USM Strategic Goals - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Dec 15, 2004

USM Strategic Goals

Date: Dec 15, 2004

December 8, 2004 is a long time?

Date: Dec 15, 2004

Would that be the time written or the time viewed?

Date: Dec 15, 2004

That would be the "time last modified."

RC

Date: Dec 15, 2004

Reverse website sanitization?

Date: Dec 15, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Webster's out of date
"Reverse website sanitization?"

Just where is Webster? I miss the dictionary updates.

Date: Dec 15, 2004

http://www.usm.edu/ie/goals.htm

These things are an insult to the true work of academia. This is the last line of the mission statement "Therefore, Southern Miss can be characterized as a not-for-profit institution that is in the learning business." If it's in the learning business (or bidness as I've heard) why is only one goal related to learning and the others related to "for-profit" pursuits. Only two of the goals can be quantitatively assessed...20,000 students and $100 million. I've looked at a ton of institutional strategic goals and these are probably the worst I've seen.

It is time to start running this "not-for-profit institutuion that is in the learning business" like a university.

Date: Dec 16, 2004

Apparently you have not been listening to Dr. Thames. He has a well defined strategic plan. He intends to destroy all those units that fail to generate profits. He will start with "those overpaid worthless folks in business" and then move to music, arts, and finish with the humanities. If you aren't generating research $'s he plans to run off as many faculty as he can and then move the remaining folks to a 4/4 teaching load.

The flaw of his business model is that he is trying to maximize profits in a non-profit organization (this means there are no profits). The primary objective of a non-profit should be to maximize services. For USM, the primary services should benefit the students, the community, and the region. Unfortunately, he is only interested in lining his own pockets in an Enronesque way.

Date: Dec 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Trump
"Apparently you have not been listening to Dr. Thames. He has a well defined strategic plan. He intends to destroy all those units that fail to generate profits. He will start with "those overpaid worthless folks in business" and then move to music, arts, and finish with the humanities. If you aren't generating research $'s he plans to run off as many faculty as he can and then move the remaining folks to a 4/4 teaching load. The flaw of his business model is that he is trying to maximize profits in a non-profit organization (this means there are no profits). The primary objective of a non-profit should be to maximize services. For USM, the primary services should benefit the students, the community, and the region. Unfortunately, he is only interested in lining his own pockets in an Enronesque way."

Not listening? My tender ears are as big as the Firestone Blimp! What I don't understand is why some of the faculty appear to be so complacent.

Date: Dec 16, 2004

The question to be answered is this:

Who came up with these "goals"?

Of course, for many, that answer is clear.

But, there were people outside of the dome working on the development of these goals, and working hard. How did the large amount of input via focus groups get distilled to this pile of SFT drivel?

The "goals" as they now exist are PURE SFT - they are things he had in mind from the outset, from the time he took his current position. They are NOT things (in very many cases) that the faculty at large finds essential.

So, the question again is, who put these goals into play? It certainly was NOT the faculty body at USM. It had to be someONE else.

Is THAT one of the things that SACS is shooting us for? (If so, that fatal shot would be warranted)

Date: Dec 16, 2004

Faculty complacency is not the issue. Faculty are just being realistic. We are currently dealing with a lost cause and should focus on making ourselves as marketable as possible. Thames has something on a number of the IHL members and they will leave him in place. Since he has known about the SACS problem for 2 years and has failed to avoid probation, I suspect that he will not be able to get the job done by next Dec. and USM will either have their accreditation revoked or have a longer probation. While I applaud the spirit of the faculty on this board, I think they need to realize there is nothing we can do, we have spoken and nobody cared. If we speak again, Thames will just spin the probation as being because the lazy faculty failed to follow his lead.

There are many passionate people involved in trying to overthrow Thames, you might find yourself better served if you focus your efforts on finding a new job (I hope I'm wrong on this, but I suspect not).

Date: Dec 16, 2004

Without question, USM's drivel re: our strategy is lacking. But compared to some of our peers, it's downright pathetic. Take a glance at how our friends to the north position their institutions in a strategic sense. The key thread throughout these is an emphasis on quality teaching and scholarship.

http://msuinfo.ur.msstate.edu/priorities/update.html">http://msuinfo.ur.msstate.edu/priorities/update.html

http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/chancellor/MissionandGoals.html">http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/chancellor/MissionandGoals.html

Date: Dec 16, 2004

Get the helloutta here. There are wars, but this is one done and over with. The state is facing a potential $1 billion shortfall, casinos can't sustain a whole economy and we gave the farm away to Nissan. State revenues are flat. How many folks are really gonna come to MS...retirement communities aren't gonna foot any of the bills--it may cost us more in fact. Fellas, something has to give, and USM is just one of many things that will be reduced in stature and purpose significantly. I'm sorry, but Trump is right. USM is a lost cause. I hope I'm wrong.

Date: Dec 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: My Strategic Plan
"Get the helloutta here. There are wars, but this is one done and over with. The state is facing a potential $1 billion shortfall, casinos can't sustain a whole economy and we gave the farm away to Nissan. State revenues are flat. How many folks are really gonna come to MS...retirement communities aren't gonna foot any of the bills--it may cost us more in fact. Fellas, something has to give, and USM is just one of many things that will be reduced in stature and purpose significantly. I'm sorry, but Trump is right. USM is a lost cause. I hope I'm wrong."

Whoaaa Nellie. Here's the bright side. I grew up in Mississippi where I heard this "Mississippi is poor" financial destitution bull S*** all of my life - year after year. Those who run the plantation are always telling us cotten field workers that funds are insufficient to give us indoor plumbing and that we must continue to use those outdoor three-holers. I'm not saying that one of these days the plantation management might be right, but right now I suspect that is just another instance of "Wolf! Wolf!." Management will spend whatever it wants to spend in whatever way it wants to spend it. It's simply a matter of priorities. As is the case at USM, management's checkbook balances are well concealed - so we'll never know for sure what the "state of the state" or "state of the university" financial condition really is. So don't let them give you this "I'm sorry, Fred, but you'll just have to make do with those three-holers until we have a good cotton crop."

Date: Dec 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Strategic Plan?
"Without question, USM's drivel re: our strategy is lacking. But compared to some of our peers, it's downright pathetic. Take a glance at how our friends to the north position their institutions in a strategic sense. The key thread throughout these is an emphasis on quality teaching and scholarship.
http://msuinfo.ur.msstate.edu/priorities/update.html
http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/chancellor/MissionandGoals.html"

The contrast is nothing less than astounding. The emphasis on undergraduate education and quality is readily apparent. Too bad the IHL is unlikely to read these relative to USM's. The two major schools have left USM in the dust. Maybe the Alumni Association needs a wake up call.

Date: Dec 16, 2004

Kick