709 USM Faculty? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 27, 2005

709 USM Faculty?

Date: Mar 27, 2005

Already gone,

Mader (or whoever released this misleading information) arrived at 709 "faculty" by including every administrator with a faculty appointment (that includes SFT!) and every "instructor of record," including grad students who work as instructors, and grad students whose names are on lab sections.

At least, that's how they do it at Clemson when they pad the faculty totals for public consumption.

Of course, USM also claim count administrators without faculty appointments as facullty (e.g., Ken Malone and Richard Hadden).

Robert Campbell

Date: Mar 27, 2005

don't know if this helps, but the source is the IHL.
Here are the figures for USM from the IHL website (where the HA got its figures)--

1999--684 full time faculty; 15 part-time faculty; total=699
2000--620 full time; 17 part-time; total=637
2001--581 full time; 19 part-time; total=600
2002--608 full time; 16 part-time; total=624
2003--648 full time; 61 part-time; total=709.

i don't think these figures include GTA or research assistants, because another IHL table for 2003 (the only one i looked at) said we had 653 instructional/research assistants.

Date: Mar 27, 2005

If there is any truth to these figures, StChMan, then the number of part-time faculty has soared. Perhaps the H-A should do a story on that. They could report on whether the students can find them when they need them.

Date: Mar 27, 2005

scm,

Not all graduate teaching assistants are "instructors of record." In fact, most are not.

I'm willing to bet that the Thames administration also started counting administrators with faculty titles who had not been reported as faculty by its predecessors.

Otherwise... a net increase of 40 full-time faculty between 2002 and 2003 would mean a lot of new faculty hiring? How much was there?

Robert Campbell

PS. Faculty Senates have to keep track of "real faculty" (i.e., those eligible to vote for Senators) for appointment purposes. What are the totals on the USM Faculty Senate apportionment lists for the last three years?

Date: Mar 27, 2005

Sorry, apportionment purposes...

Date: Mar 27, 2005

all concerns about data accuracy should be taken up with the IHL!

for you data hounds, here is the percentage of total faculty that part-time faculty comprise. the data are for 03, 02, and 99. all come from the IHL.

ASU--2.9%; 8.4%; 0.0%
DSU--9.6%; 5.6%; 11.2%
JSU--20.3%; 19.7%; 11.6%
MSU--11.4%; 10.0%; 2.1%
MUW--23.9%; 27.8%; 30.0%
MVSU--17.0%; 13.2%; 10.9%
UM--29.5%; 25.5%; 15.9%
USM--8.6%; 2.6%; 2.1%

Date: Mar 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
".....part-time faculty UM--29.5%; 25.5%; 15.9%"

I notice that UM has the highest percentage of part-time faculty. Do these part-time percentages include the UM Medical School in Jackson as well as the campus in Oxford? If they do, my guess is that a substantial number of part-timers among the UM figures are medical practitioners in the community. Most medical schools, appropriately, make what they call "clinical appointments" from the local medical community. This would raise the UM part-time percentages.

Date: Mar 27, 2005

Campbell is correct. When I mailed out the AAUP surveys, I requested the names and Box numbers of the faculty. I had to go through and eliminate administrators, visiting folks, and graduate students who were teachers that most of use would not consider to bemembers of the "faculty". There are lots and lots of instructors.

Amy Young

Date: Mar 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"all concerns about data accuracy should be taken up with the IHL!

scm,

They really should be.

I'll bet that the IHL Board has vague reporting standards, if any, for the number of faculty at one of its component institutions. And whatever the rules say, the IHL normally accepts what's handed to it by a president or other upper administrator.

You can bet that some of the universities in the Mississippi state system are being much stricter than others about who qualifies as faculty.

And, without evidence of massive new faculty hiring under Thames, I'm reasonably sure that his administration has taken faculty numbers that used to be reasonably honest and is now deep-frying them before they go to the IHL.

Amy's experience with the grossly padded "faculty" mailing list supports my contention. If USM's beleaguered Institutional Research office participates in the Oklahoma State comparisons (of mean faculty salaries by discipline and rank), you should find faculty numbers in those comparisons that add up to more realistic totals.

Robert Campbell

Date: Mar 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"don't know if this helps, but the source is the IHL. Here are the figures for USM from the IHL website (where the HA got its figures)-- 1999--684 full time faculty; 15 part-time faculty; total=699 2000--620 full time; 17 part-time; total=637 2001--581 full time; 19 part-time; total=600 2002--608 full time; 16 part-time; total=624 2003--648 full time; 61 part-time; total=709. i don't think these figures include GTA or research assistants, because another IHL table for 2003 (the only one i looked at) said we had 653 instructional/research assistants."

These numbers are certainly counterintutive in my exoerience. If there re an extra 109 faculty over the periord between 2001 and 2003 then very few if any of them are in my college (CoAL).

When both Academic Cnouncil and Senate tried to get hard figures on the number of full time, tenure track faculty in order to compile voting rolls, it was not so easy to get a hard number. And the final numbers were much lower than these numbers suggest. I wonder how many of the extra 67 full time faculty members since 2001 are (1) primarily administrators and (2) non-teaching research faculty?

Date: Mar 27, 2005

We don't have a good headcount of faculty or students. Our ACT reporting is bogus as well, probably even much lower than we could guess as whole. If the admin. can't even get these seemingly simple numbers right, I wonder about the financial side of the picture. Of course, I along with many others have been hammering away to get some disclosure on our financial status. If SFT and Co. really wanted us to understand the dire straits we are facing then they would explain the whole picture to the public. What money comes in and where it goes and how this impacts reaching our future goals (what are these?). There is no accountability in the system. I'm sorry to say it but USM is in real trouble, even with SFT gone one day, who will the IHL bestow upon us? We need the IHL to spell out their strategic vision for MS and its universities and USM. This is not a USM problem as we well know, this is up to the board to articulate and communicate their strategic plan for the universities. I think the strengthened Commissioner position is a way for the IHL to do some massive restructuring without taking the heat, often the way companies bring in consultants to do the dirty work. I dunno, I hope I'm wrong, but I fear the worst for USM, but we're going to have to face financial reality. It's the most grotesque thing to watch SFT and others squander money like they do in these times of continued belt-tightening. It makes me sick.

Date: Mar 27, 2005

Last year the AAUP officers got some kind of a list (from Hudson?) of faculty members and it was 460 or 480. Were these full-time tenure-track? I remember that at the time one of them said it made the 430 no-confidence vote even more significant. If I am remembering this incorrectly, would some knowledgable person please correct me?

Date: Mar 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: No Way Jose
" I dunno, I hope I'm wrong, but I fear the worst for USM, but we're going to have to face financial reality. "

NWJ,

Lest we become TOO pessimistic, consider these points:

(1) Southern MS is (and is likely to remain) the fastest-growing area of the state;

(2) Therefore southern MS will always need a good university;

(3) The physical plant at Hattiesburg would make it unlikely that a new university in southern MS would ever be started; there will probably always be a university, and a large one, in Hattiesburg;

(4) Perhaps, through the incompetence of SFT and the connivings of the IHL, USM will someday be absorbed into either UM or MSU; this, however, would not be the worst fate and could in fact prove very beneficial.

Thus, don't despair (at least not entirely).

Date: Mar 27, 2005

"Perhaps, through the incompetence of SFT and the connivings of the IHL, USM will someday be absorbed into either UM or MSU; this, however, would not be the worst fate and could in fact prove very beneficial."

Are you high???

This would, in fact, be the worst thing that could ever happen to the institution. I'm certainly no fan of Thames, but this would be the arrow through the heart of higher ed in MS.

No benefit to the majority of the citizens of Mississippi would come of such heresy. You would see students, faculty, and alumni dissappear in droves. Look outside the state for guidance before even thinking about the other (public) institutions inside the state lines. Fight for the right solution...a free and self-governed USM.

Date: Mar 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Gatoreagle
"This would, in fact, be the worst thing that could ever happen to the institution. I'm certainly no fan of Thames, but this would be the arrow through the heart of higher ed in MS. No benefit to the majority of the citizens of Mississippi would come of such heresy. You would see students, faculty, and alumni dissappear in droves."

Gatoreagle,

Can you explain in greater detail? I am from outside the state, so I may not understand all the negative ramifications of such a change. How would UM-Hattiesburg be worse than U of Alabama-Birmingham or than U of North Carolina-Charlotte?

Please understand that I do NOT think this is the ideal solution; I just see it as something that would happen long before a university campus in Hattiesburg would ever completely disappear. I just cannot see the latter eventuality occurring, although others have raised it as a real prospect. Perhaps I'm wrong, however.

Date: Mar 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Gatoreagle
"
This would, in fact, be the worst thing that could ever happen to the institution. I'm certainly no fan of Thames, but this would be the arrow through the heart of higher ed in MS.
No benefit to the majority of the citizens of Mississippi would come of such heresy. You would see students, faculty, and alumni dissappear in droves. Look outside the state for guidance before even thinking about the other (public) institutions inside the state lines. Fight for the right solution...a free and self-governed USM."

Why? There is only a tiny community of real alumni to speak of; that is, those that are interested in more than the football team. We're a poor state. We can't afford even one Tier 2 college. Why not combine resources and push the flagship into atleast the second tier?

Date: Mar 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Gatoreagle
"This would, in fact, be the worst thing that could ever happen to the institution."

Gatoreagle -

UNC Greensboro, UNC Charlotte, and UCLA do just fine. A University of Mississippi at Hattiesburg would be good for students, faculty, and south Mississippi.

It would clean out the local cronyism and give the university good leadership and a voice in Jackson.

What's not to like?

Date: Mar 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Gator Aid
" Gatoreagle - UNC Greensboro, UNC Charlotte, and UCLA do just fine. A University of Mississippi at Hattiesburg would be good for students, faculty, and south Mississippi. It would clean out the local cronyism and give the university good leadership and a voice in Jackson. What's not to like? "

This university has grown up as an independent entity from the beginning. It is culturally committed to and identified with South Mississippi. It has also fought too hard for too long within a political system that has advanced the interests of the two major northern universities at (some would claim) the expense of USM and Southern Mississippi. I'm not even from here and I'd be bitter to see that happen -- it would mean USM would permenently be on a leash controlled directly from the orth end of the state. I don't think any of us want to go there. I would not -- once this place becomes a sattelite campus I am really out of here.

This univesity has a very distinct culture and ethos. I liked that when I came here (though it has, unfortunately, chnaged for the worse). The key to getting back on the road is not making it an extension of UM or MSU -- but of chnaging the leadership.

BY the way, the other systems you describe are STATE systems and have been that way for quite some time. That is their heritage. When I was at SUNY, the campuses all had grown very distinct traditions within the larger system. I think that would not work here unless all UNiversities became part of one system -- even then I think it would be difficult.

Date: Mar 28, 2005

Stephen posted an excellent response. I couldn't explain it any better than that. USM would not be the same place if it were to become the Univ. of MS - Hattiesburg. I would never, ever step foot on campus again if that were to happen.

The good thing is that supposedly, the IHL is looking at Georgia as a model structure of governance. Georgia has not implemented the satellite campus structure and allowed Georgia State, Georgia Southern, West Georgia, Valdosta State, et al to flourish.

Date: Mar 28, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Gatoreagle
" USM would not be the same place if it were to become the Univ. of MS - Hattiesburg. I would never, ever step foot on campus again if that were to happen."

If USM were to become the University of Mississippi at Hattiesburg (such as UAB has become in Alabama), the influx here would be so great you'd have to make reservations just to get your foot on campus.

If USM retains the status quo (which is not working), there'll be plenty of room for everybody and lots of empty parking spaces.

Currently there is not a level playing field between USM, Mississippi State, and Ole Miss. The North Carolina system works in the tar heel state and it could work here.

Change is not always bad, especially if it levels the playing field.

Date: Mar 28, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
"It is culturally committed to and identified with South Mississippi.

But I had hoped that USM would have national, not regional, aspirations.

Date: Mar 28, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Gatoreagle
USM would not be the same place if it were to become the Univ. of MS - Hattiesburg."

That's precisely the point. It would not be the same place thank heaven.

Date: Mar 28, 2005

I can see the University of Mississippi at Oxford not supporting a consolidated system of higher education in Mississippi and a name change for USM, but I don't understand why USM supporters would object except maybe those wedded to the past. I'll bet Texas A&M at College Station objected more than East Texas State did when the school at Commerce became part of the Texas A&M system and underwent a name change accordingly.

Date: Mar 28, 2005

If preserving the physical name "University of Southern Mississippi" is so all fired important, then let's keep that name but name the school in Oxford "University of Northern Mississippi" and the school in Jackson "University of Central Mississippi." Then we'd all appear to be equally limited in scope.

Date: Mar 28, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: The Ayes of Texas
"I can see the University of Mississippi at Oxford not supporting a consolidated system of higher education in Mississippi and a name change for USM, but I don't understand why USM supporters would object except maybe those wedded to the past. I'll bet Texas A&M at College Station objected more than East Texas State did when the school at Commerce became part of the Texas A&M system and underwent a name change accordingly. "

Most state systems have a central or "Flagship" campus. (SUNY did not --- the campuses were divided by function/specialization).

In this state, there WILL be a flagship campus and it will be in Oxford. Given this state's proclivity already for giving the best and the most to the two northern schols, I only see that as giving the state license to do more of the same.

I am not ready for that.

I've been in this state since 1998 -- it doesn't take long to get bitter about how politics work in Mississippi. As long as we are USM =, we can at least pretend to chart our own course. Once we are in a central system with Oxford being the major campus, even that will no longer be true.

Bet on it .

Date: Mar 28, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
"
As long as we are USM =, we can at least pretend to chart our own course. .
."

Right now, is this a good thing? I mean, we've got a captain that is, to borrow Roy Klumber's phrase, saying "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead."

Seems to me all we have left is haggling whether we like the maroon lifeboat or the red, white, and blue one?

Also, what is the real "identity" we want to preserve, anyway? We've got about as fractured a self-image as (to groosly overstate the case) the Palestinians. So we want to memorialize the fact we're the bastard child of the state's higher education system?

I'm putting myself up for adoption!

Date: Mar 28, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: AAUP groupie
"Last year the AAUP officers got some kind of a list (from Hudson?) of faculty members and it was 460 or 480. Were these full-time tenure-track? I remember that at the time one of them said it made the 430 no-confidence vote even more significant. If I am remembering this incorrectly, would some knowledgable person please correct me?"

Back to the original question: If not 709 faculty, then how many? Amy Young noted:

"When I mailed out the AAUP surveys, I requested the names and Box numbers of the faculty. I had to go through and eliminate administrators, visiting folks, and graduate students who were teachers that most of use would not consider to bemembers of the "faculty". There are lots and lots of instructors."

So, is the true number of faculty 460, or what? This may be significant, given SFT's comments about "state financial cuts causing loss of 100+ faculty."

Date: Mar 28, 2005

according to USM's 04-05 fact book there are 517 tenured or tenure-track faculty.

Date: Mar 28, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"according to USM's 04-05 fact book there are 517 tenured or tenure-track faculty."

Is the Fact Book available on-line, for those of us no longer in the Hub City? For that matter, has it been "fact-checked," say by comparing the numbers of Faculty Senate ballots, or the AAUP list compiled by Dr. Young?