Larry Williams landing place?

[keefe]

You initially said that Williams "suffered colossal failure".  That suggests the failure was his. The situation was indeed a failure based on the length of his tenure. I think the failure was mostly on the part of certain members of the administration and the athletic department.

Others have itemized his accomplishments, so I don't feel the need to rehash.  I am not privy to any special inside information. However, I do believe that Larry was not allowed to do his job in the way he believed was appropriate, realized that situation was not likely to change, and left as a result.

I never waivered from my characterization of his failure. Williams was not successful and his hiring was a mistake that cost his shareholders dearly.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

I have not met Williams but can there be any debate that his time at Marquette was a failure? Less than two years at the helm is an unmitigated disaster - whether at GE Capital or running a Wendy's.

And while I have not met the man, I did not need to as I have several first hand accounts of his tenure and the ridiculous chaos that characterized his time at Marquette.  

As I said, senior executive assignments are 100% about managing relationships. That's been my experience in both the military and the private sector. When the national press routinely reported there was disharmony within the Athletic Department at my alma mater I took that as prima facie evidence that the man running that organization was failing.

Perhaps you missed the many articles detailing the open rift between Williams and his most important subordinate? Either this was a massive conspiracy aimed at undermining Williams' professional reputation or there was substance to the reporting. It is a fallacy to suggest that since I did not know the man personally I could not possibly pass judgment as there is significant empiricism on this in the public domain.

I understand you and Glow might have had a relationship with him given your support of the university. But I would caution against letting that familiarity cloud your perspective. One of the most difficult matters I ever had to attend to involved relieving a friend who was failing in his professional responsibilities. While wholly unpleasant it was necessary because the shareholders of the General Electric Corporation expected no less. And at no time did I ever let personal sentiment interfere with professional responsibility.

So how would you characterize his tenure at Marquette?  

The rift was never as big as people made it out to be.  The primary source of the rift is in Vagina.

[keefe]

is in Vagina.

A place from where every red blooded American male emerges then spends the rest of his life trying to get back into...

[keefe]

Many solid professionals fail in one position only to excel at another that fits their talents. 

Your comment made me think of Jimmy Carter. I recently completed The President's Club, by Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy. Superb read which I recommend highly.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Whatever...that doesn't change my point that Larry wasn't allowed to run the department the way he thought best, and I am not so sure the administration was 100% in the right on this.

You guys must have easy names to pronounce aina?

[Texas Western]

I guess your sources in the athletic department didn't understand how much Cottingham had worked on this, in conjunction with Broeker and others.  Of course, the intro of lacrosse was left in Larry's lap when Cottingham was wrongly terminated so he bitched about it. The program has been quite successful since, as Cottingham contemplated, and got MU back to recruiting areas for regular students where we had traditionally recruited: East coast and Chicago suburbs. The truth is funding has proven tough but that is across the board right now. Larry started work on building and funding a new field house that would include lacrosse and the soccer teams before he was canned, so it could not have been that bad.

Based on my discussions with Williams I agree with your analysis.

[Lennys Tap]

The rift was never as big as people made it out to be.  The primary source of the rift is in Vagina.

???

[Lennys Tap]

I am painfully aware of more than I wish I knew about that whole situation.

Sorry to be late to the game but could you also PM me with the details? Thanks, TAMU.

[keefe]

The rift was never as big as people made it out to be. 

Many here find it fashionable to fault Williams for the problems of the past few years while others put the responsibility squarely on Williams. The fact that Williams could not get along with Williams is baffling and likely the cause of Williams departure from Marquette. Personally, I blame Williams.

[mu-rara]

Usually, when you have as much turbulence at the top of an organization as our beloved alma mater, the issue is with leadership.  President, AD, Dean of Arts and Sciences, Provost, BusAd Dean...all in flux or recent controversy.   All of these are BOT issues or hires.

Not sure what the issue might be...too many cooks on the BOT?    To many egos?

I'd keep an eye on Mike Lovell.  If he becomes a great hire, maybe the BOT has turned a corner.  I sure hope so.

[keefe]

Usually, when you have as much turbulence at the top of an organization as our beloved alma mater, the issue is with leadership.  President, AD, Dean of Arts and Sciences, Provost, BusAd Dean...all in flux or recent controversy.   All of these are BOT issues or hires.

Not sure what the issue might be...too many cooks on the BOT?    To many egos?

I'd keep an eye on Mike Lovell.  If he becomes a great hire, maybe the BOT has turned a corner.  I sure hope so.

I was really surprised to see that the BoT has so many people to the point where it is meaningless as a governing entity. 31 members isn't a Board but a Marching Band. There is no such similar structure in the corporate world.

The Pilarz hire was an unmitigated disaster and so too was bringing in LW. Both men alienated too many influential and enthusiastic financial supporters of the university and spent far too much time on the mundane (teaching poetry, student chanting) and the absurd (questionable strategic objectives, useless metrics) that undermined their credibility as senior executives.

Marquette is at a critical juncture in its history and I am not convinced the current governance model with its outlandish size and far too many members lacking in genuine strategic distinction is appropriate for the task at hand. I would further argue that Marquette ought not to have so many alumni as members of the BoT. Genuine perspective is not limited to race or gender.   

[GGGG]

The size of Marquette's Board isn't likely to be the problem.  All sorts of well functioning private university boards have similar size.  Most of the difficult decisions on such boards are delegated to an Executive Committee that ranges in the 5-7 member range, and to me that is where the basic problem lies. 

The problem is a top-down lack of a strategy that the community has yet to embrace.  Look at the last two hires for President.  Pilarz and Lovell are completely different in the way they approach and tackle issues.  One is a high level intellectual...one is insanely practical.  When you whipsaw from one direction to the next, IMO it is a lack of strategy more than anything.

I mean, is Marquette going to be an "elite" school on par with its Catholic cohorts like Georgetown and BC?  Or is it going to strive to be a bigger part of Milwaukee and mirror some of the things that Lovell was trying to do at UWM?

Those are very different strategies, and it amazes me that they would change so completely in such a short timeframe.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I was really surprised to see that the BoT has so many people to the point where it is meaningless as a governing entity. 31 members isn't a Board but a Marching Band. There is no such similar structure in the corporate world.

The Pilarz hire was an unmitigated disaster and so too was bringing in LW. Both men alienated too many influential and enthusiastic financial supporters of the university and spent far too much time on the mundane (teaching poetry, student chanting) and the absurd (questionable strategic objectives, useless metrics) that undermined their credibility as senior executives.

Marquette is at a critical juncture in its history and I am not convinced the current governance model with its outlandish size and far too many members lacking in genuine strategic distinction is appropriate for the task at hand. I would further argue that Marquette ought not to have so many alumni as members of the BoT. Genuine perspective is not limited to race or gender.   

Easy on the hyperbole. Pilarz was not the right man for the Marquette job but he held down the fort fine for two years. And many of the students loved that he taught a class and lived in on campus housing. If you really think his teaching poetry took up more than 1% of his time than you are mistaken.

You are right about Marquette being at a critical juncture. I'm excited by the Lovell hire. Moving to a man from the private sector is the best course of action. A massive change is coming to higher education. Many private liberal arts institutions will not survive this wave. They must adapt or fail. Over the next few years Marquette must grow their enrollment. They need to expand but also shrink. A lot of the excess will need to be removed. Unnecessary services, positions, and departments must be shrunk. Increased enrollment and decreased bureaucracy will mean lower tuition. This, combined with Marquette's prestige, will allow Marquette to survive. In fact, not just survive but thrive. As the Alverno's, Carroll's, and Cardinal Stritch's of the world begin to fail, Marquette will be able absorb their resources.

That was a long rant to say basically that we should expect Marquette to look less and less like a private liberal arts school and more and more like state school. The key will be to make sure we stay true to our mission and values while we undergo this transformation.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

If the cat walks inta the interview with that salt stained hat on, he fookin' toast.

Lids is hiring I hear.  Larry, send your resume to 4never.

[keefe]

Easy on the hyperbole. Pilarz was not the right man for the Marquette job but he held down the fort fine for two years. And many of the students loved that he taught a class and lived in on campus housing. If you really think his teaching poetry took up more than 1% of his time than you are mistaken.

You are right about Marquette being at a critical juncture. I'm excited by the Lovell hire. Moving to a man from the private sector is the best course of action. A massive change is coming to higher education. Many private liberal arts institutions will not survive this wave. They must adapt or fail. Over the next few years Marquette must grow their enrollment. They need to expand but also shrink. A lot of the excess will need to be removed. Unnecessary services, positions, and departments must be shrunk. Increased enrollment and decreased bureaucracy will mean lower tuition. This, combined with Marquette's prestige, will allow Marquette to survive. In fact, not just survive but thrive. As the Alverno's, Carroll's, and Cardinal Stritch's of the world begin to fail, Marquette will be able absorb their resources.

That was a long rant to say basically that we should expect Marquette to look less and less like a private liberal arts school and more and more like state school. The key will be to make sure we stay true to our mission and values while we undergo this transformation.

Anytime a CEO lasts less than two years it is hugely disruptive for the enterprise. Scott Pilarz was an unmitigated disaster as the leader of Marquette University. Living on campus and teaching a class had nothing to do with his mandate as the CEO. If he had been slaying his performance deliverables then perhaps he could allocate time to address those avocations and interests that fulfilled him as a person. Until then, he had no business wasting a second on anything not prescribed by his shareholders.

We share the view that Marquette is at a critical juncture for reasons both internal and external to the enterprise. I disagree that Lovell is from the private sector - he is a career academician. (Perhaps you meant a lay person?) I also disagree, profoundly, that Marquette must adjust its mission going forward. I understand the need to better leverage fixed costs, possibly through scale, but Marquette will never grow as large as might be necessary to capture the economies you suggest. And reshaping the curriculum to become more of a technical training institution similar to state schools would be the death knell for Marquette.

Marquette is a parochial school with a specific mission. It cannot compete with the large secular universities for a number of reasons. If Marquette deviates from its core mission then it should close down.

[keefe]

The size of Marquette's Board isn't likely to be the problem.  All sorts of well functioning private university boards have similar size.  Most of the difficult decisions on such boards are delegated to an Executive Committee that ranges in the 5-7 member range, and to me that is where the basic problem lies. 

The problem is a top-down lack of a strategy that the community has yet to embrace.  Look at the last two hires for President.  Pilarz and Lovell are completely different in the way they approach and tackle issues.  One is a high level intellectual...one is insanely practical.  When you whipsaw from one direction to the next, IMO it is a lack of strategy more than anything.

I mean, is Marquette going to be an "elite" school on par with its Catholic cohorts like Georgetown and BC?  Or is it going to strive to be a bigger part of Milwaukee and mirror some of the things that Lovell was trying to do at UWM?

Those are very different strategies, and it amazes me that they would change so completely in such a short timeframe.

I think Marquette is an integral part of Milwaukee but actually has a national mandate. We are likely a step below GU, BC, and UND and I am not certain we can ever establish parity but that shouldn't be the objective. Branding is a very different end point.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

We share the view that Marquette is at a critical juncture for reasons both internal and external to the enterprise. I disagree that Lovell is from the private sector - he is a career academician. (Perhaps you meant a lay person?) I also disagree, profoundly, that Marquette must adjust its mission going forward. I understand the need to better leverage fixed costs, possibly through scale, but Marquette will never grow as large as might be necessary to capture the economies you suggest. And reshaping the curriculum to become more of a technical training institution similar to state schools would be the death knell for Marquette.

Marquette is a parochial school with a specific mission. It cannot compete with the large secular universities for a number of reasons. If Marquette deviates from its core mission then it should close down.

I did mean lay person, my mistake.

There is a reason I left Marquette and schools like it. I jumped to Texas A&M because future economics will not allow for private liberal arts schools to survive. Student debt has reached catastrophic levels. That number will have to be negotiated eventually. The federal government will be forced to give out less and less and raise the requirements for qualifying for loans. When the money flow is slowed, students will no longer be able to afford expensive private schools. Universities like Alverno, Cardinal Stritch, and Carroll will suffer and I believe eventually shut down.

Marquette's prestige will help insulate it from a lot of this. People are willing to pay for a Marquette degree. But it will still take its toll. The reality is, it is not responsible for the government or Marquette to allow a student to take out loans to study history at Marquette. A history major will never be able to pay back the loans it will take them in order to attend Marquette. It puts the student in financial distress and the government loses money. They should attend UWM or Parkside if they want to study history.

This doesn't just affect the liberal arts. Why should an engineering major pay Marquette for a degree when they can get a more prestige degree from Texas A&M for about $30,000 less? (This isn't the best comparison because they don't compete for the same students but I knew the tuitions off the top of my head. You could substitute almost any major state school for TAMU).

I think we need to cut a lot of our academic programs. Still offer the liberal arts education but don't offer majors in the liberal arts. Cut down on some of the services as well. You cut those and the money saved can be used to expand enrollment at a lower tuition rate.

I never said we should change our mission. We should always remain a liberal arts institution grounded in Jesuit beliefs. I'm just suggesting a change of structure. I'd argue that my vision actually embraces the mission more than the current structure. Our original purpose was urban education. We have currently priced ourselves out of being able to properly do that.

[GGGG]

"Don't offer majors in the liberal arts?"

Many people, including myself, have made fine livings with a liberal arts major.  Just because the pathway to a job immediately out of college isn't as clear, that doesn't mean that a liberal arts education can't pay benefits to someone throughout their lifetime.

College cannot always be reduced to a job training program.

[keefe]

I did mean lay person, my mistake.

There is a reason I left Marquette and schools like it. I jumped to Texas A&M because future economics will not allow for private liberal arts schools to survive. Student debt has reached catastrophic levels. That number will have to be negotiated eventually. The federal government will be forced to give out less and less and raise the requirements for qualifying for loans. When the money flow is slowed, students will no longer be able to afford expensive private schools. Universities like Alverno, Cardinal Stritch, and Carroll will suffer and I believe eventually shut down.

Marquette's prestige will help insulate it from a lot of this. People are willing to pay for a Marquette degree. But it will still take its toll. The reality is, it is not responsible for the government or Marquette to allow a student to take out loans to study history at Marquette. A history major will never be able to pay back the loans it will take them in order to attend Marquette. It puts the student in financial distress and the government loses money. They should attend UWM or Parkside if they want to study history.

This doesn't just affect the liberal arts. Why should an engineering major pay Marquette for a degree when they can get a more prestige degree from Texas A&M for about $30,000 less? (This isn't the best comparison because they don't compete for the same students but I knew the tuitions off the top of my head. You could substitute almost any major state school for TAMU).

I think we need to cut a lot of our academic programs. Still offer the liberal arts education but don't offer majors in the liberal arts. Cut down on some of the services as well. You cut those and the money saved can be used to expand enrollment at a lower tuition rate.

I never said we should change our mission. We should always remain a liberal arts institution grounded in Jesuit beliefs. I'm just suggesting a change of structure. I'd argue that my vision actually embraces the mission more than the current structure. Our original purpose was urban education. We have currently priced ourselves out of being able to properly do that.

How would Marquette be a liberal arts institution without offering majors in the arts and sciences? A traditional arts and sciences education is the backbone of Marquette. My wife was an English major at MU but ended up getting a PhD in a very technical field. She would have told you that the refinement of her critical thinking skills and being able to articulate difficult concepts in a concise manner were the essence of her education rather than being able to quote Joyce. Our daughter was an arts major undergrad and is now doing grad work in public health and medicine.

Eliminating Liberal Arts majors from the Marquette curriculum would be a radical departure from its core mission. One of the crucial lessons I learned in Business School was that it is essential for an enterprise to understand who and what it is and how it can achieve that blissful state of Nirvana as effectively and efficiently as possible.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

"Don't offer majors in the liberal arts?"

Many people, including myself, have made fine livings with a liberal arts major.  Just because the pathway to a job immediately out of college isn't as clear, that doesn't mean that a liberal arts education can't pay benefits to someone throughout their lifetime.

College cannot always be reduced to a job training program.

The bolded piece is absolutely true. That's why Marquette should keep it's status as a liberal arts univeristy. They will still have and require classes on history, theology, arts, etc. They simply won't allow students to major it in anymore. This will allow the university to downsize those departments immensely.

It is irresponsible to allow students to take massive amounts of loans for majors that have little chance of producing the income to pay those loans back. It is costly to the university, the government, and the student. Up until this point, the federal government has been willing to provide anyone with a student loan provided they have a high school diploma and a pulse. No thought to their ability to pay the loan back. When I worked in a grocery store in high school I worked with several men and women in their 50s who had yet to pay back their student loans. In the near future this will change. Standards will go up and loans will be harder to come by. Students will no longer be able to afford expensive college tuition. We need to find a way to lower tuition in order to stay relevant.

This is a different time we live in. Having a college degree is expected now. What you major in matters. Having a degree in English no longer puts you ahead of others. Everyone has a bachelor's. Of the friends I went to college with, more are currently unemployed or working in retail level jobs than working in a job in their field.

I love the liberal arts. I actually started as a history major myself. Loved it but left when I realized that no one had any use for a history major unless I wanted to be in the classroom. I will fight to keep Marquette a liberal arts institution til the very end.  But we NEED to lower tuition. I don't see any other way to do it.

[GGGG]

The bolded piece is absolutely true. That's why Marquette should keep it's status as a liberal arts univeristy. They will still have and require classes on history, theology, arts, etc. They simply won't allow students to major it in anymore. This will allow the university to downsize those departments immensely.

It is irresponsible to allow students to take massive amounts of loans for majors that have little chance of producing the income to pay those loans back. It is costly to the university, the government, and the student. Up until this point, the federal government has been willing to provide anyone with a student loan provided they have a high school diploma and a pulse. No thought to their ability to pay the loan back. When I worked in a grocery store in high school I worked with several men and women in their 50s who had yet to pay back their student loans. In the near future this will change. Standards will go up and loans will be harder to come by. Students will no longer be able to afford expensive college tuition. We need to find a way to lower tuition in order to stay relevant.

This is a different time we live in. Having a college degree is expected now. What you major in matters. Having a degree in English no longer puts you ahead of others. Everyone has a bachelor's. Of the friends I went to college with, more are currently unemployed or working in retail level jobs than working in a job in their field.

I love the liberal arts. I actually started as a history major myself. Loved it but left when I realized that no one had any use for a history major unless I wanted to be in the classroom. I will fight to keep Marquette a liberal arts institution til the very end.  But we NEED to lower tuition. I don't see any other way to do it.

I'm a history major...who paid back his loans...who makes a real good living.

The idea that someone has "little chance" to pay-back their student loans from a liberal arts degree isn't as universal a statement as you portray.  I don't use the actual history I learned in the classroom everyday, but I certainly use the skills that I used while earning my degree every day.

BTW, ask people who run businesses if they think we should dump liberal arts degrees.  My guess is that you would be surprised by their response.

[keefe]

The bolded piece is absolutely true. That's why Marquette should keep it's status as a liberal arts univeristy. They will still have and require classes on history, theology, arts, etc. They simply won't allow students to major it in anymore. This will allow the university to downsize those departments immensely.

It is irresponsible to allow students to take massive amounts of loans for majors that have little chance of producing the income to pay those loans back. It is costly to the university, the government, and the student. Up until this point, the federal government has been willing to provide anyone with a student loan provided they have a high school diploma and a pulse. No thought to their ability to pay the loan back. When I worked in a grocery store in high school I worked with several men and women in their 50s who had yet to pay back their student loans. In the near future this will change. Standards will go up and loans will be harder to come by. Students will no longer be able to afford expensive college tuition. We need to find a way to lower tuition in order to stay relevant.

This is a different time we live in. Having a college degree is expected now. What you major in matters. Having a degree in English no longer puts you ahead of others. Everyone has a bachelor's. Of the friends I went to college with, more are currently unemployed or working in retail level jobs than working in a job in their field.

I love the liberal arts. I actually started as a history major myself. Loved it but left when I realized that no one had any use for a history major unless I wanted to be in the classroom. I will fight to keep Marquette a liberal arts institution til the very end.  But we NEED to lower tuition. I don't see any other way to do it.

This is the kitchen sink approach to describing tertiary education in America today...

The actual % of Americans with a BA/BS is still quite low

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I'm a history major...who paid back his loans...who makes a real good living.

The idea that someone has "little chance" to pay-back their student loans from a liberal arts degree isn't as universal a statement as you portray.  I don't use the actual history I learned in the classroom everyday, but I certainly use the skills that I used while earning my degree every day.

BTW, ask people who run businesses if they think we should dump liberal arts degrees.  My guess is that you would be surprised by their response.

So if your not using what you majored in why does it matter? If you had been a business major who was still forced to take all the general education requirements wouldn't you have still learned those skills that you are using now?

I also don't know what year you graduated. Times are different now.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

This is the kitchen sink approach to describing tertiary education in America today...

The actual % of Americans with a BA/BS is still quite low

That graphic is misleading. It includes data for all people 25 and older. Most of the people that it is counting entered the work force a long time ago when standards were different. It wasn't as necessary to get a college degree.

Now around 65% of high school graduates go to college. With a national 6 year graduation rate of about 55% that is slightly over 1 million new college graduates attempting to enter the work force every year. That's a lot of competition.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.nr0.htm


Again, the main point is, if standards for student loans raise, students will no longer be able to afford Marquette tuition. Assuming this happens (which I can almost guarantee it will) how can we lower tuition in order to make sure we still get students? Or do you think lowering tuition isn't the answer?

[keefe]

That graphic is misleading. It includes data for all people 25 and older. Most of the people that it is counting entered the work force a long time ago when standards were different. It wasn't as necessary to get a college degree.

Now around 65% of high school graduates go to college. With a national 6 year graduation rate of about 55% that is slightly over 1 million new college graduates attempting to enter the work force every year. That's a lot of competition.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.nr0.htm


Again, the main point is, if standards for student loans raise, students will no longer be able to afford Marquette tuition. Assuming this happens (which I can almost guarantee it will) how can we lower tuition in order to make sure we still get students? Or do you think lowering tuition isn't the answer?

Are graduated v attended college:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/education/a-sharp-rise-in-americans-with-college-degrees.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The number is increasing but the vast majority of Americans never get a college degree. Additionally, there are degrees and there are degrees and there are degrees. Is there a qualitative difference between Phoenix grads, State U dash Direction, and Marquette?

In total the numbers are up but there are numerous factors for that and it is highly sensitive to demographics.

Last year, 33.5 percent of Americans ages 25 to 29 had at least a bachelor’s degree, compared with 24.7 percent in 1995, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. In 1975, the share was 21.9 percent.