At small liberal arts schools the general education courses are taught by real professors in small classes. To the extent that you get away from that, you are getting less in most cases. For the most part, on-line courses are at the other end of the continuum. In the case of low enrollment on-line classes with lots of regular live interaction among students and faculty, they don't save much money if it is part of the faculty member's regular load. They are also labor intensive. Only the canned courses with no meaningful interaction are profitable, and that is not what undergraduates need.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Curmudgeon
"At small liberal arts schools the general education courses are taught by real professors in small classes. To the extent that you get away from that, you are getting less in most cases. For the most part, on-line courses are at the other end of the continuum. In the case of low enrollment on-line classes with lots of regular live interaction among students and faculty, they don't save much money if it is part of the faculty member's regular load. They are also labor intensive. Only the canned courses with no meaningful interaction are profitable, and that is not what undergraduates need. "

---

Well put, Curmudgeon. Well put.

Having taught online classes myself, I'll offer that it is far more labor intensive to "do right" than a traditional class. I'm not saying that I did it right, either. The fact is that online classes -- done well or not -- don't have the "profit margin" of traditional classes. That's why institutions frequently charge "convenience fees" in addition to regular tuition for online classes.

My bet is that USM admins have looked at enrollments in the Mississippi Virtual Community College & figure all those folks taking freshman & sophomore level classes online will want to take junior & senior level classes online, too.

I've studied distance learning since the inception of MSVCC. Here are some things I've learned that may be of interest (in no particular order). Whether I'm debunking any myths, I dunno...

(1) Most online students take traditional classes concurrently.
(2) Few intend to pursue an "online degree." I stand to be corrected, but I do not believe in the 3 years that MSVCC has been operating, that a single student has earned an associate's degree completely online.
(3) The withdrawal rates in online classes are outrageous. (See #4 below)
(4) Institutions do a poor job of advising students about their readiness/aptitude for online classes.
(5) A lot of students still think that online classes are easier than traditional classes. This illusion usually lasts about 2-3 weeks.
(6) Providing student support services (e.g., learning resources, financial aid, counseling, etc.) for online students is a challenge. It is also required by SACS.
(7) The Blackboard software platform sucks.
(8) It isn't easy to complete a SACS substantive change for distance learning. MSVCC has done just that. Has USM?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Devil's Advocate General
" Um, is this why those non-major courses get taught by graduate assistants? Is this why so many full professors regard teaching their obligatory freshman sections as the direst form of punishment? Is this why lower division classes get taught in auditoriums? You may choose to ignore the fact that "real" (how about "virtually all") universities work that way. Non-major courses are generally not viewed as important, and that attitude begins with the faculty. Maybe you don't feel that way. I applaud you for it, because philosophically you are correct. But practically speaking, you are very uncommon if you act on that view. "

---

Devil's Advocate General, your posting is very thoughtful. I would like to respectfully reply to some of your comments:

Departments at the best universities put their very best professors in the introductory classes. At least that is my experience. If there are departments at USM doing otherwise, I feel sorry for the students. Exposing the introductory students to the best professors (a) attracts outstanding majors which might otherwise major in another discipline, and (b) exposure to the best professors increases the likelihood that non- majors will take an elective or two in the discipline. The department benefits in every way I can imagine. Putting the very best professors in the introductory class is a sound investment. It is beneifcial to the department, to the university, and - most of all - to the students. From my experience, graduate student participation in the introductory courses is normally limited to running laboratory sections and giving an occasional lecture. It is too bad that some faculty members must teach the introductory classes in large auditoriums. I believe that each faculty member has a point beyond which class size doesn't matter. My own point is about 50. Sure, I prefer classes under 50, but when it gets to 50 I'd just as soon have 100. There are some outstanding faculty members who can't handle large classes very well, and students should not be subjected to those particular faculty in a large auditorium setting.  Further, let me say that I'd rather take a class in a large auditorium with a faculty member who has made significant contributions to the discipline than in a tiny classroom with a faculty member who is just piddling in the water - no matter how charismatic that faculty member might be. Finally, I can't imagine any department assigning any class to a graduate student to teach if that graduate student does not have a master's degree. Good universities pride themselves in turning out scholars who will take academic positions. Graduate students need the experience of teaching at some point in their graduate school career.

 

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Coase T. Rash
"So noted.  I’ll drop the unnecessary "quasi.""

---

Maybe one day, I'll be a real modo. But for now, I'm just a quasi-modo.

Did not Mr. Lassen once work for the esteemed UoP?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Coase T. Rash
" Your message is a good one, Anne.  And I, for one, really appreciate it.  Unfortunately, I’m not sure that your sentiments are shared by most of the Hattiesburg faculty.  Invictus correctly points out on this tread that “USM has never known what to do with Gulf Park.” I am (finally) beginning to understand that this lack of administrative direction is reflective of the deeply ingrained resentment (however misplaced) of the coast operations that many Hattiesburg faculty and administrators share.   In retrospect, I think I was trying to pretend it didn’t exist.  But it should have been painfully obvious to me then as it is now.     Consider, for example, this comment by Left (formerly Leaving Soon) on the “Malone Invades Coast Classroom, Berates Professor” thread:   “Someone writing in this thread noted that in some cosmic way things will eventually work out. Yes, if global warming, with concomitant melting of polar ice caps, continues, the rising waters will someday wash away USM's Coast campus....” (Oct 21)   For more recent fodder, take a look at the angst levied toward the very idea of “coast growth” exhibited throughout the “Film Program Moving to the Gulf Coast” thread.  Here are just a few examples:   “Could it be that the Gulf Coast will become the main campus???” Lights, Camera, Action! (Nov 17)   “What do you plan to do with all of the current USM buildings when the times comes that there are few viable academic programs left on the Hattiesburg campus?” Moving Van (Nov 18)   “Between the new programs which have and will be earmarked for Jackson State, and those evidently earmarked for the Gulf Coast, what will be left for Hattiesburg?” Betwixt and Between (Nov 18)   “USM-H could very well relocate itself out of business. Why not just put the current non-essential programs on a table and let the Coast campus pick and choose. This two-campus system is not working very well for Hattiesburg.” She loves me, she loves me not (Nov 18)   These comments, combined with others I have either read or heard, make me fairly pessimistic about the idea that “we’ll take this [distance education] thing on as a united faculty, not a divided one.”  Let’s face it.  We’re divided.  I wish that I were wrong.   So, here’s what it’s like being a coast faculty member.  Our administration wants coast faculty members that will comply with the online mandate.  That alone is a pretty grim prospect.  Our Hattiesburg “colleagues” would really feel better if we were “spun off” or, better yet, “washed away.”  So, in the final analysis, what in the world are we doing here?  Obviously some faculty with deep ties to the region wish to stay, as do those with limited career options.  But I can’t imagine why the rest of us would possibly wish to stay in this environment.  (Hark!  Are those champagne corks I hear popping all the way from the ‘Burg?)"

---

You're way off base here. My understanding is that it is the coast campus that wants to become independent of USM-Hattiesburg, much in the same way that UNO became independent of LSU. My own opinion is that one of these day the coast campus will become a separate university. It's only a matter of time. I have never  heard a Hattiesburg faculty member bash the coast campus,  On the other hand, if the coast campus does go with the Pheonix model, I suspect that many of us would find that embarrasing; just as the coast campus would find it embarrasing if the Hattiesburg campus adopted the Phoenix model. I think you're misreading many of the postings on this message board.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: all for one, one for all
"You're way off base here. My understanding is that it is the coast campus that wants to become independent of USM-Hattiesburg, much in the same way that UNO became independent of LSU. My own opinion is that one of these day the coast campus will become a separate university. It's only a matter of time. I have never  heard a Hattiesburg faculty member bash the coast campus,  On the other hand, if the coast campus does go with the Pheonix model, I suspect that many of us would find that embarrasing; just as the coast campus would find it embarrasing if the Hattiesburg campus adopted the Phoenix model. I think you're misreading many of the postings on this message board. "

---

I think there was sort of a push for coast "home rule" for awhile.  My understanding was that it was largely a response to what many perceived to be unfair treatment from the main campus.  I think that the failed attempt toward home rule also led to the former coast VP's demise.  But now, what with SFT's bulldog running the show and all, any suggestion regarding an independent coast campus would be considered downright laughable.

 

Professor Rash and others -

I can say from my vantage point that the faculty in H'burg genuinely are concerned for the Coast faculty.  We want to see you put in a position to succeed.  Unfortunately - our concern is worthless, because we have no voice at all to insure that you have a chance at success.  It has been decided.  It is beyond our ability to influence the outcome.  The Gulf Park Campus will be the on-line version of something called "USM".  Period.

To those at Tier 1 schools - we appreciate the great opportunity that you have had to succeed there as well.  I've always believed that the best hires we have made are those that have opportunities to move on (and up).  These are the faculty and staff that you SHOULD hire - individuals valued (for whatever reason) in the academic marketplace.  However, those of you at the top, laying out the wonders of your current situation, do not provide any of us here with any help basking in your new-found opportunity. Particularly when you make these comparisons to your USM days.  Frankly, I find it condescending.  We appreciate your concern, but it doesn't do anything for those of us stuck here.

So - where do we stand?  We are stuck with a model focused on growth at any cost.  SFT has a singular focus that will be pushed forward, irregardless of standards.  The goal is 20,000, and the ends will justify the means.  The reasons for this goal are pretty easy to see:

1) We can not generate any additional revenue, except through enrollment dollars

2) Grants are great, but generally lead to ever-increasing bureaucracy to support them. Additionally, unless there is full indirect, the University ultimately subsides the work

3) Centralizing all budgets to create "efficiencies" generally creates a situation where only those with needs that are consistent with SFT and company are met.

So, a few programs benefit - but most must now go "hat in hand" to beg for resources.  Ultimately, the university ceases to see programs that are "non-contributory" to the bottom line as waste.

People - we have earned our Tier 4 status.  We have accomplished that goal.  We have taken a business approach to a non-business entity.  The advent of our new Coast On-line University will only further support our progress towards 20,000 students. A process has been put in place that will take 10-20 years to undo.  And there is nothing we can do to change it, we can only wait it out.

Personally, all I (and most of the others close to retirement) can do is wait.  All we can do is conduct academic research, effectively teach our classes, network within our profession, and -Count the days.

End of rant

The Count

And this, my friends, is the heart of the matter. This is exactly why SFT is President, and this was the plan from day one. A retired science professor told me this in 2002, and I scoffed. He said then that the whole purpose of making Thames (whom he knew well) President was because MSU wanted control of the coast, "because that's where the money is." He also told me that Malcolm Potera (sp?) went to bed every night thinking of what he could do to bring down USM. Even though M.P. is gone, the legacy lives??

Aren't we already abolishing programs in Hattiesburg and moving them to the coast? Film is the most recent one, isn't it? The coast now is a full 4-year school, continuously adding graduate offerings, etc. I've heard no complaints.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Counting the days
"Professor Rash and others -
To those at Tier 1 schools - we appreciate the great opportunity that you have had to succeed there as well.  I've always believed that the best hires we have made are those that have opportunities to move on (and up).  These are the faculty and staff that you SHOULD hire - individuals valued (for whatever reason) in the academic marketplace.  However, those of you at the top, laying out the wonders of your current situation, do not provide any of us here with any help basking in your new-found opportunity. Particularly when you make these comparisons to your USM days.  Frankly, I find it condescending.  We appreciate your concern, but it doesn't do anything for those of us stuck here.
"

---

Our sincere apologies, Counting. Consider that the departed are still here and still posting demonstrates their deep concern for the situation at USM. I think the descriptions are not intended to be gloating, but to demonstrate that it does not have to be the way it is at USM. There has been much talk on this board about "loss of institutional memory" and that the newer faculty will assume that the changes Thames and co. bring are inevitable--the Kentucky cabal acted like it was all progress and that the USM faculty were reactionary old farts, when they were actually fighting for what professors have at most other schools. What the administration lacks is a vision of any world outside about about a 20 mile radius. I think the descriptions here have been intended to open a door to the world outside. I can't speak for all of the departed, but in my case, I have a severe case of "survivor's guilt." I had to leave, but I really wanted to stay and whip Shelby's **s. I would wish for every single faculty member at USM everything that has been described on the board as being at Tier 1 and more. Having suffered under Thames, they, more than anyone else, deserve it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: You
"haven't been listening."

---

Who hasn't been listening. Me or you or somebody else? Did I get my facts wrong? What was said that I didn't hear. I distinctly recall the film thing and at least one other.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Pine Belt Bob
"Oh. I see. Complaints from where? From the coast or from Hattiesburg? Complaints about what? About moving programs? I think you and I both need to make our posts clearer."

---

all do if we can.

Some things are not so clear.

That may be one reason why we post.

Don't give up!

NO QUARTER!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Chicken Soup Lady
"And this, my friends, is the heart of the matter. This is exactly why SFT is President, and this was the plan from day one. A retired science professor told me this in 2002, and I scoffed. He said then that the whole purpose of making Thames (whom he knew well) President was because MSU wanted control of the coast, "because that's where the money is." He also told me that Malcolm Potera (sp?) went to bed every night thinking of what he could do to bring down USM. Even though M.P. is gone, the legacy lives??"

---

This is also one of the reason why Horace Fleming was "let go."  He talked too much about growing USM Gulf Park.  He knew that this was where the $$ was.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: One of the departed
" Our sincere apologies, Counting. Consider that the departed are still here and still posting demonstrates their deep concern for the situation at USM. I think the descriptions are not intended to be gloating, but to demonstrate that it does not have to be the way it is at USM. There has been much talk on this board about "loss of institutional memory" and that the newer faculty will assume that the changes Thames and co. bring are inevitable--the Kentucky cabal acted like it was all progress and that the USM faculty were reactionary old farts, when they were actually fighting for what professors have at most other schools. What the administration lacks is a vision of any world outside about about a 20 mile radius. I think the descriptions here have been intended to open a door to the world outside. I can't speak for all of the departed, but in my case, I have a severe case of "survivor's guilt." I had to leave, but I really wanted to stay and whip Shelby's **s. I would wish for every single faculty member at USM everything that has been described on the board as being at Tier 1 and more. Having suffered under Thames, they, more than anyone else, deserve it."

---

Departed -  I see your point.  And, I should have tempered my statements considerably (too many beers?)  It is most likely frustration that led to my comments.  Please "stay with us".

My comments about Tier 4 are still relevant, giving the creation of U. of Phoenix (Coast "campus").  There is no question in my mind that the damage will continue be done to this institution.  Your statement which suggests that "This is not the way USM has to be" has been conclusively answered I'm afraid.  No change will occur, particularly given my sincere belief (and I feel virtually certain at this point) that Thames will be re-appointed. 

Departed - I would also say that you (or others) should not feel guilty about anything.  I was taught to believe that you are primarily loyal to your profession, not the institution.  USM is a case study of this.  A University that had great things going for it for years after I first arrived has within 2 years quickly changed.  These changes will not, during my remaining tenure at USM, every be overcome.  So - I must keep current, and await the microsecond that I can retire and move on.   I will still be concerned for faculty and staff at USM when I leave, but I hold out no hope for their ability to inact change, since they are without power.

Bring on the on-liners.  Wait it out...  That's all we do.

Count