GA memo from provost - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Feb 16, 2006

GA memo from provost

Date: Feb 16, 2006

The only thing keeping the MBA program enrollment above zero is the free schooling opportunity of the GAs. The quality of the the MBA has never been good and has gotten steadily worse. Time to close up shop. I'm glad they are improving the building for the few who remain.

Date: Feb 16, 2006

I think this memo points out that the administration operates by looking at profits while the rest of us look at providing quality education.

This will kill a number of programs. I would feel better if the administration just came out and said "we're cutting your program because you don't make enough money" instead of attacking it in this way.

The way this is happening, the administration gets to claim that they haven't cut programs.

Amy Young

Date: Feb 16, 2006

Two questions regarding the GA reallocation:

1. Do, or will, those programs granting doctoral degrees offer assistantships to master level students?

2. Why do we have Ph.D. programs in areas of study where there are large surpluses in the number of degrees granted versus the jobs that exist? By eliminating those programs, we could reallocate money to programs where the graduates get jobs, and at higher pay.

Date: Feb 16, 2006

Amy Young wrote:

I think this memo points out that the administration operates by looking at profits while the rest of us look at providing quality education.
Amy Young

I think you've nailed it, Amy!

Between this memo and the ever watchful eye on our "productivity" (teaching loads, etc), I am just fed up this week. The administration does not appear to value graduate-level education at all. . . just the almighty dollar that undergrads bring in. . .

Date: Feb 16, 2006

The change eliminates all GA support for the CoB, which has been bringing candidates in all year to fill positions. When they arrive next year, they will learn that they have no GA support at all. Because of this, and other problems, some in the college avoid interaction with job candidates as much as possible. They do not want to be involved in misrepresentation in any way. Add to this the fact that DHD has developed the bad habit of telling departments via indidivual faculty which of the candidates he wants. This has even grown to the point that he now sometimes does so before all of the candidates have visited. The whole job search process in the CoB is an oily one now.

Date: Feb 16, 2006

In cases where a given department offers the master's degree in one area and the doctorate in another area, will students in the department's master's program have the same GA benefits as those in the department's doctoral program even when the two programs are discretely different? How about a case where the department offers a terminal master's degree along side but separate from its doctoral degree?

Date: Feb 16, 2006

Reallocation of GA support will undoubtedly seriously impact academic programs. This is an academic matter. Was this matter put before Graduate Council before the decision was made? If the policy was implemented through the end run process, I would think it would be of concern to SACS.

Date: Feb 16, 2006

We still do not know if colleges other than CBA give Graduate Assistant money to Masters level students.

Date: Feb 16, 2006

Perspective wrote:

Reallocation of GA support will undoubtedly seriously impact academic programs. This is an academic matter. Was this matter put before Graduate Council before the decision was made? If the policy was implemented through the end run process, I would think it would be of concern to SACS.

To the Dome, this is an administrative matter. They need to get as much money from everywhere else over to science and technology. How sad that is.

Date: Feb 16, 2006

Cossack wrote:

We still do not know if colleges other than CBA give Graduate Assistant money to Masters level students.

The memo would lead one to the conclusion that other colleges do, given #3. If that is so, why would those colleges get a two-year phase-out but the CoB does not, Cossack? Is it the CoB is the biggest "offender"? Is it personal due to Doty? Niroomand? The entire faculty? Or merely the dart landed fortuitously?

Date: Feb 16, 2006

The memo would lead one to the conclusion that other colleges do, given #3. If that is so, why would those colleges get a two-year phase-out but the CoB does not, Cossack? Is it the CoB is the biggest "offender"? Is it personal due to Doty? Niroomand? The entire faculty? Or merely the dart landed fortuitously?

In the climate that prevails at USM, it could all of the above. There are many who feel that their areas are so important that they should get all of the marbles. Assuming that other colleges give stipends to master level students, the argument that only Ph.D. programs should get the money is bogus.

Date: Feb 16, 2006

Cossack wrote:

The memo would lead one to the conclusion that other colleges do, given #3. If that is so, why would those colleges get a two-year phase-out but the CoB does not, Cossack? Is it the CoB is the biggest "offender"? Is it personal due to Doty? Niroomand? The entire faculty? Or merely the dart landed fortuitously?

In the climate that prevails at USM, it could all of the above. There are many who feel that their areas are so important that they should get all of the marbles. Assuming that other colleges give stipends to master level students, the argument that only Ph.D. programs should get the money is bogus.

And if the CoB is the only one? Easy target, personal, or both?

Date: Feb 16, 2006

I'm old, I'm confused. Let me see if I understand. We won't give any more GA money to masters students, just to doctoral students.
So, where will the next batch of doctoral students come from? If we let the MA's all go over to UAB or State, or LSU, will they come back here for the PhD?
Am I missing something in this picture?

Date: Feb 16, 2006

Cossack wrote:

We still do not know if colleges other than CBA give Graduate Assistant money to Masters level students.

Psych does. But that dept. also offers the Ph.D.

Date: Feb 16, 2006

Little old lady wrote:

Let me see if I understand. We won't give any more GA money to masters students, just to doctoral students. So, where will the next batch of doctoral students come from? If we let the MA's all go over to UAB or State, or LSU, will they come back here for the PhD?

It would sink some of our doctoral programs.

Date: Feb 16, 2006

Wild Flower wrote:

It would sink some of our doctoral programs.

Maybe that's the plan: a long-range strategy to pare down the graduate offerings at USM university-wide.

Date: Feb 16, 2006

I believe SJ is correct on this one. I heard Meredith approved of this move.

Date: Feb 16, 2006

i could add a lot to this thread, but i'll just comment on a few notes. first, as i understand it, it is still a proposal. second, if a department offers a terminal degree, masters students will still be eligible for assistantships. third, many programs will not be affected. fourth, note the attempt to increase the minimal amount we pay students on graduate teaching stipends (recommendation #4)--still not enough, but we pay pitifully now. fifth, as to who should approve such budgetary changes--why no problem nor oversight when english got $150,000 over-and-above its previous gta budget last year?

Date: Feb 16, 2006

let me clarify #2, it's a terminal graduate degree, normally a Ph.D., but MFAs work as well.

Date: Feb 16, 2006

I did some investigation about RA/TAs in doctoral programs in my area (clinical psych). Pure RA money from E&G is rare, and usually reserved as part of a start up agreement for new faculty in their first year. In psychology, we already phased out support for terminal masters students. Students admitted to our doctoral tracks who earn a masters along the way would be eligible for TA money under this proposal, I think. What is yet unclear to us is allocation of TA resources. Will I get a TA for my stats class of 45 students? How about a writing intensive class? Large psych 110 classes? Practicum courses? Assessment courses? In Psychology, about 30% of students are on grant or contract, and most of the rest do some TA'ing, but may be listed as RAs on the books -- a leftover from how these folks were counted in the past.

The explanation I heard from multiple sources is that Dean Gandy was instrumental in putting the proposal on the table, and is against using any E&G money for RA purposes (and seeing psychology have "RAs" paid by E&G just torqued him, though few were pure RAs). But now a whole can of worms has been opened.

The proposal would probably do three things for/to us (psychology). First, it would raise stipends for students on TA (a function of the proposed stipend cut offs for tuition waivers). Second, we would fund significantly fewer students, which would make recruiting more difficult (we still need X number of students for accreditation and training purposes). Students who come on their own dime would be more likely to be weaker students (if we can get them at all). Third, students will be spread thinner for research training. Fourth, we will have to revamp our curriculum once again to meet institutional structural changes and demands (we just got through a major revamp, and it was a headache for both the faculty and students).

Perhaps my biggest concern is the formula used to allocate TA money to units. That is not addressed at all. Without seeing this, I can't judge whether it is fair or a play by COST to swipe more of our limited resources. Another concern is whether supplying additional money to TAs is merely lip service (most likely), or if someone has some numbers on cold cash that can be floated.

Remember when I sighed last week about stuff that was about to happen? Here is just one more example of why morale is low. More to come, I'm sure. No hints though.

Date: Feb 16, 2006

mitch--one item in your post got my attention. folks in your shop get a TA for writing intensive courses? i've taught one such course each semester for two years and didn't get such support. must be nice if you get it in psych. and i'm in a doctoral degree granting program.

Date: Feb 16, 2006

mitch-one last question. to what degree do impacts #1 (in your third paragraph) suggest you aren't paying "decent" wages to your GTAs?

Date: Feb 17, 2006

stinky cheese man wrote:

i could add a lot to this thread, but i'll just comment on a few notes. first, as i understand it, it is still a proposal. second, if a department offers a terminal degree, masters students will still be eligible for assistantships. third, many programs will not be affected. fourth, note the attempt to increase the minimal amount we pay students on graduate teaching stipends (recommendation #4)--still not enough, but we pay pitifully now. fifth, as to who should approve such budgetary changes--why no problem nor oversight when english got $150,000 over-and-above its previous gta budget last year?

Yes, and if there is enough unified opposition to the proposal, it likely can be stopped.

Date: Feb 17, 2006

trial balloon--as i understand it, it is a proposal. but i also understand there is support for it. doctoral programs paying more than the paltry $5400 for a 9 months GTA are unaffected. and in two years doctoral programs will have have to pay a mighty $7200 for a 9 months GTA. if some are opposed to this i hope its for the right reasons (namely, $7200 is insulting).

Date: Feb 17, 2006

stinky cheese man wrote:

trial balloon--as i understand it, it is a proposal. but i also understand there is support for it. doctoral programs paying more than the paltry $5400 for a 9 months GTA are unaffected. and in two years doctoral programs will have have to pay a mighty $7200 for a 9 months GTA. if some are opposed to this i hope its for the right reasons (namely, $7200 is insulting).

I don't know that we're in agreement on what the "right reasons" are for opposition to this proposal. It seems that it is lose/lose all around except for the reallocation of funds to CoST. My graduate stipend was $9000 over a decade ago so I agree that $7200 is insulting. I guess I just don't buy into the premise that this is the only solution. Someone above mentioned SACS accreditation; it may affect accreditation of individual programs as well. Mitch raised the issue of development funds needed for summer teaching grants on another thread. This is another area where administration ought to be raising external money, perhaps rather than continuing to divert foundation funds into the black hole of the athletics program.

Date: Feb 17, 2006

i don't see it as lose/lose all around. doctoral programs paying more than a mighty $5400 for 9 months now, and $7200 for 9 months in 2 years aren't affected at all. i wish they would get more. and if a doctoral program is affected by this, shame on them--that means they treat their doctoral students very poorly in terms of pay. and in terms of SACS, the 1995 report said USM should study whether it could afford the graduate programs they had then (particularly focusing on masters programs). think such a study occurred--don't think so. the fleming administration added doctoral programs (try nursing, administration of justice) and spread the paltry graduate programs resources a mile-wide-and-an-inch-deep.

Date: Feb 17, 2006

Thanks Mitch for providing more insight on the issue. As I understand the issue now, it is a redistribution effort in that the pie stays the same but some get a larger slice and some get a smaller slice. In the case of CBA, it gets no slice. It would be nice to see the scoreboard on the outcome. Who are the screwers, and how much do they gain? Who are the screwees, and how much do they lose?

I would point out that some of the colleges that will lose under this plan generate large amounts of student credit hours compared to those generated by colleges that will gain. Perhaps we should reallocate funds based on student credit hours. It may behoove those pushing this issue to rethink how this will play out. The environment at USM is already very contentious. This plan will only serve to make it worse.

Date: Feb 17, 2006

stinky cheese man wrote:

mitch-one last question. to what degree do impacts #1 (in your third paragraph) suggest you aren't paying "decent" wages to your GTAs?

The stipend and tuition waiver add up to a package that is substantially lower than our competitors' for students. We lose potential students each year because of this. I made almost twice as much as a graduate student at Kent State in the late 80s and early 90s. And all students were funded throughout their four years on campus.

Date: Feb 17, 2006

Cossack wrote:

Perhaps we should reallocate funds based on student credit hours.

That's what's done other places. I used to be the person (somewhere else) who published the little book every semester, and then sent it to every department, and then got the phone call from the chair if I was off by one-half of a smidgen. Every hour counted for money.