H.A.--USM reallocates grad assistant funding - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Apr 24, 2006

H.A.--USM reallocates grad assistant funding

Date: Apr 24, 2006

More info on this. From the Graduate Council Minutes for February 2006:

http://www.usm.edu/graduatestudies/downloads/minutes/2006/minutes_february.doc

9.0 New Business

9.1 Graduate Assistantships

Dr. Middlebrooks expressed concern about a proposal that would eliminate assistantships for programs offering only the masters degree, but in which the terminal degree is the doctorate.

Dr. Middlebrooks inquired as to where this originated.

Dr. Siltanen stated that this issue was discussed at a Dean’s retreat in May 2005. This topic was brought up in a general way. The charge was that Dr. Grimes would study the issue and develop a recommendation. This issue was temporarily put on hold due to Hurricane Katrina. The issue was brought forward again in late November, with scrutiny of the distribution of resources, tuition revenues involved, and the impact of the tuition on in-state and out-of-state waivers. Dr. Middlebrooks felt that once again this appears to be an academic matter in which Graduate Council was left out of the loop. He expressed his opinion that Graduate Council should take some sort of action. Dr. Siltanen reminded Council that the proposal was in a draft form and that the Council could respond. Council expressed concern about the process and lack of consultation.

Dr. Kaul moved and Dr. Powell seconded a motion that Graduate Council authorizes the Executive Committee to address a letter to the Provost expressing Council’s concerns about this proposed graduate assistantship policy with a request that implementation of any such policy be delayed for a minimum of one year during which active consultation and study of relevant issues in data will take place (including consideration of the impact of the policy on individual graduate programs). The motion passed.

Date: Apr 24, 2006

So is this a veiled attempt (hiding behind numbers) to punish psychology? Mitch in particular? And maybe to punish Doty? (I know a lot of folks don't like him but he has been trying to get out and he also has crossed Grimes hasn't he)

Date: Apr 24, 2006

Shelby may be a lame duck, but he's an armed and angry lame duck. The question was asked -- will he maintain during his last year, or will he use the time for retribution? I think we are seeing the answer unfold.

Date: Apr 24, 2006

Far Away Alum wrote:

So is this a veiled attempt (hiding behind numbers) to punish psychology?

I purchased a copy of the most recent (May, 2006) copy of Money magazine which contains an article entitled "50 Best Jobs in America." The article begins "Forget plastics. Today's career advice, in a word, computers. Not surprisingly, Money magazine ranks Software Engineer as #1, followed by College Professor (#2).

Psychologist is ranked #10. USM is darn lucky to have its doctoral programs in psychology and that department should be supported, not punished. Psychology's #10 ranking even places it above Physician/Surgeon (#30), Lawyer (#37), and Dentist (#43). It's unlikely USM will get a law school, a dental school. or a medical school in the foreseeable future, so let's support what we've got. Several other professions represented in USM's academic programs are listed in Money magazine's Top 50 including but not limited to Speech/Language Pathologist (#38), Accountant (#44), Registered Nurse (#47), and School Administrator (#50).

Date: Apr 24, 2006

by this logic, given professor is #2 (but read the rationale), we should support all doctoral programs that are producing new faculty for the academy.

Date: Apr 24, 2006

stinky cheese man wrote:

. . . . we should support all doctoral programs that are producing new faculty for the academy.

From my perspective, SCM, we should support all departments - including those that offer undergraduate degrees only.

Date: Apr 24, 2006

agreed, but your comment and thread is about graduate education.

Date: Apr 24, 2006

stinky cheese man wrote:

. . . . but your comment and thread is about graduate education.

True, SCM. It was not my intention to divert the topic away from graduate assistantships. Getting back to the focus of this thread, let me say I was stunned to learn that a productive department such as psychology would lose graduate assistantship support (just as I was previously stunned to learn they were also losing faculty positions). Departments that consistently attract and place excellent graduate students should receive more, not less, support. At the very least, current support should not be reduced except under unusual and justifiable circumstances. At other universities with which I am familiar, academic program success is typically followed by support and encouragement.

Date: Apr 24, 2006

Far Away Alum wrote:

So is this a veiled attempt (hiding behind numbers) to punish psychology? Mitch in particular?

So does anyone have an opinion about this?

Date: Apr 24, 2006

Reporter wrote:

Dr. Siltanen reminded Council that the proposal was in a draft form and that the Council could respond.

If it's only a draft why were the specifics described in such minute detail in the Hattiesburg American article?

Date: Apr 24, 2006

This simply a power grab to move resources to COST from everywhere else. It has nothing to do with quality. the rest of the colleges will have to bide their time until there is a new president and either retaliate against COST in other ways, or get the graduate student funds returned.

Date: Apr 24, 2006

Cossack wrote:

This simply a power grab to move resources to COST from everywhere else. It has nothing to do with quality. the rest of the colleges will have to bide their time until there is a new president and either retaliate against COST in other ways, or get the graduate student funds returned.

It's okay to sit back, watch, and do nothing; none of YOUR college's programs will be gutted next, right? No one would do that to you, right? You are in the CoST, right?

Date: Apr 24, 2006

Retired and more or less happy wrote:

So does anyone have an opinion about this?

I could provide a more informed opinion if I knew who was on the committee that orchestrated this ill-thought-through proposal. Or was a one man band that came up with it.

Date: Apr 24, 2006

SFT is retaliating - anyone surprised? I think that the attack on Psychology is another piece of evidence leading to his absolutely crazy behavior. Hope they fight back.

Date: Apr 24, 2006

Emma wrote:

SFT is retaliating - anyone surprised? I think that the attack on Psychology is another piece of evidence leading to his absolutely crazy behavior. Hope they fight back.

Check out the Press Release thread. Posters are talking about "SFT is retaliating" and "sending the resources to CoST".

In the press release he says, "We are pleased about raises for our quality faculty and staff but we will be pursuing other efficiency measures and program reviews on campus to insure that Southern Miss remains financially strong,” he concluded."

Date: Apr 24, 2006

Tired of being sick wrote:

It's okay to sit back, watch, and do nothing; none of YOUR college's programs will be gutted next, right? No one would do that to you, right? You are in the CoST, right?

Isn't Cossack in Business?

Date: Apr 24, 2006

My take on this is that DT convinced SFT to benchmark CISE to Psychology-hence the "equity raise" to DT benchmarked against the chair of psychology. Now this is an apples and oranges issue, of course, but it seems that SFT would like to see Psych, ELR, and CISE equal in size and scope (not a data driven decision of course). What you are seeing is a paring down of psychology (they lost something like 25 work study grad student funding slots also)---and the resources just plain old eliminated (I think it is less shifting and more trimming the books). If you are going to do this, I guess it makes sense to pick on a department that you don't particularly like. I don't think this is targeted toward one or two people. I think SFT genuinely believes that Psych has not been a "profit center" (they average about 40K per annun per faculty member across all faculty in external funding), and they should be more in the league of some of the COST programs (however, without the same start up packages or lab space this is difficult to do).

Date: Apr 24, 2006

It's okay to sit back, watch, and do nothing; none of YOUR college's programs will be gutted next, right? No one would do that to you, right? You are in the CoST, right?

No, I am in Business and we were hit hard by this move. This has been in the works for a while and CBA was against the change. If someone has an idea on how to change this outcome, I am all ears. However, I do not think anything will change it until there is new a new President.

Date: Apr 24, 2006

Just curious, how did CoAL fare?

Date: Apr 24, 2006

What is also interesting is the spread sheet that reveals the actual cuts. For most departments/schools, the provost simply lopped offthe budget to the nearest $1000. So, since Anthropology had a budget of something linke 27,400, we lost 400. English had a budget of 394,067 so they lost $67. There is simply no reason to this "method" of budget planning. But then you have some weird cases like the MBA and psychology. They were cut $13,000.

Another interesting item is that the faculty, chairs and directors, and even deans had no part in this "budget planning."

This, of course, makes the quote from Jay Grimes nonsense, "We have to be sure we're investing our limited resources carefully." I'd love to see USM administration do something "carefully."

Amy Young

Date: Apr 24, 2006

Amy Young wrote:

But then you have some weird cases like the MBA and psychology. They were cut $13,000.

$40,800 and $13,600.

Date: Apr 24, 2006

Weird cases wrote:

Amy Young wrote:
But then you have some weird cases like the MBA and psychology. They were cut $13,000.
$40,800 and $13,600.

Thanks, weird, that needed clarification.
Amy Young

Date: Apr 24, 2006

what is also interesting, and the HA didn't report this (but there was a press release), is that english got a $150,000 increase in their graduate assistant budget the year before, and got a $30,000 increase at midyear this year. where was the oversight then?

Date: Apr 24, 2006

stinky cheese man wrote:

what is also interesting, and the HA didn't report this (but there was a press release), is that english got a $150,000 increase in their graduate assistant budget the year before, and got a $30,000 increase at midyear this year. where was the oversight then?

It's just my guess, stinky, but it may be that English got the graduate assistantship increase because many of their GA's are used primarily or exclusively for teaching classes like 099. It's cheaper to pay a GA than to pay a regular faculty member.

Date: Apr 24, 2006

except, why not let other departments get some of the money? why did it go to one department? the press release said that 10 creative writing doctoral students would get $15,000 each. how many departments in COAL would love to have doctoral stipends even close to that amount? if we want oversight now, why not then?

Date: Apr 24, 2006

stinky cheese man wrote:

except, why not let other departments get some of the money? why did it go to one department? the press release said that 10 creative writing doctoral students would get $15,000 each. how many departments in COAL would love to have doctoral stipends even close to that amount? if we want oversight now, why not then?

I didn't say it is sound academic practice. I said it is Cheap. As the old saying goes: you get what you pay for - the students and the taxpayers.

Date: Apr 24, 2006

in the context of this thread, it isn't a matter of how cheap it is.

Date: Apr 24, 2006

stinky cheese man wrote:

in the context of this thread, it isn't a matter of how cheap it is.

You must be a new boy on Hardy Street. Academic matters at USM are often driven by money rather than by what is sound academic practice.

Date: Apr 24, 2006

naw, been here over 20+ years. know the place well. you don't seem to get the issues involved in the thread. too bad.