I thought she had an overall positive impact on academics and a negative impact on athletics. Given that this is a forum focused on sports, it will be hard to find much support for her here.

Overall, your programs can succeed without any interest from your president, but it does make it a little harder.

(10-30-2013 12:14 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 11:33 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 11:18 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  This is the wrong board to ask that question. Most here never got over her involvement with firing Bob Huggins, and the manner it which is was done. So here it will be about "Bob Huggins" and pretty much nothing else, though I'm sure these words will instigate some to chime in. Back when Huggins was fired, there was some pretty hate-filled (and I'd argue seriously misogynistic and bothersome) banter on here.

But if you go beyond that - which is impossible for many on here to do - she did some things which ended up being very important for the future of the University of Cincinnati. Unfortunately, those things upset existing culture and the way things were always done.

Under her tenure, minimum admissions standards were instituted on the main campus. Those who didn't meet those standards were forced to go to UC's two-year schools. The Main Campus's open-admission University College was disbanded - it had a 17% graduation rate. The result is that graduation rates, retention rates, admission scores began to rise - a trend that has continued to this very day. A number of overarching goals were created, and the beginning of the annual progress report on achieving those goals continues to this day.

I would argue that Zimpher finalized the separation from UC being a "commuter school."

Zimpher was highly involved on a lot of community boards, and promoted the benefits of the urban university (not sure how that works with Penn State).

I personally give her credit for being able to withstand the withering criticism and be the lightning rod while doing all the dirty work to make the University better - including disposing of Bob Huggins, even if it was very sloppy and poorly done. Under her tenure, Brian Kelly was hired and UC went to its first BCS Bowl, and came within a hair of going to the national championship game. Mick Cronin was hired, who brought the basketball team back from the dead along with some academic respectablility.

As both a 1985 and a 2010 graduate, the difference of UC between those two time periods is remarkable. It's like two different schools. The attitude in the classroom, the attitude of the administration was SO much different when I began taking classes again in 2005.

Zimpher may not be the most likable person, but I think she's tough. Without her efforts, we wouldn't be on the radar for any conference expansion. We wouldn't have President Ono right now. Or the new, more aggressive set of goals, UC|19. Our academic rankings would not have risen so much in the past 5 years (21 spots in USNews). She laid the groundwork for that and took the heat from a populous notorious for their inability to deal with change.

Now let the barage begin...3...2...1...

The bolded part was pushed by the Ohio Board of Regents. Marginal HS students being pushed to branch campuses or community colleges with an option to transfer to main campus if their grades were good enough.

That may very well be true, but she's the one who had to put it into place. One common refrain on this board at the time was that she was trying to "turn UC into Harvard," and "she's violating UC's mission as a city-based school." I would argue that UC|19 is much closer to that than Zimpher's UC|21.

I would also argue a lot of the crap she took the blame for was done on behalf of other people (BOT, Regents).

Remember, I never claimed she was likable. I never said she did things perfectly. But unlike her immediate successor, she at least did things.

Are you referring to steger?

(10-30-2013 12:23 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  I'd also add, that if Penn State does hire her, no one is safe, and she doesn't care who she pisses off.

Yep and that can be a good thing, in certain situations.

I have known a few business leaders who were basically hired "bad cops", migrant hatchet men. They were hired for a purpose and never stayed long (which was also planned).

Their job was to prune the tree, take the heat, and leave.

The benefit to the organization is that much of the heat the "bad cop" leader generated and absorbed walked out the door with them. And the business was left with the pruned tree they wanted and could start fresh with a new "good cop" leader that people would rally around.

Enter President Williams, Santa Ono.

(10-30-2013 10:45 AM)NittanyLion Wrote:  But my alma mater (Penn State) is going to name a new President on Friday. There seems to be a whole lot of smoke that Nancy Zimpher will be the choice.

I only moved to Cincinnati (late 2007) towards the end of her UC reign, so I didn't experience it all before she moved northeast. But what should we generally be expecting, in terms of her philosophy towards both academics and athletics' role in the University?

Thanks!

(10-30-2013 10:48 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  She is all flash and no substance.

(10-30-2013 10:50 AM)ctipton Wrote:  All hat. No cattle.

She's all fur coat and no trousers she is

(10-30-2013 12:23 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  I'd also add, that if Penn State does hire her, no one is safe, and she doesn't care who she pisses off.

This is the part that interests me (speaking as the Penn Stater here again) .....


Point being, we still have a problem --- the Paterno family and their Loyalists (I'm not one personally) who are a very loud group. They will make their "beefs" known rather quickly once our new President is named.


If she's willing to go toe-to-toe with them and tell them to get lost, we're moving on, I'd support that full-heartedly.


Anyhow, thanks to all for your thoughts! Go UC, beat Memphis!

I'm apparently one of the few University College folk who graduated and went on to get a bachelors and even a graduate degree. I was not a good high school student, so I felt the junior college-like transition of University College was very helpful. I guess in today's environment I would go to Cincinnati State and then transfer to UC, which would accomplish the same goal. Oh, well. I'll pour out some booze over the grave of University College.

As for NZ, it's very difficult for a sports fan to separate her from Bob. I know I can't.

(10-30-2013 10:45 AM)NittanyLion Wrote:  But my alma mater (Penn State) is going to name a new President on Friday. There seems to be a whole lot of smoke that Nancy Zimpher will be the choice.

I only moved to Cincinnati (late 2007) towards the end of her UC reign, so I didn't experience it all before she moved northeast. But what should we generally be expecting, in terms of her philosophy towards both academics and athletics' role in the University?

Thanks!

LOL... She may be more of a menace to PSU athletics than the NCAA ever was...

(10-30-2013 11:18 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  This is the wrong board to ask that question. Most here never got over her involvement with firing Bob Huggins, and the manner it which is was done. So here it will be about "Bob Huggins" and pretty much nothing else, though I'm sure these words will instigate some to chime in. Back when Huggins was fired, there was some pretty hate-filled (and I'd argue seriously misogynistic and bothersome) banter on here.

But if you go beyond that - which is impossible for many on here to do - she did some things which ended up being very important for the future of the University of Cincinnati. Unfortunately, those things upset existing culture and the way things were always done.

Under her tenure, minimum admissions standards were instituted on the main campus. Those who didn't meet those standards were forced to go to UC's two-year schools. The Main Campus's open-admission University College was disbanded - it had a 17% graduation rate. The result is that graduation rates, retention rates, admission scores began to rise - a trend that has continued to this very day. A number of overarching goals were created, and the beginning of the annual progress report on achieving those goals continues to this day.

I would argue that Zimpher finalized the separation from UC being a "commuter school."

Zimpher was highly involved on a lot of community boards, and promoted the benefits of the urban university (not sure how that works with Penn State).

I personally give her credit for being able to withstand the withering criticism and be the lightning rod while doing all the dirty work to make the University better - including disposing of Bob Huggins, even if it was very sloppy and poorly done. Under her tenure, Brian Kelly was hired and UC went to its first BCS Bowl, and came within a hair of going to the national championship game. Mick Cronin was hired, who brought the basketball team back from the dead along with some academic respectablility.

As both a 1985 and a 2010 graduate, the difference of UC between those two time periods is remarkable. It's like two different schools. The attitude in the classroom, the attitude of the administration was SO much different when I began taking classes again in 2005.

Zimpher may not be the most likable person, but I think she's tough. Without her efforts, we wouldn't be on the radar for any conference expansion. We wouldn't have President Ono right now. Or the new, more aggressive set of goals, UC|19. Our academic rankings would not have risen so much in the past 5 years (21 spots in USNews). She laid the groundwork for that and took the heat from a populous notorious for their inability to deal with change.

Now let the barage begin...3...2...1...

Some of what you say is true and she deserves credit for things like improved academic profile for the university although some of that was in the works well before she got there like getting rid of CECE. She just got credit for it.

But tough she's not.

If she was tough and believed what she did in the Huggins thing was indeed right and handled correctly, she would've attended homecoming halftime on the field etc. and taken the boos...instead she stayed up in the safe confines of the pressbox ditching the public.

(10-30-2013 12:14 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 11:33 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 11:18 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  This is the wrong board to ask that question. Most here never got over her involvement with firing Bob Huggins, and the manner it which is was done. So here it will be about "Bob Huggins" and pretty much nothing else, though I'm sure these words will instigate some to chime in. Back when Huggins was fired, there was some pretty hate-filled (and I'd argue seriously misogynistic and bothersome) banter on here.

But if you go beyond that - which is impossible for many on here to do - she did some things which ended up being very important for the future of the University of Cincinnati. Unfortunately, those things upset existing culture and the way things were always done.

Under her tenure, minimum admissions standards were instituted on the main campus. Those who didn't meet those standards were forced to go to UC's two-year schools. The Main Campus's open-admission University College was disbanded - it had a 17% graduation rate. The result is that graduation rates, retention rates, admission scores began to rise - a trend that has continued to this very day. A number of overarching goals were created, and the beginning of the annual progress report on achieving those goals continues to this day.

I would argue that Zimpher finalized the separation from UC being a "commuter school."

Zimpher was highly involved on a lot of community boards, and promoted the benefits of the urban university (not sure how that works with Penn State).

I personally give her credit for being able to withstand the withering criticism and be the lightning rod while doing all the dirty work to make the University better - including disposing of Bob Huggins, even if it was very sloppy and poorly done. Under her tenure, Brian Kelly was hired and UC went to its first BCS Bowl, and came within a hair of going to the national championship game. Mick Cronin was hired, who brought the basketball team back from the dead along with some academic respectablility.

As both a 1985 and a 2010 graduate, the difference of UC between those two time periods is remarkable. It's like two different schools. The attitude in the classroom, the attitude of the administration was SO much different when I began taking classes again in 2005.

Zimpher may not be the most likable person, but I think she's tough. Without her efforts, we wouldn't be on the radar for any conference expansion. We wouldn't have President Ono right now. Or the new, more aggressive set of goals, UC|19. Our academic rankings would not have risen so much in the past 5 years (21 spots in USNews). She laid the groundwork for that and took the heat from a populous notorious for their inability to deal with change.

Now let the barage begin...3...2...1...

The bolded part was pushed by the Ohio Board of Regents. Marginal HS students being pushed to branch campuses or community colleges with an option to transfer to main campus if their grades were good enough.

That may very well be true, but she's the one who had to put it into place. One common refrain on this board at the time was that she was trying to "turn UC into Harvard," and "she's violating UC's mission as a city-based school." I would argue that UC|19 is much closer to that than Zimpher's UC|21.

I would also argue a lot of the crap she took the blame for was done on behalf of other people (BOT, Regents).

Remember, I never claimed she was likable. I never said she did things perfectly. But unlike her immediate successor, she at least did things.

You can not even be serious saying "predecessor never did things!"

It was on Joe Steger's tenure as president that the campus was transformed architecturally! It all started in 1989 with the Campus Architectural Masterplan.

Much of what is great about the UC campus experience, green space, great dorms, Schott Stadium, the soccer complex, great foodservices, rec center, etc, which are all things that draw top students to consider UC today were all done on Joe's watch.

Can't see her taking the PSU job...Blue plaid skirts make her look hippy.

(10-30-2013 12:39 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 12:14 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 11:33 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 11:18 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  This is the wrong board to ask that question. Most here never got over her involvement with firing Bob Huggins, and the manner it which is was done. So here it will be about "Bob Huggins" and pretty much nothing else, though I'm sure these words will instigate some to chime in. Back when Huggins was fired, there was some pretty hate-filled (and I'd argue seriously misogynistic and bothersome) banter on here.

But if you go beyond that - which is impossible for many on here to do - she did some things which ended up being very important for the future of the University of Cincinnati. Unfortunately, those things upset existing culture and the way things were always done.

Under her tenure, minimum admissions standards were instituted on the main campus. Those who didn't meet those standards were forced to go to UC's two-year schools. The Main Campus's open-admission University College was disbanded - it had a 17% graduation rate. The result is that graduation rates, retention rates, admission scores began to rise - a trend that has continued to this very day. A number of overarching goals were created, and the beginning of the annual progress report on achieving those goals continues to this day.

I would argue that Zimpher finalized the separation from UC being a "commuter school."

Zimpher was highly involved on a lot of community boards, and promoted the benefits of the urban university (not sure how that works with Penn State).

I personally give her credit for being able to withstand the withering criticism and be the lightning rod while doing all the dirty work to make the University better - including disposing of Bob Huggins, even if it was very sloppy and poorly done. Under her tenure, Brian Kelly was hired and UC went to its first BCS Bowl, and came within a hair of going to the national championship game. Mick Cronin was hired, who brought the basketball team back from the dead along with some academic respectablility.

As both a 1985 and a 2010 graduate, the difference of UC between those two time periods is remarkable. It's like two different schools. The attitude in the classroom, the attitude of the administration was SO much different when I began taking classes again in 2005.

Zimpher may not be the most likable person, but I think she's tough. Without her efforts, we wouldn't be on the radar for any conference expansion. We wouldn't have President Ono right now. Or the new, more aggressive set of goals, UC|19. Our academic rankings would not have risen so much in the past 5 years (21 spots in USNews). She laid the groundwork for that and took the heat from a populous notorious for their inability to deal with change.

Now let the barage begin...3...2...1...

The bolded part was pushed by the Ohio Board of Regents. Marginal HS students being pushed to branch campuses or community colleges with an option to transfer to main campus if their grades were good enough.

That may very well be true, but she's the one who had to put it into place. One common refrain on this board at the time was that she was trying to "turn UC into Harvard," and "she's violating UC's mission as a city-based school." I would argue that UC|19 is much closer to that than Zimpher's UC|21.

I would also argue a lot of the crap she took the blame for was done on behalf of other people (BOT, Regents).

Remember, I never claimed she was likable. I never said she did things perfectly. But unlike her immediate successor, she at least did things.

Are you referring to steger?

Nope. That happened under Zimpher.

(10-30-2013 01:07 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 12:23 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  I'd also add, that if Penn State does hire her, no one is safe, and she doesn't care who she pisses off.

This is the part that interests me (speaking as the Penn Stater here again) .....


Point being, we still have a problem --- the Paterno family and their Loyalists (I'm not one personally) who are a very loud group. They will make their "beefs" known rather quickly once our new President is named.


If she's willing to go toe-to-toe with them and tell them to get lost, we're moving on, I'd support that full-heartedly.


Anyhow, thanks to all for your thoughts! Go UC, beat Memphis!

Well, then you got your woman. She is already unlikeable, so she can't go any more downhill in that regard. Even though I supported her efforts - even if they were flawed - she did annoy the **** out of me at times.

At UC, her message was, "Fire the coach in the name of academics."

That might be what Penn State is looking for.

(10-30-2013 06:10 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 12:14 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 11:33 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 11:18 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  This is the wrong board to ask that question. Most here never got over her involvement with firing Bob Huggins, and the manner it which is was done. So here it will be about "Bob Huggins" and pretty much nothing else, though I'm sure these words will instigate some to chime in. Back when Huggins was fired, there was some pretty hate-filled (and I'd argue seriously misogynistic and bothersome) banter on here.

But if you go beyond that - which is impossible for many on here to do - she did some things which ended up being very important for the future of the University of Cincinnati. Unfortunately, those things upset existing culture and the way things were always done.

Under her tenure, minimum admissions standards were instituted on the main campus. Those who didn't meet those standards were forced to go to UC's two-year schools. The Main Campus's open-admission University College was disbanded - it had a 17% graduation rate. The result is that graduation rates, retention rates, admission scores began to rise - a trend that has continued to this very day. A number of overarching goals were created, and the beginning of the annual progress report on achieving those goals continues to this day.

I would argue that Zimpher finalized the separation from UC being a "commuter school."

Zimpher was highly involved on a lot of community boards, and promoted the benefits of the urban university (not sure how that works with Penn State).

I personally give her credit for being able to withstand the withering criticism and be the lightning rod while doing all the dirty work to make the University better - including disposing of Bob Huggins, even if it was very sloppy and poorly done. Under her tenure, Brian Kelly was hired and UC went to its first BCS Bowl, and came within a hair of going to the national championship game. Mick Cronin was hired, who brought the basketball team back from the dead along with some academic respectablility.

As both a 1985 and a 2010 graduate, the difference of UC between those two time periods is remarkable. It's like two different schools. The attitude in the classroom, the attitude of the administration was SO much different when I began taking classes again in 2005.

Zimpher may not be the most likable person, but I think she's tough. Without her efforts, we wouldn't be on the radar for any conference expansion. We wouldn't have President Ono right now. Or the new, more aggressive set of goals, UC|19. Our academic rankings would not have risen so much in the past 5 years (21 spots in USNews). She laid the groundwork for that and took the heat from a populous notorious for their inability to deal with change.

Now let the barage begin...3...2...1...

The bolded part was pushed by the Ohio Board of Regents. Marginal HS students being pushed to branch campuses or community colleges with an option to transfer to main campus if their grades were good enough.

That may very well be true, but she's the one who had to put it into place. One common refrain on this board at the time was that she was trying to "turn UC into Harvard," and "she's violating UC's mission as a city-based school." I would argue that UC|19 is much closer to that than Zimpher's UC|21.

I would also argue a lot of the crap she took the blame for was done on behalf of other people (BOT, Regents).

Remember, I never claimed she was likable. I never said she did things perfectly. But unlike her immediate successor, she at least did things.

You can not even be serious saying "predecessor never did things!"

It was on Joe Steger's tenure as president that the campus was transformed architecturally! It all started in 1989 with the Campus Architectural Masterplan.

Much of what is great about the UC campus experience, green space, great dorms, Schott Stadium, the soccer complex, great foodservices, rec center, etc, which are all things that draw top students to consider UC today were all done on Joe's watch.

My message says "successor," not predecessor. But in your defense, I edited it because I originally said predecessor. I meant to refer to Williams, not Steger. I thought Williams was useless.

she sucks…our current press Dr. Ono is 10000000000x better

(10-30-2013 11:18 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 11:02 AM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 10:58 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Other names of note,
Gordon Gee
Mark Emmert
Condy Rice (not bad)

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.s...e_pen.html

Mark Emmert. State College may literally spontaneously combust if that is the choice!

I'd love for Rice to be the choice, that's my personal pick. She would provide instant credibility as we try to re-gain our footing post-scandal.

Condy would be a good hire. Sullivan initially resigned from UVA in a similar manner as Greg Williams at UC.

I would be shocked if it was Condy Rice. As for Nancy Z.-- a legend in her own mind.

I don't post here often, but I feel compelled now. I know there's strong feelings on Zimpher, and I'm not going to share mine here. That's not why I'm writing. I'm writing because many of these comments are very borderline sexist, and not what we're about as a fan base. Would you say some of the same things around a wife, mother, or significant other? Disliking someone is one thing, but using some of the jabs that folks are using is another. I'm embarrassed.

Yep my mother, sister and grandmother said all those things.... Get over that bud, sorry...... Can appreciate a couple things about her tenure but despise a lot about her. She's still a 4 letter word around here and will be for a bit

Uh oh. Not good for PSU if true. Very anti-sports. Extremely power hungry. Will gladly throw the sports programs under the bus in the name of academics.

(10-30-2013 11:18 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  This is the wrong board to ask that question. Most here never got over her involvement with firing Bob Huggins, and the manner it which is was done. So here it will be about "Bob Huggins" and pretty much nothing else, though I'm sure these words will instigate some to chime in. Back when Huggins was fired, there was some pretty hate-filled (and I'd argue seriously misogynistic and bothersome) banter on here.

But if you go beyond that - which is impossible for many on here to do - she did some things which ended up being very important for the future of the University of Cincinnati. Unfortunately, those things upset existing culture and the way things were always done.

Under her tenure, minimum admissions standards were instituted on the main campus. Those who didn't meet those standards were forced to go to UC's two-year schools. The Main Campus's open-admission University College was disbanded - it had a 17% graduation rate. The result is that graduation rates, retention rates, admission scores began to rise - a trend that has continued to this very day. A number of overarching goals were created, and the beginning of the annual progress report on achieving those goals continues to this day.

I would argue that Zimpher finalized the separation from UC being a "commuter school."

Zimpher was highly involved on a lot of community boards, and promoted the benefits of the urban university (not sure how that works with Penn State).

I personally give her credit for being able to withstand the withering criticism and be the lightning rod while doing all the dirty work to make the University better - including disposing of Bob Huggins, even if it was very sloppy and poorly done. Under her tenure, Brian Kelly was hired and UC went to its first BCS Bowl, and came within a hair of going to the national championship game. Mick Cronin was hired, who brought the basketball team back from the dead along with some academic respectablility.

As both a 1985 and a 2010 graduate, the difference of UC between those two time periods is remarkable. It's like two different schools. The attitude in the classroom, the attitude of the administration was SO much different when I began taking classes again in 2005.

Zimpher may not be the most likable person, but I think she's tough. Without her efforts, we wouldn't be on the radar for any conference expansion. We wouldn't have President Ono right now. Or the new, more aggressive set of goals, UC|19. Our academic rankings would not have risen so much in the past 5 years (21 spots in USNews). She laid the groundwork for that and took the heat from a populous notorious for their inability to deal with change.

Now let the barage begin...3...2...1...

+1

Nancy was very instrumental in aiding UC turn the corner. In fact, I can't think of a Prez who deserves more credit than her in recent history. I recall very early in her tenure, as I was interviewing at NYU for grad school, I met with several well positioned UC alums who have lived on the east coast since graduation. They all were very impressed by her efforts to rope together east coast Bearcats around the idea of giving back, supporting new grads who move east and becoming more visibly UC supporters and/ or recruiters. They all remarked that they'd never seen anything like her outreach since leaving Ohio.

UC wouldn't be in the position it is in today without her. Cincinnati is just a tad too deferential to tradition/ the mentality of "it's the way its always been." So after the Huggins blow-up that was it. Nevermind that Hugs was and is washed up. Oooops. I've just incriminated myself and thus will be written off.

She's a good hire.




mc

(10-30-2013 11:40 PM)geef Wrote:  I don't post here often, but I feel compelled now. I know there's strong feelings on Zimpher, and I'm not going to share mine here. That's not why I'm writing. I'm writing because many of these comments are very borderline sexist, and not what we're about as a fan base. Would you say some of the same things around a wife, mother, or significant other? Disliking someone is one thing, but using some of the jabs that folks are using is another. I'm embarrassed.

No I would not because those in my life are top shelf, good women.
But don't be over sensitive, it is only a message board.