Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Fire Shelby Thames -> Fire Shelby Thames -> Fire Shelby Thames -> Now they are saying enrollment will be up.....
Post Info TOPIC: Now they are saying enrollment will be up.....
tomcat

Date:
Now they are saying enrollment will be up.....
Permalink Closed

Now USM officials are saying enrollment will be up, though the student acceptances thing is still part of the package.  The language is so garbled.  Here's the link:


www.printz.usm.edu


The writer of the story doesn't seem to understand that even if you stipulate to a small enrollment increase (1 or 2 percent), that doesn't mean that the crises are not affecting enrollment at all.


 



__________________
Flash Gordon

Date:
Permalink Closed

Those numbers don't jibe with the IHL numbers published in the Clarion Ledger (4-12-04, p. 3B). New freshman were down so much in 2003 (1525>1277) that an increase of 19% would be necessary in 2004 to get back to 2002 levels.

Sometimes they talk about "freshmen" as compared to "new freshmen." The former term includes returning students who have not achieved sophomore status because of light loads the previous year. That tends to dampen fluctuations from year to year. You can be sure the spin machine is working overtime this year. Normally they don't release "acceptance" numbers. You can also be sure that people will be less likely to report fudging this year for fear of retaliation.

__________________
truth4usm

Date:
Permalink Closed

Someone needs to write a letter to the editor of the Student Printz to correct this serious error.  Use the College Board numbers from the Clarion Ledger.


 


 



__________________
Invictus

Date:
RE: RE: Now they are saying enrollment will be up.
Permalink Closed

One way to increase "freshman" admissions is to refuse to transfer all the courses a student may have taken at another institution. Thus, community college students who in the past transferred to USM as rising juniors or 2nd semester sophomores will have to come in as freshmen. (And are then "captured" for a full 4 years at USM.)

USM is hedging big-time on the old 2+2 agreement, which Thames proudly takes credit for inventing. According to USM officials, they are revamping the core curriculum, basically setting it up so that a community college student, for example, can't take the same core course for USM as for State or Ole Miss.

Of course, two of USM's "peers" (Delta State & MUW) are taking the lead in revising the core curriculum, according to Invictus' sources. This raises the question why DSU or MUW are the role models for USM. I don't see MSU or UM lowering their standards.

What is going to happen -- what is already happening, in fact -- is that increasing numbers of community college students are being advised to take a strong look at USA & Tulane, which has already negotiated articulation agreements with Miss. CC's...

USM is being run by some mighty short-sighted people. Or maybe they're far-sighted people with an agenda. <SARCASM>Mississippi has too many universities, doesn't it?</SARCASM>

__________________
Fire Shelby


Status: Offline
Posts: 1140
Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
"One way to increase "freshman" admissions is to refuse to transfer all the courses a student may have taken at another institution. Thus, community college students who in the past transferred to USM as rising juniors or 2nd semester sophomores will have to come in as freshmen. (And are then "captured" for a full 4 years at USM.) USM is hedging big-time on the old 2+2 agreement, which Thames proudly takes credit for inventing. According to USM officials, they are revamping the core curriculum, basically setting it up so that a community college student, for example, can't take the same core course for USM as for State or Ole Miss. Of course, two of USM's "peers" (Delta State & MUW) are taking the lead in revising the core curriculum, according to Invictus' sources. This raises the question why DSU or MUW are the role models for USM. I don't see MSU or UM lowering their standards. What is going to happen -- what is already happening, in fact -- is that increasing numbers of community college students are being advised to take a strong look at USA & Tulane, which has already negotiated articulation agreements with Miss. CC's... USM is being run by some mighty short-sighted people. Or maybe they're far-sighted people with an agenda. <SARCASM>Mississippi has too many universities, doesn't it?</SARCASM>"
BINGO!  You are SOOOO right.

__________________
truth4usm

Date:
RE: Now they are saying enrollment will be up.....
Permalink Closed


Here is a copy of my letter to the Printz editors (hope I got those numbers right...I'm no mathematician):


Editors:


 


I read with great interest about the increase in freshman students enrolling at USM in your 4/22/04 online edition, with the quote from Mathew Cox stating that “the increasing number [of enrolling freshmen] has been a trend for the past 10 or 11 years.” What concerns me, though, is the discrepancy between these numbers and the figures provided by the IHL College Board (published in the Clarion Ledger on 4/12/04) that show the retention rate for USM freshmen between their fall and spring semesters steadily declining.  Also, according to the IHL figures, first-time freshman enrollment dropped 8% after the much-lauded “reorganization” back in 2002.  This directly contradicts the numbers mentioned in your article.  I’d caution USM officials to double-check these sketchy enrollment numbers, due to the enrollment fiasco last year that has still not been fully addressed by the current administration.


 


USM is well behind Ole Miss and Mississippi State in both first-time freshman enrollment and retention of these students.  I can’t imagine that the current crisis on USM’s campus will have a positive effect on these numbers (whether people are willing to talk about it with current administrators during recruitment visits or not).  I am positive that when these students actually arrive on campus, they will be more than dismayed to find that, with over 112 faculty positions still vacant (another unfortunate record for USM), the quality of their education will suffer.  My alma mater deserves better.   


 


 


Andrea Hewitt


USM Alumna ’89, ‘91



__________________
truth4usm

Date:
Permalink Closed

Sorry about the funky formatting.



__________________
MBAgal

Date:
Permalink Closed

truth4usm, excellent post/letter.  One correction, the reorganization was announced 1/2003.


 



__________________
Flash Gordon

Date:
RE: RE: Now they are saying enrollment will be up.
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm
"
Here is a copy of my letter to the Printz editors (hope I got those numbers right...I'm no mathematician):

What concerns me, though, is the discrepancy between these numbers and the figures provided by the IHL College Board (published in the Clarion Ledger on 4/12/04) that show the retention rate for USM freshmen between their fall and spring semesters steadily declining.  Also, according to the IHL figures, first-time freshman enrollment dropped 8% after the much-lauded “reorganization” back in 2002.  This directly contradicts the numbers mentioned in your article.  I’d caution USM officials to double-check these sketchy enrollment numbers, due to the enrollment fiasco last year that has still not been fully addressed by the current administration.
 

Andrea Hewitt
USM Alumna ’89, ‘91"


Hi Andrea,
Great letter but it's way worse than that: 1525-1277= 248 248/1525= -16.3%. Isn't it amazing that we never heard about that last fall?

The freshman enrollment drop could easily be one of the worst at USM in many years. To get back to 2002 levels would take an increase of 19% (248/1277= 19.4%) so talk of increases a few percent is whistling in the grave yard. The Printz doesn't come out until Tuesday so maybe you can send a revision.

__________________
truth4usm

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: Flash Gordon
" Hi Andrea, Great letter but it's way worse than that: 1525-1277= 248 248/1525= -16.3%. Isn't it amazing that we never heard about that last fall? The freshman enrollment drop could easily be one of the worst at USM in many years. To get back to 2002 levels would take an increase of 19% (248/1277= 19.4%) so talk of increases a few percent is whistling in the grave yard. The Printz doesn't come out until Tuesday so maybe you can send a revision."
I knew I should have checked with you guys first!  (Plus I'm bad at math in general).  I'll see if I can submit a revised version.  Thanks for the help!

__________________
truth4usm

Date:
RE: Now they are saying enrollment will be up.....
Permalink Closed

My letter (with corrected statistics) will be in Tuesday's Student Printz (just in time for the hearings!).  Thanks to everyone who helped get my math straight!

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Fire Shelby Thames -> Fire Shelby Thames -> Fire Shelby Thames -> Now they are saying enrollment will be up.....
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard