quote:

---

Originally posted by: Let me count the ways
"Now that several posters have identified programs that were either moved to other state institutions or later duplicated by other state institutions, let's come up with programs that were moved from other state institutions to USM. Any takers? "

---

I've been around USM for over 30 years. I can't think of a single one.

I don't know if this is an analogy, a fable, or just an historical overview... Here goes...

There was once a powerful man who had three sons. (Actually, he also had four other step-sons & a step-daughter, but they were all red-headed & are beyond the scope of this little tale.) Like most parents, the father never told his sons exactly what they could & couldn't do with their lives, except that they should be productive & contribute to the welfare of their community.

The oldest son went to law school. He did respectably with his studies & upon graduation, the father set the young barrister up with a fine new office -- actually something a bit beyond what the son might ordinarily afford. While the son was a good lawyer, his father insisted that he practice in the family hometown at the north end of the county, some distance away from the county seat. So the father provided extra money so the son could conduct his business as if he were one of the folks down near the courthouse.

The second son attended the A&M where he studied scientific farming. Whe he graduated, the father bought him a good piece of ground not far from the county seat & although farming is a chancey endeavor, the son did respectably well. He availed himself of the "usual" farm subsidies & when a deal presented itself, the father was quick to help him buy more acreage & equipment. But although his farm wasn't far from the county seat, the farmer son didn't take a lot of his produce to market there & he never quite cleared the profits he expected. No worries, though, because dear old dad was there to write a quick check when things got tight.

Now by the time the third son came of age, the father had overextended himself a bit helping out the other two. So instead of "going off to school," this son had to attend the local normal college. He enjoyed being a teacher & became a successful coach at the high school in a mill town at the south end of the county. This made him the center of attention when he stopped at the diner in the county seat & he was also popular with the kids around town, more & more of whom wanted to take his classes. (Note now that this popularity began to upset the clients of the lawyer son & the hands who worked on the second son's farm, because they ate breakfast at the diner.) Things were booming in the mill town. The teacher son realized, too, that he wasn't going to make ends meet on just his teaching salary, so he opened up an after-hours business. Because of his popularity & the burgeoning economy of the milltown, his business grew & grew. He hired people to run his shop, then opened another shop. And although he never received same levels of assistance from his father as did his brothers, the old man would send small checks from time-to-time, chiefly to maintain some degree of control over his son.

Eventually, the youngest son had far more customers than did the lawyer had clients & had it not been for the farm subsidies, he would have earned more than his farmer brother. When the law practice wasn't hopping at the north end of the county, the father would require the youngest son to give one of his businesses to the oldest son or would take some of the money he had been giving to the teacher son & send it to the lawyer son instead. The younger one would grumble a little but go on about his work, creating a new enterprise to replace the one he'd lost. Of course, when the businesses where relocated to the smaller town in the north, they seldom did as well as they had in the mill town.

Likewise, in some years the crops were bad & the farmer son would have a hard time making ends meet. Again, the parental contributions were diverted. Having learned his lesson about relocating businesses to the north -- and having never figured out that the farmer son could have been doing business in the county seat -- the father decided to advise the middle son to open his own business in the mill town. Unfortunately, the younger son already had such a shop up & running & having grown wise to his father's machinations, he opened a bigger store before the farmer son could get his in operation.

Meanwhile, the lawyer son's clients & the farmer son's friends from the Grange Hall began to tell the father that it was simply shameful that the youngest son had businesses that were growing so well & that his popularity reflected badly on the others. The father began to send fewer, smaller checks to the younger son. This didn't slow the son down. So the father insisted that the younger son hire a particular business manager, a man who was known in the mill town as a "smooth operator" but who was known to be unpopular with the employees. The plan, of course, was for the new manager to run off the best employees, give up the best businesses to the others & divert some of the son's funds to the father's "advisers."

And you know the rest of the story...

Pretty dang good, Invictus.  We need to tell that tale.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Music patron
"
One thing that hasn't been mentioned--evidently Ole Miss has been chomping at the bits to build up their arts programs. Once a throw-away, now they are seen are prestige building and places where wealthy donors want to put their money. I've been told that a loud cheer went up from the north when the College of Fine Arts was dismantled here.
"

---

I think this is paranoia. Frankly, I don't think Ole Miss is paying that much attention to us.
Yes they do have a beautiful 10 million dollar arts hall, but they're not sure that they have the funds to maintain it. I don't get the sense from the folks I know that work there that they are in growth mode.

Good points, Cossack, but the higher education system IS a monopoly, controlled by the IHL. Because of the Ayres decision, it has had to allow duplication of programs for access reasons, but there is no reason that the IHL MUST allow anything to be duplicated on USM's side. As long as State and Ole Miss have IHL control (which will be forever), USM will be the third school. Now, back to my original question: How has USM "earned" the right to take a closer place at the feeding trough? More students means more teaching dollars, but USM is not the "research institution" for MS. If population growth means so much, will the capital city be moved out of Jackson and to Biloxi soon? I don't buy the "entitlement" argument based on the fact that south Mississippi's growing -- that's not a reason to assume USM should take the lead. Also, you are correct in that in-state subsidies are fungible, but the IHL could come down next week and shut down duplicated programs outside of the "core" functions and effectively force anyone who wants to specialize to Ole Miss or State. What has USM done to take over one of the top two places in the pecking order in the state? You can say you're #1 or #2 all you want, but until you make it so, it's just words.

I am asking some tough questions here and not because I don't like USM or because I like State or Ole Miss. The question is not unlike the recent one posed about the ED department offering business courses. Why can't ED offer business courses? Because AACSB says so -- allowing ED to offer business courses endangers the CoB programs. Why can't USM be the lead sled dog in higher ed in MS? Because that would endanger Ole Miss and State's programs.

I need more of an answer than "we're entitled because we have population growth." That's like saying that states with high population growth should get preferential treatment over those with higher populations but slower growth with respect to political representation -- it just doesn't wash.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
" I've been around USM for over 30 years. I can't think of a single one."

---

Library science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
" I stand corrected. Can you remind me of the institution from which USM "stole" library science?"

---

At one time, both Ole Miss and USM had a library science program. Sometime in the 70s (I believe) the Ole Miss program closed and USM's library school became the only American Library Association accredited program in MS.

No we have a library that can't afford books!  Bravo!

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
" Did USM "steal" the program from Ole Miss because it was successful, or did USM have a library science program all along & become the only such program due to attrition?"

---

My recollection is that there were programs at both schools.  In the seventies, the USM program was in its ascendancy and the UM program was stagnant, at best.  The UM program was cut, not moved to USM.

Of late, I think the Library Science program has struggled, like so many others at USM.

BTW, talking on the same thread about Library Science and "no new books in the library" can be a bit misleading.  I don't think Library Science  (develops librarians) and the University Libraries (serves the entire university community) are connected administratively, are they?  But I understand that these threads can be sort of stream-of-consciousness, so anything is liable to pop up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Kinky Friedman's Ghost Writer in the Sky

---

This post reminds me that the other day I heard on the news that Kinky Friedman is running for Governor in Texas's forcoming race. Austin Eagle - whereever he is - would probably know more about that. AE, where are you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: I'm bAAAck
"Correct, in that they did not sit down formally as a group and plan out a way to get USM. They don't have to. The "attitude" has been there all the way back to the mid 60s when USM was "reluctantly" made a third university under General W.D. McCain. USM was told to go do a good job but don't dare ever challenge UM or moo U. They did. McCain began a furious building campaign and the enrollment mushroomed. Buildings popped up everywhere. Then, USM had the audacity to beat a SECOND ranked Ole Miss (with Archie Manning at the helm no less), and beat them badly. Then followed the first stadium expansion with second decks. Then came the Bobby Chain IHL years when several midnight "coups" to take programs away from USM was single handed contained by him and absent votes. All the while, under AKL, USM got way way way below its fair share, only table crums, and the funding formula was tweaked to redistibute appropriations northward, with little objection from Aubrey. The IHL "tolerated" USM and let them drink at the trough and get the crumbs left on the table. However, USM did very well with those crumbs, being probably the most efficient univeristy in America, always tabbed with the label "do the most with the least resources." See, USM was moving ahead anyway. In research, programs, and we had the population and other demographics. Several schools and colleges were reconized more so that our northern rivals. The anger at IHL finally got a chance in a weak president in Fleming. What Fleming did or did not do is beyond this thread and wise heads can debate it. But, make no mistake, the chananigans with Nicholson, Klumb, SFT, the bidness community that could profit short term, assorted athletic groups (boy did Fleming mess than one up), politicos, and the military-industrial complex sort of organizations/people (money!), all exploited the situation to coronate SFT. We all know now and the media knows it was a coronation, a done deal. No one MET in a group and said: "Who is the best person to drive USM in the ground." They didn't have to. They SFT was their pawn. They did not have to "plot" a conspiracy, but punishment for the bad faculty who dared to demand a good president during and after the Fleming fiasco was necessary and would be administered no matter how incompetent and corrupt SFT was shown to be. Arms were twisted and a 6-6 vote was forced into an 11-1. We know Ricci Garret has regretted changing her vote. Folks, the conspiracy was knowing a bad manager who would change the face of higher ed in S. Mississippi to drag us down. NO, they never wanted the pawn, their tyrant, to go so far as to actually do the unthinkable, lose accreditation. But they all knew SFT's past history, his two failures at administration and they knew he'd tear this place part. But, they also knew he'd "reward" handsomely those who supported him. There was plenty to go around in the commercialization model to make more than the 9 millionaires he promised. Kickbacks, yes, payoffs and deals, yes. The IHL knew and liked who they knew SFT would reward, and who he would punish. So, money is in there to, a trade school that trys to grow busineses at the expense of real academics, which would remain the mainstay of Ole Miss and State. It is so obvious. Of course, SFT only thought he was going to do the best for Southern Miss, to make it "his" idea of what wurl class is. So, it was a conspiracy by mutual thought, not direct planning. But the antics of Klumb, Nicholson, and SFT's "supporters" shows the answer of why the IHL goes so far to keep this man in office, against all better judgement, and soon to be public outcry from the silent majority (keep my fingers crossed)."

---

It's so beautifully arranged on the plate-you just know someone's fingers have been all over it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Magic Bullet
"USM was supposed to be the 3rd university. It was supposed to be a teaching school. Why, then, didn't/can't USM accept its fate?<POLEMIC SNIPPED>
"

---

The rub is that nobody bothered to write all that down back in the early '60s. It was just "understood" that USM was to be the poor cousin. (I suspect that at the time nobody suspected that USM would grow.) But there never was a published "strategic plan" that said, "Ole Myth IS the flagship," etc. etc.

So, it fell upon the trustees -- and remember that Ole Myth had its very own dedicated trustee for many years -- to ensure that the status quo would not be upset. They gave USM less per capita funding; USM grew. They moved successful programs from USM to it's "big brothers"; USM kept growing.

Maybe the real problem was that the highest population growth has been south of I-20...

For a parable style version, see this account, which I posted here some time back.

This is totally a learning experience for me in how higher education works in MS.  So bear with me, I've just been introduced to the system through this board.

I realize that at one time, designating particular "functions" for universities in MS was necessary and natural.  We needed universities that specialized in so many fields.  But now, with the diversity of the programs in every state college, why is it still a big deal for the universities to follow an order given to them decades ago?

Wouldn't it be logical to conclude that the competition between the universities would lead to better programs, and perhaps, a better MS? 

Just looking for some opinions from people who would know more than I do about this particular subject.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
" One reason that "open competition" cannot be used among the state universities is simple allocation of limited resources. We have to face that fact. Mississippi could dispense with 4 "universities" immediately with zero negative impact on the availability of higher education across the state. (I am referring to 4 institutions that each have smaller enrollments than the typical one-campus community college does.) Of course, MSU is a land grant institution, which makes certain types of resources only available to it. Moreover, the historically black institutions (ASU, JSU, MVSU) are beneficiaries of a court-ordered plan (Ayers) to "correct" decades of differential funding. But did you know that for many years, Ole Myth had its very own "dedicated" trustee on the IHL board (La Boauve trustee, I think's the right spelling)? But another argument against "open competition" is that an institution like USM (or even JSU) located in a high population area would be able to enroll larger numbers of students than institutions like UM or MSU that only recently "got on a 4-lane". I believe this is really the reason that the per-student share of state appropriations has historically been higher for Ole Myth than for any other university. And folks, anything that would lower UM from its self-proclaimed "flagship" status "just simply wouldn't do." After all, USM didn't field a combat unit in the War of Northern Aggression! Actually, the designation of Ole Myth as the "flagship," State as the "engineering school," & USM as the education & technology school isn't all that objectionable. What has always stuck in my craw is the way that any time USM manages to move forward on a program, IHL has been willing to soften the definitions. Example: MSU has the community college educational leadership program, partially funded by a grant for rural colleges. Why? Because, I suppose, MSU is "rurally-oriented" because it's an ag school. You go figure. For that matter, Ole Miss has engineering programs, even though State is the "lead" engineering school. Why? My guess is that a "flagship" must have engineering programs. OK. "Lead roles" are soft. Then, why does IHL do everything possible to squelch USM when it moves forward in an area it's not supposed to? Yes, UM is the "lead" for liberal arts. I believe strongly that Thames' consistent attack on liberal arts at USM is in line with the board's desire to knock USM's programs back "where they are supposed to be." On the other hand, if Ole Miss were to announce a polymer subspecialty in its chemical engineering department, you can bet your bottom dollar that IHL would start reallocating resources from USM to Ole Myth. "

---

Again, this is pure ignorance on my part, but you're leading me to believe that all of the money that a public university gets, on the whole, is from the state of Mississippi.  Doesn't alumni funding account for a huge amount of funding?  Also, on the board, so many people talk about the "business" of running a university, but I simply don't understand, at this point, how money is being raised within the universities.  Please clarify for my own understanding.

As for the enrollment numbers: How many students in MS simply cannot travel an extra few hours to get to the univerisity they want to go?  I guess my initial reaction is highly biased because I come from a pretty wealthy area of the state where most students have to travel within a few hours to attend the university they want to.  Also, this weekend I met an unexpected amount of incoming freshmen from LA and AL.  I didn't expect the out of staters.

Also from my point of view, because most students around me are able to travel to whatever state school they want to, they're not choosing simply based on the programs.  They're choosing based on the character of each individual university.  I know so many incoming freshmen at MSU who are majoring in liberal arts areas because they feel that USM is too liberal.  It's not what's happening at USM that draws them to other schools as much is it is the character of USM (which actually attracted me, go figure) and where their parents went.

Wow, all of that is very disjointed.  I'm sorry for the poor writing this afternoon.