Pilarz to step down

[ChicosBailBonds]

You didnt state it explicitly so ill give you the benefit of the doubt, but youre not suggesting we dump tenure to achieve greater efficiency are you?

No, not saying that.  I totally get tenure, and the reason why collegiate system adopted it.  Like many things, the good it does also promotes a number of poor consequences, as well.  Some great examples of it just last week if someone wants to look in the news.  While tenure promotes academic freedom, protections, gives security, it also preserves some that have no business being tenured and the ability to remove them at that point is difficult, not impossible, but difficult.

[mu_hilltopper]

(Guys, start another thread on the Pope & Church.  Further discussion here will be .. I dunno, deleted or something.)

[mu_hilltopper]

I find all of those "reasons" on that list to be .. way too mundane for asking a President to leave, this quickly, at this point in the semester .. not to mention the Friday night release.

[Tugg Speedman]

Presidents are *not* figureheads.  Not by any stretch.  Do you think Wild was a figurehead?

And a politician *can* be a good fit for a university, but not because they are a politician. But because they are visionary and can get things done.  I don't think any of the ones you mention really fit that description.  Not to mention they would never hire Walker since he doesn't have a bachelor's degree much less a terminal degree.

Feingold might be something, but he is likely the wrong political fit.  He might be more interested in the vacant UW System job anyway.

I agree with you that Walker would not work as he did not graduate ... Forgot about that.

I used the term "figurehead" and many took it as a degoratory term and said What I was wrong and explained the position largely as I did without that term.

So let me try to day the same thing differently.  The president is Not an operating manager, that is done by those under him (her).   The President does the most important thing in the university ... Set priorities, raise money Lisbon with the well connected.  If you cannot get that right, the operating managers (like the Provost) are largely wasting their time.

Given this job description, a politician can fit this position well.

[GGGG]

I agree with you that Walker would not work as he did not graduate ... Forgot about that.

I used the term "figurehead" and many took it as a degoratory term and said What I was wrong and explained the position largely as I did without that term.

So let me try to day the same thing differently.  The president is Not an operating manager, that is done by those under him (her).   The President does the most important thing in the university ... Set priorities, raise money Lisbon with the well connected.  If you cannot get that right, the operating managers (like the Provost) are largely wasting their time.

Given this job description, a politician can fit this position well.

I don't disagree that a politician *can* fit this position well.  But really the type of person that might be even better is someone that has run a federal agency of some sort.  That is what Stanford did when they hired Condoleeza Rice.  That is what UW has done by hiring the head of the Department of Commerce. 

[GGGG]

If it was a poor fit, the BOT would've recognized this earlier and either let him go over the summer or waited until the end of the school year. In other words, why is it a poor fit now? The suddenness of the departure is what screams that something is amiss.

My guess is that it became all too apparent over the summer...after the fiscal year ended.  There was probably some contentious meetings in late summer, and he was basically forced out.

[mu03eng]

My guess is that it became all too apparent over the summer...after the fiscal year ended.  There was probably some contentious meetings in late summer, and he was basically forced out.

Its not like the BOT is known for their efficiency and cohesion of thought

[GGGG]

Its not like the BOT is known for their efficiency and cohesion of thought

And that's not necessarily bad.

[Tugg Speedman]

I don't disagree that a politician *can* fit this position well.  But really the type of person that might be even better is someone that has run a federal agency of some sort.  That is what Stanford did when they hired Condoleeza Rice.  That is what UW has done by hiring the head of the Department of Commerce. 

Completely agree.  Here are two politicians that fit your criteria

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=39814.msg516902#msg516902

How about somewhat with this profile?  MU alum, attorney, former FCC commissioner, adjunct professor at Georgetown and Catholic U.

http://transition.fcc.gov/commissioners/previous/abernathy/biography.html

And

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Thompson

Tommy Thompson ... the longest-serving Governor of Wisconsin from 1987 to 2001. During his term as Governor he was the Chairman of AMTRAK, the nation's passenger rail service. He served as the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services from 2001 to 2005.  Partner with the law-firm Akin Gump and Chairman of Deloitte's global healthcare practice and has served on the board 22 other organizations.

[GGGG]

Thompson might have been good a decade ago, but he is 72 now.  And his Senate campaign was a complete disaster - I mean, he looked and sounded really, really out of touch.  I think he would be even more controversial than Feingold would be.  (And I think Feingold would be very good if he weren't so liberal which instantly makes him a lightning rod.)

Not sure about Abernathy.  Intriguing but not sure she would be interested.

[Sir Lawrence]

I find all of those "reasons" on that list to be .. way too mundane for asking a President to leave, this quickly, at this point in the semester .. not to mention the Friday night release.

Here's what I can't understand.  Pilarz was on the Marquette board of trustees when he was hired.  So the BOT saw this guy up close and personal.  Yet, they went with him.   

But here's my gut reaction:  some of the newer members of the BOT are pretty savvy.  They know we need a new Provost, and a new Dean of the B School.   It's a bit of a cliche to say "follow the money" but fund raising is on the front burner.   You recruit a provost and the first question is "who is my boss?"   The BOT wants the right person for the long term before that question is answered. 

I don't think it's a scandal, and I don't think it's his health.  I think, and again I have no inside information, that's its simply a board that woke up and realized that in 2013 Father Pilarz cannot take the University to the next level from a fund raising standpoint.  Cut the cord now, rather than watch the slow bleed.

[GGGG]

I think your last paragraph is right on target Sir Lawrence.

[Eldon]

No, not saying that.  I totally get tenure, and the reason why collegiate system adopted it.  Like many things, the good it does also promotes a number of poor consequences, as well.  Some great examples of it just last week if someone wants to look in the news.  While tenure promotes academic freedom, protections, gives security, it also preserves some that have no business being tenured and the ability to remove them at that point is difficult, not impossible, but difficult.

Completely agree.  I'm not sure how you value the costs vs the benefits here, but in my opinion, I believe that the benefits (principally academic freedom) outweigh the costs (a few profs who game the system).

To be sure, there are mechanisms in place that incentivize profs to maintain a high level of research once tenure is granted

1) Promotion from associate professor to (full) professor.  This promotion is based on teaching, academic service/committees, and research.  The respective weights depend on the institution (Research I, Research II, liberal arts, etc).  Not only does this title give academics more prestige, which in and of itself is a motivating factor for the types of folks in academia, but it also means a pay bump.

2) Social pressure.  If you get tenure and switch to cruise control, you are looked upon by the rest of your department (ie your coworkers) as, well, an arsehole.

3) Sabbaticals.  You propose a research project and it gets approved and/or funded, you can sometimes request a sabbatical, which allows you to concentrate solely on research, rather than having to "bother" with teaching and committee appointments.  This allows profs to work from home (or Aruba I suppose), depending on the field of research.

Obviously there are those who still abuse the system despite these mechanisms, but from my experience the number of those who slack is a lot lower than many people would expect.

[GGGG]

In my experience, which is over 20 years working in higher education, the number of professors that abuse tenure is way, way, WAY dwarfed by those who continue to produce both research and in the classroom.

I mean, when I was at Marquette, I say that I only really had one tenured professor who mailed it in as a teacher.  And that professor (Karel Bicha) published a ton of books on eastern European history.

[forgetful]

Completely agree.  I'm not sure how you value the costs vs the benefits here, but in my opinion, I believe that the benefits (principally academic freedom) outweigh the costs (a few profs who game the system).

To be sure, there are mechanisms in place that incentivize profs to maintain a high level of research once tenure is granted

1) Promotion from associate professor to (full) professor.  This promotion is based on teaching, academic service/committees, and research.  The respective weights depend on the institution (Research I, Research II, liberal arts, etc).  Not only does this title give academics more prestige, which in and of itself is a motivating factor for the types of folks in academia, but it also means a pay bump.

2) Social pressure.  If you get tenure and switch to cruise control, you are looked upon by the rest of your department (ie your coworkers) as, well, an arsehole.

3) Sabbaticals.  You propose a research project and it gets approved and/or funded, you can sometimes request a sabbatical, which allows you to concentrate solely on research, rather than having to "bother" with teaching and committee appointments.  This allows profs to work from home (or Aruba I suppose), depending on the field of research.

Obviously there are those who still abuse the system despite these mechanisms, but from my experience the number of those who slack is a lot lower than many people would expect.

This is spot on. 

I'll add that some of the professors that some think mail it in, are not doing it intentionally.  Securing tenure and then a full professorship is a grueling stressful task.  In some cases it flat out destroys an individuals health, leading to a decreased ability to teach and do research.  These individuals are extremely embarrassed about the situation, but frankly the amount of money they brought into the University up until that point is sufficient to pay their salary for another 20 years.

[mu_hilltopper]

I think, and again I have no inside information, that's its simply a board that woke up and realized that in 2013 Father Pilarz cannot take the University to the next level from a fund raising standpoint.  Cut the cord now, rather than watch the slow bleed.

This is a pretty drastic step, though, and this rumor storm is going to be worse than what a slow bleed would have been -- which would have lasted, what, the entirety of a TV season?  

[Dr. Blackheart]

Whatever happened to this guy?  Never saw him at MU.  Maybe it is best for all if he continues his counseling and search for other apostolic opportunities in this transition.  He wasn't around much in public when he had the job...he won't be in transition either.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This is spot on. 

I'll add that some of the professors that some think mail it in, are not doing it intentionally.  Securing tenure and then a full professorship is a grueling stressful task.  In some cases it flat out destroys an individuals health, leading to a decreased ability to teach and do research.  These individuals are extremely embarrassed about the situation, but frankly the amount of money they brought into the University up until that point is sufficient to pay their salary for another 20 years.

I work with a guy that headed up a department that brought in incremental about $300 million over the last 5 years but had a so-so 6th year...GONE.  He made decent money in those 6 years, but it's a what have you done for me lately world often in corporate America.  And to say he went through stress in those 6 years is a mild understatement...guy looked like he aged 25 years trying to hit those numbers.

[79Warrior]

This is a complete guess with no inside knowledge whatsoever.

He simply was a poor fit for many of the reasons stated.  Many benefactors complained and/or cut off their funding.  The BOT cut their losses and forced him out.

His stated reason is complete bullsh*t.  No one starts an academic year and decides three weeks later they need a new calling.

Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!!

[Coleman]

Whatever happened to this guy?  Never saw him at MU.  Maybe it is best for all if he continues his counseling and search for other apostolic opportunities in this transition.  He wasn't around much in public when he had the job...he won't be in transition either.

Ain't no party like a Scranton party

[314warrior]

Like it or not, tenure is the status quo at US universities.  I hope the BOT isn't foolish enough to bring in someone who wants to mess with tenure.  Removing or severely altering it would make it extremely difficult to recruit and retain research oriented faculty and the funding that comes with them.  The NSF/NIH do not award substantial grants to faculty with little job security.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

For starters, I have not read this entire thread. Got too long, too quickly. But what I have read has mostly been speculation on what kind of scandal is at play or if the BOT decided to vote Pilarz out.

Has anyone considered the fact that maybe Pilarz no longer wanted to be the President? Running a university as large as Marquette is exhausting. And it is commonly known that Pilarz values student interaction and teaching more than anything. Perhaps he just got tired of being in a position he truly didn't enjoy and decided to step down so he could pursue other passions.

I have no inside information. I have had the privilege to speak with Father Scott on several occasions and I am basing my guesses on what I know of him as a person.

[Coleman]

For starters, I have not read this entire thread. Got too long, too quickly. But what I have read has mostly been speculation on what kind of scandal is at play or if the BOT decided to vote Pilarz out.

Has anyone considered the fact that maybe Pilarz no longer wanted to be the President? Running a university as large as Marquette is exhausting. And it is commonly known that Pilarz values student interaction and teaching more than anything. Perhaps he just got tired of being in a position he truly didn't enjoy and decided to step down so he could pursue other passions.

I have no inside information. I have had the privilege to speak with Father Scott on several occasions and I am basing my guesses on what I know of him as a person.

You raise a good point. Pilarz has commented before how much he likes teaching and wanted to teach while President at Marquette. If the fundraising was lackluster, I could see him getting some grief for spending time in the classroom. Maybe he got fed up and asked to teach full time again. He taught full-time at Georgetown, afterall. But its still strange on the timing though. You would think he would choose the end of an academic year to come to such a decision. Even just three full years as president would raise less eyebrows than 2 and a half.

While it would probably be the most boring answer, I wouldn't be surprised to see Pilarz wind up on the English faculty at another Jesuit university come next fall, teaching medieval poetry.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

For starters, I have not read this entire thread. Got too long, too quickly. But what I have read has mostly been speculation on what kind of scandal is at play or if the BOT decided to vote Pilarz out.

Has anyone considered the fact that maybe Pilarz no longer wanted to be the President? Running a university as large as Marquette is exhausting. And it is commonly known that Pilarz values student interaction and teaching more than anything. Perhaps he just got tired of being in a position he truly didn't enjoy and decided to step down so he could pursue other passions.

I have no inside information. I have had the privilege to speak with Father Scott on several occasions and I am basing my guesses on what I know of him as a person.

I have a close friend who went to Georgetown and was pretty tight with Fr. Pilarz back then. I would be surprised if somehow Fr. Pilarz suddenly became "unlikable" by the students. My friend speaks very highly of him.

Now, if he did become unpopular with the students (maybe due to his new authority role), I could see a situation where he wasn't fond of his new career and wanted to go back and do something that had more day to day interaction with the student body (that's how he got his start).

[GGGG]

You raise a good point. Pilarz has commented before how much he likes teaching and wanted to teach while President at Marquette. If the fundraising was lackluster, I could see him getting some grief for spending time in the classroom. Maybe he got fed up and asked to teach full time again. He taught full-time at Georgetown, afterall. But its still strange on the timing though. You would think he would choose the end of an academic year to come to such a decision.

While it would probably be the most boring answer, I wouldn't be surprised to see Pilarz wind up on the English faculty at another Jesuit university come next fall, teaching medieval poetry.

Look, this wasn't voluntary.  He didn't decide to leave so he could teach more.