Hard to get a word in edgewise today but thought you might be interested in this.
The many-talented (?), multi-titled (!), well-educated (unfortunately not in field of employment) Ken Malone is now officially (?!) part of the President's cabinet...any other "assistant profs" out there also partaking in this honor?
quote: Originally posted by: Polyonymous "Hard to get a word in edgewise today but thought you might be interested in this. The many-talented (?), multi-titled (!), well-educated (unfortunately not in field of employment) Ken Malone is now officially (?!) part of the President's cabinet...any other "assistant profs" out there also partaking in this honor?"
I think Independence Day rejuvenated many of us. So KM is a Cabinet Member now - and people wonder why we battle against those who are running USM into the ground.
quote: Originally posted by: Polyonymous "Hard to get a word in edgewise today but thought you might be interested in this. The many-talented (?), multi-titled (!), well-educated (unfortunately not in field of employment) Ken Malone is now officially (?!) part of the President's cabinet...any other "assistant profs" out there also partaking in this honor?"
A friend in COH passed info to me that Joan Exline has been promoted to "Assistant to the President, for Accreditation....." I do not remember the correct "title" Anyone out there clarify? Seems a "token" reward for not getting the COH Deanship. Does this make her a member of the Cabinet??????
it's the assistant to the president for planning, accreditation, and articulation agreements (i don't know about the precise order of the three elements and don't know about the wording of the last element). she's essentially taking over Brad Bond's old position.
quote: Originally posted by: Stinky Cheese Man "it's the assistant to the president for planning, accreditation, and articulation agreements (i don't know about the precise order of the three elements and don't know about the wording of the last element). she's essentially taking over Brad Bond's old position."
quote: Originally posted by: Stinky Cheese Man "it's the assistant to the president for planning, accreditation, and articulation agreements (i don't know about the precise order of the three elements and don't know about the wording of the last element). she's essentially taking over Brad Bond's old position."
Sorry, Stinky Cheese Man, I forgot to thank you for the clarification on the "title".
i asked my wife and she said the title is "Assistant to the President for Accreditation, Articulation, and Planning." As to Brad, i think he's having trouble managing what few responsibilities he has left. when people say that the jc's are mad at us, remember that Brad has been heading up the articulation effort until now. part of the sticking point is the new core curriculum we have.
quote: Originally posted by: stinky cheese man "i asked my wife and she said the title is "Assistant to the President for Accreditation, Articulation, and Planning." As to Brad, i think he's having trouble managing what few responsibilities he has left. when people say that the jc's are mad at us, remember that Brad has been heading up the articulation effort until now. part of the sticking point is the new core curriculum we have."
Brad is a good guy who knows what he's doing. SFT tabbed Exline to remedy that....
quote: Originally posted by: Stinky Cheese Man "it's the assistant to the president for planning, accreditation, and articulation agreements (i don't know about the precise order of the three elements and don't know about the wording of the last element). she's essentially taking over Brad Bond's old position."
Wouldn't that be at least the third (perhaps fourth?) person USM has had overseeing the SACS accreditation process now? Woe be to them....
by my count, it's the third. it's getting worrisome to some of us--if only from the perspective that the process seems incredibly disorganized. things were supposed to have been done in the last 10 years (that means 3 administrations) that didn't get done. data was supposed to be gathered on certain issues, which may or may not have been done. when asked, people say it's going well, and i know the process has changed, but there is little evidence of activity. remember, this is just from a process perspective.
quote: Originally posted by: stinky cheese man "by my count, it's the third. it's getting worrisome to some of us--if only from the perspective that the process seems incredibly disorganized. things were supposed to have been done in the last 10 years (that means 3 administrations) that didn't get done. data was supposed to be gathered on certain issues, which may or may not have been done. when asked, people say it's going well, and i know the process has changed, but there is little evidence of activity. remember, this is just from a process perspective. "
Right...that's a huge problem. How will they get this together in time? Do they plan to just make up the numbers?
someone had the foresight to begin to gather data about 3 years ago. this is data on outcomes assessment. planning and mission statements were done about two years ago and departments we supposed to be gathering outcomes data on their majors. there may or may not have been much monitoring about whether departments kept doing this. the key is 3 years of data--i don't know they'll have it. there are other issues SACS told the university it needed to address in '95; i know at least one that was never addressed. i suspect there are others.
Brad Bond is doing a great job under difficult circumstances. I can't imagine how stressful it is for him to be a liberal arts professor (and a damned good one, at that) working in the Thames administration.
I know more than I am willing to post here, but just let me say that insulting people without knowing where their loyalties lie is detrimental to our cause. We have allies in places we don't even know.
quote: Originally posted by: stinky cheese man "i asked my wife and she said the title is "Assistant to the President for Accreditation, Articulation, and Planning." As to Brad, i think he's having trouble managing what few responsibilities he has left. when people say that the jc's are mad at us, remember that Brad has been heading up the articulation effort until now. part of the sticking point is the new core curriculum we have."
Just a point of information:
The academic council met with Hudson and Grimes at various points and pressed for a delay in the implementation of the core -- particularly true in light of the chnages requested by the administration, which posed great problems for implementation. Our concern was that there were many things that had not yet been worked out of anticipated. I myself asked Jay in an academic council meeting if the core could be delayed and if there was a reason it needed to be implentated "immediately" as we were being pressed to do. He said "no" -- but the administratio wanted to go ahead anyhow and work the problems out as we go.
This is important, because it has been at least implied that the problems we are having is a result of 1) the new core (which was pressed on us by the previous administration incidently) and that 2) somehow the faculty didn't plan well or anticipate well problems in the articulation agreements.
Actually, I think this kind of issue is exactly why we have provosts, who should have a larger overview -- where the hell were they?
One more screwup the comes from an administration that wants to go full speed ahead without even trying to understand or anticipate the possible unintended consequences ahead of time . . . .
quote: Originally posted by: stinky cheese man "like you, i know a lot more than i can post here. "
...with you over who knows the most. I am confident that Brad is doing the best he can under the circumstances. I wish he would abandon his administrative job and return to the history department where he truly shines.
i know the gec and egec were asked about whether they had considered the impact the core might have on the articulation agreements. the answer in so many words was "that's not our bother." if i'm not mistaken SACS requires things like general education requirements to be implemented for awhile before they look to reaffirm a university. something like 3 years because of outcomes assessmesnt. there was a point at which if the egec was going to press on implementing the core (which i was told it did), it had to be implemented for SACS. many groups told the egec that the core had problems with implementation--those groups were ignored. a classic case of "groupthink."