: wmu med school not owned/operated by wmu = wmu has no med 


I agree, but there is no evidence that specifically names wmu as the majority stock holder; that is the crux of the argument. You mention that “…Thus as the sole owner controls the board and management of the private corporation. “ According to the article I provided, the medical school will not be under the governance of wmu.  Once again they seem to be dancing around the issue
of whether or not it is an entity of wmu. The portion of the article you cited;“…the school is a private 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation supported by private gifts, clinical revenue, research activity, tuition from students, and endowment income.” only provides information on what IRS designation the company was formed under and how operational revenue will be generated. In fact, the idea that no operational revenue will be provided by the university only serves to foster the idea that it isn’t a college in the university, but a privately owned medical school separate from the university. It also uses that phrase “private” again, not “university owned.” Why would the university fund something it doesn’t own or operate…


I have to tell you Bronco67, you are much better at this than Dip$hit. Your arguments are coherent, relevant, and you provide evidence to support your claims (I don’t complement broncos very often). I’ve enjoyed our exchange. I’ll tell you what; if you or anyone else down there is ever in the position to ask a question at an open forum or board of trustees meeting this would be a heck of a
question to ask.

Last edited 2/25/2013 10:16 PM by CHIPPhD

Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/25/2013 10:37 PM

Re: wmu med school not owned/operated by wmu = wmu has no med 


Nice to have a rational exchange Bronco67. I have to say, I don't find WMU's arrangement much different than ours. Our partnership is between us, Synergy Medical alliance and other teaching hospitals. I guess I don't see how they are all that different. Just like theirs, our med school is intended to be self-funded and not supported as part of the general fund.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/25/2013 11:26 PM

Re: wmu med school not owned/operated by wmu = wmu has no med 



CMUprof wrote: Nice to have a rational exchange Bronco67. I have to say, I don't find WMU's arrangement much different than ours. Our partnership is between us, Synergy Medical alliance and other teaching hospitals. I guess I don't see how they are all that different. Just like theirs, our med school is intended to be self-funded and not supported as part of the general fund.
CMUprof, if you "think" the CMU Medical School will not "absorb" quite a bit of general fund support annually, I "think" you have another "think" coming!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/25/2013 11:38 PM

Re: wmu med school not owned/operated by wmu = wmu has no med 


I'm sure the arrangement we have with with our teaching hospitals is very similar to the one wmu has with theirs. But, the arrangement between the universities and their respective teaching hospitals is not in question. The point of contention is whether or not wmu's med school is owned by the university or by a private entity. As you can see from the articles I've provided above it looks as if it is privately owned and wmu just gets to slap a brown/black and gold sign over the door. The College of Medicine at CMU is owned by CMU, operated by CMU, funded by CMU, and CMU will reap any operating results that it produces. If you are referring to the fact that CMU's med school is incorporated, then you are correct. The CMU medical school is set up as a corporation - a corporation that is owned (90%) by CMU. The word "private" is a misnomer when used in the context of the CMU med school. A public university can not own anything "privately" simply because it is a public university. To my knowledge wmu has not provided any specifics as to how the ownership of their school is divvied up. The fact that they keep referring to it as a private school leads one to believe that they are not the majority shareholder - when you are not the majority shareholder you don't own the company. In this instance, if you don't own the company you don't own the medical school. If you don't own the medical school; well, we find ourselves back to my original assertion: wmu med school not owned/operated by wmu = wmu has no med school.


www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/ind...ng_saginaw.html

Last edited 2/26/2013 11:15 AM by CHIPPhD

Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/27/2013 10:40 AM

Re: wmu med school not owned/operated by wmu = wmu has no med 


Because I am a Chip who now works in Broncoland, I don't like the Chips to sound stupid.  This is why I'm taking a minute to point out some pretty simple facts.

 - WMU is the majority governance for the medical school.
 - WMU President John Dunn is chairman of the board. 
 - Both the $100 million and the downtown building were donated to WMU, to be used for a school of medicine. 
 - The building was donated by William Parfet. He is the CEO of MPI Research.  He does not work at "Upjohn". There is no longer an Upjohn. Parfet is a descendant of W.E. Upjohn.
 - The building is owned by WMU. The medical school will be housed in that building.
 - WMU also owns the building where the former MSU/KCMS (now part of the medical school) is located. 
 - The med school will be funded by private donations and tuition.  

If all of this information not already public, it would be okay to be ignorant of the facts. As a Chip, I'm asking that you get over it. Working in Broncoland as a Chip gets me plenty of ribbing, and it doesn't help when a Chip pontificates without a clue. Your comments sound petty and jealous - is that really what you want? As upsetting as the news might be, the medical school is really the Western Michigan University School of Medicine.  Sorry, but that's the truth.

Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/27/2013 1:15 PM

Re: wmu med school not owned/operated by wmu = wmu has no med 


My goodness...where to begin, where to begin.

Let's start with you. Since you're brand new to this forum let me be the first to say hello. Welcome "ChipnBronco". I must commend you for choosing this thread to make your first post. You've run into a buzzsaw.

You must be the fist CMU alum to ever include a reference to K-DOOF in their handle. Tell me, has living in the armpit of Michigan really sapped that much of your Chippewa Pride? I'll be blunt with you "ChipnBronco." I don't believe you are who you're portraying yourself to be. Are you a bronco who just trolled over to this site, made up a new handle, and claim to be a CMU alum because you think it will give you more credibility? You'll have to excuse my skepticism; broncos have been know to post to this forum under bogus handles. We can usually tell who they are by the distinct odor they generate. You my friend, reek of horse $hit.

Anyway, let's move on to your assertions. I'm going to tell you the same thing I told Bronco67. PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS! Why is that so hard for you people? Perhaps because the evidence doesn't exist.

In your first point you claimed that wmu is "...the majority governance" for the med school. The sentence structure of your statement is so poor I'm going to rewrite it for you. Here you go: "wmu is the governing body of the medical school and they are the majority shareholder." There, isn't that much better? Unfortunately, your argument isn't so easily fixed. If you reference my earlier posts, you will find an article I posted from the W.H. that says quite clearly that the wmu med school is NOT under the governance of wmu. As far as wmu being the majority shareholder; I have yet to see proof of that. The fact that it is continually referred to as a private school leads one to believe it is just that - a private school. If wmu owned controlling interest in the school it would be considered public; just like CMU's med school.

Dunn very well may be the chairman of the board but, since you didn't provide evidence, it remains unknown. Either way, just because he is chairman of the board doesn't mean wmu owns the school.

I'm not contesting that 100M dollars and a building was donated to wmu. I'm just theorizing that it may have had some strings attached. Chiefly, that wmu is not going to be the majority shareholder.

Although Upjohn no longer exists there is still a lot of money associated with that name/family.

You are correct wmu does own the building, and they will be leasing it to the med school. Why would a school lease a building to itself?

www.wmich.edu/news/2012/10/1949

You are correct on the rest.

I wouldn't call my comments "petty", but they are certainly sharp. There is no jealousy here; CMU's med school is owned and operated by the university without question (see previous posts).

Last edited 2/27/2013 1:16 PM by CHIPPhD

Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/27/2013 2:17 PM

Re: wmu med school not owned/operated by wmu = wmu has no med 


Sorry I didn't spend more time wordsmithing my post. Busy with other things outside my attempt to educate someone mot interested in facts. Let me first tell you that yes, I am a CMU alum, class of '87. You may shocked to hear that there are many CMU alums existing in WMU's backyard.

To first address and correct your inaccurate statement. I did not say WMU is the governing body of the medical school. I did not use the word "shareholder", as its use is incorrect. "Shareholders" implies ownership of shares or stock. The medical school is not a publicly traded institution.

It makes me sad to see a Chip so filled with distrust. I would tell you that the information that's been shared is public information and has been shared in several media outlets, including the Kalamazoo Gazette. All you need to do is try using a Google search. Of course, it would help if you can review the information and accept it as reality. Quoting the Western Herald as the basis for your position is like citing facts from CM Life. I worked at CM Life in 1985, and it hasn't changed much.

Here's the deal - if you're truly interested in the facts, seek them. You won't believe anything provided to you as if it doesn't support your opinion. Prove that you're really interested in being educated and go on a fact-finding mission. While you'll be disappointed by the truth, at least you'll be aware of what it is.

---------------------------------------------
--- CHIPPhD wrote:

My goodness...where to begin, where to begin.

Let's start with you. Since you're brand new to this forum let me be the first to say hello. Welcome "ChipnBronco". I must commend you for choosing this thread to make your first post. You've run into a buzzsaw.

You must be the fist CMU alum to ever include a reference to K-DOOF in their handle. Tell me, has living in the armpit of Michigan really sapped that much of your Chippewa Pride? I'll be blunt with you "ChipnBronco." I don't believe you are who you're portraying yourself to be. Are you a bronco who just trolled over to this site, made up a new handle, and claim to be a CMU alum because you think it will give you more credibility? You'll have to excuse my skepticism; broncos have been know to post to this forum under bogus handles. We can usually tell who they are by the distinct odor they generate. You my friend, reek of horse $hit.

Anyway, let's move on to your assertions. I'm going to tell you the same thing I told Bronco67. PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS! Why is that so hard for you people? Perhaps because the evidence doesn't exist.

In your first point you claimed that wmu is "...the majority governance" for the med school. The sentence structure of your statement is so poor I'm going to rewrite it for you. Here you go: "wmu is the governing body of the medical school and they are the majority shareholder." There, isn't that much better? Unfortunately, your argument isn't so easily fixed. If you reference my earlier posts, you will find an article I posted from the W.H. that says quite clearly that the wmu med school is NOT under the governance of wmu. As far as wmu being the majority shareholder; I have yet to see proof of that. The fact that it is continually referred to as a private school leads one to believe it is just that - a private school. If wmu owned controlling interest in the school it would be considered public; just like CMU's med school.

Dunn very well may be the chairman of the board but, since you didn't provide evidence, it remains unknown. Either way, just because he is chairman of the board doesn't mean wmu owns the school.

I'm not contesting that 100M dollars and a building was donated to wmu. I'm just theorizing that it may have had some strings attached. Chiefly, that wmu is not going to be the majority shareholder.

Although Upjohn no longer exists there is still a lot of money associated with that name/family.

You are correct wmu does own the building, and they will be leasing it to the med school. Why would a school lease a building to itself?

www.wmich.edu/news/2012/10/1949

You are correct on the rest.

I wouldn't call my comments "petty", but they are certainly sharp. There is no jealousy here; CMU's med school is owned and operated by the university without question (see previous posts).

---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/27/2013 6:02 PM

Re: wmu med school not owned/operated by wmu = wmu has no med 


The reason for using the nonprofit corporation for the WMU structure is a legal question I cannot answer.

However doing further research I learned that the various state universities and junior colleges are defined corporations under the state consitutions and the board of trustees of each (however defined or labeled) is the legal "corporate body".  Thus the legal entity for each of the colleges is the board (that explained why on the varous legal documents filed with the state the entity legal name would be "Board of Trustees, Central Michigan University").

WMU Med School is a non profit corporation with 0 shares, but is a Member based corporation ownership structure (www.dleg.state.mi). I did not know such an entity was possible.  The Articles of Incorpation list three classes of members (A, B & C).  C members have no voting rights and are basically reserved for groups that support the mission of the entity, they can elect a non voting member of the board (presently there are no C members).

Class B members is limited to entities that own hospitals that fund graduate medical education and provide training and experience to medical students.  They can elect board members, but not a majority of the board members. 

The Class A member is limited to one member and it is the Board of Trusstees, Western Michigan University, thus the corporate WMU is the only member.  The Class A member appoints the simple majority of the board members.  The resident agent for the corporation (one is required for all Michigan Corporations) is the Chief Financial Officer of WMU. 

In the event that the WMU Med school is disdolution all assets will be distributed to WMU.

The above information was taken from the Articles of Incorporation on file with the State (www.dleg.state.mi)  The by-laws which are sometimes referred to are not available as public record. 

Since the structure is not a typical stock entity to define owner ship, the structure in the Articles make it reasonable clear that WMU is the controlling owner.

For the one point we can all agree on is the Dipster.  I had hoped his body could be donated to science, but when I realized he is already brain dead, and his body is so full of hot air, its value is worthless.  So agreeing on that point we can all move on the matters of real interest, such as how many games will Lions loose next year.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/27/2013 6:04 PM

Re: wmu med school not owned/operated by wmu = wmu has no med 


Actually, I have no problem believing that there are many CMU alums living down there; I was one of them for a year and a half after I graduated.

When it comes to the term "shareholders" we have been using it as a surrogate word for "percentage of ownership". In a sense you are correct but, I could make an argument that "shareholders" works too. Say for instance a company is owned by three separate and distinct entities. Entity A owns ten percent of the company, Entity B owns twenty-five percent of the company, and Entity C owns the remaining sixty-five percent. You could say that Entity A owns ten shares (10/100), Entity B owns twenty-five shares (25/100), and Entity C owns sixty-five shares (65/100). Even though the company isn't publicly traded it has to be divided amongst the owners in some fashion.

You're telling me all this information you provided is public knowledge and available at several media outlets but, you haven’t provided links to any said media outlets to support your claims. You are instead just telling me to do a Google search...how do you think I came up with all the articles I've posted in this thread supporting my position? I urge you to do a Google search and show me what you find. I'm only interested in facts, that's why I post evidence when I make an assertion. It seems to me that you are the one who is uninterested in facts or education. I've done my research, I urge you to do yours. I'll tell you what - when you meet me up on campus, diploma in hand, singing "Alma Mater Hear Us Now"  in front of Warriner Hall while wearing maroon and gold then I'll take you at your word. Until that happens, show me your evidence.

By the way, I agree with you about the credibility of the W.H. That's why I provided other sources (see above) including a press release by wmu. I posted an article above that gives specifics about the ownership of the Central Michigan School of Medicine. All someone has to do is post a similar article that details the ownership of wmu's medical school. It's really that simple to shut me up - just show me the evidence.

Here is another article (product of a Google search) that separates the CMU, OU, and wmu medial schools into two categories. OU and wmu are described as "private" while CMU is described as "public". Why do you think that is if all three are incorporated? Could it be that the CMU med school is owned by a public university while the OU and wmu schools' are owned by private entities?

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/a...opens-its-doors

Last edited 2/27/2013 6:07 PM by CHIPPhD

Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/1/2013 6:39 PM

Re: wmu med school not owned/operated by wmu = wmu has no med 


Why do you even care?  Seriously.  If this is a Central/Western thing, then grow up.  Good God.  It's been 26 years since I graduated from CMU and while I loved rubbing it in that while the Broncos beat the Chips in football, it was the Chips who made it to the bowl game this season and won.  If you still have a burning issue over the Broncos, you need to grow up and get over it already. I'm not going to bother doing research and post the results for you because unless you're still hanging out in the UC with your friends deciding whether to go (in my day) to The Pub, The Cabin, and then The Blackstone for last call, you've grown up and moved on to the more important things in life.  My apologies if I'm dealing with an undergraduate, because then this behavior isn't out of line.  However, if you are over 30, then really...it's embarrassing.  Pull on the big boy pants and move on. Take a look at the posts from Bronco67 - he gave you links.  Now use them.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/1/2013 6:42 PM

Re: wmu med school not owned/operated by wmu = wmu has no med 


Thanks Bronco67.  Not that the information will get through someone's skull of steel, but then I'm not sure what it would take for that to happen.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/1/2013 10:24 PM

Re: wmu med school not owned/operated by wmu = wmu has no med 


Hey, Bronco76! You literally posted two minutes before I did the other day, so I didn’t catch your post. I didn’t notice it until “ChipnBozo” made himself look like a imbecile (again) earlier this evening.  Great idea to check out the articles of incorporation. I just finished reading through them - good stuff. It does tell us that the corporation is owned by Bronson, Borgess, and wmu. Unfortunately,  it doesn’t tell us how the ownership is split. I attached link to an Mlive article above; the article details the ownership of the CMU medical school. CMU owns ninety (90) percent  while the remain ten (10) percent is owned by the two teaching hospitals (5% each). How much of the corporation is owned by wmu is the crux of the argument. I’d also like to see the donation agreement between wmu and the donor of the 100M dollar “gift” but, that probably isn’t going to be made public anytime soon.



“ChipnBronco” - you can sling a lot of mud but, not a lot of facts. It’s been many moons since I was an undergrad. I was an engineering student back then and that didn’t leave much time for anything else. Certainly not “hanging out at the UC “ or the “Blackstone for last call” but, such is the sacrifice of being an engineer. One of the most valuable skills you learn in engineering is to think critically. After all, when you get down to the bare bones of it, all an engineer does is solve problems. The most important element in problem solving is critical thinking. I’m not bringing this issue up as Central/western issue but, as a critical thinking issue. You have to admit, the articles I’ve posted above and the lack of a definitive statement by wmu as to the ownership of the company can lead someone to believe that wmu does not own the controlling interest in the corporation.  When you call the school a “…private school housed at a public university” and describe it as “[WMed]… is a separate, privately owned entity with its own source of funding and governance.” What is a person to believe? These are only a few of the descriptors that have been used by media outlets; I’ve posted links to others above. I care about this issue because I care that a school may be misrepresenting itself to potential donors and students. Imagine for a moment that you are Joe Bronco, class of 1972. Say you want to donate some of your hard earned money to the wmu medial school. Wouldn’t you like to know, definitively, that your school is the controlling interest holder? I know if it was me; and I made a donation only to find out that Borgess or Bronson owned the controlling interest, I’d be a little mad. The same can be said for a prospective student. If I was applying to medial school I’d like to know if the school I was applying to was owned by the university or by a couple of hospitals that the university was licensing its name to. It comes down to critical thinking. When I see a school described in the manner I see wmu’s school described and I couple that with the lack of a definitive statement by wmu as to who owns the controlling interest; I can’t simply accept the company line (it kills me to use a Dip$hit phrase). I have to ask why - Why has wmu described itself in such a fashion? Why have they been dancing around the issue of ownership of the med school? Why are they not acting as the governing body of their own med school? Why the lack of transparency? Why is the med school private; why not public? Why can’t they just come out and say now much of the company they own?

 

“ChipnBronco,” don’t take my unwillingness to accept your baseless claims as fact, as me having a “skull of steel”. Instead, ask yourself this - “Am I being hardheaded because I’m not willing to entertain the idea, even in light of evidence, that the wmu medical school is not what I think it is?”


Last edited 3/1/2013 11:39 PM by CHIPPhD

Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/4/2013 2:44 PM

Re: wmu med school not owned/operated by wmu = wmu has no med 


Hello,

ChipnBozo.  Wow. That's so clever.  I hope you didn't get a headache coming up with something so profound. How sad that it's been "many moons" since you were an undergrad.  I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Engineering. Guest that explains a lot of this "conspiracy thinking" garbage. 


Your unwillingness to believe any information someone posts reminds me of a quote:
"I can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking my head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take a butcher's word for it."  You, however, don't take anyone's word for anything.  But at least your ears will be warm while you look at that T-bone!

Keep noodling away on this, while the rest of us move on with our lives.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >