Students Concerns - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Dec 8, 2004

Students Concerns

Date: Dec 8, 2004

You have to be at an accredited university to receive certain kinds of financial aid -- someone can probably tell us just which - -

Date: Dec 8, 2004

Here is a link to the SACS probation information Auburn provided to its students and parents when AU was placed on probation last year. Southern Miss PR spin machine, take note.

http://www.ocm.auburn.edu/sacsprobation.html

Date: Dec 8, 2004

Would getting a degree from an institution that was not accredited mean that courses and degrees would not transfer to other institutions? I seem to remember a student I taught ten years ago who came from a nonaccredited school and had to redo his master's degree before he could do a doctorate (or maybe it was another bachelor's before he could do a masters).

Date: Dec 8, 2004

Now hear this: Part of the solution to Auburn's problems with SACS accreditation/probation was the departure of their president a few months later after he received a vote of NO CONFIDENCE.

Date: Dec 8, 2004

An institution must be regionally accredited in order to receive federal Title IV student aid money. The most familiar form of Title IV aid is the Pell grant. I believe Bureau of Indian Affairs scholarship money is also tied to Title IV eligibility.

I'll let others discuss the importance of an accredited degree to a student when it comes to applying to grad school, getting licensed in certain professions, or obtaining employment.

Date: Dec 9, 2004

The biggest loss is what the business world calls "reputational capital".

Reputational capital is as important as all other forms of capital

(human, financial, physical) for the long run survival of a company.

So too for universities. USM will be unable to recruite the best

faculty, the best students and the best staff if this loss of

reputation continues. Even contract and grant money can be

impacted by a loss of reputation. It IS a serious matter.

Date: Dec 9, 2004

Even Full-Time Membership in the AAUP reads:

Full-Time: Teacher, research or similar academic appointment at an accredited college or university.

Date: Dec 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" I'll let others discuss the importance of an accredited degree to a student when it comes to . . . obtaining employment."

Like most things, it depends. One thing is sure: the lack of accreditation will not help any applicant's prospects of employment.

As a potential employer, I would try to look at many factors when choosing among applicants. Unfortunately, an applicant for an entry level position whose degree is from an unaccredited program would probably not even be given fair consideration for a job. Typically, many job descriptions require that applicants be graduates of accredited programs. The good news is that many employers -- especially those at a distance -- don't know whether a program is accredited. As far as I know, no one is required to disclose the status of their program. However, if the published job description required that a degree be from an accredited program, there could be issues later on.

Two distinctions: (1) there is a big difference between an unaccredited program and an unaccredited university; and (2) so far, USM is still accredited, just on probation. As the parent of a current student, I am not panicking yet. Concerned, but not panicking.

Date: Dec 9, 2004

SACS probation is just the tip of the iceberg. It is no secret that USM is in dire straights with NCATE and that it is likely that the university will be placed on NCATE probation next year. A number of academic programs have lost positions this year that will place their accreditations in jeopardy. Over the next several years, if SFT is not replaced with a president who understands accreditation, we will lose more programs, more students and more respect as an educational institution.

The current administration is manned by neophytes and novices who know little about the accreditation process. Faculty who are familiar with the accreditation process have either left the university or are shunned by SFT and his "administrators". The several people remaining on campus who were crucial to the successful 1995 SACS reaccreditation have not been asked to participate in the SACS process because SFT feels that to do so would make his administration look inept.

Its hard to make lemonade out of this lemon, but many who are sitting on the sidelines (not by choice, but by circumstance) will be more than willing to role up their sleeves and help rebuilt the university in the post-Thames era. Let's pray that the IHL board will recognize the need for change and will assist us in beginning this long and arduous process.

Date: Dec 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Tip-of-the-iceberg
"SACS probation is just the tip of the iceberg. It is no secret that USM is in dire straights with NCATE and that it is likely that the university will be placed on NCATE probation next year. A number of academic programs have lost positions this year that will place their accreditations in jeopardy. Over the next several years, if SFT is not replaced with a president who understands accreditation, we will lose more programs, more students and more respect as an educational institution. The current administration is manned by neophytes and novices who know little about the accreditation process. Faculty who are familiar with the accreditation process have either left the university or are shunned by SFT and his "administrators". The several people remaining on campus who were crucial to the successful 1995 SACS reaccreditation have not been asked to participate in the SACS process because SFT feels that to do so would make his administration look inept. Its hard to make lemonade out of this lemon, but many who are sitting on the sidelines (not by choice, but by circumstance) will be more than willing to role up their sleeves and help rebuilt the university in the post-Thames era. Let's pray that the IHL board will recognize the need for change and will assist us in beginning this long and arduous process. "

We can't be put on NCATE probation next year, given that our visit is not until Spring of 06. I don't think we will be put on probation (conditional approval is more likely, which still has some negative implications), but if it were to occur, that would happen after the rejoinder process in Fall 06.

Date: Dec 9, 2004

My namesake, "leaving soon jr" has asked for help in explaining SACS accreditation/probation to family and friends.

Here are the basics:

1) Probation is a trial period -- in this case, a trial period in which USM's fitness to remain an accredited university is to be tested.

2) Accreditation is, according to my dictionary, "the granting of approval to an institution of learning by an official review board after the school has met certain requirements."

And now some commentary:

As others have already noted, probation is a serious detriment to a university's ability to recruit and retain good faculty and students. USM's loss of reputation due to probation, particularly in the wake of all the negative publicity already brought to USM by the Thames administration, should be of great concern.

Loss of accreditation is even more serious: faculty at a non-accredited university are unable qualify for research grants (and the money that comes with them, which President Thames seems to think is a university's most important reason for existing), nor do they qualify for membership in many academic professional organizations. A non-accredited university does not qualify for certain types of financial aid (a very important consideration for students and their families!). Students with a degree from a non-accredited university find that such a degree is a significant detriment to their future education and careers (a chilling thought!). And the list goes on...

SACS has found USM to have certain deficiencies which, if not remedied (within a year?), will result in USM losing its accreditation. It is my opinion that, under Thames, the only way USM could get itself off probation would be to lie (the administration does this routinely anyway) or perhaps to bribe the members of the accreditation team (just imagine -- USM might have to raise tuition again just to cover the cost of doing so). Of course, neither of these options is morally acceptable.

For the sake of USM's future, Thames absolutely MUST be removed from his position as president of USM; yet, even if Thames were dismissed tomorrow, USM would likely be unable to meet the accreditation deadline, for it would take the finest of new administrations much time to undo even a fraction the damage wreaked by Thames (if indeed that can ever be accomplished).

Many excellent faculty have left USM, even giving up hard-won tenured positions, because of Thames. I did. Many more will do so. Many faculty who remain at USM are totally demoralized, though they may do their best to hide that fact from their students. It is very difficult, in good conscience, to continue teaching at an institution one feels reluctant to encourage prospective students to attend. Is THAT the kind of university your parents would like to see you attending? I doubt it.

While USM might not ever be in a position to become "world-class," it can surely become a very good university of which we could all be proud -- but not until Thames is gone!

NO QUARTER!

Date: Dec 9, 2004

At last I understand: SFT wants our accreditation to lapse so that USM faculty can no longer join AAUP!

I'm sorry--I probably shouldn't joke about this deadly serious matter. Left, Invictus, and others, thanks for articulating the troubles we now face.

I wish I thought that this would make the administration "get it." Academics come first because without a strong academic program no one recognizes you as a university. No one will give you a grant. No one will come study, because there's no aid and little market value to the degree. No one will come teach, because there are no students and no grants.

But they won't get it. Nor will they admit that their BAD MANAGEMENT lies at the heart of this mess.

NO QUARTER.
Anne Wallace

Date: Dec 9, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Anne Wallace
" I wish I thought that this would make the administration "get it."

I am afraid SFT's will, ego, whatever, is such that he will never "get it." I think he really believes his press clippings.

As far as the rest of the administration: some are tyros, neophytes in over their heads; some are sycophants; some are hard working folks trying to do a good job and stay below the radar. The ones who need to "get it" are the least likely to. As you said.

The biggest question to me is whether a majority of the IHL Board gets it. Time will tell.

Date: Dec 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
"I am afraid SFT's will, ego, whatever, is such that he will never "get it." I think he really believes his press clippings."

Then he'd better start believing what's in the papers today! The clippings are not "ego food" for any normal person.

FIRE SHELBY NOW. ASK QUESTIONS LATER!

Date: Dec 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Clip Job
" Then he'd better start believing what's in the papers today! The clippings are not "ego food" for any normal person.

Does anybody, friend or foe, consider Shelby Freeland Thames a normal person?

Date: Dec 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Accreditation is the Minimum, not the Aspiration

This poster's pseudonym is a message within itself: Accreditation is the Minimum, not the Aspiration. The message is the pseudonym. The pseudonym is the message. When I first came to USM I spotted a statement in the catalog saying something to the effect that (and I paraphrase) "We measure quality of our programs by whether they are accredited." I thought that was a pretty low standard. This poster is right: Accreditation is the minimum, not the aspiration. To phrase it my way: "Asking if your program is accredited is like asking if your car has an engine, or if your house has a roof."

Date: Dec 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: First Ant at the Picnic
"This poster's pseudonym is a message within itself: Accreditation is the Minimum, not the Aspiration. The message is the pseudonym. The pseudonym is the message. When I first came to USM I spotted a statement in the catalog saying something to the effect that (and I paraphrase) "We measure quality of our programs by whether they are accredited." I thought that was a pretty low standard. This poster is right: Accreditation is the minimum, not the aspiration. To phrase it my way: "Asking if your program is accredited is like asking if your car has an engine, or if your house has a roof."

So, does that earn me an award??? To be fair, I remembered your post and may have been paraphrasing as well!

Date: Dec 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Accreditation is the Minimum, not the Aspiration
"So, does that earn me an award??? To be fair, I remembered your post and may have been paraphrasing as well!"

Sorry, but I'm not in the award business. But your post might appeal to Miss Information's committee. If there were an award for pseudonyms doubling as messages I'll bet it would be called the Double Eagle Award and you would be a prime candidate as the initial recipient.