More fantastic Aubarn Press to chuckle at...

Last but not least...I'm not posting in this thread in an attempt to instigate a "bash Lowder, bash Auburn" mob. It's simple concern...my diploma is from the University of Alabama...and things like this SACS thing effect the state, not just a certain school system.

 

Hence why I was correct that the article was NOT old.

:thumb:

 

Article is not old but the info is really old. While its funny the BarnYard gets more negative press about this crap the reporter is a goof. He didnt write anything that hasnt been written about before. He probably did a google article because all this has been published before at one time or another. I read everything in that article including the quotes well over a year ago. Some of it even longer than that when I was living in Mobile which has now been 4 years.

 

The article is old. The update was from a few days ago. The article was originally put out late last summer.

It isn't ancient, but it isn't "breaking news" either.

 

Not to drag this out here but:

1. As you say about your comments on the BOT and Lowder.....you hearbut don't offer any facts other than about his private business which isn't the subject. And you hear things from Siegleman's associates. Are you even aware....fact....that Siegleman is under indictment for fraud. And his crowd is good source? Fob has been gone so long he doesn't have a clue. So I just offer a challenge........give us some facts about your comments re. Lowder other than hearsay or what you read in the papers.

2. It is my humble opinion that your opinion of SACs is way overblown. Granted IF SACS had put Auburn on probation (and I emphasize the IF) there would have been some undesireable effect. But the FACT is SACS has NEVER placed a major college on probation. They like to paly the big deal but they are a bunch of liberal eggheads. That's why Auburn was so bold as to challenge them in the beginning. Your comments re. the value of diplomas is also not valid. When I graduated in Aeronautical Engineering, it wasn't yet accredited. But no one ever asked me if it was and I have never been unemployed since I graduated many years ago.

 

I would encourage you to take a few minutes and look over this one more time. I don't know where you are getting your information, but it is wrong.

You mentioned, " It is my humble opinion that your opinion of SACs is way overblown. Granted IF SACS had put Auburn on probation (and I emphasize the IF) there would have been some undesireable effect. But the FACT is SACS has NEVER placed a major college on probation. "

However, the fact of the matter is Auburn was on probation for a year. If you will...

http://www.aualum.org/news/SACSdecision.html

I've dealt, in a business sense, with SACS as early as the late 80's when they were cracking down on "for profit schools" and the inflated default rates that went with those type of *institutions.* I am aware of the reprocussions that come when a accrediting body like SACS decides a school is going to lose their accreditation.

Whether you choose to believe how serious this was or not...up to you completely. I would like for you to consider what Auburn may have been if it had lost all of its Title IV funding...which would have happened if AU had lost in accreditation. Just how many students attend Auburn that don't use any type of federal aid...up to, and including work study? Those students would have been forced to leave school unless other monies were available. IE: parents paying, etc.

Like you, I see no need to draw this discussion out longer. So, I'll bid it adieu. Do me this one favor though. Look into this story more deeply.

 

Terry...you are correct in saying that Auburn was on "probation" for a year while SACS played it's little game. I should have said that SACS has NEVER placed subsequent sanctions ( losing accreditation) on a major college/university. This being the case no major school pays much attention to them because in the end they just constitute a hollow threat to salve their egos. You are also correct that IF they had placed sanctions on Auburn, there would have been some bad consequences. But since they never have, why should anyone get too concerned about them? The Gov.,Pres., and Alumni Assn. paid them lip service tocontrol bad press but did little more. In fact, SACS couldn't even substantiate it's major accusations. If I'm wrong, please list the major schools that have ever received sanctions from SACS.

Just call the Dean of Engineering or any Engineering Dept. Head and they will tell you that the ABET accreditation is infinitely more important than SACS and the fact is that during this same period ABET gave Auburn a clean bill of health which I believe is for a 5 year period.

 

I'll have to admit, you are losing me here. You characterize SACS as playing a "little game." You say "no major college/university pays much attention to them..."

Yet, as soon as this little game was asked to be played a subsequent lawsuit was filed to prevent the SACS investigators from gaining access to the files they wanted to see. IF, no major college or university pays attn. to them what is that saying about the lawsuit? The trustees spent over a million dollars on this law suit, not to mention hiring a PR firm to put a positive spin on what was going on internally. I see it one of two ways. One, there was something to hide or two, Auburn isn't a major college/university? It definitely isn't #2, now is it?

Why would the Alumni Organization make a pubic statement about how pleased they were this was resolved?

Do you see where I'm getting lost here when I try to follow your logic?

You've asked me in this thread about the meetings with the board of trustees/Athletic Committee. If fact, if I recall correctly did you say you had? Then why, if there isn't anything that Lowder and company don't want in the public realm, all of these meetings held in secret?

http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/2005/05mj/05mjgerb.htm

My friend, these happenings simply haven't been above board.

Let's look at this a little more deeply. You say that the powers that be simply "paid them lip-service" to avoid bad publicity. Yet...

Passing new by-laws in response to their investigation is "lip service?"

Let's take this one step further. Richardson, was hired by Riley with two goals in mind. One, to get Auburn off of probation and two, to clean up the athletic department which included wrestling some control away from Housel.

Here's the link for just one of the sources confirming that

As far as college/universities being sanctioned by SACS, a few come to mind. Most notably, was the sanctions levied against Miami/Dade Community College a few years ago. (2000).

When most schools have problems with SACS, they correct them to avoid sanctions because...like we've both agreed on...the sanctions are very heavy.

You've mentioned I needed to call the Dean? My friend, it was the professors on campus that were behind this, and many other things that have happened.

Again, I'm not trying to make this a "bash Auburn" situation. But, please look at the facts of the matter. They are out there and easily found. Hell, just try Google with SACS and Auburn.