RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceReader Comments
Staff question Petraeus GS ’87, need for academic background at presidential search forum
Published: Tuesday, November 13th, 2012
University staff members voiced concerns about the potential candidacy of former CIA director David Petraeus GS ’87 for University president at the third open forum held by the University’s presidential search committee Tuesday afternoon.
Deputy Dean of the College ...
(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
"'I am hoping that the next president will be interested in initiatives that will adjust Princeton away from that conservative reputation,' another audience member said."
And... this is what's wrong with academia. Princeton doesn't have a reputation as leaning right in absolute terms. It's only conservative relative to its peers. That's because we're fortunate enough to have a faculty that is (again, relatively speaking) intellectually diverse. What a shame that some on our faculty would prefer homogeneity of thought.
Princeton's past presidents have had affairs, at least one pretty openly. I doubt Petraeus would make that mistake again, and I certainly do not think the President of Princeton is a position in which it is absolutely necessary to have shown past marital fidelity in order to be a success. Nice attribute if it comes with the package but not a disqualification in my opinion. And I would love to see a military man in the top job--a nice perspective change for the University.
Okay this is NOT A STORY. Saying he was a possibility was one thing. But publishing two follow-ups a day based on NOTHING but the eds' own conjecture? What happened to serious journalism.
PRINCE - YOU ARE LITERALLY MAKING UP NEWS
I take issue with the following comments:
"However, staff members involved in the humanities programs on campus said they believed in the idea that a University president should be from a pure academic background. Judith Ferszt, ... said she was concerned about the emphasis being drawn away from the importance of humanities and more toward science, technology and entrepreneurship.
... A faculty member from the linguistics department seconded this concern, noting that 'you want someone who is intellectually curious.'"
I didn't attend the meeting and haven't seen a transcript (is there one available?), so I'm aware that these quotes may have been taken out of context. I'm strongly in favor of having a president with an intellectual background but it is extremely problematic to suggest that scientists and engineers in academia do not have such a background. Intellectual curiosity is healthy and broadly applied in every science and engineering field I have learned about at Princeton. If the concern is academia vs industry/entrepreneurship, I do not think there is much to be concerned about there either. Our courses, though offering more entrepreneur-related upper level electives, are not rapidly changing in content (or even changing at all?) and remain focused on theory as much or generally much more than similar courses at other schools with strong engineering programs. Independent work is a critical part of the undergraduate experience and, at least for me, has excited a ton of intellectual curiosity into specific areas beyond my course-work. There are research projects in many science departments, math, computer science, and probably all the engineering departments that is as "pure" as a humanist could wish for, and among the "applied" researches are projects that have really interesting cross-disciplinary ties into the humanities.
It would seem to me that accusing President Tilghman of a lack of intellectual curiosity or focus on academia would be nonsense, and I hope that the committee recognizes that to accuse many scientists and engineers currently in academia of the same would be equally illogical.
What you say about those in the pure and applied sciences being intellectually curious is of course true, and I doubt many humanities scholars would disagree. But there is a trend in universities in the US and around the world to prioritise science and technology programs over humanities programs - because 'real world' applications are more obvious. Humanities programs - especially smaller subjects - are being closed across America.
A scientist president would of course potentially be able to advocate for the humanities. But it's understandable that humanities professors think that there might be a danger of a president with a scientific background being more seduced by arguments which evaluate subjects value according to measures which favor the sciences and prejudice against the humanities. A president from the humanities would demonstrate Princeton's support and confidence in their future, as well as making sure in practical terms they are not forgotten. I don't know how important I feel that its personally, but I am fairly sure that something along these lines will have been what the quoted faculty member meant: intellectual curiosity in the specific sense of seeing value in small, obscure humanities departments.
I do believe that the president should come from the faculty, regardless of the field/discipline.
interesting series of comments. hard to believe that anyone would really require that the new president come from the faculty. while many of the university's successful presidents have been faculty members, we should not be so rigid as to require it. likewise, as the president is required tos pend significant time fundraising, it is not necessarily a given that a faculty member is well suited to that task
marta Richards also raises an interesting point about prior presidents carrying on open affairs. i believe that the one she is referring to was alleggedly with an undrgraduate. interesting that it has never been examined by the prince or any other news outlet. like marta, i suspect that it is true both in terms of happening and in terms of that president still doing a good job by princeton and in his subsequent career
PAUL KRUGMAN FOR PRESIDENT! PAUL KRUGMAN FOR PRESIDENT!
RON PAUL!
I'm a parent paying the super big bucks for my kid to go to Princeton. Princeton seems to have had so much trouble treating the women as well as the men. I really hope/pray for a very highly qualified woman to get this post and let's please not get another milk-toast white man to head the institution...enough already. Didn't President Obama's second win prove we need to be more far-reaching than settling on another old boring white man? And, this is Princeton folks ...you certainly need a PhD...not impressed with the comments of your HR persont here..not impressed with your career office either.