President Thames Reaches Goal - USM Forum -- Message Board

Reporter · Status: Offline

President Thames Reaches Goal

Reporter · Status: Offline

H.A.--Grants allow advanced research
By Rachel Leifer

www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060730/NEWS01/607300309/1002

info · Status: Offline

Reporter wrote:

H.A.--USM raises $100M for research

A rewrite in 7/31 Sun Herald has a different title for this story:

Southern Miss on the Edge

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/special_packages/renewal/long_beach/15161653.htm

Today's (8/1) CL reprints a shorter version of the HA story:

USM tops $100M in research funding

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060801/NEWS/608010364/1001/news

Incredulous · Status: Offline

Isn't it fortunate that the total came in at just over $100 milion as compared to $99 million? That was really good planning.

Obviousman · Status: Offline

Incredulous wrote:

Isn't it fortunate that the total came in at just over $100 milion as compared to $99 million? That was really good planning.

An interesting pattern.

2001 -- $50.1 million;
2002 –- $62.6 million;
2003 -- $67.1 million;
2004 -- $69 million;
2005 -- $71.3 million; and
2006 -- $102 million

Big cotton picken bump from 2001
Slow growth in the Shelby years
    - 3.3% per annum
    - below rate of inflation
Then a Whooper when he is singing his Swan Song
    - Polymer, Gulfcoast and Marine Science basically flat
    - CoST up a little to 41.5 million
    - Did Doty hit a home run?
    - Did Dana bring home the bacon?
    - Did someone find the College of Health?
    - or maybe, did 3 wurl class programs the size of polymer just appear?

Amazing that so many don't read between the lines, or actually even the lines themselves.

Incredulous · Status: Offline

You must have missed my tongue in my cheek.

Emma · Status: Offline

Obviousman wrote:

- Did Dana bring home the bacon?

I do keep hearing that her background is totally in pork so it's possible.

Obviousman · Status: Offline

Incredulous

Sorry bout that, too fast with the track ball and the return key. Hit "quote" instead of "reply". It was apparent that your tongue was firmly ensconced in cheek.

Godless Liberal · Status: Offline

I seem to recall that a good new chunk of fed money is going to develop our commercialization park. I wonder if that accounts for some of the additional cash. Also, did we book new Katrina money?

Obviousman · Status: Offline

"In addition to the $20 million from the Department of Commerce, the park has received about $10.5 million in other funding through the Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and the Small Business Administration." USM News Release

hmmm, 103-30=72.

Flat in the Katrina year with so many investigators out of action is great news by itself. What is to be gained from masking the truth with cooked books.

asdf · Status: Offline

I'm trying to add things up. According to the USM press release:
http://www.usm.edu/pr/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=2
COST brought in $41 million. In COST, polymer had $10 million, GCRL had $15 million, and Stennis had $15 million. 10+15+15=$40 million. So the rest of COST only brought in $1 million? But, HA and SH said Biology had $9 million??? On the other hand, the press release implied biology was not part of COST:
The College of Science and Technology led all university units.... The college comprises 16 departmental areas.... Other university areas also are making strides as well, including biological sciences; anthropology and sociology; and human performance and recreation.
Maybe Stennis is considered separate from COST, but the 2005-06 fact book does not have a separate listing for Stennis.

And where did the rest of the money come from? $102-41=$61 million dollars. Last year, all other units only got ~$31.5 million. That means all other units in the university doubled its funding while COST just increased from $31.5 to $41 million (which is still good, but a nearly 100% increase in other units sound news worthy to me). Also thanks to the HA we know COAL had $510,000 compared to the $577,000 last year, so they are not responsible for the 100% increase. That leaves COB, COEP, COH, Provost, Res and Econ Devel, Student Affairs, and Libraries (the divisions listed in last year's fact book). Who did it? Obviousman, I like your theory.

By the way, it kills me the way Rachel Leifer made a point to compare COAL dollars to COST. A good PR person would spin it to the reporter in a way that would emphasise that money in the liberal arts are harder to come by but the faculty were still able to bring in half a million dollars. But of course, this does not fit the agenda. Also, in the SH article, the lie was perpetuated that money only comes from tuition, state funding, and grants. What about donations, endowments, etc???

LeftASAP · Status: Offline

asdf wrote:

... Also, in the SH article, the lie was perpetuated that money only comes from tuition, state funding, and grants. What about donations, endowments, etc???

Asdf, endowments, etc. are usually acquired through the work of the president. SFT doesn't appear to be strong in that phase of the job.

asdf · Status: Offline

LeftASAP wrote:
Asdf, endowments, etc. are usually acquired through the work of the president. SFT doesn't appear to be strong in that phase of the job.

LeftASAP, I completely agree. I knew SFT would be a micromanaging tyrant but I honestly thought his popularity among certain alumni would make him an effective fundraiser. Maybe that is why they like him so much, he doesn't knock on their door looking for money.

On the other hand, since SFT first took the job, I have only ever heard him mention tuition, state, and grant money. Maybe no one ever told him about fundraising.

-- Edited by asdf at 11:49, 2006-08-02

-- Edited by asdf at 11:49, 2006-08-02

oldtimer · Status: Offline

asdf wrote:

On the other hand, since SFT first took the job, I have only ever heard him mention tuition, state, and grant money. Maybe no one ever told him about fundraising.

I'm not sure that SFT understands the differences between contracts (guaranteed results for a specific sum of money), research grants (a speculative idea, with a chance of failure), and fundraising -- I suspect that, to him, anything from 'outside USM' is 'fundraising.' You're correct that he has apparently made no attempts to raise donations from the alumni, whereas during the Lucas and Fleming administrations, faculty were encouraged (if not required) to 'coordinate fundraising activities' with the appropriate VP for University Advancement. Something on the line of 'don't ask somebody for $50K, if they may be able to donate $xx million to the university.'

Cossack · Status: Offline

There is a likely reason that the cash flows from grants differs from the reporting on grants by the university. Take, for example, a $300,000 grant that is for three years. The cash flow for the grant per year would be $100,000 per year (assuming equal yearly payouts). The grant is reported as a $300,000 grant every year for the three years. That may not be how USM calculates this number, but I recall that we did this way in a state agency when I worked there many moons ago. I guess the motive is to make it look bigger for public consumption. The Office of Contracts and Grants can tell you how they account for grants at USM.

Barry Piazza · Status: Offline

More from the Hattiesburg American article:

Among other things, the money funds research enterprise; pays portions of faculty salaries, freeing up other dollars for the university's general operating expenses; funds graduate students to assist faculty in research; and buys expensive equipment and infrastructure the university would not otherwise be able to afford.

But it does not help the university pay gas and electric bills or keep the grass trimmed. Declining state funding for higher education forced a 5.5 percent tuition increase for in-state Southern Miss students this year despite the surge in external research funding, Thames said.

(Bold emphasis is mine.)

The funding agencies would probably be interested in hearing this. They pay from 41.3 to 51.8% indirect costs for on campus activities and from 26 to 28% indirect costs for off-campus activities. The extra 15-25% is given to offset the cost of using and maintaining the university such as paying the gas and electric bills, cutting the grass, using the office space, etc.\

The real question is what is this extra money really being used for. Perhaps MIDAS is the answer.

LeftASAP · Status: Offline

Barry Piazza wrote:

...The real question is what is this extra money really being used for. Perhaps MIDAS is the answer.

Barry, I had a conversation recently that went like this:

Me: I found out Joe is a big Thames supporter.

Other Person (OP): I'm a big Thames supporter.

Me: Why?

OP: He gave me $65k.

ME: How did that happened?

OP: MIDAS.

ME: So your support was bought.

OP: D*mn right!

asdf · Status: Offline

Barry Piazza wrote:
The real question is what is this extra money really being used for. Perhaps MIDAS is the answer.

Please correct me if I am wrong (and I'm sure someone will), but I thought MIDAS money came from the money profs used to buy out of classes, not indirects. The way it was explained to me, a prof writes in a line item in a grant for $X to buy out of classes, then Y% of $X is refunded to the prof as a bonus.

LeftASAP · Status: Offline

asdf wrote:

Barry Piazza wrote:

The real question is what is this extra money really being used for. Perhaps MIDAS is the answer.

Please correct me if I am wrong (and I'm sure someone will), but I thought MIDAS money came from the money profs used to buy out of classes, not indirects. The way it was explained to me, a prof writes in a line item in a grant for $X to buy out of classes, then Y% of $X is refunded to the prof as a bonus.

Asdf, I believe you are correct. But where does the Y% come from? If they hire cheap adjuncts to teach the courses (or don't teach the courses) then it can come from the "savings" obtained by "cheating" the students out of a regular prof. Otherwise it would have to come form the indirects.

asdf · Status: Offline

LeftASAP wrote:
Asdf, I believe you are correct. But where does the Y% come from? If they hire cheap adjuncts to teach the courses (or don't teach the courses) then it can come from the "savings" obtained by "cheating" the students out of a regular prof. Otherwise it would have to come form the indirects.

I think the Y% does does come from hiring cheap adjuncts. I'm sure someone can give the exact rates, but I believe the course buyout rate is two or more times the cost of an adjunct prof.

Curmudgeon · Status: Offline

LeftASAP wrote:

asdf wrote:

.

P

Asdf, I believe you are correct. But where does the Y% come from? If they hire cheap adjuncts to teach the courses (or don't teach the courses) then it can come from the "savings" obtained by "cheating" the students out of a regular prof. Otherwise it would have to come form the indirects.

That is the logical flaw in the system. If all faculty bought out their time, there would be a serious shortage of faculty to teach the students. The money grubbing can only work if a small number of faculty participate. Encouraging all faculty to get grants is a ruse to justify enriching a few.

LVN · Status: Offline

LeftASAP wrote:

asdf wrote:

If they hire cheap adjuncts to teach the courses (or don't teach the courses) then it can come from the "savings" obtained by "cheating" the students out of a regular prof. Otherwise it would have to come form the indirects.

Left, many adjuncts are excellent instructors. Getting a PhD does not magically confer teaching ability. For freshman level courses, adjuncts can do a good job. I have been one, here and elsewhere. The problem with being an adjunct, besides the lousy pay, is that you don't have an office, you aren't really a part of the department, and no matter how hard you work and how good you are, regular faculty treat you with disdain, as in this thread.

-- Edited by LVN at 22:56, 2006-08-05

-- Edited by LVN at 01:34, 2006-08-06

LeftASAP · Status: Offline

LVN wrote:

LeftASAP wrote:

asdf wrote:

If they hire cheap adjuncts to teach the courses (or don't teach the courses) then it can come from the "savings" obtained by "cheating" the students out of a regular prof. Otherwise it would have to come form the indirects.

Left, many adjuncts are excellent instructors. Getting a PhD does not magically confer teaching ability. For freshman level courses, adjuncts can do a good job. I have been one, here and elsewhere. The problem with being an adjunct, besides the lousy pay, is that you don't have an office, you aren't really a part of the department, and no matter how hard you work and how good you are, regular faculty treat you with disdain, as in this thread. -- Edited by LVN at 22:56, 2006-08-05

-- Edited by LVN at 01:34, 2006-08-06

I didn't mean to offend, LVN. I also know of excellent adjuncts. I was thinking of the sciences where most of this occurs. The prof that gets the grants usually teach upper level undergraduate and gradate courses, especially their specialty. Adjuncts are usually not available for these areas so they are hired for Intro freshman courses and other members of the department then move into the courses vacated by the prof with the grant. In my opinion, many are not wiling to put out the time to produce a good course they will only teach on a temporary basis. However, I have also observed adjuncts who did a much better job teaching than the research prof who would put too much time to their research.

oldtimer · Status: Offline

asdf wrote:

Please correct me if I am wrong (and I'm sure someone will), but I thought MIDAS money came from the money profs used to buy out of classes, not indirects. The way it was explained to me, a prof writes in a line item in a grant for $X to buy out of classes, then Y% of $X is refunded to the prof as a bonus.

Now, I've been gone from USM for a while now, but here's how it worked when I was there. Professor X writes a proposal that includes "release-time salary" during the academic year. If the grant is funded with release-time salary, the funding agency provides part of the professor's salary, allowing her/him to not teach a full load of courses, and thus have more time for research.

Now, here's the "economic voodoo" of MIDAS: although "release-time" salary was a percentage of the professor's salary (say, 1/3 of a one-semester sum), while I was in Hattiesburg, the university's maximum reimbursement to adjunct lecturers was on the order of $2500 per course. And, this was for a doctoral-degree-holding person to replace the "released" professor -- if the "replacement prof" didn't have a Ph.D., the university's pay was less than that!

MIDAS thus begins to work like this: Professor X gets $8000 from a granting agency in "release-time" salary, but the university only spends $2500, thus providing "excess" external funds, which makes money for the institution.

LVN · Status: Offline

oldtimer wrote:

asdf wrote:

Now, here's the "economic voodoo" of MIDAS: although "release-time" salary was a percentage of the professor's salary (say, 1/3 of a one-semester sum), while I was in Hattiesburg, the university's maximum reimbursement to adjunct lecturers was on the order of $2500 per course. And, this was for a doctoral-degree-holding person to replace the "released" professor -- if the "replacement prof" didn't have a Ph.D., the university's pay was less than that!

A LOT less than that. It has gone up some since 2004, when I taught, but at that time it was $1250 per course for MA holders, and I think $1500 for PhD. You had to teach two courses to make it worth coming to campus.