<p>Again, everyone knows this. However, strategic plans as documents are always quite weak (to the point where they have been questioned by some academicians). I would mainly look at the progress/implementation documents to see if there is at least an effort to follow the plan. There kind of is, though the 2008-2009 crash threw it off track some. There is some evidence that they are attempting to follow the general framework outlined and that there is some progress (some of the more concrete goals such as improvement in facilities and hiring of faculty are indeed taking place even though some projects were thrown off by a couple of years). Though I would indeed argue that this has much less to do with Wagner and administrative figures and more to do with organization of certain faculty members. For example, I think Emory’s success with establishing very solid interdisciplinary teaching and scholarship has largely been a faculty led “grass-roots” effort. I would argue that it would be better if the administration was not interfering with such efforts through its poor decision making (for example, cutting certain departments is not ideal if you want to continue to propel the caliber of interdisciplinary activities. Getting rid of ILA definitely hurts). </p>
<p>The problem I have with Wagner is that he is a “build, build, build” president. Stereotypical of an engineer. He doesn’t seem to think much about what will happen in those new buildings. He seems to hope that the presence of the new building will just automatically lead to improvements. In some cases, this is true (like with Public Health and Theology), but in other cases, it is not (like the math and science center. The environmental studies program is likely the most robust thing there in terms of quality. There have been no improvements in math, CS, and physics. Okay, well math somehow picked up some good faculty, but can it keep them?). He also discusses the university and its goals using very vague language or making suggestions that he is not actually willing to facilitate. Often provost and some deans (not the one for the college, Foreman. The dude seems like an amateur and should keep his mouth closed until he learns more about Emory. Emory and Rice do not have the same academic structuring) have more concrete and greater depth of insight than he exhibits. Presidents like Laney were much stronger (in terms of quality of leadership, not aggression) and had a clearer, more nuanced (beyond the “build baby build” attitude) vision from what I’ve read and heard.</p>
<p>Yes: I believe the BOT has been known to be more representative of old Emory and has yet to catch up. However, seeing Wagner, I am skeptical about the influence of having too many science and tech oriented people there (I mean, many elite institutions are not presided over by scientist. Many/most have social science or humanities backgrounds and this may be beneficial). This statement comes from an aspiring scientist by the way.</p>