crofts' term ends when the IHL hires a permanent commissioner. who does he report to? the IHL.

don't know. know he was brought of retirement from Florida and spent lots of time in the Montana system. hard to believe he's connected with certain conspirators (if that theory is correct).

I'm bAAAck,

Read my post on the other thread. USM had an "agreement" with Ole Miss and State vis-a-vis the IHL -- USM would be the 3rd institution. Through the years, USM has attempted to break that agreement rather than renegotiate it. Is it a conspiracy that the IHL wants USM to fulfill its mission? No. The IHL does want to put USM back in its place, which would be the best thing for USM. USM should be a really good teaching school that produces quality research. It should not be a research institution not should it be a degree mill. I see no reason why USM could not fill this niche and do an excellent job of it -- turning out well-trained graduates that are prepared to help push Mississippi forward. You (I'm bAAAck) seem to think that USM should be allowed to compete with Ole Miss for title of "state research institution" and all the funding that goes with it.

The fact is that would be like starting a house in Timberton, getting halfway through building it, and quitting to start on a new house in Woodstone just because Woodstone is a hotter neighborhood right now. Sometimes you shouldn't change horses in midstream, even if it means you have to swim.

Invictus, are you saying that what the IHL should be offering is convenient higher education? There is something to be said for "going away to school," but I guess nobody in Mississippi wants to have to make that kind of committment or sacrifice to get a college degree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Traditions To The Toilet!
"Invictus, are you saying that what the IHL should be offering is convenient higher education? There is something to be said for "going away to school," but I guess nobody in Mississippi wants to have to make that kind of committment or sacrifice to get a college degree."

---

Au Contraire, TTTT. Graduates of Mississippi's public schools are quite successful in gaining entrance to out-of-state colleges and universities, including but not limited to Ivy League schools; and including Hattiesburg area residents.  The truth of the matter is, whatever the state, most students typically go to school in the their home state - whatever their home state. My observation is that residents of Brooklyn (NY) and the Bronx seem to be among the most provincial in this regard.

Forgot to add that if TTTT is actually correct (and methinks it is a simply vain attempt to turn some of my own arguments against me), then USM needs to be beefed up so that students from NORTH Mississippi can "go away to college".

No love for Ole Miss here, Invictus, and no love for State, either.

Let me reformat my questions into a short series:

1. Is USM worthy of being elevated to equal status with Ole Miss and State?
2. If the answer to #1 is "Yes," then what steps can be taken to elevate USM?
3. Can USM be elevated without bringing Ole Miss and State down?
4. Would it be good for the State of Mississippi to elevate USM at the expense of Ole Miss and State?
5. If the answer to #4 is "Yes," then why would it be good for the State of Mississippi to do this?
6. If USM is elevated at the expense of Ole Miss and State, do you see an outcome with Ole Miss and State totally subordinate to USM?

The reason I'm asking all these questions is that I believe that the IHL has a plan for higher ed that is not at all a "conspiracy." Ole Miss has frozen enrollment, and USM and State will increase because of it. I believe that USM could be the "public ivy" type of school (though not at the level of, say, SUNY Binghampton), providing high-quality generalist education programs at state-tuition costs with faculty who do just enough research to maintain accreditation "good standing."

If that's the case, what's wrong with that? Back to the analogy...what's wrong with USM being the best CPA it can be? Why do we always have to want what someone else has, when it means taking away from others? Why can't we just be what we were intended to be -- a good teaching school?

Again, I have zero degrees from Ole Miss, zero degrees from State, and neither school's sweatshirts hang in my closet. I am simply trying to get more than a surface answer to my questions.

If the IHL has "public Ivy" status in mind for USM, they're going about it the wrong way. KUDZU, maybe - but not IVY!

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Magic Bullet
"Notice that I put "public ivy" in quotation marks; I have no illusions that USM will actually achieve this status, but I believe that is the direction we should be going, not trying to out-Ole Miss Ole Miss."

---

Magic, I totally agree with you. There is no "public Ivy" in Mississippi. That would be a great opportunity for USM. I was merely saying that it will not happen in our lifetime. Leave the high powered doctoral programs to Ole Miss & Mississippi State. USM could have one or two distinguished doctoral programs, and a limited number of master's programs, but modeling the "public Ivy's" would be a tremendous contribution to our state. Public Ivy's are typically smaller than their doctoral-granting research-oriented counterparts. With a little foresight and an informed and innovative IHL, USM could indeed be to Mississippi as James Madison is to Virginia, UNC-Greensboro is to North Carolina, and Ohio University is to their state. "Public Ivy" status could not occur here, however, unless there were admissions standards comparable to those of the Public Ivy's. This nonsense about growing to 20,000 students would have to stop. Yes, USM as a "Public Ivy" is very appealing. And what a great use of the taxpayer's money insofar as higher education is Mississippi is concerned.  

P.S. I like the other parts of your post too! They deserve lots of attention.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Magic Bullet
"No love for Ole Miss here, Invictus, and no love for State, either.

Let me reformat my questions into a short series:

1. Is USM worthy of being elevated to equal status with Ole Miss and State?
2. If the answer to #1 is "Yes," then what steps can be taken to elevate USM?
3. Can USM be elevated without bringing Ole Miss and State down?
4. Would it be good for the State of Mississippi to elevate USM at the expense of Ole Miss and State?
5. If the answer to #4 is "Yes," then why would it be good for the State of Mississippi to do this?
6. If USM is elevated at the expense of Ole Miss and State, do you see an outcome with Ole Miss and State totally subordinate to USM?
"

---

I'll only address the first three, because #4-6 presupposes my answer to #3, which isn't at all what you might expect.

First, I believe USM is worthy of being elevated only to the status of a "comprehensive university," which was (last time I checked) all that either MSU or Ole Myth are. In other words, USM doesn't need to be "elevated" to a particular status with which it hasn't already been tagged. Now, had IHL years ago tagged USM as a "regional" university, I would think differently.

The way to achieve this is for the IHL to first pay attention to the caliber of leadership that it puts at the helm of USM. What the university needs is leadership that can get the principal players (faculty in various colleges, key community leaders, career line administrators & even athletic boosters) reading from the same page. It needs someone who has a proven track record of leadership abilities, based on modern ideas of what leadership is.

Bringing in competent leadership at USM would in no way reduce the status or prestige of either Ole Miss or MSU.

Second, IHL needs to implement a uniform funding formula. Each state institution should receive exactly the same state appropriation "pie slice" per capita student. There should be no "special payments" made to bring an institution up to some preconceived notion of where it sits in the hierarchy. (I am, of course, excluding the Ayers pay-off in this statement.) But the custom of supplementing Ole Miss so that it receives the second-largest share of appropriations even though it is the third-largest university should end.

(As a sidenote, Ole Miss enrolls only about 100-150 more total undergraduates than the largest community college in Mississippi. By contrast, that community college provides its undergraduate instruction on a $60M E&G budget. Moreover, a significant portion of Ole Miss' undergrads are community college transfers & Dr. Khayat is aggressively working to optimize their share of that particular market. As far as I know, the only aspect of undergraduate enrollment that is "capped" at Ole Miss is new traditional freshmen & that limit is set by the university's rule that all freshmen whose parents do not reside within defined commuting distance must live on campus.)

To some extent, this will reducefunding for Ole Miss & possibly MSU. But last time I checked, both of these institutions receive far more grants & external funding than USM. If this results in a bit less ornamental landscaping at UM-Oxford, so be it. I don't think that will drag them down.

In other words, the answer to #2 is "level the playing field." Had IHL adopted a uniform funding formula years ago, the Ayers settlement would have not been necessary. Will leveling the playing field automatically "elevate" USM? No. But with a fair share of resources & again, with real leadership, USM might begin the process of rebuilding itself. This cannot occur overnight. For the past two years, USM has been under extreme duress, but the effects of inequitable funding go back for decades. Like some others here, I think USM reached its "high water mark" about 15-20 years ago & that sort of neglect cannot be repaired overnight.

My answer to #3 is that USM's situation can be improved dramatically without any serious impact on the quality of instruction & research at either MSU or UM. Ergo, I don't feel that your questions #4-6 need to be addressed, as they presuppose that any "elevation" of USM will automatically harm MSU or UM.

And oh, BTW, on the sweatshirt front, there is a heap pile of Ole Miss logo clothing at my house. My offspring will be attending UM this fall. So I do not have an interest in seeing that institution dragged down.

invictus--word is that the board is "seriously" considering changing the funding formula to be something more like Texas's.  (i say seriously because changes have been considered before, but not seriously).  the formula will (and i only know the general thinking behind it) not only take into SCH generation but will also begin to factor in cost of instruction, with doctoral instruction costing more than masters instruction which is more than bachelor's instruction.  at this point, i don't think they're going to look at cost of instruction in various disciplines--Texas, for example, says that engineering instruction is more costly than let's say philosophy instruction.  MSU is also changing some things it does, banking on the formula being changed.  interesting thing--the modified funding formula was developed by folks at USM.  it is also supposed to help USM as well. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: JXN ST
"I notice that posters speak only of USM, Ole Miss, and MS State. Let's not forget that Jackson State was given "comprehensive university" status by the college board, and they are moving ahead aggressively, doctoral programs and all, to fit that title. At one time they declared that they also want law and engineering. So it won't be very long before there will be four major players in Mississippi - all trying to scarf up the scraps. The University of Southern Mississippi needs to write its own destiny. If it wants to continue to increase its enrollment, retain or lower its admissions standards in order to do so, and spread its limited resources all over the place by developing fadish new programs, I am sure it will be allowed to do so. I find the public idea notion rather interesting. Maybe the Gulf Park faculty would be interested in that idea - as a separate entity, of course. Given the right leadership down there, and independent status, the sky's the limit. "

---

"public idea " should have been "public ivy idea"

the texas system may not elevate USM over Ole Miss, but it will change the amount of money the big three get relative to Delta State and the W. Delta State and the W are overfunded relative to peer universities, while USM, Ole Miss, and MSU are underfunded relative to their peers. (I don't include the HBCU's since they're getting Ayres money.)