The committee to select a new UCSD chancellor submitted a short list of recommended candidates to UC President Robert C. Dynes on Feb. 25. Dynes’ selection, and permanent replacement for the job he left in October 2003 to head up the UC system, will most likely be announced by the end of the month, pending approval by the Board of Regents.
While the candidate list prepared by the search committee is kept secret, the criteria by which Dynes will make a selection should be up for debate. The chancellor position’s official requirements include “leadership skills in an academic environment,” “senior experience in the administration of large-scale, diverse, and complex organizations” and “a strong record of teaching, research and scholarship.” However, there are some other attributes the incoming chancellor must have in order to be successful.
Dynes knows that one of his strengths as chancellor was attracting outside, private funding for research projects. He successfully spearheaded the “Imagine What’s Next” capital campaign to raise $1 billion for UCSD. The next chancellor must also convince outside donors that UCSD is an attractive grant recipient in order to ease the university’s fiscal restrictions, maintaining research funding while preserving the livelihood of programs that would otherwise go unfunded.
Increasing alumni donations — a largely overlooked revenue source — should be a priority. This can happen only by establishing a real, unified sense of community at UCSD. U.S. News & World Report ranks UCSD 191 of 248 in alumni giving — far below any of the other 50 best overall universities. Fixing this problem will require visible efforts toward unifying undergraduates fractured by the six-college system, supporting UCSD athletics and student organizations, working to engage students civically, protecting free speech and (most of all) convincing the student body that striving for diversity on campus contributes to a more comfortable and effective learning environment.
As a former UCSD chancellor himself, Dynes knows the inadequacies of undergraduate policy at the university and should consider a candidate who can show that improvements are feasible.
