Area Paper's article - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: May 12, 2005

Area Paper's article

Date: May 12, 2005

This "journalist" broke one of the basic rules of journalism--you can't have a one-source story. This isn't a news article, it's just a press release.

Date: May 12, 2005

Not only is the article a reprinted press release, it's worth comparing, point-by-point, to both the Warren Paving Company ad and the Dork in Progress "report."

Robert Campbell

Date: May 12, 2005

Huh! Better than TAMU????

"We've also outsourced our bookstore services to Barnes and Noble, and that gives us a guaranteed commission of $1.2 million per year.

"Because of those type of decisions and other moves made, Southern Miss now generates more external dollars than Texas A&M. We're currently No. 12 in the nation in external dollars generates while Texas A&M is No. 18."

Date: May 12, 2005

That claim of number 12 in the country in external dollars is utterly and completely bogus.

Clemson pulls in more per year in research grants and contract bucks per year than USM does. So, for that matter, does Mississippi State. And the figures in the $60 million per year range that the USM administration has been giving out appear to be padded.

Robert

Date: May 12, 2005

ARGHHHH!!!

IT'S THE GREAT CARNEGIE RANK LIE AGAIN.

The IHL ought to fire his rear for that if for nothing else. If the man is too blasted stupid to know what a Carnegie rank means, he has no business being president of this or any other University.

IT AIN'T A RANK, SHELBOO, IT'S A CATEGORY.

(Of course, we know he knows. He just thought he could sneak over to Wayne County and tell some more whoppers.)

Date: May 12, 2005

Interesting he should pick out Texas A & M. Just shows how much Stringer's success rankles him.

By the way, anyone who knows anything about research dollars knows that is a bogus comparison and in no way reflects the total external monies generated.

Date: May 12, 2005

Methinks Herr Doktor Thames needs some therapy. So much hate is not good for one.
It is impossible to think clearly.

Date: May 12, 2005

Not a psychologist but I do wonder if he is unraveling. Is he actually panicking? This is a pretty amazing story.

Date: May 12, 2005

He (SFT) is not panicking, he's just lying to people who don't know one way or the other. They hear USM>aTm and the go bezerk with pride/joy.

Date: May 12, 2005

Is there any way this can be refuted? Some well know Waynesboro-ite could write a letter to the editor or at least to this group? Could members of the group receive a polite letter individually?

The Carnegie thing needs to be A. corrected and B. brought to Dr. Crofts' attention. That's a pretty egregious lie.

I'm beginning to understand why Lisa quit.

Date: May 12, 2005

From Faculty Senate Listserv:

"This guy must be drowning and grasping for straws to keep him afloat! This propaganda piece, as well as the "Works in Progress," is a wondrous work of fiction.

First of all, Carnegie doesn't "evaluate" universities, it categorizes them. From the Carnegie web page "The Carnegie Classification is a taxonomy of colleges and universities. It is not a ranking of institutions, nor do its categories imply quality differences." So, we rank in the 10 percent if, and only if, you use "Mader Math."

Same of the SREB - it is a category, not a ranking (From the SREB web site - "Institutions are assigned to categories using data on program completions."

And how can you claim "And our retention rate of first year students was 98 percent in 2004-2005"? What's that mean??? First of all, the year's not ended and second of all, doesn't retention mean 'freshmen who return for a second year?' (which is how our fact book documents it - '2nd Year Continued.'

Furthermore, though enrollment headcount is up, FTE hours (as Myron pointed out) have been flat since 2001 (2004/05 Factbook):

FTE     Hattiesburg     Gulf Coast      Total
2004    11,932.90       1,361.0         13,294
2003    11,803.0        1,419.27        13,222
2002    12,118.4        1,247.0         13,365
2001    12,065          1,181.3         13,246

And as far as ACT scores, that number goes up and down each year too:

USM - number of students with ACT of 31+
2004    31? Not yet published in Factbook
2003    25
2002    38
2001    31
2000    27

% of students attending who scored 30-36 range in ACT
2004    3.5%
2003    3%
2002    4%

Here's the real story - the average score of our students - which have steadily declined:

USM Ave ACT             MSState
2004    20.5            23.3
2003    20.7            23.5
2002    20.8            23.8
2001    21.1            23.5
2000    21.4            23.1

It's time for this guy to stop tooting his horn and to actually start doing something meaningful like 1) Working with the students we already have to make them better students 2) Working with faculty to make that happen."

Date: May 12, 2005

Thames backed up his statement with some facts from two evaluating organizations.

The Carnegie Institute evaluates 1,553 universities, and USM is ranked in the top 150.

"If you do the math, you can see that Southern Miss is ranked in the top 10 percent," Thames said.

He also pointed to the Southern Regional Education Board, which gave USM the only Class 1 (highest) ranking among colleges and universities located in Mississippi. With that in mind, Thames said that other indicators point to the fact that the school is doing well.

Lies, lies, lies.

Date: May 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: THIRD WITCH
"ARGHHHH!!! IT'S THE GREAT CARNEGIE RANK LIE AGAIN. The IHL ought to fire his rear for that if for nothing else. If the man is too blasted stupid to know what a Carnegie rank means, he has no business being president of this or any other University. IT AIN'T A RANK, SHELBOO, IT'S A CATEGORY. "

From the Carnegie Foundation website--the foreword to the 2000 Classification:

The Classification has been widely used for unintended purposes as well, some benign and others not.....Campus officials regularly look to the Classification to gauge where their college fits into the academic pecking order, and to identify peer institutions for comparison purposes. Indeed, because many people perceive the Classification as a ranking system, some institutional leaders adopt "moving up the Carnegie Classification" as an explicit institutional goal.......This complicated situation leaves us at the Foundation with a challenging dilemma. How do we responsibly meet the needs of the research community that has used this tool for decades? How do we mitigate the effects of misinterpretation of the Classification as a ranking system?

Date: May 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Lois Lane
"Found this on the internet. http://www.wayneconews.com/news.php?story=story04.txt"

"We're currently No. 12 in the nation in external dollars generates while Texas A&M is No. 18."

When pigs fly.

Date: May 12, 2005

I sent my children to USM. A college's president represents the university. A university is expected to be the seat of truth. Is this the sort of thing my children were taught? Shameful.

Date: May 12, 2005

http://vpr.tamu.edu/remarkable/04_vpr_profile_final.pdf

The above is a link to a Texas A&M publication alleging (perhaps they're lying) that their research "expenditures" are in excess of 400 million per year. Whatever "expenditures" means (and presumably money spent has to come from somewhere--unless they have their own printing press over there), this suggests that Shelboo has just gone off to Wayne County, sized them up as a bunch of dumb rednecks, and made up a story he thought would impress the yokels. (What matters truth when there's an audience to be propagandized?) That's actually quite an insult to USM supporters in Wayne County, when you think about it. One wonders why Shelby didn't tell them that USM had brought forward a new cure for cancer?

Date: May 12, 2005

http://vpr.tamu.edu/remarkable/04_vpr_profile_final.pdf

Date: May 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Fun with figures
" this suggests that Shelboo has just gone off to Wayne County, sized them up as a bunch of dumb rednecks, and made up a story he thought would impress the yokels."

If I were a resident of Wayne County and had been in attendance at that meeting, I would march myself up to the IHL offices on May 19 when they are in session and demand that they take immediate action. Surely the Wayne County Alums are not gullible enough to believe this baloney. USM is not even in the top 100 research universities in America. Do you reckon those good folk in Wayne County were told USM is 12th?

Date: May 12, 2005

I don't believe SFT would say this unless he found an interesting "spin" that makes it O.K. if you mean something different with the words. I haven't yet figured out how he did it, but will work on it tomorrow.

Date: May 12, 2005

"The Modeall for Incentive Dollars for Augmenting Salaries (MIDAS) Program encourages employees to apply for grants that will include funding their salary, thereby cutting that cost from the budget. Employees who successful earn such grants are then given a bonus equal to 30% of their annual salary. "We have employees working at Southern Miss at no cost to the Mississippi taxpayer," Thames said. "These employees are what I call profit centers." " (from the Wayne County Times article)

Strange statement, as we spent several hours in a meeting this week with the Thames henchmen trying to come up with a procedure to ensure that grants don't end up costing the university money by providing for only for portion of the infrastructure needed to complete the required grant tasks. Seems that a number of the grants funded over the last few years have in fact had negative financial impact on the university.

Date: May 12, 2005

Please dear Lord, please let this be the Next Stupid Thing. Please let it be the last little nudge that breaks the dam that washes him away into retirement. Please let it be the straw that breaks the IHL's back. Please let Richard Crofts see it and let there be a lot more screaming in the IHL room and please, please, please let this nightmare be over.

Amen.

Date: May 12, 2005

"And our retention rate of first year students was 98 percent in 2004-2005."

The real number is closer to 75%.

Date: May 12, 2005

"These employees are what I call profit centers."

Why don't we just go into business in the red light district of New Orleans.

Date: May 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Money Honey
""These employees are what I call profit centers." Why don't we just go into business in the red light district of New Orleans."

If you did that and gave the proceeds to USM, he would be happier than with grants. All overhead. Heck, he might even agree to pay your mileage to and from the French Quarter. Or, you could get a group together and take the USM plane.

If all this sounds unpalatable, just think of it as spreading the good word about USM.

Date: May 12, 2005

USM Ave ACT             MSState
2004    20.5            23.3
2003    20 .7            23.5
2002    20.8            23.8
2001    21.1             23.5
2000    21.4            23.1

And now for the rest of the story. Averages are nice but can mask information. I would like to see the range, standard deviation, and the range for the middle 50 percent. My perception is that there is more going on than a measly one point drop in the average ACT. BTW, it appears to me from attending a HS function that USM is throwing some major dollars at moderately talented students. Nothing wrong with that. I was just surprised at how much a mid 20s ACT could get you at USM.

Date: May 12, 2005

Now where did I leave my boots. He spread that Sh&t pretty thick.

Date: May 12, 2005

ST is unclear in the article about the 98% retention rate, although the context of his comment is consistent with the brochure. the 98% retention rate refers to first year honors students (that's the reason there's a reference to 31 ACT score students).

Date: May 13, 2005

Exerpt from NSF:

TABLE B-35. R&D expenditures at universities and colleges, by source of funds: fiscal year 2002 [Dollars in thousands]

Institution and ranking Total Federal State & local Industry

Total, all institutions 36,332,641 21,833,953 2,500,649 2,188,111

1 Johns Hopkins U. 1,140,235 1,022,510 2,612 20,282
17 TX A&M U. 436,681 163,488 110,703 33,300
83 MS State U. 158,652 77,521 31,720 6,366
87 Clemson U. 134,840 47,174 19,669 12,035
106 Auburn U. 108,775 42,432 1,350 4,178
120 U. AR 83,063 27,588 34,668 6,370
129 U. MS 67,838 50,092 5,235 2,412
174 U. Memphis, The 33,625 14,072 3,279 268
191 U. Southern MS 25,685 22,398 853 1,905
193 Jackson State U. 25,445 21,721 0 0

NOTE: Because of rounding, detail may not add to totals.

SOURCE: National Science Foundation/Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Research and Development
Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, Fiscal Year 2002.

Note that these are expenditures, not awards; they are science and engineering only and do not include humanities and arts; they are the latest numbers - 2002.

Unless SFT has access to TAMU's data separately, he doesn't know anything after this date.

Date: May 13, 2005

SFT is using Mader Math in comparing USM Funding to TAM. He is counting the one time income and savings created by outsourcing and lunch money (Aramark) gained for this one year. Next year, he's back to # 191. How misleading.