Does that mean that people with bigger raises would only lose the $400?

Do not forget that SFT has squandered about $800K in the past year (estimated $300K for the Glamser/Stringer settlement plus the projected $500K to bring the university into compliance with SACS) through his own administrative incompetence.

Is there a line item in Lassen's budget called "presidential wastage?"

But hey, it is a whopping $33/month we're talking about folks. Beer money for a month, if you buy Milwaukee's Best in case lots.

Where did Thames and Lassen find the money to pay for the "merit" raises this time around?

And haven't they drained the departmental accounts already?

Robert Campbell

And don't forget the money for TWO student newspapers and for all of the posters hanging on the buildings.

And don't forget the money to remove the posters from the buildings.

Some lessons warrant repeating.

My Mama used to say "Why is there never enough time to do it right but always enough time to do it over?"

Guess we could substitute "time and money" for just "time".

She also used to say that we shouldn't "throw good money after bad".

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"When David Johnson was on the board a few days ago, he pointed out that the $8,000 in his department's account that he asked about at the November PC meeting is not there. "

---

$8,000 is an amount too small to trifle with, mere pocket change for Thames and company.  What about the $240K+ in sunk costs for those Economic Development ads in the Economist?  Who's brilliant idea was that, and where's that money coming from?  Who authorized the ads?For you cost accountants,  how many doctoral students and how many tuition dollars will be required in order to generate sufficient net revenue to break even on these ads?  That's a serious question, one to which all Mississippi taxpayers (and the IHL) should be demanding an answer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Internal Auditor
"For you cost accountants,  how many doctoral students and how many tuition dollars will be required in order to generate sufficient net revenue to break even on these ads?  That's a serious question, one to which all Mississippi taxpayers (and the IHL) should be demanding an answer."

---

I'm no cost accountant, but figuring full-time nonresident tuition at about $5,000 per semester & figuring that a lightweight program would require no more than two years, it would only take 12 students to pay back the $240K ad cost. This doesn't take into account additional fees for online courses, but it also doesn't take into account the likelihood that most of the students would be part-time & would take significantly longer than 4 semesters to complete the curriculum no matter how watered down it was.

But of course I must turn my attention back to SACS & ask a question (again) that I've been asking for almost a year: WHEN DID USM COMPLETE A SACS SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE REPORT FOR DISTANCE LEARNING? SACS requires this be done when a student could conceivably take 50% of a degree program entirely online. (Actually, SACS is simply the intermediary; the US Department of Education requires the substantive change review.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
" But of course I must turn my attention back to SACS & ask a question (again) that I've been asking for almost a year: WHEN DID USM COMPLETE A SACS SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE REPORT FOR DISTANCE LEARNING? SACS requires this be done when a student could conceivably take 50% of a degree program entirely online. (Actually, SACS is simply the intermediary; the US Department of Education requires the substantive change review.)"

---

And the corollary to this question...when did the IHL approve the changes in the program?

At some point, IHL board members are simply going to be fed up with Shelby Thames-related problems.  Whether they initially supported him or not, they must be feeling that it is time to distance themselves from his ineptitude (or worse).  No one, especially no one in a high visibility position on the the board, wants to be played for a fool.  How many times will the board members allow themselves to be lied to? 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
" I'm no cost accountant, but figuring full-time nonresident tuition at about $5,000 per semester & figuring that a lightweight program would require no more than two years, it would only take 12 students to pay back the $240K ad cost. This doesn't take into account additional fees for online courses, but it also doesn't take into account the likelihood that most of the students would be part-time & would take significantly longer than 4 semesters to complete the curriculum no matter how watered down it was. "

---

With all due respect,  I believe your quickie analysis may be a tad simplistic, and overly generous in favor of the ED folks.  What must be determined is the amount of NET revenue,  that is revenue in excess of actual expenses,  that would be required to wash the cost of these ads.  In other words,  the break-even point.  If $5K per student per semester is collected by USM,  there surely isn't anywhere near $5K per student in "profit" accruing to the university.  After factoring in allocated overhead, faculty and support staff salaries, supplies and so on,  there's substantially less cash remaining than was paid in tuition.  Someone on this board probably has a handle on the appropriate expense % for such programs.  And let's say that they do reach break-even and pay for the Economist ads.  What's been accomplished, other than turning out a bunch of ill-trained Ph.D's who may ultimately embarrass USM?

 Sorry for the rant. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Internal Auditor
"With all due respect,  I believe your quickie analysis may be a tad simplistic, and overly generous in favor of the ED folks."

---

Of course it's over simplistic. This is the Internet! But while you are correct, that it's the net proceeds that should be evaluated as far as the "profitability" of the program goes, you can bet your bottom dollar that when anybody asks how many students it will take to pay for the ads, someone will say, "A dozen or so."

Wait & see.

BTW, calling the program a "hybrid" is one way to attempt to sidestep the issue that USM has not undergone a substantive change review of distance learning programs.

But brace yourself. USM is not alone in rolling out programs like this. People want graduate degrees with as little sweat as possible & the entire concept that maybe, just maybe, a person might have to sacrifice a little income, or a promotion next year, or (God forbid) might have to put off the vacation or the new car for a while, in order to complete a doctorate -- well, that went out the window a long time ago. In fact, people want those degrees so badly that they don't care whether the degrees are in a "real" discipline or not.

What the hell is "international development" anyway?

scm,

On Kimmel's dissertation, I see

Director: Amy Lane Chasteen

Committee Members: David Butler, M. Ray Grubbs, Shirley Olson, Maureen Ryan, Elizabeth Semko.

Besides Butler, who has been much discussed on this board, who are these folks?

It seems that a USM Economic Development degree is a gateway to administrative or even faculty employment at USM.  Would that be the case under any administration except that of Shelby Thames?

Robert Campbell

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"i think amy chasteen is in sociology and maureen ryan is in english."

---

Wasn't Maureen Ryan Dean of the Honors College for a while?  Yes, she's a Prof in the English department. What would she know about international development?

it's all puzzling to me. (any more, not really)

1. this is an interesting and probably worthwhile topic, but what does it have to do with "economic development"? Sounds like political science or sociology.

2. why are we interested in Dr. Kimmel's dissertation anyway?