Worst Case Scenario - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Feb 2, 2005

Worst Case Scenario

Date: Feb 2, 2005

Curmudgeon,

Your projection of a big revenue loss is correct if a lot of the students would either quit attending college or would transfer to institutions outside the Mississippi state system.

Someone a lot closer to Hattiesburg than I am will have to make that estimate. What percentage of former USM students would be no longer attending a university controlled by the IHL Board?

Robert Campbell

Date: Feb 2, 2005

All of Nursing. You cannot go to an unaccredited school and get a job, or take the NCLEX eam that is required for Registration as a RN.

Date: Feb 2, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Curmudgeon,
Your projection of a big revenue loss is correct if a lot of the students would either quit attending college or would transfer to institutions outside the Mississippi state system.
Someone a lot closer to Hattiesburg than I am will have to make that estimate. What percentage of former USM students would be no longer attending a university controlled by the IHL Board?
Robert Campbell
"

I know that loss of accreditation means the federal student aid dries up, so right there is your massive exodus. Here's my question: If the school loses accreditation, will the credits that students have earned here be transferable to other institutions? My guess is some places would take them and a lot wouldn't. Can IHL implement a policy that would require the IHL-governed state institutions of MS to accept USM transfer credits? If they did, how would that be viewed by SACS in terms of the other institutions? To the extent that IHL can do this or the other universities agree to accept such transfer credits you would likely see more USM students transfer in-state. But, it's a mighty troubling question. Were I not so close to graduating (May 13) or were a junior or senior undergrad, I'd be giving this question some serious weight in deciding whether to make my transfer this fall rather than waiting for the outcomes.

Date: Feb 2, 2005

The IHL does not seem to be taking this thing very seriously.

Date: Feb 2, 2005

the IHL would have to work out a transfer credit policy. one interesting (and sad) thing that people seem to forget is that it's not just faculty and students who would be affected. all staff members would lose their jobs--janitors, cooks, groundskeepers.

but remember, SACS does not see its goal to take away universities accreditation. they work hard to make sure it doesn't work, because it takes a long time for an academic institution to get accreditation. if we lost it, don't assume that folks could come in and get it reaccredited in a short time. could take a while.

Date: Feb 2, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"the IHL would have to work out a transfer credit policy. one interesting (and sad) thing that people seem to forget is that it's not just faculty and students who would be affected. all staff members would lose their jobs--janitors, cooks, groundskeepers.

but remember, SACS does not see its goal to take away universities accreditation. they work hard to make sure it doesn't work, because it takes a long time for an academic institution to get accreditation. if we lost it, don't assume that folks could come in and get it reaccredited in a short time. could take a while. "

Not to mention the tsunami-like effect on the larger Hattiesburg community. USM is the economic engine driving this area, whether locals want to recognize that or not. Lose 15,000+ students, 450 or so faculty and who knows how many staff (a couple thousand or more?) and see how long that new Starbucks on Hardy Street stays open or the new Target.

I agree with SCM's sentiments re: SACS and I think it is unlikely that the "worst case scenario" will actually materialize, but I still think I'd consider it as a risk factor were I a rising junior or senior undergrad.

Date: Feb 2, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: David Johnson
" ... see how long that new Starbucks on Hardy Street stays open or the new Target."

If they really have the area's interests at heart, the (elected) city leaders should demand that this destruction of USM be put to a screeching halt. Let them go directly to the IHL. So should the chamber of commerce (or their lookalikes), and also that off-campus group allegedly established to encourage economic development in Hattiesburg (ADP or whatever it is called).

Date: Feb 2, 2005

The worst case scenario this fall would be another year of probation. SACS rules allow two years of probation. The real trouble would come in year two.

Date: Feb 2, 2005

worried--correct. the real issue occurs a year from December.

Date: Feb 2, 2005

There's a good chance of a second year's probation under any scenario. Just too many bad decisions built up over too long a period of time. So, of three options, which one is best for the university's future beyond 2005:

1. The faculty can LIE for this administration and MAYBE get off SACS probation in December 2005 but then it will be stuck with this administration's bogus planning documents and the appearance of support. After SACS leaves it will be back to same ol', same ol'.

2. Per the spirit of the Amy Young editorial, the faculty can roll up its collective sleeves, honestly engage in an alternative response to SACS by demanding true participatory governance while simultaneously demanding a change in administration. If the SACS authority can indeed trump the president's and the IHL's power, then this is the one that will force a change in leadership.

3. The faculty can back off completely, legitimately claiming their fatigue and frustration, and let the chips fall where they may. No matter how tired or frustrated, if this is the faculty choice then the faculty will have share in the culpability of the result.

Unfortunately, USM is going to hemorrhage more faculty in each situation and the SACS outcome is an unknown in all three. Situation 2 is the only one that will allow faculty members of conscience to say they've done the right thing.

Date: Feb 2, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Heart of the City
"If they really have the area's interests at heart, the (elected) city leaders should demand that this destruction of USM be put to a screeching halt. Let them go directly to the IHL. So should the chamber of commerce (or their lookalikes), and also that off-campus group allegedly established to encourage economic development in Hattiesburg (ADP or whatever it is called). "

H of the C,

Your first and second points seem obvious to me, which is why the Hattiesburg American's newly arrived at "knuckle under" policy is rather surprising. Doesn't the local establishment understand the economic damage to Hattiesburg that continued rule by SFT could lead to?

As for the third group, if they were faithful their declared mission, they wouldn't want SFT left in control of USM either. But look who's running the ADP...

Robert Campbell

Date: Feb 2, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Class SACS
"There's a good chance of a second year's probation under any scenario. Just too many bad decisions built up over too long a period of time. So, of three options, which one is best for the university's future beyond 2005:
1. The faculty can LIE for this administration and MAYBE get off SACS probation in December 2005 but then it will be stuck with this administration's bogus planning documents and the appearance of support. After SACS leaves it will be back to same ol', same ol'.
2. Per the spirit of the Amy Young editorial, the faculty can roll up its collective sleeves, honestly engage in an alternative response to SACS by demanding true participatory governance while simultaneously demanding a change in administration. If the SACS authority can indeed trump the president's and the IHL's power, then this is the one that will force a change in leadership.
3. The faculty can back off completely, legitimately claiming their fatigue and frustration, and let the chips fall where they may. No matter how tired or frustrated, if this is the faculty choice then the faculty will have share in the culpability of the result.
Unfortunately, USM is going to hemorrhage more faculty in each situation and the SACS outcome is an unknown in all three. Situation 2 is the only one that will allow faculty members of conscience to say they've done the right thing."

How does option 2 end up any differently than option 1?

Date: Feb 2, 2005

Incredulous: I guess it depends on whether you believe it's "all just a paperwork" issue. I don't. #1 means that the faculty will rubberstamp the administration's strategic plan, objectives and documentation and be good, silent campers through the top down process. Shelby will dictate the terms and get the credit. #2 means that the faculty will say "you want our involvement, you're going to get it -- a strategic plan, objectives and documentation that we believe in." If the faculty truly don't buy into the bogus charade of what has been done up until now then they need to put a stop to it. That probably means by offering up alternatives, holding public meetings, refusing to accept sacrosanct assumptions, etc. Every suspect document should be questioned. Every top-down directive should be challenged. What's the difference in an end result you asked? Hopefully, option 2 will result in SACS influencing the departure of this president AND in giving the faculty a plan they support moving forward.

Date: Feb 2, 2005

SACS will influence USM's presidency only indirectly. SACS has a policy that they do not say something like "fire this person." They may say you have a leadership problem here (could be a lower level administrator as well as president). they expect (depending who they are speaking of) the institution or the board to address the problem. to a degree SACS takes a "physician heal thyself" position.

Date: Feb 2, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Class SACS
"Incredulous: I guess it depends on whether you believe it's "all just a paperwork" issue. I don't."

Ultimately, planning is more than a "paperwork issue." It's about enlightened management. Paperwork is the only "proof" SACS has that planning is taking place.

But trust me, if USM were doing real institutional effectiveness & modern, there would be no doubt in anyone's mind that planning & evaluation were taking place & that things were going well. No doubt at all. And the "paperwork" would be a cinch to generate where there were gaps.

USM's problem is deeper than some missing paperwork, I think...

Date: Feb 2, 2005

That should be "modern strategic & operational planning"...

Date: Feb 2, 2005

invictus--some units could generate paperwork, but will not because it implies something that didn't exist. will generate paper on what they are doing now, and what they will do in the future. essentially doing mea culpas (sp?) on the past. i know a unit that has data on its operation but will not act like the data gathering was part of some grand plan or goals or whatever. it was based on good, common sense and a sense of what the unit should be doing.