(07-22-2018 11:51 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 11:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  John Doerr was on CBS Sunday Morning this morning.

What did he have to say?

The segment was about the 50th birthday of Intel. John's bit begins around 3:20

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/remembering...-of-intel/

(07-20-2018 07:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 08:56 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  A leadership experience is exactly what most Rice students need. They are always the smartest in their high school classes but that doesn’t translate into the vision and people skills that are necessary for leadership. Having great ideas isn’t enough. You have to be able to sell them.

I'm not sure how many students are able to actually use services at the Institute, but I know a few people who have been able to do some leadership workshops there, and they have said nothing but good things about the experiences.

I will just say that my engineering degree from Rice included zero leadership skills exposure. Whatever I have learned in that dimension came along well after graduation in my employment at General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin. It would have been very appropriate for any engineering curriculum to have included some leadership and communication fundamentals if the university expected any of their graduates to rise above lab nerd classification or reputation in the profession. It seemed like the major focus of most professors was training and recruiting grading assistants and free labor PhD students. The 5th year degree did get me a better offer but from the perspective of an about to retire engineer it was really a lot of fluff survey classes.

(07-26-2018 08:18 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 07:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 08:56 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  A leadership experience is exactly what most Rice students need. They are always the smartest in their high school classes but that doesn’t translate into the vision and people skills that are necessary for leadership. Having great ideas isn’t enough. You have to be able to sell them.

I'm not sure how many students are able to actually use services at the Institute, but I know a few people who have been able to do some leadership workshops there, and they have said nothing but good things about the experiences.

I will just say that my engineering degree from Rice included zero leadership skills exposure. Whatever I have learned in that dimension came along well after graduation in my employment at General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin. It would have been very appropriate for any engineering curriculum to have included some leadership and communication fundamentals if the university expected any of their graduates to rise above lab nerd classification or reputation in the profession. It seemed like the major focus of most professors was training and recruiting grading assistants and free labor PhD students. The 5th year degree did get me a better offer but from the perspective of an about to retire engineer it was really a lot of fluff survey classes.

totally agree!

(07-27-2018 09:36 AM)davidw Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 08:18 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 07:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 08:56 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  A leadership experience is exactly what most Rice students need. They are always the smartest in their high school classes but that doesn’t translate into the vision and people skills that are necessary for leadership. Having great ideas isn’t enough. You have to be able to sell them.

I'm not sure how many students are able to actually use services at the Institute, but I know a few people who have been able to do some leadership workshops there, and they have said nothing but good things about the experiences.

I will just say that my engineering degree from Rice included zero leadership skills exposure. Whatever I have learned in that dimension came along well after graduation in my employment at General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin. It would have been very appropriate for any engineering curriculum to have included some leadership and communication fundamentals if the university expected any of their graduates to rise above lab nerd classification or reputation in the profession. It seemed like the major focus of most professors was training and recruiting grading assistants and free labor PhD students. The 5th year degree did get me a better offer but from the perspective of an about to retire engineer it was really a lot of fluff survey classes.

totally agree!

If you don’t already have leadership skills on your resume from HS you probably aren’t getting into Rice anymore.

(07-27-2018 09:55 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 09:36 AM)davidw Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 08:18 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 07:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 08:56 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  A leadership experience is exactly what most Rice students need. They are always the smartest in their high school classes but that doesn’t translate into the vision and people skills that are necessary for leadership. Having great ideas isn’t enough. You have to be able to sell them.

I'm not sure how many students are able to actually use services at the Institute, but I know a few people who have been able to do some leadership workshops there, and they have said nothing but good things about the experiences.

I will just say that my engineering degree from Rice included zero leadership skills exposure. Whatever I have learned in that dimension came along well after graduation in my employment at General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin. It would have been very appropriate for any engineering curriculum to have included some leadership and communication fundamentals if the university expected any of their graduates to rise above lab nerd classification or reputation in the profession. It seemed like the major focus of most professors was training and recruiting grading assistants and free labor PhD students. The 5th year degree did get me a better offer but from the perspective of an about to retire engineer it was really a lot of fluff survey classes.

totally agree!

If you don’t already have leadership skills on your resume from HS you probably aren’t getting into Rice anymore.

The same could be said of math skills.

(07-27-2018 09:55 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 09:36 AM)davidw Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 08:18 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 07:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 08:56 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  A leadership experience is exactly what most Rice students need. They are always the smartest in their high school classes but that doesn’t translate into the vision and people skills that are necessary for leadership. Having great ideas isn’t enough. You have to be able to sell them.

I'm not sure how many students are able to actually use services at the Institute, but I know a few people who have been able to do some leadership workshops there, and they have said nothing but good things about the experiences.

I will just say that my engineering degree from Rice included zero leadership skills exposure. Whatever I have learned in that dimension came along well after graduation in my employment at General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin. It would have been very appropriate for any engineering curriculum to have included some leadership and communication fundamentals if the university expected any of their graduates to rise above lab nerd classification or reputation in the profession. It seemed like the major focus of most professors was training and recruiting grading assistants and free labor PhD students. The 5th year degree did get me a better offer but from the perspective of an about to retire engineer it was really a lot of fluff survey classes.

totally agree!

If you don’t already have leadership skills on your resume from HS you probably aren’t getting into Rice anymore.

It always seemed to me that most high school leadership experiences are about 95% popularity contest aggregated with voicing most loudly the trending political persuasions, regardless of their relevance to those governed. 'Pretty much, I suppose, a reflection of modern day politics. Not a single one of the so-called leaders in my high school class seemed to be actually approachable by "regular" members of the class, but instead ran in their own cliques of the gifted athletes and other elites. But the class as a whole was at fault for putting those folks in those positions. My opinion is that leadership must begin with having a unique vision of what the future holds, not just what the masses think is fun, and then follows with communicating that vision in an effective way to gain support. I did have some leadership experience in high school but not the traditional resume fodder kind. A group of my supposed friends once came to me with a proposal for me to nominate them for certain Mu Alpha Theta leadership positions, in exchange for them selecting me as Sergeant At Arms for the club. I initially agreed to do so but thought better of it during the day. So when the organizational meeting came around that evening, at the appointed time for making nominations, of course no other students spoke up, so I raised my hand and began nominating other regular students outside of the cabal for those positions. I got some strange looks but no one has ever said a word about it to me. That was in 1972. I might have been more tempted to follow their guidance if they'd promised me more of an active visible leadership slot. But what I saw as Sergeant At Arms under their leadership was going to be me receiving a series of "go fetch" action items and making arrangements for pizza and drinks for the leadership team. I wasn't going there.

(07-29-2018 02:53 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 09:55 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 09:36 AM)davidw Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 08:18 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 07:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm not sure how many students are able to actually use services at the Institute, but I know a few people who have been able to do some leadership workshops there, and they have said nothing but good things about the experiences.

I will just say that my engineering degree from Rice included zero leadership skills exposure. Whatever I have learned in that dimension came along well after graduation in my employment at General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin. It would have been very appropriate for any engineering curriculum to have included some leadership and communication fundamentals if the university expected any of their graduates to rise above lab nerd classification or reputation in the profession. It seemed like the major focus of most professors was training and recruiting grading assistants and free labor PhD students. The 5th year degree did get me a better offer but from the perspective of an about to retire engineer it was really a lot of fluff survey classes.

totally agree!

If you don’t already have leadership skills on your resume from HS you probably aren’t getting into Rice anymore.

It always seemed to me that most high school leadership experiences are about 95% popularity contest aggregated with voicing most loudly the trending political persuasions, regardless of their relevance to those governed. 'Pretty much, I suppose, a reflection of modern day politics. Not a single one of the so-called leaders in my high school class seemed to be actually approachable by "regular" members of the class, but instead ran in their own cliques of the gifted athletes and other elites. But the class as a whole was at fault for putting those folks in those positions. My opinion is that leadership must begin with having a unique vision of what the future holds, not just what the masses think is fun, and then follows with communicating that vision in an effective way to gain support. I did have some leadership experience in high school but not the traditional resume fodder kind. A group of my supposed friends once came to me with a proposal for me to nominate them for certain Mu Alpha Theta leadership positions, in exchange for them selecting me as Sergeant At Arms for the club. I initially agreed to do so but thought better of it during the day. So when the organizational meeting came around that evening, at the appointed time for making nominations, of course no other students spoke up, so I raised my hand and began nominating other regular students outside of the cabal for those positions. I got some strange looks but no one has ever said a word about it to me. That was in 1972. I might have been more tempted to follow their guidance if they'd promised me more of an active visible leadership slot. But what I saw as Sergeant At Arms under their leadership was going to be me receiving a series of "go fetch" action items and making arrangements for pizza and drinks for the leadership team. I wasn't going there.

I agree with this. The leadership skills that incoming students have from HS is being a president of a club or something which typically involved being in a titular leadership position in a well established structure. In the absence of such structure, the separation of the wheat and the chaff occurred rather starkly, with the majority of people falling in the latter category.

Some of the best leaders I saw at Rice did not have a multi-page resume of High School leadership positions.

(07-29-2018 02:53 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  My opinion is that leadership must begin with having a unique vision of what the future holds, not just what the masses think is fun, and then follows with communicating that vision in an effective way to gain support.

Several years ago I had the good fortune of playing that sort of role for Rice Engineering Alumni. It is -- and probably always will be -- one of the most rewarding endeavors of my life.

As Rice announces the new institute, I see that both UH and SHSU will be opening schools of medicine. Shame that a highly rated university across the street from the Med Center missed out on its chance to do likewise.

(08-15-2018 02:09 PM)Da.Owl Wrote:  As Rice announces the new institute, I see that both UH and SHSU will be opening schools of medicine. Shame that a highly rated university across the street from the Med Center missed out on its chance to do likewise.

Sam’s will be an Osteopathic medical school and UH’s will be for primary care MD’s. Neither would lean heavily on the research end.

(08-15-2018 02:26 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 02:09 PM)Da.Owl Wrote:  As Rice announces the new institute, I see that both UH and SHSU will be opening schools of medicine. Shame that a highly rated university across the street from the Med Center missed out on its chance to do likewise.

Sam’s will be an Osteopathic medical school and UH’s will be for primary care MD’s. Neither would lean heavily on the research end.

UH will eventually expand the scope of their medical school. Rice should have gone all in on BCM.

(08-15-2018 02:49 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 02:26 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 02:09 PM)Da.Owl Wrote:  As Rice announces the new institute, I see that both UH and SHSU will be opening schools of medicine. Shame that a highly rated university across the street from the Med Center missed out on its chance to do likewise.

Sam’s will be an Osteopathic medical school and UH’s will be for primary care MD’s. Neither would lean heavily on the research end.

UH will eventually expand the scope of their medical school. Rice should have gone all in on BCM.

Hard to do with Baylor U. holding a trump card.

(08-15-2018 02:52 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 02:49 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 02:26 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 02:09 PM)Da.Owl Wrote:  As Rice announces the new institute, I see that both UH and SHSU will be opening schools of medicine. Shame that a highly rated university across the street from the Med Center missed out on its chance to do likewise.

Sam’s will be an Osteopathic medical school and UH’s will be for primary care MD’s. Neither would lean heavily on the research end.

UH will eventually expand the scope of their medical school. Rice should have gone all in on BCM.

Hard to do with Baylor U. holding a trump card.

Yeah, that is absolutely vexatious. Does anyone recall the terms that Baylor U desired? Or was it that they were unwilling to part ways with their eponym?

(08-15-2018 03:13 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 02:52 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 02:49 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 02:26 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 02:09 PM)Da.Owl Wrote:  As Rice announces the new institute, I see that both UH and SHSU will be opening schools of medicine. Shame that a highly rated university across the street from the Med Center missed out on its chance to do likewise.

Sam’s will be an Osteopathic medical school and UH’s will be for primary care MD’s. Neither would lean heavily on the research end.

UH will eventually expand the scope of their medical school. Rice should have gone all in on BCM.

Hard to do with Baylor U. holding a trump card.

Yeah, that is absolutely vexatious. Does anyone recall the terms that Baylor U desired? Or was it that they were unwilling to part ways with their eponym?

My understanding they were unwilling to let it go.

I'm not sure Baylor terminated the deal. I know that Rice was concerned with the shaky financial status of BCM (including the partially finished hospital that was on the ropes).

At the time, BCM had many more faculty members than Rice...there would have been some risk to Rice going forward. (I personally think it was worth the risk, but I can understand the conservative decision).

(08-15-2018 03:51 PM)Houston Owl Wrote:  I'm not sure Baylor terminated the deal. I know that Rice was concerned with the shaky financial status of BCM (including the partially finished hospital that was on the ropes).

At the time, BCM had many more faculty members than Rice...there would have been some risk to Rice going forward. (I personally think it was worth the risk, but I can understand the conservative decision).

You're correct. Baylor may very well have terminated the deal, but we backed out first after doing comprehensive due diligence. The numbers were perceived to be just too risky by the BOT.

(08-15-2018 04:05 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 03:51 PM)Houston Owl Wrote:  I'm not sure Baylor terminated the deal. I know that Rice was concerned with the shaky financial status of BCM (including the partially finished hospital that was on the ropes).
At the time, BCM had many more faculty members than Rice...there would have been some risk to Rice going forward. (I personally think it was worth the risk, but I can understand the conservative decision).

You're correct. Baylor may very well have terminated the deal, but we backed out first after doing comprehensive due diligence. The numbers were perceived to be just too risky by the BOT.

My understanding was that Baylor U had some voting power (possibly even veto power) with respect to BCM and opposed the deal, and that the risk convinced us not to make any effort to overcome Baylor U's opposition.

(08-15-2018 05:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 04:05 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 03:51 PM)Houston Owl Wrote:  I'm not sure Baylor terminated the deal. I know that Rice was concerned with the shaky financial status of BCM (including the partially finished hospital that was on the ropes).
At the time, BCM had many more faculty members than Rice...there would have been some risk to Rice going forward. (I personally think it was worth the risk, but I can understand the conservative decision).

You're correct. Baylor may very well have terminated the deal, but we backed out first after doing comprehensive due diligence. The numbers were perceived to be just too risky by the BOT.

My understanding was that Baylor U had some voting power (possibly even veto power) with respect to BCM and opposed the deal, and that the risk convinced us not to make any effort to overcome Baylor U's opposition.

Yes, Baylor had veto power. However, the BOT made their decision independent of that. It was deemed far too great a financial risk for the University.

(08-15-2018 07:30 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 05:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 04:05 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 03:51 PM)Houston Owl Wrote:  I'm not sure Baylor terminated the deal. I know that Rice was concerned with the shaky financial status of BCM (including the partially finished hospital that was on the ropes).
At the time, BCM had many more faculty members than Rice...there would have been some risk to Rice going forward. (I personally think it was worth the risk, but I can understand the conservative decision).

You're correct. Baylor may very well have terminated the deal, but we backed out first after doing comprehensive due diligence. The numbers were perceived to be just too risky by the BOT.

My understanding was that Baylor U had some voting power (possibly even veto power) with respect to BCM and opposed the deal, and that the risk convinced us not to make any effort to overcome Baylor U's opposition.

Yes, Baylor had veto power. However, the BOT made their decision independent of that. It was deemed far too great a financial risk for the University.

I would have liked to have BCM in a perfect world where it's integrated well, but there was a huge risk of becoming a med school with an attached university. Wikipedia is citing that Rice had $140MM in research funding in 2016. BCM did $225MM in 2017. How would the BOT and administration prioritize if one school suddenly represented 2/3 of all revenue? It'd be real easy to lose sight of what we consider important today.

(08-15-2018 08:40 PM)franklyconfused Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 07:30 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 05:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 04:05 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 03:51 PM)Houston Owl Wrote:  I'm not sure Baylor terminated the deal. I know that Rice was concerned with the shaky financial status of BCM (including the partially finished hospital that was on the ropes).
At the time, BCM had many more faculty members than Rice...there would have been some risk to Rice going forward. (I personally think it was worth the risk, but I can understand the conservative decision).

You're correct. Baylor may very well have terminated the deal, but we backed out first after doing comprehensive due diligence. The numbers were perceived to be just too risky by the BOT.

My understanding was that Baylor U had some voting power (possibly even veto power) with respect to BCM and opposed the deal, and that the risk convinced us not to make any effort to overcome Baylor U's opposition.

Yes, Baylor had veto power. However, the BOT made their decision independent of that. It was deemed far too great a financial risk for the University.

I would have liked to have BCM in a perfect world where it's integrated well, but there was a huge risk of becoming a med school with an attached university. Wikipedia is citing that Rice had $140MM in research funding in 2016. BCM did $225MM in 2017. How would the BOT and administration prioritize if one school suddenly represented 2/3 of all revenue? It'd be real easy to lose sight of what we consider important today.

But if making the USN&WR top 10 was ever the goal, it is for exactly that reason that BMC was an attractive target. The way the USN&WR metrics work, that bump in research funding would probably have gotten us there. Look at the rankings, and almost every university ahead of us has a med school and a law school. There’s a reason. Research funding is mot a metric per se, but it affects a number of things that are metrics.