Ower's Letter - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Dec 20, 2004

Ower's Letter

Date: Dec 20, 2004

Nice letter. I would have made only one minor but subtle change in its wording. The sentence " . . . the university was reduced in academic ranking by America's Best Colleges to the lowest tier of national doctoral universities" would have read ". . . the university was reduced in acdemic ranking by America's Best Colleges to near the bottom of the lowest tier of national doctoral universities."

Date: Dec 20, 2004

A great letter, which I have just forwarded to the IHL (ssharpe@ihl.state.ms.us). Many thanks to John Ower for his consistent, persistent advocacy on behalf of the best interests of USM!

Date: Dec 20, 2004

picky picky,

Maybe USM is now near the bottom of the 4th tier. But US News and World Report doesn't publish the actual rankings for the the 3rd and 4th tiers--so how could we know?

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"picky picky, Maybe USM is now near the bottom of the 4th tier. But US News and World Report doesn't publish the actual rankings for the the 3rd and 4th tiers--so how could we know? Robert Campbell"

Robert,

I believe Picky Picky is correct. I don't remember exactly where, but I think the U.S. News and World Report article had a ranking value for each school. Anyway, I remember seeing that we were ranked low amoung the tier four schools. I will have to research this to make sure and find where I saw that.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"picky picky, Maybe USM is now near the bottom of the 4th tier. But US News and World Report doesn't publish the actual rankings for the the 3rd and 4th tiers--so how could we know? Robert Campbell"

I was provided that information somewhere and by somebody but I don't recall where or by whom. The information I was provided was, nonetheless, convincing. It will be a couple of days before I will be able to rerieve it, but I will find it and provide it for you. If in the unlikely event I discover I was mistaken I will inform you of that also. I am fairly sure this was an item on the FireShelby board but it would probably be difficult, if not impossible, to find that thread now. I will go to my other source and let you know.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

Picky Picky, I too have this memory, but I thought it was a number value next to each school in the USN&WR list.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Reporter
"Picky Picky, I too have this memory, but I thought it was a number value next to each school in the USN&WR list. "

Reporter, you might be right. But I distinctly recall that I was presented some hard data in writing, and had the opportunity to discuss it with the source of that information. I was never able to find a copy of the USNews ratings on any of the newstands. It may be that the data source is the USNews website but I don't know about that. My source is one who is data oriented and does not put a "spin" on anything. I was surprised that the observation did not get more attention when it was presented on the FireShelby board. As I told Robert Cambell, I will look into the matter but it will be a couple of days or so before I can do so.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

On September 8th one poster did refer to USM's relative position ("toward the very bottom of the 4th tier" in the rankings. But the original discussion dates back much further than this.

USM in bondage

Date: Sep 8
Views: 191

Quote | ReplyBond Issue

Academically USM is toward the very bottom of the 4th tier and yet it wants to fritter away funds like this (from today's HA)?

"Southern Miss wants approval to add a 1 percent tax to hotel bills and restaurant tabs for improvements to Reed Green Coliseum, M.M. Roberts Stadium, the baseball, softball and track and soccer complexes and for construction of an Olympic sports complex and a tennis facility.

Southern Miss wants approval to add a 1 percent tax to hotel bills and restaurant tabs for improvements to Reed Green Coliseum, M.M. Roberts Stadium, the baseball, softball and track and soccer complexes and for construction of an Olympic sports complex and a tennis facility."

Date: Dec 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"picky picky, Maybe USM is now near the bottom of the 4th tier. But US News and World Report doesn't publish the actual rankings for the the 3rd and 4th tiers--so how could we know? Robert Campbell"

Robert & Reporter: I found my notes on this matter. USM is ranked 61st among the 61 4th tier schools. There are 36 4th tier schools ranked higher than USM, and 17 schools ranked lower than USM. There were 8 of the schools that were tied. 36 higher + 17 lower + 8 tied = 61 total schools in 4th tier. Of the 248 schools which were evaluated, only 17 are lower than USM. Those are the data in my notes. I will try to identify where they came from.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: picky picky
"Robert & Reporter: I found my notes on this matter. USM is ranked 61st among the 61 4th tier schools. There are 36 4th tier schools ranked higher than USM, and 17 schools ranked lower than USM. There were 8 of the schools that were tied. 36 higher + 17 lower + 8 tied = 61 total schools in 4th tier. Of the 248 schools which were evaluated, only 17 are lower than USM. Those are the data in my notes. I will try to identify where they came from. "

CORRECTION: USM is not ranked 61st as erronously stated in my posting. It is ranked 37th - 36 are higher, l7 are lower, 8 are tied. A careless posting error on my part. That one figure - 61st - on the first line of my post is the only thing that is inaccurate.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

The most discouraging thing about these figures, if they turn out to be correct (and picky picky seems to believe they are correct) is that only 17 of the 248 evaluated institutions are lower than us. We're gonna have a hard time even staying in the fourth tier. Going up to third is highly problematic.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Numbed by the numbers
"The most discouraging thing about these figures, if they turn out to be correct (and picky picky seems to believe they are correct) is that only 17 of the 248 evaluated institutions are lower than us. We're gonna have a hard time even staying in the fourth tier. Going up to third is highly problematic."

Robert & Reporter: My notes further show that these are the 17 4th tier schools ranked below USM. I don't recall where I got this information but I should that information in a couple of days. My notes say that the 17 4th tier schools ranked below USM are . . . .

Alabama A&M, Alliant Int., Biola, East Tennessee, Jackson State, Middle Tennessee, National-Louis, Nova Southeastern, Tennessee State, TAMU-Commerce, TAMU-Kingsville, Texas Southern, Union Institute, Bridgeport, Louisiana-Lafayette, South Alabama, Wilmington College.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: picky picky
" Robert & Reporter: My notes further show that these are the 17 4th tier schools ranked below USM. I don't recall where I got this information but I should that information in a couple of days. My notes say that the 17 4th tier schools ranked below USM are . . . . Alabama A&M, Alliant Int., Biola, East Tennessee, Jackson State, Middle Tennessee, National-Louis, Nova Southeastern, Tennessee State, TAMU-Commerce, TAMU-Kingsville, Texas Southern, Union Institute, Bridgeport, Louisiana-Lafayette, South Alabama, Wilmington College."

Good work picky picky. This is what I recalled. Since "peer evaluation" is about 25% of the ranking, our SACS probation will surely move us down the list. I just hope we stay ahead of South Alabama since we compete for the same students. I wounder are they a "world class" school too?

Date: Dec 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"Many thanks to John Ower for his consistent, persistent advocacy on behalf of the best interests of USM!"

I don't know John Ower, but I think it is interesting that he is able to change his mind. Unless I am mistaken, his earliest letters to the editor (about this time a year ago) were in support of the president's authority -- some of that "let the administrators administer and the teachers stick to teaching" line of thinking. Apparently, Dr. Ower has come to see things in a different light over time.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

Who are we tied with? Also, I would love to know the source since I have never seen a ranking of the lower tiers. That seems to be a very large fall from tier 3 in one year considering that the data for the ranking would have been collected before the FG/GS mess.

Has anyone ever looked to see how volatile the rankings are in the lower tiers? I know US News often tinker around with the formula to shake up the top rankings so the list makes the news when they declare a new number 1 (remember Cal Tech was number 1 a few years ago). Do schools often jump tiers in the lower ranks? I am not trying to justify our ranking (Thames should have been fired the day the rankings were announced), but I am trying to understand them.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

Heck, thames should have been fired the day he was announced as the head of the search committee for the new prez.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

picky picky and Reporter,

37th from the top of the fourth tier, or 18th from the very bottom, is even worse than I realized.

I have the published US News reports (for this year and last year). For the 3rd and 4th tier schools, the published charts don't include all of the dimensions that the universities are being evaluated on, so it isn't possible to reconstruct the exact rankings from them. Could the information have come from a source inside US News?

USM's overall reputation score wasn't that low this year, for an institution way down in the 4th tier--and I believe it was down just 0.1 from last year. The reputation score will be substantially lower next year.

I still wonder whether the majority faction on the Board is aiming to remove USM from the ranks of national universities altogether.

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 20, 2004

Don't you think that the Board's intention is to erase USM from any institutional memory?

Date: Dec 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Could the information have come from a source inside US News?"

Robert, that is the specific information I'm going to try to retrive within a couple of days.

Date: Dec 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Could the information have come from a source inside US News?"

Robert, if you are asking if the information came from someone with a USNnews personal contact, I can say with certainty that was not the case. The information to which I refer is available publicly - but I don't know quite where yet.

Date: Dec 21, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
". . . the published charts don't include all of the dimensions that the universities are being evaluated on, so it isn't possible to reconstruct the exact rankings from them."

Robert: I have finally been able to determine where the data I posted earlier on this thread were obtained. They were based solely on the "peer assessment" dimension. Those data are, as you know, available in the USNews publication America's Best Colleges: 2005. Of all of the dimensions reported, "peer assessment" appeared to be the one most appropriate from which to conduct the analysis. Of the 248 schools evaluated nationally in all tier groups, only 17 schools ranked below USM on the peer assessment dimension. The lowest peer assessment score was, as I recall, given to Alabama A&M. Wurl' class, huh?

Date: Dec 21, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: picky picky
"Robert: I have finally been able to determine where the data I posted earlier on this thread were obtained. They were based solely on the "peer assessment" dimension. Those data are, as you know, available in the USNews publication America's Best Colleges: 2005. Of all of the dimensions reported, "peer assessment" appeared to be the one most appropriate from which to conduct the analysis. Of the 248 schools evaluated nationally in all tier groups, only 17 schools ranked below USM on the peer assessment dimension. The lowest peer assessment score was, as I recall, given to Alabama A&M. Wurl' class, huh?"

Thanks picky picky. Nice research. With 25% based on peer assessment and our SACS probation, I see no way for USM to move up that poll this year (decade?).

Date: Dec 21, 2004

picky picky,

There may be only 17 institutions with lower average peer evaluation scores than USM. But these institutions rate a 1. 7 to a 2.0, right? Peer evaluation scores could go as low as 1.0 on a 1 to 5 scale... Let's hope USM doesn't end up setting a new record, among national universities, for the lowest peer evaluation scores.

Robert Campbell

Date: Dec 21, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: picky picky
"Robert: I have finally been able to determine where the data I posted earlier on this thread were obtained. They were based solely on the "peer assessment" dimension. Those data are, as you know, available in the USNews publication America's Best Colleges: 2005. Of all of the dimensions reported, "peer assessment" appeared to be the one most appropriate from which to conduct the analysis. Of the 248 schools evaluated nationally in all tier groups, only 17 schools ranked below USM on the peer assessment dimension. The lowest peer assessment score was, as I recall, given to Alabama A&M. Wurl' class, huh?"

Horrors of Horrors! We're near the bottom of the dungheap. Does the IHL know this?

Date: Dec 21, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"USM's overall reputation score wasn't that low this year, for an institution way down in the 4th tier--and I believe it was down just 0.1 from last year.

I don't have the numbers, but Robert said that we only lost 0.1 off the reputation score. Did everyone else's score raise that much or was our reputation score really low for tier 3? Did something else change?

Date: Dec 21, 2004

But they would have behaved like my fellow Republicans. SFT didn't seek out the presidency. He was appointed because the state of MS needed him.

Date: Dec 21, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: asdf
"was our reputation score really low for tier 3?"

We're in tier 4, not tier 3. Only 17 schools - regardless of tier - had a lower peer assessment score that USM. Right?

Date: Dec 21, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: asdf
"I don't have the numbers, but Robert said that we only lost 0.1 off the reputation score. Did everyone else's score raise that much or was our reputation score really low for tier 3? Did something else change?"

ASDF, I think the others stayed the same or went up. Add that to the fact we didn't turn in data in some areas and that moved us down. Next year we will report the data but SACS probation will offset that with a peer assessment drop.

Date: Dec 21, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Spot Check
"We're in tier 4, not tier 3. Only 17 schools - regardless of tier - had a lower peer assessment score that USM. Right?"

As I tell my students when they ask a question I can't answer: "It's in the book."