Question for the Accreditation Experts - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jan 3, 2005

Question for the Accreditation Experts

Date: Jan 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: New Age Planning Models
"Should the university's strategic plan submitted to the IHL and created for SACS be identical, similar, or completely different documents? Would either entity care if they were different?"

They better be the same document. I think the faculty, the IHL and SACS would all care. Do you have a reason to believe there are more than one document? Please share. Also you can check what you know with the draft strategic plan on another thread.

Date: Jan 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: SACS Monitor
" They better be the same document. I think the faculty, the IHL and SACS would all care. Do you have a reason to believe there are more than one document? Please share. Also you can check what you know with the draft strategic plan on another thread."

Thanks SACS Monitor, I responded on the other thread.

Date: Jan 4, 2005

The August document devotes a good deal of emphasis to the relationship between the Polymer Institute and economic development initiatives. That document (or series of documents) submitted to the IHL lays out separate strategic plans for USM, the gulf park campus, the gulf coast research laboratory, the Polymer Research Institute, and Stennis. The one I quoted from yesterday was the main USM document.

Date: Jan 6, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: SACS Monitor
" They better be the same document. I think the faculty, the IHL and SACS would all care. "

SACS Monitor,

OK, so clearly there are two different documents - the one provided to the IHL and the 1/3/05 version currently being circulated. These are certainly very different from any previous strategic plans from former administrations. So, now what? Your post indicated this was important but there doesn't appear to be much interest.

NAPM

Date: Jan 6, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: NAPM
" SACS Monitor . . Your post indicated this was important but there doesn't appear to be much interest. NAPM "

I don't know the level of interest in this matter, but it sure seems very important to me. I doubt that the SACS people who will review USM during the final days are dummies.

Date: Jan 6, 2005

This is a critical question. As the planning at the college/school/dept level is guided by the strategic plan for the university as a whole, it is extremely important that there be a relatively stable, well articulated strategic plan for the university. Assessment is guided by these plans, and thus perhaps we see why the assessment activities have not been carried out in the last few years.

Date: Jan 6, 2005

I cannot see any academic legitimacy whatsoever in having as the number one strategic goal increasing enrollment to 20,000. This was a glaring difference between two of the strategic plans and absent from the plan submitted to the IHL. Does the IHL really support this as being USM's top goal - does it know that it is USM's top goal? I realize SACS doesn't dictate strategy but wouldn't SACS care that this non-academic goal is the university's top objective?

Date: Jan 18, 2005

kick

Date: Jan 18, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: NAPM
"I cannot see any academic legitimacy whatsoever in having as the number one strategic goal increasing enrollment to 20,000."

If USM achieves its 20,000 goal, it should proudly declare that its goal has been achieved. And then shut down.

With the abysmal loss of top faculty, morale rotten to the core, and paltry resources, a more appropriate goal would be trimming back enrollment.

Date: Jan 18, 2005

If this is so, if SHT has allowed two significantly different strategic plans to be floating around at a time when the whole USM shebang is under SACS scrutiny, if this is so, the faculty senate's got yet another really sound reason to vote NO CONFIDENCE on the mutha, don't it?

Dr. Young's point in the op-ed on the frontpage is that SHT simply don't know whether USM's accreditation is in trouble or not. Sometimes he say it is. Sometimes he say no problemo. Here, maybe, is more evidence that the sucka don't really have no genu-wine idea of what the whole place supposed to be about. He's like one of those multiple personalities who can't keep track of who he supposed to be or something.

Add this one to the list: in the Shelbymind, USM a different institution to SAC than it is to the IHL. Wonder how SHT wants to look to the AACSB? To the Chronicle?

No Confidence! No Quarter!

Date: Jan 18, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: fat cat
" If USM achieves its 20,000 goal, it should proudly declare that its goal has been achieved. And then shut down. With the abysmal loss of top faculty, morale rotten to the core, and paltry resources, a more appropriate goal would be trimming back enrollment."

Thames says 5 to 10 percent cuts possible

And USM is in a growth mode. Did you say 20,000 students in the goal?

Date: Jan 18, 2005

Here is how our SACS "process" will disintergrate:

1) SFT has established a culture where he makes ALL decisions. However, the SACS process requires extensive committee work, interaction, and synthesis of materials from different programs across campuses. So... All committee chairs will be hesitant (frightened?) to make any decision, without Joan (really, SFT) providing approval. Since all decisions are made in the dome, faculty will (and should) wait for their instructions.

2) SFT will (still?) believe he is omnipotent. Yet all of the complexity of SACS will make it impossible to keep clear what has been decided on yesterday, today, and in the future. Documents will be inconsistent, missing, or revamped, without input from anyone. He will literally take full control and yet be unable to grapple with the enormous task of consistent input and reporting.

3) In the end, we will send SACS either a) junk, or b) something completely drafted by 8-10 people beholding to the dome. Then the sales job will begin.

As I mentioned before - Hilarious, hilarious.

Count