If the current load is a 2 and 2, then USM is doing what it should do. I am a little uncertain about how the desired lines would function.

Amy Young wrote:

---

... Deans across campus, for the most part, have been made obsolete in this administration as well. Who should be calling the shots about hiring, workloads, and other critical aspects of running colleges and univesities but deans and chairs, with LOTS of input from faculty? I would like to quote a friend again. It's time to run this business like a univesity. Amy Young

---

Maybe we shouldn't be so critical of SFT's lack of effort in obtaining outside funding as most other presidents do.  After all, this micromanagement at the college and even department level is very time consuming.      

"The victum was not the whistle blower but the colleague that had his privacy violated by the University committee on tenure and promotion.  This faculty member deserves an apology from the University Committee..."

Stephen, this statement is part of your post.  You should be careful about who you accuse and of what. 

No, you should not. He's not taking the high road - in short, he's selling out a department that was the gemstone of the COEP because he doesn't have, and never really had, any authority.  Dana Thames can not KEEP decent faculty in her dept. They either sell-out, or they leave in disgust.  Creating 5 new positions might be needed, but it's a JOKE when you consider the fact that only lemmings remain in that dept. You are asking for subpar profs. I want to be clear on one issue though - when I talk about CISE, I am not including the stellar professional contributions of Shirley and Eric.  What other chair would demote faculty affected by Katrina in such a cold-hearted way?

This College's prominence has everything to do with Psychology. To rip out all of their hiring lines is a travesty.

NCATE is about to put the whole issue to rest the last week of March.

Piercing it together wrote:

---

No, you should not. He's not taking the high road the stellar professional contributions of Shirley and Eric.  What other chair would demote faculty affected by Katrina in such a cold-hearted way?
This College's prominence has everything to do with Psychology. To rip out all of their hiring lines is a travesty.
NCATE is about to put the whole issue to rest the last week of March.

---

"The high road" was Dean Pierce's phrasing when asked how he would respond to the assertions that he gave his full consent for the hiring decisions. He says that these decisions were made over his objections, yet you don't see him refuting this to the university community -- if he had/would, it would probably have gone a long way with some of us in psychology. And, yes, his treatment of BAD criticism of WP's assertion that we needed to start finding our own pork money was atrocious.

What'd DT do to Eric & Shirley? I missed that one.

Hmmm....NCATE....although they have nothing to do with the larger department of psychology, the university's accreditation does impact the school psychology program.

And, finally, thanks for the kind words about our department. . .

Emma wrote:

---

What they did to Eric and Shirley? I know, does anyone else?? Should I elaborate??

---

Yes, please...although not much would surpise me.

Stephen Bushardt is letting Stephen Judd take heat for something he's not a part of.  Now there's something new.  Who woulda seen that coming?

EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY - Department of Psychology: 1) Health Psychology (Tenure-Track, one Assistant and one Associate Professor) -   The typical teaching load is 2 courses per semester.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the normal load for a doctoral granting psychology department is 2 courses per semester.

From Mitch's comments on the thread titled "PC (formerly PUC) and other meetings":
"For example, that 2/2 is typical, if not on the high end, for psychology programs with doc degrees in research extensives, that we lose faculty after a couple of years to other places because of the lack of flexibility to manage the department,... ."

Mitch's post indicates that he believes a 2/2 may even be a bit too much and that they need more lines to offer a variety of classes.

I would suggest that EVERY unit at USM has lost good people for these and other reasons. My department has lost some good junior faculty to schools with a 2/2 load and one or two preps per year. Folks, that's where we all are.

We have become a middling-level university with some good programs and some bad programs. Our research funding has disappeared. Some of our students can barely read and write, much less do basic math. We are surrounded by administrators who want to leave USM and who need so-called accomplishments on their vitas. Our community has turned against us. We have been forsaken by the IHL. This is our reality. You can try to convince yourself otherwise, but this is the truth.

I can find a number of jobs at other universities that I would be competitive for which offer lower teaching loads, better students, more support, less friction. Soon I will begin investigating the possibility of obtaining such a position, if only for peace of mind.

The idea that individuals leave USM for other places is commensurate with our standing in the world as a whole. There is no program or department at USM that is truly "world class." There is no department at USM that is truly ranked #1 in the world. Faculty members at USM have opportunities. We have the opportunity to better our vitae and move to higher-ranked schools and the better amenities that accompany those schools. We have the opportunity to keep moving up until we reach our level of incompetence or until we reach the best possible opportunity, whichever comes along first. I expect good faculty to leave. I expect that more faculty will leave out of exhaustion and frustration, even as Thames is on his way out.

We tell ourselves that we are a quality institution. We tell ourselves that a conspiracy keeps us from rising. What we should be telling ourselves is that we have a niche in the world educational system. We could be a very good school overall with high quality academic programs and quality faculty research agendas. However, we seem deluded to the point of being obnoxiously obtuse. USM was a 3rd Tier university before Thames. That was our apex; we are a 3rd Tier university. Instead of embracing our place in the world and improving incrementally, we seem to think that we have 1st or 2nd Tier potential, if only we could stop the politics that drive the campus. NEWS FLASH: you could clean up all dirty politics on campus, have perfect administrators, and we'd still be 3rd Tier at best because we'd still be in one of the poorest states in the nation with way too many colleges and universities competing for funds. Our students would still be unable to learn complex concepts or to express themselves adequately because they would still be undereducated by the K-12 system. We would still have at least 300 schools with larger endowments than ours.

As I said, I can find jobs that would be considered lateral moves that would make me better off. Frankly, it's a little insulting that a unit on campus apparently believes its load (which is now commensurate with its status) is either too heavy or that it should get more positions to teach more varied courses (to improve the quality of said programs) when many of us are teaching heavier loads and struggling just to keep programs alive. I wish my department could teach some different courses, too. However, I teach what needs to be taught given the resources we have.

I see this as an attempt to build a wall around psychology to help insulate it from the evils that permeate the entire campus. I'll admit that it was a good try. However, belaboring this issue is rubbing salt in wounds all over campus where research productivity has remained high while lines have gone unfilled, loads have gone up, class sizes have ballooned, and service has become more difficult.

I watch my junior faculty trying to do research while teaching well over 1,200 SCHs per year each. I wonder if they think a 2/2 load is on the high side.

Dust My Broom wrote:

---

I see this as an attempt to build a wall around psychology to help insulate it from the evils that permeate the entire campus. .

---

You make a number of valid points with which I won't disagree. However, to many of us outside, it still looks like an effort by the Dome to punish the home department of two of its most outspoken critics. Someone mentioned making the whole class stay in after school. Do you see any reason CISE would get fourteen lines and Psych none?

If USM has below average ranking in a given field and every every department in that field nationwide is working to improve, then at the end of the day USM will still probably be below average.

I think the average Mississippian knows what graduates of CISE do and probably have some interaction with them during their lives. I'm not sure that the average Mississippian has much contact with Ph.D.s in psychology.

These assertions probably provide the basic logic for the administrative decision, right or wrong.

Dust My Broom wrote:

---

DMB-Have you been in a coma for the past 3 1/2 years? Andrea Bocelli could have seen that temper tantrum coming.

Mitch---Actually, not, SFT has been tagerting psychology for years. Why would you thik we would be surprised by his response?

DMB-I was angry before psychology took their stand, and I am still angry. I've had my "religion" for a long, long time and I don't need to be lectured by someone who has only recently become such a "strong" advocate for faculty after leaving administration.

Mitch---Low blow, business person--and wrong. But now let's look at what you are doing... 

DMB-I have chosen to adopt a "live and let die" attitude. I will do all I can to save my unit from Thames and others will have to do the same for their own units without me. As for choosing to be a victim or not, I choose to make the damage to my unit minimal. What you may discover is that for the next 14 months you may not only be denied lines but you may not get a single benefit above and beyond the basics (salary, health insurance, etc.) because of that meeting. I am willing to wait and bide my time until a new president is named. At that point, I'll start sticking my head above ground again.

Mitch--Again-your choice-but you make a few faulty assumptions. Most important, that hiding your head in the sand will protect you for 14 months. But should you choose to collude with this administration's bad behavior by keeping your mouth shut, that is your business. As you said about psychology, you opened the door for this comment and now deserve lecturing. You can anonymously profess anger all day long. You may hide your lack of action in the mantle of wanting to protect your unit. But if you are not at least fighting from the trenches for this university, you are a coward. This administration succeds in harming the university by the inactions of cowards. But, worse, when you try to hinder the actions of those who are trying to stand up, essentailly by saying that psychology is uppity, you are more than a coward--you are an active participant in SFT's poorly thought out plans. I hope the benefits you say you plan to reap are worth it to you...   

Cossack wrote:

---

Dust My Broom, I wish I could add something to your post but you have covered the issue very well. It is understandable that a department that has had a certain level of support would be upset if that level were reduced. It is hard to watch your program decline. In contrast, they will not generate much sympathy from people in departments that have many fewer resources. Meanwhile, I am still waiting to find out if I will have a GA next year or will faculty in other colleges have more. Of course they deserve the GA more than I do.

---

Cossack-it is not about the 2/2--your colleague in business also sees this as the issue. It is about a bunch of the folks in psychology who have been speaking up for years and who have been taking hit after hit. If not the 2/2, it would have been something else. What really got SFT angry is what usually gets him angry--presenting evidence that he made a decision for which there is overwhelming data to suggest it was a poor decision. If you have problems in the COB, put them on the table. Collect data, come forward, and make it public. You and DMB are good indicators why it is so hard for faculty to organize and have input at USM. You post flames anonymoulsy, but refuse to participate in open meetings that could put your hide on the line. I understand fear and its ability to motivate people-both right and wrong. You can flame back at me all day long, but as I said to you in an earlier post, I would rather you join the AAUP and participate.