Main Hall Prospect

[Mavman]

BUT a president who will use the tools at hand effectively build his University including athletics is rare. Look at how Gonzaga or BSU have morphed into top tier programs both athletically and academically. When I was at Gonzaga, we actually worried the power would get shut off...........

BSU - top tier academically? Really? Tell me more.

I'm getting damn tired of reminding you people that BSU is ranked as the 2nd best secretarial school west of the Mississippi. Write it down!

:lol: I'm going to write it down so I can say it when I'm at the dinner table with my extended family there at Thanksgiving. That's hilarious

Yeah I have to share that with my daughter the BSU grad nah she is doing pretty damn good with her degree, maybe her sister who is still at BSU?
In all seriousness though Bsu growth has been directly tied to their athletic success hell the president says so during orientation. Also look back at the enrollment numbers during the Griz rise to dominance in the late 90's early 00's.

 

[first11]

So in a period of serious competition for students UM raises its cost and trims its programs.

Certainly not a business model that most focused folks in business would follow.

I remain pragmatically optimistic that the right leadership is selected. The current pool of finalists trimmed down from 100 or so prospective shows some promise.

I also remain hopeful that our state support for all of our colleges/universities is raised. We ignore our education we can forget competing for jobs/financial opportunities.

 

[astutegriz]

My two cents is we need someone who can:
- actually lead, in general and through adversity. Enough said about previous president
- return confidence, swagger, and self worth to the U. "We are Montana" must be eminate from every nook and cranny on campus, from every mountain top, etc.
- break the union. No need for it as we have strong employment laws. Insiders and productive faculty know this is the rot that started the collapse
- cut outdated departments and gen ed that exist for current faculty and not students (see point above to understand why)
- grow the emerging majors as dictated by the customers (students) and economy. For instance computers and the info age are likely here to stay
- understand the value of winning sports to shine light, PR, and recruitment for the U
- keep the good deans, cut the dead weight (progress made here, but not done)
- raise money (going good, keep progress)
- lead us to quality, not just quantity. The U should get to a point of around 10k students, then cap acceptance with rejections. Make it harder to get in. Other smaller colleges in the state would love the overflow, no room in Missoula anyway, and the quality of education and institution goes way up. Apartment rental people in town is biggest obstacle
- look at media as a friend and not an enemy. Understand the value of PR and marketing
- understand the importance of research and keep growing. It is actually going well. This is vital.

What about quality of teaching? Absolutely, this must be continually valued, but the reality is any candidate can do it since their hands are largely tied as it falls largely within the faculty and union. Tenure is a bitch. Thus, not high on my hiring criteria.

 

[fanofzoo]

Right we don't want no pipe smokin' hippie profs doin' their thing, they will toe the company line or they're out of here.
No dissension without a union. We need that.
Oh shit look at me doing history again.

 

[astutegriz]

Right we don't want no pipe smokin' hippie profs doin' their thing, they will toe the company line or they're out of here.
No dissension without a union. We need that.
Oh shit look at me doing history again.

Curious on specifics on what the union up there adds that tenure and our employee friendly state laws don't already cover. Most Universities don't have one. MSU doesn't have one. The staff and profs are actually better off at MSU because the admin can actually make decisions that are best for the students and future, thus the employees thrive because the business thrives. Needs to be run like a business. Don't think the "toe the line" remark fits here, but adds to paranoia.

 

[grizcycling]

Right we don't want no pipe smokin' hippie profs doin' their thing, they will toe the company line or they're out of here.
No dissension without a union. We need that.
Oh shit look at me doing history again.

Curious on specifics on what the union up there adds that tenure and our employee friendly state laws don't already cover. Most Universities don't have one. MSU doesn't have one. The staff and profs are actually better at MSU because the admin can actually make decisions that are best for the students and future, thus the employees thrive because the business thrives. Needs to be run like a business. Don't think the "toe the line" remark fits here, but adds to paranoia.

This isn't exactly accurate. Non-tenured tract instructors, the true teachers, have a union. The tenured tract faculty didn't want the adjuncts to have any power and so they voted it down amongst themselves. Trevor Douglas, a guy who led a movement to stop the union quickly left Bozeman for Indiana University. He had one of the highest salaries at MSU but that wasn't enough for him.

 

[grizcycling]

I would like Bodner as the president and that's coming from an educator.

 

[astutegriz]

Right we don't want no pipe smokin' hippie profs doin' their thing, they will toe the company line or they're out of here.
No dissension without a union. We need that.
Oh shit look at me doing history again.

Curious on specifics on what the union up there adds that tenure and our employee friendly state laws don't already cover. Most Universities don't have one. MSU doesn't have one. The staff and profs are actually better at MSU because the admin can actually make decisions that are best for the students and future, thus the employees thrive because the business thrives. Needs to be run like a business. Don't think the "toe the line" remark fits here, but adds to paranoia.

This isn't exactly accurate. Non-tenured tract instructors, the true teachers, have a union. The tenured tract faculty didn't want the adjuncts to have any power and so they voted it down amongst themselves. Trevor Douglas, a guy who led a movement to stop the union quickly left Bozeman for Indiana University. He had one of the highest salaries at MSU but that wasn't enough for him.

Didn't know non-tenure track at MSU had one. Thanks. Question, what do you think it buys the tenure track? It's already virtually impossible to fire a tenured person due to performance anyway. I think they would get the same salary increases, and the data supports this.

I think the union gums more up than it fixes. As the world changes, the faculty composition and how the U is nimble to this change is going to be vital. We can't offer classes and majors just because they exist. It needs to match student need. Most profs don't see or appreciate the whole business or the whole U outside their dept and often feel they paid their dues in grad school and the tenure process, thus are entitled to a lifelong job. If your dept major has dried up, then it is in everyone's best interest to cut it. It is the just and right thing to do. But I know for a fact the profs getting cut nor the union have the best interest of the kids in mind. They want to keep positions come hell or high water. Look at the past few years.

If you look at the U excuses for the enrollment decrease, instead of saying we screwed up with the press, we gave no confidence in our direction when things went south, or.... they said, liberal institutions are all getting hit. Said another, blunt way: many of our majors are becoming irrelevant. Is the union going to allow the new hire to fix this? The new hire needs the backbone to confront this. Stearns is a temp, but is heading in the right direction, and should be thanked.

There was more rot than just at the top

 

[wbtfg]

Saw this commentary from folks unhappy with the credentials of the four finalists.

http://missoulian.com/opinion/columnists/from-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire-how-the-um/article_cd28522e-f4ad-51bf-b712-30172f446147.html?utm_content=buffer7a544&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC

 

[AZDoc]

Saw this commentary from folks unhappy with the credentials of the four finalists.

http://missoulian.com/opinion/columnists/from-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire-how-the-um/article_cd28522e-f4ad-51bf-b712-30172f446147.html?utm_content=buffer7a544&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC

Well we know the people at the bottom of the page, those that signed the petition, would complain about just about anyone that is applying. Seriously, I think the University needs a leader...does NOT have to be from Academia. What better leadership training do you receive other than the military? And how about being one of those in charge at GE? I mean seriously...

 

[grizpack]

Saw this commentary from folks unhappy with the credentials of the four finalists.

http://missoulian.com/opinion/columnists/from-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire-how-the-um/article_cd28522e-f4ad-51bf-b712-30172f446147.html?utm_content=buffer7a544&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC

Well we know the people at the bottom of the page, those that signed the petition, would complain about just about anyone that is applying. Seriously, I think the University needs a leader...does NOT have to be from Academia. What better leadership training do you receive other than the military? And how about being one of those in charge at GE? I mean seriously...

That is the problem with the academia world. They just don't see anything outside of their little bubble. God forbid the person chosen has some sort of real world experience.

Oh yeah.... How did the last academic person work out??? Isn't that why we are in this mess???

 

[Grizzoola]

Someone with only a business and little academic background is not suitable to run a university like UM, or any university. Ambrose and Feinstein are better candidates than Bodnar, or even Martin.

The mission of any educational institution is far different from the mission of any business. Likewise w/ the government & business. Colleges and universities began out of largely religious organizations, which emphasized humanities studies to prepare their students for the ministry. Many students, who did not want to enter the ministry, desiring a general education as a basis for their professions, were accepted.

That's why we have our Harvards, Princetons, the models of higher ed., in this country. Our higher ed. institutions were originally formed with intellectual missions. In 1862, the Morrill Act basically fused the intellectual part with the vocational part (i.e., engineering, ag, etc.). It has long been held that the model of the "Renaissance Man," a person who spans both the humanities and his/her chosen profession, is the model for future leaders in both the intellectual and vocational spheres. IOW, "applied wisdom."

Let's not turn the MT higher ed. system into a purely vocational system. My 2 cents, anyway.

 

[PlayerRep]

Someone with only a business and little academic background is not suitable to run a university like UM, or any university. Ambrose and Feinstein are better candidates than Bodnar, or even Martin.

The mission of any educational institution is far different from the mission of any business. Likewise w/ the government & business. Colleges and universities began out of largely religious organizations, which emphasized humanities studies to prepare their students for the ministry. Many students, who did not want to enter the ministry, desiring a general education as a basis for their professions, were accepted.

That's why we have our Harvards, Princetons, the models of higher ed., in this country. Our higher ed. institutions were originally formed with intellectual missions. In 1862, the Morrill Act basically fused the intellectual part with the vocational part (i.e., engineering, ag, etc.). It has long been held that the model of the "Renaissance Man," a person who spans both the humanities and his/her chosen profession, is the model for future leaders in both the intellectual and vocational spheres. IOW, "applied wisdom."

Let's not turn the MT higher ed. system into a purely vocational system. My 2 cents, anyway.

Oh, BS. Lots of non-academics run and have been presidents of universities. In any event, Bodnar has not only been in business, but has been in the military and has been a professor. He has had training from some of the best leaders in the US; lead people in life or death situations; is trained in economics; knows how to read financial statements, deal with numbers, and be accountable; and would be a terrific president for UM, especially at this time. My view is that Bodnar would start putting UM back on the map again, and would be very qualified to clean up the messes, which were made largely by an academic (and probably one you supported when he became president).

The board of regents specifically sought, or didn't rule out, non-traditional candidates.

See the below stats:

"The Nontraditionals"

"The American Council on Education’s 2007 report on the college presidency found that 13.1 percent of presidents came directly from prior positions outside higher education, a dip from 14.7 percent in 2001 (but an increase from 10.1 percent in 1986). Private colleges were more likely to hire leaders from outside higher education than public ones -- although, unsurprisingly, some of the most high-profile examples of late have not been the leaders of small, tuition-dependent liberal arts colleges but those of big public universities and systems."

Dartmouth once had a president who had been a CEO of a public company, Tonka Toys. Former generals and military people have been college presidents. Former politicians.

The streak continues. I don't recall a single post you have made that I agreed with. With a post like this, now I can see what the problem probably is.

 

[GrizGuy]

Sorry, but although I'm impressed by the general accomplishments of the finalists, I'm not a big fan of any of the candidates as leaders of UM. Mr. Bodner in particular, since you point him out, strikes me as an odd finalist. Leading as he has in the military is not at all the same as leading a public institution like a university. And the shift from his private-sector job to prez of UM seems like too big of a jump to expect him to have success for a great deal of time.. And I think the U needs some immediate, hit-the-ground-running success in enrollment and student satisfaction. He seems like a great guy. I'd love to hear some of his stories while sipping a beer with him. Great guy. But leader of this school at this time? I just don't see it.

If they pick him, naturally, I will wish him all the success in the world because the school deserves it.

 

[PlayerRep]

Sorry, but although I'm impressed by the general accomplishments of the finalists, I'm not a big fan of any of the candidates as leaders of UM. Mr. Bodner in particular, since you point him out, strikes me as an odd finalist. Leading as he has in the military is not at all the same as leading a public institution like a university. And the shift from his private-sector job to prez of UM seems like too big of a jump to expect him to have success for a great deal of time.. And I think the U needs some immediate, hit-the-ground-running success in enrollment and student satisfaction. He seems like a great guy. I'd love to hear some of his stories while sipping a beer with him. Great guy. But leader of this school at this time? I just don't see it.

If they pick him, naturally, I will wish him all the success in the world because the school deserves it.

How do you know what leading in the military is like? It's not just barking out orders anymore.

Finances, enrollment, student satisfaction are things that Bodnar would likely be good at immediately. Plus, he's a tech guy.

UM sorely needs someone who can read a financial statement, read and understand numbers, spot trends, attract the right leaders and people under him, make good decisions, create workable metrics. Bodnar would also be good at dealing with the athletic department. Probably the board of regents and state legislature too.

I find it interesting that some of you believe that academics, with only academic experience, are the only ones to do this. My view is that most academics are terrible at doing most of this. Not all; just most. Jeez, look at RE.

Bodnar was no. 1 in his class at West Point, both on the academic and non-academic side. A Rhodes Scholar. His wife is a Rhodes Scholar.

And Bodnar's wife is from Missoula and her dad is a UM professor. He's been to Griz games. What more could people on egriz want. Ha.

 

[Mousegriz]

Someone with only a business and little academic background is not suitable to run a university like UM, or any university. Ambrose and Feinstein are better candidates than Bodnar, or even Martin.

The mission of any educational institution is far different from the mission of any business. Likewise w/ the government & business. Colleges and universities began out of largely religious organizations, which emphasized humanities studies to prepare their students for the ministry. Many students, who did not want to enter the ministry, desiring a general education as a basis for their professions, were accepted.

That's why we have our Harvards, Princetons, the models of higher ed., in this country. Our higher ed. institutions were originally formed with intellectual missions. In 1862, the Morrill Act basically fused the intellectual part with the vocational part (i.e., engineering, ag, etc.). It has long been held that the model of the "Renaissance Man," a person who spans both the humanities and his/her chosen profession, is the model for future leaders in both the intellectual and vocational spheres. IOW, "applied wisdom."

Let's not turn the MT higher ed. system into a purely vocational system. My 2 cents, anyway.

Oh, BS. Lots of non-academics run and have been presidents of universities. In any event, Bodnar has not only been in business, but has been in the military and has been a professor. He has had training from some of the best leaders in the US; lead people in life or death situations; is trained in economics; knows how to read financial statements, deal with numbers, and be accountable; and would be a terrific president for UM, especially at this time. My view is that Bodnar would start putting UM back on the map again, and would be very qualified to clean up the messes, which were made largely by an academic (and probably one you supported when he became president).

The board of regents specifically sought, or didn't rule out, non-traditional candidates.

See the below stats:

"The Nontraditionals"

"The American Council on Education’s 2007 report on the college presidency found that 13.1 percent of presidents came directly from prior positions outside higher education, a dip from 14.7 percent in 2001 (but an increase from 10.1 percent in 1986). Private colleges were more likely to hire leaders from outside higher education than public ones -- although, unsurprisingly, some of the most high-profile examples of late have not been the leaders of small, tuition-dependent liberal arts colleges but those of big public universities and systems."

Dartmouth once had a president who had been a CEO of a public company, Tonka Toys. Former generals and military people have been college presidents. Former politicians.

The streak continues. I don't recall a single post you have made that I agreed with. With a post like this, now I can see what the problem probably is.

You've really focused in on Bodnar.

 

[PlayerRep]

Someone with only a business and little academic background is not suitable to run a university like UM, or any university. Ambrose and Feinstein are better candidates than Bodnar, or even Martin.

The mission of any educational institution is far different from the mission of any business. Likewise w/ the government & business. Colleges and universities began out of largely religious organizations, which emphasized humanities studies to prepare their students for the ministry. Many students, who did not want to enter the ministry, desiring a general education as a basis for their professions, were accepted.

That's why we have our Harvards, Princetons, the models of higher ed., in this country. Our higher ed. institutions were originally formed with intellectual missions. In 1862, the Morrill Act basically fused the intellectual part with the vocational part (i.e., engineering, ag, etc.). It has long been held that the model of the "Renaissance Man," a person who spans both the humanities and his/her chosen profession, is the model for future leaders in both the intellectual and vocational spheres. IOW, "applied wisdom."

Let's not turn the MT higher ed. system into a purely vocational system. My 2 cents, anyway.

Oh, BS. Lots of non-academics run and have been presidents of universities. In any event, Bodnar has not only been in business, but has been in the military and has been a professor. He has had training from some of the best leaders in the US; lead people in life or death situations; is trained in economics; knows how to read financial statements, deal with numbers, and be accountable; and would be a terrific president for UM, especially at this time. My view is that Bodnar would start putting UM back on the map again, and would be very qualified to clean up the messes, which were made largely by an academic (and probably one you supported when he became president).

The board of regents specifically sought, or didn't rule out, non-traditional candidates.

See the below stats:

"The Nontraditionals"

"The American Council on Education’s 2007 report on the college presidency found that 13.1 percent of presidents came directly from prior positions outside higher education, a dip from 14.7 percent in 2001 (but an increase from 10.1 percent in 1986). Private colleges were more likely to hire leaders from outside higher education than public ones -- although, unsurprisingly, some of the most high-profile examples of late have not been the leaders of small, tuition-dependent liberal arts colleges but those of big public universities and systems."

Dartmouth once had a president who had been a CEO of a public company, Tonka Toys. Former generals and military people have been college presidents. Former politicians.

The streak continues. I don't recall a single post you have made that I agreed with. With a post like this, now I can see what the problem probably is.

You've really focused in on Bodnar.

Yes, I focus on presidential candidates; just not back-up qb's.

 

[bgbigdog]

When do they bunker down to decide?

 

[PlayerRep]

When do they bunker down to decide?

Don't know. The last interviewee is in town early next week. Bodnar, the 3d interviewee, is here now, interviewing today and tomorrow. Public forum at 3:30 tomorrow.

 

[Jaredkuehn]

I'm curious if anyone has attended or has watched the presentations and Q & A sessions so far. Initially, Bodnar was the one of the four that struck me as a breath of fresh air.

I've got to say that Andrew Feinstein was pretty impressive yesterday. He was able to answer just about every question with real world examples from his experience in academia. That's an example of the importance of experience in the field.

I wasn't overly impressed by Mirta Martin in her Q & A.

I'm anxious to see how Bodnar and Ambrose stack up in their presentations.

One thing I'll say, after listening to some of the questions/demands that people have...I don't envy anyone in the Presidents office.