Thank you and Goodbye - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 13, 2006

RE: Thank you and Goodbye

Date: Mar 13, 2006

SFT didn't throw me the 2/2 bone--i learned about it from this board. i think it was mitch who posted that information. i know many people who learned about the load issue from this board or people who read it.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Larry, are you now saying that Psych will lose accreditation without the replacement hires? That the presentation to SFT at the PC was about saving the program (PhD) from destruction? That all of this talk about a 2/2 load is a sideshow diversion created by SFT?

If so, then I contact Rachel Leifer first thing in the morning. Just give the word/confirmation.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Dust My Broom wrote:

Money doesn't grow on trees, and every dollar to Psych is one dollar not going to another destination.

True, DMB, but not relevant to the issue under discussion. The resources in distribute are being distributed inside EdPsy.

Good night all.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

It's informative to note that nobody in Psych has entered the thread about Doty suspending the MIS Program. LVN, did you notice that too, or is it your view that that's a CoB issue and not all that important?

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Dust My Broom wrote:

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.

Grad students cannot teach grad courses, so it doesn't help. The psychology folks were told by the last administration to figure out a way to get fewer GAs in the classroom and staff undergraduate core courses with profs. They did that. Now you want us to go back?

I agree we need to wait untile things get better in the Dome--but be careful about saying this problem is driven by fiscal issues. Of the 19 CISE and ELR lines, 3 or more could have been shifted to psych (or your department) without ED missing a beat.

I never received an answer to my question about how many accredited doc programs leading to professional licensure in SCM's department (I'll check again). How about your's?

Date: Mar 13, 2006

stinky cheese man wrote:

SFT didn't throw me the 2/2 bone--i learned about it from this board. i think it was mitch who posted that information. i know many people who learned about the load issue from this board or people who read it.

He threw it to y'all at the PUC meeting, and it was reported first in the HA. The discussion went on from there.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

there are no doctoral programs that i'm aware of in COAL that are accredited. however, i don't think anyone wants to go down the path of saying that accredited programs are inherently more valuable than non-accredited programs.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

joright wrote:

Larry, are you now saying that Psych will lose accreditation without the replacement hires? That the presentation to SFT at the PC was about saving the program (PhD) from destruction? That all of this talk about a 2/2 load is a sideshow diversion created by SFT? If so, then I contact Rachel Leifer first thing in the morning. Just give the word/confirmation.

One correction-the presentation to SFT for needs were made throughout the year--departments had to write justifications way back in the Fall, and then rewrite, and re-do. The PC was about unit productivity, and then Shelby threw the 2/2 bone (still grinning that boy).

RL already knows. Keep in mind that she is reporter, not an advocate. But I suspect she is keeping a close eye on Shelby's doings.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

larry--go back to page two of this discussion board and look at a thread that begins, i believe, "pc meeting." mitch recounts the pc (puc) meeting and there appears the 2/2 load issue. a day later--time stamping is nice--there is the thread with the HA story, but it doesn't mention a 2/2 load, just a reduced load. it was mitch, not SFT, that gave me that bit of information. maybe he shouldn't have, but ...

Date: Mar 13, 2006

stinky cheese man wrote:

there are no doctoral programs that i'm aware of in COAL that are accredited. however, i don't think anyone wants to go down the path of saying that accredited programs are inherently more valuable than non-accredited programs.

I agree--that would be a bad path to take. But the downside of APA accreditation is that teaching loads are considered in the evaluation process. A 3/3 true load for research active folks (I know this is not what you are advocating) would get a Boulder model program (don't ask) spanked big time, and a 2/3 load for researchers would get raised eyebrows and need to be well justified.

I bet psych goes to the model you suggest--back to the bad old days of having too many students being taught by GAs and adjuncts, less research, and a 2/3-3/3 teaching load (instead of 2/2-3/3 differential as now). The 2-3 years and out dance for junior faculty will start up again, and a program or two more will be jettisoned. And Shelby will be smiling.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

given the psych department just went to a 2/2 load (to virtually all--i checked the fall load report) how did it get accredited in the past? i don't remember psych using many TAs in the past, except when psych 110 had lab/discussion sections.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

This has been an exciting and interesting thread. The one thing I have gained from all of the postings is that I am beginning to understand why SFT treats Psychology badly.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Larry the Hose wrote:

joright wrote: Larry, are you now saying that Psych will lose accreditation without the replacement hires? That the presentation to SFT at the PC was about saving the program (PhD) from destruction? That all of this talk about a 2/2 load is a sideshow diversion created by SFT? If so, then I contact Rachel Leifer first thing in the morning. Just give the word/confirmation. One correction-the presentation to SFT for needs were made throughout the year--departments had to write justifications way back in the Fall, and then rewrite, and re-do. The PC was about unit productivity, and then Shelby threw the 2/2 bone (still grinning that boy). RL already knows. Keep in mind that she is reporter, not an advocate. But I suspect she is keeping a close eye on Shelby's doings.

Larry, did you answer my question? If so, I can't find it.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

The elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about is the fact
that Mississippi can not afford three real universities with up to date
equipment, nationally competitive salaries, and adequate staffing. It
can not even support two. One could argue that USM already has too many
doctoral programs to be able to maintain sufficient quality. In the past
USM was able to have some pockets of respectability by doing more with
less and retaining faculty with a pleasant work environment. Given the
administration, the indifference of the IHL, and the financial
problems of the state, USM will soon be reduced to a regional state
university with fewer doctoral programs. Faculty losses in some areas
point in that direction now. It appears that is what the locals and the
athletic boosters want. Faculty members who came or stayed in hopes of
something better would be well advised to reconsider their options.
Boosters should take a look at Division II athletics and consider which Division II conference they prefer to be join.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

stinky cheese man wrote:

larry--go back to page two of this discussion board and look at a thread that begins, i believe, "pc meeting." mitch recounts the pc (puc) meeting and there appears the 2/2 load issue. a day later--time stamping is nice--there is the thread with the HA story, but it doesn't mention a 2/2 load, just a reduced load. it was mitch, not SFT, that gave me that bit of information. maybe he shouldn't have, but ...

Can't find it, but saw an earlier post from "Letter Bomber" that mentions this. But even if Mitch recounted a Shelby statement at the PUC before Letter Bomber, why shouldn't he have done this? Would you rather not know?

Psych used a lot of GAs to teach in the past, especially in the SRS major. 2/3-3/3 included practicum (usually two a year). Psych moved it to no more than one per faculty per year in most cases (differs a bit across programs), and mandated increased per section enrollments. Takes a lot more time and effort (more than an undergrad class), but it made sense to not be a low enrollment target.

Well, enough schooling about academic psychology. I am off to prep a lecture.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Division II, Tier IV wrote:

The elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about is the fact that Mississippi can not afford three real universities with up to date equipment, nationally competitive salaries, and adequate staffing. It can not even support two. One could argue that USM already has too many doctoral programs to be able to maintain sufficient quality. In the past USM was able to have some pockets of respectability by doing more with less and retaining faculty with a pleasant work environment. Given the administration, the indifference of the IHL, and the financial problems of the state, USM will soon be reduced to a regional state university with fewer doctoral programs. Faculty losses in some areas point in that direction now. It appears that is what the locals and the athletic boosters want. Faculty members who came or stayed in hopes of something better would be well advised to reconsider their options. Boosters should take a look at Division II athletics and consider which Division II conference they prefer to be join.

This new mission statement was supposed to be confidential until after the SACS visit!

Date: Mar 13, 2006

CoBmart wrote:

It's informative to note that nobody in Psych has entered the thread about Doty suspending the MIS Program. LVN, did you notice that too, or is it your view that that's a CoB issue and not all that important?

Long-time readers will recall that LVN has an openly-stated, standing policy of not participating in threads involving the College of Business. If you find an old post where she did, she is very sorry for it. She appreciates the importance of many struggles, but reminds readers that she is a.) no longer employed at USM, b.) not a professional academic and therefore not trained nor adept in the sort of argument and fighting that professional academics just love and c.) actually attended and/or worked at other universities including Northwestern, Memphis, WKU, Vanderbilt (as a short-time doc student) and LSU-Med, and she can state that this is the craziest place she's ever seen.

So, yes she noticed the MIS situation but she is not competant or willing to discuss it.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Larry the Hose wrote:

They got rid of one undergraduate program (SRS)......

Now hold on there, Hoss. I took a look at the Psych website and the SRS program is still there.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

So, to summarize (following Cossack), what we've learned is that when CoAL was falling apart under the reign of SFT, Stan Kuczaj was writing letters to the Hattiesburg American claiming that USM was still a wonderful place to work (implying that some faculty were simply whining) and Mitch Berman was an administrator in the SFT regime, and one who frequented the boards defending central administration decisions/actions. Now, this same cast of characters needs everyone's help securing their 2/2 loads so that they can do a lot of research and teach some cool courses that they are rarely able to.

I have seen anything this brazen since O.J. Simpson claimed his arrest/prosecution was racially motivated.

Date: Mar 13, 2006

Division II, Tier IV wrote:

The elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about is the fact that Mississippi can not afford three real universities with up to date equipment, nationally competitive salaries, and adequate staffing. It can not even support two. One could argue that USM already has too many doctoral programs to be able to maintain sufficient quality. In the past USM was able to have some pockets of respectability by doing more with less and retaining faculty with a pleasant work environment. Given the administration, the indifference of the IHL, and the financial problems of the state, USM will soon be reduced to a regional state university with fewer doctoral programs. Faculty losses in some areas point in that direction now. It appears that is what the locals and the athletic boosters want. Faculty members who came or stayed in hopes of something better would be well advised to reconsider their options. Boosters should take a look at Division II athletics and consider which Division II conference they prefer to be join.

USM missed its opportunity in the mid to late 80's and maybe into the early 1990's. Morale was high some, productivity was on the rise, and programs were attaining national visibility. Then came the crash. What happened? Did we get too big for our britches and displease the powers that be who weren't prepared for that?

Date: Mar 14, 2006

LVN's Risk Manager wrote:

Long-time readers will recall that LVN has an openly-stated, standing policy of not participating in threads involving the College of Business. If you find an old post where she did, she is very sorry for it.

A wise decision I shall follow as well.

Date: Mar 14, 2006

CoAL Hahn wrote:

So, to summarize (following Cossack), what we've learned is that when CoAL was falling apart under the reign of SFT, Stan Kuczaj was writing letters to the Hattiesburg American claiming that USM was still a wonderful place to work (implying that some faculty were simply whining) and Mitch Berman was an administrator in the SFT regime, and one who frequented the boards defending central administration decisions/actions. Now, this same cast of characters needs everyone's help securing their 2/2 loads so that they can do a lot of research and teach some cool courses that they are rarely able to. I have seen anything this brazen since O.J. Simpson claimed his arrest/prosecution was racially motivated.

Really, oh spinmeister communicator? Want brazen? How about SAS doctoring some numbers for SFT, leaving her position in disgrace, and then coming back to the Dome family and profiting. There are many such games that have been played by the cast of characters in COAL. But, hey, let's focus on psychology-where you obviously have some personal issues. Maybe they can get you some meds to help you get over your hostility.

Date: Mar 14, 2006

And today's lesson, children, is that Shelby doesn't remember what you did for him yesterday or last week, never mind a couple of years ago. Appeasers never gain, as surely the chair of Psych has learned to his sorrow.

Date: Mar 14, 2006

Larry the Hose wrote:

But the downside of APA accreditation is that teaching loads are considered in the evaluation process. A 3/3 true load for research active folks (I know this is not what you are advocating) would get a Boulder model program (don't ask) spanked big time, and a 2/3 load for researchers would get raised eyebrows and need to be well justified. I bet psych goes to the model you suggest--back to the bad old days of having too many students being taught by GAs and adjuncts, less research, and a 2/3-3/3 teaching load (instead of 2/2-3/3 differential as now). The 2-3 years and out dance for junior faculty will start up again, and a program or two more will be jettisoned. And Shelby will be smiling.

Y'll better listen to ol' Hose here. He knows of which he/she speaks.

Date: Mar 14, 2006

Lessons learned wrote:

Appeasers never gain

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRchamberlain.htm

Date: Mar 14, 2006

History sez wrote:

Lessons learned wrote: Appeasers never gain http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRchamberlain.htm

If it was bad for SK to be an "appeaser" before the F&G firings, what do you call Dust My Broom and SCM who just want to keep their heads buried until the next administration?

Date: Mar 14, 2006

Larry the Hose wrote:

If it was bad for SK to be an "appeaser" before the F&G firings, what do you call Dust My Broom and SCM who just want to keep their heads buried until the next administration?

Larry, you're talking to the wrong poster. I'm not the one who said that. I'm into hstory, not politics. I only posted the Chamberlain link in response to the use of the term "Appeasers" by the poster called Lessons Learned. You may wsh to go back and direct your question to Lessons Learned.

Date: Mar 14, 2006

Larry the Hose wrote:

If it was bad for SK to be an "appeaser" before the F&G firings, what do you call Dust My Broom and SCM who just want to keep their heads buried until the next administration?

I'm definitely not an appeaser, but you still do not admit that the psych attack on Thames at the PUC was ill-advised, poorly planned, undermanned, and the outcome predictable.

You're not going to beat Thames like that. The psych folks threw themselves in front of the steamroller going 1 mph and laid there, waiting to get run over. Now you want us to say how brave the psych people were, when they had plenty of time to recognize their mistake, get out of the way, and live to fight another day. As is, psych will probably not be able to secure more lines until the new prez comes in, anyway. All that was accomplished was further weakening their own case.

Date: Mar 14, 2006

Dust My Broom wrote:

LI'm definitely not an appeaser, but you still do not admit that the psych attack on Thames at the PUC was ill-advised, poorly planned, undermanned, and the outcome predictable. You're not going to beat Thames like that. The psych folks threw themselves in front of the steamroller going 1 mph and laid there, waiting to get run over. Now you want us to say how brave the psych people were, when they had plenty of time to recognize their mistake, get out of the way, and live to fight another day. As is, psych will probably not be able to secure more lines until the new prez comes in, anyway. All that was accomplished was further weakening their own case.

Perhaps yes, perhaps no.

Poorly planned? No. The planning was superb and well executed. Outcome known and anticipated? Definitely. The only outcome not foreseen, and a brilliant parry, was Thames and Grimes playing the "You're lazy slobs in psychology and don't need hires" card. They did this in the face of some pretty compelling data. But they knew some of y'all would jump on that puppy and pump away.

When you know you will get hosed no matter what you do, which is what psych knew beforehand, making the point they did was not necessarily for psych--maybe SFT will reconsider other planned hosings across the university if enough public noise is made each time one is attempted. Maybe not.

Even if psych gets a replacement or two, the prospects of hiring have dimmed quickly (just about extinguished). But maybe SFT will consider a bit longer before pulling another stunt like this to one of y'all. Maybe not, you suggest, however.

Psych folks aren't heros. As Joe Friday says, "Just doing our job, ma'am, just doing our job."