|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Sept 28, 2007 10:25:25 GMT -5
www.thehoya.com/viewpoint/092807/view1.cfmI don't know if anyone read this, but I think it is a disgrace. Its tone is totally inappropriate and it belies any understanding of the role of a university president. I expect this sort of childishness from individual columnists--but coming from the editorial board of GU's newspaper or record it is very disappointing. After all the talk about GU's financial woes, it actually criticizes DeGioia for meeting with millionaires and raising money!!!! I'm used to seeing the president of a major univeristy confused the the dean of students or an academic advisor, but to acuse him of arrogance for not holding office hours is beyond the pale. There is one legitimate cricism in the editorial: DeGioia has not met with student media and outlined a vision for the university. But he does speak in public events on campus regularly. He's not an ombudsman. He represents a univeristy with hunderds of millions of dollars in annual operations, tens of thousands of alumni, 13,000 students, and hundreds of professors. He needs to worry about raising the school's profile, about finances, about negotiating contracts with the basketball coach, working with the provost to improve the faculty, meeting with alumni, and raising $$$$$$$, etc. He can't be everywhere at once. If he spent time worrying about "ineffective student government" or dining option, as an alumnus, I'd want him fired. He has people under him who handle that kind of stuff. Sorry for the rant. I'm actually not the biggest DeGioia fan (for very different reasons), but this editorial was so embarassing, it just set me off. If you want him to have more contact with students, there is a much more mature and balanced way to express that.
|
|
|
Post by TrueHoyaBlue on Sept 28, 2007 10:49:01 GMT -5
I think this was my favorite part of the editorial:
"First, he went off-campus, to Hillendale. DeGioia is not only the first non-Jesuit university president, but also the first who elected to not live in the ornate president’s residence in Healy Hall, choosing instead to live in a multi-million mansion in a gated community, away from students."
Not sure if the Hoya's editorial board knows something the rest of us don't, but the last time I checked, the "president's residence" in question was a one-bedroom suite in one of the 200 year-old buildings (I believe old Ryan) that made up the old Jesuit residence. That apartment, like the others in the old community, was essentially dorm-style living, and it was in the Jesuit Community because the President was a member of the Jesuit Community.
If there is a residence within Healy, nevermind an ornate one, I'd love to see it.
I, like many others in the university, would love to have the president's house be closer to campus, but that's no reason to invent an alternate reality for the sake of an editorial.
|
|
|
Post by saxacalhoya on Sept 28, 2007 10:49:41 GMT -5
There is one legitimate cricism in the editorial: DeGioia has not met with student media and outlined a vision for the university. President DeGioia sits down with members of the student media every Fall and Spring semester and answers their questions. Maybe they should ask him then for his vision of the university.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Sept 28, 2007 12:17:46 GMT -5
Um doesn't degoia live right across the street from the hospital?
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Sept 28, 2007 12:32:22 GMT -5
Given the events of this past week, I'm especially unsympathetic to this viewpoint.
I would much rather have a president who is a competent fundraiser and stalwart than one who spends his/her time answering questions posed by student journalists.
In fact, I think a much larger--and ultimately more important--issue is a general student dissatisfaction with the university bureaucracy.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 28, 2007 12:52:39 GMT -5
Given the events of this past week, I'm especially unsympathetic to this viewpoint. I would much rather have a president who is a competent fundraiser and stalwart than one who spends his/her time answering questions posed by student journalists. In fact, I think a much larger--and ultimately more important--issue is a general student dissatisfaction with the university bureaucracy. Agreed. Having been in Ed Board meetings, I think the conversation probably followed this line: A person doesn't like _____. Another person says it should be done differently. Another person asks why it's not. The first person blames a University office or administrator The third person complains more about that office or administrator. A fourth person chimes in with a radical and off-topic idea. The second person comes back and says that the office is a mess, but not as bad as a different office or administrator. All hell breaks lose as everyone complains about a slew of organizational and administrative problems at the university. Someone finally asks whose fault all of this is. Not knowing who else to blame for the biggest problems that students encounter, the President becomes the most visible and easy to attack leader. Bottom line: The organizational and administrative problems are VERY legitimate. No one knows where to direct them or whose job it is to fix them. All eyes turn to the President.
|
|
hoyaLS05
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by hoyaLS05 on Sept 28, 2007 13:29:13 GMT -5
www.thehoya.com/viewpoint/092807/view1.cfmI don't know if anyone read this, but I think it is a disgrace. Its tone is totally inappropriate and it belies any understanding of the role of a university president. I expect this sort of childishness from individual columnists--but coming from the editorial board of GU's newspaper or record it is very disappointing. After all the talk about GU's financial woes, it actually criticizes DeGioia for meeting with millionaires and raising money!!!! I'm used to seeing the president of a major univeristy confused the the dean of students or an academic advisor, but to acuse him of arrogance for not holding office hours is beyond the pale. There is one legitimate cricism in the editorial: DeGioia has not met with student media and outlined a vision for the university. But he does speak in public events on campus regularly. He's not an ombudsman. He represents a univeristy with hunderds of millions of dollars in annual operations, tens of thousands of alumni, 13,000 students, and hundreds of professors. He needs to worry about raising the school's profile, about finances, about negotiating contracts with the basketball coach, working with the provost to improve the faculty, meeting with alumni, and raising $$$$$$$, etc. He can't be everywhere at once. If he spent time worrying about "ineffective student government" or dining option, as an alumnus, I'd want him fired. He has people under him who handle that kind of stuff. Sorry for the rant. I'm actually not the biggest DeGioia fan (for very different reasons), but this editorial was so embarassing, it just set me off. If you want him to have more contact with students, there is a much more mature and balanced way to express that. Should students respect their president? I think the editorial is on the money in that most do not. If your answer is yes, then what can he do to earn their respect other than being more visible, which you do not seem to support. If the answer is no, can you explain why? Given the events of this past week, I'm especially unsympathetic to this viewpoint. Are you referring to DeGioia signing III to an extension? If so, I think that is an incredibly hypocritical point of view. Nearly everyone has been wondering where is the extension, why haven't we locked up III, what is being done to ensure the future of the program, etc. etc. etc. No one from the administration would say a word. Then, when it finally is announced that a deal is done, you say you'd rather he be working behind close doors to make it happen than to spend any time explaining himself. Which is it? Or, correct me if I've misinterpreted your remark.
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Sept 28, 2007 14:14:34 GMT -5
05 -- I guess my flip answer to your question is that the students are wrong to feel that way. They lack perspective and maturity. But, of course, I do want students to respect the president of their university. Respect should come from a sense that he is moving the university in a positive direction: improving fundraising, improving the student to faculty ratio, moving ahead with capital projects, growing the endowment, helping to recruit better faculty, and the list goes on and on. I do not believe that students have a right to access to the president of their university through office hours. The reality is that he has a very demanding job and many constituencies. Undergrads are in many ways the last group he should be talking to--not because they don't matter, but because they often have the poorest perspective on things. As others have pointed out here, everything that they don't like about the univeristy they assume is the president's responsibility, and they usually have no points of comparison. Ultimately, the president may be responsible for undergrad life, but he is not the person to whom all of these complaints should be directed. He is not the dean of students (any more), he is not a head master, he is not the academic dean.
Look, it isn't that I want our president to be totally removed from the students. The students should feel connected to him. But I do not think that student contact should be a priority. It is one thing to write an editorial that says, respectfully, we would like more contact with the president. Could maybe we set up a montly or bi-monthly forum--some sort of townhall. It is another entirely to criticize him for fundraising, for building bridges to other universities, for not living in the Jesuit residence (!?!), and other such nonsense....and then to call him arrogant--that's just not what I expect from the Hoya. If the editors think he is doing a bad job in the core functions of his office, then lambaste him. But I don't get the sense that the authors of this piece know what the job of a university president entails. Instead it is agitprop. I think, in the end, the complaint is probably very minor and easily addressed. I don't know why the editorial couldn't have been written accordingly.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,081
|
Post by DanMcQ on Sept 28, 2007 14:16:27 GMT -5
The residence off campus argument is a bit unfair - where in the "ornate Presidential residence in Healy" would the editors propose the president house his wife and children?
What is clearest about this editorial is the anger the board has because the president does not make himself more personally available to them.
As for connectedness to students, Tim Healy, arguably one of the more gregarious and 'involved' presidents GU has had in my lifetime, was indeed personally available to students. However, it was a small group mostly focused on those who took his class. I was a RA and I never met the guy in my 4 years on campus, but I did not feel cheated or ignored.
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Sept 28, 2007 14:37:51 GMT -5
Given the events of this past week, I'm especially unsympathetic to this viewpoint. Are you referring to DeGioia signing III to an extension? If so, I think that is an incredibly hypocritical point of view. Nearly everyone has been wondering where is the extension, why haven't we locked up III, what is being done to ensure the future of the program, etc. etc. etc. No one from the administration would say a word. Then, when it finally is announced that a deal is done, you say you'd rather he be working behind close doors to make it happen than to spend any time explaining himself. Which is it? Or, correct me if I've misinterpreted your remark. I never said I liked the way the process went. All I said was I am especially unsympathetic to cricitisms of DeGioia right now. It took waaaaay longer than we would have liked, but within the past week or so, the administration has unveiled plans for a legit practice facility and a six year extension for coach. Would it have killed the editorial staff to write even a moderately complimentary piece given these two positive developments? Can you imagine the piece they would have written had III not been extended? It would have shredded the admin. Also, it's not like JTIII was very forthcoming with details about his negotiations. Don't pretend like the admin was just stonewalling everyone for the sake of being difficult.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,081
|
Post by DanMcQ on Sept 28, 2007 14:56:55 GMT -5
|
|
hoyaLS05
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by hoyaLS05 on Sept 28, 2007 16:50:57 GMT -5
Are you referring to DeGioia signing III to an extension? If so, I think that is an incredibly hypocritical point of view. Nearly everyone has been wondering where is the extension, why haven't we locked up III, what is being done to ensure the future of the program, etc. etc. etc. No one from the administration would say a word. Then, when it finally is announced that a deal is done, you say you'd rather he be working behind close doors to make it happen than to spend any time explaining himself. Which is it? Or, correct me if I've misinterpreted your remark. I never said I liked the way the process went. All I said was I am especially unsympathetic to cricitisms of DeGioia right now. It took waaaaay longer than we would have liked, but within the past week or so, the administration has unveiled plans for a legit practice facility and a six year extension for coach. Would it have killed the editorial staff to write even a moderately complimentary piece given these two positive developments? Can you imagine the piece they would have written had III not been extended? It would have shredded the admin. Also, it's not like JTIII was very forthcoming with details about his negotiations. Don't pretend like the admin was just stonewalling everyone for the sake of being difficult. As to the latter point, I am one of the last people that would ever be under such an assumption. III was probably reluctant to even make yesterday's announcement. More to the point though, the thrust of the editorial as I understood it is not that DeGioia is not doing good things as president. It is not that he lacks vision or the ability to realize his vision. It is that he has not tried very hard to articulate that vision to the students -- and I understand some argue that he shouldn't have to -- or make the undergrads believe in that vision. I think that is the point being made here. There is certainly something to the idea that in the long run and grand scheme of things, it is more important for Jack to be out networking and fundraising, but I guess, somewhat naively, there is also the idea that there really is no university at all without undergrads.
|
|
|
Post by saxacalhoya on Sept 28, 2007 16:57:22 GMT -5
I would argue that it is as much the responsibility of The Hoya and other student publications to educate the community about DeGioia's vision for the University. This would mean that when they meet with him in the Fall and Spring that they actually ask those sort of questions and, frankly, reading the articles after they sit down with him it is clear that they aren't.
|
|
hoyaLS05
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by hoyaLS05 on Sept 28, 2007 17:08:35 GMT -5
In one half hour with four publications all asking questions, how clearly do you think the vision of a major research university can be laid out?
As for newspapers having responsibilities to educate, that is a whole other conversation for a whole other place. Maybe 3416, if he is lurking, wants to weigh in on that one.
|
|
|
Post by saxacalhoya on Sept 28, 2007 17:24:57 GMT -5
Well, that assumes they all show up, which isn't the case. But, if this is such a big issue with students (and I doubt it is) perhaps the editors from the publications should get together before the interview and agree on a series of questions to ask. The problem with the editorial in my opinion is that it seems the real driver is that The Hoya is just sore over not having unfettered access to DeGioia. Being on campus you just don't get the sense that students believe what the editorial says they do. Maybe the editorial board does, but not the larger student population.
|
|
hoyaLS05
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by hoyaLS05 on Sept 28, 2007 17:57:04 GMT -5
Well, that assumes they all show up, which isn't the case. Just as a point of clarification, you attend these once-a-semester student publication sit downs with DeGioia?
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Sept 28, 2007 21:05:26 GMT -5
The Hoya article was a bit of a rant-cheap shot- the big issues the article misses obviously include whether DeGioia is actually a good fundraiser for the univ + does he have a good vision and can he execute it. His lack of presence with the student body is not a good thing, but it is one of may factors in judging his performance. The article was and should be embarassing to both him and the univ. Coming on the heels of the who drinking regulation fiasco and the academic culture report which says basically that Gtwn has no academic culture makes an outsider wonder what is going on at Gtwn. I wish that the Hoya would do the univ a service and conduct a real examination of the issues above as opposed(in addition) to this soundbite editorial critique.
On the fundraising side, I believe a lot of donors actually think DeGioia is pretty mediocre at best--the people on the board who claim that his fundraising prowess outweighs his chaismatic shortcomings are misinformed--Gtwn's fundraising issues are definitely not all Degioa's fault. However, I don't think he is a big asset in this regard. It seems everytime I attend a fundraising event for another univ I walk away saying I wish that univ president was running Gtwn.(I met the Northwestern univ pres for the first time last week-he was much more impressive in outlining his vision than I have ever seen Degioia, e.g.)
DeGioia's vision for the univ does not seem clear or focused, though I think that he has launched some good initiatives and has done a very good job of hiring new people in key positions--overall a pretty mixed picture. I'm also pretty confident that he does not really have a good appreciation of how Gtwn stacks up vs other univ's, which is not surprising considering that he has no external experience --Overall a mixed picture(though I think that he is gradually getting better though experience)--most external academics think that Gtwn underperforms its potential--I would have to agree
Unfortunately I don't think that either "The Hoya" or our pres stack up very well compared to our peers--lets hope that they both get better.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,672
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Sept 28, 2007 22:29:03 GMT -5
Reformation, you have a point with DeGioia's lack of external experience. When I was applying for grad school (chemistry), it was very clear that you don't stay at your undergrad school, because you want to get other perspectives. Jack has spent his whole life at GU, so he is loyal to the nth degree, but as you say, might be lacking at what makes other universities great.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 28, 2007 23:36:05 GMT -5
Reformation, you have a point with DeGioia's lack of external experience. When I was applying for grad school (chemistry), it was very clear that you don't stay at your undergrad school, because you want to get other perspectives. Jack has spent his whole life at GU, so he is loyal to the nth degree, but as you say, might be lacking at what makes other universities great. Speak for yourself. I'll take a minor knock on my "experience" rather than pretend to be happy anywhere other than DC and Georgetown. --Totally irrelevant, but I just don't like the "have to leave for grad school" approach. If you fit at the place you're at, why leave? I've got my share of complaints about DeGioia, but I don't think they stem from his lack of experience at other schools or from his loyalty (a loyalty that I think any President should, nay MUST, have). If students are this upset about obvious flaws in bureaucratic structure, it seems to me that they're not so complex that he needs a diverse background to address them. He just needs to prioritize them differently. Contact with students needs to move up from 456 to 120 or so.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,672
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Sept 29, 2007 13:27:21 GMT -5
Reformation, you have a point with DeGioia's lack of external experience. When I was applying for grad school (chemistry), it was very clear that you don't stay at your undergrad school, because you want to get other perspectives. Jack has spent his whole life at GU, so he is loyal to the nth degree, but as you say, might be lacking at what makes other universities great. Speak for yourself. I'll take a minor knock on my "experience" rather than pretend to be happy anywhere other than DC and Georgetown. --Totally irrelevant, but I just don't like the "have to leave for grad school" approach. If you fit at the place you're at, why leave? Actually, it was usually encouraged (by the faculty of your undergraduate university - at least in my day : that you should go elsewhere to grad school. Some people still get all their degrees at one place, but the rule of thumb had been to explore other places for grad school to "widen your horizons." Having said that, I will admit that I was much happier as an undergrad at Georgetown than as a graduate student at Cornell. But that had a lot to do with the nature of the beast (grad school vs undergrad).
|
|