Article in HA - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 8, 2005

Article in HA

Date: Mar 8, 2005

Live link: http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050308/NEWS01/503080301/1002

Date: Mar 8, 2005

Where does Klumb come up with these?

Date: Mar 8, 2005

Irony of ironies:

Other U.S. universities are also redefining their missions and roles. Klumb drew a comparison between Thames and Jackie Robinson, the first black major league baseball player.

Date: Mar 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Angeline
"Irony of ironies: Other U.S. universities are also redefining their missions and roles. Klumb drew a comparison between Thames and Jackie Robinson, the first black major league baseball player."

So Mr. Klumb sees Thames as the Jackie Robinson of USM?

I prefer to think of Shelby Thames as the Sadaam Hussein of USM.

Date: Mar 8, 2005

"While research and science should co-exist with liberal arts studies, the University of Southern Mississippi must add more research projects in the future to attract more external funding, the state's College Board president said Monday.

"It must move in the direction of more research-oriented projects, more economic development projects as an enhancement to the liberal arts side of the university," said Roy Klumb of Gulfport."

Does this dude not know that the liberal arts faculty is busting their respective and collective butts doing research and engaging in other scholarly activities?

Does he not know that the purpose of reseach is not that of generating money? It is for the purpose of discovery and adding to the larger body of knowledge. Some of the most important research contributions nationally have been made without the benifit of extramural funding. Is that not important?

Date: Mar 8, 2005

Doesn't Mr. Klumb know that Jackie Robinson was always the gentleman, conducting himself with great dignity and respecting humankind?

Date: Mar 8, 2005

Would SFT have allowed Jackie to enroll at USM? Not if my reading and comprehension of Exit 13 are correct. SFT and Klumb would've stood in the schoolhouse door on that one. I guess the Jackie Robinson anecdote only works if you ignore their pasts.

Date: Mar 8, 2005

Doesn't Klumb know that Jackie Robinson wasn't the first African American to play baseball? I was. Robinson was only the first one to sign a contract. Once again, we have people not knowing the facts when trying to pump up Thames.

Date: Mar 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Lyndon Johnson
"Would SFT have allowed Jackie to enroll at USM? Not if my reading and comprehension of Exit 13 are correct. SFT and Klumb would've stood in the schoolhouse door on that one. I guess the Jackie Robinson anecdote only works if you ignore their pasts."

Now,Now sonny. Don't past judgement. Just remember who was head of admissions when Clyde Kennard was refused admission to USM.

Date: Mar 8, 2005

Notwithstanding this stupid comparison, again, Klumb gives only a luke-warm endorsement of Thames, i.e., "Is Dr. Thames our Jackie Robinson? I don't know," Klumb said. Something has changed, and I think this meeting along with Klumbs' lack of sincere support for Thames is solid evidence.

Date: Mar 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Lyndon Johnson
"Would SFT have allowed Jackie to enroll at USM? Not if my reading and comprehension of Exit 13 are correct. SFT and Klumb would've stood in the schoolhouse door on that one."

Lyndon Johnson's posting reminds me of something. Some of the water fountains in one USM building are in pairs. Where there would normally be only one water fountain, there are two of them - side by side. Strange indeed. Are those paired water fountains being preserved as the universiy moves toward the return of the Exit 13 era?

Date: Mar 8, 2005

In my opinion, the President of IHL should keep his mouth shut on these matters. He certainly is entitled to freedom of speech, but many reader's may believe that he speaks for the board. Not every citizen has studied communication, persuasion, attitude change, etc. nor have they learned to be critical thinkers. In other words, they didn't come from universities where all students studied the liberal arts, social sciences, hard sciences, the arts, etc.

How is SACS going to feel about this? Are Klumb's statements to the media external influence? It is obvious that the deck is stacked against the faculty, but supporters must keep up the pressure and fight the good fight.

NO QUARTER... as long as these idiots are in charge.

Date: Mar 8, 2005

Roy Klumb makes the most inane, uninformed, and ridiculous statements I have ever heard. SFT is now Jackie Robinson???? PUH-LEAZE!!!! SFT is "moving [USM} off into a new direction?" Yes, if that direction is off a cliff. And what exactly is a "1950s-style liberal arts college" and when was USM ever such a thing???

Roy Klumb, may you rue the day you decided to support Shelby Thames.

Date: Mar 8, 2005

"As a university president tries to reshape a university and move it off in a different direction, I don't know who is the Jackie Robinson to sit in that presidential chair without having to fight through a mindset that doesn't want to (change)," Klumb said.

Who doesn't want to change? The University is all about change. Never has the Faculty Senate complained because they "didn't want to change". It was always about HOW the change is accomplished. The process is called "Shared Governance", Mr. Klumb, and your president doesn't know what it means or how it works. SFT is afraid he will lose the debate so he doesn't even engage in the discussion.

Date: Mar 8, 2005

Article

Date: Mar 8, 2005

RE: Article in HA

Date: Mar 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Backfield in Motion
"
Truth, didn't you post something about grants not being as profitable as the university lets on, can you offer more on that?
"

Anyone who knows anything about research grants understands that there are not-so-hidden costs associated with them such as overhead (what it costs to run the buildings where the research is done in terms of electricity, water, gas, etc.). In addition, research grants (at least those provided by federal or state agencies) are NOT FOR PROFIT! You have to submit a plan on how to use the money and then USE IT THAT WAY! There are relatively few brick-and-mortar grants (i.e. $$ that can be used to construct buildings), and no grants that go on indefinitely (they typically have a lifespan of anywhere from a year to 5 years). The idea is that the PI will be able to find other means of supporting the work (other grants, state appropriations, etc.).

So, my point is: external competitive funding is helpful, but it is NOT a long-term solution to an ongoing budget deficit at a university. It's like trying to pay your monthly bills with lottery ticket winnings...not a sound fiscal practice!

And the most important point is this: REAL world-class universities do not seek external research grant-funding in order to pay for budget shortfalls. They know that it costs money to do research. But they do it because their guiding principle is to further the discovery of knowledge (of ALL KINDS, including those pesky liberal arts!). They understand the benefit of creating knowledge of all kinds by ALL FACULTY which in turn attracts more students which in turn increases tuition dollars, etc.

SFT and Co. have dragged their cart so far ahead of the horse here that there's no hope that they'll ever turn around and figure out why their cart won't move anymore.

The real reason I suspect that SFT is beating the external funding drum so loudly is that it instantly devalues the humanities faculty since there just aren't as many research dollars available to them (and gives him a "justification" to treat them so badly). If you're looking to privilege one academic dept. over another, it's easy to do that if you look only at hard numbers such as research dollars. Plus, people get easily dazzled by money as opposed to 19th c. poetry...esp. if they don't understand that this isn't "free money" for the university to use as they please....it's money set aside for specific purposes.

Sorry, I've gone on long enough...would love to hear others' input on this issue....

Truth

Date: Mar 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Backfield in Motion
"... Let's start with some asinine quotes: "It must move in the direction of more research-oriented projects, more economic development projects as an enhancement to the liberal arts side of the university," said Roy Klumb of Gulfport. Time to focus on all the recent publications indicating what a boondoggle USM-defined economic develpment is. Thanks Austin Eagle, Invictus, Robert Campbell, and others who have commented and linked articles on this. Has anyone compiled them? Truth, didn't you post something about grants not being as profitable as the university lets on, can you offer more on that? Someone else posted on the declining rate of research funding, numbers anyone? ..."

Good post, Backfield. I have a few comments. When the administration and Klumb refers to "research" they are really talking about "grant funding". So in their mind set, Liberal Arts is not doing much reseach no matter how much they publish. (Likewise getting paid to do contractual service is "research" even though no publications result.)

You will find excellent links and posts defending Liberal Arts on the thread "Real Issues" on page one of the old FireShelby Board 3/4 of the way down. This link may work http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?forumID=18872&subForumID=21279&action=viewTopic&commentID=435314&topicPage=

Austin Eagle posted the ED link: http://www.statesman.com/insight/content/insight/stories/03/6enterpris efund.html

Date: Mar 8, 2005

Well put, truth4usm. They are by law and in reality non-profit.

HHS makes you prove to them how much research really costs the university (F&A), then when you prove it is a rate of 60%, they say they are willing to pay 40%.

We have shown by good accounting standards they every grant costs us money.

Date: Mar 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Backfield in Motion
"Truth, didn't you post something about grants not being as profitable as the university lets on"

I don't know how Truth will answer your question, but I'd like to take a stab at it. Grants are not intended to make money for the university. Grants are awared for the support of the proposed research. And that includes the overhead to the university which is, theoretically at least, used to support university-related incidentals necessary for the research to occur.

If USM thinks it can make money from legitimate peer- and agency- reviewed grants, it is sadly mistaken. The future USM millionaires you guys have been hearing about will not become rich through grants.

Date: Mar 8, 2005

Truth and others,

Thank you for making such excellent points about grant funding.

But, you know, polytechnics and trade schools aren't very competitive for grant bucks. The lion's share of total grant funding supposedly goes to national universities in the first and second tiers of the US News rankings.

So what do people like Klumb actually want?

If they think that what's left of USM after SFT is finished with it will bring in lots of grant money they are sorely mistaken.

Robert Campbell

PS. Klumb is definitely hedging his bets when it comes to SFT. If only we knew exactly why.

Date: Mar 8, 2005

They want economic development defined as recruiting new businesses to the area. They lure them with ineffective government incentives, university-funded corporate-partnered applied research, AND A FOOTBALL TEAM. Then they teach their own, hire their own, with the ultimate plan to send out ED missionaries to do more of the same. Sort of like an academic pyramid scheme.

It is not the way to create sustainable economic growth in the economy and it is definately not the way to run a university.

Date: Mar 8, 2005

"And the most important point is this: REAL world-class universities do not seek external research grant-funding in order to pay for budget shortfalls."

This statement by Truth demonstrates how out of touch you folks really are. What is wrong with being compensated for research that contributes to the body of knowledge? It is done all the time by "Real World Class Universities." You people just can't face reality.

Date: Mar 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Machiavelli
""And the most important point is this: REAL world-class universities do not seek external research grant-funding in order to pay for budget shortfalls." This statement by Truth demonstrates how out of touch you folks really are. What is wrong with being compensated for research that contributes to the body of knowledge? It is done all the time by "Real World Class Universities." You people just can't face reality."

USM has a liberal consulting policy: one day per week. That's quite sufficient. Further, faculty members can write-in summer salary support if they so choose. Conducting private money-grabbing consulting on state property, however, is prohibited by state law. The very fact that you posted what you did makes me thing you are just a big spoof having fun. In my humble opinion, nobody that has s*hit for brains would think that a faculty member should double-dip - i.e., get paid by the university and by someone else for the same activity.

Date: Mar 8, 2005

No one is talking about double dipping. If the government or a private business wants research conducted on a particular matter or problem, what is wrong with contracting with a University that has expertise in the particular area to do the research? The faculty do the research, the university pays the faculty, and the university is paid by the government or business. The outside entity simply subsidizes the research and the resulting contribution to the body of knowledge.

Your comments show that you know nothing about how the world works.

Date: Mar 8, 2005

with the bidness model you describe, wouldnt that be taking biz away from local private owned enterprise? private owned bidnesses pay taxes, state funded universities dont

economic development is all about growing bidness, now you say take away revenue from legit biz folks.

so what do you want economic dev or univ research?

Date: Mar 8, 2005

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I am not aware of any local private bidnesses that conduct or have the capacity to conduct research in the fields USM does.

The point is that private bidnesses that do not have research capabilities subsidize part of the cost of running the university by hiring the university to do the research. This accomplishes both the research goal of the university and econ. development.

The problem here is obvious... you folks don't understand how the system can work to the advantage of all.

Date: Mar 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Machiavelli
"No one is talking about double dipping. If the government or a private business wants research conducted on a particular matter or problem, what is wrong with contracting with a University that has expertise in the particular area to do the research? The faculty do the research, the university pays the faculty, and the university is paid by the government or business. The outside entity simply subsidizes the research and the resulting contribution to the body of knowledge. Your comments show that you know nothing about how the world works."

Machiavelli: Believe it or not, contracts were not invented by USM during the past two or three years. They've been around for decades. I've had numerous such contracts for many years at other universities. I've "bought" many semesters of "course reductions" with contracts. But contracts are not "grants" and should not be counted as such when personnel decisions (promotion, tenure, salary) are made. Contracts are not peer reviewed in the manner as are NIH, NSF, and NEH grant proposals are reviewed. Contracts are what the university does for you (or permits you do to for yourself). Grants are what you do for the university. Just where on this message board did you see anybody objecting to research contracts? Are you under the assumption that USM invented contracts in the way that Al Gore invented the Internet?

Date: Mar 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Machiavelli
"I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I am not aware of any local private bidnesses that conduct or have the capacity to conduct research in the fields USM does.
The point is that private bidnesses that do not have research capabilities subsidize part of the cost of running the university by hiring the university to do the research. This accomplishes both the research goal of the university and econ. development.
The problem here is obvious... you folks don't understand how the system can work to the advantage of all."

Yes, such a system can work to the advantage of all, but only if ALL are included in it.

SFT started his war with the faculty by dismissing 4 College Deans - a (formerly) highly esteemed position within the university - in order to begin his "remodeling" project for USM. It was not that the idea was a bad one - it was the way in which he went about doing it. In case you don't remember, members of the media were the first to learn of his decision. Faculty, staff, and administrators found out AFTER the fact.

It has only gotten worse since then. We are not saying that all of SFT's ideas are bad ones or that we should abandon "hard" research in favor of liberal arts. Of course USM, like all universities, has to have a measure of "business" activities in order to secure funding for all of the projects it conducts, to include research, teaching, etc. However, perhaps we should remember exactly what is involved in obtaining a degree from USM: During my first year, I was required to take a variety of courses, most of them NOT directly involved in my degree work. English 101. Psychology 101. History 101. And so forth. Why are they required? To give the student a WELL ROUNDED education so that he/she is taught not only a subject, but to also think independently and objectively.

It seems to me that there is a serious lack of independent and objective thought on the part of those who wish to transform USM into a "hard-science / business degree mill."