Washington AD--Pac 10 reaches out to Texas and Texas A&M (Pac 10 + Big 12 merger?)

[MikeWaters]

BYU, from my perspective, has had POOR faculty, and STRONG students. Especially historically.

As BYU expanded, they hired many marginally qualified faculty who had no interest or aptitude to do research. These folks were essentially instructors who taught classes and graded papers.

As these faculty members have retired, my sense is that BYU is trying to hire folks that are better quality, and have more potential to bring in research dollars. It's more of a focus now. But I don't sense that there is actually institutional fire-in-the-belly to improve research. They will take marginal gains as they come. They will "grow their own" and not put in the dollars to accelerate the process. They certainly will not invest the money to bring in stars, nor will they take on expensive endeavors like starting a medical school (despite the fact that right now there is an incredible up-surge in new medical schools and increased enrollment at existing medical schools--one could argue that now would be an ideal time to start a medical school if so inclined). A medical school is hugely expensive, and let's face it, if BYU started one, it would be a primary-care clinical-medicine-only no-research kind of medical school. In other words, a complete non-player. Not to mention that I don't think a medical school could actually exist in Provo-Orem. At least not one of any reasonable size. For the same reason that Texas A&M has had difficulty with its medical school. Bryan-COllege Station is not large enough to support a medical school, thus the students in their 3rd and 4th years move to Temple to rotate through a large tertiary medical center. Even Austin does not have a medical school, though it appears that one will soon start. A BYU medical school would have to be based in SLC.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

BYU, from my perspective, has had POOR faculty, and STRONG students. Especially historically.

As BYU expanded, they hired many marginally qualified faculty who had no interest or aptitude to do research. These folks were essentially instructors who taught classes and graded papers.

As these faculty members have retired, my sense is that BYU is trying to hire folks that are better quality, and have more potential to bring in research dollars. It's more of a focus now. But I don't sense that there is actually institutional fire-in-the-belly to improve research. They will take marginal gains as they come. They will "grow their own" and not put in the dollars to accelerate the process. They certainly will not invest the money to bring in stars, nor will they take on expensive endeavors like starting a medical school (despite the fact that right now there is an incredible up-surge in new medical schools and increased enrollment at existing medical schools--one could argue that now would be an ideal time to start a medical school if so inclined). A medical school is hugely expensive, and let's face it, if BYU started one, it would be a primary-care clinical-medicine-only no-research kind of medical school. In other words, a complete non-player. Not to mention that I don't think a medical school could actually exist in Provo-Orem. At least not one of any reasonable size. For the same reason that Texas A&M has had difficulty with its medical school. Bryan-COllege Station is not large enough to support a medical school, thus the students in their 3rd and 4th years move to Temple to rotate through a large tertiary medical center. Even Austin does not have a medical school, though it appears that one will soon start. A BYU medical school would have to be based in SLC.

Is this from your own studies?

I am not an academic enough to make a categorical statement that it has a poor faculty.

From the MBA and Accounting perspective, it is purported to have a very good faculty. Are you commenting solely from the microbiology department? When I was in the Chemistry Department, it sure seemed that Department was well-regarded.

I understand in some aspects of engineering it has a good faculty. So I'm wondering by what basis you're measuring the entire faculty including all departments?

I am in a poor position to judge faculty, except for the departments where I studied.

The law school's faculty has experienced significant turn over, and I'm not certain about its quality nowadays. But in its earlier years, its faculty was actually considered quite competent, with the likes of Rex Lee, Carl Hawkins, Floyd and Neeleman. I am not trying to compare it with Harvard, Texas or other notables, but it was still well-regarded.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Is this from your own studies?

I am not an academic enough to make a categorical statement that it has a poor faculty.

From the MBA and Accounting perspective, it is purported to have a very good faculty. Are you commenting solely from the microbiology department? When I was in the Chemistry Department, it sure seemed that Department was well-regarded.

I understand in some aspects of engineering it has a good faculty. So I'm wondering by what basis you're measuring the entire faculty including all departments?

I am in a poor position to judge faculty, except for the departments where I studied.

The law school's faculty has experienced significant turn over, and I'm not certain about its quality nowadays. But in its earlier years, its faculty was actually considered quite competent, with the likes of Rex Lee, Carl Hawkins, Floyd and Neeleman. I am not trying to compare it with Harvard, Texas or other notables, but it was still well-regarded.

BYU has more than respectable professional schools in some areas. This, liike undergraduate education, is its own cubby.

Waters is right (you're not). More than will prevents BYU from becoming a strong research institution. It's not unlike saying Denmark could have a good wine industry if it wanted to. BYU would have to change at a cellular level

BTW, Neeleman has retired. He's theSao Paulo temple mission president.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Is this from your own studies?

I am not an academic enough to make a categorical statement that it has a poor faculty.

From the MBA and Accounting perspective, it is purported to have a very good faculty. Are you commenting solely from the microbiology department? When I was in the Chemistry Department, it sure seemed that Department was well-regarded.

I understand in some aspects of engineering it has a good faculty. So I'm wondering by what basis you're measuring the entire faculty including all departments?

I am in a poor position to judge faculty, except for the departments where I studied.

The law school's faculty has experienced significant turn over, and I'm not certain about its quality nowadays. But in its earlier years, its faculty was actually considered quite competent, with the likes of Rex Lee, Carl Hawkins, Floyd and Neeleman. I am not trying to compare it with Harvard, Texas or other notables, but it was still well-regarded.

I don't know if I am right or not. It's merely my sense--I may be paraphrasing rumors I have heard.

If the faculty were really good, you would see the research dollars flowing in. Just a guess, but there is probably more research money coming in now than ever before. But it would probably be a pittance compared to the Univ. of Utah, which in turn would be a pittance compared to the Univ. of Texas.

I can't really speak to the liberal arts, but I assume the same exists.

There are plenty of talented LDS academics in the country, that if the very best all went to BYU, it would be a very strong research institution I would suspect. But it's not just a collection of people that you need. It's institutional will and support.

Plus there are plenty that just don't like BYU and would never be willing to work in a place that requires temple recommends and Bishop's interviews and all that. I don't like to conflate my church with my work. Priestcraft.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

BYU has more than respectable professional schools in some areas. This, liike undergraduate education, is its own cubby.

Waters is right (you're not). More than will prevents BYU from becoming a strong research institution. It's not unlike saying Denmark could have a good wine industry if it wanted to. BYU would have to change at a cellular level

BTW, Neeleman has retired. He's theSao Paulo temple mission president.

I am not right on what?

Stan was the man, back in his day. I think the new law faculty is less-season, less well-known. That saddens me.

Several things will have to change. The emphasis on the academic tradition for personal excellence amongst all faculty. The culture there seems to be more one of, if you are personally very disciplined and determined, you'll be a star and are allowed to shine in your discipline.

However, there seems to be some legitimate dead weight, where as long as you don't embarrass the Church, you're not expected to strive for greatness.

The lack of emphasis on research. The old reason for it, was lack of federal oversight, but it seems BYU accept enough federal money, that the excuse no longer holds water. So in a sense, other than lacking the drive to compete at that level, BYU has nothing holding it back any longer. Most research dollars have absolutely nothing to do with what BYU leadership to be controversial. Most of the big ticket research dollars are ear-marked for scientific realms.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I don't know if I am right or not. It's merely my sense--I may be paraphrasing rumors I have heard.

If the faculty were really good, you would see the research dollars flowing in. Just a guess, but there is probably more research money coming in now than ever before. But it would probably be a pittance compared to the Univ. of Utah, which in turn would be a pittance compared to the Univ. of Texas.

I can't really speak to the liberal arts, but I assume the same exists.

There are plenty of talented LDS academics in the country, that if the very best all went to BYU, it would be a very strong research institution I would suspect. But it's not just a collection of people that you need. It's institutional will and support.

Plus there are plenty that just don't like BYU and would never be willing to work in a place that requires temple recommends and Bishop's interviews and all that. I don't like to conflate my church with my work. Priestcraft.

I agree with that premise. It seems administration can be a bit over-bearing at times.

Statman's relative's story which he has re-told often, about his Asian history uncle, who wrote something on religion which and was requested by the GA to have the Religion Department look at it, reminds me that administration can do silly things.

[MikeWaters]

BYU is what it is. A religious university full of young, bright, eager Mormon kids. Who are a practical bunch, children of poor immigrants and pioneers.

The powers that be are perfectly satisfied with this. I don't think they stop to ponder "Harvard of the West" for even one moment. It's not a goal.

The faculty are full of persons who don't even give a second thought to academic freedom. They are happy to have comfy jobs where the bar to achieve tenure is low, and they only need keep their noses clean.

Having said that there are many students who wander into this garden and think "WTF?" They make do. Or transfer. Or quit. Or get kicked out. Or come around.

To some degree I'm one of those people. I liked BYU a lot before I arrived. And I like it a lot after I left, because I only have the sports teams to think about.

BYU doesn't want people like me, and the feeling is mutual.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

BYU is what it is. A religious university full of young, bright, eager Mormon kids. Who are a practical bunch, children of poor immigrants and pioneers.

The powers that be are perfectly satisfied with this. I don't think they stop to ponder "Harvard of the West" for even one moment. It's not a goal.

The faculty are full of persons who don't even give a second thought to academic freedom. They are happy to have comfy jobs where the bar to achieve tenure is low, and they only need keep their noses clean.

Having said that there are many students who wander into this garden and think "WTF?" They make do. Or transfer. Or quit. Or get kicked out. Or come around.

To some degree I'm one of those people. I liked BYU a lot before I arrived. And I like it a lot after I left, because I only have the sports teams to think about.

BYU doesn't want people like me, and the feeling is mutual.

LDS should have some experience with BYU just to better understand our culture. Without it, you don't have a complete insight into the panorama of our culture.

People like Mike are important to our culture. Questions are most important the answers are not as important. However, people with questions who still find value in our culture are valuable and should not be quiet for the assistance of those with questions that find no answers.

I remember being very naive as to the Church and its culture when I first attended BYU. One of my first lectures sponsored by the Chemistry Department at that point led in some way by Elliot Butler, a Cal Tech Phd., was given by Henry Eyring, the scientist, not the Church apostle. He was inspiring. He was a faithful son, yet had a brilliant mind. And I could tell he valued truth, even if it was uncomfortable. He spoke about studying Chemistry was honest, hard work, worthy of a man or woman. He noted he had never drank alcohol, and then he backtracked, "well, except for one time in a car some beer..."

I liked his honesty. But for BYU, I never would have stumbled upon B.H. Roberts, D. Michael Quinn, or anybody else who knew the Church in depth.

My children have attended the BYUs and one still attends. It is an important link, and for me now, mostly a sports connection but important nonetheless.

[MikeWaters]

There is a time and place to be critical of BYU. If a kid from my ward is going to BYU, great, I'm very happy for them. Bringing up the issues I have concerns with--that's not really the place for that.

I had one young person who was planning to go to BYU privately ask me what I thought. I said that it is great for many, and not ideal for some.

I talked to a Ute who started at BYU but transferred to Utah. He said that when you are critical of BYU in front of children, they cannot distinguish between BYU and the church. Thus, you risk in fact sounding like you don't care for the church (I guess some could argue that this is the truth for these folks). I think he really doesn't like BYU, but at some level he holds back a little in front of his kids. He would support his children going to BYU if they chose that. The true-hater ALUF family I have met--they are strange. They seem to be SU-esque in their hatred, and it is off-putting to me.

At the end of the day, I think my issue with BYU is that I consider what it could be, and then look at what it is. But my vision is only my own. And it is not my fight or concern.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

There is a time and place to be critical of BYU. If a kid from my ward is going to BYU, great, I'm very happy for them. Bringing up the issues I have concerns with--that's not really the place for that.

I had one young person who was planning to go to BYU privately ask me what I thought. I said that it is great for many, and not ideal for some.

I talked to a Ute who started at BYU but transferred to Utah. He said that when you are critical of BYU in front of children, they cannot distinguish between BYU and the church. Thus, you risk in fact sounding like you don't care for the church (I guess some could argue that this is the truth for these folks). I think he really doesn't like BYU, but at some level he holds back a little in front of his kids. He would support his children going to BYU if they chose that. The true-hater ALUF family I have met--they are strange. They seem to be SU-esque in their hatred, and it is off-putting to me.

At the end of the day, I think my issue with BYU is that I consider what it could be, and then look at what it is. But my vision is only my own. And it is not my fight or concern.

If you interpreted my mild suggestion for you to offer up your critiques, then my meaning was missed.

The failings of BYU, and many of its successes, are self-evident and are abundantly clear.

The value you have, is that you have neither completely rejected BYU, not its sponsor, and continue in your general support of BYU and its sponsor, despite being painfully aware of its shortcomings. So how you balance that knowledge with your continued support is important to share with others. That was my point.