Office of Continuing Educaton-GONE? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 1, 2005

RE: RE: RE: RE: Office of Continuing Educaton-GONE?

Date: Mar 1, 2005

I agree with LVN--this is no time for food fights. Thames is afraid of losing his job; seeing his opponents fighting amongst themselves will just encouraging a man who needs no encouraging. And USM is in such decline now that the Board could very well give Thames his walking papers in 2 or 3 months--and announce that USM will no longer be a research-oriented university.

The Continuing Education arrangement that USM used until the recent midnight reorganization isn't the only way to handle such things. From where I'm sitting, I have no way to assess how well it performed. But what Malone has just done is announce that he has seized control of one more thing. No other considerations really went into it, and only the guy who likes to announce that he is "impatient" would have made this kind of move in the middle of a semester. And I'm inclined to think that it will be much worse than what preceded it, simply by referring to Malone's consistent track record.

Just a few days ago, many contributors to this board were defending the proposition that Malone doesn't matter that much. Some said that going after him in public would be "petty"... Well, Crofts countermanded the Black Friday memo in public, and how long did it take for Malone to go and do more damage? It's true that Malone would be nothing without Thames. But Thames can't be everywhere he wants to be. He needs others to do a lot of his mischief for him, and Malone has become the one he depends on most.

By the way, the CFO and the info tech people decided to adopt PeopleSoft at Clemson several years ago. The transition was expensive, the software had to be jury-rigged in several ways just to get things done that Clemson needed done, and staff people still complain about it. But our old, local system was patched and kludged and falling apart, and enough planning was done over a period of about 18 months--this included test runs--that when paychecks started coming out of PeopleSoft they came out right.

Robert Campbell

Date: Mar 1, 2005

After re-reading the thread, it is clear that Mitch started the name-calling portion of this argument after he couldn't defend his position using normal channels. I would say this is unusual, but that would be a lie; Mitch usually is a "hit and run" poster, jumping in occasionally to stir things up and then disappearing for a while. Mitch has repeatedly appeared as an apologist or defender of Thames and his regime. Now he calls Cossack out for a "street fight" when Cossack fails to buy into Mitch's bulls**t rhetoric. I would only say to Mitch that you would be at a severe disadvantage if Cossack granted you that wish, having seen both you and Cossack, so you might want to retract that invitation before he stops by OMH 116 and cracks your skull.

Date: Mar 1, 2005

I regret that I have upset folks with my statements. There are two issues that are in play here. One, there is honest disagreement about the magnitude of the problems the changes to CE will cause. Over time, the results of this change will become known and if the changes make things no worse or improve the situation, I will not be hesitant in saying I was wrong in my analysis. Two, regardless of the effectiveness of making the change, I hope that all of us can identify with the negative impact that this change and the way it was handled will have on those who have been working in CE. I know that it was not stated explicitly in the discussions, but I came away with the concept that how it was done was relatively unimportant. Perhaps I did not interpret the conversation correctly, and this was not the intent of the comments. This was what led me to conclude that the concept of "it was another group on campus and not mine, so what is the big deal" was in play. I would be upset if it happened to any group on campus in a manner that I consider to be abusive. How people working in an organization are treated is indicative of the personalities and ethics of those in charge. Organizations that treat people in the shabby way that is happening at USM often can survive, but not effectively. The organization depends on the discretionary effort of those who work there. Currently, most of the faculty are continuing to provide that discretionary effort, particularly in working on SACS. However, it is an exhaustible resource and being consumed by SFT and company at a fast pace. Soon, most will go through the motions without any commitment. Many more will escape and new hires will not have the level of commitment that exists in current faculty. Even those who were bought off will begin to slack and lose their enthusiasm. They will be in the amen corner, but they will not produce. Each new episode from the SFT gang erodes the store of discretionary effort. The changes to CE will, in my opinion, cause further erosion in discretionary effort.

Date: Mar 1, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Flava Flav
"After re-reading the thread, it is clear that Mitch started the name-calling portion of this argument after he couldn't defend his position using normal channels. I would say this is unusual, but that would be a lie; Mitch usually is a "hit and run" poster, jumping in occasionally to stir things up and then disappearing for a while. Mitch has repeatedly appeared as an apologist or defender of Thames and his regime. Now he calls Cossack out for a "street fight" when Cossack fails to buy into Mitch's bulls**t rhetoric. I would only say to Mitch that you would be at a severe disadvantage if Cossack granted you that wish, having seen both you and Cossack, so you might want to retract that invitation before he stops by OMH 116 and cracks your skull."

My reading of the thread mirrors yours, FF. In fact, it seems to me that the moniker "having cake, eating it too" is also a dig at Mitch, but one he failed to call out (might it mean wanting to be an admin and a nonadmin faculty at same time?). Everyone here has an opinion or opinions, Mitch just chooses to call his "information." He started the name-calling, then left the discussion, choosing not share any more of his "information."

Date: Mar 1, 2005

There appears to be a gnashing of teeth over the question. It seems the adage of " follow the money" would resolve some of the issues and explain the current state of affairs. Hitory does enfluence the present and the facts are pertinent to this discussion.

see post page 1, 21 hours 21 mins ago

Date: Mar 2, 2005

I heard a story recently about Continuing Educaton Seems like there was not enough oversight and people were teaching courses without credentials being checked by departments. The most interesting part was some faculty member made $50k in one semester teaching over 500 students online. It is said this story came from an administrator above the level of chair.

Date: Mar 2, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Rumor
"I heard a story recently about Continuing Educaton Seems like there was not enough oversight and people were teaching courses without credentials being checked by departments. The most interesting part was some faculty member made $50k in one semester teaching over 500 students online. It is said this story came from an administrator above the level of chair. "

Dr. Mader Math Revisited, is that you?

Date: Mar 2, 2005

Starting the rumor or earning the $50K in over the top overload???

Date: Mar 2, 2005

Would--alas!--it were the latter!

Date: Mar 2, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: May I see your ID, please?
"Dr. Mader Math Revisited, is that you?"

It wasn't said the total $50k all came from the online courses. There is a cut going to the faculty teaching the courses online courses supplemental to regular salary.