More Paving ? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Aug 5, 2005

More Paving ?

Date: Aug 6, 2005

same reason a lot of other paving is getting done or the reason we are spending money like mad on construction and the director of IT is complaining about not having any money to upgrade the IT system.

Date: Aug 7, 2005

you can't park cars on IT infrastructure on football game weekends...

Date: Aug 7, 2005

what doesnt the director of IT complain about?

at least our cars wont be as beaten up on the roads and and parking lots now.

Date: Aug 7, 2005

paved wrote:

what doesnt the director of IT complain about? at least our cars wont be as beaten up on the roads and and parking lots now.

Is there chalk in LAB yet? Lecterns?

Date: Aug 8, 2005

Reporter wrote:

I just received word that the parking lot north of the Chain Technology Center is being torn up. I don't yet know the reason.

Sidewalk beautification and tree planting - I am told.

Date: Aug 8, 2005

Just out of curiosity, have they started the project to convert the street between Chain Technology and Johnson Science Tower into yet another walking plaza? There was a student design presented at a PUC meeting months ago. At that time I expressed concern over the loss of yet more parking spaces as well as more streets that don't go anywhere.

Date: Aug 8, 2005

David Johnson wrote:

Just out of curiosity, have they started the project to convert the street between Chain Technology and Johnson Science Tower into yet another walking plaza? There was a student design presented at a PUC meeting months ago. At that time I expressed concern over the loss of yet more parking spaces as well as more streets that don't go anywhere.

David,

This project has not yet started. The union construction and Seymours still need delivery through this area. I would guess this won't begin until the union project is completed in 2006.

Date: Aug 9, 2005

Of course, Reporter!

So, the big whoop-dee-doo made in the PUC about it was just a lot of grandstanding and hot air. I can't begin to tell you how that shocks me.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

WDAM at 6:00, 8/10/05

Something under construction around every corner at USM to make campus more "pedestrian-friendly" and less a "suitcase college."

Students returning soon.

Reporter: "But what are they [students] coming back to? Road closings, danger signs, and caution warnings, streets lined with orange barriers..."

...

Lassen: "We can't afford to look at ourselves as a commuter campus anymore. We're a real university and people should want to be here all day long and on the weekends."

...

(Many pictures of construction, including the "largest" student life center in the state, something the Reporter called "the Trent Lott Center for Education," and a restaurant in the center of campus.)

...

Reporter: "What will be finished [by opening day] is most (Reporter's emphasis) of the sidewalks -- but that's about it."

Date: Aug 10, 2005

info wrote:

something the Reporter called "the Trent Lott Center for Education,"

That is exactly what the Reporter said.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

The very idea that you can build pedestrian malls and change the nature of the student body is naive if not ludicrous. Besides, such malls have to connect two high traffic areas, as is the case with the mall connecting the library and the HUB. That has worked out very well.

Running a pedestrian mall between the Commons and the front of campus where there is nothing but grass and little foot traffic is a big waste of money.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Malls for All wrote:

... Running a pedestrian mall between the Commons and the front of campus where there is nothing but grass and little foot traffic is a big waste of money.

Hey, watch what you say. I work for Warren paving Co.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Joker wrote:

Hey, watch what you say. I work for Warren paving Co.

Imagine a paved mall. That would be a beautiful sight, potholes and all.

Date: Aug 10, 2005

Malls for All wrote:

The very idea that you can build pedestrian malls and change the nature of the student body is naive if not ludicrous.

Online students don't need pedestrian malls.

Date: Aug 11, 2005

info wrote:

WDAM at 6:00, 8/10/05 Something under construction around every corner at USM to make campus more "pedestrian-friendly" and less a "suitcase college." Students returning soon. Reporter: "But what are they [students] coming back to? Road closings, danger signs, and caution warnings, streets lined with orange barriers..." ... Lassen: "We can't afford to look at ourselves as a commuter campus anymore. We're a real university and people should want to be here all day long and on the weekends." ... (Many pictures of construction, including the "largest" student life center in the state, something the Reporter called "the Trent Lott Center for Education," and a restaurant in the center of campus.) ... Reporter: "What will be finished [by opening day] is most (Reporter's emphasis) of the sidewalks -- but that's about it."

As the sig file above indicates, I've lost familiarity with my former home, so could someone in the Hub City help clarify this for me?

On the one hand, the university's president has said that his goal is to increase enrollment to 20,000 students, is busy tearing down the on-campus housing for married students, and seems to view "education" as delivery of pre-packaged "lecture content" to "consumers" by interchangeable untenured lecturers hired to replace the experienced tenured faculty that he's been busy "cleaning house" of.

Now, how are sidewalks and on-campus Starbucks shops going to change the USM culture from a "suitcase college?" I always thought that developing faculty-staff-student interactions, on-campus activities (including things beyond intercollegiate sports), and campus-city "town and gown" collegiality are the keystones of a "residential university" environment.

This approach seems to be akin to putting a fresh coat of paint on a badly-cracked wall. It's a surface veneer, but the whole structure is crumbling from within.

Or, have I just been gone too long, and don't understand things?

Date: Aug 11, 2005

been away, you pretty much nailed it.

Date: Aug 11, 2005

been away too long wrote:

Now, how are sidewalks and on-campus Starbucks shops going to change the USM culture from a "suitcase college?"

I doubt these additions will do anything in and of themselves to change the present campus culture, but they will bring USM more closely in line with features seen at other "major" universities. Personally, I like most of them. Our sidewalks are so badly cracked and uneven that they present a real safety hazard to those of us approaching our golden years, particularly at night. I've probably been on at least 20 college campuses in the past couple of years, most of them tier one institutions, and the existence of franchise food vendors such as Starbucks, and paved malls, is commonplace. In fact, I don't recall not seeing them on any campus.

Help me out here. Does the objection to these changes stem from their perceived connection to Thames, or to the allocation of monies to physical improvements rather than to library holdings, or salaries and benefits? I thought this issue came up last year, and Invictus educated us then on how monies were allocated by the university and the IHL. I understood the money came from separate "pots." Or am I confused? It wouldn't be the first time? Invictus, are you there?

Date: Aug 11, 2005

been away too long wrote (in part, as extracted by "Java Man"):

Now, how are sidewalks and on-campus Starbucks shops going to change the USM culture from a "suitcase college?"

Java Man replied:

I doubt these additions will do anything in and of themselves to change the present campus culture, but they will bring USM more closely in line with features seen at other "major" universities. Personally, I like most of them. Our sidewalks are so badly cracked and uneven that they present a real safety hazard to those of us approaching our golden years, particularly at night. I've probably been on at least 20 college campuses in the past couple of years, most of them tier one institutions, and the existence of franchise food vendors such as Starbucks, and paved malls, is commonplace. In fact, I don't recall not seeing them on any campus. Help me out here. Does the objection to these changes stem from their perceived connection to Thames, or to the allocation of monies to physical improvements rather than to library holdings, or salaries and benefits? I thought this issue came up last year, and Invictus educated us then on how monies were allocated by the university and the IHL. I understood the money came from separate "pots." Or am I confused? It wouldn't be the first time? Invictus, are you there?

I have no "objection" to these changes, whether Thames did them, or if they started with Lucas and/or Fleming. My point here is that this is like putting lipstick on a farm animal: you don't change the essential nature of something with a superficial veneer.

The USM Press Releases keep stressing "physical plant upgrades" over "educational issues", which is a classic case of misdirection, and an attempt at keeping the local taxpayers from noticing the institution appears to be crumbling from within. This is similar to a magician's game, of "distracting" the observer's attention from what's important, so they're surprised by the eventual outcome. And, if I'm reading this board as evidence of the institutional collapse, the eventual outcome is going to be the demolition of the university, down to a fourth-tier degree mill.

I hate the thought that Shelby Thames will succeed in turning USM into the punch line of a joke that was old when I left: "Don't slow down going through Hattiesburg on Highway 49, or they'll throw a diploma into your car."

Date: Aug 11, 2005

been away too long wrote:

And, if I'm reading this board as evidence of the institutional collapse, the eventual outcome is going to be the demolition of the university, down to a fourth-tier degree mill.

I get your point about using physical improvements as a diversionary tactic, and it's well taken. Unfortunately, the public at large sees the construction projects as tangible evidence of progress and is impressed. Equally unfortunate is the fact that they, John and Jane Public, seem unable to communicate with our faculty, as evidenced by several recent unpleasant exchanges on this message board. As to your comment cited above, I'm not so sure that we aren't already there.

Date: Aug 11, 2005

AKLs predecessor (general mccain) spent money on infrastructure. When I got here in the dark ages, the faculty was overall pretty weak with a few bright spots here and there. A degree mill for the local population, pure and simple. AKL wouldn't spend on infrastructure unless it was with outside money (the payne center), or we got lucky with some state or federal money, or something was about to fall down. The investment was in the size and quality of the faculty and STAFF with the result that usm became something more than just a D-II school with D-I athletics. This was done with the scraps from IHLs table. usm never had, and never will have, enough money to be making progess as an academic institution and keep up with the SEC schools in appearances. It was heartening in the 80s and 90s to see the number of students and thier quality rising slowly but surely. At least the kids knew what mattered.

We've almost made it back to the 70s. A much better outside "look" with a smaller and overall less competent faculty and STAFF. A couple of more years (or more) of SFT and mission accomplished. IHL will have shot the place and left it for dead.

it's pretty clear which strategy worked better in the long run. We're now dead in the water on the number of students and i don't have to talk about the quality. for now, I'd just be content if we quit admitting students that the CCs have suspended.