Faculty body count from SFT's mismanagement - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 24, 2004

Faculty body count from SFT's mismanagement

Date: Jun 24, 2004

Sounds like a good idea.

Date: Jun 24, 2004

RE: Faculty body count from SFT's mismanagemen

Date: Jun 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Tinctoris
" Yes, and from the HA today, we now have Shelby's list: Thames said that faculty turnover appears to be on pace with previous years' losses although final numbers for 2003-2004 have not been finalized yet. According to Russ Willis, human resources assistant director, 58 faculty and 460 staff have either retired or quit so far this year. Last year, 112 faculty and 357 staff members left."

Uh, Shelboo, that's already a 28% increase in staff members leaving (is that "on pace" with your new economic development model?). What I want to know is how these numbers stack up to the years previous to that (under HF and AKL). HA reporters, are you listening?

Date: Jun 24, 2004

RE: RE: RE: Faculty body count from SFT's mismanag

Date: Jun 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Newgirl
" At yesterday's President's Council meeting SFT provided the following data on faculty departures. 1999-2000 78 faculty departures (12%) 2000-2001 110 faculty departures (17%) 2001-2002 107 faculty departures (16.5%) 2002-2003 112 faculty departures (17%) 2003-2004 58 faculty departures (9%) and Staff departures 1999-2000 323 staff departures (19%) 2000-2001 374 staff departures (22%) 2001-2002 340 staff departures (20%) 2002-2003 357 staff departures (21%) 2003-2004 460 staff departures (27%)* *larger than usual due to out sourcing of bookstore and food services. "

Thanks for the clarification. So, I still see a big jump in 2000 (when SFT took office). From 12-17% for faculty....that's a fairly large increase (plus, as you can see, the numbers keep increasing every year). Also, keep in mind that the number for 2003-2004 (58 faculty leaving) does not include all of the folks who are making plans to leave this summer, but have not told anyone yet. Expect that number to rise significantly.

Date: Jun 24, 2004

RE: Faculty body count from SFT's mismanagement

Date: Jun 24, 2004

sft took over in may 2002, not 2000. i know, seems like a long 2 years.

Date: Jun 24, 2004

True, Shebby has only been in office two years. I am thinking of using the two years prior to that as a "control group." That way we could really show a trend.

Date: Jun 24, 2004

Mr. Moses, are you telling me it has only been 2 years, and not 40 yet? It sure feels like a lot longer than that.

Where exactly is that Promised Land anyhow? And tell me again what it will be like.

DG

Date: Jun 24, 2004

not only 40 years, but walking in a desert.

Date: Jun 24, 2004

Why is babb's list so much bigger than the official list? At what point in the year does Shelboo start counting?

I suspect that some of the low count is because lots of faculty who've officially resigned haven't turned in their keys yet. (Really, they wouldn't have to count you until you're _really_ gone, even though the academic year is over.)

Date: Jun 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"sft took over in may 2002, not 2000. i know, seems like a long 2 years."

Oops, sorry. My mistake. It does seem like he has been around so much longer.

Date: Jun 24, 2004

These numbers are very hard to interpret because the population base from which the departures are coming is changing every year due the departures and hires of the previous years. Also, when a period of above average departures occurs, the early years shake out those who are most willing to relocate and the most marketable. Each subsequent year the returning population is made up of a higher proportion of people tied to the location (including tied to the retirement system) or not as marketable. The new population includes junior hires who may be ABD or who have not established a sufficient record of productivity to be hired elsewhere. This means it becomes more difficult to maintain a high rate of departures. The analogy is a fished out pond constantly being restocked with newborn fish. It gets harder and harder to catch a trophy fish.

Another factor is the nature of new hires when you are trying to fill lots of positions in a short period of time. This often results in weak hires, instructor hires or temporary hires of people who are unlikely to leave because they are pleased to just have a job.

Looking at the total numbers for the past five years, it looks like the whole faculty has left, which is clearly not the case. The permanent, long term faculty is getting smaller each year while a lot of churning is going on amongst the new hires. Given that our "normal" faculty turnover is about 50-60 a year, we have been at extraordinary levels for a long time.

The early high attrition was probably most affected by low salaries and lack of raises with little hope on the horizon. That we have been able to remain at those high levels requires additional explanation.

What seems to be different about attrition over the past two years is the number of senior experienced people who have been leaving, including retirement prior to age 65. And because departures are not even across departments and disciplines, some areas have been hit very hard, e.g., nursing, criminal justice, math, education, psycholgy, and English.

The point of all this is that interpreting those gross numbers is very complex.

Date: Jun 24, 2004

Flash has stated the issue much more clearly than I did in my previous post. My thought is to collect data that could be used to illustrate Flash's notion that even though the total number of faculty may have hit minimum-possible-for--turning-on-the-lights level, the average quality (as reflected in experience and marketability) of faculty members is declining.

Of course, there are many fantastic, highly marketable faculty members who are chained to the region or the school, e.g. by "golden manacles" or family. My point is the same as Flash's: these good scholars by staying at USM are remaining fixed in the universal continuum of scholars while becoming outliers in the USM distribution. I'd love to show that with some good stats.

Done Gone

Date: Jun 24, 2004

One approach would be to look at the number of faculty at each rank in the fall of each year. Even that has drawbacks because of promotions among those who stay, but it might reveal some changes over time.

Date: Jun 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Done Gone
".Of course, there are many fantastic, highly marketable faculty members who are chained to the region or the school, e.g. by "golden manacles" . .

Chained to USM by "golden manacles?" That word is not in my everyday vocabulary, Done Gone. I had to look it up in the dictionary: A device for confining the hands, usually consisting of two metal rings that are fastened about the wrist and joined by a metal chain." I knew that something terrible kept me at USM, but I did not know it was something like one might see in an XXX rated movie.

Date: Jun 24, 2004

I've heard the term "golden handcuffs" before...

Robert Campbell

Date: Jun 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"I've heard the term "golden handcuffs" before... Robert Campbell"

Pre-TIAA/CREF or alternatives like a state retirement system that bind one to an institution with financial rewards. I have heard that TH only vests in December and that may bind him to USM even with a Texas job offer. I would imagine that some patent holders and those tied in to Noetic (and perhaps the RF) also have "golden handcuffs" based on downstream payouts.

Date: Jun 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Old Friend
" I have heard that TH only vests in December and that may bind him to USM even with a Texas job offer. "

Well, the situation may be different for administrators, but the state retirement criteria are:

* 25 years service, regardless of age of retiree,

OR

* Age 60, with 4 years' service.

Does the comment by "Old Friend" imply that TH has 24.5 years' service?

Date: Jun 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: under the radar
" Well, the situation may be different for administrators, but the state retirement criteria are: * 25 years service, regardless of age of retiree, OR * Age 60, with 4 years' service. Does the comment by "Old Friend" imply that TH has 24.5 years' service? "

Only repeating what I have heard as an example of "golden manacles/handcuffs" and why he might not be leaving this summer - no further details or inside info - I was confused by the mid-year date as well.

Date: Jun 25, 2004

Sorry about the "golden manacles" reference. I did not mean to create trouble and should have been clearer. A good friend, colleague and source of great mentorship while I was at USM used the term to explain why he/she was not leaving at the same time I was. Lord knows, this person had ample vita to do it.

However, this does have me wondering about the reasons faculty are staying. I thought that golden handcuffs and family might be the two big reasons. However, I may have overlooked many others, including that there are folks like me who love learning--student learning or learning completely new things from research--and have the stones (bigger than mine) to fight for that at USM. I am sure there are many others.

Any thoughts?

Done Gone

Date: Jun 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Done Gone
"However, this does have me wondering about the reasons faculty are staying. I thought that golden handcuffs and family might be the two big reasons. However, I may have overlooked many others, including that there are folks like me who love learning--student learning or learning completely new things from research--and have the stones (bigger than mine) to fight for that at USM. I am sure there are many others.
Any thoughts?
Done Gone"

There are lots of reasons. There are many faculty devoted to USM and determined to get through this. These fighters have my deepest respect.

In many disciplines, it is harder to move at the associate professor level. If you are a Gary Stringer with an international reputation, you can be wooed by another school. Or if you are an untenured assistant professor, you're still pretty mobile, as you're assumed to be looking for a place you'd like to stay in the long term. After tenure, at the associate level, it is tougher. Many jobs are advertised at assistant level (cheaper for the hiring school and there are plenty of fresh PhDs out there), so it looks suspicious if you "apply down." Search committees wonder what might be "wrong" with you, if you're giving up tenure somewhere to go on the job market. Of course, now we can all simply cite the Chronicle of Higher Education, and it won't be hard to explain any longer! But you'd often have to take a pay cut, a reduction in rank, and get tenure again (though sometimes on a shortened track), which is certainly no fun. Having moved a couple of times, I find that the worst thing is starting over in the year count towards a sabbatical. I think I'll be retiring before I ever get one!

And if you have a family, uprooting them is very tough. Especially if your spouse has developed a career of his/her own in the community.

Given all these factors, I think the faculty losses are still high. My spouse took my child to the pediatrician the other day, told him we were moving, and he said, "Shelby strikes again!" I hope other people in the community are starting the realize the losses as well.

Date: Jun 25, 2004

RE: RE: RE: Faculty body count from SFT's mismanag

Date: Jun 25, 2004

RE: RE: Faculty body count from SFT's mismanagemen

Date: Jun 25, 2004

RE: RE: RE: RE: Faculty body count from SFT's mismanag

Date: Jun 25, 2004

RE: Faculty body count from SFT's mismanagement

Date: Jun 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Done Gone
"However, this does have me wondering about the reasons faculty are staying."

Yes, it is a wonderful place to live, raise a family, contribute to the community, retire. The university is surprisingly better than its rankings or reputation would indicate. Its potential, given the demographics of South Mississippi, is even better. The current administration has made some terrible mistakes (and will make more given the propensity for phelanges shooting) but there is still a battle going on for the future direction of the university and it is not over yet. The battle over strategic directions is a far more important one than the battle over individual administrators who, ultimately, will be ephemeral. Not all decisions made by a poor administration are bad just as not all decisions made by a competent administration are good. No one can be blamed for leaving but also no one should be blamed for staying and for attempting to do those things that make the university a better place. Certainly, no one can be blamed for trying to recruit the best possible faculty, staff, and students and for sharing with them the many still good things about Hattiesburg and USM.

My heart breaks for the people who are leaving and also for those people who are staying. I have friends who have moved 12 times in their married life. They are leaving this week and the wife sat and sobbed the other day saying that leaving Hattiesburg was the hardest of any of their moves. I know many well-respected, old Hattiesburg families who are embarassed, truly embarassed (and sorrowful) about what is happening at the university. A lovely older lady at my church pulled me aside on Sunday and said "He wouldn't dare to do anything else stupid, would he?" I sensed that she was going to head right over to Jamestown Road and give Shelby a "talking to"! I remember the day in early May when Foot Soldier talked about turning in a tear-logged keyboard - it tore up my insides. Not everyone who has been forced, encouraged, or allowed to leave can be replaced in kind but many can. Good people are being recruited and hired and they should be given every opportunity to be successful. USM is going to outlast us all. What are the options but to leave or keep trying to make it a better place?

This is likely to trigger a "nothing better can happen as long as Shelby is president" response to which I can only say that we must focus on those things that we CAN control.

Date: Jun 25, 2004

Pretzel Logic,

As I see it, in one form or another, this is always the situation for university faculty. It is just terribly unfortunate that USM is dealing with much more than it's share of intemperate administrators. But bottom line, our lot is always the same. Control the things we can and go on . . . Or, move on!

Date: Jun 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Pretzel Logic
" What are the options but to leave or keep trying to make it a better place? This is likely to trigger a "nothing better can happen as long as Shelby is president" response . . .."

The appointment of Cecil Burge and the reinstatement of Russ Willis are encouraging. Perhaps SFT has had a change of heart. Call me skeptical, but I believe otherwise. Nonetheless, someone is calling for damage control with beneficial results. I hope this is not the last of the good decisions, nor a feint to put anyone off guard.