I was pleased to see Sarah Wooten's story about the University's presidents in Tuesday's Cavalier Daily. It was an informative look at the office's evolution. Wooten asked good questions of Rector John Wynne and President John Casteen about what Casteen's successor might face and the qualifications and preparations that person might need. They didn't give particularly informative answers, but Wooten's questions were good. The Cavalier Daily should keep asking them.
I'd also like to see some exploration of the procedure the University will use to find its next president. These things are generally very secretive, because someone who's known to be seeking a new job is apt to lose her old one. There's some logic in that. On the other hand, I've always been a bit amazed that a university would want someone to be its president if that person is afraid or ashamed to express that desire in public.
How have searches at peer institutions been conducted? How do the folks on those campuses feel about the outcomes? There have been a few new presidents named at other public universities in the past five years or so. How has that turned out?
I'm also interested to know, given the talk about a president being a university's chief operating officer, how many actual CEO's have become university presidents and how that's worked out. Certainly, there are some skills applicable to both positions, but turning out doctors, lawyers and humanities majors is bound to be different from turning out widgets. At least one would hope so.
I was less pleased to read the editorial in that same edition. "High stakes losses" made a case connecting athletic success - particularly success in football and men's basketball - with all sorts of good effects for universities and the communities that abut them. "Made a case" is too strong. The editorial made assertions, including, "poor performance in revenue-generating sports can be severely detrimental." It is a fact that football and men's basketball are generally the sports that generate revenue. Athletic departments as a whole are generally holes into which money is poured. According to a National Collegiate Athletic Association report released last year, only 17 Division I athletics programs made money between 2004 and 2006. That's 17 out of more than 300. All but one of the moneymakers were in the Football Bowl Subdivision, the big dog football division that the University plays in.
If poor performance can be severely detrimental, exceptional performance must be very rewarding. That's why the University of Florida - national champions in football in 2008, national champions in men's basketball in 2007, national champions in both in 2006 - tops U.S. News & World Report's latest rankings of the nation's best colleges.
Actually, the Gators were at 47, just behind the University of California - Santa Barbara Gauchos. The only football the Gauchos play is the European kind.
It's true that undergraduate applications to Virginia Tech increased by 14 percent after Michael Vick led the Hokies' football team to an undefeated regular season record and a thumping in the national championship game. It's also true that the school set a new record for applications after Vick's brother, Marcus, stomped on an opponent on national television. That record was broken after Michael Vick pleaded guilty to charges related to a dog fighting ring. Of course, bigger applicant pools aren't necessarily filled with better applicants.
It's not all that clear that the donations given to universities because of athletics benefit universities all that much. While some big athletic donors would never give money to the chemistry department anyway, some would. And the money siphoned out of alumni pockets for athletics is money that can't go to academics.
I'm commenting on universities in general, not the University in particular. I haven't seen studies that focus on the University. But I have seen studies and talked to people who have studied the issue in general. Their work is not difficult to find. I'm arguing for critical thinking over common knowledge, since common knowledge so often turns out to be something else altogether.
I'm not anti-athletics. I've cheered the 'Hoos in Scott Stadium, in John Paul Jones Arena, in U-Hall, at a bowl game or two and in front of my television. I'm happy to say I was in the stands the last time the Cavaliers beat Florida State. I'd be tickled to death with a better football program. But I don't think the University's future is inextricably tied to its revenue generating sports.
A former president of the University of Florida once told me he was convinced Harvard is the great and prestigious school that it is because its football team used to be so good. I'd be interested to know where the people searching for the University's next president stand on that line of thinking.
Tim Thornton is The Cavalier Daily's Ombudsman. His column usually appears Mondays. He can be reached at ombud@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrate the Contemplative Commons and other non-academic student spaces
By Editorial Board | 11 minutes agoThe Contemplative Commons stands as a testament to the value of spaces that transcend commercial imperatives, fostering interdisciplinary engagement and experiential learning.
KURTZWEIL: What we lose in the name of efficiency
By Paul Kurtzweil | YesterdayPenicillin was discovered in a moldy petri dish — this government would have it thrown out because it was wasting space on the counter.
RASHID: U.Va. must empower faculty and students through transparency
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | YesterdayBy attempting to contain, or even eliminate uncomfortable narratives, the administration incrementally consolidates power and frays communal trust.
