quote:

---

Originally posted by: Scary news
"What is the status of the other programs that were flagged?  Chemistry was one--and music.  "

---

The article says that many programs were terminated at the last Board meeting.  USM's administration asked for an extension for the Physics MS program.  This was denied, but Newton stepped in and got the issue tabled for a month.  All of the other programs listed at that meeting were terminated apparently without any protest. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Ray Folse
"Hattiesburg American 2/28/05 Southern Miss physics master's degree in jeopardyCollege board to hear pleas from USM supporters FridayBy Kevin Walters http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050228/NEWS01/502280310/1002 This will be an interesting decision for the IHL Board.  The M.S. program in Physics was "flagged' because it has few majors, but researchers have acquired large grants and graduate student are required to perform the research.  Cutting the program could kill the funding.  What are the IHL Board's priorities?  "

---

Isn't major part of that large grants "politically arranged pork barrel money" that has been braught by Sen. Trent Lott? Isn't it rediculous that physics department is offering Ph.D. program with its master's program on probation?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: NKOB
"Isn't major part of that large grants "politically arranged pork barrel money" that has been braught by Sen. Trent Lott? Isn't it rediculous that physics department is offering Ph.D. program with its master's program on probation?"

---

You must have "inside" information NKOB.  I'm just discussing the day's news.  

quote:

---

Originally posted by: The inedible part of the chicken
"Is your president taking appropriately aggressive action to retain these programs? If he is, what is he doing? If he is not, why is he not doing so? "

---

I was told that President Thames spoke up in defense of the Physics program at the Board meeting and then turn it over to Dean Gandy, who was ready to defend  it.  I hear Dean Gandy  requested the extension.   So the answer to your question is yes.  The Dean and Chair are doing the heavy work and will meet with Board staff this week.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Trigger
"With only 2 degrees in five years and a total of 8 graduate students, the program is clearly not training or educating many students. What is the purpose of defending such a program? Is an academic department's primary function to generate external funding? Defending this clearly moribund academic program on income grounds is a perversion of academic values, and it would play right into the hands of those at the top who seem to want to change USM's mission from academic to economic.  "

---

Trigger, I don't have all of the information at hand to answer all of your questions.   However, there are other issues to consider.  The situation in Physics at USM is not unusual and is occurring across the country.  There is a document, "A Nation at Risk" (I believe that is the title) pointing out the serious drop in American students entering Math and Science.   Discoveries in physics lead to engineering and technology advances in later decades and so is essential for the USA to keep its technical advantage.   So my question is: Do we stop teaching the "hard subjects" because it is too hard for our 'customers" or do we continue to try to raise the level of American students in Math and science?

The Physics Department has a large number of introductory laboratories to teach for science majors, such as, Biology, Chemistry, Geology, Engineering Technology, Polymer Science, Math, Science Education, Pre-Med, etc., etc.  (I have even had graduate Psychology majors in these courses.) Graduate students are needed as assistants in these teaching labs.  The department doesn’t have the personnel to do all of this and perform research.  At present it looks like it will be more expensive to cut the program, since it brings in money that helps pay for the instruction.

Finally, I hear (but have no proof in hand) that the enrollment in the same programs at MSU and Ole Miss is about the same (or less).  So as I said above it will be an interesting decision for the Board.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Ray Folse
"I hear (but have no proof in hand) that the enrollment in the same programs at MSU and Ole Miss is about the same (or less)."

---

Then they should be on the chopping block also, shouldn't they?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: LVN
"Does this program (here and elsewhere) normally grant the Masters first and then the PhD, or do students move directly through to the PhD? "

---

In many physics graduate programs, students move directly into the Ph.D. programs even if they do not hold master's degree. I cannot comment on USM's physics programs. I am not even sure people in physics department has any idea about their program because the current Ph.D. program was designed (???) by COST's dean Rex Gandy. But then does Gandy have any idea what he is doing?????  

From the physics department website:

The Department of Physics and Astronomy offers or participates in programs leading to the Master of Science in Physics and the Doctor of Philosophy in Computational Science with an Emphasis in Physics.  At the master's level, the department offers a traditional master's program in physics as well as emphasis areas in computational science and polymer physics.  At the doctoral level, the department participates in the Computational Science Ph.D. program in cooperation with the College of Science and Technology. Research areas include Atomic and Molecular Physics, Acoustics, Mathematical Physics, Statistical Mechanics, Optical Physics, Laser Spectroscopy, Polymer Physics, Liquid Crystal Physics, Plasma Physics, Many Body Methods in Nuclear and Condensed Matter, General Quantum Field Theory, and General Relativity.

Originally posted by: Control Freak:
The academic department, not the dean, should determine the program. The department should make the decision about whether students move directly into the Ph.D. or must have an M.S. degree first. That's really none of a dean's business.

Well, since both the Dean and Associate Dean of COST both are Physics professors, there should be some 'incentive' for the Dean to fight for the retention of their M.S. degree program.

 

The USM Fact book indicates that the department has a total of 9 faculty serving a grand total of 20 majors, a student/faculty ratio of about 2 to 1.  I'd say they are being very well treated. Clearly faculty slots are not being assigned on the basis of student load.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: asdf
"I think the appropriate thing to look at is how many students do they teach each semester.  Many majors require their students to take physics."

---

asdf, that's what "student/faculty ratio" means, namely the number of students per faculty member. The total number of students they teach is inconsequential. The student/faculty ratio tells the story. A 2:1 ratio means that each faculty member teaches two students. A sweetheart deal, I'd say.

There are two completely different ways to look at student faculty ratio. Each has value and contributes to a thorough picture of faculty responsibility. Neither is adequate alone.

Number of majors to faculty is important in that it considers advisement time, mentoring of students, taking students to professional meetings, working with placement, working on graduate committees, and numerous similar activities.

Number of FTE students to faculty relates only to the number of credit hours generated by a faculty member, with 15 undergraduate credit hours generally equating to one FTE student. Faculty who teach University core courses carry a very heavy teaching load, but they may be housed in a department that has few majors. Looking only at majors per faculty member does not in any way credit this type of teaching, which is often very difficult and time consuming.  Additionally, the majority of students taking the courses are doing so to meet core requirements, not because they are interested, a factor that may negatively influence teaching evaluations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Invictus
" A student:faculty ratio is based on the number of students the instructor teaches. You are confusing a majors:faculty ratio. If the physics department were judged on a basis of majors:faculty, then it would have closed many years ago, along with the pre-med program, since every pre-med major has to take a year of freshman physics. In fact, if you look at the undergraduate graduation numbers, say for 2003 (from the factbook), physics actually graduated a higher percentage of its undergraduate students than polymer science, which actually awarded BS degrees to about 7% of its reported undergraduate majors."

---

I cry uncle. You are correct. The USM Fact Book refers to a majors:faculty ratio, not to a student:faculty ratio. But I'll bet that the student:faculty ratio of Physics is still more favorable than that of English, History, and Psychology.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Wide Load
"  The USM Fact book indicates that the department has a total of 9 faculty serving a grand total of 20 majors, a student/faculty ratio of about 2 to 1.  I'd say they are being very well treated. Clearly faculty slots are not being assigned on the basis of student load."

---

Things unfortunately do not work by that simple arithmatic. They recently hired 2 new faculty members. One of them is a physics ed guy who does not even have strong physics backgroud. So, obviously the guy has limited courses to teach. I heard that he is mainly teaching freshman astronomy classes. 2 of them are administrators. Lee, Rayborn(he is retired but counted as one of 9 faculty members),Winstead are working at signal research center. I heard most physics courses have been taught by Ray Folse and Larry Mead. I think Ray Folse is retiring soon. So, who are left to teach and direct students? The cold fact of nature is that some are treat well (those people who do $$$ generating business or who work for pork barrel money) but some are certainly not.