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.
DMB,
We had no anticipation that our "data-based" approach would actually result in any outcome. The inequities are obvious. Did we do so to engender the support of others; no, not at all. We only have to be true to ourselves and no one else. There are more data where those come from, if you are really interested. I and others would be glad to offer them to you for your review. Regarding your multiple assertions that it was only about us protecting the 2/2, you could not be more wrong. But, again, you are welcomed to ask us any question you would like. Mistake? You can characterize it any way you wish, but the inequity is more than obvious. Not all teach a 2/2 and doing so is contingent on our chair viewing us as "research active." Stan does not view such lightly. But, again, you are welcomed to have a conversation with me or others. Beyond what has been said and in light of the data, what exactly would you have done?
The psych folks threw themselves in front of the steamroller going 1 mph and laid there, waiting to get run over.
Dustbuster, were you one of those who sat back as bystanders, passivly watched , and did nothing while the steamroller headed toward Glamser and Stringer?
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.
You just don't get it, DMB. This wasn't a business deal or a political move. SFT has a year left. Psy wasn't out to "get something". This is war and SFT was shown once again to the public to be a micromanager who makes hasty decisions resulting in mismanagement.
You can lay low, but the President's Council, Faculty Senate and AAUP will keep pounding away. The IHL is still learning their lessons.
P.S. Start writing your next post complaining of our methods because we are not stopping and SFT loves to produce the "next stupid thing" for our next move.
This is a nice spin doctoring effort at work now. A hasty action, followed by a blow-up on the board by a key player. Now you're trying to convince me that it was a well-orchestrated attempt to expose Thames' already-well-exposed flaws? The end result would be...what? That the IHL would rescind that extra year? That the IHL would create an alternative chain of command for all decisions related to CISE? That spin job is not going to fly.
This is a nice spin doctoring effort at work now. A hasty action, followed by a blow-up on the board by a key player. Now you're trying to convince me that it was a well-orchestrated attempt to expose Thames' already-well-exposed flaws? The end result would be...what? That the IHL would rescind that extra year? That the IHL would create an alternative chain of command for all decisions related to CISE? That spin job is not going to fly.
You didn't read my post carefully enough, DMB. This is war. You are still in political- business mode worrying about "spin", "how will it look", "but what outcome did you want" etc., etc. Don't you watch the news? What type of war do you see going on there? Who is winning? What are they winning?
Warrior wrote: You didn't read my post carefully enough, DMB. This is war. You are still in political- business mode worrying about "spin", "how will it look", "but what outcome did you want" etc., etc. Don't you watch the news? What type of war do you see going on there? Who is winning? What are they winning?
It's a little late for this type of talk. When Thames was bloodied, there was an opportunity to knock him out with an all-out assault. Now it's as if gnats are buzzing 'round his ears. Annoying but not damaging.
As scm said, where was all this 2 years ago? Again, psych was A-OK two years ago.
Rally tomorrow at the dome for the 2/2 loads for psychology. 3:00pm. Bring your signs --- "Drop the load or get off the pot!" It's going to be awesome. We'll get him this time.
Why don't the psych profs start writing letters to the HA about this problem. That might rally the community behind this effort. SFT will surely fold when 50,000 people oppose him.
Warrior wrote: You didn't read my post carefully enough, DMB. This is war. You are still in political- business mode worrying about "spin", "how will it look", "but what outcome did you want" etc., etc. Don't you watch the news? What type of war do you see going on there? Who is winning? What are they winning?
It's a little late for this type of talk. When Thames was bloodied, there was an opportunity to knock him out with an all-out assault. Now it's as if gnats are buzzing 'round his ears. Annoying but not damaging. As scm said, where was all this 2 years ago? Again, psych was A-OK two years ago.
Small correction, DMB, it isn't talk. You are the one talking, we are taking action. It is never too late and it will continue. I will debate you again when you complain about our next action. Speak with you then.
Now you're trying to convince me that it was a well-orchestrated attempt to expose Thames' already-well-exposed flaws?
Duh-a contingent of psychologists show up at a public meeting at 7 AM after a HA reporter is given the heads up that she needs to be there to cover an interesting story (after the Dome quickly moves the meeting up by one day with little notice). A slew of compelling and nicely arrayed data are presented that obviously took time and effort to put together. Knowing how vindictive this crew is (recall that the Dome slammed J. Hollingsworth back to Psych in a most ungracious manner), do you really think these psych folks expected SFT and Grimes to say, "Gee, I didn't realize how inequitable this can appear. We'll straighten this out as soon as we get back to the office"?
The goal of all FS, AAUP, and PC action at this point should be to expose instances when SFT continues to act out on his worst character flaws. If SFT holds back, there will be nothing more to expose, and we can concentrate our efforts outside the classroom and laboratory on the search for the next president. Knowing SFT, however, this is a doubtful outcome.
It's all talk. This whole charade is laughable. Way to go, guys. Play it up as if you meant to do all this.
Your goal was to expose SFT's flaws? Gee, nobody's done that before. Why don't you expose Louisiana politics as corrupt? You might get Time magazine's "Person of the Year" award.
Dust, you keep on with this subject, but you never tell what you would do, in the same situation, or what you think others should do. It's sounding like you really do have an axe to grind with Psychology.
You talk as if you think no one should confront Dr. Thames any more. Just be quiet and let him do whatever he wants to? Is that really your position?
Plenty of people keep on trying to expose corruption in Louisiana politics. My late sister was instrumental in getting legislation passed in Louisiana that affected her industry. She got rocks through her store windows, all kinds of threats, but she persisted. She didn't clean up Louisiana politics, but she cleaned up the little corner where she was. That's as much as any of us can do.
dmb--i could comment on your observations, which i think are great, but then people might think we are the same person. then mitch's theory about who i am would be difficult to support. but dmb you're much more articulate than me.
Gentlemen, and ladies, I must tell you now : This horse is, in fact dead. Really most sincerely dead. In fact, he appears to have been beaten post-mortem for at least a day, possibly two.
Rally tomorrow at the dome for the 2/2 loads for psychology. 3:00pm. Bring your signs --- "Drop the load or get off the pot!" It's going to be awesome. We'll get him this time.
I haven't heard about this but I will surely be there. Dr. Thames has to come to his senses on this decision.
I really hope that all of the arguing that is going on here will cease, and we can have a productive discussion. The psychology department at USM has been a crown jewel of the institution for quite some time now. It's PhD program has been highly regarded throughout the country, and its faculty have garnered a host of accomplishments through the years. The time has come, however, for Ole Miss to assume leadership in psychology. This day was inevitable, and we must strive to make the transition as smooth as possible. With that said, let me assure you that psychology courses will still be available to undergraduates at the University of Southern Mississippi. Any word to the contrary is simply false, as my office will attest to anyone who inquires.
Sadly, I think that USM is headed for an almost entirely undergraduate institution status. The information I have seen shows that Mississippi cannot support 3 major institutions for long, and the politics of the state dictate that neither Ole Miss nor Mississippi State is going to be sacrificed. The next president of USM will be a smoother operator who continues the task Shelby began.
Let's examine teaching load with our heads rather than our feelings:
1. Assume that a faculty member who is expected to do nothing but teach is assigned 4 courses each semester (each course equals 25% of the faculty member's total activities. 4 courses X 25% = 100% teaching).
2. Assume that the univesity expects the faculty member to engage in a program of scholarly activity (that's what the position advertisement I've seen indicate.) If the faculty member is assigned 3 courses each semester then 75% of the faculty member's time is devoted to teaching (3 courses X 25% per course = 75%).
3. We're now down to 25% remaining for non- instructional activities (research, grant writing, manuscript preparation, departmental, college, and university committee assignments, faculty meetings, student advisement activities, etc.). Faculty members in departments offering graduate programs also direct masters theses and doctoral dissertations. Those programs must have directors whose duties are time consuming. If any of those programs maintain training facilities, the students therein require intensive faculty suprvision.
Can all of the activities in item #3 above be conducted in 10 hours per week (25% of the total time available each week)? Remember that 10 hours per week comes down to 2 hours per day.
I'm skipping lunch today. Too much to do. Sure hate to tell the grandkids I can't take them to the zoo this weekend. Got to be back at the office.
Lazy faculty member wrote: Let's examine teaching load with our heads rather than our feelings: 1. Assume that a faculty member who is expected to do nothing but teach is assigned 4 courses each semester (each course equals 25% of the faculty member's total activities. 4 courses X 25% = 100% teaching). 2. Assume that the univesity expects the faculty member to engage in a program of scholarly activity (that's what the position advertisement I've seen indicate.) If the faculty member is assigned 3 courses each semester then 75% of the faculty member's time is devoted to teaching (3 courses X 25% per course = 75%). 3. We're now down to 25% remaining for non- instructional activities (research, grant writing, manuscript preparation, departmental, college, and university committee assignments, faculty meetings, student advisement activities, etc.). Faculty members in departments offering graduate programs also direct masters theses and doctoral dissertations. Those programs must have directors whose duties are time consuming. If any of those programs maintain training facilities, the students therein require intensive faculty suprvision. Can all of the activities in item #3 above be conducted in 10 hours per week (25% of the total time available each week)? Remember that 10 hours per week comes down to 2 hours per day. I'm skipping lunch today. Too much to do. Sure hate to tell the grandkids I can't take them to the zoo this weekend. Got to be back at the office.
If you're going to use your head, then use it. Don't ignore obvious mistakes in your presentation.
First, if the IHL's standard load for Southern Miss is 4 courses per semester, then 4x3=12 hours per week should be spent in class. Now suppose that another 12 hours (one hour per hour spent in class) are spent in support functions for the in class time (office hours, preparation time). Our running total is now 24 hours (= 12 + 12) per week.
Second, there is a service component to the job, mostly for committee meetings, student advising, other administrative tasks, etc. Let's say each faculty member devotes one day per week to this area. That's 8 hours. Now our running total is up to 32 hours (= 24 + 8).
Third, we have research. Research is listed last by me because it does not directly affect students but is a productive use of time. If we assume a 40 hour week, then we have 8 hours left over (= 40 - 32) for that endeavor. Now we're up to 40 hours per week.
For the faculty member who has a 4/4 load, he will spend 24 hours on teaching, 8 hours on service, and 8 hours on research (total 40 hours).
Now, suppose a particular faculty member gets release time and a corresponding load of 3/3. That releases 3 hours of teaching and 3 hours of prep work/office hours per week. Now that faculty member has 6 hours to reallocate to research. That faculty member may now spend 18 hours teaching, 8 hours on service, and 14 hours on research (total 40 hours).
Extend this a bit to examine the case in which a faculty member gets a 2/2 load. That releases a total of 6 hours of teaching and 6 hours of prep work/office hours per week. Now that faculty member has 12 hours to reallocate to research. That faculty member may now spend 12 hours teaching, 8 hours on service, and 20 hours on research (total 40 hours).
I would venture to guess that most Southern Miss faculty are on a 3/3 load. In the average academic year (2 semesters @ 16 weeks per semester), the average faculty member will spend 14 hours per week for 32 weeks or 448 hours on research. If that faculty member has a 2/2, then he will spend 640 hours on research during the same period, a difference of 192 hours. Keep in mind that both a 3/3 and a 2/2 are reductions in load over the IHL's 4/4 guideline for Southern Miss.
It is most improbable that the work week is only 40 hours, however, for most faculty members. Increasing the number of hours worked, therefore should probably increase the hours dedicated in this order: research, teaching, service. Faculty often have to substitute their "own time" to supplement the 40-hour "work week". Also, I have ignored the inter-semester break and summer break, because most faculty are freed from mandatory teaching obligations during those periods.
Sorry. I was just going by what a dean told me. But what do they know. I'll just leave the bean counting to you professional bean counters and get back to my work.
Three Peas in a Pod wrote: Do you know if the IHL guideline for Ole Miss and Mississippi State is also 4/4?
It really doesn't matter what the IHL guidelines are for UM and MSU. We don't work at UM and MSU. Why don't you ask what they guidelines are for Harvard and Yale? We don't work there either.
Three Peas in a Pod wrote: Do you know if the IHL guideline for Ole Miss and Mississippi State is also 4/4?
Southern Justice wrote: It really doesn't matter what the IHL guidelines are for UM and MSU. We don't work at UM and MSU. Why don't you ask what they guidelines are for Harvard and Yale? We don't work there either.
If a faculty member is teaching 4 classes in a semester, that does indicate 12 hours each week in the classroom. What "Math Error" fails to understand is that an additional 12 hours of office hours and preparation time don't even come close to what a faculty member needs to do to teach 12 hours in a semester. Don't forget about grading and even more office hours for 4 classes. To effectively teach 4 classes in any given semester is a full-time job (more than 40 hours each week). There is no time for service and certainly no time for research and creative activities.
Amy Young wrote: If a faculty member is teaching 4 classes in a semester, that does indicate 12 hours each week in the classroom. What "Math Error" fails to understand is that an additional 12 hours of office hours and preparation time don't even come close to what a faculty member needs to do to teach 12 hours in a semester. Don't forget about grading and even more office hours for 4 classes. To effectively teach 4 classes in any given semester is a full-time job (more than 40 hours each week). There is no time for service and certainly no time for research and creative activities. Amy Young
Amy Young wrote: If a faculty member is teaching 4 classes in a semester, that does indicate 12 hours each week in the classroom. What "Math Error" fails to understand is that an additional 12 hours of office hours and preparation time don't even come close to what a faculty member needs to do to teach 12 hours in a semester. Don't forget about grading and even more office hours for 4 classes. To effectively teach 4 classes in any given semester is a full-time job (more than 40 hours each week). There is no time for service and certainly no time for research and creative activities. Amy Young
Indeed, I still don't think the general public understands that USM professors typically work 60-80 hours per week, year round. I'm typical, not remarkable. During summers and holidays, when I'm not teaching and/or preparing to teach and/or working on committees, etc., I'm trying to catch up on research, a never-ending task. Even when I go to California to visit my family, I spent daylight hours researching at the Huntington Library. There is no kicking back at day's end to watch TV or whatever else people do. Mind you, I'm not particularly fond of television in any case, but entire multi-series TV programs come and go without my even hearing about them.
C.S. Lewis once said that the civilian's idea of the military life was "fantastic," in the old sense of a fantasy, without basis in reality. We really do work about as hard as anyone can work. Indeed, wise Solomon made particular reference to the numbing weariness of study. I enjoy doing it, of course, as anyone should enjoy working in one's vocation, but I'm always puzzled at the assumption that we're on vacation. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Once I explained in my own church what I mean by the term "research." I said, "that doesn't mean reading a few encyclopedia articles. It means writing the encyclopedias." The gasp of surprise was universal, and my fellow parishioners are unusually well educated, with lots of professional people in the mix. What one assumes about another's work can be far from the mark.
And now, back to grading writing reading going to pick up my speaker at the airport writing more e-mails for graduate student business going over documents for SACS trying to figure out how to set up next fall's readings writing student recommendations etc. etc. etc.
Amy Young wrote: If a faculty member is teaching 4 classes in a semester, that does indicate 12 hours each week in the classroom. What "Math Error" fails to understand is that an additional 12 hours of office hours and preparation time don't even come close to what a faculty member needs to do to teach 12 hours in a semester. Don't forget about grading and even more office hours for 4 classes. To effectively teach 4 classes in any given semester is a full-time job (more than 40 hours each week). There is no time for service and certainly no time for research and creative activities. Amy Young
This dog won't hunt.
Short and sweet, Gun Dod, but incorrect. No sweat, I much rather read a short post with errors that a long one.