(09-26-2023, 03:05 PM)needle Wrote: Stanford has gotten so big, with so many wide-ranging ventures, that no single person could possible have a good grasp of what's going on. This is basically true across higher ed, yet universities cling to a management structure (President-Provost) best suited for a different, smaller era.
That said, the president at Stanford and counterparts at virtually all universities are graded by Those Who Matter mostly on fundraising. For some, MTL is simply all that because he was at the top when Stanford bagged the $1.1 billion Doerr grant.
My views may be overly simplistic, but I truly believe this explains a lot about why universities have the type of leaders that they do.
Was going to say this. Thanks for saving me a few minutes.
(09-26-2023, 05:06 PM)fullmetal Wrote:(09-26-2023, 04:39 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: I’ll just say one more time - more transparency and crisper accountability are needed. I don’t think it’s right for us to hide behind the fog of bureaucracy.
Agreed. Also, how would you contrast Hennessey's administration compared to MTL's admin along these metrics? Was Hennessey just given the benefit of the doubt because nothing truly bad happened on his watch?
Reminder: Hennessy founded and ran a Silicon Valley firm to sell his RISC chips. IIRC.