I believe you've stated you work at UIHC, I can't recall if it was mostly clinical, research or teaching or all three. I was wondering if you could you provide some insight on what kind of potential impact the UI President can have on the UIHC? I always thought they were a little more autonomous and obviously they have a separate set of leadership/executives as well. Have you seen big changes during previous Presidential transitions?
Thanks.
All 3. Our side won't see much change, and to be honest with you I don't foresee wholesale changes on the other side of the river either. I truly think all this consternation is much ado about nothing. I actually think some of the changes will come at more of an infrastructure level, if you will. I think there will be a review of departments across campus that are performing redundant duties, eliminate some of that redundancy through job attrition mostly, find new means to foster profit from ingenuity, encourage collaborations with the private sector (something that hasn't really been a focus at an administrative level). We're still pulling in some good grant money via collaborations with pharmaceuticals (despite my opinions of many of them
) through clinical trials, but NIH funding has been trending down (although, this could change with FY2016 -- a proposed 5.8% increase!).
Putting aside the UIHC, as CEO Kates does a great job and I don't think Harreld will do much 'healthcare-wise', what's needed is a dynamic leader with a proven track record of an ability to cut costs and generate revenue via internal means AND external means, and also establish a vision for future growth. I know these sound like campaign promises, but let's face it there is a lot of politicking when it comes to higher education administration. Much of a university's growth comes from public reputation, not so much how they see themselves. We're in a time of very rapid change and in some ways public education, both at primary school and university levels, are lagging behind. Maybe it is time to have someone with a corporate background, and track record of ingenuity, lead a large university into the modern era.
One thing I think could help at the university level not just at Iowa, but elsewhere, is reduce the number of PhDs being awarded. There are way too many coming through the graduate schools getting their PhD, completing a fellowship, and fully anticipating walking into their own fully funded laboratory with an R01 from the first time they apply. That ain't happening anymore. There's a glut of PhDs right now, and this has to change at some point. Just looking at the Society for Neuroscience conference for next month there are 7 different program guides of over 100 pages each. That's a listing of all presentations, exhibits, etc. (with some redundancy regarding housing, shuttle, dining and such). Granted, this is an international conference, but the point is a lot of the presenters are current grad students (it's one thing we require of them) and all are under the impression they will have their own lab at a well-respected university within the next 4-6 years and most of them will not.
Sorry to get off on a tangent, but it's a problem among a lot of schools. You're proud of the number of PhDs your school produces, but then where do they all go?
