3 ms·

> Note that they weren't even allowed to see and contest the assessment I don't know much about how risk assessment in large organizations is done, but that st

by Zak 9y ago

> Note that they weren't even allowed to see and contest the assessment I don't know much about how risk assessment in large organizations is done, but that strikes me as an illegitimate attempt to stifle debate. Are there any legitimate reasons the university administrators might keep the risk assessment secret?

Spooky23 9y ago
Risk assessment is often a politically heavy org that sometimes writes the report before assessing. In some organizations they quack like auditors, but aren’t really auditors. Usually if they are involved, a big shot doesn’t want to do something. In terms of legitimate reasons, there may be discretionary expenses relating to insurance that can be cut for clubs, but not for sports.
- Zak 9y ago
  Using risk assessment as a political smokescreen is illegitimate from my point of view. > In terms of legitimate reasons, there may be discretionary expenses relating to insurance that can be cut for clubs, but not for sports. This could be a legitimate reason to cut a risky club while allowing a similarly risky sport; it is not a legitimate reason to hide the report.
avs733 9y ago
Because university administrators are often (not always but often) absolutely terrible managers, terrible leaders, and have really no clue how many of the organizational things they are in charge of work. I don't think its malicious I think its...just lack of thinking. I don't mean that as an insult, sincerely. They are typically very very good at what they are trained to do - research - they just aren't trained for this. It is unfortunate that the programs that do exist for training them often do not deliver meaningful training. Some schools have even stopped giving (unless requested) quarterly statements on grant accounts to faculty. I was told that such things were 'difficult' for faculty to understand and led to many questions and confusion. As an example: The Big 10 Academic Leadership Program Seminar https://www.btaa.org/docs/default-source/leadershipdev/seminar-i-agenda-2017.pdf?sfvrsn=a2955b89_59 https://www.btaa.org/docs/default-source/leadershipdev/semin... 2.5 days First day (12pm-8pm): a 45min 'conversation' a 1hr talk on 'the pragmatics of leadership' a 1:15 panel on the role of the arts in diversity and inclusion everything else is social. Second Day (8am-9pm): 1:15 Issues confronting US universities 1:45 freedom of expression and inclusive campus 1:15 public engagement in academia 1 hr 'conversation' with University president. The rest is social, breaks, field trips, tours, etc. TL:DR: in 2.5 days, there is approximately 8 hours of content most of which is just someone in a position of authority's opinion/experience.

by Zak 9y ago

Spooky23 9y ago

Risk assessment is often a politically heavy org that sometimes writes the report before assessing. In some organizations they quack like auditors, but aren’t really auditors. Usually if they are involved, a big shot doesn’t want to do something. In terms of legitimate reasons, there may be discretionary expenses relating to insurance that can be cut for clubs, but not for sports.

Zak 9y ago
Using risk assessment as a political smokescreen is illegitimate from my point of view. > In terms of legitimate reasons, there may be discretionary expenses relating to insurance that can be cut for clubs, but not for sports. This could be a legitimate reason to cut a risky club while allowing a similarly risky sport; it is not a legitimate reason to hide the report.

avs733 9y ago

Because university administrators are often (not always but often) absolutely terrible managers, terrible leaders, and have really no clue how many of the organizational things they are in charge of work. I don't think its malicious I think its...just lack of thinking. I don't mean that as an insult, sincerely. They are typically very very good at what they are trained to do - research - they just aren't trained for this. It is unfortunate that the programs that do exist for training them often do not deliver meaningful training. Some schools have even stopped giving (unless requested) quarterly statements on grant accounts to faculty. I was told that such things were 'difficult' for faculty to understand and led to many questions and confusion. As an example: The Big 10 Academic Leadership Program Seminar https://www.btaa.org/docs/default-source/leadershipdev/seminar-i-agenda-2017.pdf?sfvrsn=a2955b89_59 https://www.btaa.org/docs/default-source/leadershipdev/semin... 2.5 days First day (12pm-8pm): a 45min 'conversation' a 1hr talk on 'the pragmatics of leadership' a 1:15 panel on the role of the arts in diversity and inclusion everything else is social. Second Day (8am-9pm): 1:15 Issues confronting US universities 1:45 freedom of expression and inclusive campus 1:15 public engagement in academia 1 hr 'conversation' with University president. The rest is social, breaks, field trips, tours, etc. TL:DR: in 2.5 days, there is approximately 8 hours of content most of which is just someone in a position of authority's opinion/experience.