Just got an email from Leebs (or his ghost emailer), inviting me to read through a draft of the Vision for the Second Century (Part Two) and deliver feedback.

Seems like pretty standard pre-packaged consultant stuff, but there's some reasonable thoughts in there (e.g. within fields, emphasize one or two sub-fields and become the best in those, rather than try to do everything in those--especially with graduate work).

Apparently they're looking at redoing the Central Quad (RMC, Fondren, Brochstein, Herring) again. So that's something.

I stuck a nice long paragraph in the feedback on using athletics as a marketing tool for helping diversify in terms of socioeconomic backgrounds.

Anyone else get this, or is it just to recent-ish alums?

(10-03-2017 03:54 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  Just got an email from Leebs (or his ghost emailer), inviting me to read through a draft of the Vision for the Second Century (Part Two) and deliver feedback.

Seems like pretty standard pre-packaged consultant stuff, but there's some reasonable thoughts in there (e.g. within fields, emphasize one or two sub-fields and become the best in those, rather than try to do everything in those--especially with graduate work).

Apparently they're looking at redoing the Central Quad (RMC, Fondren, Brochstein, Herring) again. So that's something.

I stuck a nice long paragraph in the feedback on using athletics as a marketing tool for helping diversify in terms of socioeconomic backgrounds.

Anyone else get this, or is it just to recent-ish alums?

I got it as well.

Older alums (Class of '77) got it as well.

Thought it was interesting that they mentioned increasing the diversity of the international student body. Would be a great thing.

(10-03-2017 04:18 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Older alums (Class of '77) got it as well.

Even older alums (Class of '72) ...got it today.

(10-03-2017 05:53 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 04:18 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Older alums (Class of '77) got it as well.

Even older alums (Class of '72) ...got it today.

Middle-aged alums (82) also.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using CSNbbs mobile app

Checking in. I won't have the time to do more than glance at it until next week, so I'm hoping they're not rushed for feedback.

Really old alums got it, too.

Class of 1960 (Last class from Rice Institute)

I was delighted to get it today as well. I look forward to spending some time reading the materials and crafting an incisive reply.

-- Mike Ross ('70/'74)

I just finished a quick read through, and was extremely disappointed that Rice athletics or our student-athletes did not receive a single mention anywhere in the 55-page document. In my feedback, I mentioned that Rice athletics were important to both the Diversity and Extending Reach and Impact goals.

(10-04-2017 09:08 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I just finished a quick read through, and was extremely disappointed that Rice athletics or our student-athletes did not receive a single mention anywhere in the 55-page document. In my feedback, I mentioned that Rice athletics were important to both the Diversity and Extending Reach and Impact goals.

This. I distinctly recall that the initial V2C2 draft did not mention athletics at all, either - not one word. Nevertheless, I and I'm sure many others here took the time to give feedback urging that athletics be considered in this conversation and better utilized as part of a holistic approach toward advancing Rice's goals of continued excellence. It appears that that feedback had zero impact if athletics again has been shut out of the second draft.

Once more unto the breach, I guess, to give the same feedback for draft two, but it feels like tilting at windmills to get this University to think of Athletics as an asset to be maximized and utilized for the University's greater benefit, rather than a mostly separate endeavor that has no connection to the University's broader goals.

(10-04-2017 09:08 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I just finished a quick read through, and was extremely disappointed that Rice athletics or our student-athletes did not receive a single mention anywhere in the 55-page document. In my feedback, I mentioned that Rice athletics were important to both the Diversity and Extending Reach and Impact goals.

This is what I was getting at in other thread-- why would an athlete go somewhere they are not wanted or important? This began in late 60s and 70s.

(10-04-2017 09:08 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I just finished a quick read through, and was extremely disappointed that Rice athletics or our student-athletes did not receive a single mention anywhere in the 55-page document.

And yet, Leebron is our most athletics-friendly president for many years.

Owl#s, no disrespect intended - I assume your conclusion about Leebron is correct. I just think this says a lot about our prospects for improving performance in the athletic department. And it builds on my question in another thread about our AD's ability to communicate and persuade the University Admin of the problems we're having and the benefits of fixing them. The guy may be great with a wrench, but if he can't convince his boss which nut needs to be turned, and how far, it doesn't really matter.

(10-04-2017 12:13 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 09:08 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I just finished a quick read through, and was extremely disappointed that Rice athletics or our student-athletes did not receive a single mention anywhere in the 55-page document.

And yet, Leebron is our most athletics-friendly president for many years.
Owl#s, no disrespect intended - I assume your conclusion about Leebron is correct. I just think this says a lot about our prospects for improving performance in the athletic department. And it builds on my question in another thread about our AD's ability to communicate and persuade the University Admin of the problems we're having and the benefits of fixing them. The guy may be great with a wrench, but if he can't convince his boss which nut needs to be turned, and how far, it doesn't really matter.

Well, let's make one thing clear. When I say Leebron is the most athletics-friendly president for many years, I'm not saying that he is Gordon Gee. It's really more a commentary on prior presidents. Some of them paid a lot of lip service to athletics, but when push came to shove they did nothing. Leebron has at least made bigger commitments to athletics with respect to two major projects with which I am personally aware than did any of his predecessors ever, going all the way back to Pitzer.

Bottom line, Rice athletics is not now and has not been for some long time a major concern of the university as a whole. Leebron has gone to bat for athletics more than did his 3-4 immediate predecessors, but in reality none of them has gone to the limits needed to be competitive at the top of D-1, or even G-5. The comparison might be like comparing the movement speed of a sloth to four stumps.

(10-03-2017 05:12 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  Thought it was interesting that they mentioned increasing the diversity of the international student body. Would be a great thing.

I didn't know Rice had a diversity deficit?

(10-04-2017 02:36 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 05:12 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  Thought it was interesting that they mentioned increasing the diversity of the international student body. Would be a great thing.

I didn't know Rice had a diversity deficit?

I interpreted it as all the vast majority of our international students come from China. International students from other countries are far more involved in campus community from my non-scientific observations.

Pitzer started the decline in Rice athletics by forcing Jess Neely to retire.

(10-04-2017 01:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 12:13 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 09:08 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I just finished a quick read through, and was extremely disappointed that Rice athletics or our student-athletes did not receive a single mention anywhere in the 55-page document.

And yet, Leebron is our most athletics-friendly president for many years.
Owl#s, no disrespect intended - I assume your conclusion about Leebron is correct. I just think this says a lot about our prospects for improving performance in the athletic department. And it builds on my question in another thread about our AD's ability to communicate and persuade the University Admin of the problems we're having and the benefits of fixing them. The guy may be great with a wrench, but if he can't convince his boss which nut needs to be turned, and how far, it doesn't really matter.

Well, let's make one thing clear. When I say Leebron is the most athletics-friendly president for many years, I'm not saying that he is Gordon Gee. It's really more a commentary on prior presidents. Some of them paid a lot of lip service to athletics, but when push came to shove they did nothing. Leebron has at least made bigger commitments to athletics with respect to two major projects with which I am personally aware than did any of his predecessors ever, going all the way back to Pitzer.

Bottom line, Rice athletics is not now and has not been for some long time a major concern of the university as a whole. Leebron has gone to bat for athletics more than did his 3-4 immediate predecessors, but in reality none of them has gone to the limits needed to be competitive at the top of D-1, or even G-5. The comparison might be like comparing the movement speed of a sloth to four stumps.

(10-04-2017 02:50 PM)75src Wrote:  Pitzer started the decline in Rice athletics by forcing Jess Neely to retire.

Interestingly, Pitzer went from Rice to Stanford, which then made pretty much the exact opposite decision regarding athletics. I've always thought it would be interesting to understand the dynamics at play there.

I'm not sure I'm up to wading through 55 pages of consultant jargon.

(10-04-2017 06:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:50 PM)75src Wrote:  Pitzer started the decline in Rice athletics by forcing Jess Neely to retire.

Interestingly, Pitzer went from Rice to Stanford, which then made pretty much the exact opposite decision regarding athletics. I've always thought it would be interesting to understand the dynamics at play there.

CA football had much more going for it, obviously