stovetop wrote:

---

Just heard that Jay Grimes approved all of the colleges curriculum plans to comply with the new 124 hour mandate.  All, that is, except for the CoB's.  The CoB, therefore, has missed the deadline for compliance with IHL.  Grimes' reasoning is "accreditation concerns" over CoB plan.  An Agassi-like return of service!

---

Doty gave Grimes a real blackeye in the dust-up over the executive MBA program.  Counter-punching is to be expected.  No doubt the hope is prod Doty into a misstep that will leave him open to a K.O., and, ideally, will call into question Doty's earlier accreditation-anchored "victory."

get the facts right wrote:

---

the real CoB problem was not 124, they were lowering all diciplines to 120.

---

Yes. i was in academic council yesterday when this came up. We approved the reduction to 120 hours but in retrospect, I think that was a mistake. My guess is that the CoB anticipated (as we all did) the possibility that the IHL would reduce us to 120, as promised. Having committed to that course, my guess is that they decided to stay there even though the IHL went to 124 rather than change their planning. Someone from CoB might comment here.

Apparently there is no "minimum " number of hours required by the IHL (someone might correct me if they know better). I think this decision by AC (and I was there and I voted to adopt) is an example of how exhausted and ill informed most committee members are at this point, and how, in the absnece of good information and adequate time to consider the issues, we are tending to pass things along rather than raise issues of sound academic practice. I have to say that this is very different from the AC in the first two years that I was part of it (02-03 and 03-04). There are some voices that raise concerns, but as I watch the council in action I can see that there is simply to great a pressure to vote and move on and none of us is willing to stand up and say "stop" until we can really understand the implications of some of the decisions we are making. Thus, we are making poor decisions that may be establishing precedents we have not anticipated.

There is no question that we have paid a very high price in loss of some of our wise men and women,  and in the incredible distractions this council has had over the last 18 months. There is simply not enough time to keep up with the amount of change we are having to react to  . . . 

 

I'm confused. I'm sure I had to take 132 hours for a B.A. Now the standard is going to be 120-124? That seems like a big decrease.

Robert Campbell wrote:

---

stephen, There are movements afoot at other universities to cut total credit hours for a Bachelor's degree to 120.  Since I arrived at Clemson, the Psychology degrees have gone from 130 hours to 128, then to 124, and now to 120. Grimes must have had some other pretext than the 120 hour total.  Robert Campbell PS. I know everyone's exhausted, but faculty bodies at USM can't afford to just react, now that Thames has been told he'll be out in May 2007.

---

I'm well aware of this movement. The IHL has been using other systems as examples of why we should change (noting the fact of change but not necessarily the reasoning for it except for the issue of how the extra hours negatively impact on length of student career at the university). The problem in our Mississippi world is that the IHL is reacting to this movement but not necessarily questioning whether it is applicable here. And, in fact, there is some sense that a larger issue has been squeezing down the number of GEC hours, thereby continuing to pay lip service to, but in reality to gut, the concept of a liberal arts education in favor of strengthing so called professional specializations.  My problem is that at the undergraduate level, many of the degrees now are so overspecialized they are almost literally vo-tech in nature -- and the idea of a university education is all but buried in obfuscatory language about "education" when we really mean "training."

My own argument (heard by few,) is that it is the pressure to produce more highly specialized graining at the undergrad level combined with the need (by an increasingly diminishing number of academics) to maintain a high quality and high number of hours of GEC that have produced the high number of hours for graduation at the bachelor level. From looking at other programs in my own discipline, my belief is that the sacrifices being made in education in order to lower the number of hours for graduation are in those courses that provide sound basic skills,  provide intellectual content that undergirds specialized training, and those that provide integrative experiences. All of these are values of the liberal arts degree, and of a strong general education componant. Instead, we are taking students who come in with inferior public schol educations and we are not expanding their basic knowlege in critical areas.

As far as I am concerned, a liberal arts core of 38 hours with an elective requirement that essentially allows students to take mnire hours in the major (often at the encouragement of their major professionrs) does not constitute an education in the traditional sense. And our kids in Mississippi really do need the intellectual background that an in depth university education can provide. My own feeling is that we are simply lying when we tell them we are preparing them for the "real" world. We aren't preparing them for the "real" world beyond Mississippi.

But hey, I'm an old guy. We couldn't take more than 35 hours in our major when I went to school unless you took an equal number of hours outside the major. We are probably beyond that at this point given the competitietion for highly specialized knowlege at theundergrad level, but I feel as though we are not doing a very good job waging a rear guard action in this state. We are rolling over.

Mitch wrote:

---

Stephen: Another issue is that many students do not complete the degree in four years. At some institutions, one reason for this is that severe budget cutbacks led to a decline in how frequently required courses can be offered, and some students just fall through the scheduling cracks. At USM, I have found that a good number of students have difficulty completing in four years because they need to work 30 or more hours a week to make it. That, combined with 15-17 hours per semester, is just too brutal for most students. Plus, additional semesters equate to additional debt load as higher ed and cost of living get pricier. I grew up in the 128-132 credits for a degree age. Can a sufficently broad liberal arts education with a solid grounding in one emphasis area be attained in 120-124 hours. I'm not certain, but it is an empirical question. If MS high schools provided more rigourous courses and requirements for graduation, I'd be more comfortable with 124 (or a bit lower). When I went to undergrad, Calc I was the first math course taken, not algebra. I think that the days of 128-132 are long gone. I guess our job is to toe the line on standards, grad inflation, and what courses should be counted toward the degree program, to ensure that students receive a sufficiently broad education with good exposure in a major.    

---

I agree Mitch.

 

Another problem is that so many od our students have to work to get through school. They are caught in a bind -- if they don;t take 12 hours they can't get financial aid . . .  but some of them have to work too many hours even with the aid (which is usually load aid anyway) in order to get through school.

I think the rules on aid money need to be loosened by the Feds so students who need to work can take longer to get through their schooling. Not only do we have many students who come from families with small incomes, but man of our students are increasingly non-traditional.

Fed money is given as though most students are still 18-22 and can get through in four years. Way too many students these days can't do that -- but the rules work against them. I'd like to see the minimum hours for financial assistance lowered to nine.

 

 

 

stephen judd wrote:

---

Mitch wrote: Stephen: Another issue is that many students do not complete the degree in four years. At some institutions, one reason for this is that severe budget cutbacks led to a decline in how frequently required courses can be offered, and some students just fall through the scheduling cracks. At USM, I have found that a good number of students have difficulty completing in four years because they need to work 30 or more hours a week to make it. That, combined with 15-17 hours per semester, is just too brutal for most students. Plus, additional semesters equate to additional debt load as higher ed and cost of living get pricier. I grew up in the 128-132 credits for a degree age. Can a sufficently broad liberal arts education with a solid grounding in one emphasis area be attained in 120-124 hours. I'm not certain, but it is an empirical question. If MS high schools provided more rigourous courses and requirements for graduation, I'd be more comfortable with 124 (or a bit lower). When I went to undergrad, Calc I was the first math course taken, not algebra. I think that the days of 128-132 are long gone. I guess our job is to toe the line on standards, grad inflation, and what courses should be counted toward the degree program, to ensure that students receive a sufficiently broad education with good exposure in a major.     I agree Mitch.   Another problem is that so many od our students have to work to get through school. They are caught in a bind -- if they don;t take 12 hours they can't get financial aid . . .  but some of them have to work too many hours even with the aid (which is usually load aid anyway) in order to get through school. I think the rules on aid money need to be loosened by the Feds so students who need to work can take longer to get through their schooling. Not only do we have many students who come from families with small incomes, but man of our students are increasingly non-traditional. Fed money is given as though most students are still 18-22 and can get through in four years. Way too many students these days can't do that -- but the rules work against them. I'd like to see the minimum hours for financial assistance lowered to nine.      

AND

Incidently, I'd say our awareness of the financial bind many of these stuents labor under may very well be a thing that affects grade inflation.  

---

I don't disagree with what you said, Stephen, however I consider some of the financial problems of our students self inflicted and part of their "materialism" culture.  I also hear of students working too many hours to get through school, but too much of this is to have a nice apartment, latest clothes, stereo, CD, late model car, social life, etc, etc.  This begins is High School when they could be saving for college.  The concept of sacrificing for college as an investment in themselves is a foreign concept.

The students who don't need to work then had a huge advantage that, instead of advancing as a student, use the advantage to loaf and party.    I once had a hard studying "C" student who transferred from another part of the country to USM.  They were pleasantly surprised that at USM they now were an "A" student and really didn't have to study very much to make an "A".   Within 3 years at USM this student lost all of her drive, academic devotion and study habits.  Even though she still had a high GPA, she lost the drive to continue into graduate school. 

I repeat that I realize that what I described is not the majority of students, but in my opinion is a large enough majority to bring down the scholarship overall. Using grade inflation to make up for poor financial planning does more damage to the state the most are aware.  

 

is a .....!

Let me say up front that this is not to argue with Stephen's points, which are well-spoken and well-taken. Having said that, I want to address both the lowered graduation requirements and the grade inflation situation from a different perspective.

As a 48 year old recent MSW graduate of USM and a former TA, I don't have the experience or qualifications of Stephen Judd or many of the others on this board. However, I do have some pretty significant business experience and those who know me I think would say that my academic career at USM has been one of excellent academic work and much work both in the university and the community over the past two years.

I think state universities, perhaps particularly in this region of the country, face an economic challenge that creates an academic downward spiral. The need for butts in the seats lowers admission standards. Evidence of this abounds, not the least of which is that if you can manage your way through a JUCO you are automatically, or all-but automatically, granted admission here as I understand it.

Additionally, the brightest and best H.S. students tend to be largely attracted to higher-ranking institutions. The fall to tier 4 didn't help, but even at tier 3 status, we're not the draw for the very best that a tier 1 or 2 school will be. Yes, we get some outstanding students, but they aren't the majority by any stretch of the academic imagination.

Thirdly, we are located in one of the poorest, if not the poorest, states in the union. Anti-intellectualism abounds in Mississippi, and not just among the poor (witness the Warren Paving attendees). Only 16% of adults in MS hold an undergraduate degree according to a recent report (I'm sorry I can't quote the source, though I think it was from US Dept of Education.). A degree is less likely to be valued in a state with such a low college-graduate ratio.

So, in order to fill up the seats, we will accept most anyone. Once we get them, to keep the seats filled, we are reluctant to grade them where they ought to be. I think this is a greater factor than our "awareness of of their financial bind," though I agree with Stephen that this may be a factor as well. But, the biggest component of grade inflation, as I see it, is pressure from the administration to keep the seats filled. I've graded papers that wouldn't have gotten a D back in my undergrad days, but these same students will take you to a grade review over a B+ , and a professor's evaluations and they will win more often than lose! Add to this that student evals are a fairly major component of the annual review process and you can hardly blame the professors for not fighting grade inflation any harder than most fight it.

Everyone in this country is entitled to a secondary education. The lowering of graduate requirements is a natural extension of this philosophy. We have come to believe, as a society, that everyone is entitled to a college education as well. So, if we have to lower H.S. graduation standards to get them admitted to college, we do it. If we have to lower the required hours for a degree, we'll do that, too. And, it won't get better until employers devalue the degree to the point that they begin to demand a higher standard. It is a cycle. All this talk from politicians about demanding accountability at the elementary and secondary level is just that -- talk. This is a free market economy and schools that don't have the numbers and produce the graduates won't survive short-term. On the other hand, if they keep lowering the standards, they won't survive long-term either as the degree becomes less and less valuable from the particular institution. It's a double-bind. With our penchant for immediacy of gratification, the short-term survival strategy will win out every time.

College should be hard. If you have to work to get that education, then work. I know a lot of undergrads and I have met very few whose level of commitment to their education would make them give up their car, their material goods or their partying habits in order to take a full load, much less an overload. By the way, that's not limited to the traditionally-aged or even to the undergrads, either. I know plenty of grad students who are here to get a credential (get their ticket punched) and will moan like a dying cow if a 3 hour class period goes more than 45 mins to an hour. Yes, they have families, yes they have to work. So what? These people are the rightful customers of diploma mills. We don't need to become one to accomodate them. You want to give them an A or a B instead of the C they deserve because of the pressure, I say go for it. But keep them in class the full time and make sure something valuable gets poured into their heads while they are in there. At least when they get the punch in the ticket they will have had to endure the time requirements. Even by osmosis, they will get something surely. Yeah, some will downgrade you on your evaluations, but let's face it, at USM you aren't getting the big raises unless you are an admin favorite regardless of how stellar your student evals are.

Personally, I would favor replacing the grading system in this country with a competency based system. You don't get out of a class until you are competent. If it takes you three tries to get competent, then it takes you three tries. Lowering the standards sure isn't the answer. If the degree had the value it should have, they'd do the work to become competent and get the credential or they would drop out.

College isn't for everyone. My youngest brother has an AA degree from a technical school. He's a great guy, but he was never college material. He was smart enough to recognize that, though, and to get an education that would help him. Today he is a supervisor in a nuclear plant, makes better money than many college grads of his era, lives in a nice middle-class home in a nice neighborhood and supports his three sons quite nicely. I have a masters degree, but I admire the heck out of my kid brother. We do a lot of kids a real disservice by not doing a better job of fitting their education to their skills, abilities and goals. Could some reach beyond those? Yes, and they should be encouraged to dig in and work hard to get the degree. Should we just give the darn thing to them because they are poor products of a poor system in a poor state and have to work to support themselves? NO!

We have an outstanding faculty in Social Work. I've been privileged to study under them. I've also had the great pleasure of knowing faculty in every college of the university through the PUC and AAUP. We've lost some of our best, but we've still got some top-drawer scholars here. I've had a world-class education here -- not because USM is a world-class school -- but because I've engaged this great faculty outside the classroom and I've thrown myself into getting every opportunity I could find to do more, learn more, grow more. My education has been my responsibility and I've taken it seriously.

A sister-in-law of mine received her Ph.D. from Princeton just before I got my MSW from USM. She sent me a graduation card and on it she wrote this: "How cool is it, at our age, to get to pursue new dreams and study interesting topics?" She gets it. I get it. You get it.

Finally, and this is for Stephen mostly, my undergard degree is a Bachelor of Music. We have a terrific arts faculty here in music, art, theatre and dance. My experience is that arts students tend to be more "cream of the crop" in many schools than we might get in other disciplines. Because of the performance requirements, the focus is more intense for most of these students. I suspect that grade inflation may not be as rampant in the arts as it may be in other areas, but I could be wrong.

From an economic perspective, we can produce more widgets or we can produce better widgets. We can make it on quality and price or we can make it on volume, but rarely can we make it on both. A Bosendorfer piano takes over a year to build and each part is handcrafted to the extent that it won't fit another piano even in their own line. They cost a fortune. They make it on quality. Yamaha makes an adequate student instrument, mass produced largely, costs much less and they make it on volume.

By the way, the wood for the soundboards in Bosendorfers is aged for a minimum of 5 years. What's the big deal about getting out of college in four years? I'd rather hire a 25 year old who took 6 years to get a fine education than a 22 year old who skated through on fewer hours and lower standards. Wouldn't you?

This is Mississippi and we have an obligation to serve Mississippi students. We're probably going to produce more Yamahas than Bosendorfers. But, for the love of the academy, let's produce good Yamahas.

I earned an undergraduate degree in liberal arts from usm.  i live within 100 miles of campus today.

having stated the above facts, i have had 2 children graduate high school in last 4 years.  both were 30 plus on act, top 2% of graduating class (over 300 graduating seniors in both)  usm never sent a recruitment letter to either!!  usm did recruit our high school, but it seems they only offered scholarships to middle students(we have a friends child, excellent student but didnt score extremely well act, who received a very nice usm scholarship)

i know usm has some very fine undergraduate students, but is there a fear of rejection for top h.s. graduates?  the plight of my children is not the only one i have heard.....hattiesburg high graudates i know suffers this same problem.

 

would either of my children attended usm?  i dont really know, the oldest, we did discuss the possiblity, but the younger was at the beginning of shelby's reign....i would have discouraged a usm degree with shelby in control.

i am certainly not being critical of usm recruitment, but curious of the strategy.  non traditional students are a real asset to any university(later in life i earned another degree, so i understand working and going to class) but in my view you must have those bright young minds to make things pop on campus.

all has worked our well for my children, so i am certainly not upset.

i hope usm returns to better days in the very near future(universities are about so very, very much more than economic development!)

good luck to all

Tulane will announce an executive MBA program for the fall.  It looks like the fool is DOTY!!!  We lose again.

Doty does not understand that in the business world today we are paperless.  USM COB graduates are way behind the curve in that area.  They could learn from a EXEC MBA program and USM could benefit from the 25 thousand per student that Ms Power and other companies are paying for their students to attend. No, let's send the money to New Oreleans. We are too smart to be practical.

Doty saved USM a lot of money.  Tulane would have offered their Ex MBA anyway...their seats would be full...USM can't compete with the Tulane B-school

"Tuition for the 2006-07 New Orleans Executive MBA program is $55,000. The program consists of four terms. " From their website

Note, they offer a Professional MBA (which does cost $70,000) and an Executive MBA, which is targeted to people who can probably afford it, especially with help from the employer.

To whom would a USM ExMBA be most attractive?

Gulf coast Business wrote:

---

Doty does not understand that in the business world today we are paperless.  USM COB graduates are way behind the curve in that area.  They could learn from a EXEC MBA program and USM could benefit from the 25 thousand per student that Ms Power and other companies are paying for their students to attend. No, let's send the money to New Oreleans. We are too smart to be practical.

---

GCB,

The idea wouldn't be to offer an Executive MBA much more cheaply than Tulane because Tulane bothers with AACSB accreditation... and the present administration at USM wants rid of AACSB accreditation?

Robert Campbell