I disagree, a chancellor is responsible of ALL aspects of the University, Academics, Athletics, growth and yes contraction as well, if necessary. The issue with Colleges and Universities these days are that they don't get the fanfare for top academics or a "great research University" or a university known for its master's and PhD program…
I disagree, a chancellor is responsible of ALL aspects of the University, Academics, Athletics, growth and yes contraction as well, if necessary. The issue with Colleges and Universities these days are that they don't get the fanfare for top academics or a "great research University" or a university known for its master's and PhD programs. Most of the publicity a College or University gets these days is via their Athletics. In addition, this is where these schools can also score huge amounts of money, even exceeding some of their generous endowments. But the Athletics of a school is a double-edged sword. The better you do, the better your athletic performances, the better press you get, the more money pours in. However, the worst you are in Athletics, the more the University suffers, the less recognition, the less cash comes in. Not good and this is what UCLA is currently experiencing. So, if a Chancellor ignore Athletics, they are simply ignoring the welfare of the University they are in charge of.
I disagree, a chancellor is responsible of ALL aspects of the University, Academics, Athletics, growth and yes contraction as well, if necessary. The issue with Colleges and Universities these days are that they don't get the fanfare for top academics or a "great research University" or a university known for its master's and PhD programs. Most of the publicity a College or University gets these days is via their Athletics. In addition, this is where these schools can also score huge amounts of money, even exceeding some of their generous endowments. But the Athletics of a school is a double-edged sword. The better you do, the better your athletic performances, the better press you get, the more money pours in. However, the worst you are in Athletics, the more the University suffers, the less recognition, the less cash comes in. Not good and this is what UCLA is currently experiencing. So, if a Chancellor ignore Athletics, they are simply ignoring the welfare of the University they are in charge of.