Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
It honestly breaks my hear to say it, as I love BYU deeply and cherish the memories of my time there, but say it I will:
Utah Valley State University will have a more respected, more published, more useful to the church, LDS studies department then BYU within two decades. Maybe within one decade.
That was painful to me to admit.
|
I am not sure why that is so painful to admit. Seeing such a program develop at UVU would be wonderful, IMO. And it would bring pressure on BYU LDS studies to improve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
The death-knell of BYU came with they made the President of BYU a GA. I don't think it will recover. According to Judge Thomas B. Griffith not on the DC Circuit and formerly GC of BYU, Elder Holland used to say when he was the non-GA President of BYU, "BYU is a university" somewhat asperationally. Now they don't even have it as a goal. Today they see themselves as a church leader training center--that is the point hammered over and over again in the student wards.
|
(I love Tom Griffith - what a great guy)
I am firmly on record as being against the GA-as-president trend. But I think you are overstating the damage a bit. Both Oaks and Holland went on to become GA's. Not just GA's, but apostles. Do you really think they were that much different before they were GA's, i.e, while they were presidents at BYU? Of course, the GA's will have more of a mandate to lead in a certain way, but let's not kid ourselves. Previous presidents did what the board of trustees wanted. To me, the biggest disadvantage of the GA-as-president trend is that it severely restricts the candidate pool and we end up getting lesser-qualified presidents. Ironically, it could be argued that BYU-Idaho has a better president now than BYU-Provo.
Of course, in my fantasy world, BYU would get a non-GA president with outstanding academic credentials and with a willingness to push the BOT as much as possible for radical change regarding academic freedom, legit LDS studies, etc. Maybe someday.