USC's Next President Must Be Pat Haden

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Southern California
1

<p>USC needs Pat Haden (USC’s current athletic director) as its next president. Generally, the president is selected by the Board of Trustees from the top senior administrators. Traditionally the provost, the next in line, is anointed the presidency, based upon tenure and loyalty and of course, administrative politics. Haden, thank goodness, is one of those top ten individuals at USC. Here are the reasons why Haden needs to be USC’s next president:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>He graduated from USC and holds a bachelor’s degree (Dornsife/LAS), not a degree from the graduate school, not the professional schools, and thus his loyalties are to the undergraduate college, including its discrete parts, such as Marshall, Viterbi, Film, Annenberg, etc. His collegiate experience was at USC, thus, he enjoys the trust of all alumni, at least those who went to the college.</p></li>
<li><p>Of all ten senior administrators, he is the only one who graduated from USC. One other went to the USC law school, but that does NOT count insofar as someone who understands from personal experience what it is like to be a USC college student. (That particular other senior administrator is also tainted for his failure to implement a viable NCAA compliance program before and after he became chief legal officer at USC. He’s part of the NCAA noncompliance, lack of institutional control legacy. Actually, so is Nikias, who was USC’s provost at the relevant time, but that is another story entirely (He knows where all of the skeletons in the closet are and that's likely the reason the Board chose him in 2010.).) Haden is not tainted from the NCAA scandal. If appointed president, Haden would be the only president since Norman Topping to have graduated from the college. Topping was president from 1958 to 1970.</p></li>
<li><p>Haden is a Rhodes Scholar, which simply means that he is a smart guy and commands scholarly respect.</p></li>
<li><p>Haden understands what it’s like to be at USC college student, and would likely listen to the needs of students today, especially when it comes to smaller freshman and sophomore classes, addressing and planning residential off-campus housing, etc.</p></li>
<li><p>Haden would more appreciate why it’s important for USC to become smaller in size. After all, unlike most of his colleagues, he did not graduate from a large public college. To the uninitiated, USC has grown from about 15,000 students 15 years ago to over 18,000 today, with no containment in sight. We are simply too large, especially at the graduate school level. In the late 1950s, USC was around 12,000 at the undergraduate level. USC is larger than UC Berkeley!</p></li>
<li><p>Haden is widely admired for his intellect and business acumen in the private sector.</p></li>
<li><p>It is time to hire a president who went to the college; USC has lost its private roots and is becoming too large and resembles a public college. Haden can curtail USC’s growth more easily because he went to the college when it was much smaller in size. USC needs a reset and Haden can do it. He will also appreciate and listen to other USC alumni like I.</p></li>
<li><p>It is time to retire the State University of New York at Buffalo contingent (including Sample and Nikias, both worked there) and move more toward USC’s roots as a private college. The runners up (of the ten senior admins) include those who did not attend a nationally known private college, with the exception of two (Stanford and Wesleyan). </p></li>
<li><p>Elizabeth Garrett, USC’s provost and presidential runner up, graduated from the University of Oklahoma and University of Virginia Law School. While both are good public schools, USC needs someone who went to the college as its next president, and that person must be Haden (or some other USC graduate who has a bachelor’s degree). Given USC’s growing stature, it is critical that USC has a president who understands, first and foremost, that USC is a private college and that maintaining a smaller environment is good for USC and the undergraduates it serves.</p></li>
<li><p>If USC does not hire Haden as its next president, then it must find someone else who went to the college, like Christopher Cox, USC AB, Harvard MBA/Law, and former Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission.</p></li>
</ol>

2

<p>Cox would be a terrible choice. He was universally criticized for the bad job he did at the SEC. </p>

3

<p>Only toward the end after the meltdown but he is a solid choice and likely would raise a lot of money for the school. So would Haden.</p>

4

<p>I like and admire Pat Hayden as much as the next Trojan, but I doubt he would be a good choice to run the whole university. His AD job is his first experience as an academic administrator and he has zero experience as a professor. A university is a LOT more than just an undergraduate college - USC has a very large research budget, runs several hospitals, and has a separate health sciences campus. Just because he was a Rhodes Scholar and a quarterback doesn’t make him qualified to lead a major research university.</p>

<p>I don’t pretend to know what’s going on in the world of the trustees right now as Nikias seems fine. He was a natural choice for the trustees because they wanted to continue Sample’s work of building the university. But Sample did all three of his post-secondary degrees at the University of Illinois (a top 5 engineering school) and worked at Purdue, Nebraska, and SUNY Buffalo before coming to USC. Nikias has basically been a USC lifer under Sample. Previous presidents came to USC from other schools. When it comes time to choose a successor to Nikias, I trust that the trustees will have to have the big conversations about where the university is at, where it wants to go, and who is the best person to lead the institution there. That’s a ways off, I imagine.</p>

5

<p>“I don’t pretend to know what’s going on in the world of the trustees right now as Nikias seems fine.”</p>

<p>Therein lies the danger. Nikias and Sample were running USC during the time of various NCAA infractions. While Sample generally did a stellar job lifting USC to new heights, he dropped the ball in not reining in an out of control sports program. Mike Garrett, the former AD, was not adequately supervised. Nikias, the provost, should have been more involved with ensuring compliance and proactive in challenging the “lack of institutional control” of which he was an integral part. Read the NCAA report. Todd Dickey, the former chief legal admin, should have been more engaged in USC’s compliance program, which was severely understaffed. He was clueless about implementing an effective program, based largely on his very brief stint practicing law before joining USC. Both he and Nikias must be held accountable for their transgressions and gross omissions, which cost USC dearly. Instead, each was promoted. Caught with their pants down, and with the Board of Trustees’ backing, they hired Louis Freeh, the former federal judge, at a cost of at least $50,000, to do what I or any other experienced lawyer would have done before the scandal erupted. Around the same time the Board, knowing full well the risks of bringing in an outsider, held a feigned nationwide search for a new president when they intended all along to keep Nikias and his knowledge – and USC’s dirty laundry – secret. That’s the beauty of being a private school.</p>

<p>Pat Haden carries no such baggage. What he lacks in administrative experience he more than compensates for in his integrity, honesty and trust among the Trojan family. And he’s learning day by day what it takes to lead USC as a senior administrator.</p>

6

<p>Pat Haden is in his 60s. He may have no interest in becoming president of a university. At this time I do not see the Board of Trustees instigating a search to replace Dr. Nikias who is in the middle of a huge fundraising campaign.</p>

7

<p>The precise thing was said about Haden being AD. USC cannot give Nikias and others whose gross negligence damaged USC a pass, merely because they had the fortuitous position of riding the wave of USC’s momentum.</p>

8

<p>Based on current responses, your assertion that Nikias has damaged USC is not shared by most who post here. And the fact that applications are now up close to 52,000 and the fundraising is going like gangbusters shows USC has no need to change. It’s a sellers market and they’ve got a lot of buyers clamoring for a seat on campus.</p>

<p>I wonder why you think posting on a board filled with enthusiastic students, parents and alum and bombarded with questions from hopeful applicants calling USC their “dream school” is a good forum for garnering support for your position. It seems more likely your calls for getting rid of a person for whom you hold so much vile is better left for a USC LinkedIn Page. Certainly my own alma mater has it’s version of a SeattleTW on the page where alumni all over the world can debate (sometimes raucously) similar assertions about the university and other more global international topics.</p>

<p>But here - you keep saying the same thing and getting the same answers. So what’s the point? This discussion has become very circular. You say you hate the current student size, the USC President, and just about everything else that make is less elite. We say, okay, then go have that discussion with them. Hold your alumni donations. Heck - start your own college. And you respond with more “why I hate USC in it’s current configuration.”</p>

<p>Noted. Got it. Is there anything new you have to add because moaning about it here isn’t changing anything.</p>

9

<p>I believe it’s more than appropriate to discuss in a forum such as this the issues swirling among USC’s college alumni. I agree that this debate also needs to appear on social media focused on USC alumni; however, prospective students and their parents should be made aware of the major and timely issues that are no secrets but are relevant to the Trojan family. Thank you for contributing to this debate, despite the fact you didn’t graduate from the college. </p>

10

<p>Thank goodness @SeattleTW’s opinion is in the minority. I’m sure most posters brush past his comments, calling him a crazy old man. With his vast amount of knowledge on what’s right and wrong for SC, he should apply for a position, on the board of trustees. It is here, where he can air his grievances because right now his opinion has the “crazy guy in a chicken coop effect”.</p>

<p>Breathe @SeattleTW, breathe, everything will be ok. USC will be fine with or without your idiotic opinions.</p>

11

<p>And no, SeattleTW. I didn’t graduate from USC. I just have a child there and donated to both the USC and SCA annual funds. And no, I didn’t graduate from USC but I’m a long term interviewer for one of those “elite” universities you hope USC will become and graduated from one of those elite boarding schools you claim would be an indicator of USC’s “eliteness.” And so did the kid.</p>

<p>So from our vantage point - our family going all in on USC pretty much negates your warning to prospective parents that USC fails to pass muster. In fact, when I reviewed the statistics from my kid’s graduating class - they had the largest application rate to USC (and acceptance and enrollment) in more than a decade. Kids who are in an Ivy-feeder that preferred USC as their first choice.</p>

<p>So feel better about USC’s stature. Crying wolf isn’t working.</p>

12

<p>One of the other points is that of all of those involved in the NCAA scandal, only one senior administrator, Mike Garrett, an African American, was deposed. Coach Carroll left and IMO redeemed himself with his stellar performance in Seattle (go Hawks!). Sample retired at the right moment, but given his complicity as the president that was more than appropriate. And we finally fired Kiffin, who was also heavily involved with the non-compliance.</p>

<p>Once the campaign to raise funds is over, the Board should clean house and depose Nikias and Dickey. Then the university can finally rid itself of the NCAA scandal and its remaining legacy. </p>

<p>Haden can then focus on returning USC to its private school roots.</p>

13

<p>Seattle, another generational divide that I don’t think you appreciate is that the majority of students matriculating to USC nowadays don’t give a s*** about the athletic program. The athletic program is only the face of the university to people who know nothing about REAL academics, as within that world nowadays USC is a global leader, with dynamic, cutting edge programs virtually across the board. THAT is why I went to USC and why it’s a dream school for so many young people, whereas you went there as a generic pre-law student in the days when USC was a second tier private university. Nowadays, USC has programs that cater to top students like the film school and progressive degree programs for both medicine and law, as well as the Residential Honors Program for kids who graduate high school early. One friend of mine was at a business event recently where Pat Hayden spoke and he said that they’re having trouble filling the student section nowadays for football games. It’s because students don’t choose USC for the football team, though that’s a nice bonus. They choose the school for a specific program, for its overall academics (a lot of kids who aspired to Stanford but didn’t get in), or for the combination of a top school in a great city with a great overall college experience.</p>

<p>As I’ve said before, I’m a HUGE football fan (I’m from Pittsburgh originally, one of the country’s insane hotbeds of football fanaticism) but I would never choose a college for its football team or overall sports program, unless they were giving me a scholarship. There, USC has actually benefited quite a bit - they got a kid recently, for example, who was a top quarterback from a school in Ventura County who decommitted from Alabama to come to USC because some friends and family sat him down and told him that he should leverage his talents to get a REAL education. A generation ago, USC would’ve been thought of as nothing more than a football factory, just like the University of Alabama.</p>

<p>That’s the difference. Like I said, I like Pat Hayden a lot, but that doesn’t mean that he’s qualified to lead a major research university. He wouldn’t exactly be able to talk turkey over federal research budgets or about running what’s probably the university’s largest appendage, County-USC Hospital.</p>

14

<p>I am new to this forum because my son is currently in high school and will attend college in a few years. I am going to address Seattle’s constant rants for USC to become “elite” and his suggestion that Pat Haden become the next president. First, my background: I am both an UC Berkeley (UCB) alum and an USC graduate school alum (accounting/tax in the 1980’s). My wife has only an undergraduate degree from USC. She chose USC over UCB only because she had a full scholarship there and did not have to pay. When I attended USC was considered a “2nd” choice because most of us (including me) who did not get into UCLA’s or UCB’s graduate business school or any UCB’s or UCLA’s graduate departments attended USC, the second choice. If we had been admitted to UCB or UCLA, we would have gone there. Based on talking to a lot of young high school students today, I believe this is still true at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, unless USC provides the perspective students financial aid to offset the high costs. Back in the 1980’s, USC’s undergraduate enrollment was about 16K and graduate/professional school enrollment was another 9K. I went to USC because it was a big name school and it prepared me into a rewarding career in becoming a Tax CPA for a major corporation. USC always had the stigma of being a “football factory” and to this day, some of my colleagues (I live in the San Francisco Bay Area) poke fun at me for being an USC alum. This is not because of the Northern CA vs. Southern CA rivalries since UCLA does not get the same treatment. UCB can have scandals, such as last year’s report of having the lowest graduation rate in the PAC 12 sports conference, but no one at work would even make it an issue.<br>
To become an elite school (elite private schools: the Ivy League colleges, Univ. of Chicago, Stanford, MIT, Cal Tech, Northwestern, Duke, etc., maybe Vanderbilt, NYU, other liberal art schools like Harvey Mudd, etc., public schools: UC Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan), USC needs to strengthen its math, science, economics, and other departments that are non-professional schools. USC also needs to have more Nobel Prize Laureates rather than Heisman Trophy winners. USC PhD graduates need to be highly sought after for PhD teaching and prestigious research positions by the elite schools I named. If you look at the background of the faculty of the elite schools, a good number of them received their PhDs from schools such as Harvard, other Ivies, Stanford, UCB, UCLA, Michigan, Chicago, Northwestern, other elite schools, etc. You do not see many USC PhDs serving as university professors in elite schools.
Both Sample and Nikias have done great jobs in vaulting USC move toward elite status. USC has become a top 25 school (US news rankings) in the US and a top 50 (ARWU rankings) in the world. This is remarkable considering the fact that there are thousands of colleges in the US and the world. I agree with many of the points mentioned by ArtandLetters and by UCBChemEgrad in other postings.</p>

<p>I don’t believe Pat Haden is the person to lead USC into elite status. He a very smart person and is tainted with the football image. He does not have the experience. His educational background is excellent but not exemplary for a university president position. He graduated from USC with the highest honor, but USC is not known to be rigorous like, say UCB. He was a Rhodes Scholar, but with a BA in economics from Oxford Univ. (there is a president below, see Princeton U., who is a Rhodes Scholar with a Masters from Oxford). Pat received his JD from Loyola Law School, a 2nd tier law school. Below is a list of the backgrounds of current presidents of elite schools:</p>

<p>• Northwestern: Morton Shapiro, PhD University of Pennsylvania;
• Duke University: Richard Brodhead, PhD Yale University;
• University of Chicago: Robert Zimmer, PhD Harvard University;
• Cornell University: David Skorton, MD Northwestern University;
• Columbia University: Lee Bollinger, JD Columbia Law School;
• Harvard University: Drew Faust, PhD University of Pennsylvania;
• Princeton University: Christopher Eisgruber, Rhode Scholar (Masters in Literature from Oxford Univ.), JD University of Chicago;
• Yale University: Peter Salovey, PhD Yale University;
• Dartmouth College: Philip Hanlon, PhD Cal Tech;
• University of Pennsylvania: Amy Gutmann, PhD Harvard University;
• Stanford University: John Hennessy, PhD Stoney Brook University (State University of New York, the same system where Nikias received his PhD);
• Brown University: Christina Paxson, PhD Columbia;
• California Institute of Technology (Cal Tech): Thomas Rosenbaum, PhD Princeton University; and
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT): L.Rafael Reif, PhD Stanford.</p>

<p>Seattle mentions only HYPS, but all of the above private schools are considered much more elite than USC. As you can see, the presidents of these elite private colleges have doctor degrees from elite schools. Pat Haden does not.</p>

15

<p>I agree with nearly all of what UCBUSCAlum said, although the thing I would add is that USC attracts a TON of out of state students nowadays in addition to its large population of international students. Less than half of USC undergrads come from California, and the university particularly attracts a lot of kids from the suburbs of the growing cities of the Mountain West - Denver, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, etc. along with Portland and Seattle, because the state schools in those states are generally mediocre (University of Utah, University of Oregon) and because outside of California, the western U.S. is practically an academic desert. The UCs are also VERY expensive out of state, and offer very little financial aid, if any, to out of state students. This leaves a lot of students looking at USC, Stanford, Caltech, Colorado College, etc. and crossing off the UCs. Meanwhile, like every other top private nowadays, USC has a very high sticker price, but it also typically offers students a large amount of financial aid as well. There, the devil is in the details - how much grant and scholarship aid they give each kid, as opposed to sticking him/her with all sorts of loans, particularly private loans.</p>

16

<p>Many valid points were raised but some are based on misperceptions too.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>It’s awesome fewer undergrads are concerned about football, which means athletics will and should take a back seat. My comments about firing Nikias and Dickey are consistent with the deemphasis on athletics. They were asleep at the wheel and must be held accountable.</p></li>
<li><p>Top students have always been attracted to USC, which was my dream school back in the 80’s. I never regarded the U of C because I wanted to stay private. The film school has always been a top draw but not the only draw, e.g, journalism, engineering, business. I was indeed pre law but as I said, those who did well went to top tier law schools. I’m delighted USC attracts even more today.</p></li>
<li><p>There’s nothing rocket science about federal research grants, and as a lawyer, Haden is trained to understand the language far more effectively than an academic.</p></li>
<li><p>I give Sample and Nikias credit for enhancing USC, but, just like the CEOs of several companies who screw up badly, e.g. Target and now GM, they must step aside or be held accountable. Neither gets a free pass merely because the good outweighs the bad.</p></li>
<li><p>It’s ironic you use the word “tainted” to describe Haden when, in fact, Nikias is tainted for his involvement in the NCAA scandal.</p></li>
<li><p>The only measurable metric to substantiate the claim UCB and its branch campuses are more rigorous than USC are their massive class sizes, which, across the board, make them harder than even HYSP. To get an A in a class at Cal is more difficult than at Harvard, given the sheer competition; I agreed there. Top students who do well at USC have a far greater chance of getting into a top professional/grad school than if they go to a U of C, based on numbers alone.</p></li>
<li><p>Ph.Ds are not the only criterion for being president. Bollinger, whom I’ve met, has a JD. I agree LMU is third tier, but Haden went to Oxford and is a Rhodes, which counterbalance his legal credentials. Given the NCAA scandal, more significantly, he is better equipped to say “no” to boosters and sports admins. This is where Sample and Nikias failed.</p></li>
<li><p>USC had a very large percentage of OOS students in the 80s, nothing new there, except we are tipping the balance, a great trend, IMO, as we gain a more national academic reputation.</p></li>
</ol>

17

<p>Let me add that it is precisely because of his football and college background that Haden is uniquely qualified to be USC’s president at this juncture in time. Not only does he understand the USC culture, including our football traditions and the unbridled but dangerous boosterism that can threaten our student athletes and athletic programs, but his presence alone – far beyond that of his senior admin colleagues – commands respect among the USC football fan base, media, and Trojan family. If the NCAA scandal had not erupted, then I agree completely that Haden might not be a good choice. But history has proven otherwise and thus Haden is the right man for the job, regardless of his youthful-mature age. The sooner USC cleans house the better.</p>

<p>One final note: despite your criticisms toward me, I’m receiving personal emails from prospective students, including transfers and spring admits, asking for advice, which proves I do care about their undergraduate experience. :-)</p>

18

<p>Morty Schapiro served as dean of USC’s College of Letters, Arts & Sciences (now Dornsife). He was one of the candidates to succeed Steve Sample, but USC went with the heir apparent Max Nikias. </p>

19

<p>As a graduate school alum, I also want USC to become an elite university in the same mold as HYPS plus the others elites I previously mentioned, including Berkeley and Michigan. I don’t believe Seattle’s recommendation of reducing enrollment; limiting transfers (I think this is from last year’s posting); and hiring Haden will ascend USC into elite status. </p>

<p>Currently, I believe USC PhDs are not elite enough to land teaching or research positions at elite universities. That can change with more USC Nobel Prize Laureates and USC strengthening its science (biology, physics, etc.), math, economics, social science departments and other departments. This can be done by hiring the top notch PhDs from the top elite universities in those disciplines. This in turn will potentially generate Nobel Prizes for USC and enhance USC’s rankings in those fields. </p>

<p>Additionally, USC still has some negative perceptions from the news media and the public. The problem is not as prevalent as it was a couple of decades ago, but there are some circles that believe USC is a football factory. SF Bay Area sportswriters and news commentators sporadically poke fun at USC for sacrificing academics to be number one in football. This football image will only magnify with the hiring of Haden. As mentioned, Haden is a very bright guy, but he is well known for and tied to football. We need more Nobel Prizes, not Heisman Trophies.
One common element on my list of presidents of elite schools is that all the presidents have PhDs or if not, they have a MD or JD from elite schools. In the most part, the PhDs and doctor degrees are from a very elite university. Hayden does not have any of these. The one president who is a Rhodes Scholar has a Masters from Oxford (see Princton U.) and he also has a JD from the Univ. of Chicago, an elite school in the mold of HYPS, and a top 5 law school. Haden’s Rhode Scholar is a Bachelor’s degree from Oxford and his JD is from a 2nd/3rd tier law school. I am not insinuating that Haden is not smart when in fact he is smart. Only the Stanford president lacks an elite school degree, but his PhD is from SUNY, which is regarded very favorably. Hayden does not have any of these “criteria’s” like other elite college presidents.</p>

<p>Seattle does not mention Univ. of Chicago or Northwestern Univ. They are perceived to be more elite than USC. I disagree with Seattle’s point #2. Top student are attracted to and are considering USC. However, many of the best students look at USC as a backup or fallback school. Their first choices are the Ivies, Stanford, Chicago, Duke, MIT and Cal Tech or even UC Berkeley. Many I know, at least in the SF Bay Area, chose UC Berkeley or UCLA over USC in the past couple of years. It might be because they did not get enough financial aid. However, my nephew (who was not admitted to any of the private elite schools) chose Notre Dame University over USC. Two of my friends’ sons picked Georgetown University over USC. All these events happened with the past couple of years. There are exceptions such as in film, which high achieving film students would chose USC’s film school over any other schools.</p>

<p>I also disagree with Seattle’s point #3. I don’t know much about federal grants and the laws behind it. I work in tax and deal with tax lawyers in our company. Lawyers in our company do not cross into other legal disciplines. For example, benefit/compensation lawyers would not touch corporate law or tax law and vice versa. The legal profession is too complex to be a generalist and there are a lot of specializations. Our outside counsel, Morrison & Foerster, has a lot of specialists which our company works with. Even other big law firms, like Pillsbury, Orrick, etc. have a lot of specialists. I would assume that Haden would have a specialist interpret all the complicated legal language to him and he would make the decisions just like a CEO. The same would hold true for any president of an elite school. They have shown that they are the brightest of the bright with their PhDs and doctor degrees from the most elite universities.</p>

<p>I disagree with point #4. In most people’s opinions, including mine, are neither Sample nor Nikias done badly or even screwed up. In fact, they have done a remarkable task that is widely viewed as impossible a few decades ago.</p>

<p>Regarding point #6, the UCs admit the top 9% of the students applicants. To get admitted to UC Berkeley and UCLA, the chances are better if the applicant is in the top 4 to 5%. Once admitted, these top students are pitted against each other and weeded out by a steep bell curve (about 10 to 20 or 30% get A’s and B’s and the rest get C’s, D’s and F’s) because everyone was an A student in high school to get admitted, not everyone can be doctors. That is why competition is rigorous in these large public schools. At Stanford and USC, the environment is not like that. I think it is difficult to get a “C” in these private schools. A 3.5 GPA at UC Berkeley is more highly regarded than a 3.5 at the private schools. I know a young person who had a 3.6 GPA at UC Berkeley and got into UC Davis’ medical school this coming fall.</p>

<p>Regarding point #8, when I was there in the 1980’s I did not think there were many from out of state. I believe it was around 10%, like UC Berkeley. In the graduate business school, most were from California. Many graduated from a UC school, and from that group, there were more from UCLA and a handful from UC Berkeley. There were also a few from Stanford and some of the Ivies. I believe if they were admitted to UC Berkeley or UCLA, they would have gone there instead of USC.</p>

<p>Excuse any bad grammar. It is late.</p>

20

<p>I see no reason to get rid of Nikias. I’m glad he’s starting to work on improving the school’s graduate, professional and research programs. </p>

<p>Fairly or not, choosing Pat Haden to run USC would only reconfirm the belief that the school revolves around football.</p>