If that won't catch the attention...nothing will.

Unfortunately, in the case of the IHL, it seems that nothing will.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: I say potato, you say tomato.
"The Georgia Tech statements are very important. Someone should collect the precise public statements from schools offering degrees in economic developpment (not only from Georgia Tech but from the others cited in this thread and elsewhere), and see that they are made available to the media (e.g., Hattiesburg American) along with any precise but conflicting public statements made by the USM administration saying that USM is the 'one and only' such program. Any editor or reporter worth their salt would surely see a good story there. These discrepancies are getting out of hand. It wouldn't be a bad idea to innundate the IHL with those specific but discrepant statements also. If that didn't catch the attention of the press or the IHL, nothing will. "

---

With all due respect Spud, there is enough information on this thread alone to show that President Thames, Department Chair Malone, and PR spokesperson Mader have made direct statements regarding the Economic Development program at Southern Miss that are not true.  Others, including friends of the university and the local media, have perpetuated the myth - perhaps unknowingly.  The statements of other universities would seem to be far less important than the existence of their programs or centers. 

Is this even an issue that anyone cares about?  It will probably only become one if the individuals who stood behind this administration because of its economic development initiatives come forward and say they've been hoodwinked.  Otherwise, it is probably as futile an exercise as determining what the definition of "is" is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Sweet potato or yam?
"With all due respect Spud, there is enough information on this thread alone to show that President Thames, Department Chair Malone, and PR spokesperson Mader have made direct statements regarding the Economic Development program at Southern Miss that are not true."

Sweetie, this board is important and serves a extremely useful purpose. It is a marvelous vehicle for a type of communication I have never before seen at USM. But statements posted on the board are only secondary sources. Secondary sources are nothing more than "He said, she said" in nature. The discrepant  primary sources ("right from the horses mouth") that should be used. Secondary sources may be O.K. in some freshman term papers but not in a matter as serious as this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Sweet Potato or Yam?
" I thought Spud Muffin might be trying to protect a pet program here."

---

Nothing I said in my post even remotely suggested that I was trying to protect a pet program. I will reproduce what I said right here for your viewing convenience. Perhaps I misread my own post. I am sorry, but operational precision is the only objective way I know of demonstrating to the press or to IHL that USM does not have the only ED program. I still don't see how anything I said here could be interpreted as an attempt to protect a "pet" program:

"The Georgia Tech statements are very important. Someone should collect the precise public statements from schools offering degrees in economic developpment (not only from Georgia Tech but from the others cited in this thread and elsewhere), and see that they are made available to the media (e.g., Hattiesburg American) along with any precise but conflicting public statements made by the USM administration saying that USM is the 'one and only' such program. Any editor or reporter worth their salt would surely see a good story there. These discrepancies are getting out of hand. It wouldn't be a bad idea to innundate the IHL with those specific but discrepant statements also. If that didn't catch the attention of the press or the IHL, nothing will."

Penn State   http://cedev.aers.psu.edu/

North Texas   http://www.unt.edu/cedr/

Dr Campbell - Let me add to my last post.  The Center is also important because of the way it has been marketed to donors.  If individuals pledged major gifts on the premise that the TLC would be the first Center for Economic Development in the country then we not only have academic dishonesty we have fundraising dishonesty.  Attempting to "follow the money" has led to a number of dead ends, this may not be one of them.  Another interesting slant on this is remembering that opposition to Shelby Thames split along pro-Hudson/anti-Hudson lines.  Someone (I'd have to go back and check but I think it might have been Stinky Cheese Man) said that Shelby is likely to pin the blame for any program hype on Tim Hudson.  If the fundraising effort shows the same type of falsehood then the blame will be harder to slough off.  DT

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"approval processes for what?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"you need to be able to point to Master's and doctoral programs that have "Economic Development" in the name of the degree."

---

Note RC's distinction between the name of the program and the name of the degree.  A search on "PhD in economic development" yields some interesting results.  People who list a "PhD in economic development" on their resumes/bios appear in results from the search.  From this, back into programs at Tulane, Georgetown, Georgia Tech and University of Wisconsin.  This makes a good rebuttal to the criticism that programs (rather than concentrations within a program) must be called "economic development".  If I'm not mistaken, the students who have received doctorates from the University of Southern Mississippi in "economic development" were actually conferred degrees that said "International Development".  The distinction is probably not important except as a response to the above.