Fabrication in Progress???? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Feb 21, 2005

Fabrication in Progress????

Date: Feb 21, 2005

Good night, USM, Good night.

Date: Feb 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Barbershop Quartet from Skokie, IL
"fabricating SACS data "

If this were clearly documented beyond the shadow of a doubt, what would or could be done about it? Who would be told? The president? Crofts at IHL? The SACS person who has been assigned to our case?

Date: Feb 21, 2005

How about handing a file to SACS when they visit?

Date: Feb 22, 2005

If data are being fabricated, report it to the SACS people--and to Crofts.

But not just to Crofts. Some on the Board would just as soon be rid of him. They don't seem to have the upper hand at the moment, but...

Robert Campbell

Date: Feb 22, 2005

If anyone has documents proving that SACS data are being fabricated, bring them to me!

There are a number of options in this event.

1. Report the data to Crofts

2. Report the data to Academic or Graduate Council

3. Report the data to AAUP

I think a number of faculty groups will be asking for time with the visiting SACS team when they are on campus. These include AAUP and Academic Council. Perhaps Faculty Senate will as well.

Amy Young

Date: Feb 22, 2005

Did I hear correctly that there is now one common agreed upon strategic plan?

Date: Feb 22, 2005

Question:

Is there ANY way the Faculty Senate, Academic Council and Graduate Council can see the self-study/report prior to senting it off to SACs?

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Green Hornet
"Question: Is there ANY way the Faculty Senate, Academic Council and Graduate Council can see the self-study/report prior to senting it off to SACs? "

You mean it is not already part of the process for these groups to see it?

Date: Feb 22, 2005

here's the latest from joan exline:

-------
An electronic, open forum message board has been created for faculty,
staff, and others to provide comments regarding the contents of the
strategic plan as the University Planning Committee works on the draft
document. We encourage you to use this forum to share your comments
throughout the process. An email notice such as this will be sent out
each time a component is ready for review and comment.

Today, the University Planning Committee redrafted the proposed mission
and vision statements based on much discussion of the feedback you
provided last week. Thanks to those who provided thoughtful comments
and suggestions. Most people wanted a succinct mission and vision
statement. Other more descriptive comments can be included another
section of the Plan.

Please review the revisions below and note your comments by entering the
Southern Miss Strategic Plan Open Forum at http://www.usm.edu/strategicplan

_Revised __Mission__ __2/21/05___

The University of Southern Mississippi is a comprehensive research
extensive university. Our mission is to cultivate creativity through
the generation, dissemination, and application of knowledge.

_Revised Vision __2/21/05___

The University of Southern Mississippi will engage and empower
individuals to transform lives and communities.

The UPC continues to work on the core value statements and I will notify
you when a draft is ready for your review and comment.

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: New Age Planning Models
"You mean it is not already part of the process for these groups to see it?"

Under the SFT administration, bypassing the faculty and it's elected bodies is common. Open communication does not exist.

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote: _Revised Vision __2/21/05___ The University of Southern Mississippi will engage and empower individuals to transform lives and communities.

Ugh. Why does academic administrative prose always sound as if it was written in the Soviet Union circa 1950? Shouldn't there at least be some reference to POSITIVE transformation? SFT, for instance, has "transform[ed] lives and communities" recently, but not in a good way.

Date: Feb 22, 2005

So the forum is being used to get "broad-based" feedback. That will fly with SACS reviewers, even if it may seem superficial to some folks on this board.

What is going to be interesting now is to see the linkage between this short Mission/Vision statement, strategic goals & operational, measurable objectives. The latter is where the "rubber meets the road" for institutional effectiveness.

There has been some talk of "fabricating" data. If by "fabricating" one means "going back to into historical records for assessment data that can be fitted into this plan," that isn't exactly the same thing as "confabulating numbers that can be presented as if they were actual assessment data." In fact, being able to get those historical data is one way to say "well, we didn't have a system for pulling it all together, but we were assessing this stuff." I wouldn't be surprised if the SACS consultant told Dr. Exline that "y'all need to go back & pull in at least 3 years worth of assessment data, if you have it & plug it into this format."

Now, if there's proof that somebody is making the assessment data up you have a problem with integrity. But seeing as how a lot of institutional effectiveness data consists of transcript records, graduation rates, licensure exams, etc., it's not like there should be a real need to invent it out of whole cloth.

How many folks have happened onto a good idea in their research & then gone back into their journals & logs for data they could analyze in a new light? Probably more than a few. What is unacceptable is making the data up.

Which brings me to the real point: USM will need to construct an ongoing system not only for collecting data & generating reports on a regular bais but for systematically reviewing the Mission/Vision, goals, objectives, etc. Is there a Planning Process being proposed, too, or is that too much in flux right now?

Date: Feb 22, 2005

invictus--yes, some are going back and gathering data that already existed. some are saying, quite candidly, that we didn't have a formal plan, etc. but we had enough intuitive sense to know we ought to be gathering data to monitor what we are doing. some are aware of "best practices."

so far on this thread, all comments on fabrication begin with a big "if." we'll see if there is any evidence.

yes, a planning process is beginning, but i suspect right now most committees are working on probation and compliance issues. for the first time ever, there is going to an assessment of our general education curriculum. non-accredited programs will begin undergoing reviews. of course, the next step is using the data generated from these actions to evaluate programs and implement changes, enhancements, improvements, and the like.

Date: Feb 22, 2005

Link to MSU self-study

http://library.msstate.edu/selfstudy/

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
" Ugh. Why does academic administrative prose always sound as if it was written in the Soviet Union circa 1950? Shouldn't there at least be some reference to POSITIVE transformation? SFT, for instance, has "transform[ed] lives and communities" recently, but not in a good way. "

Thanks, USM Sympathizer. I wasn't sure why I disliked this phrase so much, other than that it sounded like an advertisement rather than a measurable and/or productive objective. Indeed, we have "transform" used here as we've heard "move forward" being used--with the unreasoned assumption that such an action is automatically positive. It seems to me that in both cases direction is as important as the action itself.

I'll want to go to the website and send in feedback though I'm about to leave for a conference--the John Donne conference, no less; anyone have a greeting for Gary Stringer?--is there any rush to make comments before next Monday?

Jameela Lares

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"invictus--yes, some are going back and gathering data that already existed. some are saying, quite candidly, that we didn't have a formal plan, etc. but we had enough intuitive sense to know we ought to be gathering data to monitor what we are doing. some are aware of "best practices."

so far on this thread, all comments on fabrication begin with a big "if." we'll see if there is any evidence.

yes, a planning process is beginning, but i suspect right now most committees are working on probation and compliance issues. for the first time ever, there is going to an assessment of our general education curriculum. non-accredited programs will begin undergoing reviews. of course, the next step is using the data generated from these actions to evaluate programs and implement changes, enhancements, improvements, and the like. "

Gosh, stinky cheese man, you sound like you should be on the USM experts list for educational research.

Date: Feb 22, 2005

Message for Gary

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
" Jameela: Please tell Gary "hi" from all of us, and I hope that he's enjoying his new position at TAMU! We haven't forgotten him, and we continue to fight on...NO QUARTER! Truth"

Ditto!

Date: Feb 22, 2005

RE: RE: RE: Fabrication in Progress????

Date: Feb 22, 2005

Stnky Cheese Man,

Who will be doing the review of nonaccredited programs and who will decide what changes are needed? Just wondering... but it would be terrible if the administration does the evaluations.... I am assuming outside evaluators would be brought in for each discpline without a suitable accrediting agency.

Thanks for any insight or perceptions you can offer.

Date: Feb 22, 2005

as i understand it, outside evaluators. someone told me history went through it last year. colleges are going to try to do one a year.

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Well, what if the results don't make USM look good to an accrediting body? (For instance, percentage of recent Nursing graduates passing their Board exams...)"

If the university is seriously attempting to demonstrate institutional effectiveness, it discloses those results, admits that they don't measure up to its expected outcomes & does something about it. (In I.E. documentation, there would be a "use of results" section -- sometimes called the infamous "5th column" after the traditional forms used by a lot of schools -- where the department would describe its plan for addressing the deficiency. The next planning cycle would be an assessment of the effectiveness of that plan, with the results analyzed, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

"When you see faculty titles appear and disappear before your eyes on the Economic Development Web pages... and you know that enrollment numbers have been deliberately padded on Thames' watch... you need to be alert to the possibility of data faking."

This can get problematic, but it is quite normal to see an institution change titles & assignments as it reviews faculty credentials. When things get interesting is right after SACS approves a follow-up. Lots of institutions "straighten things up" for SACS & then relax afterwards...

That said, I sure hope nobody in the upper administration at USM is stupid enough to present fake data in the monitoring report.

Date: Feb 22, 2005

Invictus,

But Thames et al. aren't getting rid of Malone's faculty title because they've reviewed his credentials. Do they even care what his credentials are?

At best, they're afraid that if they didn't get rid of Malone's faculty title, someone from SACS would ask why they haven't.

Robert Campbell

PS. This is not a data faking issue, but: How is SACS likely to view such matters as the shifting of the Economic Development programs, which were approved by the Board even though they went through none of the normal channels within the university?

Date: Feb 22, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"But Thames et al. aren't getting rid of Malone's faculty title because they've reviewed his credentials. Do they even care what his credentials are?
At best, they're afraid that if they didn't get rid of Malone's faculty title, someone from SACS would ask why they haven't."

If what you're saying is correct about his title being changed -- I'm taking it on faith because I didn't see the "before" to compare with the "after" -- then somebody must be aware that he didn't have the credentials. That "somebody" could even be Malone himself, who knows?

Whatever. It may be a good time to buy

.

Date: Feb 22, 2005

Getting rid of his credentials where? He is still listed as Department Chair and Professor in CoST.

Date: Feb 23, 2005

Spin Doctor,

As noted on another thread, Malone has gone from being Chair and Professor to just plain Chair and now back to Chair and Professor, on the Economic and Workforce Development Department Web pages.

What's on the Web pages may just be human error. But whether Malone was ever hired to a faculty position (and if so, whether he was subsequently promoted from Assistant all the way to Full Professor) is yet to be documented.

Robert Campbell

Date: Feb 23, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Spin Doctor, As noted on another thread, Malone has gone from being Chair and Professor to just plain Chair and now back to Chair and Professor, on the Economic and Workforce Development Department Web pages. What's on the Web pages may just be human error. But whether Malone was ever hired to a faculty position (and if so, whether he was subsequently promoted from Assistant all the way to Full Professor) is yet to be documented. Robert Campbell"

Robert,

The Faculty Senate listserv had a discussion of this today. Ken Malone has graduate faculty status approved by the credentials committee of Graduate Council (GC). To get this status there are several criteria that must be fulfilled including he must have a tenure tract position. I did learn that GC is considering a policy that when your program changes department and /or colleges the graduate faculty status must be re-approved by GC. This could develop into an interesting confrontation.

Date: Feb 23, 2005

If Dr. Malone has a tenure track appointment when is his 3rd year review. Since he has no current publications will he receive a terminal letter?

Date: Feb 23, 2005

Ditto............. I am just amazed.