In "The Idea of a Multiversity," Clark Kerr comments on the university president's changing role as a leader, stating that the president's job goal has changed from being a "troublemaker" who must stir up trouble between faculty members to being a "mediator" who must make peace between "nations of students, of faculty, of alumni, of trustees, of public groups." He makes it clear that past presidents felt it was important to have distinct plans in mind for the direction of change and development they wished to occur at their schools. In more recent years however, the university has evolved into a much larger and more complex institution with "more elements to conciliate" and more people to please; Kerr argues that this diversification has increased the university president's responsibility and range of tasks and claims that the modern "multiversity" president must be a "leader" and an "educator," as well as being a "consensus-seeker," and a "caretaker," among many other things. New job tasks have made it harder for current university presidents to carry out their own plans and dreams for their schools as presidents were often able to do in the past. This means that today's president is often forced to become a negotiator (or "mediator" as Kerr calls it) instead of fulfilling his past role of being the one person who had the ability to truly alter the school he ran according to his own vision of what it should become. Kerr says that modern university president must be "the central mediator among the values of the past, the prospects for the future, and the realities of the present," who is "driven more by necessity than by voices in the air."
Reading about what the president's role has changed to has made me wonder about whether it is really within one man's capacity to accomplish so many things and at the same time make sure that the university is doing well overall and that it is providing a proper education for students. It seems to me that universities today, especially large ones, have so many separate entities and facilities within them that must be negotiated with and overlooked by the president that there is little time left for him to monitor the progress of students and determine which improvements and policy implementations needs to be made. Do you think that this development has hurt the average university education? If so, how? If not, then what other forces within the university besides the president do you think have allowed schools to maintain their academic standards and provide their students with good educations?
At a large university the president probably won’t have time to actively participate with the student body. The president of NYU has to lead an institution composed of more than 30,000 undergrads and grad students combined. It is impossible for him to meet every single student. Even at small colleges like Trinity, it is very hard for the president to actively engage with the student body. Does this mean that the president is out of touch with the needs of the university? After all, she has to lead the faculty, the students, the staff, the trustees etc. However, there are various bodies in a university that inform the president of the current events in a university. For example, the student government represents a connection between the needs of the student body and the staff. The dean of students is also a connection between the desires of the managers of the university and the students. Every department of a university has a dean which reports to the dean of the faculty and the president. Like if it was a large company, although some argue that it is a business, a university is run like a business. The president is the CEO, who has various vice presidents reporting to her. Like in a company, the deans are medium level managers who report to vice presidents but also manage the faculty in a department. Of course, it is always noticeable when a university president actively connects with the student body by attending games, student events, celebrations etc. I’ve heard that the president of TCU plays video games with the students. How valuable is that? I am not sure, but students like to see main officer of the university actively participating in a university, instead of imagining her in an ivory tower.
ReplyDeleteThere was an article in the Trinitonian about President Brazil's backing down over the next year or two. He described his retirement from the position as beneficial for Trinity. He said that for the University to continue making strides, there needs to be invigoration from the top. His statements in the paper made me appreciate his position even more. He has given so much to this University and is obviously very deeply connected to it. His strategy of "taking one for the team" in order to improve the University's potential will be much appreciated in the future. It is his type of presidency that will allow Trinity to maintain high academic standards through "invigoration".
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting that Daniel mentions that the president of a university is not unlike a CEO, especially given our upcoming conversations about the corporatization of the university. But given the role of the president, one wonders what might be the qualifications for a candidate for university president. Should that individual have had experience in universities in specific roles (e.g., staff, professor, administrator), or might someone with, say, a degree focusing on business, management, finance, public relations, etc. be just as effective? Or must the person have both?
ReplyDelete