Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum
Sign in to follow this  
UNDvince97-01

Next UND President

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, UND1983 said:

Sounds like some people have already expressed their concern to Schafer over the abundance of "Vice Presidents" on campus.  That would be a good start.

1 hour ago, Oxbow6 said:

This......^^^^.

 

Way too many layers to the onion.

Somebody's going to have to back up the bus a bit here. I hear a lot of griping about numbers and job titles and salaries but what is sorely lacking are meaningful critiques and feasible alternatives.

Effective leadership occurs through delegation, right? Are you suggesting that a figurehead President can do everything? Is gutting the administration for the sake of it a smart move from a risk management standpoint? The fact that a UND president 20-odd years ago had fewer "vice presidents" is wholly irrelevant because (1) his subordinates could have gone by different names, and (2) the regulatory landscape has changed dramatically due to myriad levels of federal oversight and legislative mandates.

The 'arms race' of executive salaries started long ago and isn't going away any time soon.  Ignoring titles, if you pay your "president" $350k, you'll be paying your "VPs" $150-$250k, and your "assistant VPs" $75-150k, and so on.  Why do I get the feeling that most of the complaints are coming from people who based on qualifications couldn't sniff an executive job or an executive salary, and all of this amounts to pay envy and class warfare rather than an honest discussion about how to run a university?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, show me an organization tree/matrix* starting at "President" from the Clifford era and from the Kelley era. We'll start there. ;)

 

* I'd like to see direct reports to the president (obviously VPs), their direct reports, and their directs, so basically the top four tiers of administration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

Somebody's going to have to back up the bus a bit here. I hear a lot of griping about numbers and job titles and salaries but what is sorely lacking are meaningful critiques and feasible alternatives.

Effective leadership occurs through delegation, right? Are you suggesting that a figurehead President can do everything? Is gutting the administration for the sake of it a smart move from a risk management standpoint? The fact that a UND president 20-odd years ago had fewer "vice presidents" is wholly irrelevant because (1) his subordinates could have gone by different names, and (2) the regulatory landscape has changed dramatically due to myriad levels of federal oversight and legislative mandates.

The 'arms race' of executive salaries started long ago and isn't going away any time soon.  Ignoring titles, if you pay your "president" $350k, you'll be paying your "VPs" $150-$250k, and your "assistant VPs" $75-150k, and so on.  Why do I get the feeling that most of the complaints are coming from people who based on qualifications couldn't sniff an executive job or an executive salary, and all of this amounts to pay envy and class warfare rather than an honest discussion about how to run a university?

Where does a masters get somebody then?  It means I spent too much time in school and paid for it, I can verify that.  But in the academia world does it mean I too can be a "Vice President"?  Or do I need larger student loans that show I have a doctorate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

Why do I get the feeling that most of the complaints are coming from people who based on qualifications couldn't sniff an executive job or an executive salary, and all of this amounts to pay envy and class warfare rather than an honest discussion about how to run a university?

How many people does it take, and at what pay grades, does it take to run a nine-digit dollar budget organization that provides an intangible to a broad and diverse customer base where customer interaction, service, and satisfaction can make or break you? 

Before you answer, consider that the "question" just might be rhetorical and that I just might have a very strong and unique insights on that answer based on what all I do in life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, UND1983 said:

Where does a masters get somebody then?  It means I spent too much time in school and paid for it, I can verify that.  But in the academia world does it mean I too can be a "Vice President"?  Or do I need larger student loans that show I have a doctorate?

We're not disagreeing. A BS or MS could 'administrate' circles around a PhD. It's just a little too pat to blow off 'administrative bloat' without a serious discussion of needs, roles, responsibilities, qualifications, and the competitive landscape. Job titles are basically meaningless without context, except for the fact that I guarantee there are folks out there whose blood would boil about an "Assistant VP" making $100k but for whom a "Director" or "Division Chief" at the same salary would not even show up on the radar screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

We're not disagreeing. A BS or MS could 'administrate' circles around a PhD. It's just a little too pat to blow off 'administrative bloat' without a serious discussion of needs, roles, responsibilities, qualifications, and the competitive landscape. Job titles are basically meaningless without context, except for the fact that I guarantee there are folks out there whose blood would boil about an "Assistant VP" making $100k but for whom a "Director" or "Division Chief" at the same salary would not even show up on the radar screen.

I think we are on same page.

My statement a few post back was more related to have they been hiring more VP's in the past 10 years than they had 10 years ago.  Are they all needed and why didn't they need them all 10 years ago?

I don't care about the dollar figure itself, more about the title and did it exist previously.

Maybe I am oversimplifying things but it seems like the "non-billable's" have been growing in numbers quite fast lately.  Once again, I could be wrong and am seeking clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a university. Are these people talking about students or talking to students. 

That's the same criteria I've used in business when times get tough (are you talking about customers or talking to customers). I tell people make sure you're talking to customers because if all you do is talk about customers, odds are you're not generating revenue and your role may not be necessary. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, UND1983 said:

I think we are on same page.

My statement a few post back was more related to have they been hiring more VP's in the past 10 years than they had 10 years ago.  Are they all needed and why didn't they need them all 10 years ago?

I don't care about the dollar figure itself, more about the title and did it exist previously.

Maybe I am oversimplifying things but it seems like the "non-billable's" have been growing in numbers quite fast lately.  Once again, I could be wrong and am seeking clarification.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics routinely reports on the changing workplace and the fact that there are now entire job classifications that didn't exist 20, 10, or even 5 years ago. Non-teaching areas of higher ed are not immune. Pick your cause: new and emerging technologies driving IT bloat, expanded media (e.g., web and social media platforms) driving advertising/PR bloat, specialization within various professions driving all kinds of bloat, federal bureaucracy driving regulatory bloat, etc. If Congress or the WH or a federal agency passes a law or enacts a regulation saying that colleges must do X and Y or risk losing financial aid, and colleges don't have existing FTEs who can drop everything, then for every new federal mandate you've got at least 1-3 new jobs PER SCHOOL. And don't forget, as Americans become more educated, and more go to graduate school, so increases the likelihood that a job that would have been filled a generation ago by a BS level candidate is now an 'executive' level position being filled by MS/PhDs with commensurate salaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

And don't forget, as Americans become more educated, and more go to graduate school, so increases the likelihood that a job that would have been filled a generation ago by a BS level candidate is now an 'executive' level position being filled by MS/PhDs with commensurate salaries.

That's what really gets me at times. I pay based on the job responsibilities. If I need a warehouse worker and I find a PhD who wants the job I'm paying for a warehouse worker, not a PhD. If the person still wants the job, great; if not, I keep looking. 

We've produced a bunch of PhDs that expect to get paid because of the degree, not because the job they want requires the degree. The rest are overproduction (see below). 

I must be getting old and curmudgeonly; I'm starting to sound like and agree with John Calvert (frequent writer to the Fargo Forum): 

Quote

 

Ph.D.s on welfare

In a flooded market, job seekers take what they can get. The Atlantic magazine has reported that 53.6 percent of college graduates under age 25 have jobs that don’t require a four-year degree. Fourteen percent of waiters and waitresses – 323,000 people – have degrees, as do 22 percent of cashiers and 17 percent of bartenders, telemarketers and motel clerks. According to US News, 284,000 college graduates are working for minimum wage, nearly twice the rate of just five years before.

And 36 percent of graduates, aged 25-32 are “boomerangers” who have resumed living with their parents because they can’t find jobs with salaries high enough to pay their own rent. Another 41 percent are dependent upon financial support from home.

To compound their troubles, new graduates are burdened with an average of $28,950 in debts. In 2011, student indebtedness nationwide was $1.16 trillion. According to the Census Bureau, some 294,000 M.A.s and 33,000 Ph.D.s are on welfare.

The degree glut has been the five-ton elephant in academia’s living room for more than 40 years. Yet campus administrators everywhere – passionately absorbed in expanding their enrollments – claim they can’t see it.

 

Source: http://www.inforum.com/letters/3946977-letter-universities-scrape-bottom-barrel

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

That's what really gets me at times. I pay based on the job responsibilities. If I need a warehouse worker and I find a PhD who wants the job I'm paying for a warehouse worker, not a PhD. If the person still wants the job, great; if not, I keep looking. 

We've produced a bunch of PhDs that expect to get paid because of the degree, not because the job they want requires the degree. The rest are overproduction (see below). 

I must be getting old and curmudgeonly; I'm starting to sound like and agree with John Calvert (frequent writer to the Fargo Forum): 

Source: http://www.inforum.com/letters/3946977-letter-universities-scrape-bottom-barrel

I am not sure I entirely agree with the idea that PhDs aren't familiar with the expectations of their desired jobs.  People don't just willy-nilly decide to pursue doctorates.  "Hmmm...I am going to spend extra money, time, and kill myself writing a dissertation for the heck of it". 

In my many years working in higher education, I can tell you that the vast, vast, majority of students choose their degree level based on where they hope to land and the expectations of that job/career.  It is VERY clear and understood that a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology will not give anyone the opportunity to work as a counselor. 

My theory on the Census Bureau stats quoted by Calvert is that the recession plays a bigger role than he is willing to acknowledge.  Sometimes businesses/facilities just aren't able to pay for a large number of staff.  One example: nurses have been in HIGH demand for years, but in 2008-10, the job market was tough for even nursing new graduates.  Something else to consider is how much outside factors play in those folks forced to use welfare and other services.  Addiction, mental illness, disability, etc. do not discriminate based on education level.

Just some random thoughts.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

So back to the president search, this thing should be wrapping up soon, correct?

Meeting tomorrow to recommend 3-4 people to the State Board.  Any picks?

I got Shirley, Olson, and Kennedy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SWSiouxMN said:

Meeting tomorrow to recommend 3-4 people to the State Board.  Any picks?

I got Shirley, Olson, and Kennedy

I've actually heard the same.  Apparently Kennedy was quite impressive in the interview process.  Waiting on gfhockey to confirm.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the State Board website, apparently they're meeting Tuesday to make the final selection.  So this is going to move pretty quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SWSiouxMN said:

Dang. He was my lead. Now it's Kennedy. 

Here's more on what's going on at ASU and how it may be affecting UND:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/investigations/2016/02/25/ex-asu-officers-sue-say-they-were-forced-make-school-appear-safer/80860216/

I guess we know what they were talking about in the hall in this tweet ...

 

Meeting still hasn't started --- co-chairmen are in the hallway with the system chancellor. Don't know what's happening

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2016 at 0:24 PM, SWSiouxMN said:

The exact order of my preferences are listed.  Naganathan could be a darkhorse, as he gave a good inciteful presentation.

Shirley doesn't have experience with hard sciences and research, which is a big negative in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite Kennedy quote:

How do you get the community to embrace the Fighting Hawks name?

"Win a National Championship."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...