Today's HA article said that $382,223 was spread among 33 USM faculty members. That averages $11,582.51 per faculty member. When the ordinary reader sees those figures, they are likely to ignore the number 33 and note only the dollar figure. There are many perons in the Pine Belt who don't make much more than $11,582.11 annually. No wonder some of them believe faculty members are overpaid. That sort of publicity will do you no good from a community perspective.  It may be something your president can take to the college board and rave about, but it will not help generate community support.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Otherside
"

Only a very few could be released from 100% AY teaching. I asked and was told only a few (maybe 6) of CoST faculty had at least a 25% release buy out. You are correct that the University gets the overhead and the buy out money to use as "seed" money. However, now they are returning part of the buy out to the researcher as an incentive. "

---

BUT, this system favors CoST over CoAL. Did anybody in CoAL get MIDAS money? There is NO grant in my discipline, save a MacArthur genius award that would qualify me for a MIDAS. To me, this looks like another attempt to downplay arts and humanities and make USM into Thames Tech.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: foot soldier
" BUT, this system favors CoST over CoAL. Did anybody in CoAL get MIDAS money? There is NO grant in my discipline, save a MacArthur genius award that would qualify me for a MIDAS. To me, this looks like another attempt to downplay arts and humanities and make USM into Thames Tech."

---

FS, you got it.  This is EXACTLY the problem with the MIDAS money...no one in COAL will qualify and SFT likes it that way!

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Otherside
" I have to disagree with some of this discussion Truth. First of all look at the people who did receive the MIDAS money. From the paper not many, if any, were from CoST (of course all the names were not listed). I was told last year only 6 would even qualify based on the data from previous years. But my main point is this program is NOT TAKING anything away from anyone. These researchers did all of the work to bring this money to the university. I don't follow the logic that says it isn't fair that they benefit a little extra to motivate others WHO CAN to do the same. In fact the majority of the money does benefit others by providing "seed" money. If more are motivated to do this by the incentive then we all benefit by more seed money. I may be wrong, but then you will really have to explain your logic to me. Just because SFT started the program (or was it AD?) doesn't make it wrong or not a logical way to build the university. Just because you and I (and most faculty) can't participate doesn't make it wrong. Think of it this way: Our disciplines are so important that these others need to subsidize our programs for the good of the university. "

---

Otherside, a little lesson in the grant world:  there will never (and I mean NEVER) be the kind of grant $$ available to historians and poets as there is to polymer scientists.  That's just a fact of our society and our government.  Take Stringer's NEH grant for example.  He got funded for something like $1 million over the life of his project (maybe 20 years or so?).  There is no one else in the English Dept (make that the entire COAL!) that can say that their individual grant $$ total even came close to that amount over 20 years.  And it's not for their lack of trying, but it's about the level of federal funding for the liberal arts-focused agencies (NEH, NEA, etc.) vs. the science-based agencies (NSF, and esp. NIH). 

Now is this SFT's fault that there is less money allocated in the federal budget for liberal arts vs. science?  Of course not.  Could he make the playing field more level by offering more $$ incentives for liberal arts researchers (perhaps find ways for them to collaborate with PIs in fields where there are more research dollars like the sciences or education)?  Sure he could.  But he's not about to do that, because that's not what his project is all about.  It's about making himself and his friends richer and taking the easy way out.  Trust me, when you finally see the list of MIDAS winners, the majority will be in COST--it just makes sense within the framework of the larger research funding world.

So, that's my problem with this program.  I'm glad that people who are productive are being rewarded, but let's do something for those other disciplines where it's harder to get $$.  I've mentioned this on the old FS board before, but if SFT really wanted to help the other colleges grow in terms of research $$, he would hire grantwriters for each college.  It worked for the PSC dept. when I was there (believe me, the salary they paid me was a great investment in terms of the returns in grant $$ that I helped to bring in--and they still have a grantwriter on staff, so I'm assuming it's still a win-win situation for them).  If SFT is really serious about bringing grant $$ to all at USM, then he will do something like this to help to make it happen.

Also, to your point about seed money...trust me, not much seed money is going to COAL--in order to get seed money, you have to show that your project has the potential of bringing in more grant $$.  Again, like I said before, less grant $$ available for COAL=less seed money for COAL researchers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Green Hornet
"Just my 2 cents: I have a concern about the MIDAS program and the press it received.  If the public do not understand the "program" there will be the misconception that ALL  "faculty" are receiving large bonuses for their research efforts.  A generalization may be made (about ALL faculty) that higher education no longers needs the support of tax dollars to fund our state universities.  The message needs to get out that we appluad our colleagues that earned the bonuses, but that NOT all programs are eligible or can secure grants to off set the high costs associated with higher education.  We still need the public's support and that the faculty at USM are working on teaching our Mississipppi stakeholders as well as conducting service and research.  "

---

Yes.  I remember well one of my "non-traditional" (meaning about 50 years old) students this past year who was shocked to find out that I made much less than $50,000/year - he thought all professors made at least $70,000 or more.  He thought that anyone with a PhD and working hard to educate the people of Mississippi should automatically earn much more.  So, the public should know more about the horribly low (relatively) salaries for MOST professors at USM.  My student recommended a good truck driving firm I couldd apply with for a better paying job.  The way things are going at USM, I just might take him up on the offer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"
...
Now is this SFT's fault that there is less money allocated in the federal budget for liberal arts vs. science?  Of course not.  Could he make the playing field more level by offering more $$ incentives for liberal arts researchers (perhaps find ways for them to collaborate with PIs in fields where there are more research dollars like the sciences or education)?  Sure he could.  But he's not about to do that, because that's not what his project is all about.  It's about making himself and his friends richer and taking the easy way out.  Trust me, when you finally see the list of MIDAS winners, the majority will be in COST--it just makes sense within the framework of the larger research funding world.
So, that's my problem with this program.  I'm glad that people who are productive are being rewarded, but let's do something for those other disciplines where it's harder to get $$. 

... If SFT is really serious about bringing grant $$ to all at USM, then he will do something like this to help to make it happen.
Also, to your point about seed money...trust me, not much seed money is going to COAL--in order to get seed money, you have to show that your project has the potential of bringing in more grant $$.  Again, like I said before, less grant $$ available for COAL=less seed money for COAL researchers."

---

Excellent response Truth. I agree generally with what you say and will only respond to what is quoted above.

The GOAL is not to fund research, I'm sorry to say. If it were then you are correct it isn't being done fairly. The goal is to fund the university, because the state is not. Even in CoST, recruiting of faculty is done with an eye on "will the cost of the start-up seed ever be returned by research grants overhead". Excellent scholars, who at other times would be hired, are turned down ONLY because the answer to that question is negative or not enough money fast enough.

So you are correct, but I believe, for the wrong reasons. There are not many in CoAL who can return the cost of the start up (I mean as $$$ not scholarship). So in these hard financial times, it is believed (rightly or wrongly?) that we must invest in areas that will provide a return. So CoST (and some other colleges) are being used to subsidize the university.

I believe CoST does now have a grant writer (coordinator) for the college. Could such a person for CoAL benefit grants writing enough to pay their cost? I certainly don't know the answer, but your dean may.

If you recall on the old Fire Shelby board, I discussed some of this in the thread "Real Issues". I had asked what Roy Klumb's points would be in a debate. The argument was to invest in areas that would provide funding to USM.

You may also recall that I kept pointing out that Babbs list of departures had very few from CoST. It concerned me that Arts&Letters, Business, Nursing etc. were being neglected to execute this plan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Angeline
"Truth - good post: Otherside, a little lesson in the grant world:  there will never (and I mean NEVER) be the kind of grant $$ available to historians and poets as there is to polymer scientists.  That's just a fact of our society and our government.  Take Stringer's NEH grant for example.  He got funded for something like $1 million over the life of his project (maybe 20 years or so?).  There is no one else in the English Dept (make that the entire COAL!) that can say that their individual grant $$ total even came close to that amount over 20 years.  And it's not for their lack of trying, but it's about the level of federal funding for the liberal arts-focused agencies (NEH, NEA, etc.) vs. the science-based agencies (NSF, and esp. NIH).  The other problem is the type of large grants that departments like English and History do get.  History in the past few years got federal grants in the many hundreds of thousands of dollars to start a new African-studies focus and an American History Teaching grant that brings local high school teachers to seminars to learn the latest findings in US history.  And English got that huge grant to put the introductory World Literature course online.   The problem with SFT's little money game is that these sorts of grants do not qualify for payouts because they are not "research" grants.  Ironically, these grants that I mention in History and English aid a far larger number of students and local community members and emphasize education and teaching, rather than personal-serving research.  But that's not important to SFT & Co.  I think that both English and History should receive block checks in recognition of the fine grant writing and acquisition that they are doing."

---

Very, very good point, Angeline.  I thought about addressing that, too, in my post, but I had already gone on way too long!  Another interesting fact:  the grant that the English Dept. was a part of was funded by the Pew Foundation--a private foundation, not federal money.  There are different overheads (F&A) costs associated with private foundations vs. federal agencies (though I can't remember exact numbers--been out of that world too long!).  

But this all makes sense if you see where SFT is coming from.  The professors in PSC are mostly "in it for themselves"--they are not good at collaboration (with a few exceptions--Doug Wicks being one of them).  The researchers in that department were once described to me as very bountiful, individual silos of grain--all working hard for themselves (and doing a good job at it), but having no clue how to work together.  SFT comes from this background (heck, since he started that dept., he probably created the culture!), so true collaboration is not what he is after.  I doubt you will ever see a program that rewards true collaboration at USM...sad, too, since that could really be the push that USM needs to rebuild burned bridges on all sides.

Oh, well, we can dream, can't we? 

Nice analysis Robert. All I was saying is that some of the overhead goes to VP for research and some back to college and department. I believe the buy out goes to VP for research and some to department to hire replacement. This is the source of "seed" money from VP of research to ALL colleges.

I agree the credit hour generated in Ploy.Sci., with few service courses, is small. That is why they MUST produce the big grant $$$$$$. In other depts. such as chemistry with a large service component, the requirement is not as strong, but still mandatory for prom. & tenure.

What I remember most poignantly about the Midas story from my childhood reading was that when Midas touched his daughter, she turned to gold too. But that king, unlike ours, understood what a mistake he had made in wishing to turn everything he touched to gold, and was sorrowful. Somewhere we have to teach our students that some things are more important than money.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Malapropism
" "Midas washed his 'golden touch' away in the river Pactolus. Even now the soil along the riverbank has a golden gleam. "  

---