DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,741
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Apr 15, 2024 14:42:02 GMT -5
The guys who run most top univ's are generally top academics themselves. They have confidence to make strategic decisions that favor/disfavor academic departments/programs. My gut feel is that Gtwn's admin does not have similar confidence, so we are timid in making changes (even obvious ones). This begs the question as to what strategic changes are needed, which would be a board level decision, not from the provost or president. To make a major academic add you need two of the three to get any board to sign off on it: 1) transformative philanthropy, 2) a unique competitive advantage gained by the addition, and 3) the ability to drive long term cash flow from the outcome of the addition. (While not science-driven, the McCourt gift to GPPI met these criteria.) As for the first, while many peer institutions have enjoyed broad philanthropic support from alumni and/or local friends of that university, the Georgetown alumni population is not coming from a science orientation and the wide swath of foundational support in Washington is not focused on local institutions. Were someone to emerge, they would expect an advantage to give to Georgetown that would a better deal than what Penn, NYU, Columbia, etc. could do with it; hence, Georgetown's focus on policy over research. Finally, the strategy must be self-sustaining. This was the intent, anyway, in the plans for the FIDIA-Georgetown Institute for the Neurosciences, until FIDIA went into receivership. www.nature.com/articles/364562a0.pdfwww.upi.com/Archives/1993/08/01/Georgetown-left-with-half-finished-building/3781744177600/
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Apr 15, 2024 21:18:21 GMT -5
In terms of philanthropy, I would say that top donors respond to what they are pitched (could be positive or negative). They will have their own philanthropic interests, e.g., biomedicine, but they will listen to pitches that fit their basic interests. I doubt that Gtwn's big money people (including McCourt-I've sat next to him at dinner a couple of times) would react negatively to a stem focused pitch. I think Gtwn's issue in this regard is actually coming up with and prioritizing a compelling pitch.
In terms of the board leading this type of issue, I don't think that it's really the case in a univ context (certainly makeup of Gtwn's board-5 priests, bunch of finance people, some probably quite capable) are going to lead some big transformation.
I think most univ boards expect the Univ President to lead strategy. The Gtwn board would set a change in direction by their choice of president.
I would think that marginal hiring of Profs, i.e., lets hire 3 history and 3 compsci vs 3/3 phil/theo is well within the President's chain of command.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Apr 15, 2024 21:23:45 GMT -5
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,598
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Apr 16, 2024 10:05:29 GMT -5
. I would think that marginal hiring of Profs, i.e., lets hire 3 history and 3 compsci vs 3/3 phil/theo is well within the President's chain of command. NB these are new hires generally, not new positions or new tenure lines. The resourcing (budgeting, facilities, etc.) process through which both ordinary and non-ordinary faculty positions are allocated has a significant number of inputs, including endowments/restricted funds, required course offerings (need X people to teach Y courses), historical enrollment in various courses and programs, faculty contracts that are subject to both individual and shared governance negotiation (i.e., you can't just nuke all of a tenured faculty's electives and make them teach surveys/requirements instead), etc. etc. It's not just a matter of the president/provost decided they're going to stop hiring Classics faculty and hire a bunch of computer scientists instead.
|
|