Friday, April 14, 2006

My take on the 3 finalists:

Ron Stern: intense, idealistic, gets results. I disagree with Ridor that he isn't qualified—he's a skilled networker who can grease elbows with politicans despite the fact he's culturally deaf. I didn't need gallypreswatch.com to know he's good friends with the governor of New Mexico. One negative is that he can be TOO intense.

Steve Weiner: I don't know much about him, never took a class under him. Heard he's quite personable. But charisma's overrated. Bush was supposed to be more charismatic than Gore and see where he's taking this country. Any substance behind the style? I wouldn't know.

Jane Fernandes: blah. Although the next president doesn't have to be overly charismatic, he/she shouldn't be anti-charisma, either. I talked about it with a faculty member who is pretty neutral, he had this to say about her: she's a capable administrator with poor people skills, and administrating duties fall on the provost position, while the president is more about vision, networking and being the face of the university.

So why might she become the next president? Audist conspiracy theories aside, maybe she has more university-related experience. And of the 3 finalists, she'd be the easiest for the board to control. I'd say Stern's the hardest one to control—I assume so since all of his offsprings are hard-headed and as they say, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. :)