2004 Nursing Report Out - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: May 2, 2005

2004 Nursing Report Out

Date: May 2, 2005

Please note the correct address for the Nursing information confirmation. The address given in the initial posting was incorrect. Here is the correct one:

www.nursingms.org

Date: May 2, 2005

This sounds VERY significant; I'd be interested in hearing the reactions of others. Thanks for this report.

Date: May 3, 2005

kick

Date: May 3, 2005

Based on latest pass rates, the state nursing programs can be "tiered" using a t-test (p-value of 0.05). These are:

Tier I: Alcorn and Miss College

Tier II: UMMC, MUW, and WCC

Tier III: Delta State and USM

Date: May 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Nursing Stats
"Based on latest pass rates, the state nursing programs can be "tiered" using a t-test (p-value of 0.05). These are: Tier I: Alcorn and Miss College Tier II: UMMC, MUW, and WCC Tier III: Delta State and USM "

You may want to employ a non-parametric test given the metric, and use an omnibus test first, followed by appropriate post-hoc analyses to minimize Type I error.

Date: May 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Stat Stickler
"You may want to employ a non-parametric test given the metric, and use an omnibus test first, followed by appropriate post-hoc analyses to minimize Type I error."

Seriously, can someone please comment on the significance of this report? It seems to me to be potentially very significant news -- news that should be shared with the IHL and the wider public if it is as significant as it appears to untrained eyes. Can someone who knows something about nursing please comment on this thread? This news seems tailor-made for a big article in the HA, unless I am very mistaken. Surely even Shelby's biggest supporters will not be pleased to see that the nursing program has taken such a dive while Shelby has been at the wheel.

Date: May 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"Seriously, can someone please comment on the significance of this report? It seems to me to be potentially very significant news -- news that should be shared with the IHL and the wider public if it is as significant as it appears to untrained eyes. Can someone who knows something about nursing please comment on this thread? This news seems tailor-made for a big article in the HA, unless I am very mistaken. Surely even Shelby's biggest supporters will not be pleased to see that the nursing program has taken such a dive while Shelby has been at the wheel."

I believe this drop in scores has already been the subject of news reports indicating that the rigor of nursing courses will be increased. In these reports were stories of nursing students being afraid of nursing profs. Getting the word out on what was going on in nursing seemed to fall flat (almost backfired) in those earlier news stories.

Date: May 3, 2005

Nurse Cratchett, can you direct me to the annual report on the website www.nursingms.org so we can check the data? I can't seem to locate it.

Date: May 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Checker
"Nurse Cratchett, can you direct me to the annual report on the website www.nursingms.org so we can check the data? I can't seem to locate it."

Never mind. I was blind.

Date: May 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: News historian
"I believe this drop in scores has already been the subject of news reports indicating that the rigor of nursing courses will be increased. In these reports were stories of nursing students being afraid of nursing profs. Getting the word out on what was going on in nursing seemed to fall flat (almost backfired) in those earlier news stories."

Thanks for a thoughtful response. I'm assuming that the nursing faculty today are (for the most part) the same nursing faculty of a few years ago. I'm assuming that the caliber of students is basically the same today as it was a few years ago. What, then, accounts for the recent drop in the standing of the program? This is an honest question. I'm assuming that The Shelby Effect (TSE) has something to do with it (e.g., demoralization of the faculty, distraction from the task of teaching properly, perhaps a tendency by better students to begin moving elsewhere, etc.). However, any better-informed thoughts on these matters would be appreciated.

Date: May 3, 2005

I think it would be erroneous to attribute these poor scores to the nursing students or to the nursing faculty.The culprit is clearly Shelby Thames

Date: May 3, 2005

It seems like the drop in enrollment is the "big story" in this. The HA ran huge headlines over a miniscule rise in enrollment university-wide. This is a much more significant number.

Date: May 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: LVN
"It seems like the drop in enrollment is the "big story" in this. The HA ran huge headlines over a miniscule rise in enrollment university-wide. This is a much more significant number."

Excellent point (as usual).

Date: May 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"What, then, accounts for the recent drop in the standing of the program?"

USM Sympathizer,

The major factors seem to be faculty turnover and attrition, especially among the experienced and senior faculty and having three directors in three years. This is an honest question.

Your other observation about the IHL being interested in this sort of thing is correct. The demise of what was arguably the premier nursing program in the state would seem to be the canary in the coal mine. Unfortunately, one would think that the infamous enrollment report, an attempt to fire two senior, tenured faculty members which resulted in a settlement costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, and getting a state university on SACS probation for the first time since 1930 would be enough to stir the IHL into action. And that's only the obvious stuff that is known to all.

The decline in academic quality in many departments at USM is the untold story. The discipline of Nursing is just one of the unfortunate ones to have a national testing program that reveals what has gone on in many academic programs around here over the past three years.

Date: May 4, 2005

If I were a USM nursing student, a USM nursing graduate, or even a high school student thinking about entering the nursing program, I would find these figures very disturbing. Has this news hit the nursing student body yet?

Date: May 4, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Honest as the day is long
" USM Sympathizer, The major factors seem to be faculty turnover and attrition, especially among the experienced and senior faculty and having three directors in three years. This is an honest question. Your other observation about the IHL being interested in this sort of thing is correct. The demise of what was arguably the premier nursing program in the state would seem to be the canary in the coal mine. Unfortunately, one would think that the infamous enrollment report, an attempt to fire two senior, tenured faculty members which resulted in a settlement costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, and getting a state university on SACS probation for the first time since 1930 would be enough to stir the IHL into action. And that's only the obvious stuff that is known to all. The decline in academic quality in many departments at USM is the untold story. The discipline of Nursing is just one of the unfortunate ones to have a national testing program that reveals what has gone on in many academic programs around here over the past three years. "

Thanks for an excellent reply.

Date: May 4, 2005

From Faculty Senate Listserv:

---------------------------
"To all:

Many, if not, all of you have received a message forwarded by Bonnie
Harbaugh of a posting on the AAUP Message Board about the 39% decrease
in enrollment reported on the IHL Annual Report. In fact, our
enrollment was reported in Fall 2003 to be 533 and only 329 in Fall
2004. However, we have not decreased in enrollment. In the Fall 2003
IHL report, the enrollment was reported as pre-nursing and nursing
majors combined. When I was working on the Fall 2004 report, I called
Dr. Ware to clarify if we were to be reporting nursing majors or
pre-nursing and nursing combined. The response was nursing majors
only. I then told her that the Fall 2003 was not accurate.

That Hattiesburg American has already called and I attempted to clarify the information but assured them that our nursing enrollment has increased not decreased and that it was a discrepancy in data reported."

Date: May 4, 2005

Thanks for clarifying this.

Date: May 4, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by: Error Correction
"From Faculty Senate Listserv: --------------------------- "To all: Many, if not, all of you have received a message forwarded by Bonnie Harbaugh of a posting on the AAUP Message Board about the 39% decrease in enrollment reported on the IHL Annual Report. In fact, our enrollment was reported in Fall 2003 to be 533 and only 329 in Fall 2004. However, we have not decreased in enrollment. In the Fall 2003 IHL report, the enrollment was reported as pre-nursing and nursing majors combined. When I was working on the Fall 2004 report, I called Dr. Ware to clarify if we were to be reporting nursing majors or pre-nursing and nursing combined. The response was nursing majors only. I then told her that the Fall 2003 was not accurate. That Hattiesburg American has already called and I attempted to clarify the information but assured them that our nursing enrollment has increased not decreased and that it was a discrepancy in data reported.""

This correction raises several interesting points that should be addressed:

1. Taken with the stealth graduate course with 700 students "erroneously" reported last year, it is clear that the IHL had better be wary of any an all numbers coming from USM.

2. Secondly, if the numbers for 2003 were in error, why were they not revised for a correction in the latest report?

3. Finally, the projected numbers for 2005 in the report (550) suggest a phenomenal growth from the 2004 numbers (329). Is that 2005 number also in error?