Hardy High West - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Aug 7, 2005

RE: Hardy High West

Date: Aug 7, 2005

Invictus wrote:

All Knowing Eye wrote: USM as an institution does not have tough grading standards. Period. Some faculty members do. Many do not. COST is not excluded. Like the hippie carpenter, I think you've hit the head on the nail. While there are things that institutions can do (or not do) to promote "toughness" (or lack thereof), ultimately the "rigor" of a class depends on the instructor. I think it's part of the principle of academic freedom. This applies at USM & it applies at CCs as well. I do want to comment on the "inordinate political power" of CCs in Mississippi. To make that statement based on experiences in other states is unsound reasoning. You see, the Mississippi CCs grew out of the agricultural high school movement of the early 1900s & several are actually older institutions than USM. (PRCC has at times claimed to be the oldest public CC in the country, founded in 1909 & beginning college classes in 1925.) Most other states have much younger CC systems that were developed in the 1950s & 1960s as part of the "community college movement." This means that while other states are just now beginning to have a few CC alumni moving into positions of political influence, Mississippi has had them in such positions for a half century or more. Additionally, the Mississippi CCs aren't governed by a strong state-level commission (like IHL) but rather have local boards of trustees appointed by the county supervisors. For quick lesson in Mississippi politics for "outsiders," in many respects county supervisors are the most powerful political officers in the state. Finally, Mississippi CCs tend to have presidents that serve extended terms of office. (One president retired this year with about 50 years of total service & around 40 years as president of his college. Another is approaching that sort of tenure now.) This allows them to cultivate strong support in their local districts & the Legislature. All that said, you can look at the per-student appropriation for universities compared with CCs. This figure varies year-to-year, of course, depending on the appropriation & the headcount/FTE formulas used to divide the pie, but right now a full-time academic (university transfer) student at a CC brings in less than $2000 in state appropriations. How much does USM receive per freshman FTE? Of course, the CCs do get local tax millage, but the end result is that CCs tend to average less than $5000/FTE student per annum. (And that figure is derived very basically by dividing total unrestricted E&G by the FTE enrollment.) Can USM come close to that cost efficiency?

Invictus-

Despite calling my inter-state comparison unsound reasoning, you do in fact make my inter-state point quite nicely, and add in a wonderful politico-historical analysis to boot!

Unfortunately you spoil the sauce by suggesting that your "cost effiiciency" comparison indicates that CC's are in some way a superior value compared to universities for the taxpayers of Miss. Add in the direct external dollars attracted by USM, Ole, JSU, and Miss (which should stay stable around 250-300 million) to the regression model, as well as (since you are using an, ugh, fiscal model), economic impact on the state, and I suspect that CC's, as currently done, are a luxury item. Now, I think CCs can play an important and exclusive role as COMMUNITY colleges (sorry about the caps), and should engage in tech training, student development for those who are unprepared for university, and service the part time student who is geographically restricted. But no one answered my initial query--what gives with the dorms, football, and marching bands?

Date: Aug 7, 2005

GL wrote:

But no one answered my initial query--what gives with the dorms, football, and marching bands?

Why shouldn't the CC's have dorms, football, and marching bands?

Date: Aug 7, 2005

GL wrote:

it seems to me CCs are aspiring to be mini-Universities (come on, football, dorms, and bands

Football: It seems to me that some of our universities are trying to field professional football teams.

Dorms: Are you suggesting that all community college students stay home with mama and papa while they are in school?

Bands: I'm surprised you didn't question the idea of community colleges having libraries.

Date: Aug 7, 2005

GL wrote:

Despite calling my inter-state comparison unsound reasoning, you do in fact make my inter-state point quite nicely, and add in a wonderful politico-historical analysis to boot!

Well, one man's "unsound reasoning" is another man's chile relleno, as I always say. But maybe "unsound reasoning" isn't a fair phrase. Maybe "unfair comparison" is better. It is unfair to compare the greater political clout wielded by a system that is around 75 years old (Mississippi's juco's were legitimized by statute around 1925) with the political clout of systems that are 30-35 years old. Moreover, the latecomers into the CC arena -- Alabama is a good example -- were crippled from the outset by their enabling legislation. Since you mentioned football, Alabama CCs are prohibited by law from playing football (coincidentally, so is the University of South Alabama). The reason has little to do with cost but "protect" the programs at Auburn & UA.

Unfortunately you spoil the sauce by suggesting that your "cost effiiciency" comparison indicates that CC's are in some way a superior value compared to universities for the taxpayers of Miss. Add in the direct external dollars attracted by USM, Ole, JSU, and Miss (which should stay stable around 250-300 million) to the regression model, as well as (since you are using an, ugh, fiscal model), economic impact on the state, and I suspect that CC's, as currently done, are a luxury item. Now, I think CCs can play an important and exclusive role as COMMUNITY colleges (sorry about the caps), and should engage in tech training, student development for those who are unprepared for university, and service the part time student who is geographically restricted. But no one answered my initial query--what gives with the dorms, football, and marching bands?

Perhaps I should have qualified that by restricting "cost efficiency" to lower division undergraduate instruction. But if the direct external dollars USM attracts were something to really belch about (still thinking chile rellenos, sorry), then Gulf Park wouldn't have to be "financed" on the backs of freshman & sophomore tuition.

Now for the dorms, football & marching bands. Remember that historical analysis? Jucos began playing football for the same reasons that USM, State & Ole Myth started playing football. It was something for the students to do & in the early 1900s it was a real fad. In fact, I believe that USM played several of the local juco teams during its early gridiron days. (I know that USM played the Hattiesburg Boy Scouts, too, at one point.) Same thing applies for bands.

Remember, the juco teams are not flying all over creation to play "anyone anytime anywhere." Usually, they load on a bus, drive to the game with a guest meal provided by the host team, load back up & bus back to campus. Overnight road trips are not common & happen only when a south division team plays a north division team. Costs are nowhere near as high as universities, even on a per-suited-up-player basis & with tuition/scholarships excluded. Juco coaches don't make $250K salaries plus Golden Flake show stipends, either.

I might also add that juco athletics gives some kids who are simply never going to play "major college ball" a chance to have fun. Some of them are not academically going to make it at a university (they're vo-tech students at the CC) & others aren't "university calibre athletes." Some of them, however, are just slow maturing kids with decent grades. Athletic "abuses" are not as common in Mississippi CCs as they are in, say, Kansas or California. (Mississippi currently uses more stringent criteria than the NJCAA national rulebook.)

Again historically, the CCs were founded as residential agricultural high schools, so the dorms are quite traditional & serve exactly the same purpose as dorms at the universities. (As a side note, Mississippi CCs are increasing multi-campus & dorms are not a feature of the newer sites such as Holmes-Ridgeland, MGCCC-Jackson County, MGCCC-Jefferson Davis, or East Miss-Golden Triangle.) It is just as farther from Bassfield to Poplarville than from Bassfield to Hattiesburg, so why should a PRCC student from Bassfield have to commute while a USM student from the same town could live in the dorm? Residential housing dates from the days of poor roads & passenger trains; if gasoline prices rise much more, we may see a re-emphasis on dormitories!

You may find, however, that we agree on far more than you think if you want to discuss visions for a truly integrated system of higher education in Mississippi. You just may be surprised that I'll contend that universities are far more "guilty" of assuming community college roles than vice versa.

Well, thanks for letting me vent back. Ventilation is good for the soul, especially after the chile rellenos (with refried beans & cheese).

Date: Aug 7, 2005

GL wrote:

what gives with the .... marching bands?

I've heard about those who would abolish music from public schools but this is the first time I've seen anyone question it's existance in the community colleges

Date: Aug 7, 2005

A brief reprise of the original topic of this thread...

I would like to add that I am aware, having been informed by a particularly informed informant who cannot post here & whose initials will remain nameless, that the main objection USM faculty have to the dual enrollment plan with OGHS is not that DE is fundamentally unsound or a bad idea or even that DE classes would probably be more rewarding for an instructor than a 100-seat freshman section. The main objection, I am told, is that the proposal came out of the USM recruiting office rather than through "proper" academic channels.

This is quite the reverse of the situation at the community colleges with which I'm familiar. In those cases, the DE programs came through the appropriate academic channels with deans (who became aware of the enabling legislation via their state association) & department chairs working together to provide some opportunities for "better" h.s. students. (Of course, nobody ignores the recruiting angle, but the truth is that DE isn't quite the recruitment "come-on" that folks thought it might be; it boils down to service & not headcount in the final analysis.)

Would the whole situation have been different had the plan really originated in academic departments? Is the "structure" of USM such that the academic departments would have been made aware of changes in the enabling legislation, etc.? Or is this "controversy" mainly a reaction to where the proposal originated?

Date: Aug 7, 2005

It is very true that some of the controversy comes from the fact that this "program" of DE was initiated from the recruiting office, surveys circulated at the high school, offerings discussed extensively by recruiting and high school personnel, and news of the potential offerings was in the Hattiesburg American prior to any mention being made in academic council or any other academic body. Thus this program was brought into being outside of academic oversight, "under the radar". Some questions that would have been raised in the normal course of events would be: How does this fit into USM's strategic plan? Is this the best use of resources (could this be accomplished by use of the IVN network, and thus integrate these high school students into a classroom with university students?); could the needs of the high school be more effectively served by DE in the community college (a review of the literature indicates that the vast majority of these programs are through 2 year institutions); and what plans should be made to extend this same offering to other regional high schools. Frankly, it appears that the main beneficiary is the high school.

One wonders, what other "surprises" will be served up by the recruiting group? Wouldn't their effort have been better expended on more extensive contact with the students and their parents, maybe an on-campus event (barbeque maybe?) or even a balloon ride over campus.

Perhaps our concerns are not merited. As this is a "distance learning" program, we can expect that course material, student performance, etc. will be measured against comparable courses on campus. Time will tell.

Date: Aug 7, 2005

According to the undergraduate bulletin, DE is available to students who have a letter of recommendation from his/her HS counselor, a minimum composite score of 25 on the ACT, and at least a 2.5 GPA on core courses. Will this Oak Grove cohort be held to those standards?

Oak Grove, I think, is one of the few area high schools on the block schedule (four courses each semester). However, if there are other area high schools on the block schedule, but their numbers don't justify on-site delivery of college classes, would their qualified students be allowed to take college classes at OGHS?

It's no secret the USM admissions office views Oak Grove as one of its main feeder schools, but the fact is many of the OG students, particularly the National Merit-type students, are opting for schools other than Southern Miss. Look at today's HA to see how many from the Class of 2005 will be at Millsaps, on scholarship, this fall.

Date: Aug 7, 2005

Googler wrote:

According to the undergraduate bulletin, DE is available to students who have a letter of recommendation from his/her HS counselor, a minimum composite score of 25 on the ACT, and at least a 2.5 GPA on core courses. Will this Oak Grove cohort be held to those standards?

The ACT score required for the Oak Grove courses is only 21.

Date: Aug 7, 2005

I find it interesting that Oak Grove High rather than Hattiesburg High was selected. After all, the university is within the city. Might it tie in with conflict between the USM administration and the city? Was population diversity a factor in the selection?

Date: Aug 7, 2005

Let's hope that talented former Petal teacher and coach Lonny Schraeder will continue to teach AP Biology when the semester begins and he's a coach under Neville. Oak Grove wins on all counts with this transaction.

Date: Aug 7, 2005

Oak Grove High wrote:

Let's hope that talented former Petal teacher and coach Lonny Schraeder will continue to teach AP Biology when the semester begins and he's a coach under Neville. Oak Grove wins on all counts with this transaction.

AP Chem makes every year but I heard that it's been several years since AP Bio made at OGHS.

Date: Aug 7, 2005

kids at HHS have been able to dual enroll (and have enrolled) for years. they just drive down to USM.

Date: Aug 7, 2005

stinky cheese man wrote:

kids at HHS have been able to dual enroll (and have enrolled) for years.

So have Oak Grove students. This is different. It's half price and the ACT requirement has been lowered. Why didn't HHS get a similar deal, stinky?

Date: Aug 7, 2005

as of yet, i don't think OG students get anything different than HHS students do. and according to the 05-06 bulletin, the ACT is 21 for all students. i think i recall reading in the academic council minutes that Hudson lowered the ACT score to 21.

Date: Aug 7, 2005

stinky cheese man wrote:

according to the 05-06 bulletin, the ACT is 21 for all students.

A reduction in ACT score from 25 to 21 is quite substantial. We're even golng downhill in our high school collaborative program?

Date: Aug 7, 2005

Look at today's HA to see how many from the Class of 2005 will be at Millsaps, on scholarship, this fall.

Millsaps worked HBG pretty hard last fall. As usual, there's a payoff for hard work.

Date: Aug 7, 2005

stinky cheese man wrote:

as of yet, i don't think OG students get anything different than HHS students do. and according to the 05-06 bulletin, the ACT is 21 for all students. i think i recall reading in the academic council minutes that Hudson lowered the ACT score to 21.

The Legislature lowered the ACT minimum to 21. Prior to the change in the law that I've mentioned previously, the requirement was 25. The cut point for early admission is still, I believe, 25.

Of course, any institution can have higher requirements if it chooses.

Date: Aug 7, 2005

gopher wrote:

Look at today's HA to see how many from the Class of 2005 will be at Millsaps, on scholarship, this fall.

May God help them all & protect their livers!

Date: Aug 8, 2005

Invictus--Are you sure about your USA football statement? Check this link: USA Football.

Date: Aug 8, 2005

Dissertation Topic wrote:

Invictus--Are you sure about your USA football statement? Check this link: USA Football.

I don't recall making a "USA football" statement. I do believe that I said that the MCJCAA rulebook is more stringent than the NCJAA rulebook. That includes the ability to recruit out-of-state athletes (Mississippi is more limited) & the financial aid requirements are tougher. I wasn't talking about academics so much as the mechanics of state financing, which is the direction I thought GL was going with it. Every out-of-state athlete represents money collected in-state that isn't used for Mississippi residents.

Now, if we're talking strictly academics, yes, Mississippi's CC athletes are going to look worse, simply because they are predominantly from Mississippi & Mississippi is the runt pig of education in the US.

So I'm right, you're right & let's go have a cup of coffee

(Footnote: If you had asked me about 20 years ago if I thought Mississippi CCs would still be playing football in 2005, I would have answered negatively. Even with the much lower costs associated with it at the CC level in this state, it's an undue financial drag & is holding back the evolution of a number of colleges or campuses of multicampus colleges.)

Date: Aug 8, 2005

Invictus wrote:

Since you mentioned football, Alabama CCs are prohibited by law from playing football (coincidentally, so is the University of South Alabama). The reason has little to do with cost but "protect" the programs at Auburn & UA.

I was working off of this quote from above.

Date: Aug 8, 2005

Dissertation Topic wrote:

I was working off of this quote from above.

That's right. I stand corrected for stating that Alabama statute prohibits certain schools from participating in the sport of football. The restriction, IIRC, is on football scholarships. As the "USA" webpage states, they proposed a Div I-AA non-scholarship team & didn't get enough community interest to warrant pursuing the idea.