Fourth Tier Question - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jul 5, 2005

Fourth Tier Question

Date: Jul 5, 2005

Tolls are out tonight. Don't feed the trolls.

Date: Jul 5, 2005

Troll Alert wrote:

Tolls are out tonight. Don't feed the trolls.

Too bad they don't have to pay a "toll" to be a "troll!" Thanks for the alert, TA!

Truth (back from vacation!)

Date: Jul 5, 2005

Above the Mire wrote:

You keep giving each other high fives over the fourth tier status of our university, and duh! You idiots have to take responsibility for it! Did we sink to fourth tier because of your outstanding efforts in the classrooms? If you are so good, how did we fall? Are you really not very good, or did you sit down on the job? Which ever it is, I congratulate you. You should be very proud of yourselves.

ATM, if USM is dying, it's dying in the classroom. You believe this, right?

Date: Jul 6, 2005

This is an interesting board to view.Anytime someone raises a point of view contrary to that of the academic community,he is labeled a"troll." Do the professors do that in the classes they teach? Do they ever answer criticism or do they just denigrate everyone who disagrees with them?

Date: Jul 6, 2005

Point of View wrote:

This is an interesting board to view.Anytime someone raises a point of view contrary to that of the academic community,he is labeled a"troll." Do the professors do that in the classes they teach? Do they ever answer criticism or do they just denigrate everyone who disagrees with them?

Point of View,

The troll, Above the Mire, and others have been making these unsubstantiated statements for some time now. Some, like JoJo, are angry with some profs because that demand that opinions be backed by evidence and logical arguments. They have no evidence or logical arguments, but want (and love) their own opinions heard without questioning. When they start providing logical arguments back up with evidence then we all will be able to have a discussion. Until then all we can do is put out a troll alert.

Date: Jul 6, 2005

I tend to agree...

You guys dodge the tough questions and label opposers a troll...

I realize this is supposed to be your sanctuary where you can get together and bash SFT until you are blue in the face... but come on, surely you have to back up your opinions at some point.

After all, isnt that what being a professor is all about?

I think you look to SFT to take the fall for everything bad, ie, 4th tier ranking.

You quabble for shared governance, ( and you do have it ) but this shared governance is not mentioned and you take zero responsibility for the fall in ranking.

I place as much blame to the profs as I do to admin. You can dodge it and pass the buck all you want, but based on my conversations with various people, the public feels the same way.

Date: Jul 6, 2005

uh . . . what "tough question" are we dodging?

Date: Jul 6, 2005

I have a question. Most of us faculty were here under Lucas and USM was tier three. We were here under Fleming and USM was tier three. We are still here and now USM is tier four. See if you can figure out what changed at USM when it became tier four. You can use inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning or even a SWAG.

Date: Jul 6, 2005

Cossack wrote:

See if you can figure out what changed at USM when it became tier four.

To put it another way, everything was held constant except one. What was that one thing?

Date: Jul 6, 2005

Cossack wrote:

I have a question. Most of us faculty were here under Lucas and USM was tier three. We were here under Fleming and USM was tier three. We are still here and now USM is tier four. See if you can figure out what changed at USM when it became tier four. You can use inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning or even a SWAG.

Cossack-

You are usually correct, by my recollection is that we were Tier IV under Lucas, and were briefly Tier III under Fleming. The rankings have little to do with what we do in the classroom, and more to do with the quality of the average student admitted and other factors we faculty have zero control over...

Date: Jul 6, 2005

Point of View wrote:

This is an interesting board to view.Anytime someone raises a point of view contrary to that of the academic community,he is labeled a"troll." Do the professors do that in the classes they teach? Do they ever answer criticism or do they just denigrate everyone who disagrees with them?

Actually, if you look back over past posts, you'll see that serious questions and comments get serious answers. Most of us, though, are tired of dealing with "hit-and-run" posters (like JoJo) who make snide comments but never offer intelligent arguments. Offer a few intelligent comments, and you are likely to get some thoughtful responses.

In the meantime, the original point made by the person about 4th-tier ranking has been effectively answered by several regular posters before me. You can't expect to drive away a good chunk of your best faculty (as SFT has done) and maintain the reputation of the university.

Date: Jul 6, 2005

Well... wrote:

...I think you look to SFT to take the fall for everything bad, ie, 4th tier ranking. You quabble for shared governance, ( and you do have it ) but this shared governance is not mentioned and you take zero responsibility for the fall in ranking. I place as much blame to the profs as I do to admin. ...

Yes, SFT changed things so much his administration didn't know who was suppose to report what to whom. His changes caused the lost of "institutional memory". The data didn't get sent in for the report and SFT blamed Tim Hudson.

The only shared governance I experienced under SFT was when he asked Faculty Senate's opinion on keeping the AA/EOE office. However, the faculty are responsibility for one aspect of the fall to tier four. Many good faculty left and the word spread throughout academia that USM was going down hill. A large part of the ranking is "peer evaluation". Other universities ranked USM very low once news of the Glamser-Stringer fiasco became known.

You place blame on the profs out of ignorance and because of your agenda. You never say WHY you hold prof responsible. Readers of this board are well aware of this. That is why they yell TROLL!!

Date: Jul 6, 2005

Above the Mire wrote:

Did we sink to fourth tier because of your outstanding efforts in the classrooms? If you are so good, how did we fall?

Above the Mire,

You've probably never actually seen a copy of the USNews ratings, but if you do ever get your hands on a copy you will see that teaching is not one of the variables considered when the tier rankings are compiled. For instance, those who put USM in the 4th tier did not have access to class evaluations or to any other measure of instruction.

Here are the 7 variables on which those tier ratings are made:

Peer Assessment (25%)
Retention (20%)
Faculty Resources (20%, class size, faculty salaries, % faculty with terminal degrees, S/F ratio,
% faculty full time).
Student Selectivity (15%)
Financial Resources (10%)
Graduation Rate (5%)
Alumni Giving (5%)

Now, examine those 7 factors, one by one. Do you see how little is under faculty control? Instruction is listed nowhere. Most of the factors are under control of the administration - not the faculty.

If you are an alumnus, you actually have more direct control over the tier ratings than do the faculty (see the 5% Alumni Giving dimension). If you are a student you could help on two of the factors if you keep your nose clean, stay in school, and graduate within a reasonable period of time (the "Retention" and "Graduation Rate" dimensions). The "Faculty Resources" dimension under the control of the administration, as is "Student Selectivity" The faculty does not control undergraduate admissions (with the possible exception of a few in the performing arts).

USM is weak on all counts.

Above the Mire, this is not the first time you've bellyached about teaching/instruction as contributing to USM's dip into the 4th tier. I hope that you now see that USNews doesn't consider teaching/instruction in its tier determinations any more than it considers a rat's patooty.

Date: Jul 6, 2005

Primary Source,

Thank you for laying out the components of the US News ratings.

The lowest possible peer assessment (academic reputation) score is 1.0. I believe USM's peer assessment score was 2.2 the year before the tierdrop, and 2.1 last year. There is still a long way for the peer assessment score to fall, and every reason to believe that it will fall further as word about the SFT regime gets around to other universities.

Robert Campbell

Date: Jul 6, 2005

just so people have a sense of how USNWR defines "peer assessment" and who provides such a rating, here is an excerpt from USNWR's methodology section on this variable:

The U.S. News ranking formula gives greatest weight to the opinions of those in a position to judge a school's academic excellence. The peer assessment survey allows the top academics we contact--presidents, provosts, and deans of admission--to account for intangibles such as faculty dedication to teaching. Each individual is asked to rate peer schools' academic programs on a scale from 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished). Those who don't know enough about a school to evaluate it fairly are asked to mark "don't know." Synovate, an opinion-research firm based near Chicago, collected the data; 60 percent of the 4,095 people who were sent questionnaires responded.

Date: Jul 6, 2005

Robert Campbell wrote:

Primary Source, Thank you for laying out the components of the US News ratings. The lowest possible peer assessment (academic reputation) score is 1.0. I believe USM's peer assessment score was 2.2 the year before the tierdrop, and 2.1 last year. There is still a long way for the peer assessment score to fall, and every reason to believe that it will fall further as word about the SFT regime gets around to other universities.

And thank you, Robert, for the additional data that you provided (and thanks to stinky cheese man for posting additional details. To your comments I would like to add this:

Although 1.0 is the lowest possible peer rating, as a practical matter the lowest actual rating given in the rankings was 1.7 (Alabama A&M). Only 16 of the 248 schools ranked had a lower peer rating than USM. Most of the old board viewers are already award of those facts, but newcomers might also be interested (and shocked as was I).

Date: Jul 6, 2005

Primary Source wrote:

And thank you, Robert, for the additional data that you provided (and thanks to stinky cheese man for posting additional details. To your comments I would like to add this: Although 1.0 is the lowest possible peer rating, as a practical matter the lowest actual rating given in the rankings was 1.7 (Alabama A&M). Only 16 of the 248 schools ranked had a lower peer rating than USM. Most of the old board viewers are already award of those facts, but newcomers might also be interested (and shocked as was I).

Primary Source,

Thanks for your really splendid posts to this thread. Is there a (free) web link that lays out the information you've been sharing, or are you looking in the printed rankings?

Thanks again!

Date: Jul 6, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

Point of View wrote: This is an interesting board to view.Anytime someone raises a point of view contrary to that of the academic community,he is labeled a"troll." Do the professors do that in the classes they teach? Do they ever answer criticism or do they just denigrate everyone who disagrees with them? Point of View, The troll, Above the Mire, and others have been making these unsubstantiated statements for some time now. Some, like JoJo, are angry with some profs because that demand that opinions be backed by evidence and logical arguments. They have no evidence or logical arguments, but want (and love) their own opinions heard without questioning. When they start providing logical arguments back up with evidence then we all will be able to have a discussion. Until then all we can do is put out a troll alert.

Damned right I'm a troll, and damned right I'm angry. MY question is a very logical one. How about an answer? How do you sink to tier four without a hell of a lot of incompetence in the classroom?

Date: Jul 6, 2005

USM Sympathizer wrote:

Is there a (free) web link that lays out the information you've been sharing, or are you looking in the printed rankings? Thanks again!

The data come from the 2005 edition of "America's Best Colleges." I am looking at the printed rankings. I've not look to see if if these data are available on line. Maybe Googler can determine that.

Date: Jul 6, 2005

Above the Mire wrote:

Damned right I'm a troll, and damned right I'm angry. MY question is a very logical one. How about an answer? How do you sink to tier four without a hell of a lot of incompetence in the classroom?

How did we sink to the bottom tier? Well, let me count the ways . . . I see there are seven. You can view them on this thread. See the first post by Primary Source and subsequent posts on this thread by Robert Campbell stinky cheese man. If you continue to object to USNews' ranking criteria you might want to contact their editors.

Date: Jul 6, 2005

Primary Source wrote:

USM Sympathizer wrote: Is there a (free) web link that lays out the information you've been sharing, or are you looking in the printed rankings? Thanks again! The data come from the 2005 edition of "America's Best Colleges." I am looking at the printed rankings. I've not look to see if if these data are available on line. Maybe Googler can determine that.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2441_brief.php

It appears these data are available via "premium online content."

Date: Jul 6, 2005

This thread at least answers one question. AtMire's most recent post shows that s/he does not actually read the other posts. Continue to blame the professors when it was just clearly stated that hardly anything in the USNWR ratings is under the professors' control, and that teaching is not even measured. And not just explained in one post, but in several.

Date: Jul 6, 2005

Little old lady wrote:

This thread at least answers one question. AtMire's most recent post shows that s/he does not actually read the other posts. Continue to blame the professors when it was just clearly stated that hardly anything in the USNWR ratings is under the professors' control, and that teaching is not even measured. And not just explained in one post, but in several.

In the second post on this thread, I alerted the board that "Above the Mire" was a troll. Five post above "Above the Mire" admits to being a troll. As Little Old Lady points out the troll was feed by this board and didn't bother to read the post. The purpose of trolls is to troll--not read.

Date: Jul 6, 2005

It shouldn't be very long before the 2006 edition of the USNews ratings come out. A comparision of the tier rankings as they appear in the currently available 2005 edition with the forthcoming 2006 edition should make for good reading. Watch for it on your news stands.

Date: Jul 6, 2005

Date: Jul 6, 2005

Little Jimmy Brown wrote:

It shouldn't be very long before the 2006 edition of the USNews ratings come out.

The USNews ratings are based in part on numbers provided directly by the respective universities.You can bet that after the fiasco last year the elusive numbers will appear this year. I predict a tier 3 ranking for USM in the 2006 version.

Date: Jul 6, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

Well... wrote: ...I think you look to SFT to take the fall for everything bad, ie, 4th tier ranking. You quabble for shared governance, ( and you do have it ) but this shared governance is not mentioned and you take zero responsibility for the fall in ranking. I place as much blame to the profs as I do to admin. ... Yes, SFT changed things so much his administration didn't know who was suppose to report what to whom. His changes caused the lost of "institutional memory". The data didn't get sent in for the report and SFT blamed Tim Hudson. The only shared governance I experienced under SFT was when he asked Faculty Senate's opinion on keeping the AA/EOE office. However, the faculty are responsibility for one aspect of the fall to tier four. Many good faculty left and the word spread throughout academia that USM was going down hill. A large part of the ranking is "peer evaluation". Other universities ranked USM very low once news of the Glamser-Stringer fiasco became known. You place blame on the profs out of ignorance and because of your agenda. You never say WHY you hold prof responsible. Readers of this board are well aware of this. That is why they yell TROLL!!

Let's see if I have this right. We have lousey students, lousey admin, lousey alumni, and our peers rank us low in spite of their top notch colleagues on our faculty! I can't tell you how much sense that makes. If our school is a loser, then you are all just as big a bunch of losers as anybody else. You need to look in a mirror. How in the hell can you shirk responsibility in this matter........unless I'm right about you being a bunch of second class cry babies.

Date: Jul 6, 2005

Above the Mire wrote:

LeftASAP wrote: Well... wrote: ...I think you look to SFT to take the fall for everything bad, ie, 4th tier ranking. You quabble for shared governance, ( and you do have it ) but this shared governance is not mentioned and you take zero responsibility for the fall in ranking. I place as much blame to the profs as I do to admin. ... Yes, SFT changed things so much his administration didn't know who was suppose to report what to whom. His changes caused the lost of "institutional memory". The data didn't get sent in for the report and SFT blamed Tim Hudson. The only shared governance I experienced under SFT was when he asked Faculty Senate's opinion on keeping the AA/EOE office. However, the faculty are responsibility for one aspect of the fall to tier four. Many good faculty left and the word spread throughout academia that USM was going down hill. A large part of the ranking is "peer evaluation". Other universities ranked USM very low once news of the Glamser-Stringer fiasco became known. You place blame on the profs out of ignorance and because of your agenda. You never say WHY you hold prof responsible. Readers of this board are well aware of this. That is why they yell TROLL!! Let's see if I have this right. We have lousey students, lousey admin, lousey alumni, and our peers rank us low in spite of their top notch colleagues on our faculty! I can't tell you how much sense that makes. If our school is a loser, then you are all just as big a bunch of losers as anybody else. You need to look in a mirror. How in the hell can you shirk responsibility in this matter........unless I'm right about you being a bunch of second class cry babies.

Please don't feed this troll.

Date: Jul 6, 2005

Above the Mire wrote:

Let's see if I have this right. We have lousey students

Thou sayest, Above the Mire. I've seen nobody else say our students are lousy. You're the only one. As for me, I've had great students. My collegues tell me the same thing. Only you sayest that.