Luis Proenza to retire

[GP1]

The Senator is going to be the next President whether you like it or not. It's time to get over it and root for him.

I agree he is going to be the next President because our Board of Trustees took such a lazy approach. We might in fact have a Board of Trustees problem.

I'm not going to root for him or against him. I don't root for or against my employees. I expect him to do his job well in the areas that really matter at a university: advancing research and teaching the results of the relevant research of the day. Tressel isn't just an employee of UofA, he is an employee of the State of Ohio. Most of you, I would assume, pay taxes in Ohio in one form or another. That means he is your employee as well. For those who plan on rooting for him, my question is, For how long? What if the guy is a complete disaster? Can we be critical of that or do we have to continue to root for him like the children in the Encouraging Department?

I will say this. When this charade is over the Tressel is the President, I will wish him luck. Most people who take job in which they are unqualified for frequently need a lot of luck to succeed, so we should all wish him good luck. He'll need it.

[lance99]

I have a question:

Assuming he is the next President, could the Ohio Board of Regents step in and say no?

[Dave in Green]

I'm always open to intelligent debate on just about any subject. Some legitimate pros and cons have been presented about having Jim Tressel as President of UA. That's valuable to anyone who's trying to look at all the potential positives and negatives and form their own educated option. But some of the comments being made are of little or no value in a serious discussion.

The line implying that anyone who thinks Jim Tressel might make a good UA President must be a tOSU honk is so weak it doesn't deserve serious consideration. The line about him having a made-up position at UA with no measurable performance parameters is equally absurd. Most universities across the country have executives with similar titles and responsibilities for which they're held accountable.

I consider myself to be a fair, open-minded and objective person. I'm often won over to the side that presents the most persuasive factual data. For example, when I read that Admissions is one of Jim Tressel's many responsibilities at UA and that freshman applications are up nearly 50% this year, that influences my overall opinion. Cheap shots, name-calling and other assorted insults only influence me to believe that someone has run out of legitimate points to make.

[GP1]

For example, when I read that Admissions is one of Jim Tressel's many responsibilities at UA and that freshman applications are up nearly 50% this year, that influences my overall opinion.

This in and of itself doesn't influence my decision. What would influence me is if the quality of student entering UofA is better than before. Not only is Tressel part of the admissions process, but he is also head of the Encouraging Department. The development and expansion of this department tells me they may be letting in less qualified students in order to collect student fees to fund the "building process". This is a morally bankrupt way to run a university, but then again, with the influence of Athletic Directors on schools across the country, it should be no surprise universities are becoming progressively morally bankrupt.

If striving for excellence is generating applications, then I guess Tressel is the guy. If striving for excellence is improving the quality of student so the school produces better graduates, it remains to be seen if Tressel is the guy. Until we know the quality of applicants, we don't really know if they are striving for application numbers or quality. Surely, a university needs to be more than striving for applications.

[ZachTheZip]

The quality of students entering UA is better now than it has ever been, and the biggest improvement has happened over the past few years. However, that is because UA recently got the greenlight from the state to turn away remedial students or direct them toward partnered community colleges. Did Tressel have anything to do with that? Probably not. The timing of the decision matches well with his hiring, but the lobbying and planning likely goes back several years before then.

[Dave in Green]

GP1, are you aware of Ohio's new higher education funding law that half of state funding for each university is now tied to each school's graduation rates? UA would lose state funding if enrollment was being increased with students who are less likely to graduate. If Jim Tressel were guilty of doing this in his current position, he certainly would not want to be UA President over the next few years when the results come in. It's more likely that he believes the quality of the students he's been responsible for bringing in over the past two years will increase UA's future graduation rate and state funding rather than reduce it.

[Balsy]

The line about him having a made-up position at UA with no measurable performance parameters is equally absurd. Most universities across the country have executives with similar titles and responsibilities for which they're held accountable.

Vice President of Strategic Engagement was a position that did not exist before Jim Tressel was hired to fill it at the University of Akron. Spare me the "it's equally absurd" bit, because it's not absurd at all. A position was created, specifically for Tressel to bring him to Akron. This position wasn't announced beforehand, there was no list of candidates for the position its pretty clear. I may be young, but I've worked with enough businesses and entities to know that if you really want someone, you will simply create a position for them.

I know you're all about evidence DiG, I respect that. I really do, because I'm a natural skeptic as well. However; saying JT's position was created just for him...and that there is a nebulous job description (note I do not say "no measurable performance parameters" because there is the one that is very nebulous) is not absurd in the slightest.

[skip-zip]

For the supporters out there, how about you answer this question.

You own a major corporation. And you post a job opening for CEO. You have a candidate in which you are aware has quite an extensive history like his, and you look at his education level, and realize that it also falls short of the traditional requirement.

How confident would YOU be in hiring him? if YOU had millions of dollars at stake?

As one of the faculty heads pointed out recently in an article, this is like a multi-million dollar corporation. And all the rest of us associated with this University have a stake in this, even if it's not our life's work at stake.

I just still hope and pray that someone comes to their senses before it's too late.

[LZIp]

This in and of itself doesn't influence my decision. What would influence me is if the quality of student entering UofA is better than before. Not only is Tressel part of the admissions process, but he is also head of the Encouraging Department. The development and expansion of this department tells me they may be letting in less qualified students in order to collect student fees to fund the "building process". This is a morally bankrupt way to run a university, but then again, with the influence of Athletic Directors on schools across the country, it should be no surprise universities are becoming progressively morally bankrupt.

If striving for excellence is generating applications, then I guess Tressel is the guy. If striving for excellence is improving the quality of student so the school produces better graduates, it remains to be seen if Tressel is the guy. Until we know the quality of applicants, we don't really know if they are striving for application numbers or quality. Surely, a university needs to be more than striving for applications.

I'm starting to really wonder just how disconnected you are from the University. It is impossible for them to be letting in less qualified students than the past because until recently, they literally accepted any student with a pulse. And to answer your question, the quality is better than it's ever been due to above mentioned changes.

[Dave in Green]

A hypothetical major corporation hires a hypothetical executive who lacks traditional credentials for the business he's joining but is believed to have equivalent merit. He's given increasing responsibilities and proves that he can perform as well or better than traditional executives in that business. Within two years he's risen to the level of one of the top three senior executives at the corporation. The CEO announces his retirement and the hypothetical senior executive becomes a candidate for the position. Do you primarily base your evaluation on his original credentials or on his performance to date at the corporation?

[Balsy]

hey literally accepted any student with a pulse. And to answer your question, the quality is better than it's ever been due to above mentioned changes.

And those changes are due to JT? No.

[LZIp]

And those changes are due to JT? No.

I did not claim nor insinuate that they were. It is just apparent to me that GP1 has reached the point where he is willing to throw anything against the wall and hoping something sticks.

[skip-zip]

A hypothetical major corporation hires a hypothetical executive who lacks traditional credentials for the business he's joining but is believed to have equivalent merit. He's given increasing responsibilities and proves that he can perform as well or better than traditional executives in that business. Within two years he's risen to the level of one of the top three senior executives at the corporation. The CEO announces his retirement and the hypothetical senior executive becomes a candidate for the position. Do you primarily base your evaluation on his original credentials or on his performance to date at the corporation?

How about when you add that the hypothetical candidate ended up on the cover of a hypothetical national magazine, documenting his very long and checkered history at his previous employers?

You conveniently left out that part.

Please, provide us with the data on his "increasing responsibilities" and "proven performance" on his "rise" to a top executive position after only two years ?

Actually, the more I think about it, you make it out to be quite the heartwarming and inspiring "climbing the corporate ladder" story that should motivate all of us to work hard so that someday we can achieve great success in our own careers

[skip-zip]

It seems like I've learned a few things as this subject grows, and I read more and more posts.

1) Trust and Integrity really are important characteristics in a leader.

2) There are some people who REALLY, truly believe that this is a "he's earned his way to the top" situation. Unbelievable.

[Dave in Green]

A hypothetical forum member on a hypothetical forum takes a strong stance on an issue where there is honest disagreement among people with different viewpoints. As the discussion goes back and forth, the hypothetical forum member refuses to acknowledge any points made by anyone with an opposing opinion and the wording in his posts becomes increasingly emotional and strident. At what point do you give up trying to engage that hypothetical forum member in reasonable conversation?

[K92]

Question:

Have any of these ZN.o pissing contests ever resulted in someone changing their mind?

[Staton14]

Here are my questions:

1) What does a President of a University do that he really NEEDS a Phd? I know most of them have one but do they really NEED it for their responsibilities on the job?

2) Doesn't a President mainly serve as a leader for the University?

3) Isn't Tressel a pretty good leader?

4) And if most of us agree that Proenza was a good president then why do we think someone he supports wouldn't be?

[skip-zip]

Here are my questions:

1) What does a President of a University do that he really NEEDS a Phd? I know most of them have one but do they really NEED it for their responsibilities on the job?

2) Doesn't a President mainly serve as a leader for the University?

3) Isn't Tressel a pretty good leader?

4) And if most of us agree that Proenza was a good president then why do we think someone he supports wouldn't be?

On question #3, I do know something he's proven to be REALLY good at. It's similar to the word you used, and coincidentally it also begins with an L and ends with an R. You just messed up a few letters in between.

[Dave in Green]

Question:

Have any of these ZN.o pissing contests ever resulted in someone changing their mind?

Answer:

I have changed my mind on issues based on being presented with valid data that refutes beliefs I previously formed based on what turned out to be incomplete or erroneous data.

I have not changed my mind on issues based on being presented with another person's opinion that is not backed up by any better data than I have access to.

[LZIp]

On question #3, I do know something he's proven to be REALLY good at. It's similar to the word you used, and coincidentally it also begins with an L and ends with an R. You just messed up a few letters in between.

Thanks for confirming what most of us already knew. You are unable to have an unbiased discussion on this topic.

[Staton14]

On question #3, I do know something he's proven to be REALLY good at. It's similar to the word you used, and coincidentally it also begins with an L and ends with an R. You just messed up a few letters in between.

I can't think of anything that makes sense in the context of what I said.

[Dave in Green]

Here are my questions:

1) What does a President of a University do that he really NEEDS a Phd? I know most of them have one but do they really NEED it for their responsibilities on the job?

2) Doesn't a President mainly serve as a leader for the University?

3) Isn't Tressel a pretty good leader?

4) And if most of us agree that Proenza was a good president then why do we think someone he supports wouldn't be?

I'll try to give you some straight answers from my perspective:

1) Nothing. As I've documented in a number of previous posts with links to various articles on higher education, about 20% of current university presidents come from outside academia, a large percentage of them do not have doctorates and the number is growing. The biggest challenge non-traditional university presidents cite is becoming familiar with the academic culture. Presidents of universities have evolved over the years from a priority of being on campus dealing with academic matters to a priority of being off campus dealing with business and financial matters. Their top executive assistants now handle more of the on-campus academic matters. A longtime college football coach would actually have a small advantage here over other non-traditional candidates by virtue of having spent his career within the university culture.

2) Yes. As noted above, university presidents today delegate much more to senior level executive assistants than in the past. It's imperative that they be able to lead because they don't have the more dictatorial powers that university presidents enjoyed decades ago. They have to be team builders. A successful college football coach would likely draw on his previous relationships with assistant coaches in communicating his vision for various aspects of the game plan to his senior executive assistants.

3) Yes with reservations. Jim Tressel has always been considered an effective leader. A good leader should always try to push the envelope without crossing the lines. This is an area where it's fair to raise questions. We talk all the time on this forum about how all the big football programs cheat, and that you have to cheat to beat the other cheaters. College football coaches get caught on various levels of pushing the envelope too far all the time, and many more probably get away with the same or worse. Jim Tressel is one of the ones who was caught. And although his NCAA penalty was severe, there are those who believe that he voluntarily took the fall for an endemic tOSU problem. Whatever one chooses to believe, it's imperative that UA be absolutely certain that they trust Jim Tressel as a university president would not push the envelope to the same edge as he did as a college football coach.

4) This is open to question. It's possible to believe that Dr. Proenza was good as UA President but may or may not be good at selecting his successor. The business world is full of examples of hand-picked successors who succeeded or failed. There are no guarantees here. That's why it's critical that UA's Trustees not just rubber-stamp Dr. Proenza's choice, if in fact Dr. Proenza has recommended Jim Tressel over all other candidates. They must perform due diligence and dig into every nook and cranny. They need to do a hard analysis of everything touched by Jim Tressel during his two years at UA and objectively determine if things have actually been improved or if things have been glossed over by self-serving reports.

[zippy5]

Thanks for confirming what most of us already knew. You are unable to have an unbiased discussion on this topic.

It'll be a real ZN argument when someone comes up with a lame nickname for JT.

[K92]

It'll be a real ZN argument when someone comes up with a lame nickname for JT.

Sounds like a challenge.

[skip-zip]

Sounds like a challenge.

The sad thing is, all of the JT lovers think the nicknames and mockery will come from the Akron people who are against his hiring, but the embarrassing part is that it's going to come from the rest of the nation.

In fact, it already is. Like I said before, this is just the tip of the iceberg.