Message board comments - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: May 6, 2005

RE: RE: Message board comments

Date: May 6, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: JoJo
"I beleive the only "dumb ass" is the one who believes the only information recieved by the two professors was public info. Why do you think they settledthe litigation? How deep is the sand on campus. You need to get your head out so you can get some oxygen."

Uh, JoJo, why do you think we are all on campus? Lots of us are out here in the "outside" world.

Well this has all been said before, but I'll try one more time.

In any legal (quasi-legal, in this case) proceeding, the prosecution gets to put on its case first. They get to show what evidence they have that indicates the "defendants" are guilty. At that point, the defense always moves for a directed verdict on the general theory that the prosecution's case, even if is accepted as true, failed to reach the minimum level of evidence necessary to "state a cause of action." Almost never does a case end at that point. Why? Because almost always, the prosecution has met the bare minimum necessary to go forward with the trial. After the prosecution has finished its case, the defense has absolutely nothing to lose by presenting its case. The prosecution has already shown its hand. They are finished, except that later they can rebut any new information that the defense presents.

The fact is that the administration got to present its case and, during that case, showed absolutely nothing that had not already been rehashed in the media. At the end of the prosecution's case, the judge called everybody into "chambers" and ended the "trial." The only thing that happened after that was a little formal showing of "the rest of the story" so that G&S's version of events could be heard. Apparently, the prosecution failed to present evidence to support its claim.

Please, do not take my word for this. Ask any attorney how this works. No defense attorney would wait until the end of the prosecution's case, hear absolutely nothing new for which there had been plenty of time to prepare, and then give up. That would be tantamount to malpractice.

Date: May 6, 2005

I should know not to argue with an expert on everything known to man. I know th AG and he was for the liberals. He is a Democrat. He knew the info was bad for the two social security boys and encouraged them to settle.

Date: May 6, 2005

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It frustrates you and annoys the pig.

Date: May 6, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: JoJo
"I should know not to argue with an expert on everything known to man. I know th AG and he was for the liberals. He is a Democrat. He knew the info was bad for the two social security boys and encouraged them to settle."

How can I argue with your impecable logic and mastery of the facts? (Well, except that Frank Glamser is a Republican and not a liberal, don't have a clue what Stringer is.)

Ok, now I'll quit trying to teach the piglet to sing.

Date: May 6, 2005

This particular type of troll (ineducable) shows up like mosquitos on a hot Mississippi summer evening, just when Shelby feels under attack.

Keep it up!

Date: May 6, 2005

Like I said at the "Academy" all views are heard except those that disagree with the liberal faculty.

Date: May 6, 2005

Ho Ho Jo Jo

The president of Texas A and M was asked by Bush to come to Washington and be the security czar. I don't believe they hire criminals there.

Date: May 6, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: JoJo
"Like I said at the "Academy" all views are heard except those that disagree with the liberal faculty."

Get back, JoJo. Get back to where you once belonged...

Date: May 6, 2005

JoJo.

The envelope with information about AD was shoved under Dr. Glamser's door. Inside was copy of her CV with SS#. This was the same CV with a visible SS# which WDAM aired on their news with the SS# in full view and sent out by USM's PR director - Lisa Mader. Why don't you jump all over her? She is put AD's SS# in the public domain according to the law. However, the professors were able via the phone WITHOUT USING AD'S SS#) to find out her tenure status. Do not read the posts on this thread? As I said before, Never try to teach a pig to sing. It frustrates you and annoys the pig. Go back to where you came, JoJo the troll.

Date: May 6, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Really Disgusted
"Go back to where you came, JoJo the troll. "

There've been lots of trolls on this board. Fat trolls and thin trolls. Short trolls and tall trolls. Pretty trolls and Ugly trolls. Rich trolls and poor trolls. Local trolls and imported trolls. But I don't think we've ever had a troll as uninformed as JoJo is. This troll doesn't appear to know even the rudimentary facts. Leave JoJo alone. Ignorance is bliss.

Date: May 6, 2005

Talked to a well-informed friend this evening and we decided that Jo Jo is probably a young student. Has not read the message board before and doesn't "get" it. Maybe a Thames relative or friend of same, but young. High school probably. Doesn't write like an adult.

Date: May 6, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
"

Get back, JoJo. Get back to where you once belonged...

"

This is great, Vic!

Truth

Date: May 6, 2005

I know the truth hurts. Call me uniformed. Most of you could not get a job in the real world. Stay at the "Academy." Live in LA LA land.

Date: May 7, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: JoJo
"I know the truth hurts. Call me uniformed. Most of you could not get a job in the real world. Stay at the "Academy." Live in LA LA land. "

Many, if not most of us, passed up jobs in another part of the real world. However, this whole sorry mess has taught me one thing. There are a minority of faculty members at any institution who use class time to do something other than teach. Watching this over the years made me vaguely uncomfortable but I never considered it a big deal. Mostly it made me annoyed with Chairs and Deans who refused to have that the type of uncomfortable "come home to Jesus talk" with these instructors that routinely occurs in most organizations. Again, I didn't pay much attention and just shrugged. However, over the years I came to the belief that this was one of the biggest differences between academia and the rest of the world of work. The difference got larger over time as the average quality of college administrators declined.

What I've learned here and watching the relationship between academia and the public overall is that the damage this minority has done to the perception of what is happening in academia has been a catastrophe. The generation coming behind the baby boomers had some really bad experiences and they haven't forgotten them. I refuse to believe that the average 30 something had 40 bad classes in a degree program. My suspicion is that they had 5 to 10 bad classes but these few experiences soured them on the whole process.

JoJo and others left universities around the country with the "lazy liberal" type firmly impressed as a caricature of the "average" college instructor. Empirically, this is ridiculous. However, the bad impression must have been so strong that it overwhelms the reality. The really bad part is that the JoJos of the world left so embittered that they are willing to burn the barns down to get rid of the rats.

We're now all paying the price for years of poor administration at a lot of institutions. One of these days I may get sufficiently tired of getting hit with shrapnel and take my football to another part of the real world.

A note for JoJo: Just keep attacking. Your actions will simply drive the competent majority into the private universities or the private sector. Give it another ten years and higher education will look just like K-12. At that point, if you want a quality education for your children, you'll just have to put up the money.

Date: May 7, 2005

Duckland, you may be correct. The "Academy" is not what it used to be. My father recieved his Higher Ed in the 60's and explained to me the wonderful opportunities and experiences he had in discussing issues of that day. All sides of and issue were discussed. No one viewpooint was pushed to the side. Today, if you have a view different than your "critical thinking" PROF you better change your course of study or do what I did---Dye your hair blue and fake it.

Date: May 7, 2005

JoJo,

Your father's experiences are making a slow comeback and are clearly the wave of the future. You'll just have to pay 15 to 25k to get them. The "publics" may be toast. They are becoming political footballs bounced along the waves of public opinion. This eventually drifts down to the faculty. The classroom discussions your father benefited from are becoming increasingly rare at a public institution. I'm exhibit A, over time I have cut all the even potentially "controversial" topics out of my syllabus. Giving a "balanced" approach to controversial topics at a public school won't cut it anymore. The left or right wing partisans in your classes now get peeved for even mentioning the other sides opinions. I tell the interested, nonpartisan students who ask questions or want to discuss issues to see me after class for discussion in my role as a private citizen. Give it another 5 years and College Board staffers in many states may be trolling syllabi on the internet looking for subjects that might offend any member of the state legislature. It really doesn't matter if the trolling is done in Massachusetts or Mississippi for material offensive to either the left or the right, respectively: the result is the same.

The better administered publics are trying to go private to give them the flexibility and autonomy they need to continue to be like the academy your father attended. If you don't think this is possible check out Miami of Ohio. This result is ok. One of the greatest strengths of higher ed in this country is the variety. If one model proves unworkable, there's another alternative.

Your father's education is still there. You just have to hunt for it in the privates. Whether or not it will survive in the public sector is an interesting question and the unfolding answer will be interesting to watch.

Date: May 7, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: JoJo
"Duckland, you may be correct. The "Academy" is not what it used to be. My father recieved his Higher Ed in the 60's and explained to me the wonderful opportunities and experiences he had in discussing issues of that day. All sides of and issue were discussed. No one viewpooint was pushed to the side. Today, if you have a view different than your "critical thinking" PROF you better change your course of study or do what I did---Dye your hair blue and fake it."

JoJo,

Why would you paint the faculty with such broad strokes, suggesting that we are all unfit for the classroom (unless you have been in my classroom, you have no data), unfit for the "real" world (unless you have directly observed my practice as a school psychologist, researcher, and departmental faculty member, you have no data), and seemingly generally unfit for the human race (unless you know me personally, you have no data). If I were to take the same position, then I would paint students with the very same brush, suggesting that many should not be enrolled in an institution of higher learning, but, I don't. I openly praise the student who brings discussion to a classroom topic; discussion that is based on sound and critical thinking; discussion that is based on logic and defensible argument; discussion that suggests critical analysis of the topic. I welcome that discussion in my classes at any time from any student. I, and my colleagues, challenge students to bring this quality discussion to our class at any time (and welcome it).

What I find most disturbing is that I find your attitude toward educators articulated by yourself and others not only in reference to me as a member of the faculty at USM (a fine faculty I must say), but towards education in general. To me that is very sad. As a native of Mississippi having been born and raised in the Delta and being a product of public education in this State, I believe I have the right to make such a statement. With regard to whatever experiences you have had that brings you to make sweeping statements regarding faculty at USM, I am sorry for that. But, I for one, am just plain tired of people making the general statements pertaining to all of us, based on very limited data. If one wishes to challenge me personally or professionally, then do so. But, don't punish all for something that I, as an individual, may have done.

Date: May 7, 2005

One disheartening thing I discovered this fall was that many students don't understand the Socratic method, or any other method that involves asking them to question their beliefs. They don't understand that, as a teacher, I may personally share the belief. However, I want the student to hold his position based on rational, critical thought rather than on what somebody else told him (even if somebody else is Mama, Daddy, or Pastor.) This is the heart of university education -- to take everything out and look at it closely in the light of day. Sometimes when you try to focus students' thinking this way, they perceive you as being "against" their beliefs.
One of the worst verbal beatings I ever got in a graduate seminar was from a co-religionist who would never let an illogical statement remain alive on the table, whether it was "right" or not. I don't know how to convey this concept to today's students.

Date: May 7, 2005

When you differ with the PROF and your GPA is lowered and it makes law school admission more difficult then you play the game--get a good grade--the PROF believes he has turned you into a critical "liberal thinker" --you go to a good law school. The only fool is the PROF in politica science.

Date: May 7, 2005

Ah hah, Jo Jo. Methinks you have an axe to grind here.

Date: May 7, 2005

Joe and LVN,

Its nice to see others that have more fortitude and/or courage.

36 months to the finish line.

Respectfully,

Duckland

Date: May 7, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: JoJo
"When you differ with the PROF and your GPA is lowered and it makes law school admission more difficult then you play the game--get a good grade--the PROF believes he has turned you into a critical "liberal thinker" --you go to a good law school. The only fool is the PROF in politica science."

No, JoJo, the fool is the student. If the student had been presenting overwhelmingly lucid arguments, valid logic & so forth, there would have been no need for subterfuge. Methinks that you could simply not defend your conservative views logically, so you switched to liberal thought (which is much easier to defend logically).

Please note: I am not saying that conservative views are not logical, simply that it takes a much more intelligent person (think George Will) to defend them logically. Most conservatives take the Rush Limbaugh "appeal to the emotions" approach, which is going to get you laughed out of pre-law.

As a side note, the LSAT is brain dead easy. Anyone who could not score high enough to be admissible to some law school somewhere would have to be missing large portions of his/her frontal lobe. The LSAT is not within two or three orders of magnitude of the MCAT. I think this is why there are a lot of pretty dumb lawyers running around. Lawyer jokes are, as you know, largely based on fact. (Sorry, RAM

)

Date: May 7, 2005

LSAT was not my problem and I did not want to go to a Law school that Invictus was capable of attending. I was able to do accomplish my goal. Yes, we have some weak attorneys, but not as weak a PROF as you are-Invictus.

Date: May 7, 2005

Jo Jo--I do believe Legal Eagle was right. For some reason, you have an axe to grind. Seems like your life must not have worked out the way you wanted. I can think of no other reason for the irrational ire you show.

Date: May 7, 2005

P.S. No more responding to your lunacy.

Date: May 9, 2005

As a side note, the LSAT is brain dead easy. Anyone who could not score high enough to be admissible to some law school somewhere would have to be missing large portions of his/her frontal lobe. The LSAT is not within two or three orders of magnitude of the MCAT. I think this is why there are a lot of pretty dumb lawyers running around. Lawyer jokes are, as you know, largely based on fact. (Sorry, RAM )

First, I do not hold a JD or MD, but I do hold a BA from USM. I would like to take an exception to the above statement....I have seen some pretty dumb physicians in my time, the difference is those in the healing arts community and attorneys is physicians tend to protect their own much better than those in the legal world.

Now, the LSAT vs MCAT. I am not sure how valid this comparision really is in the world of testing. Two of my children are physicains and one is an attorney. One of the physicians took both MCAT and LSAT, actually scored better on MCAT. I am not sure about this frontal lobe business, but there are different levels of competence in most professions and the medical and legal fields are no different.

Date: May 9, 2005

I am not a lawyer and not a doctor. It seems that everyone on this thread assumes they are doctor. A family member (brother) is a lawyer in jackson and followed this whole incident. The entire matter was a farce on both sides. One side screamed false credentials without concrete proof and the other side screamed criminals.

One thing I do know from talking to him is that a settlement does not mean any side won. The Judge was sent here by the AG to keep this from being a public debate. They offered watered down evidence and allowed GS/FG to settle and save face. The board did not allow SFT to present a full blown hearing and that was Judge Anderson's marching orders.

Date: May 9, 2005

Sorry, neutral, but there was concrete proof. Go back and read the article in the Chronicle of Higher Education that was in an early March issue. See exactly what one of Dvorak's references from Kentucky said. Call the English department at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, and asked if she was tenured in their department.

The absurd thing about all this was the way it was handled. If SFT and company had just responded to the December querry, there would have no need for the AAUP to call for further information in January. And then it still should have been an academic issue, not the three ring legal circus Hanbury and Thames made of it.

I'm not in academia, but even I can see that.

Date: May 9, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Neutral
"One side screamed false credentials without concrete proof and the other side screamed criminals."

I watched the hearings, and I heard no screaming. Perhaps you are refering to the reported tendency of administrators to scream at underlings. In that sense, the screaming at USM has been present but entirely unilaterial.

As has already been noted, there was plenty of concrete proof on Glamser and Stringer's side, and absolutely no case against them on the other.