The Board of Regents just stuck their middle finger up to Univ of Iowa faculty

[rholtgraves]

I don't get how it is sticking a middle finger up to Iowa when This is probably Rastetter's guy and you know he wants Iowa to be a good University. It's a strange pick but sometimes that works out. I have a lot of questions about how good he will be but who knows maybe he will be a good hire.

 

[rholtgraves]

That's a more charitable view. And perhaps you are correct. I suspected initially he might be similar to a certain Hitler-mustached president ISU once had--a guy who was chosen by the BOR to come in for a few years and do their dirty work(including calling the hit on WOI).

That's definitely a concern

 

[colbycheese]

You know, I'm trying to separate my feelings for tavern hawks from my respect for Iowa as a university. There are good and bad faculty, there are good and bad administrators, and there are good and bad corporate executives.

I think some of you are so eager to blast your target of choice (be it UI, elitist educators, or whatever) that you are jumping on board with something that may look great on the surface but may prove to be a disaster in the long run. To use an analogy familiar to many of you, would you hire this man to be the general manager of a major pro football team?

I could be wrong...only time will tell...but I'm certainly not as enamored of the hire as some of you seem to be.

This captures my sentiments pretty well after reading the 6 pages of posts thus far. I think it's important to separate college team preferences/rivalries from the actual institutions that are behind those teams. I think all Iowans should be proud that the state has not one, but two of the premier public institutions of higher education in the country. That's something that very few states can claim. It's one thing to talk about fairness of the state funding mechanism. It's another thing to thrive in a situation that has a very real chance of doing serious long term damage to the University of Iowa. It could be that this new UofI president does a fantastic job and turns a new leaf for the university. There's probably an equal chance of the opposite happening.

Also, this hostility towards people in academia seems misguided, or at the very least ill-informed. As an academic myself, and a prof at a land grant university, I have to say that I see a completely different side of academics everyday than what most people are exposed to in the media, message boards, or even in class. I would bet that most people would be surprised to see just how academics and research universities actually impact state economies - including the professors that don't teach classes. Yes they might spend most of their time chasing grant money to support their research. However, in many of those cases that research provides a direct economic impact to the state. Iowa State claims that for every $1 of investment it receives, it produces $4 of economic activity in the state. I'm sure that number is similar at the university of Iowa.

 

[cyclonestate]

I don't get how it is sticking a middle finger up to Iowa when This is probably Rastetter's guy and you know he wants Iowa to be a good University. It's a strange pick but sometimes that works out. I have a lot of questions about how good he will be but who knows maybe he will be a good hire.

You don't know how this is like sticking the middle finger up to Iowa?

Well, let's see. The Board of Regents schedules an open forum for each candidate to allow Iowa faculty and staff an opportunity to question the candidates and provide their feedback. More than 90% of the Iowa faculty and staff surveyed say that each of the first 3 candidates are qualified for the position and virtually all of the faculty and staff (97.3%) say the fourth candidate is NOT qualified for the job. So the Board of Regents says "F you Iowa faculty and staff. We're choosing the fourth candidate."

 

[AuH2O]

This captures my sentiments pretty well after reading the 6 pages of posts thus far. I think it's important to separate college team preferences/rivalries from the actual institutions that are behind those teams. I think all Iowans should be proud that the state has not one, but two of the premier public institutions of higher education in the country. That's something that very few states can claim. It's one thing to talk about fairness of the state funding mechanism. It's another thing to thrive in a situation that has a very real chance of doing serious long term damage to the University of Iowa. It could be that this new UofI president does a fantastic job and turns a new leaf for the university. There's probably an equal chance of the opposite happening.

Also, this hostility towards people in academia seems misguided, or at the very least ill-informed. As an academic myself, and a prof at a land grant university, I have to say that I see a completely different side of academics everyday than what most people are exposed to in the media, message boards, or even in class. I would bet that most people would be surprised to see just how academics and research universities actually impact state economies - including the professors that don't teach classes. Yes they might spend most of their time chasing grant money to support their research. However, in many of those cases that research provides a direct economic impact to the state. Iowa State claims that for every $1 of investment it receives, it produces $4 of economic activity in the state. I'm sure that number is similar at the university of Iowa.

I can say that after many years in the private sector, now working in research at ISU my view of faculty and the value of research has changed. Most of the faculty I have worked with prob work 80 plus hours and support and educate tons of students through grants.

However, i do strongly believe that there are quite a few academics in high level roles (Deans, Associate Deans, VPs) that are not qualified or have the right skill set to be leading organizations at that level.

 

[ajbjunior]

Were any of the four finalists internal? I don't think so. On top of that, by hiring the candidate that has already received the lowest marks from the people that will be working for him, who has the least understanding of what they do and how they do it, and has already publicly stated that he will need considerable help in "learning his job"...well, I think the BoR have done all parties (UI faculty, staff & students but also Herrold) a disservice. They've foisted the least preferred candidate onto the community, and they've exposed his naiveté to a whole bunch of people that don't want him. Tough times ahead for all of them.

In what world other then academia do employees get to help hire their boss? People are going to want the person that is least likely to make them change... It's human nature and a flawed hiring process. The board felt he was the most qualified to meet their objectives. If you want change you have to find the person that has experience implement it. As a husband to a university employee I would welcome someone that can make changes and continue to streamline things so that some day the university can get back to giving raises and reward the high performing employees.

Someone explain to to me how being more like a business doesn't allow you to teach and develop children?

 

[ExCyment]

Were any of the four finalists internal? I don't think so. On top of that, by hiring the candidate that has already received the lowest marks from the people that will be working for him, who has the least understanding of what they do and how they do it, and has already publicly stated that he will need considerable help in "learning his job"...well, I think the BoR have done all parties (UI faculty, staff & students but also Herrold) a disservice. They've foisted the least preferred candidate onto the community, and they've exposed his naiveté to a whole bunch of people that don't want him. Tough times ahead for all of them.

Only in academia do people think they hire their boss.

Edit: Jr. you beat me to this point

 

[ISUboi12]

In what world other then academia do employees get to help hire their boss? People are going to want the person that is least likely to make them change...


Someone explain to to me how being more like a business doesn't allow you to teach and develop children?

The first argument is flawed since the board and an (I'm sure) an independent consultation agency picked the finalists. Further, those same preferences were mirrored by non-UI faculty. And seriously, look at the margin of preference. It really should tell you something.

To your last point, why does hiring a Harvard MBA mean that the university is going to operate "more like a business"? It has always operated as a business. The worry is that this individual lacks experience to advocate the principals and traditional values of a university.

I guess if you really want to talk about institutional efficiency, then you are going run into some arguments of diminishing returns. Well, where do you set the bar for educational efficiency? When we are talking about educating our future leaders is it really a good thing to "trim the fat"? That "fat" pumps millions of dollars into local economies that benefit many Iowans.

I don't think it matters, because I doubt this guy was hired to come in and "change" things. I think he was brought in to give into the demands of the BOR, which IMO is a bad thing.

 

[ImJustKCClone]

Only in academia do people think they hire their boss.

Edit: Jr. you beat me to this point

No, they don't hire their boss. But their input is (nearly always) invited in the process.

Have you ever been part of a search for a department chair, a dean, or a president at a university? In most cases, there is a search committee, and at the higher levels a headhunting firm is frequently hired to thin the herd of applicants. When the finalists have been determined, anywhere from 3-5 are brought to campus. The campus visits generally include closed interviews with key faculty member groups (faculty senate) and administrators for the higher level candidates (presidents, veeps, deans), and frequently include separate P&S meets for deans, and staff and grad student meets for department chair candidates. Then there are open forums where the candidate will present their vision, their goals, and their past successes to any who want to attend. Depending on how big the audience is, those can also include Q&A sessions. Following each candidate's visit, surveys are provided to those involved (they're often links to online surveys now that are emailed out) and those results are tallied.

Look at the results of the surveys above. That input was REQUESTED, and was clearly IGNORED. If someone asked for your opinions, and your responses were like above, and they went the completely opposite direction, would you be happy about it? Or is it just acceptable to you (and others) because it's a university, and more specifically it's the University of Iowa, and even MORE specifically it's those elitist, liberal academics in Iowa City?

 

[BCClone]

No, they don't hire their boss. But their input is (nearly always) invited in the process.

Have you ever been part of a search for a department chair, a dean, or a president at a university? In most cases, there is a search committee, and at the higher levels a headhunting firm is frequently hired to thin the herd of applicants. When the finalists have been determined, anywhere from 3-5 are brought to campus. The campus visits generally include closed interviews with key faculty member groups (faculty senate) and administrators for the higher level candidates (presidents, veeps, deans), and frequently include separate P&S meets for deans, and staff and grad student meets for department chair candidates. Then there are open forums where the candidate will present their vision, their goals, and their past successes to any who want to attend. Depending on how big the audience is, those can also include Q&A sessions. Following each candidate's visit, surveys are provided to those involved (they're often links to online surveys now that are emailed out) and those results are tallied.

Look at the results of the surveys above. That input was REQUESTED, and was clearly IGNORED. If someone asked for your opinions, and your responses were like above, and they went the completely opposite direction, would you be happy about it? Or is it just acceptable to you (and others) because it's a university, and more specifically it's the University of Iowa, and even MORE specifically it's those elitist, liberal academics in Iowa City?

This is why businesses don't do it this way. Employees can't say, should have listened to me, app B was better IMO. Schools do it this way also, I always felt it undermined the new hire. They had to worry about being liked more than who has the better vision. I have seen this style blow up more times than not in the local school settings. I don't think it should be done this way.

and apparently the head hunters and BOR thought he was qualified.

 

[carvers4math]

If the BoR was just going to ignore an overwhelming opinion, they shouldn't ask for it to begin with.

 

[ImJustKCClone]

Look at the results of the surveys above. That input was REQUESTED, and was clearly IGNORED. If someone asked for your opinions, and your responses were like above, and they went the completely opposite direction, would you be happy about it? Or is it just acceptable to you (and others) because it's a university, and more specifically it's the University of Iowa, and even MORE specifically it's those elitist, liberal academics in Iowa City?

This is why businesses don't do it this way. Employees can't say, should have listened to me, app B was better IMO. Schools do it this way also, I always felt it undermined the new hire. They had to worry about being liked more than who has the better vision. I have seen this style blow up more times than not in the local school settings. I don't think it should be done this way.

and apparently the head hunters and BOR thought he was qualified.

Question answered, at least in your case.

 

[cemarclone]

Look at the results of the surveys above. That input was REQUESTED, and was clearly IGNORED. If someone asked for your opinions, and your responses were like above, and they went the completely opposite direction, would you be happy about it? Or is it just acceptable to you (and others) because it's a university, and more specifically it's the University of Iowa, and even MORE specifically it's those elitist, liberal academics in Iowa City?



Question answered, at least in your case.

I see that the Faculty and Students blew this, not the BOR. The faculty had no intention of honestly vetting this guy, so they dug their own grave. As a BOR member, why would i even consider their opinions, they were completely disrespectful of the process. Many of the questions aimed at him were not even intended to be answered, they were intended to embarrass the guy. The faulty made this into a circus, not the BOR.

 

[ImJustKCClone]

I see that the Faculty and Students blew this, not the BOR. The faculty had no intention of honestly vetting this guy, so they dug their own grave. As a BOR member, why would i even consider their opinions, they were completely disrespectful of the process. Many of the questions aimed at him were not even intended to be answered, they were intended to embarrass the guy. The faulty made this into a circus, not the BOR.

You're a BOR member? Riiiiiiiiiggggghhhhhttttt...

 

[carvers4math]

You're a BOR member? Riiiiiiiiiggggghhhhhttttt...

I can confirm, since my secret identity is the Mustache, I appointed him.:spinny:

 

[CycloneErik]

You're a BOR member? Riiiiiiiiiggggghhhhhttttt...

I think he's using a hypothetical situation there to express his thoughts on the process, and just didn't type the word "if."

 

[sunnysideup]

Here's my take on this. Bruce Rastetter is a UofI alum and huge donor to both the general scholarship fund and the athletic department. If Bruce spearheaded the new prez through even though popular consensus was against him that tells me Bruce wanted to hire a prez that could be the regent's puppet.

 

[cemarclone]

Here's my take on this. Bruce Rastetter is a UofI alum and huge donor to both the general scholarship fund and the athletic department. If Bruce spearheaded the new prez through even though popular consensus was against him that tells me Bruce wanted to hire a prez that could be the regent's puppet.

The President works for the BOR. Guess that makes him a "puppet". I like that. The academics want the inmates to run the asylum.

 

[ImJustKCClone]

Look at the results of the surveys above. That input was REQUESTED, and was clearly IGNORED. If someone asked for your opinions, and your responses were like above, and they went the completely opposite direction, would you be happy about it? Or is it just acceptable to you (and others) because it's a university, and more specifically it's the University of Iowa, and even MORE specifically it's those elitist, liberal academics in Iowa City?



Question answered, at least in your case.

The President works for the BOR. Guess that makes him a "puppet". I like that. The academics want the inmates to run the asylum.

Looks like it's been answered in your case as well.

 

[Entropy]

Well, at least the t-shirts are amusing.