Feed Back From SACS - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Apr 13, 2006

RE: Feed Back From SACS

Date: Apr 13, 2006

Curt Yeomans wrote:

It wasn't exactly a major program, but Morris Brown College in Atlanta was a Div. I program and felt the bite of SACS a few years ago when it lost its accreditation while famous alumni, civil rights leaders and other historically black colleges protested the decision. More than 9/10 of its student population had left the school within a year.

Exactly. It was not a major program. Students could remain in school withouot even moving out of Atlanta. That's not the case with USM. If USM shuts down, students on financial aid will have to go to Natchez, Starkville, Oxford, Jackson, etc., all 1 1/2 hours away or more. This is not a game SACS wants to start.

Date: Apr 13, 2006

LeftASAP stated,

Of course, they are required to bring in grant money.

I think your post is likely correct, but the term grant money is used very loosely at USM. Much of what is called grants is more accurately termed contracts. Contracts will buy out faculty, but often do not provide overhead money. Many of the contracts in science have real research components, but contracts usually have what are termed "deliverables", a specified product. These can lead to publications, but often are not at the level of research that makes it into major journals. Most grants have publication as an end product rather than a by-product. In non-science areas such as business, the contracts would be consulting which is even less publishable. Research grants closely resemble dissertation proposals often with pilot data and the decision to fund is made by academic peers who are experts in the field. The decision to fund a contract is usually made by a government bureaucrat or a businessperson seeking a profitable venture. In many other areas, the opportunities for grants are few and very competitive, and there are very few opportunities for any other funds.

The difference between the grants versus contracts is the difference between a president who is an academic and a president who chases dollars. Sadly, from the governor on down through the Board and the Board employees, there is little distinction made between the two. Even the educated people in the community have no clue of the difference. What is ignored in all of this is that the ability of USM to attract faculty who can generate the dollars is quite limited because USM is a low pay competitor. USM is further handicapped because the approach of SFT toward staff (beat them until they submit) insures that staff to support the efforts are overworked and less than fully competent.

Date: Apr 13, 2006

LeftASAP wrote: It will make CoST seem like MIT and the rest of USM will be like JCJC. It's a h*ll of a way to run a university.

I agree. That was his plan from the start. He is a technocrat, not an educated man, and has no business running the university. As such, he played right into the hands of the UM and MSU supporters.

Date: Apr 13, 2006

Cossack wrote:

I think your post is likely correct, but the term grant money is used very loosely at USM. Much of what is called grants is more accurately termed contracts. Contracts will buy out faculty, but often do not provide overhead money. Many of the contracts in science have real research components, but contracts usually have what are termed "deliverables", a specified product. These can lead to publications, but often are not at the level of research that makes it into major journals. Most grants have publication as an end product rather than a by-product. In non-science areas such as business, the contracts would be consulting which is even less publishable. Research grants closely resemble dissertation proposals often with pilot data and the decision to fund is made by academic peers who are experts in the field. The decision to fund a contract is usually made by a government bureaucrat or a businessperson seeking a profitable venture. In many other areas, the opportunities for grants are few and very competitive, and there are very few opportunities for any other funds. The difference between the grants versus contracts is the difference between a president who is an academic and a president who chases dollars. Sadly, from the governor on down through the Board and the Board employees, there is little distinction made between the two. Even the educated people in the community have no clue of the difference. What is ignored in all of this is that the ability of USM to attract faculty who can generate the dollars is quite limited because USM is a low pay competitor. USM is further handicapped because the approach of SFT toward staff (beat them until they submit) insures that staff to support the efforts are overworked and less than fully competent.

You summarized the situation very well, Cassack. Calling contractual services and pork grants "research" has caused problems in CoST. Those faculty who try to proceed "the old fashion way" with peer reviewed competitive grant proposals to national funding bodies are competing with MIT, Cal Tech, etc. Those with connections to Senators don't have to go that route. Much of this is not "research", but the hope is the prof will be able to generate good research on the side from resources provided .

Date: Apr 13, 2006

LeftASAP wrote:

Calling contractual services and pork grants "research" has caused problems in CoST. Those faculty who try to proceed "the old fashion way" with peer reviewed competitive grant proposals to national funding bodies are competing with MIT, Cal Tech, etc. Those with connections to Senators don't have to go that route. Much of this is not "research", but the hope is the prof will be able to generate good research on the side from resources provided .

But even MIT, Cal Tech, etc., seek other revenues than "the old fashion way." Grant money from the government in many areas are drying up and people are looking for alternatives. Private industries are the first choice of many. (I will bet you money that most of these profs would not turn down a pork appropriation. Private foundations are a source as well, but I have also been told that many of these are also based on who you know.) At the big schools, it is very desirable that you have at least one non-government source of money so that you have an account where you can buy things not regulated by the fed (e.g. a new office computer). Plus, if these monies are available, why not pursue them? Why should we play on a different playground?

You have to diversify where your money comes from. USM will never be able to solely rely on NSF/NIH/DOD/etc. grants. We do not have the facilities to compete for these. There will be some outstanding faculty that will land these grants, but not everyone. There is just not enough federal money to give MIT, Cal Tech, etc along with USM, USA, UNO, JSU, etc. We should celebrate when a prof lands a large competitive grant, and we should consider it normal practice that they receive money from companies and other sources.

Date: Apr 13, 2006

We also should rejoice and be proud when a professor receives a grant from the NEH or the NEA. Though the largest of these grants pale in dollar comparison to some of the science or education grants, they carry a lot of prestige. The loss of the Donne Variorum and its NEH grant was much larger than the dollar size alone. Other faculty who have left had grants to give summer NEH seminars. And not having a free standing College of Fine Arts makes it somewhat harder for those departments to get grants.

Date: Apr 13, 2006

manova wrote:

But even MIT, Cal Tech, etc., seek other revenues than "the old fashion way." Grant money from the government in many areas are drying up and people are looking for alternatives. Private industries are the first choice of many. (I will bet you money that most of these profs would not turn down a pork appropriation. Private foundations are a source as well, but I have also been told that many of these are also based on who you know.) At the big schools, it is very desirable that you have at least one non-government source of money so that you have an account where you can buy things not regulated by the fed (e.g. a new office computer). Plus, if these monies are available, why not pursue them? Why should we play on a different playground? You have to diversify where your money comes from. USM will never be able to solely rely on NSF/NIH/DOD/etc. grants. We do not have the facilities to compete for these. There will be some outstanding faculty that will land these grants, but not everyone. There is just not enough federal money to give MIT, Cal Tech, etc along with USM, USA, UNO, JSU, etc. We should celebrate when a prof lands a large competitive grant, and we should consider it normal practice that they receive money from companies and other sources.

I didn't say they shouldn't try for the funds. I do say think it is dangerous for science when the studies are directed by interest other that what the science says should be done next. It is also not good to get grants just because your state Senators have seniority. I don't like the "pork add ons" that occur in committee, or even outside of committee, so that not even Congress knows about it. The pure sciences don't usually have a "product" industry would be interested in funding, but if money is waved around scientist can, and are, pressured to do what a company wants even if it isn't scientific research. You say, "...we should consider it normal practice that they receive money from companies and other sources." This is true for engineering , but not usually so for fundamental science. The push at USM is for "applied Math", "applied science" or engineering. Pure science and Math is in a similar boat as CoAL.

Date: Apr 13, 2006

More than $ value wrote:

We also should rejoice and be proud when a professor receives a grant from the NEH or the NEA. Though the largest of these grants pale in dollar comparison to some of the science or education grants, they carry a lot of prestige. The loss of the Donne Variorum and its NEH grant was much larger than the dollar size alone. Other faculty who have left had grants to give summer NEH seminars. And not having a free standing College of Fine Arts makes it somewhat harder for those departments to get grants.

I agree, I did not mean to leave out the arts, I am just not as familiar with this area of funding. Unfortunately, in my area, a $50k grant, even with a <15% funding rate, will not raise an eyebrow. If it is not at lest 6 figures a year for several years, nobody cares.

It was a shame to see the Donne Variorum leave USM. But I have a question about your last statement. Do you really think that not having a College of Fine Arts makes it harder to get money? So many schools are organized in so many different ways it is hard to compare College to School to Department between different institutions. At many places, a School is lead by a Dean. I just don't think people who are reviewing any grant care what your academic unit is called. They care about what kind of institutional support is given to your unit (resources, money, etc), which is why USM is rarely competitive for any grant.

Date: Apr 13, 2006

LeftASAP wrote:

I didn't say they shouldn't try for the funds. I do say think it is dangerous for science when the studies are directed by interest other that what the science says should be done next. It is also not good to get grants just because your state Senators have seniority. I don't like the "pork add ons" that occur in committee, or even outside of committee, so that not even Congress knows about it. The pure sciences don't usually have a "product" industry would be interested in funding, but if money is waved around scientist can, and are, pressured to do what a company wants even if it isn't scientific research. You say, "...we should consider it normal practice that they receive money from companies and other sources." This is true for engineering , but not usually so for fundamental science. The push at USM is for "applied Math", "applied science" or engineering. Pure science and Math is in a similar boat as CoAL.

There is money available for the pure basic sciences and math (even in industry). It might be harder to get, but that is something that you have to realize when you choose that line of research. I have made deliberate choices about my line of research based on what the government is likely to fund because I know when you work at a research university, no money = no job. If I cannot land money, I will have to consider moving to a small college that cares more about my teaching evals than my publication count (nothing wrong with that, just different).

I agree that pork is a waste of government money, but until they ban it, I want it (no, I have never received pork money, nor do I have the connections to even know how to get it). Why should I let someone else get all the equipment they need just because they are willing to play the game with by the rules as they are now. I would love to see the money that goes into pork be diverted into funding agencies, but I do not think that will happen anytime soon.

Finally, I disagree that money from a company means that the company will drive the research. I have worked with several companies and have never had a problem (from the company) about publishing my data, even when I have negative results. It is just a matter of your agreement that you make with them. Your data should always drive your research, and a good company will realize this.

Date: Apr 13, 2006

You are right, manova. I think what is missing now is the support that a dean's office that is dedicated to the arts is able to give. The development officer for the former college spent a lot of time helping faculty submit grant proposals. And that was in addition to the fund raising she did. I don't believe there is any such assistance available now.

Date: Apr 13, 2006

manova

Private industries are the first choice of many.

It may have changed recently, but private industry usually is reluctant to pay overhead and views the situation more as a paid consultant rather than a researcher.

Date: Apr 13, 2006

Mewscician,
I am sorry to hear about the lack of support from the deans office. Music is one of the most visible programs at USM and it deserves more institutional support.

Cossack,
You are right that industry does not provide much if any overhead, but the money does pay for equipment, salary, graduate students, travel, etc so that the institution can divert money to other programs (well, that is the way it should work).