Physics M.S. in Jeopardy - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 2, 2005

RE: RE: RE: RE: Physics M.S. in Jeopardy

Date: Mar 2, 2005

Many posters seem to be missing the larger point on the physics program.
Mississippi has too many universities and too little money. Most states
have one or two dominant state universities with substantial funding.
Having three equal universities in a state with a population half the
size of Tennessee means that all of them are poorly funded and second
rate. What's the IHL to do? For a start they can reduce excessive
duplication of graduate programs.

The only question is are they being reasonable and even-handed in the
application of enrollment minimums. Do they apply the same standard
across all the institutions? Requiring average degree production of
three degrees a year over a five year period would seem to be very
reasonable. A "program" that has not even graduated one student a year
is clearly not in high demand. The quality of faculty research is not an
issue. The student demand is just not there.

Other areas of excellence on campus (e.g., English or theater - while they
last) have lots of students. In the current funding environment it is
unreasonable to expect the state to support multiple graduate programs
in low demand areas. On the other hand, an undergraduate physics program
is an important part of any university.

Date: Mar 2, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Physics is essential at USM, but. . . .
"Many posters seem to be missing the larger point on the physics program. Mississippi has too many universities and too little money. Most states have one or two dominant state universities with substantial funding. Having three equal universities in a state with a population half the size of Tennessee means that all of them are poorly funded and second rate. What's the IHL to do? For a start they can reduce excessive duplication of graduate programs. The only question is are they being reasonable and even-handed in the application of enrollment minimums. Do they apply the same standard across all the institutions? Requiring average degree production of three degrees a year over a five year period would seem to be very reasonable. A "program" that has not even graduated one student a year is clearly not in high demand. The quality of faculty research is not an issue. The student demand is just not there. Other areas of excellence on campus (e.g., English or theater - while they last) have lots of students. In the current funding environment it is unreasonable to expect the state to support multiple graduate programs in low demand areas. On the other hand, an undergraduate physics program is an important part of any university. "

If the cost is your determining factor then the M.S. program should stay. It brings in more money that the state is supplying. I’m told that the state is only putting in less than $50K for graduate stipends the rest is self-generated. In addition, the grad. students are needed to assist in the undergraduate teaching laboratories. Since Physics is a fundamental science the other sciences and engineering require the subject resulting in a large number of labs. For the most part these grad. students do the grading the lab reports and the faculty do the grading for their lecture courses

It would actually cost more to do away with the $50K stipends because personnel would need to be hired to assist in these labs anyway and the outside funding would be lost. Without assistance the faculty can’t handle the teaching load and do research. Some research, especially experimental research, can’t even be performed by single individuals, but rather a research group is required consisting of graduate students, undergraduates, and post-docs beside the professor. Without a graduate program these faculty would surely leave USM.

Date: Mar 2, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Accountant
" If the cost is your determining factor then the M.S. program should stay. It brings in more money that the state is supplying."

Bean counting is not what I had in mind, Accountant. Money has absolutely nothing to do with my position about the current physics issue. It has to do with an even handed application of IHL guidelines. Small liberal arts instititions, vested solely in undergraduate education, offer a major in physics. Those schools do not have graduate students to assist with the physics labs and they make do quite nicely. Some of those schools even have physicists who engage in important scholarly research. If the USM biology department advertised an open position, and a candiate whose research in primates required veterinary services and lots of expensive laboratory space to house dozens of baboons and other primates, it is likely that biology would have to move on to the next candidate. Similarly, physics would have to hire people who didn't require meterotic megatron nuclear fusion incipitators. That's what the best undergraduate colleges do.

I would like add that Latin courses generally enroll fewer students than English or History or Psychology do. I view Latin as an essential college offering, just as I do Physics. As a matter of fact, both Latin and Physics were the two most valuable disciplines I ever took in high school of college (My discipline is neither languages physics). The high esteem with which I hold Latin and Physics does not mean I believe every Tom, Dick, and Harry university should offer a graduate program in those disciplines.

Date: Mar 2, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Physics is essential at USM, but. . . .
" Bean counting is not what I had in mind, Accountant. Money has absolutely nothing to do with my position about the current physics issue. It has to do with an even handed application of IHL guidelines. ..."

In your earlier post you stated, "Mississippi has too many universities and too little money. Most states have one or two dominant state universities with substantial funding. Having three equal universities in a state with a population half the size of Tennessee means that all of them are poorly funded and second rate.” So I addressed this issue. Now you changed the issue to the "even handed application of IHL guidelines."

Why should this be the principle that trumps everything? All disciplines are not the same. Some are more fundamental to what a University is. You point out that Physics is essential to a University. I agree. Now if you have an undergraduate physics program and (at not extra cost to tax payers) you can offer a M.S. program in such a way that it pays for itself (not to mention it can fund other projects), what principle are you using to reason that you should not do so? Think of it as a "private" program rather than a "state supported" program. If USM is becoming a semi-private institution, where do we draw the line as to what the state should have control over?

You have made good points. But I just don't see how the "operating principle" you base your logic on should be the dominant issue.

Date: Mar 2, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Accountant
" Now you changed the issue to the "even handed application of IHL guidelines."

Accountant, I'm afraid that I did not CHANGE the issues to the "even handed application of IHL." I identified that issue quite clearly in the first sentence of the second paragraph of my post which read: "The only question is are they being reasonable and even-handed in the application of enrollment minimums. Do they apply the same standard across all the institutions?
application of enrollment minimums. Read your sentence and then mine. Pretty similar, huh?

Date: Mar 2, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Accountant
"If USM is becoming a semi-private institution, where do we draw the line as to what the state should have control over "

USM is not even close to becoming a semi-private institution. Don't confuse this with another thread where somebody posted an article about three major universities in Virginia becoming semi- or quasi- private (I can't recall the term that was used). USM would go belly up if that occurred - acdemically and financially. That may occur anyway.

Date: Mar 2, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Physics is essential at USM, but . . . .
"Accountant, I'm afraid that I did not CHANGE the issues to the "even handed application of IHL." I identified that issue quite clearly in the first sentence of the second paragraph of my post which read: "The only question is are they being reasonable and even-handed in the application of enrollment minimums. Do they apply the same standard across all the institutions?application of enrollment minimums. Read your sentence and then mine. Pretty similar, huh?"

You are correct. I now see I missed that. But my response would be the same concerning this issue being the major issue to make the decision. As I said, "Now if you have an undergraduate physics program and (at not extra cost to tax payers) you can offer a M.S. program in such a way that it pays for itself (not to mention it can fund other projects), what principle are you using to reason that you should not do so?". I agree that you have a point. I just think the situation should not be judged only on the issue of "fairness" in the application of a policy without consideration of the other issues.

Date: Mar 2, 2005

I think the real issue here IS that MS has too many universities. Some programs should be duplicated, like undergraduate programs in almost all disciplines. However, graduate programs are often a drain on scarce resources. Graduate programs require funds and faculty time to remain viable. I believe that if USM's M.S. in Physics program cannot produce more than 3 graduates per year on average over a 5-year period, then it should be cut.

If members of a particular department cannot survive in an environment that is without a M.S. or Ph.D. program, then they can feel free to relocate to another university that will provide them with the programs they feel they need to be associated with. As far as I know, there are many very good undergraduate programs in all colleges at USM that are without complementary graduate programs. The problem is demand-driven, in that USM physics M.S. students must not be in very high demand or else more students would choose to come here to study physics at the master's level.

What the IHL needs to do is eliminate many of the very specific duplicate degree programs that do not produce a reasonable number of graduates annually and channel those resources to undergraduate programs. Sending faculty who currently teach graduates back to the purely undergraduate ranks would reduce teaching loads at the undergraduate program level and increase research time overall, giving those who have heavier undergraduate loads a respite they could use for research purposes.

This will never work, because those who teach in graduate programs view themselves as superior to those who teach only undergraduates, and the grad faculty is hesitant to relenquish that power or station in their respective departments. However, these are exactly the people who should be taking part in undergrad teaching, because they have had more recent experience in instructing more advanced material and in staying more current in cutting-edge research. As I said, though, the grad faculty will be largely loathe to surrender this position if it means teaching the great unwashed on a "principles of _______" basis.

Date: Mar 2, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by: Accountant

You have made good points. But I just don't see how the "operating principle" you base your logic on should be the dominant issue. "

Accountant, let me see if I can organize my thoughts into another perspective. First of all, most new Ph.D.'s who have a reasonable track-record, and who want to go into academics, seek positions in doctoral-granting departments. That was my goal a year before I received my Ph.D. (not in physics but in a research-oriented discipline). Had the doctorate been jerked from a department in which I had an appointment, I am sure I would have left and gone to another university that also had publish-or-perish, dog-eat-dog demands where publishing in first rate journals and obtaining extramural support is a sine qua non for success. I believe I can fully understand your desire that physics remain a doctoral-level department. I also wish it would remain a graduate-level department. But the economic realities, coupled with the IHL guidelines, simply do not allow that. The IHL guidelines are direct and clear. That is why some disciplines, even at USM, were collapsed under one roof. The enrollment of one or another of the two departments that have been merged into one department under one roof would be too small to meet IHL guidelines. I am sure that you can identify those combined disciplines without my naming them here.I am not saying the IHL guidelines are necessarily good ones. I am only saying that they exist and should either be enforced or abolished. I am also saying that the guidelines should be applied with an even hand by the IHL. It may be that USM's enrollment position in physics comes closer to meeting IHL guidelines than even those of Ole Miss and Mississippi State. Now, regarding the financial aspect that you mention - A university exists for acdemic, not monetary purposes. It is dangerous to adopt the position that an academic department must support itself. That's the job of the state. Of the IHL. Of the taxpayers. It is not the job of the faculty. Faculty who need extramural support of their research should, of course, aggressively pursue that route. But the purpose of those grants should be that of supporting the specific research project - not simply generating money to support something else. Why should physics be required to support its discipline when other departments, where research funding is not readily available, are not expected to support theirs? If the sole goal for maintaing a program is that of generating money, USM would be better off turning the campus into a shopping mall with restaurants, theaters, department stores, and the like. If the USM campus is turned into a shopping mall (and that could very well occur considering the way things are going), I sure hope they allow space for K-Mart rather than WalMart. Sears and K-Mart are in the process of merging. I believe that could be a real money-maker for USM - considerably more lucrative than having mere graduate programs in that valuable space.

Date: Mar 2, 2005

Professor Rayborn,

I like your educational philosophy. Insult them, kick them in the privates, and then tell them what they need to know. Although I am one of the pygmies looking up at the big guy, I do have a solution for your problem with too few masters’ students. Raise the graduate stipend either formally or informally to the point where you can have your pick of students across the country. If it true that the department is getting many grants, and I have no reason to doubt it, use grant money to pay them consulting money in the summer that makes their annual pay very attractive. By the way, the reason I cannot tell if the claim about grants is true is because it is hard as hell to see anything when you are this short. You cannot imagine how many crotches I run into during the day trying to see what the hell is going on. Anyway, if all of this is confusing, just remember, pay student larger amounts and you get more students. I do not know the physics of this relationship, but I think it has to do with mass, weight, and foot pounds per furlong. Again, it is always confusing to me since us pygmies have small mass, little weight, and our fur is not very long. I wish you luck and keep up the optimism.

Date: Mar 2, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Cossack
"Professor Rayborn,

I like your educational philosophy. Insult them, kick them in the privates, and then tell them what they need to know. Although I am one of the pygmies looking up at the big guy, I do have a solution for your problem with too few masters’ students. Raise the graduate stipend either formally or informally to the point where you can have your pick of students across the country. If it true that the department is getting many grants, and I have no reason to doubt it, use grant money to pay them consulting money in the summer that makes their annual pay very attractive. By the way, the reason I cannot tell if the claim about grants is true is because it is hard as hell to see anything when you are this short. You cannot imagine how many crotches I run into during the day trying to see what the hell is going on. Anyway, if all of this is confusing, just remember, pay student larger amounts and you get more students. I do not know the physics of this relationship, but I think it has to do with mass, weight, and foot pounds per furlong. Again, it is always confusing to me since us pygmies have small mass, little weight, and our fur is not very long. I wish you luck and keep up the optimism.
"

Cossack, have you been in the George Dickel and Ginger Ale again???

Date: Mar 2, 2005

No, I can't get served. I am too short to see over the bar.