Add another one to the faculty

[hoyahoyasaxa]

At this point, Georgetown could probably start its own government. Add Natsios to Albright, Lake, Tenet, Aznar, Daschle, Gallucci (and the many others who I am obviously forgetting). Good for us.

USAID Chief Natsios Resigns

Andrew S. Natsios, the long-time chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development, announced today he was resigning to join Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/02/AR2005120200557.html

[Jack]

With the exception of Daschle, they are all SFS profs. Gallucci gets a lot of credit for that, although I believe Natsios may be an alum himself. At the very least, he has some prior connection to the university.

[SoCalHoya]

Though it sometimes hurts us in the conventional rankings, I think it's great having part-time profs like Albright, Lake, Tenet, etc. who have real-world experience. Adds a lot of character to GU, too.

[kchoya]

socalhoya said:

Though it sometimes hurts us in the conventional rankings, I think it's great having part-time profs like Albright, Lake, Tenet, etc. who have real-world experience. Adds a lot of character to GU, too.

I thought some of my best profs at the law center were "part-timers" like Sam Dash and Abbie Lowell.

Setting aside the question of whether or not they improve the education being provided to the students, is there another university, other than Harvard, that can boast of as many "name" professors as Georgetown?

[hoyahoyasaxa]

Yeah, even if it may hurt us in the conventional rankings, it is one thing that makes GU the best place to study government/IR. My best professors were definitely the "part-timers." Having a professor talk about theory, and then giving a personal real-world example to illustrate it definitely is invaluable. You really can't substitute practical experience for anything.

It was definitely very cool to have a class with Tony Lake (former Clinton National Security Advisor) and discuss the Balkans. When you're talking with the guy who made many of those decisions, and he is explaining why he personally made them, it's pretty interesting. Much different than reading about it or having someone else try to explain it.

[david]

What does Tom Daschle teach? (I'm assuming thats the Daschle you're referring to)...

[Jack]

Tom Daschle is affiliated with the graduate Public Policy Institute, so he does not teach undergraduates.

gppi.georgetown.edu/faculty/daschle.html

[watsonry]

It is nice that Georgetown is able to recruit some big names from the government to come for a mostly figurehead professorship...it is too bad they don't spend the time and the money to attract more actual big time scholars, which would enchance the reputation of the school in a much greater way. For one, in the world of academia, Georgetown is seen as a bit of a lightweight--a few big name, actual scholars thrown into the mix and suddenly the reputation scores (see USNews) woul increase (after a few years of course).

[Gold Hoya]

University of Chicago has a ton of "name" profs ... many are econ Nobel Prize winners, but in addition, Sen. Obama is on leave as an adjunct professor at the law school.

[watsonry]

Yeah, I went to UChicago for grad school--most of their "name" profs are also academic all stars (Obama aside)--Just a few: Martha Nussbaum, Cass Sunstein, Lauren Berlant, Bill Brown, Arnold Davidson, W.J.T. Mitchell...no dirth of publication record there....

[DFW HOYA]

watsonry said:

For one, in the world of academia, Georgetown is seen as a bit of a lightweight--a few big name, actual scholars thrown into the mix and suddenly the reputation scores (see USNews) woul increase (after a few years of course).

That's a bit misleading. Georgetown may be seen as a lightweight (to use your phrase) by the Ivy brahmin but there are hundreds of schools for which Georgetown is worth aspiring to.

I don't think people at Lehigh or William & Mary or Syracuse think of Georgetown as insuffcient academically. (Each of those mentioned are within US News' top 50.)

[watsonry]

Yes, I should have qualified--a relative lightweight--in terms of some Ivy's, Chicago, Stanford etc. Certainly, the schools you mentioned would have hard time making the same claim about us. I spent most of my time in the English department at Georgetown, and had uniformly excellent profs--none were big time scholars, but they were all quite smart and very good at actually teaching. Now, I have entered the world of academia (on track for a PhD) and can see from the other side how Georgetown is perceived in some circles---most of it has to do with our lack of PhD programs in the Humanities--we don't have the visibility or recognition in academia because of it....for instance, many English profs at say Chicago would be more impressed that you did undergrad at Pitt's or Minnesota's English department than at Georgetown (in fact, I have seen such reactions first hand)....

[DFW HOYA]

Good points, but the number of Ph.D candidates out of Georgetown is very, very small compared to the undergraduate population as a whole.

A related question: should graduate education drive Georgetown's future? Clearly there is no Ph.D. track coming out of SFS, MSB, or NHS and those discliplines aren't as concerned about this as some liberal arts majors might be. However, I can't see much value in a Ph.D. program in any of these other schools.

And in a school that can't afford a basketball gym, much less a top-25 graduate program, what are the realistic options? Any chance a new library could be in the capital campaign, retrofitting Lauinger into classroom space?

[watsonry]

Yeah, in NHS and MSB, I see no real need to push a PhD agenda. But with SFS and COL, there are many smart, academically inclined students who seem to get pushed into the herd mentality of law school. There should, at the very least, be more of a push to get some kids to think about academia--maybe set up a graduate school advisor in various departments that could advise on programs, requirements, statements of purpose etc. In short, make it a viable option. That would be the first low cost solution. Georgetown also could get creative with MA programs to fund PhD's. We already offer an MA in English--expand that program a bit and use the revenue to fund a PhD program and lure a few big scholars away from better places (almost every top school uses MA tuition dollars to fund PhD's). Or, strengthen the PhD programs we already have (History, Philosophy and Government etc.)--using the same method..philosophy and government have the potential to be top departments given some minor improvements in faculty...it all starts with the faculty, lure a few big ones away and worry about the library later....

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Natsios is a great "get" for the SFS - YB and I met him at a conference that we put together on Regional and Sub-Regional Development Strategies in (primarily) the Global South - yes that's right I used to work for YB (imagine how efficient that office was) - Natsios seems like a generally affable guy although I didn't get a chance to hear his speech.

[watsonry]

My current boss worked for him for a while at USAID and they were in Iraq together...she claims he is a bit of a dolt and laughed when I said he would be teaching at GU...

[reformation]

Watsonry, you make some good pts about encourgaing more GU students to consider grad school; however, it will take more than hiring a few academic stars or starting Phd humanities programs to improve GU's academic rep among elite academic institutions and GU's students grad school prospects--GU actually has to focus on actually making its undergrad academic program as rigorous as those at institutions that compete with us for undergard admissions.

1)Grad schools love applicants from lib arts colleges such as williams, amherst, swarthmore et al because they are confident that the students have taken rigrous academic programs in their disciplines, not because their faculty are loaded with academic stars or have phd programs because they don't have these things. Unfortunately, Gtwn is not perceived(with some justification) as having an extremely rigorous undergrad program in a lot of disciplines.

2)Adding more rigor to gtwns programs is not that hard; the admin simply has to make it a priority. I honestly don't think that the admin realizes that there is a problem or gap beteween GU and other elite schools in this regard.(based on first hand experience)

3)Gu's favorite enemy Duke, e.g., realized a few years back that despite being a "popular school" its academics were really not up to par with schools like stanford which it aspires to be--the president of Duke, e.g., publically admitted that the school does not due a good job of challenging top students academically. For whatever reason its hard for GU to take a similar critical look at itself and doing someting about it---though maybe that is gradually changing as alumni feedback on this issue increases.
4)Hiring adjuncts or distinguished profs like aznar is still a good thing, its just not the all there is.

P.S. Watsonry pls email me offline - would like to share a recent proposal with you that I think you will find interesting