Academic Bottom Line - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Academic Bottom Line

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Rhetorical question, right?

Date: Aug 12, 2005

USM is now an open admissions University that has lost about 250 faculty over the last 2-3 years. Case closed.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Nursing NCLEX scores have plummeted downward.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

English has lost top scholars.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

There must have been some huge improvements within COST during the past three years. Every undergraduate discipline requires mathematics in their curriculum. Support must have been thrown in their direction. Maybe substantial improvements in the math department?

Date: Aug 12, 2005

I always hear about the losses but never about the gains. Has USM not hired anybody of quality in the last 3 years? Has it only been the case that we have lost very productive faculty and replaced them with the people no one else would hire? I am not questioning that USM has lost some great people, but that is not new phenomenon that only started 3 years ago. If I was a new hire at USM, I would feel pretty bad that that the only thing people thought of me was that I was not as good as someone else.

I think Yardstick is correct in assessing the bottom line for a university. I would be very interested to see the numbers indicating quality before and after SFT.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

Numbers Game wrote:

There must have been some huge improvements within COST during the past three years. Every undergraduate discipline requires mathematics in their curriculum. Support must have been thrown in their direction. Maybe substantial improvements in the math department?

The Math department lost almost as much as English. However, Physics expanded. (That is the dean's department.)

Date: Aug 12, 2005

manova wrote:

I would be very interested to see the numbers indicating quality before and after SFT.

This is going to seem naive, but shouldn't that information covering the past three years be embedded somewhere in the SACS reaccreditation report?

Date: Aug 12, 2005

socks wrote:

This is going to seem naive, but shouldn't that information covering the past three years be embedded somewhere in the SACS reaccreditation report?

I did a quick look through the documents and saw that it 1) focuses on distance learning aspects and 2) does not really provide longitudinal data. While it was interesting to see grade distributions, teacher evaluations, and how students compare to the nation on the Collegiate Assessment for Academic Proficiency test (btw, scored around the national average on everything), this is all just a single snap shot. I guess if we had been collecting this data every year...but other discussions on this board have covered this point extensively.

Date: Aug 12, 2005

manova wrote:

I always hear about the losses but never about the gains. Has USM not hired anybody of quality in the last 3 years? Has it only been the case that we have lost very productive faculty and replaced them with the people no one else would hire? I am not questioning that USM has lost some great people, but that is not new phenomenon that only started 3 years ago. If I was a new hire at USM, I would feel pretty bad that that the only thing people thought of me was that I was not as good as someone else.
I think Yardstick is correct in assessing the bottom line for a university. I would be very interested to see the numbers indicating quality before and after SFT.

There's supposed to be a regular pattern of departures and arrivals. In our case, the quantity of the departures and the quality of the departees are out of synch. The last three fulls who have left English are going to be chairs elsewhere. Good for them, but that's not "normal" --

Date: Aug 13, 2005

Expanding the Physics Dept.?...Did they increase from 4 faculty to 5?

Date: Aug 13, 2005

Over twenty hours and narry a mention of even one single solitary academic accomplishment over a three year period. If we can't identify any outselves we can't expect those responsible for the national ratings to find them for us.

Date: Aug 13, 2005

socks wrote:
This is going to seem naive, but shouldn't that information covering the past three years be embedded somewhere in the SACS reaccreditation report?

I have not read the entire USM monitoring report, because quite frankly, it's tedious & I have a job at another institution that generates its own tedious reports. But I would be very surprised if this information is in fact in the SACS report. The purpose of the monitoring report is to address specific concerns raised by SACS in the probation. Oh, there may be statistics that are close, but the focus of USM's report isn't faculty attrition or job satisfaction or any of that. USM's report is focused on distance learning & "institutional effectiveness". The faculty credentials reports would be a "snapshot" & again, focused on demonstrating only that faculty in specific departments meet minimum standards.

The thing to watch is the compliance report that should come out in the spring. Under the "new" SACS procedures, this report can be done by administration (in contrast to prior self-studies, which were "faculty-driven"). Things can be said outright, or they can be glossed over, or they can be ignored altogether. And the point is only to demonstrate minimum compliance, not excellence. For USM employees, it would be worthwhile to keep a weather eye on that particular report.

Date: Aug 13, 2005

Dark Secret wrote:

Over twenty hours and narry a mention of even one single solitary academic accomplishment over a three year period. If we can't identify any outselves we can't expect those responsible for the national ratings to find them for us.

Depatments usually like to brag. There must an important change somewhere to brag about in the academic arena over the past three years.

Date: Aug 13, 2005

whatutalkinboutwillis? wrote:

Expanding the Physics Dept.?...Did they increase from 4 faculty to 5?

Hardly. Here is what is listed on the website: ( I added # of years here for the newer people.)

Gandy (dean 2 years)

Gearba (1 year)

Hughes (Professor Emeritus)

Lee (Professor)

Mead (Professor)

Pandy (Professor)

Rayborn (Professor Emeritus)

Sirola (1year)

Maung (new chair)

Vera (1 year)

Stephens (Research Scientist-- not tenure track)

Whitehead (Asso. Dean)

Windstead (Asso. Prof- -untenured)

Plus I heard they were interviewing for a computational scientist this past spring.

Date: Aug 13, 2005

Dark Secret wrote:

Over twenty hours and narry a mention of even one single solitary academic accomplishment over a three year period. If we can't identify any outselves we can't expect those responsible for the national ratings to find them for us.

Twenty hours = a few minutes during a period when those in the know are either catching the last bit of a vacation or gearing up for a new semester. Why do we need this discussion, other than to provide a modicum of excitement during a slow time? (And slow for whom?) This topic is regularly hashed out on this board, the members of which have no legal responsibility either to gather data for SACS or other agencies or to entertain bored cybertypes.

On the other hand, if Yardstick and/or Dark Secret are really interested in gathering data and getting this board to assist them, then they should start a thread linking all previously posted data and asking for updates.

Date: Aug 13, 2005

Treading Water wrote:

Dark Secret wrote: Over twenty hours and narry a mention of even one single solitary academic accomplishment over a three year period. If we can't identify any outselves we can't expect those responsible for the national ratings to find them for us. Depatments usually like to brag. There must an important change somewhere to brag about in the academic arena over the past three years.

And most of us know when our collective chain is being yanked. The individual faculty, departments, colleges and committees know what there is to be proud of. This is not the place to "brag" just so that accomplishments can be dragged down by competing factions.

Date: Aug 13, 2005

Older and Wiser wrote:

And most of us know when our collective chain is being yanked. The individual faculty, departments, colleges and committees know what there is to be proud of. This is not the place to "brag"
You wish to suppress the identification of positive accomplishments that have occurred during the past three years? Is that because you fear that there are few or none and a paucity of responding might be embarrasing? I think you're right when you say the collective chain is being yanked, but I believe that the choke end of the chain is attached to us and you are jerking the other end.

NO QUARTER!

Date: Aug 13, 2005

Spike,

Get a grip. There are few USM faculty on this board. As one of them I agree with the earlier post that this is not the place where even those of us who monitor the board want to post our accomplishments for public bashing. Like it or not, now that things are calming down, this board is becoming the lair of chronic naysayers. Most of the truly thoughtful posters (at least those from USM -- those who have not fled) are no longer active on the board. Put all of those things together and why bother to post good things here?

Date: Aug 13, 2005

Spud wrote:

this is not the place where even those of us who monitor the board want to post our accomplishments for public bashing......why bother to post good things here?

I doubt that very many members of the public know or care what's posted here. The concern you express about bashing by members of the public could be solved by restricting board access to USM-AAUP members only (give each member a password). I'd hate to see that happen as faculty communication on this board has been one of the best things to happen at USM for years (excuse me for saying something positive).