President Leebron,
I did try to read the V2C2 plan, but it was such a hodgepodge of consultant gobbledygook that I gave up. So I'll net it out for you,
One, the present and near term future of research institutions, where the money is, is in the medical world. The failure to complete the acquisition of Baylor CoM was unfortunate. Now Rice must forge ahead on its own path. Something must be done to push us into the forefront. I have been mulling over the thought that we should have a very small med school. One where every student is an MD/PhD candidate. A school that pushes the boundary of the current paradigm of training and research. Why can't we have this sort of dream?
Two, despite what we have avoided in the last few decades, one of the most important outreach and marketing facets of major universities in the US is sports. Primarily football and basketball. We have been woefully inept in this area for a very long time. Our leadership needs to take a very serious look at what we want to be. Are we a peer of Stanford and Duke? Or are we content to compete with Trinity? There is not much time left on this, the decision, ultimately, is yours.
Regards,
loki '82
I have to point out that we really aren't competing with Trinity. Uchicago, MIT, Caltech, Emory, WashU and the likes are more apt comparisons.
Trinity has an acceptance rate 3 times that of Rice. And given that we are no longer a school of Texans, but a school IN Texas with a local, national and international recruiting angle, the Rice vs. Trinity is a far less likely comparison between prospective students.
Otherwise, agree - sometimes I wonder if the V2C2 consultants are paid by the character they type.
(10-20-2017 12:26 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote: [ -> ]President Leebron,
I did try to read the V2C2 plan, but it was such a hodgepodge of consultant gobbledygook that I gave up. So I'll net it out for you,
One, the present and near term future of research institutions, where the money is, is in the medical world. The failure to complete the acquisition of Baylor CoM was unfortunate. Now Rice must forge ahead on its own path. Something must be done to push us into the forefront. I have been mulling over the thought that we should have a very small med school. One where every student is an MD/PhD candidate. A school that pushes the boundary of the current paradigm of training and research. Why can't we have this sort of dream?
Two, despite what we have avoided in the last few decades, one of the most important outreach and marketing facets of major universities in the US is sports. Primarily football and basketball. We have been woefully inept in this area for a very long time. Our leadership needs to take a very serious look at what we want to be. Are we a peer of Stanford and Duke? Or are we content to compete with Trinity? There is not much time left on this, the decision, ultimately, is yours.
Regards,
loki '82
To be fair, at the moment, possibly our most important professor on campus, Dr. Richards-Kortum, is in the medical field and is a finalist for a $100M MacArthur grant. We seem to have decided to focus on the applied technologies side of medicine.
(10-20-2017 12:26 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote: [ -> ]President Leebron,
I did try to read the V2C2 plan, but it was such a hodgepodge of consultant gobbledygook that I gave up. So I'll net it out for you,
One, the present and near term future of research institutions, where the money is, is in the medical world. The failure to complete the acquisition of Baylor CoM was unfortunate. Now Rice must forge ahead on its own path. Something must be done to push us into the forefront. I have been mulling over the thought that we should have a very small med school. One where every student is an MD/PhD candidate. A school that pushes the boundary of the current paradigm of training and research. Why can't we have this sort of dream?
Two, despite what we have avoided in the last few decades, one of the most important outreach and marketing facets of major universities in the US is sports. Primarily football and basketball. We have been woefully inept in this area for a very long time. Our leadership needs to take a very serious look at what we want to be. Are we a peer of Stanford and Duke? Or are we content to compete with Trinity? There is not much time left on this, the decision, ultimately, is yours.
Regards,
loki '82
My comments were very similar. Maybe not as well stated, but very similar.
(10-20-2017 12:37 AM)Antarius Wrote: [ -> ]I have to point out that we really aren't competing with Trinity. Uchicago, MIT, Caltech, Emory, WashU and the likes are more apt comparisons.
Trinity has an acceptance rate 3 times that of Rice. And given that we are no longer a school of Texans, but a school IN Texas with a local, national and international recruiting angle, the Rice vs. Trinity is a far less likely comparison between prospective students.
Otherwise, agree - sometimes I wonder if the V2C2 consultants are paid by the character they type.
Maybe the use of Trinity will get his attention better than Chicago.
Today is the deadline for comments, and our comments regarding the non-mention of athletics in the document are welcome and encourages, as was mentioned in JK's podcast (
summary posted here on the Parliament):
Quote:5. University published V2C2. No athletics. Where does it fit?
A: Recommends we go to the website about V2C2. use the open comment period. We are stronger if we can tether ourselves to the university mission. Not put off by it missing. We must see what OUR role is towards the broader University mission and tie into. just because we arent in V2C2 doesnt mean we wont be part of the capital campaign coming up.
I agree with loki that the V2C2 language had the unfortunate tone and content of what I call "obviously important consultant-speak." Then each section asked for our opinion of how important we considered this obviously important section was. Grrr. I put my "where are athletics" comments in the first box, as it seemed to fit nowhere else.
I hope we all make enough noise to make some difference ... although I suspect that the only noise the powers that be will hear, not without some reasonable rationale ... is the sounds of heavy deposit slips falling into their important projects' pots. We have to put our $$$ where our mouths are, however slight our monetary contributions might be.
My responses were different than others here. My reading of the document was that they were hyper-focused on improving the reputation of our research programs that are already very highly respected. I was disappointed that there is very little for the already underfunded arts in the plan; I got the feeling that some of their "strategic investing" is a cover for planning to close departments to reallocate their funds. I also am not a fan of the proposal for starting a major online degree system. It would have to be a degree mill to make it profitable without tons of faculty hiring. I asked for more focus on expanding brand recognition in general for a stronger alumni network and better employment opportunities outside of Houston. Of course, I mentioned how public investment in athletics would help towards this.
What did I say?
Oh V2C2, gotcha.
(10-26-2017 09:03 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]Kuddos to The Thresher for joining the chorus calling for the V2C2 to include athletics...
http://www.ricethresher.org/article/2017...-athletics
Should the Honor Council investigate him for plagiarizing The Parliament? </sarcasm> It's spot on. The only nitpicking I could do would be to use Georgia Tech instead of Vanderbilt as GT is also in Atlanta, but then there's an argument for Vanderbilt as more appropriate as a private school.
Would have been nice if it would have come from someone other than the sports editor, to indicate wider support, but I'll take it. I just want to see Rice remain in Div1/FBS athletics. Truly, we've got nowhere to go but up. By the law of averages, one of these days, things will come together and we'll make some significant progress. Need to be present to win though.
(10-26-2017 09:03 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]Kuddos to The Thresher for joining the chorus calling for the V2C2 to include athletics...
http://www.ricethresher.org/article/2017...-athletics
Easier said than done, obviously. Director of Athletics Joe Karlgaard said Rice has been hoping to join a Power 5 conference since he took the job in 2014.
It has had opportunities to make that leap, most notably during the Big 12 non-expansion saga of 2016, but it has come up short each time.
Opportunities?
(10-26-2017 09:27 AM)franklyconfused Wrote: [ -> ] (10-26-2017 09:03 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]Kuddos to The Thresher for joining the chorus calling for the V2C2 to include athletics...
http://www.ricethresher.org/article/2017...-athletics
Should the Honor Council investigate him for plagiarizing The Parliament? </sarcasm> It's spot on. The only nitpicking I could do would be to use Georgia Tech instead of Vanderbilt as GT is also in Atlanta, but then there's an argument for Vanderbilt as more appropriate as a private school.
My issue is it read like an article that says "Rice should become free again".
Great in theory, not in practice. We need to be realistic about where we are - its not like P5 conferences want us or likely ever will want us. The article tone implies that we have control of our destiny, which we simply do not.
(10-26-2017 09:03 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]Kuddos to The Thresher for joining the chorus calling for the V2C2 to include athletics...
http://www.ricethresher.org/article/2017...-athletics
Leebron is in Chicago for an all-day conference tomorrow, and I had the opportunity to chat with him over coffee late this afternoon. To my shock and amazement, he brought up my V2C2 comment regarding the omission of athletics (I'm presuming he has the ability to check comments from specific alums he's scheduled to meet), and indicated that it's omission in the circulated draft was a mistake (as it apparently inadvertently dropped from the initial draft reviewed with the BOT). He told me ahtletics and student-athletes are now mention in three different areas of the document. The final, final draft will be presented to the BOT for approval in January, and then widely distributed.
(12-10-2017 11:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ] (10-26-2017 09:03 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]Kuddos to The Thresher for joining the chorus calling for the V2C2 to include athletics...
http://www.ricethresher.org/article/2017...-athletics
Leebron is in Chicago for an all-day conference tomorrow, and I had the opportunity to chat with him over coffee late this afternoon. To my shock and amazement, he brought up my V2C2 comment regarding the omission of athletics (I'm presuming he has the ability to check comments from specific alums he's scheduled to meet), and indicated that it's omission in the circulated draft was a mistake (as it apparently inadvertently dropped from the initial draft reviewed with the BOT). He told me ahtletics and student-athletes are now mention in three different areas of the document. The final, final draft will be presented to the BOT for approval in January, and then widely distributed.
Maybe there’s hope for us yet! I was surprised no one mentioned on here during Bloomgren’s introduction they specifically pointed out how much Leebron’s vision for athletics at Rice played a part. I’d have to go back and watch it again but it was during the very beginning.
"...indicated that it's omission in the circulated draft was a mistake..."
I am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt and always have a base-line assumption of honesty and good faith, but does anyone really believe that or at least belief it represents how low down the totem pole athletics is? Does anyone think if "diversity" or "our wet kiss embrace of Houston" would have been left out, someone would have raised their hand and said something, before broad circulation of the document?
(12-11-2017 08:47 AM)bigowlsfan Wrote: [ -> ]"...indicated that it's omission in the circulated draft was a mistake..."
I am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt and always have a base-line assumption of honesty and good faith, but does anyone really believe that or at least belief it represents how low down the totem pole athletics is? Does anyone think if "diversity" or "our wet kiss embrace of Houston" would have been left out, someone would have raised their hand and said something, before broad circulation of the document?
I think it definitely confirms athletics' place on the totem pole. Just because it looks like Rice is providing more for its most visible sport doesn't mean the fight is over. Everyone here has to continue to push for all sports.
I don't know if I buy the response either, but what is he going to say? We didn't expect anyone to notice? At least it got fixed....hopefully.
(12-11-2017 08:51 AM)d1owls4life Wrote: [ -> ] (12-11-2017 08:47 AM)bigowlsfan Wrote: [ -> ]"...indicated that it's omission in the circulated draft was a mistake..."
I am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt and always have a base-line assumption of honesty and good faith, but does anyone really believe that or at least belief it represents how low down the totem pole athletics is? Does anyone think if "diversity" or "our wet kiss embrace of Houston" would have been left out, someone would have raised their hand and said something, before broad circulation of the document?
I think it definitely confirms athletics' place on the totem pole. Just because it looks like Rice is providing more for its most visible sport doesn't mean the fight is over. Everyone here has to continue to push for all sports.
I don't know if I buy the response either, but what is he going to say? We didn't expect anyone to notice? At least it got fixed....hopefully.
In fairness, he didn't have to bring up my comment on the V2C2 in our conversation...and it was one of the first things he brought up and discussed. We also spent over 30 minutes talking various things related to Rice athletics, sandwiched around other subjects.
(12-11-2017 09:15 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ] (12-11-2017 08:51 AM)d1owls4life Wrote: [ -> ] (12-11-2017 08:47 AM)bigowlsfan Wrote: [ -> ]"...indicated that it's omission in the circulated draft was a mistake..."
I am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt and always have a base-line assumption of honesty and good faith, but does anyone really believe that or at least belief it represents how low down the totem pole athletics is? Does anyone think if "diversity" or "our wet kiss embrace of Houston" would have been left out, someone would have raised their hand and said something, before broad circulation of the document?
I think it definitely confirms athletics' place on the totem pole. Just because it looks like Rice is providing more for its most visible sport doesn't mean the fight is over. Everyone here has to continue to push for all sports.
I don't know if I buy the response either, but what is he going to say? We didn't expect anyone to notice? At least it got fixed....hopefully.
In fairness, he didn't have to bring up my comment on the V2C2 in our conversation...and it was one of the first things he brought up and discussed. We also spent over 30 minutes talking various things related to Rice athletics, sandwiched around other subjects.
I mean, I'm glad he brought it up. He was prepared for the conversation, which is always a good thing. Glad it went well.