H.A.--USM probation may end Tuesday - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Dec 5, 2005

H.A.--USM probation may end Tuesday

Date: Dec 5, 2005

"After an ignoble probation period..." What the heck does that mean? As opposed to what?

Date: Dec 5, 2005

Great quote from Bill Powell.

Date: Dec 5, 2005

Academic Council met today and went into executive session. Last year a number of us were asked to put together a document on academic policy. One of the things in this document included program reviews, and the process for those reviews. We worked quite hard and came up with what I thought was a reasonable plan and it was approved by Academic Council and Graduate Council last spring semester. Now that same document has been sent to the programs that are going to be reviewed but the time frame has been dramatically reduced from about a year (which is similar to other program reviews in other universities in the SACS system) to about 2 months.

I want to know why this plan sat idle from last May until December 1 (that is when it was sent to the history department) and WHO authorized the drastically reduced time frame?We heard in Academic Council that this is necessary for SACS. Seems strange and possibly flirting with disaster to have such a program review process take place against the recommendation of Graduate and Academic councils (regarding the time frame) and might put us at further risk with SACS.

Amy Young

Date: Dec 5, 2005

Amy,
You raise many good questions.

Maybe, it's that others are not as professional as you.

I admire you. Keep up your good work.

coastliner

Date: Dec 5, 2005

Amy Young wrote:

Academic Council met today and went into executive session. Last year a number of us were asked to put together a document on academic policy. One of the things in this document included program reviews, and the process for those reviews. We worked quite hard and came up with what I thought was a reasonable plan and it was approved by Academic Council and Graduate Council last spring semester. Now that same document has been sent to the programs that are going to be reviewed but the time frame has been dramatically reduced from about a year (which is similar to other program reviews in other universities in the SACS system) to about 2 months.

I want to know why this plan sat idle from last May until December 1 (that is when it was sent to the history department) and WHO authorized the drastically reduced time frame?We heard in Academic Council that this is necessary for SACS. Seems strange and possibly flirting with disaster to have such a program review process take place against the recommendation of Graduate and Academic councils (regarding the time frame) and might put us at further risk with SACS.

Amy Young

maybe it's the same people who waited til the end for lots of ncate data!!!!