Nancy Yanoshak

Selected excerpts from the Oral History Project interview. The full transcript may be restricted. To request access please contact the Simon’s Rock College Archives. I always, until I became part-time, had a full quota of advisees, I’ve gotten along well with all of them to my knowledge. I remember with freshman, sometimes it’s like-- they have to come to that meeting, sometimes it’s like pulling teeth [to get them to say anything.] I have a whole bunch of questions, I ask “How are you doing? Do you wear shoes? Do you like your roommate? Do you like the dining hall food?” so we get in a good spot. And I think when people trust you, they open up. And I think I’m lucky that most of my advisees have trusted me and come to me with their problems. I fell in love [with Simon\u27s Rock.] I never really seriously thought of applying to somewhere else. I had applied to several other places that year, but after that first year-- I had to learn how to teach-- I think, maybe, some of us are more gifted in that area, but I don’t think any of us are born anything. I think you learn how to teach here, and often students tell you, you don’t know how to teach when you first come here. [...] I stayed because I had the opportunity to work with colleagues who were so creative, and I had the opportunity to be creative myself. The only thing I really had to teach was a history course once in awhile, although I created a program. And to do the seminars. But I was pretty free to make up courses that I thought were interesting, pretty free to respond to students’ interests. So that’s something that you don’t get at larger institutions. And I didn’t produce as much as a scholar as I would have elsewhere, because I always thought it’s a labor-intensive place to be here, and you really need to give your all to your students. And I did some scholarly work, of course-- I couldn’t have better colleagues, a better atmosphere, or more interested kids. They just blew me away. We had to do a presentation to the faculty, to Mary [Marcy, Provost] and Sam [Ruhmkorff, faculty in philosophy], who was the dean back then. And so my opening line was “Let’s write a book together.” And it grew from there. There were some questions-- could we possibly do this? Did we have enough to say about teaching? And it turned out that we did. As a Russian medievalist, I had written articles on watermarks as a way to date manuscripts and 16th century anti-heretical polemics. Then I branched out and I analyzed film in 1920s Russia, but I never thought I would write about pedagogy, for God’s sake! What a boring topic! [...] These were collaborations, you don’t see collaborations like this outside of grad school, even if you see them there. To have a professor and students, age sixteen, seventeen, writing an article for a book. That’s one of the things I thought-- I was most proud of in this book. It wasn’t just us faculty members pontificating, but we really had our students telling us what it was like. I was originally very shy. I’m not shy now. I wish I had been a Simon’s Rock student, when I see what it does for our students. But I see what it did for me, to be in positions of responsibility that early in my career. That wouldn’t have happened at any other place, that I would be department head in my second year here. [...] I felt that I was serving my colleagues, giving back to them. After five or six years, I wasn’t shy anymore, I’ve always been rather-- I’m not an overbearing type of person. I don’t speak a lot, I try to say something meaningful when I do. But I’m not the loudest person around, so this was a way to contribute. I’d like to be remembered as someone who was very dedicated to the college and to my students, who would go the extra mile for them and my colleagues. And I’d like to be remembered as someone who told good Soviet jokes! Who had high standards and nurtured people along in what they did-- I would rather be gentle with people than not. “She told a good joke, and she taught me how to be a scholar.” When I first came, Betty Hall was still driving around on her little golf cart-- I think I used some images, memories, of that to introduce the book, in fact, because I do remember she did stop students and say “What do you think of things? What’s going on? How are things going?” And so I did get to meet her a couple of times. One of my strongest memories-- it was my first week here-- she threw a party at her house, where Ba Win, I guess, still lives [Onward House]. And I walked up to her and I said “Hi, I’m Nance, I’m the new historian.” And she said “Hi, I’m Betty, I founded the college.” So I really didn’t know who she was. But she took it in stride and she knew she was being cute. And certainly not unkind. What ambition she had, to turn this into what it’s become in almost 50 years. And I knew Livy [Hall], again, not very well, but he took two Russian history courses from me. He was retired and quite venerable. I was wondering a little how it would go with sixteen year olds and an eighty year old. He was never-- he talked once in awhile, contributed where it was appropriate, never dominated anything or said anything that would have intimidated anyone, including me. So after a while, I felt perfectly comfortable. He was a good Russian history student. I’m very grateful for them. My friend Barbara [Resnik] called me about it late at night, maybe around ten or something, and she said “Something’s happened up at the school. It involves Ñacuñan” [Saez], who was the faculty member who was killed. She came to my house and we went to Joan [DelPlato]’s house. Wendy [Shifrin] was there also. We were sort of-- a group-- and spent much of the night just getting information. I remember I called Ba Win, he gave me a little bit of information. And I just-- we didn’t sleep all that night. I think Barbara and I shared a couch. But Ñacuñan was a good friend. He was a marvelous teacher. Very creative-- one reason I learned about Foucault was that he loved Foucault, and I wanted to feel closer to him or to somehow connect with him. We lost a great one there. A big debate in early Soviet society in the 1920s was “can you build socialism in Russia?” Because they had a revolution in the wrong place at the wrong time, was the context. And Marx said you had to be there, industrially. And Russia, while it had some industrialization, really didn’t. So the Bolsheviks took power earlier than they should have, theoretically. The debate among the Bolshevik leadership was “can you build socialism in Russia?” Can you build it in Russia alone, do you have to have revolutions in the advanced countries? So that’s the context. Lenin and Trotsky-- no, sorry, Stalin and Trotsky, after Lenin died were big rivals for power. And they never agreed on everything. So they were debating one day in the Politburo, is it possible to build socialism in Russia? And they could not decide. So they took their question to the chief rabbi in Moscow. They let him out of his cell. And they said, “Rabbi, we have a problem, we need your counsel, we need your advice. Is it possible to build socialism in Russia?” And the rabbi said, [deep voice] “Well, gentlemen, that’s a very complicated question. I need to think about it. I need to consult with my colleagues, come back in a week and you’ll have your answer.” So they came back in a week, to the prison again. And they said “We’re going to put it to you again, Rabbi. Is it possible to build socialism in Russia?” And the rabbi said “Yes, it’s possible to build socialism in Russia, but while you’re building socialism in Russia, it’s better to be somewhere else.” You ever heard of collectivization? The Soviet state took over small private farms to create state controlled farms and it was brutally and quickly done by Stalin and his henchmen. And it caused a famine and many, many deaths. So it happened one time that the members of the Politburo were attacked by lice and they tried every remedy they could get. Nothing was working, until, let’s say Bakharin, that’s my favorite Bolshevik. Bakharin came up with a remedy, he said “I have the answer about how to get rid of the lice. Take one third and deport them. Take one third and shoot them. And the last third you collectivize.” This isn’t very funny. They love this in Russian history.https://digitalcommons.bard.edu/sr-oral_hist/1020/thumbnail.jp

Use of a prostate model to assist in training for digital rectal examination.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of prostate size estimation on digital rectal examination (DRE) before and after training with a three-dimensional prostate model relative to prostate volume by transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). METHODS: A total of 100 subjects underwent DRE by one of four family physicians (FP1, n = 34; FP2, n = 26; FP3, n = 22; and FP4, n = 18). One half were examined before any training on DRE prostate size examination and one half after the physicians were trained. Training involved teaching with a three-dimensional prostate model having posterior surface areas corresponding to the average dimensions of six different prostate volumes. The FPs were instructed to estimate the prostate size on the DRE to the nearest 5 g. A single urologist unaware of the DRE results performed TRUS on all patients to measure the prostate volume. RESULTS: Before training, the DRE size estimates ranged from 10 to 100 g (mean +/- SD 32.8 +/- 21.6), with a TRUS volume of 11 to 122 g (mean +/- SD 38.9 +/- 23.1). The correlation between the DRE and TRUS estimates was 0.25, suggesting low agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.31, 0. 38). After training, 50 different patients had DRE size estimates of 10 to 100 g (mean +/- SD 39.4 +/- 19.7) and TRUS volume of 10 to 119 g (mean +/- SD 41.5 +/- 24.1). The correlation between the techniques was higher in patients examined after training (r = 0. 765), suggesting much better agreement between the techniques (ICC 0. 87; 95% confidence interval 0.86, 0.88). Among the physicians, agreement between DRE and TRUS was higher after training (ICC 0.64 to 0.96) than before training (ICC 0.02 to 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Although the subjects examined before and after training differed, the agreement between TRUS and DRE prostate size estimates by the FPs appeared to be stronger after training with a three-dimensional prostate model. This model may be a useful tool to assist in training FPs and medical students to measure prostate size on DRE

Ureteral segment replacement using a circumferential small-intestinal submucosa xenogenic graft

We wished to determine whether small-intestinal submucosa (SIS) will epithelialize when used as a ureteral replacement material. An 11-mm segment of native ureter was excised from eight New Zealand White rabbits and replaced with an 11-mm porcine SIS graft, which was circumferentially wrapped around a ureteral stent. The SIS ureteral grafts were harvested at 11 days or 35 days postimplantation and examined grossly and by standard light microscopy techniques. Partial epithelialization with the ingrowth of urothelium, smooth muscle cells, and blood vessels was observed in the grafts harvested at 11 days postimplantation. The SIS ureteral grafts examined at 35 days postimplantation showed additional restructuring of the smooth muscle cell layer and more organized epithelialization in comparison to the SIS graft examined at 11 days. After 35 days of regenerative healing, elements of all three layers of the native ureter were observed within the collagen matrix of the SIS graft. No significant complications were observed, but all subjects (8/8) demonstrated mild intra-abdominal adhesions. Mild collecting system dilatations were observed in 4/4 (100%) of the animals harvested at 35 days and in 0/4 (0%) of the animals harvested at 11 days. We have this demonstrated in this preliminary study that SIS xenografts will epithelialize when used as a ureteral replacement material. The repair mechanism of these ureteral grafts occurred through a regenerative healing process rather than by scar formation. With further studies, this material may prove to be a useful treatment option in patients with ureteral injuries

Clinical correlates of enlarged prostate size in subjects with sexual dysfunction

Digito-rectal examination (DRE) of the prostate provides useful information on the state of prostate growth and on the presence of suspected peripheral nodules. The aim of this study is to describe the clinical and biochemical correlates of finding an enlarged prostate size at DRE in subjects with sexual dysfunction (SD). A consecutive series of 2379 patients was retrospectively studied. The analysis was focused on a subset of subjects (n = 1823; mean age 54.7 ± 11.4) selected for being free from overt prostatic diseases. Several parameters were investigated. After adjusting for confounders, the presence of an enlarged prostate size at DRE was associated with a higher risk of metabolic syndrome (HR = 1.346 (1.129-1.759); P = 0.030), type 2 diabetes mellitus (HR = 1.489 (1.120-1.980); P = 0.006), increased LDL cholesterol (>100 mg dl−1 ; HR = 1.354 (1.018-1.801); P = 0.037) and increased mean blood pressure (BP) values (HR = 1.017 (1.007-1.027) for each mmHg increment; P = 0.001). Accordingly, enlarged prostate size was also associated with a higher risk of arteriogenic erectile dysfunction (ED), as well as with other andrological conditions, such as varicocele and premature ejaculation (PE). PSA levels were significantly higher in subjects with enlarged prostate size when compared to the rest of the sample (HR = 3.318 (2.304; 4.799) for each log unit increment in PSA levels; P < 0.0001). Arteriogenic ED, according to different criteria, was also associated with increased PSA levels. In conclusion, our data support the need to examine prostate size either by clinical (DRE) or biochemical (PSA) inspection in subjects with SD, in order to have insights into the nature of the SD and the metabolic and cardiovascular (CV) background of the patient