So the high schools and the newspaper know about it before the professors that will actually be teaching the classes have been informed.....doesn't this remind you of the business people finding out that the colleges were being switched up before the deans were told?  Same old same old lack of respect and lack of communication.  SFT just CAN'T learn!!!  I am so sick of this.
NO QUARTER!

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Let Freedom Ring
" Same old same old lack of respect and lack of communication.  SFT just CAN'T learn!!!  I am so sick of this. NO QUARTER!"

---

AND as one of our departed colleagues (who knew Shelby quite well) said:  "He just won't quit." 

From Thomas Meredith's remarks to the IHL board on 2/21/05: "If an institution is plagued with internal and/or external issues and no corrective results are achieved between the system head and the president, the president must be let go.  The longer this is put off, the more damage is done to the institution."

We're all feeling exhausted and battered, but we have to keep on, because "He just won't quit" and because "the president must be let go." 

I really believe that the majority of the IHL understand this now (THEY would have to be idots if they didn't.)  They just don't understand yet that sooner is better and that delaying will bring even more chaos and trouble.   SFT will help them understand this point with each "next stupid thing" that he does. 

The fact that this decision came through without going through the processes for course modification approvals means that we are still not in compliance with SACS principles.

I wonder how the 800 or so students who will likely be taking SOC 101 next fall and paying full tuition will feel about high schoolers taking it for half price?  SOC is one of the core courses that so many of USM's students take.  They need to take SOC 101, ANT 101, or GHY 101 to satisfy that requirement.  Sociology is by far the most popular choice.

Beyond this, the most chilling aspects of this are that the faculty who will be, I suppose, ordered to teach the high school sections, were not involved and the people who made the decision have no idea what environment is required to effectively teach the classes.  Then, the other imbedded message is that university courses are all content-driven.  That is, to have a university experience simply means showing some level of competency in mastering the material.  In the case of sociology, I guess if the student masters 70% of the textbook, they get the credit.  Of course a university course is part of the university experience.  Part of that is being in classes with a group of students who are more diverse than those in your high school class.  To have 35-yr old single mothers, retired military people, and a broad array of "freshmen" who come from a variety of different places yields quite a different learning experience than sitting with the same high school cohort in the same high school classroom.

I am astounded that SACS has no difficulty with this.  How in the devil are we going to guarantee some level of equivalency here?

Finally, with sociology, we already have our schedule for the fall set.  In fact, the schedule as it now stands is based on the understanding that we will have hired a replacement for Dr. Frank Glamser.  If, because of budget cuts, we will not be able to hire, it would not be out of the question to have to cancel sections of this university core course.

Amy Young

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Amy Young
"I am astounded that SACS has no difficulty with this.  How in the devil are we going to guarantee some level of equivalency here? "

---

I don't buy the assertion that SACS has no difficulty with this.  How was the question asked?

We've had dual enrollment classes for some time.  Perhaps SACS was asked if we could continue doing this.  No mention of the fact that these courses would be located on a high school campus.  No mention that the college and appropriate faculty bodies were not involved, much less informed.  No mention that these classes would be made up exclusively of high school students.  No mention of who would teach these classes.  No mention that this is something entirely new while we are being told NOT to start anything new while under probation. 

I expect this is another example of administrative ignorance of SACS principles, or worse, another arrogant attempt to sneak something by SACS.  We've seen it before.  We'll see it again until IHL stops this insanity.

There seems to have been a great deal of effort put forth trying to frame the recent distance learning graduate business program as a technicality related to SACS approval.  What academics understand and the followers of the story in the local papers are likely not to understand is that it is every bit as much a governance issue that will lead to additional accreditation problems down the line.  This "governance thing" is NOT a power struggle between faculty and administration as it is being spun.  It is a requirement for academic institutions to be academic institutions and to retain their accreditations.   Development and implementation of academic programs is a faculty responsibility.  This is one of the key problems with having non-academics tasked with growing enrollment.  The blind drive to 20,000 seems at the core of many, many problems at USM.   The high school psychology and sociology courses, if offered outside of the SOPs for those courses (programs, departments, colleges?), may jeapordize accreditation regardless of the delivery method for which DR. Exline says she received approval.

In the medical community there is always tension between the administrators, doctors, and 3rd party reimbursers over cost containment, procedures offered, and quality of patient care.  There are some good analogies that could be made here by someone familiar with those tensions. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Amy Young
"http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050326/NEWS01/503260302/1002 Today, on the front page of the Hattiesburg American, there is a story that Dr. Joan Exline said that SACS said it's OK to offer university courses on local high school campus. AAUP intercepted a flier that was handed out to local high school students. It was a survey to find out who is interested in taking SOC 101 or PSY 110. I can tell you that SOC 101 is approved only for correspondence and for traditional format. There is no other form that has been approved. I can tell you that the chair of our department (Anthropology and Sociology) did not approve this, nor did sociology curriculum committee). I can tell you that this was never voted in by the CoAL curriculum committee. I can tell you that this was never considered by the Academic Council (the university-wide undergraduate curriculum committee), I believe that the idea of offering special sections on the Hattiesburg campus was discussed in the CoAL chairs amd directors and they soundly voted NO to even just "high school sections" on campus. I therefore conclude they would have had the same reaction to offering high school sections on high school campuses. The flier said students needed a 21 composite ACT score. Dual enrollment requires either 24 or 25 (it's printed in the Bulletin). The flier said that a they were considering offering these courses (SOC 101 or PSY 110) on MWF 3:40-4:40 or Tue-Thurs 3:40-4:40. Those contact minutes do not add up. The flier said that USM was offering a half-price tuition "scholarship" to any high school student taking either of these classes. I am outraged (again). Amy Young"

---

Amy,

It seems that 3 letters must be written.  Will you write a letter to Commissioner Crofts and CC a copy to SACS?  A Letter to the Editor from the chair of A.C. is needed to inform the public of these problems.

I can guarantee you that if anything like this were tried at my school, holy h*ll would be raised.  I have seen it happen frequently over much smaller issues.  We are significantly smaller than USM, and much younger, but we have a much stronger tradition of shared governance.  Administrators here, by and large, really do think that it's important to get faculty input before making such decisions.  I'm not sure SFT and his cronies realize how much out of step they are with the rest of the academic world.  With any luck, SACS will remind them before too long.

By the way, a recent Chronicle of Higher Education carries an interesting article about the factors that help get university presidents fired.  According to the author, at most places presidents will usually be fired if (1) they are incompetent managers; (2) they fail to maintain academic credibility with at least a majority of the faculty; and (3) they fail to raise large sums of money.  Shelby has obviously failed on counts 1 and 2; how does he rate on 3?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: duck, duck, goose
"Magnolia, you may not be that far off.  It looks like this could be the beginning of a rift between local area school principals and USM faculty (like the bidnessmen v. faculty divide)."

---

Amy,  Should you compose a letter to Dr. Crofts and the SACs, and I encourage you to do so, (I would include a cc: to the HA and the other media outlets)it should first state the positives before the negatives.

(1) YES, offering of such classes would be a benefit to students at the high school.  (2) YES, It would be a benefit for h.s. students to gain a part of the "university" experience.

BUT! 

Parameters to insure academic integrity, instructional effectiveness and quality of the delivery must be maintained throughout the process of offering courses (on-campus or off campus via distance learning.

This is done by input of the academic faculty, especially those who will be teaching the courses off-campus and a plan or organizational process that is through out and discussed with all pertinent parties.  To bypass the even the teaching faculty creates problems with workloads assignments, academic quality and providing the student with content necessary to meet University standards and IHL requirements for course offerings. 

On a side note, it interesting, that meetings with directors of the effected school in which SOC 101 and PSY 101 initially said no to this idea.  Questions that should be asked:  Who will teach these courses?  Will Adjuncts fill these positions?  Where will we get these adjuncts?   Will the university hire the teachers at the high school to be adjuncts?

Given that this course will be offered at a cost lower than on-campus students take the course(s), how many students must enroll (from the h.s.) to pay for the instructor? What additional costs will the university absorb if the h.s. students are taking it at the (low) cost promised?

In addition, Academic Council should have Dr. Exline and the SAC's consulant attend the next scheduled meeting of the full body of the Council and discuss the instructional plan, (if any) and the thought process that went into making this decision, and HOW this does not impact SACs.

 My apologies for the typos and grammatical errors, I got in a hurry out of frustration/anger….take your pick.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
" I wonder if SACS was under the (mistaken) assumption that this whole plan had gone through the appropriate channels for on-campus approval.  Once they discover that it didn't, I cannot believe that they will not be seriously concerned.  "

---

Almost certainly this is what has happened.  After all, faculty oversight of the curriculum and shared governance are universally accepted principles of American higher education. Why wouldn't the "SACS official" questioned about this not assume that our administrator-in-charge of SACS understood these principles?

Again--how was the question asked?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: All PUCered Out
"I guess it can't be discussed at the next PUC meeting because the Great Communicator (not) is no longer communicating with the PUC - how perfectly efficient."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Roll of the dice
"I'd like to know if there was a reason these two particular courses were selected. Or maybe it was just a random selection. "

---

1. These are non-lab classes, so there's no question about the availability of the equipment & materials needed.
2. English Composition classes are out of the question, because the h.s. students haven't yet completed all the required h.s. English units.
3. There might be h.s. teachers available to teach these classes who meet SACS credentialling requirements.
4. Somebody views SOC & PSY as "easy" & less likely to scare off potential future students.

Keep in mind that the purpose of these classes is to recruit more students to USM.  The idea is that, by offering motivated students the opportunity to earn college credit in hs (how are these different from AP courses, btw?), students will flock to the school that offers the courses.  Interesting idea about using the hs teachers, Invictus, as it helps out Lamar county with its budget problems by offering a teacher pay incentive.  No credentialling problems if the teachers have a master's and 18 graduate hours in field, is that right?  What would the field be for these courses?

Wonder how likely it will be that the students take these college courses to expand their application packages for first, second, and third tier schools not on probation.