Thank you and Goodbye - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 13, 2006

RE: Thank you and Goodbye

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Cossack wrote:

I am much more experienced at making mistakes than almost all of the other posters.

Not to steal your thunder Cossack, but I think that distinction may belong to me.

AE

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Sorry boys, but I'm the Queen of that realm!

Date: Mar 13, 2006

O.K.

I am in third place.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Dust My Broom wrote:

... I understand Psychology's argument pretty well, but I remind everyone that USM's "pie" is only so big and that there are those of us who only get enough pie to sustain our basic programs, much less offer elective courses. At my current point of near exhaustion, it is pretty hard to take the Psychology argument when everyone in my unit teaches at least a 3/3. ....

With all due respect, DMB, I don't think it is useful to think the way you do. (The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, until you have to mow it.) All programs are not the same. We are dealing with a relativity problem. The work load of faculty teaching 2/2 in one discipline may require more productivity in other areas for a decent annual evaluation than in a program with a 3/3 assignment. Both faculty may feel the same exhaustion at the end of the day/semester etc. Likewise, in my opinion, it isn't productive to compare salaries between disciplines that have different market forces driving them.

So when you are exhaused and see the teaching load in another program, it is short sighted to veiw the situation as you do above. Each program arguments for resources should be viewed relative to the mission and expectations put on that program. All programs are equal and important, but all will not have idential distribution of labor and resources.

If things were viewed in this way, the argument Mitch was involved in would not have occurred and SFT would not be able to divide us. But I do understand your position DMB because I was once taking that position (especially when exhausted).

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Relativity wrote:

DMB, I don't think it is useful to think the way you do. (The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, until you have to mow it.) All programs are not the same. We are dealing with a relativity problem. The work load of faculty teaching 2/2 in one discipline may require more productivity in other areas for a decent annual evaluation than in a program with a 3/3 assignment. Both faculty may feel the same exhaustion at the end of the day/semester etc. Likewise, in my opinion, it isn't productive to compare salaries between disciplines that have different market forces driving them. So when you are exhaused and see the teaching load in another program, it is short sighted to veiw the situation as you do above. Each program arguments for resources should be viewed relative to the mission and expectations put on that program. All programs are equal and important, but all will not have idential distribution of labor and resources. If things were viewed in this way, the argument Mitch was involved in would not have occurred and SFT would not be able to divide us. But I do understand your position DMB because I was once taking that position (especially when exhausted).

Relativity, you are absolutely, positively, undebatably, 100% correct!!! I believe I have figured out why this issue is so controversial on this message board. It is because very few upper-level administrators here seem to have an understanding of the national pictue. Local standards will not cut it in Ph.D. granting departments. Those departments should be expected to adhere to national, not local standards. The administration should expect departments to adopt national standards in their respective discipline. And that includes teaching loads.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

And that's a fact wrote:

Relativity, you are absolutely, positively, undebatably, 100% correct!!! I believe I have figured out why this issue is so controversial on this message board. It is because very few upper-level administrators here seem to have an understanding of the national pictue. Local standards will not cut it in Ph.D. granting departments. Those departments should be expected to adhere to national, not local standards. The administration should expect departments to adopt national standards in their respective discipline. And that includes teaching loads.

I agree "And that a fact". Your point about "national" standards is very important. Another point that should be made more often, is this administration doesn't realize that most scholar's first loyalty is to their discipline and loyalty to the institution is second. That makes it a little different from business.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Relativity wrote:

With all due respect, DMB, I don't think it is useful to think the way you do. (The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, until you have to mow it.) All programs are not the same. We are dealing with a relativity problem. The work load of faculty teaching 2/2 in one discipline may require more productivity in other areas for a decent annual evaluation than in a program with a 3/3 assignment. Both faculty may feel the same exhaustion at the end of the day/semester etc. Likewise, in my opinion, it isn't productive to compare salaries between disciplines that have different market forces driving them.
So when you are exhaused and see the teaching load in another program, it is short sighted to veiw the situation as you do above. Each program arguments for resources should be viewed relative to the mission and expectations put on that program. All programs are equal and important, but all will not have idential distribution of labor and resources.
If things were viewed in this way, the argument Mitch was involved in would not have occurred and SFT would not be able to divide us. But I do understand your position DMB because I was once taking that position (especially when exhausted).

I'm continually amazed at how some of you think that those of us who disagree with the psych argument have no idea about the workings of academics and/or programs outside of a small, compartmentalized space. I know perfectly well how loads vary with quality of institution and location, with area of study and with geography. One of the arguments advanced by some of the psych folks is that their peer programs have 2/2 or lower teaching loads. My statement is that my program's peers have lower loads as well. I can bet that many units on campus have loads that are higher than their true peer institutions. Shouldn't we all, then, get reductions? If we all get reductions, who will teach our students? New faculty? Where will we get the money to hire these new faculty?

The psychology group seems to be ignoring the realities that face USM and the state of Mississippi in general. We are all underpaid. Most of us have high teaching loads. Most of us do not get to teach the exact schedule we'd like. To act like we are in "normal" circumstances is the true myopic viewpoint. The psych plan is to try to rebuild a "normal" program in these most abnormal of times. As I posted this weekend, nice try, but don't expect those of us who are teaching a higher than average load to support a movement to hire in an effort to decrease a 2/2 or to teach more electives.

While we're on myopia, another myopic viewpoint is that every units can have its own unique mission. Our university has a mission, and that mission overrides any college-level or unit-level mission. If I understand your argument, it should be OK for one unit's mission to be advanced while other units get cut or are stagnant. This argument is fine as long as you're in the unit that gets advanced. For those of us who battle to maintain our turf and who have had resources taken (not based on SCHs generated or some other metric but based on the whim of administrators) then the psych situation is not new. As stated earlier, you're not fighting for the existence of your program, you're fighting to make it more like a program at a "normal" university, which USM is not.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Relativity wrote:

I agree "And that a fact". Your point about "national" standards is very important. Another point that should be made more often, is this administration doesn't realize that most scholar's first loyalty is to their discipline and loyalty to the institution is second. That makes it a little different from business.

Let's all adopt national standards for teaching loads and see how we can pay for the lines later. Mississippi isn't in the middle of a budget crisis or anything with the loss of casino revenues.

Look, I agree with your motivation. Your timing stinks, and the expectation of support from other, overworked units (by national standards) is akin to a slap in the face.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Dust My Broom,

Pardon me if I missed it, but have you yet addressed the notion that Psych is being singled out for punishment because of the stance both Dr. Berman and Dr. Greer have taken? Has anyone considered that at least part of the slap may be aimed at Dr. Greer, who has not hesitated, according to reports from PUC meetings, to confront Dr. Thames et. al. in a very forthright manner?

Also, I'm confused that you don't seem to think this department needs any replacement fauculty? Any at all? You remain very focused on them and not on the department which is receiving all the replacements it requested as well as five new hires. Unless I misread, Psych was not asking for any new hires?

Date: Mar 13, 2006

i agree with the point on timing--why now, as opposed to last year or the year before? when all of the information was pieced together (because some parts were revealed while others were not), my chair interpreted it as a "slap in the face" as well. what complicates psychology's argument is that the data recently sent to members of the graduate council and chairs, shows that of the 60+ graduate students in psychology, only 4 are instructors of record. in other words, most don't teach. now, i know that many help with psychology labs. but why can't they teach? what if a department like english simply had their graduate students work in the writing center and didn't teach composition? they'd be asking for an enormous number of faculty lines as well.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

LVN wrote:

Dust My Broom,

Pardon me if I missed it, but have you yet addressed the notion that Psych is being singled out for punishment because of the stance both Dr. Berman and Dr. Greer have taken? Has anyone considered that at least part of the slap may be aimed at Dr. Greer, who has not hesitated, according to reports from PUC meetings, to confront Dr. Thames et. al. in a very forthright manner?

Also, I'm confused that you don't seem to think this department needs any replacement fauculty? Any at all? You remain very focused on them and not on the department which is receiving all the replacements it requested as well as five new hires. Unless I misread, Psych was not asking for any new hires?

So, I'm guessing that you want me to say that they're heroes for confronting Thames at this juncture? That's not going to happen.

I'm still not clear on what purpose it serves to get in the man's face right now. Two years ago, it was heroic. Now it seems impatient. Now it seems opportunistic to try to pull this off when Thames is a lame duck (or apparently not).

Date: Mar 13, 2006

SCM,

You should not use the standards in English to determine what Psychology needs. They are unique.

On a more serious note, did anyone in Psychology believe that being combative to SFT was going to make SFT give them more resources? That maneuver does not work even with your friends. While it is apparent that SFT is discriminating against Psychology, it also is apparent that SFT could make things even worse for Psychology given their approach.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

LVN wrote:

Dust My Broom, Pardon me if I missed it, but have you yet addressed the notion that Psych is being singled out for punishment because of the stance both Dr. Berman and Dr. Greer have taken? Has anyone considered that at least part of the slap may be aimed at Dr. Greer, who has not hesitated, according to reports from PUC meetings, to confront Dr. Thames et. al. in a very forthright manner? Also, I'm confused that you don't seem to think this department needs any replacement fauculty? Any at all? You remain very focused on them and not on the department which is receiving all the replacements it requested as well as five new hires. Unless I misread, Psych was not asking for any new hires?

LVN, it's hard for me to comprehend a statement that suggests anything that threatens a 2/2 load is "punishment." Later, you say Greer got "slapped" --- again suggesting a threat to a 2/2 is slapping, for standing up to Thames at PUC meetings. Psych was to exist in a bubble while everyone else deals with SFT and Co.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

I am apparently not asking my question in such a manner as to elicit a straight answer. I yield the round, gentlemen. Good afternoon.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

LVN wrote:

I am apparently not asking my question in such a manner as to elicit a straight answer. I yield the round, gentlemen. Good afternoon.

LVN, nobody ever posted here some sample teaching loads for Tier IV institutions that have a PhD program in psychology. Don't we need to see that before the debate can advance further?

Date: Mar 13, 2006

LVN wrote:

I am apparently not asking my question in such a manner as to elicit a straight answer. I yield the round, gentlemen. Good afternoon.

Your question is quite clear. I just don't think you're going to find the answer you want from me. scm and Cossack have good points. Who thought up that plan? "Let's go ask Thames for more lines. If he says no, then we'll tell him he's a jerk and see if that'll change his mind."

In 15 months a new president will probably give this situation a review and a fair hearing. Until then, the rest of us are standing by slack-jawed at the audacity of the psych department for thinking that we should rally to help them maintain their 2/2. We'd rally to help save a program, but until it gets to that we have to go teach our 3/3 or 4/4 loads and still try to be research active.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Dust My Broom wrote:

I'm continually amazed at how some of you think that those of us who disagree with the psych argument have no idea about the workings of academics and/or programs outside of a small, compartmentalized space. I know perfectly well how loads vary with quality of institution and location, with area of study and with geography. One of the arguments advanced by some of the psych folks is that their peer programs have 2/2 or lower teaching loads. My statement is that my program's peers have lower loads as well. I can bet that many units on campus have loads that are higher than their true peer institutions. Shouldn't we all, then, get reductions? If we all get reductions, who will teach our students? New faculty? Where will we get the money to hire these new faculty? The psychology group seems to be ignoring the realities that face USM and the state of Mississippi in general. We are all underpaid. Most of us have high teaching loads. Most of us do not get to teach the exact schedule we'd like. To act like we are in "normal" circumstances is the true myopic viewpoint. The psych plan is to try to rebuild a "normal" program in these most abnormal of times. As I posted this weekend, nice try, but don't expect those of us who are teaching a higher than average load to support a movement to hire in an effort to decrease a 2/2 or to teach more electives. While we're on myopia, another myopic viewpoint is that every units can have its own unique mission. Our university has a mission, and that mission overrides any college-level or unit-level mission. If I understand your argument, it should be OK for one unit's mission to be advanced while other units get cut or are stagnant. This argument is fine as long as you're in the unit that gets advanced. For those of us who battle to maintain our turf and who have had resources taken (not based on SCHs generated or some other metric but based on the whim of administrators) then the psych situation is not new. As stated earlier, you're not fighting for the existence of your program, you're fighting to make it more like a program at a "normal" university, which USM is not.

DMB, I mentioned these things only because your post gave no evidence that you understood this point.

What I'm confused by is your linking of another disciplines request for a distribution of resources within their college as a confrontation or attack or threat to you and your program. Your struggle for resources and the survival of your program I assume is important to this university. Good luck in your fight for what you need. I hope you receive support from other programs in your arguments for these resources. However, unless you can show that the distribution of resources in EdPsy impacts your program, I have a hard time understanding your criticism of their effort to, AFAIK, replace open positions.

You advised that their methods were ill conceived and would fail. So? From my understanding of your position you should be glad of this failure and not critical of their actions. Your motives puzzle me, unless it is to divide the faculty because that is all you are accomplishing.

P.S. I'm from CoST, not EdPsy.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Dust My Broom wrote:

LVN wrote: Dust My Broom, Pardon me if I missed it, but have you yet addressed the notion that Psych is being singled out for punishment because of the stance both Dr. Berman and Dr. Greer have taken? Has anyone considered that at least part of the slap may be aimed at Dr. Greer, who has not hesitated, according to reports from PUC meetings, to confront Dr. Thames et. al. in a very forthright manner? Also, I'm confused that you don't seem to think this department needs any replacement fauculty? Any at all? You remain very focused on them and not on the department which is receiving all the replacements it requested as well as five new hires. Unless I misread, Psych was not asking for any new hires?

So, I'm guessing that you want me to say that they're heroes for confronting Thames at this juncture? That's not going to happen. I'm still not clear on what purpose it serves to get in the man's face right now. Two years ago, it was heroic. Now it seems impatient. Now it seems opportunistic to try to pull this off when Thames is a lame duck (or apparently not).

Why won't you call them heroes for speaking the Truth to Thames' power. Not because they can get something, but because it is the right thing to do for all the public to see the mismanagement/micromanagement continues. They were members of PC. DMB, doesn't seem to understand what a university is about. So without calling names, I would guess DMB is from CoB.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

A 2/2 teaching load for productive faculty members in psychology is not a johnny-come-lately phenonemon in the psychology department. At one time it was true when Lucas was President. Search the records if you doubt that. I fail to understand what all the fuss is about.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

stinky cheese man wrote:

i agree with the point on timing--why now, as opposed to last year or the year before? when all of the information was pieced together (because some parts were revealed while others were not), my chair interpreted it as a "slap in the face" as well. what complicates psychology's argument is that the data recently sent to members of the graduate council and chairs, shows that of the 60+ graduate students in psychology, only 4 are instructors of record. in other words, most don't teach. now, i know that many help with psychology labs. but why can't they teach? what if a department like english simply had their graduate students work in the writing center and didn't teach composition? they'd be asking for an enormous number of faculty lines as well.

SCM-

Wrong interpretation. The majority of GAs also TA, whether you agree with that or not. For example, Psych 110 for about 1500 students per yeat, has several TAs to help. Whether or not you think thiis is a good use of resources is up to you. I don't consider a bio student running a lab any different, even if it generates the 1 hour. Also it is very, very misleading to suggest that Psyc asked for new lines and a few of you anti psych people suggest. As LVN posted, they wanted to replacement a fraction of the open lines (6/10).

Okay-which doc program would you liked to see hosed? School Psychology, which is down to the bone and will not be able to cover their grad curriculum. Yeh, let's close them. Or wait, the counseling masters was warned to find a CCREP eligible person or two to keep accreditation. Yeh, let's close that program!

The argument about 2/2 teaching loads is a red herring. It's 2/2 in Tier IV with APA accredited doc programs, except for a few new ones that are floating around in non-research extensive universities even lower on the food chain than us (e.g., Jackson State). CUDCP and others have surveyed this issue to death. But it sounds like you and Dust my Broom are carrying Shelby's water, and the end result will be a large SCH generating undergraduate program with perhaps one doc program. So your position is consistent with the notion of eliminating our APA accredited doc programs. Fair enough. Just say so if your are envious, and we'll do it.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

A 2/2 teaching load for productive faculty members in psychology is not a Johnny-come-lately phenomenon in the psychology department. At one time it was true when Lucas was President. Search the records if you doubt that. I fail to understand what all the fuss is about.

As I recall, which is tough sometimes, the issues were raised by people in the Psychology group about not getting sufficient funding for some unfilled lines and how they were rejected by SFT in their quest. The load issue was brought up in those posts and it was suggested that the new lines would be useful in teaching some electives and reducing some of the 2/2 loads even further. Also related to us were the hostile exchanges between some faculty and SFT. All of the subsequent posts have been in reaction to those original posts or retorts to posts. So I guess you would have to ask those original posters what all the fuss is about.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

how many are helping with psych 110? are the GAs instructors of record? i don't know what they do. but in departments like english they are instructors of record. they teach the course with appropriate supervision. why can't psychology do that?

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Relativity wrote:

DMB, I mentioned these things only because your post gave no evidence that you understood this point.
What I'm confused by is your linking of another disciplines request for a distribution of resources within their college as a confrontation or attack or threat to you and your program. Your struggle for resources and the survival of your program I assume is important to this university. Good luck in your fight for what you need. I hope you receive support from other programs in your arguments for these resources. However, unless you can show that the distribution of resources in EdPsy impacts your program, I have a hard time understanding your criticism of their effort to, AFAIK, replace open positions.
You advised that their methods were ill conceived and would fail. So? From my understanding of your position you should be glad of this failure and not critical of their actions. Your motives puzzle me, unless it is to divide the faculty because that is all you are accomplishing.
P.S. I'm from CoST, not EdPsy.

You are obviously someone who has zero understanding of the budgetary process. Money doesn't grow on trees, and every dollar to Psych is one dollar not going to another destination.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Dust My Broom wrote:

Relativity wrote: With all due respect, DMB, I don't think it is useful to think the way you do. (The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, until you have to mow it.) All programs are not the same. We are dealing with a relativity problem. The work load of faculty teaching 2/2 in one discipline may require more productivity in other areas for a decent annual evaluation than in a program with a 3/3 assignment. Both faculty may feel the same exhaustion at the end of the day/semester etc. Likewise, in my opinion, it isn't productive to compare salaries between disciplines that have different market forces driving them. So when you are exhaused and see the teaching load in another program, it is short sighted to veiw the situation as you do above. Each program arguments for resources should be viewed relative to the mission and expectations put on that program. All programs are equal and important, but all will not have idential distribution of labor and resources. If things were viewed in this way, the argument Mitch was involved in would not have occurred and SFT would not be able to divide us. But I do understand your position DMB because I was once taking that position (especially when exhausted). I'm continually amazed at how some of you think that those of us who disagree with the psych argument have no idea about the workings of academics and/or programs outside of a small, compartmentalized space. I know perfectly well how loads vary with quality of institution and location, with area of study and with geography. One of the arguments advanced by some of the psych folks is that their peer programs have 2/2 or lower teaching loads. My statement is that my program's peers have lower loads as well. I can bet that many units on campus have loads that are higher than their true peer institutions. Shouldn't we all, then, get reductions? If we all get reductions, who will teach our students? New faculty? Where will we get the money to hire these new faculty? The psychology group seems to be ignoring the realities that face USM and the state of Mississippi in general. We are all underpaid. Most of us have high teaching loads. Most of us do not get to teach the exact schedule we'd like. To act like we are in "normal" circumstances is the true myopic viewpoint. The psych plan is to try to rebuild a "normal" program in these most abnormal of times. As I posted this weekend, nice try, but don't expect those of us who are teaching a higher than average load to support a movement to hire in an effort to decrease a 2/2 or to teach more electives. While we're on myopia, another myopic viewpoint is that every units can have its own unique mission. Our university has a mission, and that mission overrides any college-level or unit-level mission. If I understand your argument, it should be OK for one unit's mission to be advanced while other units get cut or are stagnant. This argument is fine as long as you're in the unit that gets advanced. For those of us who battle to maintain our turf and who have had resources taken (not based on SCHs generated or some other metric but based on the whim of administrators) then the psych situation is not new. As stated earlier, you're not fighting for the existence of your program, you're fighting to make it more like a program at a "normal" university, which USM is not.

Okay, I'll bite. How many separate nationally accredited professional training programs are in your department? Psychology has 3 at the doc level, and 1 at the masters leading to licensure or certification. These are not just SPAs. There are that many because of a forced merger of two departments by the bean counters. They got rid of one undergraduate program (SRS), and a doc program already due to Shelby's pressures. What would you like to put on the chopping block next?

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Larry the Hose wrote:

Okay, I'll bite. How many separate nationally accredited professional training programs are in your department? Psychology has 3 at the doc level, and 1 at the masters leading to licensure or certification. These are not just SPAs. There are that many because of a forced merger of two departments by the bean counters. They got rid of one undergraduate program (SRS), and a doc program already due to Shelby's pressures. What would you like to put on the chopping block next?

You're off topic and out of order. Psych is not in danger of losing programs. They are trying to save their 2/2 load. Re-read the thread. Nobody's saying kill anything.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Use our GAs and save your programs. Several will be there tomorrow.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

stinky cheese man wrote:

how many are helping with psych 110? are the GAs instructors of record? i don't know what they do. but in departments like english they are instructors of record. they teach the course with appropriate supervision. why can't psychology do that?

If they are smart, they will move in that direction-max out on GAs teaching within a year or so. Here's what I predict they will do if need be--and it will put pressure on you and your turf, because a class that one psych professor is teaching with 100 will have 50 sliced off and put in a brandy new room for the GA. With Ad Astra this will put presssure in your buildings. The GA will still help the major professor with research. Inefficient, but your model.

Let me turn it around. Why can't an English prof teach comp I and II--large sections with a couple of TAs to grade and hold discussion sections?

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Larry the Hose wrote:

If they are smart, they will move in that direction-max out on GAs teaching within a year or so. Here's what I predict they will do if need be--and it will put pressure on you and your turf, because a class that one psych professor is teaching with 100 will have 50 sliced off and put in a brandy new room for the GA. With Ad Astra this will put presssure in your buildings. The GA will still help the major professor with research. Inefficient, but your model.
Let me turn it around. Why can't an English prof teach comp I and II--large sections with a couple of TAs to grade and hold discussion sections?

In a perfect world, that would be the case. I'm sure English would rather have tenure track faculty teaching all courses and simultaneously all be on a 2/2 load. However, the budget will not bear that. So, they make do.

I think scm is saying that psych should use grad students to make do until things get better in the Dome.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

try teaching a writing intensive course that way.

as i said earlier, people had lots of sympathy and support for psych until the 2/2 load issue came up. but as my chair said, all doctoral programs ought to have 2/2 loads for research active faculty. but if they all did, they'd all need faculty lines, even if their graduate students are teaching.