Spin City: HA sez no mass exodus - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Aug 25, 2004

Spin City: HA sez no mass exodus

Date: Aug 25, 2004

Not meaning to slam USM faculty who are new or have little seniority, but I think one has to ask about who left & how many years service they had. Is USM losing a lot of nontenured faculty -- who are typically very mobile -- or is it losing experienced, tenured faculty?

Those who are interested in the issue of faculty departures might want to locate the March 2004 edition of Research in Higher Education and read "Examining the Influences on Faculty Departure Intentions: A Comparison of Tenured Versus Nontenured Faculty at Research Universities using NSOPF-99." The situation at USM looks even more bizarre after reading this one.

Date: Aug 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/news/updates/8379.html Here we go folks...can we trust these numbers?"

The key question is proportion: 105 faculty members leaving this past year may be a higher percentage of overall faculty than the 112 the year before, especially since many of those 112 were not replaced. Besides, 217 faculty members out of a maximum of 600 or so faculty gone in two years is appalling - at least 30% turnover in two years.

Date: Aug 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Angeline
"The key question is proportion: 105 faculty members leaving this past year may be a higher percentage of overall faculty than the 112 the year before, especially since many of those 112 were not replaced. Besides, 217 faculty members out of a maximum of 600 or so faculty gone in two years is appalling - at least 30% turnover in two years."

Last year State and Ole Miss each lost about 60 faculty members. We're #1.

Date: Aug 25, 2004

Invictus and truth, you are both right: absolute numbers are meaningless here. Percentages would be more helpful and demographic breakdowns even more so.

Besides, notice their frame of reference: less than 1% difference from LAST YEAR?? how about the year before that, and the year before that??? What about the view across ten years, or twenty?

In the three years pre-Thames, the Fleming years plus the Lucas interregnum (and the beginning of the budget crisis), the English Department lost 5 fulltime faculty. In the two years of the Thames administration, we lost seven fulltimers--and that was the count before Noel Polk decided to go, and I think before DC Berry left.

And did I mention the adminstrative staffer in our department who quit this summer because of the stress of the job? (That position has not been replaced.)

Sure, there are lots of reasons for people to leave. People have lives and economic needs and (heavens to betsy!) intellectual needs. But part of the disaster of the Thames regime is that it threatens all those aspects of our lives. In my department, at least, the majority of those departing during the last two years attributed their decisions in whole or in part to the rapidly deteriorating situation under Thames and the lack of much hope for immediate relief.

Spin away, Ms. Mader. But tell your boss it might be more effective to try reestablishing decent working conditions around here.

NO QUARTER.
Anne Wallace

Date: Aug 25, 2004

Angeline and Invictus.....you both seem to understand what the issue is here. Why doesn't the Hburg American ask these questions? Why has it never asked any questions? Anyway, someone with some clout needs to write in about this.

Date: Aug 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Anne Wallace
"In the two years of the Thames administration, we lost seven fulltimers--and that was the count before Noel Polk decided to go

NO QUARTER.
Anne Wallace"

Dr. Wallace,

Has Noel Polk "officially" decided to leave USM? I inquired about this report earlier today on another thread, but don't believe there was a response. If he's indeed moving on, when will the departure occur, and where is he headed? I'd think this news would merit front page coverage in the HA and CL.

Thanks,
AE

Date: Aug 25, 2004

Uh, the HA reported that the # of people leaving this year (with SFT as prez) doesn't vary much from last year (with SFT as prez) but over 100 faculty members leaving constitutes what percentage of overall faculty?? You know, the HA just told us everything: the percentage of faculty leaving is far above those years with different administrations with similar faculty #'s. This article is just about as silly as LSM's "we're proud to be in the same poll as UA and UM" statement. Anne Wallace, once again you are right on the mark.

Date: Aug 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Music Patron
"Angeline and Invictus.....you both seem to understand what the issue is here. Why doesn't the Hburg American ask these questions? Why has it never asked any questions? Anyway, someone with some clout needs to write in about this."

Music Patron, I think I understand the issues too. And ugly ones they seem to be if my calculation is correct. If 227 faculty members left USM in only two years under Thames (as per the Hattiesburg American article) then one more "normal" attrition year would mean that Thames will have lost a whopping 60% of the entire USM faculty. By way of comparison, Mississippi State and Ole Miss lost only about 60 faculty members last year. Does my calculation match your yours, Angeline and Invictus?

Date: Aug 25, 2004

W.D. Answering for myself, yes, yes, and yes. The HA needs some lessons in critical thinking skills.

Date: Aug 25, 2004

The first workshop the HA reporters should take: There IS a story out there: How to become a reporter and not be influenced by the Good ol' boys(girlz). It is your professional duty.

Date: Aug 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Emma
"The first workshop the HA reporters should take: There IS a story out there: How to become a reporter and not be influenced by the Good ol' boys(girlz). It is your professional duty. "

well, I gotta say this will be disappointing. I know Janet B. was working on an article today because I talked to her. And I have her a couple of different pictures: the off the record one so I won't draw any attention to my program and the on the record one which contained some truth and tried to hint at this problem that the raw numbers do not tell the story. Sheesh, we are watching the decline and fall of an exceptionally strong lit program with several national and international scholar/professors either gone or going . . . . and there seems to be no concern at all from the higher ups . . .

it really reinforces the following:

1. People in humanities do tend to be troublesome -- it is hard not to be when the content of your work is almost always human behavior -- why we do what we do; how we live together; etc. So folks in the humanities tend to be uniquely faced with the problem of moral, ethical behavior and human values as well as human pleasure all the time. Having a conscience is troublesome -- its one of the roles the humanities plays . . .

Is it any wonder when we think the people around us and over us might be acting badly we tend to question that behavior? Isn't that what we challenge our students to do?

2. People in the humanities tend not to be focused on becoming millionaires -- we know it ain't ever likely to happen and are generally OK with that provided we are allowed to go about our work with some degree of freedom. In reality -- we are really pretty cheap to maintain, compared to some other areas.

3. People in the humanities, while not uninterested in grants, assume that virtually no grant they ever get is going to do more than support their work. At most, it might buy an assistant. Or it might buy out some teaching time. It ain't gonna produce revenue for the university.

4. In general, people in the humanties tend to regard revenue as an intellectual rather than financial term. Inother words, what I earn for my work is more knowlege, greater insight, hopefully (but not inevitably) more wisdom which I then will share with my students and (if I write or make works of art) with some kind of audience.

5. Why is it that universities stop caring about philosophy until the business school suddenly decides it needs an ethics professor; or art history until it realizes its engineers can't tell the pyramid from gehry's Guggrnheim at Bilbao; or literature until it realizes that its scientists have no concept that the stuff they are inventing might actually have social consequences?

I'm still bitter that the good old government was interested in funding and exporting the American arts as long as it could use the arts as a propaganda tool against the "commies." Once the Soviet Union fell . . . . ooops . . . . there was no longer any need . . . .

In America, the Barbarians wear ties . . . and the civilized folks have callouses on their hands . . .

Date: Aug 25, 2004

The number of faculty who have left is only the tip of the iceberg of the issue at USM. Attention also should be paid to the "quality" of faculty who have left. Many who left had national reputations, and their replacements will not have those credentials. In addition, faculty who leave for other institutions are, by definition, "mobile" and have market value. These are faculty most universities try to keep. More important is how existing faculty are viewing their future at USM, and how much effort existing faculty will put into recruiting. It will be difficult for existing faculty to recruit over the next year for two reasons. One, USM's problems are very public and have been made the national scene; this makes job candidates wary of the university. Second, it is difficult to try to sell a candidate on USM if the existing faculty have doubts about the future of the university. Businesses or universities that go through the trauma that USM has endured have a negative aura about them that is palatable to job candidates. It is likely that the term used to characterize the signing class of new faculty will not be "a good recruiting year for USM for the 2005 season”. For most of us, this reality leaves us with a heavy heart. However no amount of effort by faculty will much impact on this outcome.

Date: Aug 25, 2004

I hate these sharply drawn dichotomies between commerce and art and the humanities. Historically, they have always been symbiotic. The Renaissance that occurred in Florence was a potent mixture of flourishing business and culture that fed one another. Modern universities began to emerge from this thriving milieu. The best universities themselves depend on huge finanical donations from the world of commerce (which USM has not been able to get). Often, this helps out the humnanities just as much as business and science. Also, taxpayers fund the university system at public schools, where their livelihoods depend on the strength of the economy. All business students have a core liberal arts education. America is crazy about art...even if we call this pop art "entertainment". The market has its drawbacks, sure, but it is more democratic then having to win and please an aristocratic patron.

In addition, the best universities in the nation often use the business school as a "cash cow" to fund other less lucrative programs. And then they also depend on their more commercially successful alumini to give back--be they business, science, art, or humanities. I very much dislike the whole idea of Econ Development--it's a huge mistake, and won't pay off anyway. Just don't condemn business...you will find most professors in this area very respectful of the liberal arts, because they draw on so much thinking in many of these areas to explain human behavior in a business context.

Date: Aug 25, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: secret sharer
People in humanities do tend to be troublesome -- it is hard not to be when the content of your work is almost always human behavior

Not always true. Psych does human behavior and they under control.

Date: Aug 25, 2004

Back to the Hattiesburg American. Perhaps they should ask, "and how many faculty are sending out resumes, hoping to leave next year?" Just because people haven't left, doesn't mean they aren't looking . . . .

Date: Aug 26, 2004

Here's a question, an honest question, related to faculty exodus and retention of good people.

Imagine this scenario: an overworked, underpaid faculty generally disheartened by the events of the past two and a half years (that's a stretch but try to work with it). Individuals devoted to USM are more sensitive to (aware of) other opportunities even if they are not actively seeking new positions. In year one, a certain professor gets an external job offer at a significantly higher salary, brings it to his/her chair, the chair takes it to the dean and USM matches it. USM meets the new salary to say "we value your contribution and we want to keep you". However, there is fallout from this decision. Other faculty members, who do not receive raises (or receive only small raises) because there is little raise money in that year, feel that they can only get a raise by getting an external offer so they go "on the market" as well, increasing instability in the unit. If they stay and do not look for other opportunities, while continuuing to be productive, they can't help but harbor some resentment. Let's say in year two, the original professor goes back on interviews, gets another offer at a significantly higher salary and once again wants the university to match it. Should the university reward job searching two years in a row? Three? With a limited pot of salary money, multiple people with external offers, good people not looking for other jobs, should the same person receive a second matching raise when there are others who are deserving?

In my field, the norm is that you can only play the salary game (by leveraging another offer) one time and you should never, ever play it with a place to which you don't really want to go. That's just one opinion and I would prefer not to get flamed for having it.

Date: Aug 26, 2004

quote:

In my field, the norm is that you can only play the salary game (by leveraging another offer) one time and you should never, ever play it with a place to which you don't really want to go. That's just one opinion and I would prefer not to get flamed for having it."

That's what I've always heard. The second time you do it, the supervisor wishes you good luck in your new position.

Date: Aug 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Southern Mess
"I hate these sharply drawn dichotomies between commerce and art and the humanities. Historically, they have always been symbiotic."

I was thinking about this very thing on my morning commute, hung up behind the inevitable log truck (which should have been the emblem replacing the CBF on the state flag, BTW). As Southern Mess points out, during The Renaissance artists were scientists & scientists were artists. Heck, when I was an undergrad back in the days of clay tablets, people referred to an instructional division called "The Arts & Sciences."

Somewhere during the waning days of the Industrial Revolution, somebody decided to pitch "The Arts" over in a cubbyhole for beret-wearing bohemians & changed it to "Science & Technology." It was an afterthought & not a well-thought afterthought at that.

Well, good people, it's not the Industrial Age anymore. It's the Information Age. And everything is multi-disciplinary. Take the field of criminal justice: Is it sociology or law (humanities) or forensic science (technology)? The answer is, of course, "all of the above." Where is the dividing line between psychology (humanities) & ethology (science)? The late great Konrad Lorenz would argue, "Es gibt keine Trennlinie." Where is the dividing line between physics & philosophy. The esteeemed Stephen Hawking would mumble something incomprehensible & keep the encyclopedia for himself.

It makes no sense to "divide & conquer" when what the we need is to "unite & advance."

Date: Aug 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" ...It makes no sense to "divide & conquer" when what the we need is to "unite & advance.""

Mr. Wonderful, you will have a hard job this week. I think this is my favorite, though.

Date: Aug 28, 2004

bump

Date: Aug 29, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Southern Mess
"I hate these sharply drawn dichotomies between commerce and art and the humanities. Historically, they have always been symbiotic. . . . because they draw on so much thinking in many of these areas to explain human behavior in a business context. "

I could not agree with you more. The reason I made lament about the humanties at USM is because our current administration does not see this linkage. Our new vision statement clearly deemphasizes the humanities as significant areas of excellence for the university; the new emphasisis on "economic development" in terms of assessing the work of various disciplines and colleges disadvnatages the humanities; and whole areas of the humanties which were in the past areas of excellence are being quietly dismantled. How can you explain what has happened to literature in any other way? We are losing both rising and well established national and international figures in the humanities (seems like Noel Polk is only the latest) and yet the administration doesn't seem to care -- there is no hue and cry or no attempt to replace them with figures of similar stature.

The truth is that the humanties and the arts have been ghettoized and in effect, separated out from the remainder of the university.

My suspicion is that increasingly liberal arts will become a service area -- its chief work will be to serve the core. I don't see any commitment to supporting maintaning a separate research/scholarly program of its own. The arts will continue to be useful as long as they continue to provide a high entertainment value or as a way of at least publically maintaining a veneer that Southern Miss has a degree of diversity. The truth is there is no real love or commitment to either that I can see. I'd love to be proved wrong. I'd love to eat my words -- but I don't believe it.

Both arts and humanities are problematic in the new paradigm because by nature they are not "efficient" disciplines; they are very difficult to assess; and try as we might to link them to a kind of pragmatic end the truth is that the benefits they may confer on a university or a society are really tough to prove.

Additionally, both arts and humanities tend to be disciplines in which contraversial content often arises. Unless administrators are knowelgeable enough and committed enough to defend the existence of the arts and humanities when such contraversies occur, the truth is these disciplines are often unruly, unpredictable, and difficult to justify. It is really easier administratively to keep these folks busy and off in a corner, if you must have them at all.

Incidently, I'd put theoretical physics and some of the other theoretical sciences in a similar category -- perhaps not as apt to be as potentially contreversial, but certainly not easy to justify to a public which has been encouraged to distrust anything that does not have a provable outcome.

Date: Aug 29, 2004

Stephen,
Much of what you say is due to the university being micromanaged by an engineer.
Even areas in science are affected in the ways you discussed if the science is too pure and far removed from engineering. Ask the chairman of Math what is going on in his department and you will hear a story that is similar to your descriptions of the humanities.

It was a very sad for two years and we are starting the third. Fortunately I will be out of here soon.

Date: Aug 29, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
"
...
Incidently, I'd put theoretical physics and some of the other theoretical sciences in a similar category -- perhaps not as apt to be as potentially contreversial, but certainly not easy to justify to a public which has been encouraged to distrust anything that does not have a provable outcome.
"

Funny you should mention theoretical physics here. Today's short, but excellent, letter in the HA was by Lawrence Mead, Professor of Physics.

Date: Aug 29, 2004

The Physics Dept. is one of the best in the country full of Renaissance People. One glaring loss there is the Dean's decision to not back Rudy Sirochman - he was denied tenure and promotion and winded up at that little regarded place in Atlanta (sarcasm intended) Georgia State.

Date: Aug 29, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: LeavingASAP
"Stephen, Much of what you say is due to the university being micromanaged by an engineer. Even areas in science are affected in the ways you discussed if the science is too pure and far removed from engineering. Ask the chairman of Math what is going on in his department and you will hear a story that is similar to your descriptions of the humanities. It was a very sad for two years and we are starting the third. Fortunately I will be out of here soon. "

LeavingASAP, I agree with one of your statements wholeheartedly but I must respectfully disagree with another. I agree with your "micromanaged" statement. But wiith the "engineering" part I must take issue. My field is in one of the traditional liberal arts. Three of my very best former deans and two my very best former presidents were in disciplines far removed from mine. Our disciplines were as different as night is from day or as the performing arts are from electrical engineering. But those deans and presidents fully understood what a university is all about.They knew what was important. They fully embraced the values that make a university great. Perhaps the worst thing is having a higher-level administrator (e.g., dean) who erroneously thinks he is in the department's discipline

.

Date: Aug 29, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: First Ant at the Picnic
"LeavingASAP, I agree with one of your statements wholeheartedly but I must respectfully disagree with another. I agree with your "micromanaged" statement. But wiith the "engineering" part I must take issue. My field is in one of the traditional liberal arts. Three of my very best former deans and two my very best former presidents were in disciplines far removed from mine. Our disciplines were as different as night is from day or as the performing arts are from electrical engineering. But those deans and presidents fully understood what a university is all about.They knew what was important. They fully embraced the values that make a university great. Perhaps the worst thing is having a higher-level administrator (e.g., dean) who erroneously thinks he is in the department's discipline."

I think we agree First Ant, but I didn’t communicate well. There is no reason an engineer by training can't also be educated and appreciate all areas of what makes up a University.

My thrust was this engineer doesn't. Even the sciences are not appreciated, if they are too far removed from producing engineering products to patent. For SFT the only thing that counts is economic development. If you can't make money with English Literature and Mathematics, then let them service those "big boys" who bring in the $$$.

Date: Aug 29, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: LeavingASAP
" I think we agree First Ant, but I didn’t communicate well. There is no reason an engineer by training can't also be educated and appreciate all areas of what makes up a University. My thrust was this engineer doesn't. Even the sciences are not appreciated, if they are too far removed from producing engineering products to patent. For SFT the only thing that counts is economic development. If you can't make money with English Literature and Mathematics, then let them service those "big boys" who bring in the $$$. "

We do agree, LeavingASAP. I knew all the time that we were in agreement. I just wanted to make a point I and piggybacked off of your post to make it.