need names of exiting faculty, etc.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

need names of exiting faculty, etc.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

Tamara Harvey, English Dept. (going to George Mason University, tenure-track position).

Mary Robison, English Dept. and Center for Writers (going to University of Florida, tenure-track position).

Date: Mar 30, 2004

Dr. Black (economics) is retiring, and Mr. Anderson (physical plant) is leaving for a state job.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

as you look at exiting faculty it's important to distinguish between those leaving at an early point in their career and those leaving late in their career. Those later in their career are also looking at the state retirement system. (by later I mean 25 years or so) As I hear, stay in the state system past 28 years or so and you begin to lose money. Depending on your age, it doesn't make sense financially to stay here if you have options (I know--not all are motivated by this and it wasn't in their life plan.) Some people who are relatively young (late 40's to early 50's) and have been in the state retirement system for 25+years may leave because it is in their best financial interests. That may not be the sole reason, but it does factor in.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

Thanks truth4usm and tvscene. I have a few other retirees out the business college from sources today. Thanks again.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: lddad
"as you look at exiting faculty it's important to distinguish between those leaving at an early point in their career and those leaving late in their career. Those later in their career are also looking at the state retirement system. (by later I mean 25 years or so) As I hear, stay in the state system past 28 years or so and you begin to lose money. Depending on your age, it doesn't make sense financially to stay here if you have options (I know--not all are motivated by this and it wasn't in their life plan.) Some people who are relatively young (late 40's to early 50's) and have been in the state retirement system for 25+years may leave because it is in their best financial interests. That may not be the sole reason, but it does factor in. "

This is a good point and may be part of the reason Joe Paul interviewed at TAMU. He must have at least 25 years in the state retirement system.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

Iddad and Googler:

You are right about the timing (in someone's career) and their motivation for leaving. Having said that, here's the real problem: in USM's current situation, the people leaving are of higher quality than the replacements. No one of any promise/potential will come here, at least not like we would have seen 5-10 years ago. Therefore, it's really hurting us right now when anyone leaves, regardless of their individual motivation for doing so.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

i'm not sure i agree with the notion that we can't attract the faculty we could have 5 years or so. that's a common argument i have heard people make now. if we can't attract such faculty, and that's debatable, it may be for the current reasons (Thames) and others. raises for years have been miserable to non-existent (well before Thames). i know a junior faculty member who left because he hadn't gotten a raise in 3 years, but was still expected to meet tenure and promotion standards. computer infrastructure is not what it is compared to other universities. talk to new job candidates who come from universities with multiple "smart classrooms" and have taught in them. teaching load and summer salaries are other issues. why we can and can't recruit faculty is a complicated issue.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

5 years ago 1998/99 USM was coming off a period of consistently getting raises. That's why I used it as a break point. Notice I said 5-10 years ago. The raise issue (lack thereof) is the least of a candidate's issues with USM at this point.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

as far as I'm concerned, call it 5 or call it 10, raises have been miserable. I didn't pick 5 years as a specific point. 10 years ago (1994) we probably got raises but we went through a terrible period from about 1989-1992. I remember an era when we got decent raises (about 6%) every other year, but on an every other year basis. Doesn't sound great, but it was a decent raise.

Please don't miss my point. If we can't recruit now, it's complicated, and it depends on the specific department as well. Multiple issues are prevailing. ST may be one of many.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: lddad
"Multiple issues are prevailing. ST may be one of many. "

Understatement of the year. Look, a crisis he created appeared in the Chronicle, the very publication that people consult to find job openings. He has had a negative impact on attracting applicants (and holding onto them once we get them), and he will only have a greater one in the future.

If you don't think Shelby is responsible for faculty looking elsewhere, read the message on this board from EyeOnUSM.

He was hesitant to even apply.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

6% raises every other year for a state u. in the deep south is nothing to sneeze at. Just look at Tennessee, and Alabama. They can go forever without one.

I know there were big raises in 1993, a smallish one in 1994, an okay one in either 1995 or 1996 (I'd have to check), and a couple of pretty decent ones in the 1997-1999 interim. That's why I said 5-10 years ago.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

but this doesn't apply to all departments. I know at least one that it doesn't.

there is a more general point to be made. recruiting is a complicated process. to argue that ST is the issue may be true for some, but may not for others. or it may not be the most important issue.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: lddad
"but this doesn't apply to all departments. I know at least one that it doesn't. there is a more general point to be made. recruiting is a complicated process. to argue that ST is the issue may be true for some, but may not for others. or it may not be the most important issue."

Let's see. A mass exodus of faculty occurs after Shelby Thames becomes president. There are now at least 112 openings, not including retirees, and expected retirees.

USM is having difficulty filling those 112 openings. Departments, in the past couple of years, are offering far fewer courses than at any time in the past I can recall.

But this has nothing to do with Thames. Sorry, but I don't buy that.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

i could reply but I won't. there's a logical fallacy that describes assuming a false cause.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: lddad
"i could reply but I won't. there's a logical fallacy that describes assuming a false cause. "

There is also a thing called positive correlation.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

but it's a correlation not a cause. an important difference.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: lddad
"but it's a correlation not a cause. an important difference."

If you look at the post with which you are arguing, you will find that your argument is non sequitur. I never said Shelby was the cause. I did imply that there is a relation between the two occurences.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

i didn't find your conclusion that clear. if i had, i wouldn't have made my response. i could ask you to clarify the nature of your claim, but why bother?

Date: Mar 30, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: lddad
"i didn't find your conclusion that clear. if i had, i wouldn't have made my response. i could ask you to clarify the nature of your claim, but why bother? "

My conclusion was obscured by my sarcastic wit.

Actually, I never stated a conclusion--you did that for me.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

well-if its correlational, i guess the best i can do is hope that a change in administration will "make it all better." i guess it will make it all better in some areas and not in others. best wishes.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: lddad
"well-if its correlational, i guess the best i can do is hope that a change in administration will "make it all better." i guess it will make it all better in some areas and not in others. best wishes."

lddad...an aside...let me say that it is a pleasure to have you on this board. You pose good questions (although sometimes through insinuation instead of outright stating what you think) and you have been exceedingly civil, and I thank you for that.

I am not being sarcastic; I mean this. I enjoy verbally jousting with you. Hope you stay around awhile.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

thanks. i enjoy verbal jousting, and I both was trained in it and train others in it. i view what goes on here like attorneys do. they can go at it in the courtroom but afterwords, good budies. i also realize that there are ideological issues as well--don't get me wrong there.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: lddad
"thanks. i enjoy verbal jousting, and I both was trained in it and train others in it. i view what goes on here like attorneys do. they can go at it in the courtroom but afterwords, good budies. i also realize that there are ideological issues as well--don't get me wrong there."

Now it's my turn to draw a conclusion from your vague statement. By ideological issues, I hope you aren't implying that people who are anti-Thames or pro-Glamser/Stringer (or both) share a common ideology other than the goals that define this group. I have said in numerous threads that this group is the most diverse of any of which I have ever been a part. So, I really see nothing ideologically common about the people who are joined to accomplish the stated objectives above--well, except for accomplishing the stated objectives above. I guess there are some tangential commonalities, like supporting academic freedom and shared governance, but, besides those, really, there are none. Many people have tried to paint these people as "liberals" and "hippies" and even "radicals" but Angeline herself admits (in the Mississippi Spotlight article linked in LBN) that what the Thames administration has done to USM is "radical."

Date: Mar 30, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: fire shelby
" lddad...an aside...let me say that it is a pleasure to have you on this board. You pose good questions (although sometimes through insinuation instead of outright stating what you think) and you have been exceedingly civil, and I thank you for that. I am not being sarcastic; I mean this. I enjoy verbally jousting with you. Hope you stay around awhile. "

That was a pretty exciting exchange -- like watching a very fast volley of tennis between two very good players.

Anyway I have a younger colleague -- assistant professor, tenure track who is leaving. It is true that there were a number of factors behind his decision. But he also made it clear to me that working under the current administration was so unpleasant in terms of a climate in which there was a distinct lack of trust from administrators toward faculty that working here simply was not enjoyable and was not likely to become so for a considerable length of time. That feeling was a determining factor in his decision to move on.

There are lots of folks at any university who are sitting on a fence at any given moment for lots of reasons, personal and professional. These are the people most affected by a poorly run administration -- and if they are good enough to find work elsewhere then many of them are likely to go where they will feel more appreciated.

Most good leaders understand that when money is scarce and resources are limited you work hard to make your workers feel appreciated and needed. You don't treat them like an expendible resource. I think this administration's great sin is that it seems to feel as though we are all a bunch of parts that can easily be replaced and the machine will just keep on running without a pause.

The administration's line since the slaying of the deans is that the faculty is resistent to change. I think that is false -- we deal with change all the time. In fact, I'd say there are few professions in which change is more a part of the fabric of life than at a university. The resistence was less about change than the brutal manner in which change was forced. That brutality was completely unneccessary to the project no matter what the administration claims. I have believed since that day that the style of change was a message -- and that the message was this: you, the faculty, no longer will have a critical role in shaping the future of this university. We know better how to do it efficiently, and we know what is best. Don't resist -- because what happened to the deans can easily happen to you.

It was an object lesson in obedience. And it was poor management. That same poor management has created a poisonous environment that good people are fleeing. I'm not really sure that even a healthy raise at this point would change very much. I doubt if a slave feels a lot better when he gets the occasional T-bone steak. He (or she) is still a slave.

Sorry for bing so long winded.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: present professor
" You don't treat them like an expendible resource. I think this administration's great sin is that it seems to feel as though we are all a bunch of parts that can easily be replaced and the machine will just keep on running without a pause. "

Ummm...USM AAUP...I have a nomination for a third t-shirt.

Well said, Present Prof.

Date: Mar 30, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: fire shelby
" Ummm...USM AAUP...I have a nomination for a third t-shirt. Well said, Present Prof. "

Honored, I'm sure!

Actually, I am still seriously amazed at the quality of the conversation (sans our klepto-identity friends!)

Date: Mar 31, 2004

let me second the nomination

Date: Mar 31, 2004

RE: need names of exiting faculty, etc

Date: Mar 31, 2004

RE: need names of exiting faculty, etc.

Date: Mar 31, 2004

Dr. Harper is retiring after this summer's Austria program. He will return, from time to time, and teach some classes, but he is leaving.

This one hurts us all.

Date: Mar 31, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: educator
"Another person exiting the USM faculty is the "esteemed" Hattiesburg Public School administrator Dr. (Ed.D) Perrin Lowery who was hired without a national search at the level of associate professor in CISE, never attained tenure, and seems to be one of DT's Choir Boys (and I emphasize the BOYS part). He is retiring - at what cost to future needed faculty members - who actually might have contributed to this university."

Then, who's going to "run" the NCATE accreditation review? Ms. Dana herself?