quote:

---

Originally posted by: Physicists
".....unless you want the faculty to end their research and just teach."

---

It appears to me that USM could very well become just a very large teaching university, particularly if more scholars are driven away and the "no basic research" philosophy spills over to other colleges. I would think that physics, along with other departments with a basic research emphasis, would be among the hardest hit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Lawrence R. Mead
"I beg your pardon? I have just submitted two papers in General Relativity and have at least 12 papers in quantum theory/quantum field theory. Suggest you check your facts. LRM"

---

To whom does your post refer? Not to me, I hope. I was merely saying that if the emphasis on research is officially minimized and USM continues to drive its scholars away, USM could become only a large teaching university.

---

Originally posted by: Jameela Lares
"In the humanities, everyone is expected to research and publish, even at so-called "teaching universities." 

But you have a "world class" perspective, Jameela, as opposed to a "wurl' class" perspective. There are many small liberal arts colleges with no graduate programs that expect their faculty members to contribute to their discipline by conducting research. On the other hand, there are many small liberal arts colleges that are content with their faculty members engaging only in teaching. My guess is that USM would become one of the latter as opposed to one of the former. I shudder to even think about it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Lawrence R. Mead
"I beg your pardon? I have just submitted two papers in General Relativity and have at least 12 papers in quantum theory/quantum field theory. Suggest you check your facts. LRM"

---

I believe Dr. Mead is responding to NKOB's post one page 1 of this thread.

I visited this site for the first time earlier this afternoon. I am appalled at the level of ignorance not just on this topic, but on all topics addressed. I once made a phone call or two in hopes of preventing Shelby's elevation to the presidency despite the fact that I knew he possessed a number of useful strengths. If this site is a fair gauge of the quality of his opposition, then in this I erred greatly.

The question of the viability of the M.S. degree in physics is a subtle and difficult one, and the lack of sophistication in comments posted on this site indicates that it is probably a mistake to post anything that might be of interest to serious observers. Some points do need to be cleared up.

The research interests of the faculty have been called into question. Anyone who is even vaguely aware of atomic and molecular physics knows that Alina Gearba's experiments studying super cooled atoms are cutting edge internationally. Although employed at USM only briefly, she is already building a lab that should produce truly exciting results. Chris Winstead's credentials in A&M are solid and his work has substantially advanced the field of ring down spectroscopy (a field involving both laser physics and atomic and molecular physics). My own degree was in A&M as were my early publications. Although I have been away from this field for some time, I have returned to this general area at the fine facilities at USM's Signal Research Center and expect to co-author a manuscript in this field shortly. Incidentally, Joon Lee whose accomplishments in the area of condensed matter physics graced the pages of The Physical Review (our premier physics journal) for many years, has made himself into an equally knowledgeable (though, as yet not so well published) atomic and molecular theorist. Finally, Jim Stephens, a member of the research faculty was also educated in atomic and molecular (and laser) physics at Georgia Tech and contributes significantly to the department's expertise in this field. To argue that interested faculty are not available in this field for graduate student supervision is simply silly.

Although most informed persons would consider my papers on solutions to Fredholm integral equations of the first kind as applied to physical situations "Mathematical Physics", perhaps some would dissent. To deny Larry Mead's published contributions to mathematical physics, some with internationally known co-authors and some with mathematician co-authors would be ludicrous. Has it escaped your attention that Larry has a courtesy appointment to the mathematics faculty? Although the breadth of faculty interest in this area decreased with my retirement, a graduate student could do much worse than work with a professor such as Mead who has coaxed refereed publications from high school students.

I know that Joon Lee's contributions in condensed matter physics are significant because I have had inquiries from distinguished physicists, including the holder of a named chair at a distinguished private institution, ask me excitedly about his work. But Ras Pandey's research and work with graduate students is equally noteworthy. I don't really know what Ras is doing now (since I have retired) except that I know his doctoral graduates are hired into impressive positions. I hope that it won't embarrass Ras for me to reveal, however, that when I was chair he and his students produced about five refereed publications per year covering topics from pure condensed matter physics to theoretical biophysics to polymer physics.

Ironically, on the day it was suggested that I access this site I received a telephone call indicating that USM's Department of Physics and Astronomy would be part of a several university and (Naval Research Lab) consortium that would be funded for more work in underwater acoustics. In addition to Jim Stephens who has several years of experience in this field (in addition to his work in atomic and molecular physics), I continue to find some time for this work which I very much enjoy. The work done by our group has helped the world better understand the behavior of an endangered species (sperm whales). Because of a history of research grants and publications in the field of underwater acoustics, we have been able to purchase with ONR money several hundred thousand dollars of valuable and unique equipment. While I might wish that the Department had strengthened this area which interacts closely with a local constituency, there is surely sufficient expertise here to justify catalog listing, and it is quite likely that an interested student could find both adequate faculty supervision and resource support for her/his research.

I grow weary with much talking, but I should address the topic of optical physics before I quit. Ray Folse got us started in this field when his proposal to the National Science Foundation was funded to provide a laser doppler velocimeter. Joe Whitehead, who has received considerable external funding and supervised successful doctoral student research in chemistry and science education as well as M.S. level physics students, continued the optical emphasis with a running series of experiments using lasers to investigate the properties of liquid crystals. Finally, Chris Winstead is building an on-campus laser laboratory to continue the advancement of laser techniques to which he has already heavily contributed, even as he continues to supervise the laser facilities at the Signal Research Center. Surely no one can quibble with the listing of optical physics as an area of in faculty interest or doubt that sufficient expertise exists to direct M. S. students.

The funds for the valuable equipment I have mentioned are traceable directly or ultimately to funded external research. Make no mistake, these fine facilities and committed faculty will be lost if the Department loses its graduate involvement. It might take three or four years, but it will all be gone.

My own interpretation of the Department's problem, while not exonerating a faculty which should have paid more attention to the M.S. degree and the Board's concern, is that the faculty got caught at an unfortunate time in the passing of the "Old Guard". Bill Hughes and I have now retired and others nearing retirement have stopped directing M.S. students. This problem was exacerbated by the fact that interested faculty could direct doctoral students in the Scientific Computing (now Computational Science/Physics) Program. To be cost effective until recently the program only admitted students who already possessed the M.S. degree. (The thoughtful, should they exist, will realize that this point also addresses an inanity promulgated by another correspondent). Of course, doctoral students are likely to do more exciting research than M. S. students. My own last graduate student earned the Ph. D. last May.

Please subject these ideas to the same thoughtful, critical analysis that I have already seen demonstrated here. Unfortuantely, I cannot guarantee attention to your replies. One look at this is about all I can stand. Finally, please take note of the fact that this billet-doux is signed. A fact which, I hope, distinguishes me from some of the moral pygmies herein participating.

Grayson Rayborn

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Grayson Rayborn
"I visited this site for the first time earlier this afternoon . . . . I am appalled at the level of ignorance not just on this topic, but on all topics addressed. One look at this is about all I can stand. Finally, please take note of the fact that this billet-doux is signed. A fact which, I hope, distinguishes me from some of the moral pygmies herein participating."

---

If this is the first time you have viewed this site, you probably have no earthly idea what this site is all about. You most certainly have no first-hand knowledge except a very limited sample this afternoon. Using only this afternoon's postings as a sample in no way representative. The posters on this board are weary and tired. They have covered issues backwards and forwards and in a thoughtful manner. Your characterization of some posters as "moral pigmies" is the type of senseless attack this board has tried to avoid. You say that you are retired. No wonder that you posted by name. There are posters on this board who are not retired. They fear retaliation if their identity were revealed. I personally believe they have good reason to feel that way. Go back and read all of the thousands of postings if you really want to know what this board is all about. There are those who have written letters to the newspapers or to the IHL board. Others have signed the AAUP petition. Many contributed to the legal defense fund. I have done all of these. I hope you have too.

Right on LVN...think he was looking down his nose when he wrote this?

Dear Professor Rayborn:

I now have a much greater insight into what is so bad about SFT.  I thought it was nuture.  I think I underestimated nature.  Thank you for clearing that up for us.

Please enjoy your retirement, and don't make anymore phone calls on our behalf.  Alot of weight you pulled the first time, huh? 

snake pliskin

 

 

Dear Mr. Rayborn:

Your beloved Physics department is now housed in a Tier IV University.  That fact alone suggests that the MS in Physics should probably go.

 

---

Originally posted by: Grayson Rayborn
"I am appalled at the level of ignorance not just on this topic, but on all topics addressed.

My guess is that it was the physics discussion that led to his ire. There are over 2,500 threads on which to post, and he chose the physics thread.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Moral Pygmie
""

---

But Professor Raborn's analysis and his contribution of a historical perspective was extremely helpful to me.

I wish, Professor Rayborn, that you would use those critical tools, that sense of history and your persepctive on the work of the physics faculty by giving the IHL, administration, our own faculty and the public access to your knowlege.  

You seem insulted that many on the faculty and on this board are not able to mount such a detailed "analytical" defense as yours on behalf of physics.  It makes me sad too - but it a truth of our time that we increasingly live in an age of specialization in which many of us are only vaguely aware of the unique contributions and standing people make to their own disciplines. It is unfortunate that you mistook what has been a rather generalized conversation about the problem facing physics with a rigorous analysis few of us are trained or prepared to make -- and please be sensitive to the fact that many of us all over campus are fighting battles of our own in our own areas. The nature of contemporary education means that while we may find supporters to support us on general principles of what defines (or does not define) the academy . . . . but when it comes to the detailed specific battles concerning our own work and our own discipline, we pretty much fight alone.

I think some of the conversations you miss here have occured in the Senate, in Academic Council and Graduate Council, and in other organizations in which analysis is both a tool and a discipline and where expertises actually meet in 3D space to confer, compare and debate. They have also occured at other points on this site and the old Fire Shelby board.

I suspect that you, like most of us, may not be fully aware of the contributions every faculty member has made in every discipline on this campus. Nor would you be able to mount a specific defence of all dsiciplines equally well. I hope that you might still weigh in, where appropriate, on how shifts and changes within disciplines have a ripple effect within the university. These ripple effects are not all bad -- but they do produce redefinitions of the university, depending on how profound the changes are. I believe it is on the effect of these ripples that many on this board are focused rather than on the immediate effects to an individual discipline which they may only passingly understand.

I hope that you will reconsider your dismissal of this board and the many on it who have contributed significant thought, time and -- yes -- analysis.

And please remember -- this board does not serve an analytical function only. It is also a kind of surface where analysis is sometimes supplanted by graffiti. The Board isn't only a place where people think -- it is a place they also come to share anger, fear, and grief. In the last year, the old Board and this Board have also been places where a community comes to mourn. It is unfair to assume that because the Board is a product of an aacademic community where rationality is prized that it is -- or even should be -- free of irrational forces.

I think the Board is a complex matrix of emotion and thought occuring in a kind of limbo in which people are free to speak what they think and feel as long as they minimize personal attacks (although I have to say this particular thread got as nasty as I have ever seen it get).  But it is true -- many people at USM are desperate. That desperation has become painful -- and it has begun to erode some measure of our civility even to one another.

 

 

 

Oh dear,

I must have created a big mess here.

To physics people, please relax and do not mind what "the" moral pygmy have said out of one's ignorance. I sincerely apologize you for not recognizing the "world-class" physics department and people therein.

To active board members, I also apologize you all for causing so much trouble. I should have been the target of the attacks not this board or its members. For that, I will leave any comments no more from now on. However, I will continue to visit this site. NKOB 

I know and admire Roz and Joon. They are not only great in their fields, but they are remarkable human beings. Don't let the short sightedness of the Great Graysini spill into the truly wonderful reputations of all of the members of the physics dept. Guess what Dr. G?  Some of us around here in other departments are pretty blasted good researchers too!  And, most of us know that one thread does not make a Message Board.  Pretty limited scholarly thinking on your part.

Ray Folse, a physics professor, was a vocal member of the PUC.  I believe he had the temerity to question the hyperbolization of the economic development program.  I believe that, subsequent to raising those questions, his teaching assignments were changed.  Now, there are grave concerns about the longevity of the graduate programs in physics.  Any connections here?