The following is from the Faculty Senate Listserv:
"Good Morning Ray:
Thanks for your continued efforts to share these stories with colleague senators. The Clarion Ledger article below prompts me to share some data with all senators. Funding approaches such as the one discussed below are usually based on full-time equivalent students (FTES) which in turn are based on student credit hours generated (SCHs). One FTES often equals 15 SCHs (or 12 SCHs for financial aid purposes).
Our own USM Fact Book seems to reveal the following data for fiscal years 2002-2003 (FY 2003) and 2003-2004 (FY 2004). In FY 2003, USM generated a total of 405,313.5 SCHs (summer 2002, fall 2002, and spring 2003). In FY 2004, USM generated a total of 403,615.5 SCHs (summer 2003, fall 2003, and spring 2004. Thus, SCHs appeared to decline by 1,698 SCHs from FY 2003 totals to FY 2004 totals.
Based on requests from several interested faculty, I asked for SCH data from 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 at the last President's Council. Although I was assured I would receive the data (I presumed in a timely way), I have not received any data directly from Joe Paul or Joan Exline. I did make another request for 2004-2005 SCH data, and Dr. Exline said she would not be able to make the data available until the next PC meeting (some six weeks after my initial request). I was not able to access FY 2005 data from the Fact Book (I am not sure why I couldn't pull the data up), so there are no comparisons to offer from FY 2005.
Although we appear to have seen an SCH decline from FY 2003 to FY 2004, one year does not make a trend. We won't know about two-year trends until SCH data are available from FY 2005 (summer 2004, fall 2004, and spring 2005). Once I get FY 2005 SCH data, I will again report the numbers to senators.
Thanks again, Ray, for your efforts to keep us informed. Myron"
"In FY 2003, USM generated a total of 405,313.5 SCHs (summer 2002, fall 2002, and spring 2003). In FY 2004, USM generated a total of 403,615.5 SCHs (summer 2003, fall 2003, and spring 2004. Thus, SCHs appeared to decline by 1,698 SCHs from FY 2003 totals to FY 2004 totals." According to this data for FY 2003 [(405313.5 SCH/15 SCH per FTE] = 27020.9 FTE per year and [(27020.9 FTE per year) /2 semesters per year = 13,510.45 students per semester.
For FY 2004 [403615.5SCH/ 15 SCH per FTE] = 26907.7 FTE per year and [(26907.7 FTE per year)/ 2 semesters per year] = 13,453.85 students per semester. A lost of 56.6 students!
Maybe someone should share this information with Toy McLaughlin, the faculty-hating, rifle-threatening, asset-redistributing Foundation President who is spreading the dome lie that enrollment is up. Unlike Roy Klumb, Toy is supposed to be a numbers guy and so the concept of FTE analysis shouldn't be too difficult for him. If it is, I suppose we can go back to simply asking him to correct the inflated 16,000 student number he is using. And this man touts integrity?
"Water always seeks its own level" Is it really a supprise that a friend of ST would exhibt this behavior: threatens to harm to people who don't do or think exactly as he demands they do; Arranges the numbers exactly the way he wants them; Does anything he pleases but woe unto anyone else who tries it; Takes the law into his own hands and ignores laws that he doen's like.
quote: Originally posted by: Toy's Story "Unlike Roy Klumb, Toy is supposed to be a numbers guy and so the concept of FTE analysis shouldn't be too difficult for him."
Don't bet on it.
See this ET post where he states that 500,000 is "one half billion" (with a "b")...
quote: Originally posted by: Invictus " Don't bet on it. See this ET post where he states that 500,000 is "one half billion" (with a "b")... "
This is very funny, especially coming from a guy who makes his living working with numbers. If I were a client, I would be worried. He also needs to calm down; he seems to have a very highly strung temper.
Am I ever glad I didn't give those people my money! Although at the time there was a local person working with them who seems to be above reproach. Noticed that she's not mentioned on the webpage.
quote: Originally posted by: Dogpiler "This is very funny, especially coming from a guy who makes his living working with numbers. If I were a client, I would be worried. He also needs to calm down; he seems to have a very highly strung temper."
If a stockbroker really makes his living working with numbers, then I'm a polymer chemist. Stockbrokers make their living looking at patterns. The "numbers" could just as easily be squares, rectangles & tiny pictures of Grover the Grouch, as long as they indicate patterns.
I can only guess that the way the Rwandans managed to massacre one-twelfth of the world's population with a half million bullets was by lining the victims up ten deep. How they managed to get one-twelfth of the world's population to come to Rwanda is another question entirely.
quote: Originally posted by: ram "Not to argue, but the stockbrokers I know make a living by convincing people to buy what they are selling. Its all about confidence. "
So, stockbrokers are "confidence men"? Hmmm.... Quite similar to university development officers, eh?
quote: Originally posted by: Invictus " So, stockbrokers are "confidence men"? Hmmm.... Quite similar to university development officers, eh? "
I heard stockbrokers are better compared to "bookies". They don't care who wins because they make their money ("juice") from the number playing. Whether the market goes up or down, the broker makes money on the number of transactions. Both only need to encourage many people to play. "Call 1-800- xxx-xxx for tonight's special picks on the up coming games." or "You can make a bundle if you get into the market now."
My stockbroker is a very nice young man who has been honest and upfront with me. However, I do a lot of my own research, especially thru Morningstar. I do need his help, but I don't follow him blindly, and I don't "play" the market -- it's not a game.
I would never, never invest with someone like this Toy person who seems to be somewhat unstable at best.