USM: The next 12 months - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Apr 26, 2005

USM: The next 12 months

Date: Apr 26, 2005

Thanks for the early morning FUD, Walt. You forgot to mention the mass faculty exit between Sept.05 and May 06, but other than that what you wrote is possible. I also doubt Newton would vote for SFT. Your scenario would be the deciding evidence for the conspiracy theory.

Date: Apr 26, 2005

Sometimes you not only get what you ask for but what you deserve. Enjoy Walt.

Date: Apr 26, 2005

LeavingASAP, there would also be a mass faculty replacement to go along with the mass faculty exodus you mention between August '05 and May '06. If people believe that nobody would want to work at USM, they're wrong. What Thames et al. are doing is taking things back 3-4 decades. There were faculty at USM back in 1975. Mainly teaching/service (relatively little research) I admit, but classes were covered. That's all they care about.

Don't you put any stock in the consipiracy theory?

Date: Apr 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: The Gift Horse
"Sometimes you not only get what you ask for but what you deserve. Enjoy Walt."

I do not see any other evidence (except for what was posted above) to label "Walt" a troll.
His post was very insightful and matter of fact. If anyone knows of any reason to "dis" Walt, please share. Otherwise, lets wait and see what happens at the next IHL meeting. If no action takes place in May, we will know that Walt's scenario is a BIG possibility and faculty need to review their options. Stay and fight or leave and be free.

Date: Apr 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: talan
"LeavingASAP, there would also be a mass faculty replacement to go along with the mass faculty exodus you mention between August '05 and May '06. If people believe that nobody would want to work at USM, they're wrong. What Thames et al. are doing is taking things back 3-4 decades. There were faculty at USM back in 1975. Mainly teaching/service (relatively little research) I admit, but classes were covered. That's all they care about. Don't you put any stock in the consipiracy theory?"

Talan, the recruitment will occur after the faculty leave. Faculty will look and leave at the end of semesters, then searches can begin. However, if you read the thread, "Faculty Recruitment Problems" on this page, I think it will be hard to get good faculty. I haven't yet committed to the conspiracy theory, especially with so may departures at the upper levels.

Date: Apr 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Walt
"May-July: The IHL Board takes no action on Thames; in fact, makes hardly a mention of his status as the USM president. Same IHL Board passes a very weak, if any, form of Crofts' governance plan. Several system presidents are already on record as opposing his new plan to evaluate system presidents, and they will come forward to oppose the big parts of his new governance scheme. The governance guru from Georgia just got s-canned, so his credibility with certain members of the board is diminished. August: USM forwards its report on SACS probation to Atlanta to alot of local fanfare and media hoopla. September: SACS visits USM campus to affirm that progress has been made in the areas of concern from December '04. USM claims victory on departure. December: SACS removes USM's probationary status at its annual December meeting. Huge celebrations ensue in Hattiesburg heading into Christmas holiday season. January-February: SACS victory celebrations continue, but fade away. IHL Board commends Thames on his hard work during the SACS incident and rewards him with a contract extension, to begin in May 2006. This type of "recess" extension (i.e., outside the usual window for extending/firing prezs) is much easier to pull off than having tried to do it back in May/June of 2005. Coming on the heels of a big SACS crisis victory, Thames' extension passes IHL muster by a vote of 8-4 (private), then 12-0 (public). Virginia Shanteau-Newton has to make the announcement (to her chagrin), while sly dogs Klumb, Ross and Colbert look on. Surprising to some, Robin Robinson is in the sneering section with Klumb et al. May: The Thames experiment continues. "

Walt,what you have failed to recognize in your worst case scenario is the unspoken quid pro quo between the IHL and the USM faculty. The only power the faculty has over the IHL is the ability to deliver an unaccredited university. For now, the faculty is working very hard on accreditation in the understanding that the credit will not go to the current administration and that the current administration will not be staying around for long. If the IHL fails to take appropriate action in May, look for most faculty to cease any voluntary efforts on behalf of AACS accreditation and to begin to develop personal exit strategies. The outcome of the SACS visit in September is contingent upon the IHL actions in May. Surely over half of the IHL comprehends that.

Date: Apr 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: talan
"LeavingASAP, there would also be a mass faculty replacement to go along with the mass faculty exodus you mention between August '05 and May '06. If people believe that nobody would want to work at USM, they're wrong. What Thames et al. are doing is taking things back 3-4 decades. There were faculty at USM back in 1975. Mainly teaching/service (relatively little research) I admit, but classes were covered. That's all they care about.
Don't you put any stock in the consipiracy theory?"

I agree with this statement. There will be no problem getting warm bodies with PH.D.s from regional institutions to fill faculty slots. I've already seen the deterioration in the quality of assistant professors in my formerly well-regarded, Ph.D.-granting department. I don't want to sound petty, but the low salaries, looser job market, and recent administrative problems have meant that we are not recruiting the same quality as we once did.

Date: Apr 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Don't touch that dial
" Walt,what you have failed to recognize in your worst case scenario is the unspoken quid pro quo between the IHL and the USM faculty. The only power the faculty has over the IHL is the ability to deliver an unaccredited university. For now, the faculty is working very hard on accreditation in the understanding that the credit will not go to the current administration and that the current administration will not be staying around for long. If the IHL fails to take appropriate action in May, look for most faculty to cease any voluntary efforts on behalf of AACS accreditation and to begin to develop personal exit strategies. The outcome of the SACS visit in September is contingent upon the IHL actions in May. Surely over half of the IHL comprehends that. "

IHL, I hope you are listening . . .

Date: Apr 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: asdf
" There will be no problem getting warm bodies with PH.D.s from regional institutions to fill faculty slots. "

or worse yet, from our own...

Date: Apr 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: asdf
"There will be no problem getting warm bodies with PH.D.s from regional institutions to fill faculty slots."

Your statement is correct, but your assumption is wrong. Just because somebody holds a Ph.D. from an Ivy League school does not mean they're worth a tinkers dam. And just because somebody holds a Ph.D. from a regional university does not mean they are incompetent. I've seen many an arrogant Ivy graduate bite the academic cow dung, and I've seen many a hodunk university graduate scale to the top based on their competence and ability. It may be easier to get a good first academic job if you're from an Ivy, but after that it's your ability that counts.

Date: Apr 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Alphabet Soup
".... but after that it's your ability that counts. "

USM may be an exception to that principle.

Date: Apr 26, 2005

Alphabet, I don't think the poster necessarily meant warm body graduates of regional institutions (versus Ivy Leagues). I think he/she meant warm body occupants of jobs at regional institutions.

There are swarms of people at places like Podunk U that would love to hold positions at a watered down USM. They could never in their wildest dreams thought of being at a place as high up as USM, until now that is... (remember that even Tier IV can look like the top of Mount Everest from the vantage point of some schools).

Date: Apr 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Don't touch that dial
" Walt,what you have failed to recognize in your worst case scenario is the unspoken quid pro quo between the IHL and the USM faculty. The only power the faculty has over the IHL is the ability to deliver an unaccredited university. For now, the faculty is working very hard on accreditation in the understanding that the credit will not go to the current administration and that the current administration will not be staying around for long. If the IHL fails to take appropriate action in May, look for most faculty to cease any voluntary efforts on behalf of AACS accreditation and to begin to develop personal exit strategies. The outcome of the SACS visit in September is contingent upon the IHL actions in May. Surely over half of the IHL comprehends that. "

DTTD, I don't believe for a minute that the IHL understands that an implicit agreement is being made. They fully intend to place credit for getting rid of SACS problems in the hands of one individual. You might be right, that faculty working on these problems are holding to a qpq till May. But I don't think for a second the IHL is in on the deal at all.

Date: Apr 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: talan
"DTTD, I don't believe for a minute that the IHL understands that an implicit agreement is being made. They fully intend to place credit for getting rid of SACS problems in the hands of one individual. You might be right, that faculty working on these problems are holding to a qpq till May. But I don't think for a second the IHL is in on the deal at all."

But its not Halloween. Do you think they could be fools in disguise?

Date: Apr 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: talan
"DTTD, I don't believe for a minute that the IHL understands that an implicit agreement is being made. They fully intend to place credit for getting rid of SACS problems in the hands of one individual. You might be right, that faculty working on these problems are holding to a qpq till May. But I don't think for a second the IHL is in on the deal at all."

The IHL might be what we used to call "slow learners." The may not recognize the implicit "deal" -- but won't they recognize its effects?

Faculty are not fungible. If the faculty who work to maintain SACS accreditation do not receive what they are working for (i.e., acknowlegment of their efforts, reliable indications of an administrative change), then they may move on. While their replacements may be adequate within the "Core of Instruction," I cannot help but wonder if they will be as adept at maintaining accreditation.

We have already witnessed the adverse effects of diminished institutional knowledge and memory. I'm afraid we'll see more as the senior faculty disappear without a mechanism to share with their successors.

Date: Apr 26, 2005

ram,

are you familiar with the banking regulation phrase "the too big to fail problem"?

If so, can we draw a parallel to USM and the SACS issue?

Date: Apr 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: banker
"ram,
are you familiar with the banking regulation phrase "the too big to fail problem"?
If so, can we draw a parallel to USM and the SACS issue?"

I'm familiar with the phrase--its doesn't apply to USM. We'll pull out of SACS probation because faculty are working very hard to make it so

Date: Apr 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: banker
"ram, are you familiar with the banking regulation phrase "the too big to fail problem"? If so, can we draw a parallel to USM and the SACS issue?"

I understand "too big to fail" to mean that there are banks that are so large that their failure would disrupt the entire economy. As a result, our economic system (via "the government") has a need to assure that those institutions do not fail, even to the extent of "propping them up" if you will.

Like qwerty, I cannot see the analogy. I do not think that USM will lose accreditation, but only so long as USM has the dedicated faculty competent to do what has to be done. The administration cannot do it without the faculty carrying the load.

The idea that USM might get a pass because the loss of its accreditation would shake the underpinnings of American higher education is -- well -- entertaining.

Date: Apr 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
" The idea that USM might get a pass because the loss of its accreditation would shake the underpinnings of American higher education is -- well -- entertaining. "

But wouldn't loss of accreditation make the IHL -- and its support of Shelby -- look very, very bad?

I honestly don't know; I'm just asking. I am *hoping* this would be true, but maybe not.

Date: Apr 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
" I understand "too big to fail" to mean that there are banks that are so large that their failure would disrupt the entire economy. As a result, our economic system (via "the government") has a need to assure that those institutions do not fail, even to the extent of "propping them up" if you will. Like qwerty, I cannot see the analogy. I do not think that USM will lose accreditation, but only so long as USM has the dedicated faculty competent to do what has to be done. The administration cannot do it without the faculty carrying the load. The idea that USM might get a pass because the loss of its accreditation would shake the underpinnings of American higher education is -- well -- entertaining. "

It wouldn't shake the underpinnings of the system, but it would screw up the lives of 15,000 people. There is no way SACS will completely pull USM's accreditation under any circumstance.

Date: Apr 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
" I understand "too big to fail" to mean that there are banks that are so large that their failure would disrupt the entire economy."

If Harvard failed - yes. If Duke failed - yes. If MIT failed - yes. If USM failed - in a pig's eye. We could easily be the sacrificial lamb.

Date: Apr 26, 2005

Can someone post a list of schools that SACS has completely taken accreditation from? I bet we won't see anything big there.

Date: Apr 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: banker
" It wouldn't shake the underpinnings of the system, but it would screw up the lives of 15,000 people. There is no way SACS will completely pull USM's accreditation under any circumstance."

Those 15,000 lives are no more important than the lives of the much smaller number at the schools that actually lost their accreditation.

Date: Apr 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: banker
" It wouldn't shake the underpinnings of the system, but it would screw up the lives of 15,000 people. There is no way SACS will completely pull USM's accreditation under any circumstance."

That is certainly what Shelby and his investors are banking on.

Date: Apr 26, 2005

you won't see a state-supported university on the list of colleges and universities from who accreditation has been taken. SACS doesn't see it in their best interest to remove accreditation from a university. that's the reason it takes a lot to get SACS accreditation in the first place. look at what went on at Grambling State and University of Louisiana-Monroe.

Date: Apr 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: banker
" There is no way SACS will completely pull USM's accreditation under any circumstance."

No comment.

Date: Apr 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"you won't see a state-supported university on the list of colleges and universities from who accreditation has been taken. SACS doesn't see it in their best interest to remove accreditation from a university. that's the reason it takes a lot to get SACS accreditation in the first place. look at what went on at Grambling State and University of Louisiana-Monroe. "

But it seems to me that USM has gone far beyond the limits of what is permissable at an accredited university. Are you suggesting that it is our "size" or our "public status" that protects USM?

Date: Apr 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: banker
"There is no way SACS will completely pull USM's accreditation under any circumstance."

Then why do we bother?

Date: Apr 26, 2005

neither our size nor public status protects us. i just disagree that we've "gone far beyond the limits." that's not to say that problems have to be solved. i predict (and have for months) our probation will be extended one year more (until 12/2006).