but mitch, some departments have cut back on the number of GTAs they offer in order to try and pay a better (albeit still non-competitive) stipend. and i'm not talking the tuition waiver portion--that doesn't pay the rent or buy groceries. and the stipends here are behind what I got in the early '70s.
We have cut out money for the terminal master's folks, jettisoned an entire Ph.D. program (I/O), increased our external funding so about 1/3 of our doc students are paid by grants and contracts. This has barely put a dent in the pay problem. We will likely get less money next year for GAs which will exacerbate the problem. We can fund fewer students, which means we take unfunded students (which presents one major set of problems) or take fewer students (in which case we can kiss our programs goodbye with respect to accreditation). The faster we run, the further behind we seem to get....
Why do unfunded students present one set of problems?
Good question. The competition among clinical psychology programs for the limited pool of good students is fierce. Our overall quality of students (at least on paper) and pool of applicants have declined a bit in the past few years, but we would have to go way down on our list to attract someone who is unfunded (unless they are financially secure to begin with). We have increased the rigor and expectations for our program, and taking in students who are unprepared to take this on would mean we would have two tiers of students -- the haves (prepared and funded) and the have nots (less prepared and not funded). Do we then teach to the lowest common denominator? Do we risk increased attrition by holding to our standards? Do we devote resources to more developmental activities? Weak doc graduate students, in my experience, suck up a lot of resources, discussion, and time--and having more than a couple in the herd is an inefficient way to run a program trying to go to the next level of respectabilty (not even considering "world class"). This may sound cold and mean, but the Ph.D. in psychology is just not for everyone (unless we grade inflate the degree). We have had our share of students who went out and got licensed and started to practice, for whom we held our collective breaths. We would like to keep this experience to the minimum. We could probably afford one ore two unfunded admissions each year with a lot of creative recruiting and risk taking, but this is not desirable at all.
Good point about the unfunded students. When I was applying to programs in English, I made the alternates list at Notre Dame. I asked about coming there on my own (borrowed) dime and was told, "If we don't fund you, you don't come here." I thought at the time that was harsh, but my experience of going elsewhere on a borrowed dime showed me that ND had the right idea.
From what I have been able to find out about the reallocation of money for GAs, it was initiated by COST who stands to gain the most by the reallocation. COAL will gain also although there may be some reallocation across some classifications of GAs. COB will lose all money because it does not have a Ph.D. program; although if it had a mediocre Ph.D. program filled with students who will not be able to find jobs in the discipline, it would be able to retain funding. Meanwhile, Ph.D. granting colleges give assistantships to master level students. The discussions mostly center on how the Ph.D. granting colleges are short of funding and they “need” the funds. Pardon me if I am cynical, but have not most posters blasted SFT because he acts the same way for the same reasons. I need the funds, I take them because I can and you can’t stop me
It is of note that the CoB's dean, Harold Doty, seems to have lost a great deal of political sway in recent months. He seemed like a world beater when he took on Thames and Grimes some months ago, yet recently he has been forced to stand helplessly by as his college technology officer is reassigned and his college's cut of the grad assistant money is swiped by CoST and CoAL's administrators who suddenly seem much more adept at handling the USM political situation. You are correct that had the CoB dean not run the IDV Ph.D. program out of the CoB, the CoB would be eligible for GA money regardless of the quality/interface issues that hampered the ED assimilation into the CoB environment. It seemed like a great victory for Doty at the time -- kick ED out of the CoB -- but now it seems like a classic blunder (akin to "getting involved in a land war in Asia" or "gambling with a Sicilian when death is on the line") that has left the CoB exposed and with no remedy. There is no ad hoc Ph.D. program that can be concocted by Doty to divert funds and save the MBA program. The worm begins to turn against Doty. Things are about to get ugly in the CoB as Doty, being sucked under by the tide, begins to flail.
SJ, you may have spoken too late on the Doty issue. I took the photo below using my cell phone late Friday afternoon from the north end of Kelly Hall as I faced north towards Joseph Greene Hall (bldg. seen in photo). That's Doty at the top of the stairs, being helped up by the pilot. The staff of his office is coming up just behind him on the stairs. Those on the roof work in room 110 or are his supporters on the 3rd floor. I'm told the heli made several trips back and forth from JGH to the open field at the Canebrake entrance. Large piles of shredded paper were burning on the roof of Greene Hall as late as Saturday afternoon. Maybe you won't have to deal with him any longer. Good luck.
Joker wrote: I knew S.J. would try to change this into another Doty thread. Must of been hard to hold back for a discussion before starting this clone Doty thread.
Just pointing out how campus power has shifted in the past 12 months. Some deans' colleges will apparently benefit from the GA reassignment while others' will not. Apparently it's not a good thing to burn bridges that you will eventually have to recross.
I do not think that this "grab the money" scheme has much to do with Doty. It has to do with other colleges and their Deans seeing a chance to grab some resources at another college's expense. It is not clear how much SFT had to do with this scheme initially. Presented with the plan by COST, he likely bought into it. Other deans will gladly take their cut of the spoils. From the COB perspective, SFT is only part of the problem. It appears that other colleges may be of more danger to CBA than SFT. They will grab the money because they can, thus acting no differently than SFT who they regard as evil.
Cossack wrote: I do not think that this "grab the money" scheme has much to do with Doty. It has to do with other colleges and their Deans seeing a chance to grab some resources at another college's expense. It is not clear how much SFT had to do with this scheme initially. Presented with the plan by COST, he likely bought into it. Other deans will gladly take their cut of the spoils. From the COB perspective, SFT is only part of the problem. It appears that other colleges may be of more danger to CBA than SFT. They will grab the money because they can, thus acting no differently than SFT who they regard as evil.
Cossack,
I have to disagree here that Doty has little to do with the money grab. If Doty hadn't spent the last 2 years pi$$ing all over every central administrator on campus, he might have some political capital to save his college's GA allotment. You are correct that other administrators see an opportunity to get some extra cash, but Doty has nowhere to go for help. His only appeals are to Grimes (remember Doty's exposing Grimes to the HA?) and Thames (too many bad moves to list here), and neither owes Doty any favors. SFT is still a problem for the CoB, but other deans, seeing Doty's weakness and fueled by their dislike for his antics and arrogance, have made a move. Couple that with the Dome's dislike for Doty (again, Doty has obstructed at almost every turn), and I really don't see how one can exclude Doty from the equation. A better dean would have foreseen a day at which some support would be a necessity.
Isn't rule one make your immediate supervisor happy? Rule two is try to make your supervisor's supervisor happy. What do you know: yet something else Dr. Doty never learned. I guess he was out the days they covered business, planning, management, and inter-personal skills in class.
The moral of the story is you cannot trust your dean, you cannot trust other colleges, and you cannot trust the President. There is no justification to try to strip resources from a college just because one dean is hacked at another dean. Just because they can run it by the President and get by with is not sufficent justification. You cannot criticize SFT for his leadership and actions and then run out and pillage when he supports it. I am begining to think that this university might deserve SFT. A lot of folks seem to think just like him.
I do think that programs that offer terminal Masters' degrees (such as the MSW or MFA) should be considered on equal footing for GA funding with PhD granting programs. I know that the School of Social Work is prohibited by the Ayres (sp?) settlement from having a Ph.D. program, which is granted to JSU by the settlement.
Beyond that, is there a reason that the $25 mil (or whatever the exact figure is) that was received due to Katrina cannot be partially expended to keep current GA positions funded? I don't know the answer to this...I'm just asking.
i guess because a MFA is a terminal degree while a MSW is not. that distinction also happens to be consistent with SACS faculty credentialling criteria.
DJ wrote: Beyond that, is there a reason that the $25 mil (or whatever the exact figure is) that was received due to Katrina cannot be partially expended to keep current GA positions funded? I don't know the answer to this...I'm just asking.
Technically, the reason is that the $27M in Katrina money has to be allocated as Title IV need-based financial aid. If a grad student filed a FAFSA (I don't think filing FAFSA is very common amongst grad students) & was determined to have legitimate needs due to the impact of the hurricane on his/her family situation, then some of that money could, I believe, be channeled into funding a GA position. OTOH, a foreign national probably couldn't get the Katrina money & I figure that's a hefty number of the GA's in some departments.
invictus--you know more about this than me, but the GA policy deals with E & G graduate stipends. i suspect the Katrina money can't be used in the E & G funds, or could it?
...If a grad student filed a FAFSA (I don't think filing FAFSA is very common amongst grad students) ...
Grad students do need to file FAFSA's. You need need them for student loans and somehow, at least my funding levels also depended on my need (my stipend was not as high my first year because I had made to much money the year before grad school).
stinky cheese man wrote: i guess because a MFA is a terminal degree while a MSW is not. that distinction also happens to be consistent with SACS faculty credentialling criteria.
Never one to argue with SCM, I find myself in the position of having to do so. The MSW is indeed a terminal degree. One can apply for and receive full licensing to practice independently without any further degree required (though independent practice does require a period of supervised experience). The Ph.D. in Social Work is strictly a research degree. I know of only one clinical PhD in Social Work in the country. CSWE (social work accrediting body) does require a certain number of PhD's in order to offer the MSW, but does not require all graduate courses to be taught by PhD's.
DJ wrote: Never one to argue with SCM, I find myself in the position of having to do so. The MSW is indeed a terminal degree. One can apply for and receive full licensing to practice independently without any further degree required (though independent practice does require a period of supervised experience). The Ph.D. in Social Work is strictly a research degree. I know of only one clinical PhD in Social Work in the country. CSWE (social work accrediting body) does require a certain number of PhD's in order to offer the MSW, but does not require all graduate courses to be taught by PhD's.
If SACS says the MSW is not a terminal degree, then it's not a terminal degree.
DJ wrote: Beyond that, is there a reason that the $25 mil (or whatever the exact figure is) that was received due to Katrina cannot be partially expended to keep current GA positions funded? I don't know the answer to this...I'm just asking. Technically, the reason is that the $27M in Katrina money has to be allocated as Title IV need-based financial aid. If a grad student filed a FAFSA (I don't think filing FAFSA is very common amongst grad students) & was determined to have legitimate needs due to the impact of the hurricane on his/her family situation, then some of that money could, I believe, be channeled into funding a GA position. OTOH, a foreign national probably couldn't get the Katrina money & I figure that's a hefty number of the GA's in some departments.
I have been advised that the FAFSA is solely an information tool....the idea is that all students who live in the affected areas are eligible. The assumption is that the need has been established the issue is distributing money. I have heard that a couple of institutions are trying to play games with the money available. We will see how that plays out.