New President's Update - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: May 7, 2005

RE: RE: RE: New President's Update

Date: May 7, 2005

PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION
FY Ending June 30, 2001 $50,100,000
THAMES ADMINISTRATION
FY Ending June 30, 2002 $62,688,000
FY Ending June 30, 2003 $67,300,000
FY Ending June 30, 2004 $69,004,140

This above quote is from A Work In Progress. It states that the previous administration raised 50,100,000 dollars but the Thames administration saw the big jump to $62,688,000. The endiing date is June 30 2002, about MONTH after Thames came in. Now how in the world can he claim credit for that?

Most of the building projects that Thames is taking credit for began long before Thames began as president.

Amy Young

Date: May 7, 2005

"A Work in Progress" would be better titled "A Work of Propaganda." Sadly, as we have known since the dawn of mass communications, propaganda can be met effectively only with counter-propaganda. SFT has created a dazzling corpus of "talking points" for his supporters to shout out from the rooftops as the IHL wrestles over a decision on Thames' future. Dr. Young and other stalwart truth-telling opponents of the regime would do well to produce -- with all due haste -- a press-worthy counter-corpus. Who knows? If addressed effectively, the "Progress" document could turn into the latest entry on the lengthening "stupid things" list.

Date: May 7, 2005

I'm surprised they haven't cluttered the campus with radios, cds, dvds, clips spewing the propaganda. It happened in the 30's somewhere.

Date: May 7, 2005

At some point wouldn't Thames be held responsible in court. Especially if we aren't accredited. I know I plan to talk to a lawyer.

Date: May 7, 2005

let me try to help with the enrollment data. what enrollment data are better (FTE or headcount) depends upon one's purpose. but FTE enrollment is available on the university's website (SD1 reports):

Fall 2004-2005 FTE enrollment
Hattiesburg = 12261.6; Gulf Coast = 1796.5; Total = 14058.1

Fall 2003-2004 FTE enrollment
Hattiesburg = 12144.2; Gulf Coast = 1499.3; Total = 13643.5

Spring 2004-2005 FTE enrollment
Hattiesburg = 11299.6; Gulf Coast = 1827.8; Total = 13127.4

Spring 2003-2004 FTE enrollment
Hattiesburg = 11248.9; Gulf Coast = 1512.9; Total = 12761.8

(all addition errors are mine)

There appear to be some problems with the summer numbers (they've got a wrong report hyperlinked to a year). Earlier FTE numbers aren't available (but I didn't try too hard to find earlier ones either).

Date: May 7, 2005

Maybe someone could attractively bind and illustrate Bill Gunther's report on the "savings" from reorganization, and distribute it to community folk.

Too late for the "Dvorak report," but . . .

NO QUARTER.
Anne Wallace

Date: May 7, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"let me try to help with the enrollment data. what enrollment data are better (FTE or headcount) depends upon one's purpose. but FTE enrollment is available on the university's website (SD1 reports): Fall 2004-2005 FTE enrollment Hattiesburg = 12261.6; Gulf Coast = 1796.5; Total = 14058.1 Fall 2003-2004 FTE enrollment Hattiesburg = 12144.2; Gulf Coast = 1499.3; Total = 13643.5 Spring 2004-2005 FTE enrollment Hattiesburg = 11299.6; Gulf Coast = 1827.8; Total = 13127.4 Spring 2003-2004 FTE enrollment Hattiesburg = 11248.9; Gulf Coast = 1512.9; Total = 12761.8 (all addition errors are mine) There appear to be some problems with the summer numbers (they've got a wrong report hyperlinked to a year). Earlier FTE numbers aren't available (but I didn't try too hard to find earlier ones either). "

Are you sure that these are FTE and not unduplicated headcount?

If you are, then there is an interesting trend line in Hattiesburg and, I guess, also on the Gulf Coast.

Date: May 7, 2005

the report says FTE headcount.

Date: May 7, 2005

in addition, headcount can't be a fraction of a student.

Date: May 7, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: disgusted student
"you will not be the first person that he has fooled data do do. But he is getting low on people who will believe him. I couldn't believe that a person in his position could be so dishonest but ...well you will just have to find out the hard way. Good luck to you."

I am far from being fooled. I take nothing coming from USM at face value. I became a non- believer long before you ever matriculated here. But there are many in the community who do believe whatever their eyes see and their ears hear. That website will be convincing to many. I fail to understand why you do not object to some of its content.

Date: May 7, 2005

"I fail to understand why you do not object to some of its content."

I have voiced some objections to the website and the book. But to me it's the same old stuff Thames has been doing -- half truths, and outright lies. The professors will do a much better job of rebuttal of the information. I will just sit back and watch. One thing that they have already said that is certainly true. "The pictures must be old because the people in them are smiling. Nobody at USM smiles anymore and they haven't in several years. "

Date: May 8, 2005

It would be SO much better if at least some rebuttal came from students. The professors have written and argued and explained until they're about to drop. They badly need the cavalry to come over the hill and soon.

Surely some good math students can poke holes in this crud. (Like having fractional students for FTE).

Somebody told me recently that the real secret to Shelby's success is persistence. It's not that he's so brilliant (ha!) it's that he won't hear "no" and never gives up until he wears you down. This is more of the same, more water dripping, trying to wear away the rock of truth.

Date: May 8, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Third Witch
"(Like having fractional students for FTE). "

TW,

Your sentiments were good but maybe the overwhelming fatigue you (we) are feeling clouded SCM's point. SCM noted that fractional students were evidence that the numbers did reflect FTE as indicated and not unduplicated headcount as I had suspected. One student taking one course would represent a fractional FTE, yes? Now, as to whether the numbers are good...I am not convinced.

Date: May 8, 2005

i wish people wouldn't criticize aspects of numbers they don't understand. you compute FTE enrollment (at least one way--the simplest) by taking the total number of student credit hours generated in a semester (SCHs) and dividing by whatever is considered the total number of student credit hours a full time student takes (for the IHL it is 15--for SACS I think it is 12). By this method you will get fractional FTEs.

Date: May 8, 2005

oh--and the 15 is for undergraduate students. for the IHL the SCHs for graduate students are divided by 12.

Date: May 8, 2005

FWIW, the State Board for Community & Junior Colleges uses a denominator of 24 hours per FTE. I believe that is an "annualized" FTE based on a 12 hour full load per semester.

Date: May 8, 2005

And I wish I wouldn't try anything involving numbers at two in the morning. Even cold sober (which I was) it wasn't a good idea. Sorry for causing any confusion. I'll stick to complaining and carping and leave the technical stuff to others.

Date: May 9, 2005

Misrepresentation from the very first word ("Ranked"). Taken from the Carnegie Foundation's website:

The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education is the leading typology of American colleges and universities. It is the framework in which institutional diversity in U.S. higher education is commonly described. Most of the Carnegie Foundation's higher education projects rely on the Classification to ensure a representative selection of participating individuals and institutions.
. . . how to characterize similarities and differences among institutions of higher education and how institutions and whole sets of institutions change.

Shelby has consistently misused the Carnegie Classification to suggest that USM's quality of programs is what has garnered this "ranking" (his term). We know where we stand in the most widely used ranking publication (USNWR), and it is not pretty.

Ranked in the top 150 universities in the nation by the Carnegie Foundation. . .

No, Shelby, this is just how they "classify" not "rank" insitutions. Big difference. I'm sure institutions like the following did not know they had been "passed by" in quality by USM (since they are not in Shelby's "Top 150"):

College of William and Mary
Pepperdine
Wake Forest
Dartmouth
Trinity
Mercer
Butler
Elon
Villanova

I sent Lisa Mader an email back when Shelby started using these terms - along with "wurl class" - and told her how uninformed (stupid) it made him/them look. As you might expect, no response.