The Independent does it again! - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Sep 17, 2004

The Independent does it again!

Date: Sep 17, 2004

Can't get you to the Independent. Sorry. Fish around once you get to the BW site.

http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/03/part_time_profiles/southmiss.htm

Date: Sep 17, 2004

Unreal. The Independent is quickly becoming the Hattiesburg area premier newpaper. It needs to be online (and so does the Printz - what is up with that, btw?).

Date: Sep 17, 2004

Hey,

That's three more dollars than I thought we had! Perhaps that's enough to cover a new bulb for an overhead projector. I'm going to Doty now to ask. Well, that may not work, if it is an endowment than we can only live off the interest, so what is 5% of $3. Well, maybe a new piece of chalk, dustless if we can afford it.

F**kin sad and disgraceful if you ask me.

Date: Sep 17, 2004

Another academic structure weakened by this hurricane of an administration. I would suggest applying for federal disaster relief, but the administration would probably misplace the application.

Date: Sep 17, 2004

How does USM manage to stay afloat?

Noah

Date: Sep 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Noah
"How does USM manage to stay afloat?"

Um, massive quantities of hot air maybe?

Date: Sep 17, 2004

From the Business Week reports online:

2002

The B-school has awarded 750 MBA degrees since its founding, n/a of which were part-time MBA students. It has 700 living MBA alumni, and 0 MBA club(s), where B-school alums can participate in school activities and alumni events.

2003

The B-school has awarded 223 executive MBA degrees, and 223 MBA degrees since its founding. It has 223 living MBA alumni, and n/a MBA clubs n/a countries, where B-school alums can participate in school activities and alumni events.

Date: Sep 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Actuary
"2002: The B-school has 700 living MBA alumni. 2003: The B-school has 223 living MBA alumni"

So the B-school had 700 living MBA alumni in 2002

So the B-school had 223 living MBA alumni in 2003

700 - 223 = 477

What happened to those 477 missing MBA alumni? DId they die? Were their degrees rescended? Houston, we have a problem!

Date: Sep 17, 2004

Reporter has already conveyed the substance of the article. For those who can't get a copy of the Independent, I include here the introductory paragraphs:

"The University of Southern Mississippi has apparently fumbled the ball again, and this fumble has nothing to do with the gridiron or the Golden Eagle football team.

Earlier this month, the University received word that its rating had declined in . . . the 2004 U.S. News and World Report evaluation of colleges and universities.

And College Board members termed the lower rating as 'humiliating' and 'disgraceful.'"

-------------Then follows the text as originally reported.-----------------

Aside from appreciating the apt football metaphor, I am curious about the comments attributed to the College Board. I was unaware that any of the board had been so frank and openly critical. Does anybody know where the "humiliating" and "disgraceful" comments were previously reported, or which of the board members might have used those adjectives?

Date: Sep 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
"Does anybody know . . . . . . . . which of the board members might have used those adjectives?"

ram, it was mentioned on this message board. As I recall the specific board member who was reported to say that was unidentified.

Date: Sep 17, 2004

what begins to bother me is suddenly a board member (never named) becomes board members (plural). for me the independent has to prove itself as a reputable news-gathering body. at times, the reporting is no more than reading this website--obviously cathartic to those who post, but clear not reporting in the traditional sense. if the board member was so willing to talk to the independent why not other newspapers, like the HA. i remain skeptical.

Date: Sep 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
" if the board member was so willing to talk to the independent why not other newspapers, like the HA."

Persons talk to the HA but not to the Independent, so I don't see why the reverse should be surprising. The Independent seems to do investigative reporting. The HA seems, for the most part, to print press releases. This is not the first time the Independent has scooped the HA.

Date: Sep 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Reporter
"SOUTHERN FUMBLES THE BALL”

Every week something dreadful sems to happen to USM. I think there might be a Gremlin riding on the Eagle's tail.

Date: Sep 17, 2004

i read the independent has "scooped" the HA, but i'm not sure when, at least with respect to USM stories. there are board members who seem more than willing to go "on the record," but the independent has an unnamed board member willing to comment. again, all i will say is that i'm skeptical. the independent may be little more than the "national inquirer" of hattiesburg.

Date: Sep 18, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Funny Numbers
"ram, it was mentioned on this message board. As I recall the specific board member who was reported to say that was unidentified."

Yes FN, the thread was Sept 3 and titled "The Independent". I quoted the article about the USN&WR ranking.

‘Humiliating”
“Educators upset with USM national Rating”

Some quotes from the article:

“A College Board member said the failure to submit information indicated “negligence” on the part of USM. They also labeled Lisa Mader’s response to the survey results as “tap dancing”. “

Date: Sep 18, 2004

Along those same lines, SCM, there does not appear to be a reporter by-line nor are there any quotes from university representatives (including those cited as providing the information in various years).

Here's my take after reading the article in the Independent and working through the Business Week rankings and profiles.

Business Week got into the university rankings game late - well after USN&WR. They appear to have started in the mid-90s. USM self-reported its profile for the first time in 2001. It was never ranked (or rated) by Business Week because it is not (nor ever has been) considered by Business Week in its top 70 schools - 30 best ranked 1-30, next 20 listed alphabetically, 3rd tier 20 also listed alphabetically. In 2001, USM filed a reasonably complete profile as a full-time business school although no endowment is listed. The format changes somewhat in 2002 and USM is listed as both a full-time program and as a part-time program. Interestingly, it is listed by Business Week in 2002 only as a part-time program yet Business Week links to two USM profiles in 2002 - one as a full-time program and one as a part-time program. The 2003 update appears only in the part-time listing and seems to offer no meaningful update other than to say that students can move relatively easily from the part-time program to the full-time program (indicating that there is a full-time program in 2003). Given the reporting of both programs in 2002 and that statement in the 2003 update, it is difficult to understand why Business Week would have indicated that "USM's Business School had been downgraded from a full time to a part time program in 2002" as reported by the Independent.

What I find most interesting is that the rankings are only updated every two years and 2003 was an off year.

"BusinessWeek updates these rankings every two years and will do so again in the autumn of 2004." from the 2003 profile updates page on the Business Week site noted above.

So, the new rankings and profiles are due out in the fall of 2004. Does the Independent have some scoop on the not yet released 2004 rankings? Some info that the business school did not respond? Otherwise, it seems like the Independent is reporting Fall 2003 information as if it were new. Seems a little sensationalist and irresponsible.

Date: Sep 18, 2004

Thanks to all for the references to the earlier quotes and threads. Like many of you, I view the reports about BW with some skepticism.

I am also of two minds about news like this. In one respect, I hate it that USM continues to decline in prestige. In another respect, I am hopeful that rankings from disinterested third parties -- such as USN&WR and BW -- will alert the wider community to the crisis at USM.

Ranker Rancor--

The Independent story specifically says that our ratings "had declined in the 'Best Colleges' report of the 2004 U.S. News & World Report." Like you, I am curious about the discrepency between the current date reported in the Independent and the older information on-line. Unless somebody else already knows for sure, I will wander down to the library and see if the current BW includes the 2004 ranking. Maybe BW thinks September is Autumn. I guess September 22 IS when Autumn begins, come to think of it.

Date: Sep 18, 2004

Ram,

Current issue of Business Week (September 20) does not include anthing about university rankings. According to the Independent "This week, another national publication, Business Week magazine, listed its evaluation of Masters of Business Administration programs in colleges and universities across the nation." It is possible that there is something in the September 13 issue of Business Week. I don't have a copy. It would also surprise me that the Business Week website rankings would not be updated if a hard copy publication had been released over a week ago.

Something's stinky (and I don't think it's the Cheese Man)! Let us know what you find out. I will do the same.

RR

Date: Sep 18, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Ranker Rancor
"Ram,
Current issue of Business Week (September 20) does not include anthing about university rankings. According to the Independent "This week, another national publication, Business Week magazine, listed its evaluation of Masters of Business Administration programs in colleges and universities across the nation." It is possible that there is something in the September 13 issue of Business Week. I don't have a copy. It would also surprise me that the Business Week website rankings would not be updated if a hard copy publication had been released over a week ago.
Something's stinky (and I don't think it's the Cheese Man)! Let us know what you find out. I will do the same.
RR"

I haven't investigated this yet, but this is what I found today at the BW web site..

Saturday, September 18, 2004

B-Schools
2002 Rankings & Profiles

Since 1988, BusinessWeek has ranked the best MBA programs in the U.S every two years. In 2002, we ranked the Top 30 U.S. programs and the Top 10 programs outside the U.S. The 2002 rankings result from the opinions of 219 corporate recruiters and 11,518 students at 88 B-schools around the world, and from BusinessWeek's measure of each B-school's intellectual capital. ...

Date: Sep 18, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Reporter
" I haven't investigated this yet, but this is what I found today at the BW web site.. Saturday, September 18, 2004 B-Schools 2002 Rankings & Profiles Since 1988, BusinessWeek has ranked the best MBA programs in the U.S every two years. In 2002, we ranked the Top 30 U.S. programs and the Top 10 programs outside the U.S. The 2002 rankings result from the opinions of 219 corporate recruiters and 11,518 students at 88 B-schools around the world, and from BusinessWeek's measure of each B-school's intellectual capital. ..."

I think you are reinforcing what I have posted, Reporter. The rankings for the top 70 are published in alternate even years, 1-30 rank ordered and then two alphabetically listed next best and third best groups of 20. In addition, there are published profiles of the 280 or so universities that participate in the survey. These appear in both even and odd years and are listed as full-time or part-time programs. It appears to me, evidently to RAM and now to you, that the newest available information is Business Week's 2002 rankings and 2003 profiles.

The most recent on-line edition of Business Week magazine for September 27 doesn't reference any university rankings - neither did the September 20 hard copy. I think the one that still needs checking is September 13. Anyone with a copy or who can find it on-line?

I remain curious about the Independent's claim that "The publication reported that USM was dropped from the list of universities because of its failure to provide necessary information. It did, however, indicate that USM's Business School had been downgraded from a full time to a part time program in 2002."

Reported to whom and when? Dropped from what list? Downgraded by whom? (Business Week does not make program evaluations outside of the top 70.) The latter part of the statement above is inconsistent in that the profile for USM in 2002 is listed in both Full-Time and Part-Time categories.

Date: Sep 18, 2004

In the long run it really doesn't matter whether or not the Business Week report on MBA programs was reliable, and it doesn't really matter whether the Independent presented a fair and balanced account of the Business Week report. But one fact is clear: predictably, the "excuses" have already started. Look for more excuses in the future - regardless of the truth.

Date: Sep 18, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Wild Blue Yonder
"Every week something dreadful sems to happen to USM. I think there might be a Gremlin riding on the Eagle's tail."

"In the long run it really doesn't matter whether or not the Business Week report on MBA programs was reliable, and it doesn't really matter whether the Independent presented a fair and balanced account of the Business Week report. But one fact is clear: predictably, the "excuses" have already started. Look for more excuses in the future - regardless of the truth."

What excuses?

Reliability and veracity (let alone motivation and timing) shouldn't be questioned?

Maybe the Wild Blue Yonder view can only be seen from left field.

Date: Sep 18, 2004

Well, I don't have much to add to the discussion. My library had the Sept. 20 and the Sept. 6 edition, but no Sept. 13. I did look at the Sept. 13 edition on-line, but there was nothing there about rankings. I suspect that some reporter looked at the Business Week website and concluded that the rankings were current because the web page was current. If, and I say again, IF that is the case, the Independent story is a bit misleading. Remember Hanlon's Razor.

Date: Sep 18, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
"Remember Hanlon's Razor."

Forgive my ignorance, but I'll bite. What is Hanlon's Razor?

Date: Sep 18, 2004

hanlon's razor:

Hanlon's Razor /prov./ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, that reads "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." The derivation of the Hanlon eponym is not definitely known, but a very similar remark ("You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity.") appears in "Logic of Empire", a 1941 story by Robert A. Heinlein, who calls it the `devil theory' of sociology. Heinlein's popularity in the hacker culture makes plausible the supposition that `Hanlon' is derived from `Heinlein' by phonetic corruption. A similar epigram has been attributed to William James, but Heinlein more probably got the idea from Alfred Korzybski and other practitioners of General Semantics. Quoted here because it seems to be a particular favorite of hackers, often showing up in sig blocks, fortune cookie files and the login banners of BBS systems and commercial networks. This probably reflects the hacker's daily experience of environments created by well-intentioned but short-sighted people. Compare Sturgeon's Law.

Date: Sep 18, 2004

Thank you. I no longer feel cut off from the conversation.

Date: Sep 18, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Ranker Rancor
" What excuses?

You have not seen the attempts to explain away the US News and other data? You bet there have been excuses. Perhaps you are not aware of the press releases. Anyone reads the news media, or even this message board, is aware of the excuses. That has been a theme of many of the threads on this board.That there would be an attempt to explain away the US News data was even predicted in a post.

Date: Sep 18, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Wild Blue Younder
"You have not seen the attempts to explain away the US News and other data? You bet there have been excuses. Perhaps you are not aware of the press releases. Anyone reads the news media, or even this message board, is aware of the excuses. That has been a theme of many of the threads on this board.That there would be an attempt to explain away the US News data was even predicted in a post. "

Here is the excuse WBY is discussing.

Hattiesburg American

Posted September 2, 2004 3:57 PM.

Thames puzzled over magazine designation

University of Southern Mississippi President Shelby Thames blamed former provost Tim Hudson on Thursday for failing to provide information about the school for inclusion in U.S. News and World Report’s annual America’s Best College’s report.

But Hudson, who began his new job Wednesday as president of the University of Houston-Victoria, says that task was never discussed with him.

In the magazine’s latest annual ranking, USM dropped its status as a third-tier university and is now ranked as a fourth-tier university.

Speaking at the monthly President’s Council meeting, Thames said he was puzzled why USM would drop in its ranking when it is making gains in other areas such as enrollment and research funding.

Date: Sep 19, 2004

EMMA:

Boy is this a piece of personal speculation or what?

Why do you think this redneck newspaper is becoming the premier paper? Is it because the Hattiesburg American decided to start publishing real issues instead of the trivial complaints of former USM employees and their friends? It is because the editors of the Independent have not figured out yet that a handful of people are misusing the public opinions section of a backwoods city newspaper? There is nothing "premier" about this newspaper.