USMPride - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jul 17, 2006

RE: USMPride

Date: Jul 17, 2006

Donna Davis wrote:

All of the readers and posters to this board: I, and I alone, am responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the information on the Sedona database. This is "work in progress", and does not have enough information on it to be used for any decision making process. At faculty evaluation time, the decision was made to use the Sedona interface to enter that data which would normally be put on the yearly faculty productivity report. This was an effort to help faculty become comfortable with the process and remove redundant reporting. No data other than the current year research efforts were utilized in the yearly evaluation process.

That's a sweet sentiment, Dr. Davis. It's nice of you to take the fall like this. However, if my raise depends on the information in a certain database, it is in my best interests to monitor and check said information.

Also, this was not a trial run. Doty dictated that SEDONA would be the only information source used in faculty evaluations this year. So, SEDONA was the only source, not the "primary" source, not "a" source, but the "only" source. No other information was ever communicated to faculty.

Date: Jul 17, 2006

Donna Davis wrote:

Much of the other data was entered by secretaries and grad assistants from existing documents. No review has yet been done as to the completeness or accuracy of this data. For an example, look at the paper presented in "Hong Kong, Japan", which appeared on the vita as "Hong Kong" and the person entering the data assumed "Japan". The ONLY reason for not yet making the information available in a publicly accessable form is that it is incomplete. To make any inferences about the college as a whole or any individual faculty member using this data would be foolhardy.

No review has been conducted to ensure completeness or accuracy, yet you state that the information for 2005 was used in the evaluation process?

Since allocating raise money (even partially) based on SEDONA information would be making an inference about a faculty member or members, then the 2006 Merit Raise process was, to use your words, "foolhardy."

Date: Jul 17, 2006

The fact that I am female has nothing do do with my post, and I resent the heck out of that inference. Nor did HD have anything to do with it. I am just steamed that incomplete data is being inappropriately used.

My post reflects the facts regarding the Sedona database.

Recall, also, that the ratings for raises were determined by the last 3 years' evaluation data (as has been previously reported on this board).

Date: Jul 17, 2006

Donna Davis wrote:

The timeline for having up-to-date and accurate info in the database is October of 2006.
To use data that is known to be incomplete, as in not reflecting the true conditions as they exist at the time, is clearly unethical under all professional codes of conduct.

Why is the timeline for having SEDONA correct and up-to-date AFTER the information has been used (at least partially) to assess research productivity for the 2006 Merit Raise process?

You are correct in your last statement. Using SEDONA in the 2006 Merit Raise process was unethical on the part of those who participated in assigning research scores even partially based on SEDONA information.

The process was unclear and illegitimate. I believe your post just underscores the claims of those who are presenting information via usmpride.com.

Date: Jul 17, 2006

Donna Davis wrote:

Recall, also, that the ratings for raises were determined by the last 3 years' evaluation data (as has been previously reported on this board).

From the email on usmpride.com:

"As we discussed in today's Management Committee meeting, the only source of information that will be considered in this year's annual review process is the information included in the Sedona database. Further, it is critical that the Sedona data is complete because we will use the database for AACSB accreditation purposes."

Dr. Davis,

Two questions:

Where does Doty's email say anything to back up any of what you posted originally?

If SEDONA is a "critical" item, why is the timeline for correctness and completion October 2006?

CoBster in Residence

Date: Jul 17, 2006

It was my understanding that the three-year moving average applied to research only, and not to teaching and service. Is that correct?

Date: Jul 17, 2006

A reminder that the vast majority of faculty in the College of Business are ethical professionals dedicated to research, teaching, and service rather than self-promotion, cutting down colleagues, and settling old scores.

Could you provide a secret list of all of this vast majority?

Date: Jul 17, 2006

Cossack wrote:

A reminder that the vast majority of faculty in the College of Business are ethical professionals dedicated to research, teaching, and service rather than self-promotion, cutting down colleagues, and settling old scores. Could you provide a secret list of all of this vast majority?

Cossack,

I agree with Silent Majority that most COB faculty are hard-working, ethical professionals. Your post is disparaging to a lot of dedicated colleagues. I'm sorry that you would ask them to prove that they are not unethical. Listening to you, however, it seems that it might be a lot easier for you to provide us what you imply is a much shorter list of ethical faculty, other than yourself of course.

Thanks Dr. Davis for the information. Will the "this is research" crowd please explain the use of an incomplete and unverified data base to generate the usmpride faculty research rankings. My previous post suggested a more orderly and collegial process for generating faculty alternative research ratings. Anyone want to discuss that process given this new infomation?

Please, Dr. Depree, take those tables down!

Date: Jul 17, 2006

Donna, oldCBA, silent majority,

Thank you for your interest in the accuracy of information. Please review USMPride in detail and participate in providing corrections. Of course, the analysis will be corrected if errors are found.

Date: Jul 17, 2006

oldCBAer wrote:

Will the "this is research" crowd please explain the use of an incomplete and unverified data base to generate the usmpride faculty research rankings.

Will the CoB administration please explain the use of an incomplete and unverified data base to generate merit raises?

Date: Jul 17, 2006

oldCBAer wrote:

Will the "this is research" crowd please explain the use of an incomplete and unverified data base to generate the usmpride faculty research rankings.

Don't give them credit where none is due, Old CBAer. It isn't a "crowd"; heck, it isn't even a "mob" anymore. DePree is playing out his narcissistic fantasy that he's actually doing some good while he has "fun" at the expense of others. Mixon massages the data and curries favor so that DePree's wife will protect him when his "cleverness" has gone too far. King occasionally "stirs the pot" on DePree's behalf to protect his ongoing relationship with DePree's wife's law firm. Lindley provides "independent" commentary as if he were an objective observer of it all.

Date: Jul 17, 2006

Yentas' Coffee Clutch wrote:

oldCBAer wrote: Will the "this is research" crowd please explain the use of an incomplete and unverified data base to generate the usmpride faculty research rankings. Don't give them credit where none is due, Old CBAer. It isn't a "crowd"; heck, it isn't even a "mob" anymore. DePree is playing out his narcissistic fantasy that he's actually doing some good while he has "fun" at the expense of others. Mixon massages the data and curries favor so that DePree's wife will protect him when his "cleverness" has gone too far. King occasionally "stirs the pot" on DePree's behalf to protect his ongoing relationship with DePree's wife's law firm. Lindley provides "independent" commentary as if he were an objective observer of it all.

Huh? With all due respect, for the many among us who aren't CoB insiders, would you please be a bit less cryptic and explain what in blazes you're talking about in this post.

As an aside, while I don't know Professor DePree or any of the other principals in this unfolding drama, I'm utterly disgusted by the financial shenanigans and cloak of secrecy that shrouds the USM Foundation and the black hole which seems to suck up USM's donations as quickly as they're made. If DePree accomplishes no more than forcing a full accounting and disclosure by the bad actors who seem to be running the show, then USM Pride was worth his efforts. And about that 2.3 mil USM endowment reported to USNWR, gimme a break. Where's the rest of the dough?

Date: Jul 17, 2006

Yentas' Coffee Clutch,

Call me. Let's have a cup of coffee and get to know each other. What do you say?

601-268-0372

Date: Jul 17, 2006

I think everyone is now coming to grips with what those in power in the CoB will do to maintain their positions and their secrets. Once again I say that I would have wanted some resolution to the way things are done in the CoB to come years ago and in much less of a public way. But, this is what it has come to given that some of the older professors simply will not walk away from the table with their winnings.

As recently posted, it seems the old resource hog I alluded to in my posting the other day is going to exposed, as he should. The other things I mention need to come to fruition as well. I suspect that the management professor who endears himself habitually to CoB administrators is behind much of what we see here today in the form of name-calling and personal attacks.

After years of hearing university administrators tell everyone who'll listen that they support transparency when they work like the dickens to keep things a secret, it's time something is done about it, even if it has to come by way of a web site like usm pride.

Date: Jul 17, 2006

COB CC wrote:

"...sending CoB females out in public..."

One might ask what we're supposed to do with 50% of our faculty if we're not to send them "out in public".

Sometimes we must resort to defining in negative terms. Clearly, this is anti-collegiality.

Date: Jul 17, 2006

Keep 'em hidden wrote:

One might ask what we're supposed to do with 50% of our faculty if we're not to send them "out in public". Sometimes we must resort to defining in negative terms. Clearly, this is anti-collegiality.

Actually, it works both ways. Davis is blaming CoB secretaries, just like DePree's website said they would do.

Date: Jul 17, 2006

Chauncey DePree wrote:

Donna, oldCBA, silent majority, Thank you for your interest in the accuracy of information. Please review USMPride in detail and participate in providing corrections. Of course, the analysis will be corrected if errors are found.

Dr. Depree,

1. You now know that the data used to compile the faculty research rankings tables are incomplete; moreover, at least parts are unedited and therefore likely inaccurate.

2. You continue refuse to provide any explanation or defense of the the ranking process. Don't you believe you owe your colleagues an explanation of why for the six and one-half year period covered by the tables, with two A-level publications, one B-level article, and two "others," you are ranked first in three tables and fifth in the fourth, while many faculty with more quality-adjusted publications than yours are ranked lower? As I continue to state, the results look contrived to produce predetermined results.

3. The entire endeavor was done without (as best as I can discern) any discussion among COB facutly as to factors to be considered in such rankings, the proper weights to assign to the factors, or as indicated in point one above, the accuracy of the research data base.

Given all these glaring problems, don't you think its time to delete the tables and begin again by addressing the above issues. I hardly think it is my responsibilty to correct the deficiencies; by and large, I do not have sufficient information to do so. Many corporations have learned to correct mistakes as soon as they are discovered; the longer the process takes the greater the negative fallout and loss of credibilty.

Date: Jul 17, 2006

COB troubles wrote:

Keep 'em hidden wrote: One might ask what we're supposed to do with 50% of our faculty if we're not to send them "out in public". Sometimes we must resort to defining in negative terms. Clearly, this is anti-collegiality. Actually, it works both ways. Davis is blaming CoB secretaries, just like DePree's website said they would do.

There was no "blame" attached to the secretaries or to anyone else. They just entered data, some of which they have no basis for understanding. Other data contained typos, transposed letters, etc. These are typical of the errors that occur when bringing up a new system for anything.

All of the data is to be reviwed and validated. Recall that all publications submitted for consideration at evaluation time is supported by hard copies thereof.

Date: Jul 17, 2006

I hardly think it is my responsibilty to correct the deficiencies; by and large, I do not have sufficient information to do so.

As I understand your post, it is not your responsibility to correct "the deficiencies" because you do not have the information, but that someone else should correct what you say are deficiencies. If you do not have the information, how can you say there are deficiencies? It is clear that you do not agree with what was posted, which is your right. There are many posters that disagree with what other posters say, or what is on a Web site, but this is the first time I have seen someone suggest that someone should alter their web site to accommodate the complainer.

Date: Jul 17, 2006

I wouldn't rule out Doty as the author. These tables look similar to the ones that were passed out at a meeting I attended in April or so. If you notice, the formula is quality-to-the-extreme one. Start with the Journals only one, where Doty is #2, and move to the others. As you pick up textbooks, proceedings, etc., Doty falls further and further.

Date: Jul 17, 2006

oldCBAer wrote:

Cossack wrote: A reminder that the vast majority of faculty in the College of Business are ethical professionals dedicated to research, teaching, and service rather than self-promotion, cutting down colleagues, and settling old scores. Could you provide a secret list of all of this vast majority? Cossack, I agree with Silent Majority that most COB faculty are hard-working, ethical professionals. Your post is disparaging to a lot of dedicated colleagues. I'm sorry that you would ask them to prove that they are not unethical. Listening to you, however, it seems that it might be a lot easier for you to provide us what you imply is a much shorter list of ethical faculty, other than yourself of course. Thanks Dr. Davis for the information. Will the "this is research" crowd please explain the use of an incomplete and unverified data base to generate the usmpride faculty research rankings. My previous post suggested a more orderly and collegial process for generating faculty alternative research ratings. Anyone want to discuss that process given this new infomation? Please, Dr. Depree, take those tables down!

As I have said before, TAKE A VOTE within the faculty. And as demonstrated in the removed thread, the CobMob does not wish for that to happen. They are completely dismissive of that approach. Not worth it, etc. etc. What does this say about the Mob? They do not trust their colleagues, and they would rather disenfranchise them and their opinion. Their opinion does not count. Only the Mod knows the truth.

TAKE A VOTE - TAKE A VOTE. Get to the bottom of this. Until that is done, the information and the character assasination conducted by the CobMob will only further divide the faculty and staff. Every college faculty has the ability to take a vote on the actions of their administrators. If the college is corrupt, and cronyism is everywhere, expose it. To dismiss and disenfranchise the other members of that college is self-serving and conspiracy thinking run amok.

Count

Date: Jul 17, 2006

bananas wrote:

I wouldn't rule out Doty as the author. These tables look similar to the ones that were passed out at a meeting I attended in April or so. If you notice, the formula is quality-to-the-extreme one. Start with the Journals only one, where Doty is #2, and move to the others. As you pick up textbooks, proceedings, etc., Doty falls further and further.

You are really on to something bananas-- Doty authored the tables that rank Depree number one in three of the four and number five in the other. That makes a lot of sense.

Give us a break!

Date: Jul 17, 2006

oldCBAer says, “You continue refuse to provide any explanation or defense of the ranking process. Don't you believe you owe your colleagues an explanation of why for the six and one-half year period covered by the tables, with two A-level publications, one B-level article, and two "others," you are ranked first in three tables and fifth in the fourth, while many faculty with more quality-adjusted publications than yours are ranked lower? As I continue to state, the results look contrived to produce predetermined results.”

These are not my rankings. As stated many times these are examples to open a dialogue about faculty evaluation. So there is no defense to offer for your narrow view of USMPride.

oldCBAer accuses me of contriving a ranking system. Let me remind you of our history. When I was on the Journal Classification committee I voted against placing Journal of Accountancy and Strategic Finance (formerly Management Accounting) as A journals. I recommended feature articles in them as B journals. My accounting colleagues argued A level because of very low acceptance rate (about 5%) and professional impact, i.e, circulation-granted, they were pretty good reasons. Circulation was a surrogate for citations. (If my colleagues would like to complete their arguments please join in.) They won approval and I live with their views. It was not a bad decision, but not one I agreed with given the then-Dean's charge to motivate faculty to do quality academic research.

Given my colleagues' criteria and if I were as narrowly focused as oldCBAer is on a single ranking system to measure research, here is a journal ranking system:

Journal of Accountancy (1) (7) (367,000 circulation [550,000 if readership by Beta Research) = 2,569,000

Strategic Finance (Management Accounting (1) (7) (66,000) = 462,000.

Total points are 3,031,000

Who would be at the top with me? Note again, I am using my colleagues' criteria-not mine. They fought for these criteria, they were accepted, now I could legitimately argue to use them in the intended and agreed upon manner. Do you want to unilaterally change these criteria after the fact to suit the journals you or your friends have published in? (I'll have more to say about quality of journals that are in the C level and other scholarly activity ranks in accounting later (75-100% acceptance rates.) However, this is not a ranking I propose to impose. Rather, I continue to believe that dialogue is important. In fact, over the past several days I have received information that the evaluation researchers and I believed made revisions appropriate. Those revisions have been made. You have proposed no revisions.

Note that the evaluation researchers have prepared a list that you asked for. Now I make a small request before I put up that list on USMPride. I've given you my vita. I've answered your questions, in what I believe has been a thoughtful and thorough manner. Let's sit down as colleagues and talk about what is really troubling you. I'll not reveal your identity. I will not question your motives or hold you up to ridicule as you have me.

Date: Jul 17, 2006

Cossack wrote:

I hardly think it is my responsibilty to correct the deficiencies; by and large, I do not have sufficient information to do so. As I understand your post, it is not your responsibility to correct "the deficiencies" because you do not have the information, but that someone else should correct what you say are deficiencies. If you do not have the information, how can you say there are deficiencies? It is clear that you do not agree with what was posted, which is your right. There are many posters that disagree with what other posters say, or what is on a Web site, but this is the first time I have seen someone suggest that someone should alter their web site to accommodate the complainer.

Cossack,

Just when I think you can't possibly top your previous sanctimoniousness, you prove me wrong. I believe that Dr. Davis is saying that at this time some of the Sedona data have not been edited. She did not supply the data nor enter it. Thus, she is not responsible for any deficiencies at this point. I am sure she will give faculty an opportunity to make corrections. Until then, Donna is saying that the data set should not be used to construct tables such as the ones that appear on usmpride. Are you senile or do you just need to take a reading comprehension course? It is disgusting to see you attack Dr. Davis over this matter.

I'm still waiting for your list of ethical COB faculty--although I don't believe you know what's ethical from a hole in the ground, the list is sure to be interesting.

P.S. to Donna Davis--I'm sure you have heard the expression, "no good deed goes unpunished?" Now you know first hand what it means. However, keep up the good work, most of us appreciate you efforts.

Date: Jul 17, 2006

Chauncey DePree wrote:

oldCBAer says, “You continue refuse to provide any explanation or defense of the ranking process. Don't you believe you owe your colleagues an explanation of why for the six and one-half year period covered by the tables, with two A-level publications, one B-level article, and two "others," you are ranked first in three tables and fifth in the fourth, while many faculty with more quality-adjusted publications than yours are ranked lower? As I continue to state, the results look contrived to produce predetermined results.” These are not my rankings. As stated many times these are examples to open a dialogue about faculty evaluation. So there is no defense to offer for your narrow view of USMPride. oldCBAer accuses me of contriving a ranking system. Let me remind you of our history. When I was on the Journal Classification committee I voted against placing Journal of Accountancy and Strategic Finance (formerly Management Accounting) as A journals. I recommended feature articles in them as B journals. My accounting colleagues argued A level because of very low acceptance rate (about 5%) and professional impact, i.e, circulation-granted, they were pretty good reasons. Circulation was a surrogate for citations. (If my colleagues would like to complete their arguments please join in.) They won approval and I live with their views. It was not a bad decision, but not one I agreed with given the then-Dean's charge to motivate faculty to do quality academic research. Given my colleagues' criteria and if I were as narrowly focused as oldCBAer is on a single ranking system to measure research, here is a journal ranking system: Journal of Accountancy (1) (7) (367,000 circulation [550,000 if readership by Beta Research) = 2,569,000 Strategic Finance (Management Accounting (1) (7) (66,000) = 462,000. Total points are 3,031,000 Who would be at the top with me? Note again, I am using my colleagues' criteria-not mine. They fought for these criteria, they were accepted, now I could legitimately argue to use them in the intended and agreed upon manner. Do you want to unilaterally change these criteria after the fact to suit the journals you or your friends have published in? (I'll have more to say about quality of journals that are in the C level and other scholarly activity ranks in accounting later (75-100% acceptance rates.) However, this is not a ranking I propose to impose. Rather, I continue to believe that dialogue is important. In fact, over the past several days I have received information that the evaluation researchers and I believed made revisions appropriate. Those revisions have been made. You have proposed no revisions. Note that the evaluation researchers have prepared a list that you asked for. Now I make a small request before I put up that list on USMPride. I've given you my vita. I've answered your questions, in what I believe has been a thoughtful and thorough manner. Let's sit down as colleagues and talk about what is really troubling you. I'll not reveal your identity. I will not question your motives or hold you up to ridicule as you have me.

Dr. Depree,

I don't care who compiled the tables; they are not valid at this point and should be removed. And I certainly did not mean to hold you or your research record up to ridicule. I stated previously that your publication record is certainly respectable but does not seem to me to merit the rankings in the usmpride tables.

I'm not sure I follow your logic about the circulation numbers, but if I do, you might want to see if you can get an article published in People Magazine so that you can garner several million points in your ranking scheme.

I don't think history indicates that what is troubling me is the problem--what is troubling you is the issue. And your promise of confidentiality is disengenuous given your website's record of attacking numerous colleagues and administrators with whom you disagree.

Finally, if dialogue were important to you, you would have engaged in the process prior to publishing the tables.

Date: Jul 17, 2006

Counting the days wrote:

oldCBAer wrote: Cossack wrote: A reminder that the vast majority of faculty in the College of Business are ethical professionals dedicated to research, teaching, and service rather than self-promotion, cutting down colleagues, and settling old scores. Could you provide a secret list of all of this vast majority? Cossack, I agree with Silent Majority that most COB faculty are hard-working, ethical professionals. Your post is disparaging to a lot of dedicated colleagues. I'm sorry that you would ask them to prove that they are not unethical. Listening to you, however, it seems that it might be a lot easier for you to provide us what you imply is a much shorter list of ethical faculty, other than yourself of course. Thanks Dr. Davis for the information. Will the "this is research" crowd please explain the use of an incomplete and unverified data base to generate the usmpride faculty research rankings. My previous post suggested a more orderly and collegial process for generating faculty alternative research ratings. Anyone want to discuss that process given this new infomation? Please, Dr. Depree, take those tables down! As I have said before, TAKE A VOTE within the faculty. And as demonstrated in the removed thread, the CobMob does not wish for that to happen. They are completely dismissive of that approach. Not worth it, etc. etc. What does this say about the Mob? They do not trust their colleagues, and they would rather disenfranchise them and their opinion. Their opinion does not count. Only the Mod knows the truth. TAKE A VOTE - TAKE A VOTE. Get to the bottom of this. Until that is done, the information and the character assasination conducted by the CobMob will only further divide the faculty and staff. Every college faculty has the ability to take a vote on the actions of their administrators. If the college is corrupt, and cronyism is everywhere, expose it. To dismiss and disenfranchise the other members of that college is self-serving and conspiracy thinking run amok. Count

Counting the Days,

Good work. Thanks!

Date: Jul 17, 2006

oldCBAer,

Thank you for your comments. My offers to you remain open. When you calm down, call me.

Marc

601-268-0372

Date: Jul 17, 2006

oldCBAer writes,

Just when I think you can't possibly top your previous sanctimoniousness, you prove me wrong. I believe that Dr. Davis is saying that at this time some of the Sedona data have not been edited. She did not supply the data nor enter it. Thus, she is not responsible for any deficiencies at this point. I am sure she will give faculty an opportunity to make corrections. Until then, Donna is saying that the data set should not be used to construct tables such as the ones that appear on usmpride. Are you senile or do you just need to take a reading comprehension course? It is disgusting to see you attack Dr. Davis over this matter.

I have not mentioned Dr. Davis in any post. My discussion centers around a discussion over you asking other people to construct tables that you prefer. Dr. Davis weighted in much later in this discussion on what I thought was purely a technical, but important point. That is, SEDONA is incomplete and inaccurate for several reasons, but will be corrected over time. I am not surprised that it is not accurate given the manner and disjointed way it was implemented. Others have indicated that even though it was not accurate, it was used to evaluate faculty for merit raises. At this point I have no idea what objective criteria, if any, were used to evaluate COB faculty for merit raises. Perhaps someone can explain it to me in detail. You seem to have more inside information about what happened, perhaps you can provide an explanation.

Date: Jul 17, 2006

Some new stuff up at usmpride. Table about Salary/SCH in the COB and a table about what good schools have on their websites.